"In the new ratsnake classification, the genus name of the Aesculipean is Zamenis. Which is one of the less-silly sounding ones if you can believe it."



This new classification is a proposal only. No one is required to follow this proposal. The names are not a problem, silly sounding or not, because the real bone of contention is whether we need all these names for this group of snakes. In a nut shell I would say no, we do not need these names. Utiger et al., the authors who splinter Elaphe, are doing so for one reason: their adherence to Hennigian taxonomy. Hennigian taxonomy is not universally accepted by zoologists, and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature does not endorse Hennigian taxonomy (or any other school of taxonomy) as the official guideline for classifying animals. Therefore even the limited power of the ICZN cannot be used to require that anyone must follow the Hennigians' proposals in general and Utiger et al.'s proposal in particular. Utiger et al. are digging up a lot of old, forgotten names because they need to recognize a large number of contrived, morphologically indistinguishable taxa. They need to do this because they are faithfully following Hennig's dictate: a taxon must consist of one ancestor and all its descendants. The genus Zamenis, like the other genera Utiger et al. erected/resurrected, cannot be defined consistently. Even professional herpetologists (such as WW) who specialize in snakes cannot distinguish, for example, Zamenis and Elaphe morphologically. Anyone who thinks that Wells and Wellington's taxa are not diagnosable ought to take a close look at Utiger et al.'s names. Utiger et al.'s taxa are equally undefinable yet these names are readily embraced by many simply because the names are found in a newly published paper and by others because they automatically support the taxonomic proposals of other Hennigians (or cladists).

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