One of the great aspects about Hubbs books are, they are slanted from the pet trade base. That is, his books tie captive snakes and collecting. This is one reason they are somewhat popular. His books are pretty much sold in pet shops and herp shows. Again, that is a great thing.
Whats weak about his book is, its not based on any type of biology. This topic clearly shows that. His interpitation is based on his goals of what his books should express. And that is great.
Another book that I loved was Wright & Wright. That book showed locality types etc and was fun, but not accurate as far as species goes. Fun is Good.
While I think Hubbs did a great job with his book. It does have weaknesses. And in more then this area. Its popular with casual herpers. Not serious herpers(in my opinion)
Joe, you call all folks names and say they don't know what their talking about. Joe, your wrong. You seem to believe what Hubbs wrote in a religious way. That is, blindly. You believe in Hubbs. That's not scientific, not in the least.
Hubbs ideas are based on color patterns. Which is not scientific. The first thing you should do when talking about species and their regional relationships, is strip color and pattern away, then examine the snakes. Color and pattern is important on a local basis, not a species(or subspecies level).
The evolution of a species based on color is simply wrong scientifically. The reason is so simple, when they evolved, they most likely were not what we currently see.
The whole idea of intergrades based on intergrading thousands of years ago, is naïve at best. The reason again is simple, the habitat was totally different then. Those arguments Hubbs is using is not based on anything other then that's what he wants it to be. Which is great for a popular petshop type book. What we have here is a problem in CONTEXT. Joes arguing pet trade concepts, vs. evolutionary concepts. Joe, and Hubbs, the book is great for what it is. Love it

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