1. You are mistaken. The "Pseudacris" of Moriarty and Cannatella clearly shares a common ancestor with Hyla arborea, Hyla eximia and Hyla chrysoscelis according to Maxson (1978, J. Herpetology). Hyla eximia and Hyla chrysoscelis are clearly part of the ingroup, not an outgroup according to Maxson and Wilson (1975). There is nothing wrong with my understanding of systematics. You are simply dogmatic.

2. On what basis do you claim that Moriarty and Cannatella's data are the best? Their ML and MP trees contradict each other. Since there is only one version of history, one or both of their tress is definitely wrong. The ML tree shows Hyla crucifer evolving from an ancestor with reduced toe pads, which is clearly unparsimonious. The alternative, as I pointed out before, is the multiple independent loss of toe pads among the members of Pseudacris, which would clearly be even less parsimonious. It also means that this character is a homoplasy and therefore this clade would be undeserving of recognition since it would be a polyphyletic group. Both ML and MP trees also show the surprising placement of Hyla chrysoscelis being the most basal species, which is contradicted by Maxson and Wilson's immunological data.

3. If Hyla is paraphyletic no matter how we draw the line that separates Pseudacris from Hyla, then why do we draw a line in such a way that includes Hyla crucifer, Hyla cadaverina and Hyla regilla in Pseudacris, when doing so destroys the classic definition of Pseudacris? Why not exclude Hyla crucifer, Hyla regilla and Hyla cadaverina, since Pseudacris would still be holophyletic without these species? If one relies on Moriarty and Cannatella's MP tree, and if one exchanges the positions of the Hyla crucifer branch and the "Fat Frogs" branch, then one can easily see that Hyla crucifer, Hyla regialla and Hyla cadaverina can be left out of Pseudacris without upsetting Hennigians like you. Indeed, by claiming that they are only following "most checklists and field guides" in leaving these species in Pseudacris, Moriarty and Cannatella are tacitly admitting that they could have taken these species out without violating Hennigian dogma.

4. If you are correct that Moriarty and Cannatella's data are congruent with Maxson and Wilson's paper, then why can't they classify Hyla regilla, Hyla crucifer and Hyla cadaverina in Hyla, since Maxson and Wilson did just that? Why should any taxonomist prefer a classification that results in a heterogenetous Pseudacris? Why recognize Pseudacris at all if the inclusion of several hylids with well developed toe pads renders it difficult to define? I object to Moriarty and Cannatella's classification because it results in a heterogeneous Pseudacris that is at the same time difficult, if not impossible, to define. Lastly, Moriarty and cannatella's trees, which show Hyla chrysoscelis as the most basal species, is clearly contradicted by Maxson and Wilson's data, which shows H. chrysoscelis to be a highly derived species of the Holarctic hylid clade. In fact, Maxson and Wilson's data clearly is better, since they picked the correct outgroup, unlike Moriarty and Cannatella.

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