Posted by:
paalexan
at Tue Aug 12 01:02:24 2003 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by paalexan ]
`That is a big mistake indeed.'
The distinction between paraphyly and polyphyly simply wasn't relevant to the point I was making, so I didn't pay as much attention as perhaps I should have. *shrug*
`In their phylogeny, Elaphe sauromates is basal to Arizona, Lampropeltis and Elaphe obsoleta.'
I would be interested to know how you came to that conclusion. Figures 3, 4, and 5 all show Elaphe sensu stricto and Lampropeltini (in the sense of Rodriguez-Robles and De Jesus-Escobar) as sister taxa.
Any analysis of the rest of this argument awaits validification of this point.
You said:
` Senticolis, being closer to the racers, is probably basal to Old World Elaphe and New World Elaphe.'
I said:
`As it would happen, according to Utiger et al.'s phylogeny Senticolis is not basal to Elaphe sensu lato, though it is basal to the rest of the Lampropeltinines.'
You said:
`This part of the tree is poorly supported.'
Under Utiger et al.'s phylogeny, rejection of Senticolis from Elaphe sensu lato would require rejection of Lampropeltini from Elaphe sensu lato and unequivocal polyphyly for Elaphe sensu lato. Though I don't think your prospects are good on either front, I think you'll have to choose your battle on this one.
Patrick Alexander
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: name change: Pantherophis - paalexan, Tue Aug 12 01:02:24 2003