 | market - home |
|
| market - home |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Dave Beamer on November 11, 1998 at 16:43:35:
In Reply to: Re: Very Serious Flaws With Proposed Guidelines posted by Jwemes on November 11, 1998 at 15:44:24:
I am definately not an expert on snake taxonomy and I am unfamiliar with this animal. I will make a few comments and hopefully you or someone else can provide me with a little more info on this snake. The range of this snake closely approaches that of the salamander Ensatina. This is a particularly hard group to deal with taxonomically as the geologic history of this part of California is very complex. There has apparently been quite a few isolations and reconnections of populations. Even in old days when subspecies were commonly described it would be very unusual to describe a subspecies that is completely surrounded by another. Perhaps this snakes shows characteristics of a ring species? Does anybody know whether there is gene flow between the two color morphs of these snakes in the area? The ensatina is an unresolved complex (and this is one of the few animals I did not remove the subspecies from at the museum) and though it looks very likely that multiple species are involved until that time the old taxonomy is still applied while waiting for resolution.
I do agree that a problem exists by the Federal government using this type of nomenclature. It is definately among my priorities to bring taxonomic cohesion to regulations. I know personally I would be more comfortable if hobbyiest would not recognize subspecies as a taxonomic unit. To me it is akin to recognizing Brindle ratsnakes as a subspecies or blairi ect. They are clearly clinal variation which cannot be discovered. I don't really care if somebody refers to a color morph by celanops but to insist that it be recognized as a subspecies is not conservative enough taxonomy for me.
Dave Beamer
