>>Unlike Collins, WW do examine museum specimens. Like Collins, WW is trying to return to "Taylor taxonomy." For example, WW described "Drymarchon melanurus" as a new species (distinct from Drymarchon corais, because "D. melanurus" is morphologically different from D. corais. Like Edward Taylor, many of the species WW and his comrades (who subscribe to typological species concepts) recognize will almost certainly be shown to be invalid by later workers who re-examine the same material.



For the record:



(i) Had you taken the trouble to actually read the paper you purport to criticise, and if you had even the faintest glimmer of knowledge of the genus Drymarchon, then you would know that I did not describe D. melanurus as a new species but raised it to species level from subspecies level (at which it had been recognised for many decades), and that I instead described a different species as new. The link to a web site dealing with the matter, and from where you can download the paper, is given below.



(ii) Documenting sympatry between morphologically distinct species is about the most common way of inferring that they are distinct species, irrespective of whether you adhere to BSC, ESC, PSC or whatever. For about 90% of all species recognised today, that is ALL the evidence we have, and I suspect that for a lot of them, the evidence is a heck of a lot less strong than for Drymarchon. Are you saying that we should de-recognise 90% of the world's biodiversity because the original description did not adhere to your high standards of evidence? Standards of evidence documented by your numerous publications which anyone can find with a simple search....... oh, hang on, what did you say your name was?



Get a life.



Cheers,



WW
Indigo Snake Systematics Page


-----
WW Home

[ Show Entire Thread ]