# Underwoodisaurus or Nephrurus



## AUSGECKO (Jul 7, 2011)

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 (Jul 7, 2011)

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 Its out of date.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 (Jul 7, 2011)

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


----------



## Rocket (Jul 7, 2011)

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 (Jul 7, 2011)

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 (Jul 7, 2011)

LOL milii have now be placed back in Underwoodisaurus

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


----------



## snakeluvver (Jul 7, 2011)

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 (Jul 7, 2011)

> 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 (Jul 7, 2011)

Wilson and Swan have it in Underwoodisaurus


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Jul 7, 2011)

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 (Jul 7, 2011)

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 (Jul 7, 2011)

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 (Jul 7, 2011)

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 (Jul 7, 2011)

GeckPhotographer said:


> 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 (Jul 7, 2011)

> 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 (Jul 7, 2011)

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 (Jul 7, 2011)

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 (Jul 7, 2011)

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 (Jul 7, 2011)

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

They are cute geckos at any rate!


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Jul 7, 2011)

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.


----------



## AUSGECKO (Jul 7, 2011)

GeckPhotographer said:


> 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.


 
Thanks, I wouldn't have a clue how they describe and clump species together.


----------



## geckodan (Jul 7, 2011)

AUSGECKO said:


> 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.


They were never officially classed as Phyllurus except for a erroneus classification (everything got clumped back then) over 50 years ago. The way it all happened was that whilst determining that the genetics of Phyllurus and Underwoodisaurus were different they stumbled across the fact that the genetics of underwoodisaurus and Nephrurus were not different to each other and subsequently sunk the name Underwoodisaurus. Wilson and Swan do not use Nephrurus as they are excessively cautious with their naming, to the detriment of appropriate taxonomy in many cases. Uvidicolus is quite a recent chnage and sinks sphyrurus, following both genetic and morphological reasons.


----------



## AUSGECKO (Jul 7, 2011)

Thanks for clearing that up Danny


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Jul 7, 2011)

> They were never officially classed as Phyllurus except for a erroneus classification (everything got clumped back then) over 50 years ago. The way it all happened was that whilst determining that the genetics of Phyllurus and Underwoodisaurus were different they stumbled across the fact that the genetics of underwoodisaurus and Nephrurus were not different to each other and subsequently sunk the name Underwoodisaurus. Wilson and Swan do not use Nephrurus as they are excessively cautious with their naming, to the detriment of appropriate taxonomy in many cases. Uvidicolus is quite a recent chnage and sinks sphyrurus, following both genetic and morphological reasons.



Thanks for that clarfication. However this may not change the possiblity of either milli, or levis being the specimen the lumped genus Phyllurus was named from. Of course as I say I have only heard this through plausible rumor. Personally I do not think that Wilson and Swans caution is particularly detrimental, even though it may not mean their book is perfectly taxonomically correct it is far more a guide for identification for non experts, anyone who had a particular taxonomical or identifcation need would be going to the papers of description to decide anyway and for non experts the differentiation between Underwoodisaurus and Nephrurus may not come up as particularly important.


----------



## Snowman (Jul 7, 2011)

geckodan said:


> They were never officially classed as Phyllurus except for a erroneus classification (everything got clumped back then) over 50 years ago. The way it all happened was that whilst determining that the genetics of Phyllurus and Underwoodisaurus were different they stumbled across the fact that the genetics of underwoodisaurus and Nephrurus were not different to each other and subsequently sunk the name Underwoodisaurus. Wilson and Swan do not use Nephrurus as they are excessively cautious with their naming, to the detriment of appropriate taxonomy in many cases. Uvidicolus is quite a recent chnage and sinks sphyrurus, following both genetic and morphological reasons.



Very interesting post.


----------



## geckodan (Jul 8, 2011)

GeckPhotographer said:


> Thanks for that clarfication. However this may not change the possiblity of either milli, or levis being the specimen the lumped genus Phyllurus was named from. Of course as I say I have only heard this through plausible rumor. Personally I do not think that Wilson and Swans caution is particularly detrimental, even though it may not mean their book is perfectly taxonomically correct it is far more a guide for identification for non experts, anyone who had a particular taxonomical or identifcation need would be going to the papers of description to decide anyway and for non experts the differentiation between Underwoodisaurus and Nephrurus may not come up as particularly important.


I think its fine to be cautious to a degree but the sinking of Underwoodisaurus happened before their first edition. Numerous papers using Nephrurus have been published since. They're not cautious any more, just outdated.


----------



## JasonL (Jul 8, 2011)

Who really cares? not the gecko thats for sure.....


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Jul 8, 2011)

> Who really cares? not the gecko thats for sure.....



Whether it turns out important or not, it is an interesting subject with no reason not to be discussed.


----------



## Snowman (Jul 8, 2011)

JasonL said:


> Who really cares? not the gecko thats for sure.....



Anyone who is interested in herpetology obviously. 

I'm sure there are heaps of people who don't care though. The same people who would look at a woma and say "nice snake". You say "it's a woma". Their response "who cares".....


----------



## eipper (Jul 9, 2011)

Hi all,

The paper that has used proposed the name _Uvidicolus_, put cf. milli back into _Underwoodisaurus_ from _Nephrurus_. They had to....you could not elevate _U. sphyurus_ to a monotypic genus without reserecting _Underwoodisaurus_ from _Nephrurus_.

I would of liked to see the paper assign names to the _milli_ complex as well including the reserecting of _husbandi_ etc.

Cheers,
Scott


----------



## AUSGECKO (Jul 9, 2011)

Does anyone have a link to these papers?


----------



## JasonL (Jul 9, 2011)

Snowman said:


> Anyone who is interested in herpetology obviously.
> 
> I'm sure there are heaps of people who don't care though. The same people who would look at a woma and say "nice snake". You say "it's a woma". Their response "who cares".....



My point is that all the information is there and it gets down to the point of personal opinions... which is here say...


----------



## Smithers (Jul 9, 2011)

AUSGECKO said:


> Does anyone have a link to these papers?



Same


----------



## eipper (Jul 9, 2011)

Jason,

It is not really heresay...it comes down to the interpretation of the author(s) from the data that is available to them at the time. The point of difference for many taxonomists is the interpretation of the species concept. As methods is both the taking of and the analysis of data evolves, there will be a number of changes accordingly. 

Whether or not a particular author takes on a taxonomic changes is really up to the author themselves. This usually is determined from the evidence presented in the paper itself, but certainly personal bias can seemly attribute to the general consensus.

Cheers,
Scott

If someone is after a copy of the paper shoot me an email
[email protected]


----------



## Elapidae1 (Jul 9, 2011)

I'm gathering we are reffering to the same paper Scott?? 
Oliver, P.M., Bauer, A.M. Systematics and evolution of the Australian knob-tail geckos (Nephrurus, Carphodactylidae, Gekkota):​Pleisomorphic grades and biome shifts through the Miocene. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. (2011)





JasonL said:


> Who really cares? not the gecko thats for sure.....



This is taken from Jamie James, The Snake Charmer A Life And Death In The Pursuit Of Knowledge.

The ongoing census of terrestrial life forms, given its skeleton by Linnaeus and its philosophical flesh by Darwin, is one of the boldest intellectual collaborations in history. For centuries, scholars and amateurs throughout the world have laboured mightily and endured terrible hardships to compile a comprehensive portrait of life on earth, all of them playing by the same rule book- a vast open document that is in a constant state of revision. It's the biological equivelant of of a grand unified theory: a verifiable, logically sound explanation of everything. As unimaginably complex and difficult as the task is, for the the insatiably curious among us it possesses an irresistible allure-precisely because it can be done


----------



## eipper (Jul 9, 2011)

thats the one Steve


----------



## geckodan (Jul 10, 2011)

eipper said:


> Hi all,
> 
> The paper that has used proposed the name _Uvidicolus_, put cf. milli back into _Underwoodisaurus_ from _Nephrurus_. They had to....you could not elevate _U. sphyurus_ to a monotypic genus without reserecting _Underwoodisaurus_ from _Nephrurus_.
> 
> ...


I stand corrected. I'll have to reread that one. Thanks Scott.


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Jul 10, 2011)

I have had a look at that paper and it would to me suggest that not all of the current Nephrurus should be grouped together and that the paper only stopped itself from doing this because of uncertainty in where the divide should be and in want of further evidence. 

Would those others who have looked at this paper agree with this or do they have another take on it? (The split I mean is between wheeleri and both the smooth and rough knobtails, which also are both somewhat seperate.)


----------



## eipper (Jul 10, 2011)

Stephen,

Looking at the "tree" its shows that Uvidicolus, Underwoodisaurus and Nephrurus are all on separate branches of the the same lineage with Uvidicolus being the basal group. 

My personal opinion would be to leave the whole lot as Nephrurus (the oldest available name) for the group (Sinking both Underwoodisaurus and Uvidicolus).

The distance of the Spiked Knob tails (amyae, asper & sheai) from the Smooth Knobbies or the wheeleri group is not far enough to to split them any further from the data presented however it does show some interesting points re species divergence. One thing that I noticed was the lack of genetic distance between asper and sheai showing they are quite closely related and that N. levis occidentalis was quite divergent from the nominate subspecies. There was no split shown for N. levis pilbarensis nor was it included as a separate unit within the text, despite levis being refered to in the text as having 3 subspecies.

So what do this mean???? Well if you choose to split N. sheai from N. asper you should also seriously consider elevating N. levis occidentalis to species level.

I would have a chat to your father and ask his opinion

Cheers,
Scott


----------



## Nephrurus1 (Jul 13, 2011)

eipper said:


> One thing that I noticed was the lack of genetic distance between asper and sheai showing they are quite closely related and that N. levis occidentalis was quite divergent from the nominate subspecies. There was no split shown for N. levis pilbarensis nor was it included as a separate unit within the text, despite levis being refered to in the text as having 3 subspecies.



Hi Scott,
I've had a look at the supporting docs to the online version of the paper and it would seem that no N levis pilbarensis specimens were actually tested. 8 specimens of N levis and 2 of N levis ssp occidentalis were included. Therefore a complete differentiation between the three subspecies is not possible from this paper .... bit of a shame really! 
Cheers
Phil


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Jul 13, 2011)

> bit of a shame really!



Now I have something to work on in the future.  Do you know how many specimens of sheai and asper were used?


----------



## Nephrurus1 (Jul 13, 2011)

GeckPhotographer said:


> Now I have something to work on in the future.  Do you know how many specimens of sheai and asper were used?



sheai = 1
asper = 3
amyae = 4


----------



## killimike (Jul 13, 2011)

This is an awesome thread 

I can't comment directly on the numbers of animals used as I don't know the field, but it's interesting that the same number weren't used for every species. And no pilbs if I read that right? I'm gonna have to get that paper.


----------



## Moreliavridis (Jul 13, 2011)

Where can i obtain a copy of this paper?


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Jul 13, 2011)

Scott put his email and said email and he would email a copy above.


----------



## Treknotechelaps (Jul 14, 2011)

I would of liked to see the paper assign names to the _milli_ complex as well including the reserecting of _husbandi_ etc.

I would have also... I read on another forum that the isolated Pilbara population will be described as a new species 'seorsus' by Doughty and Oliver
The western and eastern 'milii' look quite different from one another, how many species are lumped under the eastern 'milii'


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Jul 14, 2011)

Hmm interesting I have heard the Eastern and Western milli are not really different when it comes down to it. I have seen both in the wild and saw no superficial differences. Nonetheless for a paper with such a broad title it could have done a bit more species specific work than it did.


----------



## eipper (Jul 16, 2011)

Stephen,

It really depends on where your eastern and western "milli' are from. They are genetically distinct from each other and there are consistant yet subtle morphological differences. 

My understanding was the genetics of the pilibara milli are just that (milli) and are more or less genetically identical to the western (type pop) animals.

Cheerss,
Scott


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Jul 16, 2011)

Thanks Scott, I don't really know much about milli and was not looking at them in detail when I was in WA.


----------



## JasonL (Jul 18, 2011)

eipper said:


> Jason,
> 
> It is not really heresay...it comes down to the interpretation of the author(s) from the data that is available to them at the time. The point of difference for many taxonomists is the interpretation of the species concept. As methods is both the taking of and the analysis of data evolves, there will be a number of changes accordingly.
> 
> ...


----------



## eipper (Jul 18, 2011)

> Jamie James eh? never heard of him, is that a book? I'll look it up.



Jason,

Not quite sure what the above means?

In a recent conversation with a well known author re taxonomy and I will paraphase slightly but....
"the animals know which is which. We have a problem in the sense that we (Humans) are forever trying to put square pegs into round holes. All the while trying to arrange the holes in a certain order that seems to change with the seasons"

Spliters/Lumpers and all between, get used to the taxonomic rollercoaster......at least its always changing and it never seems to end.....I'd rather enjoy the ride myself, than worry about the next change in direction!

Cheers,
Scott


----------



## JasonL (Jul 18, 2011)

Thats a good quote Scott... and was sort of what I was saying by my initial comment that upset a few... basically I know what a milii is, I've kept and bred heaps, found literally thousands of them, and don't really care what the latest name is for them.... I was basically pointing out that some people place too much emphasis on a name.


----------



## Elapidae1 (Jul 18, 2011)

Jason, I quoted from the book, The Snake Charmer A Life And Death In Pursuit Of Knowledge, by Jamie James. It is the story of world renowned herpetologist Dr Joe Slowinski who died from the bite of a Many Banded Krait while leading one of the most arduos and ambitious expeditions ever into the jungles of Burma. 
Rather light reading but I found it very enjoyable.


----------



## JasonL (Jul 20, 2011)

cheer's Steve, I'll try and look it up.


----------



## Treknotechelaps (Jul 21, 2011)

eipper said:


> "the animals know which is which. We have a problem in the sense that we (Humans) are forever trying to put square pegs into round holes. All the while trying to arrange the holes in a certain order that seems to change with the seasons"
> 
> Spliters/Lumpers and all between, get used to the taxonomic rollercoaster......at least its always changing and it never seems to end.....I'd rather enjoy the ride myself, than worry about the next change in direction!



Great quote!
Taxonomy is really interesting, it will always be forever changing and always look forward to seeing new species described. It would all be pretty boring if every herp had a name that didn't change and every species had been described.
Especially places like Australia, where our herpetofauna is extremely diverse and alot of places have not been explored and surveyed for herps, there will constantly be taxonomic changes for a long while. There are so many new species to be named, species complexes to be split up, and more undiscovered species to be found, and few taxonomists in Australia (compared to other countries in the world). Enjoy the ride!


----------



## JasonL (Jul 22, 2011)

hahaha, there will NEVER come a day where every animal is described, too many people sharpening their razors to split hairs into microscopic pieces!


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Jul 22, 2011)

> hahaha, there will NEVER come a day where every animal is described, too many people sharpening their razors to split hairs into microscopic pieces!



We split with lasers these days. But I do think eventually all animals would be described, if we kept record of those already described and no major disaster wiped out humans, but that might end up problematic.


----------

