Subspecies questions

[LeopardShade]

I don't know if this is in the right sub-forum, but I figured subspecies aren't a 'morph'. Anyways, I have a couple questions.

Sorry if this one is kind of stupid...
#1. Is the subspecies Eublepharis macularius macularius basically the Common Leopard Gecko (Eublepharis macularius? Or is it an entirely different animal? If so, could I please have a picture and/or some info about it. I'm sort of thinking it's the former, but I don't know... it confuses me...

#2. Does anyone have any pictures of or information on Eublepharis macularius smithi? I'm struggling to find any information or pictures of this subspecies.

Any answers would be much appreciated.

 

[DoubleAGeckos]

I don't know if this is in the right sub-forum, but I figured subspecies aren't a 'morph'. Anyways, I have a couple questions.

Sorry if this one is kind of stupid...
#1. Is the subspecies Eublepharis macularius macularius basically the Common Leopard Gecko (Eublepharis macularius? Or is it an entirely different animal? I'm sort of thinking it's the former, but I don't know... it confuses me...

#2. Does anyone have any pictures of or information on Eublepharis macularius smithi? I'm struggling to find any information or pictures of this subspecies.

Answer to question one completely different animal I'm pretty sure and for number two check the eye lash gecko book it shows info on all subspecies of leos

 

[fuzzylogix]

Answer to question one completely different animal I'm pretty sure and for number two check the eye lash gecko book it shows info on all subspecies of leos

????



E. macularius macularius is the common leopard gecko that most people keep as pets and breed. As far as smithii, from my research there are only a handful of breeders in Europe working with them. I know that I have been trying to get my hands on a pair for a while now, but with no success.

 

[M_surinamensis]

#1. Is the subspecies Eublepharis macularius macularius basically the Common Leopard Gecko (Eublepharis macularius? Or is it an entirely different animal?

I'd just like to start by saying that google doesn't want to provide a phylogenetic diagram for Eublepharidae and I am very disappointed in it.

Taxonomy is best understood from the top down. It takes living things and categorizes them by similarities. At each level, the similarities become more and more specific.

There's actually been some reclassification of the Kingdoms, but in the interest of simplification of the concept, I'm going to go with the old five kingdom model. Please note that this model is out of date, and that most taxonomists recognize somewhere between six and eight kingdoms, as bacteria and fungi have been proposed for splitting. It also ignores super-kingdoms, this post is a kind of 101 approach; conveying the concepts more than the specifics.

Bacteria
Protists
Plants
Fungus
Animals

We're looking at vertebrate animals; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish.

Reptiles are then broken down into suborders; crocodilians, turtles, snakes/lizards/tuataras.

And orders; snakes/lizards, tuataras

And suborders; snakes, lizards

And infraorders, iguanids/agamids/chamelons, geckos, skinks/platedlizards/tegus/lacertids, legless lizards, monitors/heloderms

And families; eyelid geckos, day geckos, knob-tailed geckos, sticky toed geckos, australian geckos... around this level there tends to be a severe onset of debate about classification. Different taxonomists will use different criteria to classify animals as being more or less closely related. The same is true further up, but the differences tend to be a bit more obvious and the debate is generally less frequent. Everything from this point on is something where there is probably some degree of debate, a history of different names and different approaches. Depending on the taxonomist you're asking or the date the material you are reading was published, things can look different. I'm using the EMBL database for the purposes of this post, it's a convenient web reference. I'm not endorsing any of the information presented though, that's sort of beyond the scope of what I am explaining.

Then genera; Aeluroscalabotes, Coleonyx, Eublepharis, Goniurosaurus, Hemitheconyx, Holodactylus

Then species, Eublepharis angramainyu, Eublepharis fuscus, Eublepharis hardwickii, Eublepharis macularius, Eublepharis turcmenicus Several of these have a common name of leopard gecko; common leopard gecko, indian leopard gecko, some other leopard gecko... this is a big part of why common names can be confusing as hell. That and language barriers. Does pakistanischer fettschwanzgecko make any sense to you? Me neither.

The traditional definition of an animal species is "a naturally interbreeding population." Methods used to identify those populations varied, came and went and sometimes came back again. There were field studies, where animals were observed in the wild. There were lab studies, where animals were dissected and measured and cataloged and analyzed and counted for differences. The exact methods changed with time, the science as a whole had some different kinds of thought when it came to classification; how different was different enough was an omnipresent question. Newer methods often involve genetic mapping, identifying similarities and differences in the very foundation of what an animal can be; though there's still a question of how different is sufficiently different to matter.

Some taxonomists... well, some taxonomists don't even recognize what I have explained so far, but it's largely accepted as accurate. Some taxonomists recognize subspecies, some do not. The idea of a subspecies is basically that animals, even if they interbreed sometimes, can form populations that are moving apart, that are evolving based on different evolutionary pressures, and which may eventually reach a point where they aren't the same animal anymore, because they no longer interbreed. It can happen for a lot of reasons. If a population has a big range and there are some living in the mountains and some living in some plains and some living in a forest or a desert, they have different traits which will be successful and they can grow apart. There can be behavioral differences in the way they select mates. There can be successful but divergent traits, like camouflage versus warning colors... they're slightly different, on some level. It usually comes back to that "how different is different enough?" question, over and over again.

Subspecies of one species are the same species- somewhere, in some numbers, there are crosses, mixes between subspecies. Or are assumed to have been so recently enough to consider them conspecific regardless of crosses occurring in a specific generation. Some species have no subspecies, or only have a couple subspecies. Some species have many subspecies, as they have adapted to different things in different places. Not every subspecies necessarily interbreeds with every other subspecies of the same species, sometimes there are populations or geographic barriers between them.

At any rate, leopard gecko subspecies, here's the five EMBL lists (I am sure someone far more interested in leos than me can come along and comment about their interpretation of the validity of each, or introduce the idea of some more); Eublepharis macularius afghanicus, Eublepharis macularius fasciolatus, Eublepharis macularius macularius, Eublepharis macularius montanus, Eublepharis macularius smithi.

Herpetoculture in general tends to take a specific interest in lineage, usually making fairly strict demands in establishing subspecific purity when a subspecies label is applied. Although the sub-communities surrounding each species sometimes have different attitudes and standards, usually as a result of the history of importation and captive breeding. The subspecific purity of a random captive leopard gecko is pretty suspect, because the early breeding and sales kind of ignored the subject. Common boa constrictors are the same, only worse. Whereas the subspecific purity of rainbow boas, chameleons or indonesian monitors is something that is treated with rigorous demand for proof. Leos are kind of on the end where a lot of people don't seem to know or care, which is unfortunate. Bit of an editorial here, but the proliferation of afghan crosses are a sad comment about the awareness of many leo breeders on the subject of taxonomic distinctions.

At any rate, Eublepharis macularius is the species, encompassing all of the leopard gecko subspecies. Eublepharis macularius macularius is one subspecies of that species.

If you like, here's an extended taxonomy of leos. Cellular organisms; Eukaryota; Opisthokonata; Metazoa; Eumetazoa; Bilateria; Coelomata; Deuterostomia; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Gnathostomata; Teletostomi; Euteleostomi; Sarcopterygii; Tetrapoda; Amniota; Sauropsidia; Sauria; Lepidosauria; Squatama; Scleroglossa; Gekkota; Gekkonidae; Eublepharinae; Eublepharis macularius ssp.

That... um... clear anything up?

 

[Thorgecko707]

http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/cc400/thorgecko707/91f02809.jpg

 

[M_surinamensis]

Uh... Thorman, that's a photo of a Tracheloptychus petersi. Possibly the wrong link?

 

[Thorgecko707]

I thought it looked a little off. The species index must have mixed up links.

 

[fl_orchidslave]

Geckotime.com ran an article this week, Geckos of the World. There's a link to a new book that has many beautiful photos of different subspecies identified by their latin names.