|
1-10 of 20 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by TheFifthDay on December 2, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First off, what is the difference between the two? I read something about the scalation.. does anyone care to elaborate on this?
And secondly, how easy (or hard) are they to care for? I am not going to go out and get one if anyone tells me they are easy to care for, I would just like to know.
Thanks,
Jon Short
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by JSargent on December 2, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
aren't chimp's genes 98% the same as humans...wonder what all that 2% percent is...a little more hair, a little different hips....with this new gene research people may be jumping the gun...there has to be a gene somewhere in the canebrake that gives it more scales... do most of you know there are subspecies of humans...i didn't until recently seeing a crime show that was showing the three different skulls and their shape and how they could tell if a skeleton was white, black, or asian...and had names for each(thought the one for asian to be interesting)...copperheads are up next...i read somewhere that SC copperheads were used as the southerns...BIG mistake as most SC copperheads appear to be intergrades...finding a northern looking animal next to a true southern looking animal is quite common...you wanna do a study...take a southern from texas and compare it to a northern from the KY mountains geneticly...that is if one can brake down the genes and truely compare them, not just the basic functions...and aren't reptiles genes supposed to be more complicated than mammals and that is why no reptiles have been cloned yet...hummm
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by najasuphan on December 2, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As far as I know, canebrakes are considered just a different color phase, and locality, of timber now. They are both just classified as Crotalus horridus. Canebrakes used to be considered a subspecies of timber, then known as Crotalus horridus atricaudatus, but that seems to be invalid now, however the common name just stuck with the canebrake color variant. This is much like the way people sometimes still refer to banded snouted cobras as banded egyptian cobras. As far as I know, this information is still accurate. With the scalation, I have no idea. I have never heard anything about scalation differences between the two. As far as the care of canebrakes, I don't think that they are particulary difficult to care for, as I have a yearling currently, but they are a snake that commands a ton of respect. They have a powerful venom that has been the cause of some seriously dangerous bites.
-Jamie
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by JSargent on December 2, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
seriously dangerous....THEY HAVE KILLED....this year...canebrakes from SC down into FL are very toxic, w/ Oceloa FL being considered the worst...one from osceola dropped a man within ten minutes, luckily he basicly lived across the street from the hospital... i am not certain of the toxicity of the other states, but i wouldn't test any of em.....
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by theemojohnm on December 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There still seem to be some folks who completely disagree with the "Timbers and Canebrakes are one in the same" theory, and I sometimes question this myself. However, you can't really argue with mDNA proof, I still believe something isn't quite right with how we are interpreting that data. Maybe too much is being invested in the mDNA studies, and the "old school" Morphological Analysis shouldn’t be thrown away completely?
As mentioned, the Timber and Canebrake Rattlesnakes were once classified as two distinct subspecies. The "Canebrake Rattlesnake" was once Crotalus horridus atricaudatus, and the Northern variety, the "Timber Rattlesnake" was known as Crotalus horridus horridus.
While it used to be that the classification of many species was based on geographic range, specific markings, and scale counts, the wonderful new mDNA genetic studies have shown no noteworthy difference between the two. There is a slight scale count difference, at least I believe so. This is referred to as a "Clinal" population, which basically means that there are "Southern Timbers" with a certain look and "Northern Timbers" with a certain look, and the small physical features differ throughout their range.
Because there isn’t any genetic difference, both "Canebrakes" and "Timbers" are both recognized now as C. horridus. Don't get me wrong, adult size, pattern, seasonal habits, and sometimes even their defensive behaviors differ greatly from the Northern and Southern populations. Still, mDNA analysis (which is hard to argue with) says that they are genetically the same.
I do believe that there are a few specific scale count differences, but don't ask me what they are. LOL. I am not exactly sure if I remember what that was. Again, this is just a gradual difference in individual specimens of the same species that occurs throughout their range.
Take Care,
~John Mendrola.
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by theemojohnm on December 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Almost forgot...
The husbandry for Timber Rattlesnakes isn't all that bad at all. I would like to say Timbers/Canes are easy keeps, but occasionally I end up with a wild-caught specimen that is a tricky feeder, doesn't like to drink, and is easily stressed. Usually the difficult wild-caught specimens eventually come around after brumating for winter. It seems that, because of the colder climate up North, here the Timbers can be a bit more difficult than the southern "canebrakes". A Northern Timbers whole year is pretty much "pre planned" (if that makes any sense to you), as soon as they come out of brumation in the spring. The timbers up here have a seemingly "scheduled" year because of a more limited active period compared to the southern "Canebrakes".
The husbandry for Timbers and Canes is basically the same. It's just that some specimens (as with every species) can be a bit stubborn, and tricky to work with occasionally.
Is there anything specific you want to know regarding care? Personally, I feel that Timbers (for the most part) are fairly easy to care for. Again, they can be very stubborn at times, and are seemingly very intelligent snakes compared to some other species.
Probably my favorite rattler species.
Take Care,
~John Mendrola.
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by Crotalusssp on December 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If we have not eradicated the wild populations in the next 50 years, we might be able to add the adtriadactus back on. They are different animals phenotypically, just not genotypically. I am not a real big fan of mDNA testing. The mDNA evolves rather quickly and is only inherited from the female parent.
Charles
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by earthguy on December 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Charles,
This whole argument boils down into whether you are a lumper or a divider. The main problem is that there is a really fuzzy line between the terms 'subspecies' and 'morph'. If you want to be really technical about it the definition of species is pretty shaky. The term 'subspecies' works really well if you are trying to put an animal on the Endangered Species List (thus protecting 'Timbers' when 'Canebrakes' are pretty common), but in the end I don't think that it would hold up in a court of law.
As far as mDNA studies, the science is sound. I tend to not care much for cell smashing, but I have yet to find any real flaws in the logic.
|
| |
|
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.
|
