|
1-10 of 15 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by HerpFever46 on January 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey guys, Before I came to this website, I always believed that the timber rattlesnake was just Crotalus horridus. I was, however, aware that these snakes were known as "canebrakes" in the south, but I did not know they were a subspecies of C. horridus, I simply thought they were a coastal plains variant of the timber rattlesnake. This is what they essentially are but when I came to this forum last year, I saw that the canebrake rattlers of the south were referred to as Crotalus horridus atricaudatus while the northern populations were classified as C.h. horridus. According to National Audubon Society field guide, the canebrake rattlesnake was "FORMERLY" a subspecies of the timber rattlesnake. There have always been taxonomical changes in the world of herpetology but my question is why would canebrakes be considered a subspecies, then merged together with C.h.horridus,and then considered a subspecies again? Keep in mind, this book was published in the late 70's, 1979 if I'm not mistaken. Like I've said, there is a need for a new field guide to North American reptiles and Amphibians. Please respond. Thanks, Bryan.
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by BGF on January 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Genetically, the canebrake doesn't exist as a valid subspecies and the previous geographic divisions have also been shown to be genetically unsupported. This is not to say that C. horridus doesn't have significant colour variations over its range, but colour variations don't make a subspecies.
Here is the abstract for the most recent genetic paper to examine this species:
Clark, AM; Moler, PE; Possardt, EE; Savitzky, AH; Brown, WS; Bowen, BW
Phylogeography of the timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) based on mtDNA sequences
JOURNAL OF HERPETOLOGY, 37 (1): 145-154 MAR 2003
Abstract:
The Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) is beset by a variety of conservation problems, including habitat loss and persecution. Effective management plans require an understanding of rangewide population structure and intraspecific evolutionary subdivisions. 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. To resolve intraspecific partitions, we examined a 319 base-pair (bp) fragment of mtDNA cytochrome b in 123 specimens of C. horridus. Neighbor-joining and parsimony analyses reveal a shallow gene genealogy (d(max) = 0.024) and sharing of haplotypes among putative subspecies. 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. The superior performance of the regional grouping can be attributed to an east-west phylogeographic partitioning at the Appalachian and Allegheny Mountain ranges, which were probably uninhabitable at higher elevations during glacial intervals. Distribution of haplotypes and climatic data suggest that a radiation into more northern areas occurred after the most recent (Wisconsinan) glaciation. 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.
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by Chris_Harper on January 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Throughout the site, you will find the terminology of both C.h.horridus and C.h.atricaudatus. I do however agree with BGF's post. They're really all just C.horridus.
I do not however, see any problem with using the term "Canebrake" to describe the southern populations of C.horridus. It's a term that immediately creates a specific image in the mind of the experienced herper.
webmaster
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by BGF on January 9, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with Chris about it being perfectly acceptable to informally use the term 'canebrake' to describe a colour form that is one of the prettiest rattlesnakes around. Gotta love that pink and blue/grey combination. Ironically, my first snakebite was a nice neurotoxic envenomation from exactly this variant!
Cheers
B
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by Phobos on January 10, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good thread guys....finally a topic that we didn't have a pissing match over...
BGF: Thanks for posting the reference...
Cheers!
Al
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by HerpFever46 on January 10, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thanks for the info, guys. I agree with Chris and Dr. Fry, I see no problem in referring to southern populations of Crotalus horridus as "Canebrakes", I was only confused about the taxonomy. I also agree with Dr. Fry in the sense that Canebrakes are one of the most beautiful rattlers in the world. Well anyway, thanks for the info! It was helpful. Thanks again. -Bryan A.
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on January 10, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
mmmmmmmm...timbers. Only one of the grooviest snakes out there I must say.
Here is one of the few snakes that I actually get quite anal over. Call them atricaudatus and I get all whiney, but calling the southerns’ "canebrakes" is always okay with me, it lets me personally home in on, and get a mental image, of the snake being discussed. Now when people break it down even more and just call them "canes"...then I start to get bitchy again. C'mon, have more respect for this magnificent animal than that. LOL
(Side note: I spent many years working with these snakes in the wild. Catch/mark/release, observation, radio-telemetry, even 4 days in intensive care in my days of studying these animals. They are at the top of my list, so you can always count on me jumping into a good timber conversation) :)
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by PIGMAN on January 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In my opinion I will keep the two variations seperated. horridus horridus is a mountain and upper piedmont snake. Atricaudatus is the lower piedmont and coastal variation .If they lump those togeather then they should lump all the cottonmouths, corals, and copperheads togeather its all just morphological adaptations to their surroundings. But given the seperate identity it helps us depict the reigion and snake one may be talking about. Snakes probably dont care what we call them. However it is interesting that the timber and eastern canebrake are a closer leneage than the western canebrake even though the eastern and western canebrakes resemble each other more so than the timber and southeastern canebrake. I would have to say that the canebrake phase is probably the ancestorial phase and as they moved into more northern areas then natural selection created the timber phase, gold, black and many hues inbetween.
Zach Orr
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by guttersnacks on January 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
So, In Virginia, where I live, Canebrakes are protected, and Timbers arent. So where does this leave me if I want to keep some Canebrakes?
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by Dadee on January 11, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tom,
Just as it is here in MD, they're illegal. Since they are one and the same, your DNR guy will not differentiate between the two. Up here in MD, they'll revoke your license if they find a protected species in your possession and more than likely issue you a nice hefty fine and confiscate your "den".
Good luck in choosing,
Matt
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
