Yes that is my understanding, you only have to look at mcdowelli to see the enormous visual variation of the same subspecies. What we have to remember is that it is man who has split these animals based mainly on visual factors and size both of which vary enormously. I have seen coastals you would swear were Jungles and vice versa and Darwins you would swear were Jungles.
Bredli is no surprise and I suppose neither is imbricata given it's relative isolation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickM  From what I understand there are genetic differences between the Aussie carpets, they are just quite small and may not be sufficient to identify the various forms as seperate taxons.
There have been a few DNA studies done though I am not sure if that particular study was published.
The entire concept of using DNA data in classification is new and there seems to be no clear cut rules for how to use that information and how much emphasis to give it. Historically it has always been done of the basis of morphology and geography.
I talked to Weigal at some length about DNA tesiting in 2005 when I visited Australia. He said the results showed only small variations genetically for all the top end and eastern forms. He also said that both Bredli and Imbricata were genetically very distinct.
Also of interest was that Carinata was much more closley related to Viridis than to Spilota.
Nick |
