>>Hi,

>>

>>well I had a quick look at the EMBL database (www.reptile-database.org)were right when recalling that it was Kluge (1993) who had placed this python in the genus Morelia. The reasoning why Kluge did so can be found in Kluge's proposal.



Yes he did, but he did it on the basis of 1) morphology and 2) cladistic classification philosophy.



The relationships among Old World pythons is poorly resolved, partly because DNA data is lacking for most species. Hence Kluge's morphological analysis is definitely not the final solution to the python classification problem. Further, Chondropython is morphologically and ecologically distinct from Morelia, and on this basis alone it deserves a genus of its own. Kluge ignores morphological differences between C. viridis and Morelia when he transferred Chondropython in Morelia (rather ironic since he uses morphology to determine relatedness). He did it because he thinks that Chondropython is derived from a species of Morelia and that Morelia sans C. viridis would be paraphyletic. Applying the same intolerance of paraphyletic taxa to, say, Pseudacris, one would have to transfer all species of Pseudacris back into Hyla, since Pseudacris is derived from a species of Hyla closely related to Hyla eximia. Recognizing Pseudacris would therefore render Hyla paraphyletic.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]