Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I've been seeing more and more Canebrakes just being called Timbers lately. I know that there was some argument before on whether or not canebrakes were actually a subspecies of horridus. Has it been decided that now they are all the same species?

Personally I like seeing the difference and having the canes be a separate subspecies. I know a lot of people say it's just a southern form of a timber... but duh... a southern, northern, trans pecos and so on are all copperheads, but they're obviously different as well.

Will

Well, in my experience, theres still seperation between bodies of law, and the herp community. For the most part, the herp community says they're different, and bodies of law, Virginia at least, says they're 2 different animals....same species but 2 different animals. It's very messed up. I emailed Fish and Game in Richmond, Virginia and they told me Canebrakes are protected and Timbers are not, but they are the same species. They recognize the Canes as a "Southern Population" of Crotalus Horridus.
How they could look at 2 specimens in a tank together and prove which is which and where it came from, I dont know. Going on color alone is not a definitive way to base a law.
My personal opinion is that they're in the beginnings of a diverging species.
-----
Tom
TCJ Herps
"The more people I meet, the more I like my snakes"

"Canebrake" is the common name applied to the more southerly varient of the timber rattlesnake, C. horridus. Back in the olden days (1970s and earlier I believe) they were a separated subspecies, C. horridus "atricaudatus." However, DNA evidence proved there to be no validification for the separation into a subspecies. Today, almost all taxonomy is based upon genetics (i.e. DNA similarities) rather than just morphology (looks). This is the way it probably should be, and is certainly a lot more accurate. I can see the name canebrake being validly applied when referring to the more southerly, lighter timber, if you don't want to just call it a southern timber, but they are not different enough from northern timbers to call them a separate species or even subspecies. I don't remember who it was who originally provided the evidence that the DNA was too similar to warrant subspecies status, but I'm sure someone here does.

As for your copperhead analogy, yes those are all separate subspecies because the DNA differences point to it.
-Chance
-----
Chance Duncan
1.1 Olive Pythons
1.1 Woma Pythons
1.1 Ball Pythons (Het Albino)
http://www.rivervalleysnakes.com

Chance,
Who did the DNA work on copperheads? I would like to see that paper.
I also don't recall who did DNA work on Timbers, but there was a rumor for years that someone published their findings. I'd like to see that also.

I have been told however, that there is a paper "in press" disputing the likelyhood on Crotalus horridus being a single specie. DNA work on venom between the southern population, coupled with habitat, coloration, size, etc. "compared" with the population east of the Mississippi River, has found to be very different than the now accepted "Timber" (horridus), specie.
I believe that study will be released very soon.
I, for one, believe that Canebrakes ARE a subspecie.
I base this on size, habitat, coloration, behavior, etc. between the two. (having husbanded these snakes).
HOWEVER, I'm not scientist, and I don't fully understand DNA "fingerprinting" or molecular clocks!

Randal

Well you know what they say about assumptions. I don't know who has done DNA work on Agkistrodon, but I assumed that since they still have numerous valid subspecies that the work had been done. As far as I know, very little taxonomy these days is held valid if it doesn't jive with genetic evidence. In fact, the proverbial "they" are even considering completely revamping the current taxonomic system to a more cladographic system (if I'm remembering correctly), but it'll likely be many years before it is finished, much less before it begins to be accepted.

I would be curious to see this new work about to be released. As far as I know, mtDNA differences between southern and northern populations of horridus were either miniscule or nonexistant, so they didn't warrant the validation of the subspecies.
-Chance
-----
Chance Duncan
www.rivervalleyexotics.com

I wasn't aware that the " canebrake " was entirely of a southern species or maybe i mean " exclusively " ? Southern meaning what perimeter of what states ? South of where ? Is there a boundary ? If it is a sub species, wouldn't there be overlapping and intergrades ? Questions I'm full of ! LOL !

I too have been wondering what determined two very different looking animals to not be a distinduishable subspecies. I have heard the venom comparison is also very different. But it just isn't the way it is (at least until proven otherwise). I can relate this to when Eunectes was divided up between E. murinus murinus and E. murinus gigas. There was also a time when there was a species called E. barbouri. All of these snakes were found to be no more than variation in E. murinus. Some had quite significant average size differences but its pretty easy to understand how purely habitat and genetics can play a role in that. While 5 ft and 50 lbs (not based off study, just hypothetical example) difference is pretty significant to us...in anacondas its not different than dark island people compared to giant pale scandinavians. So I babbled and babbled and my point was Eunectes is divided into 4 species-0 subspecies thanks to some dedicated taxonomy work by germans. I call a canebrake a canebrake because I call a P.m.pimbura a pimbura eventhough its not a true subspecies of molurus. And all this makes a lot more sense after spending an entire year of college taking multiple classes in random majors. Anthropology explaining why there is no "race" is helpfull in relating why Canebrakes are just another horridus. Ramble done

Very good point!

Randal Berry

Clark, Moler, Possardt, Savitzky, Brown, & Bowen (2003 Journal of Herpetology 37(1): 145-154), using mtDNA, concluded that no subspecies could be defined within Crotalus horridus. Their results corroborated the conclusion (using a different data set) arrived at three decades ago by Pisani, Collins, & Edwards (1973 Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 75: 255-263).

Cheers
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Australian Venom Research Unit,
University of Melbourne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Population and Evolutionary Genetics Unit,
Museum Victoria
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.venomdoc.com