Mugla snakes often travel in pairs ???

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.

wizz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
607
Reaction score
0
Location
Gold coast
Pseudechis australis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .... Ha :? ???


Reproduction

Female mulga snakes produce a clutch of around 8–20 eggs, which may be laid in a disused burrow or beneath a log or rock. There is no maternal care for the eggs once they have been laid. Eggs take about 2–3 months to hatch, after which time the new born snakelets must care for themselves. Mugla snakes often travel in pairs.
 
He He...... aren't they also known as Cannia now, not Pseudechis?
 
Haha good ol' wiki

Cannia australis now aswell.
 
Has anyone got a reference to the paper that places the rest of Pseudechis into "Cannia"? Or are these claims just hinged off Hoser rehashing Wells and Wellington descriptions?
 
Have no idea myself, Jonno, but the latest issue of "Scales and Tails" has an article by Scott Eipper on Collett's and mentions "Cannia". The only Pseudechis now, acording to the article are RBB's!

Perhaps Scott could clear this up for you?
 
pseudechis

i would still call them all pseudechis they seem close enough related to me and the collets more similar to the red belly than the others
 
I think it was supposed to be mentioned in that King Brown paper you were going to email me Jonno. Personally I agree with the move.
 
From my understanding, it may potentially occur in the future, but as it stands, the published evidence is not sufficient for anybody to actually recognise it yet.
 
Have a chat to Scott about it Jonno, I contacted him after the S&T article and he sort of explained it to me. However I don't think it is official yet, but not far off?
 
Last edited:
Better yet, ask Scott to post link to the reference.
It smells of Hoser though.
 
All recent molecular analyses have shown Pseudechis (in its traditional sense) to be monophyletic, i.e., all Pseudechis are each other's closest relatives. There is therefore no objective reason to divide it into multiple genera. If anyone subjectively feels that Pseudechis should be split based on differences in morphology, ecology, reproduction or whatever, then the name Cannia is available, either for all Pseudechis except the RBB, or just for the mulga group, in which case Panacedechis is available for spotteds, Collett's and Papuan blacks. However, that would be an entirely arbitrary decision, not something dictated by the scientific evidence as it stands.

At the moment, there seems to be very little appetite in the herpetological world for splitting Pseudechis, and virtually all authors continue to class all these species in Pseudechis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top