 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Jackie Lapradd on January 07, 2002 at 17:14:56:
In Reply to: Sub-specific designation in Gila Monsters...... posted by kerry on January 07, 2002 at 16:18:31:
I think in the world of captive bred Gila Monsters we could simply end this argument by referring to individual subspecies by their scientific names(Suspectum/Cinctum) instead of layman terms(reticulated/banded). Personally I agree with you Kerry regarding captive bred bloodlines, However when you breed two individuals together that have distinct body bands and the offspring are invariably banded as well this at least in my eyes qualifies them to be called "banded". Does that mean they are Cinctum? Maybe, maybe not but the fact of the matter is you have established a line of animals that will typically continue to produce banded animals. I have to wonder when people sell animals as "bandeds" are they referring to a subspecies or simply a certain pattern? Whats your thoughts on the matter?
Thank You
Jackie Lapradd
: ......as described by Bogert/Del Campo is about to be shown invalid. There is some forensic difference(having NOTHING to do with pattern morphology) seen in the specimens from the extreme northern end of their range when compared to specimens from the extreme southern end, but it is unclear as to wether it will be enough to warrant sub-specific recognition. I, personally, have seen dozens of lizards from both parts of the range(both wild and preserved) that do not fit existing "key" defining the subspecies, sometimes to the opposite extreme.
: In other words, it is the same lizard through out its entire range, pattern morphology being of no consequence.
: I'm sorry, but these are the cold, hard, SCIENTIFIC facts.
