In response to your "blotched" king topic below, I thought I'd write up my opinion about this name. "Blotched" King was a common name given to those individuals that have an overall light coloration with dark blotches. "Goini" was a name originally given to those individuals found only west of the Apalachicola River and were basically intergrades between the AK and the Eastern. They basically were the same snake. Over time, both of these names were eventually applied to ALL populations of getula found in the Apalachicola Region...even though they were incorrect. So people found patternless, striped, light colored individuals, etc. and some would call them "goini"...some would call them all blotched. Just because these people used the common name doesn't mean they were correct. If you look at page 63 of David Perlowin's book, the title says "Variation In The Blotched King". Then it shows photos of a blotched specimen, a patternless specimen, and a striped specimen. Clearly the patternless and striped specimens have no blotches whatsoever...but the author called them that anyway. Does it mean it's correct just because it's in a book? I don't think so. I would call each one of those kings Apalachicolas becase each one is so light in coloration.



Now the "Blotched" King shown on page 53 of Perlowin's book listed as a "goini" X Eastern looks very similar to the intergrade I found out in the ANF back in 2002. But is it really an intergrade? One might look at what the surrounding population of getula look like. First off, could that have been a typo in the book? Secondly, we don't know if Bill Love found that snake...only the photo was credited to him. For all we know, that snake could have been found by someone else and not even in Georgia. So to simply assume that it is in the book that it is correct is blind IMO. Let's say that snake was found in GA. Does that mean that this one I found In Mitchell County, GA recently is an intergrade too?







Looks very similar to me. Both have wide bands but I don't know if I would call it blotched. One has to look at the surrounding populations and most getula in S. GA have thin bands. Most getula I've seen around Tallahassee have thin bands. But you get into the ANF and you find getula with wide bands/thin bands and interband lightening...they look different from anywhere else. Sure the Outer Banks Kings have some interband lightening but it's definitely different from the way the getula look in the ANF and Tates Hell. And you won't find a patternless specimen anywhere except for the Eastern Apalachicola Lowlands. So to say the populations of getula in S GA are intergrades just because one picture was put in a book is a bit absurd until you've really proven it.



I look at those wide banded individuals in GA as basically Easterns. They're within the same basic habitat as Apalachicolas but there is that break in where you get typical Easterns in Leon County, FL (N of the ANF) and then you get some different looking Easterns in S GA. Keep breeding those S GA Kings and I bet you will never get a patternless individual. Or even a dark striped king. Those partially striped kings found in GA have always had a light stripe against a dark background...definitely different form the striped individulas found in the Eastern Apalachicola Lowlands.



As for the common name "Blotched", I think it's appropriate to refer to a light colored, wide banded individual like this as an Apalachicola King...blotched specimen.







But I wouldn't call that one on page 53 of Perlowin's book "blotched" because it's overall color is basically dark anyway.



This whole naming of the Apalachicola King is defintely confusing but if you've been out in the Apalachicola Region enough and found kings, you'd realize that the getula are distinct enough to be recognized. Obvioulsy you spent alot of time in the field so I would expect you to base your opinions more on field experience rather than a short statement in a book.

[ Show Entire Thread ]