|
21-21 of 21 messages
|
Previous
Page 3 of 3
|
|
RE: kind of new Canebrake paper
|
Reply
|
|
by OldBoxer on March 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just my 2 cents but I wouldn't call this a dead issue at all. In Campbell and Lamar's newest book, you can follow the threads on the studies that have gone both ways. C and L don't have any dog in this fight, but they show that Conant rejected the notion to scrap atricaudatus. They also point out that the last comprehensive study prior to their book's release retained "atricaudatus", and this study used research at a molecular level. The new "Rattlesnakes of Texas" also retains atricaudatus.
Any new study, no matter how exhaustive, can be accepted or rejected by other herpetologists. Whether you are a lumper or a splitter, you can find plenty of research to support your opinion, either way, when it comes to atricaudatus.
Not sure who mentioned earlier that they had Conant's field guide stolen, but if you don't get it back, I'm sure I have an extra old hardback around here somewhere. It won't be signed of course, but it's the next best thing. I work in Roger's old building (Philly Zoo Reptile House), and I have many things Conant all over my snake room at home.. lol...Let me know if I can help you.
Best to all,
Steve B.
|
| |
|
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.
|
