Thanks, Herman.

I appreciate your comments and agree with a lot of what you're saying. I was mainly talking about not liking the scientific name change. As far as "relatedness" goes, I've always thought there was something between the Pituophis and the fox snakes, I just wouldn't put the fox snakes in the same genus with them before calling them a "ratsnake". Maybe all the Pituophis and Pantherophis should be in the same genus, but for now I don't think that's a good idea. It would cause a lot of confusion. There is enough differences to keep them in different, closely related, genera, I think. Of course, as always, it's just my personal opinion as a curious bystander, haha!

Terry




>>Hey Terry,
>>
>>I think Burbrink et al actually have a case with the Pituophis thing. A few years ago I had a pair of Pantherophis gloydi, which reminded me a lot to Pituophis, both behaviourly (hissing with opened mouth, tail vibration) and morphometrically (heavy bodied, rostral a little enlarged, patternless head). Sure, when you compare them to an advanced species like Pituophis melanoleucus it may seem a little odd. Now compare them to a plesiomorph species like Pituophis deppei. Does it still seem so far fetched?
>>
>>Personally, I always suspected Pantherophis obsoletus as a rather weird, semiarboreal gophersnake, rather than your typical ratsnake. I have heard many times that crosses between P. obsoletus and Pituophis catenifer are more viable and have better fertility than crosses between P. obsoletus and P. guttatus. I never tried it myself though.
>>
>>More work has to be done, more species need to get involved into the equation. But whatever you may think of their conclusions, you can't deny that Burbrink et al deliver al lot of interesting food for thought. I know I'm having fun.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Herman Bronsgeest.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]