`Your "Elaphe sensu lato" is a narrower definition of Elaphe than most people accept.'



Nonetheless, it is the state of Elaphe prior to the publication of Utiger et al.'s paper. If Helfenberger's changes are not yet widely accepted, this is probably due to their recent publication.



`Regardless, this group does not form a polyphyletic group. They all share a common ancestor with Elaphe mandarina. You have not shown evidence of polyphyly.'



As mentioned, there are no well-supported relationships demonstrated between the members of Elaphe sensu lato. As a result, paraphyly is not supported and polyphyly is suggested. And, of course, there are the four other studies mentioned, which you have apparently rejected without evaluation.



`Their destruction of paraphyletic Elaphe is certainly evidence of that.'



The paraphyly of Elaphe remains unsupported.



`They simply do not provide any information to distinguish any of the genera they resurrect. Without such information, there is no evidence that they use morphological disparity in their classification.'



The morphological disparity on which these taxa are based is presented elsewhere, as mentioned in my other response in this thread today.



`They also do not provide evidence that Elaphe is polyphyletic. Hence the only conclusion one can draw from their paper is that they split Elaphe because of paraphyly.'



This conclusion relies on unsupported rejection of the statements of Utiger et al.



`The destruction of paraphyletic taxa is of course scientifically untenable since paraphyletic taxa are the inevitable consequence of the process of evolution.'



As mentioned in my previous response, the validity of all paraphyletic taxa does not follow from the inevitability of the existence of some paraphyletic taxa.



`The authors themselves even admit that, although it has not stopped them from splintering Elaphe because it is paraphyletic.'



No, Utiger et al. do not admit that `the destruction of paraphyletic taxa is of course scientifically untenable since paraphyletic taxa are the inevitable consequence of the process of evolution'. If this is a mistake, I suggest you be more careful. If not, it is simply intentional misrepresentation.



Patrick Alexander

[ Show Entire Thread ]