Posted by:
Sunherp
at Sat Jan 23 11:25:27 2010 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by Sunherp ]
First of all, I'd like to congratulate the forum members on keeping this this "above the belt" and civil. I suppose that has to do with who the participants are, and the lack other(s).
Next, I'd like to openly express my respect and friendship with Nathan Wells. He's a stand-up guy and I whole-heartedly feel he'd not intentionally mislead anyone, any time. Some folks perhaps just don't buy into the distinction between some of Williams' creations. More on that below.
I started a thread several weeks ago to try to generate discussion on what exactly a "subspecies" is. Things were going well until someone derailed it and began yet another insult war.
Ken Williams' doctoral work on the species Lampropeltis triangulum is the best thing we've got to work with at this point. HOWEVER, it must be noted that in the years since it was completed, we've come a long way in biology. We now know for a fact, for instance, that dermal pigment deposition can be greatly altered through incubation temperatures (perhaps Mitch will chime in with further detail?), that color and pattern are extremely plastic and variable, and that scale counts can also be easily influenced and variable. While some morphological traits are still used in taxonomic work, others have been generally discarded in light of their uselessness. Blotch and ring counts in Lampropeltine colubrids are among these latter traits. This is especially true when exceedingly small sample sizes are analyzed.
Williams described andesiana based on 12 (!!!) specimens he regarded as "pure" and 7 (again, !!!) that he regarded as intergrades with the already described micropholis. Now I'm no statistician, but from my limited knowledge of the subject, I'd strongly argue that such small sample sizes fails to provide the statistical power to show the populations as differing AT ALL. Combine that with the immense overlap in his morphological character counts, and I see really no choice but to toss andesiana until further data suggest otherwise.
As I've alluded to in the past, work is being done on the taxonomic chaos in triangulum, and rumor has it that many of the poorly defined subspecies we're dealing with now will be sunk. Say, "Bye-bye!" to hondurensis, stuarti, sinaloae, taylori, and a host of others! People working outside of various scientific fields tend to divide biologists as EITHER lumpers OR splitters. Well, some folks (lots, actually) fall in the middle and strive for taxonomy to represent biological reality.
-Cole
L. t. multistrata - Yellowstone Co., MT
[ Hide Replies ]
|
Thoughts and observations of a Milkhead - Sunherp, Sat Jan 23 11:25:27 2010