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 Rodent Pro  
click here for Rodent Pro
Mice, Rats, Rabbits, Chicks, Quail
Available Now at RodentPro.com!
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: False Coral Snake . . . . . . . . . .  Herp Photo of the Day: Bearded Dragon . . . . . . . . . .  Greater Cincinnati Herp Society Meeting - Apr 02, 2024 . . . . . . . . . .  Calusa Herp Society Meeting - Apr 04, 2024 . . . . . . . . . .  Southwestern Herp Society Meeting - Apr 06, 2024 . . . . . . . . . .  Hamburg Reptile Show - Apr. 13, 2024 . . . . . . . . . .  St. Louis Herpetological Society - Apr 14, 2024 . . . . . . . . . .  San Diego Herp Society Meeting - Apr 16, 2024 . . . . . . . . . .  Suncoast Herp Society Meeting - Apr 20, 2024 . . . . . . . . . .  DFW Herp Society Meeting - Apr 20, 2024 . . . . . . . . . .  Colorado Herp Society Meeting - Apr 20, 2024 . . . . . . . . . .  Chicago Herpetological Society Meeting - Apr 21, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . 
RodentPro.com - feeders for less!
full banner - advertise here .50¢/1000 views
click here for Rodent Pro
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 Fri Nov 28 02:34:21 2008  [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by CKing ]  
   

>>CK,
>>Unfortunately, I do not know enough about mtDNA research in order to interpret those trees. But long ago I had noted that sample #26 from Tulare County seemed to stick out by itself but just didn't know how to interpret that particular aspect.>>

It is not that difficult. Many trees are presented with the most basal nodes on the left. If we think of a tree as growing from the ground up, then it is perhaps not as easy to see which nodes are more basal when it is presented that way. If you want, you can print out the tree on a piece of paper, then cut it out, and flip it 90 degrees. When that is done, you can more easily see that the node, or point from which sample #26 from Tulare County branches off from the tree is lower than most of the other samples that comprise the Sierra Nevada subclade. That means sample #26 evolved earlier as a population, earlier for example, than #30, #31 and #32, since it originates at a point lower than these other samples. In mtDNA trees, that suggests #30-32 more likely than not evolved from #26 (or more correctly, the common ancestor of sample #26, 15, 17, 18, 19. Since the general direction of rubber boa migration is from south to north, and since samples #30-32 occur to the south of sample #26, this particular topology of the tree suggests that the rubber boa was restricted in distribution to the vicinity of Tulare County after it made its way out of southern California. At one time there were no boas in Kern County, south of sample #26. Later, probably when conditions are suitable for range expansion, Kern County was recolonized by rubber boas again, with seed stock coming from the area in Tulare County, close to #26. If that particular scenario did not happen, we would instead see a tree in which the Kern County boas occupy a more basal position of the tree than #26. I hope I have done an adequate job of explaining what I see from the tree.

In brief, since rubber boas migrated from south to north, one would expect Kern County boas to be older than Tulare County boas, unless there was a range contraction in the intermediate past which resulted in the Kern County area being wiped clean of boas (probably because of climatic changes). More recently, this area became suitable for boas, so it is recolonized by boas occurring to the north of Kern County.

>>With the new results showing that specimens from southeastern Tulare county align with the Southern Clade and with #26 also from Tulare county but belonging to the Northern Clade (Sierra Nevada subclade), knowing the locality of #26 in Tulare Co. became important. Javier did not specify the locality information for that specimen, just the county. The specimen came from the Cal Poly, Pomona collection (#2223) but other than county, had no specific locality data on the document upon which other collection information was present.>>

That lack of information is not as critical as one may imagine. If the county data is correct, it merely means that there is a mixture of umbratica haplotype and Sierra Nevada subclade haplotypes in Tulare County.

>>Rick was producing a map of specimens tested in his study and he simply used the city of Tulare as the locality for specimen #26. Of course, that was not very satisfactory. I had examined all Cal Poly specimens and retained copies of the information sheets for each specimen. CP #2223 had the name of the collector whose last name was unusual and began with a 'Z'.. After contacting Glenn Stewart and getting his input, I was able to Google the name and found the gentleman, a dentist in Arizona. He recalled exactly where that specimen was found near the community of Camp Nelson in central-western Tulare County about 20 miles north of Johnsondale.>>

Good for you. Nice detective work.

>>I have examined and taken tissue from a number of specimens south of Alta Sierra (Greenhorn Mts.) in northern Kern County and from 17 specimens north of Alta Sierra in southern Tulare County. I have also examined a number of voucher specimens from the Sequoia National Park region of northwestern Tulare County. The boa population south of Alta Sierra appear to be of the dwarf form and those in Sequoia National Park of the large morph. Some of the 17 boas examined from north of Alta Sierra in southwestern Tulare County appear to be intergrades as they have traits found in both the dwarf and large morph populations. As specimen #26 in Javier's study is a large morph female that probably was close to 24 inches when alive.>>

That is an unexpected result. If I were to guess, I would have guessed that #26 was a small morph snake. That means the Kern County boas are also likely to be large morph as well, since they shared a recent common ancestor with #26.

>> Rick tested several samples of the boas both south and north of Alta Sierra. All of those boas, along with Javier's #26, align with the Northern Clade (Sierra Nevada subclade).
>>Yet specimen #26 and the 17 specimens from southern Tulare County are only about 23 - 25 miles to the west of the Fish Creek drainage of the Kern Plateau where the dwarf morph boas of the Southern Clade occur. It can be noted that the N. Fork, Kern River gorge separates the western and eastern parts of Tulare County, the latter being the Kern Plateau where the southern clade boas occur.>>

>>You mention the following:
>>"Here is my prediction: all of these boas found between Tulare and San Bernardino Mountains are closer to the Sierra Nevada subclade than they are to umbratica,"
>>
>>The populations Javier tested from Kern County were from the Piute Mts., Breckenridge Mt., Tehachapi Mts. and Mt. Pinos. He had all of those boas and specimen #26 belonging to the Sierra Nevada subclade. >>

Yes, and in fact as I pointed out above, the Kern County boas appeared to be more derived than sample #26, suggesting that they may have been derived from sample #26.

>>You also mention: "That means they migrated south from Tulare County rather than north from San Bernardino County." >>

Absolutely.

>> You have previously mentioned that the dwarf form is ancestral to the large morph.>>

Correct again. umbratica is basal to all other rubber boa populations, and umbratica is a dwarf morph.

>>However, specimens #26 is a large morph specimen.
>>
>>Richard F. Hoyer

That is indeed very interesting. As you mentioned, there is a mixture of dwarf and large morph snakes in Tulare County. So, the fact that #26 is a large morph snake would suggest that the Kern County boas would also be large morph as well. Is there data on these boas? There is also the possibility that intergradation between the large and small morph snakes have resulted in the snake in sample #26 to have a small morph haplotype but a large morph phenotype. That means #26 descended from a female with a small morph ancestor that was mated to a large morph male. If the Kern County boas are small morph, that would be the most likely explanation.




   

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


>> Next Message:  RE: C. bottae taxonomy - CKing, Fri Nov 28 09:46:18 2008
>> Next Message:  RE: C. bottae taxonomy - RichardFHoyer, Sun Nov 30 00:04:10 2008

<< Previous Message:  RE: C. bottae taxonomy - RichardFHoyer, Fri Nov 28 00:31:03 2008