Posted by:
Sunherp
at Fri Feb 18 15:08:54 2011 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by Sunherp ]
Doug! Sorry for the short reply above. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that suggests infralabialis falls within the range of variation found in nominate pyromelana and many researchers are in favor of sinking it into the nominate form. The animals north of the Colorado River do tend to have a lower number of infralabials than the majority of Arizona specimens, but so do aniamls from SE Arizona and SW New Mexico. So in short, some folks consider it valid, while others do not. From genetic work I've seen, it appears that knoblochi is valid and identifiable based on a biochemical (genetic) and morphological basis. The same work appears to suggest infralabialis and woodini are done for.
Here's a cool link on some work Bryan Hamilton is doing with Pyros in Nevada: Nevada Pyros. Now, if we could only get someone to turn up more milks in Nevada or find them in Idaho!
-Cole
[ Hide Replies ]
- Utah Mountain King vs. Utah Milk - Chris_C, Thu Feb 17 15:36:12 2011
- RE: Utah Mountain King vs. Utah Milk - gerryg, Thu Feb 17 16:35:25 2011
- RE: Utah Mountain King vs. Utah Milk - DMong, Thu Feb 17 16:37:46 2011

- I agree - Sunherp, Thu Feb 17 16:56:53 2011
- RE: I agree - Tony D, Thu Feb 17 17:18:40 2011
- Cole.. - DMong, Thu Feb 17 17:55:25 2011
- RE: Cole.. - gerryg, Thu Feb 17 18:28:51 2011
- Doug... - Sunherp, Thu Feb 17 18:29:50 2011
- RE: Doug... - DMong, Thu Feb 17 19:54:40 2011
- RE: Doug... - Chris_C, Fri Feb 18 12:32:00 2011
More info and clarification - Sunherp, Fri Feb 18 15:08:54 2011
- Synopsis - Sunherp, Mon Feb 21 15:43:19 2011
|