>>CK,
>>Still have many boas to survey and return to the field so just taking a short break this evening.
>>
>>As I believe I mentioned before, I was fearful that the current mtDNA study on C. bottae would merely repeat the information in the prior mtDNA study of the species. As of about a week or 10 days ago, the individual conducting the new study has revealed some of the key results. He requested that I not reveal any specifics at this time as some of the results are preliminary.
>>
>>But I can say with reasonable assurance that one block buster discovery will change the way C. bottae taxonomy is viewed. It's a bit difficult not to 'spill the beans' as it was the last few samples I suggested be tested, and then sent last summer, that produced the startling results. But I quickly add that the reason I suggested those samples be tested was to cover all bases from a geographical standpoint with respect to the two morphs. I had no inkling that those specimens would have the effect of what I believe will require a revision of C. bottae taxonomy. Actually there is one more sample that I have urged be tested but unfortunately, the lab facilities that were being used are no longer available. So that one last piece of the puzzle apparently will have to wait.
>>
>>And just the past two days, he has relayed information dealing with the two subclades. Ta da! Without mentioning specifics, preliminary results indicate there occurs some
>>overlap in the distributions of the two subclades.
>>
>>Richard F. Hoyer

Without knowing the specifics, it is difficult to analyze the results. Based on what you have said, there is some overlap of the two subclades. That would indeed be different from the findings of Rodriguez-Robles et al. As I pointed out before, there are striking similarities in the migration and distribution of Lampropeltis zonata and Charina bottae and also notable differences. One notable similarity is the coastal migration route from Kern County to Oregon and Washington. Both L. zonata and C. bottae took separate coastal and Sierra Nevada migratory routes north. The coastal populations of both species also apparently failed to invade the Sierra Nevada Mountains despite having made the migration earlier than the Sierra Nevada subclades. In the case of L. zonata, the Sierra Nevada subclade did meet with the coastal subclade by invading the territory of the coastal subclade. So, my prediction is that the Sierra Nevada subclade of the rubber boa would be the more likely candidate to have invaded the territory of the Northwestern subclade. I will await the results and see if my prediction is correct or not.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]