Talk:Central African rock python: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:17, 31 October 2023

Revision as of 05:17, 31 October 2023

Line 4:

{{old move|date=5 June 2022|from=African rock python|destination=Central African rock python|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1091925750#Requested move 5 June 2022}}

== Improvement needed! ==

''Python natalensis'' is a separate species since 1999, which is supported by almost every herpetologist in recent literature and publications! ''Python natalensis'' shows prominent differences in squamation, pattern, habitat, general behavior, reproduction,... Please give ''Python natalensis'' its own article back! For more information take a look at the reference list of the German wiki for [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nördlicher_Felsenpython ''Python sebae''] and [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Südlicher_Felsenpython ''Python natalensis'']. Thank you and good luck! --[[Special:Contributions/77.57.177.59|77.57.177.59]] ([[User talk:77.57.177.59|talk]]) 19:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

:The taxonomy is (still) disputed. Article explains this (and gives both sides). I think we are better showing the traditional taxonomy as the new one has not yet been universally agreed on. And note, the more recent and authorotative sources favor the subspecies, not species labels (check the refs). FYI, the English and French wiki article have always had a subspecies labeling, not full species. Also, Arkive source did as well. The subspecies do intergrade (interbreed) so traditional species concept would consider them same species. In any case, this is discussed in text and only real issue is article naming, etc. Of course, if scientific community every completely agrees on a different taxo, we can change. I doubt it will happen for reasons above.[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]]) 00:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I’m glad to here that you try to get more literature about these two pythons! After reading more about them, I’m sure you will change your mind about the subspecies status. I’m not aware of any reputable herpetologist (scientific and NOT popular scientific or herpetocultural stuff), who doubts the species rank for Python natalensis since 1999. Next to the reptile database [[http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/species?genus=Python&species=natalensis&search_param=%28%28genus%3D%27Python%27%2Cexact%29%28species%3D%27natalensis%27%2Cexact%29%29]] here a small selection of publications that I’m speaking about:

*G. J. Alexander: Thermal Biology of the Southern African Python (Python natalensis): Does temperature limit its distribution? In: R. W. Henderson, R. Powell (Hrsg.): Biology of the Boas and Pythons. Eagle Mountain Publishing Company, Eagle Mountain 2007, {{ISBN|978-0-9720154-3-1}}, p. 51–75.

*G. J. Alexander, J. Marais: A Guide to the Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Publishers, Cape Town 2007, {{ISBN|978-1-77007-386-9}}, p. 61–65.

*S. Spawls, K. Howell, R. Drewes, J. Ashe: A Field Guide to the Reptiles of East Africa. Academic Press 2002, {{ISBN|0-12-656470-1}}, p. 305–310.

*B. Lanza, A. Nistri: Somali Boidae (genus Eryx Daudin 1803) and Pythonidae (genus Python Daudin 1803) (Reptilia Serpentes). Tropical Zoology 18, 2005, p. 67-136, here a useful link: [[http://www.megasphera.cz/africanvenomoussnakes/images/Herpetologie%20Afriky/Odborné%20články%20k%20stáhnut%C3%AD/Eryx%20Python%20Somalia.pdf]]

*And even Walls elected them to full species rank a year before Broadley1999 officially did: J. G. Walls: The Living Pythons. T. F. H. Publications 1998, {{ISBN|0-7938-0467-1}}, p. 142–146, 166–171

Good luck and thanks for your efforts! --[[Special:Contributions/77.57.177.59|77.57.177.59]] ([[User talk:77.57.177.59|talk]]) 14:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

:OK. Let me research it...[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]]) 17:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

===Preliminary notes (research in progress)===

[http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=202186 ITIS] has the traditional taxonomy and cites McDiarmid 1999, which seems very well regarded.

CITES (trade treaties) seems to still use the traditional taxonomy (although there is discussion of changing it).

IUCN does not list python sebae in any fashion (at all).

Broadley 1999 is the source of most of the competing species claims (''would like to look at that paper'').

Not really finding a killer discussion of taxonomy on the web. Like one that discusses both sides of the question (even if taking a position on which is right). In particular would like to read discussion of the "mixed region" and if the two snakes intergrade (mate).

Looking at Google scholar, it seems that papers are published in the 2000s using both species and subspecies descriptions. Actually not really that much activity going on of any sort with python sebae. Definitely a lot less than [[Chrysemys picta]], which had thousands of papers and a similar taxonomy debate.

A subjective Google web (in US) searching around for top pages (I looked at first screens, did not quantify) seemed to show more use of subspecies than species. Although certainly some on each side. And Wiki serves as a source for a lot of hobbyist sites, so this is ambiguous.

Number of web pages recalled gave 22,000 for "python sebae natelensis" and 21,000 for "python natalensis". So that's a wash...

There is a large pythonidae taxo review from 2010 (by a Zherman {{=)|wink}}) that has the species usage. (but it does not really discuss pro and con...I trust papers more even if they take a position if they show both sides and give a reason for why they take a position...)

Not crazy about the reptile database as a source.

I have not gotten the books mentioned yet or the one paper on distribution of southern one.

I also looked at all our en-Wiki lists and the like (list of pythons) and they all have the traditional taxonomy. And the en-Wiki article has always had natalensis as subspecies (we did have a separate article...but it was always as the subspecies...never species).

At the end of the day, it is not up to us to decide if Broadley is right/wrong, but to reflect consensus of what is used in science (and even in trade and legislation). I would not want us to be jumping on a new fashion...or stuck behind if really the whole World has moved on. I'm leaning to staying with the article as is, mostly based on ITIS and the usage in English language web. In any case, we do give both sides (in the article) and can probably expand the discussion. The only issue is sort of a Wiki one of what our default is for the article naming.

[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]]) 14:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

:The Somali paper is quite nice in giving an overview of Sebae in general (and regardless of taxo issue). Good reference for a lot of behavior and the Roman tilings and all that. It was reviewed by Broadley and does use his 1999 elevation of the subspecies. Does not add any more on the argument and in Somalia there are no natalensis, so does not discuss co-occurence. Definitely an example of continuing the Broadley usage. It does discuss the issue of a lot of the 20th century literature using the single species system, so it becomes difficult looking at old literature on the African rock python to know which is reffered to.[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]]) 16:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

:This is from the 2010 German python taxo paper in zookeys (in context of a different discussion): "The resurrection of the genus Heleionomus for Python sebae and Python natalensis is unwarranted because the actual status of natalensis and sebae has not been fully resolved and, furthermore, separation from Python would compromise monophyly of the genus Python." (note, though, they do seem to advocate natalensis elevation. just saying they also say not really resolved.)[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]]) 16:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

:I have a research request in to get the Broadley 1999 paper.[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]]) 17:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

:emailed McDiarmid and Broadley (a 2006 email, I could find).[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|talk]]) 18:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

==Cleaning up some old issues==