Wait a minute...I thought Harold found it...did he just give it to those other guys to donate? Or, maybe 2 rat snakes have been found...oh, double the fun...let's spread that rumor...
What I really think is that Harold just reported the find in the SWHS newsletter (since he was the editor), but was not the finder of the snake. Could this be correct?
Brian,
That is a possibility. Though Harold published the note he doesn’t claim he was the one who found it, though that is how I interpreted it since he was the one to publish the note and no credit is given to anyone else. That could also be why the date and locality accompanying the specimen (26 May 1984 and 2.4.miles E of Mountain Spring on I-8) differs from that published by Harold as “crossing old US Highway 80 in early June between Jacumba and Mountain Springs.” Or, maybe he learned of the find, found another, published it, and didn't deposit the specimen; though I see that as less likely that him reporting on the find of others now that the collectors names are known...but who knows?
i was done w/ marty & his sillyness., tho in fairness; if anyone was to actually focus on finding a rosaliae in the golden state, i couldnt think of a more capable individual. Ha the paradox of it all!
…all martys blather…
Back-handed compliments and attacking the person instead of the information; predictably John Gunn!
As i've delved a bit deeper, i see here we have another classic case of piss poor peer review, coupled w/ a judicious lack of healthy skepticism by those who should know better.
I’m glad you chimed in to set the record straight. The absolute certitude with which you speak is almost compelling, but yet you must rely on trying to bring others down in order to bolster your position. Differing opinions and a healthy dose of skepticism can be a good thing. Knowing how to provide those viewpoints and dissenting opinions, however, is an area in which you can strive to improve.
Grismer's rosaliae range map is really a joke as he provides no justification for it other than Hunsakers "Guadalupe canon" & the I-8 hoax ... in order to stretch the range like an umbilical cord some 300+ miles north from where there are numerous records around the 27.65 degrees N and furthur to the South. Again none have been vouchered off the San Matias pass nor Mex 2 paved transects despite decades of biologists/naturalists traversing them ... & Grismer i note, expressly discards the concept of any dependance of rosaliae on palm oasis microhabitats. In fact, i found no digital records for rosaliae in BC Norte. So spare the admonitions for so called connecting the dots ... which is btw, at best is what the range map should look like; solid in central baja sur, w/one dot; a ?mark icon on the i-8!
To imply Grismer didn’t do his due diligence in his reporting, again, reveals your need to try and diminish another to elevate yourself while neglecting to account for information you don’t have access to; information such as specimens not viewable online as not all collections are available online, as well as specimens Grismer, his students, or associates might have collected or encountered. You also have no idea what material he viewed at institutions in Mexico, or communications he had with cohorts at Mexican universities and institutions. Given your penchant for evaluative reasoning I would think you would have to know specimens searchable online are a poor accounting of a species like
Bogertophis in Baja. This also ties in to your assertion that the species should have been found by what you seem to be portraying as multitudes of biologists traversing the northern range: first, the number likely isn’t all that large and the time invested in actually targeting the species likely considerable less and, second, you really don’t have any idea if additional specimens have been found on Mex Hwy 2 or elsewhere - you just know what's available online. Grismer interpreted the range based on published accounts, specimens, his own extensive experience in Baja, as well as the character and attributes of the landscape. He does provide justification, utilizing the same type of data used in his other accounts and by just about everyone who writes for publication. You choosing not to view such methods as justification isn’t a problem with the methodology but a personal one.
Searching HerpNet, the first record displayed for
Bogertophis rosaliae is ROM 13689 from the Royal Ontario Museum listed as coming from Baja CA Norte, though no specific locality is provided. Another item you discount in your presentation is in the text of Grismer’s account where he cites a specimen he personally observed at Cataviña, a location at roughly 29.73 degrees N. I noted the dependence on palm oases is speculative but included it as part of the discussion since it was forwarded before I joined. However, for the purposes of accuracy, Grismer says, “I don’t believe this species has any special affinity for palm groves,” hardly “expressly discarding” the concept as you present him to have done. But, given the lack of knowledge we have on the species in the northern portion of its range it makes sense to hone in on areas where other specimens have been found which, in this case, is in the vicinity of palm oases at Guadalupe Canyon, BCN* and Boulder Creek, CA, over which I-8 crosses at roughly the location the CA specimen was collected. Similar ranges of species such as
Coleonyx switaki,
Crotaphytus vestigium,
Phyllodactylus xanti,
Petrosaurus mearnsi, and
Urosaurus nigricaudus should also be noted as having similarly narrow northward distribution along the eastern flank of the peninsular range before crossing the border into CA. Similar patterns of biogeographic distribution are common, with species distributions petering out at different points along a gradient. In this instance,
rosaliae would seem to conform to such a pattern.
Hunsaker's "guadalupe canyon" ( & how many of those are there in baja?) locality that i reviewed is w/o coordinates but listed in BC Sur! Therefore there are no known vouchers of E. rosaliae between ~ 27.65 degrees N & the hoax at 32.6! Thats an unsupported 300 mile range extension, all martys blather about it being 30+ miles notwithstanding!
Marty’s blather was based on something you likely didn’t consider and another you didn’t take the time to review before pronouncing judgment on this situation; that the citing of “Baja CA Sur” in the online database is likely a human-caused transcription error and that Hunsacker (1965) specifies where the
rosaliae was captured when he states, “On the first of March, 1963, an adult
Elaphe rosalie was collected in Guadalupe Canyon, 35 miles south of Mexicali, Baja California.” Therefore, in disregard of your belief, my depiction of intervening distances, as well as Grismer’s presentation of the species range, is accurate.
Grismer's dislike for captive ownership is a thread throughout his generally excellent baja book, clearly w/ rosaliae, his science was clouded by his bias. This desire for rosaliae to occur in Cali, along w/ the conveinient hoax & subsequent group think; has resulted in rosaliae being state listed as a SSC in Cali, & that premature listing therefore is a potential embarrasment to the state agencies listing process.
That’s a pretty bold incrimination to declare both his science and judgment clouded, and arising from an ulterior motive. Can you provide support for your assertions, or are you just defaming the man because of your personal belief that
B.rosaliae doesn’t enter into CA and it makes it easier for you to do so if you diminish him personally and professionally? Care to provide page citations to support your assertion that Grismer has a dislike for captive ownership woven throughout his book? I don’t pick up on that thread and is different from the Grismer I've interacted with who was supportive of kids like me keeping captive animals because of the bond it creates between people and animal, and out of which grows concern for species and their environments. What Grismer does include in his discussions, though briefly, is his is dislike for commercialization, the number of animals illegally collected, and the damage to habitat in pursuit of those species. To my eye, that in no way translates to the anti-captive ownership assertion you forward. He, on page 38-39, discusses the topic as I present it in his ‘Conservation and Commercialization’ section, and mentions such acts of collection and destruction of habitat for
Lampropeltis z. agalma,
L. herrarae, and
Petrosaurus thalassinus; hardly a pervasive thread but maybe there are other examples I didn’t find which you would be so kind as to share. Whether the species was listed prematurely or would, for some reason, be a potential embarrassment to the listing agency is your opinion. Others, including the agency responsible for the listing (which is a minor listing, not equivalent to threatened or endangered), would likely disagree and are in a solid position to defend the decision based on their mission and the known occurrence of the species in CA .
*Corrected BCS to BCN