>> Remember you said, the habitat is always changing, this is true, But you neglected to add, the animals are always changing to exsist in that new enviornment. An ethologist once told me, species, subspecies, piffffff, it is of no matter, what is important is behavior, this makes the animal. The problem here is, biology knows nothing of these snakes behavior.
>>

It's true, snakes and other animals will change to adapt to changes in the environment, but if that environment stays basically the same over a long period of time, there isn't much change in a species. In other words, a species can retain its identity for a long time, if it's not forced to change.

I think we see that with subspecies, where the form keeps a look, a color/pattern, etc, in the main part of its range where conditions don't change much, and is somewhat variable on the periphery of its range. I've been looking at kingsnakes, milksnakes, and ratsnakes for a lot of years in the north central part of the U.S.

Interesting that you brought up behavior. That usually isn't talked about on these forums. I think behavior is important too. If you look at wild living snakes you can see that different species have different behavior which has something to do with the environment they're in and when, and thus has something to do with how they look, etc. I think it's a good point. Behavior is very important to a species.

>> About genetics and DNA, first, these studies are not so good, the reason, no one will set exactly what genes to use, or set how long these populations need to be seperated in order to be something else. So basically, DNA studies are quicksand. They are indeed accurate, but not consistant and usefull across the board. The genetic markers used for a rattlesnake study are the the same ones used for a kingsnake study or that of a ratsnake study.
>>
>> Also, I am sure your aware that kingsnakes are not ratsnakes, therefore your apples to oranges, or better yet, lemons to oranges. Their population dynamics may or may not be the same.
>>
>> All in all, we probably agree on most of this. Cheers FR

I agree that genetics aren't as helpful as we'd like. Maybe someday they'll be a lot more useful. I think you need to look at all the aspects of a snake, not just dna, before making judgements, that taxonomists make for instance.

I am very aware that kingsnakes are not ratsnakes. I have most of my experience with ratsnakes, but I also think kings and rats are quite closely related. As a matter of fact, I've been studying Old World ratsnakes mostly through the years, and they are more distantly related than kingsnakes to New World ratsnakes, according to current understanding. I'm getting more and more interested in kingsnake and plan to retire in three yrs and move to AZ. So, the nature of my collection and studies are changing.

One thing we never got back to much, and which started this thread, is the idea of intergrades. Whether ratsnakes or kingsnakes, the same principles should apply. I think we can agree on a lot of things, but in the future there's probably still going to be some confusion about genetic flow and how intergradation works. I don't mean to be argumentative and I appreciate all your comments, I'm just talking and thinking how we might handle this. Right now I'm sort of talked out and have to get back to work. Thanks for your insights and patience on my slow responses. Talk more later...

TC

[ Show Entire Thread ]