Now, 20 years later, The New Natural History of Madagascar has been published! At 2296 pages divided over two volumes, with contributions from over 600 researchers, this book dwarfs its predecessor, both in scope and size. Almost every part of the 2003 version has been rewritten. The amphibian and reptile sections of the book alone comprise 122 and 136 pages, respectively—undoubtedly the largest collection of Malagasy herpetological knowledge to be published since Frank Glaw’s and Miguel Vences’ 2007 Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar. I have had the great pleasure (and hard work) of contributing to some 13 chapters of the new book, all in Volume 2. These are chapters on Malagasy amphibians in general, the frog clades Tsingymantis,  Guibemantis, Gephyromantis, Mantidactylus & Boehmantis, Cophylinae, Scaphiophryninae, and Dyscophinae, and the reptiles Pseudoxyrhophiidae & Psammophiidae, Chamaeleonidae, Gekkonidae, and Uroplatus specifically. We started work on the writing of these chapters in 2019, and it was a huge effort by a large team of coauthors on this section alone; I cannot imagine how many person-hours were put into this project across all of the contributors. But I think you will find that it has paid off!

You can get the book on Amazon, NHBS, directly from the publishers @ Princeton University Press, and probably through your local bookstore. It is surprisingly affordable, considering its size and scope. But be aware that both volumes together is 8.42 kg, and its not exactly going to fit through your letterbox!

]]> http://www.markscherz.com/archives/5299/feed 4 5299 http://www.markscherz.com/archives/5292 http://www.markscherz.com/archives/5292#comments Wed, 02 Nov 2022 21:04:56 +0000 http://www.markscherz.com/?p=5292 Open access (OA) is increasingly demanded by funders, and of course is desired by researchers and readers alike. Yet some journals charge incredibly high fees for you to publish your research open access. This has led to a lot of researchers being resigned to either publish behind a paywall, or pay the huge fees.

It has come to my attention that many herpetologists are not aware that there are fantastic journals out there where you can publish open access completely for free, as well as a host of journals where you can publish your work for a somewhat reasonable price.

So, I have compiled this list of journals that publish herpetological work, divided into three categories: (1) Free OA Journals, where you can publish OA completely free of charge; (2) ‘Affordable’ OA Journals, where you can publish OA free if you are a relevant society member, or for less than €200; and (3) Expensive OA Journals, where OA is, in my opinion, excessively expensive.

I originally did not intend to include impact factors (IFs) here because I hate them, but I think it may be helpful for some graduate students to know them in order to be able to guide their decisions on where to publish in a way that is career-sensible. I am giving the Web of Science 2021 Journal IF.

A list of abbreviations is given at the end of this page.

This list will be periodically updated. Please get in touch if you think a journal is missing, or has been misrepresented on the list, but be aware that this list is based on my opinion, and is therefore explicitly subjective.

Completely Free OA Journals

These are journals where it is completely free to publish open access (at least usually). Some of these journals are not global in scope, but they are still worth mentioning.

Zoosystematics and Evolution – IF: 1.647

Systematics and evolutionary research on all organisms. Many new species of herps have been described in this journal. I understand they now have a relatively high level of demand, so they are slower to process articles than they used to be. The journal is beautifully formatted, and at least one author still receives a reprint of the volume when it is published.

Completely open access. Up to 10 published pages (16 for first or submitting authors from developing countries) published free until they fill their quota of 300 pages of articles per year. Authors can defer to the following year if they don’t want to pay the (very modest) APC that arises after this number. Details here.

Vertebrate Zoology – IF: 1.879

Articles on basically any aspect of vertebrate zoology. Many new species of herps have been described in this journal, especially longer papers because the publication is free of charge. The journal is beautifully formatted, and I think at least one author still receives a reprint of the volume when it is published.

Completely open access. No article processing charges, ever. Details here.

Evolutionary Systematics – IF not indexed

Systematics and evolutionary research on all organisms. Many new species of herps have been described in this journal. The journal is beautifully formatted.

Completely open access. 200 pages of articles per year are free of charge. Once those are used up, there is an undisclosed fee for publication, or authors can defer publication to the following year. Details here.

Herpetological Conservation and Biology – IF 0.595

Dedicated herpetological journal, publishing on the ecology, natural history, management, and conservation biology of amphibians and reptiles. This is a really excellent initiative, and is clearly successful. My only reservation about this journal is that they require two spaces after fullstops, to which I am strongly opposed.

Completely open access. No article processing charges, ever. Details here.

Journal of North American Herpetology – IF not indexed

Dedicated herpetological journal, publishing on any topic related to herpetology in North America.

Completely open access, apparently no article processing charges. Details here.

Caribbean Herpetology – IF not indexed

Dedicated herpetological journal, publishing on any topic related to herpetology in the Caribbean.

Completely open access. No article processing charges, ever. Details here.

European Journal of Taxonomy – IF 1.372

Dedicated taxonomic journal, publishing on all metazoans. Many new herp species have been described in this journal. The formatting leaves a lot to be desired, but hey, it’s free.

Completely open access. No article processing charges, ever. Details here.

‘Affordable’ OA Journals

These are journals that are entirely or partly open access, where the cost of publication and/or open access fee is less than €200, or a societal membership can make it under €200. This cutoff is set arbitrarily, based on the maximum amount that I would ever consider paying out of pocket for a paper to be OA.

Salamandra, IF 1.765 – Completely open access. Free to publish if one or two authors is a member of the DGHT (depending on the number of authors), up to 20 pages. €35 per published page for non-members, at a minimum of €140. Details here.

Journal of Herpetology, IF 1.43 – Free to publish if an author is a member of the SSAR, otherwise $100 per printed page. Open access fee is just $150 (cannot be waived).

Herpetology Notes, IF not indexed – Completely open access. APC is €50 for the first five pages plus €5 for each additional page plus €10 for each table exceeding 25 rows and/or 5 columns. Members of SEH reduced to €40 for the first five pages. Details here.

The Herpetological Journal, IF 1.194 – Seemingly free open access if an author is a member of the BHS, and £97 for non-members.

Russian Journal of Herpetology, IF 0.636 – Free to publish. Automatically open access after 24 months, but authors are encouraged to archive and share their work publicly even before then.

Asian Herpetological Research, IF 1.516 – Completely open access, very cheap page charges (¥600 per grayscale page, ¥900 per colour page).

Zootaxa, IF 1.091 – Free to publish. Open access is $20 per page, so this is a really borderline case; many taxonomic works are well over 10 pages, so Zootaxa leans towards the blacklist.

Expensive OA Journals

These are journals for which there is either a high and unwaivable APC or an excessively high OA fee. By excessively high, I mean sometimes ≥100 individuals would need to buy access to an article for the journal to make the same amount of money they would get from OA on that article. I highly doubt the vast majority of articles achieve that number of purchases/downloads, so by setting the OA fee so high, the publishing houses/journals/societies are earning much more from your work than they would if you didn’t publish OA (and to be honest the fact that they are earning anything at all from your work is deeply problematic). The cost to the journal is no different, so this is pure profit to them. Because OA articles do perform better, in terms of readership and citations, than non-OA articles, most of us surely want to publish OA, and these journals are using that desire to demand these, in my opinion excessively high, OA fees. If OA is your goal, I recommend avoiding these journals unless you have either an institutional way to pay for them, or are rolling in cash.

NB: Some of these journals are still great if you don’t care about your research being OA, but that is not what this list is about. 

NB2: I think it goes without saying that all of the Springer Nature (e.g. Nature, Nature Communications, Nature Ecology and Evolution, Scientific Reports), and Science (e.g. Science, Science Advances) publishing groups’ journals fall in this category, so I have not bothered listing them.

NB3: These are roughly sorted from low to high price. However, bear in mind that (1) some are impossible to estimate because they depend on article length, and (2) those that allow payment in different currencies can be much much cheaper to pay in one currency than another, because of the market fluctuations in 2022).

Zookeys, IF 1.492 – Completely open access. APC is €780 for papers 1–40 pages long, €25 per page for papers up to 300 pages long.

Megataxa, IF not indexed (too new) – Completely open access. APC is $20 per page, so the same as Zootaxa, but Megataxa requires OA, and expects monographs, so the fee is often very high. This is also a borderline case to me, but it is on the excessively expensive side of the border.

PeerJ, IF 3.061 – Completely open access, but APC is $1395. You can get around this by all of the authors having PeerJ membership, but that can wind up being more expensive than the APC (lifetime membership is currently at least $399 per author).

MDPI Animals (and related MDPI journals), IF 3.231 – Borderline predatory publishing house. Completely open access, but APC is CHF 1800+VAT.

PLoS One, IF 3.752 – Completely open access, but APC is $1805.

Herpetologica (IF 2.653) & Herpetological Monographs (IF 2.909) – Open access fee for members of the HL is $2000, non-members pay $2500. APC even for members for paywalled articles is high at $25 per page for HL members, $74 for non-members. Fees are only waived completely if all authors are HL members. $400 per colour page in print.

Ichthyology and Herpetology, IF 1.857 – Free to publish if the corresponding author is a member of the ASIH (as long as fewer than 10 colour figures), but $200 per published page for non-members‽ Open access is $2000 for members, $3500 for non-members.

Frontiers in Amphibian and Reptile Science (and related Frontiers journals), IF not indexed (too new) – Borderline predatory publishing house. Completely open access, but APC is $2080 for normal articles.

Amphibia-Reptilia, IF 1.839 – No APC, but open access fee is €2150/$2550. Members of SEH receive a 40% discount on this.

Ecology and Evolution, IF 3.17 – Completely open access. APC is $2,200/£1,600/€1,800, but there are waivers and discounts to authors from developing countries. Note that although I think the fees are still excessive, Ecology and Evolution have the single best philosophy statement I have ever come across, and I think this is a fantastic journal.

Zoologischer Anzeiger, IF 1.581 – Open access fee is $3310.

The Science of Nature, IF 2.427 – Open access fee is £2290.00/$3390.00/€2690.00.

Organisms, Diversity & Evolution, IF 2.663 – Open access fee is £2290.00/$3390.00/€2690.00.

African Journal of Herpetology, IF 2.563 – No APC, but open access fee is $3400 even for authors from developing countries.

Zoological Research, IF 4.56 – Completely open access, but APC is $1500 for up to 10 pages, then $100 per page up to 15 pages, then $200 per page, and there is a $100 surcharge per colour page.  

Zoologica Scripta, IF 3.185 – Open access fee is $3600/£2400/€3000.

Journal of Zoology, IF 2.394 – Open access fee is $3900/£2600/€3250.

Uncertain

Current Herpetology, IF 0.737 – Free to publish (but you may have to pay for colour figures in print), and apparently some papers are chosen to become OA for free, but it is not clear if you can publish OA yourself, nor what that costs.

The Herpetological Bulletin, IF 0.422 – Free to publish, free to read for society members, automatically OA after one year, but apparently no way to make something OA sooner.

Herpetological Review, IF 0.216 – Part of the journal is open access, part is not. There are apparently no page charges, but the journal doesn’t seem to have a means to make specific articles open access.

To be filed

Thanks to various individuals for bringing these additional journals to my attention. I will categorise them soon.

• Herpetozoa
• Reptiles and Amphibians
• Butlletí de la Societat Catalana d’Herpetologia
• Bonn zoological Bulletin
• North-Western Journal of Zoology
• Ecologica Montenegrina
• Records of the Australian Museum
• Records of the Western Australian Museum
• Memoirs of the Queensland Museum
• Memoirs of the Museum Victoria
• ZooNova
• Acta Herpetologica
• Amphibian and Reptile Conservation
• Captive & Field Herpetology
• Taprobanica

Abbreviations:

APC = Article Processing Charge

ASIH = American Society of Ichthyology and Herpetology

BHS = British Herpetological Society

DGHT = Deutsche Gesellschaft für Herpetologie und Terrarienkunde

HL = Herpetologist’s League

OA = Open Access

SEH = Societas Europaea Herpetologica

SSAR = Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles

Students and lecturers from Sokoine University of Agriculture, CONTAN lecturers, and park officials, outside the lecture hall at the UEMC.

30 students each from three different Tanzanian higher education institutions (Sokoine University of Agriculture, University of Dar es Salaam, and Mweka College of African Wildlife Management) received two weeks of training: one week at Kilimanjaro with one set of lecturers, followed by one week at the UEMC with another. At the UEMC, the team consisted of Professor Francesco Rovero of MUSE (Science Museum of Trento, Italy) and his PhD student Ilaria Greco, teaching mammal surveying and monitoring methods (including some hardcore hands-on R analysis of Distance sampling data); Associate Professor Thomas Pape, Curator of Diptera at the Natural History Museum of Denmark, teaching entomological diversity, classification, identification, and field methods; and me.

My lectures included a general introduction to herpetology, an intro to the herpetofauna of East Africa, an overview of surveying and capture techniques for various amphibians and reptiles, an introduction to bioacoustic recording and analysis, and an introduction to Citizen Science platforms and iNaturalist specifically. Not only were we teaching the students in the classroom, but we were also taking them out, both for day walks and night walks, and demonstrating many of the methods hands-on. Many had never been in the forest at night before.

Hands-on teaching about the frogs of Udzungwa Mountains National Park at night in a low-elevation stream.

A demonstration of snake behaviour with Dipsadoboa flavida, a rear-fanged but non-dangerous colubrid

Although exhausting, the experience was hugely rewarding, both for us the lecturers, and hopefully also for the students. Many students had never held a frog or a lizard before, but by the end, most had at least tried to catch one. Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of the students had a deep-seated fear of snakes. I tried to combat as many misconceptions as I could, while also keeping the clear message that I, too, am afraid to venomous snakes, but that understanding the animals and respecting their space is the safest way to avoid a dangerous encounter with them.

Although it was the dry season, we had fairly good success finding both squamates and anurans during the day and night walks. At low elevation we found at least 13 frog species (there may have been more than one Phrynobatrachus species), and 14 squamates.

The greatest surprises were Afrixalus stuhlmanni, A. fornasini, and Amietia tenuoplicata, apparently none of which were known from the area before (though I find that hard to believe with A. tenuoplicata, as it is very common indeed along waterways); and Arthroleptides yakusini, which was thought to be restricted to elevations above 600 m a.s.l., but which was fairly common (we found them on every night walk in a low-elevation stream) around 350 m a.s.l. Higher up, I found a couple rather interesting frogs; many Arthroleptis xenodactyloides, but also a curious Phrynobatrachus that I cannot immediately assign to a species. Unfortunately, I did not have more than a few hours at high elevation, so there is a great deal more exploration I need to do on this mountain.

Among squamates, there were many highlights, including Dipsadoboa flavida, a gorgeous treesnake; Mochlus afer, a stunning skink; Cordylus tropidosternum, a bizarre spiny lizard (at higher elevation); and of course the chameleons Rieppeleon brevicaudatus (also at higher elevation) and Chamaeleo dilepis.

On the whole, a very rewarding trip! I hope to be able to return to the Udzungwa mountains again, and especially the higher elevation reaches of the forest, to do some proper research on its fascinating and unique herpetofauna.

The first of January 2021 saw me starting a new job: PI on a three-year German Research Foundation (DFG) funded PostDoc project in Michael Hofreiter’s group at the University of Potsdam. Ella and I had moved to Potsdam just two months earlier to prepare for the position. It was exciting to be joining a new group, and working on a passion-project that involved learning new methods to broaden my repertoire. I quickly got to know some of my lab mates, but getting fully integrated was challenging, because from day one, meetings were held over zoom.

The Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin has part of its scientific collections on display in one of the most remarkable rooms in any natural history museum I have ever visited.

The Potsdam project is in the DFG Priority Programme SPP-1991 on ‘Taxon-OMICS’. The project is called ‘FrogCap for the Taxonomic Gap: Harnessing Hybrid Enrichment for Next-Generation Taxonomy’. The goal is to integrate new methods, especially FrogCap, the hybrid enrichment bait set developed by Carl Hutter, to get genomic data from type material of cophyline frog species in order to clarify old names and enable taxonomic revisions and descriptions of new species. Over the following months, I started work in the lab with Michaela Preick, and started collecting material from different museums across Europe. I got a Visiting Researcher contract set up with the Museum für Naturkunde (MfN) in Berlin to facilitate my work there.

In May, I also received the CETAF E-SCoRe award for Excellence in Scientific Collections-based Research, for a portfolio of work I submitted in January. It was a great pleasure to present my work to the members of the CETAF committee.

In the meantime, something very unexpected happened: in December 2020 I had applied for a dream job, a position as a Tenure-Track Assistant Professor and Curator in Vertebrate Zoology at the Natural History Museum of Denmark (NHMD) and University of Copenhagen. In March, after the application had been long since forgotten, I got back feedback on it—unexpectedly positive feedback! Days later, I was invited for an interview. Two weeks later I found myself in a zoom call with eight people from the museum and university, from my office in our Potsdam flat. A week after that I was invited to Copenhagen, and three days later Ella and I found ourselves on a plane heading to an in-person interview and tour of the museum. Finally, on the 7th of May, I was offered and accepted the job.

So in August, ten months after moving to Potsdam, eight months into my new PostDoc, and one month after I had finally received permanent residence in Germany, Ella and I dropped everything and moved to Denmark. We’re still recovering from the whiplash.

This was a huge change. Denmark may share a border with Germany, and the language may share many features, but the culture is very different, and getting into the Danish system is slow and, at times, frustrating. The job, however, made the whole ordeal worthwhile. The NHMD is extremely old, with some material dating back to the mid-17th century. The herpetological collection, which I am now curator of, is modest at just around 60,000 specimens, but it is species-rich, and has been worked on by many noted herpetologists over the years. I am so excited to have it in my care. My collections manager, Daniel Klingberg Johansson, is also absolutely fantastic, and I am looking forward to developing and growing the collection over the coming years!

The herpetological collections of the NHMD; now my responsibility!

My first day at work was unforgettable: every now and then a whale will strand on Denmark’s coastline, and as the country’s national museum, it comes to us. The 1st of September was a whale day. A beaked whale had beached a few days earlier, and been brought to the museum to be dissected. I took some choice photographs, and by luck, one of the ones I posted on twitter went viral, putting me on news websites and television on my first day!

This is what it looks like when you remove the inter-digital flesh from a whale’s flipper. Amazing to see how well the pentadactyl limb is retained! pic.twitter.com/GPu602wXz5

— Dr Mark D. Scherz (@MarkScherz) September 1, 2021

Natasha (left) and Laura (middle) and me in our office during one of the early intensive gallery planning meetings.

The NHMD had made four new hires at the same time: Natasha de Vere came in as an Associate Professor and Curator of Botany, Laura Cotton came in as an Assistant Professor and Curator of Palaeontology, and Kim Steenstrup Pedersen came in as Professor of Computer Vision and Digital Natural History, and Curator of Digital Collections. Two weeks after starting, Natasha, Laura, and I were brought on as the three curators (Natasha as lead curator, Laura and myself as assistant curators) for a new permanent gallery on Biodiversity in the new NHMD buildings being constructed. We found ourselves having long meetings twice a week working towards very tight deadlines, but the work was fun and totally different from anything I had done before. That work is ongoing, and will be for the next few years!

I was also invited to give a talk at the Science Gala of the University of Copenhagen. I talked there about tiny chameleons (on which more below), and the whole feeling of the evening was amazing.

Meanwhile, my project in Potsdam had to continue. Once I knew that I would be moving to Copenhagen, I needed to either take the grant with me or hire a replacement onto my position so that it could continue in Potsdam. The latter was by far the better option, but finding a replacement would be difficult and time consuming. Here, I got really lucky: by chance, a PostDoc at the MfN named Alice Petzold had reached out to me to talk about herps early in 2021. She was interested in museomics, herpetology, and learning bioinformatics, and just as I got the news that I would be moving, she was looking for a new PostDoc. So I brought her onto the project as my replacement—and I could not have made a better choice! Working with her over the past few months has been absolutely great, and I am looking forward to the next two years of having her on the project. I also took on a Bachelor’s student, Clara Keusgen, who is working on different aspects of the project, partially for her Bachelor’s project, partially as an assistant—another really promising student who it is great to have on board.

While things were moving and shaking in my academic positions, I also launched two big passion projects in outreach: Firstly, I embarked on an epic journey to tweet through all of the frogs of Madagascar, one species per day, in chronological order of their description, under the hashtags #MadagascarFrogs and #FrogOfTheDay. This was prompted by us exceeding 365 frog species known from Madagascar in 2020. This wound up being one of the most challenging commitments I have ever made, consuming a total of over 300 hours of my year, but I am incredibly proud that I managed to not miss a single species/day all year. The project will continue a little into 2022 as well, as we now have 376 described frog species known from Madagascar.

In 2020, Madagascar surpassed 365 described frog species, so EVERY DAY in 2021 I am tweeting about a different #FrogOfTheDay from Madagascar! To make it easier to follow along on our tour of the #MadagascarFrogs, I will QT each species into this thread. pic.twitter.com/slUNKAFdse

— Dr Mark D. Scherz (@MarkScherz) January 31, 2021

Secondly, Katharina Ruthsatz, Miguel Vences, and I embarked on a project to bring anatomical dissection instructions to YouTube, on a channel called AnatomyInsights. In August we published a paper announcing the project, which is aimed at Bachelor’s level students, and is meant to be both a companion to traditional dissection, and a potential study guide for students. We are currently releasing videos on a monthly schedule, and Katharina’s work on the channel’s instagram is particularly worth checking out!

On the publication front, I coauthored 13 peer-reviewed papers in 2021. I was lucky to be involved in two papers that swept the media in early the year; first our publication of the discovery of neon-green fluorescence in the web-footed gecko, Pachydactylus rangei, and then the description of Brookesia nana, the world’s smallest reptile (probably). These were huge highlights of the year.

Taxonomically, 2021 saw the publication of the new species of ground gecko, Paroedura rennerae, and revalidation of P. guibeae, a taxonomic overhaul of the narrow-mouthed frogs of the Scaphiophryne calcarata species complex with revalidation of S. obscura, the new blindsnake Madatyphlops eudelini from Mayotte, and the new leaf-litter frog species Gephyromantis (Duboimantis) pedronoi, and redefinition of G. (D.) plicifer and G. (D.) sculpturatus. I was also among the coauthors of a new phylogeny of Lygodactylus day geckos, which revealed a surprisingly great undescribed diversity. Outside of Madagascar, I was involved in the description of the new genus Nanohyla for a clade of small frogs formerly included in Microhyla, and in a response to a paper purporting to accelerate the description of species by omitting all of the useful parts of species description. We also published a short note describing the reproduction of a newly discovered Stumpffia species in Ambohitantely Special Reserve in central Madagascar.

I am particularly proud of a paper I coauthored with Catherine Strong and Michael Caldwell, which discusses the evolution of microstomy in snakes, and the fact that this is not a single ‘state’ but has been arrived at through numerous convergent routes in different lineages of snakes. I have seldom been involved in a paper that was so well written, and almost all the credit for that goes to Catherine, who has just moved to Harvard to pursue her PhD.

Finally, several researchers from the Priority Programme 1991 Taxon-OMICS, led by Miguel Vences, came together to develop and publish a new toolkit to facilitate groundwork in taxonomy called iTaxoTools. In its first year of development, this toolkit already has a huge set of easy-to-use tools, including a genetic distance-calculator, coordinate corrector, DNA file format converter, concatenation tool, DNA-based diagnosis tool, morphological measurement comparison tool, and so the list goes on… The paper announcing the project was published in Megataxa. The project itself is hosted on GitHub, and all tools are open source. I myself have already integrated several of the tools into my day-to-day taxonomic routines.

As always, most of the papers I worked on in 2021 are not out yet. In particular, I spent a lot of time working on papers from my last postdocs, chapters for an upcoming book (currently in proof, hopefully published in 2022), and several major monographs (some coming in 2022, some probably 2023). I am ending the year with three papers in review and three in revision; not as many as this time last year, but considering how difficult and full the year has been, I am quite pleased with how it has gone.

For previous years in review, click here: 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016

Figure 4 of our new paper, showing the distribution of the new species and Madatyphlops comorensis

Aside from this technicality, of course, Madatyphlops eudelini has nothing to do with European herpetofauna, but instead belongs to the fascinating island fauna of the Comoros Archipelago. This is a hot-spot volcanic island chain (like Hawai’i and the Galapagos) that hosts a diverse endemic fauna and flora with a mixture of Malagasy and mainland African flavours to it. The new snake species is no exception: the genus Madatyphlops is largely endemic to the island of Madagascar, with the exception of the previously known M. comorensis from the Comoros (a nation unto itself, composed of the other three major islands in this hotspot; geopolitics is complicated!). Madatyphlops eudelini adds a second species of Madatyphlops from this archipelago, and a third blindsnake species (Indotyphlops braminus, the world’s most widespread snake), is present as well, undoubtedly due to human introduction.

The team at the top of Mt. Benara, shortly after finding the second specimen of Madatyphlops eudelini. From left to right: Rémy Eudeline, Cynthia Wang-Claypool, Ludovic Montfort, myself (apologies for the open shirt!), and Oliver Hawlitschek.

Oliver Hawlitschek, lead author on the study, has been working on the Comoros Archipelago, and especially Mayotte, for years. Mayotte has a high peak, Mt. Benara, which has been frequently surveyed in Oliver’s work, but he had never come across a Madatyphlops there in dozens of surveys. Rémy Eudeline, a teacher and nature enthusiast, visited the mountain once in October 2014 and found a little blindsnake that looked decidedly different from the other species, apparently freshly dead on the path. He collected it, preserved it, and showed it to us when we visited the island a month later. We suspected then that it might be a new species, and set out to re-visit the mountain as part of our surveys and with the hope of finding another specimen. Rémy accompanied us, but this time it was Oliver who found a second specimen!

We examined the specimens and confirmed that they are quite different from every other species of blindsnake. They are clearly Madatyphlops species based on DNA, and differ from M. comorensis in a host of characters, not least of which are substantially larger body size, and white colouration along a stripe on the belly of the snake (M. comorensis is uniformly dark in colour). I micro-CT scanned both species, and we found a few subtle characters in the skull that also differ between the two (and provided the first detailed osteological description of any Madatyphlops species). And so we had confirmed that this is a new species. To recognise Rémy’s uncanny ability to find these snakes, we dedicated the species to him.

The skull of Madatyphlops eudelini. Typhlopid blindsnakes have truly bizarre skulls compared to other snakes, with very unique jaw mechanisms. They are super-specialised for subterranean life-style and gobbling up eusocial insects like termites and ants.

Madatyphlops eudelini is currently thought to be endemic to a tiny area of Mayotte. Just how tiny is that area? We estimate that the occurrence of this species, which has (based admittedly on a tiny sample size) only been found near the peak of Mt. Benara at ~585 m a.s.l., is probably limited to an area not larger than 20 km². That’s an extremely small distribution range, putting the species at potential risk of extinction. However, we consider its habitat to be tolerably well protected, and therefore have suggested it instead be listed as Vulnerable, until and unless its habitats come under threat, at which point it could jump to Critically Endangered overnight.

In recent years, the work of Oliver Hawlitschek, Frank Glaw (senior author on this study), and other colleagues has increased our knowledge of the reptiles and amphibians of the Comoros Archipelago by leaps and bounds. They’ve described new species of geckos, snakes, and even frogs. Slowly completing the puzzle of the archipelago’s fauna is a key step towards understanding where it came from, how it got there, and what happened when it arrived. Volcanic archipelagos present wonderful systems to understand evolution in action, and the Comoros Archipelago is a prime example that has, so far, not been awarded nearly enough attention. I am excited to see what else it will yield in the coming years!

Finally, on a personal note, this is a milestone for me because it is not only the first species of snake I have gotten to help describe, but is also 80th species I have coauthored! It is such a privilege for me to get to work on these fascinating animals with such great colleagues. There is still so much more to come!

Hawlitschek, O., Scherz, M.D., Webster, K.C., Ineich, I. & Glaw, F. (2021) Morphological, osteological, and genetic data support a new species of Madatyphlops (Serpentes: Typhlopidae) endemic to Mayotte Island, Comoros Archipelago. Anatomical Record. DOI: 10.1002/ar.24589

My 2019 started with fondue and raclette, surrounded by friends. But on the 2nd of January I was back at it already, working hard on what would take up the majority of my year: preparation of my PhD thesis. By January, I had chosen the chapters that would be included in the thesis, I had a skeleton of my introduction, but nothing else. Over the next few months, the thesis would grow to over 300 pages, with eleven chapters in three sections, not including the introduction and discussion.

The next day, I submitted a paper to Zoosystematics and Evolution describing a tiny Brookesia species; read on for more on that!

I published twelve papers in 2019, which is a few less than 2018, but still quite nice as a few were rather important for me. My first publication of the year was the description of Uroplatus finaritra, a beautiful, large species of leaf-tailed gecko, that we had collected a few specimens of on my trip to Marojejy in northeastern Madagascar in 2016 (read about that trip here). Like almost all Uroplatus species, this was published in Zootaxa. This was a really cool project for me, because U. finaritra is closely related to U. phantasticus, which was one of the geckos that got me hooked on Madagascar in the first place, and, if anything, is only more spectacular than that species. You can also read a bit about this gecko in the Mongabay article about it.

The second paper of the year was the description of the very weird skull of Xenotyphlops grandidieri, a blindsnake from Madagascar that has a family all of its own, published in the Journal of Anatomy. This paper arose from a bachelor’s project of Johann Chretien. He put days of work into getting the skull segmented, and the two of us, spent hours working on the description of the skull, which is difficult to compare to other snakes because it has a strong inflection in the middle of the snout. As supervisor, I was last author on this paper, and on Monday the 6th of January I will be giving a talk on the interesting conclusions that we took away from this study at the World Congress of Herpetology in Dunedin, New Zealand. Follow me on twitter for updates on that congress in real time!

In March, my third paper of the year was published, the description of Brookesia tedi, one of the smallest chameleons (and indeed amniotes) in the world. This was the first chameleon description I have gotten to lead, and this is a really enchanting little animal. The paper was published in Zoosystematics and Evolution, which is an open access journal, so you can read it here. This was the second fastest paper I have ever published, lasting just 62 days from submission, mentioned above on the 3rd of January, to publication.

By this time, I had cobbled together my PhD thesis, writing several dozen pages and learning Adobe InDesign on the side to layout the whole thing. Soon, it was ready for submission, and I handed it in on the 21st of March. Regrettably, there then followed a rather long lull in the procession of the thesis, for there was a miscommunication among the reviewers that led to a considerable delay.

Mini in the 20 Minuten, the daily I used to read on my way to or from school in Switzerland

One week after submitting the thesis, one of the chapters was published in PLoS One, a real highlight: the description of five tiny frogs from Madagascar, including the new genus Mini and the three species Mini mum, Mini scule, and Mini ature. This got quite a lot of media attention, and has indeed just been featured as an Editor’s Pick on the PLoS One blog. I myself wrote about these new frogs here on the blog. By a happy coincidence, another of the species we described in this paper, Anodonthyla eximia, was also the 8000th amphibian added to the Amphibian Species of the World 6.0 database!

As a reward to myself for surviving this crazy period, I then took a few weeks off, and travelled to Madagascar with Dr David Prötzel and Dr Frank Glaw and their families for a mostly-holiday trip on Nosy Be. This was my first visit to that island, which is a popular tourist destination, but I was pleased to find that the Lokobe National Park is well preserved, and still completely abuzz with life. I also got the immeasurable pleasure of seeing a live Rhombophryne testudo, the type species of the diamond frogs that started my taxonomic career in Madagascar.

In the following months, while my thesis was slowly making the rounds, I had three more papers published, describing a new gecko, a new frog, and the community composition of Stumpffia frogs on Marojejy (these are the small frogs we described 26 new species of back in 2017). I also spent some time in Braunschweig helping to teach a course on vertebrate morphology. Then, finally, the thesis came back, fortunately with the best possible mark and no changes needed, and I was free to scramble to schedule my defence. After quite a bit of nail biting, a date was finally found that was feasible, if not ideal, for all parties. So, on the 11th of July, I was able to defend my thesis, with many friends and family members in the audience. I wrote a tiny bit about the thesis and the whole thing previously, if you want to know a bit more about the breakdown of my thesis and the breakdowns I had in putting it together.

August saw three more papers published, describing two new frogs and a bit of biogeography. The second of these papers was again published in PLoS One, and was the first chapter of my thesis. It focussed on the problems the IUCN Red List has with species complexes. I blogged about this paper here and over on The Conversation, because I think it is a particularly important issue that is misrepresenting the threats that biodiversity is facing today. Then, in September, I went to Milan to present at the European Congress of Herpetology. This was a really delightful meeting, with many friends, and I gave a short talk on the herpetofauna of the Comoros, which I have worked a little bit on together with Dr Oliver Hawlitshek.

My last paper truly published in 2019 was another Uroplatus species, U. fetsy from the bizarre Ankarana karst habitat in northern Madagascar. It has been a good year for leaf-tailed geckos! Again this was published in Zootaxa, and again, the paper was featured on Mongabay. To find specimens of this gecko, I went on a very brief foray into Ankarana in 2018, and luckily we managed to find a single female.

Uroplatus fetsy

Around August I also accepted a PostDoc position in the Meyer Lab at the University of Konstanz in southern Germany. My position there started at the beginning of November, working on a variety of evolutionary and genomic questions with cichlids as a model group; a step away from herps and Madagascar to broaden my methodological repertoire and gain some important new experiences. Although it is all very new, I have already learned a huge amount, and I am looking forward to seeing what 2020 brings.

2019 wasn’t only successes and delights. I spent a large part of this year working on a paper on some interesting chameleon morphology, including some pretty intense statistical analyses and phylogenomics. It has become a paper I am rather proud of, and that numerous colleagues have contributed to. Yet, despite our high hopes for this paper, it has wound up rejected from five journals in a row, and is currently pending appeal of the fifth rejection.

But to end on a highlight: Two more papers are accepted, the first, discussing the allopatric origins of sympatric sister species of frogs on Montagne d’Ambre, is already online ahead of print in Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, and the second, describing several new Calumma species, is due to be published in Vertebrate Zoology in February.

Indeed, 2019 has ended on a personal highlight as well, as my partner, Ella Z. Lattenkamp, and I got engaged. A joyful way to end a very tough but rewarding year. I will be very interested to see what the next decade holds!

For previous years in review, click here: 2018, 2017, 2016

A less technical companion article to this one has been published in The Conversation.

The IUCN Red List: a vital but blunt instrument of conservation

The current IUCN Categories. From https://www.iucnredlist.org/about/regional

The Red List is perhaps the single most widely-used resource for conservation. When we talk about how threatened animals or plants are, we are almost always referencing their threat statuses in the Red List. To briefly summarise how it works: species are given a rank on a scale of Least Concern (no conservation action needed), Near Threatened (almost qualifies for one of the threatened categories), Vulnerable (at risk of falling down the scale), Endangered (conservation action needed), and Critically Endangered (urgent conservation action needed). Two more ‘threat’ ranks exist: Extinct in the Wild, and Extinct, but we hope that we never have to use these. Finally, there are two more categories that do not have any bearing on the conservation status of the organisms; these are Data Deficient (we don’t know enough to assign a threat rank) and Not Evaluated (we haven’t figured it out yet, but wanted to keep its name in the list).

Where do those ranks come from? Well, they’re given in consultation between Red List Assessors and experts on the organisms. This is something the Red list does really well—getting expert opinions. Who knows the threats better than an expert on the group? The IUCN has Species Survival Commission (SSC) Specialist Groups, who work on coordinating conservation assessment of specific groups of animals and plants. I, for example, am a member of the IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group, and have been actively involved in assessment of most of Madagascar’s frogs.

Assessments are done according to the IUCN Red List criteria. There are five criteria, lettered A–E. These are surprisingly easy to understand at a basic level; you can download a simple reference sheet of what the criteria refer to in English, French, and Spanish here. The full, detailed guidelines can be found here in the same three languages.

If you take a look at these reference sheets or guidelines, you will note that all of the criteria except criterion B refer to population size or some kind of prediction of extinction risk. Criterion B, on the other hand, refers to distribution area, the so-called ‘spread of risk’ to a species. This criterion rests on the logic that organisms concentrated in one tiny area have a concentrated risk, while those spread over a large area have a low risk as a whole, even if individual populations are extirpated. Thus, we can guesstimate the extinction risk of an animal based on the area over which it is found, and the threats facing it or its habitat within that area.

As area is so much easier to quantify than population size, a huge number of species are assessed under Criterion B. Of all 6022 assessed frogs, 1909 are in threatened categories (Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered). Of these 83.6% are assessed under criterion B! A small percentage are classified under Criterion D2, which is the only other criterion that is also based on distribution area.

Criterion B acts as our blunt instrument in the conservation assessment of animals where we do not (and sometimes simply cannot) have an idea of how large their population sizes are, and modelling of extinction risk is not possible, because we do not know enough to do so.

Indeed, Criterion B can be applied in cases where nearly nothing is known about a species except its whereabouts. Animals assessed under Criterion B are sometimes known from a single specimen. This is because the current IUCN guidelines strongly discourage the use of the category Data Deficient (DD), and encourage the use of even minimal data to assess the species. The result is the following: technically, as long as an animal is known from at least one geo-referenced specimen, it is found in a tiny area and known from a single location. As long as some kind of threat can at least be hypothesised for that location and/or species, the animal qualifies as Critically Endangered under Criterion B1ab(iii). Thus, based on this single data point, we can avoid using DD, even though our knowledge is, in fact, data-deficient in every possible way.

As you can imagine, this is quite a problem. There is no way to judge the quality of data behind a Red List assessment without diving into that assessment itself, so a critically endangered rhinoceros looks the same on the list as a critically endangered frog, even though the former can have every individual tagged and collared, while the latter is known from a single data point.

Species complexes are… complex

So what happens when we have a species complex? A species complex is a group of species that are difficult or impossible to discern based on current evidence. A huge number of ‘species’ are actually turning out to be species complexes as we look closer. They are a physical and conceptual manifestation of taxonomic uncertainty. We don’t necessarily know how a species complex is going to turn out until we have put the energy in to resolve it.

It helps to understand that there is a crucial difference between species names, and the species entities themselves. Each name ideally refers to a single species, but as soon as more than one species might be masquerading under the same name, we have a complex. Often, we have a collection of names that have been published in the scientific literature over the years, but it is not quite clear which name refers to which species, and there is a mismatch in the number of names and species-level units (genetic lineages). Such species complexes can be sprawling nightmares and require dozens of years of work from the bright brains of dedicated scientists to resolve (all the while being underfunded and often lacking job security). We cannot know the number of species in a complex before putting in the taxonomic work to resolve it.

Let me give you an example: the Calumma nasutum species complex, a group of beautiful but taxonomically complicated chameleons. In 2012, Gehring et al. showed that there were seven species described from this group (seven names), but it contained 27 deep genetic lineages. That could mean there would be as many as 27 species in the complex as a whole—a dramatic mismatch between names and species-level genetic lineages. Are there simply 20 species awaiting description?

Well, my colleagues and I started working on the taxonomy of this group in 2014, mostly led by Dr. David Prötzel, who did his PhD on them (you might know him as the guy who described bone-based UV-fluorescence in chameleons). David has so far published 5 new species from this group since 2014, 2 of which were discovered after Gehring et al.’s 2012 trees, and we now have a manuscript in review that describes a further 3 new species and revalidates an old name. After this, the group will be mostly resolved (one ‘sub-complex’ within it, the Calumma gallus complex, remains untouched—that group, however, is not likely to yield more than four species).

The 27 lineages of Gehring et al. have resulted not in 27 species, but instead in just 12 (at most 16)! As I mentioned before, we cannot know the number of species in a complex until we resolve it. Increasingly, algorithmic methods are being put forward to do this kind of work for us, but right now, they simply do not cut it; we have to do the leg work.

Species complexes and the IUCN Red List

So, what does the Red List have to say about such species complexes? Well, their current guidelines allow two alternatives: Option 1, leave them off the Red List altogether—after all, out of sight, out of mind, right?; or Option 2, assess them as if they were good species, i.e. all available names as though they referred to real biological units. The former is rarely chosen, as we don’t like to omit entries from lists. The latter is easier, for, as I’ve already explained, it is bound to result in an assessment under Criterion B.

What does this mean for our species complexes? Well, a species complex always has an area larger than any one lineage it contains; this is part of Set Theory or whatever. As a result, the species complex, assessed as a single species, gets a huge area, and, under Criterion B, is not threatened! Phew, what a relief, we get to list it as Least Concern!

The trouble is, any of the actual species within that complex almost certainly has a smaller distribution area, and could be threatened in its own right.

We argue in our paper that the very fact of belonging to a species complex should immediately qualify a species as DD. Before we can hope to manage the conservation of those species, we must figure out their taxonomy. By listing species complexes as DD, we can highlight the fact that taxonomy is a vital part of the conservation of species; that it is important, and needs to be funded and promoted. The current policy is sweeping taxonomic uncertainty under the rug, and we may be silently losing species as a result. We need to put more emphasis on the importance of a solid taxonomic foundation for effective conservation, and stop dismissing it as an afterthought! We also hope that this would make it clear to governments that taxonomy-focussed fieldwork is critical; all too often permitting agencies are refusing permits looking at species complexes, because they perceive the name to be clarified when it appears on the Red List. 

Species complexes are Data Deficient! Except when they’re not…

There are a few exceptional groups where the taxonomy of a species complex has more or less been figured out, even though the species are not already described and named. The frogs that we showcased in our paper were such a case. In Madagascar, DNA barcoding of all reptiles and amphibians is nearly complete, so we know how many deep genetic lineages there are. These lineages are given Candidate Species numbers, which help us track data on these lineages before they are addressed taxonomically.

The distribution of Mantidactylus (Hylobatrachus) lugubris in the Red List at present, versus the distribution of members of the subgenus Hylobatrachus as now understood. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219437

The mantellid frog genus Mantidactylus is divided into several subgenera, one of which is Hylobatrachus—torrent frogs found along Madagascar’s east coast and in one location in the west. Until our paper, there were two species: M. (H.) lugubris and M. (H.) cowanii. But several candidate species were also known. When the Red List assessment of M. (H.) lugubris was done, candidate species were included within its circumscription (part of assessing a species complex as a ‘good species’). This resulted in a huge range, and as a result, the species was listed as Least Concern. In our new paper, we described two of the candidate species as new species, and we also provided the map on the right. It shows hatched the area that M. (H.) lugubris occupies according to the Red List, and the area that it actually occupies, excluding other members of the complex.

This case differs from your average species complex, because this is a ‘characterised’ complex; we knew more or less how many lineages were in it, and in fact at the time of the last assessment (resulting in this huge distribution), it would easily have been possible to exclude most, if not all of the undescribed candidate species from the distribution of the species. But following the IUCN policy of treating this as one single species, we wound up with a huge distribution that very poorly captures the distribution of any of the lineages it contains. For this reason, we argue that species belonging to species complexes where data allow us to confine the assessment to a single species lineage should be assessed based on those lineages, and all other lineages omitted until taxonomically addressed and described. Again, this would put the emphasis on the requisite taxonomy, rather than broad and inaccurate circumscriptions.

But what about the plight of the Data Deficient species?

You may be surprised to read a post so strongly recommend that we assess more species as Data Deficient. After all, we have just managed to move a huge number of species from DD into some kind of ranking. When I wrote previously about ‘data deficiency and the plight of the unknown‘, I highlighted the fact that it is hard to protect what we do not understand. However, I also cautioned against the treatment of DD species as something more than they are; you cannot easily mine DD species for information about their distribution, because that data is going to be of low quality, by which virtue they are DD in the first place. If we take a look at the current red listing policies, what we see, however, is pressure to take species that should otherwise be DD, and place them in threat categories, no matter how inadequate the data behind that decision. It is my opinion that this practice simultaneously de-values the Red List, masks bad quality data, and discourages any work to improve that data.

At present, we have not yet called for changes to be made to the Red List’s policies, but this is something I am considering. If you have thoughts on this practice, please share them with me!

Calumma uetzi, one of the most strikingly-coloured chameleons from Madagascar. Photo by Frank Glaw

Calumma uetzi — a living rainbow

The male’s advances are not appreciated by the female. An open mouth in a chameleon is a clear aggressive signal. Photo by Frank Glaw.

The new species C. uetzi, is one of the most beautiful of Madagascar’s chameleons. Displaying males go bright yellow along their sides with stripes of pink and purple, with a variety of colours on the head from teal to aquamarine, yellow, salmon, and purple, with a black stripe running through the eye. Meanwhile, the female can turn a dark brown, almost black, with bright yellow spots on her head that convey her vexation with his attentions. This species was discovered in Sorata, and joins the ranks of new species described from this poorly studied area of forest in nothern Madagascar—other examples of species we have recently described from Sorata include Rhombophryne longicrus, R. diadema, Stumpffia sorata, S. miovaova, and Gephyromantis lomorina, but more species from this area are still in or awaiting description. A further specimen of the species was later found in Marojejy (conforming to biogeographic patterns I have written about recently), but basically nothing is known of the population there. The forests of Sorata are under really intense anthorpogenic pressure, so we recommended this species be considered Endangered. We dedicated this species to Peter Uetz, who selflessly maintains the Reptile Database almost single-handedly!

Calumma lefona — a spear-nosed oddity

Calumma gallus has the weirdest nose of all of Madagascar’s chameleon. Photo by Brian Gratwicke, CC BY 2.0

As happens really all too often, only one specimen of the new species C. lefona has ever been found, and it was necessary to describe the species without any other material. This species sets itself apart in two ways: firstly, it has an exceptionally long, spear-shaped flap of skin at the front end of its head, known as the ‘rostral appendage’. Having a nose like this is the feature that unites all members of the C. nasutum species group (though some species have apparently lost it again), but that of C. lefona is exceptionally large, and recognisable by its unique shape. It is somewhat reminiscent of the nose of the bizarre C. gallus (see right), but is much less pointed and probably not as brightly coloured.

The second way this species sets itself apart is that it has a large hole in the top of its skull. This ‘fenestra,’ formed at the contact between the parietal and frontal bones, has already been reported from a few other species, especially C. guibei in our recent study on that species, but in no other species is it as large as in C. lefona. By micro-CT scanning the skull of several chameleons, we found that this fenestra is actually widespread in chameleons. Using a method called DiceCT, we stained the soft tissue of a specimen and looked into the relationship between the hole and the tissue around it. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the frontal lobes of the brain sit directly beneath this hole. So what is it doing? Well, we think it might be related to the pineal organ, which has a role in biological clocks, and is present in some reptiles as a ‘third eye,’ in some species even with a lens and an obvious retinal field. In chameleons, the third eye is practically unstudied, and we are not certain that the large holes we are finding are homologous with that structure, but the amount of brain that sits directly below it would suggest something of that kind. Interestingly, from our survey across the genus Calumma, we found that the size of the hole correlates with the elevational distribution of the species—higher elevation, larger hole—leading us to suspect it may have a biological significance, e.g. in helping the animals thermoregulate in colder climes. At the moment our data are too fragmented to make conclusions on this front, but it is an interesting topic.

Calumma juliae is a rare new species. Photo by Frank Glaw and David Prötzel

Calumma juliae — a matriarchy?

The third species we have described in this paper is a real curiosity. It is not much to look at, being largely drab brown with faint blue patterns on the head, but it is an important discovery. Although it very strongly resembles other members of this species complex, especially C. boettgeri, the new species was discovered far from any of its relatives, in a tiny, isolated forest fragment outside the town of Moramanga, east of Antananarivo. The forest is mere metres from one of Madagascar’s most travelled roads, has an area of ca. 15 ha, and is already disappearing, but it is the only known location where C. juliae can be found. As such, the species is undoubtedly critically endangered.

As it is so easy to access, our team has repeatedly visited this tiny fragment of forest. Despite intense efforts over several trips, we have only managed to find 12 individuals of this species, and every one of them was female. This problem is remarkably widespread in chameleons, and several species have been known only from females for long periods before a single male was ever found, so we have reason to suspect that the males simply are doing a good job of hiding from us. Nevertheless, it raises the question of why chameleons so often occur in such dramatically single-sex dominated populations, and what that means for the males’ individual reproductive success. In the case of this critically endangered chameleon, it probably also has implications for the conservation of the species—assuming any males are present, the functional population size of these chameleons is almost certainly lower than might be expected based on female population density.

How to manage this problem? Well, the first course of action that we recommend is the immediate protection of the tiny forest in which the species occurs. Then, nearby, less accessible areas of forest need to be searched for the species, and at the same time, we must continue searching for males in the one fragment they are known from. After that, we will see if this species needs to be actively managed, or if habitat conservation can be enough. But before any of this can happen, the protection of the forest needs to be acted upon. We are hopeful that this can be implemented as soon as possible, before the forest is completely burned down, but in this kind of situation it is almost never possible to be sure. Time will tell.

The new species was dedicated by David to his partner Juli, who helped to discover the species and find additional specimens.

With these three new species described, the Calumma guibei species complex is almost resolved—only very few problems remain. The resolution of this complex has been a lot of work, but is an important stepping stone toward better understanding of the C. nasutum species group as a whole, from which numerous additional undescribed species remain. The work on this group is still quite far from over.

To read about another species of small chameleon we described recently, you can click here.

Update 2018-04-24: Our chameleons have received a decent amount of press coverage, listed below:

• ScienceDaily: Biodiversity: 3 new rainbow chameleon species discovered
• Phys.org: Researchers discover three new, highly threatened chameleon species in Madagascar
• Eurekalert: Biodiversity: All the colors of the rainbow
• LMU Press Release: All the colours of the rainbow
• LaborWelt: Neue Chamäleonarten entdeckt
• Spektrum: Fauna in Madagaskar: Neue, bunte und bizarre Chamäleonspezies
• fanpage.it: Le immagini del Camaleonte ‘arcobaleno’ appena scoperto in Madagascar
• Discover Wildlife: Madagascar’s reptile list grows following discoveries
• Kriptozoológia: Szivárványszínű kaméleonfaj Madagaszkáról
• Il Navigatore Curioso: Le immagini del Camaleonte ‘arcobaleno’ appena scoperto in Madagascar
• 100+1: Objev z Madagaskaru: Noví chameleoni jsou duhoví a mají nos jako Pinocchio
• Novataxa Blog: [Herpetology • 2018] Calumma uetzi, C. lefona & C. juliae
• Nature News: Newfound chameleon species flashes rainbow colours and a nose like Pinocchio’s (also in print)
• IFL Science: Newly Discovered Chameleons Have Rainbow Skin And A Nose Like Pinocchio
• Vet-Magazine.com: Drei neue Chamäleon-Arten auf Madagaskar entdeckt
• LaborJournal: Expedition ins Unbekannte
• El País: Los nuevos camaleones de colores de Madagascar

Two years ago, I travelled with a team of international and Malagasy researchers to a remote forest in the north of Madagascar, on ‘Expedition Angano.’ The goal of the expedition was to study forest fragmentation and its impact on reptile and amphibian biodiversity and distribution, as well as to identify potentially new species. Among the team was a talented videographer, Duncan Parker, whose work has featured in such notorious BBC documentaries as Planet Earth 2 and Natural World. He worked tirelessly filming the expedition. Now, he and his team at Falcon Productions have put together a documentary, and it is being released for free viewing.

The feature-length documentary, entitled ‘Madagascar – Life on the Edge,’ tells the story of our research on dwindling rainforest fragments in northern Madagascar in thrilling HD. It highlights the beauty of the forest, but also the stark contrast between it and the ever encroaching deforestation, and brings to the fore the Malagasy researchers that are so important for the future of Madagascar’s habitats, and their personal feelings for the conservation mission.

I could talk about the film at greater length, but I think it really speaks for itself, so without further ado, you can watch ‘Madagascar – Life on the Edge’ here!

Madagascar_Life On The Edge from Falcon Productions on Vimeo.

To read more about Expedition Angano and its outcomes, you can see the following previous posts on this blog:

• A small new chameleon from northern Madagascar
• Expedition Angano
• A year or so in review

And James Borrell’s blog:

• The honey hunter and other incredible field assistants (includes a short film shot by Duncan Parker)
• Launching Expedition Angano: conservation fieldwork in northern Madagascar

To read the expedition report to funders and stakeholders, click here.

The expedition was funded by the Zoological Society of London, Royal Geographical Society, Scientific Exploration Society, Cadogan Tate, Royal Meteorological Society, Queen Mary University of London and donations through Indiegogo.

Below you will find some of my photos of a few reptiles and amphibians encountered on this trip.

Note: I am current in the field in Madagascar; this post has been released using a scheduler.

First of all, Madagascar is the world’s fourth largest island, and stretches 1000 km from northern to southern tip. It could eat Germany, and is only a little smaller than France. Great Britain could fit inside it three times. For American readers, California and Ohio could sit inside it together. It’s a big island.

Madagascar has been isolated from other landmasses for around 65 million years, and from mainland Africa for around 120 million years. India was the last landmass with which it definitely had contact, but it also had contact a bit before that with South America through Antarctica (probably) over the Kerguelen Plateau.

Since isolation from Africa, most of the flora and fauna of Madagascar went extinct, presumably due to climatic changes associated with tectonic movements. The island was then re-settled by new animals and plants. This is in contrast to the prevailing image of “65 million years of isolation” underlying the differences in fauna between Madagascar and Africa. Yes, it has been separated from the mainland for longer than that, but the vast majority of endemic lineages are younger than the island itself, and arrived by rafting (Yoder & Nowak, 2006; Crottini et al. 2012; Samonds et al. 2013).

Madagascar is one of the world’s hottest biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000)

Madagascar has just over 300 described species of frogs, with at least 10 described every year. The most recent published estimate places the total diversity at around 500 species (Perl et al. 2014), but those of us who work on these animals expect the real number to be closer to 700.

All but three of these are found only on Madagascar: Hoplobatrachus tigrinus, an invasive bullfrog from India; Duttaphrynus melanostictus, a recently introduced invasive toad from India; and Ptychadena mascareniensis, a grass frog that is found on some islands around Madagascar. The endemism level of amphibians is therefore around 99.5%!

Almost 400 species of reptiles are described from Madagascar, with a few being added every year. In some groups we are reaching saturation in terms of species descriptions, but in others (e.g. chameleons and some geckos) many more species remain to be described, and more are discovered annually! Of these, 92% are exclusively found on Madagascar!

An estimated 100,000 species of invertebrates, 180 freshwater fish (around 50% endemic), 283 birds (40% endemic), and 241 mammals (99% endemic) call the island home! (Glaw & Vences 2007)

12,000 species of flowering plants are estimated to occur in Madagascar, 85% of which are endemic. Bryophytes and other non-Angiosperm plants, as well as fungi, algae, and lichens, have, to the best of my knowledge, yet to be quantified.

The biodiversity of Madagascar is enormous. With a cumulative estimate of around 2000 vertebrates and innumerable invertebrates, and innumerable non-animal species, it is a naturalist’s dreamland.

Frogs of Ampotsidy, northern Madagascar. Photographed in January 2016 by Mark D. Scherz.

As with so many biodiversity hotspots, the flora and fauna of Madagascar are heavily threatened. Deforestation and habitat degradation, largely as a result of extreme poverty and subsistence agriculture, are decimating the island’s forests, which host the vast majority of its native flora and fauna (e.g. Consiglio et al. 2006; see Harper et al. 2007 for a fantastic study). Small fragments of forest are left because they are protected, and unprotected forests do not last long.

Madagascar’s rich biodiversity is in critical need of protection, research, and outreach.

And that, my dear readers, is the point of this blog.

References and further reading:

Consiglio, T., Schatz, G.E., McPherson, G., Lowry, P.P., 2nd, Rabenantoandro, J., Rogers, Z.S., Rabevohitra, R. & Rabehevitra, D. (2006) Deforestation and plant diversity of Madagascar’s littoral forests. Conserv Biol, 20, 1799-803. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00562.x

Crottini, A., Madsen, O., Poux, C., Strauß, A., Vieites, D.R. & Vences, M. (2012) Vertebrate time-tree elucidates the biogeographic pattern of a major biotic change around the K–T boundary in Madagascar. PNAS, 109, 5358-5363. http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.50r80407

Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (2007) A Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar. Vences & Glaw Verlags GbR, Köln, Germany, 496 pp.

Harper, G.J., Steininger, M.K., Tucker, C.J., Juhn, D. & Hawkins, F. (2007) Fifty years of deforestation and forest fragmentation in Madagascar. Environmental Conservation, 34, 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0376892907004262

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B. & Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853-858.

Perl, R.G.B., Nagy, Z.T., Sonet, G., Glaw, F., Wollenberg, K.C. & Vences, M. (2014) DNA barcoding Madagascar’s amphibian fauna. Amphibia-Reptilia, 35, 197–206.

Samonds, K.E., Godfrey, L.R., Ali, J.R., Goodman, S.M., Vences, M., Sutherland, M.R., Irwin, M.T. & Krause, D.W. (2013) Imperfect isolation: factors and filters shaping Madagascar’s extant vertebrate fauna. PLoS One, 8, e62086. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062086

Yoder, A.D. & Nowak, M.D. (2006) Has Vicariance or Dispersal Been the Predominant Biogeographic Force in Madagascar? Only Time Will Tell. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 37, 405-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110239