A Re-appraisal of the Rock Scorpions (Scorpionidae:&lt;i&gt; Hadogenes&lt;/i&gt;)

Newlands, G.; Cantrell, Anthony C.

doi:10.4102/koedoe.v28i1.533

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, additive patterns are common among non‐buthids and frequently used as phylogenetic characters (Stockwell, 1989; Prendini, 2000; S&F, 2001, 2003a; Soleglad and Sissom, 2001). In some of these additive patterns, there may be so many accessory trichobothria that most of the “fundamental” trichobothria are impossible to identify (Lamoral, 1979; Newlands and Cantrell, 1985; Sissom, 1990; Soleglad and Sissom, 2001; Lourenço and Goodman, 2002). Second, the positions of putatively homologous trichobothria are not fixed, although they do occur in generally predictable limits called “territories” (Vachon, 1974; Lamoral, 1979; Sissom, 1990).…”

Section: Pitfalls In Primary Homology Assessment Of Trichobothriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Scorpion higher phylogeny and classification, taxonomic anarchy, and standards for peer review in online publishing

Prendini¹,

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soleglad and Fet's (2003a) attempt to reconstruct the phylogeny of Recent (including extant) scorpions, the revised classification derived from it, and recent emendations, mostly published in their self-edited online journal, Euscorpius, are deficient. Separate analyses of three independent matrices (morphology, 16S rDNA, 18S rDNA) were presented. In the morphological matrix, 52 binary and 10 tristate trichobothrial characters were replaced with one character comprising six ordered states representing trichobothrial ''types''. The remaining matrix of 105 characters was further reduced to 33 ''fundamental'' characters (20% of the morphological dataset), the analysis of which appears to be the basis for the revised classification presented. The taxon sample for the morphological analysis included 14 supraspecific terminal taxa representing genera, the monophyly of only 7 (12.5%) of which has been confirmed. A composite terminal, assembled from the fragments of fossils that may not be confamilial let alone monophyletic, was created for the Palaeopisthacanthidae, employed as the primary outgroup for the analysis. Other important outgroup taxa, notably eurypterids, xiphosurans and other arachnids, were omitted entirely. The morphological characters presented contained numerous unjustifiable assumptions of character polarity and phylogenetic relationship. An approach to character coding, deliberately adopted to reduce ''homoplasy'', biased the analysis towards a preconceived result. Structurally and topographically similar features in different taxa were explicitly assigned separate (often autapomorphic) states according to presumed phylogenetic relationships among the taxa in which they were observed. Putative ''reversals'' were coded as separate characters or states. Character transformation was forced by ordering, additive coding or Sankoff optimization through allegedly intermediate states for which there is no empirical evidence. Many characters were defined in a manner that demonstrates either a lack of understanding of, or disregard for, established methods and standards of morphological character coding. Some states display overlapping variation whereas others subsume variation that is not structurally or topographically similar. Polymorphic ''states'' were created for terminals with interspecific variation and unknown ''states'' for terminals that should have been scored unknown. Many characters were not evaluated for particular terminal taxa, but merely scored inapplicable although the structures and, consequently, the characters in question are present and therefore applicable to them. In view of the significant theoretical and empirical problems with the approach to cladistics taken by Soleglad and Fet, we find no justification for accepting either the results of their analyses or the revised classification derived from them. Pending the outcome of a rigorous phylogenetic analysis, published according to acceptable standards of scholarship in a peer-reviewed journal, we revert to the suprageneric classific...

show abstract

Section: Pitfalls In Primary Homology Assessment Of Trichobothriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Scorpion higher phylogeny and classification, taxonomic anarchy, and standards for peer review in online publishing

Prendini¹,

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The phylogenetic affinities of the new species are presently equivocal. Morphologically, it appears to be most closely related to the H. tityrus species complex, in which the adult females of some species are without a lobe at the base of the movable finger, and in which the pedipalps of others, notably Hadogenes lawrencei Newlands, are extremely elongated (Lawrence 1966;Newlands I 972b, 1980;Newlands & Cantrell 1985). H. zumpti can be readily distinguished from all members of this species complex by the length of the metasoma of the adult male, which is nearly twice the length of the prosoma and mesosoma combined.…”

Section: Hadogenes Zumpti Newlands and Cantrellmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The elongated metasoma of the adult male H. zumpli is a morphological character shared with Hadogenes phyllodes (Thorell) and all other species of Hadogenes with the exception of Hadogenes bieolor Purcell and members of the H. lIIyrus species complex (Newlands, 1980). Despite the morphological evidence, H. zumpli appears to be most closely related to H. phy/lodes on the basis of chromosome number and the electrophoretic banding patterns of venom proteins (New lands 1980;Newlands & Cantrell 1985). Ch romosomal preparations (methods provided in Newlands & Cantrell 1985) we re attempted with testicula r tissue from the preserved lectotype (SAM 88945), with negati ve resul ts.…”

Section: Hadogenes Zumpti Newlands and Cantrellmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the morphological evidence, H. zumpli appears to be most closely related to H. phy/lodes on the basis of chromosome number and the electrophoretic banding patterns of venom proteins (New lands 1980;Newlands & Cantrell 1985). Ch romosomal preparations (methods provided in Newlands & Cantrell 1985) we re attempted with testicula r tissue from the preserved lectotype (SAM 88945), with negati ve resul ts. Chromosomal preparations of nerve and glandular tissue from two juvenile specimens (SA IMR 1312 and SA IMR 1340) yielded negative results for SAIMR 1312, and a single spread for SAfMR 1340.…”

Section: Hadogenes Zumpti Newlands and Cantrellmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this contribution, we provide a formal description of this remarkable species, which is the only member of Hadogenes in which the adults of both sexes are without a lobe at the base of the movable finger of the chela. The only other species of this genus in which the lobe is absent are certain species in the Hadogenes lIIyrus (E. Simon) complex (Lawrence 1966;Newlands 1972bNewlands , 1980Newlands & Cantrell 1985). However, in these species.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations