 | market - home |
|
| market - home |
|
 |
 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by terryp on January 26, 2003 at 13:32:16:
In Reply to: more on Pantherophis.... posted by Phil Peak on January 26, 2003 at 10:48:28:
that as far as I can tell Phil. There's still people that use Pituophis melanoleucus sayi as the scientific name for bull snake instead of Pituophis catenifer sayi that seems to be accepted since the Robles/Escobar paper. They won't let go of it and feel Sayi should be upgraded to it's own species status (it had it once). Don't expect people to go out and start changing web sites, literature, business stationary, or a whole lot for that matter. I'm not really hung up on taxonomy. If I say a scientific name and someone says it's now called this. Okee Dokee. A Cow Sucker is still a Cow Sucker. lol. Besides, haven't we been changing all our math books in the U.S. to teach only the metric system for the last 40 years. lol. How long does it take to reprint a book anyway? That's a good question you posted Phil. Isn't Dwight sharp? He let's us know something is out there and says "Formerly", but he hasn't shut the door on "Elaphe" yet. It takes a long time to make a name transition and if it's done too quick you leave people out in the dark. IMHO. To answer your question: I think taxonomy has and will be dependent on who's list you're looking at. I don't see it changing.
:I noticed that Elaphe is still being used on the CNAH website. This site is updated on a daily basis. If the genera has been changed to Pantyerophis, why is this not reflected there? I wonder if this is going to be one of those things that is not universal, and dependent upon who's list you read.
