How many species of Death Adders are there?
- Thread starter GBWhite
- Start date
- Status
Get Ray onto the case, he'll sort them out
!
J
!J
BredliFreak
Well-Known Member
Great read there George, just goes to show there is plenty more to be discovered
adderboy
Active Member
Recent description of A. cryptamydros from the Kimberley:
http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2015/f/zt04007p326.pdf
http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2015/f/zt04007p326.pdf
I answer that question with a question George.
How many species of Humans are there?
How many species of Humans are there?
Oh, how I wish they would dispense with the political correctness nonsense and do (well, publish honestly what has been done rather than all the ******** about us all being identical) a proper taxonomical review of humans. If we applied the same rules to humans that we do to snakes, we'd have so many species and subspecies of humans it would be crazy. Which of course is why the world's geneticists came to a consensus and by banding together managed to effectively ban any such material from being published, and only release all the 'oh, we're all identical other than skin colour' crap. Right in the region I'm in now there are two ethnic groups (which if were classified as animals would be separate taxa), they evolved side by side, one in the hills one in the jungle lowlands, and they're so radically different. One is ultra petite and slender, the other is ultra stocky and robustly built. It's really cool to see how radically differently they evolved in the different environments, but so close together. It reminds me so much of hill and floodplain death adders, fully reproductively compatible but remaining so genetically isolated for so long, living side by side, and genetically differentiating.
If there is only one species of human, there is only one species of death adder (and there's a fair argument for that).
Totally agree Sdaji, especially with the last sentence.
We only have to look at our indigenous people here in Australia to justify the argument that humans could (and probably should for that matter) be classified into separate taxa.
It's pretty obvious that even though there are uniquely distinct characteristics associated with particular races of humans zoological science doesn't appear (for some reason) to want to accept that we are also animals and as such choose to ignore this fact and place us all in the same basket.
Cheers,
George.
BredliFreak
Well-Known Member
Nowadays anything you say will offend people, whether it be the KKK, feminists, ISIS or rights activists. It would be interesting to see a taxonomic review of humans, though it will probably never happen. Anyways, nowadays (not meaning to be racist here) inter-racial love is ok so it would be hard to find "pure-blood" humans.
On a side note, does anyone here think a lot of feminists/feminazis are extremely hypocritical? I mean, if a man hits a woman they are sent to jail (fair enough) yet if a woman hits a man it is seen as a just and righteous action for the independence of blablabla. What kind of logic is that? (I'm not trying to start a whole debate there but just giving some food for thought)
On a side note, does anyone here think a lot of feminists/feminazis are extremely hypocritical? I mean, if a man hits a woman they are sent to jail (fair enough) yet if a woman hits a man it is seen as a just and righteous action for the independence of blablabla. What kind of logic is that? (I'm not trying to start a whole debate there but just giving some food for thought)
It's not at all that geneticists don't view humans as animals, they very much do. They're just aware that the world isn't mature enough to face reality when it comes to 'human' taxonomy. Can you imagine the social and possibly even legal repercussions if it was made clearly publicly known which people were more and less related to which other people? Which races were different species, which were different subspecies, and which were the same taxa? Imagine where that would put the hybrids in some cases! I would love to see it happen, just because I'm into facing reality, even if that's a big challenge. Just conceptually I don't like censorship of facts.
Having said that, I wouldn't want to be the guy who published it, because someone would probably kill me, and there would certainly be more hatred directed at that person than I would be interested in dealing with!
BredliFreak: It's easy as flup to find pure individuals/populations of most races. It might be difficult in another few generations, but right now they're everywhere. Maybe you're speaking from an Australian perspective, where the vast majority of the population consists of recent (less than 200 years) immigrants. In most of the world, especially the old world, which contains the majority of the world's population, the vast majority of the population is native (thousands of years). In any of the places I have been to in the last year, and in most of the places I have spent most of my time in over the last two years, it has been harder to find hybrid people than pure native people. The new world, particularly north America, makes things a little more difficult, but there are still plenty of pure native north Americans around.
It would be relatively difficult, I agree, to find pure Europeans in Australia, but certainly they exist and aren't that rare.
Excuse me.....Pure Europeans. I'm not a bloody European & I take offence at that statement :lol:
Good! I like it when thin-skinned people get offended without reason!
I'm a mostly European mud blood born and bred in Australia myself. Given how long I spend in Australia these days (SFA) my kids will probably be interspecific hybrids. Arguably I'm one myself, depending on how you want to classify some of my pure ancestors
I know this is off the original topic but my son just did a DNA test, 78% Celtic,6% Swedish (Viking),3% Portugese (from his maternal side) less than 10% west European (we think our family might have come from France before moving to England)plus a little bit unidentified.My family has been in Australia since about 1850 and is mostly English/Irish
Another conspiracy theory...you cannot be serious! There is more genetics data available out there on humans than any other organism. There are also plenty of people still publishing articles and books pushing the ideology of human races.
You may be surprised to discover that when compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically far less diverse. Take for example the species closest to man... the chimpanzee. The subspecies group Pan troglodytes troglodytes, which occurs in central Africa, has higher levels of overall genetic diversity than do humans globally. Needless to say, the genetic variation between them and the subspecies P. t. verus found in western Africa, is that much greater again.
It is not simply about visible variation, which can be the result of genetic plasticity in a small number of gene loci that just happen to possess a large number of allelic variants. It is about the total genetic variation between groups and how abruptly that is delineated.
Ever wondered why anthropologists (and sociologists) could not agree amongst themselves as to the actual number of supposed geographic races of man? It ranges from three 3 to 75 or more, depending on the author. Even if we restrict ourselves to the so-called ‘major races’ and omit the ‘minor races’ it varies from the ‘3 great races’ to 4 or 6 or 9 etc. The reality is that there are no distinct boundaries. You take genetic samples from the middle of specific continents thousands of kilometres apart and they will show clear and consistent variation whenever repeated. However, sampling done at smaller regular distances reveals that these changes are gradual and the differences cumulative. The characteristics upon which racial discrimination is based are clinal, the main reason most modern anthropologists have abandoned the notion of geographic races of mankind.
If you want a pertinent example of clinal variation, look no further than what has been used as a keystone characteristic for racial discrimination... skin colour. The fact is that skin pigmentation in humans is greatest in the tropical band and gets progressive less with increasing distance from the equator. Even within one country this can be clearly evident, such the skin colour of southern Italians compared to their northern counterparts.
Last edited:
Worth taking the time to go through for anyone interested. Just copy the link into your search bar and hit paste and go.
Ps: Looks like you can just click on the link.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/theo...out-of-australia-not-africa/10154296897017847
Ps: Looks like you can just click on the link.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/theo...out-of-australia-not-africa/10154296897017847
Last edited:
I'm a trained geneticist, I know how they spin the data to show what they want the results to be. Seriously, if you want to call a Stimson's Python and a Children's Python different species, or Morelia bredli/Morelia spilota, or Varanus gilleni/Varanus bushi, or countless other reptilian 'species' examples I could give, then there are multiple taxa of humans. They just don't present the data that way.
Yes, I know that humans are an example of a higher ratio of phenotypic to genotypic difference, largely because we spread out across the whole planet and evolved in very different environments, and also we have extremely long generation intervals and small litter sizes/average reproductive output. The fact remains, if we were to apply the same standards we do to other species, there would be multiple races/taxa of humans. Humans are pretty much the only species where phenotypic variation is played down. In other species it is played up in order to justify splitting. In non Homo animals, either phenotypic or genotypic differences are sufficient to classify as separate taxa (I don't agree with the way its done by the way, but I don't make the rules). When working with animals they use whatever excuse they can to say things are different and split them. When working with our own clade they do the opposite.
@Sdaji For a trained geneticist you are rather cynical of your chosen profession. Tell me, Is the lack of integrity that you indicate in the misuse of results an opinion shared by the majority of your work colleagues?
Just as an aside, you stated “...and also we have extremely long generation intervals and small litter sizes/average reproductive output.” Can you please explain how a lengthy generation time and low fecundity helps facilitate adaptive radiation resulting in increased phenotypic variation. It is generally touted to have the opposite effect.
The importance and reliance on phenotypic characteristics in classification is undeniable. That, in conjunction with a measure of observations in nature, are all that taxonomists had to work with for centuries. However, you make the error of oversimplifying the manner in which morphology is and has been used in taxonomy. Morphological differences are only as useful as the degree to which they reflect underlying genetic differences. So the reality is that not all morphological characteristics are of equal importance in classifying.
Taxonomists have been aware of this for centuries. While they knew nothing of the mechanisms of inheritance before Mendel’s work came to light, they still had a good understanding of heredity. They had natural populations to observe and the varieties and breeds of domestic animals that were produced by artificial selection. For example, just because an albino popped up in a population, it was not considered a new species, subspecies or race. This because it was observed to breed freely and produce viable, fertile offspring with other members of its population. It was clearly just another member of that species.
Speaking of artificial selection, one only has look at the results of what has be done with domesticated animals to recognise that a great many population have an inherent capacity for substantial phenotypic variation. To take one average example, the wild population of the Red Jungle Fowl remains similar to what it was many centuries ago. Yet there are over 100 breeds of chicken been produced from that one species. Other examples abound. Just look at all the varieties of agricultural and pet animals - from cats and dogs to rabbits and guinea pigs or pigeons, sheep, goats, pigs and many more. Just because it did not happen in nature, does not mean that any given species necessarily lacks the same potential for phenotypic variation as the human species.
Humans are certainly not the only species where the importance of phenotypic variation has been downplayed as a result of newly acquired genetic evidence. Take the domestic dog and its many breeds for example. Domestic dogs show way much greater phenotypic variation that mankind. Yet on the basis of their underlying genetic makeup, they have been down-graded taxonomically from a separate species to a subspecies of the Grey Wolf.
...but then again, I suppose the geneticists cannot be trusted here either???
Just as an aside, you stated “...and also we have extremely long generation intervals and small litter sizes/average reproductive output.” Can you please explain how a lengthy generation time and low fecundity helps facilitate adaptive radiation resulting in increased phenotypic variation. It is generally touted to have the opposite effect.
The importance and reliance on phenotypic characteristics in classification is undeniable. That, in conjunction with a measure of observations in nature, are all that taxonomists had to work with for centuries. However, you make the error of oversimplifying the manner in which morphology is and has been used in taxonomy. Morphological differences are only as useful as the degree to which they reflect underlying genetic differences. So the reality is that not all morphological characteristics are of equal importance in classifying.
Taxonomists have been aware of this for centuries. While they knew nothing of the mechanisms of inheritance before Mendel’s work came to light, they still had a good understanding of heredity. They had natural populations to observe and the varieties and breeds of domestic animals that were produced by artificial selection. For example, just because an albino popped up in a population, it was not considered a new species, subspecies or race. This because it was observed to breed freely and produce viable, fertile offspring with other members of its population. It was clearly just another member of that species.
Speaking of artificial selection, one only has look at the results of what has be done with domesticated animals to recognise that a great many population have an inherent capacity for substantial phenotypic variation. To take one average example, the wild population of the Red Jungle Fowl remains similar to what it was many centuries ago. Yet there are over 100 breeds of chicken been produced from that one species. Other examples abound. Just look at all the varieties of agricultural and pet animals - from cats and dogs to rabbits and guinea pigs or pigeons, sheep, goats, pigs and many more. Just because it did not happen in nature, does not mean that any given species necessarily lacks the same potential for phenotypic variation as the human species.
Humans are certainly not the only species where the importance of phenotypic variation has been downplayed as a result of newly acquired genetic evidence. Take the domestic dog and its many breeds for example. Domestic dogs show way much greater phenotypic variation that mankind. Yet on the basis of their underlying genetic makeup, they have been down-graded taxonomically from a separate species to a subspecies of the Grey Wolf.
...but then again, I suppose the geneticists cannot be trusted here either???
- Status