Nomenclatural notes on living and fossil amphibians

2004

The absence of rules in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature for nomenclature of taxa above superfamily is a source of instability and confusion, especially with the recent increase in number of higher taxa following multiplication of phylogenetic analyses. A recent proposal concerning such rules, submitted elsewhere, is briefly presented here, and its consequences regarding nomenclature of higher taxa of recent amphibians are summarised. The class nomen AMPHIBIA should be credited to DE BLAINVILLE (1816) instead of LINNAEUS (1758). The nomen LISSAMPHIBIA Haeckel, 1866 is an invalid junior synonym of BATRACHIA Brongniart, 1800, that applies to one of the superorders of the subclass including all recent amphibians. The valid nomen of this subclass is NEOBATRACHI Sarasin & Sarasin, 1890. The three orders of recent amphibians should be known as ANURA Dumeril, 1806, URODELA Dumeril, 1806 and GYMNOPHIONA Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814. The nomina SAUENTIA Laurenti, 1768, CAUDATA ...

2005

The present list concerns additions in the taxonomy of NEOBATRACHI (i.e., recent amphibians, taxa represented by at least one species in the currently living fauna of our planet: see D, 2004), for taxa at rank genus and below, published before 2003 after the three lists of recent amphibians taxa of F (1985), D (1993) and G et al. (1998) and the two lists of fossil taxa of this group of E (1981) and S (1998), or absent from these five lists.The period covered by these additions starts in 1981 for taxa of fossil gymnophiones and urodeles, in 1993 for taxa of recent amphibians, and in 1998 for taxa of fossil anurans. It ends on 31 December 2002 for all these groups.We tried to include all new nomina that had been overlooked in the lists cited above, or for which we identified errors in these lists. However, nomina of lower recent taxa anterior to 1993 not considered in F’s (1985) and D’s (1993) checklists (i.e., most synonyms and most nomina of v...

Megataxa

Just after the publication of our paper (Dubois et al. 2021), we discovered that, in Table 1, pages 443 and 444 are identical, and the actual page 443 is missing. We here provide this page, and we took this opportunity to correct a few other errors in this paper. We provide below corrections only in the case of misspellings or other errors that may induce misunderstandings of our text, not for pure format problems (concerning punctuation, parentheses, italics, bold and capital letters), which do not impede understanding of our text.

2006

Herpetological Monographs, 1993

Amphibia and its major groups are defined according to principles of phylogenetic taxonomy, and the implications of the definitions for amphibian systematics are discussed. The results of phylogenetic analyses of Amphibia, Anura, Caudata, and Gymnophiona from morphological and molecular studies are compared, based on papers published in the symposium "Amphibian relationships: Phylogenetic analysis of morphology and molecules" at the 1990 meetings of the American Society of Zoologists in San Antonio, Texas. Several issues related to the use of morphological and molecular data sets are discussed briefly: quality and quantity of data, homology assessment, nonindependence of characters, sampling of taxa, and resolution of trees derived from different data sets. p TRUEB, L., AND R. CLOUTIER. 1991. A phylogenetic investigation of the interand intrarelationships of the Lissamphibia (Amphibia: Temnospondyli). Pp. 233-313. In H.-P. Schultze and L. Trueb (Eds.), Origins of the Higher Groups of Tetrapods. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. WAKE, M. H. 1993. Non-traditional characters in the assessment of caecilian phylogenetic relationships. Herpetol. Monogr. 7:42-55. WHEELER, W. C., AND R. L. HONEYCUTT. 1988. Paired sequence divergence in ribosomal RNAs: Evolution and phylogenetic implications. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5:90-96.

Megataxa

Although currently most taxonomists claim to adhere to the concept of ‘phylogenetic taxonomy’, in fact most of the zoological classifications currently published are only in part ‘phylogenetic’ but include also phenetic or gradist approaches, in their arbitrary choices of the nodes formally recognised as taxa and in their attribution of ranks to these taxa. We here propose a new approach to ‘phylogenetic taxonomy and nomenclature’, exemplified by a phylogenetic classification or cladonomy of the extant amphibians (subclass Lissamphibia of the class Amphibia) derived from a supermatrix-based phylogenetic analysis using 4060 amphibian species, i.e. about half of the 8235 species recognised on 31 October 2020. These taxa were represented by a mean of 3029 bp (range: 197–13849 bp) of DNA sequence data from a mean of 4 genes (range: 1‒15). The cladistic tree thus generated was transferred into a classification according to a new taxonomic and nomenclatural methodology presented here, whi...

Artikel Filum Amphibia Taksonomi Hewan, 2021

Artikel Filum Amphibia Taksonomi Hewan

Integrative and Comparative Biology, 2013

2009

Abstract Living amphibians (6449 species) include three distinctive orders: salamanders (Caudata), caecilians (Gymnophiona), and frogs (Anura). Each is supported as monophyletic in molecular phylogenetic analyses, with frogs+ salamanders formingtheclade Batrachia. Moleculartime estimates ofthe origin of Lissamphibia vary greatly (367-282 million years ago; latest Devonian to Early Permian), although recentanalyses favor the youngest ages.

1 ( ) 2 ( ) AMPHIBIANS OF THE PALEARCTIC REALM TAXONOMIC AND EIDOLOGICAL ANALYSES L. J. Borkin and S.N. Litvinchuk Zoological Institute, and Institute of Cytology, Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg)