Split off from another thread as it was off topic to that thread. The other thread :

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=22341

-=-



Lassen population Cascades Frog are rare.

Last paper I saw on them, extirpated from 99% of historical localities. Only six localities with confirmed sightings, and a possible sighting at a seventh locality (unconfirmed despite several attempts)

Of the six localities, four of those localities do not appear to be breeding at all, with a population of less than 20 adult frogs - repeated surveys shows the same frogs via pattern.

Two of those localities had reproduction, but smaller populations than would be expected for the species in the same habitat based upon data in the 70s.

Lassen population Rana cascadae are indeed rare.

Hopefully the current drought didn't do them in completely.

If all Rana cascadae are in fact the same species, then the species is not rare. The Trinity Alps population segment, despite 50% reduction from historical localities, seems to be healthy where fish were not planted. The northern population (Oregon and Washington state) has only seen about 20% reduction from historical localities if I remember.

But the Lassen population, geographically isolated from the other two, is rare.

It is my humble opinion (er, okay, maybe not so humble) that Lassen population Rana cascadae should be federally protected as a Distinct Population Segmentation of Rana cascadae and listed as critically endangered.

Perhaps Hubbs should have said "no viable population is rare"... when something's going extinct, it will get rare, before vanishing. jim

That I would agree with. A population / species should not be declared "rare" unless science can demonstrate a severe population crash that the population / species may not be able to recover from without remedial help (resolving the cause the crash, and if necessary, population management)

You just don't get it, because rare is a word that does not apply at all to herps. Rare applies to old books or antiques. If you can see one of the 20 remaining frogs then they are not truly rare, they are on the verge of extinction. Rare things are extremely scarce and hard to find. The fact that they know there are 20 frogs tells me they are evidently not hard to find, just not breeding and on their way out...

We just need to describe these things in a different way, not with words that apply to objects like Gutenberg bibles and some old comic books.

I can go to a museum and know where to find a particular old book or antique...

"Rare" seems to mean different things in this discussion...perhaps we can all agree all herps are rare, until you cook 'em?

I haven't perused an ecology textbook in a while. Is there a distinction between "rare" and "endangered" in terms of abundance, density, and/or ease of observing? Put another way, what if I can find over 100,000 of a small species of frog in one locality, but one Super Wal-Mart parking lot would wipe out the entire population? To me, that species wouldn't be "rare," but it would be "endangered" in the wild.

I'd like to propose the adjective "hubbscommon" to describe such animals. "Hubbscommon" would refer to any herp species that is critically threatened, but has been seen by one or more persons at least once in the last year, and/or has demonstrated any breeding success in the past decade. Any herp that has been seen by ten or more persons in a year would officially become "hubbsbundant." The word "rare" would only be used to describe extinct species seen in a hallucination or fever dream.

The other option would be to accept "rare" as a broad and unscientific term used to describe things or events that are hard to find, scarce, widely spaced, or narrowly distributed.

What about the Louisiana pine?

Both uncommon (rare) and hard to find. Even when the habitat was still there, it was not an easy encounter, from my understanding.

The LA pine would be "Hubbscommon"...
But, seriously, I would call the LA Pine extremely secretive and occurring in low densities. If you can't find something it doesn't always mean its rare or imperiled. The CA Dept of Fish and Wildlife used to think Mtn Kings were rare, and I'm sure there are still some people in the dept. who still believe that. I would also say that the Cascade Frog is "imperiled" in some or all of its locations. But, rare animals are so scarce they wouldn't be able to find each other for breeding. If Cascade Frogs exist in sufficient numbers to breed, but are not breeding, then I would say there is an environmental factor at work and they are simply on the way out.

The localities where they are not breeding, I suppose the proper term is no recruitment. There may be egg masses laid.

Genetic bottleneck could be a factor since the localities are disjunct enough to not allow gene flow.

It's also possible something else is preventing recruitment.

Pesticides from agriculture in Modoc county may be related, trout wiped out populations in permanent lakes and the drought late 70s seriously impacted breeding in bodies of water that couldn't support the trout DF&G were air dropping everywhere. But I think pesticide drift from Modoc County is suspected as a factor.

One of the problems with our EPA laws is they only have to test the active ingredient in pesticides but sometimes it is the surfactant that does the damage to amphibians. In the case of Round-Up - a Canadian study found that the active ingredient was not all that harmful but the surfactant most commonly used was devastating to many amphibian species, for example. But in the US only the active ingredient seems to matter.

I would call them rare because if you selected historic localities at random, you are unlikely to encounter them. Not because they are secretive, but because they are gone.

I’m rarely bare, one might say…
It happens but once on a given day

But since it’s predictable, and here to stay
It’s just barely rare, in any way

Being rarely bare is up to me…
And rarely something you’d want to see

So rarely bare is barely rare
But I do it when herping… try not to stare.

One hook a rare blessing

Where the name derives

Bit on both - Good to be alive

High Desert Bard - for words he does not lack,

But he's missing a third one

To pat himself on the back!

so... now you've taken to attacking me when, and where ever i post? hell hath no fury, I guess. show the world your true putrid colors then... it concerns me not one whit.

Jim are you serious??

It was a light hearted thing, it wasn't even non complementary, I even thought of it as a gentle mens peace offering .

Hath no fury like? Like a what, helli? Like a woman?

Scorned? By what?

Ive heard you use That Same phrase with Klawnskale.

It kinda reflects more on You than either of us.

Wow. Sorry you couldn't take a harmless ribbing - to your face, not behind your back.

Sincerely,

Kelly
Or as I am referred to regularly via pms amongst certain cliques :

That ******* D***

Which incidentally I barely mind!

Can you cite a dictionary entry, biology textbook, or scholarly article that defines "rare" as "unable to find each other for breeding"? I certainly can't, and each of the dozen or so dictionary entries I found gave much broader definitions of the word. You make good points about the importance of distinguishing between imperiled animals and uncommonly seen animals, but it seems to me that you are using your own specific, extremely narrow definition to try to invalidate a word that has multiple, broad definitions.

exactly.

I think our American English language sucks. We have dozens of words with subtle nuanced meanings, all in the same constellation of a larger meaning , but then when we need something narrow and specific, we come up with Hubbscommon.

Is it rare, uncommon, unusual, having a small distribution, infrequent, not found in large numbers, or what?
What is your perspective, scope, range, and method of measurement too?

We're just left with a pile of phonemes, prefixes, suffixes, and ancient vernacular roots like a pile of linguistic puzzle pieces, and all we can hope to do is assemble them in a particular fashion so that accurate communication can occur. And oh how often do we fail!

In my treatment of 'Moral Standing', I use 'rareity' as a direct reflection of overall numerical abundance, as one of several factors I scale to produce a 'morality score'... for every living thing on Earth.

Turtles in China are rare...they ate almost all of them...a friend of mine spent 3 months there and they only trapped one turtle...now, I'd say that's pretty rare...
How many U.S. species fall into the same category?

The definition of rare in collectibles is less than 10 items in existence...but those are spread far and wide...and if a herp numbers under 10 and is spread far and wide, it's almost extinct. I think it would be better to say the cascading Frog is almost extinct...

That is really specific, and it would have to be I suppose. Seems weird to think that 11 of something is not rare, but 9 of something is.

10-20 is "scarce". 21-50 is "uncommon". 50-200 is "usually available with some searching involved", 200 to 1,000 is "common". Over 1,000 is "abundant." At least, this scale applies to comic books...

Are you telling me this whole semantics argument is based on the nomenclature used by comic book collectors?

Yeah, that and common sense...animals that are rare in nature cannot find each other to breed...so any breeding population cannot be rare...
and here's a dictionary definition that fits:
2. thinly distributed over an area; few and widely separated:
Example: Lighthouses are rare on that part of the coast.

Of course, rare also means barely cooked...so...

If we are talking about the comic book collectors' definition of "rare," then I agree. It would be very hard for 9 widely scattered herps to reproduce.

I'm not a comic book collector, and I was unaware of that definition until today. I don't use that definition. I am willing to bet most people, when referring to animals, aren't using that definition. When I talk about animals being "rare," I'm talking about animals that are very uncommon, very uncommonly seen, and/or occurring in small, scattered populations. Also, I'm usually referring to birds, not herps. Birds can sing loudly and fly long distances, so they are often more able than herps to sustain a low-density population (up to a point, of course). As far as herps go, they are ALL rare to me, since the days in the year I can devote to herping are often fewer than 10 and widely scattered across the calendar.

How about, when proper habitat is rare, then the herps that require that habitat are therefore rare, even if they may be uncommon or abundant in that habitat?

Seems appropriate to me.

I think rare is a fine word for some birds, plants, mammals, etc., but i think it is completely out of place with regards to herps and gives a false impression to the unlearned among us. That is why I hate the word. Idiots who don't understand herps will think "rare" herps are almost extinct if you use it for uncommonly seen snakes or whatever. It's just a bullshit word all around...we don't need it...we have better terms to describe herps than a stupid word that applies to meat and collectibles...

Give me one positive reason to use that word for herps...there is none, because the word is not a positive word. It is misleading at best.

I generally agree with Soopaman. But I think, and perhaps this is because I'm a geographer, we need to set some boundaries. There are herps that are rare in the state of Florida, like perhaps the smooth earth snake. Things tend to become more rare on the edges of their ranges. But I don't think anybody would say smooth earth snakes are rare, when considering their whole range.

I think the word rare, if and when it is applied to herps, should mean in the global context.

The word of rare (or any descriptor of abundance) only applies to things for which we have observations or evidence of existence. The less evidence of existence, the more rare it becomes. It is really hard to gauge in some cases if the animal is actually rare, rarely seen, or perhaps undersampled. Some things may be rarely seen only because nobody seriously goes looking for them. Or perhaps there is a large thriving population somewhere we haven't yet discovered. It would be considered rare, until more evidence to the contrary comes to light. If this argument is the argument Hubbs is trying to make, that the word "rare" when applied to animals and plants has multiple meanings, and thus can be misleading, then I'll agree to that.

Well, as Hubbs says it would seem that bats can be rare...stumbled across this while researching something else...

Stable Uncommon and Rare Populations

There are several uncommon-to-rare species that appear to have relatively stable populations within the ecoregion. These include the western pipistrelle (Pipestrellus hesperus), small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), and Mexican long-tongued bat. While the desert population of western pipistrelle is abundant in rocky areas, the coastal population apparently always has been less abundant (Krutzsch 1948). This species appears to still be present in rocky canyon habitat of the inland valleys, foothills, and mountains. The small-footed myotis occupies the same topographic regions as the western pipistrelle but seems to be associated more with riparian and wooded habitats. While still regularly encountered, both of these species may be experiencing habitat loss in the lower elevations of their range within the ecoregion.

Well, Kent...I saw nothing in that write up to make me believe any of those bats are rare...limited to certain habitats, but evidently easy to see...

This word "rare" is just out of place in most cases.

Now, I know nuthin' bout smooth earth snakes in FL, but i can tell you that a teeny, tiny snake like an earth snake is not rare in any way, shape or form, not even in FL. They live underground and are not easily found. Herpetologists in FL probably have no idea what their actual range is in that state. And even if they only occur in a one square mile area, they will not be rare on that habitat. Otherwise, they'd be extinct...

This is just common sense folks...just common sense and analysis. Herpers need to learn to think instead of just regurgitating what everyone else says and thinks...

It'a actually pretty rare that Hubbs can stay on topic this long...

rare (adj.) -

From macmillandictionary.com: "not often seen or found, and therefore admired or valued very much"

From merriam-webster.com: "seldom occurring or found : uncommon"

Collaborative International Dictionary of English: "Not frequent; seldom met with or occurring; unusual."

The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia: "Very uncommon or infrequent; seldom occurring or to be found; hardly ever met with."

Therefore, "not easily found" = "rare." There might be 600 earth snakes under my feet, but if I only see 1 every 5 years above the surface, it's still a rare snake.

My common sense and analysis tell me that I should probably weigh multiple dictionary entries and majority opinion on usage a bit more heavily than one guy getting worked up over an inoffensive 4-letter word.

Yaddy, yaddy, yadda...

The reason I can stay on topic this long is because this is one of my favorite pet peeves.

Oh, look...there goes a walrus...let's talk about walruses...

When you preface a statement like this, it becomes hard to listen to anything that follows; it kills your credibility. I'm not trying to be mean here and mean no offense by saying this.

I'm not making any claims as to the rarity of smooth earth snakes in Florida, just that a geographic boundary should be applied when having this discussion. And you actually make my point when you say,



If we make the geographic range small enough, then nothing is rare. I can find a Western Hognose snake pretty much everytime I look for one if I check the right terrarium in my living room. In that small corner of Florida, they're pretty common really.

My point was, and i think you know this, that I don't know about them in FL...but I do understand smooth earth snakes and know they are hardly rare anywhere they occur...

The above statements when placed side by side are a good summation on the main point raised. The top statement in the above series of quotes sums up US herps in a nutshell.

The word "rare" has many uses but it can always be easily placed into proper perspective, It can be a word used as a means of deceit and often is in the biological world. Rare animals are an important source of income for biologist, conservation groups, various hanger-ons. If something is rare, It needs to be protected, studied, conserved, managed etc. The more rare animals the more "need " for certain groups to be involved and given control over said species.



That goes both ways, you can make a species much more "rare", imperiled, in serious decline etc. By padding the numbers using population data from areas within the range that have few sightings. This is a common ploy in the creation of "rare species". The word rare and its intended meaning does not need to be a source of confusion or convoluted meaning but its often used as one to convey a skewed but calculated perspective.

Ernie Eison

After reading this, seeing many sides of the coin on such discussions, I started analyzing why such a simple word causes this kind of controversy.

It seems the dictionary denotative meaning is clearly documented, but the connotative meaning is pretty different to folks of different backgrounds.

...To an average herper, hobbyist, a “rare” animal is one that is not found very frequently, with a judgment call as to what that frequency is, using traditional herping techniques.
...To an average deli-cup, hobbyist, a “rare” animal is one that is not seen often in captive breeding programs (thus increasing its $$$ value to a breeder.)
...To a museum oriented herpetologist, a “rare” animal is one that is not often found in specimen collections, though it may be quite common in some hard to reach, under collected part of the world.
...To a wildlife manager, a “rare” animal is one that is not found in sufficient numbers to insure its continued existence as a species, without further study or action.
... Etc. etc. etc.

Even in Ditmar’s mid ‘30s book, Thrills of a Naturalists Quest, he refers to animals thought to be “rare”, based on his glass on the world, which was zoo and museum collections (fed mostly by commercial animal collectors.) He noted some animals were "discovered to be quite common in their proper habitat!



There may be even a little generation gap going here with connotation, because of some of us old Field Amphibian Reptile Tired Seekers (old F.A.R.T.S.), chuckling over the conclusions of myopic zoo/museum folks, especially arm-chair academics, who pronounced certain animals as “rare” in the '60s and '70s.

This was expanded in the ‘70s with state fish and game managers, who were, to a large part, older game wardens, who were rewarded for their service with a desk job, but now, with limited funding and sometimes G2, had to think about managing non-game animals. (As with all organizations, the “Peter Principle” could not be avoided as well.) Under some circumstances, the word “rare” for a species now actually had a “real world” effect of swaying laws that sometimes protected animals that were not “rare”, and ignored animals that truly needed protection.


Noah, you may remember your fine find of a Short-tailed Snake when I casually, without thinking of the word’s controversy, said, “They are not rare, but not commonly found, except in isolated areas under optimum habitat, temp, and season.

Good job.”
( viewtopic.php?f=11&t=17699&p=205515&hilit=rare#p205515 )

I resisted “rare” because to give “armchair lawmakers” the impression of not being a viable population type of rare, could foster yet another knee-jerk legislative reaction.



IMHO, “rarely found” with a qualifying geographic location or habitat is a pretty good application for modern times.
By adding habitat or location, this gives more leeway for managers to protect animals that can yet be commonly found, but their habitat destruction could change that quickly.

Good points Bill. There is a lot of meaning locked up in this little word.

Nicely done, Bill. That said...It behooves us all to remember that Mr Hubbs HAS self-published several books... so I think we should all ignore all the other possible connotations of the word 'rare', and from now on use (or rather, NOT use) the word in a manner that pleases Brian.

Pet peeves are irritating, and it is unconscionable that we allow Brian to continue to have to suffer one.

Can we do mine next? it's 'gophersnakes imitate rattlers'.

While I appreciate helli's tongue in cheek jabs, I do feel that Bill and WSTREPS have made my point in a very eloquent and succinct manner. Something I am usually unable to do because I am mainly a muck-raker and riot inciter...

Let's just hope Klawnscale does not show up here...

Chris, I think the debate is over and this thread is finished. It was so eloquently stated by Brother WSTREPS and Brother Bill that the term rare is a terrible affront to U.S. herps that I doubt anyone can say anything more here.

Thank you all for your participation and have a good night...remember to leave a donation in the box on your way out...

So are South Florida Rainbow Snakes, Hubbscommon? I need a benchmark.

Have they been seen at least once in the last year? If not, I'd probably go with hubbstinct, or hubbstirpated.

the rarest stuff of all is found under Hubb Caps...

Excuse me...but I killed this thread...stop posting...

South FL Rainbow snakes are probably extinct...or still common somewhere they haven't been discovered yet...but not rare...

hubbstinct - \hub-'stingkt\ (adj): not rare (i.e. existing in numbers greater than 10 or less than 1)

-Example: South Florida Rainbow Snakes, Sumatran Rhinos, Starlings, Monarch Butterflies, Elvis, peanut butter sandwiches, tax returns, Dodos, clouds, black holes, Golden Toads, and sand grains are all hubbstinct.

No, no, no...peanut butter sandwiches are not Hubbstinct...