 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 3 months for $50.00 |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Alan Garry on January 26, 2003 at 16:22:20:
In Reply to: Re: Taxonomy will always be like . . . .> posted by Phil Peak on January 26, 2003 at 15:46:16:
Since you guys mention the bullsnake situation, I have something you guys may find amusing. A friend of mine has debated with several all knowing taxonomist, who were determined that bullsnakes belonged with catenifer, with their main logic being that their range is contigious with catenifer ( Walls logic) and not melanoleucus. He always brought up the point that sayi and ruthveni have been recorded in adjacent counties in East Texas. He then asks, if they eventually find that ruthvenis' range is contigious with sayi does, that mean ruthveni will also become a subspecies of catenifer? At that point the discussions come to a halt.
If the contigious range really is a determining factor as to how many different taxa there are, then my range maps show 8 different species that are presently called northern pinesnakes.
Go figure. By the way, I'm with you guys on sayi being its' own species.
