Thanks for the internet addresses. I have linked this post to one of the trees found in that web page, and the image below is a tree from Vidal and Hedges. Interestingly, according to them, Calabaria reinhardtii is basal to a large number of boid snakes. This cladogram strongly conflicts with that of Kluge, which shows Calabaria clustering closely with Lichanura trivirgata and Charina bottae. There are several possibilities:

1. Calabaria is not closely related to Charina and Lichanura. It only resembles these two animals superficially. In other words, Kluge was fooled by convergent similarities between Calabaria, Charina and Lichanura.

2. Vidal and Hedges' characters and/or their analysis are flawed.

3. Both 1 and 2.

Unless Kluge is absolutely correct in his analysis, L. trivirgata, C. bottae and Calabaria probably cannot be maintained in the same genus without also including some or all of the species of boids in Vidal and Hedges' tree. In that case, the name of this genus is probably not Charina. If Boa constrictor is really part of the Lichanura-Charina-Calabaria clade, then the name for this clade would probably be Boa because of priority. Lichanura trivirgata would then become "Boa trivirgata" if Vidal and Hedges are correct and if one were to adhere to Hennigian taxonomic practice. Alternatively, one would have to rearrange the boids and erycines in wholesale fashion (similar to what Utiger et al. did to the ratsnakes) if one were to slavishly follow the dictates of Hennig, who required his followers to only recognize a taxon as one ancestor and all of its descendants. The taxonomic chaos generated by the cladists (which have been predicted by the opponents of the cladists) is upon us.

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