 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by jediknight on March 05, 2003 at 17:25:55:
In Reply to: Blotch count is meaningless..... posted by chrish on March 05, 2003 at 11:10:59:
Chris,
Is there anything published as of yet regarding the combination of Heterdon nasicus nasicus and Heterodon nasicus gloydi? (Which are both Westerns by the way, along with kennerlyi.) I know there has been talk for a long time about "doing away" with the subspecies gloydi but wasn't sure if it was recognized as of yet. Same goes for the elevation of kennerlyi to a full species.
Like you, I have seen LOTS of hogs (since I live out here in Hog-Heaven!) and agree that blotch counts should not be used to seperate a species into subspecies. That being said, my hogs from the Abilene area (red and normals) look WAY different than the ones we find up in the Lubbock area. The blotches are much larger and fewer in the ones from around there. Then you look at the ones that are found to the west, east, and north of us here in your old stomping grounds (San Angelo) and you see the blotch counts look a little more like the typical nasicus nasicus that you see in the Panhandle. Then you go out further west (Crockett / Pecos counties) and you see animals that look like an "intergrade" between nasicus and kennerlyi, but all have more than 9 azygous scales. Same with 90% of our Irion county animals.
To answer the original query, the animal in question is a typical "Plains" Hognose (H.n.nasicus) due to the blotch counts (animal looks to be a female with more than 32 blotches) and unless the scientific community has updated what you and I agree on, that is what the field guides would key it out to be.
Happy herpin'...
MP
BTW - were you feeding those Eryx live or thawed pinks?
