|
|
|
1-10 of 46 messages
|
Page 1 of 5
Next
|
|
Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes !!!
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on March 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just recieved a EMail from Karl concerning a new publication from the CNAH about a proposed total overhaul of the Genus Crotalus and Sisturus.
And we thought the proposed overhaul of Agkistrodon was bad !
Seems that a taxonomist in Australia has proposed a major overhaul of our rattlesnakes.
This is how they want to change them:
NEWS RELEASE
The Center for North American Herpetology
Lawrence, Kansas
http://www.cnah.org
10 March 2009
A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE RATTLESNAKES; SPECIES FORMERLY EXCLUSIVELY REFERRED
TO THE GENERA CROTALUS AND SISTRURUS
Raymond Hoser
2009. Australasian Journal of Herpetology 6: 1-21
Submitted 24 February 2009, Accepted 1 March 2009, Published 9 March 2009
ABSTRACT: In spite of the fact that the taxonomy of most rattlesnakes at the species level
has been established for many years, the genus Crotalus as referred to by most
taxonomists up to 2008 failed to properly distinguish relationships within the group
commonly defined as "rattlesnakes." The genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (the latter
sometimes subsumed in whole or part within Crotalus) as defined by most authors also
fails to properly delineate relationships between taxa and fails to account for the modern
definition and use of the “genus” level in terms of grouping closely related species only.
This paper principally redefines the rattlesnakes at both genus and subgenus levels,
formally naming a number of well-recognized species and species groups at the genus
level for the first time. In summary rattlesnakes are subdivided into nine genera for which
names were previously available for a total of five. For the other four genera, they are
formally defined, diagnosed and named for the first time. A further seven well-defined
subgenera are also defined and named for the first time. Later workers may choose to
elevate some or all of these to full genus level.
Keywords: new taxa, snake, rattlesnake, taxonomy, Crotalus, Sistrurus, Piersonus,
Matteoea, Cummingea, Hoserea, Caudisona, Aechmophrys, and Uropsophus
*****
A gratis PDF of this article is available from the CNAH PDF Library at
http://www.cnah.org/cnah_pdf.asp
*****
CNAH: To date, the New World Rattlesnakes have been placed in two genera, Crotalus and
Sistrurus. The above paper divides these serpents into nine genera (species assigned to
each genus by Hoser are listed with generic attribution and date; standard common names
are added for those taxa that occur in the United States and/or Canada), as follows:
Genus Aechmophrys Coues 1875
A. cerastes - Sidewinder
A. intermedius
A. polystictus
A. pricei - Twin-spotted Rattlesnake
A. tancitarensis
A. transversus
A. willardi - Ridgenose Rattlesnake
Genus Caudisona Laurenti 1768
C. basiliscus
C. culminatus
C. durissus
C. enyo
C. estebanensis
C. molossus - Blacktail Rattlesnake
C. simus
C. totonacus
C. tzabcan
C. vegrandis
C. unicolor
Genus Crotalus Linnaeus 1758
C. abyssus - Grand Canyon Rattlesnake
C. cerberus - Arizona Black Rattlesnake
C. concolor - Midget Faded Rattlesnake
C. helleri - Southern Pacific Rattlesnake
C. horridus - Timber Rattlesnake
C. lutosus - Great Basin Rattlesnake
C. oreganus - Northern Pacific Rattlesnake
C. scutulatus - Mojave Rattlesnake
C. viridis - Prairie Rattlesnake
Genus Cummingea Hoser 2009
C. ericsmithi
C. lannomi
C. stejnegeri
Genus Hoserea Hoser 2009 (named to honor Shireen Hoser, not the author)
H. adamanteus - Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake
H. atrox - Western Diamondback Rattlesnake
H. catalinensis
H. exsul
H. lorenzoensis
H. ruber - Red Diamond Rattlesnake
H. tortugensis
Genus Matteoea Hoser 2009
M. angelensis
M. mitchellii - Speckled Rattlesnake
M. stephensi - Panamint Rattlesnake (implied)
M. tigris - Tiger Rattlesnake
Genus Piersonus Hoser 2009
P. ravus
Genus Sistrurus Garman 1883
S. catenatus - Massasauga
S. miliarius - Pigmy Rattlesnake
Genus Uropsophus Wagler 1830
U. aquilus
U. lepidus - Rock Rattlesnake
U. pusillus
U. triseriatus
It is way to early to know if this proposed change will work or not. I do see some of the groupings to be somewhat valid, but still..............
This is a MAJOR overhaul of what we know and love !
Go to CNAH and download the full PDF for the reasons behind this study.
Best Regards
John Z
|
| |
|
RE: Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes !!!
|
Reply
|
|
by CAISSACA on March 11, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John,
1. It wasn't a study
2. There are no reasons
3. Unless you believe that Crotalus *should* be split, there is absolutely no reason to adopt these new names.
4. I guess CNAH just circulated this for information - I don't see any endorsement, and they have not adopted it for their website listings.
5. ... and relax :)
Cheers,
WW
|
| |
|
RE: Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes !!!
|
Reply
|
|
by SOLENOGLYPH on March 11, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Those smelly Aussie's have no right reclassifying our snakes!
Met the idiot once - he stunk so bad it made my eye's water.
|
| |
|
RE: Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, Yikes !!!
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on March 11, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wolfgang and Terry, Thanks for the update ! I wonder why CNAH would circulate that information to thousands of people around the world. Seems like it would just stir things up, and create a huge group of people against this Hoser fellow. Perhaps that was the intent ?
Best Regards
John Z
|
| |
|
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.
|
|
|
