>>Too funny.......from what I can tell, the "new" field of molecular work is a lot like the not so new field of statistics.......you can make it look like anything you want it to......

Shane:
Your analogy to statistics seems a good one. There's alot of room for error in the analyses.

This particular study is dealing with a pretty large number of species distributed over both hemispheres of the planet. I'm guessing that alot more data (more specimens of each species, more genes) and a little more time for reflection might help.

The assignment that I find oddest is the placement of frenata and prasina. Utiger recently placed them in Gonyosoma with a very high level of confidence. If you look at this grouping morphologically it seems pretty much self evident. They are as alike as could be. Burbrink removed them from Elaphe (which is fine) but assigned them to a wholly new genus of their own. So Burbrink is not using Utiger's data. Possibly his study was done before Utiger's data was available and he didn't want to go back and look at it. I guess that's alright. But it leads me to think that this ratsnake work is far from over. Which I guess is fine. It's like waiting for the next installment of a very long, very confusing adventure series.

Best regards
John

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]