Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I recently read that all Pantherophis have been been moved to Pituophis. Have Trans Pecos Rat snakes (Bogertophis) been moved into the Pituophis group as well?

>>I recently read that all Pantherophis have been been moved to Pituophis. Have Trans Pecos Rat snakes (Bogertophis) been moved into the Pituophis group as well?
>>

If so, that was just a proposal. I think a lot of people, especially in the pet industry, don't understand that a published proposal doesn't set anything in stone. If it is generally accepted, the systematists, taxonomists, museum curators, and others will start to accept and make the change. If it is not accepted, then you will not see much change in literature over the next few years. (And it does take several years, at least, for you to start to see taxonomic revision, in general, even if the acceptance of the proposed name revision is near unanimous.)

Just as an example, Schulz' monograph of Elaphe book, which is pretty much known as the most complete ratsnake book out there, still recognizes Bogertophis as Elaphe. Though, just about every other piece of recent literature doesn't recognize them in Elaphe anymore. However, they are pretty much accepted as Bogertophis in most circles, professional or otherwise.

And keep in mind, that though there are a LOT of snake keepers and breeders (who are largely not scientists) who "recognize" NA Elaphe as Pantherophis, the majority of systematists, taxonomists, and curators still recognize them as Elaphe and not Pantherophis. In other words, they haven't accepted the Patherophis proposal.

DR
Suboc.com

The problem with Burbrink et al's proposal, is that the only Pituophis species sampled is the apomorphic ('advanced') P. melanoleucus. Plesiomorphic ('primitive') species like P. deppei and P. lineaticollis are not examined. Based on the information provided by Burbrik et al, it is therefore impossible to determine exactly where the Pine Snake lineage splits off. Whether or not Cornsnakes and Great Plains Ratsnakes should be included in Pithuophis cannot be answered by this study. Therefore the proposal cannot possibly get accepted.

Thanks Herman!

You're welcome. But don't get me wrong. I do think Burbrink et al make an interesting case, which is worthy of further investigation. I also think they did an excellent job on the Old World Ratsnakes. And I do believe, as evidence accumulates, inevitably the taxonomic position of N.A. Ratsnakes will change eventually. But not based on this material.

He does make a good case for Pituophis being closely related to Pantherophis, but, like you said, not sufficient enough to change the Pantherophis genus at this time. Should consider some other genera. This, of course, doesn't mean Bogertophis is closely related to Pituophis, and no fear of that genus name changing because of this paper. I think it shows Pituophis is closer to Pantherophis, than to Bogertophis, however, which leads me to believe Pituophis species are a type of "ratsnake".

Cheers....TC

>>You're welcome. But don't get me wrong. I do think Burbrink et al make an interesting case, which is worthy of further investigation. I also think they did an excellent job on the Old World Ratsnakes. And I do believe, as evidence accumulates, inevitably the taxonomic position of N.A. Ratsnakes will change eventually. But not based on this material.
-----
Ratsnake Haven...researching ratsnakes since 1988

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

Ratsnake Foundation...ratsnake forums.

Terry,

Thanx for your reply. I agree with you on most points, however as we still don't know where the plesiomorphic members of the genus Pituophis (P. deppei, P. lineaticollis) fit in Burbrink et al's dendrogram, it is impossible to say at this time which species should be and which shouldn't be included in this genus. Therefore we cannot rule out the possibility that Bogertophis spp. should one day be renamed as Pituophis spp. On the other hand, the very same dendrogram clearly shows that this is not a very likely scenario.

Hasta la vista,

Herman.

Herman, I agree, the species P. deppei and P. lineaticollis, should be included in this study, along with Pantherophis spp, and other genera, including Bogertophis, and other Lampropeltines. I think it would be very inconvenient to dump any species outside of Pituophis into that genus, because of their long history, but I do think Pituophis spp. should be considered ratsnakes, in the sense they are closely related to ratsnakes (previously, Elaphe). P. deppei and P. lineaticollis seem especially close to ratsnakes, in appearance anyway, and they should definitely be included in any studies, imho. I would assume future genetic studies would attempt to show how closely all the genera in the Lampropeltini are related, as well as species within genera. I would hope for this at least.

Thanks for the discussion.

- Terry

>>Terry,
>>
>>Thanx for your reply. I agree with you on most points, however as we still don't know where the plesiomorphic members of the genus Pituophis (P. deppei, P. lineaticollis) fit in Burbrink et al's dendrogram, it is impossible to say at this time which species should be and which shouldn't be included in this genus. Therefore we cannot rule out the possibility that Bogertophis spp. should one day be renamed as Pituophis spp. On the other hand, the very same dendrogram clearly shows that this is not a very likely scenario.
>>
>>Hasta la vista,
>>
>>Herman.

-----
Ratsnake Haven...researching ratsnakes since 1988

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

Ratsnake Foundation...ratsnake forums.