1-5 of 5 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
Thoughts On Agkistrodon Changes?
|
Reply
|
by ALA_snake33 on February 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been thinking lately on the news that our beloved JohnZ (aka Cro) broke about the coming changes with North Americas Agkistrodon's. As you all know, the changes will be combining the former Western & Eastern Cottonmouths into one Species.
My question is, how do you as a Venomous Keeper see this change being taken in our community?
Personally, I see no real changes being made as to how people in our community refer to these Snakes. I still see the former names scientific or other wise being used on a regular bases. My reason for saying this, is due to the major color variations between Western & Eastern Forms. Same thing has happened with the Canebrake & Timber Rattlesnakes.
Maybe this will start a good discussion on here for a wile. Just trying to help. LOL
Be Safe Ya'll, Happy Herping : Wally
|
|
RE: Thoughts On Agkistrodon Changes?
|
Reply
|
by pictigaster1 on February 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My concern is only one.That is pictigaster.This is a snake I have worked with for 28 years.They ars so different than other copperheads that I am at a loss.I read the whole paper There are still genetic differences in this population they say they are so close that they have decided to lump them.Only time will decide and science will prevail.
|
|
RE: Thoughts On Agkistrodon Changes?
|
Reply
|
by earthguy on February 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
'They ars so different than other copperheads that I am at a loss'
I certainly understand this sentamment. However, we are looking at phenotypic differences. Phenotypic variations are more difficult (although not impossible) to quantify and are considerably more subjective than genotypic variations.
At one point in our history people believed that different cultures were so different that they must be different species. That was obviously proven not to be the case.
From a conservation standpoint, species lumping tends to make it more difficult to protect biodiversity. Think of the C. horridus example. The Timber phase of this snake is considerably less common than the canebrake phase. Does that mean it should get more protection? Or is a horridus a horridus regardless of the phenotypic phase? I personally think that, based solely on phenotypic cues, that the copperheads in Horry SC are a unique subspecies in need of conservation. :)
|
|
RE: Thoughts On Agkistrodon Changes?
|
Reply
|
by viandy on February 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In states that regulate the keeping of natives it complicates things. In Virginia you can only have five specimens of a native, and can't buy or sell it. So now anyone who had unregulated westerns now has regulations. An example of the future.
Andy
|
|
RE: Thoughts On Agkistrodon Changes?
|
Reply
|
by kacz on February 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I’m a little puzzled by this whole thing. Before genetic testing came along the criteria for determining species was far more obvious and observable to the lay-person. Do they breed and produce sexually viable young? Do they inhabit the same biomes? Are their populations separated by natural barriers? These and a few more morphological and dynamic criteria provided fodder for disagreements between the “lumpers” and “splitters”. Back then the science relied more on things that the hobbyist could observe. Now we are sitting clueless, being told what to think, regardless of our knowledge and empiricism.
I do not trust the new genetic or DNA based systematics. The truth is that I just don’t know enough about the techniques and protocols to form an opinion. Unless they are using the entire genome they may be missing important inequities that would otherwise indicate a difference in species.
What are they using as the genotype, against which all others are compared. Let’s say an animal has a population that extends from the Atlantic to the Rockies. If the genotype from an animal found along the Mississippi River is used as your standard, the difference between it and animals from the ends of the range may show little variation. However, when the end populations are compared with each other the genetic variation is larger.
Also, are all the meaningful differences between animals of questionable relationship reflected in the genome? Man and chimpanzees are genetically very close, 98% or so if what I read many years ago is true. Yet no one is claiming that we are 98% identical morphologically or by ability.
Finally, the big question becomes “So what?” Excluding legal and political concerns, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, …, then it’s a functional duck, regardless of what the DNA says. DNA analysis is a very powerful tool. But it is only one tool. It should not be considered the definitive criterion, at the expense of all others. I don’t need a DNA sequencing to tell me if I have just been bitten by Agkistrodon or Nerodia!
Kacz
|
|
|
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.
|