You wrote:

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).



My response:

You are quite correct that whether or not Pantherophis is recognized, Elaphe is paraphyletic. However, there are some systematists who claim that Elaphe is polyphyletic. One would hope that practicing systematists should be able to distinguish between polyphyletic and paraphyletic but that is sadly not the case. More than once I have heard them explicitly claim that Elaphe is polyphyletic.



You wrote:

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



My response:

That depends on how one defines "lampropeltinines." Long ago it was demonstrated that New World Elaphe and genera such as Lampropeltis, Pituophis and Arizona share the synapomorphy of an interpulmonary bronchus. This character is not present in Old World Elaphe. This fact has prompted some systematists to propose classifying New World Elaphe in a different genus than Old World Elaphe but no formal proposal has been made to effect such a change. Senticolis does not have the interpulmonary bronchus. Hence it is not a member of the Lampropeltini. I am not surprised that a study concludes that Old World Elaphe is not basal to Lampropeltini and Senticolis since Senticolis is one of those taxa that is more like a racer than a ratsnake. That is why I support Dowling's decision to remove it from Elaphe and place it in a genus of its own some years ago. Senticolis, being closer to the racers, is probably basal to Old World Elaphe and New World Elaphe.



Your wrote:

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'.



My response:

I support the recognition of Bogertophis and Senticolis. As I predicted, Old World Elaphe is being splintered because of some systematists' ideological intolerance of paraphyletic taxa. Since many systematists, especially those who are the most knowledgeable and experienced, do not share this ideology, they would most likely not follow the new arrangement.



You wrote:

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.



My response:

That does not seem to follow because Utiger et al. employ mtDNA data, which reveals nothing new about the morphology or ecology of this group. Further, those who only tolerate strictly "monophyletic" (sensu Hennig) taxa do not and cannot take morphology into account in their delimitation of taxa. They are obligated by their own ideology to classify all descendants of a common ancestor into a single taxon regardless of morphological disparity. An alternative to this excessive lumping is to split taxa into a large number of taxa, each of which is often indistinguishable morphologically from other taxa. Those who are ideologically intolerant of paraphyletic taxa are therefore faced with the unpleasant alternatives of either excessive splitting or excessive lumping. Kluge often takes the excessive lumping approach as he has lumped Calabaria, Lichanura and Charina into a single genus and also Morelia and Chondropython into another genus, while ignoring morphological differences among them. Utiger et al. are taking the opposite approach: excessive splitting. Instead of invalidating taxa such as Lampropeltis, Pituophis, Arizona, Cemophora and Stilosoma and bringing all of these species back into Elaphe, he is splintering Old World Elaphe. Under the old arrangement, one can be certain that all of the species within Elaphe are close relatives and that New World Elaphe is a migrant from the Old World. Under the new proposal, such information about the evolutionary history of New World Elaphe is lost. The new arrangement obscures relationships, although it does provide gratification for those who are on a crusade to destroy paraphyletic taxa.

[ Show Entire Thread ]