You have made the assertion that I do not understand systematics, but you also asserted that Moriarty and Cannatella's data are the best available. I refuted your claim by pointing out that



1. there is only one version of history and the MP tree of Moriarty strongly conflicts with their ML tree. Therefore one or both of their trees are wrong.



2. it is unparsimonious for Hyla chrysoscelis to be basal to Hyla eximia, but both the ML and the MP trees of Moriarty and Cannatella show this anomaly. 2 of Hedges' 3 trees, on the other hand, show Hyla eximia basal to Hyla chrysoscelis and so does da Silva's tree, which was reproduced in Duellman (2001).



There is indeed immunological data to support that Hyla arborea is nested within "Pseudacris," if Hyla regilla and Hyla crucifer are included in Pseudacris. The "Pseudacris" branch shares a common ancestor with Hyla arborea and Hyla cinerea according to the tree below, which is reproduced with some modifications from Maxson (1978). Just replace Hyla regilla with Pseudacris in that tree and you will see why Pseudacris will instantly become a junior synonym of Hyla. Notice that I did not mention anything about Hennig or Henngian above to dismiss your ideas. I used nohting but data to falsify your claims.



That said, Hennigians do have the unfortunate habit of ignoring facts, especially those that clash with their ideology. And I have proven that here as well.

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