ok,here we go-yes they are both of the genus lampropeltis...beyond that we start pointing to common or vernacular names,which gets very grey to say the least....e.g.-is a scarlet kingsnake a king or a milksnake?well,'scientifically speaking',it is now considered a miksnake,it's taxonmonic name being lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides(it has been reclassified several times,once being a it's own species of kingsnake)...the following species are the snakes generally considered to be what is commonly refferred to as 'kingsnakes'-lampropeltis getula,lampropeltis alterna,lampropeltis pyromelana,lampropeltis zonata,lampropeltis mexicana,and lampropeltis ruthveni.the latter is the most recent addition to the genus,and was formerly a subspecies of lampropeltis triangulum,the milksnakes.in my humble opinion,it is also the most similar to the milksnakes,more so than even mexicana and at least as much as pyromelana and even zonata....milks and kings are in the same genus,and that is it...so yes they are closely related...it has just become widely accepted,but misleading and technically erroneous,to call them kingsnakes,or even a 'type of kingsnake'...they are each their own species in their own right.yes they can produce viable offspring when hybridized together,though i have never done so;i don't like hybridization in my personal collection....and who told you toads are frogs?....since when?at least kings and milks are in the same genus;toads and frogs are not....also,i would not always base your future arguments on general dictionary definitions-milks from the midwest,not just the southeast,are also 'striped' to coin the phrase you copped(i think we all know that your dictionary meant banded),and only a few milks have that occipital spot;only one single subspecies,the nominate,is regularly tan and brown,for that matter.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]