Hey Chris,



"Wouldn't that be what you expect from a group of 6 specimens of the same taxon/evolutionary group? "



Not necessarily, if for example loveridgei and colubrinus were distinct (sub)species then I would expect them to be reciprocally monophyletic with a monophyletic clade of colubrinus and a monophyletic clade of loveridgei. Instead loveridgei nests within colubrinus so at the very least they are not species by the phylogenetic species concept (for whatever worth that may be to you).



"With regard to the specimens of colubrinus that ended up coming out closer to loveridgei, what was the basis for calling those specimens colubrinus, not loveridgei?"



I don't think these molecular data had anything to do with the sinking of loveridgei into colubrinus (they are not published as far as I know). Rather I think it's a matter of priority, if memory serves me right (and it may not), colubrinus was named first so it has priority on the species name.



Actually I would probably not be so ready to sink loveridgei yet, I would prefer many more individuals sampled from throughout the range and to have Ruffies sampled to. Also the current molecular data is a single mitochondrial gene so it would be good have some nuclear markers as well. Lots of things could make a true species of loveridgei nest within a true species of colubrinus (incorrect species IDs, incomplete lineage sorting, a single introgressing female line of loveridgei into colubrinus, poor sampling leading to spurious results, etc..)



Vinny
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859



Natural Selection Reptiles

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