Re: Assumptions, definitions and generalizations

Posted by emoneill on December 14, 2002 at 13:26:03:

In Reply to: Re: Assumptions, definitions and generalizations posted by Kenny Wray on December 11, 2002 at 17:39:23:

Sounds like we are not too far off in our beliefs. I was not making a crack at YOU about "not knowing the first thing" about various topics. Maybe that was an overstatement about others though. Keep on questioning scientists. I think we should be able to explain our work. I hate clones.

I like the idea that you and others are making a case for subspecies. Of course I would be wrong if I said that there are not regional variants of ratsnakes in NA, and recent papers like Burbrink's leave these to be explained. But I am not yet convinced that we need to call them subspecies. As you probably know some are calling these variants "pattern classes" (Grismer 2002). Would you say this is the same as what you would call a subspecies?

Cheers

Follow Ups:

• races, patternclasses, ssp troy h 12/16/02 (2)
  • Re: races, patternclasses, ssp Langaha 12/17/02 (1)
    • Re: races, patternclasses, ssp troy h 12/17/02 (0)

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ The Taxonomy Forum ]

kingsnake.com | NRAAC.ORG | ReptileBusinessGuide.com | ReptileShowGuide.com | ReptileShows.mobi | Connected By Cars | DesertRunner.org AprilFirstBioEngineering | GunHobbyist.com | GunShowGuide.com | GunShows.mobi | GunBusinessGuide.com | club kingsnake | live stage magazine pool banner - advertise here advertise here advertise here kingsnake.com® is a registered trademark© 1997-     - this site optimized for 1024x768 resolution -