Posted by:
CKing
at Thu Nov 13 17:03:47 2003 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by CKing ]
Dowling writes:
"If Taylor came upon one [specimen] that appeared different or otherwise interesting, he would consult the original descriptions of appropriate, presumably similar taxa, and compare those descriptions with the specimen in hand. If the specimen differed (or was distinguishable) from the characteristics described by the previous authors, it was obviously a different taxon, and so he described it as new."
WW writes:
"The study was initiated as a result of finding a freshly road-killed specimen of Drymarchon during fieldwork in the state of Falcón, NW Venezuela. The specimen could not be assigned to one of the previously known taxa of Drymarchon found in Venezuela, which are Drymarchon corais corais and D. c. melanurus. This prompted the authors to initiate a study of the systematics of the South American representatives of the genus.... The results (see below) show the existence of three highly distinct taxa of Drymarchon in mainland South America: the populations conventionally assigned to Drymarchon corais corais, those conventionally assigned to D.c. melanurus, and those representing the species of the mysterious road-killed specimen."
The similarities between what Dowling wrote and what WW wrote are hauntingly similar. In both cases, a new specimen that is unusual or otherwise interesting was found. That helps launch a study, which compares the unusual specimen to the old taxa morphologically. When morphological differences are found, then new taxa are named.
In fact, WW even openly admits that he agree with Collins' (1991) taxonomic proposal, which Dowling criticized as "Taylor taxonomy." Clearly Collins and WW are both practicing "Taylor taxonomy" since they are in agreement on the taxonomic status of "Drymarchon couperi." But like many of Taylor's taxa, WW's and Collins' taxa will undoubtedly be shown to be conspecific with existing taxa by subsequent workers.
[ Hide Replies ]
|