You wrote:

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.



My response:

Not at all, Utiger et al. demonstrate that all species of Elaphe are part of a clade that also include the Lampropeltini. The branching order among these species may not be well supported, but the fact that they share a common ancestor is well supported by Utiger et al.'s study.



You wrote:

The paraphyly of Elaphe remains unsupported.



My response:

It is supported by morphological evidence. The N. American species of Elaphe are morphologically similar to Old World Elaphe. It is also supported by molecular evidence. Both Lopez and Maxson (1995) and Utiger et al. find that New World Elaphe is part of the Elaphe clade. They have both shown that New World Elaphe is not merely convergently similar to Old World Elaphe but that their similarities are almost certainly due to common ancestry. Since genera such as Pituophis and Lampropeltis are derived from a species of New World Elaphe, Elaphe is paraphyletic because it excludes Lampropeltis and Pituophis.



You wrote:

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



My response:

Yes it is found elsewhere since Utiger et al. do not rely on morphological disparity to delimit their taxa. It is plainly obvious that they delimit their taxa according to their consensus tree, which is of course poorly supported as you point out. Therefore their splitting of Elaphe is based on poor evidence on branching order and no evidence from morphological disparity. As such, their taxa are poorly delimited and therefore these taxa should be rejected.



You wrote:

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.



My response:

The authors of course admit that paraphyletic taxa is the inevitable result of the process of evolution, but it has not stopped them from destroying paraphyletic taxa. I hope it is clear to all what I meant.

[ Show Entire Thread ]