Reptile & Amphibian Forums

http://www.garmachi.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1061

Those are combating male Yellow Ratsnakes (assuming you took the pics in the Southeast US somewhere).
-----
Chris Harrison

oh well. They were taken in Savannah Georgia.

>>oh well. They were taken in Savannah Georgia.

Lots of people have seen snakes mating....finding a combating pair of males is a VERY rare experience. And most people that find combating snakes find rattlesnakes. I don't think I have ever seen a photo of combating Yellow Ratsnakes nor heard of anyone finding them.

Great find!
-----
Chris Harrison

Thanks! My friends Gary and Katie actually found them. If you go to the link you'll see their other pictures of the snakes.

Yes! Combating Yellow Rat snakes (Elaphe = Pantherophis alleghaniensis) for sure. That's an amazing photo.

I sort of understand the change from Elaphe to Pantherophis, what with the Elaphe on the other side of the world & all, but the yellow is no longer the same species as the black, or did they both change?

~~Greg~~

Dont start pulling your hair out yet, but check this out....

The "experts" are wanting to make drastic changes to the North American rat snake species. Dont think it will fly, but here is the proposal....

All subspecies will be null and void.

All rat snakes west of the Mississippi river will become the western rat snake - Pantherophis obsoletus.

All rat snakes East of the Mississipi river and west of the Apalachicola river will become the Midland rat snake - Pantherophis spiloides.

All rat snakes east of the Apalachicola river and up the eastern board will become the Eastern rat snake - Pantherophis alleghaniensis.

Of course, I find this total rubbish!! How can one justify putting the black rat snakes from NJ for instance in the same species as the everglades and yellow rats from Florida???

Here is the link if you want to read it...
CNAH - Rat snake reclassification

-----

RATS
1.0 Corn snake "Warpath" (KY locale)
1.0 Black rat snake "Havok" (KY locale)
1.1 Black rat snakes "Reaper and Mystique" (MO locale)
1.0 Albino Black rat snake "Malakai" (Dwight Good stock)
1.0 Everglades rat snake "Deadpool" (Dwight Good stock)
0.1 Greenish rat snake "Rogue" (Dwight Good stock)
1.0 Yellow rat snake "Wolverine" (Dwight Good stock)
1.0 Grey rat snake "Punisher" (White oak phase)(Dwight Good stock)

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

Brian,

Not trying to start a flame war...

You seem extremely dismissive of the work done by Burbink et al. Whats your reason for this...I mean they looked at morphology, Mt DNA etc....its not like it was just thrown together.

The colouration variations in certain populations in most species of wide ranging reptile is well known and as such colour is not reliable on telling you which species is which.

In this case the Darker specimens are in the cooler part of the range progresivly becoming lighter as you extend South into the warmer parts of the range. Other examples of this temperature related colour change are in the Australian elapid Pseudechis/Cannia australis (Black in the in the south gradually becoming lighter as you extend North)and Tiliqua rugosus, In the coolest part of their range they a black with little light coloured speckling as you go North and inland they generally lighten.

As for getting rid of subspecies...well not all taxonomists agree that the subspecies classification is warrented at all. As it is not clearly definied in the ICZN code, most subspecies can cross breed and produce fertile offspring etc

Regards,
Scott Eipper

Since it has been proven that snakes from different genera can breed and produce fertile young the elimination of subspecific identification based upon breeding is ludicis.

This sounds more to me like someone looking for that paper that will bring notoriety fame.

Simply put, (IMO) the division of animals into species was orrigionally intended to allow easy identification of particular animals in a given area vs simliar animals elsewhere.

The science that first classified animals was not based on DNA which is fine for extrapolating sequences to isloate individuals but I think at this time very questionable for effectively defining species ifentification.

I say this, because in order to work at that level, one has to establish parameters of identification that effectively describe and set the definitive norm for the species.

The problem is....What is the norm? Take P. obsoleta...Should the base identification be a snake from Jersey or one from Georgia? Should it be the solid black one, or the one with traces of red or white? What about intergradiation? Can you be sure that your Holotype is pure?

Just two many variables for that specific a means of ID to be effective.

You cannot eliminate subspecies till you are certain of what exactly makes a species. Since they are still trying to re-define genera, it is putting the cart way in front of the horse.

News flash! Pursue anything far enough and you will find similarities-or differences.

Personally I say if it looks like the species at the most basic definable external description (color, scalation, pattern, structure-external, skeletal and organic, and dentation)then they should leave it there.

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

Rereading this post I am reminded that spelling is not my forte' in the wee morning hours....

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

Frank,

Sorry for the late response...I have been flat out of late...

I am well aware of breeding across species (Morelia kinghorni X Morelia mcdowelli, Morelia mcdowelli X Liasis fuscus, Tiliqua scincoides X Tiliqua rugosus, Cannia colletti X Cannia guttatus, Morelia "viridis" X Morelia cheynei etc etc) and in some closely related Frogs such as Litoria ewingi and parewingii (Hylids), Geocrinia victoriana and laevis (Myobatrachiids)....so are these all separate species???...I believe yes they are so are the parameters of the ICZN code right...well probably yes because in most of the cases above (the frogs and Tiliqua are wild caught/ observed) it was done in captivity.

As for "subspecies"....I personally think that yes the subspecific level is warranted however I ask you where does something become a subspecies and not a geographic/regional variant?

As for the holotype being that of an abbarent individual....well It can't be....if it is designated to be the holotype then that animal is the example of the species, and everything else must be another separate thing whether they are another "subspecies". Eg.....In the early sixties a skink Egernia saxatilis saxatilis was described by Harold Cogger, the type locality is the Warrumbungle Mountains. The population of these skinks at the Warrumbungles is very different (and thus easy to differenciate from other similiar species) so that was made the type locality. A second much more wide ranging and familiar skink named Egernia saxatilis intermedia was described in the same paper and while it is definately different to the other similiar species it is sympatric with, it is much harder to pick the differences between them.

Something a little closer to home for yourself... Timbers and Canebrake Rattlers....people still call them canebrakes...they still have that reddish orange vertebral stripe and yet after alot of disscussion most it would seem have now been happy to relegate them back to being a geographical variety.

At the end of the day they snakes and frogs will still get up and do what they need to do and it is only US that need to "put them in the right spot on the library shelf",

Regards,

Scott Eipper

Scott
Not taken as a flame. Always up for a good discussion. Frank pretty much put it in words the way I wouldnt have been able to. I just dont believe that the subspecies should be eliminated. There has to be more to it than lumping all these snakes into the same species and calling it done. I cannot fathom how someone can say that, for instance, the gray rat, everglades, yellow, and black rat are all one and the same!!!!

Sure, science says the mt DNA looks the same, but there has to be some sort of subtle difference for these snakes to all have different qualities that makes them unique from each other.

I just dont buy it. And I bet the herp world will not be convinced either.
Brian

>>Brian,
>>
>>Not trying to start a flame war...
>>
>>You seem extremely dismissive of the work done by Burbink et al. Whats your reason for this...I mean they looked at morphology, Mt DNA etc....its not like it was just thrown together.
>>
>>The colouration variations in certain populations in most species of wide ranging reptile is well known and as such colour is not reliable on telling you which species is which.
>>
>>In this case the Darker specimens are in the cooler part of the range progresivly becoming lighter as you extend South into the warmer parts of the range. Other examples of this temperature related colour change are in the Australian elapid Pseudechis/Cannia australis (Black in the in the south gradually becoming lighter as you extend North)and Tiliqua rugosus, In the coolest part of their range they a black with little light coloured speckling as you go North and inland they generally lighten.
>>
>>As for getting rid of subspecies...well not all taxonomists agree that the subspecies classification is warrented at all. As it is not clearly definied in the ICZN code, most subspecies can cross breed and produce fertile offspring etc
>>
>>Regards,
>>Scott Eipper
-----

RATS
1.0 Corn snake "Warpath" (KY locale)
0.0.1 Corn snake (KY locale)
1.0 Black rat snake "Havok" (KY locale)
1.1 Black rat snakes "Reaper and Mystique" (MO locale)
1.0 Albino Black rat snake "Malakai" (Dwight Good stock)
1.0 Everglades rat snake "Deadpool" (Dwight Good stock)
0.1 Greenish rat snake "Rogue" (Dwight Good stock)
1.0 Yellow rat snake "Wolverine" (Dwight Good stock)
1.0 Grey rat snake "Punisher" (White oak phase)(Dwight Good stock)

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

Since breeding between subspecies was mentioned..and I think that it is generally held..or was..that different species cannot cross breed..how does one explain the crossing of different genera in snakes?

~~Greg~~

I'd rather just say "Yellow Rat Snake" instead of Eastern Rat Snake , Yellow phase or something similar. And that's as far as I delve into the nomenclature wars!

Sounds like the hair-splitters are at it again....

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

Frank knows me, but the gent who made the comment about pulling out my hair doesn't. News: I pulled it out years ago. I used to ask kids in the audience at snake talks if the glare bothered them.

Having always fallen in the camp of lumpers rather than splitters, I am perplexed at this info. I see no reason to lump this much. And the changes in terminology will no doubt frazzle me. I had all of North America's snakes scientific names down pat by the age of twelve. I'm too flippin' old to re-learn them. So, if you catch me calling a corn snake Elaphe guttata, or a yellow ratsnake E. o. quadrivittata, don't poke too much fun at me.

~~Greg~~