Reptile & Amphibian Forums

>>>to read, Thomas. I mean no disrespect, here, but it's more than apparent that you've got some anti-intellectual sentiment which is boiling to the top of your posts. I’ve sat back and read numerous insulting and derogatory remarks involving various forms of science- and scientist-bashing, and feel compelled to speak up and say something. As a professional “scientist” (to ‘lump’…), I deal with stereotypes and misconceptions on a daily basis.

>aw im sorry if i hurt your feelings while expressing my own opinion thats not what i meant to do. i simply disagree with the stereotypical view science has regarding ssp.

>>>I enjoyed your article in REPTILES, and congratulated you on the write-up, but, I’ve had enough of this. There are a number of things I want to address, but in view of my time limits, I’ve chosen to pick out just a few.

>enough of what cole? me expressing my opinion?!?!? i am glad you liked my article but they chopped it up pretty good.

>>>First, you’re grossly misunderstanding the roll of subspecific designation. A subspecies is named when a segment (= population) of a given species has fairly similar and geographically cohesive characteristics (be they morphological or biochemical) which can be used to differentiate them from other such segments within the species. A subspecies is NOT a discrete reproductive unit, and freely intergrades with neighboring populations. These “intergrades” result from non-differentiation (often due to transitional habitat and the lack of directional selection for a particular suite of characters), and are generally a phenotypic blend between the “pure” subspecies on either side. Intergrades of this type are referred to as “primary intergrades”. Secondary intergradation is the term applied when 2 populations which have been allopatric are reunited, and begin to interbreed and exchange genetic material. This is a possible explanation for “temporalis” along the coastal plain of eastern North America.

>im not grossly misunderstanding anything cole. i beleive thats a possibilty for ALL ssp.not only temps. see its my opinion all colubrids are very closely related whether you or the scientific community call them primary or secondary doesnt matter to me. so pure to me doesnt apply in this. its my opinion and i am entitled to express it whether you like it or not.

>>>Second, the difference between “splitters” and “lumpers” in taxonomy is mostly semantic. The utility of naming populations geographically cohesive characteristics is the drive behind “splitting”, while the realism of recognizing only the species as a discrete unit is the drive behind “lumping”. There’s much middle ground, here, and you’re ignoring that. What we’re labeling with subspecific epithets may or may not be a distinct evolutionary unit. Those that are diverging from the genetic “whole” of the species are said to be in the process of insipient speciation.

>thats your and perhaps some of the scientific community's opinion no more no less. i havnt ignored anything. insipient speciation, what a LAME theory again imho its taxonmist justifying their work and trying to force their opinions on everyone else.

>>>As for our captive animals being dead to the wild… well, I suppose that’s the view some folks have. I’d say that the introduction of Python molurus and numerous other species in FL and the prevalence of escaped Colubrids throughout their native ranges in NA speak strongly to the contrary… I won’t even touch on the fact that there are other segments of the herp-keeping hobby which are involved in species survival and reintroduction programs, in spite of what some of the outspoken “hybridizers” (see, I can lump, too…) may preach.

>being a scientist it amazes me to see you say that. let me ask you if i take a drop of red dye and drop it into the ocean does it change the color of the ocean? see thats what i mean by dead to nature NOT introduced feral species! reintroduction is exactly what to you cole? repatriations for the snakes?
geez,,,,,,,,,thomas

-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

>>insipient speciation, what a LAME theory again imho its taxonmist justifying their >>work and trying to force their opinions on everyone else.

LOL, dancing is fun

Incipient speciation is no more a theory than evolution or gravity. Unless you believe (wrongly) that species were individually created and unchanging since the begining of time, then insipient speciation has to occur and is occurring.

Maybe before dancing we should decide what the music should be? What the hell do you want to call a distinct species? At one end is Mayr's definition, follow it and there are no species of Lampropeltis because they all can produce fertile offspring when crossed. At the other extreme is the evolutionary species concept, follow it and any evolutionarily distinct unit is a species, think things that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring but dont because either they dont like to and would prefer to mate species or there are geographical barriers that prevent them from mating. Follow it can there are many species of Lampropeltis.

I think a species is like, pornography. I can define it but know it when I see it (with apologies to Justice Stewart). Or maybe they are like the ROUSs, I cant remember.
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

I believe the debate over what is a "species" is lost on nature, in which there is no such thing. Doesn't mean we don't need a species concept...but it will never be anything more than that, a concept, albeit a useful one. Isn't the only indivisible unit of genetics the gene itself?

Dang, here I go arguing with myself again...

dancing is fun huh?

i digress...
Incipient speciation imho is NOT whats occurring with ltnelsoni and ltsinaloae i understand the concept but what has happened is the splitting has met marketing and gave birth to purity. i say its an abomination and basically forced views/opinions for someones benefit and justification. no thanks i can think and see for myself. i dont need to be told "how" it is.
,,,,,,,,,,thomas
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

If you dont want to think that nelsoni and sinaloa are different subspecies thats cool, afterall before Williams published everyone did. But help me understand your criteria for making that decision.

What are you defining a species as? What about sub-species?

If you take you definitions and apply it all Lampropeltis what would happen to the other (sub)species? Is that cool to you?

What about applying your definition to all other organisms?

I ask because its not just semantics or ivory tower elitism or us evil scientists trying to force our facts on your, or even marketing (because I assume by the marketing comment you are refering to me and my Cosala keeping breathren).

What we call species, sub-species, locale, have definable real world consequences. Particularly for conservation. For example, if nelsoni and sinaloa are the same species and Mexico decides to develop their habitat into an industrial biofuel farm, which ranges get conservation status? Is it cool that since they are the same species we need only conserve the range of "nelsoni" and that wild "sinaloa" is lost forever?

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

>>>What are you defining a species as? What about sub-species?

>vinny, i define sp.and ssp. just like conventional science does, i just think the splitting of ssp.is outta control thats all.

>>>If you take you definitions and apply it all Lampropeltis what would happen to the other (sub)species? Is that cool to you?

>yes in the case of nelsons and sinaloans absolutely. it is simply a natural pattern variation imho as are most ssp. of lamps. no more no less. look at all the trees in the forest if indeed you can see them.

>>>What about applying your definition to all other organisms?

>yes of course a horse is a horse.

>>>I ask because its not just semantics or ivory tower elitism or us evil scientists trying to force our facts on your, or even marketing (because I assume by the marketing comment you are refering to me and my Cosala keeping breathren).

>you cant force anything on me nomore than i can force anything on you nor do i want to. what i feel is wrong is saying crossing a cosala type animal with a nelson type is creating mutts. im not saying you but many beleive this, i dont. its my opinion and i am entitled to state it.

>>>What we call species, sub-species, locale, have definable real world consequences. Particularly for conservation. For example, if nelsoni and sinaloa are the same species and Mexico decides to develop their habitat into an industrial biofuel farm, which ranges get conservation status? Is it cool that since they are the same species we need only conserve the range of "nelsoni" and that wild "sinaloa" is lost forever?

>WOW definable real world consequences, like what vinny? patterns/types can and are bred for all the time.
ssp. implies diff. genetic material i dont buy that, sorry but thats my opinion.
howsa bout a waltz?
,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

>vinny, i define sp.and ssp. just like conventional science does, i just think the splitting of ssp.is outta control thats all.

I dont think you do, since there is no conventional definition of s species, I can think of at least for well-supported definitions. If you are a so-called lumper thats cool too, nothing wrong with that. But ssp. are just as valid of a concept as species, hell even genus for that matter.

>yes in the case of nelsons and sinaloans absolutely. it is simply a natural pattern variation imho as are most ssp. of lamps. no more no less. look at all the trees in the forest if indeed you can see them.

Oh, I can see the trees. I see oak, maple and beech where I live not to mention the white and pitch pine. All are trees, just different species. It is a good question that what would happen if lamps had no pattern at all and were just all black or red. But appearances can be deceiving, there are many species that look literally identical but can produce offspring when mated. They are called cryptic species because they look the same but are genetically distinct, many moths for example look the same but produce different mating hormones and only members of the same species recognize the hormones from their species. Muntjacs are deer that all pretty much look the same from the outside but have really different numbers of chromosomes, from 40 something to 6 or 7. So what we see from the outside is not always a good indication of genetic uniqueness.

>WOW definable real world consequences, like what vinny?
Like what get considered for conservation, if all species of lamps are the same to you then you need only conserve one population and damn the others to extinction.

>ssp. implies diff. genetic material i dont buy that, sorry but thats my opinion.
Of course ssp. implies genetic differences, but we know that nelsoni and sinaloa, for example, have different genetic makeups because one produces a pattern with many bands while the other one with fewer bands. How much % similarity do you think is needed for something to be considered a species or subspecies anyway? Humans and chimps are only ~1.5-2% different and only diverged about 5 million years ago. I'd call us different species, so if future genetic studies indicate nelsoni and sinaloa are 1.5% gentically different does that qualify them as different species.

and a Waltz? that so 19th century!

-----
“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

>>>Of course ssp. implies genetic differences, but we know that nelsoni and sinaloa, for example, have different genetic makeups because one produces a pattern with many bands while the other one with fewer bands. How much % similarity do you think is needed for something to be considered a species or subspecies anyway? Humans and chimps are only ~1.5-2% different and only diverged about 5 million years ago. I'd call us different species, so if future genetic studies indicate nelsoni and sinaloa are 1.5% gentically different does that qualify them as different species.

>ok well i dont feel that because one produces a pattern with many bands while the other one with fewer bands classifies it as valid seperate ssp. no more than splendida and holbrooki in texas. i also beleive we(people) are much more than 2% genetically differant than chimps also and i dont beleive we diverged from them 5 million years. but obviously you do and thats great! dont bash me for having/stating my opinion.
,,,,,,,thomas
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

> i also beleive we(people) are much more than 2% genetically differant than chimps also and i dont beleive we diverged from them 5 million years. but obviously you do and thats great! dont bash me for having/stating my opinion.

I wont bash you for it, but you are just plain wrong. Opinions are not objective facts and can be wrong. Kinda like the earth being round or the sun being at the center of solar system. Its some people opinion that those things are true, but they're not.

We have the sequence of the entire genome from humans and chimpanzees (and over 20 other mammals for that matter), we have compared them directly and can count, literally, everyplace there is a difference. It is not some estimate that we are 2% different (maybe 6% depending on how you count). Its just math, so it the divergence at 5 million years. Well, there are fossils that support that one too

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3042781.stm

Cheers,
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

well im glad you feel i am wrong and that you are right, and i hope that makes you feel superior in intellect.
i did read your article you offered and this is directly pasted from it
...Not all scientists will accept the new classification...
i guess i could fall into that catagory but i am not a scientist just a lowly snakeman thats kept and bred snakes of all types for the last 25years. best of luck in your endevours vinny i do apprecieate you at least being/remaining civil unlike many others here.
im done dancing
,,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

That quote was specifically referring to renaming pan homo and collapsing humans and chimps into the same genus. Not the factual level if genetic divergence between them. You either misunderstood it or took it outof context to prove a point.

It's does not make me feel superior that you are wrong, rather it's some what depressing that you think all opinions are equally valid when they are not if they are not based fact.

That said it doesn't bother me that you don't think nelsons and sinaloans are different subspecies.
-----
“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

Bravo! Bravo! I see that it's very difficult to talk about any kind of taxonomy without treading into semantics... In all truth I think Thomas would have at least a bit different of a view if they had taught him the actual definitions of all these terms (and the scientific method for that matter) in his public education years. Prime example: layman's term theory is NOT AT ALL the same as a scientific theory.
At any rate, Nelson's and Sinaloan's do have different band counts, and if they had come from, say, a few cb animals then I would call them line bred. I am as yet very new to the snake hobby, but still, nature produced these, they are geographically and proven genetically different (as in you will always get the same ballpark triad count if you breed sinaloan x sinaloan, there is no normative natural variation that would give a sinaloan the triad count of a nelsons), thus they can be distinct at least colloqially.
Honestly this is why I'm into extinct things in the first place, lol!
Great debate!

>>>In all truth I think Thomas would have at least a bit different of a view if they had taught him the actual definitions of all these terms (and the scientific method for that matter) in his public education years. Prime example: layman's term theory is NOT AT ALL the same as a scientific theory.

nice contribution! but how do you know what education level i have?hmmmm? wow bravo im a "prime example" woohoo by the way you can breed for fewer bands try it and see it doesnt take that long,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Apparently you missed :
"Nelson's and Sinaloan's do have different band counts, and if they had come from, say, a few cb animals then I would call them line bred."
Yes, I obviously agree that you could breed for a lower triad count, but my point was that nature did this, not us, shouldn't we recognize it somehow? In a population of Nelsons in central america, the low triad count of a sinaloan would appear as a genetic mutation, NOT as normal individual variation.

Apparently you missed :
"Nelson's and Sinaloan's do have different band counts, and if they had come from, say, a few cb animals then I would call them line bred."

>no hun i didnt miss it, what do you think locale natural populations are?...
could they be...
line bred, naturally!!!
and by the way what you see nelsons/sinaloan in the hobby now DID come/originate from only a few individuals, get a clue.

>>>Yes, I obviously agree that you could breed for a lower triad count, but my point was that nature did this, not us, shouldn't we recognize it somehow?

>go ahead knock your lights out, whats stopping you!!!

>>>In a population of Nelsons in central america, the low triad count of a sinaloan would appear as a genetic mutation, NOT as normal individual variation.

>perhaps...but im sure it happens. their range isnt THAT big and what about individuals in the middle of that range? theres no geographic barriers preventing natural gene flow like is the case with other sp./ssp.. and what about their natural variation? and the variation within the lil pocket pops all through the entire range?
bottom line is they are the same snake imho.WE(people) have classified/split and named them, they(the snakes) dont know! im glad that you dont feel that way it takes ALL KINDS and i accept and embrace that fact.
,,,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

*sigh* I think that when it gets down to it, the linnean classification system is just plain flawed. It's based on what organisms look like other organisms when it's really a lot more complex than that. Heck I don't even think phylogeny/cladistics has got it completely right! This is SO why I'm not about to be a taxonomist!

but yet you wanna argue w/me about nelson/sinaloan milksnakes, unbelievable
,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

No, I want to hear the facts from both sides and fully examine the debate. I don't have a side, I've just been the devils advocate. I enjoy learning about this kind of stuff, just not making decisions about it!

I am going to sit this one out. I will be here on the sidelines selling popcorn with the proceeds to be donated to the GED for the one who obviously skipped it. GED DOES NOT stand for "get er done". One man's opinion vs. established scienceerfect! I need help parking the trucks with gun racks!

Which way to the snake show! LOL!!!!
-Phil

-----
Work is the curse of
the drinking class!

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!!!.....that dude was a vendor at Daytona!

He couldn't tell me any details at all about what characteristics set some of his central American milks apart from one another though. Kept telling me stuff like... "they are all the same thing". That really bent me out'a shape, so I went elsewere to do my business.

~Doug
-----
"Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open mouth and remove any doubt!"

Jolly good show!

I have to go refill my popcorn bowl during intermission!

~Doug

-----
"Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open mouth and remove any doubt!"