zoological systematics evolutionary research

Status
Not open for further replies.

John

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
1,081
I don't think you can really judge by looks of these animals,the paper is based on dna analysis,it is not uncommon in the reptile world for one species too adapt itself too a slightly different environment,be it either appearence or behaviour,but if all the different animals throughout the range can be linked back than it is one species.

I don't see this nothion as being far fetched.look at for example the eastern box turtle,it has a very large range and it my state alone it lives in several different habitats,its shell colorations and patterns can differ throughout its range,i find them in dry areas,swampy meadowlands,dense woodlands,open grasslands,bogs.and several can look very unique when compared too other specimens.so are they different subspecies?or is it one species adapted too live in different habitats?
 

John

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
1,081
I guess this should be moved from the debate section too the general section.hey mods can ya do it?
 

Madkins007

Well-Known Member
Moderator
10 Year Member!
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
5,393
Location (City and/or State)
Nebraska
squamata said:
I don't think you can really judge by looks of these animals,the paper is based on dna analysis,it is not uncommon in the reptile world for one species too adapt itself too a slightly different environment,be it either appearence or behaviour,but if all the different animals throughout the range can be linked back than it is one species.

I don't see this nothion as being far fetched.look at for example the eastern box turtle,it has a very large range and it my state alone it lives in several different habitats,its shell colorations and patterns can differ throughout its range,i find them in dry areas,swampy meadowlands,dense woodlands,open grasslands,bogs.and several can look very unique when compared too other specimens.so are they different subspecies?or is it one species adapted too live in different habitats?



So far, almost all true Eastern Box Turtles tested have the same basic DNA, although there is some interesting stuff going on in that group, with the larger Gulf Coast Box being considered as a separate species. (Based on a program given by Joseph Collins.)

Taxonomy is a really odd science. It is really interesting, but can get really confusing.
 

Saloli

Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
589
Location (City and/or State)
middle river
yeah i agree about taxonomy. it can be confusing. many species are seperated not by major genetic or physical differences but behavioral differences take for example the Lake Malawi Cichlids or some of the Chorus Frogs some of which are so simalar genetically and physically yet don't normally breed because females don't recognize male's calls. then there are the parthenogenic species like some of the race runner lizards or the Amazon Mollies. from what i've read the gulf coasts are being considered not a seperate species but a intragrade between carolina and putnami at least those in florida panhandle which would mean no subspecieces status but would mean that they are descended from the oldest known lineage of carolina. here is an article if you want to read it it can be baught "Morphological and molecular evidence indicates that the Gulf Coast box turtle (Terrapene carolina major) is not a distinct evolutionary lineage in the Florida Panhandle"
JASON M. BUTLER1, C. KENNETH DODD jr1, MATT ARESCO2, JAMES D. AUSTIN1,*Article first published online: 14 MAR 2011

here is a book (herpetological) on Terrapene North American Box Turtles: A Natural History C. Kenneth Dodd
p.s. i know a little of topic

if you can direct me to the info from Collins if not a contact for him thanks
 

John

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
1,081
onarock said:
Mark, do they know the % of genetic difference between the 5?

hey paul thats it iremember now. pitcher plants
 

Terry Allan Hall

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,009
Location (City and/or State)
The Republic O' Tejas
Balboa said:
Good points on redfoots and russians.

The whole concept of sub-species is a major headache, just look at greeks, which is why I think a large part of science wants to abandon the whole practice. We're trying to differentiate critters and put nature in our clean little black and white organizational system when nature just doesn't play by those rules.

The "old-fashioned" defining practice of species has a much stronger test. If two critters can mate and produce viable off-spring (able to reproduce itself) its a species. If the off-spring is non-viable (sterile) they're a common genus. Nice and simple and substantiable. Beyond that you get into gray areas that you're trying to polarize.

I've had an innate resistance to the cherry-head are a sub-species so need to be maintained as such idea. Its similar to the western hermans and pardalis deal. Identifying these as sub-species gives scientific credibilty to maintaining them as "pure" lines, which creates a market for them due to rarity. This tends to de-value the "waste-basket" of all other members of the species, some of which may represent unique populations as well.

Scientifically they're all the same; a hermans is a hermans, redfoot is a redfoot, russian is a russian.
If the benefactors of a species wish to promote the maintenance of breeds representing geographical variation in the species, all the power to them. Preserve the diversity of nature. Just realize this may well fall more into the realm of human vanity than reality. A tortoise could likely care less where its parents came from, just as I could care less that I'm a mutt, with blended lines from all over Europe and outside as well. I appreciate that genetic diversity embodied in me.

I tend to agree w/ your observations, but remember that controversy recently over the concept of "Designer tort6oises"? :p :tort:
 

John

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
1,081
i also found it very interesting that throughout the range fecal samples tested showed that although the same food was available for the most part,specimens from different regions seemed too be consuming different diets.
 

Balboa

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
792
Location (City and/or State)
PNW
Terry Allan Hall said:
I tend to agree w/ your observations, but remember that controversy recently over the concept of "Designer tort6oises"? :p :tort:

Trust me, that was keenly on my mind and has been ever since.

:)
 

Madkins007

Well-Known Member
Moderator
10 Year Member!
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
5,393
Location (City and/or State)
Nebraska
Saloli said:
if you can direct me to the info from Collins if not a contact for him thanks

It was during a talk at the local herp club about a year or so ago. I don't recall his exact words, and most of the program was on snake taxonomy, but part of the conversation was about how unusually big this group is compared to most T. carolina.

However, he is one of the heads of the Center for North American Herpetology- http://www.cnah.org/

Joseph T. Collins
Kansas Biological Survey
2101 Constant Avenue
The University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas 66047
(785) 393-4757 (cell)
[email protected]
 

HLogic

Well-Known Member
5 Year Member
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
1,034
Location (City and/or State)
Florida, USA
Something to consider... The DNA testing performed most often is on mitochondrial DNA. mtDNA provides a convenient mechanism to determine relationships among relatively closely related specimens due to its mechanism of transmission, the stability of the tranfer and its relative instability subsequently. This reduces to having a nice neat little package of DNA that can easily be traced and compared to show the 'distance' between one specimen and another.

Nuclear DNA is far more complex. Its transfer (half from each parent), subsequent recombination (shuffling) and it's relative stability make for a much more difficult analysis and initially less indicative of the 'distance' under investigation.

With that said, DNA research, at the level of interest, is a rather young science (DNA was only discovered in the late 1800's and its function was unknown until the early 1950's). Only in the last 30 years or so have we had the technology to test it in any usable way. Fruitflies are well known, many bacterial pathogens have been mapped, the human genome was finally mapped in 2003 but most other species have not been touched. It takes considerable time, determination and of course, money, to perform these analyses. Additionally, reptiles are not the top priority of most researchers, universities, pharmacological manufacturers or anyone else but us...

So, using a relatively new technique to perform a partial analysis of a relatively small percentage of the genetic material available is certain to leave many gaps in the determination of what is and what isn't. Also, little thought is given to processes in flux (e.g. perhaps babcocki & pardalis are in the process of subspeciation).

We have a tendancy as humans in most cultures to want to identify, categorize and separate one thing from another. Scientists are insanely bent on that pursuit (for the most part). Until the techniques, methods and understanding of the processes of speciation are better known and perhaps a redefinition or refinement of taxonomy; we will continue to have a questionable division of taxonomic structure and many changes forthcoming. Putting things in boxes is not a bad concept but we really don't know how many boxes there are, what belongs in which box or where each box belongs in the big stack of boxes known as taxonomy.
 

Saloli

Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
589
Location (City and/or State)
middle river
yeah i know who he is. thanks for the contact.

you have to keep in mind which type of classification is being used Linnean or Cladistic because there are differences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Top