Reptile & Amphibian Forums

This has been an interesting topic to me, so I'll try to get something started on it (if for no other reason, because it has to do with venomous snakes. Remember venonous snakes? This is the venomous snake forum.)

I recall that an earlier edition of Conant and Collins listed Canebrake as a separate species or subspecies from the Timber Rattler. The latter was described in terms of two primary variations: the yellow phase and the black phase. But the latest edition (1998) only lists the Timber Rattlesnake, Crotalis horridus, "Sometimes called 'banded,' 'velvet tail,' or 'canebrake' rattler." It goes on to expand the number of major color variations to four: yellow, western, southern, and black. I think the southern variation is what was listed formerly as the Canebrake. The western variation thus is relatively new.

So where does the taxonomy stand now on C. horridus? Has the canebrake subspecies been "absorbed" back into it, such that there are currently no recognized subspecies and simply regional variations? Just curious...
-----
MichaelB

Taxonomically they are all now considered Crotalus horridus (a monotypic species)with several color phases apparently not genetically distinct enough to deserve sub-species recognition. The term "Canebrake Rattlesnake" is still in common use and is likely to remain that way. The sub-species C.h.atricaudatus is now obsolete.

One of the problems in classifying animals is that nothing is a constant. For example; The Brooks king was first described as a subspecies... Then the lumpers got a hold of it and it became a "color variant" of the Florida King...since then it has rode the tempest of debate depending on the Lumpers and the splitters in the scientific and regular herp comunity. Canebreaks are another such animal. if you saw my drift into the poetic art (below), I mentioned a source back in the fifties in what remains one of the most precise and detailed (2 book)volumes on American snakes.
Listed there is a Key to the whole genus (Crotalus...Data from Klauber (gen., 1936;Baja Calif., 1949a) HANDBOOK OF SNAKES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA Wright& Wright) and the two (C.h.h. and C.h.a) are separated by scale count.
Of course now with DNA they will find ways to further cloud the issue (far from being absolute, DNA is only accurate if you have an established set of perameters to define a species).
If you want a real taste of just how "nuts" it can be...Take a look at the KINGSNAKE FORUM where they have been arguing for the last several days over what is the definition of the word Hybrid...Several sources have been quoted, but still no one can accept the same definition. But I wander.
The basis for the separation is as follows C.h.h. 23 scale rows mid body (dorsal). C.h.a. 25 scale rows, plus the cinnamon stripe. But then...Frank

I agree...
and I still think that the Canebrake was different enough morphologically to be a separate sub-species..but, who am I? Sometimes I wonder if people just propose some of these changes strictly for the sake of getting published...and then without enough dissenting data being offered to refute them, they just are accepted?

Scientists are like congessmen..They have to make "new discoveries" to justify their jobs. While a lot is being done where it is needed...There are still those who "rake over old coals"... These constitute the "Lumpers and Splitters" that shake things up periodicaly. (I think to create controversy and thus achieve recognition)..... But then I am known for being somewhat of a cynic.
Frank

.