Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Things seem a little quiet on here lately but since there has been such an interest in classification not long ago I thought this might be a good topic to bring up.

A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to have a discussion with a guy that was involved in the research that was reviewing the relationships between elapsoides and triangulum. He had told me there was another group of researchers that was reviewing the getula complex. As many of you know there is now more emphasis on the molecular species concept and DNA work is frequently employed to re-examine these relationships. Many of you may have read Burbrinks paper regarding the obsoleta complex of rat snakes. You may recall the resulting proposal was sinking the ssp's and creating three species based on a north-south distributional basis. These were to be called the eastern (allegheniensis), midland (spiloides), and western (obsoleta) rat snakes. Anyhow, what he told me was the direction these guys were going with getula was to create three separate clades within getula. The first would be the getula/floridana group. The second would be the nigra/holbrooki/splendida clade and the third would be nigrita/californiense group. Has anyone else heard of any of this? Any thought? Thanks, Phil

Thats how its broken down in that paper by Blaney from 1978. There was the Getula Complex the Splendida Complex and the California Complex ( or something close to that). That would be interesting if they did that and it would sure make the splitters unhappy but on the flipside the lumpers would be thrilled lol. As far as how I feel about it I would have to read the research and then decide. Nice tidbit Phil try and get more info if you can.

Keith
-----

Do you know if Blaney's paper is available on line? It does look like it is the age old lumper/splitter issue again to some degree. I do try to keep open minded but I hate to see the old biological species ideas dropped by the wayside completely. Maybe its all part of a much bigger puzzle and there's room for all data when evaluating relationships within species. Phil

Not thats Ive seen phil but If I have to I will photocopy mine and send it to you old school baby you know the US Postal Service lol.

Keith
-----

Phil, as soon as the getula papers get published or the information is otherwise acessible, let us know!
it will be interesting to see how the DNA analysis affects the hobby. I would think that most would prefer to maintain a diverse classification of species/subspeices. I wonder how things will be handled if the getula complex is "reduced" to three clades as suggested?
Daveb

We can't even let go of "brooksi" or "goini" in the hobby.
How many people do you know refer to their north american ratsnakes as Pantherophis?? I can't even say it. Of course, I can't say Elaphe either......
I'll let the brainiacs figger it out fer me, then I'll call 'em what I like. lol!
:Mark

.

Good point Mark. That makes me think that us hobbyists are the ones that care the most when it comes to the animals themselves. I have actually seen various authors purport that the reason hobbyists cling on to sunken nomenclatural terms like "brooksi", sticticeps and goini is because the more varieties that are availble equates to more snakes being sold. I personally think this is bunk. I think hobbyists simply appreciate the variation that is out there and prefer to use the old names whether they still technically apply or not. At least we know what they mean Phil

Dave, I haven't heard any more on this lately but if I do I will surely report what I hear. I think you are right. I think most hobbyists, myself included enjoy the present diversification. Sometimes I think us hobbyists that have a real appreciation for the animals in question may be looking closer at variables that some in the scientific community may not be looking at. I'm not convinced that all the answers lie under the lens of a microscope in a genetics lab. Then again, maybe its because I don't want it to be so lol! Phil

I could go on and on about Cladist, taxo, systematics, DNA, utility, etc, etc, what what good is that? The reality is, their are the same snakes they were last week, the week before, a decade before and for several thousands of years, since man set foot of this continent. Yep, the same snakes.

In the last hundred years or so, there have not been to many new ones, I mean really new ones. So why is there all this name changing? We already knew their names. I understand this view is simplistic, but thats the purpose of naming them. To simplify and give a common understanding.(of utility)(of use)

As we dig deeper into their biology(DNA) there will be indeed thousands of new species. You can say and it appears in DNA that every population that has not maintained a constant/any, gene flow is a different species(isolated)ITS ALL ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME THEY ARE SEPERATED. I imagine that is true, but what good is it? Having thirty species of pyro, and zonata. And many many species of milksnakes. Also, I imagine once they start to dig deeper, they will surely find that northern ariz getulus have not maintained geneflow with SoCal getulus for a very long time. Are they going to be a different species? How about a NJ getulus compared to a Southern Ala, coastal getulus. Both are L.g.g., but surely they have not exchanged genes in a very long time?

Our maybe color and pattern is a good tool, as surely if they look different, there must be reason for this. So, they are different? That does make a bit of sense.

So yea, we can go on and on naming the same snakes differently, we can do that until we are blue in the face. But what good is it. Do we understand them any differently then when we read, The Handbook of snakes, by Wright and Wright????? Heck, they gave subspecies and locality morphs, which is a far better understanding(in usable reality) then what we get now???????

Now for the sad part, the reality is we are naming the SAME snakes over and over and forth and back. But they are the same snakes, yet, there is little progress to the actual understanding that makes these snakes what they are. Their social/biological/ecologicial structures. What makes them tick? what allows them to survive in the enviornment, what keeps them the same or what makes them change????????????? Their real behaviors, etc.

All in all, you call call them Joe, or Moe, or Harry, or Larry, or James or Jamie, what matters is we call them(to dinner) What I don't understand is, why don't we know what makes them those different names?

Whats even scarier, is many here relate to a snake species by how it relates to captivity, not how it relates to its habitat. For instance, a, so and so, bloodline thayeri, compared to a, other so and so, bloodline. Then somehow relate those animals to L.m.thayeri. Which as a person who has seen lots and lots of wild L.m.thayeri, does not relate, as most of the pics I have seen here are not comparable to what you will see in nature, different animal.

All and all, I get the simple feeling the naming folks, have lost sight of their mission(mission statement) They have dug too deep to give a practical understanding of the subject, now what we see is them simply trying to confuse eachother. Just something to think about. Remember, their task, was to clarify and give practical widespread understanding of their names, thats all, no more(that is their mission) In that, they are lost. Thanks FR

>> ...they are the same snakes, yet, there is little progress to the actual understanding that makes these snakes what they are. Their social/biological/ecologicial structures. What makes them tick? what allows them to survive in the enviornment, what keeps them the same or what makes them change? Their real behaviors, etc.
>>
>> All in all, you call call them Joe, or Moe, or Harry, or Larry, or James or Jamie, what matters is we call them(to dinner) What I don't understand is, why don't we know what makes them those different names?

Frank,

The social structures and the behavior in the wild that you mention relate to what we'd consider sociology or cultural and social anthropology, in the study of Joe, Moe and Harry, all humans. Those things relate to behavior of the same species--behavior that makes individuals or groups so very different. Sure, getula may inhabit different kinds of environs in parts of its range; the obsoleta group of elaphe may achieve different sizes or have differing target foods in part of its range, etc. So observations in captivity but especially field observations may provide insight into that behavior. It seems to me the speciation studies are efforts to group not by behavior but by evolutionary relationships, biological stuff, which you mention in with the sociological/behavioral/field observation comments, but seem to have little regard for. The DNA guys show us relationships in humans...there are some fascinating studies of modern groups and their origins, for example, and i suspect they'll do the same with the rest of the animal world. I agree completely with your observations about the importance of field work, behavioral studies, etc., and agree that in many ways they define the "character", if you will, of different groups of "the same" animal. But i don't think an appreciation for that aspect of an animal should diminish an appreciation for the biological/evolutionary/speciation studies, either. Your enthusiasm for the former is evidenbt and respected. I don't think you've explained sufficiently why the other isn't important (or you have and i just haven't gotten it, or you don't really feel that way but are taking a somewhat extremist opinion to stress the part that you have more interest in). Bottom line, there's no reason not to continue trying to improve on what we know about animals and their relationships to one another, regardless of what "names" were once applied to them. No reason to keep calling something a "mugwamper" or whatever, if as our science becomes better, we realize that people were using the term to describe to different critters. Does that make any sense? Is there a middle road here for us all?

terry

I am confused, I clearly seperated behavior & such, from taxo, in fact, I used behavior & such, as an example of what we truely do not understand.

Also, I am not sure, you can say what I hold in high or low regard, as I am not saying what I truely believe, only some thoughts for us to think about. But with that said, as I seemed to say, there is most likely far more benefit in understanding what makes these animals tick, NOW, then renaming them time and again(they are still the same animals, let me add, they have not changed)

You surely understand, the clock is ticking and the battery is running low on these species in nature, or at least how they naturally occur. As opposited to how they occur in a urban setting. Again, it would benefit the common understanding and the future of these animals if we actually made strides in this area then the constant renaming of the same animal.

Please understand, I have nothing against their names, as I mentioned, you can call them anything you like. But what does that have to do with those animals exsistance and future exsistance? That sir, would be of utility for me to understand.

In short, a common name, some funny example you used, is at times of more utility then a scientific name. Particularly when the scienctific name has no practical application. Consider, a common name is a localize label. A scientific name is, only a name to be used in an across the board situation. But the funny thing is, they change so often, that is not the case. The books cannot keep up with the name changes, so in effect, only a few use up to date naming, and most do not.

My real feeling is, one day, hopefully, Science will settle on a consistant method of scientific nomenclature and stick to it. But as you can imagine that is a real pipedream. So, all in all, what is an Oketee corn? Or a green(non)ratsnake?FR

I agree Frank. The snakes themselves haven't changed at all. I wonder sometimes if in some of these cases some phd is simply trying to make a name for himself. Maybe even poising himself for more grant money? I also wonder about the criteria used when looking at the DNA information. I have heard from some that know more about such things than myself that the system is arbitrary at best and the system used for genetic markers is questionable. Yeah, I think it would be understood by all that a getula from N.J. is going to be different in some aspects than one from Alabama. Thats where I would play the locality hand but until proven otherwise I would have a hard time thinking both were not the same type of snake though I can certainly appreciate the differences. Good point also as to these groups not exchanging genetic material. For that matter I even wonder how contiguous the populations really are and if not in some ways they are not simply a series of isolates in the modern world. Over time who knows how things might turn out with these groups of snakes genetically in the next centuries by further genetic isolation.

< Our maybe color and pattern is a good tool, as surely if they look different, there must be reason for this. So, they are different? That does make a bit of sense. >

It does to me. I may not know why different pop's have their own look but surely natural selection has produced this effect and gives us at least a starting point that each population is unique in some ways.

< The Handbook of snakes, by Wright and Wright????? >

I have always loved those books. Full of all sorts of sunken ssp's but at least they were showing us all the examples of the variation that exist as they knew it based on the current lit of the time. Much better to me than the lump them all together mentality so prevelant now. I also like how they list all the common names of each snake. That is priceless stuff!

And yes, I too wish there was more focus on the natural history aspects of the snakes than all gobbly gook with the genetic markers. We know there are close relationships between all. Now how about more insights on the animals themselves?

Thanks for your comments Frank.

Phil

The truth is, in depth taxonomy is of use and language to other taxonomists and Cladist, and systematics, etc. Its a world of cells and relationships, and very important to them and their(the people) exsistance.

But for us, those who work with real animals, its of little use. For instance, what does it matter if Lampropeltis g. evolved from calligaster? We evolved from monkeys(other primates) but we are not monkeys now(may not be accurate) And getulus is not calligaster now. The focal point is the word now. Now covers a very very long time. We were not monkeys for a very long time and these snakes were seperate from eachother, for a much longer time.

While its interesting, I do not take it as all that important. Kinda like reading the newspaper or the internet. Its there, but what effect does it really have. In my old age, I have seen this(name changing) before, and with luck with see it again. Thanks for more snake talk, FR

FR..There are still a few of us that believe we did NOT evolve from monkeys for your information.

Hey Jeff. How are ya ? Good to see you in here. Do you still have that Hoke Co. Eastern ?

Keith
-----

Phil:

I have not been in contact with any of the folks working on the getula group of kingsnakes, so can't offer any details. However, my strong hunch is that those "clades" you refer to will be elevated to full species--in other words, there will be L. getula (to include getula and floridana), L. splendida (with splendida, holbrooki, niger), and L. californiae (with californiae and nigrita)--Blaney's groups--or whatever the evidence suggests. That assumes that the DNA analysis finds support for continued recognition of the various subspecies. The critical issues in such studies are:

1. How many evolutionary lineages (= clades) are there?
2. What happens where these clades meet? Is there evidence of extensive gene exchange?--if so, that is suggestive of adjoining subspecies or groups that were separated but whose populations are now connected. Probably this would result in these groups being maintained under a single species name. If there is little evidence of gene exchange where the ranges of these clades approach one another, you can infer that these are separate species.

For anyone who has paid attention to snake systematics in recent years, the trend has been that when widespread, geographically variable "species" are examined in greater detail (whether using DNA or more traditional characters), these forms are found to comprise multiple species. Some familiar examples are the gopher/bullsnake complex, and West Coast garter snakes. So, the smart money says L. getula will be broken up into multiple species units. And, wait until the L. triangulum work unfolds--maybe we should start a pool to guess how many species are represented by the triangulum umbrella.

Cheers,

Bob Hansen

Thanks for the insights Bob. I had the impression that creating "new" species would be the result. Much like what was done with the obsoleta group of rat snakes. Like you, I am curious to see how the couple of dozen current ssp's within triangulum falls out once it is all done and said. I have heard that the evidence is now overwhelming that the scarlet king will be elevated to full species status. I have a hard time accepting the latest revisions with Pituophis. I am no scientist but based on physical characteristics I would be more inclined to either give sayi its own species or allign it with melanoleucus. I see it as a different animal than catenifer. I'm probably old fashioned but I still believe Stulls work on Pits to be the one that I find most acceptable. Thanks once again for your thoughts! Phil

Many of you may have read Burbrinks paper regarding the obsoleta complex of rat snakes. You may recall the resulting proposal was sinking the ssp's and creating three species based on a north-south distributional basis.

I've read that waste of bum-wipe paper but its been awhile. If I remember correctly he based it on east-west distribution and not north-south. Ken

Thanks for the correction Ken. I was thinking one thing and typing another. In my mind I was recalling how odd of him to say a yellow rat from coastal Florida was the same animal as a black rat from New England. I don't know of any one that is thrilled with his paper. Appalachian mountains and Apalachicola river effective gene barriers? Geez, I don't know about that. Phil