Please, someone resurrect this forum. This is probably the best thread ever!Mike Pingleton wrote:I'm glad to see this great thread resurrected!
-Mike

Moderator: Scott Waters
Please, someone resurrect this forum. This is probably the best thread ever!Mike Pingleton wrote:I'm glad to see this great thread resurrected!
-Mike
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.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.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.
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 varietyDon 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
Chris,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.
Yes,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.
Up in haines there was a record of a DOR ordinoides, but it was believed to be captive based on mtDNA.Coluber Constrictor wrote:Pretty sure a single specimen of Thamnophis sirtalis (or maybe elegans?) was found in Alaska not too long ago.
So does that mean there will be a report published soon?! I'll buy the fireworks, you can bring the hot dogs...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 isBrian 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...
Then there's this post from earlier -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.
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.
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.Bogertophis rosaliae (one record, probably legit, but very controversial... someone could find this if they tried)
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 ...
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.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.
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.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?
Oh, unlikely for someone searching for them now, but I'm just mentioning it as a possible explanation for the DOR.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!
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.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
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.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.
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.its a no-brainer if the likes of Klauber & Shaw couldnt find the boger-man, no one else is likely to either.
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.Ockham once again requires the 1 I-8 apparently anonymous submission to be viewed as just another hoax…
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.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.
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.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.
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.Who vouchers such an important find and then puts their name down as anonymous, give me a break.
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.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.
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.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…
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.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?
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.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).
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.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.
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.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.
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!NEVER been another find made public, at least.
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.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.
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 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.