Underwoodisaurus or Nephrurus

[AUSGECKO]

That would be describing the genus on a 'non important' morphological feature which actually shows very little about relationships. Morphologically milli are almost identical in all important relationship based morphology. The debate really comes down to how much genetic similarity shows convergence of a genus.

Thanks, I wouldn't have a clue how they describe and clump species together.

 

[geckodan]

I think at one stage both milli and sphyrurus were in phylurus but it was short lived, i personaly believe that they should be different to what we currently call Nephrurus. I thought the knob on the end of a Nephrurus` tail would be a good distinguishing feature but they must class them on many more features, none of which i know.

They were never officially classed as Phyllurus except for a erroneus classification (everything got clumped back then) over 50 years ago. The way it all happened was that whilst determining that the genetics of Phyllurus and Underwoodisaurus were different they stumbled across the fact that the genetics of underwoodisaurus and Nephrurus were not different to each other and subsequently sunk the name Underwoodisaurus. Wilson and Swan do not use Nephrurus as they are excessively cautious with their naming, to the detriment of appropriate taxonomy in many cases. Uvidicolus is quite a recent chnage and sinks sphyrurus, following both genetic and morphological reasons.

 

[AUSGECKO]

Thanks for clearing that up Danny

 

[GeckPhotographer]

They were never officially classed as Phyllurus except for a erroneus classification (everything got clumped back then) over 50 years ago. The way it all happened was that whilst determining that the genetics of Phyllurus and Underwoodisaurus were different they stumbled across the fact that the genetics of underwoodisaurus and Nephrurus were not different to each other and subsequently sunk the name Underwoodisaurus. Wilson and Swan do not use Nephrurus as they are excessively cautious with their naming, to the detriment of appropriate taxonomy in many cases. Uvidicolus is quite a recent chnage and sinks sphyrurus, following both genetic and morphological reasons.

Thanks for that clarfication. However this may not change the possiblity of either milli, or levis being the specimen the lumped genus Phyllurus was named from. Of course as I say I have only heard this through plausible rumor. Personally I do not think that Wilson and Swans caution is particularly detrimental, even though it may not mean their book is perfectly taxonomically correct it is far more a guide for identification for non experts, anyone who had a particular taxonomical or identifcation need would be going to the papers of description to decide anyway and for non experts the differentiation between Underwoodisaurus and Nephrurus may not come up as particularly important.

 

[Snowman]

They were never officially classed as Phyllurus except for a erroneus classification (everything got clumped back then) over 50 years ago. The way it all happened was that whilst determining that the genetics of Phyllurus and Underwoodisaurus were different they stumbled across the fact that the genetics of underwoodisaurus and Nephrurus were not different to each other and subsequently sunk the name Underwoodisaurus. Wilson and Swan do not use Nephrurus as they are excessively cautious with their naming, to the detriment of appropriate taxonomy in many cases. Uvidicolus is quite a recent chnage and sinks sphyrurus, following both genetic and morphological reasons.

Very interesting post.

 

[geckodan]

Thanks for that clarfication. However this may not change the possiblity of either milli, or levis being the specimen the lumped genus Phyllurus was named from. Of course as I say I have only heard this through plausible rumor. Personally I do not think that Wilson and Swans caution is particularly detrimental, even though it may not mean their book is perfectly taxonomically correct it is far more a guide for identification for non experts, anyone who had a particular taxonomical or identifcation need would be going to the papers of description to decide anyway and for non experts the differentiation between Underwoodisaurus and Nephrurus may not come up as particularly important.

I think its fine to be cautious to a degree but the sinking of Underwoodisaurus happened before their first edition. Numerous papers using Nephrurus have been published since. They're not cautious any more, just outdated.

 

[JasonL]

Who really cares? not the gecko thats for sure.....

 

[GeckPhotographer]

Who really cares? not the gecko thats for sure.....

Whether it turns out important or not, it is an interesting subject with no reason not to be discussed.

 

[Snowman]

Who really cares? not the gecko thats for sure.....

Anyone who is interested in herpetology obviously.

I'm sure there are heaps of people who don't care though. The same people who would look at a woma and say "nice snake". You say "it's a woma". Their response "who cares".....

 

[eipper]

Hi all,

The paper that has used proposed the name Uvidicolus, put cf. milli back into Underwoodisaurus from Nephrurus. They had to....you could not elevate U. sphyurus to a monotypic genus without reserecting Underwoodisaurus from Nephrurus.

I would of liked to see the paper assign names to the milli complex as well including the reserecting of husbandi etc.

Cheers,
Scott

 

[AUSGECKO]

Does anyone have a link to these papers?

 

[JasonL]

Anyone who is interested in herpetology obviously.

I'm sure there are heaps of people who don't care though. The same people who would look at a woma and say "nice snake". You say "it's a woma". Their response "who cares".....

My point is that all the information is there and it gets down to the point of personal opinions... which is here say...

 

[Smithers]

Does anyone have a link to these papers?

Same

 

[eipper]

Jason,

It is not really heresay...it comes down to the interpretation of the author(s) from the data that is available to them at the time. The point of difference for many taxonomists is the interpretation of the species concept. As methods is both the taking of and the analysis of data evolves, there will be a number of changes accordingly.

Whether or not a particular author takes on a taxonomic changes is really up to the author themselves. This usually is determined from the evidence presented in the paper itself, but certainly personal bias can seemly attribute to the general consensus.

Cheers,
Scott

If someone is after a copy of the paper shoot me an email
[email protected]

 

[Elapidae1]

I'm gathering we are reffering to the same paper Scott??
Oliver, P.M., Bauer, A.M. Systematics and evolution of the Australian knob-tail geckos (Nephrurus, Carphodactylidae, Gekkota):​

Pleisomorphic grades and biome shifts through the Miocene. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. (2011)

Who really cares? not the gecko thats for sure.....

This is taken from Jamie James, The Snake Charmer A Life And Death In The Pursuit Of Knowledge.

The ongoing census of terrestrial life forms, given its skeleton by Linnaeus and its philosophical flesh by Darwin, is one of the boldest intellectual collaborations in history. For centuries, scholars and amateurs throughout the world have laboured mightily and endured terrible hardships to compile a comprehensive portrait of life on earth, all of them playing by the same rule book- a vast open document that is in a constant state of revision. It's the biological equivelant of of a grand unified theory: a verifiable, logically sound explanation of everything. As unimaginably complex and difficult as the task is, for the the insatiably curious among us it possesses an irresistible allure-precisely because it can be done

 

[eipper]

thats the one Steve

 

[geckodan]

Hi all,

The paper that has used proposed the name Uvidicolus, put cf. milli back into Underwoodisaurus from Nephrurus. They had to....you could not elevate U. sphyurus to a monotypic genus without reserecting Underwoodisaurus from Nephrurus.

I would of liked to see the paper assign names to the milli complex as well including the reserecting of husbandi etc.

Cheers,
Scott

I stand corrected. I'll have to reread that one. Thanks Scott.

 

[GeckPhotographer]

I have had a look at that paper and it would to me suggest that not all of the current Nephrurus should be grouped together and that the paper only stopped itself from doing this because of uncertainty in where the divide should be and in want of further evidence.

Would those others who have looked at this paper agree with this or do they have another take on it? (The split I mean is between wheeleri and both the smooth and rough knobtails, which also are both somewhat seperate.)

 

[eipper]

Stephen,

Looking at the "tree" its shows that Uvidicolus, Underwoodisaurus and Nephrurus are all on separate branches of the the same lineage with Uvidicolus being the basal group.

My personal opinion would be to leave the whole lot as Nephrurus (the oldest available name) for the group (Sinking both Underwoodisaurus and Uvidicolus).

The distance of the Spiked Knob tails (amyae, asper & sheai) from the Smooth Knobbies or the wheeleri group is not far enough to to split them any further from the data presented however it does show some interesting points re species divergence. One thing that I noticed was the lack of genetic distance between asper and sheai showing they are quite closely related and that N. levis occidentalis was quite divergent from the nominate subspecies. There was no split shown for N. levis pilbarensis nor was it included as a separate unit within the text, despite levis being refered to in the text as having 3 subspecies.

So what do this mean???? Well if you choose to split N. sheai from N. asper you should also seriously consider elevating N. levis occidentalis to species level.

I would have a chat to your father and ask his opinion

Cheers,
Scott

 

[Nephrurus1]

One thing that I noticed was the lack of genetic distance between asper and sheai showing they are quite closely related and that N. levis occidentalis was quite divergent from the nominate subspecies. There was no split shown for N. levis pilbarensis nor was it included as a separate unit within the text, despite levis being refered to in the text as having 3 subspecies.

Hi Scott,
I've had a look at the supporting docs to the online version of the paper and it would seem that no N levis pilbarensis specimens were actually tested. 8 specimens of N levis and 2 of N levis ssp occidentalis were included. Therefore a complete differentiation between the three subspecies is not possible from this paper .... bit of a shame really!
Cheers
Phil