=
On Mar 3, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Shane Smith wrote:
I recently acquired a pair of WC U. Phants =
and was wondering where the best place online was to discuss these =
little guys. The kingsnake forums used to be good but have died. I read =
the geckophile index as well and it seems to be full of good information =
but what else is out there? Any ideas? =
Thanks
PS: =
If this type of post is forbidden, please forgive me =
mods.
=
--Apple-Mail-1-803974615--
From gecko@lists.gekkota.com Tue Mar 4 08:48:26 2008
From: gecko@lists.gekkota.com (yehudah werner)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 00:48:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [gecko]Up Underwoodisaurus!
Message-ID: <112467.68985.qm@web30503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
--0-1269040757-1204620506=:68985
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hello,
John Rudge is right that Underwoodisaurus milii now is Nephrurus milii. But this is so only because the last publication is what counts, not because it is imposed by the evidence. John considers, and probably rightly, that the strongest evidence is the paper by Melville et al. 2004. But this paper shows "N. milii" to be the sister group of a clade of 4 Nephrurus species, not within that clade. It could retain its separate genus name, Underwoodisaurus Wermuth. The authors only say that given that the genus does no more exist (this they don't say expressly but imply) the species belongs not with Phyllurus as earlier thought (Kluge, Russell) but with Nephrurus. Fine, but why not retain (or revive) Underwoodisaurus, which lacks the distinctive Nephrurus tail, commemorating the deserving gecko researcher Garth Underwood and the deserving gecko author Heinz Wermuth ?
Yehudah
Yehudah L. Werner
Professor Emeritus of Zoology
Department of Evolution, Systematics and Ecology
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
91904 Jerusalem, Israel
Tel. 972-2-6585874 (direct)
Fax 972-2-6584741 (departmental office)
e-mail yehudah_w@yahoo.com
Home tel./fax 972-2-5665576
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
--0-1269040757-1204620506=:68985
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hello,
John Rudge is right that Underwoodisaurus milii now is Nephrurus milii. But this is so only because the last publication is what counts, not because it is imposed by the evidence. John considers, and probably rightly, that the strongest evidence is the paper by Melville et al. 2004. But this paper shows "N. milii" to be the sister group of a clade of 4 Nephrurus species, not within that clade. It could retain its separate genus name, Underwoodisaurus Wermuth. The authors only say that given that the genus does no more exist (this they don't say expressly but imply) the species belongs not with Phyllurus as earlier thought (Kluge, Russell) but with Nephrurus. Fine, but why not retain (or revive) Underwoodisaurus, which lacks the distinctive Nephrurus tail, commemorating the deserving gecko researcher Garth Underwood and the deserving gecko author Heinz Wermuth
?
Yehudah
Yehudah L. Werner
Professor Emeritus of Zoology
Department of Evolution, Systematics and Ecology
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
91904 Jerusalem, Israel
Tel. 972-2-6585874 (direct)
Fax 972-2-6584741 (departmental office)
e-mail yehudah_w@yahoo.com
Home tel./fax 972-2-5665576
Never miss a thing.
Make Yahoo your homepage.
--0-1269040757-1204620506=:68985--
From gecko@lists.gekkota.com Wed Mar 5 16:15:03 2008
From: gecko@lists.gekkota.com (Powell's)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:15:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [gecko]Up Underwoodisaurus!
In-Reply-To: <112467.68985.qm@web30503.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <824274.49600.qm@web80408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Prof. Werner,
I'd think with your pedigree you would know that you
don't have to refer Underwoodisaurus milii to
Nephrurus. I must admit I haven't read all the papers
you mention but from your outline and my understanding
of current views in systematics and phylogeny you want
genera to be monophyletic. If U. milii were added to
Nephrurus then it would be biphyletic. That indicates
to me that milii should be kept in Underwoodisaurus.
If scientists don't agree with a paper then they don't
accept it’s conclusions and if enough people don't
agree with a paper then the conclusions are rejected.
I believe that should be the case here.
Best,
Chuck
--- yehudah werner
wrote:
> Hello,
> John Rudge is right that Underwoodisaurus milii
> now is Nephrurus milii. But this is so only because
> the last publication is what counts, not because it
> is imposed by the evidence. John considers, and
> probably rightly, that the strongest evidence is the
> paper by Melville et al. 2004. But this paper shows
> "N. milii" to be the sister group of a clade of 4
> Nephrurus species, not within that clade. It could
> retain its separate genus name, Underwoodisaurus
> Wermuth. The authors only say that given that the
> genus does no more exist (this they don't say
> expressly but imply) the species belongs not with
> Phyllurus as earlier thought (Kluge, Russell) but
> with Nephrurus. Fine, but why not retain (or revive)
> Underwoodisaurus, which lacks the distinctive
> Nephrurus tail, commemorating the deserving gecko
> researcher Garth Underwood and the deserving gecko
> author Heinz Wermuth ?
> Yehudah
>
>
> Yehudah L. Werner
> Professor Emeritus of Zoology
> Department of Evolution, Systematics and Ecology
> The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
> 91904 Jerusalem, Israel
> Tel. 972-2-6585874 (direct)
> Fax 972-2-6584741 (departmental office)
> e-mail yehudah_w@yahoo.com
> Home tel./fax 972-2-5665576
>
> ---------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Charles & Barbara Powell
American Dendrobatid Group
www.hylaweb.com/frogday