Hello Terry,

I understand. The point Burbrink et al are making, is that the current situation, having Pantherophis and Pituophis as seperate genera, can no longer be maintained because it implies a paraphyletic genus Pantherophis. From a cladistic point of view, paryphyletic taxa are not acceptable. Thus Pantherophis should be synonimized with Pituophis, or vice versa. It's not about what 'feels' right, but about following widely accepted nomenclatural rules.

Look at it this way. So your parents named you Terry, but if they had named you George instead, you wouldn't have known any better. If we had named Pituophis species ratsnakes from the beginning, instead of calling them pine snakes, bullsnakes or gopher snakes, we propably wouldn't have any problem with Burbrink's proposal at all. It just doesn't feel right because we were brought up looking at them as being very different from ratsnakes. Which they're not, as it seems.

Best regards,

Herman Bronsgeest.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]