Reptile & Amphibian Forums

There's been a lot of talk of creamsicles being hybrids and the reclassification of corns and rat snakes. I think most people are unaware that just because a scientist reclassifies something, doesn't mean that the reclassification is accepted.

I thought this post by Rivets55 in the Rat Snake Forum summed it up pretty well (I hope you don't mind, Rivets55, but this is exactly my line of thinking as well):

"...the genus Panterophis is neither generally accepted nor supportable.

If you check out the CNAH page, you will find they still use Elaphe for the common North American Ratsnkes - But, they have butchered the species names. So there is no general agreement, even amongst the scientists.

This whole idea that that we should redefine what we call things based on molecular biology has yet to prove itself legitimate or useful. For one thing, there are a lot of field guides out there that are suddenly obsolete, or are they? Phenetipic taxonomy is long established, reliable, and verifiable by anyone competent to use an identification key.

If we are to define species based on mtDNA, then of what use is Conant and Collins, or Tennant, or Stebbins? Are we to carry around a pocket electrophorisis meter so we can tell Elaphe alleghaniensis (Eastern Ratsnake) from Elaphe obsoleta (Western Ratsnake)? The whole concept flies in the face of common sense and what we see with our own eyes...

Long Live the Corn Snake - Elaphe guttata guttata!"

Tim

Third Eye

I agree completely, and would much rather seen Corns and Emoyrii be recognized as two sub-species of the same species, thereby making creamsicles the intergrades we all thought them to be just a couple of years ago.

I just understand why it is that some folks will call them hybrids, based upon the whole "Pantherophis" debacle.

I usually try to just stay out of it either way, until someone (usually trying to defend his animals) tries to correct somone else for either calling (or not calling) creamsicles "hybrids/intergrades" as they think should be done.

The fact is that most folks don't know the difference anyway...sadly.
-----
Darin Chappell
Hillbilly Herps
PO Box 254
Rogersville, MO 65742

>>"This whole idea that that we should redefine what we call things based on molecular biology has yet to prove itself legitimate or useful."

This simply is not true. The use of molecular tools has been extremely useful. We use mtDNA to learn population structure and the data derived from it is very legitimate. Using these tools to learn the evolution of populations and to identify where these populations come from is very interesting. Previously only phenotypic characters were used to distinguish spp. How accurate is that? You breed snakes and see the variation that is produced and think that you can actually be accurate? What is a spp. anyway? That is the real debate in the scientific community. Not the reliability of these molecular tools, because they are very reliable. I don't want to start a flame war or anything but the real question is how to define a spp.
Cheers,
-----
Jason L. Dobry
Research Associate
College of Veterinary Medicine
Department of Veterinary Comparative Anatomy, Pharmacology and Physiology
Washington State University

Wow, is that props? Thanks, Tim!

I am humbled that anyone thinks my opinion worth repeating.

Jason - Glad to hear from you. I am geologist, and as such I have the utmost respect for the role of scientists in our world. I have no problem with repeatable experimental results - they are facts that are not debatable.

The interpretation of those results is another matter. The question of "What is a subspecies?" is a hot topic in biology. Just as the topic of "What is a planet?" is in astronomy, "string theory" is in physics, or "global warming" is in the popular press. What concerns me is the tendency for "jumping on the bandwagon" that I see in the scientific/popular world today. The hot, new theory gets a lot of attention, and its proponents may even become celebrities of sorts, especially if it props up PC wisdom. This is not to say that the hot, new theory is wrong. Just that healthy debate and a little caution are good things, especially when a paradigm shift is involved. One might consider reclassification of species based on molecular biology, instead of observed physical traits, to be of this magnitude.

Scientific theory is a matter of conjecture structured to explain observed facts, then making predictions to test the validity of the conjecture. Conant's 1958 field guide provides a theoretical framework that allows me to predict that a shiny black snake, found in western Pennsylvania, with a white chin, weakly keeled scales, a divided anal plate, and a body cross-section shaped like a loaf of bread will be a Black Ratsnake Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta. This is a prediction that is observationally verifiable by biologist and layman alike.

What does mtDNA allow me to predict about that snake, and how am I to verify this in the field? Of what practical value is a taxonomy that requires reliance on laboratory analyses to determine identity? Must all extant species now be reviewed and reclassified to fit the new paradigm? Should electrophoreses trumph common sense?

Here's something I try to keep in mind when I start spouting-off: "Opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one, but nobody wants to hear them in public."

Best Regards,

John P. DeMelas
Professional Geologist,
Creamsicle Keeper,
And All-Around, Nice Guy
Oak Ridge, TN
-----
I am so not lesdysxic!

0.1 Creamsicle Cornsake "Yolanda"
1.0 Bairds Ratsnake "Steely Dan"
0.1 Desert Kingsnake "FATTY"
0.1 Black Rat (WV Rescue) "Roberta"

John,
I completely agree with you that a debate is healthy and necessary. And as said by herpzilla some scientists invent things just to publish, which is why a critical analysis is so important. I also agree with you about the interpretation of data being extremely subjective. I am not a taxonomist and personally I could care less what people call the things. The taxonomists are always changing things and it is a pain in the rear to keep up with it when writing something. But what is of interest to me is the structure of the populations and how they evolved. For example lampropeltis zonata has a small population in two counties here in WA, that population is separated from the other members of the range in northern cali by more than 200 miles. Was the range of zonata once much larger? Those are the types of questions that mtDNA are useful for. So to answer your question is it useful to the hobbiest in the field probably not, but at the same time I don't think that the reclassification of spp. will make that much difference with most sp. anyway. In my mind it is a ratsnake from here or from there, if it looks a little different that is because there is variation.
Thanks for the response.
Best,
-----
Jason L. Dobry
Research Associate
College of Veterinary Medicine
Department of Veterinary Comparative Anatomy, Pharmacology and Physiology
Washington State University

Thanks Jason, sounds like we agree on a lot of things - some flame war this turning out to be (J/K)!

I like your answer to my question - it makes sense and is exactly the kind of thing that should be combined with a well thought-out field study to answer pertinent questions. Sounds like you could use some help in the field, eh?

Much as I dislike the idea of re-classifying snakes, especially the ratsnakes, and particullarly Elaphe obsoleta, the name Pantherophis does have a nice ring to it...
Wait!
ARRRGHHHH! What's happening to me!?
I'm going over to the Dark Side!
NOOOoooo....

John D's Evil Twin.
BUUWHAHAHAHhahahaha.....
-----
I am so not lesdysxic!

0.1 Creamsicle Cornsake "Yolanda"
1.0 Bairds Ratsnake "Steely Dan"
0.1 Desert Kingsnake "FATTY"
0.1 Black Rat (WV Rescue) "Roberta"

John, I always need a field asst. I usually just get stuck with my wife! lol! She'd be so pissed if she knew I said that. If you ever come up to WA look me up, I'd be glad to take you out. Here is a pic of my very awesome wife holding a North Pacific Rattlesnake while I take a blood sample.
Best,

-----
Jason L. Dobry
Research Associate
College of Veterinary Medicine
Department of Veterinary Comparative Anatomy, Pharmacology and Physiology
Washington State University

>>...Here is a pic of my very awesome wife holding a North Pacific Rattlesnake while I take a blood sample.

Jason - I am green with envy. You are one lucky man!
Having a wife who will not only put up with, but actually enjoy snakes is priceless. She's a keeper!

If I'm ever headed that way I'll holler at'cha.

Best Regards,

John D.
-----
I am so not lesdysxic!

0.1 Creamsicle Cornsake "Yolanda"
1.0 Bairds Ratsnake "Steely Dan"
0.1 Desert Kingsnake "FATTY"
0.1 Black Rat (WV Rescue) "Roberta"

Thanks John,
But don't let the photo fool you, very tolerant is the word. After about an hour or so in the field the complaining commences. lol!
Best,

-----
Jason L. Dobry
Research Associate
College of Veterinary Medicine
Department of Veterinary Comparative Anatomy, Pharmacology and Physiology
Washington State University

Jason - I hope she doesn't find this thread!
LMAO - you could be in deep do-do!

Take Care My Friend

John D
-----
I am so not lesdysxic!

0.1 Creamsicle Cornsake "Yolanda"
1.0 Bairds Ratsnake "Steely Dan"
0.1 Desert Kingsnake "FATTY"
0.1 Black Rat (WV Rescue) "Roberta"

>>sorry to jump this of topic but my brother was Minister in Oak Ridge for six or eight years and just left for a new church in Alcoa.
My nephews played high school football and baseball at Oak Ridge high school.
One is still in high school but he will spend this last year in high school at Alcoa.
like I said, sorry to jump off topic just found it interesting when I saw Oak Ridge in your signature.
-----
Corn snakes and rat snakes..No one can have just one.
"resistance is futile"
Jimmy (draybar)

Draybars Snakes

_____

>>>>it should read my brother is a minister
not my brother is minister
-----
Corn snakes and rat snakes..No one can have just one.
"resistance is futile"
Jimmy (draybar)

Draybars Snakes

_____

Cool Man!

Small world in'nit? If you're ever here look me up!

My wife and I moved here in 1987. The locals still call me a Yankee, but they treat me pretty tolerable. I like it here.

We bred several batches of Creams here, our babies are all over the place. Wife told me she never thought she'd be midwife for a snake! Sadly, my wife passed on in October, and my huge male Cream died this spring.

Oh a happier note, and to get back on topic, here's a pic of one of our babies, who is a display snake over at the Vet's office.

Best Regards,

John DeMelas
-----
I am so not lesdysxic!

0.1 Creamsicle Cornsake "Yolanda"
1.0 Bairds Ratsnake "Steely Dan"
0.1 Desert Kingsnake "FATTY"
0.1 Black Rat (WV Rescue) "Roberta"

Gettin old sucks.

Here's some pics...Baby, Pa, and Ma.

JPD

-----
I am so not lesdysxic!

0.1 Creamsicle Cornsake "Yolanda"
1.0 Bairds Ratsnake "Steely Dan"
0.1 Desert Kingsnake "FATTY"
0.1 Black Rat (WV Rescue) "Roberta"

I'm not going to try to compete at this knowledge level, but here's my view. I think living organisms should be defined by DNA. I think biology research took the panda out of the bear group years ago?

But, who governs the "accepted" or "correct" taxonomy? I do not think many of us come close to understanding all that is there to distinguish 1 snake from another, biologically that is.

I also think scientists may "discover" evidence of a reclassification, just for the sake to do it (making due with facts). That must come from working 14 years at a college and seeing some of the pompous idiots more worried about publications than teaching the youth that would replace them someday.

I also do not see the need to have an uproar around a creamsicle being a hybrid. Even if it were (I'm not saying it is), it's not the same as a corn milk cross, or corn king cross.

Lastly if we did not use some biological evidence to classify animals, the platypus would be a type of duck.

That is all

Tuatara

DNA was not used to reclassify the panda bear. The Panda's forepaw is different from the other bears. It has an elongated wrist bone that provides a sixth finger, much like a raccoon.

A duckbill platypus does not have feathers, so it would not be categorized as a bird. It also feeds its young milk (a characteristic belonging solely to mammals); no bird does that.

These physical characteristics are all that was needed to classify these animals - no DNA necesary.

Tim

DNA/genetics is the cause of the Panda's forepaw.

I don't smoke anyways,
-----
This channel is out of order.

2.3 Bearded Dragons Eenie, Meanie, Minie and Moe is the Male. Male guest is Farfignewton

1.2 Western hognose

Corn snakes
Bloodred 0.1
Zipper Amel 0.1 Erica Von Zipper
Amel 1.0 Stud Muffin
Amel 0.1 Lucy Goosey
Creamcicle 0.1 Sherbert
Miami 0.1 Out on loan. Gloria Estefan
some other small stuff, players to be named later

Double Yellow Headed Amazon - Amazona ochrocephala oratrix 0.1? Pretty Girl

I am always looking for older double Yellow Head Amazons.

Yellow Naped Amazon - Amazona ochrocephala auropalliata 1.1? Carol - Male, Foghorn Leghorn - Female
Blue Front Amazon - Amazona aestiva 1.0? Miss Prissy
Blue and Gold Macaw - Ara ararauna 0.1 April

2.0 Dogs, Michigan, Doc
0.2 Cats,, Sassie and Spooky (all black cat)
0.1 Wives, (Long term captive!,, I mean ME!) I call her (BOSS)
1.1 Kids (Paininthearsius takamemonii) J/K great kids
-----
tom

www.herpzilla.com

You're missing the point, which is physical characteristics being used to classify animals - not DNA.

Tim

>>You're missing the point, which is physical characteristics being used to classify animals - not DNA.

Nope, I got that point. And although it may be accurate in most cases, you can easily find 2 similar animals that are not so closely related. So, you must look deeper. As we alway have.

DNA is just the newest high speed gadget for scientist to play with. I do not mind them using it to "classify" our critters, but I also do not trust them to do it. As I said, some do things for the wrong reasons.

We will always identify things by there physical appearance. I had an old field guide to trees when I moved out here. Some trees have very similar leaves, yet, but in the same group of trees.

So, for actually classification, DNA seems logic. If we just went by pattern, a few shovel noses might be considered corals. So we look for more info. Today DNA is "suppose" to be the master code to all things.

Now all that said, this use of the creamsicle by the hybrid lovers is just silly. If my aunt had *alls, she'd be my uncle. When 1 group of people TRIES to reclassify something, it does not mean it is. And I know you know that Tim. I think the trouble is there is no standard on when something is reclassified? Or is there? Besides the majority rules. We did that twice before and got Bush.

Not a great method. Using the creamsicle to justify crossing a retic with a ball python is ludicrous. And then saying all the corn snake breeders are hybrid breeders too. Come on, if you can not see the difference in intent, well,,, I'll leave it there.

Tim, I think I know your views, and I'm pretty much on the same page. But we seem to get there by different roads. But DNA seems to be a more exact way to define critters/plants. But do we have all the DNA evidence yet? I'm not smart enough to understand all that complex DNA info. But I will always be leery of info coming out. Until, a wide range of people or groups I respect support it.

With all that said, my eggs are starting to look like crapola. I'm hoping for just 1-2 more. How is the milk duds doing? Also a double clutch looking good?

Tom, in his chair.

My point was that DNA was not used to classify Panda Bears or Duckbill Platypus'. The physical attributes of these animals caused them to be classified the way they are - not DNA. I think it's important to be factual when posting information on forums like this.

You said that I could "easily find 2 similar animals that are not so closely related..." Can you give me an example of where this has happened and DNA was used to prove that the similar animals were not related?

Shovelnoses would not be considered corals, due to physical attributes. Shovelnoses have flat heads and are non-venomous. Coral snakes have rounded heads and can kill you. No DNA was needed to classify these animals into their current taxonomy.

The majority didn't "rule" with Bush in the first election - he lost the popular vote.

You stated "When 1 group of people TRIES to reclassify something, it does not mean it is." That's exactly the topic of this thead.

Tim

Did I say DNA was used on the Panda? I said DNA caused the paw of the panda. I also said DNA was the newest kid on the block. When classifying the panda we used what was best. Or thought was best. And what was the best available.

I never said DNA was used on those older classifications. But it (DNA) appears to show information that simple observance can not detect.

Tim, I know you know far more than I on the animal world. You stayed in it, while I'll did not for 30 years. I capitulate on that fact.

But DNA may show more information, much like a necropsy did 30-40 years ago.

LOL.. I was just wondering if ppl are reading our thread?

Tom

I've been following this thread with great interest.

I was LOL at the platypus=duck analogy.

I am amazed that the 2000 presidential election is still a topic for discussion, let alone used as an analogy in a discussion of DNA and taxonomy!

The entire process is fascinating! As an illustration, here is an excerpt from The Argument Sketch, by Monty Python:

I came here for a good argument.
No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
An argument isn't just contradiction.
It can be.
No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
No it isn't.
Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Yes it is!
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
No it isn't.

(from the link below)

The Argument Sketch

-----
I am so not lesdysxic!

0.1 Creamsicle Cornsake "Yolanda"
1.0 Bairds Ratsnake "Steely Dan"
0.1 Desert Kingsnake "FATTY"
0.1 Black Rat (WV Rescue) "Roberta"

I like their skit about the (dead) parrot!

Lovely plummage...
-----
I am so not lesdysxic!

0.1 Creamsicle Cornsake "Yolanda"
1.0 Bairds Ratsnake "Steely Dan"
0.1 Desert Kingsnake "FATTY"
0.1 Black Rat (WV Rescue) "Roberta"

How was that parrot classified?

>>How was that parrot classified?

I'm scared to answer. I'll let Tim do it! lol

I try hard to toss in some humor. I really liked teh Bush line.

But debating with Tim is a lot like wrestling in the mud with a pig - after a while you begin to realize the pig is enjoying it! (no reflection on Tim, he's a great guy, the joke just fits well).

Nope. But you did say "I think living organisms should be defined by DNA. I think biology research took the panda out of the bear group years ago?"

You then mentioned duckbills, coral snakes, and shovelnoses - none of which pertain to the DNA discussion. I'm not sure what your definition of "biology research" is, but it is widely accepted that the physical attributes of the above-mentioned animals are the reason why they are classified the way they are - not DNA(I feel like a broken record).

So although you say you think DNA should define things, you haven't given any examples of what it's been used to define conclusively.

Tim

>>Nope. But you did say "I think living organisms should be defined by DNA.

** yes if done right

I think biology research took the panda out of the bear group years ago?"
>>
>>You then mentioned duckbills, coral snakes, and shovelnoses - none of which pertain to the DNA discussion. I'm not sure what your definition of "biology research" is, but it is widely accepted that the physical attributes of the above-mentioned animals are the reason why they are classified the way they are - not DNA(I feel like a broken record).

Yes, that HAS been the way, but as our science knowledge grows, we use it. I feel like a cratched CD

>>
>>So although you say you think DNA should define things, you haven't given any examples of what it's been used to define conclusively.

*****Parenthood.

********As far as animals, I said I do not know what they are trying at this time. But I know/feel/think DNA will be useful. It has more information.

>>
>>Tim
>>

So you could have said that you think DNA is an accurate, useful tool when in the right hands and not mentioned duckbills, coral snakes, panda bears etc.?

That would have been nice.

Tim

I was trying to mention that we have made mistakes in the past due to appearance only.

Useful too? HHmmm It may be the tool. MAYBE. If we get enough DNA mapping of all animals and fast. And have an accurrate system to categorize creatures. And it is done by people we can trust. Well, thats a lot of ands.

DNA is here to stay, and it will be used in reclassifying the beasts of this earth.

Hell, maybe you are right, maybe I am a hybrid? Or maybe a sub species?

I really hate typing my thoughts as I do it fast, and it's not alwasy in the best order. So please invent all missing parts.

>>So you could have said that you think DNA is an accurate, useful tool when in the right hands and not mentioned duckbills, coral snakes, panda bears etc.?
>>
>>That would have been nice.
>>
>>Tim

If I said it that way, I would have been Tim not Tom. My DNA like to ramble a little, use analogies, and a toss of humor.

Together we are like Martin and Lewis. Martin and martin would be boring.

Our next debate should be a pay per click. We should get something for all this entertainment value.

>>So you could have said that you think DNA is an accurate, useful tool when in the right hands and not mentioned duckbills, coral snakes, panda bears etc.?

I used those to show how we evolve in our use of what we have to classify aminals! Besides, I like duck billed platypusses pussi?

They are natures misfit, like me, and my custoemrs.

HMMMM I wonder if I can find a duckbilled suite for halloween?
-----
This channel is out of order.

2.3 Bearded Dragons Eenie, Meanie, Minie and Moe is the Male. Male guest is Farfignewton

1.2 Western hognose

Corn snakes
Bloodred 0.1
Zipper Amel 0.1 Erica Von Zipper
Amel 1.0 Stud Muffin
Amel 0.1 Lucy Goosey
Creamcicle 0.1 Sherbert
Miami 0.1 Out on loan. Gloria Estefan
some other small stuff, players to be named later

Double Yellow Headed Amazon - Amazona ochrocephala oratrix 0.1? Pretty Girl

I am always looking for older double Yellow Head Amazons.

Yellow Naped Amazon - Amazona ochrocephala auropalliata 1.1? Carol - Male, Foghorn Leghorn - Female
Blue Front Amazon - Amazona aestiva 1.0? Miss Prissy
Blue and Gold Macaw - Ara ararauna 0.1 April

2.0 Dogs, Michigan, Doc
0.2 Cats,, Sassie and Spooky (all black cat)
0.1 Wives, (Long term captive!,, I mean ME!) I call her (BOSS)
1.1 Kids (Paininthearsius takamemonii) J/K great kids
-----
tom

www.herpzilla.com

Also, my point is things evolve, and so does the methods we use to classify.

Greeks use to classify things by animal or plant. Then added animals based on how they got around. Flying, swim walk. etc

Then maybe microscopes would be a big break through. Why would we use microscopic things to classify animasl?

Granted it was almost always by physical appearance, weather exterior or interior, But that's all we had.

We on the very beginning of DNA use. Another reason I do not trust it. But if DNA is the true building blocks of all living things, isn't logical to use it? My other point was it much be used correctly. Which is the tough part.
-----
This channel is out of order.

2.3 Bearded Dragons Eenie, Meanie, Minie and Moe is the Male. Male guest is Farfignewton

1.2 Western hognose

Corn snakes
Bloodred 0.1
Zipper Amel 0.1 Erica Von Zipper
Amel 1.0 Stud Muffin
Amel 0.1 Lucy Goosey
Creamcicle 0.1 Sherbert
Miami 0.1 Out on loan. Gloria Estefan
some other small stuff, players to be named later

Double Yellow Headed Amazon - Amazona ochrocephala oratrix 0.1? Pretty Girl

I am always looking for older double Yellow Head Amazons.

Yellow Naped Amazon - Amazona ochrocephala auropalliata 1.1? Carol - Male, Foghorn Leghorn - Female
Blue Front Amazon - Amazona aestiva 1.0? Miss Prissy
Blue and Gold Macaw - Ara ararauna 0.1 April

2.0 Dogs, Michigan, Doc
0.2 Cats,, Sassie and Spooky (all black cat)
0.1 Wives, (Long term captive!,, I mean ME!) I call her (BOSS)
1.1 Kids (Paininthearsius takamemonii) J/K great kids
-----
tom

www.herpzilla.com

OK, sometimes things come up at just the right time. Well here is a link to a story on Foxnews about an animal that was killed in Maine they were not able to identify by looks. And it refers to a story of an animal that was killed by hunters that was not able to be identified by looks. The animal killed by the hunters was identified through DNA as being a wolf-dog hybrid. I would think that this supports the case of DNA being a useful tool in classifying animals that might not be able to be distinguished visually.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208683,00.html

Well I think DNA should and will take over, when mapping of more animals are done.

Now if we can just convince Tim?

I just do not trust the DNA people either. WHY, just like people reclassify an animal based on look, blood, tissue, muscle structure, or what ever, some do it just for recognition. The same thing can be done by DNA. In the end not much will change IMO. Except we just will not understand why. Like when our car dies, and the mechanic says its electrical. And you have a minor heart attack because you know a massive diagnostic bill is coming.

Does anyone remember setting points on your car? lol

Does anyone rememner setting points on your car? lol
-----
This channel is out of order.

2.3 Bearded Dragons Eenie, Meanie, Minie and Moe is the Male. Male guest is Farfignewton

1.2 Western hognose

Corn snakes
Bloodred 0.1
Zipper Amel 0.1 Erica Von Zipper
Amel 1.0 Stud Muffin
Amel 0.1 Lucy Goosey
Creamcicle 0.1 Sherbert
Miami 0.1 Out on loan. Gloria Estefan
some other small stuff, players to be named later

Double Yellow Headed Amazon - Amazona ochrocephala oratrix 0.1? Pretty Girl

I am always looking for older double Yellow Head Amazons.

Yellow Naped Amazon - Amazona ochrocephala auropalliata 1.1? Carol - Male, Foghorn Leghorn - Female
Blue Front Amazon - Amazona aestiva 1.0? Miss Prissy
Blue and Gold Macaw - Ara ararauna 0.1 April

2.0 Dogs, Michigan, Doc
0.2 Cats,, Sassie and Spooky (all black cat)
0.1 Wives, (Long term captive!,, I mean ME!) I call her (BOSS)
1.1 Kids (Paininthearsius takamemonii) J/K great kids
-----
tom

www.herpzilla.com

There are herps that have been reclassified using DNA. Herps that look exactly the same - like the gray treefrog and Cope's gray treefrog. There's also the Jefferson's salamander complex, which in some cases can only be identified by looking at chromosones.

I'm not saying DNA hasn't been used to reclassify animals - it has. I was trying to get HerpZilla to use a "real life" example to support his belief, rather than a duckbill platypus, panda bear, coral snake, etc.

I read that Maine news story as well. It sounds like pretty good grounds for banning hybrids!

Tim

Tim,

FAR from me to not admit I was wrong.
I thought you disliked DNA use?

FIG-ured that out thru all your posts.
But I gues I was wrong. SORRY!

NEW methods like DNA will of course be used.

TONs of research be needed though.

I think as complex topic and as it fragments into other topics, it's difficult to carry a long thread with consistency.

And, Tim, I will only tell you this once. Leave my duckbill out of this.

It was a pity that people did not jump into the thread.

I kind of want to know why people did not?
-----
This channel is out of order.

2.3 Bearded Dragons Eenie, Meanie, Minie and Moe is the Male. Male guest is Farfignewton

1.2 Western hognose

Corn snakes
Bloodred 0.1
Zipper Amel 0.1 Erica Von Zipper
Amel 1.0 Stud Muffin
Amel 0.1 Lucy Goosey
Creamcicle 0.1 Sherbert
Miami 0.1 Out on loan. Gloria Estefan
some other small stuff, players to be named later

Double Yellow Headed Amazon - Amazona ochrocephala oratrix 0.1? Pretty Girl

I am always looking for older double Yellow Head Amazons.

Yellow Naped Amazon - Amazona ochrocephala auropalliata 1.1? Carol - Male, Foghorn Leghorn - Female
Blue Front Amazon - Amazona aestiva 1.0? Miss Prissy
Blue and Gold Macaw - Ara ararauna 0.1 April

2.0 Dogs, Michigan, Doc
0.2 Cats,, Sassie and Spooky (all black cat)
0.1 Wives, (Long term captive!,, I mean ME!) I call her (BOSS)
1.1 Kids (Paininthearsius takamemonii) J/K great kids
-----
tom

www.herpzilla.com

While I do not fully agree with the new reclassification, I will say that it is good that someone finally has recognized a distinction between American rat snakes and Eurasian rat snakes. It seems to me that they have been classed together for far too long.

>>It's a mess.
They may never get it right.
No telling how many "reclassifications" they may go through before they do settle on something.
I feel that emoryi is a sub species of corn but I have no problem calling them hybrid or whatever it takes to let people know there is emoryi blood until there are more conclusive classifications.
As I stated on the rat snake forum I do believe there should be some kind of separation between the new world and old world rat snakes.
The new world rat snakes are more closely related to king and milk snakes then they are the old world rats.
New world rats do produce viable young with kings and milks but are as incompatible with old world rats as they would be a garter snake. (just an example...not actually comparing them)
-----
Corn snakes and rat snakes..No one can have just one.
"resistance is futile"
Jimmy (draybar)

Draybars Snakes

_____

Yep, I agree. Some of those "old school" rats, like ridleyi, act more like racers to me than New World rat snakes. Most rat snakes breeders I know have regarded Europeon and Asian rat snakes as something "completely different," even though they couldn't quite put a finger on what the differences were.

Tim