Taxonomy and RSP

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.

Zipidee

Active Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
173
Reaction score
0
Location
NSW
Hi Guys,

Can anyone out there with a scientific bent tell me whether Rough-scaled Pythons are officially in the Morelia genus? I'm hearing mixed messages. Including that they are in the Python genus and also that they are a whole new genus - with an odd name jackypython??? That last one might be a typo. I'm not sure if I have it correct.
 
They are a part of the Morelia genus but not Morelia Spilota like most of the favourites for keepers. They are certainly pythons and are believed to be related to the Green Tree Python.

They are unique to the majority of Pythons due to their keeled scales (which you often see in vens such as vipers) and binocular eyes, however they are still pythons nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
Morelia carinata
Sadly there's a pest of a private keeper who attempts to re-name & classify everything.
People stopped publishing this persons work some time ago, so he started his own online publication to keep dribbling it out. It's a shame for new people into herp
 
Okay, so Python carinata is an older classification? Python genus would put it with animals like the Retic? I think we can safely ignore the jackypython genus. It doesn't even sound like a proper name.
 
Python Carinata doesn't sound like a correct classification at all.

The family is Pythonidae and the Species is Carinata, they may have just skipped over the Morelia Genus (Where some species like the ball python have the Genus as 'Python' so perhaps they got confused?).


And yes, it is in the same family as the Retic or the Ball Python however it is the Morelia genus which is the more specific indicator of their relativity in taxonomy.
 
Last edited:
A little bit of digging and I found this which is an interesting read on the taxonomy of the morelia genus and the confusion of some of the classifications.

In 1975 Sam McDowell synonymized Morelia with the genus Python [see J.Herp., 9 (1): 1-79] and this is the crux of the problem. Although this met with a rather mixed reaction from herpetologists at the time, the more conservative tended to support McDowell and started using the combination of Python spilota and so on. In Australia however, there was a real split between East and West. In the Eastern States, most herpetologists followed Cogger's rejection of McDowell's arrangement for the spilota complex and retained the group in the genus Morelia. However, in Western Australia, the late Glenn Storr agreed with McDowell's arrangement, and he was supported by Laurie Smith and Graeme Gow when these authors published their descriptions of new "carpet snakes" in 1981. The first description of Morelia carinata - actually first appeared as Python carinata - see Smith, Rec.W.Aust.Mus., 9: 211-226. Gow's original description of Morelia bredli - first appeared as Python bredli - see Aust. J. Herp., 1 (1): 29-34. Thus, for a while there were two opposing camps as to the generic name for the spilota complex. However, the appearance of Cogger et al (1983) - the "official" catalogue of the Australian herpetofauna [see Zool. Cat. Aust., 1: 205-206] effectively settled the issue here. From then on Cogger's placing the group in the genus Morelia was followed by most - probably more through convenience than as a result of independent critical analysis though. The only dissenting view since Cogger's Catalogue has of course been that of Wells and Wellington. However, they supported Cogger's
use of Morelia for the spilota complex, but rejected his placing of amethistinus and oenpelliensis in with the spilota complex. Instead they proposed that oenpelliensis should be placed with the amethistinus complex in a separate genus, and eventually they erected the new genera Nyctophilopython for oenpelliensis and timoriensis, and Australiasis for the
amethistinus complex - moves that have only recently begun to attract support.
The genus Morelia represents a distinct and identifiable assemblage of closely related species that conforms to a classical phylogenetic definition of a genus - i.e. a group of species that are each others closest relatives.
 
There is an ongoing joke that my Professor told me about taxonomy which is:

"What do you get when you put five taxonomists in a room?"
"An argument."

Taxonomy is complex and fractured, it is still constantly being revised and revisited. Something that you know about taxonomy this week can be updated, reviewed and changed the next. However the current fact is, if it is under the family Pythonidae, it is a python.
 
Any level of classification above species is an artificial construct anyway. For the record, Morelia is the currently accepted genus for this species and taxonomists believe the species is closely allied with Morelia viridis (green Python), but it wasn't that long ago the Green Python was placed in its own genus - Chondropython, so one can only wonder what we'd call them if that taxon was still regarded as valid. All you need to know is that it's a very special species and we're very lucky indeed to have them in the wild and in captivity. You can thank John Weigel for the fact that they're now a common and inexpensive species in herpetoculture. And anyone who has kept them knows there's something "special" about them.
 
Guys, than you so much for the information. Taxonomy certainly does seem to be an inexact science. I guess this is how unscientific and erroneous classifications muddy the waters. It seems that Morelia carinata is the current - generally accepted - scientific name for these beautiful snakes. Thanks again.
 
I know very little about all of this stuff but would think that there must be a certain set of rules followed to classify an animal. If this is the case how is it that there is so much debate over classifications? Is it more a case of humans making these rules and nature not exactly fitting into them or more interpretation of the rules? Or am I totally off the mark and there isn't a set of rules as such? Someone please give me the classification 101 course.
 
Sounds pretty much like nature not fitting into neat little boxes and it being argued that it fits/doesn't fit into a category.

Jackypython... I hope no one takes that seriously. Almost as bad as the species named after the family dog. *shakes head*
 
I read a scientific paper I found on an Australian herpetological site that basically said that taxonomy was argued guesswork until DNA could be studied. I believe this is starting to happen in the scientific world, so hopefully we can get some proper classifications, especially for some of the different locale types.
 
Long story short The final words on Australian Python taxonomy are far from finished. There is a number of revisions still being completed but I can say that Morelia as it stands will not remain. I cannot see Jackypython coming into usage though.
 
Jackypython is a validly published name until the iczn rules otherwise. You can not like the author of the name, you can choose not to use it if you do not believe the separation of carinata is justified. However the name is then a validly published synonym of Morelia.

Make no mistake, because a name is available it does not mean that it will be used, just that it is able to be used.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top