Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I would like assistance with 'indentification' of sorts.

On the Rubber, Rosy, and Sand Boa forum, three recent critiques were posted by RS Newton. These posts are quite insightful and thus I was wondering if anyone on this forum knew of Mr. Newton and anything about his background, etc.

On July 16th, his first critique was entitled "Charina or Lichanura".

On July 17th, he then provided two very nice analysies dealing with "Phylogeography of the rubber boa" and "Southern Rubber Boa, Charina bottae umbratica".

I have been involved with C. bottae for over 4 decades and hence have a keen interest in the knowledge that others may have with the species including the above interpretions of published accounts that Mr. Newton provided.

I would appreciate any information others might have with respect to Mr. Newton. Beside on this forum, reponses can be sent direct to me by email: charinabottae@earthlink.net

Thanks, Richard F. Hoyer

Hi,

well there are some publications on the i-net that deal with these animals. Here a few of them. I guess you know them already:

The thermal biology of digestion in rubber boas (Charina bottae): behavior, physiology, and environmental constraints.
Dorcas, M.E., C.R. Peterson, and M.E.T. Flint
1997 , Physiological Zoology 70:292-300

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/midorcas/research/herppub-pres/dorcas-pdfs/Dorcasetal1997.pdf
------

Mitochondrial DNA-Based Phylogeography of North American Rubber Boas, Charina bottae ( Serpentes: Boidae )
Javier A. Rodriguez-Robles, Glenn R. Stewart, Theodore J. Papenfuss
2001 , Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 227-237

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~javier/23.pdf
-------

Head-body temperature differences in free-ranging rubber boas.
Dorcas, M.E. and C.R. Peterson
1997 , Journal of Herpetology 31:87-93

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/midorcas/research/herppub-pres/dorcas-pdfs/DorcasPeterson1997.pdf
-------

Daily body temperature variation in free-ranging rubber boas.
Dorcas, M.E. and C.R. Peterson
1998 , Herpetologica 54:88-103

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/midorcas/research/herppub-pres/dorcas-pdfs/DorcasPeterson1998.pdf
--------

If you are at www.herpers-digest.com just input the "rubber" as a keyword and you'll find them.

I do not know anything about Mr. Newton. Actually I've never even heard of him but I'm not a professional so I don't know if he is.

Cheers,
Wulf

-----
http://www.leiopython.de ,
http://www.herpers-digest.com

Wulf:
Thanks for your response and the reference to the herp digest as that may come in handy in the future. And yes, I have reprints of the articles you listed.

I too am an amateur but serious enough about my hobby to occasionally try an publish findings.

Richard F. Hoyer

Good Q. R.S. Newton certainly has not come up as an author on any of the literature search engines I have tried. He/she clearly has a pretty good understanding of the issues concerned. Perhaps it is a fairly well-known person posting under a pseudonym, from California?

Cheers,

Wolfgang

>>I would like assistance with 'indentification' of sorts.
>>
>> On the Rubber, Rosy, and Sand Boa forum, three recent critiques were posted by RS Newton. These posts are quite insightful and thus I was wondering if anyone on this forum knew of Mr. Newton and anything about his background, etc.
>>
>> On July 16th, his first critique was entitled "Charina or Lichanura".
>>
>> On July 17th, he then provided two very nice analysies dealing with "Phylogeography of the rubber boa" and "Southern Rubber Boa, Charina bottae umbratica".
>>
>> I have been involved with C. bottae for over 4 decades and hence have a keen interest in the knowledge that others may have with the species including the above interpretions of published accounts that Mr. Newton provided.
>>
>> I would appreciate any information others might have with respect to Mr. Newton. Beside on this forum, reponses can be sent direct to me by email: charinabottae@earthlink.net
>>
>>Thanks, Richard F. Hoyer
-----
WW

WW Home

WW:
Sorry for the sin of not recognizing that the author could have been female. Regardless, the individual has a far greater understanding than myself with respect to molecular details and interpretations.

In the future, I might wish to reference one of those critiques but believe it best I have permission. Consequently, I sent an email message to RS Newton (through the forum mechanism) but have yet to received a reply.

My computer skills are weak so thanks for searching authors indexes. With the understanding the individual has displayed and yet not finding citations for a RS Newton, you may be correct in suggesting that he/she may be using a pseudonym for posting on the Kingsnake forum.

Thanks WW for your input. Richard F. Hoyer

I read both the posts and frankly didnt' get the impression that Mr/Ms Newton had much personal knowledge of Rubber Boas other than what they had read in the Rodriguez-Robles paper.

In fact, the two posts are little more than a summary of that paper's findings.

My suspicions are that Mr/Ms Newton is a graduate (or possibly undergraduate) student that has some training in phylogenetic analysis but with limited experience with mtDNA sequence data.

I don't mean these remarks to be disparaging in any way. It was a good review of the data presented in the paper. But when I see a post giving the details of a 3 year old paper which has been discussed on that forum many times, I don't get the feeling that the author is up to date with Rubber Boa research.
-----
Chris Harrison

Chris:

I suspect you are correct about the individual's personal knowledge about C. bottae. When I used the term 'insightful' I was really referring to the individuals analytical ability as contained in those critiques. And to be honest, I cannot comment on his or her interpretations of the mtDNA data but felt the analysis of the morphological information was on target.

Since I sent an email to RS Newton and have not received a response, your suspicions about the individual being a grad student is probably correct. I now get the impression that perhaps those posts were for my benefit as I am working on taxonomic issue dealing with C. bottae.

I did not know that the mtDNA paper had been hashed over on this forum before. Can you tell me what the general concensus might have been at the time.

I know that Collins and group at U. of Kansas has already voted to recognize the SRB at the species level which in my estimation is premature with but a single paper providing only mtDNA evidence. The fact of the matter is that there still is no solid morphological evidence to support the separate species scenario but essentially I am the only one that knows that to be the case. And that was why I was impressed with the analysis of the individual rising to the same conclusion, without knowing the details, by use of a rational set of arguements.

Thanks for your input as your suggestion that it may be a grad student gives me a hint at whom it may be.

Richard F. Hoyer

Sorry for not responding to your email. The email address I used had been spammed extensively in the past. Thanks for your compliments. You have my permission to refer to my posts on this forum if you find it useful.

Hello. I would disagree that my critiques are "little more than a summary of that paper's findings."

The extremely short branch lengths within the "Southern clade" and the fact that some of these localities were probably too cold to support any population of snake as little as 13,000 years ago suggest to me that these particular populations may only represent a post-glacial expansion of the range of a small remnant population of a snake that has found much
better success to the north. Perhaps C. bottae has fared better to the north because of lack of competition from a closely related species: Lichanura trivirgata. This is indeed an interpretation of the mtDNA data that Rodriguez-Robles et al. do not make. What they appear to be looking for are clades. And that is exactly what they see. If this "clade" is really a post-glacial range expansion of a remnant population, then it is not deserving of
any taxonomic recognition. To recognize this "clade" as a full species even though there is no evidence of reproductive isolation or any morphological character that would distinguish it from other populations of C. bottae is simply scientifically untenable.

It is certainly true that I have not added to their evidence. Nevertheless, their own data do not support their conclusion that umbratica is a valid species. This is a point that Rodriguez-Robles et al. would certainly not make. That is why my posts are more than a summary of their findings. It is a different interpretation, one that I believe is more consistent with the available data.

Regards.