1. " are not addressing the same question

me:
That is partly true. Maxson and Wilson were primarily looking at relationships among the holarctic Hyla, although they did include Acris, Pseudacris and Limnaodis in their analysis. Moriarty and Cannatella are primarily looking at whether Pseudacris is a holophyletic group. Both Maxson and Wilson's immunological data and Moriarty and Cannatella's analysis nevertheless show that Hyla crucifer is the closest relative of Pseudacris. Moriarty and Cannatella's ML tree requires the unlikely (though not by any means impossible) scenario of Hyla crucifer re-evolving well developed toe pads from an ancestor with reduced toe pads. Their MP tree is in agreement with Maxson and Wilson's data in that both show Hyla crucifer as the sister species of Pseudacris. Given the fact that da Silva also shows a similar topology, it is more likely than not that Moriarty and Cannatella's ML tree is incorrect.

2. " outgroups are fine."

me:
Once again I would have to disagree with that assertion. If one looks carefully at Maxson and Wilson's data, theirs show the Hyla regilla/H. crucifer/Pseudacris branch forming an unresolved polytomy with the Hyla eximia/Hyla chrysoscelis branch, and the Hyla arborea branch. That means the common ancestor of Hyla regilla, Hyla crucifer and Pseudacris is also the common ancestor of Hyla arborea, Hyla eximia and Hyla chrysoscelis. Moriarty and Cannatella's "Pseudacris" is defined cladistically as the common ancestor of Hyla regilla, Hyla crucifer and Pseudacris (traditionally defined) plus all of the desendants of this ancestral species. Using that definition, all of the species of Hyla found in the United States , in Europe (including Hyla arborea) and in Asia thus belong to the genus Psuedacris. That makes Pseudacris a junior synonym of Hyla.

The question remains: why would anyone want to include Hyla regilla, Hyla crucifer and Hyla cadaverina in Pseudacris if by doing so Pseudacris becomes undefinable and so heterogeneous as to be useless, and if doing so means that this genus is now no longer a valid name under the rules of the ICZN?

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