Posted by:
RSNewton
at Sat Aug 9 09:35:07 2003 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by RSNewton ]
Wolfgang wrote:
As to the future of the Utiger et al. classification - I suspect many of the genera will stand more or less as at present, but doubtless, new data willproduce some new changes and discoveries. even
then, let's not forget that the taxonomic conclusions of Utiger et al. are also based on the preious study by Helfenberger, not JUST on the mtDNA data. While one can always see how more could
be done, I am happy to accept what Utiger et al. have done, simply because the evidence they have provided is considerably more convincing than the evidence for teh status quo. If new, more
convincing evidence contradicts any part of their study, then that will have to be taken into account when it happens.
My response:
I pointed out that they do not have to split Elaphe into little chunks given their unresolved phylogeny. They could have left Elaphe intact and even reverse some recent attempts to splinter it, just as Kluge had done with Eryx. I am not saying Kluge was correct for dumping all those species in the polytomy in the genus Eryx, just that it is an alternative course of action available to the cladist. Of course they did not leave Elaphe unscathed. It is as though they are hellbent on chopping it up. The only evidence that justifies the wholesale destruction of Elaphe is polyphyly. There is no data to support the oft-repeated but unproven claim that Elaphe is "artificial", "polyphyletic" and "in need of revision." What their data have shown is that Elaphe is not polyphyletic and it is not artificial. It is not monophyletic sensu Hennig, but it is monophyletic sensu Darwin and Mayr-Simpson. And that is a good enough reason to maintain the status quo. Hennig simply has a scientifically untenable view of how new species originate. His classificatory philosophy is based on the erroneous assumption that a parental species becomes extinct as soon as 2, and only 2 daughter species evolve. Half a century of research into the process of speciation have shown that Hennig's assumption is disproven. The rest of the scientific community do not have to make the same mistake the Henngians make everyday by adopting Hennig's scientifically untenable classificatory philosophy.
[ 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 - RSNewton, Sat Aug 9 09:35:07 2003