Chuck, Your statement about the inclusion of sp. *milli *rendering *Nephrurus*polyphyletic (READ: biphyletic) would only be correct if additional taxa (not *Nephrurus* or *Underwoodisaurus*) would be "lumped in" by this taxonomic change. As Dr. Werner states, Melville et al (2004) recovered a phylogeny with *(N.) milli* as the sister taxon to the clade containing four *Nephrurus* *sensu stricto* taxa, thus the clade containing these five species and their most recent common ancestor (MRCA) is monophyletic.
I'd think with your pedigree you would know that you don't have to refer Underwoodisaurus milii to Nephrurus. I must admit I haven't read all the papers you mention but from your outline and my understanding of current views in systematics and phylogeny you want genera to be monophyletic. If U. milii were added to Nephrurus then it would be biphyletic. That indicates to me that milii should be kept in Underwoodisaurus. If scientists don't agree with a paper then they don't accept it's conclusions and if enough people don't agree with a paper then the conclusions are rejected. I believe that should be the case here. Since phylogenetic reconstruction is dependent on synapomorphic (shared derived) character states, one could argue that the lack of the synapomorphic tail morphology of *Nephrurus sensu stricto* in sp. *milli*could be used as evidence to continue the recognition of Underwoodisaurus. Hope this helps clarify the nuance. Best, Laurence Laurence Frabotta, PhD Director, Special Research Programs The City University of New York
