Re: Great follow up posts

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

Posted by Terry Cox on November 17, 2001 at 10:37:56:

In Reply to: Great follow up posts posted by Terry Parks on November 17, 2001 at 09:28:31:

: Hi Jeff and Terry - Thanks for the points regarding reasons for species studies and change protocol. I addressed a point in a follow up to Chris's Post above regarding "test of time". I stated the Dr. Vaughan Works was published in Aug. 1996 and that there is still those who adhere to the E. emoryi emoryi taxonomy instead of the E. guttata emoryi as defined in the Dr. Vaughan Work. Is this still the test and rebuttal stage? Sorry Jeff and Terry that I'm stretching this, but it's of great interest to me and I appreciate the time and patience you give me.

It's alright, Terry. I prefer to work with someone this way, otherwise I have a hard time working this out just in my head.

To answer your question, I only heard about Dr. Vaughan last spring. There has been controversy surrounding the status of the G. P. rat and many others for a long time. You might say there's a guttata camp and an emoryi camp. Dr. Vaughan is just stating what looks obvious to her. She follows Smith (1994) for g. emoryi and g. meahllmorum, and adds that the corns in east, central TX are g. guttata, based on her observations and criteria.

Yes, we are still in the "test of time" period. As far as I know, noone has discredited Dr. Vaughan. I don't think there has been any follow up publication. Her e. TX study is of a relatively newly studied population. It takes time to do new studies, and it is a rather small pop. too, which makes it difficult to get specimens. I think someone will eventually do molecular studies of the e. TX/LA group, and will proclaim it E. guttata, E. emoryi, or a new species.

Also, you could look at the fact that Vaughan's studies are still relatively unknown. One of the nice things coming out of our conversations is that it will be better known now, and we'll get more input from herpetoculturalists. We might even get some input from professional herpetologists, who undoubtedly read these forums, but who normally don't participate in these types of communication.

The bottom line is that you could call the G. P. rats emoryi or guttata, whatever you prefer, and make an argument for your choice. We shouldn't be arguing about that. My mistake, when I originally posted below, was that I said that current literature had them as E. g. emoryi. I didn't know about the CNAH stance. We should let people call them what they want. Someday maybe the academic world will be in more agreement and we can just follow that :0)

tmc

Follow Ups:

Glad you like to answer questions Terry Parks 11/17/01 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : Hi Jeff and Terry - Thanks for the points regarding reasons for species studies and change protocol. I addressed a point in a follow up to Chris's Post above regarding "test of time". I stated the Dr. Vaughan Works was published in Aug. 1996 and that there is still those who adhere to the E. emoryi emoryi taxonomy instead of the E. guttata emoryi as defined in the Dr. Vaughan Work. Is this still the test and rebuttal stage? Sorry Jeff and Terry that I'm stretching this, but it's of great interest to me and I appreciate the time and patience you give me. : : It's alright, Terry. I prefer to work with someone this way, otherwise I have a hard time working this out just in my head. : To answer your question, I only heard about Dr. Vaughan last spring. There has been controversy surrounding the status of the G. P. rat and many others for a long time. You might say there's a guttata camp and an emoryi camp. Dr. Vaughan is just stating what looks obvious to her. She follows Smith (1994) for g. emoryi and g. meahllmorum, and adds that the corns in east, central TX are g. guttata, based on her observations and criteria. : Yes, we are still in the "test of time" period. As far as I know, noone has discredited Dr. Vaughan. I don't think there has been any follow up publication. Her e. TX study is of a relatively newly studied population. It takes time to do new studies, and it is a rather small pop. too, which makes it difficult to get specimens. I think someone will eventually do molecular studies of the e. TX/LA group, and will proclaim it E. guttata, E. emoryi, or a new species. : Also, you could look at the fact that Vaughan's studies are still relatively unknown. One of the nice things coming out of our conversations is that it will be better known now, and we'll get more input from herpetoculturalists. We might even get some input from professional herpetologists, who undoubtedly read these forums, but who normally don't participate in these types of communication. : The bottom line is that you could call the G. P. rats emoryi or guttata, whatever you prefer, and make an argument for your choice. We shouldn't be arguing about that. My mistake, when I originally posted below, was that I said that current literature had them as E. g. emoryi. I didn't know about the CNAH stance. We should let people call them what they want. Someday maybe the academic world will be in more agreement and we can just follow that :0) : tmc

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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