Reptile & Amphibian Forums

How much value could I add to your collections if I provided mtDNA sequencing as a service and your collections could be verified with the scientific literature?

Would you pay more for a snake with a DNA sequence verifying locality?

Please discuss....

-----
"We are challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations" George W.

>>How much value could I add to your collections if I provided mtDNA sequencing as a service and your collections could be >>Would you pay more for a snake with a DNA sequence verifying locality?
>>Please discuss....

mtDNA is only Maternal......Unless someone (you) really figures out how to use nuclear DNA information correctly I would not pay at this time. Plus the information that is gathered is subjective and left to interpretation. I doubt locality information can be precise...But wide ranges can be narrowed down. Also.....The "tester" would have to have a specimen from every known locality........Correct me if I am wrong as I am no scientist.
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Now if you could tell me the difference between 3 miles east of Sanderson, Texas and 6 miles east of Sanderson, Texas then yes I may consider it.

I remember that some L. alterna from the eastern part of their range were tested and the mtDNA sequence was that of L. t. annulata. Interesting huh?
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Yes, mtDNA is only maternal, but it is passed intact without recombination, if you look at males they will tell you who their mother is. So you can effectively trace linages this way. If a male was brought into a line from an outside population will will not be able to tell from his offspring, but you can if you test him.....

I have rattlesnake populations that are showing differences from one canyon to the next (less than 5 miles), so yes it can have high resolution like your hoping. But, this will also be different from population to population and I would imagine also depend on the life history of the population. If the population from a particular area is really the same as five miles down the road we will know, and if it is different it will be obvious as well.
-----
"We are challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations" George W.

Just wondering how would you go about doing this? Would someone have to send you shed skins or something?
-----

yeah shed skins will work.....
-----
"We are challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations" George W.

>>yeah shed skins will work.....
>>-----
>>"We are challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations" George W.

Don't you need DNA samples from each locale as well?
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Each individual would be a data point. There is a bunch of work done already out there that is publicly available. It is a good starting point. If someone has an individual or group that they think is from a unique population we can show that from what exists, and then build a database from there. The lineages are then established and can be protected and verified from a genetic standpoint.

You will find that there are very common genotypes and very rare ones. Just like with morphs......
-----
"We are challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations" George W.

This may be somewhat off topic, and definitely not the purpose of your post, but here goes. I think most of us are now familiar with the reclassification of elaphe obsoleta, or pantherophis obsoletus, whichever term you prefer, done by Burbrink. I've since then been curious, if someone else did a similar study if their findings would be the same. Most of the rest of us don't know how to read DNA and have no way to agree with or contest it. For instance rat snakes west of the Mississippi river are considered Pantherophis obsoletus, while east of the Mississippi are considered pantherophis spiloides. At the same time what use to be considered emorys rat snakes from East Texas and Louisiana (Kisatche corns), are considered to be more closely related to corn snakes from farther east, than western populations of emorys rat snakes where as the same Mississippi river that separates pantherophis obsoletus, from pantherophis spiloides, also separates the Kisatchi corns from the nominate corns, I apologize to everyone for the long post. Thanks in advance for your input.

>>This may be somewhat off topic, and definitely not the purpose of your post, but here goes. I think most of us are now familiar with the reclassification of elaphe obsoleta, or pantherophis obsoletus, whichever term you prefer, done by Burbrink. I've since then been curious, if someone else did a similar study if their findings would be the same. Most of the rest of us don't know how to read DNA and have no way to agree with or contest it. For instance rat snakes west of the Mississippi river are considered Pantherophis obsoletus, while east of the Mississippi are considered pantherophis spiloides. At the same time what use to be considered emorys rat snakes from East Texas and Louisiana (Kisatche corns), are considered to be more closely related to corn snakes from farther east, than western populations of emorys rat snakes where as the same Mississippi river that separates pantherophis obsoletus, from pantherophis spiloides, also separates the Kisatchi corns from the nominate corns, I apologize to everyone for the long post. Thanks in advance for your input.

If they dig a little deeper they will find out that all emoryi and meahllmorum are also guttatus.....Cornsnakes.....
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Absolutely

Do I believe that you would be able to collect the same or similar data as those researchers if you repeated the study with the same animals? Yes, the DNA markers are very reliable if that is what your asking.

Would you reach the same conclusions as the authors looking at the same set of data? I am not a taxonomist and I am not a fan of making every distinct population a new species, but that is the current trend.....

Call them whatever you want the animals themselves have not changed in a long time, and they do not move very far either.
-----
"We are challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations" George W.

>>Call them whatever you want the animals themselves have not changed in a long time, and they do not move very far either.

Amen...exactly!...
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Thank you for sharing.

I would think that in most cases DNA could not prove locality because when we talk about locality it's often just one tiny place that probably wouldn't show up any different than any number of other tiny places. However if it would work on something like Hogg Isle Boas vs mainland boas or something like proving that you have pure Spotted Pythons vs Spotted/Children's crosses then yes, I would pay more. I think there would be big problems just getting an original sequence that would even define such animals though.
-----
www.hcu-tx.org/

Thanks I have already show this with rattlesnakes in Washington state.

There are dozens of localized mitochondrial haplotypes that are known (probably more like hundreds or thousands), and as mentioned some are literally specific to a given canyon, with all individuals found in the canyon over a period of 25 years having a specific genotype. Often times there are many factors that could lead to an isolated population, most of these are natural barriers, but could be manmade too. However in other areas you might find a few different genotypes, these areas tend to have larger population densities.

-----
"We are challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations" George W.

But if the mtDNA only shows the mother's side, how could you tell if somebody used a male from another locality?
-----
www.hcu-tx.org/

You sequence the males. If they are from a different line it will be obvious. If there have been many generations of backcrossing then you will not be able to tell. But that is where breeding records and morphological characteristics come into play. I am just offering another tool to add to the box, not attempting to eliminate good working ones.

By the way we are talking about having a tool to demonstrate that you do in fact have local specific representation. Each local should really have a unique genetic marker or set of markers, based from the data I have collected int the field. So just having the representation of diversity that one can prove and can be reliably demonstrated when morphological characteristics are lacking or uncertain.

That is what could be offered here.

If someone is going to spend all their time backcrossing males into a particular line, then that line will become more common and less valuable. If however you can say hey look I have this line "x" and nobody else does here is my proof.....then only folks who buy your offspring will be able say with evidence that they the "x" line. If someone else claims to have this line, then we can test it and determine what line they do or do not have.
-----
"We are challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations" George W.

By the way, the value here is in the representation of genetic diversity, and that is only going to come from wild populations of any given local. It is genetic evidence that a particular local has evolved independently from the other populations of the area. The genetic diversity from a lineage standpoint is not propagated in cages, it is only limited, so you cannot cheat the system and produce more diversity. It is even less common then trying to produce amelanistics from normals with no history of amelanism. What are the odds?

What that means is the genotypes are not evolving fast enough to have them change when you breed your females, so what is in captivity as established lines are fixed lineages. Only by establishing new lineages from nature will diversity show itself.
-----
"We are challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations" George W.