Scott,

Although my previous reply addresses most issues you raise, some aspects of nomenclature require further elaboration:

>>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?

Because mitochondrial DNA data alone cannot resolve species status. As we wrote on page 11:

"Our data reveal strongly supported, hitherto unsuspected patterns of genetic diversity within the death adders (Figs. 2 and 3). These patterns differ radically from all previous interpretations of species limits within this medically important genus. This study thus provides a first phylogenetic framework for a thorough and much-needed revision of the systematics of the genus, although a phylogeographic study based on mitochondrial DNA may not be able to resolve species limits without additional evidence, especially where the suspected species are parapatric or sympatric (Puorto et al., 2001). "

and:

"However, we refrain from attempting to diagnose species limits on the basis of mtDNA phylogeography alone (Puorto et al., 2001). More detailed and rigorous studies combining an analysis of morphology (particularly multivariate morphometrics—e.g., Wuster
and Broadley, 2003; Wuster et al., 2001b) and nuclear markers are required to resolve the population systematics of these snakes. The Merauke death adders were described as Acanthophis antarcticus
rugosus by Loveridge (1948). We suggest referring to the rough-scaled Irian Jaya death adder and the Northern Territory and northwestern Queensland death adders of clade A1 as the A. rugosus complex, pending further revisions."


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

Because using the names as such would have implied acceptance of these forms as separate species. There was no basis for doing so in the intro and materials etc of the paper, since there was little or no published evidence supporting their species status.


Now, from our data it certainly looks like they are separate species, but, as noted above, mtDNA alone cannot determine this. Using the term "Pseudechis cf. australis" simply indicates that we have reserved judgement on the issue.


>>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.

See my response to Richard Wells. In the absence of clear evidence that Pseudechis is non-monophyletic, we decided not to fix it.

Cheers,

Wolfgang


>>
>>Was ther any reason for not looking at specimens from the type locality for Cannia australis?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Scott Eipper.
-----
WW Home

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