fieldherping.eu

Kamil Szepanski wrote:I hoped for a more comfortable solution!

So having to hit 2 keys makes you uncomfortable?

I always forget to open it in a new tab and then forget that I have lost the forum and have to navigate around...

Does it make sense "contact adresses" section to exists as empty folder?

According to paper 3501 in DB, Ichthyosaura alpestris lacusnigri should not be considered as separate subspecies but as an synonym of nominotypical subspecies. So fix it Mario please.

Michal Szkudlarek wrote:According to paper 3501 in DB, Ichthyosaura alpestris lacusnigri should not be considered as separate subspecies but as an synonym of nominotypical subspecies. So fix it Mario please.

Michal, I think it's best to act in uniform way here. There are quite a lot of subspecies which seem (or are proven) invalid, but still are maintained. Two options: (1) stick with a more traditional (or maybe rather: comprehensive) list of all names that have been around for a decent amount of time, or (2) edit each one as soon as shown (in)valid. Anything in between smells of chaos. Of course, this is not easy and requires time. I'm rather sure Mario wisely sets species as priority, before diving (too) deep into subspecies.

I think its not necessary to add/change/delete every species/subspecies just if it is "recommended" in one paper, or even two
This will end up in a never ending story.
By this reason, in the DB there still all toads under the genus Bufo, and not Epidalea, Pseudepidalea, Amietophrynus, ......

Mario

Mario Schweiger wrote:I think its not necessary to add/change/delete every species/subspecies just if it is "recommended" in one paper, or even two
This will end up in a never ending story.
By this reason, in the DB there still all toads under the genus Bufo, and not Epidalea, Pseudepidalea, Amietophrynus, ......

Hmmm... If you're talking subspecies, I can agree, but taxonomy IS a neverending story at any level

Isn't it the beauty of internet resources that you can rapidly implement (meaningful) changes, whereas books unavoidably represent a snapshot in time?

The Bufo split seems warranted, but the precise names of the new genera are unclear (e.g. Bufotes instead Pseudepidalalalalala)

There are quite a lot of subspecies which seem (or are proven) invalid, but still are maintained.

Any example?

Michal Szkudlarek wrote:

There are quite a lot of subspecies which seem (or are proven) invalid, but still are maintained.

Any example?

These are a few species from the top of my head, of which I find (= subjective!) that (very) often still some invalid subspecies are still used - Mediodactylus kotschyi, Podarcis erhardii, a few Salamandra salamandra subspecies that keep popping up, Proteus anguinus, Vipera ammodytes, Podarcis melisellensis, P. siculus. I'm rather sure proof is to be found to add P. lilfordi and pityusensis to that list, to name a few more. Old habits die hard

In general, though, I think you shouldn't care too much about subspecies (see also viewtopic.php?f=43&t=995).

..... and not to forget Lacerta agilis!
The ssp. argus can´t be separated from the nominat form, either in morphology nor in genetics.
The only reason for this ssp. are the erythronotus morphs, not occuring in agilis agilis. Borderline approx. a line from Allgäu to Kiel (Germany).

P. siculus? Only two ssp. left => siculus and campestris

Mario