Reptile & Amphibian Forums

OK, maybe I'm just woefully uninformed on this one, so I'm going to throw this question out for anyone who can enlighten me. I was at the Reptile Super Show in Pamona California today, and I had a great discussion with a gentlemen there regarding whether or not Rufescens Kenyan Sand Boas were really Eryx colubrinus loveridgei or not. Now I know that once you start trying to classify species and subspecies into neat little categories for convenience sake, mother nature doesn't always like to be pigeon-holed that way and you find exceptions to many rules. I also know that this is even further complicated when you start trying to produce morphs that mother nature never thought of. That said, I've always assumed that rufescens sand boas were yet another morph of Eryx colubrinus loveridgei. However, the gentleman at the show conveyed to me his thoughts on the subject. He was rather sure that rufescens individuals had come from lines other than Eryx colubrinus loveridgei, noting that the breeding cycle timing was distinctly different, the size of the males hemipenes are different, etc. I don't know enough about the subject to draw from my own experience on this, so I'd like to ask what thoughts the rest of you may have on this. Are rufecens sand boas a distinctly different subspecies (or species) or are they merely a variety (or "strain" if you will) of Eryx colubrinus loveridgei? Did they originally come from a different subspecies or species?

Steve, as far as I know it's still listed as Gongylophis colubrinus loveridgei. There are some slight differences and I suspect that one day it will be listed as a subspecies. There are many unanswered questiond with the Rufescens that over time ( I hope ) will be answered. I think they are great and there genetics have opened the door to alot of new and cool projects.
Holloway Herps

>>Steve, as far as I know it's still listed as Gongylophis colubrinus loveridgei. There are some slight differences and I suspect that one day it will be listed as a subspecies. There are many unanswered questiond with the Rufescens that over time ( I hope ) will be answered. I think they are great and there genetics have opened the door to alot of new and cool projects.
>>Holloway Herps

Hi Jeff! Thanks for the reply. Pretty interesting stuff. There's not much available reading material on the origins of different morphs, so this is a tough subject to research. I have seen some vague references that seemed to suggest that some Kenyans are not from "pure" loveridgei lines. I don't know what that was all about.

Steve

Last I checked it was like this (I'm going to use common names to make it faster):

A lot of the "kenyans" we have now are crosses between the kenyan and the egyptian subspecies. The Bell line albinos come from the egyptians, and the paradox from the true kenyans. What we have in the pet trade was so interbred to create the morphs that we can't prove one is 100% kenyan (orange) or 100% egyptian (yellow).

That wisdom may be out of date. I've seen the theories change so many times that I've quit keeping track.

>>Hi Jeff! Thanks for the reply. Pretty interesting stuff. There's not much available reading material on the origins of different morphs, so this is a tough subject to research. I have seen some vague references that seemed to suggest that some Kenyans are not from "pure" loveridgei lines. I don't know what that was all about.
>>
>>Steve
-----
Travis Rose
1.3 Rough Scale Sand Boas
1.2 Indian sand boas
13.33 Kenyan Sand Boas
X.X Nervous Rats
X.X Paranoid Mice
0.2 Dogs
0.2 Cats
X.X Fish
0.1 Very understanding wife
2.0 Future Snake Lovers

A lot of the "kenyans" we have now are crosses between the kenyan and the egyptian subspecies. The Bell line albinos come from the egyptians, and the paradox from the true kenyans. What we have in the pet trade was so interbred to create the morphs that we can't prove one is 100% kenyan (orange) or 100% egyptian (yellow).

The problem with this is that it is built on one assumption - that "kenyan" (colubrinus loveridgei) sandboas were orange and "egyptian" (colubrinus colubrinus) were yellow. While there may be a roughly north/south trend to go from yellowish to orangish ground color, I have seen yellowish sandboas that were imported out of Tanzania back in the 80s. So some snakes from the southern parts of the range can show the "egyptian" color characteristics. This is why the differentiation between the two subspecies (c. colubrinus vs. c. loveridgei) was sunk by Tokar. There is no such thing as 100% Kenyan, unless you mean snakes whose geographic origin was Kenya. By that logic, Dodoma snakes aren't Kenyans either, they are Tanzanian Sandboas.

Furthermore, along the same lines as the point you were making, when larger numbers of these snakes were being imported from a wider area of their range, importers sold the orange snakes as Kenyans and the yellowish snakes as Egyptians, regardless of their country of origin.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

I agree 100%. Sometimes its just easier to make generalizations than go into detail when explaining.
-----
Travis Rose
1.3 Rough Scale Sand Boas
1.2 Indian sand boas
13.33 Kenyan Sand Boas
X.X Nervous Rats
X.X Paranoid Mice
0.2 Dogs
0.2 Cats
X.X Fish
0.1 Very understanding wife
2.0 Future Snake Lovers

in 2005 Tokar revised Eryx and eliminated rufescens and loveridgei, leaving only colubrinus. The original 1.1 rufescens were imported into the U.S. from Ethiopia in 2000 as Gongylophis colubrinus. Most breeders working with them feel there are enough differences for rufescens to be at least a subspecies. thanks, scott erycine1@aol.com

Until we have DNA evidence to suggest otherwise, I consider the 'rufescens' phase to be a locality based wild type phenotype (similar to 'dodoma' kenyans, etc...). So in simple terms.... I consider them to be the same species (Eryx colubrinus) until proven otherwise.

Cheers,
Chris
-----
Christopher E. Smith
Contact
Captive Bred Herps
Wildlife Research & Consulting Services, LLC

Until we have DNA evidence to suggest otherwise, I consider the 'rufescens' phase to be a locality based wild type phenotype (similar to 'dodoma' kenyans, etc...). So in simple terms.... I consider them to be the same species (Eryx colubrinus) until proven otherwise.

I agree. Same thing is true of loveridgei as well. They are all just Eryx colubrinus (my problem with Gongylophis is a separate issue).
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

A couple months ago Vinny offered to do a DNA study of the rufescens.....he needed a shed for a 100% Rufescen. I wonder if anyone ever sent him a shed?

The below rufescens came from Scott Millers line....

-----
Mark Huntley
Sand Boa Morphs

Sand Boa's
2.1 Rufescens
3.6 Albinos
0.1 Hypo Albino
2.1 Dodoma
1.0 Nuclear Meltdown
0.2 Flame
10.22.14 Normal (orange)
7.16 Anery
4.3 Snow
1.5 Yellow Snow
0.1 Splash Albino
1.0 Splash Anery
1.2 Orange Stripe Het Anery
1.1 High Orange Stripe
1.0 Yellow Stripe
1.3 High Orange Tiger
4.5 High Orange
1.1 Snow Paradoxes
0.1 Albino Paradoxes
1.1 Javelin Sand Boas
2.1 Rough Scales
1.1 Indian Sunsets F3

Western Hognose
12.7 Normal Hogs
3.2 Green Phase
2.2 Extreme Red het Albino

2.1 Boston Terriers
0.2 Sooners
1.3 Rhode Island Reds
0.3 Barred Rocks
0.2 Range Hens
0.1 Favorite Wives
1.1 On the fence in-laws
2.1 Rug Rats

CHECK OUT MY NEW KENYAN SAND BOA BLOG
http://sandboamorphs.blogspot.com/

WWW.SANDBOAMORPHS.COM

Sure did get one, working on sequencing a few genes now. Problem is, how many difference in the DNA between a Ruffie and a Kenyan are enough to call them different species? Know one really knows the answer to that question
-----
“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

Natural Selection Reptiles

>>Sure did get one, working on sequencing a few genes now. >>Problem is, how many difference in the DNA between a Ruffie >>and a Kenyan are enough to call them different species?

There is also the issue of whether any of the "rufescencs" in captivity today can be 100% genetically "pure". Most were crossed into Kenyan lines, AFAIK.

Are there pure locality rufescens in captivity?
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

I lost my only 'pure' rufescens in 2009. There should still be pure specimens out there..... but did people keep track of them?

-Chris
-----
Christopher E. Smith
Contact
Captive Bred Herps
Wildlife Research & Consulting Services, LLC

The East African Sand Boa is the Sand Boa that is most normally kept in the United States. This species is found in Tanzania, Kenya, quite a bit of Ethiopia, Sudan, northern Somalia, northern Chad, western Niger, Egypt, and western Lybia.
https://www.ippofashion.eu/product-category/men/bomber-leather-jacket-men/

Thanks for your input guys. Very interesting topic. I remember from way back when that the operational definition that an instructor of mine used for a species was something like, "a group of reproductively isolated organisms that, when bred together, will yield viable offspring". I would agree that it would seem that a separate subspecies designation would probably be in order, but I'd also agree that the whole genus-species-subspecies concept is our attempt to slot nature into neat little boxes where it does't necessarily fit very nicely.

>>OK, maybe I'm just woefully uninformed on this one, so I'm going to throw this question out for anyone who can enlighten me. I was at the Reptile Super Show in Pamona California today, and I had a great discussion with a gentlemen there regarding whether or not Rufescens Kenyan Sand Boas were really Eryx colubrinus loveridgei or not. Now I know that once you start trying to classify species and subspecies into neat little categories for convenience sake, mother nature doesn't always like to be pigeon-holed that way and you find exceptions to many rules. I also know that this is even further complicated when you start trying to produce morphs that mother nature never thought of. That said, I've always assumed that rufescens sand boas were yet another morph of Eryx colubrinus loveridgei. However, the gentleman at the show conveyed to me his thoughts on the subject. He was rather sure that rufescens individuals had come from lines other than Eryx colubrinus loveridgei, noting that the breeding cycle timing was distinctly different, the size of the males hemipenes are different, etc. I don't know enough about the subject to draw from my own experience on this, so I'd like to ask what thoughts the rest of you may have on this. Are rufecens sand boas a distinctly different subspecies (or species) or are they merely a variety (or "strain" if you will) of Eryx colubrinus loveridgei? Did they originally come from a different subspecies or species?