I quess my concept of locality has more to do with geographic isolation than location. If the animals are from different "localities" that are in communication with each other and it is feasible and likely for the animals to migrate to each other, than I can't see how their "locality" designation could hold up IMO.



I think there are very, very few cases where your definition of “locality” would hold up, since most populations are not geographically isolated from one another. My definition, on the other hand, simply consists of data regarding the collection location of the founding stock. In some areas, ecological conditions don’t vary much from one county to the next. In others, though, it can make a huge difference. To me, “locality” is NOT a designation of distinctness, but a set of data that provides some information regarding the founder stock’s natural history.



What about identical looking animals found adjacent on either side of a County line in similar habitat? Or even adjacent to one another right across a State line in similar habitat? Then there is the situation of finding non-identical animals in the same county, maybe even with a few miles or less of each other, but in differing habitat.



As I stated in the previous paragraph, I’m not suggesting that providing locality data with animals means they’re distinct from neighboring animals with which they readily exchange genetic material. I’m simply suggesting that locality data provides some insight into the ecology of a particular group of animals in their natural habitat.



I feel it is the isolation factor that influences population differences and expressions in phenotypes that spurs most herpers concept of locality, not the arbitrary lines on a map.



I would argue that “most herpers” have a skewed and invalid concept of what “locality” is, in that case. I don’t feel this is the case, however. I don’t avoid breeding Bighorn Co., MT pales with Yellowstone Co., MT pales because they’re distinct entities (they’re not – that’d make them distinct species…), but because the natural history information surrounding the founding stock would be lost.



Thoughts?



-Cole

[ Show Entire Thread ]