In other words...

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Heloderma Forum ]

Posted by Mark Seward on January 08, 2002 at 21:53:40:

In Reply to: Apparently,... posted by Mark Seward on January 08, 2002 at 21:01:08:

I agree totally with your original statement. However, I disagree with your contention that it represents scientific fact. It has less to do with scientific fact and more to do with scientific convention.

Mark

: by your response, it seems you missed the point. I don't think your questioning the validity of subspecies designation in Gilas is presumptuous at all. I agree with that part totally.

: Mark

: : ......and even though it looks like it, I don't really mean to come across sounding like "the last word"; I have no stake in the outcome. The same people who have been working on the complexities of Crotalus viridis subspecies have also been working on the Gila Monster. It is not just my opinion, but the opinion of many folks more qualified than you or I. Perhaps it would be wise to just sit back and wait until the work is finished and the paper published for all to see. It might already be, I need to check up on this.

: : I equate pattern morphology in Gila Monsters to be not unlike that of the Gray-Banded kingsnake(Lampropeltis alterna) where you have a gradual change in pattern from wide saddles to thin banding as you travel from east to west within their range. Once thought to be seperate subspecies based almost solely on pattern morphology, they were eventually forensically shown to be the same snake... just like what is happening with the Gila Monster at present.

: : Respectfully,

: : kerry

Follow Ups:

I've gotcha' now...... kerry 01/09/02 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: I agree totally with your original statement. However, I disagree with your contention that it represents scientific fact. It has less to do with scientific fact and more to do with scientific convention. : Mark : : by your response, it seems you missed the point. I don't think your questioning the validity of subspecies designation in Gilas is presumptuous at all. I agree with that part totally. : : Mark : : : ......and even though it looks like it, I don't really mean to come across sounding like "the last word"; I have no stake in the outcome. The same people who have been working on the complexities of Crotalus viridis subspecies have also been working on the Gila Monster. It is not just my opinion, but the opinion of many folks more qualified than you or I. Perhaps it would be wise to just sit back and wait until the work is finished and the paper published for all to see. It might already be, I need to check up on this. : : : I equate pattern morphology in Gila Monsters to be not unlike that of the Gray-Banded kingsnake(Lampropeltis alterna) where you have a gradual change in pattern from wide saddles to thin banding as you travel from east to west within their range. Once thought to be seperate subspecies based almost solely on pattern morphology, they were eventually forensically shown to be the same snake... just like what is happening with the Gila Monster at present. : : : Respectfully, : : : kerry

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Heloderma Forum ]