Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I've been studying the Daeth Adder and why it is in the Elapid family since it shows all features of a viper (ambush predator, stout body, angular head, viper like scales, nocturnal,ect) and in every item I read the only reason I found was,"vipers are absent from australia" which doesn't say much of anything but I don't know if the Death Adder has been changed to viperids though since all the research info says that it is still in Elapidae. Since a species is the only one of it's family on the island doesn't mean they should include it into the next family. I would like to hear other people's view on this and possibly some why I'm wrong/right.
Thanks and Sincerely,
Mark V. Leppin

I think you might be missing the real issues of why snakes, or any animals, are classified the way they are. Death adders, Acanthopis spp., aren't classified as elapids solely because they occur in Australia and no other viperids occur there. No, death adders are elapids because, well, they are elapids. In other words, their phylogenetic lineage is that of an elapid, and they are most likely quite closely related to the other elapids found on Australia and New Guinea. Thankfully, scientists no longer go by solely superficial aspects of an animal to classify it, such as physical features. But even if they did, death adders would be missing one major component for being a viper: fixed fangs. Okay, so they do have a bit of mobility in their fangs, but they aren't hinged like all vipers' fangs are. The other aspects you named off could also be applied to several other elapids as well, depending on one's own point of view. The reason Acanthopis is so viper-like is because they've spent the last several million years evolving to fit the niche that vipers fill in other parts of the world. Since there are no vipers in Australia, an elapid could diverge and adopt several of the well-known viper-like traits and be successful. Anyway, it's a good question, and there are probably other people wondering the same thing.
-----
Chance Duncan
www.rivervalleyexotics.com

I agree with what was said here... The case of the death adder can be viewed as convergent evolution. It is similar form/morphology from different parent lineages. Even though the death adder is very viper-like, its ancestory shows it to be an elapid, it just happens to fit the same niche as a typical viper.

Amazing what that process of convergent evolution can bring about eh? To me, this is one of the most fascinating areas of biology. Give two critters a few million years in almost the exact same environmental conditions, and wala! You now have near carbon copies of them even if they are in completely different families of snakes in different parts of the world. My personal favorite example of this is the gtp-etb set, wherein they not only look extremely similar as adults, but the babies go through the same ontogenic color change as they age. Again, two different groups of snakes, two different parts of the world, but close enough in habits and habitats that they've (so far) evolved to be almost identical. There are countless other examples: corals and their 'mimicks,' Xenodon and Bothrops, fwcs and true water cobras - though I'm not sure how strongly those two correlate, Thrasops and Dispholidus, etc etc etc. Neat stuff.
-----
Chance Duncan
www.rivervalleyexotics.com

What about Philodryas baroni and Rhynchophis boulengeri allso two different parts of the world and looks teh same in so many ways.
-----
http://hem.passagen.se/philodryas

I have to agree on the interest in the ETB-GTP on how far apart seem similar especially since a lot of inexpirianced don't know the difference unless they're right next together. I should get an GTP to put next to my ETB, it woulb be great for my school programs ( :
Sincerely,
Mark

I do see some point but according to Wuser they are still very understood so there could be still (even very small)possibliity to find that it could be in the viperidae family since there are changes in taxonomy every year or so. Everyone missed the venom in almost is in almost every pet store (Agamids, Varanus, Iguanids, ect.) thanks to the discoveries by Brian Fry. Even though if I were to get Death Adders myself (not preffered) but was to autopsy a few corpses, ect, ect. I might a possibly would get the same answer or might think to myself these are in the middle of an evolutional change from viper-elapid or vice-versa. I do respect what Doser, Wuser, O'Shea, ect. have said but mistakes are often made. Oh well, there are a lot of things to learn and part of the search for answers makes it all the better. Thanks and Sincerely,
Mark

>>I might a possibly would get the same answer or might think to myself these are in the middle of an evolutional change from viper-elapid or vice-versa.

While physical descriptions have been used (almost exclusively until recently) to classify animals into taxonomic groups the whole point of animal taxonomy is to put them into a "tree" desribing the path by which they evolved from the first living organism.

Even if the death adder eveloved to a point where DNA analysis was the only was to distinguish it from a puff adder, it would still be an elapid, just one that looks exactly like a puff adder. It's appearance does not change it's lineage...

Is the Death Adder the only Elapid w/ vertical pupils? or the only elapid in australasia w/ vertical pupils. And is it the only elapid in australasia that has keeled scales?
I've seen several immatators but if the Death Addder is a true immitator then it takes the cake compared to others.

Again, the point is, you're going on morphology (physical features), which is thankfully invalid when classifying organism's lineage. Acanthopis probably developed the vertical pupils because of its nocturnal activity patterns. If you'll notice, most highly nocturnal snakes have vertical pupils. As for the keeled scales, I'm not personally familiar with why they developed them, but they aren't the only elapid that did (see Hemachatus, or Rinkhal's cobras). So yes, while the similarities between death adders and many viperids are striking, it means absolutely nothing in regards to the organisms from which the Acanthopis genus evolved.
-----
Chance Duncan
www.rivervalleyexotics.com

And to think that until recently, taxonomy was a "dead science"! Thanks to more accessable DNA analysis, that is no longer true.
Taxonomic Rule # 1: Things are not what they appear to be.

Fact is, even any morphological analysis (as opposed to eyeballing it and saying "yup, looks like a viper" will place Acanthophis firmly among the elapids. There are numerous anatomical characters which support this absolutely unequivocally. This is not based on any research we have done, it comes from any source that has ever studied elapid interrelationships. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

The chances of Acanthophis being a "misclassified" viper are about the same as the chances of a dolphin being a "misclassified" fish.

Cheers,

WW
-----
WW Home

I was hoping you'd step in at some point. Thanks for the clarification.
-----
Chance Duncan
www.rivervalleyexotics.com

Thank you,
That was kind of what I was looking for since the DNA analysis can't prove anything completely but to look at some of the morphological perspective to tell if was possible. I don't know really who you are but thanks.
Sincerely,
Mark

PS- Thank you, Chance for trying to get me to understand a vbit better. Since I probably pissed you off/irrated the crap out of you trying to look at the right answer.

Not pissed off or irritated actually. Sorry if I came across that way. There are probably a lot of people who would look at a death adder and be convinced it's a viperid. Heck, even the name is misleading. Thankfully, (even though death adders have been known to be elapids for many years) molecular genetics is now the basis for taxonomy so lots of former confusion is now being cleared away.
-----
Chance Duncan
www.rivervalleyexotics.com

Hi:

Best to check with Prof. Wüsters 2005 Elapid Publication for scientific evidence why they are classified the way they are.

Best,

Al
Elapidae 2005

-----
Confidence is what you feel before you comprehend the situation.

While not snakes...they ran an excellent article a year or two back on New Zealand that really brings home the concept of convergent evolution with a sledgehammer.

They showed how prior to the arrival of mammals a few thousand years ago....New Zealand had birds that had adapted to fill niches occupied by cows, dogs, etc. on other continents.

Birds like Haast's eagle...a true giant. Another bird that scent marked it's territory. The almost cow-like Moa etc. etc. etc.

If you can get a copy of the article it is worth it.

There are even large flightless parrots (Kakapo from New Zealand) that evolved to occupy the niche normally filled by squirrels/chipmunks! Evolution is fascinating stuff
-----
1.0 RES, Spunky
1.0 African mud turtle (P. castaneus), "Francois the Tortois"
1.0.1 Mali Uromastyx, Ajani, Guban(Goober)
1.0 Brazilian Rainbow Boa, Nico
0.0.1 Northern Blue Tongue Skink, Owajabi(Jabi)
3.1 Cats
1/2.0 rabbit (friend and I went 50/50)
0.1 Gerbils
1.0 Betta, Nigel