Flag for Taxon: American Water Frogs (Genus Lithobates)
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sandboa | American Water Frogs (Genus Lithobates) |
Should we put this back in Rana based on the Yuan et al (2016) paper. A lot of authorities are starting to make that change. |
Nov. 19, 2020 15:35:22 +0000 | Not Resolved |
Comments
Agreed. We should be using Rana.
@gregpauly
can you guys discuss with @dfrost at ASW? Making this change would be very disruptive. IMO might b worth it if we're still in sync with ASW but not if it requires a deviation
any updates on this?
I made a similar post, not realizing that this earlier one was posted regarding Rana and Lithobates. (Sorry).
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/rana-vs-lithobates/25864/2
I agree, it makes more sense to switch back to Rana.
I note that in every year, more publications are using Rana rather then Lithobates for North American frogs. The use of Lithobates is currently in the minority, and there really isn't much justification for not using Rana.
I agree with @loarie. If iNat is following ASW then use that taxonomy. I consider this ranid taxonomy to be in flux and await further research to clarify it. There's a little too much back-and-forth with genera these days and it warrants being conservative when proposing changes. If it does go back to Rana I'd be fine with that but would like to see the contradicting studies and viewpoints be fully assessed first.
OK - I'm in favor of not changing until Rana sensu lato is widely accepted and we can be confident this isn't going to go back and forth and I think getting such a change into ASW would be a precondition for that since ASW is used by groups such as IUCN and Natureserve. I recommend closing this for now and reopening if/when ASW decides to go Rana sensu lato
I reopened because ASW has now split up Lithobates and Rana. We're deviating from now https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/412228
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_framework_relationships/412070
I've annotated this fig from Yuan et al to show
Lithobates -> Lithobates, Aquarana, Boreorana
Rana -> Rana, Amerana, Liuhurana
FWIW I don't agree that Lithobates sensu lato and Rana sensu lato are non monophyletic. To me this just seems like further splitting up the Rana genus into smaller still monophlyletic genera
anyone opposed to making these changes? If not I can make them this month
I’m personally opposed to all the taxonomic disagreements and confusion in ranid frogs, but if we follow ASW, then we should make those changes. (If we follow AmphibiaWeb, you'll have to make different changes.)
For me, I'll just have to get used to Aquarana for bullfrogs.
I don't believe NatureServe has made these taxonomic revisions yet. Is that a reason to put off doing it for iNat?
following this to see where it goes. I try to stay away from ranid taxonomy but if we are following ASW I support making the changes for now.
I think it is a mess, but if we are following ASW, we should make the changes.
The SSAR ( https://ssarherps.org/publications/north-american-checklist/ ) is supposedly going to publish a new common names checklist for North America herpetofauna any day now. I'll be curious to see what scientific names they choose to use for ranids. Although it's not a standardized list for scientific names, only for common, whatever taxonomic arrangement they settle on could influence what becomes accepted for frogs. Unless they punt and include alternative binomials.
This paper shows that recognizing the NA frogs as Lithobates is paraphyletic and that they should all go back to the genus Rana. ASW has not accepted this change, but most recent publications use Rana.
https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/65/5/824/2224218
@caudisona