Can't we categorize King Cobras under the same genus Naja?

Nature Talk
1

King Cobra is named as Ophiophagus hannah. But I think it can be categorized under the genus Naja, under following reasons. You can correct me if I am wrong. Give your valuable suggestions to correct me/ to justify me. :victory_hand:

  1. All the other snake species have 36 chromosomes, but all Cobra species and King Cobras have 38 chromosomes.

  2. All the Cobra species are neurotoxic snakes, as well as King Cobras.

  3. All the Cobra species are deadly venomous snakes.

  4. I saw some reports and ideas that, both Cobras and King Cobras have a highly improved intelligence, comparing with other snake species.

  5. Although the size and shape is different, all the Cobras and King Cobras can make hoods.

  6. Most of the Cobra species and all the King Cobras are living in asian countries.

  7. All the cobra species and King Cobras eat snakes.

Under these points, I like to categorize King Cobras under the same genus Naja. But why it categorized under a special genus, called ophiophagus ? Can someone mention me a complete DNA based finger printing or barcoding test that proves the significant difference between cobras and king cobras ?

Thank you. Tell your ideas and suggestion. I am an infant in snake-knowledge-world. But I like to learn about this grand big venomous wonderful King Cobra. :+1:

1 Like
2

It would be lovely if taxonomy could usefully be done this way, but it can’t. Taxonomists these days mostly look at genetic data to construct phylogenetic trees, figure out how everything is related, then use their subjective expert opinion to decide what is different enough to be considered different species, genera, etc. Then they publish their findings, reasoning, opinions, etc. and try to convince other experts to follow their conclusions. As much as we as non-experts might want two things to be in the same genus, or different genera, and regardless of what observations we have in support for those wishes, it would be a huge mess if we each got to have our own taxonomy. Just having multiple experts in each group changing the taxonomy we use is mess enough.

3 Likes
3

King “cobras“ are not true cobras and are more closely related to the Philippian coral snake than true cobras. Taxonomy is based on evolutionary relationship, not physical characteristics.

5 Likes
4

Simply because the King Cobra is not closely related to other cobras - a genus must be comprised of close relatives for it to be monophyletic. Almost all of your criteria also apply to, for example, the Australian Tiger Snake (Notechis scutata) - should it also be in the genus Naja? They don’t live in Asia and I couldn’t tell you what their chromosome count is (although not all other species have 36 chromosomes - there is quite a bit of variation among snakes), but everything else is very similar. But again, they’re not closely related.

A more obvious example might be: why can’t we classify hummingbirds and hawkmoths in the same genus? They look and behave very similarly, they both drink nectar and can hover, etc. But they’re not close relatives even though they share many similarities.

4 Likes
5

Thank you :victory_hand:

6

Thank you :+1:

7

Thank you :folded_hands:

8

We don’t get to have nice things in a world where almost every animal convergently evolves with other species that seem at the surface to be so similar. I can’t find any open-access resources showing significant differences between Naja and Ophiophagus hannah genomes, but they are significantly different.

9

The exact relationship of the King Cobra is a bit uncertain -

A 2016 DNA study (https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150277) looked at the relationships amongst Elapids using DNA from 4 parts of the genome. They found the best support for putting King Cobras most closely related to mambas (Dendroaspis), and then the barred coral snakes (Hemibungarus), and then the other cobras including Naja, Hemachatus, Walterinnesia, and Aspidelaps.

Then, a 2019 study using DNA from 10 parts of the genome found better support for putting Dendroaspis and Hemibungarus more closely related to [Naja+Hemachatus+Walterinnesia+ Aspidelaps], with King Cobra then equally related to all of them. Still, there was a lot of uncertainty, so we do not really know for sure. That is probably because these groups diversified very quickly, not leaving very much evidence behind about their relationships. To be more sure, we will need a lot more data (nowadays is it pretty standard to use DNA from thousands of genes instead of just a few), and even then some relationships we may never be able to figure out with confidence.

1 Like