1. I have the Maxson and Wilson (1975) paper in hand, and there is no indication whatsoever that Moriarty and Canatella's choice of outgroups is problematic. All three species clearly fall outside the monophyletic clade they are investigating. I would suggest your understanding of systematics is flawed.
2. The best data are Moriarty and Canatella's MP and ML trees. Maximum likelihood generally outperforms parsimony, so I would say the ML tree is to be most trusted. But neither tree supports P. crucifer being basal to other Pseudacris. However, it could be tested statistically whether the placement of crucifer as basal to others results in a statistically worse tree. While morphology can be useful in deciferring relationships, your use of one character (toe pads) that you arbitrarily choose is hardly scientific.
3. Yes, Hyla is paraphyletic if Pseudacris and Acris are recognized. Are you suggesting those genera should be sunk? Again, your discussion of H.arborea is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with Pseudacris. (No, it is not an ingroup!) Pseudacris (including regilla and crucifer) share a common ancestor that H. arborea clearly does not.
4. Again, you're wrong with H. abrorea (per Maxson and Wilson 1975). It is clearly an outgroup of the taxa Moriarty and Canatella are addressing.
Moriarty and Canatella aren't refuting Maxson and Wilson's findings; in fact, they're congruent! Moriarty and Canatella are addressing relationships within a clade that Maxson and Wilson found monophyletic, even in the conservative tree (you failed to mention the resolved tree). The recent paper has increased taxon sampling and uses DNA sequence data. If the new study were paired down to only the taxa that Maxson and Wilson included, it would result in the exact same topology (so far as Psuedacris is concerned, which, not surprisingly, the recent paper is concerned about). Dude, I just don't understand where you're coming from.

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