 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Kingmilk on October 14, 2002 at 20:37:51:
In Reply to: Re: A thought about genus... posted by Terry Cox on October 10, 2002 at 05:10:13:
Terry;
I'd love to see you over at my sight. You'd be a welcome addition.
My comments are only thoughts. I am not presenting them as solutions or that this is the way it is or should be done. They are just what I have been thinking about. I would say though, that I think taxonomy is outdated and needs to be rethought. Lineaus came up with this over two-hundred years ago, and we have learned a thing or two since then, but please dont ask me to explain or go into what I mean about it, as I can't offer you any answers, again, I am just thinking about possibilities, not trying to present facts.
Brian
::Something that I have been thinking on lately parallels what is being discussed here. The whole issue with the E., L., and P's in NA is troubling. The thought that different species let alone different genus can produce fertile offspring just nags at me. One of the possible concepts I have thought of is that maybe there should in some instances be a "sub-genus", just like there is a sub-species. Then the names Elaphe (or whatever it is changed to), Lampro and Pit could all potentially be the sub-genus. I am not proposing this, just putting it out there for us all to think about. I absolutely agree that all these colubrids can not be the same species, but to me they are not far enough apart to constitue full genus status either, so perhaps a "grey" area, such as "sub-genus" or some such notion needs to be considered to house these confusing creatures taxonomically. Just a thought, NOT a dogma! LOL. Thanks for the interesting thread!
::Brian Reeder
:
:Brian, I checked into your site and we should go there to continue this conversation, as there's not much interest here, but I'll answer this one more post here.
:You seem to be suggesting that American Elaphe, Lampropeltis, and Pituophis aren't close enough to be all in one species, but are too close to be in even the same genus, so should be put in a sub-genus. They are all in a subfamily already, i.e. the "colubrines", as opposed to natricines and xenodontines, etc, but maybe some of these genera, such as E, L, and P, should be even closer than that. But a subgenus?
:First, I've never heard of a subgenus. We'd have to rewrite the way taxonomy is done I'm afraid. The way we split up a genus is to create separate species, of course. The way we closely relate a group of species is to put them into the same genus. The problem is that this is somewhat arbitrary with different taxonomists using different methods. Our species just await the right person interested in making the revisions, and presto, we have new genera.
:I don't think we're going to have much in the way of new species, however, unless the definition of species is rewritten. I would suggest that the biggest change in a new revision would be that new genera are created and many of the species of American Elaphe, Lampropeltis, and Pituophis might end up in the same genus (Ex: Pantherophis). Even that would be a lot of lumping and probably will never happen. We may have to settle for some separation of subfamilies or tribes, whatever is proper.
:Good luck in the future and maybe I'll see you at your site. Later, TC.
