Re: Very Serious Flaws With Proposed Guidelines

Subject:

Comments:
: : 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 : As someone who does think that a lot of the : subspecies classifications are a convenience : factor for us humans to simplify the order of things, ex. the Ensatina complex, or even the : triangulum's 25? subspecies, I would probably agree with you that species level is the way to : go. The problem I think we are having(I can't : speak for everyone on this forum)is that for : the sake of convenience/tradition if a state : is trying to protect one of it's snakes they : should list it at the subspecies level until : taxononimists can sort out the species.Example : L. triangulum, if a state is protecting the : Louisiana milksnake-list it as L.t.amaura as : tradition has dictated in the past, and not : just list it as L. triangulum, and thereby : make it illegal to own even something like a : honduran milksnake, that is not even in the same country, let alone state. : If the issue is that the people responsible, : for enforcing the law can't tell the difference : between species, then they need to learn the : difference, and not just ban everything for the sake of their convenience. Just like a game : warden who enforces fishing regs. has to know : the difference between a brown or rainbow trout, : etc. : just my opinion : Thanks : John

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: