 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Available Now at RodentPro.com! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Terry Cox on January 27, 2003 at 18:56:44:
In Reply to: Thanks for putting it . . . > posted by terryp on January 27, 2003 at 17:05:13:
How the ratsnakes evolved is terribly interesting. Whether they are in the same genus or multiple genera doesn't matter so much
to me, unless it is to show closeness of some species as opposed to others. Pantherophis simply shows the closeness of the American species in it. When we put a species in a different genus, or a genus of its own, it should be to show it is more distantly related. There are lots of problems still to be solved.
Example: someone said recently that Senticolis triaspis seems more closely related to Gonyosoma than any other ratsnake genus. Not that I agree, but I am concerned about which genera, as well as which species, are most closely related. The better we do on this, the more we will understand the evolution of the colubrids. Senticolis seems
distant enough from Pantherophis to warrant its own genus. I would question how distant from subocularis and flavirufa it is too?
BTW, it's possible and likely that genera like Opheodrys and Coluber, along with many others, are related to the ratsnakes in some ways. The original number of species that gave rise to modern colubrids could have been quite small. Genera like Lampropeltis and Pituophis can be closely related to American ratsnakes, and yet still be evolved from the same common ancestors as the Asian ratsnakes. Actually, the Asian ratsnakes are highly evolved, and it's questionable how many species will finally remain in the Elaphe. We will see more genera established there, I predict.
Speaking of moving to the Southwest, I probably will cut back on my Asian species I'm keeping, so I can add some American species. The process has already begun and I've added a couple kingsnakes species. I'll probably phase out the large Asians. More on that later.
Thanks for the good conversation....TC.
