Validity of P. aspidorhyncha and P. mengdeni?

Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum

Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

adderboy

AussiePythons Supporter
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
214
Reaction score
69
Location
Perth
Hi

My apologies if this has been raised previously, but I performed a quick scan and couldn't see anything on it.

Following publication of Skinner's work on P. nuchalis, the above species were recognised as separate species by many herpers. I profess to know little about the DNA and morphological differentiations made, aside from some basic stuff (eg the rostral of aspidorhyncha), but then again, DNA work seems to have thrown open a Pandora's box in taxonomy.

A later publication, a Ph.D thesis, appears to put aside both of the above and return them to P. nuchalis. It was written by C. Gregory and is published on the University of Griffith's website, here:

http://research-hub.griffith.edu.au/display/n8f59b0d3943ed72d9d95172695f2e1ec

The paper explores both Pseudonaja and Oxyuranus, and makes for interesting reading. It suggests that while the above might not exist as separate species, there might be more in the Pseudonaja group than those currently recognised.

So my question is, how valid are aspidorhyncha and mengdeni in the face of this?

Simon
 
Hi Simon,

At the moment they are valid but who's to say that things won't change on the taxonomic round-a-bout that is plaguing Australian herpetology at the moment.

Cheers,

George.
 
If the evidence is there for the two to be synonymised (based on molecular and morphological/ morphometric data) then of course they should be regarded as a single taxon. A problem is the way data is interpreted, hence the different opinions of taxonomists and the reason for continued taxonomic rearrangements.

Until such data is published, the respective taxa will be regarded as valid.
 
Simon this was taken from that paper you posted p. 209

'What is the taxonomic status of P. ?nuchalis?? As has been hypothesised, discussed, andshown by past researchers, P. ?nuchalis? is clearly a composite taxon. Valid,monophyletic taxa include P. aspidorhyncha, P. mengdeni, and P. nuchalis. Nosubspecies are known or recognised.'

The paper provides further support for that arrangement, and considering how widespread and robust the sample size was and more detailed analysis was than any other paper, I would say that arrangement is looking pretty strong. It looks like modesta, guttata, and textilis might get a few subspecies but suggested there is need for further examination though. It also suggested those so called ingrami recorded from WA be further examined, maybe put back into one of the new 'nuchalis'.


 
Last edited:
This is one group that has been wanting a revision for a long time. Hal and I were discussing some of the points raised and nothing was of great surprise. I have been working of the modesta group for the last three years- so no surprises that ramsayi comes out as a valid taxa (there are shots of a ramsayi and a true modesta in my elapid book).

When I get chance- I am in the field again atm I will give a long response.

Cheers,
Scott
 
Thanks for the replies.

Bushfire - yes, think I misread some of that in the doc. Serves me right for reading it too quickly.

Scott - will wait to hear what gives with modesta. This paper seems to support a split (and no split within textilis).

S

PS: Interesting to note Gregory's pessimism in obtaining fresh "nuchalis" tissue from CYP given the impact of the cane toad (pp 166, 208 ).
 
Last edited:
That part was interesting, I couldn't believe they disappeared from there so I did a quick internet search and found 4 records of them from there since 2000, with only 2 since 2010. I'd imagined there densities taking a hit but small pockets it seems still are about. It's probably more of a case of its been awhile since a museum took a fresh specimen record from there. I'd also imagine quite a few fieldies would have records but not too many get passed on to databases. I may of misread the info in that paper too but seems Gregory's data came from mostly museum and a few captive specimens and no new field data was collected.

Seems with textilis, he is saying there is variation there but maybe not enough to warrant a split at species level and left it up to someone else to look further.

Many thanks for for posting this thread it's been quite a few years since I had an interest in these guys, and the paper may come handy one day for me. Don't worry sounds like you did what I normally do anyway with papers (read abit of a paper, bypass the boring complex genetic data, look at the chart and then read the authors interpretations).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top