BushSnake wrote:They decided that they didn't pick the correct 3 out of 1 000 000 00 00 00 genes and tried a different 3
It's not so much a matter of "picking the correct genes" as defining exactly what question you want to ask and how you define a subspecies. The mitochondrial DNA data we have so far basically tell us that the southern African
B. gabonica share a very recent common ancestor (prob of the order of 1 million years old - that's very recent in this context, and when compared with other widespread African snake species) with all other
B. gabonica populations - they do not have a long history of independent evolution. The mtDNA data therefore give no grounds for recognising subspecies within
B. gabonica on the basis of separate evolutionary history.
However, that does not exclude the
possibility that these populations
may have differentiated recently and rapidly in their morphology, ecology or whatever. Depending on the extent of the differentiation and on whether the populations concerned are geographically isolated or not, some would consider this sufficient justification for considering a distinctive population a different subspecies or even species, even though the differentiation may have been recent or rapid. A good example of this is the Brazilian golden lancehead (
Bothrops insularis) - this is a very recent (tens of thousands of years) offshoot of the mainland species
Bothrops jararaca (mtDNA differences are virtually zero, the two species sharing some haplotypes), yet it is profoundly different in scalation, pattern and ecology, and nobody has suggested that it is not a different species.
NOTE: I have absolutely no information on whether South African
B. gabonica are at all differentiated or not! I am simply trying to point out that there is not
necessarily a contradiction between lack of mtDNA differentiation and separate taxonomic status.