Heads up: Some or all of the identifications affected by
this split may have been replaced with identifications of 
Brachycephaloidea. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Craugastoridae 64732
Brachycephaloidea. This
happens when we can't automatically assign an identification to one of the
output taxa.
Review identifications of Craugastoridae 64732
Taxonomic Split 98550
(Submetido em 17-09-2021)
|
|
dividido em |
|
Comentários
we try to follow ASW for amphibian taxonomy - I recommend you contact them (FYI @dfrost) to discuss various viewpoints. Its possible you can get them to return to Craugastoridae sensu lato or if you build up a strong consensus here we can always deviate. However, our philosophy is to follow eternal providers like ASW for taxonomy when we can
Adicionar um Comentário
Iniciar Sessão
ou Registar-se
to add comments
Dear Laurie,
Are you confident this is the right taxonomic split at the right time? You cite as justification "Amphibian Species of the World 6.0 (Citation)", but that database reports almost all previous studies, many of which disagree with each other, so I am not clear on your motivation here. When I look up Craugastoridae in 'ASW' it seems to cite Padial et al. 2014 for this (or?), which may be a tad dated at this point. A very recent look at this question is our paper Barrientos et al. (2021) here:
http://dna.ac/PDFs/Barrientos&l_21_phylogenomics_terraranan_frogs_UCE_2665%20loci.pdf
that suggests Craugastoridae takes precedence over Strabomantidae. Our Fig. 1 summarizes the last 11 molecular phylogenetic studies of families within Terraranae, which shows just how unstable these results may be, sure enough, e.g., Hime et al. (2021) disagreeing with Hutter et al. (2017). So, I certainly could be wrong, but I think recognizing Strabomantidae might not be the be option at this time. Or why do you feel it is the best option?