Female Bitis armata

[Rob]

I know of at least 1 other small adder which is waiting to be described from the West Coast.
All very exciting.

[Mongoose]

I am aware of this little adder too - sometimes I wonder though if they not pushing things too far though.

[it_bit_me]

I dont get the subspecie thing then. Isnt it when a specie becomes confined to a certain locality and starts to differ in size , colour etc. that it would become a suspecies.

[Mongoose]

It is just a race that might differ morphologically or it could have slight variation in scale counts. It is usually confined to a certain area. For example - The Shield nose snakes. A.s.scutatus occurs mostly in the east of their range, A.s.intermedius is almost confined to the KNP, and A.s.fulafula occurs west of KNP in adjacent Mozambique.

However, I am pretty sure these are all going to be species on their own now.

[Mongoose]

I meant A.s.fulafula occurs east of KNP.

[it_bit_me]

Sorry to ramble on this post. ..It seems to be a sketchy subject if a variation or "subspecies can be created and lost within one generation.

[Mongoose]

Hence why scientists now believe that sub-species are either species on their own or they are all the same thing.

[BushSnake]

Hence why scientists now believe that sub-species are either species on their own or they are all the same thing.

Only some scientists. The taxonomical level of sub-species cannot be discarded at all. The problem comes in at where you draw the line of speciation. If a species is evolving to become another species, and at this instant in time they only differ slightly, they are not a different species YET, but because they differ they are not the same as the nominate either. So, call them sub-species. In 10 000 000 years they will in all likelihood differ enough to call them a new species (based on our current criteria of what is a species).

[MV]

@ it_bit_me => Go and check out this link...it's got some good info.

@ Mongoose => In the case of the small Bitis species, do you know what was part of the process in describing them? Was DNA work done on all of them? Is it Locality based? How about "Molecular analyses of geographic population" (see link)?

[armata]

DNA work on Bitis inc dwarf Bitis is work in progress.

Then we have to consider (or not) subgenera.
Lenk et al (2001) only leaves arietans in Bitis; the other large Bitis in Macrocerastes with a ? against parviocula.
The dwarf Bitis are described in Calechidna with three distinct clades - the peringueyi/schneideri/caudalis group, the cornuta/inornata group, and the atropos/xeropaga group.

Soon to be published is that B.unicolor is a distinct species from atropos, but the Zim Eastern Highland ones are still problematical.

I don't know what your talking about re a 'new' dwarf adder from west coast. I do have a feeling that armata there is not armata though-the Cape Fold Mts would have provided an effective barrier.

[edge_of_sarcasm]

Dwarf Bitis IS THE sh!t. They are the main reason me and my friend are planning to go to SA.

Regards
Daniel

[Bushviper]

Some descriptions are nothing more than suggestions. Take Kluge's work where Sanzinia became Boa. That was laughed off. Look at the rubbish published by Raymond Hoser. That was a joke but now one of the genera he suggested has to be taken seriously.

There are way too many taxonomists that have to justify all the pickling they have done and getting a salary for doing very little so they publish stuff and then sit back and hope enough other idiots agree with them.

Others do work in their own time at no expense to anyone else and produce good work. I know of a few species that are in prep by people that have retired and do not stand to gain finacially from the work.