` The group is not polyphyletic; Elaphe is not polyphyletic.'



You wrote:

I await new data suggesting that this is the case.



My response:

Before such new data becomes available, it is premature to assert that Elaphe is polyphyletic. If it is not polyphyletic, then it ought not be splintered unless the members of this genus form a morphologically disparate group. Utiger et al. show no evidence that they use morphological disparity to splinter Elaphe. Hence their destruction of Elaphe is untenable.



`Besides, Utiger et al. fail to cite Lopez and Maxson (1995), who show that Old World Elaphe and

New World Elaphe form a clade with the Lampropeltini.'



You wrote:

Well, so far it seems the non-Utiger papers are 4 to 1 in favor of Elaphe having been polyphyletic. Until I've either read the papers in question or have some other good reason to choose between them, I think I have to stick with the democratic result.



My response:

Both Utiger et al. and Lopez and Maxson find that Elaphe is not polyphyletic. Their findings are supported by a third paper recently published in Acta Zoologica Sinica. That is three independent studies proving that Elaphe is not polyphyletic. There may well be new data suggesting otherwise, but until they are available, there simply is no evidence of polyphyly. You certainly cannot cite any such evidence, notwithstanding your belief to the contrary.

[ Show Entire Thread ]