kingsnake.com - the information portal for reptile and amphibian hobbyists.

	Businesses Classifieds Forums Photos Chat News Video Podcast Features Events Clubs Bookstore

Reptile & Amphibians Insects Birds Cats Dogs Exotics Horses Aquaria Ponds PetHobbyist PetPress PetSupport RescueNetwork My Account
facebook - twitter	kingsnake racing - field outfitter shop - reptile laws - kingsnake shirts - club.kingsnake - advertising rates - site news - help - contact

Looking for a pet? Try a rescue first!

Hamm Show Delivery - buy animals now for delivery in Hamm
Weaned Rats $.59 , XL Rats $1.00, Medium Rabbits $5.00 At RODENTPRO.COM!
Check out our new Car Forums! - Want a FREE kingsnake T-Shirt? Click Here!

Re: New Taxonomy in the Elaphe obsoleta-complex

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Rat Snake Forum ]

Posted by Tracey Mitchell on October 17, 2001 at 16:28:50:

In Reply to: New Taxonomy in the Elaphe obsoleta-complex posted by Jan Grathwohl on October 15, 2001 at 13:31:16:

I just finished reading the Herp. Monographs article this morning. While I follow Burbrink's argument regarding the inaccuracies in the current subspecific divisions, i.e., that the existing lindheimeri, obsoleta, spiloides, and quadrivittata subspecies don't represent natural lineages, whereas his revamped obsoleta, spiloides, and alleghaniensis do (and it makes sense that populations are divided by the Mississippi river and the Appalachians, not invisible lines across level geography), I don't see why he should take the additional step of raising these divisions to full species. The subtle differences in subcaudal scale count, muzzle proportion, and blotch size he describes may be real, but they're going to prove very, very impractical to employ in the field, I fear. I agree with Patrick: leave the whole group obsoleta, as before, and recognize the genetic integrity of Burbrink's divisions as subspecies, neither more nor less.

Follow Ups:

I agree with your comments, but ... ??? patricia sherman 10/25/01 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: I just finished reading the Herp. Monographs article this morning. While I follow Burbrink's argument regarding the inaccuracies in the current subspecific divisions, i.e., that the existing lindheimeri, obsoleta, spiloides, and quadrivittata subspecies don't represent natural lineages, whereas his revamped obsoleta, spiloides, and alleghaniensis do (and it makes sense that populations are divided by the Mississippi river and the Appalachians, not invisible lines across level geography), I don't see why he should take the additional step of raising these divisions to full species. The subtle differences in subcaudal scale count, muzzle proportion, and blotch size he describes may be real, but they're going to prove very, very impractical to employ in the field, I fear. I agree with Patrick: leave the whole group obsoleta, as before, and recognize the genetic integrity of Burbrink's divisions as subspecies, neither more nor less.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Rat Snake Forum ]

also... Lizardkeepers.com | AprilFirstBioEngineering.com