Hi John, first, I did not say it was only about you, I said, many of you, this and that. As its not you or just you. Its more a way of thinking that concerns me. The truth is, it simply does not matter what you call them. That is, until they are exstint. They are what they are.

The problem lays in, you call them what they appear to be from captive interpitation of the names, not by the evidence of the individual animal or it population and population history. That is, You are using material that has little to do with the animal in question. For instance I include migration pathways, these are very important for understanding how or why species spread. Therefore what is the current animal. They simply do not spread or migrate over uninhabitable habitat.

Also, About the past, these animals are a current form of what they were. That is, they are what they are now, not what they were, they indeed were many things, but fortunately for us, they are not now. hahahahahahaha that is funny. They are never the same as they were.

About me being a splitter, I am not a splitter or a clumper, why would I have to be either? I simply know the history of the population of the animals I showed. This history is far more important to what they are then something like a partial band that reminds you of what someone calls a cal king.

As i mentioned, Its going to get far far more confusing before it becomes clear, as the use of DNA continues. This will happen no matter what I think or want. Or what you think or want. That is my prediction.

About them being different, they are different, the question is how much different? Then how much different do they need to be?

I really don't care about how you think about it. I would hope you enjoy looking at it in another way, if you don't its of no concern to me. It will not make you better or worse. Or will it effect what or how I think about you. Your legancy is the joy of kingsnakes and the pics you show. Thanks and don't be so sensitive, FR

[ Show Entire Thread ]