A couple new species descriptions:
1. A new Sorex shrew described from Honduras. The description is based on principal component analysis of just two available specimens; my understanding is that it’s very bad methodology. Personally I think descriptions of new species done without comparing nuclear DNA shouldn’t be accepted for publication anymore, unless it’s something strikingly different. I also think that all species in S. veraepacis species group (veraepacis, chiapensis, ibarrai, madrensis, mutabilis and the new cruzi) are in fact conspecific, but wouldn’t mind being proven wrong.
2. A new mouse lemur, Microcebus jonahi, described. It is the larger of the two species occurring around Mananara, and the only one near the coast there, so if you’ve seen a mouse lemur on your trip to “Aye Aye Island” that’s what it was. The authors compared it only with other species in that part of Madagascar, so it might be conspecific with some species from other parts of the island. Notably, the authors found M. mittermeyeri to be conspecific with M. lehilahystara. I expect some other recently described lemurs to be eventually proven conspecific as well, as many of those descriptions were extremely lousy.
New species described
Related Articles
-
Pika ID Sichuan
Hi all, photographed this pika in Yading National Park, Sichuan. It was foraging along a grassy slope near some...
-
Top 10 Night Safaris
Here is a blog I wrote on night safaris. Keep in mind that my organization’s membership has all levels...
-
RFI Franciscana around Buenos Aries
Hi all I am booking a trip a few weeks out and could easily spend a day or two...
-
Review of PULSAR Helion-2 XP50 thermal monocular
Hi all, Because wildlife watchers still face little information available on thermal scopes, I put this review. Review of...
-
THANK YOU JON (And Some Indian Mammals)
First of all, I can’t express my gratitude enough to Jon for putting together the amazing adventure, with a...
-
So where’s everyone off to this year?
Hi all, Just wondering what mammal watching trips people have got planned for this year? Myself, at present I...
-
RFI: Canada
Hi all, I will be in Vancouver and Winnipeg/Churchill next month, and would welcome mammal info. Star-nosed mole. I...
-
Isle Royale Wolves
The wolves of Isle Royale National Park, located on Lake Superior, are disappearing. Should conservationists do something about it?...
It is a shame so much of mammal taxonomy is dominated by heavy splitters, which completely swamps the good work done by a less vocal group…. It doesn’t help that some of the more influential books (Lynx Edicions….) don’t seem to take taxonomy serious at all. I am looking forward to anyone taking up a checklist and evidence-based approach like is done with birds….
The more splitting it is the less value it will be of each species. In money-based economy it is called inflation. Generally, I find a species is not a species until it is proved a real species (I am well aware that it can be terrific difficult to prove that a taxon is a valid (biological) species). 11 species of Klipspringers in the Lynx handbook is one of the most ridiculous examples of splitting. Wonder what our other fellow mammal species would say of Homo sapiens, should at least be 5-6 species of Homo today…
/Eric Renman (Vallentuna, Sweden)
Homo sapiens taxonomy is a very politically charged subject, as you can imagine. Linnaeus described 4 subspecies; in reality there are over 100, plus, of course, lots of hybrid swarms. But there’s not enough genetic difference to justify splitting into species, unless you use really lousy approaches popular among primatologists. Also, all humans except Khoisan peoples are technically hybrids (with Neanderthals, Denisovians, etc.), so it’s all complicated. One consequence of all this is that you can’t have H. sapiens on your life list unless you’ve been to some Khoisan village in Africa 🙂
Meanwhile, the next page in African golden wolf saga: https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jmammal/gyaa080/5881689?redirectedFrom=fulltext
On using PCA and other such analyses in taxonomy, there are three factors that make it’s use in taxonomy far from ideal:
– Colinearity, these models assume that the different predictor variables put in the model (e.g. skull measurements), are independent from each other, which in most taxonomic cases they are off-course not.
– Uneven sample size of the different groups, the higher sample sizes and more evenly distribution, the better the chance that the model actually works
– Small sample sizes, it is advised that the sample size of each group must be larger than the number of predictor variables, otherwise the risk of a false positive increases.
Finally, many papers use purely qualitative measures and just interpret graphs. They don’t do any follow-up analyses to test whether found differences are actually significant or not…
There is a pretty good paper on this here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440311002263?casa_token=Y9EVmrSzMTAAAAAA:ig9muHXeiqfkLq6lPHrvra1DitYhe6drOh-OcHgbMO05lDfeffVLvQhpxNMQe_rPvPtMQToXZac