Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Is there a definitive pantherophis species list anywhere ?

I have heard that corns are now Pantherophis Guttatus and great plains are now Patherophis Emoryi... Making an old intergrade pair now a hybrid ???

Steve

"Pantherophis" is a name that has been resurrected by a group of researchers (Utiger et al.), who found that the large holarctic genus Elaphe is "paraphyletic." This group of researchers, like many cladists, are intolerant of paraphyletic taxa. What exactly is a paraphyletic taxon? It is a taxon that does not consist of all of the descendants of a common ancestor. How is Elaphe paraphyletic? According to both morphological and biochemical data, one member of Elaphe migrated from the Old World to the New World. Once in the New World, this species of Elaphe has given rise to a number of new species, which are considered morphologically different enough to be classified into different genera, such as Pituophis, Lampropeltis, Arizona, Stilosoma, Bogertophis, and Cemophora. In order to eliminate paraphyly in Elaphe, species in these genera, no matter how different they are from Elaphe, must be dumped back into Elaphe. Alternatively, the paraphyletic genus Elaphe must be splintered into a large number of morphologically indistinguishable and/or undefinable genera. The second alternative is exactly what the group of researcher, headed by Utiger, have done. Utiger et al. chose to splinter Elaphe into a large number (around a dozen) different contrived genera, even though professional herpetologists such as WW cannot tell us how these genera differ from one another.

The North American species of Elaphe are considered members of two of these contrived genera ("Pantherophis" and "Pseudelaphe" by Utiger et al.

Why are these people intolerant of paraphyletic taxa? It is a long story, but this intolerance has nothing to do with science. It is in fact a quasi-religious belief. A group of scientists have decided that they should follow the teachings of Willi Hennig, a late German scientist who arbitrarily decided that taxa should never be paraphyletic. His followers have decided that this mandate is akin to some sort of gospel and must therefore be followed verbatim.

The splitting of Elaphe guttata by Burbrink into three different "species" has been done for the same reason: Burbrink's intolerance of paraphyletic taxa.

Unfortunately, intolerance of paraphyly, which is characteristic of cladism, or cladisic dogma, is widespread. Therefore it is a matter of time before some "official list" adopts the taxonomic proposals of Burbrink and Utiger et al.

But for those who want to know why Elaphe guttata has been transferred to Pantherophis and why E. guttata has been splintered into 3 different "species", they won't find such an explanation in either Burbrink or Utiger et al. These authors won't tell the readers that they are practicing cladistic religion and that they are on a crusade to rid the world of paraphyletic taxa. They assume that you are also a follower of Hennig and that you already know that paraphyletic taxa are of course not tolerable.

Why should paraphyletic taxa be recognized? Paraphyletic taxa should be recognized because, in short, as Robert Lynn Carroll pointed out, parahyletic taxa are the inevitable result of the process of evolution. As long as evolution produces novelties, these novel species, because they are different from their ancestor, have been and will continue to be classified in a new taxon. For example, when mammals and birds evolved, they were removed from their parental taxon, Reptilia, rendering Reptilia (as traditionally defined) paraphyletic. Removing novel species from an old taxon is therefore necessary if one were to have a useful taxonomy. Doing so, however, results in a paraphyletic parental taxa. Of course, paraphyletic taxa really chaps the hides of the cladists because it contradicts their gospel. They will not rest until all traces of paraphyletic taxa have been removed our taxonomy even though the elimination of paraphyletic taxa is, according to Ernst Mayr, impractical, destructive and scientificallly untenable. Since not all scientists (for example Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould) are cladists, the cladists' taxonomic proposals are often ignored by the knowledgeable scientists such as Mayr and Gould, even though many amateurs and ordinary scientists who do not know better and often blindly follow the latest taxonomic proposals.

Many thanks for a most interesting reply...

Do you mind if I copy your reply to another (UK) forum verbatim ??

Regards,

Steve.

Let me first say that I'd advise against taking CKing seriously. He's just grinding his axe. One brief point I'll make is that he's previously gone out of his way to point out at least one morphological difference distinguishing Pantherophis from Elaphe, but, now that it no longer suits his purpose, prefers to declare them `morphologically indistinguishable'.

Anyways. There aren't really definitive lists in taxonomy. IIRC, the species Utiger et al. place in the genus Pantherophis are Pantherophis guttatus, Pantherophis vulpinus, Pantherophis obsoletus, and Pantherophis bairdi. Burbrink split Pantherophis guttatus into three species, but he uses the name Elaphe for all of them, giving Elaphe guttata, Elaphe emoryi, and Elaphe slowinskii. Burbrink also split Pantherophis obsoletus into three species, calling them Elaphe obsoleta, Elaphe allegheniensis, and Elaphe spiloides. So, generally people choose which changes to follow and which to ignore. My preference is to accept Utiger et al's changes, as creating more cohesive and coherent groups from the previously unwieldy and disparate Elaphe, and to reject Burbrink's as unnecessary splitting. In practice, my impression is that a lot of people are using Utiger's genera and ignoring Burbrink's split of Pantherophis obsoletus, but that Burbrink's split of Pantherophis guttatus is more widely accepted, at least the emoryi part. His creation of Elaphe slowinskii seems a bit shakier.

Patrick Alexander

Patrick wrote:
"Let me first say that I'd advise against taking CKing seriously. He's just grinding his axe."

Really? It is so typical of Patrick to make unsupported assertions.

"One brief point I'll make is that he's previously gone out of his way to point out at least one morphological difference distinguishing Pantherophis from Elaphe, but, now that it no longer suits his purpose, prefers to declare them `morphologically indistinguishable'."

I think Patrick may be mentioning the intrapulmonary bronchus. If so, why not just say it? I think Patrick has at least learned something from his arguments with me, but he is telling others to ignore my posts, ostensibly because he does not want others to learn. After all, too much information can be dangerous, at least for those who like their followers to be ignorant. Too much information can be detrimental, for example, for the leaders of cladism, because their followers will be able to see that the cladistic emperor really has no clothes.

"Anyways. There aren't really definitive lists in taxonomy."

That is exactly what I have said before.

"IIRC, the species Utiger et al. place in the genus Pantherophis are Pantherophis guttatus, Pantherophis vulpinus, Pantherophis obsoletus, and Pantherophis bairdi."

And of course Patrick is following Utiger et al.'s lead in using Pantherophis for these species, even though he cannot tell us the difference between Pantherophis and Elaphe. The intrapulmonary bronchus is also present in some species of Old World Elaphe, as it turned out, but it is not as well developed as it is in the New World lampropeltine snakes.

"Burbrink split Pantherophis guttatus into three species, but he uses the name Elaphe for all of them, giving Elaphe guttata, Elaphe emoryi, and Elaphe slowinskii."

Alas Patrick is not telling us why Burbrink split E. guttata. I did. I said Burbrink did it because of his adherence to cladistic ideology, not because these "species" are reproductively isolated from one another. If one follows Patrick's advice to ignore me, one would not know why Burbrink proposed the split without reading and comprehending the paper. Patrick may (or may not) have read the paper, but he definitely is not showing us any evidence that he comprehends the reason behind the split.

"Burbrink also split Pantherophis obsoletus into three species, calling them Elaphe obsoleta, Elaphe allegheniensis, and Elaphe spiloides. So, generally people choose which changes to follow and which to ignore."

People often do so because they are blindly following the latest taxonomic proposals. Unlike many, I do attempt to evaluate proposed taxonomic changes rather than blindly follow them.

"My preference is to accept Utiger et al's changes, as creating more cohesive and coherent groups from the previously unwieldy and disparate Elaphe, and to reject Burbrink's as unnecessary splitting."

Utiger et al. split Elaphe unnecessarily. The genera they create are not morphologically different from one another. For example, how "disparate" is "Pseudelaphe" from "Pantherophis"? Even WW cannot tell us. The answer is that they are not "disparate" at all. The genus Elaphe is morphologically conservative. That is evident from the fact that Elaphe migrated to North America more than 20 million years ago, and yet morphologically N. American species of Elaphe [or "Pantherophis"] cannot be distinguished from Eurasian species of Elaphe. Similarly, the Eurasian species of Elaphe cannot be distinguished morphologically from one another, hence Utiger et al.'s splintering of Elaphe really makes no sense. The many genera they recognize are contrived and undefinable. Utiger et al. are only splintering Elaphe because it is paraphyletic, not because the species within are "disparate" as Patrick falsely and/or igorantly claims.

Patrick is also telling us that Burbrink's split is "unnecessary." That makes no sense, since both Burbrink and Utiger et al. are applying their cladistics-based ideological intolerance of paraphyletic taxa by treating each lineage as a taxon. Burbrink is treating each major mtDNA lineage as a species, and Utiger et al., with one notable exception (perhaps a bone of concession to the Darwinians), treat each major mtDNA lineage as a genus. Therefore there is no difference in Burbrink and Utiger et al.'s taxonomic practice. How Patrick can reach opposite conclusions about the acceptabilities of these proposals is beyond comprehension, especially since he never told us why he accepts one but rejects the other. Perhaps his professor told him to do that? We may never know.

"In practice, my impression is that a lot of people are using Utiger's genera and ignoring Burbrink's split of Pantherophis obsoletus, but that Burbrink's split of Pantherophis guttatus is more widely accepted, at least the emoryi part. His creation of Elaphe slowinskii seems a bit shakier."

A lot of people are using Utiger's genera because they simply do not know better. Patrick does not know better. Patrick does not know why Burbrink's proposal has met with greater resistance. May be it is because he won't accept my arguments due to prejudice and ignorance. So, if Patrick does not know why Burbrink's proposal is unacceptable, then how is he going to tell others why it is unacceptable? If he does not know, then may be he himself is simply following taxonomic proposals blindly.