Wow, so many comments, so many directions...but into the fray...
First let me ask all participants a question: Do you feel it is merely coincidence that the drawings provided just happen to match the original description but clearly don't match Angus' photograph? Or do you feel there might be something to this...?
I find it puzzling that so many of you have so little faith in original descriptions. If we are not to take them as the supreme authority in the absence of solid data to the contrary, then we simply cannot take any species identification seriously. If we are to simply disregard the fact that the original description states that
chenggongensis had a row of spots, then what's the point? In this case, I already have
chenggongensis living in my backyard here in Missouri. Why not? There is no concrete proof otherwise...right?
Angus: I will respond to your comments point by point and numbered as you have.
1.) All herpetology is subject to inaccuracies, not just China. Species ranges are always being refined. I understand the possibility for these problems are compounded in China with new species and their localities due to the problem of the pet trade. However, this does not seem to have any bearing on whether you possess chenggongensis as described by Kou and Xing. In this case, if you are suggesting that Kou and Xing were in error, the burden of proof rests with you.
2.) All herpetology drawings (not just Chinese) are subject to the criticisms you present. This will always be compounded when animals show variable coloration (as
cyanurus does). However, <u>the drawings of
chenggongensis also match the original description.</u> I have a hard time dismissing this as coincidence, as you seem to be doing.
3.) That's a very curious situation if true, I agree. However, it does not support your position that you possess
chenggongensis, it only strengthens Zhao's that
chenggongensis is not a valid species, but rather a form of
cyanurus.
4.) I'll have to take you at your word, as I don't know anything about that subject. But even if true, it does not erase the fact that your
chenggongensis do not resemble
chenggongensis as described by Kou and Xing, the researchers who discovered it. But please understand, it's difficult for me to take it too seriously when you equate "Atlas of Amphibians of China" with "Rare and Economic Amphibians of China" or "Les Salamandres", when the latter two are clearly more detailed and scholarly works on the subject of
chenggongensis. Can you not see the difference in quality of these sources?
The difference I see with Tim's situation with
deloustali versus your situation with
chenggongensis is that Tim's animals actually looked like
deloustali but your animals look like
cyanurus. You have not offended me and I sincerely hope I have not offended you. I am very glad to finally have some Chinese hobbyists discuss such things here and I'm sure all of us here feel this way.
Tim: Clearly, rumours abound on the subject. If we circulate too many of them, we really might as well be talking UFOs like Jesper points out.
Paul: "But I agree until there is not a clear proof, we should suppose the obvious which means: shautokokensis and chuxiongensis are mistakes and chenggongensis perhaps is only a subspecies of cyanurus!"
<u>Amen!</u>
Or at the very least, we should not label an animal as
chenggongensis when it does not match the original description.
Jesper: If an original description cannot shed light on the question of species identification, then all is lost. I had failed to respond to your previous posts about science and type specimens. As part of my systematics research, I am intimately familiar with type specimens, localities, and original species descriptions. I wholeheartedly disagree with Mattias and others who seem to feel it is all subjective and am quite puzzled as to how they came to these conclusions. But in my experiences, original species descriptions have
always included photos or drawings, and incredibly detailed accounts of the animal's physical description. Anything less, is less than science. Later research into the question may often reveal that the new species was not warranted, but I have yet to see
any formal description (and especially not in the last 50 years - cheggongs were described in 1983) where the animals in question were not presented in a way to be rigorously analyzed and then accurately and thoroughly dismissed or accepted at a later date.
A perfect example of this would be
Typhlotriton braggi which was described as distinct from
Typhlotriton spealaeus (now Eurycea spelaeus). The authors in question described the new species based on several key morphological features. Subsequent research has shown that these features are not unique to the populations described as
braggi and the species was discontinued. However, if one visits the type locality (as I have) one
still finds animals that fit the original description of
braggi. This is only one example of why I have faith in original descriptions.
Sorry for the length, people. Still working on additional translations including your requests, Tim, to translate that dichotomous key you posted.
