Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus

License: This article may be freely distributed, placed on your website as a free download, copied and distributed in printed or digital format provided that the document remains unaltered and all links, attributions, statements (including this license) remain intact.

"Is Crotalus horridus atricaudatus a valid subspecies of Crotalus horridus?" To answer this question, one must first define a subspecies.

Merriam Webster Dictionary defines subspecies as:

Main Entry: sub·spe·cies

Pronunciation: 's&b-"spE-shEz, -sEz

Function: noun

Etymology: New Latin

: a subdivision of a species: as a : a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographical region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs b : a named subdivision (as a race or variety) of a taxonomic species c : SUBGROUP 1

sub·spe·cif·ic /"s&b-spi-'si-fik/ adjective

Criteria

The three criteria for defining a population of animals as a subspecies are:

Is the population of a particular geographic region?

Is the population genetically distinguishable from other such populations?

Is the population capable of interbreeding successfully with them where their ranges overlap? (This serves to establish that they are indeed members of the same species.)

First Test

A geographic range map published by William S. Brown in National Geographic Magazine clearly shows that the Canebrake Rattlesnake, Crotalus horridus atricaudatus, is indigenous to a particular geographic region. ¹

This differs from "color morphs" in that the two populations have a distinct range. An example of a "color morph" or "variation" would be Heterodon platyrhinos. The Eastern Hognose Snake has both solid black and patterned variations which occur over the same geographic range. Another example of "color morphs" or "variations" would be "black phase" and "yellow phase" Timber Rattlesnakes, Crotalus horridus, which occur over the same geographic range.

Crotalus horridus atricaudatus clearly passes the first criteria for inclusion as a subspecies.

Second Test

Ginger Clark makes the statement "Northern and southern populations have been recognized as distinct subspecies, but this classification remains controversial. A proposed alternative arrangement recognizes southern, northern, and western morphotypes."²

Clark also makes the statement "Analysis of molecular variance demonstrates that traditional subspecific divisions explain only 3.5% of variation, whereas the alternative geographic classification (southern, northern, and western regions) explains 18.6% of genetic variation."³

This indicates that Crotalus horridus and Crotalus horridus atricaudatus are genetically distinguishable from one another.

Crotalus horridus atricaudatus clearly passes the second criteria for inclusion as a subspecies.

Third test

Crotalus horridus and Crotalus horridus atricaudatus are capable of interbreeding where their ranges overlap.

Crotalus horridus atricaudatus clearly passes the third criteria for inclusion as a subspecies.

Observation

Clark also makes the statement "Hence, the mtDNA data indicate distinct population segments across the range of C. horridus but do not show evolutionary separations that would support subspecific designations."⁴

Since criteria for inclusion as subspecies do not require a certain amount of "evolutionary separations", only that they be genetically distinguishable, this observation is not relevant to subspecific designations.

Practical considerations

Opinions differ concerning taxonomy. Is there a practical reason for considering C. horridus atricaudatus valid or invalid? The answer is yes.

The live animal trade offers both Northern and Southern subspecies for sale. When breeders, zoos, and private collectors engage in a commercial transaction involving this species it is important that the buyer and seller are both talking about the same type of animal. Quite simply, a buyer would be very upset to expect to purchase a southern *Canebrake rattlesnake* and end up with a *Timber rattlesnake* or vice versa. Breeding programs that are interested in maintaining true genetics of the subspecies would certainly need to differentiate the subspecies.

This weighs heavily in favor of recognizing C. horridus atricaudatus as a valid subspecies.

Conclusion

Crotalus horridus atricaudatus is a population of a particular geographic region, genetically distinguishable from C. horridus, and capable of interbreeding with C. horridus. Crotalus horridus atricaudatus is therefore a valid subspecies.

More scientific data is needed to support the existence or non-existence of a third or fourth subspecies which would include the northwestern and southwestern populations of this species.

A debates forum has been set up at http://www.envenomated.com for feedback to this article.

About the Author

Chad Minter is the Author of Venomous Snakes of the Southeast. Biographical and contact information can be found at http://www.envenomated.com

1.W.S. Brown. "Hidden Life of the Timber Rattlesnake." National Geographic.July (1993):

2.Ginger Clark. "Phylogeography of the Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Based on mtDNA Sequences." Journal of Herpetology 37.1

3.Ginger Clark. "Phylogeography of the Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Based on mtDNA Sequences." Journal of Herpetology 37.1

4.Ginger Clark. "Phylogeography of the Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Based on mtDNA Sequences." Journal of Herpetology 37.1

Member Comments: Add A Comment

Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by SwampY on August 4, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
A pdf version of this article is available in the files download section of this website if you would like to offer it as a download on your website.

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by Chance on August 4, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
All of these arguments are compelling, but to put it simply, us lay-folks, those of us outside the actual field of genetics who don't work with nor really understand what goes on with snakes on a molecular level, really shouldn't try to put our two cents in on this issue. I feel as though this article presents arguments that are overly-simplistic and somewhat unfounded. A definitive work analyzing Crotalus horridus has already been completed (see sources cited already) and concluded that there was simply not enough genetic difference to warrant valid subspeciation between southern and northern populations. Taxonomy is more and more being based on actual genetic science, thank goodness, rather than field (or worse, tank!!) observations and inferences. When a new scientific research paper comes out saying Crotalus horridus is indeed composed of two, maybe even more, subspecies based on REAL GENETIC evidence, then I'll concede to canebrakes being valid. Until then, they're just prettier timbers (IMHO of course). -Chance

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by fizzbob7 on August 6, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
i'll never be able to tell them apart.....this whole topic frustrates me......if i bring someone an average, unremarkably colored crotalus horridus, how can they tell me what it is (timber or cane) because i've ALWAYS heard both ways depending on who you ask......some say the grayish/pinkish timbers are canes.....some say they're timbers......the hillbillies around here know no other word for them BUT timbers.........

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by Marty1st on August 7, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
They've always been seperated in my hot room and always will be.Good article. Marty

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by fizzbob7 on August 7, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
but how do you seperate them? the only visible thing is color, and that's an indication of where it came from but isn't 100% accurate.......i honestly don't think there is any way for a normal person to figure out which is which if you don't know exactly where they are from, and even then, their areas overlap at some point on the map.....i wish someone would explain to me how i can tell the difference in each

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
Anonymous post on August 7, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
I can promise you, give me a bucket with five of each and I'll separate them for you :-)

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by GREGLONGHURST on August 7, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
I remember hearing years ago that there was a poulation of what appeared to be canebrakes..dorsal stripe, coloring, everything like one from Georgia..in the northwestern potion of the timber's range. I don't even recall the state now. If that is true, though, it sort of puts a kink in the first part of the differentiation. I have always felt that the subclassification was valid..except for that bunch of snakes up there where they ain't s'posed to be. Any of you guys know of that population or heard of it? ~~Greg~~

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by fizzbob7 on August 7, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
--I can promise you, give me a bucket with five of each and I'll separate them for you :-)-- yes, you'll seperate them by YOUR methods, which differ from person to person.....that's my point, without DNA proof, there is no proof you're right because someone else will tell you that you aren't.....why not just explain what YOUR methods are.....i've had a lot of timbers/canes and all the experts call them one or the other using their methods, and since everyone isn't right, i don't know what to use as a guideline.....it's like taking 2 average looking white people, and being able to tell you whether they are german or french....all you can do is guess i just wish someone would give me a definitive explanation.....the fact that everyone has different methods of this just tells me that no one really has THE answer.....i don't think there is anything you can look at on a horridus that will tell you either or....all you can do is guess

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by Chris_Harper on August 7, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
Once you have correlated the photos of the snakes with the location found, it's not difficult to see the characteristics that denote locality. Just look at the horridus variations photo album. Also, look at Mardi Snipe's photo album at CoastalReptiles.com There are plenty of differences in morphology based solely on locality, regardless of whether or not you recognize atricaudatus. I know plenty of people that can seperate Georgia horridus from Kentucky, Virginia or Pennsylvania horridus any time you ask. They just have a lot of field time. ~CH

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by fizzbob7 on August 7, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
i have a horridus from south georgia.....caught in the wild......everyone swears he's from much further north......even a neighbor who has kept hots for 30 years and works for the game dept swears it's from north carolina or further north......that is proof enough that you can not look at a timber/cane and id it with 100% accuracy....their ranges overlap, sometimes the colors are borderline, etc.......and one more time, can someone simply EXPLAIN these differences......what color denotes what, what stripe denotes what, etc......i hear "you can seperate them" but no explanation of it all....kinda like a word you know the meaning of, yet can not define.......if you can ID them, then you can tell me how......i've heard nothing that is certain so far though....everyone's theory has a hole somewhere

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by fizzbob7 on August 7, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
for instance: http://www.venomousreptiles.org/libraries/showfilepage/2408?offset=54 and mine from south georgia: http://www.venomousreptiles.org/libraries/showfilepage/1890?offset=50 they look similar enough to me, yet are from completely different places.......either the first one is mislabeled or mine is an oddball (i had 2 exactly like him though from the same exact county in south GA, so it couldn't be that odd) it seems to me that the further north you go, the darker they'd be so they could heat up quicker in the cooler weather....but south GA isn't exactly cold from spring to fall......and i've seen a few dark ones there, and a few yellow ones, and few grayish pink ones...... it's all a guessing game

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by Cro on August 9, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
Ricky: The two links to photos that you say look similar to you are not similar to me at all. The differene is huge. It is like comparing a poodle to a pit bull, they are nothing alike except being both dogs. Like Chris stated above, there are many people who see a huge difference between these snakes from different areas of the country, it just takes more field experience. Also, you seem to be missing some of the more subtile details and mostly looking at coloration. You have to look at a the pattern, and the shape of the pattern elements, the coloration, the head shape, the body mass, a whole combination of things at once, and that is something that is very difficult to explain to someone how to do. JohnZ

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by SwampY on August 9, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
C horridus horridus is yellow to gray or black in ground color, lacks a distinct middorsal stripe and has 23 (21-26) midbody scale rows and 15-34 dorsal body bands. This subspecies inhabits upland wooded areas with nearby wooded ledges. Females of this species sexually mature at 77cm. This subspecies brumates in communal spaces. This subspecies has a rounded club shaped head. This subspecies has a weaker venom with low neurotoxic levels. C horridus atricaudatus is pinkish brown or gray in ground color, has a distinct reddish orange mid-dorsal stripe, 25 (21-25) midbody scale rows, and 21-29 dorsal body bands. This subspecies inhabits lowland swampy areas and pine thickets. Females from this subspecies bear their initial litter at an svl of more than 100 cm. This subspecies does not den, and brumates singly or in small numbers. This subspecies has a more "arrowhead" shaped head, flat with sharper angles. This subspecies has a much stronger venom with higher neurotoxic levels. Keep in mind that Brown & Ernst's study only separated populations east of the appalachian mountains into the two subspecies and Pisani's study only took into account populations from the west where areas of intergradation occur. Most of this information came from Venomous Reptiles of North America by Carl Ernst. Hope this is what you want Fizzbob

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by AquaHerp on August 10, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
Technically, horridus (or a sub if you want to argue that one) can't be pinned to "giving birth at..." a predetermined size. It's more of an age factor determining this than a size thing. Although one could argue in the wild that a snake shouldn't reach a certain size until its "such and such" year. But that's irrelevant. My theory is they will indeed split them again. I also trust that by the time the academia world and their taxonomists with their new mitochondrial DNA are done trying to make names for themselves that every single individual animal out there will be its own subspecies.

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by Chris_Harper on August 10, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
I think the second portion of Chad's postulation is the most controversial. Ginger Clark's studies showed northern and southern horridus to be genetically indistinguishable under the microscope so to speak. I don't even know what the standard is, or where they "draw the line". All scientists definitely do not "dance to the same music". I quote a CNN article: "Ginger Clark, a senior biological scientist at the University of Florida, developed a technique that can not only determine the species of an organism based on tissue samples or blood but also the gender of the organism." That's pretty specific, and she's probably forgotten more about DNA than I'll ever know, so I'll leave that up to the other taxonomists to sort out. ~CH

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by SwampY on August 10, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
Chris, She doesn't say that they are genetically indistinguishable., Quite the contrary -- She even goes so far as to call them "population segments", "morphotypes", and explains that the proposed "groupings" of western, northern, and southern would be in line with genetic differences she observed. In my opinion, after reading the article and talking with Ginger during and after the study, she chickened out. She threw the (genetic) feathers on the table, she threw the (genetic) bill on the table, she threw the (genetic) webbed flat feet on the table, she played the (genetic) recordings of "quack quack quack" then just when you're getting to the part in the paper when you expect her to declare "It's a Duck!" .. she twiddles her toes in the sand and murmurs in a squeaky and cracking little voice "uuhmmmm ... it's not a duck" Here is an abstract of the paper http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-document&issn=0022-1511&volume=037&issue=01&page=0145 Even without Ginger's paper, "If it walks like a ....

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by SwampY on August 10, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
http://www.biotech.ufl.edu/GeneticAnalysis/Projects.html "Ginger Clark, lab coordinator, is looking at the phylogeography and fine scale population structure of Crotalus horridus, the timber/canebrake rattlesnake, using mtDNA and microsatellite surveys. This species has never undergone any extensive genetic examination so this is ground breaking research. Venom analysis on the canebreak rattlesnakes is also in the works." hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

My experience has been.....	Reply
by MattHarris on August 16, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
..that the snakes are easily identifiable in terms of 'highland/mountain' phases and 'lowland' phases. In that I mean, if you find a timber from NC Pennsylvania(Black or yellow) or Upstate NY....they are obviously not canebrakes. Could I tell them from a montane snake from North Georgia or KY??? Hmmm, maybe not, but there'd be no mistaking a coastal canebrake from SC, NC, GA, or FL. I tend to agree with Doug(AquaHerp)...when the taxonomists get done splitting hairs, everything will be a new species or subspecies... I only wish more time would be spent trying to explane the prehistoric evolution of pitvipers and figure out why bushmasters are so different. I'm not buying the Bering land bridge theory....I think they came over from Africa via S.America.

RE: My experience has been.....	Reply
by Chris_Harper on August 17, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
Manny Rubio told me 4 years ago that he thought that 4 subspecies of horridus should be recognized. It's not my field of expertise, so I'll be on the sidelines while the lumpers and splitters duke it out. ~CH

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by H20mocasin on August 19, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
Here is my take on this. everywhere in the southeast...Alabama, mississippi, georgia, south carolina, and SE North Carolina there are canebrakes and eastern diamondbacks in overlapping state parks...but not same habitats....the same thing is true of stokes county, nc. west of pilot mountain you'll find timbers...south and east you'll find canebrakes...until you reach greensborough there is really no habitat evidence of a subspecies because crotalus horridus occurs in this rugged terrain. Now if you go to the Enos River region..they claim to have timbers...but i think they are canes. Getting back to my theory that there might be a third subspecies of crotalus horridus in the lowcountry of SC and GA. This region favors both prelevant habitat for diamondbacks and canes...yet you'll rarely find them together. However when i was in jasper county many locals talked of a diamond-canebrake snake that was frequently reported in neighbors' backyards around the Savanna river banks. I am wondering due to a lack of pure canes in this region...diamondbacks are more common...but around edisto this isn't the case as canebrakes are more common. Im just hypothesizing can you imagine if there was a third subspecies. just as Tuscon Arizon has two subspecies of twin spotted rattlesnakes in the west and east saugaro national parks...could there be any doubt of a new gene pool of left over male canes trying desperatley to find a mate and get confused when dening up with an accidental female eastern diamondback. many textbooks and field guides show this pattern as a morph...but the possibilites are great down in this rural sc county.

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by CAISSACA on August 21, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
I always get a giggle out of these threads. Here, in the middle of a thread that started out with a post complaining in effect that Ginger Clark did not recognise a split when she should have done, half the rest are complaining that scientists do far too much splitting to make a name for themselves. It seems that whatever scientists do, they are just a bunch of nitwits who have no idea of the animals. Thank god for august forums of experts such as this, where good old common sense can flourish unhindered by details like data or evidence. Now, in case anyone is actually interested in the science rather than just in slagging it off, here are some comments on the Clark et al. paper and associated issues. First, most modern taxonomists do not in fact like to recognise subspecies at all. The concept is generally felt not to be particularly useful in describing patterns observed in animals. If two groups of animals represent separate evolutionary lineages (even if there is some potential for genetic exchange between them), then they should be considered as separate species, if they are just different varieties but part of one evolutionary lineage, then they should not receive taxonomic recognition at all. The Webster's dictionary definition used by Chad Minter would have been the kind of working model used in the 1960s. Biology has moved on from there, with different ways of thinking and new methods - it would be worrying if it hadn't. Also, regarding the third of Chad's criteria (they hybridise) is irrelevant, since all that that demonstrates is that they are not different species - that was never under discussion, so it contributes nothing new to the debate. Second, let's try to get it into our heads that SAYING THAT TIMBERS AND CANEBRAKES ARE NOT DIFFERENT SUBSPECIES IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THAT THEY ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE!!! The fact that you can tell a lowland horridus from a highland horridus is not being denied - the authors of the Clark et al paper also have eyes in their heads, and, in case anyone was unaware of it, at least two of the authors, Savitzky and Brown, are well-known fieldworkers with extensive experience of the species - I dare say they can tell lowland from highland horridus as well. Now a few specifics. First, the traditional horridus-atricaudatus split is a north-south split. If these subspecies were to be of any relevance, one would therefore expect a nice north-south split in the genetics as well. Instead, we get an east-west split - i.e., exactly the OPPOSITE of what the cherished two-ssp.-taxonomy would have predicted. Not much support for the timber-canebrake split there. Then, Chad wrote: "Clark also makes the statement "Analysis of molecular variance demonstrates that traditional subspecific divisions explain only 3.5% of variation, whereas the alternative geographic classification (southern, northern, and western regions) explains 18.6% of genetic variation."3 This indicates that Crotalus horridus and Crotalus horridus atricaudatus are genetically distinguishable from one another. " Nope. It means that out of all the genetic variation in Crotalus horridus, only 3.5% (i.e., next to nothing) is accounted for by the two ssp. split. Or, in other words, if you take a random "canebrake" and compare it to both another random "canebrake" and a random "timber", you have almost even odds that your initial canebrake will be more genetically similar to the timber than to the second canebrake. Basically, a southeastern canebrake is much more genetically similar to a northeastern timber than to a southwestern canebrake. The three-taxa-hypothesis (northeast, southeast, west) is better at explaining the patterns of genetic variation, but that does not mean that it is the best explanation. The basic pattern that is revealed by Clark's data is a two-way east west split, which, as stated above, could not be more at odds witht he conventional horridus-atricaudatus split. Statements such as "She threw the (genetic) feathers on the table, she threw the (genetic) bill on the table, she threw the (genetic) webbed flat feet on the table, she played the (genetic) recordings of "quack quack quack" then just when you're getting to the part in the paper when you expect her to declare "It's a Duck!" .. she twiddles her toes in the sand and murmurs in a squeaky and cracking little voice "uuhmmmm ... it's not a duck"" can only be attributed to remarkably selective reading! The genetic data very clearly do NOT support the traditional timber-canebrake divide. Moreover, although it is entirely true that taxonomists often disagree on many things, I cannot identify any current line of thinking in biology that would make anyone argue that Clark et al's data support the conventional subspecies. Let's look at another few arguments that are often brought up: "Timbers den, canebrakes don't, therefore they are different ssp.". Hmmm.... "Eskimos live in igloos, Amazonian Indians live in wooden huts, therefore they are different ssp., right?" Hmmmm - it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that there is not much ice around in the Amazon whereas wood is a scarce commodity in the high Arctic? Similarly, might the fact that montane horridus den whereas southern coastal plain specimens don't just conceivably have something to with the fact that when temps drop to -30 C in the winter, you'd better find a very deep shelter, but one that will warm up quickly once it gets warmer in spring, whereas that's not so much of a priority in the southeast, where temps don't drop much below freezing? And that it is the relative scarcity of such sites in the mountains that leads a number of specimens to congregate in the same place? "Canebrakes have neurotoxic venom, timbers don't" - here is the relevant part of the abstract of the paper that highlighted the highly neurotoxic nature of some of these venoms: "The distribution of canebrake toxin was limited to two separate regions, including a region of Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma, and a separate region from southeastern South Carolina through eastern Georgia to northern Florida." In other words, canebrakes from many parts of their range do NOT have neurotoxic venom, so venom is not a simple distinguishing character of the two. The devil is in the detail. In summary, the likely story is that during ice age cold phases, C. horridus was restricted to the southern part of its present distribution, and most probably consisted primarily of "canebrake"-like snakes. When it spread out again after the climate warmed up, two C. horridus lineages came to occupy the Appalchians, and evolved what we now call the "timber" colour and patterns, presumably as an adpatation to different habitats (snakes inhabiting different vegetational zones often show quite substantial colour and pattern differences). Where populations are continuous, intermediate specimens also exist, especially in the west. However, even though the result, in terms of appearance, may be a north-south differentiation, the DNA evidence shows very clearly that the story behind it is of an east-west split, and that the two conventional subspecies do not represent separate genetic entities. Now, I emphasise again that that does NOT mean that anyone says they are indistinguishable. I would agree with Marty's statement that "They've always been seperated in my hot room and always will be" - sure, I'd do the same. I'd also call them "canebrakes" and "timbers". But I would not call them C.h. horridus and C.h. atricaudatus, because that distinction is an artificla one based on a few superficial characters rather than on what evolutionary lineages are actually present within the species. Cheers, WW

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by Cro on August 21, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
Wolfgang: I would have to reluctantly agree with your observations on the non-validity of C.h.atricaudatus as a subspecie. I say reluctantly, as I hate to see all the forms I knew and loved being kicked out, re-named, or elavated by modern taxonomy. As you and others state, there is a pronounced difference in the appearance, habitat, habits, venom, and behavior of the `Canebrake` form of Crotalus horridus, verses the `Timber` form, but, after reviewing the evidence, I believe, these by themselves are not enough to genetically seperate the Northern and Southern populations as separate subspecie. This is unfortunate, as any field herper who has encountered both forms of these snakes has clearly seen the morphological and habitat differences, and is lead to conclude that they are different animals. Your statement that after the ice ages the snakes dispersed and took on different habits and appearances as they dispersed into the new habitats and vegitation zones seems valid. I have observed much difference in the appearance of disjunct populations of Crotalus l. lepidus that are isolated by desert lowlands to specific mountain ranges, where they have evolved patterns to match the local rock colorations and vegation patterns. You are right in stating that the taxonomity used to seperate subspecie in the 1960`s is outdated with modern DNA and Genetic research, but unfortunatly, people still fall back on old habits and definitions regarding the ability of animals to interbreed or hybridise as a criterion as to subspecification. As others have stated, I will continue to call a Southern phase timber a Canebrake, and a Northern phase a Timber, even if I label both of them as C. horridus. Best Regards JohnZ

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by Chris_Harper on August 27, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
WW has effectively "cleared the bar with a pool cue". Wow. Glad I wasn't on the receiving end of that one. There are definitely some bloody teeth on the floor somewhere. ;-) ~CH

regarding the acceptance of interbreeding.....	Reply
by MattHarris on September 13, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
...but if its been shown(albeit under captive conditions) that Panterohpis and Lampropeltis can interbreed, of what purpose does this criteria even have in, not even determining subspecies or species, but even in whether its in the same genus???? MCH P.S. WW, I have saved several shed of Porthidum l. hutmanni and P. l. lansbergi for you. I'll get them in to you shortly.

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by longtooth on November 8, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
well i must admit with all that has and has not been done i,m confused on the subject. higher elevations differs the color i have several canes caught in montgomery county nc they are all a beautiful pink granite rock color have some timbers that came from the mts of nc all yellowish or gold with black bands. i have looked at these animals for hrs at a time the ones from montgomery county definantly have a broader head and are far less tempermental than the timbers from the mts.i i have a freind who is cherokee he is from the reservation as far as his people are concerned they are two separate species, but i guess until there is definant proof we will always have to beleive in what we will great topic i love em all nite folks stay safe later longtooth

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by longtooth on November 8, 2005	Mail this to a friend!
thanx john z sounds damn good to me later longtooth

Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by coneflower on May 23, 2007	Mail this to a friend!
Is Chad's article saying that Timbers and Canes are two different snakes? The Timber is a listed species, but the Cane does not have its own listing, either Fed or state. After reading many sources on this issue, both for and against the Cane/Timber issue, I am not sure what to believe. Does anyone have current information about this debate?

RE: Validity of C. horridus atricaudatus	Reply
by LeviathanNI on December 26, 2008	Mail this to a friend!
If only the guy from Indiana had read this he would know all he needs to about this species.. ie no one agrees ergo the status quo remains ie oops

Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other Field Notes Articles
The Spring Egress: Moments with Georgia’s Denning Horridus
Bushmasters and the Heat Strike

Click to join the SHHS eMail list