return to main index

  mobile - desktop
follow us on facebook follow us on twitter follow us on YouTube link to us on LinkedIn
 
click here for  Animal Specialties
This Space Available
3 months for $50.00
Locate a business by name: click to list your business
search the classifieds. buy an account
events by zip code list an event
Search the forums             Search in:
News & Events: Herp Photo of the Day: Lizard . . . . . . . . . .  Herp Photo of the Day: Gecko . . . . . . . . . .  MAHS Madison Meeting - Dec. 13, 2019 . . . . . . . . . .  The Reptile Expo - Dec. 14, 2019 . . . . . . . . . .  ReptiCon Charlotte - Dec. 14-15, 2019 . . . . . . . . . .  ReptiCon Belton - Dec. 14-15, 2019 . . . . . . . . . .  ReptiCon Baton Rouge - Dec. 14-15, 2019 . . . . . . . . . .  Northern Virginia Reptile Expo - Dec. 14, 2019 . . . . . . . . . .  Nebraska Herp Society Meeting - Dec. 14, 2019 . . . . . . . . . .  Edmonton Reptile & Amphibian Society Mee - Dec. 17, 2019 . . . . . . . . . .  MAHS Fox Valley Meeting - Dec. 20, 2019 . . . . . . . . . .  ReptiDay Winston-Salem - Dec. 21, 2019 . . . . . . . . . . 

full banner - advertise here .50¢/1000 views
Click here for Freedom Breeder Cages
pool banner - $50 year

RE: C. bottae taxonomy

[ Login ] [ User Prefs ] [ Search Forums ] [ Back to Main Page ] [ Back to Taxonomy Discussion ] [ Reply To This Message ]
[ Register to Post ]

Posted by: CKing at Thu May 15 02:58:19 2008  [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by CKing ]  
   

Hi Richard, thank you very much for your thoughtful response. After reading the new information you have provided concerning additional specimens and localities, I must nevertheless conclude that these new specimens have not disproven Rodriguez-Robles' claim that the two large morph subclades are completely allopatric. He apparently based his claim on his mtDNA data, which shows that at any one locality, only one or the other large morph mtDNA haplotypes are present, but not both. Now, if someone, anyone, were to come up with new data which shows that both of the large morph mtDNA haplotypes are in fact present at a single locality, then the claim of complete allopatry can be falsified.

The mtDNA data suggests that the Northwestern large morph lineage migrated along the coast westward from western Kern County, and then expanded its range northward and thence eastward to occupy much of the present range of the rubber boa north of Kern County, but exclusive of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. And this migration apparently took place before the Sierra Nevada large morph even evolved, because the small morph Kern County boas show a closer genetic relationship to the Sierra Nevada large morph snakes than either of them does to the Northwestern large morph. In other words, the Sierra Nevada large morph and Kern County small morph boas share a more recent common ancestor with each other than either of them does with the Northwestern large morph boas. That determination comes straight from the mtDNA data of Rodriguez-Robles et al. To me that suggests the common ancestor of the Northwestern (large morph) and Kern County boas was very likely a dwarf morph snake. The 2 subsequent lineages that came from this common ancestor went their separate ways, one along the coast and became exclusively large morph, and the other along the Sierra Nevada Mountains, but remaining small morph until a large morph population evolved later in the Sierra Nevada Mountains north of Kern County. And these two large morphs apparently have never met.

As I said earlier, there is no mtDNA data to demonstrate that the Northwestern large morph has ever met the Sierra Nevada large morph. I understand your objection to this claim because you believe that the area between the supposed gap in distribution is suitable habitat for boas and some boas have been found within this gap. Unfortunately, there is no mtDNA data from these specimens to show which population they originated from, and more importantly, there is no data to show that both types occur in the same locality. Until that data becomes available, Rodriguez-Robles claim of complete allopatry remains the best supported theory. Like all scientific theories, however, it can be falsified by additional data.

It is unfortunate that no crosses have been attempted between Northwestern large morph and Sierra Nevada large morph boas. Of course there is every reason to believe that they are probably reproductively compatible, because they are morphologically similar, which suggests that neither has evolved into a different species. But then again, reproductive compatibility cannot be assumed. It must be demonstrated. Of course it is equally untenable to assume that they cannot interbreed. Hence I do not support splitting the Northwestern and Sierra Nevada large morph snakes into different species because of allopatry. The best solution would be to treat them as different subspecies, as least for the time being. Lumping them on the basis of their similarity as large morph snakes is unacceptable because they apparently evolved their large morph phenotypes independently of each other. As I said in another post, lumping the 2 large morphs would be similar to lumping Lampropeltis getulus niger and L. g. nigritus as a single species because they both show a propensity for melanism.

Finally, your crosses between small morph and large morph snakes seem very interesting, as size seems to be linked with sex somehow. Are these crosses between Northwestern large morph and small morph snakes or are these crosses between Sierra Nevada large morph and the small morph snakes?


   

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


>> Next Message:  RE: C. bottae taxonomy - CKing, Thu May 15 09:35:34 2008
>> Next Message:  RE: C. bottae taxonomy - RichardFHoyer, Fri May 16 17:45:12 2008
>> Next Message:  RE: C. bottae taxonomy - RichardFHoyer, Fri May 16 18:23:34 2008

<< Previous Message:  RE: C. bottae taxonomy - RichardFHoyer, Tue May 13 12:10:00 2008