I guess the way I look at it is two steps forward, one stepback. There have been a pretty good number of ratsnake phylogeny studies done in the last thirty years. Starting with the protein comparisons and moving down to the various DNA (mt and nuclear) comparisons. My perception is that overall progress is being made. Whereas some conjectures are supported by low probablilities, others are much more solid.

So for example, whereas we can probably argue till the cows come home about whether vulpina is more closely related to Pituophis or obsoleta, you no longer hear anybody trying to mix Coelognathus or Gonyosoma with Elaphe. The strongly supported arrangements are convincing to the various researchers and even make sense to laymen (such as me).

Personally, I'm not ready to lump the ratsnakes under Pituophis yet. I think that story has a few more chapters. But I wouldn't be surprised if after alot more study is done that several of the genera currently in existence disappear and are replaced with a new arrangement.

So to re-iterate. If the confidence levels are >95% then I'll adopt something (e.g. mandarina and conspicillata are first cousins) but if the evidence is more tenuous then I'll use my own judgement and wait for a better study to emerge.
Regards
John

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