Changes in taxomomy

We are currently looking for data concerning the following points:

-what is the taxonomic status of reptile "morphs" ,such as Rhacodactylus leachianus "dark morph" ?Why are not they considered as subspecies?

-we have the same question concerning localities,i.e. Boa constrictor imperator localities :why are they not recognized as subspecies,being given the difference between a wild Hogg Island ,a Mexican or a Colombian?

-A species is defined as a population sharing similar physical features and the capacity to interbreed.In France,several years ago ,hybrids of Pantherophis guttatusxLampropeltis getulus or other lampro species were produced : are these hybrids sterile?Doesn't it deny the basic definition of a species (I herein underline that the ethics followed by this forum strictly forbids the trade and production of such hybrids)?

-What will be the overall changes in reptiles taxonomy in the years to come?

Good questions, and sadly a too often overlooked area among hobbyists.

I am surprised that taxonomic issues are not raised more often among breeders.........but as with the leachianus point of the "morph".look at canine breeds.......technically all domestic canines are the same species, with no subspecific standing..so a chihuahua and a Great dane are just "morphs" taxonomically....color by itself does not give an animal status specifically, morphological differences, anatomical differences and of course geographical locality come into effect as do lately mtDNA results. I stress to remember that taxonomy is a huge field that is still constantly changing and is not an absolute, for we group animals for our convenience and our understanding is constantly changing.


I would like to see this evolve into a great dialogue!

Yes,this is one of the issues that leave me skeptical...science is supposed to be a synonym of logic and being rigorous...so when a change occurs,does that mean the former scientist generations were not rigorous enough,or did not have the same technological means,or simply because as you pointed out "we classify species for our own convenience"?In the latter case,this is rather subjective really.

agreed..subjective, and ultimately combative as it is left to opinion and general consensis leaving room for argument and disagreement and continuous changes that are difficult at best for the lay person, professional, and hobbyist alike.

Today's current crop of taxonomic twinkies ( a loving term, I assure you)
rely on mtDNA results. I personally feel that the whole appraoch through DNA is a mistake, but as they say time tells all tales.

Could you be more accurate on your point about the reliability of DNA-based taxonomy?

My basic problem with using DNA to define taxonomy is our lack of understanding. All DNA is comprised of only four bases (Adenine guanine, thymine, and cytosine) now these are arranged ever differently, and as with all science our understanding of the shapes and arrangements within the complex chains have structural importance in specific patterns to the bases through those ever different sequences.

As with all science this is a field of learning and great error can be expected as we learn how little we know in reality as a species. My basic qualm however for using this as a taxonomic refference is this......all DNA is comprised of the same materials, it is the arrangement and structure which dictates the organism, and with convergent evolution (Chondropython viridis vs. Corallus caninus for example) organisms can share eerily similiar traits and outward appearance without being related, so I fear we shall find in DNA arrangement as time progresses....