Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Who here believe that ssp are a valid level of taxonomy? I dont just mean a way to determine locality or geographic variation, but a true level of taxonomy?

What do you mean a "true" level of taxonomy?
They are a "true" level of taxonomy as they are accepted within much of the scientific community (in spite of the vocal disagreement of a few).

Furthermore, you can't evaluate the subspecies concept in reptiles alone and come to a judgement.

I believe there is value in naming recognizable regional variants within a species. These names represent a moment in time and any attempt to try and extrapolate historical information from their current status is tenuous science, IMHO.

I believe subspecies provide some signal through the noise.

I don't believe you can allocated every individual to a subspecies.

If you really want to have this conversation, go over to the taxonomy forum and do a search. It comes up over and over.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

What is so hard to understand about "true level of taxonomy"? I want to see who(of all of the milk snake forum posters)does not support subspecies.

If I wanted the opinions of the people from the taxonomy forum, I would have asked there.

I am on the fence concerning the validity of ssp and I can relate to milk snake folks...So I am seeking opinions. Thanks for sharing yours...

There isn't anything hard to understand about a "true level of taxonomy". Chris said that subspecies are a level of taxonomy, and he is correct. Taxonomy is a way for us to sort and name animals, and that system is forever changing. Subspecies are a taxonomic way to name the different locality or geographic variations of a full species.

I think it would be difficult to find ANY milk snake forum posters that do not support the subspecies concept. Go up and down the list of threads on this forum......coastal plains, red, pale, Louisiana, Eastern, black, Honduran, Nelson's, Sinaloan, Jalisco, Mexican, Pueblan, Guatemalan, Andean, Ecuadorian......these are ALL subspecies of the Lampropeltis triangulum species group. If milk snake keepers didn't believe in subspecies, there would be just one type of milksnake.

As the current body of knowledge is, there are 25 or 26 different subspecies of milk snakes, depending on whom you consult. Are some of these actually full species? Most definitely. There are differences just between the scarlet king and the rest of the North American milks. And then there are more differences between some of the larger tropical milks and the North American milks. And even differences between the larger Central and South American milks compared to the central and western Mexican milks. So far nothing has been published that has elevated any of these to full species status. But I'm sure that will come in a peer-reviewed journal at some point. Until that happens however, we label these as different subspecies.

Your initial question is confusing to me, and I'm sure it was for Chris also. How are you defining "true level of taxonomy", since subspecies already are one?

Scott Ballard

Well stated Scott....I'm just not sure how all the ssps of Triangulum can be dismissed under the sweeping generality of "taxonomy does not recognize subspecies".
At any rate, put me down for a yes on subspecies and a no for recogizing (or at least understanding in this case) taxonomy.
Jeff

Definately not the types of positive reponses I was hoping to get...Oh well...

I think that you have helped illistrate the fact that ssp cannot be considered a level of taxonomy (at least imo) because why would we all create a higher level of taxonomy based off of geographic variation alone? So then what would be an intergrade? Is that a ssp of its own? Where does an intergrade end and and a true ssp begin? What about clinal variation?

I know that the general pattern of thought on this forum is that ssp exist (since I have been posting here since this forum was created), but I figured that there may be one or two individuals who see ssp as little more than an aid in determining locality (although I am sure that they dont want to speak up and go against the grade).

Anyway...I do appreciate Scott and Chris taking the time to comment, even if they weren't what I was looking for...

>>Definately not the types of positive reponses I was hoping to get...Oh well...

This is likely because you were fishing for opinions to support some notion of ssp that you already had and not really intersted in the acutal taxonmic understanding of ssp.

>>I think that you have helped illistrate the fact that ssp cannot be considered a level of taxonomy (at least imo) because why would we all create a higher level of taxonomy based off of geographic variation alone? So then what would be an intergrade? Is that a ssp of its own? Where does an intergrade end and and a true ssp begin? What about clinal variation?

They did not illustrate this at all. ssp are not the same thing as a geographic race, maybe you need a better understanding of what a species is. So, a species is a population of organisms that is genetically disticint from other populations; a ssp is a population or populations that are not completly distinct, but have enough uniqueness that they can be reliably indentified from other populations of the same species. Also, ssp are a lower level of taxonomy, a genus is a higer level than a species. An intergrade is just that, an intergrade between two populations or ssp or sp, whatever. As for clinal variation, that is usually just differences in color or pattern (atleast in milksnakes) and these things do not lead to reproductive isolation so they do not lead to genetically distinct populations.

>>I know that the general pattern of thought on this forum is that ssp exist (since I have been posting here since this forum was created), but I figured that there may be one or two individuals who see ssp as little more than an aid in determining locality (although I am sure that they dont want to speak up and go against the grade).

Its not just this forum, its the scientific community because, as i said above, a ssp is different than some name to indicate which locality a animal is from.

Cheers,
Vinny
(sorry for the bad spelling, was in a rush)
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

Okay, I can appreciate that.

I am definately a noob when it comes to taxonomy, but I feel that I have a clear understanding of what a species is. As an active participant in a scientific community, I can say with 100% clearity that virtually ALL of the professional taxonomists that I work with think the idea of ssp is ridiculous and false. I contstantly argue with them about it, so your judgement that I am "fishing" with a predetermined idea against ssp is false, but I can understand why you would think that. I like to play devil's advocate, yes...

Anyway, thanks for the comments...

Interesting thing about biologists (which I am also) is that there are various schools of thought on subjects. Like the validity of ssp, for example. Depending on who you talk to ssp may or may not be valid, everyone where I am agrees that ssp distinctions are valid and I agree. Its a bit like species definitions, do you like Mayr or Templeton or the PSC or any of the numerous others?

Cheers,
Vinny
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

I go with this written by EO Wilson:

"a population or series of populations occupying a discrete range and differing genetically from other geographical races of the same species."

The main reason that many accademics don't "agree" with the ssp concept is that they are looking at things from an evolutionary perspective. From such a broad view minor genetic diferences that equate to general phenotypic trends are pretty insignificant.

In the here and now camp however ssp are relatively important. Reasons are many and varied so I'm not going to go into it.

As for telling when a snake is a "pure" subspecies or when an integrade starts and ends thats a bit more dificult. Personally I think the trouble comes into play when you use the term pure. I perfer to use "classic" but even that might hold different meanings to deferent people. Can't think of a milk snake example but to me a classic eastern king is of the wide banded variety from the coastal mid-Atlantic, Kieth Hillson thinks those thin banded slugs from NJ are classic eastern.

I like this from Th. Dobzhansky "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Not many evolutionary biologists would disagree with the ssp concept, since minor genetic differences are the begining for larger differences that lead to speciation. Under the phylogenetic species concept (an explicity evolutionary perpsective) any genetic (or morphological) character that can be used to identify a group of organisms as distinct from other closely related groups in the same species would be called a ssp.

The evolutionary perspective is the only way to look at things, it sees both small difference and large ones as significant (beacuse they are).

Cheers,
Vinny
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

Not sure I agree that minor variences lead to larger ones. Large changes can be spontanious, the result of hybridization (yes I believe it happens in the wild though infrequently and is generally not favored)or as a frequency shift when infrequent but significant variences become common when conditions change such that they confer a survival advantage.

I sereously doubt that triad width of a given population is significant in the evolutionary process such that it would lead to bigger changes and subsiquent complete speciation.

>>Not sure I agree that minor variences lead to larger ones. Large changes can be spontanious, the result of hybridization (yes I believe it happens in the wild though infrequently and is generally not favored)or as a frequency shift when infrequent but significant variences become common when conditions change such that they confer a survival advantage.

Yeah, that may not have been clear. I meant that minor genetic differences accumulate over time, leading to larger differences in total genetic change. I am not sure what you mean by freq. shift though, since all mutations are spontaneous and are rare at first but become common because they confer advantage or because of drift.

>>I sereously doubt that triad width of a given population is significant in the evolutionary process such that it would lead to bigger changes and subsiquent complete speciation

I did'nt mean to imply that triad width would lead to speciation, but it is significant as a character that can be used to define a population; if it can be used to define a population and that character is heritable and genetic than it is an indication that this population is gentically distinct from other around it. If that isolation continues over enough time speciation will occur because of other genetic changes.

Hope that clarifies what I meant,
Vinny
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

I think we're on the same page I just brought up those points to make things a little more clear. Was't putting your comments down just engaging conversation.

As for your last, agree with almost 100%. The reference to isolation however is a little out of context. Geographic isolation is generally not a factor in determining subs and should not be assumed in the discussion. There are examples where it might be more appropriate (zonata, mexicana, pyro) but generally speaking gene flow between milk snake subs is widely demonstrated.

By frequency I meant the frequency at which a given gene occurs in a population. Its a well understood concept that they remain relatively constant unless they confer a specific survival advantage/disadvantage. Advantage they increase, disadvantege they virtually disapear.

>>I think we're on the same page I just brought up those points to make things a little more clear. Was't putting your comments down just engaging conversation.

No worries, thats how I understood it, and I love these kinds of conversations.

>>As for your last, agree with almost 100%. The reference to isolation however is a little out of context. Geographic isolation is generally not a factor in determining subs and should not be assumed in the discussion. There are examples where it might be more appropriate (zonata, mexicana, pyro) but generally speaking gene flow between milk snake subs is widely demonstrated.

I dont know much about how gene flow is working in milksnakes, but if it is anything like the "ring" species that we see in salamanders in California (and the like) than god help us . But from these examples you can still have gene flow and be mostly isolated, that is unless your not (is gene flow rare and of little consequence long term or common and preventing speciation).

>>By frequency I meant the frequency at which a given gene occurs in a population. Its a well understood concept that they remain relatively constant unless they confer a specific survival advantage/disadvantage. Advantage they increase, disadvantege they virtually disapear.

Ah, OK. But most variations are neutral with respect to fitness and these increase of decrease in freq. due to drift so random chance is determining if they increase or decrease in freq.; they can become advantagous or deleterious if the environment changes though and then either increase/decrease in freq.

Cheers,
Vinny
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

......the concept of subspecies. And that is not a shot at you, just an observation. Let me try to explain it a little and see if that helps.

According to Ernst Mayr in his book Systematic Zoology, a subspecies is defined as "geographically defined aggregates of local populations which differ taxonomically from other such subdivisions of a species". What this usually refers to is distinctions of locality and morphology. So you have this species group called Lampropeltis triangulum, with populations that are both different geographically (their locality) and morphologically (be it number of red body rings, pattern, dorsal scale row numbers, etc.).

I don't believe I have "helped illustrate the fact that subspecies cannot be considered a level of taxonomy", as you stated. These characteristics and range differences that make Hondurans and Sinaloans different ALSO qualify them as subspecies, until someone conducts mtDNA work and decides to elevate them to their own species level. This is true for all the currently recognized milksnake subspecies.

What makes a red milksnake different from a Central Plains milksnake? First is where they occur in the U.S.; second is blotch count, pattern, and scale count differences. Where the range of the two come together in Kansas, you have intergrades between them. That example alone validates the concept of subspecies within Lampropeltis triangulum.

Subspecies are not considered a "higher level of taxonomy" as you inquired. They are a lower level of taxonomy, in fact, they represent changes/differences at the lowest recognizable level.

What would be an intergrade? Intergrades are defined as "individuals which have morphological characteristics intermediate between those of two adjacent populations, or which have some characteristics of each". With subspecies, these intergrade zones can be large and one cannot assign an animal from an intergrade zone to either subspecies, but must consider them to be an intergrade.

Intergrades are not subspecies of their own. As stated above, they are a mix of two (or possibly more) subspecies. Where do intergrades end and true subspecies begin? That is determined after all meristic characters (such as red body ring numbers, scale counts, pattern differences) are recorded for all subspecies, and then adjacent areas where you get intermediate numbers between the two are usually considered intergrade zones. That is why works such as what Ken Williams did with the milksnake are extremely important. He did a good job of recording all these morphological and geographical differences.

Clinal variation is sometimes looked at with subspecies to determine whether or not some subspecies may or may not be valid. If a clinal variation is on a continuum throught a species' range, it is usually considered not to be a separate subspecies. That is what was done with the previously different subspecies of the timber rattlesnake, and there is still differences today between those who recognize or don't recognize the timber rattlesnake and canebrake rattlesnake to be the same or different.

I don't consider the responses to this thread to have been not "positive" as you mentioned. Asking if folks believe in subspecies is neither postive or negative. It just is what it is. As you said, maybe not what you were looking for.

This has either explained the subspecies concept to you or it has confused you even more. I hope it helped. And don't consider these to be negative comments. Just trying to help you understand.

Scott Ballard

A rational explanation for the questions I had asked. I want to support the notion of subspecies, but it just doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Although your post helps to clear up a few things. Thanks Scott! How about you post some of those killer Southern Illinois syspila...

Subspecies are not a "notion". There have to be geographic and meristic differences to validate subspecific status. This icludes but is not limited to to; dentition, skeletal structure, hemipenal variation, and geographic isolation. These are things that most as hobbyists have no ability to utilize in this dicussion. Just as the Lampropletis Zonata complex was recently reclassified as to mtDNA so will the Triangulum complex. Where Mt. Hamilton animal Zonata were once thought to possibly be elevated to species status they were found thru DNA research to actually be an isolated population of Lampropletis Zonata Multifasciata, regardless of the external differences related to the local population. So subspecies are not yours to debate but to accept until, when or if, the DNA warrants a revision in the complex.

Tell us the story,J

It is an old well next to an abandoned farmstead in central Kansas. All of the snakes in the picture are Great Plains Ratsnakes, but I have seen a few Racers and others have seen Garters in it as well. I couldn't believe seeing that many snakes in such a small space when I lifted the metal covering. It is nice to be able to see that many snakes all winter long!

"Signal through the noise"

I like that analogy. I'll have to use that one.

That's it. Have a nice day.

I think there is too much emphasis on PURITY of subspecies.

Once upon a time there was no such thing as digital pictures or the internet,believe it or not! During that time we scanned through price lists the way a kid looks under a tree at christmas....lots of stuff but everything is wrapped up. People who have never dealt with buying something like this dont know what its like to send money for a snake sight unseen. Once these animals were documented in the wild we would all see the SAME pictures of the SAME snakes in publications because there were just not enough specimens(or even publications,lol). Subspecies designation was NECESSARY because you wanted to know what to expect for your money.
Truth is, once these lists started taking off and we established captive populations of these ssp, only then did we need to start keeping records. I challenge the central and south american milk keepers to establish locale records and history of their specimens. With the genetic manipulation, breeder turnover, and difficulty with importers this information becomes almost hopelessly incomplete. At some point each of these lines have been established by the words of a very few,possibly flawed enthusiasts. Personally, this is why I have always loved the North American ssp..
Now I know there are many good examples of established record keeping for south/central american ssp., and I dont mean ill will against them or their breeders. But it is noteworthy because of the drift the whole hobby has taken in the last 15 years. With the availability of EVERY ssp., the breeding techniques established to the point where even the least experienced keeper can breed, there are fewer and fewer NEEDS for sub-specific delineation. More over, I think it most obvious that the intergradation between ssp. be the NEXT step in the captive management of milks. With the MORPHATION phase dwindling,sorry-I think this to be true, I think it a good idea for some breeders think outside the box in trying to establish GREAT LOOKING NORMAL milksnakes. That is NOT necessarily PURE. Factors such as size, ease of keeping and breeding as well as LOOKS and morphs can and should be combined into some "super milks".
As a locality nut, I accept that ANY breeding I am responsible for will NEVER affect any wild population(DONT EVER RELEASE ANYHING!). That said,I enjoy the purity of milks I can find as well as their beauty and scarcity. But there is room within the community and even within our own collections for variation within the locality(ssp.)/intergradation("hybridizing" themes. I hope that most will agree it is the VARIATION of these snakes to begin with that draws us to them. It is this VARIATION that supercedes the use of ssp. as we as milk keepers interpret this. Its for this reason that I believe the use of ssp. names have become totally irrelevant.My 2 cents,lol,Jeff

Here is a gentilis we found earlier this year, definately a nice one...

......because I CAN establish locale records and history of my Central and South American breeding stock. And while there are several others that can also, you are probably correct in that the vast majority of folks cannot.

Subspecies designation is still important to some of us, I believe, because we DO want to know what to expect for our money and not get some sort of unidentifyable intergrade that we bought as pure. As you stated, the era of digital cameras and computers have helped out in that cause.

We have all discussed and hashed and re-hashed the issues with intergeneric hybrids that are being created and concerns with those and "just throwing two different snakes together because we can" mindset. I think those threads started back on Nov. 17 with the one entitled "unknown locality origins". So I don't want to start a new thread here with that same topic.

I find myself nodding in agreement at a lot of what you said, Jeff, about how this hobby has changed in the past 10-15 years. I personally think it is important to keep lines as pure as they can be, because in another 10-15 years with all the crossing and hybridizing that seems to be popular now, will anyone really know what a true Honduran or Sinaloan milksnake is supposed to look like, or will we have to go through old photos to see?

Scott

In taxonomy, there has to be a start point to categorize to the ssp level. Why then was the Eastern milk chosen as the "top level" if you will, to form the species of Lampropeltis triangulum?? Why wasnt the red milk or the pale milk or louisiana milk chosen??? There are far more red variations of milks than brown. So why was the Eastern not chosen as a ssp?? Maybe this is not worded right, and I know that there must be some explanation. I am not the most educated person when it comes to taxona, but Im trying to learn! Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Brian

>>Who here believe that ssp are a valid level of taxonomy? I dont just mean a way to determine locality or geographic variation, but a true level of taxonomy?
>>
-----

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 Great plains rat snake "Reign Fire" (TX locale)
1.0 Grey rat snake "Punisher" (White oak phase)(Dwight Good stock)

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

......yes, there has to be a starting point to categorize to the subspecies level. First there has to be a species. At the species level we use binomial nomenclature (two names), i.e. Lampropeltis triangulum. At the subspecies level we use trinomial nomenclature (three names, and the third is the subspecies name).

The eastern milksnake is what we call the nominate subspecies because its species and subspecies name are both the same. So actually, the eastern milksnake is a subspecies. Why it is the nominate (Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum) is because it was the first milksnake known to science. It was caught near New York City and described in 1788 by Lacepede.

To use another example, the first red milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum syspila) was caught in Richland County, Illinois, and named in 1888 by Cope. But this happened 100 years after the eastern milksnake had been named and the species name determined.

Granted, there are more milksnakes with red than there are brown, but the eastern milk was the first known to science.

Hope this helps.

Scott Ballard

>>......yes, there has to be a starting point to categorize to the subspecies level. First there has to be a species. At the species level we use binomial nomenclature (two names), i.e. Lampropeltis triangulum. At the subspecies level we use trinomial nomenclature (three names, and the third is the subspecies name).
>>
>>The eastern milksnake is what we call the nominate subspecies because its species and subspecies name are both the same. So actually, the eastern milksnake is a subspecies. Why it is the nominate (Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum) is because it was the first milksnake known to science. It was caught near New York City and described in 1788 by Lacepede.
>>
>>To use another example, the first red milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum syspila) was caught in Richland County, Illinois, and named in 1888 by Cope. But this happened 100 years after the eastern milksnake had been named and the species name determined.
>>
>>Granted, there are more milksnakes with red than there are brown, but the eastern milk was the first known to science.
>>
>>Hope this helps.
>>
>>Scott Ballard
-----

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 Great plains rat snake "Reign Fire" (TX locale)
1.0 Grey rat snake "Punisher" (White oak phase)(Dwight Good stock)

Good luck and Happy Herping
Brian

Not sure what you mean by "true level of taxonomy" but I don't really think its is 100% valid. Useful yes in that it helps identifiy phynotypically distinct populations beyond that I don't think it means very much.