• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

A Few Bad Scientists Are Threatening to Topple Taxonomy

Heck, I will likely always think of the corn snake as Elaphe guttata guttata till the day I die.

I think before anything else, a STRONG definition and test criteria of what actually makes "a species" needs to be developed.

I've always heard this common definition used:

the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Click to expand...

So where does that put the "species" of snakes that have been used to create hybrids? How can either species from which the two parents of a hybrid be considered as a distinct species if they are able to breed together and produce viable offspring? Doesn't that simply defy the definition of "species" altogether? So either the definition of "species" is incorrect, or the designations of a bunch of supposedly different types of snakes as being separate species is incorrect.

"Taxonomy" appears to be a structure that has been built on quicksand anyway. Perhaps that needs to be firmed up first.

What was the purpose of taxonomy in the first place? Has that goal been successful? Do facts have to be ignored in order to make it work?

IMHO.
 
I've had those same thoughts, Rich. Taxonomy makes me pull my hair out sometimes. Quicksand indeed. Prime example Pantherophis (Elaphe) and Lampropeltis -- whole genera that can interbreed.

I came back into snakes and corn snakes after the switch from Elaphe to Pantherophis, but I'm "bilingual" on that for sure. Some people here still teach that there are corn snakes native to Illinois and others have embraced the Great Plains Ratsnake as a separate species and not a sub species. And trying to figure out where my little housie lies taxonomically has been a small nightmare. Is he a colubrid or a lamprophid? Is he more closely related to a corn snake or a cobra? Interesting and frustrating at the same time.

I just got an eastern indigo so have been studying that species as well. The Drymarchon couperi taxonomical debate is impacting the project to try to restore them to areas where they have been extirpated, with some claiming that there are subspecies (if I recall correctly) and that the wrong subspecies is being reintroduced.

Edited to add: Found the article! http://www.tallahassee.com/story/ne...rong-indigo-snake-species-released/509027001/

And that's just the three species (if I can be so bold to call them that) I work with!
 
Last edited:
DollysMom said:
This is especially impacting herpetology.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-big-ugly-problem-heart-of-taxonomy-180964629/

edited to add:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/taxonomic-vandalism-and-hoser/

Evidently this has been going on for a while. The second article highlights the worst offender's other reprehensible behavior.
Click to expand...

That's problematic to say the least. I had no idea it was going on. Thanks for sharing the articles DollysMom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top