|
RE: kind of new Canebrake paper
|
Reply
|
|
by GREGLONGHURST on March 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Karl nailed this one. Subspecies atricaudatus is not valid, but "Canebrake" is still okay to use. One thing I had heard years ago was that there is a population of horridus up in the northwestern portion of their range that are colored & marked like "atricaudatus". I was pretty much convinced that this was the case, & therefore, subclassification for the southern form is probably not warranted.
John: My autographed copy of Conant's Field Guide is inscribed to me. I would not want to be the guy who has your copy.
~~Greg~~
|
| |
|
RE: kind of new Canebrake paper
|
Reply
|
|
by skyChimp on March 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've never understood the reason for the distinction between C. h. horridus and C. h. atricaudatus. Was it always solely due to color variation? Or was there some more significant reason? I've seen pictures of specimens of horridus and atricaudatus from Missouri that both look indistinguishable from each other and indistinguishable from atricaudatus from southeastern Virginia.
I think this is all very interesting. If my memory serves me correctly (and it may not), the Timber Rattlesnake was recently designated the "state snake" of Virginia, specifically C. h. horridus. If the subspecies labels are dropped, it may mean even additional protection or consideration afforded to C. h. atricaudatus in Virginia, since they will be one-in-the-same.
With respect to Agkistrodon contortrix, I have similar thoughts with respect to contortrix and mokasen. Is the issue the same here? Color variation is the only distinction? Incidentally, both subspecies are supposed to be present in Virginia, but I've only seen mokasen, never contortrix.
And so it goes with piscivorus?
Anyway, I don't post here a lot, but I read quite a bit. Keep up the good discussions.
Vinnie, I sent you an e-mail. Hope your e-mail address in your profile is still correct.
|
| |
|
RE: kind of new Canebrake paper
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on March 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Greg, my copy of Dr. Conant's book is inscribed to me also, so it makes little sense for someone else to have it. Hopefully, it will find its way home.
Paul, it would be fun to go herping with you sometime here in GA. Going to be very busy the next few weeks, but hope to make it to S. Ga sometime soon.
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: kind of new Canebrake paper
|
Reply
|
|
by agkistrodude on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I read the article and finally broke down and... ever so painfully... changed my cage label to read...
1.1 Canebrake Rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus horridus)
A.K.A. Timber Rattlesnake
VENOMOUS
It was always a good subject to get going when things were kind of slow, always brought up some good freindly arguments and discussions. Just, Damn... Marty
|
| |
|
RE: kind of new Canebrake paper
|
Reply
|
|
by skyChimp on March 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If the only sub-species is no longer considered a sub-species, wouldn't you drop the second "horridus?" Now isn't it just Crotalus horridus - since there are no subspecies?
|
| |
|
RE: kind of new Canebrake paper
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on March 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Rowland, that would be correct. They are all just Crotalus horridus.
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: kind of new Canebrake paper
|
Reply
|
|
by thedude on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I take the weekend off from the internet and spend it outside! Went for a nice MTB ride on Sat and checked out my cottons on Sunday. Looks like my post stirred up the regulars, which is good! On a side note my cottons are starting to move out. My radio-transmittered female is already in the active season habitat and my male is still in his hibernaulum. Caught a 1 m total length male on the trail moving towards the swamp and saw a 2 year old poking his head out of his hibernaculum. As a result of my research the park has put up warning signs at the start of the trails that go through the areas where cottons need to cross the trail to get to and from their hibernacula and apparently they work, because I did not find the snake on the trail, some hikers did and the only reason they knew what it was (and to keep clear of it) was because of the signs! The snake turned out to be a new one and he got himself a shiny new PIT tag! Also the ribbonsnakes were out like crazy- saw 8 in an area of about 10 square feet! Didn't see any mating but there were a lot of crayfish burrows around and they were probably getting a little basking in before returning to the burrows.
Back to the rattlers - good posts by all! One of my future studies (after my M.S. is done) is to survey certain areas of the park for "canebrakes" (VDGIF permitting of course). We have not seen any in a long while!
|
| |
|
RE: kind of new Canebrake paper
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Greg, I tried to send you a copy of the Horridus paper, at the address in your profile, but you must have your EMail set to reject EMail with attachments.
The file is in .pdf form, and will require Acrobat to open the file.
If you can find a way around this, let me know, and I can try to send it again.
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: kind of new Canebrake paper
|
Reply
|
|
by Atrox788 on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The canebrake/timber debate, or formor debate is genneraly based off of NC/SC/GA populations. Besides the obvious physical charecteristics fueling the debate there is also the absence of horridus between low lying costal areas and higher elvations. Basicly there was no intergradeing between the coast and the montains which further fueled the debate. However, once DNA testing were done the true nature of the animal was unveiled and low and behold, they are indeed the same snakes.
Sub species staus comes from an age where pattern, coloration and habbitat differences were used as a way of defineing populations. This has more or less gone the way of the dodo and I imagine that soon, most ssp will follow.
Regarding Agkistrodon, contortrix specificly, I imagine they will be brought down to 2 species. A.c.pictagaster has long been thought to be a distinct lineage by some do to its extream isolation from other populations. Atleast that was the impresion I was given for i do not belive there are any overlapping areas where pictagaster and lactcintus are found.
Im glad to hear work is being done on the complex. I look foward to hearing their findings.
Anyway, I agree, Canebrake is still valid in discribing coastal populations, and timber for montainous. One however can not deny the DNA results so from now untill the end of time canebrake will only be thought of as a name for C.horridus found in low lying areas.
All the best,
Jeremy
|
| |
|
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.
|
