Abstract
Abstract: There is a significant interest for using call features in taxonomic and systematic studies. However, the indiscriminate use of alternative terms for the acoustic structures has precluded reliable comparisons among species without directly checking recordings of all compared species. Recent attempts of nomenclature standardization have focused on term and structure definitions instead of homology. Here, we argue that application of nomenclatural propositions based on universal similarities is pragmatically difficult (likely impossible) and, most importantly, inaccurate regarding to assessment of homology. If homology is not properly assessed, nomenclature can lead to artificial groupings, which can hamper our understanding of the natural world. As a solution, we propose a guideline to first assess homology correspondence and then apply adequate terms to bioacoustical structures. This assessment follows the same homology criteria used to other phenotypical structures, such as morphological ones, and their successful application depend on the comprehension of the acoustic characteristics of the structures and on sampling intermediate forms. Additionally, we point out that there is no biological difference between traits presented qualitatively or quantitatively, and, some of the issues assumedly related to quantitative features are actually related to polymorphism and overlap of trait variation between taxa.
Highlights
Acoustic communication is a very important step in the reproductive cycle of anurans, mediating the encounter of males and females during the mating period (Bogert 1960, Wells 1977, 2007)
We aimed to demonstrate that propositions of universal definitions and terms to acoustic structures based on similarity are pragmatically difficult and, most importantly, inefficient regarding the assessment of homology (Ghiselin 2005)
In order to offer a practical alternative for naming bioacoustical structures centered on homology correspondences instead of universal similarities, we provide a guideline, step by step, focusing on first understanding the structures’ features intraspecifically, comparing them to the available variations in sister taxa, establishing homology, and choosing the best terms for these structures
Summary
Some studies have presented a list of terms and definitions based on similarity for describing any anuran vocalization in attempt to standardize the nomenclature (e.g., Toledo et al 2015a, Köhler et al 2017). Structural definitions are inevitably proposed based on a limited number of traits and taxa and the incentive to use them as universal rules to define and classify structures can lead to spurious homology assessments (see convergent structures in Ghiselin 2005) This concern was clearly stated by Köhler et al (2017: 25): ‘Either definition might be appropriate when looking at a single species, but in a comparative taxonomic study, it is of utmost importance to compare homologous bioacoustical entities and to apply the same name to them’ (see the box ‘terminology’ in Köhler et al 2017:103). In order to make homonymous acoustic structures comparable, the homology hypotheses must be the basis of the terminological definitions and not the contrary
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
