rothschild.kevin
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2015
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
I recently got a young Python and was told it was a stimsons but it looks more like a spotted to me what do u think?
?
?
Last edited by a moderator:
3.
Dorsal pattern of ragged-edged, dark blotches which tend to coalesce on the anterior and posterior parts of the body; pale stripe along lower part of neck obscure or absent.....maculosus
Dorsal pattern of smooth-edged blotches, and/or bars and/or irregular cross-bands; pale stripe along lower part of neck usually well developed.....stimsoni
Can anyone explain how to actually tell them apart? I have a spotted that looks suspiciously similar to my stimmies....
I imagine you could find intergrades where their home ranges overlap or join.
Differences in genetic makeup define species, not differences in morphology. For example, different breeds of dog show extreme variation in morphology yet they are all one species. You also get different species that are morphologically indistinguishable, such as our ?rocky river frogs? (Litoria lesueuri, L. jungguy and L. wilcoxi) and marsh frogs (Limnodynastes fletcheri and L. tasmaniensis). In describing and identifying species, morphology is used as a tool and it is only useful to the extent that it reflects underlying genetic differences.The only thing that differs is the morphological dorsal colours and patterns. It is my understanding that the size, scalation, cranial, dental and hemi penis descriptions are identical to A.childreni. There are no geographical barriers to inhibit co-habitation in the locations where each species distribution overlaps. All these currently recognized species can copulate within the group and produce fertile offspring.
Advances in technology have allowed taxonomists direct access to the genetic makeup of organisms, instead of being solely dependent on visible features as an indicator of the underlying genetics. DNA sequencing, analysis of allozyme loci, the use of mitochondrial DNA and other techniques (such as cladistic analyses) have allowed direct insight into genetic and evolutionary relationships that previously could only be guessed at. As technology continues to improve our understanding of true the relationships between organisms will continue to crystallise and our classification of organisms will continue to be adjusted accordingly.I'll further add that the method to identify new species was at the time (1973 for A maculosa and 1985 for A stimsoni) based on very minimal requirements, thus allowing it to be very easy for new species to be proposed and accepted. (To tell the truth with the amount of re-classification of Australian herps at Genus level and the elevation of others to species level these days, I don't think it has changed very much...lol).
I would suggest that there are many respected taxonomists that have considerably more background in this specific area than even your ?many years of experience with Australian reptiles? provides. To be so dismissive of the likes of Laurie Smith, Dave and Tracey Barker and a dozen or more others, is not reasonable. They have the experience, the background, have put in the long hours researching and analysing, examining scores of specimens from across the full geographic ranges of each population. Yet you give them zero credence...I know others will no doubt have a different train of thought (especially taxonomists...lol) but going on my many years of experience with Australian reptiles I'll offer the following opinion.
Enter your email address to join: