Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I just recieved an email about an available female meahllmorum and am tyring to convience my better half we should get it to compliment my male. Has there been any new info of the taxonomy of them. I don't know why I am drawn to them so much I just find myself searching the internet for any sources, since I live in VA, instead of "beefing up" my ball python collection.
-----
1.0 het albino ball
1.0 norm ball
0.4 norm ball
0.1 snow corn
1.0 butter corn
0.1 norm corn
1.0 southern plains rat
1.0 striped Cali king
1.0 western hog

I haven't heard anything. The system is very slow and the controversy has been going on for years, over guttatus vs. emoryi, species or subspecies. Although meahllmorum is supposed to be a Great Plains rat, they are very close to guttatus, and I believe they intergrade with Pantherophis guttatus slowinskii on the TX coast. I don't think you can go wrong with this form (my preference). Meahllmorum is closer to guttatus slowinskii than emoryi "intermontana", imho. A classic taxonomic struggle that could go either way.

Off to work....Terry
-----
Ratsnake Haven...researching ratsnakes since 1988

Ratsnake Haven Group...an information providing list site.

The most recent, up-to-date, information is that it is part of the emoryi and not a separate species. Begin here with your research: http://www.cnah.org/detail.asp?id=125

According to CNAH, the Great Plains rat and the corn snake are separate species, right? They say that "meahllmorum" is a GP rat, or an emoryi subspecies, I believe. Problem is there's no research or literature here to quote or read up on. If you know of any papers or research/data, please post a reference here. I believe the scientific community is split on whether the Great Plains ratsnakes and the corn snakes should be the same species or different species. Meahllmorum (the Southern Great Plains ratsnake), should either be a subspecies of emoryi or a subspecies of guttatus. That's still a controversy too, imho.

TC

>>The most recent, up-to-date, information is that it is part of the emoryi and not a separate species. Begin here with your research: http://www.cnah.org/detail.asp?id=125

Even just 40 years ago, people were still debating whether or not Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians were the same species, or race, as Whites. Thanks to mtDNA, we are all One People. Now, we argue as to whether or not certain snake divisions are separate species or not, all in the face of the same mtDNA evidence. I guess we each have to chose our castle and defend its flag at all cost.

If you cannot do the research yourself, then I suggest you keep abreast of the information published by those who are doing the research. Here is the information on meahllmorum (http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/204.pdf). I did the homework for you. The 'cut-to-the-chase' part is on page 470, if the science jargon is over your head.

Kinda sensitive, aren't we, grich? Thanks for the link. I forgot that CNAH based a bunch of their listings on work done by Burbrink. Yeah, I've read that one, but the problem is most hobbyists have disregarded Burbrink's proposals. So, I forgot to consider that piece of literature. My bad. But, my point, although not too clear, was that CNAH, or Joseph Collins, hasn't done any research of his own for many of these listings about ratsnakes. That's why I don't go by the CNAH listings or visit their site very often. That's my personal opinion, of course. You can take what they say as creed if you want to.

My point was that these classifications in the Corn Snake Group (guttatus) are still debated and there are different camps. I'm not jumping on anyone for what they believe. Burbrink proposed three species...E. guttata, E. slowinskii, and E. emoryi. I personally don't go along with this. Very few hobbyists I've heard on this have gone along with slowinskii being a new species. Vaughan, et al (1996), had slowinskii as a subspecies of guttata, which is much more feasible, imo. Vaughan also had "meahllmorum" as a valid subspecies, whereas, Burbrink suggested the form didn't warrant the subspecies classification, and just put it in with E. emoryi. My point included this being controversial. I personally like meahllmorum as a subspecies, whether it is with emoryi or guttatus.

Maybe you don't think I should have an opinion because I'm not an academic. I don't care if you have an opinion or not. At least I have reasons for my opinion and have thought it out and didn't just copy the most recent changes.

BTW, Burbrink didn't recognize the most recent split of Elaphe guttata to the resurrected genus, Pantherophis. I believe the genetic evidence is much more favorable for Pantherophis guttatus, than it is for splitting Elaphe guttata into three species. I also think that the Great Plains ratsnakes (meahllmorum) are intergrading with the Texas corn (slowinskii) along the coast of Texas. Not much has been published, yet, but there is a bunch of new evidence out there. It will get published one of these days. That's why I said the system is slow. With this in mind, I think we should consider the complex to be all one species.

Now, the original question had to do with whether "meahllmorum" is still considered a subspecies, or not, I believe. Of course, Burbrink sunk the subspecies, and said everything in the Great Plains should just be E. emoryi. This is "highly" debatable, and not accepted by many. I'm just saying I think the subspecies will stand and be a part of P. guttatus eventually. You can either follow Burbrink, or not. I choose to call this form Pantherophis guttatus meahllmorum, the Southern Plains ratsnake. I believe I've answered the question.

TC

>>Even just 40 years ago, people were still debating whether or not Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians were the same species, or race, as Whites. Thanks to mtDNA, we are all One People. Now, we argue as to whether or not certain snake divisions are separate species or not, all in the face of the same mtDNA evidence. I guess we each have to chose our castle and defend its flag at all cost.
>>
>>If you cannot do the research yourself, then I suggest you keep abreast of the information published by those who are doing the research. Here is the information on meahllmorum (http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/204.pdf). I did the homework for you. The 'cut-to-the-chase' part is on page 470, if the science jargon is over your head.

Based on what I read, it sounds like you're being the sensitive one. But hey, there's nothing wrong in being sensitive.

Scientific reseach is just that, research. If you don't like the results of the research, do it yourself. If the results are empirical, then you will get the same results. If you get different results, and you followed the same procedure (s), then you'll have a basis for arguement. That is the scientific way. In either case, one must maintain an open mind, not a closed one.

Most people, like yourself apparently, follow their opinions. Opinions aren't bad, necessarily. They may be, and have been, the foundation of much scientific research. But opinions not supported by observable and reproducible facts are just that, opinions--and opinions are like @$$-holes, everyone has one.

All you asked for was a source. I gave you that. Why not try to find your own sources and do your own reserarch? Oh, that's right, you have your 'opinion.'

>>Scientific reseach is just that, research. If you don't like the results of the research, do it yourself

Cheap shot. You know, as well as I, most of us here are just hobbyists. Some of us even have real jobs we have to go to. But we don't have to accept the results of a scientific study. No scientist does either. The results of a study have to be accepted by the scientific community before they get used. You shouldn't blindly accept anything that comes along. What I'm saying is that I have good reasons for not accepting CNAH's position on ratsnakes, and suggesting "we" keep an open mind as to how the data is changing on these snakes. You're entitled to an opinion too and can believe what you want. If you watch these boards a lot you'll see lots of opinions on this.

Here's a post from awhile back that will give you an idea of what I'm talking about for future direction on the taxonomy. (Could be considered research too, eh?)...

Subject: running around in circles here

Troy

We can't all do the research and create the data, but we can look at the evidence and other people's data and have an "opinion". Sometimes what we think even matters to the scientists. Gotta go...

TC

I see we're starting to agree with each other.

I never said opinions were wrong. Nevertheless, I do think people who hold on to opnions that cannot be backed up by some data are @$$-holes. Or, to put in mildly, 'closed-minded.'

Where do we disagree?

(Your submitted statement): "In short, when a species is described or a phylogeny is generated (i.e. a hypothesis submitted) and another phylogeneticist disagrees, then they will test that hypothesis and accept or reject it according to either their new data or a re-evaluation of the old data."

(My statement): "Scientific reseach is just that, research. If you don't like the results of the research, do it yourself. If the results are empirical, then you will get the same results. If you get different results, and you followed the same procedure (s), then you'll have a basis for arguement. That is the scientific way. In either case, one must maintain an open mind, not a closed one."

Your statement): "We can't all do the research and create the data, but we can look at the evidence and other people's data and have an "opinion". Sometimes what we think even matters to the scientists."

(My statement): "Opinions aren't bad, necessarily. They may be, and have been, the foundation of much scientific research. But opinions not supported by observable and reproducible facts are just that, opinions...."

Although, I'm sure you and I can find many areas were we disagree, we're basically saying the same thing, but in different ways. You have every right to your opinions as I to mine. My arguement was against holding opinions that are not based on some evidence.

As for the data, it's out there. It's just not that available to the general public. One has to be part of the academic world in order to access that information, or be willing to pay $36.00 to $50.00 on-line for access to the papers.

>>I see we're starting to agree with each other.
>>
>>I never said opinions were wrong. Nevertheless, I do think people who hold on to opnions that cannot be backed up by some data are @$$-holes. Or, to put in mildly, 'closed-minded.'
>>
>>
>>
>>Where do we disagree?
>>

I don't think we disagree on this point. Where I thought we disagreed the most was about Burbrink being the last piece of literature on the corn snake complex and having to go along with it. I was just trying to make the point that we don't have to agree with his conclusions or proposals and can have different ones. It's hard writing well, and understandably, on the internet forums, but I think we're making progress.

>>Although, I'm sure you and I can find many areas were we disagree, we're basically saying the same thing, but in different ways. You have every right to your opinions as I to mine. My arguement was against holding opinions that are not based on some evidence.
>>
>>As for the data, it's out there. It's just not that available to the general public. One has to be part of the academic world in order to access that information, or be willing to pay $36.00 to $50.00 on-line for access to the papers.

I think we're getting there. You trumped me with the Burbrink paper. That was the last piece of literature, I believe, maybe except for the one that named Pantherophis. But there's lots of literature out there and it's a skill trying to interpret everything. Thus the original question in the first place. We had discussed this last year, and I had just assumed she was asking if anything had happened since then. Sometimes we just have to work at being really clear, but I miss the mark sometimes when tired or writing too fast. This type of communication requires patience and almost always each party has a good point.

Thanks for the conversation....TC

Good response Terry. Here's a pic of a big male meahllmorum from Nueces County, Texas. He is nearly 5 ft long and weighs over 900 grams on an empty stomach. Pretty big for emoryi or guttatus. -Toby

Thanks, Toby. That guy's a monster. Big as any corn snake I've ever seen...heheh. I may have to check some of those snakes from the TX coast to see how much they look like intergrades. I think even Burbrink said there was some "slowinskii" influence far down the coast into South TX. Very interesting population. Later...

Terry