You wrote:

Unfortunately, though, the simplified version is too simplified to demonstrate anything.



My response:

Does it not demonstrate that Elaphe is paraphyletic?



You wrote:

You appear to be under the impression that Utiger et al. split Elaphe in order to adhere with cladist methodology.



My response:

That is not just an impression. It is a fact.



You wrote:

This is another instance in which having read the paper is useful. In reference to the possibility that Pituophis arose from within Pantherophis, something suggested by other authors and by one of the phylogenies generated with their data, they write that paraphyletic taxa are `an inevitable result of evolution.'



My response:

Did you really read the paper? If so, you should see that an intolerance of paraphyly is the reason they split Elaphe. I cannot find a single paraphyletic taxon in their strict consensus tree except perhaps Pantherophis. It does look like they have left Pantherophis paraphyletic. May be it is a compromise among the authors. Often authors with different ideologies have to combine their studies and disagreements do arise. If all of the authors subscribe to this philosophy, they would have left paraphyletic Elaphe untouched. But they do not. Elaphe is indeed splintered by Utiger et al. because it is paraphyletic.



You wrote:

I also disagree that the genera created are `morphologically indistinguishable.'



My response:

The authors do not provide a key for distinguishing the many genera they recognize. The only diagnoses they provide are the two new genera they propose. In the diagnosis of Orthriophis, they state: "subocular usually present (often absent in hodgsonii, sometimes also in cantoris and taeniurus)..." That sort of definition for a new genus does not inspire confidence since one of the diagnostic characters for the genus is variable within the genus. If you disagree, then perhaps you can tell us how one can distinguish,say, Zamensis from Orthriophis and Elaphe from Coronella. I simply can't find anything that would allow me to do that in this paper. In sum, even the authors themselves disagree on the acceptability of paraphyletic taxa, but apparently the cladists among the authors win. They do throw a bone of concession to the Darwinians by recognizing a single paraphyletic genus: Pantherophis. But I am afraid that this bone is tied to a rope and that it can be withdrawn any time. Who is going to stop someone else from splintering the paraphyletic Pantherophis in the future? I am not going to accept the splintering of Elaphe simply because Pantherophis is left paraphyletic. Paraphyletic taxa are indeed the inevitable result of the process of evolution. There is therefore no scientifically tenable reason for not recognizing paraphyletic taxa such as Elaphe.

[ Show Entire Thread ]