Ravensgait, to my understanding, this nex taxonomy system actually lumps Greens and Roughies both into Chondropython, and seperates
Bredli and Imbricata from the spilota's. Although I am yet to hear that this new system is widely accepted, as even within their own ilk, taxonomists rarely agree, part of why the taxonomy is one of the most contemptuous of the sciences.
Dna testing on pythons at this stage is rather useless, except in regards to proving paternity. Work up to this point in regards to the carpets has only come to the conclusion that there are minor genetic differences between the spilotas, possibly not enough to warrant so many sub-species, yet unless the genome is completely mapped, the relevence of these minute differences are not really applicable to any taxonomic breakthrough. The DNA testing you are refering to is no more than pure data, without any application as of yet.
So to my understanding Ranensgait, so far the bulk of your arguement in this thread revolves around DNA testing and taxonomy. The DNA testing, a proven science, although its application in this sense is yet to be in any way complete as the data they have collected thus far has no application, and on the other hand Taxonomy, which even by your own posts is not a concrete science so cannot see how this even helps your arguement. Furthermore when some have tried to pass their own opinions on the subject of locale breeding, an idea you cannot seem to fathom, as in itself it is alot more common-sence way to keep rather than continually chasing the whims of the taxonomists.
I fail to see how the bulk of what you have contributed to this thread has any validity at all, it all sound good at a glance, but has no basis in finite science at all.
Regards
Herpies
