Carpet python systematics shock ...
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
earthmother
Well-Known Member
I'm glad my mutts won't be known as Mutts anymore, but I still won't breed with them.
This is great reading fellas and I enjoy your views. I have a simple question: All Eastern Morelias will be known as spilota spilota? Will they all be called Diamonds somewhere officially? Would this include the Inlands?
We've got a great reputation for not picking up on name changes anyway, as long as the ref. number stays the same I won't be confused.
Side point: My son got his 1st Bite from his new snake. He is now a man {that's if we don't count the small venomous bite when he was 12). His new snake is a cheynei/mcdowelli, is it now a spilota spilota/spilota spilota? :roll: just joshing.
Em
This is great reading fellas and I enjoy your views. I have a simple question: All Eastern Morelias will be known as spilota spilota? Will they all be called Diamonds somewhere officially? Would this include the Inlands?
We've got a great reputation for not picking up on name changes anyway, as long as the ref. number stays the same I won't be confused.
Side point: My son got his 1st Bite from his new snake. He is now a man {that's if we don't count the small venomous bite when he was 12). His new snake is a cheynei/mcdowelli, is it now a spilota spilota/spilota spilota? :roll: just joshing.
Em
NCHERPS
Very Well-Known Member
I have heard about the work that David described from the SA museum at the weekend, very interesting, although scarey at the same time.
Personally I like to breed pure, or what I always used to consider pure locality specific animals, but who know's what work like this will do to the hobby.
Will we end up like this German breeder? Some of his snakes look amazing, but would you consider buying them?
http://www.precisionreptiles.com/
Personally I like to breed pure, or what I always used to consider pure locality specific animals, but who know's what work like this will do to the hobby.
Will we end up like this German breeder? Some of his snakes look amazing, but would you consider buying them?
http://www.precisionreptiles.com/
SnakeWrangler
Very Well-Known Member
I think it only makes sense to genetically classify ALL species of animals, this also makes sense of the fact that alot of hatchling pythons look very similar, I have no problem accepting that a "coastal X diamond" is a "pure" animal as long as it is grounded in proper genetic research, even though I would accept this it doesn't mean I think that the different locality specific animals should be "interbred", in fact I greatly like the most common colouration of the "coastal carpet" while I do not really like that of the "diamond python" constant mixing of different locality specific animals would destroy both of their unique patterns, I am all for keeping the so called "pure" animals the way they are, preserving the appearence of each different locality specific animal.
Quote from Fuscus,
"... And as an aside, I googled mtDNA before and ended up on a creationist site that used mtDNA to "Prove" the bibical timeline ..."
I thought this statement seemed to suggest that some other "theory" of how the world was formed has been proven, the bible will never be proven, but neither will evolution! Both creationists and evolutionists have the same data, they just look at it differently. Each man has his own convictions and must live by them, by the way I have looked into the study of mtDNA proving the biblical timeline and it holds its own just as strong as any evolutionary theory. I don't have the link handy but if you are going to have a dig at something by making it sound "wrong" (even if just in passing), you should at least direct people to the facts so they can make up their own mind.
Not a personal dig Fuscus.
Quote from Fuscus,
"... And as an aside, I googled mtDNA before and ended up on a creationist site that used mtDNA to "Prove" the bibical timeline ..."
I thought this statement seemed to suggest that some other "theory" of how the world was formed has been proven, the bible will never be proven, but neither will evolution! Both creationists and evolutionists have the same data, they just look at it differently. Each man has his own convictions and must live by them, by the way I have looked into the study of mtDNA proving the biblical timeline and it holds its own just as strong as any evolutionary theory. I don't have the link handy but if you are going to have a dig at something by making it sound "wrong" (even if just in passing), you should at least direct people to the facts so they can make up their own mind.
Not a personal dig Fuscus.
Fuscus
Almost Legendary
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 7,897
- Reaction score
- 5
The web site is here http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp#r3 and a refutial here http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial Eve.htm.
If you think I was having a dig at something by making it sound "wrong" read the following lines in the first page
"Evolutionists have guessed "
"Evolutionists have tried to evade"
but
"Creationists have correctly"
Also note the line "Although not all studies to date have found the same high rate, at least two studies ... ". What they are saying is that they are ignoring all studies except the ones that they agree with. This is called cherry-picking and is a very useful tool for pseudo-science and politicians.
I've said my bit and will not continue this conversation
If you think I was having a dig at something by making it sound "wrong" read the following lines in the first page
"Evolutionists have guessed "
"Evolutionists have tried to evade"
but
"Creationists have correctly"
Also note the line "Although not all studies to date have found the same high rate, at least two studies ... ". What they are saying is that they are ignoring all studies except the ones that they agree with. This is called cherry-picking and is a very useful tool for pseudo-science and politicians.
I've said my bit and will not continue this conversation
peterescue
Very Well-Known Member
SnakeWrangler said:
I have some really bad news for you Snakewrangler.
Evolution is a fact. What havent been proven is the many theories of evolution.
Peter
SnakeWrangler
Very Well-Known Member
Fuscus, I am glad you took the time to do that but the same "cherry picking" happens in "evolution theory", this is why I said the study is as strong as evolution theories.
Peter, I have some news for you mate, evolution theory came, then it changed, changed again, keeps changing, and will continue to change!
Here is the dictionary meaning of the word "fact": Source
1. [n] a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"
2. [n] a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"
3. [n] a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"
4. [n] an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
By this definition, either you were there when it happended and therefore can verify and prove evolution, clearly you have collected all the facts of the case because you assert your claim with such conviction.
The truth is you believe that the way evolutionists interpret the existing data is the correct way to interpret it. I don't, neither of us can prove it and call it fact but we are free to believe it.
Peter, I have some news for you mate, evolution theory came, then it changed, changed again, keeps changing, and will continue to change!
Here is the dictionary meaning of the word "fact": Source
1. [n] a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"
2. [n] a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"
3. [n] a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"
4. [n] an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
By this definition, either you were there when it happended and therefore can verify and prove evolution, clearly you have collected all the facts of the case because you assert your claim with such conviction.
The truth is you believe that the way evolutionists interpret the existing data is the correct way to interpret it. I don't, neither of us can prove it and call it fact but we are free to believe it.
Simon_Archibald
Very Well-Known Member
Well, if we had to search for something new to squabble about, religion's as good a topic as any I guess.
Creation! Evolution! Creation! Evolution!
Simon Archibald
Creation! Evolution! Creation! Evolution!
Simon Archibald
SnakeWrangler
Very Well-Known Member
LOL Simon .
I don't want to argue over it but when it comes to this topic I KNOW I'M RIGHT!
I'm not saying I can prove God exists, I am saying that neither belief system will ever be proven to be a FACT, well at least not until we die and see for ourselves. Each person must live by what he believes, I am happy to say that I live with the belief in a concious, intelligent being, others do not, I could go the rest of my life without talking about it here again, but if someone brings it up, I will join in.
Anyway, most other threads end up like this (with a disagreement of some kind), no one thought this one would be any different, did they? LOL
.I don't want to argue over it but when it comes to this topic I KNOW I'M RIGHT!
I'm not saying I can prove God exists, I am saying that neither belief system will ever be proven to be a FACT, well at least not until we die and see for ourselves. Each person must live by what he believes, I am happy to say that I live with the belief in a concious, intelligent being, others do not, I could go the rest of my life without talking about it here again, but if someone brings it up, I will join in.
Anyway, most other threads end up like this (with a disagreement of some kind), no one thought this one would be any different, did they? LOL
SnakeWrangler
Very Well-Known Member
By the way Simon, I am glad to see you put Creation first in your little chant their mate! LOL I mean after all, it is a fact that God exists. At least He does in my world.
I mean after all, it is a fact that God exists. At least He does in my world. 
SnakeWrangler
Very Well-Known Member
Hahaha, good one Hix.
By the way, that signature is a classic mate. LOL
By the way, that signature is a classic mate. LOL
JeffHardy
Active Member
Now for the bureaucrats' view. The DNA evidence will not change the NSW DEC position with respect to management of the distinctly different geographic morphs of the Carpet in this State. We will not condone a Coastal or Inland form of the Carpet that is found in suburban Sydney to be "rehabilitated" to the wild. Would you?
There will undoubtedly be another study in the future, using DNA analysis or some other new or refined scientifically accepted technique, to identify the difference between the geographically distict races.
Tell a blond-haired, blue-eyed northern European that he/she is exactly the same as a native central African person, Chinese or even middle-eastern person and show me your black eye.
Some "scientists" are so narrowly focused on "pure" science that they literally can't see the forest for the trees.
There will undoubtedly be another study in the future, using DNA analysis or some other new or refined scientifically accepted technique, to identify the difference between the geographically distict races.
Tell a blond-haired, blue-eyed northern European that he/she is exactly the same as a native central African person, Chinese or even middle-eastern person and show me your black eye.
Some "scientists" are so narrowly focused on "pure" science that they literally can't see the forest for the trees.
toxinologist
Active Member
G'day Jeff,
I am actually glad to hear you say that.
The ontogenetic variation in the different geographically isolated populations (regardless of whether or not they constitute a single taxon in the molecular sense as Taylor et al contends) contributes enormously to biodiversity.
In terms of species integrity, naturally occurring 'hydrids' such as the carpet x diamond intergrades are a completely different issue to forced crosses of Atherton Tableland 'jungle' carpets and Murray-Darling 'inlands' - something that geography prevents from being a naturally occurring phenomenon. Reptile keepers should be doing everything they can to ensure that the natural diversity of form is retained and conserved, and I applaud all legislation/policy designed to ensure that this is case, by limiting the creation of 'designer wildlife'.
Notwithstanding that, molecular tools do give us opportunities to clarify taxonomic issues, and in this case we at least now have an answer to the question of why intergrade carpet x diamonds occur in nature on the mid-north coast of NSW. I accept that like all methods by which taxonomic changes are proposed, we need to maintain healthy 'scepticism'. and recognise that much of this work does little more than offer alternative hypotheses to accepted dogma, but at the same time if the hypothesis has significant statistical support we should not ignore it.
More importantly than just telling us that there are only three 'species' Taylor et al's work tells us a lot about the biogeographic origins and radiation of these forms across the Australian landscape - and also gives insight into the evolutionary directions that the animals are taking even as we speak. What is a single species today will almost certainly be a dozen new species in the future - all the more reason to ensure that the integrity of these populations is protected and preserved.
As for 'rehabilitated' animals - if their origins cannot be confirmed to within 5-10 kilometre home-range precision - they should not be returned to the wild.
Good to see you back up and into it Jeff - take care!
David
I am actually glad to hear you say that.
The ontogenetic variation in the different geographically isolated populations (regardless of whether or not they constitute a single taxon in the molecular sense as Taylor et al contends) contributes enormously to biodiversity.
In terms of species integrity, naturally occurring 'hydrids' such as the carpet x diamond intergrades are a completely different issue to forced crosses of Atherton Tableland 'jungle' carpets and Murray-Darling 'inlands' - something that geography prevents from being a naturally occurring phenomenon. Reptile keepers should be doing everything they can to ensure that the natural diversity of form is retained and conserved, and I applaud all legislation/policy designed to ensure that this is case, by limiting the creation of 'designer wildlife'.
Notwithstanding that, molecular tools do give us opportunities to clarify taxonomic issues, and in this case we at least now have an answer to the question of why intergrade carpet x diamonds occur in nature on the mid-north coast of NSW. I accept that like all methods by which taxonomic changes are proposed, we need to maintain healthy 'scepticism'. and recognise that much of this work does little more than offer alternative hypotheses to accepted dogma, but at the same time if the hypothesis has significant statistical support we should not ignore it.
More importantly than just telling us that there are only three 'species' Taylor et al's work tells us a lot about the biogeographic origins and radiation of these forms across the Australian landscape - and also gives insight into the evolutionary directions that the animals are taking even as we speak. What is a single species today will almost certainly be a dozen new species in the future - all the more reason to ensure that the integrity of these populations is protected and preserved.
As for 'rehabilitated' animals - if their origins cannot be confirmed to within 5-10 kilometre home-range precision - they should not be returned to the wild.
Good to see you back up and into it Jeff - take care!
David
Simon_Archibald
Very Well-Known Member
David,
I see you and alot of other people who have written papers, etc, use the term "et al's". I'm just wondering what that translates to, and what does it mean?
Thanks mate,
Simon Archibald
I see you and alot of other people who have written papers, etc, use the term "et al's". I'm just wondering what that translates to, and what does it mean?
Thanks mate,
Simon Archibald
Fuscus
Almost Legendary
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 7,897
- Reaction score
- 5
et al
. adv 1: used as an abbreviation of `et alii' (masc. plural) or `et aliae' (fem. plural) or `et alia' (neut. plural) when referring to a number of people [syn: et al, and others] 2: used as an abbreviation of `et alibi' when referring to other occurrences in a text [syn: et al, and elsewhere]
. adv 1: used as an abbreviation of `et alii' (masc. plural) or `et aliae' (fem. plural) or `et alia' (neut. plural) when referring to a number of people [syn: et al, and others] 2: used as an abbreviation of `et alibi' when referring to other occurrences in a text [syn: et al, and elsewhere]
Simon_Archibald
Very Well-Known Member
Thanks Fuscy (& Google no doubt)
Simon Archibald
Simon Archibald
Moclobe
Active Member
Simon et al simply denotes that there are other people that have contributed to the work.
Fuscus
Almost Legendary
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 7,897
- Reaction score
- 5
http://dictionary.reference.com/Simon_Archibald said:Thanks Fuscy (& Google no doubt)
Simon Archibald
- Status
Similar threads
