Taxacom: Taxacom Digest, Vol 197, Issue 26

[Peter Uetz]

Lynn,

You are absolutely right about some of these errors in the Reptile Database
and I am happy to correct them.
Corrections and additions are always welcome and we make an effort to
accommodate them.
I will get back about details privately.

Peter



>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 13:29:31 +0200
> From: lynn <lynn at afriherp.org>
> To: Peter Uetz <uetz at vcu.edu>
> Cc: Ross Wellington <rwrossco at gmail.com>, Richard Zander via Taxacom
>         <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>, viper007 at live.com.au
> Subject: Re: Taxacom: Standards for species identification
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> We have previously discussed several errors and misinformation existing on
> the reptile database that you run. The most recent concerned the skink
> genus Scelotes. I have now found yet another set concerning the species
> Scelotes limpopoensis FitzSimons. You say:
> Limb morphology: This species lost its forelimb entirely and retains only
> two digits on the hind limb.
> However, the species does have forelimbs, in the nominate subspecies these
> have three digits and in the second subspecies albiventris Jacobsen they
> have two digits. Furthermore, while you say that the hind limbs only have
> two digits, if you were to check the type descriptions you will find that
> both subspecies actually have four. I checked this myself a few minutes ago
> on a specimen of the nominate subspecies.
>
> In another example in the genus you list a species Scelotes anguineus
> Boulenger and give the following synonymy
> Herpetoseps anguinus BOULENGER 1887: 416
> Herpetosaura anguinea ? TORNIER 1902: 704
> Scelotes anguina ? BRANCH & HAAGNER 1996
> Scelotes anguineus ? WHITING et al. 2003
> As you will note, the original name is anguinus so why have you used
> anguineus. Tornier?s anguinea is preoccupied by Merrem?s name anguineus
> some 82 years previously. The name anguineus is actually a synonym of bipes
> Linnaeus and you have that synonymy listed under Scelotes bipes elsewhere
> in your database. I have previously advised you that the correct name is
> anguinus but you have obviously decided to ignore my advice as you were
> still using anguineus when I checked a few minutes ago when I copied the
> section pasted above.
> Anguis bipes LINNAEUS 1766: 390
> Chalcida bipes ? MEYER 1795: 31
> Bipes anguineus MERREM 1820 (fide GREER 1970)
> Scelotes Linnaei ? DUM?RIL & BIBRON 1839: 785
> Scelotes bipes ? GRAY [1845: 123]
> Scelotes Linnaei ? GRAVENHORST 1851: 376
> Scelotes bipes ? BOULENGER 1887: 414
> Scelotes bipes ? LOVERIDGE 1936: 74
> Scelotes bipes ? WHITING et al. 2003
>  Your post below seemed quite petulant but maybe it would be better for
> you to actually fix errors that are pointed out to you in good faith in
> order to improve the accuracy of the database. If your database is
> incomplete or inaccurate and you are not prepared to correct it when
> advised with evidence then is there any point in making it available?
>
> To tell you the truth I find it a useful guide but then I know that I
> cannot just accept it as accurate but always need to check and recheck
> everything I read. Unfortunately there are a great number of people out
> there who don?t and may be being given inaccurate information that they
> believe to be correct.
>
> Please accept this in the spirit that it is given, I.e. an attempt to help
> you provide more accurate information, not an attempt to denigrate your
> work. Maybe I have just happened to hit on a specific problematic genus in
> this instance but I haven?t actually checked other genera.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Lynn
>
>
>