|
1-10 of 16 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
Question for Chuck Hurd
|
Reply
|
|
by JeremyTMoore on May 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I saw your myspace and you had a picture of the largest timber rattler in captivity. What is its length, and if you know, weight.
|
| |
|
RE: Question for Chuck Hurd
|
Reply
|
|
by ChuckHurd on May 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
last time we taped and measured, she was 65" weighted 11 pounds. she is on display at the Chattanooga Nature Center if you ever get up this way.
|
| |
|
RE: Question for Chuck Hurd
|
Reply
|
|
by LarryDFishel on May 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I guess it's time to go measure the one at our refuge. May not be 11 pounds, but certainly in the 65" range I think... (Or are you making a distinction between "Timber" and "Canebrake"?)
|
| |
|
RE: Question for Chuck Hurd
|
Reply
|
|
by ChuckHurd on May 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
johnny hester also has a cane that i recently saw, that probably is in the range of 65", but no where near the bulk. yes, i am of the mindset that there is a difference in the cane and the timber. there is far more differnce in a cane and a timber, then there is a southern and northen copperhead. it never made sense to me that a nothern and southern copper is a true sub-sp and a timber and a cane aren't. thers is a difference in the color, the markings, the shape of the head, the venom, etc, etc, etc. the last word i heard from dr gordon, in his new research he was going to suggest the cane as its own sp, and not just a sub-sp. guess we will see how that flies. he pulled blood for dna off all my horridus in 2004, not sure when he plans to release the research. in 2005, us fish and wild life came to me at the nature center wanting a shed off the big girl for dna reserach they were doing. since he is federial, i figured he has seen or heard of most horridus in captivity. i gave him her size and weight, he said she was the biggest he knew of. if there is a bigger one out there, i can't wait to see it. =)
|
| |
|
RE: Question for Chuck Hurd
|
Reply
|
|
by Atrox788 on May 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I dont see how you can justify Canebrakes and timber not being the same species when an extensive study done with samples from all major populations showed that they are the same snake at a genetic level.
The days of splitting species into ssp based simply on coloration and pattern are gone. DNA is a much more definative way of defineing taxon.
Some Taxonomist belive there will no longer be any ssp.
I understand if somone is conductiong thier own, professional Taxon study but i think some of you guys are overly offensive about the joining of these 2 forms and I dont understand why.
|
| |
|
RE: Question for Chuck Hurd
|
Reply
|
|
by ChuckHurd on May 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jeremy,
“DNA is a much more definative way of defineing taxon”
I would agree, but bear in mind the canebrake lost its distention as a sub-species well before DNA research was full steam. Actually, contemporary research is showing there are genetic differences. .Not sure if you are familiar with how taxonomy works, but there is not final authority. A researcher puts forth his findings and some accept and some don’t. The states of VA and KS still recognize a difference in the Canebrake and the Timber. Some top researchers still do. Dr Gordon Schuett, author of Biology of the vipers, and the world’s foremost expert on north American pit-vipers, certainly recognizes a difference. I have Horridus ranging from NY to FL. He personally came to my lab and pulled DNA directly from my snakes for his new research paper. He has not published the findings yet, to my knowledge, but he told me that day he intended to suggest the canebrake not be a sub-sp of the timber, but its own individual Species. Books from the 1950’s and 60’s listed the cane as its own species, Crotalus atricaudatus. It was sometime in the 70’s, way before the DNA revolution that the cane was thought to only be a different color phase of the timber. Gordon fully expects to return the cane to species level based on his DNA research. I hope that helps to clarify for you how I can justify Canebrakes and timbers not being the same species.
|
| |
|
RE: Question for Chuck Hurd
|
Reply
|
|
by Atrox788 on May 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I severly doubt that his finding are going to show a new, seprate species when an extensive study done already concluded that horridus is the same snake at a genetic level, from all major locals.
As for not knowing taxonomy, I agree, they are not definative findings but far more definative then any argument I have seen people here bring.
Are they leading to a split in some areas of the coastal plain? I think so. Have they gotten there yet? Nope. According to anaylasis already done. I am well seasoned when it comes to hunting coastal horridus in NC and I know there is no intergrade range (for lack of a better word)between montane and coastal populations. however, it becomes far more unclear the farther west you go and the further north for that matter.
Also, pulling samples from captive animals dosent realy mean squat. Professional research is generaly done in the field with wild populations. Who knows what your canebrake/timbers have mixed in them. Sure, you could have collected them yourself but since you are so convinced that they are a diiferent animal I wpould already rule your samples out. Sorry but captive animals do not count when the source is tainted by personal preference.
One last thing, you think Va's stupid laws are enough to justify a split? Just because Va dosent clump them together doesent mean squat! BTW, did you know Va out laws the possesion of the Brown Tree snake? They do this because of what happened in Guam. Being that I live in VA I can tell you with 100 percent certinaty, they would not survive our winter. Not a chance in hell.
Also, the only reason Va splits the 2 is because of old taxonomy. Coastal populations are severly restricted within the state. That is why they reconize it as its own species, not because they have done any kind of study.
Im sorry bro but you lost credibility with me when you brought Va's distinction into it. You know that states dont know squat about snakes.
|
| |
|
RE: Question for Chuck Hurd
|
Reply
|
|
by Atrox788 on May 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Dr Gordon Schuett, author of Biology of the vipers, and the world’s foremost expert on north American pit-vipers, certainly recognizes a difference"
The world's foremost expert? By his distinticion or yours? Recognizeing a difference in appearence is different the recognizeing them as a seprate species.
Instead of looking at authorities in Hepretology why dont you ask professional evolutionary biologist instead? I belive Wolfgang Wuster agrees that they are the same species. Im not trying to use his name to back up my claim but since you brought in an "expert's" name I thought I should as well.
|
| |
|
RE: Question for Chuck Hurd
|
Reply
|
|
by ChuckHurd on May 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Sorry I lost credibility with you my friend, I used that example only to illustrate that is there is not definitive authority on taxonomy. Ok, so from my prospective as an educated man and a life long researcher of southeastern pit-vipers, I offer this. The southern and northern copperheads are currently accepted as recognized sub-species. Would you agree? Ok, these snakes have the same size, shape, venom, habit, ect. The only difference is the scale count of the band on the dorsal and the dots that occur between the bands. There is a slight color difference, however, even the colors are very similar. The Canebrake and the Timber have a much more drastic differential. The head of a canebrake is visibly different then that of a timber. The head of a true cane is wider and more resembles the head of the EDB, which they share a range with. The timber has a more consistent head, not as pronounced and more resembles the shape of the head of copperheads. The colors are drastically different. My NY timber is nearly all black, from a few feet away, you can not even see pattern. The patterns of the two have more of a distinction. Both have a consistent chevron pattern, but there is as much difference in the chevrons on the Timber and Cane as there are difference in the diamonds of EDB’s and WDB’s. And there is a clear difference in the venom of a timber and a cane. Now, I have not a micro-biologist and I have never done DNA samples myself, but I trust Gordon. He has a PHD in his field and is recognized the world over as a leader in his field. If he tells me that he has found a genetic difference, then I believe him….far more then I would a man who thinks a fish turned into a monkey and that monkey was my ancestor. =) you talk about me losing credibility and you quote an evolutionist. Ha ha. And for the record, I had exact local info on all the horridus that Gordon used. Maybe you are under the impression keeping them in captivity alters the DNA, but rest assured it doesn’t. I have no personal preference myself. My opinion is based on my research and that of Gordon and others like him. If Gordon did all this work and called me and said, Chuck, I have found out they are all the same….then I would be fine with that and I would join your school of thought, but the most contemporary research from the recognized leader is telling us that there is a difference…I am just trying to keep you abreast of what is going on. couple years ago, Chad Mintor, author of Venomous Reptiles of the Southeast posted a compelling thread on another web site dealing with this. I lost the link when I moved, if anyone knows the piece I am talking about, can you post the link here.
|
| |
|
RE: Question for Chuck Hurd
|
Reply
|
|
by Atrox788 on May 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Sorry I lost credibility with you my friend, I used that example only to illustrate that is there is not definitive authority on taxonomy. Ok, so from my prospective as an educated man and a life long researcher of southeastern pit-vipers, I offer this. The southern and northern copperheads are currently accepted as recognized sub-species. Would you agree?"0
Not at all. I belive they are the same snake 100 percent. The only form of contortrix that maybe different is pictagaster. There is work being done on these genus right now.
"Ok, these snakes have the same size, shape, venom, habit, ect. The only difference is the scale count of the band on the dorsal and the dots that occur between the bands. There is a slight color difference, however, even the colors are very similar."
See above comment.
"The Canebrake and the Timber have a much more drastic differential. The head of a canebrake is visibly different then that of a timber. The head of a true cane is wider and more resembles the head of the EDB, which they share a range with. The timber has a more consistent head, not as pronounced and more resembles the shape of the head of copperheads. The colors are drastically different"
They differ on everything except DNA variation and overall appearence. Do you think there are no similarities between the two forms then? You even mentioned that DNA analysis is the wave of the furture. Why are you even mentioning morphological differences?
As I said, I agree that there appears to be some sort of geographical barrier between the two eastern forms of horridus keeping them from intergradeing but as test have shown, they are still exactly the same snake. Your basis of seperation is the same as saying that different cultures of people are different species. There is an extream variation in size, shape and color in Humans from one country to another. Are we several different species because of it? I think not.
"My NY timber is nearly all black, from a few feet away, you can not even see pattern. The patterns of the two have more of a distinction. Both have a consistent chevron pattern, but there is as much difference in the chevrons on the Timber and Cane as there are difference in the diamonds of EDB?s and WDB?"
Please see my comment above.
"And there is a clear difference in the venom of a timber and a cane"
There is a clear difference in the venom of C.scutalatus from one local to another. Should they be considered 2 different species because of it? Also, venom has been shown to variate depending on the local food source. Venom relationships is good when comparing elapids to colubrids as in the case of BGF's work but not in the case of horridus.
"Now, I have not a micro-biologist and I have never done DNA samples myself, but I trust Gordon."
....and I trust Wolfgang.
"He has a PHD in his field and is recognized the world over as a leader in his field."
So is Wolfgang.
"If he tells me that he has found a genetic difference, then I believe him?.far more then I would a man who thinks a fish turned into a monkey and that monkey was my ancestor. =)"
I didnt know we were bringing religion into this. I will decline from mentioning my opinions on God and evolution since I dont want the post to be bannded and you most definately wont like what I have to say.
"you talk about me losing credibility and you quote an evolutionist. Ha ha. And for the record, I had exact local info on all the horridus that Gordon used"
Why would he come to you for a profesional study? Why not locate animals in the wild himself? As I said, your samples loose credability due to your opinion on the matter. I will stick to following the studies of those professionals that actualy go out and test animals from the feild.
"Maybe you are under the impression keeping them in captivity alters the DNA, but rest assured it doesn?t."
No but the animals in your possesion can not be given exact localitiy because they are captive animals. I personaly belive someone who has went into the feild for their sampling. Why would a leading expert on American Pitvipers decide to come to your private collection for sampleing? I would think he has the feild experince to go out and collect data on his own.
"I have no personal preference myself. My opinion is based on my research and that of Gordon and others like him."
Ok, so your opinion is based off of other people's studies yet you discredit world leading Taxonomist due to their religious preference? You are picking the professional that most fits your ideas on the species. Thats it. Dont say you dont have an opinion when everything in your post begs to differ.
"If Gordon did all this work and called me and said, Chuck, I have found out they are all the same?.then I would be fine with that and I would join your school of thought, but the most contemporary research from the recognized leader is telling us that there is a difference?"
You have only mentioned Gordon, who I have never heard of (I have been out of the loop so that may be why). What other leading professional share this point of veiw? All the ones I know say they are the same.
"I am just trying to keep you abreast of what is going on. couple years ago, Chad Mintor, author of Venomous Reptiles of the Southeast posted a compelling thread on another web site dealing with this. I lost the link when I moved, if anyone knows the piece I am talking about, can you post the link here."
What does Chad's book have to do with anything? Chad is a hobbiest. It was a good book but just because you pay to have a book published does not make you an authority.
|
| |
|
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.
|
