Reptile & Amphibian Forums

The fact that Easterns can breed with other Drymarchon is not much of a factor in not granting them specific status these days in light of (for instance ) corn snakes & kings producing fertile hybrids, all the cases of intergeneric hybridization in snakes has to make one wonder how much importance we can give to the ability to interbreed as a criteria for speciation.

I don't think the criteria is so much whether they have the capability of interbreeding as it is whether they do so naturally in the wild. People are breeding between species and even between genera in captivity, where interbreeding never occurs with those species in the wild.

We know that Pituophis, Lampropeltis,and N.A. Elaphe (gen. nov. Pantherophis, Bogartophis) are much more closely related than previously thought and are, in fact, capable of interbreeding and producing viable, fertile offspring. These findings have precipitated the reclassification of many of these animals recently.

Have to call you old herper on the never hybridise in the wild thing.

In 1987 I caught a Southern Pine 4 foot female that looked odd. Upon closer examination I found that she showed characteristics of Pantherophis gutatta (most noticeably a checkered veneer and some merging in the prefrontals). upon evaluation of the snake with others from the Gainsville Herp Society it was determined that she was a natural hybrid. The one photo I have of it is of bad quality (maybe I'll bring it to Daytona).

For that matter, inter-species crossing is common. I have caught several red Rat x yellow rat crosses.

Nature allways finds a way...

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Frank,
That's not quite what I said (at least not quite what I meant). What I said was "People are breeding between species and even between genera in captivity, where interbreeding never occurs with those species in the wild." Key words here are "those species", meaning the ones that people are hybridizing in captivity, such as the Corn Snake x Sinaloan Milksnake hybrids and that sort of thing. Hybridizing does occur in the wild, no doubt about it. Some species of Bufo are well known for it. It's rare to find true hybrid snakes in the wild (but it does happen), but intergrades are common where two subspecies ranges overlap.

Do bring the photo to Daytona if you remember...I'd like to see it. By the way, I'll be rolling in there Wednesday and try to catch Dean's presentation. I'll be staying at a Marriot Courtyard somewhere in Daytona..I have to find out where it is (that would help, wouldn't it?).
-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

ok...I'll give you a pass on that one (lol).

I pulled out the photo so you will be able to see it there.

Range Contact is necessary of course for natural hybridisation to occur. One that I saw at the SHED was Elaphe g. emory X Lampropeltis c. caligaster.

I have personally witnessed a male yellow ratsnake sexually linked to a (very) dead female Penninsula watersnake. One could but wonder...

I think that (given the reduction of suitable sex partners in a given range)some individuals will seek to procreate with the nearest alternative species. The Gainsville area (in the mid-80's)had been decimated due to over collecting.

As to the Mariott, I think I remember seeing it on the same Road as the Expo but don't quote me on that....We will only be able to be there during the day on Saturday due to a scedualing conflict (DraT)

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

For most of us who have seen both an eastern and a western indigo, I think would, surely dissagree with seperating them into there own species. But, on the other hand, it is nothing more then a man made disignation....the animal could care less what we call it. This debate has been raging on for many years with timbers and canebrakes.

Actually, that debate's been over for years. Canebrakes and Timber Rattlers lost the subspecies designation a long time ago. I'm not saying that I necessarily agreed with it, but that's the way it goes. They are all Crotalus horridus now. C.h.atricaudatus has been kicked to the curb. I still call a Canebrake a Canebrake and everyone knows what I'm talking about. It looks like it's going to be the same deal with Eastern Indigos, too....whether we like it or not.

But..like you said...it doesn't matter a hill of beans anyway, from a practical standpoint as far as we are concerned. They are still the same snakes....

Defining species based on separation from closely related species is a difficult process. The problem is that there are continua of separation.

For example, if I could show that easterns and texas indigos had been separated from each other for over 10,000 years, would you support two species? What about 5,000 years? What about 100 years? How much separation does there have to be?

The same principle can be applied to geographical separation. Is 1000 miles enough? What about 100 miles? Clearly there are judgement calls to be made.

I actually like the separation and can accept it from a scientific and hobbyist's point of view. I think the easterns warrant specific recognition and I think it helps the species from the point of view of the hobby and conservation.

I think it is easier to sell the conservation value of an endangered species than an endangered population/subspecies. This clearly benifits the taxon. Furthermore, separating the eastern and TX pops makes it easier to consider each population independently when evaluating conservation issues. While habitat destruction is a threat to both species, the solutions may not be the same due to different forestry and agricultural practices and urbanization rates in the southeast and south Texas.

From a hobbyists point of view, it is also beneficial. Removing the eastern from D. corais may allow hobbyists in the southeast to work with TX Indigos (and cribos, for that matter). And people in Texas could work with Easterns without violating laws about possession of "D. corais" within the state.

It is a win/win situation, IMHO.

As for the "they look alike therefore they should be the same species" argument...there are lots of cryptic species which look identical but are separate. That isn't really a valid arguement anymore. And when you consider the benefits of elevation of D. couperi, it seems like a no brainer for the hobbyist.

Of course, time will tell. Will agencies such as USFWS and state agencies recognize this new taxonomy? When? How will this affect laws regarding these taxa? These are the questions that will affect the hobby.
-----
Chris Harrison

i would like to add that the law is starting to dna test animals to prove where they are from. louisiana has been the only legal state to take alligator snappers from the wild(i know that's changing now in sept.04) there is proof that the dna in these turtles is different from different river drainages along the gulf. so they can tell if the turtle was indeed from louisiana.(in other words your busted if it aint}. there might be the slightest morph differences but they are all considered the same species.they are also a threatened species. steve h

>>I actually like the separation and can accept it from a scientific and hobbyist's point of view. I think the easterns warrant specific recognition and I think it helps the species from the point of view of the hobby and conservation.

No disagreements with any of your post.

The only point I would make is the danger of scientists espousing a different kind of PSC, the Political Species Concept: it would be very disadvantageous for everyone if systematists were perceived to be delibearately elevating taxa to species level to further conservation aims (and thus hinder "developers" and "progress" - the "oh, it's under threat, quick, let's call it a species to protect it" approach. Systematic biologists need to be perceived to be objective and disinterested in their work, otherwise, the strength of their arguments will rapidly go down the pan.

Cheers,

WW
-----
WW Home

>>>>I actually like the separation and can accept it from a scientific and hobbyist's point of view. I think the easterns warrant specific recognition and I think it helps the species from the point of view of the hobby and conservation.
>>
>>No disagreements with any of your post.
>>
>>The only point I would make is the danger of scientists espousing a different kind of PSC, the Political Species Concept: it would be very disadvantageous for everyone if systematists were perceived to be delibearately elevating taxa to species level to further conservation aims (and thus hinder "developers" and "progress" - the "oh, it's under threat, quick, let's call it a species to protect it" approach. Systematic biologists need to be perceived to be objective and disinterested in their work, otherwise, the strength of their arguments will rapidly go down the pan.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>WW
>>-----
>> WW Home

I agree that there is a danger of misuse of taxonomy in this way. I think it is the responsibility of all involved (not just systematists) to try and use current taxonomy for this very reason. I think presentation of a "unified front" presents a more convincing arguement of the value of taxonomy in conservation.

Objective taxonomy is a good goal, unfortunately, I don't know if it exists. It is the a priori assumption of systematic/taxonomic problems that stimulates revision in the first place.
-----
Chris Harrison

Would you classify the pine snakes from New Jersey as a different species from those in North Carolona? Large seperation there too. Just don't think distance or time, imho, are valid reasons.

>>Would you classify the pine snakes from New Jersey as a different species from those in North Carolona? Large seperation there too. Just don't think distance or time, imho, are valid reasons.

There's quite difference here. There is a more or less continuous population of Northern Pine Snakes from Georgia to New Jersey. New Jersey is one end of the population, Georgia is the other end with North Carolina in between. They are much less common in some areas of that range than others, but it's still one big range of Northern Pine Snakes. Eastern Indigo Snakes and Texas Indigo Snakes are two completely separate populations with no connection at all. They are separated by something close to 1,000 miles and have been for eons.

The proposal is not based only on separation or time separated, but also on unvarying physiological differences in the animals themselves.

Why do you say that "distance and time" are not valid factors to consider? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just asking what you are basing that statement on.
-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson

Hey oldherper....kind of what I am too...47 years of it anyway. I always find this stuff interesting...and lord knows..alot more people with more knowledge then me on the subject. But, i think you will find that the Jersey Pine is isolated from all other pines. Kind of what you had mentioned in your previous post....man can redefine all they want...but the snake is what it is and could care less what we call it. As you mentioned...when you talk of a canebrake..or timber...all of us know what you are talking about. A few years ago there was an article in Reptile magazine concerning species and subspecies...kind of like point and counter point etc...both arguments had their points. It's just that I remember getting some Texas indigos from the Snake King in BrownsvillE Texas in the early eighties....and they were as close to easterns as any could be. I was amazed of the similarities. Again, smarter people then I have their thoughts on it...I just think more then time or distance should be the controlling factor. Adaptation is very funny sometimes on how things change. Take the Trans Pecos copperhead and the southern coppperhead litters. Trans Peocs copperheads have huge babies, but few at a time..and southerns have small babies but larger litters. But yet, there is a continous range with them. I guess finding consistencies on this subject can be challenging, but I love the discussions...even though the animals really don't care!

>>Hey oldherper....kind of what I am too...47 years of it anyway. I always find this stuff interesting...and lord knows..alot more people with more knowledge then me on the subject. But, i think you will find that the Jersey Pine is isolated from all other pines. Kind of what you had mentioned in your previous post....man can redefine all they want...but the snake is what it is and could care less what we call it. As you mentioned...when you talk of a canebrake..or timber...all of us know what you are talking about. A few years ago there was an article in Reptile magazine concerning species and subspecies...kind of like point and counter point etc...both arguments had their points. It's just that I remember getting some Texas indigos from the Snake King in BrownsvillE Texas in the early eighties....and they were as close to easterns as any could be. I was amazed of the similarities. Again, smarter people then I have their thoughts on it...I just think more then time or distance should be the controlling factor. Adaptation is very funny sometimes on how things change. Take the Trans Pecos copperhead and the southern coppperhead litters. Trans Peocs copperheads have huge babies, but few at a time..and southerns have small babies but larger litters. But yet, there is a continous range with them. I guess finding consistencies on this subject can be challenging, but I love the discussions...even though the animals really don't care!

Yeah, there are some Texans that superficially bear striking resemblance to couperi. They are pretty variable. However, there is that one big difference in head scalation that never varies. Every couperi I've ever seen has the 3rd supralabial scale cut off from contacting the ocular scales by the 2nd and 4th supralabials contacting each other above it. I've never seen a Texan or any Cribo with that feature. One thing that I've found about all Drymarchon I've looked at, though. It is very difficult, if not impossible to key one out using dorsal scale counts. They vary entirely too much and they overlap from ssp. to ssp. Plus, it's hard to get one to hold still long enough to get a good count .

I think that you are right though...it is the same animal no matter what you call it. So far I haven't caught a single one of mine looking at a taxonomy paper saying "Oh, they're calling us D.melanurus erebennus now. I guess we'd better start acting like a Cribo."
-----
We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children. Ralph Waldo Emerson