Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Schulte et al. 2003 (Herpetologica 59(3), 2003, 399-419) write:

"For over a century, herpetologists have recognized Iguanidae in the sense followed in this paper (Boulenger, 1884; Camp, 1923; Etheridge and de Queiroz, 1988). The eight family taxonomy of Frost and Etheridge was proposed in 1989, was never fully accepted (Pough et al., 2001; Schwenk, 1994; Zug et al., 2001), and was subsequently rejected by Macey et al. (1997a), who provided evidence for monophyly of Iguanidae as traditionally circumscribed and recognized the eight taxa ranked as families by Frost and Etheridge (1989) as subfamilies. In addition, the taxonomic recommendation of Frost and Etheridge (1989) to place Agamidae* in synonymy with Chamaeleonidae has never been widely accepted (Barts and Wilms, 1997; Cogger, 2000; Manthey and Grossman, 1997). Macey et al. (1997a) also reversed this proposal by removing Agamidae* from synonymy with Chamaeleonidae, and that traditional arrangement was subsequently followed by Frost et al. (2001a)."

As Schulte et al. also point out, Frost and Etherdige split the Iguanidae into 8 families because there "was the lack of morphological evidence to support monophyly of Iguanidae...." Other scientists, however, do not have the same doubt about the monophyly of the Iguanidae as Frost and Etheridge and they question the need to recognize so many families using characters that are at best indicative of subfamilial relationship. Hence knowledgeable scientists like Lazell and Zug do not recognize the splitting of the Iguanidae. One can say that Lazell and Zug are examples of Galileo's "good philosophers" who fly alone like eagles. Those who follow Frost and Etheridge's proposal blindly are Galileo's "starlings."

Galileo writes: "It is true that because eagles are rare birds they are little seen and less heard, while birds that fly like starlings fill the sky with shrieks and cries, and wherever they settle befoul the earth beneath them."

The literature of the past decade has been "befouled" by the "starlings'" usage of Frost and Etheridge's 8 family arrangement.

Schulte et al. continue: "Less than a decade later, Macey et al. (1997a) and Schulte et al. (1998), using combined and separate analyses of morphological and molecular data, found strong support for monophyly of Iguanidae, with the former study recommending a return to the traditional recognition of a single family Iguanidae (sensu lato) and considering the families of Frost and Etheridge (1989) as subfamilies."

Frost and Etheridge's controversial classification found widespread acceptance among those who blindly follow the latest proposals. Knowledgeable herpetologists, however, ignore their taxonomically destructive arrangement. It appears that their classification has been completely undone. The new proposal is a reversion to the traditional 3 family arrangement of Iguanidae, Chameleonidae and Agamidae. It shows that classifications can never be "fait accomplis" because they can be easily undone.

For anyone out there tempted to take Mr. Anonymous here seriously, the attached link might be useful. Someone posted it over on those other forums...

Patrick Alexander
Link

>>For anyone out there tempted to take Mr. Anonymous here seriously, the attached link might be useful. Someone posted it over on those other forums...

That link is too long to fit into the link URL box,a nd therefore does not work - here it is in text, paste it into your browser's URL box:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=4b6b0a05.0210211945.33ede023@posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups?q=%22is+he+really+gone%3F%22+group:sci.bio.paleontology&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8%

A search of groups.google.com will reveal plenty of other threads in which Cal King (now C. King, sometimes RS Newton, formerly Lirpa or Lirpa 1 - read that backwards) has driven entire newsgroups to distraction. The only answer: ignore him.

Cheers,

Wolfgang
-----
WW Home

nt

Kurt Schwenk writes:
"Therefore, phylogeny reconstruction is not only an end in itself, but is the necessary starting point for many evolutionary questions. Seen in this light, any rigorous attempt to reconstruct phylogeny is laudable. Therefore, Lazell’s(1992:109) initial question of 'why--what good does it do' indicates a failure to appreciate the fundamental importance of Frost and Etheridge’s (1989) attempt to reconstruct the phylogeny of Iguania and that the fragmentation of the traditional family Iguanidae into several, less inclusive taxa follows directly from this attempt."

Does Kurt Schwenk represent Lazell's view accurately?

Here is what Lazell says:
"The first issue for me confronting a drastic taxonomic fragmentation of this sort is 'why'--in the sense of 'what good does it do?'"

Lazell is referring to the taxonomic fragmentation of Iguanidae by Frost and Etheridge when he asks the question "what good does it do?" Lazell is not questioning the need to reconstruct phylogeny.

Lazell continues:
"In any case, while Frost and Etheridge provide equivocal evidence for paraphyly in the previous arrangement of three iguanian families, they present no compelling proof. Indeed, they present no new factual evidence at all and provide no definitive phylogeny."

Frost and Etheridge's attempt to reconstruct phylogeny therefore fails. Their fragmentation of Iguanidae is therefore not based on a hypothesis of phylogeny, but based on characters that members of these "families" have in common with one another.

Lazell writes:
"Conversely, tropidurines (or 'Tropiduridae') and crotaphytines (or 'Crotaphytidae') share many aspects of gestalt: they are rather similar looking lizards. Frost and Etheridge separate them as distinct families on the basis of three characters: femoral pores, gular fold, and S-condition of the nasal chamber in crotaphytines."

Indeed, because Frost and Etheridge lack a "definitive phylogeny" and because they construct their taxa using a few characters, they are practicing what Mayr and Ashlock term "pre-Darwinian facile diagnosis."

Mayr and Ashlock write:
"Rebounding from the extreme of phenetics, the cladists unwittingly returned to the ideal of pre-Linnaean taxonomy: facile diagnosis. ...Many branching points in a cladogram are based on changes in a single character or at most a very few characters. For this reason cladistic classifications may have the vulnerability of any single-character classification. ...The validity of taxa based on a single character or a few characters is often refuted by further analysis."

Hence Lazell is not arguing whether phylogenetic reconstruction is any good, he is asking what good there is in the fragmentation of Iguanidae in the absence of both a definitive phylogeny and new evidence. If a proposed change is drastic and it is not based on a definitive phylogeny, then it obviously does not do any good, and it should be rejected. Of course, most people do not really care about taxonomy except that they should keep themselves current. Therefore they will accept any new proposed change if somebody else are using it. For those who know better, they know taxonomic stability is of utmost importance to scientific progress. For those who know better, taxonomic proposals that do not do any good, such as Frost and Etheridge's proposal, should indeed be rejected.

Reference
Lazell, J.D., Jr. 1992. The family Iguanidae: disagreement with Frost and Etheridge (1989). Herpetol. Rev. 23(4):109-112.

Mayr, E. and P. Ashlock 1991. Principles of Systematic Zoology, 2nd. ed.

Schwenk, Kurt 1994. Systematics and Subjectivity: The Phylogeny and Classification of Iguanian Lizards Revisited. Herpetol. Rev. 25(2):53-57

nt

Quite obviously Patrick is interested in my posts enough to "answer" several of them. It is also quite obvious that he has nothing to refute my arguments.

For those who are interested in Iguanian classification rather than to engage in childish antics, here is another quote from Kurt Schwenk:

"Although I disagree with most of Lazell’s (1992) particulars, I share with him a certain dissatisfaction with the iguanian taxonomy proposed by Frost and Etheridge (1989). I am not persuaded by the arguments against the metataxon convention that would have allowed traditional family names to stand until the weight of evidence showed otherwise. I am not convinced that use of formal family names for traditional "iguanid taxa, rather than informal names, helps us to understand better evolution within Iguania, so long as we are clear about their monophyletic status. However, these feelings are moot; Frost and Etheridge's (1989) taxonomy will stand or fall depending on usage. Its widespread acceptance in the comparative literature indicates that it is here to stay."

Schwenk is wrong again. The widespread acceptance of Frost and Etheridge's proposal is by the "starlings" sensu Galileo, and the "starlings" befoul the literature by accepting untenable taxonomic proposals such as that of Frost and Etheridge. The knowledgeable herpetologists, people like George Zug and James D. Lazell, who are Galileo's "eagles", fly alone. Knowledgeable herpetologists reject Frost and Etheridge's proposal in spite of the "starlings". Since Frost et al. have also adopted the separation of Agamidae and Chamaeleonidae in 2001, they too have rejected their own earlier proposal. Even Schwenk admits that the weight of the evidence is not enough to splinter the Iguanidae. Sure enough, new evidence shows that it is best to recognize the Iguanidae as a single family, instead of the destructive arrangement of eight different ones.