Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum

Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with you Adam.
One thing I despise - what's the point of having a name to a subspecies (or in some cases even species - mainly in frogs) if you can't tell one from the other without having to run DNA analysis. End of rant. lol

Michael
 
I agree with you Adam.
One thing I despise - what's the point of having a name to a subspecies (or in some cases even species - mainly in frogs) if you can't tell one from the other without having to run DNA analysis. End of rant. lol

Michael

Gold statement right here. It kind of reminds with Gehyra where half the herping posts are Gehyra spp. Shows we have a lot to go with genetic analysis, but that's half the fun of discovering new species
 
At the end of the day, the python seems to be far better off in your care than Mr D. Odgee

Lesson learnt though, right! :)
 
Not trying to start a whole thing, but I am so sick of hearing the “No such thing as subspecies/Not enough DNA data” argument. If there is currently insufficient evidence to prove the existence of the various Spilota subspecies, isn’t that more reason to assume that they DO exist until proven otherwise? You know; to avoid people just going crazy with crossing anything they can get their hands on and possibly finding out later that they are indeed separate subspecies/species, resulting in a lack of pure animals and an abundance of crosses/hybrids?
Oh wait…

Remember the saying assumption makes an *** of you and me?

The taxonomy used to elevate M bredli (Gow, 1991) M Cheynei (Wells and Wellington 1983), M imbricata (Smith 1981) and M mcdowelli (Wells and Wellington 1983) is of very poor quality and wide open to question. The taxonomic descriptions of each alleged species are based on the number of mid body, ventral, subcaudal, supralabials, infralabial and supraocular scales that in fact are overall consistent within the group.

For a taxa to be raised to species / subspecies level, characteristics defining the taxa must be uniquely different from other taxa. Overlapping scale counts are not unique. Apart from Morelia spilota sp from the Sydney Sandstone Basin, colour and patterns can vary considerably amongst Morelia sp from the same locality and as such are again not unique. Size of specimens from the same locality can also vary considerably and are again not unique. None of the alleged species / subspecies are isolated or separated by geographic barriers and as such there can be no such thing as hybridisation.

DNA analysis to date can identify ancestry and location/distribution however according to the ICNZ Code location /distribution alone is not sufficient to classify taxa as a separate species / subspecies. On top of that any DNA evidence uncovered in the future must again be unique to the specific taxa and at the moment, considering the validity of molecular data used to validate alleged species / sub species is somewhat questionable and that there is no standard to comply with, then the question is...What level of difference in DNA contributes to a unique difference?

So in saying that; remember herpetoculture is a hobby and of no real scientific value. If people want to maintain specimens from a specific locality they should go out of their way to ensure the animals they are acquiring are just that. If others prefer to mix and match then personally, I can't see a problem. After all it is just a hobby. None of the animals maintained in private collections will ever be reintroduced back into the wild.

Just my thought on the subject.

Cheers,

George.

I'll add that DNA analysis to date only suggests that M Bredli and possibly imbricata may be separate species. It has not been confirmed.
 
Last edited:
As has been said, unless you can find out from who ever bred the animal, there is no way of knowing what it exactly is except a form of carpet. There are a number of localities where simular looking animals are found, ie Murry falls, Mt Fox, a few areas north of Cains, even Prospine, to name a few. The amount of people breeding different forms of carpets together these days only adds to the confusion in these situations. Personally I only keep locality pure carpets, I like to know where my animals are from. No jags or other forms of cross in my collection.
 
Taxonomically the species level carpets are
M. imbricata, M. bredli and M spilota.

the subspecies are M.s. cheynei, M.s. mcdowelli, M.s. harrisoni, M.s. variegata, M.s. spilota and lastly M.s. metcalfei. All but the last one (Metacalfei) shown minimal mitochondrial dna divergence.

The species and subspecies concepts are continually being adjusted to suit. Taxonomic change is the only certainty!
 
And it makes sense Scott, the 3 species are geographically separated - unlike the rest.
 
Looks a lot like a Cape York, I once owned. If that helps.......? if not atleast you know i once owned a Cape York

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top