|
11-20 of 20 messages
|
Previous
Page 2 of 2
|
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by Crotalusssp on December 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The entire biological species concept is very shaky. Reproduction occurs between different species and sometimes even different genus. I know the science is sound with mDNA, I am just not a big fan. I know it is easier than sequencing an entire genome. The whole subject of taxonomy gets "fuzzier" the more you dig/learn. I am not sure where I fit in with the "lumpers" vs. "dividers".
I just found this horridus update on W.W. site. http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~bss166/Updates/Crotalinae2003.htm
Good to see you posting again on here Josh. I was just wondering the other day if you had posted recently. I thought I might have seen/met you in person at the last Columbia show. Good to talk to you again.
Charles
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by ChuckHurd on December 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
well, my friend, you have opened up a very old debate. one of the main problems is that there is no final authority. some people no longer accept the cane as a sub-sp and some still do. i know there are at least 2 states that still recognize the cane as a sub-sp. it works like this, someone does some research, then they present their findings and it either is accepted by the community or its rejected. some time ago, someone decided the cane and timber were so genetically similar that the cane should no longer be a sub-sp. few years ago, Dr. Gordon W. Schuett came to my home and pulled some DNA from my locality specific snakes. He told me then when he released his next paper he was advocating that the cane become its own separate sp, rather then just a sub-sp. once that research is released, we may be looking at Crotalus horridus & Crotalus atricaudatus. i have never been of the mindset that they are the same snakes. i have timbers that are 2.5 feet at full adult size and i have canes that are almost 6 feet. the shape of the head is very different. a timber has a head that strongly resembles the head of a copperhead. a cane has a head that is shaped more like the head of an EDB. there are strong color and pattern differences. there are notable differences in the venom. i have never cared enough to do a scale count, but people tell me there is a scale count difference. i think just about everyone agrees the cane and timber are of different phenotypes. (which means they do not look alike.) but there is debate over wither or not they are of different genotypes. I have heard that the original study where the cane was stripped of its standing did not use a large enough study group for the research. anyway, i am not sure of that....but i do trust Gordon, and he is probably the foremost North American pit-viper expert in the world, so i would expect to see some changes on the classification of the cane and timber before long.
on a side note, Gorgon also tells me that he plans to pull out the western cottonmouth as a separate sp from the FL & Eastern.
I hope this helped to answer your questions.
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by 23bms on December 3, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just to be argumentative:
Timbers vary widely in appearance from one end of their extensive range to another. Those who have analyzed the mDNA insist there is not sufficient cause to separate them into different subspecies or species.
Humans vary wildly in appearance over their entire wide range. Do natives of the Congo and natives of Finland or China appear to be of the same species? Geneticists insist that they are. Using the criteria applied by some to timbers, the answer would have to be no.
Is the genetic variability in timbers over their entire range greater than the genetic variability of humans over their entire range? Perhaps someone can come up with comparable mDNA data for both species (if they are in fact monotypic species).
If the difference is in fact greater in the latter, are those arguing for distinct timbers species or subspecies reduced to arguing that in the former instance the answer is scientific and in the latter 'politically correct?'
I am passing no judgment whatsoever. Just curious.
jrb
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by earthguy on December 4, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Following along 23bms logic (which is honestly why I tend to be a lumper rather than a divider), if these were plants that we were talking about then we would call them different varieties. If we had cultivated those varities then we could actually patent them. Crazy.
I think that where we are in this is a semantics discussion at the juxtaposition of biodiversity (at the species level) and the definition of 'species' concept. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me what you call them, the trick is to conserve sufficient genetic diversity within the species to make sure that it is viable both ecologically and evolutionarily.
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by yoyoing on December 4, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am not sure I understand what the fuss is about. Regardless of scientific classification, the common names of Canebrake and Timber are as protected as the recognition of Congonese, Finnish, and Chinese within the human species.
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by JSargent on December 4, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
why not start with the massasagas....then we can get them unprotected....then move to the willardi...heck we can make this mdna work for us....no more need to protect subspecies as mdna will prove there are none...i'd also like to know if there is a difference betwween mojaves and WDBs....what about northern and southern pacific rattlesnakes....the future of rattlesnakes could get interesting...
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by ChuckHurd on December 4, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jon, one other thing i meant to show you last night, and i forgot. This is a link to the geographic range of the timber-proper. http://rattlesnakes.de/zucht/klhorridus.htm
This is a link to the classic range of what used to be considered the canebrake. http://rattlesnakes.de/zucht/UAhorridusatricaudatus.htm
I live right where the timber and cane meet, so i can go to Sand Mtn and find timbers.....drive accross the valley over I59 and to Lookout Mtn and find canes.
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by FSB on December 9, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Grizzly bears and Alaskan brown bears have exactly the same genetic makeup, but just try to tell any seasoned ol' bear hunter that there ain't a difference between the two! They are almost, in fact, analogous to our timber and canebrake rattlesnakes: the Grizzly is more of an upland species while the brown bear haunts the coastal regions, and one tends to be known as being more irascible than the other, in this case, grizzlies have a worse reputation than browns.
Charles and Josh both made excellent points early on here. (Chuck, I wanted to check out those links, but they didn't work!).
I'm sure that anyone who has been around rattlesnakes for a long time would take one look at some of mine and pronounce them to be "canebrakes," or of the "canebrake phase." They did not come from within the historic range of the canebrake, but from the mountains of southern VA, far to the west of where the protected populations of the "canebrake" occur in this state. The classic marks which distinguish the canebrake from other timbers include a highly variable ground color that can range from yellow, gold or buff to light gray and salmon pink (my favorite), with a prominent rusty-red stripe down the midline of the back, as well as prominent postocular stripes from the eyes to the corner of the mouth. The head is also somewhat longer and more flattened, and is obviously different in shape when compared to a "normal" upland timber, which has a "chunkier" shorter-looking head. Their overall attitudes differ enormously as well, with most canebrakes being decidedly more nervous and defensive. Their willingness to strike suddenly and accurately with absolutely no warning (even when apparently at rest), makes them one of the most dangerous rattlesnakes to work with.
They may be one and the same genetically, but I will never be able to look at a canebrake and not see a canebrake, or at a timber and not see it as a timber. There's just no helping it, and who would want to? They are definitely among my all-time favorites, and distinguishing between the two, to me, adds to their appeal and to my enjoyment of them.
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by hapkidocrochunter on December 9, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am a student at Glendale Community College, and I am lucky enough to have Dr.Schuett teach at my school. I have had the oppurtunity to sit and talk with him on the subject of re classifying snakes. I belive he did mDNAon the C.m.stephensi and is (was....this was about a year ago)in the process of turning in research on re classifying the panamint as its own species. This really doesn't have a point, I just wanted to say that Gordon is a very intelligent man in this field, and I look forward to talking with him again.
matt
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrakes and Timbers?
|
Reply
|
|
by ChuckHurd on December 9, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey Fred, no idea why those links are not working. i just cut and pasted them and worked fine. the mine site is http://rattlesnakes.de/ from there click timber and the link to the cane is inside the timber. the site is all written in German, i think. so i can't read most of it....well, any of it. haha. i would believe you on those timber, cause i grew up catching them. far as color, i found plenty in southwest VA that looked "Caneish." often they were in the lowlands and valleys. but, the shape of the head was a key. i never found one up there that had the "wide" cane head. on the link, make sure you do not have the WWW. in there. i guess they dont use that in Europe.
|
| |
|
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.
|
