 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Terry Cox on October 06, 2002 at 19:05:23:
In Reply to: hybridization question posted by patricia sherman on October 06, 2002 at 00:28:32:
:I was just browsing the "Hybrid" forum for the first time today, and ran across a query about whether or not it would be possible to hybridize an Asian elaphe with a North American lampropeltis. The answer intrigued me. Basically, the response was that it is highly unlikely, since the North American elaphe is more closely related to the lampropeltis, than it is to the Asian elaphe.
The person is guessing. If you can hybridize an American Elaphe with a Lampropeltis or Pituophis (which are all supposed to be closely related), then you should be able to hybridize a Eurasian or Asian Elaphe with an American Elaphe. And I don't buy the idea American Elaphe are more closely related to Lampropeltines than Asian Elaphe.
:If these species (North American elaphe and Asian elaphe) are so different as not to be capable of hybrizing, how come that they're both in the same genus? By the same token, if lampropeltis is capable of hybridizing with North American elaphe, why aren't they both in the same genus? Also, I have to wonder where the European elaphe fit into this apparently skewed classification. Presumably, if Asian elaphe can't hybridize with North American elaphe, then neither can Europeans. Can Europeans and Asians hybridize?
:Tricia
There's no evidence I know of that they can't hybridize artificially, as the American genera do. Many of the Eurasian and Asian Elaphe were put in the same genus for convenience, because superficially they seemed close enough. There hasn't been enough interest until recently to do revisions. Rex Knight did a review some months ago. See the link below. There are now many more genera than before, as there were about 40 species lumped into the Elaphe.
Supposedly, the American species will be revised too, and will all be removed from Elaphe. Some already have been, i.e. Bogertophis, Senticolis. The true Elaphe will be with some of the Eurasians, as E. quatuorlineata is the type species of the genus. As already pointed out there are some natural groups. Example, bimaculata, dione, situla, and hohenackeri are supposed to be closely related. However, people will not agree on which species should be in which groups. Some, such as me, even think there should be some divisions in species. For example, dione will probably be divided into numerous subspecies and maybe even several species eventually.
Can Eurasian and Asian Elaphe hybridize? I would think so. ASAMOF, some Eurasian Elaphe are also Asian Elaphe, such as E. schrencki, the Amur ratsnake. It resides in the Far East of Russia, North Korea, and N. China, and yet is still Eurasian. E. dione has the largest range which extends from South Korea to the Ukraine. I believe the Eurasian ratsnakes are related to many Asian ratsnakes. ASAMOF, I think the Eurasians extend their range into southern China. I believe taeniura and moellendorffi are related to the Eurasians even though their ranges may not enter the Eurasian biogeographical area. Schulz ('96) said there were hybrids bt bimaculata and dione, and bt. schrencki and climacophora.
BTW, I personally don't agree with some of the groupings in the recent revisions. There's a lot of work to be done. For instance; E. longissima and E. persica are closely related and have different origins from the other Eurasian Elaphe, being more closely related to ratsnakes of Southern Asia, in my opinion. It's going to take a lot of effort on somebody's part to do the revisions and get the data needed, such as molecular studies. It will probably have to be done one small group at a time, I would think.
TC
