Thesis: Montivipera - Macrovipera - Daboia

[Wolfgang Wüster]

and the small tree of Daboia without palaestinae

tree_daboia_no_palaest.jpg

D. palaestinae is in there - it's the rather distant sister group to D. mauritanica+deserti

Haven't had the time to read the thesis yet, but I wonder what justifies species status for deserti - the branch lengths separating it from mauritanica are absolutely minimal.

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

About schweizeri - it's a bit of a big document and my German is not all that fluent, so can please someone explain to me
(a) why and how shared haplotypes warrant any specific taxonomic level (i.c. subspecies) and (b) if this is only based on mtDNA.

In theory, the thesis is what you get a degree for - the scientific content is all that matters.

Sure.

That publish or perish thing is, in some cases, even forbidden.

Weird... I've never heard any biologist mention something like that.

Well, imho it's logical that there's a sort of unwritten rule around that you show that you are able to write stuff that can pass the test of peer review. "Publish or perish" is the exponent of that, not the prime goal. If your explanation would stand (which I doubt to be the case for any European biology university course), it is even more regrettable that this ms is in German.

[Martin Romanov]

Is it going to be translated in English? I'm suposed to be studying German for 3 years now but...

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

seems relatively common in philosophy, also some law stuff

Oh, I thought we were talking about science

[Grégoire Meier]

Thank you!

Really interesting!
So many things to review!

[Mario Schweiger]

About schweizeri - it's a bit of a big document and my German is not all that fluent, so can please someone explain to me
(a) why and how shared haplotypes warrant any specific taxonomic level (i.c. subspecies) and (b) if this is only based on mtDNA.

Hello Jeroen

a) not at all. There should be some morphological differences too
But for example: The former ssp. ruffoi and gregorwallneri have been joint with ssp. ammodytes also only by same haplotypes (postglacial invaders) Schweizeri was raised to species level by Nilson and Andren (1988, the transmediterranea description paper, PDF-141 in DB) with a few lines:

b) no, mt and nDNA

Mario

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

About schweizeri - it's a bit of a big document and my German is not all that fluent, so can please someone explain to me
(a) why and how shared haplotypes warrant any specific taxonomic level (i.c. subspecies) and (b) if this is only based on mtDNA.

Hello Jeroen

a) not at all. There should be some morphological differences too
But for example: The former ssp. ruffoi and gregorwallneri have been joint with ssp. ammodytes also only by same haplotypes (postglacial invaders) Schweizeri was raised to species level by Nilson and Andren (1988, the transmediterranea description paper, PDF-141 in DB) with a few lines:

MacroSchweizeriStatus.jpg

b) no, mt and nDNA

Mario

Thanks, Mario! I was not aware that the species status of schweizeri was so feable. Could you perhaps help me out even a little more and indicate where I can find the names of the markers and divergence levels?

[Mario Schweiger]

@Jeroen
All on markers starts at page 9, table of markers page 14.
The divergence levels you may in the tree on page 90

Mario

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

You're the best!

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

I forgot to say that I discussed briefly with PA Crochet & I now should agree with Mario on the status of the Milos viper. Bye, bye, Macrovipera schweizeri.