Kluge's phylogeny is based on morphology (although his classification is not), and quite often phylogenies that are derived from morphology differ considerably from those that are derived from molecules. Specifically what a morphologist may think is a "monophyletic" (i.e. one ancestor and all of its descendants) group often turns out to be paraphyletic (i.e. some fast evolving members have been excluded because they differ so much from their other close relatives morphologically). Therefore the verdict is still out on Kluge's phylogeny. We must await DNA data before we know how robust Kluge's morphology based phylogeny is.



Kluge tends to be a lumper. Instead of erecting/resurrecting names for contrived taxa that are morphologically indistinguishable from one another, Kluge has taken the exact opposite tact. He has lumped taxa regardless of morphological disparity. Examples of his tendency to lump include putting Chondropython viridis in the genus Morelia and Lichanura trivirgata and Calabaria reinhardtii in Charina. Unfortunately for the cladist, excessive lumping or excessive splitting are their only choices, since lumping taxa morphologically would create paraphyletic groups, which are considered unacceptable by the cladists (or Hennigians). Since cladists usually automatically support the taxonomic proposals of other cladists, it is quite amusing to see that some cladists accept both the excessive splitting of Utiger et al.'s proposal and the excessive lumping of Kluge's proposal. Personally I reject both proposals, not because they are based on Hennigian taxonomy, but because they do not do any good. None of the names erected/resurrected by Utiger et al. tells us anything new about the relationship between the ratsnakes. In fact all these new names obscure the fact that the ratsnakes are a slowly evolving group that shares a common ancestor. Kluge's excessive lumping ignores the morphological disparity between Morelia and Chondropython and also the disparity between Lichanura and Charina. It is thus not surprising to see the names Lichanura and Chondropython still being used a decade or so after Kluge attempted to invalidate them.



Because cladists like Kluge and Utiger et al. ignore morphological disparity in their classification, their proposals have generated lots of criticism and controversy. Not surprisingly, many of the cladists' proposals have been ignored or in some cases even reversed by other cladists.

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