Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click here to visit Classifieds
Click for ZooMed
Click here for Dragon Serpents

Something I Think You'd All Like

Brewster320 Jun 01, 2009 08:45 PM

NEOGENE DIVERSIFICATION AND TAXONOMIC STABILITY IN THE SNAKE TRIBE LAMPROPELTINI (SERPENTES: COLUBRIDAE)

2009. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 52: 524-529

R. Alexander Pyron & Frank T. Burbrink

The colubroid snakes are a diverse (>2500 species), globally distributed group (Lawson et al., 2005) which date to the early Cenozoic (Burbrink and Pyron, 2008). Of the several NW representatives of the group (Natricinae, Crotalinae, Elapinae, Colubrinae, and Xenodontinae), the colubrine tribe Lampropeltini is one of the most conspicuous and well- studied (Williams, 1978; Rodríguez-Robles and de Jesús-Escobar, 1999). The lampropeltinines (Rat, Corn, and Fox [Pantherophis, Bogertophis, and Pseudelaphe], King and Milk [Lampropeltis], Short-tailed [Stilosoma], Bull, Gopher, and Pine [Pituophis], Glossy [Arizona], Scarlet [Cemophora] and Longnose [Rhinocheilus] Snakes) are common constrictors, distributed from Canada to Ecuador (Williams, 1978; Conant and Collins, 1998; Stebbins, 2003). Several recent studies have found that the Lampropeltini form a monophyletic clade endemic to the NW, thus rendering the cosmopolitan genus Elaphe paraphyletic (Rodríguez- Robles and de Jesús-Escobar, 1999; Utiger et al., 2002; Burbrink and Lawson, 2007). Based primarily on trees inferred using mitochondrial evidence, the taxonomy of the group is in a state of flux and the monophyly of several genera (i.e. Pantherophis, Pituophis, and Lampropeltis) has been disputed, including the erection of a new genus (Mintonius) for the fox snakes (Pantherophis vulpinus; Bryson et al., 2007; Burbrink and Lawson, 2007; Collins and Taggart, 2008). Additionally, while many phylogeographic studies have used mtDNA to investigate biogeographic structure (Burbrink et al., 2000; Burbrink, 2002; Mulcahy, 2008; Rodríguez-Robles and de Jesús- Escobar, 2000), higher-level phylogenies based solely or primarily on mitochondrial data have not been well-supported (Rodríguez-Robles and de Jesús-Escobar, 1999; Burbrink and Lawson, 2007). Thus, multiple independent loci are desirable to infer phylogenies and estimate tree-based quantities such as divergence times (i.e. Wiens et al., 2008). Here, we present a phylogeny based on three nuclear genes (3368 bp), two of which are newly presented in this study, and six mitochondrial genes (4926 bp). We included representatives from all 31 of the traditionally described species of lampropeltinine. We use this phylogeny to address hypotheses regarding the timing of origin and diversification of the lampropeltinines, as well as generate a revised taxonomy of the
group.

*****

A gratis PDF of this article is available from the CNAH PDF Library at

http://www.cnah.org/cnah_pdf.asp

*****

CNAH Notes on the taxonomy in Pyron & Burbrink (2009):

1. The Short-tailed Snake, Stilosoma extenuatum, is placed in the genus Lampropeltis (as L. extenuata); it is most closely related to the L. getula complex and a possible standard common name is Short-tailed Kingsnake.

2. The Scarlet Kingsnake, previously considered by many herpetologists to be a race of Lampropeltis triangulum, is recognized as a distinct species, Lampropeltis elapsoides, and retains the standard common name Scarlet Kingsnake.

3. The statement by Pyron & Burbrink (2009 page 528 column right) that the "taxonomic
conclusions of Burbrink & Lawson (2007) and Collins & Taggart (2008) are shown to be inaccurate" is . . . ummm . . . inaccurate. The taxonomic conclusion of Burbrink & Lawson (2007) was quite accurate, based on the available data and analysis; the more comprehensive data set in this latest paper has shown that the earlier taxonomic conclusion of Burbrink & Lawson (2007) to place all Rat Snakes in the genus Pituophis was simply premature. The taxonomic conclusions of Collins & Taggart (2008), however, are unaffected by this paper, since the two species in the genus Mintonius (gloydi and vulpinus) remain as sister taxa to the three species in the genus Pantherophis (emoryi, guttatus, and slowinskii), and both Mintonius and Pantherophis remain as sister taxa to the four species in the genus Scotophis. CNAH will continue to use an accurate generic taxonomy that includes Mintonius, Pantherophis, Pituophis, and Scotophis because it is more evolutionarily informative than placing them in the single genus Pantherophis. Both arrangements are correct and consistent with all available evidence, but four distinct and easily recognized genera, as adopted by CNAH, will always be a more informative and useful taxonomy than a single genus containing a wide variety of species.

Replies (10)

guyergenetics Jun 01, 2009 10:55 PM

I remember when I first read that all North American Rat Snakes where being moved to Pituophis and I was very uncomforatable with that idea.

Glad to see that more work is being done with this.

The North American Colubrids will always be tricky to classify as what is currently known as Lampropeltis, Pantheropis, and Pituophis are clearly vastly different snakes, yet the problem is that they can all interbreed and produce viable young. This really challenges the definition of a species as I learned it.

I do agree with Burbrink's work in 2004 when The North American Rat Snakes where moved into the genus Pantherophis. They clearly evolved differently than the Old World Rats as the fact that they all can breed with Lampropeltis and Pituophis, and can not breed with the Old World Rats clearly shows. The seperation between New World Rats and Old World Rats really did need to be made.

Brewster320 Jun 02, 2009 01:14 PM

Want your mind messed up even more? Some new world and old world rats can interbreed. I've seen pictures of a japanese rat x corn hybrid and a blue beauty x greenish rat snake. That just goes and throws everything we thought we knew out the window....

guyergenetics Jun 02, 2009 09:28 PM

REALLY?!?!?

I hadn't ever heard that. Do you have any of the details?

Brewster320 Jun 03, 2009 01:30 PM

I forget most of the details about them becuase its been awhile. I did however save pictures. Please note these are not my animals.

The japanese x corn

beauty x greenish rat

Brewster320 Jun 03, 2009 01:31 PM

this is the right pic of the greenish x beauty,

guyergenetics Jun 04, 2009 10:25 AM

This is really interesting and something that I was totally unaware of!!! Now I'm wondering if any of the Old World Rats have ever been crossed with any Lampropeltis or Pituophis?

I understand about the photo mess up thing. I wish that a person could edit their posts here.

Brewster320 Jun 04, 2009 02:15 PM

To my knowledge no it hasn't been done, or atleast not made public if it has. It is probably a real possibility. Although I'd be some what neverous about stick a king in with any asian rat snake, thats an expensive animal to lose while trying to make hybrids. Although a milk x blue beauty would be an interesting animal if you ask me.

guyergenetics Jun 05, 2009 09:11 AM

Still though, this is an interesting and educational topic. I know that I learned from this thread. It really makes one wonder about the possibilities and sheds some light on the taxonomic nightmare that is a good number of North American Colubrids!

BRhaco Jun 02, 2009 10:57 AM

All I can say, as far as elapsoides is concerned, is that it's about time! As for the rest, I'm skeptical of any taxonomy that dismisses all consideration of morhological/ecological factors in favor of a 100% genetic approach (at least at our present state of genetic knowledge). In future, yes-Cladistics will almost surely be pretty foolproof, eventually, and it's already extremely useful. I just think that for now we should be seeing more "qualifiers" in these papers

Guyergenetics makes some good points, and I agree the Pantherophis change was needed both for genetic reasons and morhology/physiology.
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

boxienuts Jun 03, 2009 07:54 AM

Yes, I personally do not think sequencing 6 mitochondrial genes is not enough, it is still a small snapshot piece of the puzzle, and even adding 3 nuclear genes is just a slice. When entire genomes are sequenced (which would be extremely pricey)then it will provide a good picture and good info from software generated trees, but even then analysis and interpretation of raw data, sampling and individual's variances will create issues to be argued, and even still locale and physiology can't just be completely ignored, but then again? shrug
-----
Jeff Benfer
gartersnakemorph.com

Site Tools