Crack down on subspecies crosses Queensland

[GBWhite]

Basically, what DNA analysing has proven is that all of the Morelia spilota group (including Diamonds (M. spilota spilota), Jungles (M. cheynei), Coastals (M. mcdowelli). Murray/Darlings (M. metcalfei) & Northerns (M. variagata) are all the same snake. So anyone that wants to breed them with each other is not crossing species or subspecies, just colour variations.

There are no geographic barriers to isolate the eastern and northern populations in Australia.

It appears they are so successful across the Australian Continent due to their genetic ability to produce colour patterns relevant to their survival within habitats, indeed micro-habitats within habitats.

Further it has long been argued that morphological taxonomic methods used and accepted to describe new species of Australian reptiles and/or elevate sub-species to species level is too simple. It is my understanding that this was the reason Wells and Wellington undertook and produced "A synopsis of the Class Reptilia in Australia" 1983. It was too prove a point...and they did!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've copied & pasted Dave Williams' post to make it easy.

Hi all,

In response to a question about carpet python Morelia spp systematics in a PM today I gave the following reply which on reflection might interest quite a few people here:


The latest work on carpet pythons will raise more than a couple of eyebrows I think you'll find ...

Essentially Taylor et al reported to the 2003 ASH Conference that analysis of mtDNA control region sequences, 22 allozyme loci and eight microsatellite loci from 350 snakes sampled from 119 locations throughout the range of the complex in Australia and New Guinea demonstrated (with good correlation between all three techniques) that there ARE ONLY THREE VALID TAXA IN THE COMPLEX ... :shock:

These being:

Morelia bredli (Central Australia)
Morelia spilota imbricata (South-western WA/Eyre Peninsula)
Morelia spilota spilota (All eastern and northern forms)

The abstract reference is

Taylor D, Rawlings L, Donnellan SC, Goodman AE. (2003) Population structure of the highly polytypic Australian carpet pythons (Reptilia: Morelia spilota) Proceedings of the 2003 Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists.

The actual paper will probably be in print sometime this year.


I imagine that this will come as a big shock to a lot of folks - no more M.s.variegata, M.s.cheynei, M.s.mcdowelli etc etc ....

Cheers


David​

• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  
  NoOne,
  
  Studies of DNA establish whether or not a group of animals belong to one taxonomic unit (a genetically distinctive unique life form) or to two or more taxonomic units. Each taxonomic unit bears a single taxonomic designation - a name.
  
  Taylor et al's work is strong evidence for concluding that all of the eastern Australian and northern Australian Morelia belong to just one taxonomic unit Morelia spilota spilota. Sure some of them look different - that means nothing.
  
  Look at it this way ... Unless they happen to be biggotted, racist, s@*mbag hitlerites :twisted: most people accept that the human race is comprised of a single taxonomic unit Homo sapiens with wide geographical variation in appearance but just one unique genome. The concept is simple, broadly accepted and proven fact.
  
  So why should it be so hard to accept the fact that in terms of many other types of animals similar variations in appearance (for whatever reasons)... such as colour, body size ... occur despite the fact that the genome of all is one and the same.
  
  This doesn't mean you can't keep referring to different forms by their regional colloquial names: 'jungles', 'diamonds', 'brissies', 'coastals' or whatever ... it just means that from a scientific name perspective they are all just going to be Morelia spilota spilota.
  
  Those are the facts, and as more and more reliable DNA technology is developed and applied to these issues, expect more changes.
  
  Cheers
  
  
  Dave
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  The first of the species located and identified was Morelia spilota spilota (described by Lacepede 1804) from around the Sydney Sandstone region of it's distribution (translated = spotted morelia). It was not until 1842 when Grey located and identified a Morelia with a more varied colour pattern and based on this described it as M variegata.
  
  George.​
  
  

 

[andynic07]

A brief search failed to turn up the article referred to by George and I have not yet read the APS thread mentioned. When I have time I shall do so. In the meantime it seems appropriate to provide some clear background that will facilitate a clearer understanding of the system we have today and wherein the problems lie...

Theophrastus (370-285 BC), a student of Aristotle, was the first recorded attempted to name all pants, beyond just those of importance to humans. The Greek influence led to the use of Latin names, Latin being the common language via which philosophers and other academics communicated.

It was not until the seventeenth century that people in Europe took up trying to name all organisms once again. The Latin based utilised by the Greeks were utilised as a starting point. Names used by the Greeks were based on a description of the plant’s characteristics. To differentiate a new closely related species, distinguishing adjectives were added to an existing name. This system led to some very unwieldy names. For example, the common carnation was known as “dianthus floribus solitaris, squamis calycinis subovatis brevissimis, corollis crenatis”. This means “the pink (a general name for the group),with solitary flowers, the scales of the calyx somewhat egg-shaped and very short, the petals scalloped. By the eighteenth century using this descriptive based system of naming, many names become too long and difficult to use.

Carl Linnaeus (aka Carl von Linne) was responsible for instigating two revolutionary changes (that we still use today) to the way in which organisms were named. Firstly, he introduced the idea of a nested hierarchical structure, based upon observable characteristics that are shared, and that reflect natural relationships. The Linnaean system classified nature starting with three kingdoms. Kingdoms were divided into classes which were, in turn, divided into orders, and thence into genera, which were divided into species. The second idea he introduced was to name living things using a similar system to the way Europeans named people, except doing it ‘surname’ first. This binomial naming system has a couple of rules regarding the allocation of names. The genus name (and all names further up in the hierarchy must all be unique i.e. once used on particular group they cannot be used for any other group of living things. Species names may only be used once in any given genus but there is no restriction on the number of genera in which it may be used.

Up until Darwin and Wallace, the prevailing religious doctrine was creationism in which it was believed that the Creator made each form of living thing separately. At the same time the earth and its climate were believed to be immutable i.e. the same as the ‘day’ they were created. So the only real problem anticipated with classifying a new species of living thing (based upon its observable physical attributes) was ensuring that it had not been classified already.

Darwin, Wallace and Mendel, and those who have followed in their footsteps, threw a very large spanner in the works by determining that new species arise from pre-existing species through genetic change. Palaeontology and geomorphology have corroborated the notion of major changes to the physical and life structures of the earth.

There are a number of ways in which speciation (development of new species) can occur. One is breeding isolation. This normal occurs as a result of some form of geographical barrier that divides what was a freely breeding population, such a river changes course and creates an impassable valley, a mountain range, a wide body of water etc. Changes in behaviour, colour and/pattern and pheromones can also result in breeding isolation. Adaptive radiation is major driving force in speciation. As population spreads out geographically, sections of it adapt to the many varied ecological niches present. The proliferation of insect species in general and beetle species in particular is a prime example of adaptive radiation. Ctenotus and Lerista skinks are examples in Australian reptiles.

Genetic isolation does not have to be absolute. If the rate of gene flow between two populations is sufficiently reduced, these populations can develop along sufficient different lines to the point where separate species can develop. For example, there is a frog in the US that has a Ì-shape across the country. There 5 recognised populations A, B, C, D and E. Adjoining populations can breed readily as can two populations either side of another. However, Populations A and E are unable to produce viable offspring, despite the fact that these two populations occupy the most similar habitat.

So what are the issues confronting classification today?

Evolution is the development of a new species from pre-existing species. Because evolution is an on-going process,

While there are plenty of “end points” present as the result of evolution there also a lot of “still in the process”. While we might like to envisage evolution as a clear, one-way direction, this is not the reality. Evolution is a product of the environment and subject to changes as the environment changes. It is influenced by the unpredictable occurrence of mutations, random genetic drift and a few other factors, depending. Evolutionary influences will vary through time and with geographic location. As a result, different populations can exhibit specific genetic markers unique to them. At the same, the division between two genetically distinct populations may be cline (genetic change with distance) rather than a distinct separation as the result of breeding isolation (for whatever reason).

While the current classification system presents difficulties with certain groups and the taxonomists’ term of ‘’species complex” does nothing in real terms to help, the usefulness of the system cannot be over stated.

So while it may be a case of arbitrarily choosing a point of division, like choosing where red ends and orange begins on the visible spectrum, this does invalidate the immense value of a system of categorising living thing. Simply because one colour grades into the next does not make the colour classification scheme of ROYGBIV any less useful.


Blue

PS Sorry abut the length but I don't know how to put in more than one post at a time.

Very good and informative post Mike but do you have a view on species or sub species crossing in regard to this information or are you just providing some useful information and history on classification?

 

[Bluetongue1]

Andy,
I am not keen to see native populations interfered with genetically. Inter-breeding of genetically separate or distinctive groups is of concern to me for that reason alone. If one could be guaranteed that no offspring or direct descendents would find their way into natural populations, then I would have no concerns even though it is of no interest to me.

For myself, I had to resolve the issue of captive animals finding their way into natural populations where they don’t belong in order to justify widespread captive keeping of reptiles. As I have pointed out before, where one or two captive animals are introduced into a wild population from a widely differing geographic origin, the genes they contribute will be lost in within the space of a few generations. It is where ten or a dozen, or whatever it requires produce a self-sustaining population, are introduced that the genes can be propagated and spread. Given that natural selection will ultimately operate on these individuals and their progeny, those genes not suited to the given environment will ultimately be selected against. Secondly, there will be a large genetic overlap and the number of genes involved is miniscule in comparison to the sum total.

When it comes to crossing different species, then that is a different ball game. If you have clearly different species from the one genus, or worse, inter-generic crosses, which are capable of breeding with wild types of one of the original parent species to produce viable and fertile offspring, then the potential for genetic pollution in natural populations becomes huge. This is why I believe it should remain as is and that responsible keepers should recognise the potential hazards and do nothing to encourage it. Whether the practice is very common or otherwise, you could bet London to a brick that legalisation will result in a proliferation of the activity.

Many people don’t seem to want to accept the fact that they have been given access to this group of native animals to keep as pets and along with that goes a responsibility to do their bit not to endanger these animals in the wild through their keeping. Clearly, I am of the opinion that they do have a responsibility.

Blue

 

[Sdaji]

 

[andynic07]

Sorry if this is flogging a dead horse for you [MENTION=688]Sdaji[/MENTION] but I have one more question for [MENTION=20726]Bluetongue1[/MENTION].I can understand exactly what you are saying about inter species crosses getting out with the ability to breed with wild type and agree completely.My question is more about subspecies crosses, with evidence that they are the same mtDNA wise could you draw parallels to humans? I know they are completely different but humans are considered a single species and at one stage had isolated populations that developed different characteristics to suit their environment. Firstly is this the same thing and if so why is it not a problem with people but it is with carpet snakes?

 

[champagne]

at the end of the day we all just keeping pets in boxes... if you want a snake that looks like a jungle (not that half of you would of even seen a wild jungle) then buy one that looks like a jungle. if a snake that has an exact apprence of a jungle in every way but has a % of Darwin in it what does it matter to a pet snake being kept in a box?

 

[Jungle_Freak]

Thanks George . The defining post in this thread . Thumbs up to Dave W as well...

Also true hybrid should be prosecuted in all states ie GTP x carpet python or Water python x carpet type hybrids...

Basically, what DNA analysing has proven is that all of the Morelia spilota group (including Diamonds (M. spilota spilota), Jungles (M. cheynei), Coastals (M. mcdowelli). Murray/Darlings (M. metcalfei) & Northerns (M. variagata) are all the same snake. So anyone that wants to breed them with each other is not crossing species or subspecies, just colour variations.

There are no geographic barriers to isolate the eastern and northern populations in Australia.

It appears they are so successful across the Australian Continent due to their genetic ability to produce colour patterns relevant to their survival within habitats, indeed micro-habitats within habitats.

Further it has long been argued that morphological taxonomic methods used and accepted to describe new species of Australian reptiles and/or elevate sub-species to species level is too simple. It is my understanding that this was the reason Wells and Wellington undertook and produced "A synopsis of the Class Reptilia in Australia" 1983. It was too prove a point...and they did!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've copied & pasted Dave Williams' post to make it easy.

Hi all,

In response to a question about carpet python Morelia spp systematics in a PM today I gave the following reply which on reflection might interest quite a few people here:


The latest work on carpet pythons will raise more than a couple of eyebrows I think you'll find ...

Essentially Taylor et al reported to the 2003 ASH Conference that analysis of mtDNA control region sequences, 22 allozyme loci and eight microsatellite loci from 350 snakes sampled from 119 locations throughout the range of the complex in Australia and New Guinea demonstrated (with good correlation between all three techniques) that there ARE ONLY THREE VALID TAXA IN THE COMPLEX ... :shock:

These being:

Morelia bredli (Central Australia)
Morelia spilota imbricata (South-western WA/Eyre Peninsula)
Morelia spilota spilota (All eastern and northern forms)

The abstract reference is

Taylor D, Rawlings L, Donnellan SC, Goodman AE. (2003) Population structure of the highly polytypic Australian carpet pythons (Reptilia: Morelia spilota) Proceedings of the 2003 Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists.

The actual paper will probably be in print sometime this year.


I imagine that this will come as a big shock to a lot of folks - no more M.s.variegata, M.s.cheynei, M.s.mcdowelli etc etc ....

Cheers


David​

• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  NoOne,
  
  Studies of DNA establish whether or not a group of animals belong to one taxonomic unit (a genetically distinctive unique life form) or to two or more taxonomic units. Each taxonomic unit bears a single taxonomic designation - a name.
  
  Taylor et al's work is strong evidence for concluding that all of the eastern Australian and northern Australian Morelia belong to just one taxonomic unit Morelia spilota spilota. Sure some of them look different - that means nothing.
  
  Look at it this way ... Unless they happen to be biggotted, racist, s@*mbag hitlerites :twisted: most people accept that the human race is comprised of a single taxonomic unit Homo sapiens with wide geographical variation in appearance but just one unique genome. The concept is simple, broadly accepted and proven fact.
  
  So why should it be so hard to accept the fact that in terms of many other types of animals similar variations in appearance (for whatever reasons)... such as colour, body size ... occur despite the fact that the genome of all is one and the same.
  
  This doesn't mean you can't keep referring to different forms by their regional colloquial names: 'jungles', 'diamonds', 'brissies', 'coastals' or whatever ... it just means that from a scientific name perspective they are all just going to be Morelia spilota spilota.
  
  Those are the facts, and as more and more reliable DNA technology is developed and applied to these issues, expect more changes.
  
  Cheers
  
  
  Dave
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  The first of the species located and identified was Morelia spilota spilota (described by Lacepede 1804) from around the Sydney Sandstone region of it's distribution (translated = spotted morelia). It was not until 1842 when Grey located and identified a Morelia with a more varied colour pattern and based on this described it as M variegata.
  
  George.​

 

[zulu]

Problem with DNA analysis is that its similar between a gorilla and a human ,subspecies would appear as almost identical.
Animals will have similar DNA to survive evolution with small differences that have more impact ,such as a diamond python from the sydney area compared to a coastal carpet.

 

[Gaboon]

Can the Irian Jaya Carpet blood be detected in Jags? Since that sub species arn't kept on licence and a Bredli cross diamond and others can't be bred in some states shouldn't it be illigal to breed sub species that arn't legally kept in Australia? How is irian jaya blood any diffirent from blood pythons etc they arnt legally kept, their introduced, not to mention non native Gtps. I'm not attacting people breeding non natives, breed them but theirs a point there. Exotics kept before the amnesty etc all little things that suggest that these people are just making it up as they go along. Why can't they work something out for basic exotics, Native crosses have been bred for decades and arnt breeding in the wild their is no problem. If you want pure animals buy only from reputable breeders that have an established name that care about the industry if everyone did that, back yard breeders wouldn't be able to sell them and they arn't selling very well. I think the lack of exotics and hybrids suggest that theirs nothing to crack down on and people just arn't breeding that much anymore creating less numbers and less morphs popping up which is how you get them, it's a numbers game like ball pythons and retics. Lack of morphs mean lack of numbers being bred, forcing people to have nothing to turn to or think of except hybrids because that's the only thing people can do. No one cares about producing line bred pure animals because they don't want to put the years in but those people will live those years anyway.

How did the toads get in this country in the first place? Pets? People trying to breed them with green tree frogs? Maybe cane toads should have been on license, so they didnt excape into the wild and breed. Don't make me mention the fact that the sun will give out eventually.

 

[andynic07]

Can the Irian Jaya Carpet blood be detected in Jags? Since that sub species arn't kept on licence and a Bredli cross diamond and others can't be bred in some states shouldn't it be illigal to breed sub species that arn't legally kept in Australia? How is irian jaya blood any diffirent from blood pythons etc they arnt legally kept, their introduced, not to mention non native Gtps. I'm not attacting people breeding non natives, breed them but theirs a point there. Exotics kept before the amnesty etc all little things that suggest that these people are just making it up as they go along. Why can't they work something out for basic exotics, Native crosses have been bred for decades and arnt breeding in the wild their is no problem. If you want pure animals buy only from reputable breeders that have an established name that care about the industry if everyone did that, back yard breeders wouldn't be able to sell them and they arn't selling very well. I think the lack of exotics and hybrids suggest that theirs nothing to crack down on and people just arn't breeding that much anymore creating less numbers and less morphs popping up which is how you get them, it's a numbers game like ball pythons and retics. Lack of morphs mean lack of numbers being bred, forcing people to have nothing to turn to or think of except hybrids because that's the only thing people can do. No one cares about producing line bred pure animals because they don't want to put the years in but those people will live those years anyway.

How did the toads get in this country in the first place? Pets? People trying to breed them with green tree frogs? Maybe cane toads should have been on license, so they didnt excape into the wild and breed. Don't make me mention the fact that the sun will give out eventually.

Cane toads were introduced by the government to control the cane beetle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gaboon]

I know that Andy and further proves the point that the government has no clue. But the country has a great mind set and the people arn't idiots, I think they can handle them selfs, we arnt going to release boas into the forests of qld and we don't cull rattle snakes, we don't kill threated natives for sport or drive animals into extinction for the most part. I think Australia can handle abit more, including chipotle thanks.

 

[Sdaji]

Firstly is this the same thing and if so why is it not a problem with people but it is with carpet snakes?

Same thing. Difference is political opinion. For some reason we need to preserve the natural appearance of Carpet Pythons (even though we select them to make them look unnatural with stripes and albinism and more yellow and melanistic morphs... go figure) but the idea that we should conserve the purity of human races is a crime to have in your head, probably literally these days. No, it doesn't make sense, yes, it's a double standard (cue some politically-minded fanatic with ants in her pants to come up with a twisted attempt to rationalise it ).

There are genetic differences between races/localities of Carpet Pythons, the fact that we can't detect them in the lab is just due to us not bothering to establish the protocols to do it, but it certainly is possible. To the rest of the world this issue is a storm in one of the tiniest tea cups ever to exist.

I'm not a fan of hybrids (or the fact that no one seems to know what the word means :lol: ), but there are probably more hybrid Carpets out there now than locality pure, and that's never going to change. The same is rapidly happening with Antaresia, and if multiple morphs pop up in Womas or Black-headed Pythons they'll go the same way... oh, but apparently that doesn't matter because no one has decided to put Womas or Black-headeds into different subspecies! :lol: I've always found it funny that hybridising is fine but suddenly becomes wrong if someone slaps a new name on something :lol: Funnier still, some even consider it natural because it could happen in the wild, until it gets a different name! A Carpet Python from Brisbane can't breed with one from Sydney. I suppose a Carpet Python from Cairns could breed with a Scrubby, but does that make it okay? Children's Pythons breed with Stimson's Pythons on either side of the magic line every year in the wild, but I'm guessing they'd somehow be considered 'bad hybrids' in captivity, while a NSW Stimmy could be bred with a WA Stimmy, and most people would consider that to be fine? Hey, I read a book and looked up the name, I know what I'm talking about!

There is no way you can stop it (I must admit, some years ago when it was starting to happen I probably would have stopped it if I somehow could, and back then I probably had a few ants in my pants like most of the people in this thread seem to :lol: ), we just have to accept that, not because it's good or bad but because we have no alternative. People complained most about Carpet hybrids (or whatever the people who think they're too clever to call intersubspecific Carpet hybrids hybrids call them), and not surprisingly, all these obvious hybrid Carpets getting sold all over the country get labelled pure, (amusingly often not even as what they most closely resemble :lol: ). We can either have mudbloods labelled as pure, or we can accept them and label them as mud, but that only works if we don't put a higher dollar value on purity. I suppose it's fair to say that rationalising things like this isn't going to be the driving force behind decision making, so we're going to continue to see hybrids everywhere, often labelled as pure, and people complaining and suggesting unrealistic ways to deal with it.

Danny: So albino Carpets are okay in QLD because Blondie was wild caught? What if albinism pops up in some unrelated captive Jungles? What about my albino Death Adders? The first albino Northern Death Adders were born in captivity, does that make them somehow legally different from albino Common Death Adders? That would be A-grade insanity right there! Or, is that actually what they propose? Or is it sort of what they propose while it suits them, until someone points out an inconvenient mutation which doesn't fit with what they want? In most of these wildlife cases the law is engineered to fit convenience rather than sense, reason or function

To anyone freaking about hybrids and their terrible ecological risk - A Darwin x coastal escaping in Brisbane is no worse than a pure Darwin escaping in Brisbane. Ideally it might be worth being strict on keeping species outside their own natural locality but within the range of conspecifics, but hey, who is going to regulate that (you'd be hard pressed finding people who even understood it! :lol: ).

To anyone worried about the incredible risk jags pose to 'the wild' - the jag mutation wouldn't survive long term in the wild, it would actually be removed more quickly than things like selectively bred high yellow in jungles, or stripes or many of the other things people select for without it being considered a problem. The fact that jag is a health/behaviour problem is the thing which would prevent it from spreading. If there was a strongly beneficial mutation, it probably would spread if it got out into the wild, yet ironically no one would be complaining about it being bred in captivity.

For the record, I don't like Carpets or have any plans to ever keep them again, and I don't really like jags, but I'm not going to get ants in my pants if someone else likes them.

For the most part, we'd struggle to stuff up wild populations if we tried. Sure, people keeping captive reptiles have introduced populations of Water Dragons to Melbourne (where they have a trivial impact) and you can find Tiger Snakes around Melbourne which aren't at all like the natural ones from the area, and I'm sure the same sort of thing happens all over the country around towns and cities where people keep herps, but the only way to avoid that is to ban all reptile keeping (which wouldn't be possible anyway). Hybrids don't make it any worse. While we have building developments bulldozing entire ecosystems out of existence, feral species eating or outcompeting populations of reptiles, an all the other actual problems which are concerning, it doesn't really make sense to get too fanatical about these issues. In some ways it sort of sucks for the captive population in that it's increasingly rare to see pure animals, but really, if you want to find a pure locality x Carpet it's not that difficult - there are enough enthusiasts keeping the lines pure even if others muddy the water. Which locality has been lost due to hybridising? If it still exists in the wild, does it really matter if we don't have pure ones in captivity? How many people do you know, including the 'hybrids are evil' crowd, who don't select against natural traits? Who wouldn't pick the most yellow or striped or placid or best feeding or albino or melanistic or otherwise best looking one? I noticed that even when I was a locality fanatic (and I still am a bit) - even I would want a prettier, friendlier, better feeding animal, so even I wasn't conserving the natural form, so really, what was the point of locality anyway? There really isn't any, but I still like it, just because I do. That's fine, but I don't have pants ants when someone else doesn't share my feelings.

...and yep, I just flogged the horse myself! :lol:

 

[andynic07]

[MENTION=688]Sdaji[/MENTION] Great post, this is exactly how I feel, I mainly own "pure" animals that have no real morphs but do not have a problem with whoever does and actually enjoy seeing some of them. I do own a subspecies carpet cross though and love it.

 

[Bluetongue1]

Basically, what DNA analysing has proven is that all of the Morelia spilota group (including Diamonds (M. spilota spilota), Jungles (M. cheynei), Coastals (M. mcdowelli). Murray/Darlings (M. metcalfei) & Northerns (M. variagata) are all the same snake. So anyone that wants to breed them with each other is not crossing species or subspecies, just colour variations....
....George

It is interesting that study in question was made public in 2003 and yet has not been adopted by any of themain taxonomic institututions or authors. What I can tell you is there currently another genetic study being undertaken of the complex.

Andy,
Apologies for the delay but my PC crashed. Comparing races in human and sub-species in snakes is not helpful. There were initially 9 geographic races identified, using features such as skin colour, body form, hair type, head shape (as viewed from above, ear wax type, blood types, facial features (such as brow ridge, slope of forehead, shape of nose, presence of absence of epicanthic eyefold) and a few more I cannot remember. Other anthropologist split humans into anwhere from 40 to 70 races, or there abouts. bear in mind this is before large scale movements of other than Europeans around the globe. When invsestigated more thoroughly, it became evident that each races had clines (gradual changes in features of species from one place to another) within had clines across the distribution and particulaly where one race gave way to another. "Typical" individuals were more an averge than an accurate representative of all members and so the concept was abandoned by most anthropologists.

Racism was mentionred by is the belief that a given 'race' of humansis superior. Defining the dominant race has been based on single attributes, such as skin colour, country of origin, religion, ethnicity or a combination of a couple of these. Clearly the concepts of race and racism are entirely separate and should not be confused. Similar rationale as discussed already for potential release of subspecies and related species.

While I am not infavour of crossing subspecies of a given species, it is less likely they will create problems if people do the right thing. For example, not dumping all the individuals from one or more clutches that have not coloured up as desired after 6 or whatever number of shed.

Gaboon,
I am unsure how you know what is not breeding in the wild.
Whilst your belief in the mindset and responsible behaviour of Australians is very admirable, there are numerous threads on APS that show that is not always the case. I shall be happy to point to some out if you want. With respect to "not driving animals into extinction" you might find it worthwhile to read recent articles by Professors John Woinarski or Corey Bradshaw and others, as well a particularly relevant article by TIm Lowe on the Christmas Island Pipistrelle (a bat). Before blindly bagging the release of cane toads in this country I would suggest you familiarise yourself with the historical realities of the release of the cane toad. Particularly the other options available in 1935 and the information they had to work with, mostly from Hawaii. That was coupled with political interference from the then very powerful cane growers group.


Blue

 

[GBWhite]

It is interesting that study in question was made public in 2003 and yet has not been adopted by any of themain taxonomic institututions or authors. What I can tell you is there currently another genetic study being undertaken of the complex.

I think you'll find that in his latest "Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia" Cogger recognises three sub species;
M spilota s - coastal NSW
M s imbricata -s/w WA
M s variegata - rest of the range.

He notes that Barker and Barker 1994 consider 'variegata' as four distinct subspecies - cheynei, mcdowelli. metcalfei & variegata.

As mentioned in a previous post on another thread, Cogger also notes that the subspecies variegata and imbricata "are subject to enormous variation in colour and pattern".

I find it quite odd how zoologists define species on morphological traits yet the same analysis doesn't apply when it come to humans.

From the literature I've read it appears all humans are classified as Homo sapiens because we share 99.99% DNA and there is no specific gene that can define a person's race (species/subspecies). This is despite the fact that black Africans are morphologically different from Asians who are again morphologically different to Europeans. Apparently DNA analysis can determine a person's morphological make up (ie, skin colour, eye and nose shape, facial features etc) and provide an incite as to their ancestry but cannot define between races.

In comparison the taxanomic methods used to describe species of other animals is based on morphological traits. Go figure.

As a footnote - I've read other papers on DNA analysis of Tiger snakes that confirm all as the same species whether they are from the mainland, Tasmania or adjacent islands and Adders that confirm that other than A pyrrhus and possibly A wellsei they are again the same animal.

I think in the end, as with humans, reptilian phenotypes are highly pologenetic (dependant on infraction of many genes) and are influenced by environment as well as genetics.

George.

 

[eipper]

George,

Wuster et al 2004 show in their snakes across the torressian strait paper that Acanthophis in Australia is made up of 7 sp with at least another in PNG. The same paper did not sample a number of areas in Papua and Indonesia either and stated that further revision is required to ascertain exactly how many sp there are.

Cheers
scott

 

[GBWhite]

George

 

[Bluetongue1]

Sdaji,
What is your point about preserving natural forms and breeding for morphs at the same time? Different people want different things and they are certainly not mutually exclusive. There are several different ways to develop morphs, which you conveniently did not mention.

How can you get a "double-standard" out of comparing what is done with humans to what is done with animals. I don't think anyone would agree with keeping humans captive and fattening them up to be killed and eaten. Is that a "double standard" too?

As I mentioned in my previous post, the concept of human geographical races was debunked decades ago. To state that it is probably "illegal these days" to even think about it, indicates you are confusing races with racism. eating. The meanings have absolutely nothing income other than the same stem word to indicate a group.

There is a validity in what you say about the taxonomic changes in levels (not simply names as stated) being able to alter what's legal and and what is not in some states and territories. The same is true of new IUCN listing. On the odd occasion when it does happen, it does present problems for both keepers and the authorities. Perhaps the authorities view scrapping that part of the system as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I cannot agree that the laws in wildlife cases are mostly "engineered to fit convenience, rather than sense reason or function". The most convenient law for the relevant authorities would be to ban all keeping. Next would be to ban all breeding through compulsory sterilisation before you can acquire any animal. The systems are intially designed to be functional for authorities while allowing keeping and nreeding of these native animals as pets. This tends to skew much decision making towards conservatism and control. As keepers and enthusiast we need to work towards trying to achieve sensible change. Genera bagging of the laws might make people feel better but it contributes nothing constructive to that end, particularly where it is not accurate.

on the su bject of change, what concern me most of all is the existence of highly organised anti-pet keeping groups that are driven by zealots and who politically savvy . They even have their members occupying seats in governments in order to push their agendas. These are are true adversaries in my opinion.

"For the most part we'd struggle to stuff up wild populations if we tried." I will assume you are talking about genetic pollution only here. This can happen and has happened elswhoverseas. Once again, I will provide some examples if you want them. It would be desirable not add Australia's name to the list, if avoidable. While I done see interspecific subspecies crosses as a likely candidate in Australia inter-generic crosses, and to a much lesser degree inter-specific crosses, have the potential to do so.

There were general things about your post I found disappointing...
I assume it was primarily geared to subspecies crosses with a species. However you used the "hybrid" several times and the term "crosses" with any qualification as what they specifically referred to.
It is evident from much of what you said that you have not read the entire thread before posting.
Words such as "fanatical" carry a clear connotation of lacking reason. Given the rational and logical manner in which most of the discussion has been conducted, I take exception to that.
Similarly with your use of the prase "hybrids are evil crowd". The word "evil" denotes that a moral judgment has been made. Morals are based on subjective personal values rather than objective rationalisation. Even the word "crowd" connotes a mob rather than a select group.


Blue

 

[andynic07]

[MENTION=20726]Bluetongue1[/MENTION] , what are your thoughts on why the law is there in the first place? My thoughts are the initial thought was to preserve pure animals for future conservation purposes but in reality this can never be done because there is no proof of lineage.

 

[Retic]

[MENTION=20726]Bluetongue1[/MENTION] , what are your thoughts on why the law is there in the first place? My thoughts are the initial thought was to preserve pure animals for future conservation purposes but in reality this can never be done because there is no proof of lineage.

Yes that may well have been the initial thinking, apart from having no way of verifying lineage there is also the disease issue. History has shown us having pure lines only does not mean you wont be hit by devastating deadly diseases.