Subject: Re: tree frogs
Date: Mar 5 13:59:04 1998
From: Mike Patterson - mpatters at orednet.org




And my feeling at the time of the move to chorus frogs was that, at the
very least, the vernacular "Pacific Treefrog" should be kept for the
same reason that we refer to Turdus migratoris as American Robin rather
than something-or-other thrush and Stephen J Gould argued for Brontosuarus
over Apatosaurus. There are certain taxomomic arguements that are unnecessarily
traumatic in a cultural sense. I think Pacific Treefrog (for us Cascadians)
falls into this catagory.


>
>
>
>
>> It is probably worth mentioning, however, that Pacific Treefrog is,
>> taxonomically speaking, now considered to be a Chorusfrog not a Treefrog.
>
>Unfortunately, herpetologists don't seem to know for sure what our little,
>loud-mouthed frog is. Yes, the 1990 edition of "Standard Common and
>Current Scientific Name for North American Amphibians and Reptiles" gave
>us a new name, Pacific Chorusfrog, Pseudacris regilla which was based on
>electrophoresis, a genetic analysis. However, after that (and other
>publications) came out, Cocroft published a cladistic analysis of chorus
>frog phylogeny and concluded that the Pacific treefrog appears to be
>no more a Pseudacris than a Hyla. It may belong in its own genus.
>Cocroft recommended that Pacific Treefrog, Hyla regilla, be the preferred
>usage (largely due to its long-term standing and recognizability) until
>phylogenetic relationships could be further worked out.
>
>Kelly McAllister
>
>
>

--
*********************************
* Mike Patterson, Astoria, OR * 2000 mockingbirds = 2 kilomockingbirds
* mpatters at orednet.org *
http://www.pacifier.com/~mpatters