Reptile & Amphibian Forums

What's going on with the (formerly?) Elaphe species?

I remember reading that they changed the geneus to pantheroph...something or other, and kept the same species names.

in other words, elaphe guttata became pantherosomethingorother guttata.

Now, I go to the "snakes of virginia" site and see what I've always called a black rat (elaphe obsoleta) is now an "eastern rat" (Elaphe alleghaniensis). Is this what all black rats are now called, or what? It all seems pretty confusing...

>>What's going on with the (formerly?) Elaphe species?
>>
>>I remember reading that they changed the geneus to pantheroph...something or other, and kept the same species names.

The "they" who you refer to "making the change" is NOT the scientific community. There's been a PROPOSAL - not a change.

It seems that the ONLY group who have "accepted" the proposal for NA RSs to be changed to Pantherophis are herpetoculturists and other amateur herpetologists (i.o.w., mostly non-scientific people). That paper was only a proposal...it hasn't been accepted by the scientific community and the systematists (in other words, people whose business it is to make and propose those changes). I work at a museum in the herp dept. and I've asked both the head herp curator and another PhD herpetologist who work over me why we haven't made the change. Well, what I've just told you is exactly what they said. There simply isn't enough support from the systematist/taxonomist herp community.

The problem is that in the snake keeper community, you have a bunch of people, especially business owners and others, who always try to appear cutting-edge - on top of the latest morphs as well as the latest scientific info. They may not be as concerned if it's accepted or not - they just want to appear to be "in the know".

So, if the scientific community isn't making the changes and the non-scientific people are, who is really in the know? Well, it looks like the joke is on the non-scientific people.

Of course, there needs to be some taxonomic revision of Elaphe in New and Old World species, but this proposal apparently hasn't been accepted as part of that revision.
Suboc.com

Why is my state calling them Elaphe alleghaniensis intead of obsoleta? And is the alleghaniensis now coveriang all black rats regardless of locality?

Because some fool working for the Commonwealth was told that Elaphe alleghaniensis was the new scientific name for the "Eastern Rat Snake" including Blacks, Yellows, Grays and Everglades. This gets even better. If you have a Yellow Rat Snake from the Pensacola area of Florida, it is not an Eastern Rat Snake, it is an Elaphe spiloides. If you have a Gray Rat Snake from Levy Co. Fl., it is an Elaphe alleghaniensis.

So last year most of your American Rat Snakes became native to Virginia. But if your Black Rat Snake came from Ohio, it is not a native snake if you can prove it did come from there. A few other states have done the same thing.

Yellow Rat from Pensacola??? Now that would be a stretch! Just a few too many miles north, my friend.

You speak pretty negatively about the change. Is it a matter of convenience, or do you see this having some impact on the legality of keeping or selling rat snakes in Va?

From what I have read, the change is based on DNA experiments from Elaphe obsoleta specimens from the East, Middle, and Western US indicating that they are all genetically different, therefore, different Genus. If this is true I can accept the modification. However, I strongly disagree with dropping the subspecies identification as has been suggested.

Oops, sorry. I meant different Species.

>>>>What's going on with the (formerly?) Elaphe species?
>>>>
>>>>I remember reading that they changed the geneus to pantheroph...something or other, and kept the same species names.
>>
>>The "they" who you refer to "making the change" is NOT the scientific community. There's been a PROPOSAL - not a change.
>>
>>It seems that the ONLY group who have "accepted" the proposal for NA RSs to be changed to Pantherophis are herpetoculturists and other amateur herpetologists (i.o.w., mostly non-scientific people). That paper was only a proposal...it hasn't been accepted by the scientific community and the systematists (in other words, people whose business it is to make and propose those changes). I work at a museum in the herp dept. and I've asked both the head herp curator and another PhD herpetologist who work over me why we haven't made the change. Well, what I've just told you is exactly what they said. There simply isn't enough support from the systematist/taxonomist herp community.
>>
>>The problem is that in the snake keeper community, you have a bunch of people, especially business owners and others, who always try to appear cutting-edge - on top of the latest morphs as well as the latest scientific info. They may not be as concerned if it's accepted or not - they just want to appear to be "in the know".
>>
>>So, if the scientific community isn't making the changes and the non-scientific people are, who is really in the know? Well, it looks like the joke is on the non-scientific people.
>>
>>Of course, there needs to be some taxonomic revision of Elaphe in New and Old World species, but this proposal apparently hasn't been accepted as part of that revision.
>>Suboc.com

But what about black rats, grey rats, everglades rats, texas rats...etc being split into three groups?
Eastern , Middle and Western?
You can have black, yellow grey and even everglades all classified as the same thing (alleghaniensis), now that really doesn't work for me and I really do hope that isn't recognized as proper taxonomy.
-----
Corn snakes and rat snakes..No one can have just one.
"Resistance is futile"
Jimmy Johnson
(Draybar)
Draybars Snakes

_____

Not only that,but as I understand it,you could have three identically appearing black snakes and have them be from the three different subspecies

Bear

Jimmy,

The proposed split up of Elaphe obsoleta into 3 separate species (Burbrink et al) hasn't exactly been embraced by the scientific community, and it propably never will. The evidence is flimsy at best, and to many it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. As for the proposal by Utiger et al, I must say I'm a little disappointed by the scientific community. Apparently it still hasn't been officially accepted yet, mostly because it is not 'supported' by most taxonomists. What the **** does that mean? Taxonomy is not about nepotism. Taxonomy is about evidence. Utiger et al applied methods widely used in taxonomy, delivered some pretty good evidence, and came up with new taxa that actually made sense. Personally, I can no longer accept the concept of a single genus Elaphe including all snakes called 'ratsnakes'. Therefore, I will stick to Pantherophis until something better comes along.

Best regards,

Herman Bronsgeest.

>>Jimmy,
>>
>>The proposed split up of Elaphe obsoleta into 3 separate species (Burbrink et al) hasn't exactly been embraced by the scientific community, and it propably never will. The evidence is flimsy at best, and to many it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. As for the proposal by Utiger et al, I must say I'm a little disappointed by the scientific community. Apparently it still hasn't been officially accepted yet, mostly because it is not 'supported' by most taxonomists. What the **** does that mean? Taxonomy is not about nepotism. Taxonomy is about evidence. Utiger et al applied methods widely used in taxonomy, delivered some pretty good evidence, and came up with new taxa that actually made sense. Personally, I can no longer accept the concept of a single genus Elaphe including all snakes called 'ratsnakes'. Therefore, I will stick to Pantherophis until something better comes along.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Herman Bronsgeest.

I definitely believed there needed to be a split between new and old world rats and the North American split to pantherophis was much easier to understand and except then the ridiculous Eastern, Middle and Western classifications. Like mentioned earlier you can have three black rats all falling under different sub-species or three distinct species or rats, black yellow and grey falling under one. don't like it...lol
I also find it hard to swallow the latest classification proposal of lumping them all under pituophis.
-----
Corn snakes and rat snakes..No one can have just one.
"Resistance is futile"
Jimmy Johnson
(Draybar)
Draybars Snakes

_____

I've stated my e-pinion on this subject several times, but here I go again...

The taxonomic community has neither accepted the "Pantherophis" terminology, nor the "Eastern, Middle, and Western" division of ratsnakes... And definitely NOT the Pitophis proposal (don't ask me to go there....).

There is an international commitee that makes the final determination on these issues, and they have not addressed these proposals yet. They may never do so.

Personnally, I don't like this willy-nilly adoption of every new reclassification proposal that comes along. I've read several of the papers, including Burbink and Utinger. Too me, their arguments rely far too heavilly on unproven assumptions about mtDNA data and statistical manipulation, and are filled with impenetrable jargon. It may be fancy and hard to understand, but that doesn't mean its good science.

Above all, science is about observation. This is where Jimmy has hit the nail on the head - any layperson can see that Black Rats, Yellow Rats, Everglades and Deckerts are NOT the same snake. And that a Black Rat is a Black Rat is a Black Rat, whether from New Jersey, Ohio, or Arkansas.

Cheers,

John D

Elaphe obsoletta!!!!

-----
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 "Roberta" RELEASED!!!

This is not an issue for the IZCN to declare its opinion on. Taxonomy is a matter of believe basically - and proff. The IZCN is only consulted if names has to be suppresed or other things like this.

The new taxonomy by Helfenberger and Utiger is valid, and untill proven wrong, should be taken as the guilty taxonomy.

The new taxonomy is being used widely, especially for the european and asian species. It seems that its more the american community, which is a bit slow on accepting this study (perhaps because it was written by a non-american team of scientists )

Its should be quite obviously for anybody familiar with european, asian and North American "Elaphe" to see that these are not closely related and should not be in the same genus.

I personally follow the Utiger & Helfenberger papers, but is quite sceptically to the Burbrink papers (splitting of obsoletus and inclusion of Pantherophis into Pituophis).

-----
Regards

Jan Grathwohl

HERPBREEDER.com - The Herpetological database

GECKOHOLICS.dk

Dusty,

Utiger et al's proposal may not have been accepted by a majority of the scientific community (yet), but it hasn't been properly rejected either. Meanwhile, many people (including me) so conveniently lumped into the 'amateurs' category, responded to this development by conforming to Utiger's proposal, thus renaming their beloved pet snakes accordingly. Would you please consider the possibility that they didn't do this simply because they want to portray themselves as being 'in the know', but because it actually makes sense to them? They may be a little premature here, the subject still being seriously debated by the scientific community (Is it? I sometimes wonder about that...), but these scientists are bloody well taking their time, aren't they? But perhaps that's just what you get, working with both materials and methods which are like a hundred years old.

The 'joke' is getting old, regardless of who it's 'on', and it isn't funny anymore. I absolutely worship people like Utiger and Burbrink just for shaking things up a little.

Best regards,

Herman Bronsgeest.

>>Dusty,
>>
>>Utiger et al's proposal may not have been accepted by a majority of the scientific community (yet), but it hasn't been properly rejected either.

From what I gather, the consensus feeling is that it doesn't carry enough water. But, you may be right...properly rejected?...it doesn't seem that it has.

I agree that it does seem that it takes them awhile to accept/reject change, but it does seem that there is a movement to microclassify at the same time. And I think this is what many seasoned taxonomists are hesitant to put their stamp of approval on.

I didn't wish to lump you or others (who actually DO look at and understand the science AND keep snakes) into "those who want to appear cutting-edge", but I think the latter appears to be more prevalent in this hobby. Most of us just keep snakes, and we're not systematists, nor de we understand the science behind taxonomy. One of the things I see is that a few of the snake business owners (and I'm in that category) appear to accept a proposal quickly because they don't want to find themselves (or their business' info) obsolete, and then their customers who hail them as experts follow suit.

I recently was talking to Colette Sutherland about this, and she really agreed that some snake biz people really try to accept any proposal for the same reason. Not that Colette is the authority on this, but she definitely hob-knobs with more of the big "python breeders" more than I do.

>>The 'joke' is getting old, regardless of who it's 'on', and it isn't funny anymore. I absolutely worship people like Utiger and Burbrink just for shaking things up a little.

I hear ya. Thinking progressively never hurt anyone. It does seem REALLY drawn out, but I guess I can understand that side too somewhat.

So, what does Treebeard have to do with this? LOL Call me daft, but I just didn't see the connection.

Regards,

DR

>>So, what does Treebeard have to do with this? LOL Call me daft, but I just didn't see the connection.

Oh, you must be talking about how long it's taking these scientists to accept or reject. I gotcha.

DR

>>>>So, what does Treebeard have to do with this? LOL Call me daft, but I just didn't see the connection.
>>
>>Oh, you must be talking about how long it's taking these scientists to accept or reject. I gotcha.
>>
>>DR

I think you've got it....lol
-----
Corn snakes and rat snakes..No one can have just one.
"Resistance is futile"
Jimmy Johnson
(Draybar)
Draybars Snakes

_____

He needs time to think about it and mull it over.

DR

Maybe it's because it takes a lot of time to say someting in Ent language, LOL.

Take care,

Herman.

Probably doesn't matter anyway, 'cus, according to Burbrink's most recent proposal, everything in Pantherophis should be lumped into Pituophis...LOL!

I'm just kidding. I'm not going to start calling everything Pituophis, but it is interesting about the relationships. How far can genetics and dna testing take us?

TC

Actually, a large segment of the scientific community has accepted the revisions. They just don't happen to be systematists/taxonomists in certain areas. The major international databases that hold genetic data such as GenBank, NCBI, Swiss-PROT, etc. have the snakes listed in their databases under the new names and site the recently published research.
-----
Finis Coronat Opus! - "The End Crowns The Work!"