Just as the cladists often do when facts are not on their side, Patrick Alexander is choosing to engage in ad hominem. He has no fact to refute any of my arguments concerning the classification or the phylogenetic position of Hyla regilla and he of course does not present any. Yet it is apparent that he does not like my arguments. The facts I presented will not change Patrick's mind at all, even though he has no facts to oppose my arguments. What does Ernst Mayr call people who insist they are right even in the face of opposing evidence? Mayr calls them "dogmatic." Patrick is simply a dogmatic fellow. The minds of the dogmatic cannot be changed, least of all by facts.

Patrick Alexander's unsupported claim that I am someone who somehow "refuses to accept work done since the 80's" is ridiculous to say the least. It is he and many cladists who have often ignored older data because these data contradict either new data or because they contradict cladistic ideology. For example, I accept the mtDNA data of Lopez and Maxson (1995), which shows that Old World and New World Elaphe together form a monophyletic group. Patrick does not, because he thinks that Elaphe is polyphyletic. I have no problem with Rodriguez-Robles et al.'s data on the phylogeography of Lampropeltis zonata, and I have no problem with Rodriguez-Robles' mtDNA data on Charina bottae, even though I disagree with their conclusion that the rubber boa should be divided into two species. The mtDNA data of L. zonata and C. bottae by Rodriguez-Robles et al. are published within the last few years, thus demonstrating that Patrick is simply incorrect in his delusional assertion. Unlike Patrick, I do not judge data by their date. Unlike milk, data has no expiration date.

My advice to Patrick is this: you are entitled to your opinion but you should support your opinion with facts, not fiction.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]