It is currently December 15th, 2017, 3:28 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Great Basin whiptail ID confirmation
PostPosted: June 19th, 2017, 11:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Posts: 1981
Location: Redding, CA
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


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Great Basin whiptail ID confirmation
PostPosted: June 20th, 2017, 2:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Posts: 1981
Location: Redding, CA
Updated per viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24397


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Great Basin whiptail ID confirmation
PostPosted: June 20th, 2017, 3:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1146
Just curious, why are you still using outdated subspecies?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Great Basin whiptail ID confirmation
PostPosted: June 20th, 2017, 3:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:19 am
Posts: 1981
Location: Redding, CA
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Just curious, why are you still using outdated subspecies?


Are you suggesting that the use of subspecies themselves are outdated?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?


Top
 Profile WWW 
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Great Basin whiptail ID confirmation
PostPosted: June 21st, 2017, 6:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: December 7th, 2011, 9:14 pm
Posts: 284
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, Ca
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri - San Diegan Tiger Whiptail


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Great Basin whiptail ID confirmation
PostPosted: June 22nd, 2017, 8:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm
Posts: 1146
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: