Furcifer pardalis may actually be multiple species

[Chris Anderson]

Here is a link to a new article that came out yesterday that suggests the Panther Chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) may need to be divided into as few as 4, and as many as 11, different species. These new species are not formally described, and there are some limitations to the study, however it has important implications on the crossing of F. pardalis localities in captivity.

Grbic D., Saenko SV, Randriamoria TM, Debry A, Raselimanana AP, Milinkovitch MC. 2015. Phylogeography and support vector machine classification of colour variation in panther chameleons. Mol. Ecol. Early View. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.13241/abstract)

Chris

 

[jannb]

Thanks for sharing Chris.
This is why it's so important not to cross breed.

 

[Trace]

We had an interesting conversation about panther localities back when you were in New York at Cornell. I remember you and Carl saying that locales that were close in geographical range (eg: Ambilobe and Ambanja) were able to breed and have viable offspring. This went for all the locales running from west to east: Ambilobe with Diego Saurez; Diego Saurez with Sambava; Sambava with Andapa etc. However an animal from the west coast like Ambanja would not breed with successfully with an animal from the east like Tamatave. They were too different. I wouldn’t surprise me that they would end up being separate species one day.

Neat read. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[leedragon]

Here is a link to a new article that came out yesterday that suggests the Panther Chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) may need to be divided into as few as 4, and as many as 11, different species. These new species are not formally described, and there are some limitations to the study, however it has important implications on the crossing of F. pardalis localities in captivity.

Grbic D., Saenko SV, Randriamoria TM, Debry A, Raselimanana AP, Milinkovitch MC. 2015. Phylogeography and support vector machine classification of colour variation in panther chameleons. Mol. Ecol. Early View. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.13241/abstract)

Chris

I could imagen that this is the same with parsoniis

 

[Masked Gecko]

Wow that's incredible, not only different locales but different species.

 

[DGray]

Fascinating development!
Describes a classic cline.
I found this over at phys.org:
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-species-madagascar.html
I've never read these authors before; here is a link to a related article:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150302/ncomms7368/full/ncomms7368.html

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

Worlds oldest island and with evolution and speciation this development does not surprise me. I would say the same as Leedragon (I have considered this hypothesis for a long time) that the phases of Calumma parsonii parsonii are prospects (along with Furcifer oustaleti) to become new and separate species or sub species. I would be interested in the DNA studies of those species as well.

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

Francois Le Berre actually suggests the idea that Yellow Lip Calumma parsonii parsonii may be a new sub species in his publication "The New Chameleon Handbook" (page 66) in 1995. This new development with Furcifer pardalis plus the division of Calumma brevicorne into 6 species and Furcifer lateralis into 3 species shall be interesting with what happens with DNA testing of the species of chameleons in Madagascar. Thanks for posting Chris.

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich

 

[Jeweledchameleons]

From my first reading of the report
The significance of of the mDNA and the overlaying of the different mDNA groups with he different localities is the strongest proof of the argument of there being different species (sub species) for the panther group.

You can also expect Werners Chameleons to also split into 3 or more species as well. Although the differences among them is greater morphologically than as is with the panthers.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Unfortunately there has been a lot more hype about the new species suggestion of this paper in the media than the data behind it actually warrants, in my opinion. The authors did a good job of showing that there are population level genetic differences and limited gene flow between many of these geographic groups. They also showed limited, but consistent color variation differences between these populations. This has considerable implications on our understanding of how these forms have evolved and are continuing to evolve, and as I mentioned before, also has serious implications for the practice of locality hybridizing in captivity. I think they fell well short of justifying the need to split them all into different species, or even subspecies, however.

The reality is that there can be levels of genetic divergence between populations that will not justify species or subspecies level differentiation. Taxonomy is an integrative science, and if and when these forms are described as independent species, more genetic data (e.g., a phylogeny), morphological data (e.g., differentiating features), and additional ecological data are going to be needed to justify such a split. The current genetic data definitely shows that there is genetic structure that warrants further examination and possibly taxonomic changes, but ultimately additional study is still needed.

I do not mean to suggest that future work may not well provide the missing pieces needed to support this hypothesis. I simply hope to make clear that at this point the data is not conclusive. I've long thoughts that the localities of this and many other species represented evolutionary steps in the process of becoming new species, but the question becomes how far along is this process are they and where do they transition from something like a genetically distinct population, to a subspecies (however controversial such a taxonomic level may be), or to a species? That is the question that still needs to be answered, and more data is needed in order to do so correctly.

Chris

 

[Motherlode Chameleon]

Unfortunately there has been a lot more hype about the new species suggestion of this paper in the media than the data behind it actually warrants, in my opinion. The authors did a good job of showing that there are population level genetic differences and limited gene flow between many of these geographic groups. They also showed limited, but consistent color variation differences between these populations. This has considerable implications on our understanding of how these forms have evolved and are continuing to evolve, and as I mentioned before, also has serious implications for the practice of locality hybridizing in captivity. I think they fell well short of justifying the need to split them all into different species, or even subspecies, however.

The reality is that there can be levels of genetic divergence between populations that will not justify species or subspecies level differentiation. Taxonomy is an integrative science, and if and when these forms are described as independent species, more genetic data (e.g., a phylogeny), morphological data (e.g., differentiating features), and additional ecological data are going to be needed to justify such a split. The current genetic data definitely shows that there is genetic structure that warrants further examination and possibly taxonomic changes, but ultimately additional study is still needed.

I do not mean to suggest that future work may not well provide the missing pieces needed to support this hypothesis. I simply hope to make clear that at this point the data is not conclusive. I've long thoughts that the localities of this and many other species represented evolutionary steps in the process of becoming new species, but the question becomes how far along is this process are they and where do they transition from something like a genetically distinct population, to a subspecies (however controversial such a taxonomic level may be), or to a species? That is the question that still needs to be answered, and more data is needed in order to do so correctly.

Chris

Chris

That is a big reason why we have not seen the division of these species into separate species until now. The technology to study the DNA of all these specimens of Madagascar chameleon species has not been practically available. Now that it is here geneticist can actually finish or start the job of looking at the locales (or new species) of these suspected new species and start saying with much more certainty if they are new species or sub species. If a Yellow Lip Parsonii becomes a new species that inherently means Calumma parsonii cristifer prospects are most probable that that sub species is a new species as well?

There are a couple exceptions, the division of Calumma brevicorne and Furcifer oustaleti. Calumma brevicorne divisions had some obvious morphological differences not just difference in DNA. As well, less seen though is Furcifer oustaleti as the species is not that popular of a chameleon in the trade. However Furcifer oustaleti has got some obvious differences in morphology. The morphology of the head of Ambanja Furcifer oustaleti males is not even close to looking similar to the head of a Diego Saurez Furcifer oustaleti males (CIN Video "A Land Like No Other" 1997). For these two Calumma brevicorne and Frucifer oustaleti groups this is more evidence to add to DNA testing and solidifying if they are new species or not. This is a job that is long overdue and should be done or finally has been done. Neat deal.

Best Regards
Jeremy A. Rich