`According to you every taxonomic change that results in the removal of species from Elaphe is warranted. I have not seen one single change that you say is unwarranted. If one is going to blindly accept taxonomic changes, that is fine. Many people do it, including among them professional herpetologists.'



LOL! There are plenty of taxonomic changes I've already mentioned in this thread (some of which even involve Pantherophis) that I disagree with. That's blind acceptance of taxonomic changes?



`The unresolved polytomy only occurs in their consensus tree. The MP tree is better resolved. That shows there is something wrong with their data since the MP tree does not suggest adaptive radiation.'



Different methods of phylogenetic reconstruction give different phylogenies... that's not a problem with data, that's just how phylogenies work. And you seem to be ditching the adaptive radiation hypothesis...



`The unusally high bar you have raised for Tong et al.'s data, which contradicts your preconception, is in sharp contrast with the blind faith you show on the other authors' taxonomic proposals splitting Elaphe.'



Yeah, yeah, more invective. I think Utiger et al. can tell us more about Elaphe sensu lato because they include a whole lot more species of it. Simple as that. I'd rather Utiger et al. had more outgroup representation, too, but, hey, it's still the best we've got.



`They demonstrate that Elaphe scalaris is basal to the North American species of Elaphe. That is one important finding. Utiger et al. sure included them all and they show that Elaphe is part of the monophyletic group, with E. mandarina the basal most member. They corroborate each other. Have you forgotten about Utiger et al.'s paper?'



I don't think this has anything to do with the comment of mine to which you were referring, though.



`Are you suggesting that Elaphe obsoleta is a descendant of Lampropeltis or Pituophis and that it is only convergently similar to Elaphe scalaris?'



I suggested that Pantherophis is a derived clade within Lampropeltini. Rhinechis and Pantherophis really aren't that similar, though. In basic external morphology and habits, Rhinechis is more similar to Pituophis.



`Part of the problem may be the studies you read, part of the problem may be your inability to infer relationships from the tree.'



If you care to back that up, feel free to point out any error that I've made in either regard.



`Lopez and Maxson show that Ptyas is not even close to Elaphe. Utiger et al. also find that Ptyas is not closer to any Elaphe than other species of Elaphe. Tong et al. find the same thing. Unless you know of some other species that would make Elaphe polyhyletic, your slim hope that Ptyas would do that has evaporated.'



I've never thought, or claimed, that Ptyas would make Elaphe sensu lato polyphyletic. And I already have mentioned other species that appear to be more closely related to Elaphe sensu lato and would thus be more likely to be grouped with it.



`Utiger et al. do not give the full citation for this paper so how can you be referring to this paper? Besides, the 1987 paper merely cite data from the 1983 paper. So, you are just hoping that the 1983 paper will deliver what the 1987 paper fails to. No dice.'



You claimed to have refuted this paper. That's what I was asking about. Keep it straight.



`That is not the question. The question was "Do you have any evidence that a polyphyletic taxon, any polyphyletic taxon, has continued to be recognized despite its polyphyletic status?"'



And I said that polyphyletic taxa have been recognized, and gave examples. No problem there.



Hint: a taxon is polyphyletic (or not) whether we know it or not. If you want to talk about our knowledge of polyphyly, do so. I wasn't talking about our knowledge of polyphyly, though, so you'd just be talking past me.



`Which similarity is shared by Elaphe obsoleta and Elaphe quatorlineata but not found in their common ancestor? I cannot think of any. All of their similarities appear to be shared among all species of Elaphe, which means they probably originated in the common ancestor of all species of Elaphe.'



What similarities would those be, exactly? And what do you know of the morphology of their common ancestor?



`Do I have to?'



If you're going to tell me what most systematicists think, yes, you're going to need to've asked (or have access to some other source that asked, etc) them.



Anyways, as over in the discussion over on that other forum, this isn't going anywhere. So I'm out unless it starts to look like it might go somewhere.



Patrick Alexander

[ Show Entire Thread ]