South Asian Amphibia: a New Frontier for Taxonomists
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
J. South Asian Nat. Hist., ISSN 1022-0828. May, 1999. Vol.4, No. 1, pp. 1-11. © Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka, 95 Cotta Road, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka. INVITED EDITORIAL / BOOK REVIEW South Asian Amphibia: a new frontier for taxonomists Alain Dubois* * Laboratoire des Reptiles et Amphibiens, Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France. Books reviewed Dutta, Sushil K. 1997. Amphibians of India and Sri Lanka (Checklist and bibliography). Bhubaneswar, India, Odyssey Publishing House, [i- iii] + i-xiii + 1-342 + i-xxii. [Cited below as AISL]. Dutta, Sushil K. & Manamendra-Arachchi, Kelum. 1996. The amphib ian fauna of Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka, Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka, 1-232. [Cited below as AFSL]. South Asia (here understood in a biogeographical were among the first published monographs deal sense, i.e. from Pakistan to Myanmar and from Ne ing with the amphibians of a tropical region of the pal to Sri Lanka) is a fascinating area for all evolu world. tionary biologists: at the meeting of several major However, after the important works of N. biogeographic zones, it harbours composite faunas Annandale and G. A. Boulenger at the beginning of and floras of various origins and affinities, that oc our century, which culminated in Boulenger's (1920) cupy a wealth of habitat types at all altitudes from still uneQualled review of Asian ranids, taxonomic sea level to snow level in the Himalayas. This tropi study of the amphibians of this region slowed down cal region has been an important "natural labora considerably. For about 50 years, most authors tory" where many variants of the "experience of evo merely copied Boulenger's taxonomy, which some lution" have developed under a variety of different of them seemed to consider the "final word". An in conditions, thus offering an infinity of possible sub teresting exception was Kirtisinghe's (1957) book on jects of interest for scientific research. the amphibians of Ceylon, which was based on origi Concerning the group of amphibians, this region nal observations and a personal knowledge of these was one of the first tropical areas of the world where animals both in the field and in collections (although taxonomic research was undertaken, mostly under he did not examine or refer to type material). Be the leadership of British zoologists. From the begin sides this, a few species were described in isolation, ning to the end of the 19th century, descriptive works but no comprehensive revision of a South Asian by various authors, including J. Anderson, R. H. amphibian group was published during this period. Beddome, E. Blyth, A.-M.-C. Dumeril & G. Bibron, In 1970-1973, A. Dubois and collaborators col T. C. Jerdon, R. P. Lesson, W. L. Sclater, F. Stoliczka lected more than 15,000 amphibian specimens in and W. Theobald, gave zoologists the first rough idea most parts of Nepal, probably one of the largest of the diversity of amphibian species in "British In amphibian collections from South Asia ever gath dia". This led to the writing of two books (Gunther, ered. Instead of using these data merely to write a 1864; Boulenger, 1890) presenting a complete survey checklist or a field guide to the amphibians of Ne of the then-available information in this field; these pal, I considered that this material should be used D ubois for the completion of revisions of groups taken one long "sleeping" subject is very promising, but here by one, as problems were evident in all the amphib some words of warning are in order. At the verge of ian taxa of Nepal (Dubois, 1974,1975a-b, 1976,1980, the 21th century, taxonomy can no longer be consid 1983,1984b, 1987a, in press). To be serious and mean ered a young science, and what was permissible at ingful, such revisions should not only take into ac the end of the 19th century is no longer so. It was count all available specimens from Nepal and the then usual to describe a "new species" without ex immediately neighbouring countries (India and Ti tensive comparison with related species, and in par bet), but should also include re-examination of the ticular without actual comparison with specimens status of all related taxa from South and South-East in other collections: evaluation of a specimen against Asia, including Indochina and China, which makes written descriptions was then believed to be suffi such a project formidable. In particular, owing to the cient to decide if the same or a different taxon was long lack of communication between batrachologists involved. Nowadays, any serious alpha-taxonomic in China and in other countries, "parallel" work must rely not only upon the study of descrip taxonomies have tended to develop north and south tions and other bibliographic data, but also of of the southern border of China. Such a situation is voucher specimens of related species, particularly of Quite unsatisfactory, as it does not allow taxonomic, type-specimens of all concerned nominal species. phylogenetic and biogeographic generalizations to The taxonomy of the amphibian fauna of the Ori be made: recent opening of scientific communication ental Region, and particularly of South Asia, is still with Chinese zoologists will allow the homogeniza very unsatisfactory, especially when compared with tion of the taxonomy of amphibians in all of Eastern that of most other regions of the world. Many spe- Asia, but this will still require time, since travel, loans cies-groups or even genera of this region have not and examination of specimens will be necessary to been the subject of recent revisions, and the solve many doubts and problems. Because of these nomenclatural status of many names, including very difficulties, up to now only the revision of the "common" ones, for which no types are identified Himalayan ranids now referred to the genera and no recent descriptions available, is unclear: in Chaparana and Paa could be completed (Dubois, such circumstances, adding further new names to 1975a, 1976, 1979,1980,1992; Dubois & Khan, 1980; the already existing ones, without proper compari Dubois & Matsui, 1983), and work on the other sons, will only complicate further the work of fu groups is still in progress. Despite this, progress in ture serious workers, who will have to take all these our knowledge of the Nepalese fauna has been enor new names into account in their revisions, to look at mous: while Swan & Leviton's (1962) checklist re their type-specimens and to deal with the resulting ported about 16 amphibian species in this country, nomenclatural problems. A further problem is posed Dubois's (in press) checklist, submitted for publica by authors not preserving type-specimens in a way tion in 1997, mentioned 42 species and subspecies, that will ensure their long-term survival, i.e. in com to which, according to Anders et al. (1998), petent institutions as defined by the Code (Anony Rhacophorus (Polypedates) taeniatus Boulenger, 1906 mous, 1985: Recommendations 72.D and 72.G, Arti should be added: this represents an increase by 169 cle 75.d.6), and publishing their descriptions in jour % over 35 years (43 against 16), including 11 species nals which do not practice a high Quality of peer re first described after 1962 (26 % of the total fauna). view, or too often, no peer review at all. Editors of An important finding of this research is that, for 43 zoological journals would perform a much appreci valid names, this checklist reports about 50 syno ated service to the scientific community if they refuse nyms (54 % of the total number of 93 names consid to publish such isolated descriptions of so-called ered altogether), so that it is clear that even in a "new species" in the absence of comprehensive di poorly-explored country with a little-studied fauna, agnosis against all available possible subjective syno systematic and nomenclatural work must be carried nyms through the examination of type-specimens: out carefully if one wishes to build up a serious and in most cases, descriptions of new species is war useful taxonomy. ranted only in groups which have been subject to However, the finding that Boulenger's taxonomy recent revision. Rather than publish such papers, edi was not the "final" one, even for the ranids, had tors should encourage the authors to carry out com important conseQuences, as it seems to have "freed" prehensive nomenclatural and taxonomic revisions, some taxonomists from the dreadful respect they had to examine and describe old type-specimens, to des shown for this taxonomy for more than half a cen ignate and describe neotypes when necessary, and tury: this resulted in the recent description of a to review critically the species-group taxa: only when number of "new species" of Indian frogs by several this is done will it be meaningful to describe new authors in various journals. This reborn interest in a species. 2 ]. South Asian Nat. Hist. S o uth A sian A m phibia Actually, and although this is not understood by describes a specimen of Amolops as a new species of some taxonomists (and has led to some serious mis Rana or, more "precisely", of Rana (Sylvirana), a understandings on the nature of zoological nomen young Bufo as a new species of Ansonia, or, even clature: see e.g. De Queiroz & Gauthier, 1994), allo worse, a specimen of Paa as a new species of Scutiger cation of zoological names to taxa is not at all based (none of these examples is imaginary), one will find on definitions, diagnoses or descriptions, but on the many distinctive characters that will purportedly allocation to the taxa of name-bearing type specimens justify the creation of a new nominal species! As the or onomatophores, which constitute an objective, ma Code (Anonymous, 1985: Article 13) only reQuires, terial connection between the real world of animal for the nomenclatural availability of a name, that it populations and the world of language (for more be "accompanied by a description or definition", but details, see Dubois & Ohler, 1997).