I already mentioned, its measurable. first, there is something to keep in mind, its not about right or wrong, it just is. Many of the ways biology sees things, are assumptions. Some right, some not so right, or even wrong. Indeed science had to make those assumptions to move forward.
Take a snake, like an eastern king. I am making this up, its only an example. If they had, 25 scale rows, 240 to 260 ventrals, and 60 to 68 subcaudals. Then take a cal king, they had, 28 scale rows, 265 to 280 ventrals, and 55 to 65 subcaudals. head scales were the same, but some slight rostral differences. They are a similar snake, the easterns being larger and more robust. At first look, they are different enough to be different species, or subspecies.
When we exampled nigra, it was more like easterns, but with slightly more scale rows and ventrals. Then holbrooki, again more like nigra, but leaning towards cal kings. Then splendida. Again between holbrooki and cal king. That would be a nice simple cline. So they would be considered the same species, and could be called subspecies. In this case, easterns were a little more unique, the others were closer, so it got to be, L.g.getula, and the others received subspecific names.
But if easterns was way different, and the others the same or close. they could be separated. Or if the three were similar and Cal kings were way different, cal kings would be unique and receive its own ranking. All measurable and anyone could count scales to see what they have, no manner what the pattern and color was. over the years, I have counted more scales then I should have. Pt 1

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