Zebra Sharks! (Safari Ltd. vs CollectA)

[EpicRaptorMan]

I have the Safari Ltd. and am now getting the CollectA one. Although they do look rather different probably a different species of Zebra Shark from each brand?

If I remember correctly juvenile and adults have completely different patterns as well so perhaps that?

[Isidro]

There is no more than one single species of zebra shark in the world, Stegostoma fasciatum, the only member of family Stegostomatidae.
The Safari model is a young one, still with the "zebra" pattern, while the CollectA one is adult.

[EpicRaptorMan]

@Isidro actually I did some more research and apparently there was some recent nomenclature revisions done with Stegostoma fasciatum in 2019.
https://bioone.org/journals/copeia/volume-107/issue-3/CG-18-115/The-Sandy-Zebra-Shark--A-New-Color-Morph-of/10.1643/CG-18-115.full

Essentially DNA data confirms that there remains one species, yet there are two (or more) different morphs of the Zebra shark; a standard print and a "sandy zebra shark" and I believe that Safari Ltd's version replicates this variant more.
Meanwhile infant Zebra Sharks have slimmer proportions and are notably black/white striped (image shown below).

[bmathison1972]

the 'sandy' zebra shark is only an odd morphotype. Isidro is correct; the Safari figure represents a juvenile while the CollectA figure represents an adult. There are three 'color transformations':
1. very young juvenile (zebra morphotype): best seen in the Yowie Group figure
2. older juvenile: Safari figure
3. adult: CollectA

I discuss this when I featured this species in my daily Museum post: http://animaltoyforum.com/index.php?topic=2715.msg30521;topicseen#msg30521

That being said, the nomenclature has changed, and the species (only one) is now known as Stegostoma tigrinum.

[Isidro]

@Isidro actually I did some more research and apparently there was some recent nomenclature revisions done with Stegostoma fasciatum in 2019.
https://bioone.org/journals/copeia/volume-107/issue-3/CG-18-115/The-Sandy-Zebra-Shark--A-New-Color-Morph-of/10.1643/CG-18-115.full

Essentially DNA data confirms that there remains one species, yet there are two (or more) different morphs of the Zebra shark; a standard print and a "sandy zebra shark" and I believe that Safari Ltd's version replicates this variant more.
Meanwhile infant Zebra Sharks have slimmer proportions and are notably black/white striped (image shown below).

Essentially my reply is the same than the one Blaine said, except the next changes:

-DNA data is never enough for confirm anything in taxonomy, it's almost always completely useless and tends to give extremely inaccurate results.
-The correct phrase would not be exactly "the nomenclature has changed, and the species (only one) is now known as Stegostoma tigrinum.", but rather "a random guy studied the nomenclatural history of the species and purposed to change it to Stegostoma tigrinum". That, after analyzing the article, is more than debatable, as I stated in the other post.

[stargatedalek]

What do you mean DNA data is never enough to confirm anything and is almost always useless? Where is that coming from?

[EpicRaptorMan]

I understand that the genetic data may not always be conclusive and there is a margin of error, but according to the ICZN oldest gets priority so I am interested to here your debates against the renaming to S. tigrinum.
Also you use the excuse that's he's just some random guy to deem his argument as invalid isn't very reasonable either. Change often starts with one person with a different idea whether that be immediately accepted or not.

Regardless, my original questions has altered to be: "Could Safari Ltd's Zebra Shark (despite representing a subadult) pass instead as Sandy morph?"

[bmathison1972]

the 'some random guy' (at least the senior author on the paper) is a professional biologist (like myself and a few others of us on this forum); and this 'random guy' seems to be actively working on fish systematics.

I have shared the paper with professional colleagues and everyone is in agreement that the authors' conclusions with the name change back to S. tigrinum is sound.

[EpicRaptorMan]

And really, if there is substantial evidence I see no reason not to swap it back to S. tigrinum it's not like the species name fasciatum is meaningful to anyone.

Ex: I remember in 2011 or some time when the name Anatotitan was dropped and reclassified as Edmontosaurus annectens instead. I was attached to that name and was disappointed to see it go albeit no one else seemed to bat an eye. 

Anyways, what do you think @bmathison1972 about Safari Ltd's Zebra Shark potentially being considered, if we use our imagination, as a sandy morph?

[Gwangi]

Just here to say that I was also attached to the name Anatotitan and sad to see it go. It was just as catchy and cool as Brontosaurus.

[EpicRaptorMan]

Just here to say that I was also attached to the name Anatotitan and sad to see it go. It was just as catchy and cool as Brontosaurus.

Lmao. Thanks at least I'm not alone.

I don't like "Brontosaurus", but they did bring the name back to represent a new sauropod...which just makes things more confusing. 

[stargatedalek]

Just here to say that I was also attached to the name Anatotitan and sad to see it go. It was just as catchy and cool as Brontosaurus.

Lmao. Thanks at least I'm not alone.

I don't like "Brontosaurus", but they did bring the name back to represent a new sauropod...which just makes things more confusing. 

Indeed. It isn't that "Brontosaurus" is suddenly valid again, it's that a new animal is now also named Brontosaurus. But naturally almost no one is aware of that "little detail".

[bmathison1972]

Just here to say that I was also attached to the name Anatotitan and sad to see it go. It was just as catchy and cool as Brontosaurus.

Lmao. Thanks at least I'm not alone.

I don't like "Brontosaurus", but they did bring the name back to represent a new sauropod...which just makes things more confusing. 

Indeed. It isn't that "Brontosaurus" is suddenly valid again, it's that a new animal is now also named Brontosaurus. But naturally almost no one is aware of that "little detail".

Well if you want to get pedantic, it's not a new animal with an old name (you can't so that as it would be a preoccupied name). Rather, the original Brontosaurus is just no longer considered synonymous with Apatosaurus

[EpicRaptorMan]

[It seems that I had misremembered. In 2015 it was just a study in which the British-Portugese researchers had concluded to revive the Brontosaurus although it was not set in stone.]