Went to the library and dug out the paper. Did not read through it all the way, but the introduction was interesting. Storr basically split Amphibolurus because he thought there were too many species in it, which is of course not really a good reason for reclassification. Consider for example, the genus Hyla (Hylidae) or the genus Anolis (Gekkonidae). Each of these genera have far more species than "Amphibolurs sensu lato." Little wonder he was criticized by other scientists at that time, as Wells is suggesting. The characters Storr used, i.e. presence or absence of femoral pores in certain parts of the body, seem trivial and may well be unreliable. Too bad DNA data appears to be lacking for these lizards, so it is not possible to verify whether the species within Pogona form a natural group or not. If these pores are only superficial similarities or if they are retained ancestral characters that have been lost in some but retained by others, then the genus Pogona may well be polyphyletic.

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