 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 3 months for $50.00 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by WW on November 22, 2002 at 03:39:52:
In Reply to: Does this mean? posted by rayhoser on November 21, 2002 at 14:59:20:
:That after four years of violent opposition by yourself, you finally concede that the snake I described in 1998 as pailsus pailsei is in fact different to "Pseudechis australis" as I originally stated and contrary to your widely disseminated claims, including those still on the EMBL sites?
(i) I have never stated that P. pailsi is definitely P. australis, I have stated that your description does not provide adequate evidence. We have been through that many times. Yes, I was highly skeptical about it when you first described it (and the EMBL comment dates back to then - I don't control the site, I merely provided a comment when asked back in 1998). Since then, additional evidence has led me to believe that it *probably* is a distinct species. Had you provideed sufficient hard data in your original paper, then you would have had fewer doubters to contend with.
(ii) Our data do suggest that it is a distinct species from P. australis, but mtDNA sequence from a single specimen is perhaps not quite the level of evidence one would like to see to be definite sure about this.
:Does this also mean that likewise you agree that I was correct in describing rossignilli as yet an other distinct species?
I have never disagreed that it was a different species - why would Ulrich Kuch have been in the process of describing it if it wasn't? I trust his judgement on this. Again, we have been through this argument many times. The point of the argument with you on that one was not the question of whether or not it is distinct, but the ethical context of the description, as well as the quality of it (e.g., holotype never examined etc.).
Moreover, the data do show that there is no evidence favouring recognition of your genus Pailsus.
:Does this also mean that you agree with my view that the the three Mulga Snake taxa I described last year are not sufficiently different from previously described forms to warrent separation at the species level?
I don't have any data on the forms you described last year. I have data for a number of P. australismainland populations, and they are so close to one another that it would be hard to justofy ANY subdivision, at the species OR subspecies level - this would apply to the various forms you resurrected.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
