Book Review
| Title: |
Scientific and Standard English
Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with
Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding; and
Standard Common and Current Scientific Names of North American
Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles and Crocodilians, 5th Edition
|
| Author: |
The Committee on Standard English and Scientific
Names; and
Joseph T. Collins and Travis W.
Taggart
|
| 2000. Society for the Study of Amphibians
and Reptiles, Herpetol. Circular No. 29, iv + 82 pp. Paperback.
ISBN 0-916984-54-0. $11.00
+ $3.00 postage in the USA.
2002. Published by the Center for North American Herpetology, Lawrence,
Kansas. iv + 44 pp.
Paperback. ISBN
0-9721937-0-7.
No cost for (except for postage) for single copies.
|
| Reviewed by: |
James N.
Stuart, Conservation Services Division
New Mexico Division of Game and Fish
Santa Fe, NM 87504-5112
E-mail: JStuart@state.nm.us |
Reprinted
from the Bulletin
of the Chicago Herpetological Society [37(11):197-199 , November 2002]
“This
is considered the official list [for the three major professional herpetological
societies].” (SSAR, 2000; page 1)
“This edition is the official intellectual continuation of the fourth [1997] …
edition.” (CNAH, 2002; page 1)
A biologist friend of mine, who is not a
herpetologist, recently asked me if there was a publication that provides a
current list of standardized scientific and common names for amphibians and
reptiles of the United States. She was writing a local herpetofaunal checklist
for public use and wanted to get the latest consensus on what species and
subspecies are recognized. “Well,” I replied, “the short answer to your
question is yes, but .…” Then I
explained that there are two such
publications (both supposedly “official,” as indicated in the above
quotations), they are not in 100% agreement with each other, and each has
strengths and weaknesses. To make a long story short, we ended up writing our
own checklist of scientific and common names for the region of interest,
hybridizing information from both publications. So much for standardization!
The publications I refer to are Scientific
and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North
of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding (2000),
published by the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR); and Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American
Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles and Crocodilians, 5th Ed. (2002),
published by the non-profit Center for North American Herpetology (CNAH). For
brevity, I will refer to them as “the SSAR list” and “the CNAH list,”
respectively.
Because of some confusion surrounding the two
lists, a brief history is in order. Prior to the publication of the SSAR list
in 2000, four earlier versions of the standardized names list were published
as Herpetological Circulars by SSAR
under the direction of Joseph Collins (Collins
et al., 1978, 1982; Collins 1990, 1997). Following publication of the 1997
list, Collins and SSAR parted company, and a new names committee was appointed
by SSAR with Brian Crother as its chairperson. The new committee produced the
SSAR’s latest (2000) edition of the list, also as a Herpetological
Circular. Collins, under the aegis of the CNAH, posted the 1997 list on
the CNAH Web site (where it has been updated many times over the past five
years); the most recent update was published in print form in 2002 with
co-author Travis Taggart. The CNAH has, legitimately or not, identified its
2002 publication as the fifth edition of the previous four SSAR lists (all
authored or co-authored by Collins). The new (2000) list by SSAR, on the other
hand, is considered an all-new publication and is not identified as an update
of the four earlier Herpetological
Circulars.
The SSAR list was compiled by a
committee of 14 herpetological systematists, who were assigned to smaller
subcommittees devoted to each of the major taxonomic groups (salamanders,
frogs and toads, turtles, snakes, lizards and amphisbaenians, and
crocodilians). The list is subdivided by major taxonomic group, and scientific
names are listed alphabetically within each group (families are not
identified). Along with many of the scientific names are notes on why a
particular name was used, what references are pertinent, and comments on name
changes that may be pending. The list includes all native and non-native
established species found in the United States (including Hawaii) and Canada.
A set of guidelines for forming standard English names is also provided. As
the Web site for this publication states, “This edition of the list also
brings back the committee judgment for both standard English names and
recognized scientific names, adding more stability to these names.” As
indicated by the quotation at the start of this review, the list has been
approved by three societies: the SSAR, which publishes Journal
of Herpetology, Herpetological
Review, and Herpetological Circulars,
among others; the Herpetologist’s League (HL), which publishes Herpetologica and Herpetological
Monographs; and the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
(ASIH), which publishes Copeia.
The CNAH list is similar in
general format to the SSAR list but does not include annotations within the
list and therefore is the shorter of the two publications (these annotations
are on the Web version, however, along with family designations). The first
printing of this list had some errors that have been corrected in the more
widely distributed second printing. The main section in the CNAH publication
considers native North American species, whereas two appendices address
non-native established and Hawaiian species separately. There are also
comparative tables that show the changes in numbers of recognized genera,
species, and subspecies since 1956. As reflected in the title, this list
considers turtles and crocodilians as stand-alone classes separate from the
Reptilia (which has been restricted to snakes, lizards, and amphisbaenians).
I found some aspects of the CNAH list troubling. The
publication identifies up to 11 specialists for each major taxonomic group,
each of whom was “tendered the opportunity” to comment on the scientific
names compiled by authors Collins and Taggart. However, it is not stated in
the publication which of these identified specialists actually did
comment on the list. The CNAH publication cites all the earlier editions of
the list, but does not even acknowledge the existence of the 2000 SSAR list,
which was published two years earlier. This omission was either an oversight
of the authors (which seems doubtful) or a deliberate slight aimed at the SSAR.
I can understand that CNAH may not agree with the current SSAR list, but
pretending it does not exist suggests to me a lack of objectivity.
Herpetology is a rather small field, so it should
come as no surprise that some of the same people are involved in both lists.
Taggart is the co-author of the CNAH list and a committee member of the SSAR
list. Other researchers appear as both SSAR committee members and as part of
the group invited to review the CNAH list. However, as noted above, it is
unclear from the CNAH publication which of the specialists contacted actually
participated in the CNAH list review, whereas all individuals on the SSAR
committee presumably played an active role in producing that publication.
There are some important differences in scientific
nomenclature between the lists, mainly involving wide-ranging, polytypic
species complexes that have been problematic for many years. (The fact that
one list is two years older than the other has also resulted in some
differences.) Some examples of
problem taxa are Ambystoma tigrinum
(including A. mavortium), Crotalus
viridis (including C. oreganus),
Elaphe guttata (including E.
emoryi), Cnemidophorus tigris (including
C. marmoratus), and the various
species and subspecies contained under the names Sceloporus undulatus and Elaphe
obsoleta. Some of these differences involve taxa that have been long
neglected by systematists and are just now being assessed using
state-of-the-art biochemical research methods. Others are groups of organisms
that seem not to fit well in any
Linnaean nomenclature.
As important as a stable list of scientific names may
be, it is also important to realize that Linnaean taxonomy is a rather crude
device for defining real organisms. Species are not static entities across
time or space. Variable hybrid zones can make it difficult to tell where one
species (or subspecies) ends and another begins. Furthermore, systematists and
taxonomists work with imperfect knowledge of the evolutionary relationships
within and among the organisms they study. Many taxonomic decisions come down
to the availability of genetic and morphological information, current concepts
in species definition, hands-on experience with the live animals, and a dose
of personal preference. In short, it is possible for two different taxonomic
arrangements to both be “right” because taxonomy is no more than an
artificial framework for delimiting entities in nature that are often elusive
and lacking clear boundaries.
English (common) names are a
different story because they are not usually affected by shifting concepts of
species or strict rules of nomenclature. If need be, they can be tinkered with
to make them easier to use or more informative. Not being a very consistent
user of English names myself, I was a little disappointed that the lists
diverge even in this area. Thankfully, many of the differences are fairly
inconsequential: “diamond-backed” versus “diamondback”; “garter
snake” versus “gartersnake”; “Pygmy Rattlesnake” versus “Pigmy
Rattlesnake” (although “Pigmy Salamander” is spelled the same in both!).
Some of the English names in the SSAR list will be unfamiliar to most American
herpetologists. For example, most of us have long known Leptotyphlops
species as Blind Snakes, but the SSAR list uses Threadsnakes (apparently the
former name is now reserved for Ramphotyphlops).
Some other comments about “common” names. The
turtle section in the SSAR list omits the word “common” from all English
names because of the possibility it might be misinterpreted to imply that a
species (or subspecies) of turtle is abundant rather than just widespread.
However, this rationale was not applied to other taxa in the SSAR list; the
word “common” appears in the English names for Necturus m. maculosus, Uta
stansburiana, Farancia e.
erytrogramma, Lampropeltis getula,
and Thamnophis sirtalis, among
others. Both lists use Dunes Sagebrush Lizard for Sceloporus
arenicolus. However, Sand Dune Lizard is used by Degenhardt et al. (1996)
because it much better reflects the habitat of this species (a valid reason
for a name change, in my opinion). The “official” name is a holdover from
when arenicolus was included under S.
graciosus, the Sagebrush Lizard or Common Sagebrush Lizard (depending on
which list you consult).
Both lists provide the author and year of the
original description for each genus, species, and subspecies. The SSAR list
does a better job of noting when the year on the publication of the
description differs from the year that the publication actually appeared in
print (for example, Bufo microscaphus
Cope, 1867 “1866”). I
detected a few errors in publication years: the CNAH list has the wrong year
for Trachemys gaigeae and Sceloporus
arenicolus, whereas the SSAR list has the wrong year for Uta
stansburiana nevadensis. Where such discrepancies appear, the publications
by Beltz (1995), or Frost (2002) for amphibians, are handy references in the
absence of the original descriptions.
Much as speciation events occur
in biological organisms, an analogous form of speciation also occurs in human
constructs such as languages, cultures, religions, political parties … and
scientific organizations. The SSAR and CNAH camps have started down separate
paths with their competing lists, and where time and evolution takes them no
one can say for sure. I suspect future editions of the competing lists will
not diverge too drastically from
each other; after all, they share the same pool of scientific data, a similar
taxonomic philosophy, and many of the same participants! But for the time
being we have both and can either deal with them or dismiss the whole idea of
“official” lists as being rather silly in the first place. (As Carl Sagan
once noted, there are no authorities
in science, only experts.) But even
if there are no taxonomy police to enforce what names we use, most of us are
still stuck between disagreeing experts in our search for a standard.
So which list should you use?
For professional herpetologists, the SSAR list of
scientific names will likely be the preferred one because it seems to reflect
the viewpoint of most workers in this field and has been sanctioned by the
major professional societies in North America. Those who publish in journals
of the SSAR, ASIH, or HL, presumably will follow the SSAR list, except when
newly-published research suggests otherwise. Two articles in the September
2002 issue of Herpetological Review,
for example, use the combinations Aspidoscelis neomexicana (for Cnemidophorus
neomexicanus) and Crotalus cerberus
(for C. viridis cerberus or C.
oreganus cerberus) which are based on very recent taxonomic changes not
reflected in either list. As for
English names, some of those in the SSAR list strike me as needlessly
cumbersome compared to the CNAH list (for example, “Southern Spot-tailed
Earless Lizard” versus simply “Southern Earless Lizard”). For me, then,
the SSAR list is the better for scientific names, but I lean toward the CNAH
for many of the English names.
Other herp people may similarly feel no need to pick
one list exclusively over the other. Authors of field guides and other popular
books on amphibians and reptiles are free to use or reject all or parts of
either list. Because such publications often get more exposure and use than
technical journal articles, book authors may strongly influence what English
names (and, to a lesser extent, scientific names) appear in future editions of
these two lists.
My recommendation to those who remain on the fence is
to get both lists and spend some time browsing them. In many instances, you
will find there is little or no disagreement between names. Where there is
disagreement, consult the Web sites for both to see if there is new
information or corrections that may be pertinent to the taxa you are working
with. Then go with the name that you prefer or that seems to make the most
sense based on your personal experience. Hopefully most of the differences
will shake out over time and future editions of both lists will converge
toward uniformity. We might someday even get past the “need” for two such
lists. However, given human nature, I won’t hold my breath.
The SSAR list is available on the Web at: http://www.herplit.com/SSAR/circulars/HC29/Crother.html
The Web site includes an on-line and PDF versions of the book, plus a list
of corrections to the published edition. At present, there is no provision for
posting taxonomic updates. The Web version of the CNAH list is at http://www.naherpetology.org/
and includes notes on controversial taxa, photographs of many species, and
frequent updates not reflected in the printed version. Information for
ordering printed versions of either list are available on these Web sites.
Literature Cited
Beltz, E. 1995. Citations for the original
descriptions of North American amphibians and reptiles. SSAR Herpetol. Circ.
(24):1-44.
Collins, J.T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North
American amphibians and reptiles. 3rd ed. SSAR Herpetol. Circ.
(19):1-41.
____. 1997. Standard common and current scientific names for North American
amphibians and reptiles. 4th ed.
SSAR Herpetol. Circ. (25):1-40.
____, R. Conant, J.E. Huheey, J.L. Knight, E.M. Rundquist, and H.M. Smith.
1982. Standard common and current scientific names for North American
amphibians and reptiles. 2nd ed. SSAR Herpetol. Circ. (12):1-28.
____, J.E. Huheey, J.L. Knight, and H.M. Smith. 1978. Standard common and
current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. 1st ed.
SSAR Herpetol. Circ. (7):1-36.
Degenhardt, W.G., C.W. Painter, and A.H. Price. 1996. Amphibians and Reptiles
of New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: Univ. New Mexico Press.
Frost, D.R. 2002. Amphibian Species of the World: an online reference. V2.21
(15 July 2002). http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html
.
Copyright © 2003 Chicago Herpetological Society
