mobile - desktop
Available Now at RodentPro.com!
News & Events:
Posted by GaryF on April 24, 2003 at 14:00:39:
In Reply to: LOL! Good point Jim. posted by AnthonyCaponetto on April 24, 2003 at 11:46:38:
:I think we've all heard by now that some people are starting to think of cheynei and mcdowelli being swallowed by variegata (not literally!) but I personally haven't heard of any scientific paper being published to this effect. If I'm wrong, I'd be grateful for a pointer.
As far as I know , the most recent and authoratative work to be published on this that of the Barkers, which DOES recognise cheynei and mcdowelli as distinct subspecies (Hoser gives them full species status but his methods have been widely questioned).
I think the point about scientific classification is that it's all about interpretation of the various elements. It changes constantly with new workers in the field. But should that be a justification to do what we want at a given time? Just because a given herpetologist believes that mcdowelli and cheynei don't warrant separate classification, do we ignore the fact that they are, nevertheless, distinct and different animals?
It's very hard to make a scientific case for not breeding intergrades or hybrids anyway so the "science says they are the same" argument isn't really necessay. We should all do what we think is right and we should all be allowed to express our opinions on the subject.
:He'll only be polluting the Canadian gene pool...and no one would pay the big bucks to import something that is a known cross. Or for Jeff's sake a matting between two Morelia spilota with very different apperences.