@Niko
As i alreday mentioned, it isn't welcome here to talk about single persons, their reputation and their seriousness - that could easily end up in confliccts and fightings - what isn't in accordance with our philosophy of a friendly forum here.
As a mod and co-responsible for a gentle style in our discussions, i would also prevent opposite (negative) postings of unsatisfied customers - which can be found too in every dealers clientele.
@Anze
Thank's for your post - i knew about natural hybrids between basiliscus and molossus - i didn't know about those between molossus and totonacus - as i did not read everything written by CAMPBELL & LAMAR
These interesting facts won't help us to enlighten the dark, as it's never been contradicted these rattlers to be hybrids - they're just adding one more possibility.
These snakes, from "somewhere in Mexico", could be (every of these possibilities already stated here)
-Crotalus molossus X Crotalus basiliscus (or vice versa)
-Crotalus molossus X Crotalus totonacus (or vice versa)
-Crotalus totonacus X Crotalus durissus ssp. (or vice versa
-or some other combination which hasn't been statet here.
If these rattlers
have been wild caught, we can eliminate the latter combination, as the northernmost range of durissus is far away from "totonacus-country" - also simus wouldn't make sense, as these species are geographically separated.
The staus "wild caught" isn't without doubt in my opinion anyway, due to the fact that Mexico has been almost complete closed for exports for a long time. Why should someone take risks in illegal exports (just a hypothesis - no accusation!) or use a hard to get (and expensive) permit for large, unidentified (and therefore not that expensive) Rattlesnakes?
Beside this, the status "wild caught" can be verified completely only by self- capturing - as soon as i have to trust someone else, insecurity more or less takes place.
Altogether, nothing more is
verfied than these specimens to be rattlesnakes with a genetic background of (propably more than one) large mexican species.
Is the „right“ to use the qualifying abbreviation „cf.“ In combination with „totonacus“ given or – at least, does it make sense to use it?
I would say no.
Due to each of the following reasons, dealing with nomenclature abbreviations like cf. in cases like this is baseless, arbitrarily and unserious.
Hybrids do not have taxonomical status and scientific names (except those of the parents, if known) in combination.
Every other combination than "cf. totonacus", like "cf. basiliscus" or "cf. molossus" would be possible and senseful or senseless on the same level, all the more the breeder himself favores the possibility of basiliscus X molossus.
The phaenotypic appearance of the F1 specimens is far away from beeing more or less uniformly (as we all can see in the www), in consequence, the more basiliscus-like specimens (like Nikos bigger one) should be named "cf.basiliscus"?
The ICZN doesn't rule the different qualifying abbreviations used in open nomenclature, but the standing of cf. (collectio formarum) prohibits its use in a hybrid muddle like this.
After all, in my eyes there's nothing left then commercial purposes for this kind of "nomenclature".
To go even further, activities to defend this denomination are pretty interesting and
could lead one to the assumption, that more than stated is known about the "genesis" of these hybrids........
for those interested - paper discussing the status and use of qualifying abbreviations - thanks to Wulf SCHLEIP:
http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf/Vol%2031/Pages%20223-227.pdf
Best regards
Peter
