1. Sorry for the typo in the original post. The tree was from the 1978 paper, not 1995. Maxson and Wilson originally published their data in 1975, in Syst. Zool. In that paper, they found H. chrysoscelis, Hyla eximia, and Hyla femoralis forming an unresolved polytomy with the lineage leading to Hyla gratiosa and Hyla cinerea. This clade in turn forms an unresolved polytomy with the branch which leads to Hyla crucifer, Pseudacris triseriata and Hyla regilla. Hence there is indeed data which suggests that Moriarty and Cannatella's choice of outgroup species (Hyla eximia, Hyla andersonii and Hyla chrysoscelis) is problematic, since Hyla chrysoscelis and Hyla eximia are part of the ingroup, not an outgroup.

2. The best available data does suggest that Hyla crucifer is outside of Pseudacris. In terms of morphology, it is not a Pseudacris, according to most systematists who rely on morphological data, including William Duellman himself. Further, da Silva's data does show H. crucifer outside of traditional Pseudacris.

3. If a "common evolutionary history" is all that matters, there is no compelling reason for including Hyla regilla and Hyla cadaverina in Pseudacris since Hyla andersonii, Hyla eximia, and Hyla chrysoscelis also share a common evolutionary history with Pseudacris and thus these too can be included. If heterogeneity is not a concern, then why bother recognizing Pseudacris in the first place, why not synonymize this group of degenerate hylids with Hyla? As Duellman pointed out in his revised edition of the Hylid Frogs of Middle America, Hyla is paraphyletic if Pseudacris is recognized. Apparently Moriarty and Cannatella thought that Pseudacris is deserving of taxonomic recognition as a genus, even if it renders Hyla paraphyletic. Why is Pseudacris deserving of such recognition? Is it because it is a clade? Well, if so, then one can certainly include Hyla eximia and H. aborea in this clade as well. Of course including Hyla arborea in this clade will turn Pseudacris into a junior synonym of Hyla, given the fact that Hyla arborea is the type species of Hyla and the fact that Hyla has priority over Pseudacris.

4. If you would take the trouble to read Maxson and Wilson's 1975 paper, you should be able to see that the branch that leads to Hyla regilla, Hyla crucifer and Pseudacris triseriata forms a polytomy with 3 other branches, one of which includes Hyla arborea. Therefore the same ancestor that gave rise to Pseudacris and Hyla regilla is also ancestral to Hyla arborea. Under the rules of Hennigian taxonomy, the ancestor of Pseudacris, Hyla crucifer and Hyla regilla and all of the descendants of this ancestor must be included in the same taxon (in this case genus Pseudacris). If so, then Hyla arborea must also be included, since it shares the same ancestor as Pseudacris, Hyla crucifer and Hyla regilla. That would mean that Hyla and Pseudacris is the same genus, which in turn means, once again, that Pseudacris is a junior synonym of Hyla.

As I pointed out before, Moriarty and Cannatella did not include Hyla arborea in their analysis. Therefore they cannot refute Maxson and Wilson's data. Unless and until Maxson and Wilson's immunological data has been refuted, Moriarty and Cannatella's "Pseudacris" is indeed a junior synonym of Hyla according to Hennigian taxonomy (which is being practiced by Moriarty and Cannatella) and the rules of the ICZN.

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