Reptile & Amphibian Forums

What I find odd about the thread below is how someone with apparent field experience can possibly think hybrids do not occur. Yes that baffles me. I also do not understand how the context is so misplaced.

It reminds me of someone looking up and seeing an airplane, then stating that airplanes cannot fly because everyone he made, DID NOT FLY.

The REALITY is, every specie we see and every individual we see is not a species, its an animal that was something else, evolving into something else again. They are always something migrating into something else.

This directly relates to their enviornment. The enviornment they live in, IS CONSTANTLY changing. So the animals move(change) right along with it, or cease to exsist.

Even the names we call them, have and will constantly change. And the difinitions of those names are constantly changing, as well.

That many think the earth does not change is again beyond me. All you have to do is follow HKM and I on our study areas. You see, In the mountains we work in, up about 7000 and above, there are marine fossils. Sirs and sirsettes, we all know that marine fossils came from the bottom of bodies of water. Hmmmmmmmmm There had to be change for the bottom to move to the top(in our area).

Or for earth plates to move about and crash into eachother. As we are taught, there was animals already on these plates. Hmmmmmmmmmm did they have seat belts?

The point is, species are not set in stone, and neither is their behavior(ethology) At this day and age, we now know its not phyiscal barriers that prevent hybridization(all the bizerk crosses on these very forums) It most definitely has to be behavior. And behavior is very fluid. It does not take much to change behavior.

I would imagine that the bounds of behavior are tested during extreme conditions, like droughts or other minor changes in weather, and most certainly during changes in climate.

If changes are slow, then a species could easily evolve at a slow and steady rate. But during fast changes, like weather. They most likely would have a hard time genetically migrating. Its here that hybridization would have a distint advangate. This is starting to be seen in mammal, fish, bird and reptile species.

And yes, We, HKM and I, have seen a fair amount lately, but then, we are ten years into a drought. Just food for thought, cheers

The person from the post below states that hybrids do exist, but not with great frequency.

My personal opinion is that hybrids are not a good thing in controlled environments. Meaning breeders that put together (just an example) Pueblan Milks with California Kingsnakes. Then they come with a crafty name like Enchilada Kingsnake (or whatever). To me, this is a load...

Now, if you find a hybrid in the wild, then neat. Document it, pickle it, do whatever you think is necessary. Who knows, we may find more hybrids as our environment changes or as reptiles evolve.

Happy Holidays,

Steven Owens

Note: When reading my posts, please assume positive intent.

"What I find odd about the thread below is how someone with apparent field experience can possibly think hybrids do not occur. Yes that baffles me. I also do not understand how the context is so misplaced."

What I find a little odd about this thread is how someone with apparent reading experience can possibly have been left with the impression that I directly indicated or implied in the thread below that hybrids do not occur. I'm a little baffled myself.

Anyone who is truly a student of nature is provided ample opportunity to observe trends and dynamics in nature. The fact is that the living world is plastic... constantly shifting, adjusting, adapting. Climatic, meteorological, geological, and social (to name a few) pressures combine to initiate change. Those pressures can initiate things like hybridization. My contention is that it’s a rarity. The contention of some is that it’s not. In the case of scuts and atrox in west Texas, I was just drawing the line between legitimate hybrids and “hybrids by default due to misidentification”. Just because someone with inexperience can’t identify a scut doesn’t make it a hybrid. Of course, the obvious counterpoint is that just because someone with experience can't identify a hybrid backcross doesn't make it a scut (although I think the simpler contention more salient).

>>>The contention of some is that it’s not (rare).

I certainly didn't say they were common. Damon, you are a wordsmith. I mean that in a good way

Forks
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

Not you!
I was making a reference to the folks more likely to misidentify west Texas scuts and make the "hybrid by default" assessment.

>>Not you!
>>I was making a reference to the folks more likely to misidentify west Texas scuts and make the "hybrid by default" assessment.

OK
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

That was well put!

Its a rarity, as least in OUR overall sense. But in certain locals at certain times(persent day) its not rare.

You sir, most likely have not worked a local at the right time(and place), to see this. And it appears you refuse to admit it.

You see, your experience is not different then ours. We did see those odd atrox and mohaves. We did called them normal. That is, until we happened to find hot spots that showed WHY there was oddities in certain locals. These hotspots had first(early generation) generation hybrids(crosses). After seeing these "obvious" hybrids, then seeing the more common "less obvious" individuals, led to a different understanding, then we previously had. New information, does that, or at least its suppose to.

To make it simple, we found those areas that had a WIDE range of patterns and colors, was where two or more species overlaped. Compare that to areas where these species did not overlap, those areas had a narrow range of pattern and color.

AS mentioned, we did not call these odd diamondbacks hybrids/crosses, until they were found them in the same area of Obvious hybrids.

The reality is, DNA work needs to be done on these questionable animals. But, HKM and I are surely not going to do that. If we had access to doing DNA work, we would surely do that on our study animals(leps and willards) and not on some questionable diamondbacks/mohaves.

When you talk about what is rare or what is common, with snakes, it becomes a odd conversation. As humans as a whole are poor at understanding these animals. What is rare to some, may not be rare to others.

In your conversations here, you mostly indicate ROADs as your information point/contact point. I find that odd. As roads are not a good sample of any species habitat. In fact, roads make up less the .00000001 of any of these species habitat.

As biology is all about math, I will use some math to try and gain some small insight on this. If a section of road is 1/millionth of a species habitat. Say that a half mile stretch of road by 50 ft wide, is your habitat unit(point of contact)(where you found the dang thing). Then its easy to understand, that you must multiply whatever you find on that section(unit) by one million. So, if we find one hybrid on a unit of road, then it REPRESENTS one million in that habitat. Surely for the species concerned here, diamondbacks and mohaves, this unit is actually much less then 1 millionth of the area concerned. Then if you find five or ten. Well, you get the point. If there is ten million out there, its cannot be rare, can it? It now becomes only rare to YOU. So no, we are not saying there are 10 million diamondback hybrids(with mohave and blacktails) but there mathematically could be and most likely is.

On the otherside of the coin, how can you say what is rare when you only surveyed less then one millionth of the habitat. With diamondbacks and mohaves, in west texas, your area is FAR FAR FAR less then One millionth of the habitat. So to make a statement about what you DID NOT SEE is naive.

Yes I know, you can make math say anything you want. But there is a base concept here that points out that roads are only a very small sample and are actually a very small part of what is going on in their actual habitat. Roads are only interruptions of habitat, that on occasion we find snakes on.

What this points out is, you either have not seen it(hybrids), have seen it, but refuse to recognize it(most likely the case) or for some reason, your education does not allow you to think in a way that lets you understand that our knowledge of reptiles is a basic guideline and not strict rules. You do know that most information about reptiles in from the latter. Its not based on the reptiles, but more on our rules about the reptiles. I mention this because the thought of hybrids, is contrary to most of what we were taught. For most folks, hybridization is against their religion. Religion is faith in a belief. Not from actual events. In this case, faith in what they were taught. Yet these hybrids occur, in spite of our faith that they do not.

Please understand I am not trying to convince you of anything. But I will bet, the next time you see an odd diamondback or Mohave, you will look at it from a much different angle that you did before. Cheers

Frank I think what Damon is talking about is the fact that many, many herpers in west TX commonly look at a Crote and if it's the slightest bit atypical immediatly cry hybrid. Most of these herpers can't do diagnostics and have no desire to. They say hybrid then go on thinking and talking about alterna, leps and the weather. Hence the legend is much bigger than the fact, or at least bigger than the facts that have actually been thouroghly observed.

As those observations may or may not be correct, his observations fall in the same catagory. In reality, to say that those odd individuals were hybrids or not, they should have been at least run thru a key, then DNA needs to be done.

His comments are based on only his thoughts, which may or may not be accurate. I am sure Damon is a top notch fella. But what makes his decisions better then others if all he does is say, I think those are just odd diamondbacks or odd mohaves.

The question is, WHY are they odd, if normals are included in the area. There may be an answer. In our experience, These odd animals occured where we found hybrids. That to me raises a NEW question. Then as we looked around, other areas where two or more of these three species overlaped, odd individuals and hybrids were not all that rare. At least at this time.

The truth is, we are just begining to understand this. As this subject was not part of our interest. But it is interesting. So now, we keep our eyes(and mind)open.

As I mentioned and this may or may not be accurate, in the last ten years, we have been in a drought, a huge drought. For instance, the area that blacktail/diamondback hybrid was found, that area lost in the area of 40% of the trees in a few month period. They simply died from lack of water, even huge old oaks that have not changed in the forty years I have been going there. But really, I don't know how meaningful that is.

The reality is, did Damon key those individual odd snakes out, did he have DNA work done. If not, then hes decided his opinion outweights others. Not his experience in the field, his opinion of what a pure diamondback or mohave IS.

Again he may not have seen any, but what gives him the right to tell other people what they saw was wrong. Its that old, I am right because of what I have not seen, over your wrong by what you have seen. I am sure not all of those odd individual snakes were actually hybrids, but without seeing or working with those snakes, he or I, cannot say all of them were NOT hybrids. With our current observations, there is a strong possibility that some may have indeed been hybrids.

I do have some pics of questionable individual mohaves. But only a few as, we only recently decided to take pics. We have seen them for a very long period and some were without question, dead center intermediates(hybrid appearing). All we said was, theres another one of those f'in goofbals. hahahahahahaha. We do have more pics of Blacktail/atrox type specimens. Mainly because they were rare, or so we thought, until we started looking at them. Cheers

about repartee between naturalists is the opportunity to share ideas, opinions, and observations. I have not endeavored to impose my opinion or dictate the thoughts of my friends. I have merely suggested an alternative to speculation surrounding the actual occurrence or relative rarity of hybrid Crotalids.

The flavor of your most recent post would imply that my observations are not as valid as yours because I lack the wisdom to differentiate normals, aberrants, and hybrids. You in some ways assert that I assign identification based on a set of characters that I deem to be diagnostic and that in actuality those characters may not be effective for diagnosis. You say that my observations “may or may not have been correct” and my assignment of non-hybrid tags may have been made in error. In the next paragraph you mention “These odd animals occurred where we found hybrids” when by the same criteria you’ve used to assess my determinations, you don’t even know if you’ve seen hybrids because you may have made your assessments in error!

In the thread below, I simply suggested what to my way of thinking is a simpler theory… that the areas where atrox and scutulatus overlap may contain similarly patterned and more highly variable individuals due to shared environmental pressures and more generalized habitat usage. You say “The question is, WHY are they odd, if normals are included in the area.” My contention is that the phenotypic parameters for scutulatus in west Texas are shifted to the extent that atrox and scutulatus look more similar than they do elsewhere in their shared range. The “normal” scuts look much more like atrox in west Texas than “normal” scuts do in southern NM and Arizona. In my experience, there are not “normal” scuts, “normal” atrox, and oddballs, just atrox and atrox-looking scutulatus.

“The reality is, did Damon key those individual odd snakes out, did he have DNA work done. If not, then hes decided his opinion outweights others. Not his experience in the field, his opinion of what a pure diamondback or mohave IS.”

I have keyed out the snakes I’ve found as well as those that were brought to me represented as hybrids. The “scuts” on scutulatus have always in my experience been an effective identifier. I have never seen a scutulatus that had more than a few or and atrox with less than a bunch. I have not done DNA work but neither have you. Our opinions on the topic are just that. The contention that I feel my opinion holds more weight because of what I have not seen is a little perplexing. Again, I’ll reiterate my point that my theories on this topic are just that, but with large sample sizes, what I have not seen can become statistically significant. Your claim that just because I haven’t seen hybrids doesn’t mean they don’t exist is akin to my saying that the Chiricahuas are choc full of willardi and just because you haven’t found them doesn’t mean they’re not there. At some point it’s becomes safer to draw some basic conclusions.

“Again he may not have seen any, but what gives him the right to tell other people what they saw was wrong.”

Again… I think “tell” is the wrong word here but my "right" to share ideas is covered by the first ammendement to the United States Constitution. God bless America! In any case, I haven’t said that what “other people” (a rather inclusive context in your implication) saw was wrong… just that the similarity of scutulatus and atrox in west Texas may lead those who haven’t yet learned to differentiate the two (exclusive in my context) to make an incorrect ID.

“With our current observations, there is a strong possibility that some may have indeed been hybrids.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but your observations on your study sites have taken place nearly 500 miles from the location of some of the west Texas populations in question here. Biologically speaking, do you feel safe in the extrapolation of your observations in the Sonoran desert to the Chihuahuan desert populations we're now discussing?

I made it all the way to your second paragraph, when YOU appear to be making it a pissing match. Which it is not. Because we have different experiences, surely causes us to have different opinions. ITs not whos better. If you only knew how STUPID we were. We were simply beat on the heat until our eyes finally opened up.

I simply stated you may have not seen a hybrid, ever. You consider the odd ones, exactly how WE considered them, just individual variation. that is, UNTIL WE ACTUALLY SAW GOOD HYBRIDS, then that made us rethink our own previous opinions.

Again, I said, as far as I know, your a top notch fella. Nothing against you. You either never saw any(last paragraph) And or refuse to recognize what you saw, my last post. Did you key out the odd individuals, then run DNA, to see what they actually were? If you did not, its only your version of what a diamondback is or what a mohave is. Which may or may not have anything to do with what you saw, OR more importantly, what others saw.

In my last post, I explained how WE thought that others were wrong when they told us that they saw what appeared like a hybrid, that is until we saw them, now WE(HKM and I) give their observations a little more credit. Of course, they cannot all have seen them? could they?

Next, there is no value, commerial or otherwise, for either of us to be right. This discussion is only value in our(all of us) understanding of these creatures. So it really does not matter whos right.

The only negative statement I have made is, I do not like, I am sensitive to, biologists stating what they call fact, not from actual experience, but from LACK of experience, from what THEY DID NOT SEE(observe). Sir, lack of information does not make information, its simply a lack of information.

In this case, you are stating a strong opinion or belief, from your lack of experience. Not from your experience with these hybrid rattlesnakes. If you have not seen them, then you have NO experience, therefore, you should NOT have a strong opinion on them.

What I find a little odd is your strong belief in a species, that was named by man, and named at a time when there was very little overall knowledge of the animals in question. AT the time these animals were named and discribed, they authors did not have the resources we have today. Today, YOU can view mohaves from many different locals, with a simple click on your keyboard. That was impossible in the old days and it was so very impossible when these animals were discribed.

The reality is, with new information, what we previously thought of as simple variation, may not be simple variation. These days, we know these snakes CAN hybridize and they do hybridize. What we don't know is how often, to what extent and what are the effects in nature.

I can show examples of Blacktails, hmmmmmmm its funny but we have seen far more atrox/mohaves, but have far more pics of goofy blacktails. Ok, its because blacktails and diamondbacks occur in our study areas, so the camera is locked, loaded and ready.

Something for you to explain to me; On one hill, we have textbook blacktails, three miles away with blacktails found the entire way(geneflow), theres a hill that has bizarre blacktails? All in the same habitat, elevation, etc. Why?????? By the way, these are all animals found crossing the road. These bizarre blacktails do not appear like hybrids, they appear like tropical rattlesnakes. But before I go too far. we must get over this pissing match approach.

Damon, you know the old saying, if everyone around you is crazy and you think you are not, Hahahahahahahahaha, its likely you may be the crazy one. So if everyone is seeing them. At least entertain the idea, its you that may be crazy. Cheers

This isn't a pissing match. A “match” would indicate a contest of sorts as if to say that our participation in this discussion was a means to an end of unilateral victory. I enjoy the exchange of ideas because of the opportunity it provides to see things from other angles. Your observations and your resulting theories may allow me to make sense of things I’ve seen and vice versa. In my last post I simply outlined some hypocrisy in your implications that I most likely had seen hybrids that I didn’t recognize as such and in your assertions that I couldn’t prove that any given specimen was not a hybrid (due to lack of DNA evidence) when you a paragraph later claimed to have found and been able to identify hybrids without the same standards of criteria you held my observations to.

“In this case, you are stating a strong opinion or belief, from your lack of experience. Not from your experience with these hybrid rattlesnakes. If you have not seen them, then you have NO experience, therefore, you should NOT have a strong opinion on them.”

I’d counter by saying that I have extensive experience NOT FINDING THEM. You seem to think that because I’ve not found them that I shouldn’t comment. Playing devil’s advocate, I could say that thinking you’ve found them doesn’t count for actually finding them.

“What I find a little odd is your strong belief in a species, that was named by man, and named at a time when there was very little overall knowledge of the animals in question.”

I’m curious as to how you’ve come to see my strong belief in manmade “species” when I have none. Throughout this thread I’ve said repeatedly that nature is in a constant state of flux. It’s fluid. EVERYTHING is constantly changing… it’s manifested in individuals, populations, “species”. Systematics and taxonomy serve a purpose, but they’re RIDDLED with flaws. Lines are drawn in the wrong places, too many places, not enough places. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to effectively segregate the organisms that crawl the surface of this earth because nature is a gradient… a spectrum that can’t be broken up into parts without losing the impact of the whole.

“Did you key out the odd individuals, then run DNA, to see what they actually were? If you did not, its only your version of what a diamondback is or what a mohave is. Which may or may not have anything to do with what you saw, OR more importantly, what others saw.”

I’ve already indicated that no DNA work has been done. By the same token, I could just as easily say that in the absence if DNA data what you’ve seen is based on YOUR VERSION of what diamondbacks and mojaves are… which may or may not have anything to do with what you’ve seen. Even in your last post you claim to have found “good hybrids”… and again with no DNA to back it up. I still contend that an odd phenotype doesn’t a hybrid make. Couldn’t gene eddies go a long way to help explain localized variation in a population?

... as far as me being crazy, I'm sure my wife would agree.

No DNA means no definative results. FR, your spell check must not work either. It's spelled mojave, not mohave.

-----
Steve W.

That was not the only thing misspelled. Or with poor sentence structure, etc, etc. But I hope you got the point. After all, thats what writing is all about. To get a point across. To express some meaning. Cheers

There is no clear way to describe a species based on DNA data. DNA can tell you when two populations are distinct, but does distinction alone equal a species?

Probably not since, genetically, chihuahuas are distinct from great danes, but they are both distinct in the same way from wolves. So where is the species line? Especially since they call all mate and produce fertile offspring.

How many DNA base changes equals a species? what if all the differences are in parts of the genome that are functionless, do they still get added into the magic number we decide is the cutoff for a species?

For that matter what species definition do you want to use? There are atleast 10. If we follow the most widely accepted no colubrid is a species since it seems they can all mate with each other and produce fertile offspring. If you go with the most lax than every locale could be a species, hell every individual could!

Just throwing all that out there to make the water really muddy. To be sure it gives me a headache just thinking about it

Vinny
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

Natural Selection Reptiles

Excellent post, IMHO. Especially this part:
"what if all the differences are in parts of the genome that are functionless, do they still get added into the magic number we decide is the cutoff for a species? "
I asked this same question on the taxonomy forum but got no direct answer, although I may have phrased the question in a confusing way.

I had to double-check the spelling recently, myself.
Werler and Dixon (2000) spell it "Mojave", but the field guide version of the SAME BOOK (Dixon and Werler, 2005) has it spelled with an "h" - Mohave.

Tennant (2006 f.g. ed.) spells it with a "j".

Goes to show that an appeal to even some of our staple references aren't always consistent.

So after doing some JSTORing, it appears both spellings are "right". Even as recent as a Jan. '08 publication...

Cardwell, M. D. 2008. The reproductive ecology of Mohave rattlesnakes. Journal of Zoology. Volume 274(1)(January 2008): 65-76.

Also, this one from '05...

Sánchez, Elda E. et al. 2005. Disintegrin, hemorrhagic, and proteolytic activities of Mohave rattlesnake, Crotalus scutulatus scutulatus venoms lacking Mojave toxin. Comparative Biochemistry & Physiology Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology; Jun2005, Vol. 141 Issue 2, p124-132.

Just glancing at about 30 references, it seems pretty well-split down the middle, as far as spelling.

DR
Suboc.com

You saidI’d counter by saying that I have extensive experience NOT FINDING THEM. You seem to think that because I’ve not found them that I shouldn’t comment. Playing devil’s advocate, I could say that thinking you’ve found them doesn’t count for actually finding them.

With this statement, I think you have lost your mind. By not seeing them, ONLY means you have not seen them. No more or no less. If by you "not seeing them"` means they do not exsist, then your living in your own tiny world. Because to everyone else, it simply means you have seen them. You have NO experience in this area. Others may, just not you. I imagine there is a whole bunch of good herpers that have not seen hybrids, and some that have.

In this, we have now seen three seperate types of hybrids, the mohave/diamondbacks, the Blacktail/diamondbacks, and of course Don Sias's lep/willardi(2) To top this off, a fella in Phoenix has blacktail/atrox crosses(from captivity) that look all the world like the ones we have seen in nature.

What we have learned is, crossing them rarely makes monsters that are easy to identify. Crossing them, for the most part, mucks up the normal characteristics, a blend, not a monster, thats so different, that you can easily say, WOW thats a hybrid. Also as we previously mentioned, after a couple generations, they are not all that different.

Consider, I do not hold that against you, we missed that same boat for a very long time. And even worse, HKM had already documented that occurring in texas. I think, for HKM, it simply was not important. For me, I had to see a whole bunch of them before I took them into account. So, this is simply an addition to what you have seen. As it was for me. So for all intents, our experience was very much alike, our thoughts were very much alike. But, my thoughts changed, ONCE I obtained the added information that these events do occur. The very information you DO NOT HAVE.

We came here to SHARE this information for you to consider, whatever the heck you actually think is yours and yours alone. I really do not care what you think. Or how much experience you have or don't have. You are the one who states, you do not have THIS experience. So why on earth do you carry one so. Why do you think all populations across a vast area they occur in, are all like yours? Did you hunt the areas we find them in. If no, How can you make the statements you are making?

Your last posts appear like this, I have not seen it, but we did, yea, but I didn't. Heres one pic yea, that looks like a hybrid, but I have not seen it. Wait, we have and we have it and explained it in a dozen ways. Yea, but I have not seen it. Dude, I get it, you have not seen it. Not seeing it, will never get you the experience OF OBSERVING IT. You have to see it to believe it, good on ya.

Yea, but you say they're common, Well not common, but common is some places. But I have not seen it. You are now saying, OTHERS THAT "HAVE" SEEN IT, are wrong. They are just seeing normal species variation. DUDE, how the heck do you know WHAT THEY SAW????????????? You did not see those either. Again your lack of information is forming your policy. Who knows what they saw, YOU DID NOT SEE IT.

Like I mentioned, after we proved to ourselfs that this event actuallly does occur, and not all that rare(in a few places) We now give some validity to what others have seen. Which in simply terms means, we are normal and we saw it, they too are normal and could have seen the exact same thing. After all, finding rattlesnakes on the road mostly takes gas and time, not much more. Its not a special skill, like field work.

So in the end, you have shown that your not willing to expand your thoughts, or consider others experiences. Great, good on you. In the end, I will never take, lack of information(experience/data) over real events and experiences. It does not matter if its our experiences or others, actual experience, outweights, theory over lack of data. END OF STORY. Cheers

It's amazing to me that Aaron can casually observe the discourse of this thread and so succinctly paraphrase my case in his single post whereas you continue to misconstrue and overextrapolate most everything I’ve said.

I guess I need to reiterate:

1. Hybridization DOES occur but is a relative rarity (statistically small across the range)

2. Its frequency in west Texas is overblown due to rampant misidentification by inexperienced herpers.

That’s pretty much it.

The thread has since become much more broad in scope, and in the last few posts I’ve had to point out some flaws in your logic. I’m sorry if that irritates you. You tell me I’ve seen hybrids and didn’t know it. You tell me I can’t claim that any of the snakes I’ve seen are not hybrids because I’ve not done DNA testing. You call me close-minded. I simply suggested that by the same criteria you don’t know if you’ve found hybrids. Somehow roundabout’s not fair play? You call me close-minded?

“Why do you think all populations across a vast area they occur in, are all like yours?”

Did I say that? I don’t think so. In fact I had to point out that you extrapolated what you’d seen in Arizona to the populations you hadn’t seen in Texas!

You are now saying, OTHERS THAT "HAVE" SEEN IT, are wrong.

That’s a completely generalized form of what I said that is conveniently bent in favor of your assertions. I didn’t say everyone… just those with little experience (and since you’ve been trudging around the sky islands of the southwest for decades you have no reason to get your feathers ruffled by that statement).

“DUDE, how the heck do you know WHAT THEY SAW?????????????”

Because I’m referencing a number of cases where west Texas “hybrid” animals… WERE SHOWN TO ME. I saw them. I inspected them. I identified them and subsequently demonstrated to the inexperienced herpers that showed them to me on how to tell scuts and atrox apart. They typically replied with “Oh. I didn’t know that” and went on about their business looking for alterna.

“So in the end, you have shown that your not willing to expand your thoughts, or consider others experiences.”

To the contrary… that’s why I brought it up. I’ve never seen a hybrid. I solicited for photographs from everyone here so that I could see one. I’m still waiting patiently.

do you want to see? I photo'd 4 or 5 random scuts this year all from the one locality. At the time I photographed the one in particular I didn't think anything was too unusual but looking at the photos one of them has more than 4 intersupraoculars, narrow (1 scale wide) white line on the face that does not extend past the jaw, divided crescentic scales, and a heavily darkened proximal rattle segment. Overall gestalt says light colored scutulatus. I've also got photos of typical looking atrox with F'd up head scalation (scales larger than usual).

Not sure if I should post the photos since you've never seen one
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

I'd like to see them. I'm in particular interested in morphometrics. I've always felt that pattern and color were weak diagnostics. I'd consider the postocular stripe issue to fall into the latter category. Head scalation interests me the most.

I'm sincere in my desire to see an example of a hybrid from that prairie. It's not that I don't think they could be there... just that I've never seen one.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I guess I need to reiterate:

1. Hybridization DOES occur but is a relative rarity (statistically small across the range)
We agreed on this from the very begining. With the exception of some locals. We keep stating over and over, that we are watching several locals where it appears hybrids are not rare. But you cannot fathom that, can you?

2. Its frequency in west Texas is overblown due to rampant misidentification by inexperienced herpers.
As I stated a million times, YOU HAVE NOT IDEA WHAT THOSE OTHER HERPERS SAW, YOU DID NOT SEE THE ANIMALS THEY SAW. So your lack of experience is now blaring. Also, it appears your calling HKM, a degreed herper from Texas A&M, a newbie that does not know what hes looking at. After he explained he sent a series(not one) to a University for examniation. Again, if you did not inspect that series or inspect what others saw, YOUR ONLY STATING YOUR MISINFORMED/UNDERINFORMED OPINION. You merely think they were ALL wrong, but you have no way of knowing. Did any of those NEWBIE herpers, send you a hybrid to example? NO. Your only guessing and hoping they were wrong. Why is that? You see this is the point, you are stating opinion from NOT observing, what others HAVE(in our case) and what others may have, with all those other observations.

That’s pretty much it.

The thread has since become much more broad in scope, and in the last few posts I’ve had to point out some flaws in your logic. I’m sorry if that irritates you. You tell me I’ve seen hybrids and didn’t know it. You tell me I can’t claim that any of the snakes I’ve seen are not hybrids because I’ve not done DNA testing. You call me close-minded. I simply suggested that by the same criteria you don’t know if you’ve found hybrids. Somehow roundabout’s not fair play? You call me close-minded? For some reason you looking for logic, as in, a flaw in my logic. Thats not the case, I am not using logic, I am using ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. We have seen them and Have/having actual experience. No need for logic here.

“Why do you think all populations across a vast area they occur in, are all like yours?

Did I say that? I don’t think so. In fact I had to point out that you extrapolated what you’d seen in Arizona to the populations you hadn’t seen in Texas! Did we extrapolate anything, no, we merely stated that they do hybridize and we have several current locals and one older one IN TEXAS. No one has said anything else. Anything more then that is manifactured in your brain.

You are now saying, OTHERS THAT "HAVE" SEEN IT, are wrong.

That’s a completely generalized form of what I said that is conveniently bent in favor of your assertions. I didn’t say everyone… just those with little experience (and since you’ve been trudging around the sky islands of the southwest for decades you have no reason to get your feathers ruffled by that statement).

“DUDE, how the heck do you know WHAT THEY SAW?????????????”

Because I’m referencing a number of cases where west Texas “hybrid” animals… WERE SHOWN TO ME. I saw them. I inspected them. I identified them and subsequently demonstrated to the inexperienced herpers that showed them to me on how to tell scuts and atrox apart. They typically replied with “Oh. I didn’t know that” and went on about their business looking for alterna. What about the rest of them, a couple is totally meaningless. Again, your forgetting a series sent to a herp department that was identified as intermediates.

“So in the end, you have shown that your not willing to expand your thoughts, or consider others experiences.”

To the contrary… that’s why I brought it up. I’ve never seen a hybrid. I solicited for photographs from everyone here so that I could see one. I’m still waiting patiently. Well I did post one, that makes it one for us, zero for you. To make it fair, why not You post those questionable indivudals. Oh I know, you did not take pics. We explained, a million times, that the best hybrids were not photograghed(no real interest in doing so) but after observing so many of them, we recently started to document them. Which resulted in the Blacktail/atrox pic. If you rememeber, that was a result of ME asking HKM to TAKE PICS OF THOSE GOOFY crosses and he did. This was explained over and over. I do have some odd but not definitive mojaves from that exact same spot. As in possible crosses. Of course I have a series of Blacktail/atrox from the one I already shown, to almost normal. PLus locals with goofy blacktails, in the middle of normal blacktails(with continious geneflow/habitat) These odd groupings should require some thought and must be questioned. In case you do not get that, it means, something local must have occurred(possible hybridization in the past) Again these locals are continious with normals and the habitat is continious. We all know that any species can have isolated locals that differ somewhat. Anyway, I have pics of those too.

So any clear thinking individual, will clearly understand, if you want to see hybrids or oddities, you look at the fringes and most inconsistant of a species habitat(range). You do know there is a saying, without making it rude, its about something doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. An aware person would understand, to recieve a different result, you must do something different. Cheers and good day! I said, good day!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My intent in engaging this discussion was to deliberate the different theories regarding the issue and debate their potential. From the beginning of this thread I’ve made every attempt to respond to your posts in a respectful manner. I’ve not once made implications regarding your experience, reputation, or qualifications. Asking objective questions and questioning results is part of science. You find me to be argumentative when I’ve merely been trying to explore all potential avenues and evaluate the likelihood of each. I’ve circumnavigated your inflammatory verbiage and tried to address your points one-by-one. You’ve conveniently stepped over theories I’ve advanced as plausible alternatives and made illogical claims to have observed things that I by your same criteria could not known that I’d have seen. Can you see the condescension there? In any case… I’d like very much to continue the conversation but if the essence of it continues in such a negative vein, I’ll bow out now and let you have the last word.

Damon, you're best off ignoring this subject. I seems the person wants to troll the forum in which is no place for this suject matter anyway. Here's a nice specimen he can do a study on. LOL

-----
Steve W.

I learned of history too late to prevent myself from repeating it.
2002

Well put, Damon. Obviously FR is kind of like the 17 year cicadas, except he cycles on the alterna forum every 5 years!!!
BA

.
-----
Genesis 1:1

Please sir, the only thing I have said is, to NOT SEE SOMETHING, does not amount to data or information. Its simply the lack of data or information. Please do not feel bad, but there are lots of things I have not seen. I hope I do not claim to know about them, when I have not experience with them.

I also stated ten thousand times. Your experience mirrors ours, up until we observed many, not one, guestionable animals.

All you fell back on, was you have not seen them, over and over. I believe we all got that. And we went on from there. Oh, except you.

Or the difintion of the word common. You keep saying, they are not common. Again we fully understand that, but HKM stated, they were relatively common. To clarify that, I attempted to explain, there are common is some areas.

You sir could have asked for clarification on that. But you did not.

If you were interested in discussion, you would ask questions. Not deny and deny and deny. Your most repeated statement was, I did not see them. Again, we got that. No disrespect, what makes your judgement all the valid?????? Maybe you did see them. Sir that is a distint possibility. As I explained, we saw many, before we started to question them?

To make it clear, we found lots of intermediates in color, pattern, scalation, and all together. But we did not have DNA or other tests that may or may not have helped in their actual ID.

To say they were common, would 10 out of 50 be common. In a certain area, and at certain times, that number would be conservative. Of course in other areas, we saw NO individuals that would indicate hybrids, ever.

Then you revert to saying but I never saw them in this area and I saw lots of numbers. Sir, that is fully understandable. Maybe they are not there( for now) Funny thing, the ones I have seen, were not where you saw them either. And I have spent many many nights(over ten or twelve years) in that area.(a long time ago.

My guess is, there was little discussion. Your stuck with, I have not seen them and for you, that was the end of that. Fortunately, many others are more open minded and do entertain(not know, or accept, just consider) that there indeed may be more hybrids that normally thought.

Part of my DISCUSSION was, these crosses or hybrids, are not so unlike their parent stock. They are normally at MOST intermediate between, in this case, two similar animals. At most means, most will appear more like one parent or the other. I know this from my captive experience. If you consider that most hybrids can be F3's and beyond. In these cases, they could not be determined by the naked eye. Yes, they most likely would appear odd but normal. In all aspects, scalation or otherwise.

I missed the part where you wanted to discuss any or all of that.

I understand I am blunt, but I do not have nothing against you, other then you refuse to admit that lack of data is equal to no data. To observe, is data or information. Lack of data leds to speculation. You are speculating they are not in the area you have worked.

You are now seeing, there is MORE information out there. Many have seen "odd" snakes. The DISCUSSION should be, how can we tell what is a hybrid and what is not. To me, that is a far better and more productive discussion. Cheers

FR you said "All you fell back on, was you have not seen them, over and over."

Actually what Damon siad was a little more than this. He also said that he has witness many inexperienced herpers identify hybrids based only on careless assumptions. When you have seen inexperienced herpers doing that it naturally shows that many identifications of hybrids are faulty, or questionable at least.
Just like I have seen many residents identify coachwhips as indigos, mountain kings as corals and alligator lizards as gila monsters. I think I can safely say that residents often misidentify herps.

np