Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hi there,
an Aussie friend of mine told me that there is a brand new paper about a re-classification of the Aussie Morelia taxa. This new one would recognize the viridis, embricata, oenpelliensis, amethisthina, carinata, bredli and would group under the "spilota" label the others (metcalfei, mcdowelli, cheynei, variegata and spilota) considering them all locality-variations. Have you ever listened about it, and where could I find a copy?
Thanks a lot mates
Stefano

Hi Stefano

I haven't seen the paper you refer to...but if some of the conclusions you mention are in it, then I guess I won't be holding my breath for it to appear.

I still maintain the view that Morelia spilota (sensu Cogger et al) is a species complex, not just a polytypic species.

I believe "spilota" actually comprises the following:

Morelia variegata - This is the northern member of the complex that extends across the Kimberleys in WA, through the far north of the Northern Territory, and across northern Queensland to include parts of western Cape York Peninsula. This species has at least two isolates that may warrant recognition as different subspecies.

Morelia bredli - This is a distinct species isolated in the southern Northern Territory (Central Australia).

Morelia imbricata - This is the species found in southern Western Australia and some offshore islands of South Australia. There are a number of isolated populations on islands that in my opinion warrant separate recognition as different subspecies.

Morelia metcalfei - This species is found throughout the temperate zone of the inland of south-eastern Australia, ranging from south-western Queensland, into north-eastern South Australia, western New South Wales, and a small area of northwestern Victoria.

Morelia mcdowelli - This species ranges from north-eastern New South Wales, to north-eastern Queensland, with at least three distinct populations that warrant recognition as separate subspecies.

Morelia cheynei - found in north-eastern Queensland with at least two distinct populations that warrant recognition as separate subspecies.

Morelia spilota – A distinct species with two separate populations that warrant recognition as different subspecies. A zone of sympatry occurs between Morelia metcalfei and Morelia spilota near Cowra, NSW and both populations directly overlap here, without any hybridization occurring in the wild.

“Morelia” carinata – Despite bredli appearing to have the closest affinities with carinata, I believe that this species is so divergent from the spilota complex that it really should be placed in a separate monotypic genus. I revised Morelia about 3 years ago and erected a new genus for carinata, but the paper along with dozens of others now remains unpublished because it became obvious that the fat controllers of Australian reptile taxonomy already know everything…and I had to change residences and all my work was placed into storage boxes.

Oh, and by the way…
*I think Morelia riversleighensis should revert to Montypythonoides riversleighensis Smith & Plane, 1985 until more fossil material comes to light.
*And, further…the viridus complex should remain in Chondropython !
*And, I still consider that oenpelliensis should be placed within its own genus (Nyctophilopython) and the amethisthina complex retained within the genus Australiasis.

Finally, a note on Ray Hoser’s new Morelia names – Firstly, I consider that all the new names erected by Ray Hoser in the genus Morelia are valid under the Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Further, I believe they all represent real biological entities. However, I am at variance with the belief that they are all different species as follows:

* I believe that Ray Hoser is correct in identifying the Morelia population from the Nuyts Archipelago, in South Australia as distinctive. However, I would include Ray Hoser’s Morelia macburniei only as a subspecies of imbricata – Thus, Morelia imbricata macburniei would probably be more appropriate for this population at this time.

* I believe that Ray Hoser is again correct in identifying the Morelia population from the Middleback and Flinder’s Ranges of South Australia as distinctive. However, I would include Ray Hoser’s Morelia mippughae only as a subspecies of metcalfei – Thus, Morelia metcalfei mippughae would probably be more appropriate for this population for the present. The Flinders Morelia are definitely very distinctive, so Ray may ultimately be proven correct that they are a full species. More data please Ray, before they become extinct.

* Morelia harrisoni - This is another valid Hoser taxon in my opinion, whose closest relative appears to be Morelia mcdowelli. It seems to me to be a good biological species that ranges from far north-eastern Cape York Peninsula in Queensland, through Southern New Guinea and into Southern Irian Jaya. Further, it appears to be a polytypic species in its own right as well, with a number of separate populations warranting recognition as different subspecies.

So, there you have it Stefano…the above is what I still believe to be the case within the genus Morelia. Do let us know when you see the new Morelia paper so that I can have a look at it.

Best Regards from

Richard Wells

thanks a lot Mr. Wells
My bests regards and greetings for the New Year
Stefano

Hi Richard,

I'd like to follow your reasoning on the point where you say:

>>Oh, and by the way…
>>*I think Morelia riversleighensis should revert to Montypythonoides riversleighensis Smith & Plane, 1985 until more fossil material comes to light.

I understand that this was in a purely evidence-free, opinion-based context, but as the guy who sunk Montypythonoides (with regret) I'm eager to find evidence that anyone has actually read my paper (ref. below... I may have cited it before). I had quite a lot of fossil material compared to the original description, and found evidence for close relationships with Morelia in the broad sense, but not fully resolved (due to character conflict) with respect to the amethistina, oenpelliensis and spilota/viridis groups.

Of course you do not recognise Morelia in that sense, so my phylogenetic result combined with your taxonomy for extant forms (where the putative nearest relatives of riversleighensis belong to four or five of your genera) would justify the opinion you gave.

On the other hand, I've always been puzzled by your preference for tiny little genera (which ignore a lot of interesting phylogenetic structure at slightly less trivial levels, and make 'species-complex' nearly always a redundant category).

We're still finding lots more python bones in Riversleigh deposits back to late Oligocene, and all pre-Pliocene specimens so far seem consistent with the single species. Various additional bits of skull (e.g. prefrontal, pterygoid, supratemporal) are very like amethistina, and I expect we'll sooner or later get near-complete skulls and nail its relationships down precisely. And you and I will presumably still disagree about what to call it.

Ref: SCANLON, J.D., 2001: 12:20. Montypythonoides: the Miocene snake Morelia riversleighensis (Smith & Plane, 1985) and the geographical origin of pythons. Memoirs of the Association of Australasian Palaeontologists 25, 1-35.

Cheers!
-----
John D. Scanlon
Riversleigh Fossil Centre
Outback at Isa
Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia
riversleigh@outbackatisa.com.au

I was going to ask this on the python forum, but it seems more applicable here. My question concerns Apadora and Morelia boeleni. To my view, (and with no taxonomy experience to back it up, lol) I think they are both the same "type", and that Boelen's should be removed from Morelia and placed with Apadora. Although I don't have any Boelens, I have seen a few in real life at shows, and the heads look pretty much the same as my Apadoras. Looking at their geographical distribution, it seems mainly that altitude is the governing factor. Boelens highter up, Apadoras further down to the coast. Both require similiar humidity and are difficult to breed (yes, I know that's not a criteria, but taken with everything else....) For a pair of animals that routinely hit over 12', very little is known about either. I looked at the maps in Mark O'Sheas book on the snakes of Papua NG, and the maps are REAL interesting as far as who lives where.

There's a real wide color variation on Apadoras, from goldish green to deep green, "almost" black, not to mention the color changing ability of Apadora, which may help a darker animal do better that lives further up in regards to the quick warm-up factor that Boelens would need because of drastic temp variants in the mountains.

So...am I out of line here...or just taking certain observations and running the wrong way with them....or possibly correct? All responses will be welcome. And what IS the breeding season on Apadora, anyway?
-----
1.1 Blackheaded pythons
1.1 Woma (Juvie female)
2.1 Aussie Olives
1.1 Timors
1.0 Angolan Juvie
1.1 Savu
1.1 Juvie Bloods
1.1 Juvie Balls
1.1 IJ Carpets
1.1 Coastal Carpets
1.2 Macklotts
1.1 Papuan Olives
1.0 Jungle Carpet
2.2 Scrubs (on breeding loan)
0.1 Jungle/Diamond cross
0.1 child, CB
0.1 wife, WC

Jaykis wrote:
>>I was going to ask this on the python forum, but it seems more applicable here. My question concerns Apadora and Morelia boeleni. To my view, (and with no taxonomy experience to back it up, lol) I think they are both the same "type", and that Boelen's should be removed from Morelia and placed with Apadora.
>> So...am I out of line here...or just taking certain observations and running the wrong way with them....or possibly correct? All responses will be welcome. ...

So I'll make my response as invited, although my name's not Richard:

I've had a go at working out why there's so much character conflict in Kluge's (1993) morphological data set, particularly involving Liasis (in the broad sense). As a breeder you're no doubt aware of various reported cases of healthy hybrids of python species belonging to separate species groups or genera. I'm not sure whether any of these progeny have turned out to be fertile, but it does raise the question whether any species or group of living pythons arose by hybridization of previously separated lineages.

Well, it would certainly be difficult to prove (or disprove)from morphological evidence alone, but after playing around with the morph data and drawing a lot of reticulating diagrams (relaxing just one of the usual cladistic assumptions), I still think it likely there was at least one hybrid origin of a species, and may have been others further back.

The one I think most likely is an introgression between olivacea-like and amethistina-like ancestors to produce papuana. That is to say, 'Apodora' papuana (with a *o*) is a Liasis-Morelia hybrid that originated after both Liasis and Morelia had diversified. Maybe boeleni is more closely related to papuana than to anything else, but papuana is equally closely related to olivacea.

This is unknown but testable. If I'm right, separate gene-trees will support different cladograms, and with enough nuclear DNA we'll get the full story.
-----
John D. Scanlon
Riversleigh Fossil Centre
Outback at Isa
Mount Isa, Queensland, Australia
riversleigh@outbackatisa.com.au

Hi John,

I've had a go at working out why there's so much character conflict in Kluge's (1993) morphological data set, particularly involving Liasis (in the broad sense). As a breeder you're no doubt aware of various reported cases of healthy hybrids of python species belonging to separate species groups or genera. I'm not sure whether any of these progeny have turned out to be fertile, but it does raise the question whether any species or group of living pythons arose by hybridization of previously separated lineages.

Good point, John. I have produced offsprings of Morelia nauta x Morelia spilota cheynei just by keeping them in the same cage. They were readily breeding and producing quite good looking and healthy offsprings. They are closer to the carpets in general appearance, but have the typical head scalation of the (former M. amethistina) Morelia nauta. We'll see if they are fertile in a couple of years...

Well, it would certainly be difficult to prove (or disprove)from morphological evidence alone, but after playing around with the morph data and drawing a lot of reticulating diagrams (relaxing just one of the usual cladistic assumptions), I still think it likely there was at least one hybrid origin of a species, and may have been others further back.

Well, I recall Kluge (1993) had placed A. papuanus between M. boeleni and some Liasis species and in a strict consensus diagramm (Fig. 27) he even placed the spilota group as well as viridis as a branch of the papuanus and olivaceus as another branch of papuanus. This would come close to what you assumed, anyway. This is perhaps the same in M. oenpelliensis I think.

The one I think most likely is an introgression between olivacea-like and amethistina-like ancestors to produce papuana. That is to say, 'Apodora' papuana (with a *o*) is a Liasis-Morelia hybrid that originated after both Liasis and Morelia had diversified. Maybe boeleni is more closely related to papuana than to anything else, but papuana is equally closely related to olivacea.

I think McDowell (1975) (or was it Brongersma 1953, 1956) assumed that M. boeleni could be closely related to Leiopython albertisii.

This is unknown but testable. If I'm right, separate gene-trees will support different cladograms, and with enough nuclear DNA we'll get the full story.

There is still a lot of research to be done in basal snakes until we know the true story. At the end it perhaps turns out right what Underwood & Stimpson (1990) suggested... there is only Morelinii (austral-asian species) and Pythoninii (african species)...

Cheers,
Wulf
-----
http://www.leiopython.de - the white-lipped python site -
http://www.herpers-digest.com - herp related eBooks search -

Thanks for the input, guys...and also the spelling correction As I'm sure you've seen on the forums here on KS, there is much interbreeding of species, and while we're reasonably sure the offspring of Carpets and Chondros (Carpondros) are mules, since none have, to my knowledge, produced fertile eggs, The whole carpet group is probably able to interbreed and produce viable young. There is also an offspring from a ball python and Woma that exist, which is really odd.
Back to Apodora and Boelens. While I have both "Aussie" Olives (eggs due in 2 weeks!!) and Apodora, I can't see where anyone would mistake one for the other, other than them both being green. As I said before, taxonomy is not my strong suit, but the geographical distribution and appearance of both those animals seems to make them a bit closer to each other than any other species.
BTW, love your country. Ayers Rock, in person, was amazing, and that cable car ride out of Kuranda down to Cairns is breathtaking. It's been 10 years since we were there, and I hope to do it again. Friendly people, too. Sheep joke..told to me by an Aussie.... "How can you tell the difference between Oz sheep and Kiwi sheep?.... Kiwi sheep back up to the fences."

Apologies to any New Zealanders.....we were there, also.
-----
1.1 Blackheaded pythons
1.1 Woma (Juvie female)
2.1 Aussie Olives
1.1 Timors
1.0 Angolan Juvie
1.1 Savu
1.1 Juvie Bloods
1.1 Juvie Balls
1.1 IJ Carpets
1.1 Coastal Carpets
1.2 Macklotts
1.1 Papuan Olives
1.0 Jungle Carpet
2.2 Scrubs (on breeding loan)
0.1 Jungle/Diamond cross
0.1 child, CB
0.1 wife, WC

"but the geographical distribution and appearance of both those animals seems to make them a bit closer to each other than any other species."

Meaning Boelens and Apodora. Wasn't clear on that.
-----
1.1 Blackheaded pythons
1.1 Woma (Juvie female)
2.1 Aussie Olives
1.1 Timors
1.0 Angolan Juvie
1.1 Savu
1.1 Juvie Bloods
1.1 Juvie Balls
1.1 IJ Carpets
1.1 Coastal Carpets
1.2 Macklotts
1.1 Papuan Olives
1.0 Jungle Carpet
2.2 Scrubs (on breeding loan)
0.1 Jungle/Diamond cross
0.1 child, CB
0.1 wife, WC