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 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
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, 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.
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 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
Historically the genera Toluca and Conopsis,
which are Mexican endemics, have been differentiated by one single character,
a groove on each posterior maxillary tooth. Toluca was said
to have this trait while Conopsis did not. Otherwise, the two
groups were difficult to distinguish and several taxonomists questioned
whether this single trait was appropriate in the determination of its
taxonomic status (Goyenechea and Flores-Villela, 2002). Consequently,
a study was done, looking at a suite of characters that included snout-to-vent
length, total length, number of ventral and subcaudal scales, shape
of hemipenes, dorsal/ventral color patterns, and tooth grooves. In all,
about 18 characters were studied in 199 members of Conopsis
and 460 members of Toluca (Goyenechea and Flores-Villela, 2002).
They found that all of the characters that were compared intergenerically
were variable and were found in both genera. They recommended that all
ten species and subspecies be kept under one Genus called Conopsis.
Grismer et al. (2002) questioned the taxonomy of sandsnakes
(Chilomeniscus) after comparing four species of Chilomeniscus
on such traits as color pattern, head scale morphology, ventral scale
counts, and supra/infra labial counts. They found that these traits
varied interspecifically. The authors concluded that there was no discrete
difference between three of the four species of Chilomeniscus but maintained
that C. savagei be separate because of its unique head scale
arrangement. These four species: C. sinctus, C. punctatissimus,
C. stramineus, and C. savagei are clearly related.
To distinguish species based on a minor variation places too much emphasis
on one characteristic. Likewise it draws attention to the philosophically
ambiguous species concept. Based on hybridization and the great variation
found in closely related snakes, I have identified the following genera
as six probable monobaramins: Nerodia, Pantherophis/Lampropeltis/Pituophis,
Diadophis, Thamnophis, Toluca/Conopsis,
Family Viperidae (the pit vipers) consists of about
200 species which make up about 10% of all snake species. Table IV lists
four genera that hybridize with each other both in the wild and in captivity.
The Massasaugas (Sistrurus) and the timber rattlers (Crotalus)
have been known to produce fertile hybrids (Klauber, 1997). The copperheads
(Agkistrodon) have little molecular variation between the subspecies
which may intergrade naturally (LeClare, 2004).
The Aruba Island rattler (Crotalus unicolor)
is one of the rarest rattlesnakes in the world (Klauber, 1997). It is
found off the coast of Venezuela and though geographically isolated
from the Mojave rattlesnake (Crotalus scutulatus), the two
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 are thought to intergrade. In captivity they have
hybridized interspecifically (Dexter, 2002). Therefore, I suggest that
the genera Crotalus/Sistrurus, Agkistrodon, and Bitis
each be classified as a monobaramin within the pit viper taxon.
Conclusions and Further Research
A common argument leveled against creation science
is that it has no predictive value. Historically, the evolution model
of common descent predicted that we would see continuity among all organisms
and that they could all be traced to a single-celled ancestor. Alternatively,
the creation model predicts that we should see discontinuity among various
taxa because God made them after their kinds. The current evidence suggests
that certain organisms are discontinuous with other organisms. For example,
snakes have unique characteristics that set them apart as a taxon, making
them discontinuous with other organisms and classified as an apobaramin.
This initial investigation also indicates that many snakes have the
ability to hybridize, even when they are geographically isolated, and
are capable of a great degree of variation within a “species.”
In addition to kingsnake.com
there are other informal internet sources that discuss the current hybrids
being produced; they can be readily located using various search engines.
Hybridization and species variation show that subgroups, based on close
relationships, can be identified as monobaramins within the three families
researched. Within Boidae, Morelia/Liasis, Python,
and Antaresia were identified as three separate monobaramins.
Nerodia, Pantherophis/Lampropeltis/Pituophis, Diadophis,
Thamnophis, Toluca/Conopsis, and Chilomeniscus
were identified as six monobaramins within the colubrid taxon and in
the viper family the three monobaramins were Crotalus/Sistrurus,
Agkistrodon, and Bitis. The goal is to determine whether
all snakes came from an original pair or from two or more original pairs
in the quest to identify the holobaramin(s).
There is still much to be done in order to complete
their baraminology. As a taxon, they must be looked at holistically
and other characters must be identified. From these data baraminology
techniques such as the baraminic distance method, and the Analysis of
Patterns (ANOPA) will help quantify significant similarities and differences
between snake taxa (Wood and Murrary, 2003). Quantitative analysis will
give us a better handle on the biosystematics of serpentes, and from
a Biblical perspective, I predict that a better model of snake origins
will emerge. This will provide an opportunity to consider the Bible’s
claims and ultimately to understand the Creator’s outline.
Apobaramin – consists of at
least one group related by common ancestry but does not share ancestry
with any other member outside its own group. (Example: Snakes are hypothesized
to be an apobaramin because they do not seem to share a common ancestor
with any other group such as birds or fish. It is unknown, however,
whether snakes are made up of one or more holobaramins because it is
unclear whether they arose from one or a few originally created snake
Baraminology – a creationist
method of biosystematics used to identify the originally created “kinds”
and incorporating discontinuity criteria and other creationist assumptions.
Discontinuity or discontinuous with
– a significant difference between two groups of organisms. (Example:
Turtles are distinctly different creatures than birds and therefore
turtles are discontinuous with birds.)
Holobaramin – all of the organisms
in a group that are related to one another but not related to any other
group. (Example: All humans are classified as a holobaramin because
all are descended from the original Adam and Eve and are not related
to any other organism.)
Monobaramin – a group of organisms
related to one another by common descent, but do not necessarily include
all of the organisms in that holobaramin. (Example: Caucasians and Amerindians
would be monobaramins in the human holobaramin because they represent
a subset of humans but do not represent all people in the human holobaramin.)
Morphology – the study of the
form and structure of organisms.
Agapow, 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
concept on biodiversity studies. The Quarterly Review of Biology
Banks, C. and T.D. Schwaner. 1984. Two cases of interspecific
hybridization among captive boid snakes. Zoo Biology 3:221–227.
Batten, D. 2000. Ligers and wholphins: what next?
Creation Magazine 22(3):28–33.
Chernof, N. 2004. Personal correspondence.
Cole, T. 2004. Personal correspondence.
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1998. Peterson Field
Guides: Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern/Central North America.
Hough-ton-Mifflin, New York, NY.
Cook, F. 1993. After an ice age: zoogeography of the
massasauga within a Canadian herpetofaunal perspective. Metro Toronto
Zoo: 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 organisms. Creation Research Society Quarterly 37(2):82–91.
Gensch, W. 1969. Breeding boa hybrids. International
Zoo Yearbook. Zoological Society of London 9:52.
Goyenechea, I. and O. Flores-Villela. 2002. Taxonomic
status of genus Conopsis and Toluca (Colubridae). Journal of Herpetology
Grismer, L.L., H. Wong, and P. Galina-Tessaro. 2002.
Geographic variation 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.
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Moody Press, Chicago,
Hoser, R.T. 2001. A new case of hybridization in Morelia
pythons. Monitor: Journal of the Victorian Herpetological Society
–—–—–. 1999. Hybridization in carpet
snakes: genus Morelia (serpentes:pythonidae) and other Australian pythons.
–—–—–. 1993. Children’s pythons
and look alikes (the Childreni complex). The Reptilian 1(7):10–15,
–—–—–. 1988. Problems of python classification
and hybrid pythons. Litteratura Serpentium 8(3):134–139.
Kennard, C. 1980. Intraspecific hybridization between a female pine
snake and a male sandiego gopher snake. Philadelphia Herpetological
Society Bulletin 28:3–5.
Klauber, L. 1997. Rattlesnakes: Their Habits, Life Histories and Influence
University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Kudryavtsev, S.V. and A.T. Bozhansky. 1988. A case of hybridization
between two Agkistrodon snakes in the Moscow zoo terrarium. Vestnik
Lawson R., A.J. Meier, P.G. Frank, and P.E. Moler. 1991. Allo-zyme
variation and systematics of the Nerodia fasciata-Nerodia clarkii complex
of watersnakes (serpentes: colubridae). Copeia 3:638–659.
LeClare, J. 2004. The copperhead. herpnet.net/Iowaherpetology.
Lester, L.P. and R.G. Bohlin. 1989. The Natural Limits to Biological
Change. Word Publishing, Dallas, TX.
Meyer-Holzapfel, M. 1969. Notes on the breeding and egg-laying of
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. University of Wisconsin
Press, second edition, Madison, WI.
Museum of Zoology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Animal diversity
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 Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
ReMine, Walter J. 1993. The Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message
Theory. St. Paul Science, Saint Paul, MN.
Ross, G. 2004. Descending scales. American Scientist 92(3):224.
Ryabov, S.A. 1998. The unique case of hybridization of a persian ratsnake
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. The comparison
of morphological and molecular characters inheritance in family groups
of rat snakes of Elaphe genus (serpentes:colubridae). Russian Journal
of Herpetology 10(2):149–156.
Wood, T. and M.J. Murray. 2003. Understanding the Pattern of Life.
Broadman and Holman, Nashville, TN.