Reptile & Amphibian Forums

is it a rat snake or a gopher snake?
does anybody have pics?

thanks
dme

they are classified as a rat snake, but I'm pretty sure they are a little bit different than either and more like if you crossed a corn snake to a gopher snake to an eastern milk snake to a prarie kingsnake, then you would probably get something like a fox snake. In other words they are unique!

closeup of male western, a future trio unrelated, and the big male's two brothers

Empirical evidence provided by Burbrink et al suggests that Fox Snakes are related more closely to Pituophis melanoleucus than to any other Pantherophis species. Even when their proposal (changing Pantherophis into Pituophis) gets rejected (in wich case it would be very interesting to expand their data by including plesiomorphic Pituophis species like P. deppei and P. lineaticollis and give it a second shot), the evidence itself is irrefutable.

I have kept a pair of Eastern Foxsnakes for a while, years before Burbrink et al's publication on this issue, and for me it was pretty obvious from day one that they are much more similar to Gopher Snakes and their kin, both morphometrically and behaviourly, than to any other N.A. 'ratsnake'.

In case anyone missed this paper, it can be found here:

http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/687.pdf

>>Empirical evidence provided by Burbrink et al suggests that Fox Snakes are related more closely to Pituophis melanoleucus than to any other Pantherophis species.>>

It really depends on how you define closely related. The chimpanzee, for example, is more closely related to humans than they are to the Gorilla genetically, but morphologically chimp and Gorilla are closer. So, even if the fox snake were genetically close to Pituophis, that does not make the fox snake a gopher snake. Putting the fox snake and/or other species in the same genus as Elaphe ('Pantherophis') would be like including the chimp (or both the gorilla and the chimp) in the genus Homo. I think the scientific community should stand up and draw a line and tell the cladists to stop this nonsense of lumping and splitting taxa indiscriminantly, without regard to morphological disparity.

>>Even when their proposal (changing Pantherophis into Pituophis) gets rejected (in wich case it would be very interesting to expand their data by including plesiomorphic Pituophis species like P. deppei and P. lineaticollis and give it a second shot), the evidence itself is irrefutable. >>

P. deppei and P. lineaticollis are plesiomorphic? Far from it. mtDNA data of Rodriguez Robles shows that the pine snakes or the eastern subspecies of P. melanoleucus are the basal group within Pituophis, and that P. deppei and P. lineaticollis are derived taxa. Morphologically P. deppei and P. lineaticollis have also been shown to be closer to the gopher snakes (catenifer et al.) than to the pine snakes by Dowling. Burbrink and Lawson's data is problematic to say the least, and probably outright unreliable. Even the Hennigian dominated SSAR has not yet endorsed their proposal, despite having rubber stamped Utiger et al.'s proposal to resurrect "Pantherophis."

>>I have kept a pair of Eastern Foxsnakes for a while, years before Burbrink et al's publication on this issue, and for me it was pretty obvious from day one that they are much more similar to Gopher Snakes and their kin, both morphometrically and behaviourly, than to any other N.A. 'ratsnake'.>>

Practically all systematists and most hobbyists who have worked with this group would disagree with your impressions. Even without the benefit of molecular data, most taxnomists classify the fox snake as a primitive ratsnake, not a derived gopher or pine snake. If the fox snake is indeed close to the gopher snake, then it would require that the pine snakes evolved from the gopher snakes. That scenario (and your claim that P. lineaticollis and P. deppei are plesiomorphic) is directly contradicted by mtDNA data.

What I meant to say is that:

Putting the fox snake and/or other species of ratsnakes in the same genus as Pituophis would be like including the chimp (or both the gorilla and the chimp) in the genus Homo.

Yes, I know. It wasn't very hard.

>>Yes, I know. It wasn't very hard.

Certainly it is not hard to put the chimps in the genus Homo, if one is a cladist, because these two form a monophyletic group. The cladists have in fact proposed a redefinition of Hominidae that includes humans and the great apes. They do this because they dislike paraphyletic groups. If the great apes are placed in Pongidae, then the Pongidae would be paraphyletic.

Hominidae used to consist only of bipedal primates, but now knuckle walkers have been thrown into the mix by the cladists. It shows that they have no concern over morphological disparity. Burbrink and Lawson show a similar disregard for morphological disparity when they lumped Pituophis and "Pantherophis" into the same genus. Frost and Etheridge (1989) also showed a similar disregard for morphological disparity when they lumped the agamids and the Old World chameleons into the single family they call the Chameleonidae."

I think Burbrink and Lawson's proposal has proved disturbing even for some cladists. The clasdists at the SSAR apparently found the splitting of Elaphe into morphologically indistinguishable genera by Utiger et al. more palatable, since they rubber stamped the resurrection of "Pantherophis." But apparently they find Burbrink and Lawson's lumping of "Pantherophis" and Pituophis unpalatable. These cladists claim that they need more data to accept Burbrink and Lawson's proposal, even though Utiger et al.'s data is just as unreliable as Burbrink and Lawson's data. I think some cladists are worried that radical proposals like Burbrink and Lawson's will awaken the otherwise complacent biological community, who until now have paid little attention to the havoc the cladists are wreaking with our taxonomy, probably they are unaware of the real motives (intolerance of paraphyletic taxa) behind the recent flood of taxonomic changes. LOL.

OK, let's get something straight first. The thing is, I have a fulltime job, a wife, two kids, and quite a lot of snakes. As much as I feel sympathy for the Don Quichots of modern science, I simply do not have the time nor the energy to play a part of any significance in your crusade against Hennigian cladism, nor do I wish to. So this will be my final word regarding this issue. Off course you're free to reply on it as much as you like, but it won't be answered.

Since we seem to be playing the quoting game here, let's start with this one. First you say:

"Chimps and Homo is a terminal group, provided that the australopithecines are included in the genus Homo, chimps and humans can form a monophlyetic genus. However, this genus would be heterogeneous morphologically. But heck, cladists are not deterred by heterogeneous taxa in the least way. They have proposed, among others, lumping Old World chameleons and the agamids into the same family which they call Chameleonidae, and they have proposed lumping Homo, chimps and Gorilla in the Hominidae. Burbrink and Lawson's proposal would create a heterogeneous Pituophis by lumping Pituophis and New World Elaphe. Time and time again, they have demonstrated a complete disregard for morphological disparity in their classifications."

Then you say:

"Certainly it is not hard to put the chimps in the genus Homo, if one is a cladist, because these two form a monophyletic group. The cladists have in fact proposed a redefinition of Hominidae that includes humans and the great apes. They do this because they dislike paraphyletic groups. If the great apes are placed in Pongidae, then the Pongidae would be paraphyletic. Hominidae used to consist only of bipedal primates, but now knuckle walkers have been thrown into the mix by the cladists. It shows that they have no concern over morphological disparity. Burbrink and Lawson show a similar disregard for morphological disparity when they lumped Pituophis and "Pantherophis" into the same genus. Frost and Etheridge (1989) also showed a similar disregard for morphological disparity when they lumped the agamids and the Old World chameleons into the single family they call the Chameleonidae. I think Burbrink and Lawson's proposal has proved disturbing even for some cladists. The clasdists at the SSAR apparently found the splitting of Elaphe into morphologically indistinguishable genera by Utiger et al. more palatable, since they rubber stamped the resurrection of "Pantherophis." But apparently they find Burbrink and Lawson's lumping of "Pantherophis" and Pituophis unpalatable. These cladists claim that they need more data to accept Burbrink and Lawson's proposal, even though Utiger et al.'s data is just as unreliable as Burbrink and Lawson's data. I think some cladists are worried that radical proposals like Burbrink and Lawson's will awaken the otherwise complacent biological community, who until now have paid little attention to the havoc the cladists are wreaking with our taxonomy, probably they are unaware of the real motives (intolerance of paraphyletic taxa) behind the recent flood of taxonomic changes. LOL."

So if I understand all this correctly, you DON'T have a problem with Pantherophis gloydi being lumped in the same genus (Elaphe as it was before Utiger et al) with a semi aquatic, live bearing, fish eating, Old World colubrid (Oocatocus rufodorsatus, formerly known as Elaphe rufodorsata), or with a number of snakes of which has been proven more than once that they actually belong to the Racer tribe (Coelognathus spp.), yet you DO have a problem with Pantherophis gloydi being lumped in the same genus (Pituophis) with a small number of terrestial, egg laying, rodent eating, New World colubrids of the same tribe? It's almost as if you're saying that lumping chimps with humans is wrong ("morphological disparity", but it's OK to lumps chimps with fruit bats and giant anteaters (to hell with "morphological disparity". Sounds a little contradictory to me. Well, quite a lot actually.

What really bothers me, is that you're actually questioning the scientific integrity op people like Burbrink, Lawson, and Utiger, by suggesting that their data is "unreliable". What is that supposed to mean? Haven't their papers been peer reviewed before publication? Didn't they use proven technology or methods? Isn't the data reproducable? All you come up with is the same personal opinion and the same crappy metafors, over and over again. Anyway, if you are really that obsessed with cladism, than why are you waisting your time on this forum? In a best case scenario, only a few of us "knuckle walkers" have any idea of what you're talking about. You should be attending seminars, and debate with these cladists in person. Slandering these people at Kingsnake.com will not alter the outcome of scientific progress in any way, nor will it lure women to your doorstep. You, as a Darwinist, should be alarmed by that.

Best regards,

Herman Bronsgeest.

>>OK, let's get something straight first. The thing is, I have a fulltime job, a wife, two kids, and quite a lot of snakes. As much as I feel sympathy for the Don Quichots of modern science, I simply do not have the time nor the energy to play a part of any significance in your crusade against Hennigian cladism....>>

Sorry, you seem to have gotten it wrong. It is the Hennigians who are crusading against traditional or Darwinian systematics. If you choose not to defend Darwinian systematics and taxonomy, that is of course your prerogative. But please do not mislabel my efforts to resist the destruction of the existing taxonomy by the cladists on the basis of their unique philosophical distaste for paraphyletic taxa. You are showing your philosophical bend when you characterize my resistance to unnecessary and destructive taxonomic proposals as a "crusade." The Darwinians and I are not crusading against anyone, including the cladists. After all, the cladists are entitled to their own believes, just as the Darwinians are. The Darwinians and I are merely questioning the need for these taxonomic changes, since we do not have the same problem with accepting paraphyletic taxa that the Hennigians do. The Darwinians and I are defending traditional systematics and the existing taxonomy from the Hennigians' ill advised crusade. The Darwinians and I are not the crusaders.

>>So if I understand all this correctly, you DON'T have a problem with Pantherophis gloydi being lumped in the same genus (Elaphe as it was before Utiger et al) with a semi aquatic, live bearing, fish eating, Old World colubrid (Oocatocus rufodorsatus, formerly known as Elaphe rufodorsata), or with a number of snakes of which has been proven more than once that they actually belong to the Racer tribe (Coelognathus spp.), >>

I do not accept "Pantherophis gloydi" or "Pantherophis" as valid taxa. Utiger et al. gave no reason for splitting Elaphe. Nor did they define any of the genera they resurrect or erect. If they choose to delimit taxa on the basis of dietary preference, they are entitled to it. But if they did, then they should say so explicitly. The fact that they made no effort to define their genera simply means that these species form a morphologically homogeneous group. As far as I can tell, diet is not a taxonomic character, nor did Utiger et al. use it as such.

>>yet you DO have a problem with Pantherophis gloydi being lumped in the same genus (Pituophis) with a small number of terrestial, egg laying, rodent eating, New World colubrids of the same tribe?>>

I certainly have a problem with Burbrink and Lawson's lumping of Pituophis and New World Elaphe ('Pantherophis'). First of all, Burbrink and Lawson's data is not reliable. And even the cladists at SSAR agree with me on that point. They are apparently not rubber stamping this proposal as they had Utiger et al.'s proposal to resurrect "Pantherophis". Second, Pituophis and New World Elaphe almost certainly do not form a monophyletic group sensu Burbrink and Lawson. It is at best a paraphyletic group, since Arizona is a close relative of Pituophis (something that is plainly obvious to anyone who knows these snakes) according to biochemical data but Arizona is excluded from their revised "Pituophis." Third, Pituophis is morphologically distinct from Elaphe, so lumping them would create a heterogeneous taxon. Of course heterogeneity never bothers the Hennigians, but as a Darwinian, I object to the proposal to lump heterogeneous taxa into the same genus.

>>"It's almost as if you're saying that lumping chimps with humans is wrong ("morphological disparity", but it's OK to lumps chimps with fruit bats and giant anteaters (to hell with "morphological disparity". Sounds a little contradictory to me. Well, quite a lot actually.">>

No, I never said anything so outlandish. You made that up. I never said anything about lumping fruit bats or anteaters. First of all, I only recognize monophyletic taxa (which means I also recognize paraphyletic taxa). There is no Darwinian who would recognize a taxon consisting solely of a fruit bat, chimp and giant anteater because such a taxon would be polyphyletic. The cladists, however, have proposed lumping the great apes and humans into the family Hominidae, instead of the traditional Pongidae for the great apes, and Hominidae for bipedal primates such as humans and australopithecines. The cladists do so because excluding humans from the Pongidae would make the Pongidae paraphyletic. To make Pongidae "monophyletic" sensu Hennig would require the inclusion of humans. But including humans with the great apes would create a heterogeneous taxon. Therefore traditionalists classify apes in Pongidae and humans in Hominidae. When anthropologists talk about hominids, they refer to bipedal primates like australopithecines and humans.

>>What really bothers me, is that you're actually questioning the scientific integrity op people like Burbrink, Lawson, and Utiger, by suggesting that their data is "unreliable".">>

LOL. Do you know anything about science? You do not challenge the Bible or the Koran if you are a believer. Scientists are skeptics. They do not accept published data as truth, unlike religious people who interpret holy text as unchallengeable truth. You are accusing me of daring to question scientific data? I am challenging data, and anyone can do that. Morphological data by Keogh shows that Senticolis is not part of the Lampropeltini and so does the mtDNA data of Rodriguez Robles, but Burbrink and Lawson's data shows that it is a part of the Lampropeltini. Which set of data is correct? Burbrink and Lawson's data contradicts Keoph's and Rodriguez Robles' data. Does that mean, according to your twisted logic, that Burbrink and Lawson are questioning Rodrigues Robles' and Keogh's "scientific integrity?"

>> What is that supposed to mean? Haven't their papers been peer reviewed before publication?>>

Peer review is not a foolproof process. Scientific methods are also not designed to reveal unchallengeable objective truth. I think you are treating the peer review process as some sort of sanctification process. Once a paper is peer reviewed and published, then you think it becomes unchallengeable objective truth. Sorry, science does not work that way. Scientific methods are constantly being invented and improved upon, and some of the methods used in the past may fall into disuse. That is partly due to fashion, and partly because of scientific progress.

>>Didn't they use proven technology or methods? Isn't the data reproducable? All you come up with is the same personal opinion and the same crappy metafors, over and over again.>>

That is a false accusation. I use data to challenge data.

>>Anyway, if you are really that obsessed with cladism, than why are you waisting your time on this forum?>>

I am not wasting time here. I am giving this forum a reasoned voice against unnecessary taxnomic proposals. Of course, many cladists and their sympathesizers would rather see no opposition to their proposals and they would sometimes resort to personal attacks to discourage opposition to destructive, unncessary and unwise cladistic taxonomic proposals.

>>In a best case scenario, only a few of us "knuckle walkers" have any idea of what you're talking about.>>

I beg your pardon. Humans have evolved past the knuckle walker stage. That is why I support classifying humans as Hominids and great apes as Pongids. I am sure that what I am posting is sometimes misunderstood, but I will try my best to explain my opposition to the Hennigian's unnecessary taxnomic proposals in layman's terms.

>> You should be attending seminars, and debate with these cladists in person.>>

Ha very funny. Do you think the cladists can be convinced to drop their religious dogma or their dogmatic dislike of paraphyletic taxa? In fact, cladists would question the loyalty of their fellow cladists who accept paraphyletic taxa. I would be truly wasting my time trying to convince the cladists not to disqualify paraphyletic taxa, because that is what a cladist is supposed to do.

>>Slandering these people at Kingsnake.com will not alter the outcome of scientific progress in any way, nor will it lure women to your doorstep. You, as a Darwinist, should be alarmed by that.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Herman Bronsgeest.>>

You call being a skeptic "slandering?" That is laughable. Besides, you totally ignored the data I showed you, and never discussed any of it. Don't be afraid to challenge scientific data. It is not "slander."

>>"Chimps and Homo is a terminal group, provided that the australopithecines are included in the genus Homo, chimps and humans can form a monophlyetic genus. However, this genus would be heterogeneous morphologically. But heck, cladists are not deterred by heterogeneous taxa in the least way. They have proposed, among others, lumping Old World chameleons and the agamids into the same family which they call Chameleonidae, and they have proposed lumping Homo, chimps and Gorilla in the Hominidae. Burbrink and Lawson's proposal would create a heterogeneous Pituophis by lumping Pituophis and New World Elaphe. Time and time again, they have demonstrated a complete disregard for morphological disparity in their classifications." >>

Guess what? Some cladists have indeed proposed including the chimps and Gorilla in the genus Homo. A quote from the article below:

"Some researchers go so far as to include chimpanzees[4] and gorillas[5][6] in the genus Homo along with humans, but it is more commonly accepted to describe the relationships as shown here."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pongidae

There really is no end to the absurdity of cladistic classifications. Admittedly, Burbrink and Lawson's proposal to lump Pituophis and "Pantherophis" is not as extreme as lumping human, chimp and gorilla into the genus Homo, but both taxonomic proposals would result in heterogeneous taxa. Both proposals are the result of the cladists' blind adherence to Hennigian dogma.

Hmmm... Seems like I should have checked this thread more regularly. Well, here we go.

>>Empirical evidence provided by Burbrink et al suggests that Fox Snakes are related more closely to Pituophis melanoleucus than to any other Pantherophis species.>>

"It really depends on how you define closely related. The chimpanzee, for example, is more closely related to humans than they are to the Gorilla genetically, but morphologically chimp and Gorilla are closer. So, even if the fox snake were genetically close to Pituophis, that does not make the fox snake a gopher snake. Putting the fox snake and/or other species in the same genus as Elaphe ('Pantherophis') would be like including the chimp (or both the gorilla and the chimp) in the genus Homo."

Not even close. Even if chimps actually are more closely related to humans than to gorilla's, then this doesn't imply in any way that chimps and humans should be in the same genus. Rhino's, horses and tapirs, for instance, are all perissodactyls, and the fossil records clearly shows that rhino's are more closely related to horses than to tapirs. Does this mean that all rhino's should be placed into the genus Equus? If commom sense doesn't prevail, at least the rules of cladism will, as it would create a highly paraphyletic genus Equus. In very much the same way lumping chimps into the genus Homo would create a highly paraphyletic genus Homo. On the other hand, lumping all snakes currently designated as Pantherophis spp. into the genus Pituophis, will NOT AT ALL create a paraphyletic genus Pituophis, as Burbrink et al have clearly demonstrated that these two genera together are a monophyletic group. I find this whole gorilla/chimp/human example rather far fetched, to put it mildly. Either you haven't had a proper education in phylogenetics, for which I cannot blame you, or your argumentation is deliberately false, for which there's no excuse really.

>>Even when their proposal (changing Pantherophis into Pituophis) gets rejected (in wich case it would be very interesting to expand their data by including plesiomorphic Pituophis species like P. deppei and P. lineaticollis and give it a second shot), the evidence itself is irrefutable. >>

"P. deppei and P. lineaticollis are plesiomorphic? Far from it. mtDNA data of Rodriguez Robles shows that the pine snakes or the eastern subspecies of P. melanoleucus are the basal group within Pituophis, and that P. deppei and P. lineaticollis are derived taxa. Morphologically P. deppei and P. lineaticollis have also been shown to be closer to the gopher snakes (catenifer et al.) than to the pine snakes by Dowling."

Wait a minute here, I know that paper. "Molecular Systematics of New World Gopher, Bull, and Pinesnakes (Pituophis: Colubridae), a Transcontinental Species Complex" by Javier A. Rodríguez-Roblesa and José M. de Jesús-Escobar, right? Well, if I remember correctly, in reality this paper is about distinguishing monophyletic groups within the Pituophis melanoleucus complex, consequently splitting it into three distinct species (P. melanoleucus, P. catenifer an P. ruthveni). It certainly is NOT a study on phylogenetic relationships among species of the genus Pituophis (let alone phylogenetic relationships with species of other genera), nor do the authors claim it to be. For this you need an extensive outgroup comparison, which is not provided here. Your claims regarding this article seem like a total misinterpretation to me, but the sake of fair play here's the abstract:

"Pituophis melanoleucus (gopher, bull, and pinesnakes) is among the most widely distributed polytypic species complexes in North America, with most authors recognizing from a single transcontinental species (the melanoleucus complex, composed of 15 subspecies) to four (monotypic and polytypic) species. We used mitochondrial gene sequences from the two middle American species, P. deppei and P. lineaticollis, and from 13 subspecies from most of the range of the melanoleucus complex to test various phylogenetic hypotheses for Pituophis. Maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood methods identified the same major clades within Pituophis and indicated that two segments of the melanoleucus complex, the lodingi–melanoleucus–mugitus eastern pinesnake clade and the affinis–annectens–bimaris–catenifer–deserticola–sayi–ruthveni–vertebralis clade from central and western United States and northern Mexico, represent divergent, allopatric lineages with no known intergradation zone. We recognize each of these two groupings as a different species. Our data also indicate that some ruthveni are more closely related to sayi than to other ruthveni. Nonetheless, ruthveni is an allopatric taxon diagnosable from its closest relatives by a combination of morphometric characters, and because it is likely that at least some of these traits are independent and genetically inherited, we interpret this as evidence that ruthveni has attained the status of independent evolutionary lineage, despite the fact that it retains strong genetic affinities with sayi. The endemic Baja Californian gopher snakes (bimaris and vertebralis) are considered by some taxonomists as a different species, P. vertebralis, but we discovered that these serpents belong to two different clades and hence we do not agree with the recognition of P. vertebralis as presently defined. In summary, we believe that three distinct species are included in the melanoleucus complex, Pituophis melanoleucus (sensu stricto), P. catenifer, and P. ruthveni, and that their recognition better represents the evolutionary diversity within this species complex."

>>I have kept a pair of Eastern Foxsnakes for a while, years before Burbrink et al's publication on this issue, and for me it was pretty obvious from day one that they are much more similar to Gopher Snakes and their kin, both morphometrically and behaviourly, than to any other N.A. 'ratsnake'.>>

"Practically all systematists and most hobbyists who have worked with this group would disagree with your impressions."

Not really. You see, this issue has been dealt with before on this very forum. I'm quite sure I'm not alone on this one.

"Even without the benefit of molecular data, most taxnomists classify the fox snake as a primitive ratsnake, not a derived gopher or pine snake."

Hence the benifit of molecular data...

"If the fox snake is indeed close to the gopher snake, then it would require that the pine snakes evolved from the gopher snakes."

No problem here...

"That scenario (and your claim that P. lineaticollis and P. deppei are plesiomorphic) is directly contradicted by mtDNA data."

Really? Where? When?

"I think the scientific community should stand up and draw a line and tell the cladists to stop this nonsense of lumping and splitting taxa indiscriminantly, without regard to morphological disparity."

"Burbrink and Lawson's data is problematic to say the least, and probably outright unreliable. Even the Hennigian dominated SSAR has not yet endorsed their proposal, despite having rubber stamped Utiger et al.'s proposal to resurrect Pantherophis."

Should I even go into this? Here's some free advice: Stick to what you know.

>>...lumping chimps into the genus Homo would create a highly paraphyletic genus Homo.>>

No it does not. Chimps and Homo is a terminal group, provided that the australopithecines are included in the genus Homo, chimps and humans can form a monophlyetic genus. However, this genus would be heterogeneous morphologically. But heck, cladists are not deterred by heterogeneous taxa in the least way. They have proposed, among others, lumping Old World chameleons and the agamids into the same family which they call Chameleonidae, and they have proposed lumping Homo, chimps and Gorilla in the Hominidae. Burbrink and Lawson's proposal would create a heterogeneous Pituophis by lumping Pituophis and New World Elaphe. Time and time again, they have demonstrated a complete disregard for morphological disparity in their classifications.

>> On the other hand, lumping all snakes currently designated as Pantherophis spp. into the genus Pituophis, will NOT AT ALL create a paraphyletic genus Pituophis, as Burbrink et al have clearly demonstrated that these two genera together are a monophyletic group.>>

Burbrink and Lawson's data is problematic. It shows Senticolis as part of the Lampropeltini, even though it lacks the synapomorphy of the Lampropeltini, the interpulmonary bronchus. Besides, other mtDNA studies, such as that of Rodrigues-Robles also excludes Senticolis from the Lampropeltini. Besides, even if Pituophis forms a monophyletic group with Elaphe ('Pantherophis'), lumping them makes as much sense as lumping Homo and Pan into the genus Homo. Further, Arizona is almost certainly a close relative of Pituophis, so Burbrink and Lawon's new taxon is almost certainly not a "monophyletic" group. It is at best paraphyletic.

>> I find this whole gorilla/chimp/human example rather far fetched, to put it mildly.>>

It is not at all far fetched. Homo and Pan form a monophyletic group, and what Burbrink and Lawson have proposed is very much similar to a proposal to lump Homo and Pan into the same genus.

>> Either you haven't had a proper education in phylogenetics, for which I cannot blame you, or your argumentation is deliberately false, for which there's no excuse really. >>

Seems that I am more informed of phylogenetics than some of my opponents. LOL. Please go back and examine your assertion that Homo and Pan do not form a monophyletic group. It seems that you are not very informed of the relationships among the ratsnakes, if you think that Arizona does not belong in Burbrink and Lawson's "Pituophis."

>>Wait a minute here, I know that paper. "Molecular Systematics of New World Gopher, Bull, and Pinesnakes (Pituophis: Colubridae), a Transcontinental Species Complex" by Javier A. Rodríguez-Roblesa and José M. de Jesús-Escobar, right? Well, if I remember correctly, in reality this paper is about distinguishing monophyletic groups within the Pituophis melanoleucus complex, consequently splitting it into three distinct species (P. melanoleucus, P. catenifer an P. ruthveni). It certainly is NOT a study on phylogenetic relationships among species of the genus Pituophis (let alone phylogenetic relationships with species of other genera), nor do the authors claim it to be.>>

If you actually read that paper, then you would know that the pine snakes are basal to the Pituophis complex, so your claim that the Middle American gophers snakes (P. deppei and P. lineaticollis) are "plesiomorphic" makes absolutely no sense at all. The pine snakes are plesiomorphic, and the fox snake cannot be an Elaphe or "Pantherophis" if it is closely related to the gopher snakes. Your intuition has been falsified by mtDNA data, I am sorry.

>>"If the fox snake is indeed close to the gopher snake, then it would require that the pine snakes evolved from the gopher snakes."
>>
>>No problem here...

Of course, if contradictory data is not a problem, then your hypothesis is not a problem.

>>"That scenario (and your claim that P. lineaticollis and P. deppei are plesiomorphic) is directly contradicted by mtDNA data."
>>
>>Really? Where? When?

It is in the paper that you said you know about (by Rodrigues Robles), but apparently haven't read, or perhaps you are incapable of comprehension of the cladograms contained therein. The pine snakes are basal in those trees. that means P. lineaticollis and P. deppei are derived, not plesiomorphic.

>>"I think the scientific community should stand up and draw a line and tell the cladists to stop this nonsense of lumping and splitting taxa indiscriminantly, without regard to morphological disparity."
>>
>>"Burbrink and Lawson's data is problematic to say the least, and probably outright unreliable. Even the Hennigian dominated SSAR has not yet endorsed their proposal, despite having rubber stamped Utiger et al.'s proposal to resurrect Pantherophis."
>>
>>Should I even go into this? Here's some free advice: Stick to what you know.

good advice. I think you should at least know what you are talking about before you claim that P. lineaticollis and P. deppei are "plesiomorphic."

Regards.

Fox snakes are seriously overlooked. They are not nearly as musclar as obsoleta. But they are smart for a snake and mine seem to like human interaction. If I leave the cage open they come out and find their way over to me. They are the most relaxed snakes I ever had. They will hand feed (I do not recomend this). I have more males than females. I was going to part with some, but I cant bring myself too. They are truely pets. The only yhing I find is they have a real fast metabolism. They need to eat 2 big mice each evry 4 days or they start to look skinny. My babies are as big and fat as a pencil, and eat 4 pinkies a week each. 2 every 3 days or so.

i second that. by far one of the most relaxed snakes ever. my westerns are nearly three feet and not even 2 yrs old. they will even eat when clouded up b4 a shed. of all my snakes, i do not think twice about letting people new to interacting with snakes handle them. foxies are perfect ambassadors for snakes of all types.
-----
2 tham radix
1 Chicago Tham s. semifasciatus
2 elaphe vulpina
1 gray tiger sallie
4 Aphonopelma hentzi
2 G rosea
1 Haplo minax