Underwoodisaurus or Nephrurus

[AUSGECKO]

I noticed a while ago that on all the foreign forums, species that we refer to as Underwoodisaurus are classed as Nephrurus in other countries. I've had this debate with keepers overseas many times and I am always told that Underwoodisaurus that were once known as Nephrurus and briefly Phyllurus have been placed back into Nephrurus.
Does anyone have any info or opinions on this?

 

[snakeluvver]

Its strange. Milii and sphyrurus used to be in Nephrurus, but they were put into Underwoodisaurus (then sphyrurus was put in Uvidicolus). Milii are, technically, in Underwoodisaurus but they are commonly referred to as Nephrurus, though I feel this is incorrect and that calling them Nephrurus milli is like calling a Pink Tongue Skink a Tiliqua gerrardi. Its out of date.

 

[Snowman]

they were put into Nephrurus again recently and are no longer Underwoodisaurus.

 

[Rocket]

Snowman is correct. Officially, milii are now in Nephrurus, as they were many years ago before they were placed in Underwoodisaurus. I haven't read any taxonomic papers on sphyrurus and what happened with them however, according to AROD, they are in Uvidicolus. Does anybody know the etymology for Uvidicolus?

 

[dossy]

and thats why i do not use the scintific names, they get changed to often. why cant we just call them one thing and be done with it

 

[Elapidae1]

LOL milii have now be placed back in Underwoodisaurus

Rocket, according to Wilson and Swan 3rd edition sphyrurus is also in Underwoodisaurus

 

[snakeluvver]

It really is strange how much things get changed. For example, what do I call my pink tongues - Cyclodomorphus or Hemisphaeriodon?
I still think of milii as Underwoodisaurus.

 

[GeckPhotographer]

LOL milii have now be placed back in Underwoodisaurus

Rocket, according to Wilson and Swan 3rd edition sphyrurus is also in Underwoodisaurus

Recently milli were put into Nephrurus, they were not put back. Because some debate still occurs around this issue Wilson and Swan have played it safe by leaving them where they were in Underwoodisaurus for the time being.

The more confusing thing is that milli is actually probably the type specimen for the genus phyllurus, which would mean that as the senior synonym the genus Nephrurus should have to be changed to Phyllurus. I had not heard anything about where sphyrurus fit in only that it was not Nephrurus.

 

[Elapidae1]

Wilson and Swan have it in Underwoodisaurus

 

[GeckPhotographer]

I know, I told you why. Wilson and Swan do not take it upon themselves to decide what is right and wrong, when new taxonomic papers are written about species they wait to be sure the scientific community agrees with this. As agreance with the Underwoodisaurus- Nephrurus change is inconsistent at best and debate at most they have for now left it as Underwoodisaurus.

 

[Elapidae1]

Ah sorry, I misread your post and because I had gotten used to using Nephrurus I assumed thats how it was recognised in the second edition and when you said they had left them where they were I jumped to that conclusion.

I have just glanced through a 2011 paper (most of it way over my head amd therefore quite probably misinterpreted) but my interpretation is U. milii is the sole member of underwoodisaurus, and sphyrurus of Uvidicolus

 

[GeckPhotographer]

Hmm well that would be where the taxonomic debate comes into it.

There have been papers both ways as is obvious by them being moved one way and then another, my personal preference is that they be put as Nephrurus but there are those who disagree. I guess we will see where they end up eventually.

It is interesting the difference between how Wilson and Swan handle these things and how Cogger did. Wilson and Swan wait untill it is all settled, Cogger used to put in his opinion which usually became the decisive word on the subject until further research was done.

 

[Elapidae1]

It would also seem that the type specimen for Phyllurus is actually a specimen of N. levis occidentalis.

Again my interpretation could be way of the mark as my understanding of genetics is as good as zero.

 

[snakeluvver]

The more confusing thing is that milli is actually probably the type specimen for the genus phyllurus

So that would make it Phyllurus milii?

 

[GeckPhotographer]

It would also seem that the type specimen for Phyllurus is actually a specimen of N. levis occidentalis.

Again my interpretation could be way of the mark as my understanding of genetics is as good as zero.

Hmm that is interesting I had heard it was milli, which would make more sense than levis, but this was something I had heard more through plausible rumor than substantiated sources.

So that would make it Phyllurus milii?

Well technically it should yes, but sometimes even taxonomists see common sense and leave things so deeply and fully set in place alone.

 

[Elapidae1]

Yes, but I think what geckphotographer is suggesting is that it would mean that all Nephrurus spp should actually be Phyllurus spp.
Though that would also depend on whether the statement in my last post is correct or not.

 

[AUSGECKO]

I think at one stage both milli and sphyrurus were in phylurus but it was short lived, i personaly believe that they should be different to what we currently call Nephrurus. I thought the knob on the end of a Nephrurus` tail would be a good distinguishing feature but they must class them on many more features, none of which i know.

 

[Nephrurus1]

In South Australia, the most current version of the Census of South Australian Vertebrates (DENR) with the updated section on reptile taxonomy written by Mark Hutchinson (SA Museum) has included milii under Nephrurus, choosing not to recognise Underwoodisaurus.

 

[killimike]

Like everything, in the end the science comes down to politics

They are cute geckos at any rate!

 

[GeckPhotographer]

Very true the science does come down to politics in the end.

I think at one stage both milli and sphyrurus were in phylurus but it was short lived, i personaly believe that they should be different to what we currently call Nephrurus. I thought the knob on the end of a Nephrurus` tail would be a good distinguishing feature but they must class them on many more features, none of which i know.

That would be describing the genus on a 'non important' morphological feature which actually shows very little about relationships. Morphologically milli are almost identical in all important relationship based morphology. The debate really comes down to how much genetic similarity shows convergence of a genus.