I don't give much credence to localities when it comes to GTP's. They can be refered to as Sorong-type, Aru-type, etc, but unless there is hard and fast documentation on where the snake or its ancestors were collected, it's not a locality-specific GTP.
Here's Trooper Walsh's take on it, from his article in the 6/97 issue of R&A magazine:
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font class="pn-sub">Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT class="pn-sub"><BLOCKQUOTE>unless the serpents came through Bushmaster Reptiles, or the progeny thereof, I doubt that the animals can be honestly identified as locality-specific. </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
For some good reading on the "locality debate", go to
chondroweb and read the articles posted by Greg Maxwell, Dr. Guido Westhoff, and Damon Salceies.
Sorry for the rant, but I just tend to feel that folks are getting out of hand (no one here on rtb)when it comes to localities.
[addsig]
