Morelia variegata

[MrBredli]

Can't they be described as different sub species purely on their different physical characteristics?

[DanN]

Hix,

Is the research Steve Donellens? Can you enlighten me further. Especially about Chondro's.

[hugsta]

DNA testing cannot tell the difference between diamond, darwin, coastal, jungle etc. They all appear the same through DNA. The only ones that show variation are Bredli and imbricata. So, technically, all Morelia spilota is one species, they just look heaps different. Which brings into it another debate altogether....LOL

[hazzard]

Where is the bloody publication, been hearing about it for years!

[MrBredli]

DNA testing may not be able to tell them apart (yet), but surely they must have different DNA to some degree, otherwise they would all look exactly the same, right?

[Hix]

Yeah, Donellan was one of the researchers, there was three or four of them.

All he said about the Chondros - he was pretty sure they would be put back in Vhondropython again. He didn't say why, but I got the impression that the DNA was quite divergent from the other Morelias.

MrBredli: they were looking at the DNA only (which codes for physical characteristics, amongst everything else). They couldn't find enough variance to separate the different subspecies. DNA sequences were common to all forms of carpet, and to use his words "we could not use the DNA to predict skin patterns".



HIx

[DanN]

MrBredl,

They can have exactly the same DNA but look completely different. Just like black/white H.sapiens. Hormones during development usually determine colour. The mother can also help determine colour as well as environment.

[MrBredli]

I don't know about that guys. I'm sure that DNA testing could differentiate between a person of black heritage and a person of white heritage. Isn't that right?

But blacks and whites aren't classified as different sub species, so i guess that in some way shows that different skin colour/pattern is not enough in itself to 'describe' a sub species.

[DanN]

Yes - but like you said, not by enough to name Black/white as different sub-species.

[da_donkey]

Even if they could do it, imagine if they classed blacks as a sub species of white or visa versa.
They would never do it.

donk

[Hix]

I don't look at skin colour in humans (which could be controlled by just one gene) as being the same as patterns in snakes (which is controlled by many different genes).

Instead, I would equate patterns in snakes with hair colour and hair shape in humans.

Remember, the pattern you see on a snake is on it's scales, not it's skin.



Hix

[ihaveherps]

I was alos under the impression that this research also had Carianata as a distinct sub-species also.

[mysnakesau]

Isn't morelia variegata the darwin carpet?

[boa]

Individuals have a DNA fingerprint that distinguishes them as an individual, they only vary at that level not at a species/sub species level.

Originally Posted by MrBredli

I don't know about that guys. I'm sure that DNA testing could differentiate between a person of black heritage and a person of white heritage. Isn't that right?

But blacks and whites aren't classified as different sub species, so i guess that in some way shows that different skin colour/pattern is not enough in itself to 'describe' a sub species.

[Reptilia]

Morelia spilota spilota - diamond
Morelia spilota mcdowelli - coastal
Morelia spilota cheynei - jungle
Morelia spilota variegata - northwest
Morelia spilota metcalfei - murray darling
Morelia carinata - rough scale
Morelia imbricata - south west
Morelia viridis - green tree
Morelia bredli - centralian
Morelia amethistina - scrub
Morelia oenpelliensis - oenpelli rock
? - Gammon ranges - more closely related to metcalfei or imbricata?

So this is how it stands now?