|
11-18 of 18 messages
|
Previous
Page 2 of 2
|
|
RE: cantil x broadband copperhead
|
Reply
|
|
by jared on January 31, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The old rules of Taxonomy took a slight bump from genetics. Many sp and ssp can be hybridized and produce fertile young. Variations of which include Gabinos, carpondros, jungle corns, amazonXbasin boas, puffXgaboons, EDBXCanes,BlacktailXcanebrake, and so on and so on. Theory is just that, theory. I have produced a few snakes a few places and have seen lots of non natural hybrids thrive. Not that I like them, or agree with it I have seen various individuals go on to live a long time,
Jared
|
| |
|
RE: cantil x broadband copperhead
|
Reply
|
|
by Nightflight99 on February 1, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just as a sidenote: The notion that species are defined by their ability to interbreed forms the backbone of the Biological Species Concept (BSC), which has been abandoned by the majority of evolutionary biologists in favor of species concepts that incorporate the evolutionary history of different lineages.
~TE
|
| |
|
RE: cantil x broadband copperhead
|
Reply
|
|
by lep1pic1 on February 2, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I love how every body is an expert .F1 females are most likely fertil tho most f1 males are not. but there are exceptions to all rules unless you are an expert of course. Then it can only be what we belive.
|
| |
|
RE: cantil x broadband copperhead
|
Reply
|
|
by sceniccityreptiles on February 2, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Alex, I have to disagree with you. You seem to be under the impression that species classification is a natural thing. Understand, it is completely man made. I do not think Noah has a copperhead and a cantil on the ark. I think he had one common forefather of the two and the genetic and visual differences we see today are a result of a later geographic separation and each evolved to suite their environment. I do not know of a successful hybrid of a cantil and copperhead, but I do know of successful hybrid of copperhead and cottonmouths, and cottonmouths and cantils. If the cotton can produce with the cantil, rest assured the copperhead can as well.
|
| |
|
RE: cantil x broadband copperhead
|
Reply
|
|
by jared on February 2, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes but Thomas isnt this a outdated concept based on new genetic evidence, I know that is what I was taught in basic bio lab but I am not sure that the theory would still apply based on all of the forced intergration of different species, just a thought.
Jared
|
| |
|
RE: cantil x broadband copperhead
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on February 2, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you will re-read what Thomas said, I think you will see that he said that the Biological Species Concept is outdated!
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: cantil x broadband copperhead
|
Reply
|
|
by Nightflight99 on February 3, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
@sceniccityreptiles:
Chuck - actually, species are most certainly real entities, but anything beyond that taxonomic level represents man-made categories. Regardless which species concept you subscribe to (if any), the evidence is pretty clear that species are real. Without getting too much into the philosophy of science - there is a lot of literature available that debates the "reality" of species, and can make for quite the illuminating read.
@Jared:
As JohnZ stated, you misread my post. The Biological Species Concept is outdated in the sense that it is no longer used by the vast majority of evolutionary biologists. Defining species based on the ability to interbreed has some inherent problems, such as its application to fossil species.
~TE
|
| |
|
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.
|
