I have nothing against genetics, even in its primitive state(i imagine its going to get a lot better).



What I disagree with is screwing up the usefulness of scientific names. Take C.viridis in the rattlesnakes. They separated them into different species. So if someone not familar with rattlesnakes looks them up, A V.helleri is as different from a sidewinder as it is to a northen pacific(Oreganus). Or as apart as willardi! which is wrong and silly.



The viridis group are more similar to eachother then to other species, so that should be recognized.



On another forum, I asked, who are these Scientific for. One person said, you can read the new names, then look up four or five papers then you will understand it. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm well thats stupid. The utility of the name in the first place is to offer some understanding. If not, then why not have the name be, Lampropeltis, then followed by all manner of citations.



The truth is, if any of us picked up a getula king, we would know its a getula king and we would not have to look up anything. We may wonder which one it is from color/pattern or locality. But we will know its a common king. On the otherhand if a bird person picks one up, then looks it up and by local its called L.splendida, but it looks odd, maybe a Hybrid with holbrooki. Hybrid???????? Oh you mean intergrade or intermediate, but They will soon be Hybrids. And you know how we hate that? Cheers

[ Show Entire Thread ]