Comparison of cobra plasma albumins with those of banded krait and sea snakes

Molecular phylogeny of elapid snakes and a consideration of their biogeographic history

“…A number of studies have concluded that true sea snakes and terrestrial Australian elapids share a close relationship (Minton & da Costa, 1975;Mao, Chen & Chang, 1977;Mao, Dessauer & Chen, 1978;Cadle & Gorman, 1981;Minton, 1981;Mao et al, 1983;Schwaner et al, 1985;Slowinski, Knight & Rooney, 1997) supporting the studies of McDowell. However, contrary to McDowell, Mao and colleagues in a series of molecular studies on transferrin immunological distance (Ma0 et al, 1977), peptide fingerprinting of haemoglobins (Ma0 et al, 1978), and protein albumin immunological distance (Ma0 et al, 1983;Guo, Mao & Yin, 1987), concluded that Luticauda and true sea snakes form a 'natural group'. Mao et al, (1983) implied a natural grouping of all sea snakes plus terrestrial AustraloPapuan elapids.…”

“…These features include the indistinguishable nature of head scalation of Bungarus and LovmJgelaps and their very close general resemblance, hemipenis and subcaudal scale similarities between Bungarus and Salomonelaps, shared palatine characteristics between Bungarus and his ' Vmicella' group comprised of Lov@elaPs, Salomonelaps, Ogmodon, and Vmicella (McDowell, 1967(McDowell, , 1969a(McDowell, , 1970, and shared defensive behaviour characteristics between Bungarus and Vmicella (McDowell, 1970). Laticauda too might be considered transitional between elapines and hydrophiines because while it is a palatine erector according to McDowell(1970), Laticauda is a part of the hydrophiine palatine dragger lineage according to a large number of molecular studies including my own (Minton, 1981;Cade & Gorman, 1981;Mao et al, 1977Mao et al, , 1978Mao et al, , 1983Schwaner et al, 1985;Guo et al, 1987;Slowinski et al, 1997). In addition to an obvious superficial morphological resemblance between Bungarus and Laticauda, McDowell (1 970: 150) noted that his Vmicella group, is ".…”

“…Some researchers have found a closer association between Bungarus and Afro-Asian cobras than between other elapid groups Wnton, 1981;Schwaner et al, 1985;Slowinski et al, 1997). Mao et al (1983) and Guo et al (1987) presented phenograms based on immunological distance and plasma albumin comparisons, respectively, that suggested a sister group relationship between Bungarus and N i a species on the one hand and Laticauda and true sea snake species on the other. However these authors considered the split between Bungarus and Naja species to be deeper (and thus, perhaps older) than the split between Luticauda and true sea snakes.…”

Phylogenetic Relationships of Elapid Snakes Based on Cytochrome b mtDNA Sequences

“…Keogh (1998), in a phylogenetic analysis of partial 16S and cytochrome b sequences, found Bungarus to be the sister taxon to the marine/Australo-Melanesian clade, with the relationships of the African, American, and remaining Asian forms left unresolved at the base of the tree. Yet, within the context of a very limited number of elapids, the molecular studies of Mao et al (1983) and Guo et al (1987) have linked Bungarus with the cobra genus Naja to the exclusion of marine/Australo-Papuan forms. Further, in a study based on the amino acid sequences of two venom protein genes, Slowinski et al (1997) found the African and Asian species (no American species were sampled) to be monophyletic, a result supported by both genes.…”

Inferring Species Trees from Gene Trees: A Phylogenetic Analysis of the Elapidae (Serpentes) Based on the Amino Acid Sequences of Venom Proteins

“…A phylogenetic association between Australian terrestrial elapids with both laticaudine and hydrophiine sea snakes has been supported by other molecular studies (Minton and da Costa, 1975;Cadle and Gorman, 1981;Mao et al, 1983;Schwaner et al, 1985). Several studies that have not included Australian terrestrial genera, both molecular (Mao et al, 1977(Mao et al, , 1978Guo et al, 1987;Murphy, 1988) and morphological (McCarthy, 1986), have united laticaudines and hydrophiines to the exclusion of African, American, and Asian forms. Thus, contrary to McDowell's (1967McDowell's ( , 1969McDowell's ( , 1972) placement of laticaudines with Calliophis, Maticora, Parapistocalamus, and New World coral snakes (Micruroides and Micrurus), the balance of evidence supports an association of the laticaudines with the hydrophiine sea snakes and Australian terrestrial species.…”