No, you did not briefly explain why reticulatus and molurus should not be placed in the same genus. These two species have been traditionally placed in the same genus. They are geographically close to each other and morphologically quite close as well. Unless it can be shown that they form part of a polyphyletic assemblage or they are as disparate morphologically as Chondropython is from Morelia, there is no reason to put them in different genera. BGF intimated that there is non-existent DNA evidence in your paper to suggest that they should be in different genera. Putting aside for the moment whether such evidence exist or not, DNA evidence is recent, so it really has nothing to do with your claim in the following statement:



"The placement of reticulatus and molurus in the same genus has always been questionable and hence it was inevitable that a new genus would be erected for the reticulatus group."



Splitting seems to be have become fashionable, therefore it is "inevitable" that some people may suggest that molurus and reticulatus be split into different genera. Other than fashion, there does not seem to be any good reason for the proposed split.

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