Great Basin whiptail ID confirmation

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Great Basin whiptail ID confirmation

Post by FunkyRes » June 19th, 2017, 11:15 pm

http://www.naherp.com/viewrecord.php?r_id=281022

Can I get the subspecies ID verified on that record? Pyramid Lake on I5 in California

Thanks

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Great Basin whiptail ID confirmation

Post by FunkyRes » June 20th, 2017, 2:56 pm


User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1216
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: Great Basin whiptail ID confirmation

Post by Bryan Hamilton » June 20th, 2017, 3:20 pm

Just curious, why are you still using outdated subspecies?

User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Great Basin whiptail ID confirmation

Post by FunkyRes » June 20th, 2017, 3:57 pm

Bryan Hamilton wrote:Just curious, why are you still using outdated subspecies?
Are you suggesting that the use of subspecies themselves are outdated?

I would disagree because I believe they give us a window into the speciation process.

Mountain Garters and Wandering Garters have a broad integration zone in Oregon, indicating gene flow and that they belong to the same species, Yet they have very different natural history, one excels at fishing in rapid moving streams and the other doesn't.

And their integrade zone in the Sierra's is rather thin, indicating a possible barrier to gene flow in that part of their contact zone.

Subspecies are a good way to note these differences in the populations while still noting that enough gene flow takes place (Klamath area) that they are the same species.

I believe historically we went a bit crazy with subspecies (e.g. all the subspecies of gray wolves) but going to the other extreme is just as wrong.

Should we stop protecting the distinctiveness of the Mexican Gray Wolf just because the clearly different but same species of wolf in Canada are now doing well and retaking the northwest US?

What about cases where two subspecies end up being distinct species, which has happened several times. Isn't it a good thing that before Rana pretiosa and Rana luteiventris were split, that subspecies were used so those reading papers now can have an idea of which was being referred to?

User avatar
mattg
Posts: 284
Joined: December 7th, 2011, 9:14 pm
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, Ca

Re: Great Basin whiptail ID confirmation

Post by mattg » June 21st, 2017, 6:58 pm

Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri - San Diegan Tiger Whiptail

User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1216
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: Great Basin whiptail ID confirmation

Post by Bryan Hamilton » June 22nd, 2017, 8:52 am

Hi Funky,

Good response and examples. I'm a big fan of recognizing phenotypic and genetic variation. I am not a fan of recognizing outdated subspecies based on scale counts and other "squishy" characters.
Its irrational to call a whiptail found at Pyramid Lake a "San Diego whiptail". These kind of silly names hurt my brain and makes our field seem like nonsense to the layperson.

Post Reply