Thanks...more..>

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

Posted by Terry Cox on November 17, 2001 at 07:00:16:

In Reply to: As always, thanks for your valued input posted by Terry Parks on November 16, 2001 at 20:35:04:

: Hi Terry - There seems to be two accepted data collection methods nowadays (please correct me if there are more). One is DNA and the other is morphology. Sometimes they're in agreement and than sometimes they contradict each other. It's pretty exciting to me that there seems to be alot of renewed taxonomy in all species. In some cases, like the Great Plains ratsnake and the bullsnake, there is alot of push to go back to full species status. Your input has showed me why some people still hold to an older study and publication and some people use a newer study. Now there is a renewed push on Elaphe obsoleta taxonomy. I guess with scientists it is never ending LOL, but they devote their lives to it so to speak. Thanks again Terry.

TP,

With scientists it is never ending in the sense there are new methods, ways to look at things, and the system is always changing. As knowledge builds in an area, we get more precise. Even major concepts, like "what is a species", can be in question. It has to be assumed that even when you do a major work, like Vaughan's G. P. ratsnake project, that what you conclude is just a theory. It is only good until someone can improve upon it, or discredit it.

With us amateurs, things are always changing around us, and it's hard to hang on to some things, and we tend to not want to let go of things we've accepted.

I like the example of the fox snakes, Elaphe vulpina. I grew up with fox snakes, hate to tell you how many years ago. It has always been v. vulpina and v. gloydi to me. A fox snake is a fox, and there are only slight differences between the two taxon. When they were elevated to separate species I couldn't see why the differences could be that important, and why would you want to overturn something that had been so long standing.

In my opinion, there are more important fish to fry, but that's not exactly how things get done. Like someone said, it's easier to work on species that are in our country, than ones that are very difficult to get ahold of.

With the idea of DNA testing, we should probably deal with separately. I'm already too long-winded, but let me just say that it is subject to interpretation, as is everything. What one person considers a wide gulf could be considered minor by another. I think the verdict is still out on how definitive DNA can be. After all, consider how closely you are related to a chimp. Change one chromosome and we're brothers and sisters.

The lay person doesn't have enough info concerning this type testing. There is a definate need for literature along these lines the lay person can understand.

tmc

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : Hi Terry - There seems to be two accepted data collection methods nowadays (please correct me if there are more). One is DNA and the other is morphology. Sometimes they're in agreement and than sometimes they contradict each other. It's pretty exciting to me that there seems to be alot of renewed taxonomy in all species. In some cases, like the Great Plains ratsnake and the bullsnake, there is alot of push to go back to full species status. Your input has showed me why some people still hold to an older study and publication and some people use a newer study. Now there is a renewed push on Elaphe obsoleta taxonomy. I guess with scientists it is never ending LOL, but they devote their lives to it so to speak. Thanks again Terry. : : TP, : With scientists it is never ending in the sense there are new methods, ways to look at things, and the system is always changing. As knowledge builds in an area, we get more precise. Even major concepts, like "what is a species", can be in question. It has to be assumed that even when you do a major work, like Vaughan's G. P. ratsnake project, that what you conclude is just a theory. It is only good until someone can improve upon it, or discredit it. : With us amateurs, things are always changing around us, and it's hard to hang on to some things, and we tend to not want to let go of things we've accepted. : I like the example of the fox snakes, Elaphe vulpina. I grew up with fox snakes, hate to tell you how many years ago. It has always been v. vulpina and v. gloydi to me. A fox snake is a fox, and there are only slight differences between the two taxon. When they were elevated to separate species I couldn't see why the differences could be that important, and why would you want to overturn something that had been so long standing. : In my opinion, there are more important fish to fry, but that's not exactly how things get done. Like someone said, it's easier to work on species that are in our country, than ones that are very difficult to get ahold of. : With the idea of DNA testing, we should probably deal with separately. I'm already too long-winded, but let me just say that it is subject to interpretation, as is everything. What one person considers a wide gulf could be considered minor by another. I think the verdict is still out on how definitive DNA can be. After all, consider how closely you are related to a chimp. Change one chromosome and we're brothers and sisters. : The lay person doesn't have enough info concerning this type testing. There is a definate need for literature along these lines the lay person can understand. : tmc

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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