mobile - desktop
Available Now at RodentPro.com!
News & Events:
Posted by Marty on January 20, 2002 at 14:55:03:
In Reply to: Marty and all you Heloderma hobbiest... posted by HerpNut on January 19, 2002 at 01:05:41:
Though I had a had time "fallowing" some of what you were trying to accomplish in your post, I will attempt a reply.
"The fallowing was copied and pasted from a herpetologist document."
I'm not sure what a "herpetologist document" is, but it looks like you've posted an abstract of a document prepared by a herpetologist. Still, DNA will not clear up the confusion over beadeds in captivity if the DNA cannot be matched to populations in the wild. Specimens of known origin are needed.
"Yes, understand that Taxonomy is a branch Biological Science and like any science it is changing contineously"
I thought that was understood. Yes, taxonomic techniques used to elucidate relationships are changing continuously.
"Just exactly is a subspecie?"
I assume you are asking, "Just WHAT exactly is a subspecieS?" Of course, why you attempt to ask a qustion and then define it is beyond me. One addition I would have to include to the definition you provided is that the species in question is a polytypic species. But, like the definition of what a species is, the definition of what a subspecies is will also vary.
"Distbution" As of Geogaphy Range..."
"As we know it H. s. suspectum is a decendent of H. s. cintum. True H. s. cintum is found north of the Geographycal Species Range. True H. s. suspectum is found south of the Geographical Species Range."
Is it? Or, are both cinctum and suspectum the decendents of a common ancestor? Please define how you are using "geographical species range" and how it specifically relates to this discussion. As it stands at present, it is difficult to decipher exactly what you mean.
"What we find in the middle is nothing more that H. suspectum ssp. They are not really H. suspectum suspectum nor H. suspectum cintum. Why? Because the Geographical Subspecies Range is contineous and the specie is in evolutionary change."
Species are always in a state of evolutionary change, aren't they? And, how do you know that there aren't good examples of suspectum and cinctum? The DNA might tell a story quite different from the assertion you made.
"There is a lot of Taxonomic Revision because many subspecies where described without throughly research. Understand that some animals were described long time ago. Some animals were descrived many times."
Yeah, that "throughly" research will screw things up every time. LOL