`New World Elaphe originated in the Old World. So, it is a descendant of a species of Old World Elaphe. Subsequently Lampropeltis, Pituophis, Arizona, Stilosoma, Cemophora et al. evolved from this immigrant. Classifying New World Elaphe in a different genus would render Old World Elaphe paraphyletic.'



I suggest you read Utiger et al's paper revising Elaphe. The results of their study include:



Elaphe as traditionally defined is paraphyletic (this's been obvious for a while, and is implied by what you write above, but also clearly refutes the claim that the split of Pantherophis from Elaphe renders Elaphe paraphyletic).



Pantherophis is not basal among the New World lampropeltinines studied, which included Pituophis, Lampropeltis, Senticolis, and Arizona.



` That is certainly a good excuse to send Old World Elaphe to the chopping block. But since New World Elaphe is itself paraphyletic, it means New World Elaphe itself may have to be splintered into two or more genera.'



They did send the Old World Elaphe to the chopping block, and New World `Elaphe', already splintered in the past by the segregation of Bogertophis and Senticolis, was further split by the creation of Pseudelaphe, which contains the old `Elaphe flavirufa'.



`That gives the taxonomists and those who keep track of taxonomic changes a hobby, but it really does not do the scientific community at large any good.'



I disagree. The taxonomical situation created by Utiger et al results in more morphologically and ecologically comprehensible taxa that better represent what is known about the history of the group. This paper's pretty much a best-case scenario as far as generic revisions in snakes go, IMO.



Patrick Alexander

[ Show Entire Thread ]