....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....
Cogger's has not adopted the recommendations of the 2003 paper:
....I find it quite odd how zoologists define species on morphological traits yet the same analysis doesn't apply when it come to humans....
It does apply. Morphology was used to classify
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis as a separate subspecies,
Homo erectus and others as separate species and used in the original delineation of human geographical races. It was also used to later discard the notion of human geographical races . Genetic technology has supported the decisions made but was not responsible for them being made in the first place.
....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.....
Humans have been extensively genetically studied. The fact that they can identify between certain alleles is not surprising. No-one is saying that humans don't vary around the globe. What is being said is that the variations were not fixed enough to warrant application of the term race.
For example, skin colour seems to demonstrate a definite huge difference between the supposed races. Just how important is skin colour? If you put an albino from Mediterranean Europe next to an albino from southern India, how different would they appear then? How consistent is skin colour within the nominated races? Compare the skin colour of northern Italians to that of southern Italian... and that is within the one country.
The history behind the term "race" is also responsible for confusing its meaning and application in biology.
....In comparison the taxanomic methods used to describe species of other animals is based on morphological traits. Go figure....
Historically, taxonomists only had morphology to use in describing the differences between different types of living things. This has changed. Nowadays species are primarily delineated on the basis of genetics and then taxonomists look for consistent morphological differences. Morphological features allow visual discrimination between the species, especially in the field, so naturally enough it is this information that goes into the field guides and natural history books.
Blue
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@
Bluetongue1 , 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.
A Keeper's licence in WA states: "No species or subspecies kept under the provisions of the licence is to be allowed to interbreed under any circumstances."
Subspecies with a conservation or particular protection status (or awaiting it) are not allowed to be kept. However there are others members of the species which are on the keeping list. The authorities want to be able to distinguish between the subspecies in a group to ensure the correct ones are being kept when checked. The focus of the keeping list here is initially to be on local (WA) animals. So those subspecies mainly or widely found in WA can be listed while other members of the species occuring mainly occuring elswhere will not be at this point in time.
For example, Tiliqua robuta robusta, the common Bobtail (Westrn Shingleback) is allowed to be kept. T. r. konowi on Rottnest Island is classified as vulnerable and not allowed to be kept. T.r. aspera, the Eastern Shingleback, only occurs in a small section of of the south-east corner of WA and is not on the keeping list. (A fourth species T. r. palarra has a limited distribution around the Shark Bay area and is not on the keeping list either - but I know nothing about).
So the the regulation is seen as both a management tool and a conservation tool.
Blue
