Panther Chameleon Taxonomy
- Thread starter JacksJill
- Start date
Found the study this is based on! http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.13241/full
Chris Anderson
Dr. House of Chameleons
Unfortunately there was 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 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, and that suggestion is basically universally rejected among taxonomists and other chameleon researchers at this point.
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 does not support it. 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
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 does not support it. 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
