An Initial Investigation into the Baraminology of Snakes: Order—Squamata, Suborder Serpentes

Evolution theory predicts that the ancestry of organisms can be traced down a hypothetical evolutionary tree and eventually back to the first living cell. Creation theory postulates that ancestry can be traced back only a limited distance to a starting organism of that type. Instead of a “tree” the creation model has a “forest” of unrelated organisms with vast genetic potential. I hypothesize that the snake taxon originated from one or more originally created “trees” or “kinds” that have diversified into the snakes of today and that snakes are unrelated to any other group. In order to test this hypothesis, the snake taxon was analyzed using a discontinuity matrix and the data suggest that snakes can be considered a group unto themselves. Subsequently, a literature search was begun in order to determine additive evidence for relatedness. Three families were identified for their interspecific and intergeneric hybridization tendencies and within each family certain genera and species were classified into subgroups of related snakes. This initial investigation indicates that many snakes have the ability to hybridize, even when they are reproductively isolated over great distances, and are capable of a large degree of variation within a “species.” As more data are gathered and quantified, I predict that evolutionary hypotheses will continue to be frustrated because of faulty metaphysical assumptions and will strongly suggest that snakes began from one or a few originally created kinds, just a few thousand years ago. * Tom Hennigan, 125 Hennigan Lane, Georgetown, NY 13072, [email protected] Accepted for publication: June 14, 2005 Introduction Historically, the evolution model of common descent predicted that we should see continuity among all organisms and that species could be traced along the evolutionary tree to a single-celled ancestor. That prediction has not born itself out. The whole question of just what a “species” is has come under fire for many years. Evolutionary taxonomists maintain that the species taxon is the “currency” of biology at the same time that they realize the term “species” has more than twenty meanings, each of which is vigorously debated among biologists (Agapow et al., 2004). Much of the difficulty arises from the presuppositions of the evolutionary worldview, which is built upon the metaphysic of materialism. Creation theory, to the contrary, postulates a “forest” of organisms in which each “tree” began with an originally created pair designed with vast genetic potential for variation but discontinuous with (not related to) the other created “kinds.” Although there is great variation within each “tree”, there is a limit to biological change and those limits cause serious problems for an evolutionary model involving common ancestry (Lester and Bohlin, 1989). The creationist 154 Creation Research Society Quarterly begins his scientific inquiry with a Biblical understanding of our world and interprets it from a theistic metaphysic. The materialistic and the theistic worldviews present very different visions when trying to understand how life progressed on earth. Concepts of morality, God, and even biosystematics can have grossly different explanations and interpretations based on different worldviews. The materialist view postulates that snake ancestry can be traced along the evolutionary tree to the lizards. Up until recently, the prevailing belief was the marine hypothesis, which stated that snakes evolved from limbless marine lizards. Many evolutionists, however, are interpreting new data that favor snakes having descended from terrestrial lizards (Ross, 2004). There is little evidence for either the marine or terrestrial hypotheses in the fossil record however, and much snake morphology appears highly designed and unique to the snake group. Baraminology is a creationist method of biosystematics that begins with Genesis 1:24–25 and predicts that we should see major unrelatedness, or discontinuity, among various taxa because God made them after their kinds. The purpose of baraminology is to discover the boundaries of the created kind or holobaramin. A holobaramin is defined as all the organisms within the group that are related with each other but not related to any other group. In other words, all members of that group began with an original created pair. Humanity is an example of a holobaramin group in that the members are related by common descent to the originally created Adam and Eve. The monobaramin is a group of organisms related to one another by common descent, but not necessarily all of them (ReMine, 1993). For example, if a tree represents the human holobaramin, then one or more branches representing specific people groups (such as Caucasians and Ethiopians) would each represent a subset of all humans or a human monobaramin (Frair, 2001). The apobaramin consists of a group of creatures that do not share ancestry with any other group. For example, turtles are an apobaramin because they share no common ancestor with any other group, such as birds, or snakes. But it also means that within the turtle apobaramin there may be one or more created holobaramins. The apobaramin is different than the holobaramin in that the apobaramin may be made up of creatures that were derived from one or more originally created kinds. In contrast, the holobaramin has been identified as such because all members have been traced back to one created pair. Therefore, humans are not only a holobarmin because they can be traced to the originally created Adam and Eve but also they are an apobaramin because they share no common ancestor with any other group (Frair, 2001). The purpose of this paper is to view snake biosystematics from the creationary standpoint and to initiate an investigation of snake baraminology upon the premise that God produced life according to specific created kinds (Genesis 1:24–25). In the case of snakes, it is unclear whether all snakes came from one or a few originally created pairs. I hypothesize that snakes are discontinuous with any other group and are therefore an apobarmin. The goal is to determine if all snakes came from one or a few original created pairs by grouping related snake taxa using additive evidence and separating unrelated snake taxa using subtractive evidence in order to identify one or more snake holobaramins. Eventually I would like to develop a creationary model of snake biosystematics that would be more consilient with the taxonomic data, and that would avoid the ambiguous species concept. Hopefully, it would likewise have a more robust predictive value than the current evolutionary origins model. Serpents in the Bible In order to determine true discontinuity, baraminologists have an analysis called the Discontinuity Matrix (Wood and Murray, 2003). The serpentes taxon was analyzed using this matrix and the results are summarized in Table I. The first step was to find out what the Bible says about snakes. Although the Bible does not claim discontinuity for snakes, it implies discontinuity, suggesting that snakes are unrelated to other organisms. The Hebrew transliteration for “serpent” in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash or Nahash meaning “shining whisperer”, and referring to serpent or snake (Harris et al., 1980). It is derived from the assumed Hebrew root nhsh. Revelation 12:9 unveils the identity of the serpent as the devil, Satan, and is not referring to a wild snake that talks. It is unclear, however, whether it was a snake whom Satan indwelled in Genesis or whether “snake” was just another name for Satan. Nehushtan is used over 30 times in the Old Testament and is the most common word for “snake” (Harris et al., 1980). Certain snake characteristics used in conjunction with this word, include stealth (Genesis 49:17), poisonous bite (Prov. 23:32), snake “charming” (Eccl. 10:8), climbing ability on a smooth surface (Amos 5:19), “licking the dust” (Isa. 65:25), and making a hissing sound (Jer. 46:22) (Harris et al., 1980). Though once in a while there are other creatures to which this Hebrew word might refer, the above list suggests that the Bible implies snakes are a group of their own, discontinuous with other groups. Other questions that may determine discontinuity also were asked. As a taxon, snakes have many unique characteristics that include: 120 to over 400 precloacal vertebrae, Volume 42, December 2005 155 a branch of the trigeminal nerve that is enclosed within the braincase, a lack of muscles in the ciliary body of the eye, the left arterial arch larger than the right, and the brain enclosed in a rigid box made of bone (Pough et al., 2004). All are carnivorous. Their respiratory system consists of a stunted left lung and a longer right lung (Pough et al., 2004). Compared to other reptiles, whose livers and stomachs are S-shaped, the snake liver and stomach are fusiform. These unique snake characteristics, coupled with the Biblical data and the poor fossil record connecting snake and lizard ancestry, (Pough et al., 2004; Ross, 2004) show that six out of ten discontinuity criteria, with one unknown, can be answered in the affirmative on the Discontinuity Matrix (see Table I). This suggests that the snakes can be considered an apobaramin or a group unrelated to all other groups. Snake Monobaramins It has been estimated that there are about 2300 species of snakes in the world (Conant and Collins, 1998). Depending on the taxonomic source, there are about 15 families of snake species. Trying to identify snake species is in continual flux and can be controversial, as is true of most taxa. One’s definition of “species” often determines the identification of same. In baraminology, there are many characters of organisms that determine continuity or relatedness. The ability to hybridize was the main character investigated for this paper. Hybridization suggests a close biochemical relationship between two organisms and is an important additive evidence for ancestry within a “kind” in the identification of monobaramins. It is also realized, however, that just because two organisms are unable to hybridize does not mean they are unrelated. There are many environmental, behavioral, biochemical and morphological reasons why hybridization might not be possible between related organisms. For this reason, baraminologists look at the creature holistically and analyze as many characters as possible including morphology, anatomy, behavior, environmental niche, and biochemistry. A holistic view that allows the organism to be classified based on the totality of real data effectively eliminates much of the subjectivity and bias possible. A literature search was done in order to document the ability of snakes to hybridize, both in the wild and in captivity. From this initial search, three families were identified: Boidae (Table II), Colubridae (Table III), and Viperidae (Table IV). Many snake taxa were capable of hybridization interspecifically, intraspecifically, and/or intergenerically within each family. Snake breeders frequently cross various members of snake taxa in order to discover the variation that can be Does the Bible claim discontinuity for snakes? No Does the Bible imply discontinuity for snakes? Yes Do most of the members of the group exhibit a novel metabolic pathway not found in other groups or only in groups known to be discontinuous? Unknown Is the similarity of ingroup comparisons significantly greater than ingroup vs. outgroup comparisons? Yes Do most members of the group possess novel cell types or structures not possessed by other groups or only in groups known to be discontinuous? Yes Do most members of the group possess novel organs or anatomical structures not possessed by other groups or only in groups known to be discontinuous? Yes Is the overall morphological similarity within the group significantly greater than the similarity of the group with other groups? Yes Does the group occupy an environment notably different from other organisms? No Are stratomorphic intermediates that would connect the group to other groups mostly absent? Yes Is the lowest member of the proposed ancestral group found in a higher layer than the lowest member of the group of interest? No Compiled from (Wood and Murray, 2003, p.95) Table I. Discontinuity Matrix for Serpentes. 156 Creation Research Society Quarterly produced and to sell those variants profitably. Breeder websites such as kingsnake.com have ongoing discussions of many current crosses hobbyists have accomplished. Tables II–IV contain summaries of some of the known hybrids from the professional literature though a few are from personal correspondences with herpetoculturalists and field herpetologists. Family Boidae (Table II) consists of about 17 genera with 75 or more species (Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan). Members of the genus, Morelia (carpet pythons) in that family, readily hybridize interspecifically with each other, and intergenerically with Liasis (Australian and rock pythons), producing fertile hybrids. The children’s pythons (Antaresia sp.), also in Boidae, hybridize interspecifically producing fertile hybrids in both f1 and f2 generations. Crosses between various subspecies of Boa have produced fertile offspring in zoos. Interestingly, the Borneo python (Python breitensteini) and ball python (Python regius) have produced hybrids in captivity. This is surprising for many because these two species are reproductively isolated in the wild. The Borneo python is native to Sumatra and Malaysia, while the ball python is indigenous to Western and West Central Africa. From these data Morelia/Liasis, Python, and Antaresia were identified as three probable monobaramins, within the Boidae taxon. The Colubridae family (Table III) is the largest snake taxon comprising about 1700 species which is more than 74% of all snake species. Many genera readily hybridize both naturally and in captivity. Members of the Nerodia complex of water snakes, for example, often intergrade in the wild. Some have even adapted to saltwater while others thrive in fresh water, demonstrating an interesting genetic variation in related species (Lawson et al., 1991). Herpetoculturalists have crossed at least 14 different species, in captivity, across the three genera Pantherophis, Pituophis, and Lampropeltis (Table III). They often question the taxonomic conclusions of what defines a species. Historically the genera Toluca and Conopsis, which are Mexican endemics, have been differentiated by one single character, a groove on each posterior maxillary tooth. Table II. Hybridization in Boidae Hybrid PairingArtificial/Natural FertilityReferences Morelia spilota metcalfei xMorelia s. bredliArtificialFertileHoser, 2001 Morelia s. metcalfei xMorelia s. mcdowelliArtificialFertileHoser, 1999 Antaresia childreni xA. maculosusArtificialFertileHoser, 1993 Antaresia childreni xA. stimsoniArtificialFertileHoser, 1993 A. maculosus xA. child./maculosus hybridArtificialFertility assumedHoser, 1993 Morelia s. spilota xM. amesthinaArtificialFertility assumedHoser, 1988 Morelia s. spilota xLiasis fuscusArtificialFertility assumedHoser, 1988 Morelia s. spilota xLiasis macklotiArtificialFertileBanks and Schwaner, 1984 Morelia s. spilota xMorelia amethistinusArtificialFertileBanks and Schwaner, 1984 Boa c. constrictor xBoa c. imperatorArtificialFertileMeyer-Holzapfel, 1969 Python regius xPython breitensteiniArtificialFertileChernof, 2004 Volume 42, December 2005157 Toluca was said to have this trait while Conopsis did not.Otherwise, the two groups were difficult to distinguish andseveral taxonomists questioned whether this single trait wasappropriate in the determination of its taxonomic status(Goyenechea and Flores-Villela, 2002). Consequently,a study was done, looking at a suite of characters that in-cluded snout-to-vent length, total length, number of ventraland subcaudal scales, shape of hemipenes, dorsal/ventralcolor patterns, and tooth grooves. In all, about 18 char-acters were studied in 199 members of Conopsis and 460members of Toluca (Goyenechea and Flores-Villela, 2002).They found that all of the characters that were comparedintergenerically were variable and were found in both gen-era. They recommended that all ten species and subspeciesbe kept under one Genus called Conopsis.Grismer et al. (2002) questioned the taxonomy ofsandsnakes (Chilomeniscus) after comparing four speciesof Chilomeniscus on such traits as color pattern, head scalemorphology, ventral scale counts, and supra/infra labialcounts. They found that these traits varied interspecifically.The authors concluded that there was no discrete differ-ence between three of the four species of Chilomeniscusbut maintained that C. savagei be separate because of itsunique head scale arrangement. These four species: C.Table III. Hybridization in Colubridae. Hybrid PairingArtificial/NaturalFertilityReferences Nerodia fasciata x N. sipedonNatural intergradesFertileLawson et al., 1991 N. f. confluens x N. sipedonNatural intergradesFertileLawson et al. ,1991 N. f. pictriventris x N. sipedonNatural intergradesFertileLawson et al.,1991 Nerodia f. confluens, fasciata, pictiventrisx N. clarkii, taeniata, compressicauda Natural intergrades Fertility between saltand freshwater snakes Lawson et al., 1991 Zamenis persicus x Z. situlaArtificialFertileRyabov, 1998 P. guttatus x P. obsoletusArtificialFertileSidelva et al., 2003 Elaphe schrenckii xElaphe anomalaArtificialFertileSidelva et al., 2003 P. climacophora x E. anomalaArtificialFertileSidelva et al., 2003 P. situla x Z. persicusArtificialFertileSidelva et al., 2003 P. o. obsoletus x P. quadrivittataNatural IntergradesFertileConant, 1998 Lampropeltis g. getula x L. g. floridanaNatural IntergradesFertileConant, 1998 L. t. triangulum x L. t. elapsoidesNatural IntergradesFertileConant, 1998 L. t. triangulum x P. g. guttatusArtificialFertileBatton, 2000 L. getula splendida x L. holbrookiiNatural IntergradesFertileCole, 2004 P. o. lindheimerii x P. bairdiNatural IntergradesFertileCole, 2004 L. getula holbrookii x L. g. nigraNatural IntergradesFertileCole, 2004 Diadophis punctatus arnyi xD. p. regalisNatural IntergradesFertileCole, 2004 Storeria decayi subspeciesNatural IntergradesFertileCook, 1993 Thamnophis subspeciesMay integrate inNW CaliforniaFertileMorrison et al.,1998. Pantherophis, Pituophis, Lampropeltis Artificial breeding acrossgenera commonFertileKingsnake.com Pituophis catenifer annectensx P. melanoleucusArtificialFertileKennard, 1980 158Creation Research Society Quarterly sinctus, C. punctatissimus, C. stramineus, and C. savageiare clearly related. To distinguish species based on a minorvariation places too much emphasis on one characteristic.Likewise it draws attention to the philosophically ambigu-ous species concept. Based on hybridization and the greatvariation found in closely related snakes, I have identi-fied the following genera as six probable monobaramins:Nerodia, Pantherophis/Lampropeltis/Pituophis, Diadophis,Thamnophis, Toluca/Conopsis, and Chilomeniscus.Family Viperidae (the pit vipers) consists of about 200species which make up about 10% of all snake species. TableIV lists four genera that hybridize with each other both inthe wild and in captivity. The Massasaugas (Sistrurus) andthe timber rattlers (Crotalus) have been known to producefertile hybrids (Klauber, 1997). The copperheads (Agkistro-don) have little molecular variation between the subspecieswhich may intergrade naturally (LeClare, 2004).The Aruba Island rattler (Crotalus unicolor) is one of therarest rattlesnakes in the world (Klauber, 1997). It is foundoff the coast of Venezuela and though geographically iso-lated from the Mojave rattlesnake (Crotalus scutulatus), thetwo species, Aruba Island rattler and Mohave rattlesnake,produced a fertile hybrid in captivity.The genus Bitis includes the gaboon viper (B. gabonica),puff adder (B. arietans), and rhinoceros viper (B. nasicornis).Their territories overlap in the wild in Africa and they arethought to intergrade. In captivity they have hybridizedinterspecifically (Dexter, 2002). Therefore, I suggest thatthe genera Crotalus/Sistrurus, Agkistrodon, and Bitis each beclassified as a monobaramin within the pit viper taxon. Conclusions and Further ResearchA common argument leveled against creation science is thatit has no predictive value. Historically, the evolution modelof common descent predicted that we would see continuityamong all organisms and that they could all be traced toa single-celled ancestor. Alternatively, the creation modelpredicts that we should see discontinuity among varioustaxa because God made them after their kinds. The currentevidence suggests that certain organisms are discontinuouswith other organisms. For example, snakes have uniqueTable IV. Hybridization in Viperidae. Hybrid PairingArtificial/NaturalFertilityReferences Sistrurus catenatus xCrotalus horridusNaturalFertileKlauber, 1997 Crotalus adamenteus xCrotalus atricaudatusNaturalFertileKlauber, 1997 Crotalus r. ruber xCrotalus h. helleriArtificialFertileKlauber, 1997 Crotalus s. scutulatus xCrotalus unicolorArtificialFertileKlauber, 1997 C. scut./unicolor xC.scutulatus/unicolorArtificialFertileKlauber, 1997 C. o. oreganus xC. scutulatusArtificialFertileKlauber, 1997 Crotalus atrox xCrotalus atricaudatusArtificialFertileCole, 2004 Gloydius saxatilis xGloydius halysNaturalFertility Assumed.Controversial taxonomic status.Kudryavtsev andBozhansky, 1988 Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen xAgkistrodon c. phaeogasterNaturalFertile.Little molecular variation withcopperhead subspecies.LeClare, 2004 Bitis gabonica x Bitis arietansBitis gabonica x Bitis nasicornis Natural and ArtificialFertile.Their ranges overlap in the wild. Dexter, 2002 Volume 42, December 2005159Paperback: 257 pages Publisher: Multnomah Pub(April, 1996) characteristics that set them apart as a taxon, making themdiscontinuous with other organisms and classified as anapobaramin. This initial investigation also indicates thatmany snakes have the ability to hybridize, even when theyare geographically isolated, and are capable of a great degreeof variation within a “species.” In addition to kingsnake.comthere are other informal internet sources that discuss thecurrent hybrids being produced; they can be readily locatedusing various search engines. Hybridization and speciesvariation show that subgroups, based on close relationships,can be identified as monobaramins within the three familiesresearched. Within Boidae, Morelia/Liasis, Python, andAntaresia were identified as three separate monobaramins.Nerodia, Pantherophis/Lampropeltis/Pituophis, Diadophis,Thamnophis, Toluca/Conopsis, and Chilomeniscus wereidentified as six monobaramins within the colubrid taxonand in the viper family the three monobaramins wereCrotalus/Sistrurus, Agkistrodon, and Bitis. The goal is todetermine whether all snakes came from an original pairor from two or more original pairs in the quest to identifythe holobaramin(s).There is still much to be done in order to complete theirbaraminology. As a taxon, they must be looked at holisticallyand other characters must be identified. From these databaraminology techniques such as the baraminic distancemethod, and the Analysis of Patterns (ANOPA) will helpquantify significant similarities and differences betweensnake taxa (Wood and Murrary, 2003). Quantitative analysiswill give us a better handle on the biosystematics of serpen-tes, and from a Biblical perspective, I predict that a bettermodel of snake origins will emerge. This will provide anopportunity to consider the Bible’s claims and ultimatelyto understand the Creator’s outline. GlossaryApobaramin – consists of at least one group related bycommon ancestry but does not share ancestry with anyother member outside its own group. (Example: Snakesare hypothesized to be an apobaramin because they do notseem to share a common ancestor with any other groupsuch as birds or fish. It is unknown, however, whethersnakes are made up of one or more holobaramins becauseit is unclear whether they arose from one or a few originallycreated snake “kinds.”)Baraminology – a creationist method of biosystematics usedto identify the originally created “kinds” and incorporatingdiscontinuity criteria and other creationist assumptions.Discontinuity or discontinuous with – a significant differ-ence between two groups of organisms. (Example: Turtlesare distinctly different creatures than birds and thereforeturtles are discontinuous with birds.)Holobaramin – all of the organisms in a group that arerelated to one another but not related to any other group.(Example: All humans are classified as a holobaramin be-cause all are descended from the original Adam and Eveand are not related to any other organism.)Monobaramin – a group of organisms related to oneanother by common descent, but do not necessarily in-clude all of the organisms in that holobaramin. (Example:Caucasians and Amerindians would be monobaramins inthe human holobaramin because they represent a subsetof humans but do not represent all people in the humanholobaramin.)Morphology – the study of the form and structure of or-ganisms. ReferencesAgapow, P. M., O.R.P. Bininda-Emonds, K.A. Crandall, J.L.Gittleman, G.M. Mace, J.C. Marshall, and A. Purvis. 2004. The impact of species concepton biodiversity studies. The Quarterly Review of Biology79(2):161–179.Banks, C. and T.D. Schwaner. 1984. Two cases of interspe-cific hybridization among captive boid snakes. Zoo Biology3:221–227.Batten, D. 2000. Ligers and wholphins: what next? CreationMagazine 22(3):28–33.Chernof, N. 2004. Personal correspondence.Cole, T. 2004. Personal correspondence.Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1998. Peterson Field Guides: Reptilesand Amphibians of Eastern/Central North America. Hough-ton-Mifflin, New York, NY. Cook, F. 1993. After an ice age: zoogeography of the massasaugawithin a Canadian herpetofaunal perspective. Metro TorontoZoo: Rattlesnake Symposium pp.19–25.Dexter B. 2002. venomousreptiles.org (as of Nov. 17, 2004).Southeastern Hot Herp Society.Frair, W. 2000. Baraminology—classification of created organ-isms. Creation Research Society Quarterly 37(2):82–91.Gensch, W. 1969. Breeding boa hybrids. International Zoo Year-book. Zoological Society of London 9:52.Goyenechea, I. and O. Flores-Villela. 2002. Taxonomic status ofgenus Conopsis and Toluca (Colubridae). Journal of Herpetol-ogy 36(1):92–95.Grismer, L.L., H. Wong, and P. Galina-Tessaro. 2002. Geographicvariation and taxonomy of sand snakes Chilomeniscus, squa-mata, colubridae. Herpetologica 58(1):18–31.Harris, R.L., G.L. Archer, and B.K. Waltke. 1980. TheologicalWordbook of the Old Testament. Moody Press, Chicago, IL.Hoser, R.T. 2001. A new case of hybridization in Morelia pythons. 160Creation Research Society Quarterly Monitor: Journal of the Victorian Herpetological Society 11(2):29–30.–—–—–. 1999. Hybridization in carpet snakes: genus Morelia(serpentes:pythonidae) and other Australian pythons. Herptile24(2):61–67.–—–—–. 1993. Children’s pythons and look alikes (the Childrenicomplex). The Reptilian 1(7):10–15, 20–21.–—–—–. 1988. Problems of python classification and hybrid py-thons. Litteratura Serpentium 8(3):134–139.Kennard, C. 1980. Intraspecific hybridization between a femalepine snake and a male sandiego gopher snake. PhiladelphiaHerpetological Society Bulletin 28:3–5.Klauber, L. 1997. Rattlesnakes: Their Habits, Life Histories andInfluence on Mankind.University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Kudryavtsev, S.V. and A.T. Bozhansky. 1988. A case of hybrid-ization between two Agkistrodon snakes in the moscow zooterrarium. Vestnik Zoologii 2:69–77.Lawson R., A.J. Meier, P.G. Frank, and P.E. Moler. 1991. Allo-zyme variation and systematics of the Nerodia fasciata-Nerodiaclarkii complex of watersnakes (serpentes: colubridae). Copeia3:638–659.LeClare, J. 2004. The copperhead. herpnet.net/Iowaherpetol-ogy.Lester, L.P. and R.G. Bohlin. 1989. The Natural Limits to Biologi-cal Change. Word Publishing, Dallas, TX.Meyer-Holzapfel, M. 1969. Notes on the breeding and egg-layingof some reptiles at the Berne zoo. International Zoo Yearbook.Zoological Society of London 9:20–21.Morrison, ML, BG Marcot, and W Mannan. 1998. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships: Concepts and Applications. Universityof Wisconsin Press, second edition, Madison, WI.Museum of Zoology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Animaldiversity web (as of Nov. 17, 2004).Pough, Harvey F., R.M. Andrews, J.E. Cadle, M.L. Crump, A.H.Savitzky, and K.D. Wells. 2004. Herpetology. Pearson PrenticeHall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.ReMine, Walter J. 1993. The Biotic Message: Evolution versusMessage Theory. St. Paul Science, Saint Paul, MN.Ross, G. 2004. Descending scales. American Scientist92(3):224.Ryabov, S.A. 1998. The unique case of hybridization of a persianratsnake and leopard ratsnake Elaphe persica and E. situla.Scientific Researches in Zoological Parks 10:296–298.Sidelva, O., N. Ananjeva, S. Ryabov, and N. Orlov. 2003. Thecomparison of morphological and molecular charactersinheritance in family groups of rat snakes of Elaphe genus(serpentes:colubridae). Russian Journal of Herpetology10(2):149–156.Wood, T. and M.J. Murray. 2003. Understanding the Pattern ofLife. Broadman and Holman, Nashville, TN.