Possible Country Records for the US

intermedius · Post by **intermedius** » March 24th, 2012, 5:44 pm

Mike Pingleton wrote:I'm glad to see this great thread resurrected!
-Mike

Please, someone resurrect this forum. This is probably the best thread ever!

Don Cascabel · Post by **Don Cascabel** » March 24th, 2012, 6:53 pm

On milks:

Cole:

I believe Williams was confusing ruthveni for arcifera... or am I confusing authors. Anyway, in my opinion, sinaloa, nelsoni and arcifera are different color extremes of the same thing. Real arcifera tend to have complete black crossovers, sometimes you can barely see red on them. Not sure if that happens in Sonora, I haven't seen it. Down here, the black cross over varieties seem to come from higher elevations. I almost guarantee there are Cochise variety celeanops in Sonora, and that sinaloa get close in the barrancas. I don't think that it would occur that far west though... more like around Moctezuma somewhere. I am not sure where the northernmost sinaloae record is from, but it was published a few years ago in a pub out of Arizona. I can look it up if anyone cares. My experience with celeanops and the like is limited to a few animals I have seen in private collections, so I really can't comment, but they do seem to be a significantly different snake from the west Mexican triangulum group. I think they probably would not intergrade, but it would be cool to find a celeanops close to a sinaloae.

Don Cascabel · Post by **Don Cascabel** » March 24th, 2012, 6:54 pm

On the Texas border region:

I think the general Texas border area is more likely to produce about a dozen country records for Mexico than vice versa, although there area still some possibilities....

Sceloporus edbelli and Sceloporus parvus get pretty damn close to the Texas border in Mx, so an isolated population on the other side wouldn't be of too much surprise.

What's even more interesting, in my opinion, are some of the really high sky islands in Coahuila between Cuatrocienegas and the Texas border. Some of them are high and have a good amount of moisture. I think they are very good possibilities for a Pseudoeurycea or a Chiropterotriton, possibly a more southern or new species of Syrrhophus, and maybe even a pricei. It wouldn't be a country record, but would make for an interesting discovery nonetheless. Also, a salamander in one of those would quite probably be a new species, as they are isolated in a sea of desert. I am surprised noone really has looked. I have heard eye-witness reports of wet, slippery lizards in caves in the mountains above Cuatrocienegas. Of course, they could be skinks, but they also could be Pseudoeurycea. This would be a half way point between Pseudoeurycea's northernmost limit and the Big Bend region. Just so you know...

Cheers,

Chris

Correcamino · Post by **Correcamino** » March 25th, 2012, 1:12 am

Don Cascabel wrote:On milks:

Cole:

I believe Williams was confusing ruthveni for arcifera... or am I confusing authors. Anyway, in my opinion, sinaloa, nelsoni and arcifera are different color extremes of the same thing. Real arcifera tend to have complete black crossovers, sometimes you can barely see red on them. Not sure if that happens in Sonora, I haven't seen it. Down here, the black cross over varieties seem to come from higher elevations. I almost guarantee there are Cochise variety celeanops in Sonora, and that sinaloa get close in the barrancas. I don't think that it would occur that far west though... more like around Moctezuma somewhere. I am not sure where the northernmost sinaloae record is from, but it was published a few years ago in a pub out of Arizona. I can look it up if anyone cares. My experience with celeanops and the like is limited to a few animals I have seen in private collections, so I really can't comment, but they do seem to be a significantly different snake from the west Mexican triangulum group. I think they probably would not intergrade, but it would be cool to find a celeanops close to a sinaloae.

I agree completely. The southern Az. celaenops and sinaloae are very different as far as body type and head shape. Southern Az/New Mexico celaenops are no different than the northern Az. snakes as far as body and head type, especially the pointy nose. The west Mexican group has a very different head type, very blunt and rounded snout. Southern Az snakes MAY have wider red banding, but that is to be expected in many banded snake species, a general trend for wider banding as one goes further south.

We have a tendency to try and make everything black and white and it just doesn't work. There can be a general trend for a certain form to grade from "X" to "Y' as one goes south, but yet yet one may still find odd populations/individuals of "Y" in the north or "X" in the south.

Here is a coral from southern Az. that anyone would call "australis" had it been from Sonora (personally I think australis should be sunk)..

Also in southern Az. there are a few odd places with Saguaro/Palo Verde associatioin that for whatever reason (riparian corridor, underground water etc) has a higher humidity than average. These places often form a kind of pseudo tropical deciduous forest. Reptiles in these areas may look like there cousins in southern Sonora rather than what one would expect in Az., wide banded corals and leafnose snakes, gilas with extreme black, etc.

As for c. molossus nigrescens, DNA studies show no nigrescens influence in the U.S. as far as I know. The western forms (Az. and western New Mexico come back the same as basiliscus, the eastern snakes (eastern New Mex and Texas) come back the same as totonacus from what I understand. Occasional U.S. specimens may superficially look like some of the darker nigrescens types..one of my captive bred from southern Az. stock..

but still come back as either eastern or western clades.

CC

intermedius · Post by **intermedius** » March 25th, 2012, 6:25 am

Don Cascabel wrote:On milks:

Cole:

I believe Williams was confusing ruthveni for arcifera... or am I confusing authors. Anyway, in my opinion, sinaloa, nelsoni and arcifera are different color extremes of the same thing. Real arcifera tend to have complete black crossovers, sometimes you can barely see red on them. Not sure if that happens in Sonora, I haven't seen it. Down here, the black cross over varieties seem to come from higher elevations. I almost guarantee there are Cochise variety celeanops in Sonora, and that sinaloa get close in the barrancas. I don't think that it would occur that far west though... more like around Moctezuma somewhere. I am not sure where the northernmost sinaloae record is from, but it was published a few years ago in a pub out of Arizona. I can look it up if anyone cares. My experience with celeanops and the like is limited to a few animals I have seen in private collections, so I really can't comment, but they do seem to be a significantly different snake from the west Mexican triangulum group. I think they probably would not intergrade, but it would be cool to find a celeanops close to a sinaloae.

Yeah, thanks for the note about that. I think I was not paying attention to that. Still in my mind the Cochise populations should be considered a separate subspecies due to morphology. Lots of people say the specimens are not identical to any other ssp nearby. Thus, I believe celanops move south along with taylori into Mexico leaving a separate population southward in Cochise. More work should be done on Sonora and Az milks, even though many areas they have been located are heavily herped.

Saludos

Justin

intermedius · Post by **intermedius** » March 25th, 2012, 6:34 am

CC

Wow! What knowledge you have of taxonomy and systematics. Thanks for clearing that up a bit. Also, how about gartersnakes like thamnophis errans, that reaches upward into chihuahua. In both AZ and NM there is suitable habitat there. This species is also a gartersnake, so surely it can tolerate such conditions. Also, how come drymobius makes it into Texas while other taxa cannot make it? Is that species just more cold tolerant? Or does it have to do with lineages? In my opinion australis is just a morphology mix up, and is just a wide banded population. Also these semi-wet regions may be the key to all these specimens this thread talked about including boa's and trimorohpodon. Have you seen an AZ vilkinsoni?

Saludos

Justin

intermedius · Post by **intermedius** » March 25th, 2012, 6:47 am

Don Cascabel wrote:On the Texas border region:

I think the general Texas border area is more likely to produce about a dozen country records for Mexico than vice versa, although there area still some possibilities....

Sceloporus edbelli and Sceloporus parvus get pretty damn close to the Texas border in Mx, so an isolated population on the other side wouldn't be of too much surprise.

What's even more interesting, in my opinion, are some of the really high sky islands in Coahuila between Cuatrocienegas and the Texas border. Some of them are high and have a good amount of moisture. I think they are very good possibilities for a Pseudoeurycea or a Chiropterotriton, possibly a more southern or new species of Syrrhophus, and maybe even a pricei. It wouldn't be a country record, but would make for an interesting discovery nonetheless. Also, a salamander in one of those would quite probably be a new species, as they are isolated in a sea of desert. I am surprised noone really has looked. I have heard eye-witness reports of wet, slippery lizards in caves in the mountains above Cuatrocienegas. Of course, they could be skinks, but they also could be Pseudoeurycea. This would be a half way point between Pseudoeurycea's northernmost limit and the Big Bend region. Just so you know...

Cheers,

Chris

In Coahua, I think it could be a prices up there but they prefer Petran conifer forest, and the evergreen woodland between 2000-3500 meters, and in talus. However if you are talking about the eastern variety

. I would wonder if thamnophis errans could be there.

Justin

Don Cascabel · Post by **Don Cascabel** » March 25th, 2012, 8:38 am

Justin:

Thamnophis errans in the SMOCC is replaced by Thamnophis elegans in the states. It is relatively restricted to high elevations, and I don't think it could really range into the US anywhere, with the possible exception of the Animas. I have never been in the Animas myself, but they do seem kind of like a natural extension of the Sierra San Luis, and thus the SMOCC. T. errans is found rather easily though when present, and I doubt it would have gone unnoticed.

On the east side (Coahuila) the logical snake would be T. exsul, not T. errans, but I really don't think that ranges anywhere outside the of the highest peaks of the northern SMOR.

Any pricei in c. Coahuila would be something similar to miquihuanus, and not limited to the habitat you mention.

Cheers,

Chris

Cole Grover · Post by **Cole Grover** » March 25th, 2012, 8:49 am

Don Cascabel wrote:On milks:

Cole:

I believe Williams was confusing ruthveni for arcifera... or am I confusing authors. Anyway, in my opinion, sinaloa, nelsoni and arcifera are different color extremes of the same thing. Real arcifera tend to have complete black crossovers, sometimes you can barely see red on them. Not sure if that happens in Sonora, I haven't seen it. Down here, the black cross over varieties seem to come from higher elevations. I almost guarantee there are Cochise variety celeanops in Sonora, and that sinaloa get close in the barrancas. I don't think that it would occur that far west though... more like around Moctezuma somewhere. I am not sure where the northernmost sinaloae record is from, but it was published a few years ago in a pub out of Arizona. I can look it up if anyone cares. My experience with celeanops and the like is limited to a few animals I have seen in private collections, so I really can't comment, but they do seem to be a significantly different snake from the west Mexican triangulum group. I think they probably would not intergrade, but it would be cool to find a celeanops close to a sinaloae.

Chris,

Excellent info. He totally was confusing L. t. arcifera with L. ruthveni. In fact, that error has been well documented. I also agree with you that true arcifera, nelsoni, and sinaloae are all "the same thing" - ecomorphs, if you will, of the same population ("subspecies"). I'd love to know the northern-most record for sinaloae, if you can find it. PM or e-mail me if you'd rather. Assuming that annulata and polyzona (or dixoni, smithi, etc.) intergrade along the Gulf Coastal Lowlands in the east, what we may be seeing in the west is more akin to a "ring species", where the two evolutionarily divergent forms are coming close to contacting (or are contacting) and may act as distinct species in these areas.

Rich,

Again, awesome info and I think we're on the same page. I agree on the head and snout shape as well as divergent body styles. The AZ critters have the same head and snout of all the other western temperate forms (gentilis, multistrata, taylori...) and current evidence indicates that they're genetically indistinguishable from them, too. The reason I'm so curious about a contact zone is that very interesting things can happen in a pretty narrow zone (I know you know that). They may, in all reality, be a narrow intergrade zone between the Northern Form (AZ) and the Southern Form (Sonora) in some narrow barranca, with selection acting heavily in both directions, quickly sculpting sinaloae to the south and celaenops/taylori to the north. Though not as divergent, look what happens to syspila and gentilis in the Flint Hills of Kansas.

intermedius · Post by **intermedius** » March 25th, 2012, 3:06 pm

I don't know the real northernmost records for other species, because my references are limited to Campbell & Lamar 2004, Online records, and Herp Review/JHerp. In which I found the rediscovery of Lannomi. Nice work there Chris

. However, I do know that Micrurus distans does make it as far as 60 km NW of Alamos. T. errans may exist in the SW region in which Chris was talking about. That region is great willardi/molossus territory, and is dryer than many mountains in AZ excluding the Pinalaeos and parts of the Dragoons. The Dragoons have not been heavily herped, so there may be a chance new populations live there, although it is not likely. When talking about habitat for pricei, I was saying it about pricei pricei not miquihuanus. Sorry for the mishap

. Agkistrodon/Basiliscus reach as far as Esperansa and Yecora, where they Crotalus basiliscus with Molossus.

Justin

intermedius · Post by **intermedius** » March 25th, 2012, 3:09 pm

Cole Grover wrote:
Don Cascabel wrote:On milks:

Rich,

Again, awesome info and I think we're on the same page. I agree on the head and snout shape as well as divergent body styles. The AZ critters have the same head and snout of all the other western temperate forms (gentilis, multistrata, taylori...) and current evidence indicates that they're genetically indistinguishable from them, too. The reason I'm so curious about a contact zone is that very interesting things can happen in a pretty narrow zone (I know you know that). They may, in all reality, be a narrow intergrade zone between the Northern Form (AZ) and the Southern Form (Sonora) in some narrow barranca, with selection acting heavily in both directions, quickly sculpting sinaloae to the south and celaenops/taylori to the north. Though not as divergent, look what happens to syspila and gentilis in the Flint Hills of Kansas.

Yes,

I believe this is defiantly happening in said region, because I have noticed that other snakes like Coluber, Trimorophodon, and Hypsiglena intergrade in that small region too. In fact there may be a new species of Hypsiglena in that region

.

Justin

jonathan · Post by **jonathan** » October 4th, 2013, 4:21 am

I ran back into this thread again. I wish we had more discussions like this about more boundary questions - I learned a lot.

I'm still interested in my earlier question about how far a snake could disperse in one generation (pregnant female moving far out of range, then her offspring moving quick and getting lucky).

azatrox · Post by **azatrox** » October 4th, 2013, 6:09 am

Yeah, glad this thread popped up again! Quite the interesting convo.

I regret to inform that I have not found any of the previously mentioned Mexican endemics in Az....but hey...it's still fun to get out.

I still think that there's a decent chance that Boa constrictor occurs stateside....Some of the habitat in the Pajaritos looks like you'd expect to find them there (but probably not where everyone goes).

I have a friend that found C. m. pyrrhus a pretty good distance from verified range this year though, so that was cool.

-Kris

Mike Pingleton · Post by **Mike Pingleton** » October 5th, 2013, 3:19 pm

Great post / thread. Here's an Ambystoma rosaceum search image for anyone heading for the Animas:

This one was car-squashed but still alive up near Yecora. I'd love to see a healthy one from either side of the border.

-Mike

Crotalus · Post by **Crotalus** » October 5th, 2013, 7:26 pm

With Phrynosoma ditmarsi being found in the Sierra San Luis, there's a good chance they're in the foothills of the SSL in New Mexico. Anyone who has spent time down there should check their Phrynosoma photos for that area to make sure their hernandesi aren't ditmarsi.

-JJ

intermedius · Post by **intermedius** » October 6th, 2013, 7:29 am

There was a new county record of the Green Treefrog in Georgia not a long while back.

Has anyone considered Canada and Alaska? Thamnophis elegans has been proposed in the NE area of BC

T. sirtalis may reach Great Slave Lake and apparently they have been introduced to Newfoundland. Apparently up so far north they depend mostly on rivers and lakes.

Emory's and Vernalis also live fairly close towards Apache and Coronado Counties in AZ.

Coluber Constrictor · October 6th, 2013, 8:31 am

Pretty sure a single specimen of Thamnophis sirtalis (or maybe elegans?) was found in Alaska not too long ago.

intermedius · Post by **intermedius** » October 6th, 2013, 9:36 am

Coluber Constrictor wrote:Pretty sure a single specimen of Thamnophis sirtalis (or maybe elegans?) was found in Alaska not too long ago.

Up in haines there was a record of a DOR ordinoides, but it was believed to be captive based on mtDNA.

Then in Tongass NF, there are "sightings" or either Sirtalis of Elegans but no detailed records. However both reach the Price Rupert area. In NWT there are 2-3 sirtalis populations on the NWT-Alberta line. Elegans reaches the Peace River area. It would not surprise me if a record was found near the Yukon and BC area and the Juneau-Tongass drainage area.

Sirtalis up east goes as far north as the Hudson bay and Labrador.

Andy Avram · Post by **Andy Avram** » October 6th, 2013, 10:54 am

To the Green Treefrog and Alaska crew - county and state are not quite the same as countRy records.

jonathan · Post by **jonathan** » October 1st, 2014, 11:07 pm

It's been a year since the last time this thread was resurrected, so I'll do it again. Read it all through for probably the third time and it was still cool. Anyone make any serious attempts at any of those country records? Find a Native American guy in Arizona who wants to go herping?

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » October 2nd, 2014, 9:47 pm

I have recently been informed that one of the species on Chris' original list for AZ has been FOUND. Supposedly, 14 of them (or something like that) have been found. I won't say what it is due to respect for the source, and anyway, it's an animal I have absolutely no interest in (so you know it's not a kingsnake or milk snake). Damned terrible to have to be so secretive...

The Real Snake Man · October 2nd, 2014, 11:49 pm

Brian Hubbs wrote:I have recently been informed that one of the species on Chris' original list for AZ has been FOUND. Supposedly, 14 of them (or something like that) have been found. I won't say what it is due to respect for the source, and anyway, it's an animal I have absolutely no interest in (so you know it's not a kingsnake or milk snake). Damned terrible to have to be so secretive...

So does that mean there will be a report published soon?! I'll buy the fireworks, you can bring the hot dogs...

chrish · Post by **chrish** » October 4th, 2014, 10:30 am

Brian Hubbs wrote:I have recently been informed that one of the species on Chris' original list for AZ has been FOUND. Supposedly, 14 of them (or something like that) have been found. I won't say what it is due to respect for the source, and anyway, it's an animal I have absolutely no interest in (so you know it's not a kingsnake or milk snake). Damned terrible to have to be so secretive...

I guess that means it is ~~Bufo~~ Incilius mazatlanensis.

jonathan · Post by **jonathan** » October 5th, 2014, 5:43 am

I don't think that Brian cares that much about geckos either, but yeah, my guess is that it's the toad. Cool stuff if so.

chrish · Post by **chrish** » October 5th, 2014, 10:34 am

jonathan wrote:I don't think that Brian cares that much about geckos either, but yeah, my guess is that it's the toad. Cool stuff if so.

Then there's this post from earlier -

C. Smith wrote:I found a mazatlan toad in tubac last year. It was found on the golf course at tubac resort. I didnt realize what it was at first, thought it was a cane toad. It hit me a few minutes later, but the toad was gone. Since Im such a huge anuran fan, I didnt look for anymore.

Don Cascabel · Post by **Don Cascabel** » October 6th, 2014, 7:49 am

My guess is that it's Bufo mazatlanensis as Colin's post from earlier prophesized. Colin has seen mazatlanensis with me in Alamos so he would know what he was looking at. I guess someone went to Tubac and got them. Now they should take an extra careful look (or listen) around there for the Leptodactylus... although those do NOT range as far north in Sonora (well known range) as mazatlanensis.

On another note, I would like to add another snake to the list, for California. Eridiphas slevini has apparently been found in extreme northern Baja (in press) and now joins Bogertophis to be a very likely candidate to show up in the mesic palm canyons along the eastern edges of the Peninsular Ranges. If anyone is actually interested in looking for these in S. Cal., I have pin-pointed two canyons that should have both species. You would have to hike in and night hike several nights to try and get them. If I still lived in the US, I would totally go for these.

Cheers,

Don Cascabel

jonathan · Post by **jonathan** » October 8th, 2014, 12:42 am

In term of competence I wouldn't have been the best person for the job, but in terms of enthusiasm and willingness to hike I would have loved to hit those canyons hard. I've expended some effort in canyons on the southern edge of A-B and on the border almost directly adjacent to this same area, though both times for lizard targets rather than snakes. If I'm ever in America during the right time of year again (unfortunately, unlikely to happen for a while), then I will consider doing everything I can to look.

regalringneck · Post by **regalringneck** » October 8th, 2014, 6:44 am

... i'd save my retinas & hopes johnathan, tho a nature hike in s. cali is always worthwhile, its a no-brainer if the likes of Klauber & Shaw couldnt find the boger-man, no one else is likely to either. Ockham once again requires the 1 I-8 apparently anonymous submission to be viewed as just another hoax, another (or one of our already known) unrestrained ego running amok.
I'm surprised DC that you would hang on to this possibility, as none have been vouchered off Mx 2.
& boa constrictors in az are going to continue to be confined to the cities, at least until global warming fully kicks in ...

lateralis · Post by **lateralis** » October 9th, 2014, 8:36 am

Bogertophis rosaliae (one record, probably legit, but very controversial... someone could find this if they tried)

I am confused here… The voucher is “anonymous” so good luck trying to interview the vouchee (even if they are still living), and many people have tried to find them for the last 30+ years but have come up empty – we are not talking deli cup herpers we are talking about the Pros from Dover.
An interesting thread but the idea that bogertophis are native to CA really needs to be proved or it needs to be dropped. Too much speculation and speculation has no place when it comes to assigning range values. The animal found at Mtn Springs 30+ years ago was vouchered by “anonymous” and in my book this is not a bona fide source, this is a joke or a hoax pure and simple. Who vouchers such an important find and then puts their name down as anonymous, give me a break.
Also there has NEVER been another animal found in CA and if they were in CA they should be crawling across MX 2 on a regular basis during the right time of year to get here. I have heard about the ones Lynum finds and I think JJ or somebody else has claimed to find them as well but again, if they are being found there in numbers than they should have been found in CA long ago…
Myself and other biologists spend considerable time in and along the eastern slopes of the southern ranges in Riverside, Imperial and San Diego counties. Another friend and fellow herper spends time in these areas weekly and has done so for over 20 years and she has never seen one despite having spent a lot of time WAY off the beaten path in oasis and other prime locations that would support this species. Likewise, my colleagues that are involved with HCP’s in Imperial County have never seen one despite having spent time in most of the prime places each year. If this species is truly expected in CA why is it absent from habitat conservation plans in these areas??? The other SSC’s are included…
The story given to me by a new source at CDFW was that bogies were listed by mistake because a staffer fancied themselves a guru with irrefutable habitat modeling skills. Amazingly, several “experts” in SoCal were asked about the possibility when it was proposed that the species be removed from the SSC list and they stated that bogertophis was most likely a resident based off of the habitat and proximity to the border, really?? Is this just a way of saying “I don’t know” without losing face?
Without getting into a discussion about source/sink populations or habitat and ecological traps I think it is responsible to say that no viable population exists in CA but the species may have been present in very limited numbers long ago when conditions in SoCal were more supportive (and by long ago I mean Ancient Lake Cahuilla).

jonathan · Post by **jonathan** » October 13th, 2014, 6:51 am

regalringneck wrote:... i'd save my retinas & hopes johnathan, tho a nature hike in s. cali is always worthwhile, its a no-brainer if the likes of Klauber & Shaw couldnt find the boger-man, no one else is likely to either. Ockham once again requires the 1 I-8 apparently anonymous submission to be viewed as just another hoax, another (or one of our already known) unrestrained ego running amok.
I'm surprised DC that you would hang on to this possibility, as none have been vouchered off Mx 2.
& boa constrictors in az are going to continue to be confined to the cities, at least until global warming fully kicks in ...

I've heard a number of people on both sides of this one....

What about a third possibility. What if there is no sustained population of Baja rats in California, but the DOR on I-8 was a true native snake that wandered there over 1 or 2 generations? The ventral scale count was a factor about the find that interests me a lot, and gives it a hint of legitimacy.

This is the comment I posted earlier in the thread, in that case about boas, that I'm still curious to see more thoughts on:

To take an extreme case, suppose an impregnated female under some sort of stresser began moving further north - how many kilometers could she travel before having young? And if those young, finding themselves in non-ideal habitat, also began to move with distance, and happened to get a few unusually favorable weather years, how much further north could they potentially make it?

So in such a scenario, how close to the border would a population have to be for occasional extreme wanderers to make it into the States? 10km? 30km? I have no clue how far a boa could possibly move over a lifetime - perhaps it's not even that far.

On the negative side, are those northernmost Mexican records representative of established populations or isolated finds? Because if they're only isolated finds, then perhaps my scenario applied and those records are not actually indicative of the conditions that can support boas, and in fact the only established populations are even further south.

Now I'm involved in a python radio-tracking project in Bangladesh, and one of our pythons moved 2.5 km in THREE DAYS after being displaced. So I think that the limits to how far an individual snake could move might have to be expanded in my mind.

regalringneck · Post by **regalringneck** » October 14th, 2014, 6:36 am

good morning good fellow 1/2 a world away ! & other cybersouls, what a glorious am here on the desert. re: your comments appended below ; mine starting in CAPS to differentiate the txt.

I've heard a number of people on both sides of this one.... BUT that doesnt equate to an equivalent strength of the "argument", nor logical presumptions embedded in those possibilities.

What about a third possibility. What if there is no sustained population of Baja rats in California, but the DOR on I-8 was a true native snake that wandered there over 1 or 2 generations? The ventral scale count was a factor about the find that interests me a lot, and gives it a hint of legitimacy. POSSIBILITY being the correct operative word, but the likelihood of a human finding a rogue individual herp outside a major city is so improbable & zero in the area we are talking about; a veritable sea of boulders!

This is the comment I posted earlier in the thread, in that case about boas, that I'm still curious to see more thoughts on:

THE several homerange studies on serpents that ive read if i recall indicate typical maximum movements in the ~ 1-2 km range w/ 90% core use area's typically being in the 1-3 Ha range.

Quote:
To take an extreme case, suppose an impregnated female under some sort of stresser began moving further north - how many kilometers could she travel before having young? And if those young, finding themselves in non-ideal habitat, also began to move with distance, and happened to get a few unusually favorable weather years, how much further north could they potentially make it?

So in such a scenario, how close to the border would a population have to be for occasional extreme wanderers to make it into the States? 10km? 30km? I have no clue how far a boa could possibly move over a lifetime - perhaps it's not even that far.

On the negative side, are those northernmost Mexican records representative of established populations or isolated finds? Because if they're only isolated finds, then perhaps my scenario applied and those records are not actually indicative of the conditions that can support boas, and in fact the only established populations are even further south.

Now I'm involved in a python radio-tracking project in Bangladesh, and one of our pythons moved 2.5 km in THREE DAYS after being displaced. So I think that the limits to how far an individual snake could move might have to be expanded in my mind.

GOOD on you, thats quite a movement depending on what displaced means in this context, i'd guess after capture & non-elective surgery, moving a goodly distance makes sense. i'd also guess your python swam much of this distance ? have fun b safe

Noah M · Post by **Noah M** » October 14th, 2014, 4:15 pm

Are we ignoring movement caused by people? You know, snake curls up under some junk in the back of a pickup, somebody drives truck to the next town, snake crawls out and is hit by a car. Or snake crawls into a crate, crate is loaded onto truck, truck is driven around, snake crawls out of crate and is hit by a car. Researcher finds DOR animal miles away from the next nearest sighting. This would perhaps makes more sense for some species than others, but is this even being considered?

The Real Snake Man · October 14th, 2014, 5:56 pm

captainjack0000 wrote:Are we ignoring movement caused by people? You know, snake curls up under some junk in the back of a pickup, somebody drives truck to the next town, snake crawls out and is hit by a car. Or snake crawls into a crate, crate is loaded onto truck, truck is driven around, snake crawls out of crate and is hit by a car. Researcher finds DOR animal miles away from the next nearest sighting. This would perhaps makes more sense for some species than others, but is this even being considered?

I think for this serpent in this area, that's about as unlikely (if not way, way more so) as the species actually living there. Not that it couldn't have happened, but by the time we have reasoning like this, we aren't thinking along the lines of "what are the odds that it actually lives here?" and have instead moved to the realm of "let's consider every single possible way that this thing could have ended up here." Aliens would be another option.

lateralis · Post by **lateralis** » October 14th, 2014, 9:35 pm

Here is a potential scenario, and the only one I would consider that involved humans:

A. A live snake was captured in Baja and subsequently smuggled into the U.S. through Tecate, and after passing through the POE the folks discovered the snake was dead and chucked it out the window.

Looking at the DNA of the voucher specimen, captive specimens, and the closest border population of bogies might shed more light on the origin of the snake.

regalringneck · Post by **regalringneck** » October 15th, 2014, 5:53 am

Damn thread just wont die … Tho i like Lats smuggling scenario, but suggest we complicate it w/ an alien falconer’s involvement (her redtail might have dropped it on the freeway) …

So here are the apparent facts as known;

A) boggie crawls up on the interstate & gets itself DoR (has anyone even looked at the carcass or xrayed it for broken bones).
B) AND w/ in 24-48 hrs of A) (typical interval a ophidian DoR is recognizeable on a freeway) anonymous is serendipitously driving in this locality at freeway speeds; yet observes & stops for DoR.
C) Anonymous apparently recognizes the significance of this serpent & collects the DoR.
D) Anonymous makes the effort to submit DoR to the SD museum, but w/o collector information.
E) That this event has never been duplicated before or after despite the efforts of some of america’s greatest field herpers, legions of rangers/biologists/students/scouts/etc, clambering about these same hills for 100+ years; literally gigahours of herping effort.
F) That E. rosaliae has not been vouchered off of Mx 2.
G) That E. rosaliae is not a fossorial nor particularly secretive sps. Even I have found them in baja!
H) That E. rosaliae is an elegant serpent w/ a significant level of interest in the herp community (as compared to say tantillas ).
I) That humans lie.

So, we either need to stitch the explanation for this “discovery” into the unlikely fabric of the above A-H; using “and” statements (“or”) wont work.
This then is why application of Ockham then requires us to accept I) as the most likely explanation (though not the only possible explanation).
I wonder if our hoaxer were thoughtful enough to feed it some wild deer mice & to run it over before the submission ? Somehow I doubt it, & shame on those pitiful sonsofbitches that continue to periodically urinate in the spring of human knowledge.

jonathan · Post by **jonathan** » October 16th, 2014, 4:12 am

regalringneck wrote:What about a third possibility. What if there is no sustained population of Baja rats in California, but the DOR on I-8 was a true native snake that wandered there over 1 or 2 generations? The ventral scale count was a factor about the find that interests me a lot, and gives it a hint of legitimacy. POSSIBILITY being the correct operative word, but the likelihood of a human finding a rogue individual herp outside a major city is so improbable & zero in the area we are talking about; a veritable sea of boulders!

Oh, unlikely for someone searching for them now, but I'm just mentioning it as a possible explanation for the DOR.

This is the comment I posted earlier in the thread, in that case about boas, that I'm still curious to see more thoughts on:

regalringneck wrote:Now I'm involved in a python radio-tracking project in Bangladesh, and one of our pythons moved 2.5 km in THREE DAYS after being displaced. So I think that the limits to how far an individual snake could move might have to be expanded in my mind.

GOOD on you, thats quite a movement depending on what displaced means in this context, i'd guess after capture & non-elective surgery, moving a goodly distance makes sense. i'd also guess your python swam much of this distance ? have fun b safe

No surgery - the python's surgery for the radiotransmitter had occurred a year earlier. The relocation was due to the python getting into a village and killing a duck. So it was a capture in a duck pen, measurement and health check, release the next day a few kilometers off. And no swimming - moved the whole way through jungle and tea plantation. Just shows what can be possible, not what can be expected.

noah k. · Post by **noah k.** » October 23rd, 2014, 12:15 pm

Anyone have further information on the possibility of Pseudoeurycea belli in the US?

Marty · Post by **Marty** » October 24th, 2014, 4:17 am

I have pin-pointed two canyons that should have both species. You would have to hike in and night hike several nights to try and get them. If I still lived in the US, I would totally go for these.

I have spent time in at least one of the canyons DC has likely identified, before the approach became a vehicle-restricted area to all but Border Patrol. I am not worried about naming the canyon due to its size and difficulty of access, and I would like someone to invest additional effort searching this locality, but will refrain from specific names due to TOS. The area that should be searched is a major drainage and drains the upland areas and canyons around where the CA specimen was collected. Access on foot is now actually shortened coming from Mexico because one can drive considerably closer to shorten the hike, but I wouldn’t advocate taking that approach unless you’re willing to face the consequences of a confrontation with BP. However, given the frequency of BP accessing the area, one might be able to arrange a ride in, though I imagine that would take some effort. Hiking in from the north would be an endeavor, but with a water purifier one can replenish water at the oases. To provide another option to DC’s mention of searching at night, diurnal searches could be productive if done early in the year. Bogertophis have been noted to be active diurnally in spring. The location under discussion is roughly 30 miles from the nearest locality in MX, and is lower, and with warmer winter temps (a limiting factor I’ve heard hypothesized), than where the CA specimen was collected, and has permanent water at the oases. Of any location in CA, it is my opinion this one holds the greatest promise. As one moves north from the nearest published locality in MX most of the major canyons draining east from the peninsular range contain palm oases. If palm oases, and the associated availability of water are a potential indicator or necessity to Bogertophis, there is literally a connect-the-dots of oases between the published locality in MX and the border. Once north of the border the distance between oases increases and frequency decreases.

its a no-brainer if the likes of Klauber & Shaw couldnt find the boger-man, no one else is likely to either.

This is a poorly reasoned assertion given there is no support Klauber and Shaw actually searched this area. Klauber’s field notes are available (http://www.sdnhm.org/science/research-l ... l-library/), and though I have not read through them all, I have looked through years worth have never seen a reference to the area under discussion. Further, Klauber cites no specimens examined in his publications from this area and SDNHM houses no specimens of species like C.ruber or C.mitchellii from the area under discussion. Simply, there is no support either Klauber or Shaw expended any level of effort searching the areas in A-B with the greatest potential for Bogertophis, though I’m sure they drove the old Hwy 80 where the CA specimen was collected.

Ockham once again requires the 1 I-8 apparently anonymous submission to be viewed as just another hoax…

There is no anonymity; the specimen was collected by Harold DeLisle. He published the find in Vol.14, No.3 (November 1984) of Herpetology, a periodical produced by the Southwestern Herpetologists Society.

many people have tried to find them for the last 30+ years but have come up empty – we are not talking deli cup herpers we are talking about the Pros from Dover.

True, many have looked, but I would guess in excess of 95% of those people weren’t looking in the area alluded to or, if like me, made a few trips but couldn’t invest a consistent effort due to distance and available time. 30 years and lots of people looking sounds like a significant effort but it could really have been 30 years of minimal effort due to areas searched.

An interesting thread but the idea that bogertophis are native to CA really needs to be proved or it needs to be dropped. Too much speculation and speculation has no place when it comes to assigning range values.

Should the same have been done for Crotalus lannomi? How many years elapsed between specimens, and what lessons can be learned that might be applicable to B.rosaliae? First lesson that comes to mind is looking in the wrong place produces no specimens. This may or may not be applicable to rosaliae but the idea the topic needs to be dropped is certainly something you’re welcome to do, just as others are welcome to continue to discuss the possibility, and hopefully continue to look. If no one looks certainly the odds of finding a specimen decreases. While one cannot assign any semblance of an accurate range there is no speculation that a specimen exists in collection, and that the location of that specimen is known and potentially informative, especially given today’s modeling technologies.

Who vouchers such an important find and then puts their name down as anonymous, give me a break.

Have you seen the specimen tag or the specimen catalogue at SDNHM, or just the online information? I can state unequivocally there are specimens in collections that show no collector data online though collector data exists in other sources. Plus, as illustrated above, the collector is known and published the find.

Also there has NEVER been another animal found in CA and if they were in CA they should be crawling across MX 2 on a regular basis during the right time of year to get here.

NEVER been another find made public, at least. Do you know they’re not crossing Hwy 2? Why should they be crossing at the right time of year on a regular basis to get here? And, how do you know they aren’t and not being detected? Or, conversely, that they may be crossing infrequently and have little to no reason to cross the border? You provide supposition, a single line of argument. I’ve made the same argument but I don’t discount the alternatives.

I have heard about the ones Lynum finds and I think JJ or somebody else has claimed to find them as well but again, if they are being found there in numbers than they should have been found in CA long ago…

Are they being found in numbers, or are the Hwy 2 finds a product of a significant time investment or focusing on specific stretches of highway? Hwy 2 has a steep elevational gradient and they could be limited. If rosaliae is elevationally limited in CA due to temps, or tied to oases, that considerably reduces the likelihood of encounter. I’m not asserting either is the case (temps or oases), but acknowledging, as with other species, there are factors, physiological and abiotic, that limit distribution. It is quite possible northern populations are small and fragmented, and barely peek over the border. You and others not finding them, to me, is not a compelling argument because, from your portrayal, there is no cohesive plan to assess and search suitable areas, and to do so repeatedly over a period of years.

The story given to me by a new source at CDFW was that bogies were listed by mistake because a staffer fancied themselves a guru with irrefutable habitat modeling skills. Amazingly, several “experts” in SoCal were asked about the possibility when it was proposed that the species be removed from the SSC list and they stated that bogertophis was most likely a resident based off of the habitat and proximity to the border, really?? Is this just a way of saying “I don’t know” without losing face?

Who is the story from and why should they be viewed as reliable when they are as anonymous to us as the collector of the rosaliae was to you? Have you seen the predictive habitat models? My guess would be habitat modeling of variables at the nearest documented locality would identify suitable habitat north of the border. However, suitable habitat doesn’t necessarily translate to presence, but that doesn’t mean the opinions provided by “experts” wasn’t an honest and informed opinion, and one made without a bias if their opinions were based on the range, habitat, climate, precipitation, and whatever other data they had at their disposal to consider. And, how would they be “losing face” by saying “I don’t know” and not expressing their opinion? That presentation just doesn’t make sense. If they’re the experts, and experts in this context would imply they are knowledgeable enough to have an informed opinion, or utilize the available data to form an educated opinion, they put their name and reputation behind their opinions and it seems doubtful a professional would forward opinions in which they don’t believe. At least that’s my experience with “experts,” which is part of what makes them experts; they know their limitations.

Without getting into a discussion about source/sink populations or habitat and ecological traps I think it is responsible to say that no viable population exists in CA but the species may have been present in very limited numbers long ago when conditions in SoCal were more supportive (and by long ago I mean Ancient Lake Cahuilla).

Wouldn’t source and sink population be relevant to the discussion? I think it would be irresponsible to make a declarative statement on population status in the way you have done. If you amended your sentence to read, “no known viable population exists,” that would be responsible and accurate based on what is known because, in the other presentation, you nor anyone really knows because no one has done the requisite work to be in a position to make such a proclamation about population viability. You are also making unfounded assumptions; what if expansion or contraction of the species isn’t a result of more mesic conditions, or the numbers present were actually robust and not limited? What if rosaliae wasn’t present in prehistoric times at all but is a recent expansion due to temperature? Should we anticipate range expansion with increased temperature? B. rosaliae is known to occur in places in Baja where rain goes unrecorded for long periods of time. I’m playing devils advocate because there isn’t a single one of us who has the answers.

THE several homerange studies on serpents that ive read if i recall indicate typical maximum movements in the ~ 1-2 km range w/ 90% core use area's typically being in the 1-3 Ha range.

The distance between the location in CA and nearest known location cited by DeLisle (1984) in Baja is 38 miles (~61km). Duvall et al. (1985) provides a maximum known distance moved of 25km for C.viridis, Gregory and Stewart (1975) provides a distance of 17.7km for Thamnophis sirtalis, and Cobb (1994) over 8km for C.lutosus, for snakes moving from overwintering sites to active season ranges. Snakes can accomplish migrations in relatively short periods of time. How far could a rosaliae move if its intent was dispersal and not seasonal migration? 38 miles would seem to be within the realm of feasibility given published distances snakes have been documented to move, and that’s assuming there are no intervening populations, which there could be.

Here is a potential scenario, and the only one I would consider that involved humans:

A. A live snake was captured in Baja and subsequently smuggled into the U.S. through Tecate, and after passing through the POE the folks discovered the snake was dead and chucked it out the window.

Human translocation, as suggested, could be a possibility, though unlikely given the location of collection. However, there is no indication the snake was found dead; the specimen is reported as a 1300mm male captured while crossing old Hwy 80, suggesting it to be live at the time of capture. A picture of an obvious adult snake on grass accompanies the publication, though whether the pictured snake is the specimen cited in the publication is not specified.

After having had this thread brought to my attention, and it being a topic of discussion I’ve previously been involved with, I feel it worth acknowledging the possibility exists that B.rosaliae does occur, potentially intermittently, infrequently, consistently, or not at all within the borders of CA. Data is lacking to make a determination one way or the other, and searches, based on people I know who have searched, have largely been conducted in places I would rank as having a lower probability of encounter. There is one specimen in collection, the find was published, and it is up to each person to determine for themselves the validity of the available information, as it is in every case. It would also be worth seeking whatever notes may accompany the specimen in collection, and trying to figure out why the online collection date differs from the nonspecific timeframe in the publication. We know rosaliae ranges to within ~ 30 miles of the CA border, palm oases exist in the intervening canyons, and habitat is intact and only interrupted by a single highway. Identifying habitat parameters and physiologically limiting factors for B.rosaliae could assist in finding, or providing support why the species isn’t likely to occur. But, the way I look at it, why not look? If people do it in a systematic fashion and invest the time in areas of increased probability of occurrence, that data is valuable, even if negative, and there’s plenty of other cool stuff to find while not finding rosaliae.

Kent VanSooy · Post by **Kent VanSooy** » October 24th, 2014, 11:44 am

NEVER been another find made public, at least.

I've heard rumors too, but what I don't understand is the reluctance to publish if that's indeed the case. What am I missing? Thanks!

Marty · Post by **Marty** » October 24th, 2014, 3:33 pm

Kent,

Like you, I've heard the rumors for many years, but know of no absolute evidence or additional specimen. As you are likely aware, herpers are not always motivated by advancing science, and are commonly protective over the places they visit. Another publicly declared Bogetophis could bring additional herpers and remove the peace and solitude enjoyed as herpers commonly go straight to where they know specimens have been found previously. I know there are range extensions and other notes I haven't published because it either wasn't important to me to publish finds or I didn't want to draw attention to areas or animals, and sometimes with good reason. I just have to think back to the rush to collect Maricopa boas and the disrespectful behavior by certain people when informed of the find. White mitchellii is another example. Specimens or information was shared with a couple people, and like with the boas, they were asked to refrain from sharing the information until is was ready to be made public. But, as with the boas, they almost immediately began the information bartering process or needed the recognition, and the flood gates opened bringing collectors to areas I had previously encountered none. Had I immediately published white mitch were dwarfed I'd have lost the additional solitude enjoyed in that range. To me, gaining the extra time was worth not adding to the literature, as I knew publishing the size information would only elevate the inevitable frenzy. As I've aged my reluctance to publish has waned, and I've learned from the bad experiences, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't consider refraining from publishing if I judged the solitude or potential for damage as more valuable to me than the benefit of adding to the literature, and I find considerable value in the literature and am grateful for the people who do publish. In neither the case of the boas or specks was I worried about populations, as the areas of occurrence are relatively large with areas herpers likely won't venture, but I did know there would be the irresponsible interaction of herpers with habitat, and in both cases noticeable displacements of rock were realized. It's a value judgment, and if an additional specimen has been found, whoever found it may judge silence as more valuable personally than the potential consequences of making the find known. Speculative, but reasonable if I use myself as an example.

Carl Brune · Post by **Carl Brune** » October 24th, 2014, 4:14 pm

Thanks, Marty, for the thoughtful posts.

Kent VanSooy · Post by **Kent VanSooy** » October 24th, 2014, 4:16 pm

Thanks Marty. I guessed the rationale would be somewhere along that (all too common) line, but my guesses were tempered by what sounds like what may well be a fairly remote and difficult to access area of occurrence in the state of CA.

One other question since we're on the topic - I believe I heard that the scale counts of the CA animal were consistent with it being from the northern-most population (and so maybe reducing the likelihood that it was an escaped pet or purposefully translocated) - do you know if that's the case with CA snake?

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » October 24th, 2014, 8:58 pm

The herp I was referring to that has "allegedly" been discovered in the U.S. is not a toad...or a gecko...

I have no idea if the story is true, or a joke, because I could care less about the animal, and have no desire to go into the habitat to see one. Sorry I can't say more, but I suspect it might not be true, as someone would have blurted out the secret by now. I mean, I heard about it...how secret can it be?

As for the Baja Rat...

"There is no anonymity; the specimen was collected by Harold DeLisle. He published the find in Vol.14, No.3 (November 1984) of Herpetology, a periodical produced by the Southwestern Herpetologists Society."

Well, what do we do about that? I say...consider the source before you buy into every "specimen" that gets discovered...how many of you know Harold? How well do you know him? Is he dependable? Can you vouch for him? I've known Harold over 30 years, but I seldom talk to him, so I am not a good source of info. Could he be a prankster at times, or maybe in the past? All these questions need to be answered before you buy into any new discovery. Anyone can claim anything and put a specimen in a jar. That proves nothing.

Marty · Post by **Marty** » October 25th, 2014, 1:29 am

Kent, the area I'm thinking about is difficult to access due to the closure to non-government vehicles. It's about as protected as an area gets from herping pressure in this day and age and I wouldn't have any trepidation about documenting a find, whether current or from 20 years ago, knowing anyone making the effort to get there would truly have to be dedicated, in shape, and well prepared...and would still have to work hard and have some luck. However, it could be from another area with a much greater ease of access, and I can think of one or two other possibilities that fit that bill where I never encountered herpers when living in CA and spending time in Borrego.

My understanding of the CA specimen, and I want to think it was Lee Grismer who told me but cannot be certain given the time elapsed, is scale counts would conform to a specimen in line with the most northerly known specimens. In that regard, it certainly lends credibility and increases the likelihood the snake was there naturally, especially when one considers the infrequency with which those most northerly specimens are known to have been found.

I say...consider the source before you buy into every "specimen" that gets discovered...how many of you know Harold? How well do you know him? Is he dependable? Can you vouch for him? I've known Harold over 30 years, but I seldom talk to him, so I am not a good source of info. Could he be a prankster at times, or maybe in the past? All these questions need to be answered before you buy into any new discovery. Anyone can claim anything and put a specimen in a jar. That proves nothing.

As I said previously, it is up to everyone to determine the validity of the available information for themselves. Or, to do the research necessary to come to whatever conclusion they feel appropriate. You can choose to operate on a guilty until proven innocent model, I prefer to do the opposite. Given the minimal prestige, even for the only known specimen of rosaliae in CA, and no profit potential for donating a specimen, I extend the benefit of the doubt to those who contribute to science. To operate otherwise would create a standard impossible for me to achieve. But maybe I should take that approach for authors. After all, anyone can now publish a book, and authors have a greater potential to be influential to a larger number of people, and some publish for profit, so even more reason to be skeptical about their honesty and integrity, right? Based on some of your questions it almost sounds like you've never met Harold. Prankster? Only if his best prank was convincing everyone of the opposite. Still, I wouldn't vouch him just as I wouldn't vouch for you; it's not my place to do so and I wasn't there when the snake was found.

jonathan · Post by **jonathan** » October 25th, 2014, 1:42 am

Marty, really great addition to the discussion there. That gives us more information than we had before. I really would like to see more replies and back-and-forth on that.

Thank you for the snake dispersal range information. 15-25 kilometers is a good number to keep in mind. Of course, if even in limited studies with a limited sample size snakes were found to have moved 25km, imagine how far the actual maximum must be? Certainly over 50 kilometers is possible on occasion.

Hubbs isn't talking about a gecko or a toad....hmmmm...

jonathan · Post by **jonathan** » October 25th, 2014, 2:01 am

Marty wrote:My understanding of the CA specimen, and I want to think it was Lee Grismer who told me but cannot be certain given the time elapsed, is scale counts would conform to a specimen in line with the most northerly known specimens. In that regard, it certainly lends credibility and increases the likelihood the snake was there naturally, especially when one considers the infrequency with which those most northerly specimens are known to have been found.

That's one of the most important pieces of the puzzle for me too. Before the forum crash, someone posted the exact numbers on the scales - but I don't recall what they were.

Marty · Post by **Marty** » October 25th, 2014, 2:11 am

Jonathan, as you're learning with pythons, what we don't know often exceeds what we do know. I know I have snakes under my watch that will move considerable distances, though nothing like the northern species which often aggregate in great number and show considerable fidelity to overwintering sites. Given the number of animals that gather it really shouldn't come as a surprise some move considerable distances to avoid intraspecific competition or for other reasons. Or look at disjunct population of species typically associated with rocks. They had to get there somehow, and that might mean traversing open valleys.

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » October 25th, 2014, 10:41 am

Marty, the books slam aside, I was not pointing a finger at Harold...just pointing out that we need to be cautious when accepting range extensions from a single specimen or observer. This hobby has a lot of people in it who like nothing better than to yank other people's chains. I don't know what motivates those folks. I'm in this to learn, I wish we all were. Unfortunately, that isn't true for everyone. So, I am hesitant to accept a new find based on a single specimen. When multiple, unrelated individuals make the same discovery it lends more credence to the claim. I think herpetology errs in accepting all new range extensions at face value on trust. It needs to adopt a "Prove it before publishing" attitude. Not for county records or small range extensions, but for a country record or state record, yes.

Marty · Post by **Marty** » October 25th, 2014, 12:44 pm

Brian,
No slam, just using the same approach you took to parody and illustrate the point you were making because, though maybe unintentional, you were questioning his character, honesty, and integrity; as well as that of anyone else you don’t know or can have someone you trust personally vouch for who publishes a range extension you deem in need of additional verification. People in this hobby might like to yank on people’s chain but how many of them publish and donate the specimen? You have the right to be hesitant, just as anyone who reads your books has the right to be hesitant of your knowledge, trustworthiness, or factual accuracy, but the standard of “prove it before publishing” is, on its face, a ridiculous standard to erect for a range extension, especially when the extension, as in this case, is extremely plausible due to habitat connectivity and proximity. You have no problems with small range extensions, which this is, but put an arbitrary political border into the mix and all of a sudden that changes the situation? Do you know how many species have been described from a single specimen? Should science have to wait however many untold years it might take before another specimen is encountered, all along no one knowing the specimen was even found and, therefore, either not looking or knowing what to look for or where? Science has a way of correcting itself: that is what it is intended to do and why it is an open-ended process available to amendment with additional data. As someone familiar with some portions of the literature you should know how dubious records are addressed in future publications. Isn’t that an acceptable approach? It seems to be working so far because, if asked, how many examples of fraudulent range extensions published and supported by a specimen and can you provide? And, I’m talking intentional deception, not the accidental misallocation of localities from previous centuries like was encountered when specimens were shipped from forts and railroad stops, or when specimens from collecting expeditions were accidentally mixed in with specimens from other locations sampled. If you can cite examples and make a case that the process currently in place has been abused I’m willing to listen.

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » October 25th, 2014, 1:14 pm

Yeah, the Harold example was not worded very well...I meant no disrespect to Harold. I was just using that situation as an example. PM sent with examples of what I was alluding to.

Peace