# How many species of Death Adders are there?



## GBWhite (Jun 1, 2016)

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/wild-journey/2016/05/multiplying-death-adders


----------



## saximus (Jun 1, 2016)

A perfect example of nature refusing to fit into the neat little boxes we try to put them in


----------



## pythoninfinite (Jun 1, 2016)

Get Ray onto the case, he'll sort them out!

J


----------



## CrazyNut (Jun 1, 2016)

How manny does cogger have listed in his latest edition (7th)? AROD list 4, I only know those 4. Also would a subspecies be recorgnised as being borderline species in the case of previously undecided individuals?


----------



## BredliFreak (Jun 2, 2016)

Great read there George, just goes to show there is plenty more to be discovered


----------



## adderboy (Jun 2, 2016)

Recent description of A. cryptamydros from the Kimberley:

http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2015/f/zt04007p326.pdf


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Jun 4, 2016)

I answer that question with a question George.
How many species of Humans are there?


----------



## Sdaji (Jun 5, 2016)

Pauls_Pythons said:


> I answer that question with a question George.
> 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).


----------



## GBWhite (Jun 5, 2016)

Sdaji said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2016)

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)


----------



## Sdaji (Jun 5, 2016)

GBWhite said:


> 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 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.


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (Jun 5, 2016)

Sdaji said:


> 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:


----------



## Sdaji (Jun 10, 2016)

Pauls_Pythons said:


> 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


----------



## dragonlover1 (Jun 10, 2016)

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


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jun 11, 2016)

Sdaji said:


> 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. ....


 
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.


----------



## GBWhite (Jun 11, 2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics


----------



## Wally (Jun 11, 2016)

Now this is how to get a thread full of banter going.


----------



## GBWhite (Jun 13, 2016)

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


----------



## Sdaji (Jun 14, 2016)

Bluetongue1 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jun 20, 2016)

@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???


----------



## Sdaji (Jun 21, 2016)

Sure, have a candid discussion with many geneticists and they'll tell you the same thing, if the same rules we apply to animals were applied to humans we would have multiple taxa of humans. I'm not the only or first person to say it. When I was at university some of my lecturers would openly say it, some would awkwardly avoid the topic and others would play political correctness.

What gets published is obviously more delicately chosen than what gets discussed in the laboratories and staff rooms over a few beers. Obviously geneticists are wary of stating facts too bluntly it will get them called a Nazis and end their career prospects. The journals won't publish it because they don't want their journal to be the subject of international condemnation. Of course, you will find people on both sides, there's little in the world of genetics which isn't controversial 

Perhaps I'm a little cynical, I never shy away from saying that I was disillusioned when I saw how much political correctness, dollars and cliqueyness stood in the way of actual science (not primarily talking about human genetics, and that wasn't my main area of interest).

You misunderstood what I meant about humans having a higher level of phenotypic variation relative to their genetic variation (probably my fault for not explaining it well enough). I was saying it was the case in spite of the unusual situation with humans, not because of it. Dogs provide a fairly good parallel, although they're a more extreme example than humans. Of course, as with anything to do with genetics and taxonomy dogs have been the subject of heated debate, but these races/breeds originate far more recently than humans did (it was done by humans after all) and the domestic dog population has always been far lower than the human population, and the dog breeds have been mixed together far more than many of the human races have. Dogs are probably the best example of an animal where the morphology has deliberately and artificially been modified, and you list some others, all guided by human intervention. Humans have never had that happen, yet great variation exists. There are certainly examples of animals which have both less genetic and phenotypic variation than human races, but get classified as different species (I gave examples earlier and could list many more). IIRC, the ICZN fairly recently ruled to include all domesticated animals under the same species as their wild species of origin, but before that happened, even dogs were hotly debated taxonomically (and some still argue that they should be split into Canis lupus/dingo/familiaris for memory). You can give examples of artificially altered species, but can you give an example of any natural species with as much or more phenotypic variation as humans without having been split into multiple taxa? I can't think of any.

I actually found it very amusing in my genetics lectures in second year, when we were told by one of the politically correct guys that humans were all the same species, yet later in the same lecture he listed populations which had become reproductively isolated before Homo sapiens had come into existence, which by his own definition made it is impossible for all humans to be the same species (I won't repeat his data here because people will accuse me of pushing it as an evil agenda, and I don't fully agree with all of it).

Again I'll point out that I don't agree with the way taxonomy is handled, I am a great example of a lumper, and the general genetics world learns towards splitting. But that being the way it works whether I like it or not, if the same splitting style of taxonomy used on everything else was used on humans, we'd have multiple taxa. There's absolutely no secret or ambiguity among geneticists and taxonomists that double standards and inconsistencies are deliberately used to engineer taxonomy as desired. And obviously it's engineered with humans to lean towards 'we're all the same'. 

Because of the inevitable results which would occur (imagine if humans were listed as, say, four different species with a total of 20 subspecies - those groups would form alliances, it would cause great conflict, and then there would be great protests which would cause even more violence between various factions for and against separatism and competition) the mainstream published data for humans will continue to push the 'we're all totally the same, uh huh, the difference isn't genetic, no way' stance. It's probably for the best.

And once again, I'll labour the point to ensure I don't get accused of being a white supremecist and say I am a lumper, if I had my way we'd be using a system more like what we use for humans when dealing with animals. I am not advocating that we split humans up into multiple taxa, just pointing out the double standards. I no longer live in a western country and assuming I don't move back to one in a hurry my kids will probably end up being half breeds, which I don't see as a bad thing.


----------

