The Schleich 14740 Rattlesnake: A walkaround by Kikimalou

Kikimalou wrote:

Roger wrote:

This rattlesnake was identified in another forum as a Western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox). As nobody objected, I used that identification on TAI. Any objection here?

I still think this one looks also like a prairie rattlesnake and the tail is wrong in both.

I am sure it is a hard task to identify rattlesnake species and that's the reason why I mentioned the identification was not of my authory.
Checking what Animal Diversity Web reads:
Western diamondback:
Crotalus atrox has a plump body, short tail, and a broad triangular head. Crotalus atrox can be a yellowish gray, pale blue, or pinkish ground color. The diamond shapes down its length are dark with pale white borders. The tail is white with jet-black rings. The head markings include a pale oblique band from nostril to upper labials, and a similar but narrower band behind the eye.

Prairie rattlesnake:
The various subspecies of Crotalus viridis may vary slightly in color. Most are greenish gray or greenish brown in color, although members of one subspecies are black with only slight markings. These rattlesnakes have from 33-55 dark blotches on their back, which flatten into rings on the tail, surrounded by lighter markings.

From this what is my conclusion? That your identification of Crotalus schleichi is correct.
... and Prarie rattlesnakes are really similar to several Western rattlesnakes actually. The only real point favouring the diamondback rattlers is that they are very popular and even the Blip Toys, from Kosta, seems to be sold as a diamondback.

I prefer Prairie rattlesnake because of the tail, it is less wrong than the Western diamondback which have a very distinctive tail.

Interesting information :)

Kikimalou wrote:

I prefer Prairie rattlesnake because of the tail, it is less wrong than the Western diamondback which have a very distinctive tail.

Although I don't think Schleich used a prairie rattlesnake as a reference to that figure, I also think it works better as a prairie than any of the diamondbacks. I will change it on TAI although the discussion is obviously open to other suggestions.

Roger wrote:

Kikimalou wrote:

I prefer Prairie rattlesnake because of the tail, it is less wrong than the Western diamondback which have a very distinctive tail.

Although I don't think Schleich used a prairie rattlesnake as a reference to that figure, I also think it works better as a prairie than any of the diamondbacks. I will change it on TAI although the discussion is obviously open to other suggestions.

I agree

I just brought up these questions on the TAI thread, namely who determined the species for the Schleich and Mojo figures?
Unless it is specifically marketed as such, I am sure all 'rattlesnakes' are the western diamondback, maybe eastern diamondback. You can compare online photos all you want, the diamondbacks are the go-to rattlesnake species (trust me, I literally grew up with them!!!)

For the Mojo, Susanne and Rogério worked on that one. As far as I'm concerned I can't say if it fits better as a Western or Eastern rattlesnake.

For the Schleich, I made the job.

For me both Schleich and Mojo rattlesnakes look more like a Prairie rattlesnake because of the tail. I compared a lot of pics before I made a choice.

I wonder if TAI should take a more conservative approach. Only post things at the level specified by the company, and then on the individual figures page discuss species-level possibilities based on the sculpt and color. Coming up with IDs based on one or two individuals' comparison of images on the internet can be misleading (also, you are assuming the images on the internet are correct to begin with!). Doing it for one's personal collection is one thing, but stating so on a public site like TAI can be misleading for its audience.

It makes sense, it means we will have to put them in the Viperidae page as Unidentified Vipers.

I don't remember where I based my identification of Mojö's rattler. I should have pointed it in its page.
I already thought several times about the best method to manage with toy animal species identifications when not provided. Though, if we reverse everything that is ambiguous or not identifyied by any official source, we will need to work exclusively at the wiki eduring several months. Also, loads of species page will desapear or get empty. Especially the arthropods section that shows several figures whose species identifications were community based.
Maybe we should keep the same way but put a note after the species name telling if there is a source or if it is community based.
It is good to remember also that lots of figures we don't have any identification at all once we don't find the brand webpages anymore or catalogues are not known. In this case, even a simple giraffe, is a community based identification if we don't find a source telling what it is.

If by community-based arthropod IDs, remember those IDs of mine are for figures in my personal collection that I post in my walkarounds, and I clearly state when they are my IDs (or I try to most of the time). If you chose to blindly adopt them for TAI, you can, but at your risk. Sometimes I re-evaluate my IDs or make corrections based on other people's suggestions, and those may not be reflected in TAI

I like the idea of putting a simple comment on whether or not they are community-based; that would be very helpful for the TAI audience.

I guess the rattlesnakes problem is solved now.    I will make a few more change but I hope you already approve the new TAW page.

I also think we should adopt a middle ground position. Sometimes "community" ID's are questionable and sometimes they are obvious. I think about some misleading names on PV animals, the real species can be known without a doubt. It is less easy when you go on the Tortoise pages. What is an Aldabra and what is a Galapagos ? We know the differences between them but can we do the job ?

There is also some "community ID's" models that are accepted by nearly the whole community. For example, when I asked if the PV "Prehistoric hyena" could be a Hyaenodon, many collectors told me it is "obviously" an Andrewsarchus.