Discovery of a new family of amphibians from northeast India with ancient links to Africa

Rachunliu G. Kamei; Diego San Mauro; David J. Gower; Ines Van Bocxlaer; Emma Sherratt; Ashish Thomas; Suresh Babu; Franky Bossuyt; Mark Wilkinson; S. D. Biju

doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.0150

Published eLetters

All eLetters submitted to Royal Society journals are moderated and posted at the discretion of the journal editorial office. For further details, please see our eLetter submission guide.

Compose eLetter

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

About a new amphibian family with ancient links to Africa: tribute to a neglected pioneer
Robin K. Abraham
12 March 2012

12 March 2012
About a new amphibian family with ancient links to Africa: tribute to a neglected pioneer
- Robin K. Abraham, Researcher
The discovery of a novel family of caecilian from northeastern India, with close relations in Africa by Kamei et al. [1], deserves praise. However, I would like to highlight an alleged claim in the publication. The claim to having found, in the authors' own words, an 'unexpected' sister-group relationship with the exclusively African family Herpelidae, warrants scrutiny. As credited by the authors', the type species desi...
Show More

The discovery of a novel family of caecilian from northeastern India, with close relations in Africa by Kamei et al. [1], deserves praise. However, I would like to highlight an alleged claim in the publication. The claim to having found, in the authors' own words, an 'unexpected' sister-group relationship with the exclusively African family Herpelidae, warrants scrutiny. As credited by the authors', the type species designated for Chikilidae fam. nov., Herpele fulleri, was originally described by Alfred Alcock in 1904, in the journal Annals and Magazine of Natural History [2]. His primary analysis of this caecilian from Assam in northeast India, led him to assign it to the genus Herpele. The genus Herpele, till then was known only from Africa and South America. Based on this 'striking' distribution pattern, Alcock went on to express his doubt in the knowledge of the zoologists of the day, 'who maintained that continents and oceans were permanent'. He went further by speculating that this distribution was evidence that India, Africa and South America would have been connected at some point in time, perhaps by land bridges. Eventually, later taxonomic work by Edward Harrison Taylor reassigned the South American Herpele to a then newly erected genus Oscaecilia of the family Caeciliidae, in 1968 [3]. But, in the same year, he also transferred H. fulleri to the Indian genus Gegeneophis based on his incomplete (as admitted by himself [3]) diagnosis of the type specimen at the Indian Museum in Calcutta. Now Kamei et al. (2012) have proved Taylor wrong. But, instead of freshly establishing an African connection for Chikila (Herpele) fulleri, they have only restored the original relationship as proposed by Alcock more than a hundred years back, albeit giving it a new family status based on a combination of anatomical, age and biogeographic differences. Their phylogenetic tree strongly emphasizes the close relationship of the northeast Indian caecilian with the African family Herpelidae. But Kamei et al. (2012) fail to acknowledge Alcock's biogeographical insight, merely citing his reference as the author of the type species for the newly erected family. It is unfortunate that the excellent acumen shown by Alcock, fails to be given deserved recognition, who in spite of technical limitations, made inferences that are now being reinforced rather than refuted, by modern molecular techniques. Kamei et al. (2012) may have independently arrived at these conclusions, but having cited Alcock (1904) in their publication, should have ideally given him credit for interpreting the African relationship. In short, if the authors had read Alcock's reference (which I trust they did), the sister-group relationship to Herpelidae would not have been unexpected. The onus is on researchers to bring out not only the secrets of the natural world, but also to be responsible in making science objective and open, and that includes humbly giving fitting credit to those science practitioners who have delivered valid and relevant knowledge.
Reference
1. Kamei, R. G. et al. 2012 Discovery of a new family of amphibians from northeast India with ancient links to Africa. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 1-6. (doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0150)
2. Alcock, A. 1904 Description and reflections upon a new species of apodous amphibian from India. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 14, 267-273.
3. Taylor, E.H. 1968 The Caecilians of the World. A Taxonomic Review. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas.
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top