>>Hi,

>>

>>>Has the DNA really proven the Pituophis placement?

>>

>>well, yes...,>>



Actually no. It has not been proven.



>> but the evidence from the statistical methods used to build the tree (bootstrap, bayes etc.) presented is quite weak.>>



If the evidence is weak, then it is not proven. In fact, it is so weak as to be unreliable. Senticolis does not even have the interpulmonary bronchus that is characteristic of the Lampropeltini, and yet the DNA data of Burbrink and Lawson shows that it is within this tribe. That is evidence of unreliable evidence to me.



>> So there should be some more research done on this topic until we have to remember the new names...

>>

>>Cheers,

>>Wulf



Yes and no. Yes, there should be more research done. No, we shouldn't accept the lumping of Pituophis and "Pantherophis" even if the data is reliable. The data does not logically lead to lumping these taxa. The data is consistent with recognizing a paraphyletic Elaphe, without lumping it with Pituophis, as long as one does not find paraphyletic taxa objectionable. Therefore the problem is not just the data, but the dogma of those who insist on dismantling paraphyletic taxa.

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