longirostris
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2007
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 171
When was the status of temporalis (and indeed longirostris, gilberti and burnsi) as a species within the Amphibolurus complex ever considered to be indisputably correct?
Without going into a drawn out discussion on the chronological sequence of events relating to the placement of species within the different genera, I will simply say that it depends on whose books you read. Cogger uses Lophognathus, Wilson and Swan use Amphibolurus. Some would say that because Coggers last revised edition is now 11 years it is not current. Wilson and Swan released their third edition late last year so is more relevant. I do not have that opinion. In my view (and others like me) it comes down to the quality of the taxonomic work done and published which has lead to the divergence of views. Some authors accept the work is substantive enough to justify the taxon changes, others do not.
Also, there are several recently published papers reporting DNA analysis that according to the authors could change the status of several taxa including those in Amphibolurus and Lophognathus. Until the morphological work is done (which the papers authors themselves acknowledge needs to be done) and better sampling techniques/sampling irregularities addressed, these papers should not be the catalyst for any species swapping between genera.
Myself personally, I have never thought that any Lophognathus species should be rolled into Amphibolurus until the last couple of years where I have changed my view on Burns dragon. I now believe that Burns dragon is rightly placed in Amphibolurus. I have also been of the opinion and expressed my view several times over the years that the Nobbi dragon should be in the Diporiphora complex. It is definately not Amphibolurus. As far as I am concerned Amphibolurus has 3 species, norrisi, muricatus and burnsi. I also believe that longirostris, temporalis and gilberti for the moment abd until now are/have been rightly placed in Lophognathus.
That does not mean that this cannot or will not change, in fact the papers I referred to earlier are proposing several changes pending, as I said earlier, full taxonomic studies to be undertaken. What is clear is that even the authors of these papers acknowledge Lophognathus as a currently valid genus, albeit subject to in their view some shifting of species into or out of it.
Unfortunately there is no real definitive right or wrong answer at this stage regarding your question because the work required to put the matter beyond dispute has not been done. There are those who have done bits and pieces including the "gel jocks" (to borrow the recently coined term from Scott Eipper) with their DNA analysis. The problem is that even this work is not conclusive or beyond criticism, which to their credit the authors recognise and suggest more work be undertaken before any taxon changes take place.
I continue to use Lophognathus because I believe it is more correct then Amphibolurus certainly for temporalis, gilberti and longirostris. As I have said before, I think on this forum in another thread some several months or more ago, I will continue to use Lophognathus for these species until someone conclusively and irrefuteably places them elsewhere. You put them where ever you like. It really is a bit like that at the present time.
