|
11-13 of 13 messages
|
Previous
Page 2 of 2
|
|
RE: Does canebrake exists?
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on October 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Richard, it ain`t over `till the fat lady sings!
While it is true that The Center for North American Amphibians and Reptiles and the ITIS for now does not recognise the Canebrake Rattlesnake as a vaild sub-species, that could change.
When Pisani, Collins, and Edwards in the 1973 Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science decided to remove the recognition of Canebrake sub-species, it was not widly accepted by other scientists, and widly challenged. While the folks from the University of Kansas are great taxonomists, they have not always been recognised as being right.
Resently, through mitocondrial DNA sampling, Clark, Moler, Possardt, Savitzky, Brown, & Bowen (2003 Journal of Herpetology 37(1): 145-154) were able to duplicate the conclusions of Pisani, et al from 1973. However, the mtDNA evidence actually was not all that conclusive also. Some of the mathmatical conclusions were very shakey. And like I said above, when you are dealing with the new mtDNA ``Gee Wizz`` science, there is till the matter of deciding what percentage of difference should be concidered significant. When whe can have a 1% ot 2% difference that determines if an animal is a sub-species or a geographic race of a full species, we have some what of a problem, as the interpretation of the strength of the results varies from researcher to researcher.
The research actually showed that there is a high probability that there should be 3 different groups of Horridus, a Southern one, a Northern one, and a Western one. Establishing those groupe will take a lot of time and research, but that direction is where this is all going. Wether they are recognised as Races, or Subspecies or elevated to Species status remains to be seen. Even within the Clark, Moler, Possardt, Savitzky, Brown, & Bowen group, there is a lot of differing opinions. Just because it has not been done yet does not mean that it is not being worked on. It is a really big project.
So, we still have ``just a bunch of herpers and scientists going back and forth over and over again,`` LOL.
You can choose to believe the CNAH folks if you want. I know Joseph Collins, and he is a good taxonomist. And his outfit does good work. But I have also seen him go back and change taxonomy of animals that he classified one way when new evidence came up. And I have seen him tackle the work of his mentor Edward H. Taylor, the grand old man of Kansas taxonomy.
So what I am saying it that taxonomic science is a ever changing thing. You can see how the classifications of animals has changed many, many times from Linnaeus. It is a fluid science. Right now we see our friend Wolfgang Wuster elivating a lot of cobras to full Species status, based on current science and views of taxonomy. This is not to say though that in 15 years someone else might come along and say he was wrong in doing so. We also have taxonomists and scientists and herpers eyeing the King Cobra, and trying to decide how to break up its Species status. That one should be fun to watch. Perhaps there will be new Species, or perhaps there will be many sub-species. So far it has not been done as no one has yet tackled the project.
Just resently we saw Elaphe re-named Pantherophos, and that caught on for a short while, but it seems to be crashing and burning, and now we see Elaphe coming back. Taxonomists are just scientists, they are just herpers. It is just like here. They might use mtDNA to classify animals, we might use behavioral and habitat preferences to classify animals. Science should be fluid, Science should be contriversial, Science should be like a fractal. You do yourself a disservice by saying ``Well, I go by what CNAH says....``. Give it a few years and CNAH might just be saying something different based on some new science that makes mtDNA look like old time witch craft and alchemy.
Just some random thoughts to stir things up some, and to defend the noble Seminole, Velvet-tailed, Canebrake, Clambuster, Swamp Rattler !
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: Does canebrake exists?
|
Reply
|
|
by bassteck76 on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh believe me I know it will all change again......if there is anything the taxa people can do it is change their minds!
I guess I just use the CNAH as a guide so that I can be somewhat standardized with fellow herpers. I know not all use them as a guide....but the majority does.
Good discussion by the way!
Richard
|
| |
|
RE: Does canebrake exists?
|
Reply
|
|
by ALA_snake33 on October 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John: This reminds me of my Theory that in areas holding both A. p. leucostoma & A. p. piscivorous, they could very well have their own Micro Habitat Preferences. I brought this up to a good Friend of mine and he thought I had lost my mind, but when I told him what made me think this, he started getting a little interested.
I guess we will know soon enough, if C. horridus have a Subspecies found further South. If we know one thing for sure, it’s that Science finds new Subspecies on a regular bases.
In my personal opinion, I think that they will find out that Timber Rattlers have 3 Separate Races.
Be Safe Ya’ll, Happy Herping : Wally
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
