Re: Cannia australis

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Taxonomy Forum ]

Posted by WW on May 02, 2002 at 03:23:20:

In Reply to: Cannia australis posted by Derek K. on May 01, 2002 at 22:08:22:

: Due to recent heated discussions over Aussie/PNG proposed Elapidae taxa changes, I have become somewhat skeptical as to which proposals are valid and those that are not. Would I be safe in saying that this taxa change from Pseudechis to Cannia would be recognized by the majority of subject matter experts or otherwise?

At the risk of starting yet another one of those heated discussions, let's just say that I know of only two authors who have used Cannia for the mulga snake or anything else: Wells & Wellington, who coined the name in the mid 80s, and Ray Hoser in his last few papers on the group. The question of validity is a red herring - the name is available, whether you chose to split Pseudechis as commonly recognised into multiple genera or not is really up to you. I have seen no "mainstream" herpetologist accepting the splits, and don't foresee any of the doing so, but there again, I may be proved wrong.

For a discussion of the taxonomy of Pseudechis, DNA evidence on the topic, the different classification options, and comments on them (yes, from my own somewhat biased perspective), see the link below.

Cheers,

Wolfgang

Comments on Pseudechis taxonomy

Follow Ups:

Re: Cannia australis and "Pseudechis".....more Scott Eipper 05/06/02 (7)
- Re: Cannia australis and "Pseudechis".....more WW 05/06/02 (5)
  - Re: Cannia australis and "Pseudechis".....more Scott Eipper 05/07/02 (4)
    - Re: Cannia australis and "Pseudechis".....more WW 05/07/02 (3)
      - Yeah....change all right MDNA never came into species/genus accounts.np Scott Eipper 05/08/02 (2)
        
        Happy Birthday Scott! n/p WW 05/08/02 (1)
        
        Got the paper thanks. Scott Eipper 05/14/02 (0)
- "Interesting", P. colletti, didn't know they grew to such large Derek K. 05/06/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : : Due to recent heated discussions over Aussie/PNG proposed Elapidae taxa changes, I have become somewhat skeptical as to which proposals are valid and those that are not. Would I be safe in saying that this taxa change from Pseudechis to Cannia would be recognized by the majority of subject matter experts or otherwise? : At the risk of starting yet another one of those heated discussions, let's just say that I know of only two authors who have used Cannia for the mulga snake or anything else: Wells & Wellington, who coined the name in the mid 80s, and Ray Hoser in his last few papers on the group. The question of validity is a red herring - the name is available, whether you chose to split Pseudechis as commonly recognised into multiple genera or not is really up to you. I have seen no "mainstream" herpetologist accepting the splits, and don't foresee any of the doing so, but there again, I may be proved wrong. : For a discussion of the taxonomy of Pseudechis, DNA evidence on the topic, the different classification options, and comments on them (yes, from my own somewhat biased perspective), see the link below. : Cheers, : Wolfgang

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Taxonomy Forum ]