Una nova tortuga terrestre del pleistocè d'Eivissa

[cat] Les restes de tortuga trobades a la Cova de Ca Na Reia (Eivissa) probablement pertanyen a un únic individu que presentaria una llargària de la closca de 52 +- 4 cm. S'han observat unes poques modificacions que poden estar lligades al fenomen de la insularitat. S'assenyala la similitud entre la tortuga d'Eivissa i les espècies del gènere Cylindraspis.[spa] Los restos de tortuga encontrados en la Cova de Ca Na Reia (Eivissa) pertenecen probablemente a un solo individuo que presentaría una longitud del caparazón de 52 +- 4 cm. Se han observado algunas modificaciones que pueden estar relacionadas con el fenómeno de la insularidad. Se indica la semejanza entre la tortuga de Eivissa y las especies del género Cylindraspis

Découverte d’un vestige subfossile de la Tortue géante de La Réunion, Cylindraspis indica (Schneider, 1783) dans les falaises littorales de la commune de Petite-Ile, au Sud de l’île de La Réunion (Chelonii : Testudinidae)

Nous rapportons ici la découverte dans le Sud de La Réunion, plus précisément dans les falaises littorales de la commune de Petite-Ile, d’un vestige osseux subfossile attribué à Cylindraspis indica.We report the discovery in southern of Reunion, specifically in the coastal cliffs of the municipality of Petite-Ile, a subfossil bone of the giant tortoise of la Réunion, a species nowadays extinct

Pushing Taxonomy to Extiction?

Can we describe all species on Earth before they disappear? We argue that this is possible only by endowing taxonomy with professional manpower and appropriate material resources as required by big science. Contrary to Costello et al.’s (CMS) (1) statements, taxonomy is not an easy discipline accessible to all through a smartphone. It requires exhaustive training and long familiarity with field, specimens and literature (2). CMS’s argument is framed in terms of species numbers, but different, non-overlapping species concepts apply to bacteria, brambles and birds (3,4,5): “the species” as common unit of biodiversity does not exist (6). Even ignoring this conceptual and semantic issue, CMS’s estimates of undescribed biodiversity and extinction rates are based on insufficient evidence and poorly supported models. Biodiversity hotspots steadily emerge in geographic areas where diversity was long assumed to be largely described (7,8). The number of species, whatever species are, cannot be easily estimated because of the historical, rather than deterministic or teleological, nature of biological evolution (9,10). Extinction rates are highly context-sensitive (11), lineage- and region-dependant, thus generally difficult to ascertain (12) without thorough analyses of data such as IUCN’s estimates of threats and extinctions (13). However, evidence being mainly restricted to vertebrates, the extinction risks in most other groups remain terra incognita. Furthermore, recent surveys (14,15) do not support CMS’s optimistic predictions regarding extinction rates. CMS’s agenda emphasizes technology, voluntary work and recognition of subjective “morphospecies” (16). However, improvement of data storage and retrieval cannot substitute for the production of sound data. Serious taxonomists cannot describe two new species per week, as suggested by CMS’s calculations. Describing new species, even with the help of molecular data and especially in best-investigated groups, is increasingly demanding, following the “law of diminishing returns” (17). More than anything else, taxonomy requires professional manpower, unrestricted fieldwork and permanent collections

ZOOTAXA

www.mapress.com/zootaxa

Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation

Peer reviewe

Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences

The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & Nemésio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; Nemésio 2009a–b; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on 18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016

Etude systématique du genre endémique malgache Pyxis Bell, 1827 (Reptilia, Chelonii)

The main stages in the knowledge of the endemic malagasy genus Pyxis Bell, 1827 are stated here. The numerous features that the two species Pyxis arachnoides Bell, 1827 and Pyxis planicauda (Grandidier, 1867) have in common (pattern-color and morphology ; skull and shell osteology) are shown. This work includes the description of the four populations Pyxis arachnoides arachnoides, Pyxis arachnoides brygooi, Pyxis arachnoides matzi, Pyxis planicauda, and also gives information about their geographical range, type-specimen and type-locality. New definitions of the genus Pyxis and of the subgenus Acinixys are given, as well as hypotheses on the place of Pyxis among some testudinids.Après un rappel des principales étapes de notre connaissance du genre Pyxis Bell, 1827, de nombreuses particularités (externes et ostéologiques) communes à Pyxis arachnoïdes Bell, 1827 et à Pyxis planicauda (Grandidier, 1867) sont exposées ; les deux espèces, ainsi que les trois sous-espèces géographiques Pyxis arachnoïdes arachnoïdes Bell, 1827, Pyxis arachnoides brygooi (Vuillemin & Domergue, 1972) et Pyxis arachnoïdes matzi Bour, 1979 sont décrites ; les spécimens-types et les «terrae typicae » sont préci¬ sés. Parmi les caractères communs aux deux espèces, certains qui leur sont propres justifient la redéfinition des genres Pyxis Bell, 1827 et Acinixys Siebenrock, 1902, celui-ci abaissé au rang de sous-genre. Enfin le problème de la position du genre Pyxis parmi les Testudinidae est brièvement abordé.Bour Roger. Etude systématique du genre endémique malgache Pyxis Bell, 1827 (Reptilia, Chelonii). In: Bulletin mensuel de la Société linnéenne de Lyon, 50ᵉ année, n°4, avril 1981. pp. 132-144

Etude systématique du genre endémique malgache Pyxis Bell, 1827 (Reptilia, Chelonii). (suite et fin)

Bour Roger. Etude systématique du genre endémique malgache Pyxis Bell, 1827 (Reptilia, Chelonii). (suite et fin). In: Bulletin mensuel de la Société linnéenne de Lyon, 50ᵉ année, n°5, mai 1981. pp. 154-176