|
11-15 of 15 messages
|
Previous
Page 2 of 2
|
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by Chris_Harper on January 12, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
PIGMAN, when are you going to write the "definitive article on pigs"? By the way, do you have any of the posters left?
~Chris Harper
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by Rob_Carmichael on January 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Although I would tend to agree in lumping both as horridus, I can say that the behavior of the two seem to be quite different in some regards. Even when handling, I have found Canebrakes to become stiff as a board whereas Timbers (in the context of using the two names) are usually much more relaxed on a hook. Anyway, this is a great discussion; and civil too!
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by HerpFever46 on January 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey, I agree Rob. Although I do think that both phases of rattlesnakes should be grouped together as C.horridus, there are several differences between the two versions of this snake, behaviorally as well as morphologically. It's strange that "canebrakes" are protected in Virginia while timbers aren't, since they are not valid subspecies, but then again many people consider the two populations to be separate. Only further studies in the phylogenetics, taxonomy, and biology of this snake will determine if canebrakes and timbers are separate subspecies. Until then, I guess it will remain a controversial issue. As for me, I will consider the two populations to be one species as C.horridus. Later. Bryan A.
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by Buzztail1 on January 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The use of "Canebrake" and "Timber" to represent the two different populations is not incorrect as they are "Common names". The use of Crotalus horridus atricaudatus is incorrect as that scientific name has been "proven" to be invalid.
Therefore, anyone can talk about the Canebrake Rattlesnakes that they find/keep/breed or whatever and everyone will be able to recognize what kind of Crotalus horridus they are talking about.
Just as the recent Pantherophis grouping has realigned North American Ratsnakes so that the Black Rat Snake (previously Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta) is now Pantherophis obsoletus and the Yellow Rat Snake (previously Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata) is now also Pantherophis obsoletus. That realignment does not mean that yellow snakes are now black. The two snakes are still easily distinguishable regardless of the "advances" of science. Therefore, it is still appropriate to talk about Black and Yellow Rat Snakes as separate individuals but it is not appropriate to say that you breed E.o.quadrivittata.
One more point, if you will bear with me a little longer.
The reasoning behind the laws which regulate "Canebrakes" and "Timbers" has a direct bearing on the venomous keeping community today. The laws which regulate these snakes were most likely drafted before the results of the studies debunking the subspecies were widely accepted. It is MUCH easier for the states involved to deal with the issue of protecting a subspecies which is no longer recognized than it is to CHANGE an approved/existing law.
That should have HUGE implications in everyone's mind when they start thinking about sticking their heads in the sand instead of becoming involved in creating the legislation which will eventually come to control the keeping of venomous in their state. Helping to create a reasonably survivable set of regulations is infinitely easier than trying to change a law that has already been ratified regardless of how quickly it was rammed through or how ridiculous it is.
Hope this helps.
Karl H. Betz
(long time fan of Canebrake Rattlesnakes before and after they ceased to exist as a subspecies)
|
| |
|
RE: Canebrake Controversy
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on January 15, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Many years ago we looked at placing the Timber rattlesnake on the federal protection list.The problem lied in that atricaudatus was a recognized subspecies at the time. This then begged the question of the timbers that showed traits of both, such as those in Kentucky, Tennessee and so on. These could be argued to be intergrades therefore making these snake not eligible for any protection at all. The Federal listing does not recognize intergrades for their listing. So what we would have ended up with is a whole swath of area where we would lose protection. At that time it was put down and the States are open to list these animals as they feel needed within their own boundries.
It's too bad that science and politics often clash as they do, even when it's the right thing to do.
|
| |
|
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.
|
