 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 3 months for $50.00 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by pjay on April 11, 2003 at 10:49:07:
In Reply to: Re: Emydoidea blandingi Question posted by anuraanman on April 08, 2003 at 22:12:06:
There is no doubt that these turtles are all most closely related to one another, but it is a classic lump/split decision that could go either way. This will eventually be decided by the usage in articles and books over the next few years.
A lumped Emys that contains all three species is preferable to some because they prefer to minimize monotypic genera. Their argument is that differences are evident at the species level and similarities are indicated by the genus. By including all three species in Emys, more information is conveyed about the similarities among these turtles.
I support the Actinemys, Emys, Emydoidea arrangement because it requires only one name change, therefore maintains the greatest taxonomic stability.
Superficially, these turtles appear to be very similar, but the morphological and ecological differences, as well as their distinct geographic distributions suggest an evolutionary trajectory that should be reflected in the taxonomy. I also think that there is more flexibility in the "splitter" arrangement. The monotypic genera argument will fail if more diversity is recognized by future workers. It is likely that a new species or two will be carved from the Emys orbicularis-complex, Actinemys marmorata has two distinct subspecies, and some have suggested that Emydoidea is polytypic (in addition to the fossil species recently described for this genus).
:i think it is now Emys, go here
:http://www.chelonia.org/Articles/TaxonomicConfusion.htm
