Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Appendix A:
Database of Introductions
Database Structure and Content
The database currently includes 2,142 records for 676 taxa. All these records
consist of species except for 67 instances that were originally identified only to
genus or family. In all cases, a single record consists of an introduction of a particu-
lar species to a particular location. Data collected, as available, include (1) species,
(2) locality to which introduced, (3) success of the introduction, (4) dates of intro-
ductions (including dates for multiple introductions, when known), (5) reason(s) for
introduction, (6) minimum number of independent introductions of the same
species to the same locality, (7) literature supporting the data in these prior
cells, (8) literature providing additional data on the ecology or evolution of the
species in the recipient jurisdiction, and (9) taxonomic synonyms. Not all these
data are available for all species, but some are available for most. Each field
requires some explanation.
1.
Species
. Effort has largely been made to render the species names consistent
with the latest accepted taxonomic usage. However, herpetological nomencla-
ture has been in a period of considerable flux in the past decade and I have not
incorporated all proposed recent changes. One such exception is that I have not
adopted the generic name changes proposed for
Bufo
,
Eleutherodactylus
, and
Rana
by Frost et al. (2006). This is partly because the proposed taxonomic
changes haven't stabilized, but also because the changes would make the data-
base presentation totally dissonant with the primary literature for a variety of
important introduced amphibian species, making it harder for non-systematists to
gain access thereto. Since most users of this database will be non-systematists,
I give them priority of consideration. Nonetheless, interested researchers should
be aware of these proposed nomenclatural changes and may adopt them for
future work, as interested. Changing nomenclature and mistaken identifications
sometimes result in conflict between the current name and that used in some of
the earlier cited literature. To make it easier for researchers to access that litera-
ture, each entry includes under the heading “syn:” synonyms or mistaken names
under which the species has been referred in the literature for that jurisdiction,
if different from current usage. I cannot guarantee I've identified every alternate
