Herman, that's a good analogy and understand of Burbrink et al. That's pretty much what I was understanding, but I just couldn't put it into words as eloquently as you did. My understanding of the terminology isn't that good. I'll attempt to explain how I feel about this situation, which I believe is as valid as Burbrink's point.



First, let me say that I believe Pituophis species are "ratsnakes", as I know them, closely related to N. A. ratsnakes and the Lampropeltini. We have not thought of them as ratsnakes while growing up, and it's hard now since they look different from our other N. A. ratsnakes, but I do believe we should now consider them to be ratsnakes. However, that doesn't mean I think they are as closely related to fox snakes, or any ratsnake, as the other species of Pantherophis are related to each other.



I think Burbrink et al. stated that fox snakes are closer to the Pituophis species than to other Pantherophis sps. I think that's why you said it made them paraphyletic. In my opinion, you have to look at morphological and other characteristics, as well as genetics, when comparing. I can't say I believe the fox snakes are as close, or closer, to the Pituophis sps, as they are to other Pantherophis sps. I think we're going to need some more evidence before we can put the fox snakes in the genus. I know Utiger et al. looked at these species. You would think they would have said something if the Pituophis sps. tested so close to the fox snakes, wouldn't you.



Just seems like we need more convincing on this. I wonder what other scientists will say?





>>Hello Terry,

>>

>>I understand. The point Burbrink et al are making, is that the current situation, having Pantherophis and Pituophis as seperate genera, can no longer be maintained because it implies a paraphyletic genus Pantherophis. From a cladistic point of view, paryphyletic taxa are not acceptable. Thus Pantherophis should be synonimized with Pituophis, or vice versa. It's not about what 'feels' right, but about following widely accepted nomenclatural rules.

>>

>>Look at it this way. So your parents named you Terry, but if they had named you George instead, you wouldn't have known any better. If we had named Pituophis species ratsnakes from the beginning, instead of calling them pine snakes, bullsnakes or gopher snakes, we propably wouldn't have any problem with Burbrink's proposal at all. It just doesn't feel right because we were brought up looking at them as being very different from ratsnakes. Which they're not, as it seems.

>>

>>Best regards,

>>

>>Herman Bronsgeest.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]