Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You
Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You

"Type" confusion w/East Afr. Sand Boas

Spankenstyne Nov 30, 2006 03:17 AM

Hello all.
I'm new to the Sand Boas and have been researching like a madman, reading all the caresheets & info i can, i've read through all the posts i can go back to on here and everywhere online i can find.

After all this it seems that there isn't a set in stone consensus on a few issues, unless i'm reading wrong or missing something?

First off there seems to be a differing opinion on whether the East African Sand Boas are referred to as "Eryx" or "Gongylophis", then there seems to be different info regarding them being colubrinus and loveridgei, as Egyptian and Kenyan. Some seem to refer to them as the same, and some seem to differentiate based on colour, or i've seen a reference to the amount of spotting on the sides. I've also read that they should just be referred to as kenyans and the "E. (or G)colubrinus" name.

What seems to be the consensus? Does it all even matter lol??

I just want to make sure that i end up referring to my new snakes properly when i get them.

I plan on eventually breeding them as well once they're of proper healthy age and size, so to me it's important that i'm not misrepresenting.

Then there's the reading i've done that states the albinos were essentially a mix of egyptians and kenyans, but others say that they are the same and don't need to be further classified.

argh...

Anyways sorry about the long post but it seems the more i read the muddier it all has gotten lol.

Any and all input is greatly appreciated!

Replies (10)

chrish Nov 30, 2006 08:27 AM

First off there seems to be a differing opinion on whether the East African Sand Boas are referred to as "Eryx" or "Gongylophis", then there seems to be different info regarding them being colubrinus and loveridgei, as Egyptian and Kenyan. Some seem to refer to them as the same, and some seem to differentiate based on colour, or i've seen a reference to the amount of spotting on the sides. I've also read that they should just be referred to as kenyans and the "E. (or G)colubrinus" name.

The problem here is that many people will accept changes in taxonomy without reading the papers on which the changes are based. In this case, the paper is in Russian and hard to find.

The paper which reelevated Gongylophis was a paper by Anatoly Tokar based on his dissertation work with sandboas. It was the last thorough published work study on the group. I have the paper and have translated snippets (I don't read russian). My problem is that based on his arrangement of the sandboas, the genus Gongylophis is paraphyletic. This means that his arrangement puts species within this group that aren't Gongylophis. For that reason, it can't be a valid genus based on the rules of taxonomy.

I think many others hear down the herp grapevine that the change has been made and simply accept it. The same thing is true of Kluge's paper where he puts Rosyboas and Calabaria into the genus Charina - if you look at his study, data, and justifications at all, most people will realize the change isn't warranted.
This isn't a criticism of anyone who accepts such changes - no one has the time or inclination to read everything published and some changes have to be accepted on faith. In this case (Gongylophis), however, I read the paper and disagree.

Then there's the reading i've done that states the albinos were essentially a mix of egyptians and kenyans, but others say that they are the same and don't need to be further classified.

The East African Sandboas from the southern part of their range tend to have more orange and darker spots. These were originally described as E.c. loveridgei. However, when Tokar did his study of colubrinus, he found there wasn't any consistent group of characters that separated one population from the other. Basically, colubrinus from the northern part of their range tend to be more brown and yellow while the snakes from the southern part of the range tend to be more orange and black. But you can't pigeonhole any particular snake by looking at it. There are brown and yellow snakes in the south and orange and black snakes in the north and every combination in between.

And for the record, most lines of "Kenyans" in the US actually came out of Tanzania, not Kenya. The reason people use the name Kenyan still is that the orange and black snakes used to be worth more money than the (formerly) more common yellow and brown snakes. Many dealers looked at the groups of sandboas they had and sold the orange ones and Kenyans and Yellow ones and Egyptians, even if they all came in from the same location!

The original albino colubrinus were from Egypt. For years that was the only albino line available. Because orange snakes (Kenyans) were more colorful and worth more money, people bred the albino gene into those lines.

A few years later, some albino "Kenyans" were imported from Tanzania. Now the albino population is a genetic mixture of the genes of all of these wild caught albinos.

-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

vjl4 Nov 30, 2006 11:47 AM

I agree with everything said above.

There is a cool and very recent paper on boa phylogeny which you might be interested in if you have not already seen it. If any one want the article and cant get access email me and I'll send it to you......

Noonan BP, Chippindale PT.
Dispersal and vicariance: the complex evolutionary history of boid snakes.
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2006 Aug;40(2):347-58. Epub 2006 Apr 19.

Best,
Vinny
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

Natural Selection Reptiles

Spankenstyne Nov 30, 2006 01:54 PM

Thanks for the tip there as well. I found a link to a .pdf online from th info provided. Just gotta download and start reading

Thanks!!

Spankenstyne Nov 30, 2006 01:52 PM

Wow thanks for the detailed reply, it's much appreciated!

Essentially then in a nutshell (unless i'm misunderstanding), it's generally still Eryx but some will use Gongylophis but really we're talking the same thing anyways?
I probably shouldn't worry about trying to pigeonhole them as Kenyans or Egyptians, since it's most likely they originated from Tanzanian stock and they all now tend to be called "Kenyans"?

I guess East African Sand Boas works regardless lol.

Thanks again for the breakdown and i hope i'm comprehending this all correctly.

Too many Chris' here too haha i'll just keep my screenname to avoid further confusion ;P

Chris "Spankenstyne"

Roy Stockwell Nov 30, 2006 11:58 PM

For what it's worth... I always look at what taxonomic name CITES is accepting and using.
I imported some Sand boas a couple years back and for the first time saw Kenyans listed as Gongylophis colubrinus, also on the same permit were some Johnii, also listed as Gongylophis johnii.
Rough Scales were listed as Eryx conicus...
This I believe is in line with the most recent Tokar classification.

StevePerry Nov 30, 2006 04:08 PM

all info seems good to me. You didn't mention the Parodox kenyan line of albinos though. Some breaders have kept the Parodox gene pure while others have mixed them with the normal albinos. I recieved a pair of Possible het albinos(normal)about four years ago and this past year the female gave me three albino babies, one anery, and a bunch of normals, One of the albinos is parodox while the other two were normal albinos, one died and I still have the other one waiting for it to grow just so I know that there isn't a single black scale on it,so far I can't find one, and I've tried alot!!
-----
Steve Perry
North Idaho.

Roy Stockwell Dec 01, 2006 02:46 AM

I keep both Bell amels & snows and also Paradoxes....
I have never tried breeding them together, but I had been told
or read somewhere over the years that the two mutations were
not compatible and breeding Bell amels to paradox amels simply produces wild type double hets...
Is this not true.... ????? Has anyone actually bred both mutations together and got a mix?? I've never heard of this.

Some paradoxes can be born with virtually no black specs, but they still have those jet black eyes and are certainly still paradoxes just void of black spots...
Below is a pic of both forms of snows...
The Bell snow has red eyes and the paradox snow has the black eyes that go with the paradox albino gene.
Note both have slightly differenty head geometry too.

vjl4 Dec 01, 2006 10:25 AM

n/p
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

Natural Selection Reptiles

StevePerry Dec 01, 2006 12:43 PM

I have never mixed the two albinos personally and have always believed them to be noncompatible as well,(and still do) however, I do believe that I have a pair of triple hets. The eyes on this paticular speciman are dark but look to be red, not black. I don't have a magnifiing glass and it is still very small so hard to see well. I have never had any parodox albinos and have only seen the pics. I would love to see some of your p. albinos for some comparisons, I have produced three this year that look like the normal line of albinos,only with black spots. All of the p.albinos I can remember definetly looked different (in patern) to me. A good friend of mine has worked with the VPI line of P. albinos and seen many of them. His opinion is that they are very different,and that it may be the line breading of someone elses collection that is responsible for the look. The possibility of the pardox gene passing to the other albino gene wouldn't be possible,,, or would it???? I don't think it's really been tested. Most people (myself included) believe that the pardox albino is one gene, maybe it's two that go hand in hand, and the possobility of seperating the two would be possible?? Just a thought, I wouldn't even know how you could test this theary so I'm not really considering it but is this a possiblity in anyone elsed mind??
-----
Steve Perry
North Idaho.

vjl4 Dec 01, 2006 01:51 PM

Just to speculate a little, and without data from the albino X p. albino cross it is just a lot of speculation on my part......

It could be that even though there are two genes responcible (if there are two) that they are not completely dominant to each other. So you could get some kind of co-dominance or incomplete dominance in the f1 cross. Dont think there is any data yet to support this, but what the hell. Some where out there cross them this year and find out what happens, I buy a pair of the offspring

best,
Vinny
-----
“There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone on cycling according to the fixed laws of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” -C. Darwin, 1859

Natural Selection Reptiles

Site Tools