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 here to visit Classifieds
https://www.crepnw.com/
Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You

What's the deal here?

ZFelicien Sep 09, 2007 11:30 AM

Over the past year I've read lots of posts, read opinions, answered some questions from this I've come to the conclusion that, we seem to be in an "every snake is a cross" era (unless they are wild caught) and it has mostly affected the Florida kings. I'm a bit tired of all the speculation and random characterizations of snakes based on who know what.

Everyone is an expert and I am a bit angered by this new "trend." When we see a new/unmasked morph or an anomaly (something that just wasn't suppose to happen), MOST here try to discredit/disprove. WHY??? Is it "Breeder Nature," or Envy?

I will admit there are obvious crossed kings! some well documented others are not... is it maliciousness or ignorance to the difference in subspecies (Ssp.)?

I worked with predominately Floridana and they're taking a beating! I tend to defend them here and there but it's really tiring when every week there is another speculation about some unfounded information, someone heard "through the grape vine"

Here's the thing, MOST Kingsnake mutations were poorly documented, this could be because the people working with them back then had not the interest WE have today. we are trying to back trace lineage and it's near impossible at this point...

All we can do is work with what we like working with, educate ourselves (based on the Ssp. we work with), and be totally honest when we offer snakes for sale

What's Next??? Axanthic Floridana came from Axanthic Cali kings...

My Rant for the day

~ZF
-----

Royal ReptileZ

Replies (32)

CrimsonKing Sep 09, 2007 12:21 PM

In the end Zenny, they ARE mostly opinions...
Since you know that it shouldn't bother you much.
I don't think anyone is attacking me or you personally and it is a forum where public opinion can be aired..so here you have it.
Obviously there sre some here who are relatively new to the hobby and there are those who have been in it for decades.
You know some that are almighty behind their comp. and recite anything in print as fact. That happens everywhere.
Personally I don't take any ONE person's accounts/beliefs/facts as gospel. Do you?
There is something to be said for gestalt as well. The first impression you get from your first look at something. Based on experience and knowledge of whatever you are looking at. That is consatantly changing/improving as you see more and more.
Some snakes you see and you just know are not what they are labeled or supposed to be. Or vice-cersa.
I understand your position for sure but I guess it sort of works both ways to a point,huh?
I mean, I could be just as fed up with people saying things are pure when everything I know to this point says they're not. Should I not question them?
Like you say, it gets frustrating too when seemingly everything
is said to be a "mutt" or "cross".
We can do our part by keeping the lines we have as pure as we can and be honest about it.
We can prove little about the past, or what others have done in the past, now can we?
Indeed some of the "attacks" can be rooted in malice, spite, and jealousy.
Don't be afraid to rant...and don't always be PC. It keeps us from saying what we mean.
:Mark
-----
Surrender Dorothy!

crimsonking.piczo.com/

Nikral Sep 09, 2007 12:29 PM

Zenny,

I tend to agree; however, sometimes I think close scrutiny is justified, especially when unsuspecting hobbyists are paying premium prices for dubious specimens. As a case in point, I’ve been a silent observer of the “South Georgia King” controversy on this forum for many years. Until now, because of the contentious nature of the subject, I’ve been reluctant to comment. However, it is becoming obvious that a growing number of hobbyists and professional breeders have bought-in completely to the twin notions that an orange, wide-banded Eastern King is not only a valid, wild-occurring morph found in South Georgia, but that it is common enough to merit the title “South Georgia King”. Perhaps the first notion is correct, but based upon more than 50 years of field observation and “flipping tin” throughout South Georgia, where I live, I can assure you that the second notion is not. In fact, after years in the field, I’ve yet to see a specimen even remotely resembling some of those that are now being marketed routinely at shows around the country and on this website as “South Georgia Kings”.

Maybe I’ve just been unlucky, but in my experience, the typical South Georgia King, out of literally hundreds that I’ve come across, from the Chattahoochee basin in southwest Georgia, to the pine prairies south of Brunswick on the Atlantic, looks very similar to every other Eastern King found in the lower southeastern U.S. However, as to be expected from a 200-mile wide area, there are some variations linked to geography found in the overall population, but in my experience, these variations are relatively minor and not always consistent. In general, I’ve found that specimens from the southwestern part of Georgia (and into lower Alabama) tend to exhibit narrow, off-white bands that are widely-spaced, often incomplete, and occasionally aberrant. In general, specimens found in the south-central part of the state tend to have wider off-white bands that are more complete and uniform than those of their westerly brethren. Finally, in general, specimens found in the southeastern part of Georgia tend have lightly speckled, off-white bands that are usually complete and relatively uniform, along with some increased speckling on the head and body. And, as a general rule, I’ve found that the further North one goes all across South Georgia, specimens start to exhibit more of the classic “Chain” pattern as opposed to the banded pattern. Nevertheless, despite these generally observable differences in populations from across the southern part of the state, I would bet my last dollar that no one could correctly pick any of them out of a large, random group originating from South Alabama, North Florida, Central Georgia, or even South Carolina.

If my observations are valid, then how did the “South Georgia King” phenomenon ever get started in the first place? Well, depending upon who you talk to, it is said that the orange, wide-banded Kings now seen all over the marketplace originated from specimens found in the lower portions of the contiguous counties of Echols and Lowndes, which are located in the south-central part of the State on the Florida border. I have also heard Tift County mentioned as a source of these specimens from time to time, although Tift County is not contiguous, and is located at least 75 miles north of the alleged Lowndes/Echols location. Unfortunately, I never spent much time beating the bushes in Tift County, but I did in Lowndes and Echols Counties more than 30 years ago. In fact, I used to live there. I never saw or even heard about any wide, orange-banded Kings back then. If they existed, then I guess I just missed them, and so did all of my herping buddies around the area. Could there be another explanation? Maybe there is. It has been discussed on this forum before.

Be that as it may, perhaps someone who has more field experience in and around these Counties than I do, and who has actually seen these orange, wide-banded Kings in the wild can tell me or show me precisely where I might have the best chance of seeing and photographing one. Since I now live Mitchell County, which is only 50 miles or so to the west, I can make the trip in less than an hour. I’ll even bring the beer…..and the Crow Pie in case I have to eat it. Needless to say, I’m skeptical, but I’ll keep an open mine about this. It is certainly possible that there is, in fact, an enclave in South Georgia harboring a population of these wide, orange-banded Kings. If there is, I would like to document it for the sake of the hobby, and put all the speculation to rest, once and for all. If there is not, then I’ll stick with one of the other explanations discussed recently on this forum. Until then, caveat emptor.

Aaron Sep 09, 2007 09:14 PM

I've seen pictures of a neonate-yearling wild caught Georgia King that was very bright orange and a sub-adult that had slight pink tones. I've also seen a ton of pics of wild caught Georgias with wide bands. In almost any king that has red/orange in it from alterna, pyro, triangulum to zonata it is VERY easy to increase the red/orange with captive breeding. In fact as a so called purist that usually tries to select for natural color I have found it is hard not to increase the red in every species of Lampro I've worked with. Increasing red seems to be the first sign of "captive drift" away from the natural appearance.
Granted I've only seen the two orange bearing Georgias out of dozens of pics of wild caughts but I find it easy to believe captive breeding could have produced the greatly exagerated looks of the wide banded orange Georgias. Unfortunately it is unquestionably possible a similar look could be just as easily created by mixing goini with Georgias. Which is the true source I have no idea. I appreciated your post.

ZFelicien Sep 09, 2007 09:32 PM

I have my reservations when it come to the south GA Easterns... those "Mosaics" they produce look like Goini kings... but unlike Goini I haven't seen them speckle out??? that doesn't clear them in my book but it is something I took into consideration... I have no explanation, and I won't accuse anyone of anything I can't prove... fortunately I don't work with Easterns and have no real reason to investigate further.

thanx for your contribution

~ZF
-----

Royal ReptileZ

FunkyRes Sep 09, 2007 11:44 PM

I personally don't care if they are pure.
They are gorgeous.

If they are pure, then it is very possible that selective breeding has altered them extensively from wild phenotype.

But to me it doesn't matter.
If I was a scientist looking to repopulate an extirpated population in South Georgia then I would care. But I'm not, so ...
-----
11.14 L. getula californiae (Cal. King)
2.3 L. getula nigrita (MBK)
1.0 L. getula floridana (Brooksi)
1.1 Pantherophis guttatus guttatus (Corn)
0.1 Pituophis catenifer catenifer (Pacific gopher)
0.1 Heterodon nasicus nasicus (W Hognose)
4.2.14 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata - (Cal. Alligator Lizard)

Bluerosy Sep 09, 2007 01:01 PM

What's Next??? Axanthic Floridana came from Axanthic Cali kings

There haven't been any axantrhic cal kings in the hobby. I have a froiend who is the first to produce some but he has not reproduced any to date. TRhey are new to the hobby.

So the axanthic gene could not have come from the cal king.

But where most of the speculation comes from is the amel and lavender floridana. This has been happening since the first albino cal kings have been produced and Floriuda native bred then to their backyard stock.

Someone mentioned that a DNA tester can determine if a lavender florida is in fact a florida. But when you back breed a couple time to florida the cal king gene is not detectable and in essence a 50/50% cal x florida will become a Florida king if bred back to floridana enough. This is documented with the gov't farming industry regarding hybrids. Once a animal has been bred back a certain amoutn of times it "becomes" that animal.

So you will see some amelanistic Florida kings that are very cal king looking and some less so. Then you have some lines like the Ricks and Lemke lines which started out as large amels that did not look like or act like cal kings. These two lines have been accpeted into the hobby as pure. Unfortutaly the Lemek line of lavenders all but disspeared with Lloyds passing. There were some early crosses from Gulf Coast but they were represtned as such and what people did with these is out of anyones control. Basically know your lines and be able to tell by LOOKING at the lavender brooks to know the difference. Do your homework before buying!

Recently I heard a breder who has been selling lavender and T negative Florida kings which initially got his stock from Tom Crutchfield about 15 years ago. Crithcfield was a big broker in Florida and people used to wholesale out to him everything they had. This breeder who got his stock from Crutchfield did some back breeding to florida and goini and now these cal king lineage kings are being sold as pure. Matter of fact he is at the Housten, TX show this weekend. This type of stuff hurts people like myself , Zenny, Mark ect. We are trying to validate the fakes from the the real deal. It also makes it difficult for anyone to pop into this forum and read a couple posts and decide to make judgments based on these posts. Sometimes its hard enough these days, to extract the truth behind the origins of various species and morphs- without certain individuals clouding the issues.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

foxturtle Sep 09, 2007 01:31 PM

Its not really Florida kings in general, its those that have lineage that traces back to lavenders/amels, which many feel was introduced to Floridana from Cal Kings, and later from speckled kings. I've seen a lot of Florida king lavenders and amels on breeders' tables at Florida reptile shows, and they often will openly admit the gene came from Cal king, and they've breed back to FL king X number of times. Lavender and amel have been hatched out of normal wild-caught Florida kings, but do you know where yours came from?

There's also the whitesided morph, which some feel came from black rat snakes. I don't really buy it, but there are others that do.

What gets me is any Florida king, particularly one thats had some sort of morph bred into it, being called a "brooksi". Brooksi is a defunct subspecies that represented a locality, and a look. Florida kings shouldn't be sold as "brooksi" if they don't fit the definition of the old brooksi subspecies. Every time someone advertises using "brooksi" to describe a normal Florida king, or anything else thats not a South Florida brooksi, it lowers their credibility.

Bluerosy Sep 09, 2007 02:25 PM

What gets me is any Florida king, particularly one thats had some sort of morph bred into it, being called a "brooksi". Brooksi is a defunct subspecies that represented a locality, and a look. Florida kings shouldn't be sold as "brooksi" if they don't fit the definition of the old brooksi subspecies. Every time someone advertises using "brooksi" to describe a normal Florida king, or anything else thats not a South Florida brooksi, it lowers their credibility.

I agree with you on the most part. But this is the rub. If i was to place an ad for Lavender florids, axanthic florida or hypo florida and another person on the classifieds has his advertised Lavender "brooks", axanthic brooks or hypo brooks who do you think people will buy from?

The Brooks name has become a marketing tool and nothing else.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

foxturtle Sep 09, 2007 03:33 PM

I'd think whoever had the superior ad would make the sale. Good pictures of the parents, and the snakes being sold, and a better description go a long way. Maybe there are people who won't even click into an ad if its not labeled brooksi, I don't know.

As a consumer I know I don't like the idea that I can buy a snake as a "brooksi" and have it grow up to look like the snake pictured below. I'm sure a lot of people have bought snakes as "brooksi" only to have them grow up looking like dark floridana.

I'm not saying you should stop using the term "brooksi", just saying the liberal usage of the brooks name is probably a contributor to all the doubt thats been cast on the purity of Florida kings in captivity these days.

Bluerosy Sep 09, 2007 04:28 PM

"I'm not saying you should stop using the term "brooksi", just saying the liberal usage of the brooks name is probably a contributor to all the doubt thats been cast on the purity of Florida kings in captivity these days.

I agree 100% the liberal usage of the term should stop. But how can anyone do this? By controlling a broker who sells on the classifieds? Calling up a young herper who is selling their first hypo florida kings and explaining that they need to change the name? Or how about calling the manager at PetCo to the front and explaining that the true "brooksi" is from s dade county. They will all just say "how do you know where my animals came from?", think your are nuts or think we have way to much time on our hands..

Technically there is no "brooksi" and all of us here know that. But mostlty 98% of the people who buy "brooks" kings have never heard of S. Dade county. I stopped explaining it to them because their eyes glass over with boredom. Sometimes you can oversell an animal by talking to much. It is best to just shut up and take the sale before you talk them out of it with to much techincal information.

Unless you are locality nut (which a few of the forum posters here are) it is not an issue for most people who spend $1000 and up on my morphs. IMO it should add value to a morph if the origins trace back to certain stock.. But trying to sell Joe Blow that wants the next newest morph is not that interested. They instead want a Florida king morph that they just like the looks of. They want to raise it up and sell the offspring. Similar to people spending a little more on other colubrid morphs that want the lightest brightest Extreme hypo honduran or Piebald striped motly Ultra corn. You start talking locality they either lose interest or they think you are trying to jack the price up on them. The animals looks itself and morph history is all most want to hear about.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Lindsay Sep 10, 2007 10:07 AM

"Technically there is no "brooksi" and all of us here know that."

Taxonomically that's true today, but that doesn't mean the concept can no longer exist. It wasn't changed or modified to include darker, lower band count snakes from farther North in Florida, it was sunk (removed) as a valid subspecies. Just because the scientific community accepted that it wasn't different enough, or consistent enough to warrant it's own classification doesn't mean herpetoculturists can't still use the word. There are plenty of phrases like Coastal Cal King, Desert Phase, River Road alterna, etc that breeders and buyers accept as valid terminology. We will always have some argument over details but I don't see why we should accept complete bastardization of the original definition.
Sorry to beat that poor old horse some more but I usually don't read the posts til long after time to get in my two cents too.
-----
Lindsay Pike
Urotopia Uromastyx

Beaker30 Sep 09, 2007 04:38 PM

Rainer,

Ever hear the expression "it all starts with one"? If you want the correct terms used, start using them yourself. Your words...as well as other well known floridana breeders such as nokturnal tom and zenny...carry alot of weight.

I find it hard to believe that you would miss out on too many sales by using the proper terms. People buy your morphs because they like the product you put out...not because of what you call them. A new hobbyist selling their first clutch may be calling them "brooksi" because theyve seen the big guys calling them that (and they dont know any better).

I dont think you give yourself enough credit. I bet if you, tom, zenny and a few others started calling them floridana you would begin to see a swing of the pendulum back in the correct direction. Why not give it a try?
-----
Species kept:

Nuevo Leon Kings
Kunasir Island Rats
San Luis Potosi Kings
Axanthic Desert Kings
White Oak Gray Rats
Corns

Coming Soon:

Western Green Rats
Pale Milks

Bluerosy Sep 09, 2007 05:35 PM

I dont think you give yourself enough credit. I bet if you, tom, zenny and a few others started calling them floridana you would begin to see a swing of the pendulum back in the correct direction. Why not give it a try?

Well one good reason is a lot of what I have are true brooks kings that I did not outcross that trace all the way back. I posted this info here but people were not interested either.

Basically my stock comes from the original hypos, axanthic and Peanut Butters. I only had the visual forms so when I created triple and double hets I realized this and posted a long explanation on how these genes were encapsulated in my stock.

The only thing that does not is anything with lavender and T neg in it. But even these I bred to my hypos and axanthics which makes them Floridana X brooksi crosses. Now that would be confusing..LOL!
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Lindsay Sep 10, 2007 09:47 AM

foxturtle - "Florida kings shouldn't be sold as "brooksi" if they don't fit the definition of the old brooksi subspecies."

>>Bluerosy - "If i was to place an ad for Lavender floridas, axanthic florida or hypo florida and another person on the classifieds has his advertised Lavender "brooks", axanthic brooks or hypo brooks who do you think people will buy from?"

Yep, it's gotta be frustrating. (You should try selling genuine captive-bred lizards when they import tens of thousands and call them CB.) But intentionally joining the deception, whether it was intentional or caused by ignorance, is just stooping to that level. Sounds more like we need to stay vigilant with the information availability. Admittedly, it's a lot of work. Many buyers won't care about those issues anyway but for those that do we should continue to help them out. I also don't think we can judge from a few forum posts or by what sold this year whether the silent majority is as naive as we fear. Only a tiny percentage of kingsnake enthusiasts ever give their opinions her.
-----
Lindsay Pike
Urotopia Uromastyx

Nokturnel Tom Sep 10, 2007 03:18 PM

I agree we should not give up however I bet if someone had been holding out and had true Brooksi in thier collection which were producing now they'd have the same migraine we have for a differen't reason.

People have been so mislead for so long they'd see pics of true Brooksi and probably respond with something along the lines of "that's not what I am looking for".

Funny how something like Thayeri can be understood as far as variation but Floridana can not. Yet most Florida Kings can be easily identified, but the change they go through as babies will leave an inexperienced buyer taking thier chances when purchasing babies.

Wrong as it may be, my money says most people think Brooksi equals high yellow and high band count. We all should know by now any old Florida King will be labeled as Brooksi wether we like it or not.

The thing that really bums some of us out is some of the morphs are also watered down with hets made using sub par animals. This is why I think the best is yet to come as far as that goes. With some line breeding using high yellow Florida Kings we may see some nicer Axanthics, Ghosts, Hypos, and White Sides etc. some day. They look fine to me now, but I think they can be even better. The saddest part is those who attempt to right the wrong and label their Kings as Floridas will suffer. This is why I wish we'd call ALL of them Florida Kings and leave Brooksi behind.
Tom Stevens
-----
TomsSnakes.com

Bluerosy Sep 10, 2007 03:27 PM

I agree Tom. The "brooksi" name should be left behind.

If someone has a true brooks they should just lable it as South Dade county Florida king. That would eliminate the confusion.

So who wants to start? Anyone have true brooks they are willing to list on the classifieds sold as South Dade county Florida kings from canal # XXX?
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Lindsay Sep 10, 2007 04:01 PM

I think as a scientist I woulda been a lumper but as a breeder I still choose to be a splitter. Heck, I even bred locality Brandon kings this year (named for the town not the person) and they don't look all that much different than canefield kings.
Someone on this forum used BPOF (brooksi phase of floridana). That's my choice. I really like it for clarity although it's brevity is no better than Rainer's Dade terminology. It acknowleges the updated taxonomy but retains the former separation.
At least it's way easier these days to use the "picture's worth a thousand words concept" with digital cameras, e-mails and internet posts. Anyone else remember when it was usually at least a 2 week turnaround if you asked someone (over the phone paying 60 cents per minute) for photos of their adults or babies?
-----
Lindsay Pike
Urotopia Uromastyx

daveb Sep 12, 2007 08:03 AM

brooksi phase of floridana -that was my silly creation several years ago to describe hatchlings when I was breeding them. it expresses the phenotype hobbyists want to see but keeps the correct scientific nomenclature. one of these days it might catch on, or it might not. c'est la vive.

daveb

FunkyRes Sep 10, 2007 05:14 PM

>> People have been so mislead for so long they'd see pics of true
>> Brooksi and probably respond with something along the lines of
>> "that's not what I am looking for".

That is definitely true.
The brooksi I remember wanting back in the 80s that East Bay Vivarium had were a really nice yellow, possibly what Bluerosy has described as "love line" - those are what I was looking for last year when I was asking if anyone bred "het for nothing" brooksi - but as it turns out, quite a few real brooksi were not those really nice yellow ones that I came to identify as brooksi because they were what I had seen as brooksi.

btw - the het PB you sold me is doing fantastic. His growth rate is absolutely incredible compared to Cal Kings. I can't wait to see what he looks like as an adult. I can already see the pattern starting to change.
-----
11.14 L. getula californiae (Cal. King)
2.3 L. getula nigrita (MBK)
1.0 L. getula floridana (Brooksi)
1.1 Pantherophis guttatus guttatus (Corn)
0.1 Pituophis catenifer catenifer (Pacific gopher)
0.1 Heterodon nasicus nasicus (W Hognose)
4.2.14 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata - (Cal. Alligator Lizard)

Upscale Sep 09, 2007 02:00 PM

Maybe because most are a cross? I think some has to do with the Brooks/Florida confusion. Brooks exists only as a hobby term, where it was once considered a valid thing. In the earlier days the lighter Brooks phase were more desireable because they were rare. The natural range is extreme south Florida, which is misleading because although south Florida is a big place, ultimate "Brooks" habitat is actually very VERY small. True Brooks were so rare that many people had never even seen one, and many many light "Florida" kings were mistakenly and intentionally sold as "Brooks". Then you could charge $15.00 more. Many of those buyers, in turn would pick up another light Fla king, or maybe even an actual Brooks and produce what they would sell as Brooks, sometimes not knowing that they already were mixed. None of that matters anymore, because they were always selected for lightness, and soon the captive lines were as good or better than the "true" Brooks anyway. The genetic diversity present in todays Brooks is what makes the further refinement so much fun. Forget anything scientific or legitimate with that "Brooks" name, and it's all good.

ZFelicien Sep 09, 2007 06:45 PM

Maybe because most are a cross?

What's the basis of that statement? ... Why would you think that? ...???

Below you replied to a post an made an "Observation" and a "Diagnosis" ... you stated the Hi-color of a Florida king could be the result of a Goini X Floridana pairing (or generations of selective breeding)

Why would you think there is Goini in there? Floridana are HIGHLY variable... so why imply Goini influence... this is exactly the problem I'm talking about... an inexperienced keeper could take your word as gold, and the problem begins...

Now I don't know how my post got translated or lead up to the difference btwn "Brooksi" and Floridana, but on that subject I do agree that there are NO TRUE "Brooksi" anymore after sooooooo many years of selective breeding... however "Brooksi" has become an accepted name for Floridana MORPHS (why... I haven't a clue... but it is what it is). maybe "Brooksi" roles off the tongue easier than Floridana????

~ZF
-----

Royal ReptileZ

foxturtle Sep 09, 2007 07:26 PM

There are still true "brooksi" lines in captivity. There are still "brooksi" living wild in South Florida. A friend of mine just found one today.

My point with bringing up floridana vs brooksi was that the liberal usage of the term "brooksi" for snakes that are average looking Florida kings reduces your credibility. In some peoples eyes, if breeders pass off normal looking, or even exceptionally dark Florida kings as "brooksi", whats to keep them from passing off stuff that has been bred from Cal kings as pure floridana?

ZFelicien Sep 09, 2007 08:24 PM

I totally understand your point of view,

Now, do you think the term "Brooksi" is really being used maliciously??

When I 1st got into Florida kings I certainly didn't know the difference... I called every Florida king a brooks. today I know better but I can't seem to break the habit when I see an attractive morph or a killer non-morph, so while I can see the point you present, I can also get why some can't seem to break the habit.

Floridana X Cali ... I see obvious crosses all the time, even in the classifieds, do these sellers know they are crosses (it's anyone's guess), do I believe my Lavenders are crosses, no I don't (can they be... any thing is possible), my lavenders look Floridana, have Floridana temperaments, and grow like Floridana...

I've said it once... I'll say it again, I think there ARE "pure" Lavender Florida kings and crosses lavenders...

~ZF
-----

Royal ReptileZ

Upscale Sep 09, 2007 09:18 PM

I hope you don’t mind this long post...
I’ll start by saying I have been following Brooks since I was a kid, and I am 47 years old. I have owned local field collected Brooks and Florida kings (I’m sticking with the hobby lingo) and hunted south Florida. I have seen the Brooks sold at dealers like Glades Herp, Wild Cargo, The Shed, Strictly Reptiles and many long gone herp shops since the early days of the reptile craze. Dark colored Brooks, locality field collected were bought at “Florida” prices, and sold as “Florida” kings from all of the dealers. Super blonde, or light Brooks were bought and sold as Brooks- those were the only ones sold as “Brooks”. Light “Florida” brought the field collector higher “Brooks” price because they could be flipped as higher priced “Brooks”. When you guys from up north ordered a Brooks, you got a lighter king sold as a Brooks regardless of where it was collected. That’s just how it worked. It wasn’t meant to be dishonest or misrepresented, we basically barely knew better. Very often these snakes were kept in groups together, maybe ten or more in a cage. There was even some thought that they wouldn’t or couldn’t breed to each other. Anybody remember when we were that dumb? I do... So anyway, sometimes your “Brooks” which may have been or not, could have easily been bred to another kingsnake, Brooks or not. Your hatchlings that may or may not have been fathered by the snake you bought, there’s not much chance in the old days you would ever be able to tell what they were. You had plenty of people with pure Brooks get dark snakes and feel they were cheated- but got real true Brooks. I’m sure you got some mixes that produced light ones and they thought they were producing pure Brooks, yet those were not. In many cases the mix would “look right” and you’d be happy. We really really didn’t think it mattered! We never envisioned the breeding success we have today. So trust me, a lot of kings got housed together and bred together by accident. From very early on, even from known south Florida collectors, dealers and trusted sources, the Brooks were very rarely accurately pure Brooks. You were just as likely to get a dark true locality Brooks sold as a Florida so you wouldn’t be mad at the seller. Some of the real early breeders like the Loves did know better and held the real Brooks line because they were more desirable. They also probably knew from seeing hundreds that the best light ones were something special. Once the selective breeding got rolling, there was no market for dark Brooks or Florida kings either. Once breeders learned you could breed an albino speckled to a Florida and they were compatible, they did. A lot of early breedings you think are suspicious and sinister were complete accidents. The hobby has come a long way in thirty years or so, it is really amazing to me. I can only imagine how the guys older than me feel.

shannon brown Sep 10, 2007 05:50 PM

different than the okeetee corns.Its now a look in the hobby and has lost its locale status. Yes, I know that people still have the "real deal" but whats the difference.
In my mind a brooks is a hobby term and nothing more. You can say that the loves or rainer or whoever had or has real brooksi but what is a real brooksi? its a light phase florida.

Now, I battle the same thing within the milk snake complex all the time. We all know that the albino hodurans have polyzona in them and the anery hondurans are from a intergrade zone of honduran and stuarti. The hypo line (loves) was bought from a pet store as a coral snake??? we have no freaking clue if any of these things are true hondurensis but in the hobby they are all hondurensis.

L8r Shannon

FunkyRes Sep 10, 2007 06:12 PM

That's why I like locality pale milks - you definitely know where they came from :D

There actually are some large tropical milks I'm interested in, but I probably won't have any for awhile. The pale milks are the milks I like. Next year I'm getting a pair.
-----
11.14 L. getula californiae (Cal. King)
2.3 L. getula nigrita (MBK)
1.0 L. getula floridana (Brooksi)
1.1 Pantherophis guttatus guttatus (Corn)
0.1 Pituophis catenifer catenifer (Pacific gopher)
0.1 Heterodon nasicus nasicus (W Hognose)
4.2.14 Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata - (Cal. Alligator Lizard)

DMong Sep 10, 2007 08:56 PM

that "real brooksi" I had in my room when we were kids in Ft. Lauderdale?........that was a wild-caught from extreme southern Dade county from a friend of my moms "back in the day"!!

I think I had him when you and Paul Stone came over that time!!LOL.....(1974 or so)along with some Indigos, "Miami" phase corns, and a big NASTY yellow rat!

Here's one of two youngsters that is supposed to have wild-type parents from the same area!(het for NOTHING)

Like we said before,....those were great times!!LOL

~Doug

-----
"Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open mouth and remove any doubt!"

Upscale Sep 10, 2007 11:25 PM

I only had eyes for that indigo, bud... And I was blown away that you bought your mice in bulk way back then! I think the only difference between you and I, Doug, is your parents were way cooler about your having herps way back then. My step Dad hated snakes so bad I wasn’t allowed to have any! I had iguana, caiman, turtles and finally wore him down and was allowed to keep a snake when I was in sixth grade! I built a “secret” snake cage into the “hut” in my caiman cage outside and got busted! Then he was cool and let me keep them outside.
I don’t mean to be the Brooks expert, but I know south Florida very well from way back. I know the Loves as a part of south Florida, and that is my perspective on the whole thing. I’ve field collected true stunning Brooks and crappy dark ones from practically the same spot, and sold the dark ones as “Florida” kings. There were places we would literally consider lighter ones came from a certain side of a field. I once found a DOR Florida king type dark with highlighter pen green color on Wagonwheel Road in the Copeland Prarie off US 29 near Everglades City. These snakes are highly variable throughout their “range” which is basically a couple of football field size places scattered all over the place. Shannon brings up Okeetee Corns, I would bring up Everglades rats. Almost identical thing, never consistant anywhere even in primo habitat. Nothing from the old days can compare to what is readily available today as selective bred captive produced. I think a lot of “Brooks Canal” is myth and hype. It was total luck!!! You guys got it so good today you would not believe it!!! (yes I am allergic to poison Ivy, oak and sumac! A lot of times it was just not worth it!!)

DMong Sep 11, 2007 01:44 AM

I totally dig what you're sayin'!......LOTS of variation in whatever area they are collected in.

I'd be the first to agree with you on that,.......I had a friend that was building fences out in the "sticks" in southern Dade, and caught one that practically resembled an Eastern King,
back around '85.....he sold it to me the next day.

By the way,.....that was a good detailed post that's hard to argue with!LOL

later dude!, ~Doug
-----
"Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open mouth and remove any doubt!"

Upscale Sep 10, 2007 11:42 PM

One quick p.s. to this story. The “crappy” dark Brooks I refer to are the ones that look exactly like the Lloyd Lemke really narrow banded dark Brooks, that to me, always looked like a banded water snake. I bet Doug knows what I mean! Exactly what people turned their nose up at back then! Probably started Lloyd’s line! Ha ha ha.

DMong Sep 11, 2007 02:15 AM

Yeah,....I know the look you're talking about, just a little

more shine to the scales than a water snake!!LOL

Sort of like clothes,.......styles catch-on after only certain people wear them!, say,... Paris Hilton for example!

~Doug
-----
"Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open mouth and remove any doubt!"

Jeff Schofield Sep 10, 2007 10:14 AM

This is a forum, and everyone can put their opinions in.... no matter of education,experience or intelligence. I used to have some SUPER yellow rats. They were basically PURE TRIPLE HETS for albino,lavender and anery. I have all data and collecting info back to who CAUGHT the animals and when......to no avail. Noone believed what I had and they never sold! Discredit is "easier" than credit. You have to realize like anything "new", there has to be a discussion within the community. Every time a scientific paper is written it is put forward for discussion before being published.Same thing. Unfortunately these records havent been kept well, and they are just so easy to breed.... Guys who havent been breeding since "the beginning" fear the worst. There will never be anything we can do about them, forget them.J

Site Tools