Reptile & Amphibian Forums

It seems there are some subtle differences in the views and/or necessities towards breeding between the Europeans and the United States breeders. I don't know how to state it really, but there appears from reading posts from United States breeders and a few of the European breeders there are some different breeding ideas and/or necessities. For Example, you mention selling off some of your collection for various reasons and when you want to get some again, you can't find them. It seems that in the United States breeders are more apt to try and keep a species or subspecies for years, especially hard to find or obtain ones. If I sold off some of my collection, I would think some of the breeders who got them would still have them several years later. There seems to be allot more species flow or movement between breeders in Europe. The United States breeders seem more apt to try and find recessive gene traits as compared to European breeders. Does anyone else see any differences in comparing the European breeders and the United States breeders? My only data for my views have been in reading posts so they are views that are derived from the views of others and my or may not be the case. Thanks. Here's my S.Korean dione female I got from Terry Cox. She is one of the light ones from the first clutch as Terry corrected me.

Terry Parks

Terry,
Just a couple of my thoughts on your topic. There are differences between european herpers and american but some of that phenomenon you mention occurs for both.

For instance, europeans keep many american and asian species. Among these species which aren't prohibited in Europe they probably have done a pretty good job of maintaining collections even where we may have let them disappear. For instance, I have seen several keepers in Europe with San Francisco garters. Even though they are prohibited in California, I guess they could be kept in other states if they were grandfathered like captive bred eastern indigos are.
Now maybe there are SF garters out there legally but I've never heard tell of them. So maybe that's an example of an american snake that's disappeared from the hobby that europeans still have.

As far as the european species that Soe was commenting on disappearing from his circle, well they have also for the most part disappeared from America. There are a few keepers of longissima here but the original stock from twenty, thirty years ago is probably all gone. The newer imports are coming from eastern europe where wildlife laws aren't quite as restrictive.

It would be interesting to hear from some of the older herpers to hear what species or varieties have disappeared from the american herp scene over the long term.

Regards
John

There are many reasons for species disappearing from the hobby, one of the main ones, which Soe mentioned, is that breeders tend to get rid of species that don't turn enough of a profit. There just isn't enough of those keepers that have species just because they like them, or are trying to keep the species going in the hobby. Another reason, which was mentioned by several others, is that many species are becoming rare in the wild, as habitat is greatly reduced, and various governments are protecting them. I stopped keeping Elaphe vulpina gloydi for several reasons, one of which was that they are protected in my state. With all the hastles associated with trying to keep them, plus the downsizing of my collection, it was one of the species I decided to part with. Nowadays I tend to keep the smaller species, and have some definate priorities I go by. I think some species just don't fit anyone's priorities.

The Eurasian ratsnakes first started getting popular in the late 80's, around the time Klaus Dieter Schulz was writing about them and describing them in publications like "The Snake Keeper". Up until then I had only kept Elaphe guttata and E. obsoleta and some species of Lampropeltis, along with the local snakes. I was first attracted to Elaphe schrencki, longissima, quatuorlineata, taeniura, and moellendorffi. I don't think E. scalaris was ever easy to get, although they were around, and E. situla and E. mandarina were imports that couldn't ever survive, so were called "bad" species by most breeders. Things have changed there. In the mid-90's dione, bimaculata, carinata, climacophora, radiata, persica, and maybe a few others became popular. Popularity died out on most all of those when the novelty wore off. You can see which species I stuck with below. Breeders and other hobbyists will keep the best and others will fall by the wayside. You can see the ones I'm still sticking with below

TC

-----
Ratsnake Haven: Elaphe schrencki, dione, bimaculata; Orthriophis t. taeniurus; Euprepiophis mandarinus and conspicillatus; Zamenis situla; Pantherophis guttata meahllmorum and g. intermontana; Lampropeltis zonata and calligaster.

to my post. I know it was very general type question, but I was hoping some people could make something out of it to answer as you did. I was trying to see if the differences between what I had read from US breeders and European breeders had to do with views towards reptiles themselves or the constraints associated with them or maybe a combination. I've known your thoughts and views with what snakes you work with currently and in the past. Hopefully in the future there won't be such constraints that we stop breeding a particular snake; especially one that may be approaching the edge of extinction.

Terry Parks

Hi, I see that I have not changed your mind about Elaphe being a good genus name for all of the ratsnakes in Utiger et al.'s study. Nevertheless, I am glad that I myself do not have to clutter my head with names like Zamenis and Euprepriophis.

Greetings from the North Country...

RS, I agree that it's not likely that the species in Utiger et al.'s study are more closely related to any other genera, but I have some reasons why I'm very tempted to go along with their new taxonomic changes to the old Elaphe genus.

First, I would say it's not hard for me to work with all the new names. I'm used to memorizing scientific names.

Second, it actually helps clear up understandings for me about the different species and how they evolved. For instance, I have always suspected E. longissima, etc., were very different from E. quatuorlineata, etc, and were a part of a different radiation. I've never thought they had the same ancestor as the other Elaphe that radiated north and east in Asia. Thus, some new genera, like Zamenis, are easily accepted by me.

E. mandarina is even more distant from the modern Elaphe, and even though they might have the same archaic ancestor, this species is very different from the typical Elaphe. I think the new genus name reflects the distance and the individuality of the species in Euprepiophis. So, a third reason is how different a group is from the other Elaphe.

When it finally comes to taeniura/moellendorffi, etc, of the new Orthriophis, I would leave them in the Elaphe, except for the fact that E. scalaris has already been removed and put in the genus, Rhinechis. It would be kind of inconsistent to leave older species in the Elaphe. But I could change my mind here, and continue to call taeniura, and others in this group, Elaphe. The fourth reason, then, would be to keep consistency.

Finally, my last reason has to do with the fact that the New World ratsnakes, the Lampropeltini, are quite different from the Old World Elaphe. The species in Pantherophis are closely related, and although they're fairly close to the ratsnakes of the Old World, the new Elaphe, they are separated by lots of time and space. In Utiger et al.'s opinion, enough to create a new genus.

So, there's a few reasons why I'm vacillating on this subject. What we do here is an important subject area. Too bad we can't know about all the ancestors of the various modern ratsnakes. At one time there may have been only one species that covered all of Laurasia and inhabited the Arcto-Tertiary geoflora, but I doubt that, since the ratsnakes are so good at diversifying and occupying so many microhabitats today. Just look how many species we have. I think there's a good chance that more than one species of ratsnake made it into North America way back in the early Miocene. Also, I believe there were most likely several ancestors for the various ratsnake species that Utiger et al. are dealing with. I think keeping all the old Elaphe species in the Elaphe would be saying that they all have a common ancestor and also that they are all a lot alike, which doesn't seem to be true to me.

Terry wrote:
"Also, I believe there were most likely several ancestors for the various ratsnake species that Utiger et al. are dealing with. I think keeping all the old Elaphe species in the Elaphe would be saying that they all have a common ancestor and also that they are all a lot alike, which doesn't seem to be true to me."

My response:
That is what many scientists used to believe and what some scientists still believe: the ratsnakes are not a natural group, meaning that they are descended from several different ancestors and that they are only convergently similar, thus they are analogous to, say, Corallus and Chondropython. Unfortunately for them, this is absolutely not the case. As far as the molecular data indicates, and there are quite a few papers dealing with this sort of evidence, the ratsnakes form a natural group with a single common ancestor. Therefore I favor keeping them all in Elaphe to show that they are more closely related to each other than to any other species. This information would be lost if Elaphe is splintered into a dozen or so genera that cannot be distinguished from each other. The ratsnakes are a rather diverse group (meaning that there are a lot of different species) but it is not a very disparate group (meaning that there is not much difference between them morphologically). It is true that some species within Elaphe are more closely related to each other than they are to another species group. But the same is true in any genus of organisms in which more than a few species are included, even in a small genus such as Lampropeltis. According to immunological data, the common kingsnake (L. getulus) is a degenerate milk snake, whereas L. calligaster appears to have recently diverged from Lampropeltis mexicana. This fact has not caused scientists to place L. getulus and L. calligaster in different genera. Intrageneric relationships can be recognized using the subgenus rank or species groups. A ratsnake enthusiast like you may not find it difficult to memorize all these names, but those who only have a passing interest in these animals will be unnecessarily burdened. If different people use different names to refer to the same species, it generates unnecessary confusion. That is why many of the greatest scientists recognize the importance of taxonomic stability. Lesser scientists, however, often want to generate the greatest amount of taxonomic changes possible just so they can draw attention to themselves and hopefully make a name for themselves.

Nice response, RS. That makes sense. I'm glad Utiger et al. did the molecular work on the Elaphe, but maybe it would be better to keep the status quo after all. I like knowing about all the relationships in the Elaphe, but I don't especially like the idea of giving up the genus name we're all used to, and which speaks for the relatedness of all the species in the genus.

You wrote:
Intrageneric relationships can be recognized using the subgenus rank or species groups.

My response:
If I wanted to use the "subgenus" rank for those species in the "Zamenis" group, or the "Euprepiophis" group, how would I do that? For instance: a species, such as the Aesculapian snake, would still be Elaphe longissima, wouldn't it?

Thanks....TC.

The subgenus is a formal taxonomic category. I am sorry I erred. The species group is informal. Therefore it is best not to use Utiger et al.'s names as subgenera without formally publishing a taxonomic proposal in a scientific journal relegating the genera they recognize as subgenera.

and responding to a general if not vague subject I posted. I'm rather new to snakes and this hobby (5 years now). I've seen the things Soe had posted on his excellent post. I was trying to get thoughts and views from others and continue going with Soe's post below. I started a new thread since the one that had Soe's post is a little buried and my post might not get viewed by many. It seems the subtle differences I have thought are really to do with laws, popularity, location, etc. and not to do with our different views for keeping reptiles in the first place. That is what I was trying to get at was if we had different views towards reptiles or different circumstances that may control the ones we keep.

Terry Parks

It was a very good topic to get going. I have thought of this a little bit and feel that the solution to losing captive bred species from the hobby is some sort of cooperative effort. How that would be made permanent or large scale is the problem.

One way around it would be to have a zoo or other professional animal institution sponsor and keep track of the available pool of reliable keepers. The problem with this idea is convincing the zoo people of the professionalism of the hobbyists.

Another way would be some kind of private club. It would have to be big enough to overcome the revolving door nature of snake keeping. You would have to have a large enough base to smooth out the gains and losses inherent in the hobbyist life cycle. I myself took a twenty year hiatus from the hobby and completely changed directions on what I keep based on my personal situation. Now that my kids are grown and I have a little more space and time, I'm back in. I'm sure similar things go on in many hobbyists' lives.
Good topic.

John

The club idea is an interesting one with many logistical bumps to iron out, but it sounds like fun. It could also be extremely helpful, scientifically.
-----
...and I think to myself, "What a wonderful world."

When you say logistical bumps you're not just whistling Dixie. Think of the economic, legal, emotional and physical hurdles that would have to be continuously overcome to first start and then maintain such a club.

Herpers are a diverse and idiosyncratic bunch. Many are not very social and some are downright unscrupulous (sort of like people in general). But who knows, maybe someone could spearhead something longlasting. It would require a dedicated and practical soul who had plenty of time and energy to devote to it. But people have tried to organize herpers on a national level before. It hasn't clicked yet but that doesn't mean it won't eventually.

John

It's ashame that this type of idea hasn't been successful yet. The thing that I see that kills the previous tries was our own apathy. Allot of people on the forums and in the US get behind the initial discussions and put their names down. It's probably going to be a long haul to get this thing going in the direction you want not even counting the expense it will take. Some people have put in considerable amounts of money in the past and it still isn't enough to keep it going past the first stages and hurddles. It's something that needs everyone possible to help and contribute and stay together for a long period of time and it just hasn't taken place in the past. Our bureaocracy is used to things taking time and bogging down. If they stay patient our cause will just die out from apathy. It has happened everytinme I've seen it. I wish we could make it happen myself. It's too bad.

Terry Parks

>>When you say logistical bumps you're not just whistling Dixie. Think of the economic, legal, emotional and physical hurdles that would have to be continuously overcome to first start and then maintain such a club.
>>
>>Herpers are a diverse and idiosyncratic bunch. Many are not very social and some are downright unscrupulous (sort of like people in general). But who knows, maybe someone could spearhead something longlasting. It would require a dedicated and practical soul who had plenty of time and energy to devote to it. But people have tried to organize herpers on a national level before. It hasn't clicked yet but that doesn't mean it won't eventually.
>>
>>John

-----
Terry Parks

Yeah, it is too bad. If I had more time I might look into it (and maybe someday I will) but in the meantime it's fun having the websites to talk to other herpers across the country (and even around the world) and trade info and animals from.
John

It's sad John because we need to start doing something to keep species from extinction and/or near it and to protect our rights to have and work with reptiles. If we could get and stay together on these issues we may be able to gain some support in our governments that are making the prohibitive laws. You are correct its great to have these forums and websites and emails to communicate and share. Take care.

Terry Parks

>>Yeah, it is too bad. If I had more time I might look into it (and maybe someday I will) but in the meantime it's fun having the websites to talk to other herpers across the country (and even around the world) and trade info and animals from.
>>John