CK,

Although there were about 13 new samples tested in the greater Mt. Lassen region, there still exists considerable distances between samples. The distance between members of the two subclades in now down to about 45 km from Javier's stated 120 km. However as mentioned, he overlooked Sierra subclade sample #15 near Quincy in Plumas county which is about 65 - 70 km from the Northwestern subclade sample #6 at Eagle Lake.



But actually, the deepest occurrence of one subclade into the 'territory' of the other subclade came from two specimen that are not in either of those two counties and extend about 32 to 35 km into the area considered to be occupied by the other subclade. But it remains to be seen if these preliminary results are real.



Should the new result become firm, one could still argue that the subclades are allopatric by simply gerrymandering the manner in which one draws an imaginary line or 'break' to separate members of the two subclades. Until one finds two boas of the two subclades under the same rock, there can always be the claim that theoretically, allopatry has not been disproved.



Mentioned earlier is that Javier's study shows specimen #26 from Tulare county closely aligned with boas from Butte, Yuma, and Plumas counties, sample 17, 18, 19, and 15.

And in his Fig. 3B, those four boas are apart from the Sierra Nevada subclade with no explanation in the text. What are your thoughts on that issue.



The current study incorporated Javier's 38 samples and the raw data extracted from those samples. Once again, instead of Tulare Co. sample #26 aligning with boas in nearby counties, it again aligns with boas from more northern counties. But with the increased sample size, there is another Tulare Co. specimens that accompanies #26 in aligning with boas from Butte, Yuma, Nevada, Sierra, and Plumas counties. What are the possible explanations for such results?



Richard F. Hoyer

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