Posted by:
WW
at Sat Aug 9 05:06:25 2003 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by WW ]
>>Wolfgang claims that Eurasian species of Elaphe are as morphologically disparate from each other as N. American Elaphe is from Lampropeltis and Pituophis. If that is the case, then systematists should justify their splitting of Elaphe on morphological grounds.
Splitting needs to me justified on PHYLOGENETIC grounds - what data were used the generate the phylogeny does not matter, and there is no need to invoke morphology (although, in the long run, studies based on a maximum of evidence are likely to yield the most robust phylogenies.
>Unfortunately, Wolfgang no longer wishes to elaborate on this claim and he has retreated to the position that morphology should not be taken into consideration in classification.
Please do not put words into my mouth, I have said no such thing. Morphology is a perfectly good indicator of phylogeny IF PROPERLY ANALYSED. The latter means a PHYLOGENETIC analysis based on a substantial selection of characters, not hanging everything onto one supposed "key" character, or some "gut feeling" perception of similarity.
In other words, morphological *characters* are a perfectly good source of data, morphological *disparity* is not.
>>
>>I submit that Einstein and Darwin are both dead. Yet their theories are very much alive.
... but have been substantially developed. That's why we use new evolution textbooks in our classes, not simply Darwin's Origin. That does not diminish Darwin's achievements, it simply shows that theories move on and are developed with time. That's why evolutionary biology is a thriving and developing science, not an exercise of stamp collecting and curation. I dare say Darwin himself would be rather disappointed if nobody had developed his ideas further since his death.
>> Ideas that do not work may be popular for a short time, but eventually Hennigian classifications will suffer the same fate as Lamarckism.
The cladistic approach has gone from strength to strength over the last 40 years, from being a subversive tendency in the late 60s and 70s to being the overwhelmingly dominant approach to the study of phylogeny and classification around. Deal with it.
>> I submit that Wolfgang is championing Utiger et al.'s classification because of ideology, not phylogeny.
I am hardly a hard-core ideological cladist when it comes to taxonomy, and am in fact far more concerned about stability of the nomenclature than many of my colleagues. I even agree with some of your comments re Kluge's reclassifications of erycines and Boa/Sanzinia/Acrantophis (which were in all other respects excellent studies at the forefront of the subject), but not, for instance, with your views re Chondropython, which was quite rightly sunk into Morelia by Kluge in another one of his excellent studies.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
-----
WW
WW Home
[ Hide Replies ]
- Pantherophis, a preliminary review - RSNewton, Tue Aug 5 00:29:14 2003
- RE: Pantherophis, a preliminary review - jfirneno, Tue Aug 5 19:28:42 2003
- RE: Pantherophis, a preliminary review - Terry Cox, Wed Aug 6 11:34:07 2003
- RE: Pantherophis, a preliminary review - patricia sherman, Wed Aug 6 15:20:03 2003
- RE: Pantherophis, a preliminary review - WW, Thu Aug 7 03:19:24 2003
- RE: Pantherophis, a preliminary review - Matt Campbell, Thu Aug 7 11:17:37 2003
|
RE: Pantherophis, a preliminary review - WW, Sat Aug 9 05:06:25 2003