WW,

I am not trying to start a flame war.

I have read the paper and i have a few questions:

Why did'nt you sample O. microlepidotus?

You say that you analyzed the phylogeny of the genus Oxyuranus and yet your sample size for the Coastal Taipan sample was one from Irian Jaya, One from PNG and a single specimen from Cairns. What about the ones in W.A and in the N.T?

Any reason why you did'nt sample Cannia weigeli, I believe the holotype is in the W.A Museum?

Why not sample P. colletti, P. guttatus with locality data?

Why not use P. porphyriacus from its Type locality, or better still why not sample at least one of each of the four disjunct populations?

Why did'nt you sample any of the Acanthophis from the Northern Side of the Central Highlands and the Central highlands themselves as well as the insular populations to the north and west?

In Table one you refer to many Acanthophis sp., why did'nt you use the names that you believe are now correct for those species eg Acanthophis sp. Anthony lagoon, Barkely Tableland N.T....would therefore become either A. hawkei or being conservative A. rugosus?

Why not use the Name Pseudechis pailsei instead of "Pseudechis cf. australis" Mount Isa and Pseudechis rosignoilii for "Pseudechis cf. australis" Irian Jaya.

On the name Pseudechis itself why not make the change to Cannia?

In reference to Pseudechis porphyriacus... "the position of the latter sister taxon of all other Pseudechis is only weakly supported"

so therefore should they remain Pseudechis (Being the type species" and the others moved into Cannia.

Was ther any reason for not looking at specimens from the type locality for Cannia australis?

Regards,

Scott Eipper.

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