The zonata subspecies are back...

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by Brian Hubbs »

on the database...please edit your L. zonata entries...
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by jonathan »

Hey Don - what else is back?
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by Don Becker »

Err.. I don't recall which other ones I put back already. Look over the species lists, tell me what else we need to make active again.
Taylor Henry
Posts: 273
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:28 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by Taylor Henry »

I think there were some that wanted Masticophis back, but i'm not sure.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by Brian Hubbs »

Masticophis was voted down...can we add it now? Huh, huh...?
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by Don Becker »

Taylor Henry wrote:I think there were some that wanted Masticophis back, but i'm not sure.
That will be handled differently with the type in box.

http://www.naherp.com/test/ac/

You will be able to type in Coluber flagellum or Masticophis flagellum and it will will store what you entered, and also find the name in our species list and assign it to the more recent synonym.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by Brian Hubbs »

That's a great test ya got there, it didn't do anything except give me a blank page... :lol:
User avatar
Chris Smith
Posts: 2291
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:13 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by Chris Smith »

Brian Hubbs wrote:That's a great test ya got there, it didn't do anything except give me a blank page... :lol:
Worked for me (type into box on upper left part of the screen).

-Chris
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by Brian Hubbs »

Oh, thanks...didn't see the box... :lol:
User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1474
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Anaheim, California
Contact:

Re: The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by Fieldnotes »

Is there some novel research, PDF Paper, or some other documentation supporting the return of Masticophis and zonata subspecies, or is this return simply because people like confusion?
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by jonathan »

Fieldnotes wrote:Is there some novel research, PDF Paper, or some other documentation supporting the return of Masticophis and zonata subspecies, or is this return simply because people like confusion?
State agencies and other entities still use those subspecies when making conservation determinations and data requests. It was decided that we would bring back traditional subspecies on a case-by-case basis when it would reduce confusion for those entering data and those requesting data.
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by Don Becker »

Fieldnotes wrote:Is there some novel research, PDF Paper, or some other documentation supporting the return of Masticophis and zonata subspecies, or is this return simply because people like confusion?
Jonathan explained correctly with the zonata subspecies. With Masticophis, I hadn't planned on bringing it back. What will happen, is that people will be able to type Masticophis into to the taxon box, and it will change it to the current synonym. With specific regards to the taxon lists on NAHERP, you could say that I am against lumping species and subspecies together. By lumping things together, we lose a bit of information about the animal that was found.
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by FunkyRes »

From my perspective, where there is a clear physical phenotype that consistently matches geographical range, subspecies designation is appropriate even if they have the same maternal non coding DNA lineage.

I believe that is the case with Zonata.

That being said, from people who have found zonata in the huge gigantic intergrade zone that goes from Shasta County all the way up through Oregon and into Washington - I think that "intergrade" zone of such vast size is pretty good indication that our phenotype definition of the differences between St. Helena and Sierra subspecies needs some work, so anything in that integrade zone I would just consider to be St. Helena (because St. Helena is the nominate subspecies).
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: The zonata subspecies are back...

Post by FunkyRes »

Now, what we need to do is get rid of the Oregon Alligator Lizard. It's the same thing as California, just lacks red, which California also sometimes lacks, and head mottling, which California also sometimes lacks.
Post Reply