I read the article and reached a similar conclusion. The surveying for the Burms seemed legit. The surveying for the mammals is common practice, and acceptable. But using the data from one to explain the results of the latter is tenuous at best. Albeit, I am possibly biased.
-----
25 year old 0.1 from Lincoln, NE
Ball Pythons - 0.1 Pastel, 1.0 Pastel het Pied, 0.1 Pied, 0.1 Cinn, 1.0 Black Pewter, 1.0 Woma (hidden gene?), 0.1 Yellowbelly, 2.1 Normals
Kingsnakes - 1.0 L. m. thayeri, 0.1 L. m. thayeri X L. alterna, 1.0 L. g. californiae
Other - 0.1 Whitesided P. catenifer sayi, 1.0 H. nascicus, ?.? Chrysemys picta, 0.1 crazy cat, 1.0 husband

[ Hide Replies ]

• PNAS article everyone is quoting - BWsPythons, Tue Jan 31 15:14:07 2012
• RE: PNAS article everyone is quoting - Bolitochrome, Tue Jan 31 18:23:45 2012
• RE: PNAS article everyone is quoting - Pyro4242, Wed Feb 1 06:52:18 2012
• To be fair, he explains himself in here - HerpVenue, Wed Feb 15 22:10:51 2012