Common sharpnosed snake (Philodryas argentea)
What's in a name?
A brown vine or liana snake, or is it a common sharp-nosed snake? Common names pose an inherent danger of mis-communication. They often rely on physical characteristics that may or may not be polymorphic within a population, and thus your green vine snake and brown vine snake may be one and the same species. Moreover, different cultures, languages, geographical ranges, etc... a huge variety of obfuscating factors make common names unreliable, which is why whenever possible the binomial latin name is preferred. Philodryas argentea, ah, much clearer...Or is it Xenoxybelis argenteus...hmmmm...
Taxonomy isn't necessarily a field that you would think experiences revolutionary advances, however, to a discipline which once relied on observation, physiological determinants, natural history and more recently, advances in microscopy, genetics has done just that. However, this has also opened up a whole new set of questions and dilemmas. Reconciling earlier identifications with new genetic analyses which may not square. Genetics is not just an additional tool in the kit of scientific methodology, it is a usurper, and many other perfectly valid, and important tools have fallen out of favour as a result.
Moreover, the definition of species, ironically, seems to be evolving with our new tools. The old definition of a distinct population which lives, and reproduces together to produce viable offspring is under attack. Genetic homologies are finding more and more support. And yet, the variability of the gene pool within a breeding population is a difficult thing to separate from marker genes for a species. To a certain extent, this is a line in the sand.
There is no argument that genetics is a valuable and powerful tool which can parse out differences and provide a degree of exactitude beyond morphological observation, to the very base-pair essence of an individual. This is reductionism. It is amazing the degree of detail it can provide, but it is dangerous, and its risks are glossed over in academia in the pell-mell pursuit down the rabbit hole to publish, always something new, always new knowledge (regardless of its merit). As one starts describing genes, quarks, gluons, the stuff that make up life, one becomes gradually more and more removed from what life actually is. Are we more than the sum of our parts? Perhaps in our quest for knowledge, our dissection of life, we have killed the patient and our post-mortem is not as close to "Truth" as we thought. Nowadays, specialization, often to an absurd degree is the norm. Rare is the renaissance man, the polymath. Nature doesn't have separate classrooms for physics, biology, chemistry, etc...it is all in the open air, messy and wonderful.
And so what's in a name? - Apparently a convoluted history of contending ideologies, convictions, descriptions, and emotions.
See more amazing #reptilesofSani.
Photographed for the #SaniProject2017. Follow us at @destinationecuador #Sanilodge #paulbertner.
Common sharpnosed snake (Philodryas argentea)
What's in a name?
A brown vine or liana snake, or is it a common sharp-nosed snake? Common names pose an inherent danger of mis-communication. They often rely on physical characteristics that may or may not be polymorphic within a population, and thus your green vine snake and brown vine snake may be one and the same species. Moreover, different cultures, languages, geographical ranges, etc... a huge variety of obfuscating factors make common names unreliable, which is why whenever possible the binomial latin name is preferred. Philodryas argentea, ah, much clearer...Or is it Xenoxybelis argenteus...hmmmm...
Taxonomy isn't necessarily a field that you would think experiences revolutionary advances, however, to a discipline which once relied on observation, physiological determinants, natural history and more recently, advances in microscopy, genetics has done just that. However, this has also opened up a whole new set of questions and dilemmas. Reconciling earlier identifications with new genetic analyses which may not square. Genetics is not just an additional tool in the kit of scientific methodology, it is a usurper, and many other perfectly valid, and important tools have fallen out of favour as a result.
Moreover, the definition of species, ironically, seems to be evolving with our new tools. The old definition of a distinct population which lives, and reproduces together to produce viable offspring is under attack. Genetic homologies are finding more and more support. And yet, the variability of the gene pool within a breeding population is a difficult thing to separate from marker genes for a species. To a certain extent, this is a line in the sand.
There is no argument that genetics is a valuable and powerful tool which can parse out differences and provide a degree of exactitude beyond morphological observation, to the very base-pair essence of an individual. This is reductionism. It is amazing the degree of detail it can provide, but it is dangerous, and its risks are glossed over in academia in the pell-mell pursuit down the rabbit hole to publish, always something new, always new knowledge (regardless of its merit). As one starts describing genes, quarks, gluons, the stuff that make up life, one becomes gradually more and more removed from what life actually is. Are we more than the sum of our parts? Perhaps in our quest for knowledge, our dissection of life, we have killed the patient and our post-mortem is not as close to "Truth" as we thought. Nowadays, specialization, often to an absurd degree is the norm. Rare is the renaissance man, the polymath. Nature doesn't have separate classrooms for physics, biology, chemistry, etc...it is all in the open air, messy and wonderful.
And so what's in a name? - Apparently a convoluted history of contending ideologies, convictions, descriptions, and emotions.
See more amazing #reptilesofSani.
Photographed for the #SaniProject2017. Follow us at @destinationecuador #Sanilodge #paulbertner.