At November 18, 2003 at 21:17:37, Bob Hansen wrote:
"...[There] is a paper 'in press' in Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution by Emily Moriarty and David Cannatella. Relying on a fresh mtDNA study, resulting phylogenies derived from parsimony, maximum liklihood, and Bayesian analyses are consistent and strongly support inclusion of regilla and cadaverina in a clade with ocularis and crucifer (within Pseudacris)."
I have seen the cladogram in Moriarty and Cannatella's article and they are very similar to the tree obtained by Maxson and Wilson (1975) using immunological distance. I have constructed an alternative tree from Maxson and Wilson's data which is slightly different but which is even more similar to Moriarty and Cannatella's trees. Both Moriarty and Cannatella's tree and my tree show that Pseudacris can be recognized without including Hyla regilla and Hyla cadaverina. Why should H. regilla and Hyla cadaverina be excluded from Pseudacris. There are 4 very good reasons:
1. Monophyly. Pseudacris is monophyletic without including Hyla regilla and Hyla cadaverina.
2. Morphology. Hyla regilla and H. cadaverina, unlike Hyla crucifer, Pseudacris and Limaeodus ocularis, have well developed toe pads. H. cadaverina and H. regilla are excellent climbers, unlike the other species of Pseudacris recognized by Moriarty and Cannatella. Removing H. regilla and H. cadaverina from Pseudacris results in a morphologically homeogeneous Pseudacris.
3. Stability. Hyla regilla and H. cadaverina have been classified traditionally as Hyla. Therefore it is best to retain them in Hyla for the sake of taxonomic stability.
4. Synonymy. Hyla arborea appears to be closely related to Hyla regilla. Inclusion of Hyla regilla in Pseudacris may mean that Hyla arborea may have to be transferred to Pseudacris. But doing so renders Pseudacris a junior synonym of Hyla since Hyla arborea is the type species of Hyla. To avoid the possibility of invalidation of Pseudacris due to synonymy, it is therefore best to leave H. regilla out of Pseudacris.
