Albino spotteds?

[Ozzie Python]

the antaresia mix is muddled enough as it is. telling the difference between a mac, pygmy and childrens/stims is easy enough in most cases. childrens/stims can get confusing.

at the end of the day once they start popping up as albinos, regardless of truth, everyone is going to assume they are crossed with macs, it's just how the hobby works.

as far as im concerned, if it is albino whatever in the future, i would buy it if i had the cash, and happily label them as albino ants. i assume albino carpets will probably end up the same. the only difference may be be if they throw a particular obvious pattern or similar they may get a new fandangle name.

those who want locale specific animals will probably keep wild type looking animals. if i buy a wheatbelt or broome etc, i want it to look like a traditional wheatbelt. anything albino showing up will very likely not be classed as locale speciific, and very loosely species specific.

hope that make sense, i'll revisit in the morning- had a few brews

 

[NickM]

Thats just it....there is overlap among all of the "species" except for ventral counts of perthensis and stimsoni.... are they really species or geographical variation across a wide ranging species.....like carpets?

Carpets are three distinct species, the only debate is about the validity of the sub-species. And that debate has more to do with one believes in the very concept of a "sub-species".

Nick

 

[Jungle_Freak]

Originally Posted by eipper
Thats just it....there is overlap among all of the "species" except for ventral counts of perthensis and stimsoni.... are they really species or geographical variation across a wide ranging species.....like carpets?




Nick M quote
Carpets are three distinct species, the only debate is about the validity of the sub-species. And that debate has more to do with one believes in the very concept of a "sub-species". End Quote .

Nick



​

Good point Nick .
But since it now appears that Carpet python colours and patterns area polygenic type inheritance ?
This would mean that their natural enviroment plays a role in selecting the best patterns/ colours for survival within each different habitat.

Another point many fail to realise is the min or max size variation? , difference ? , from different carpet python localities .
The amount of food in any one area will govern the populations overall min and max sizes.

Less food in a area means that min sizes are more common ?
ie As in thick rainforest for jungles where they have competion for prey from a bigger species ie Scrub pythons.
More food in a area means bigger sizes are more common .
Better stop now,, forgive my off topic post.
cheers Roger

 

[dickyknee]

If you want locale specific / pure stuff look around and buy some ...
If you want an exciting new morph and don't care what's in it buy these ...

Room for both in this hobby surely.

 

[benjamind2010]

If you want locale specific / pure stuff look around and buy some ...
If you want an exciting new morph and don't care what's in it buy these ...

Room for both in this hobby surely.

+1. I would certainly buy an albino antaresia if I liked the look of it and it didn't cost the same as a decent used car

 

[-Katana-]

Look, I like the look of these albinos and I was genuinely excited about this and the piebald morph but with these questions being raised about their purity well it's put a huge dampener on that excitement.
I don't know if there is any basis for what's being said about these animals being crossbreds but I'd be reluctant to purchase one (if price it's self wasn't a factor) until there was strong assurances they weren't and possibly backed up with some sort of proof.

Sure people will buy them because they are a pretty snake even with the question marks over their parentage and like anything that is their choice to make.

 

[NickM]

Originally Posted by eipper
Thats just it....there is overlap among all of the "species" except for ventral counts of perthensis and stimsoni.... are they really species or geographical variation across a wide ranging species.....like carpets?




Nick M quote
Carpets are three distinct species, the only debate is about the validity of the sub-species. And that debate has more to do with one believes in the very concept of a "sub-species". End Quote .

Nick



​

Good point Nick .
But since it now appears that Carpet python colours and patterns area polygenic type inheritance ?
This would mean that their natural enviroment plays a role in selecting the best patterns/ colours for survival within each different habitat.

Another point many fail to realise is the min or max size variation? , difference ? , from different carpet python localities .
The amount of food in any one area will govern the populations overall min and max sizes.

Less food in a area means that min sizes are more common ?
ie As in thick rainforest for jungles where they have competion for prey from a bigger species ie Scrub pythons.
More food in a area means bigger sizes are more common .
Better stop now,, forgive my off topic post.
cheers Roger

I would agree with all of that.

Prey availability play a large role in size, and local habitat certainly influences the appearance. The interplay between the scrub python and the carpets is also interesting, as there is only so much ecological space in a given environment. The same thing happens in Iron range with GTPs

Nick

 

[Mayo]

I would agree with all of that.

Prey availability play a large role in size, and local habitat certainly influences the appearance. The interplay between the scrub python and the carpets is also interesting, as there is only so much ecological space in a given environment. The same thing happens in Iron range with GTPs

Nick

Size has more to do with the size of the prey item available rather than there numbers I think. If an area only has a large prey item available then the environment will force the animal to grow larger to consume it. Where as if a plentiful prey item is smaller there is no need to evolve to a larger size. Tiger snakes are a great example of this(White Chappel Island).

 

[NickM]

St francis carpets are another, nothing much to eat bu muttonbird chick so no need to get very large.

The best example however is Garden island imbricata, there are only two main prey items on the island, mice and Tamar wallabies. The male imbricata on the island stay ridiculously small, never outgrowing the mice as a prey item. The Garden island females get large and can take the wallabies. A perfect example of niche partitioning within the same species in the same restricted area.

 

[beeman]

+1. I would certainly buy an albino antaresia if I liked the look of it and it didn't cost the same as a decent used car

Well you maybe one of the have nots that will have to wait on the side lines for a couple of years!

 

[eipper]

Nick,

Actually there are 4 or 5 subspecies (bredli, harrisoni(?), imbricata, spilota and variegata). metacalfei, mcdowelli and cheynei are junior synonyms of variegata.

While I agree there is both geographical and biological pressures that act as limiting pressures on size, pattern etc that does not on its own bring about speciation in the immediant instance. To use Tiger snakes for example they are all one species (with no subspecies apparently...) despite, insular isolation and biological pressures causing gigantism and dwarfism as well as other morphological differences. Yet are almost genetically identical.

Getting back Antaresia.....this is my whole point there is very little if any reliable morphological characters that sets one from the the other. Which becomes further confused in areas where all three "Species" almost overlap for instance around the gulf country of north Queensland.

I have only a passing interest in Antaresia, so hence the question.

Cheers,
Scott Eipper

 

[NickM]

Bredli and Imbricata are full species, not sub-species. Bredli has always been a full species, which for some unexplanable reason a few Authors refused to accept. Both Imbricata and Bredli were found to be very divergent from the rest of the carpets after genetic analysis performed in 2005, and both were shown to be full species in that paper.

The remaining sub-species are a mixed bag, with some better supported than others. This notion that all are invalid largely stems from the belief of some researchers that the taxonomic rank of sub-species is not valid. The popularity of the phylogenetic species concept which does not accept the rank of sub-species is the primary reason for this. If you accept legitimacy of the taxonomic rank of subspecies then some of the spilota are perhaps valid, particularly metcalfei. With the exception of cheynei there were genetic differences detected between all the proposed sub-species, although these distinctions were relatively small. So the issue of the validity of the various subspecies is not as definitive as it has been portrayed lately.

 

[reptileaddiction]

Aren't we getting way off topic here. Maybe you should start another topic to debate species and sub-species.