Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Anyone from AZ have these or know if anyone breeds them? I have heard of a few "possible" locations in far south AZ.

Thanks!

Steven Owens

There is not such thing as "nigritas" as a species or subspecies. Its merely a color morph of splendida.

Yes, I live in southern az. and you find both color types in several areas. Also where they came from in Mex, has both color types. Normal desert kings and a black phase.

Just like striped kings in SoCal, or dark phases in other parts of Coastal Cal. you know, L.A.X black kings and medona kings, etc.

On top of that, we get Black bandeds here in tucson and black intermediates(in pattern)

The differences is, with the black bands and intermediates, they're are just dark individuals of normal, when in shed, you can see a normal local pattern. With nigritas, they appear to be a recessive. As they are a color morph and not just a dark splendida. In a very few areas, you have both black normals and the "nigritas" pattern.

And yes, there are locals that this black pattern is a much higher percentage then in other areas. Like all the black western kings, they appear to be associated with raparian areas and lowland raparian areas.

It appears they developed in lowland estuaries and marshes.

Cheers

Now frank, I AGREE with what you are saying, that those snakes live in the same place, and they breed together, and they produce all sorts of phenotypes, but can't the term nigrita still be valid in describing that particular regional variant?

I ask this because the same _problem_ (If you want to call it a problem) applies in a multitude of areas with any number of subspecies i.e sayi / affinis, cealanops / annulata, splendida / holbrooki etc.

I don't have any convictions one way or another, and my purpose is not to debate at all, I'm just asking if the term nigrita is or isn't useful for the simple fact that you know right away he's talking about black getula from a specific area of southern AZ and northern Sonora?

And for Steve, I'm sure someone is breeding those black getula locality animals but I don't know who. If you want some fun, you should go catch them yourself. It's a blast and they aren't that hard to find.
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

Again, we agree, I have no problem with having a method to name local types or natural occuring color morphs. But its not happening with scientific names(at this moment in time)

Lets take a very similar example. I caught the first black Thayeri. Much like the mexican black king, it lives amoung normal thayeri(if there is such a thing). We could call Black thayeri, Retes's Black thayeri. But not L.m.thayeri. or L.t.retesi, Or L.retesi. IT is in all reality a naturally occuring black phase of thayeri. Funny, but a black phase is common in many types of kingsnakes. It seems to be a mutation with purpose. That is, it can compete with normal patterns in nature. Black phases occur in many kinds of snakes. Dang what about a white phase, hahahahahahaha. A white phase thayeri or a white phase alterna. hmmmmmmmmm back to the drawing boards. Cheers

I had a question about Milksnakes. Actually about Milk snakes from near where that Black thayeri is from.

Speaking of black thayeri, they became exceedingly rare in collections to the point that no one really knew who still had any. Luckily though someone DID still have them. I have a pair of hets now.
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

That trait is not simple recessive. It makes muddy thayeri.

I had some years ago and sold it off for that very reason.

Chris

"Some" meaning "one".

I had one female. Maybe I missed it but she tossed the most black tipped babies ever and they just got worse over the one year I watched em.

She was sold poste haste.

Chris

a double dose of melanin.

The Retes black thayeri of lore was simple recessive. But there are also thayeri that darken naturally with age. They aren't really black "tipped" like you see in triangulum though.
Usually you can see the pattern that lies underneath the melanin in those snakes. Had you bred those dark hets back maybe you could have ended up with the blackest black thayeri around, a double dose of melanin so to speak haha
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

"Retes black thayeri of lore was simple recessive"

You sure. That doesn't jive with my experience. Then again I'm the guy that hatches out 16.1 coastals one year and the next produced 1 out of 16 hypos from hypo to definate het breedings. 2007 was much kinder!

My theory is that they are co-dominante. Like there are(or were until recently) in ball pythons I think there are many co-dom morphs in kingsnakes but they are not recognized. The co-dom balls are often said to have "markers", that is, slight abberrancies that indicate they carry a co-dom gene.
Co-doms can basicly be viewed this way, hets are visually "marked" and homozygous are visually "super".
I think the "marker" for the het form of melanistic thayeri is anything from dark tipping on up to almost solid black. This would make hets hard to differentiate from both normals and homozygous supers. I think the supers are always solid black but again, hard to differentiate from a simply very darkly "marked" het. If this is true it would easily explain why some have reported solid black babies from "normal looking" breeders and mixed black/normal clutches from solid black breeders.
Some other kingsnake morphs that I think may be co-dom:
Striped/abberrant ruthveni
San Jouquine Valley(Mendota) blackbelly cal kings
Merker(El Dorado) hypo cal kings
Splendida/nigrita Mexican black kings
Granite mex mex
Patternless alterna

Hi, I think, your a little naive as to what you call things.

First off, the Black thayeri I started were without question a normal recessive. And performed as such for many many generations.

What your working with now, may or may not be that line or even contain any genetics of that line.

So your theories are without validity. But thats OK, its only a theory.

The problem with genetics is simple, with wild caught animals, its confined and relatively simple, but once brought into captivity and mindlessly and ignorantly mixed and matched, its not exactly so simple.

The term co-dominate, is naive and a laboratory term. It only speaks of the here and now. Yet genes are not the now, they are always a recond of history. They are the past. Hence DNA tracking of relationships. Genes are a record of the past.

Once you lose the past or history, you have lost their meaning.

In captivity, it appears many breed animals mindlessly, then past then on. The next person calls them something, and so on and so forth. The problem is, their is no history.

Your animals have no history. Your not sure what they were, which makes it questionable as to what they are now.

As I mentioned, here in So. Az. we have two types of black kings. One is just a really dark normal. The other is without intermediates. Which means, one is co-dominate, the other a genetic recessive trait. It appears you now have that with Black thayeri.

Your task is to NOT call them a NAME, until you know what you have. You see, black tipping and such were not evident in the originals. They came out either Black or normal. No tweeners.

Also, co-dominate is a trashcan title. Its nearly meaningless, as many traits are more dominate then others. Anyway, gotta go, cheers

>> Also, co-dominate is a trashcan title. Its nearly meaningless, >>as many traits are more dominate then others.

While I agree that co-dom is misused a lot, alomst all things labeled co-dom are really incomplete dominant, its not meaningless. Both describe a particular form of inhertance of a single allele at a single gene. It is pretty useless when applied to traits that are not the result of single gene though (meanging multigenic), which is how it is most often misused.

Misuse of co-dom, abuse really, is a pet peave of mine.

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

Thanks for that. Co-dom is what I learned to call that pattern of inheritance but I will take your word that incomplete-dominant is the proper term.

I think its a deeply rooted error, which doesn't really matter until a real co-dom appears (which there are a few). A good rule is that if the apperance of the het is somewhere in between the apperance of the normal and the "super" the morph is incompletly dominant.

A co-dom mutation is when both morphs are visisble at the same time, its a pretty technical distinction. But there are a few really cool examples, like the ultramel corn snakes and the Paradigm boa.

I keep trying to figure out a good way to describe difference, so tell me if this works. Imagine a mutation in a white snake the produces a pale yellow color when het and bright yellow when homozygous. This would be incomplete dominant because the mutant allele is not able to completely dominant the normal one. Imagine another mutation in that white snake that produces a blue snake. Like the yellow morph, the het is pale blue while the homo is bright blue, its incompletely dominant too.

Now when you breed a super yellow (yy) to a super blue (bb) you get 100% green (yb). This would be co-dom since both yellow and blue are expressed at the same time.

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

that's what I thought - about how that melanistic thayeri gene expressed (in the past) - simple recessive - at least that is what we (all) assumed back then.

and you are absolutely right about genes, there's no telling what is being expressed or hidden now ESPECIALLY considering animals from Iturbibe were bred to Galeana were bred to Doctor Arroyo.

When you get back, explain what animals didn't key out to thayeri. Who wrote the key? Who's description was used to base identity? Eastern versant animals are clearly differentiated (IMO) from the Galeana / Doctor Arroyo clade. Chorro Canyon / Ojo de Agua animals may be another ball of wax. Here again it's not easy for humans to step in and draw black and white lines on gene flow / geographic influence that has it's own boundaries.
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

That is some of the resoning to go back Joe. lots of unanswered questions, hope we can add pieces to the puzzle.
-----
Todd Hughes

"What your working with now, may or may not be that line or even contain any genetics of that line.

So your theories are without validity. But thats OK, its only a theory."

Frank I recognize that your line thayeri may be different than mine and others out there. That only invalidates me drawing any conclusions on your line. It does not invalidate any theory regarding my line. My theory is based only on info from others that suggests there is a mutation currently present in captive populations of what we call thayeri today that does not conform to a simple recessive mode of inheritance. Mine will prove to be what they prove to be. I have not had the time to see results, only to theorize on what to look for as possibilities.

Regarding the history, we never have history at the start, whether you have wild caught animals or not. All you know about a wild caught animal is the locality it comes from, only through test breeding can you reach conclusions about the mode of inheritance of a particular mutaion/s.

No discernable pattern at all.

It was also a co-domonant trait.

No disrespect to Frank or you intended.

Chris

Your not reading or understanding what I said.

First, the original animals, remember, that was a very long time ago, 1975 to 78, in that ballpark, were pure recessives.

What you have now is clearly not. If they are the same or different, who knows, there have been a lot of different hands and all manner of breedings since the mid seventies.

I stated as an example. Here in tucson, we have both a recessive black king and a co-dominate black king.

The co-dominates are in the Tucson area itself and range from normal kings to black kings evenly across the board.

On the border, your have normal splendida with areas that has individuals that are black. You normally do not see intermediates. They are either splendida or black. This indicates, its not co-dominate.

Also, I am not a believer that genes are made of stone. I have seen to many odd things to ever think that. I am a total believer that flesh is not pure math or a machine, animals and their genes screw up and change. If not, cancer would not exsist.

With genetics, you have hard genes, ones that control life functions and structure. These are very difficult to change(slow changing). Then you have soft genes, ones that control color and pattern, these are made of mush and change very quickly.

Let me say, just for fun, my best friend and field partner is a degreed herper. When we are in the field its very funny. I will notice color and pattern. When I find an oddball, I will say, man that thing is striped(when its not suppose to be) He will give me a look and make funny noises. He could careless, its just color and stuff. ITs STILL X TYPE OF SNAKE.

We have another friend that comes down and spends time in the field with us. He and I, often get a little silly. We will find something and then yell at Hugh. Hey Hugh, we found a hypo/choco/striped/tamale pie willards thats het for ten million other characteristics. Sometimes he laughs.

So no, it does not offend me, as the pet trade and ITS genetics are not all that important. ITs more entertainment, then important. I do both, nature and captivity. While they are very related, they are also different. Cheers

I do believe and understand what you said.

I do NOT believe these snakes I had were double dipped whatever. The female was as fine an example of a black thayeri as there is. The babies were muddy. It wasn't my first time breeding thayeri (even then) so I disagree that there was any recessive trait involved.

Frank, I am hip that you "been there done that". I was just saying I doubt the co-dom AND recessive thing.

Chris

Chris,
I only want to be sure I understand you. Can you clarify "muddy" for me? Also, I take it you raised those muddy babies to adulthood?
Again, I'm just trying to verify what you had, for my own mind, since you saw it and I'm relying on words. I stated on the other forum that it was not uncommon for the baby melanistics 25 or 30 years ago to be opaque just to the point that they could be described as "muddy" and as the snakes ages the melanin became more intense (less opaque, blacker). Regardless, the snakes were born black, just not glossy solid black.
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

I raised a few of the babies for a year and they looked about like gaigeae. It "appeared" that the female's genes had made a mess out of the color.

I then supposed the trait to be co dominant and had discussed it with a few folks at the time who agreed w me.

I WISH I could have ever had one that was recessive.....I sold all the ones I was raising up and the female.

It ia fair to say that I didn't raise the snakes and breed them again to try and prove it out therefore I don't "know", but based on the information I had, I was reasonable in selling them.

This is the first I've ever heard of that trait being recessive (although I trust that you are both speaking the truth, based on the time you've been doing this).

Thanks,

Chris

OK, Joe is again right, Of the black babies, some were not as black as others, some you could barely see a pattern but darkened up within a few sheds. None that I kept, ever stayed muddy, all became solid black.

The hets, were never muddy, and all were normal in color and pattern and they never darkened up at all.

I am starting to get a picture of what may have happened. Others may have bred muddy to muddy and recieved even liter animals. Consider, there is variation even with pure recessives. For instance, not all albinos are exactly alike. In fact, they can be very different and still be albinos.

This muddy to muddy, and related hets, may have selected for less black individuals. But the original trait was recessive. But the variation between the black ones may be co-dominate(whatever the heck that means)

As I tried to explain, in the early days, we sold hundreds of het for black thayeri as normal. Which means, people could breed their black to a normal(one of those) and have blacks on the first breeding. Thus thinking its not recessive.

Heres an example for you. You think albinism is a pure recessive. I bred an albino Sonoran gopher from the tucson area, to a striped Sonoran gopher from the phoenix area. The results were some striped albinos in the first clutch. What are the changes of that? At the time, I consulted an expert on genetics and he said, The chances of being het are 1 in 20. Of course, I am not sure I agreed with him. The point was, the striped gopher, had to be a het, or all we know is for nothing. Cheers

"With genetics, you have hard genes, ones that control life functions and structure. These are very difficult to change(slow changing). Then you have soft genes, ones that control color and pattern, these are made of mush and change very quickly."

I like it! Believe the same but never quite put it to words.

Agree that this isn't a straight mendilian trait but F1s for a melenistic cross need not look "muddy" Brad Alexander has produced some very nice looking F1s using his female and a Russ Bates line male.

No I'm not sure, time plays tricks on the mind. Frank will add some input on that though. Possibly that is exactly why they became exceeding rare in collections.

I have an 07 pair from Brad from that breeding you just mentioned.
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

Heres the history of the First black thayeri. Bill Garska(wrote a paper of mexicana) For research on that paper(which I do not agree with in) We visited all the mexicana sites known at that time. While hunting where thayeri occur(most do not key out to be thayeri) Bill caught a pair of normals crossing the road. I found many thayeri and one was a black adult female. The ones he found crossing the road were exactly were I found the black female.

I bred the female to a normal and all were normal. I bred a male baby back to the mother and half were pure black. At the same time, Bill bred his normal pair and produced a few black ones as well. His must have been hets.

These blacks had a slight pattern as hatchlings, you could only see it when they were blue. There pattern was totally different then any wild normals we had seen. They were small black bands, but two the three times more then any leonis(type) we saw. Their history was exactly that of a pure recessive.

When I first produced them, I produce quite a few in number and they were bred by others as well. After that, I have no idea what happened to them. I only produced them a short time, say, 12 or 15 years.

The real point is, folks are in error by judging animals THEY HAVE NO HISTORY OF. That is, now you could get a black thayeri that was bred to the toilet bowl. So to say what they were then, by what you have now is totally out of the queston.

I truly hope there are some still around, in fact, I would love a pair.

I too, has causally asked around and here of some here and there. But have not seen any in many years. Cheers

That is very interesting to hear of your experiences with black thayeri! Neat to hear about the breedings you did.

I first saw one of the only ones I have ever laid eyes on back in 1994. My late friend Ty Kubin pulls out the black thayeri one day when I was visiting and lets me know what it is. I was like, " what did you say this was? "..haha! I didn't believe him at first.

Since then, I have looked for them at shows and honestly, out of all the shows I have been to, I may have seen one or two since then.

Billy
-----
Genesis 1:1

I remember seeing a black one in a tank full of baby thayeri of various phases. It was in the blue and very clearly you could see a milksnake phase pattern underneath. That was in the mid-to-late 1990's at the San Diego reptile show.
I also have one adult black thayeri and I can VERY faintly see what looks like little bars that start at the belly but don't go all the way over the dorsum. Incidentally I got this snake from John Hollister, who got it from Steve and Kelli Hammack. I spoke with Kelli and she said she believes it has to be decended from black ones they got from Garstka.

The above occurred in the mid to late seventies. Maybe 77. So by the time you guys saw them a lot of time passed. Cheers

Check that, we first got them before texas went stupid and protected stuff in 76, so maybe 75. Cheers

one, you didn't answer my question if you got my e-mail or not?

Two, I had those snakes that I got from you about 27 years ago, a pair of normals that produced blacks. Remember, you delivered them to me in San Antonio in person? If I'm not mistaken no one knew that trait wasn't simple recessive back in those days, not you, not Osborne, not Garstka. So I do have a history. Shoot, I even made trips down on information I got from you (wild goose chase). It's ok though because one look around down there and I figured out what you didn't tell me
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

Out of curiosity, what area did the melanistic thayeri originate from? Was it Galeana? Dr Arroyo?

Thanks,
Rob Nixon

neither area. There are tons and tons of areas with Thayeri. Cheers

Actually Joe, your 07 pair from Brad is from his melanistic female crossed with a Dan V. male. I wanted the male you got, but Brad said he promised you first pick. Lucky dog!

Brad crossed his melanistic female with a Russ Bates male last year. I have a super nice intermediate phase male from that pairing. The 07 pairing produced some animals with much more black to them. But you got the lightest pair.

I found an 07 melanistic female thayeri at Daytona this year. She was one of 1.2 melanistics from a clutch of 14. He sold the male also, and held back the other female. Her sire was a very non-descript, muddy MSP that Bill Scmeidecke had. I hope to cross her with my "het" melanistic male from Brad eventually.
-----
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

Dan V, Not Russ, sorry he had a lot of photos in that directory and I had better write that down so I don't get it mixed up.

Frank - I promise I didn't breed mine with a toilet! I produced black thayeri from the normal pair that I bought from you. You hand delivered to San Antonio. I believe you had a niece that you wouldn't introduce me to, living in an apartment complex about a mile from my house! hahaha
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

My e-mail addy is, frankretes@gmail.com

Which means I did not get your other emial. I had to change providers as they never got me e-mail straitened out.

Yea, we could have been relatives. Shes CUTE too. still to this day. And we all know about you!!!!!?

But no, I have no recollection of any such thing(standrad answer for legal purposes only) hahahahahaha

I remember everything but the thayeri. But then, that was a million reptiles ago. I am sure they were hets.

What always ammused me was in the old days, we used hets to make lots of morphs. And sometimes we sold hets at a higher price. But most of the time we sold them as normals. As you can imagine, we made lots of hets. BACK TO WORK, hahahahaha them dang mice never stop crapping.

And what did I not tell you? I love it when people say that. The reality is, there is not much to tell. People have their own stuff. You and I are instinct hunters, we adapt to an area. We do not need anymore then get us in the area. The rest will be history. In academic words. how you collect an area depends on the season and conditions at the time. Cheers

>> And yes, there are locals that this black pattern is a much
>> higher percentage then in other areas. Like all the black
>> western kings, they appear to be associated with raparian areas
>> and lowland raparian areas.

>> It appears they developed in lowland estuaries and marshes.

That's interesting - I heard some theory that the valley black bellies and hypers may have been much more common before the shasta dam tamed the sacramento river, when much of the valley was often marsh from the flooding.
-----
x.y L. getula californiae (Cal. King)
x.y L. getula nigrita (MBK)
x.y L. getula floridana (Brooksi)
x.y Pantherophis guttatus guttatus (Corn)
0.1 Pituophis catenifer catenifer (Pacific gopher)
0.1 Heterodon nasicus (W Hognose)
x.y.z Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata - (Cal. Alligator Lizard)

I think one of the problems is that we in the hobby define nigrita as an all black snake. However, the snake was not described as an all black snake. They can be all black, particularly in the southern parts of their range, but they can also have a faint splendida pattern.

Clearly there is a melanistic phenotype that occurs with higher frequency in Mexico and creeps into southern AZ (and Baja California). And I don't think you can answer the question by looking at snakes from southern AZ any more than you can define splendida by looking at snakes in central Texas or Tucson.

Does that melanistic phenotype in Mexico deserve taxonomic recognition? I don't know.
At the other end of splendida's range, the same things occurs. Do you recognize a phenotype which is basically a splendida with slightly more speckling that occurs from east TX through Alabama? The babies have that primitive splendida pattern and lose it as they age, much like nigrita.

As that speckled morph moves up into the highlands, it also becomes melanistic and becomes nigra. Is that melanistic population valid? They also retain the primitive "splendida" pattern in most of their range, but are blackest in the highlands. I think nigrita is as valid a subspecies as nigrita and similarly doesn't have to be solid black to represent that subspecies.

Do the melanistic milksnakes that occur in the highlands of southern Central America deserve taxonomic recognition?
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

Sorry Chris, your analogy is off. As I used, the all black form of Splendida is WITHIN the splendida range, Not at the edges. So its not an extreme edge of the range.

And yes, I have seen Black kings from the Tucson area, and Southern tip where the true Black kings occur and in mex where the original breeder stock thats in the pet trade came from.

The problem was, the original Type specimen was only one individual and was described without knowledge of the animal. So as long as its in books labelled as a species. People WANT it to be one.

A better analogy is comparing Black kings in the mexicana(southern tip of az) population to Stripes and bandeds in San Diego. (and its not all that good either) In the San diego kings, you find stripes and bandeds, with a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of abberants. Abberants are more common on the extreme limits of their range and only in a few places. Stripes even at their extreme eastern limits, rarely show intermediates.

About my data, its taken only from wild individuals seen in nature. Which is pretty good as its not heresay, or second hand, or a friend of a friend and its from the source.

Whats odd about all this is, todays herpers do not seem to have much field experience. (not you Joe)hahahahahahahaha

The good part is, you can make of it what you will. The sad part is, natural populations will disappear or be poluted before anyone really understands them.

About the shasta dam, I would not doubt that it has had a huge influence. As have the irrigated farmlands in the Tucson and Casa Grande areas. Cheers

Field experience usually raises as many questions as it answers (for me). I'm not trying to diminish its value.

The whole purpose of drawing a line in time and separating organisms (that may or may not be influenced by ongoing selective processes) is so that humans can identify them. It is only a matter of our convenience.

One idea I came up with is a (more) utilitarian system of nomenclature. As these animals are products of their environment, it would make sense to include locality information in nomenclature. Perhaps do away with subspecies names as we know them and refine that system. As subspecies usually describe geographic or regional variants use the geographic information in the sub-specific name.

I'm sure there are reasons why this system isn't as good as I think it is but I can't think of those reasons off the top of my head.

On the other hand maybe we just put too much weight on "subspecies" and we need to realize that they are nothing more than regional variants of species and we can't expect nature and geography to play nice.

How does all this apply to getula or is it even necessary I don't know. For the most part you can look at (almost) any naturally occurring getula and make a reasonable assumption as to its origin. Random and geographically isolated mutation is a part of speciation (if you believe in evolution).
-----
http://www.hcu-tx.org

Of course I agree with you. As you know, I use to be able to tell folks what canyon their pyro came from, just by looking at it.

So yes, I love regional names.

I discuss this with my field partner and it boils down to this, they make new taxonomists, cladist, systemisis(sp) every year(graduate from school) But new species(their work) is not made every day. So they really have nothing to do, just do the same thing, OVER AND OVER, hahahahahahahahahaha So at this time, they have over thought scientific nomenclature to a point of its no longer of utility(of practical use)

But no worries, now that DNA is taking over, there will be BILLIONS of new species and herp books for any one group and will be volumes in size.

As an example, pyros occur in many many mountains ranges, from Utah to central mex. Yet, most all of these ranges are isolated. Which means they do not interbreed. That means they will all be different species.

To understand this better in my work(indepth) I found some locals of pyros to behavior totally different then pyros from other mountain ranges. They utilized a different mircohabitat, a different prey base, etc. Some behaved more like greeri or zonotas, some even behaved like milksnakes, living in grasslands and using burrows as shelters. Yet we call all of them pyros. Funny part of that is, do they call eachother pyros?

I totally argee with your stance on time. As I have found that time does indeed change C&P type and percentages in any certain local. This is very true with Black kings, or stripe kings. Heck, even alterna phase. Some years or groups of years, one type is common, followed by years of the other type being common.

As you may know, I have strong evidence that conditions effect C&P to a degree. I have mentioned(reported) this many times before. I have seen this with snakes and lizards.

One example is, in the early days of alterna collecting, I collected a nice pair of alterna phase on Juno Rd. That was in 71. I kept and bred that pair for a very long time. At the time I was a zoo exhibit builder. So I moved from state to state, often taking my collection with me. This one pair, had what I call normal Juno Rd. offspring when I bred them in Tucson. But strangely when I moved to Seattle, they produced different C&P offspring. Then I moved to New Orleans, and again, they produced an even different type offspring. Then I moved back to Tucson, and they returned to producing what they originally produced.

As a field researcher, my job is not to theorize or deduct, or judge data, my job is to collect data. My job is to think of ways to collect better data. Maybe even useful data. But after decades of collecting data, it becomes apparent that there is more to these beasts that means the eye.

Another example, I have been watching Gila colonies(yes colonies) pair up, breed, nest, etc, for 29 years. Yes, the very same colonies. And over the years, there indeed have been changes. Particularly in C&P. Of course, when you first start, what you see, becomes normal. Some particular events occurred during that time. For instance we are in(hopefully at the end) of a long term drought(for us) In the middle of the drought, I started noticing odd colored gilas, Of course, if odd is ugly, we humans do not notice or even care. But if odd is pretty, then we get all giggly over it. Dang if red gilas did not start popping up in areas that did not have them. Dang if this did not happen in Oz as well(they have droughts all the time)

Well it appears the deciding factor is of all things ground cover. In droughts ground cover disappears. This change gives a new set of conditions. This does two things, it either causes a change in behavior, or it causes the animals to change their C&P.

Of course I am not saying they change color like Chams. But I am saying their is different demands on the survivorship of neonates. Different colored neonates will survive.

Other odd data, on super dry years, I had a hard time finding normal gophers on and around my house. They were mostly abberants, striped to partial striped, were common. On wet years, normal gophers were back in force. Again, I have no answers, just DATA.

What I have noticed is, with kings, the black, striped, or chocolate phases all occur in a raparian areas, and their banded counterparts mostly occur in more arid areas.

Whats so funny is, there are couple of naturally occurring areas of black and white(associated with banded desert kings) Striped kings. These are in areas that coastal raparian zones, leak into the desert.

Oh by the way, my Black thayeri did indeed come from a raparian area. Also, were we find black kings in So. Az. are in and around raparian areas. They stop occurring once you get a few miles away, where you find splendida types. Again, the black kings in the tucson area, were also found in or very near the river bottoms. Just fun stuff to think about. Cheers

Very interesting. I have a pair of greeri I have bred since 1999. From 1999 to 2005 I produced "classic Rancho Santa Barbara" style greeri. In 2006 and 2007 from the same pair I adults I produced "abberrant" greeri with very little red and some funny shaped saddles. This correspondes exactly to a change in water techniques. From 99-05 I only offered a small amount of water once a week because the dishes I used were light plastic that was easy to tip over. In 06 and 07 I began using spillproof water dishes so they had water 24 hrs./day 7 days/week.

OMG, what a mess. FR has a good point, actually several of them. So does Chris. I think, and you'll read all about it in my new getula book, that we have too few specimens from Mexico and the present data seems to say that nigrita is simply a color morph of splendida in the western-most portion of the splendida range. Does that mean I will not have a chapter for nigrita in the book? NO! I will. I treated them like any other recognized subspecies, and will until that changes. But, it is a major can of worms and I doubt anyone will sort it out very soon, especially regarding the real range of those snakes in the U.S.

Brian Hubbs

the all black form of Splendida is WITHIN the splendida range, Not at the edges. So its not an extreme edge of the range.

I would have to go back and look at the pattern range maps drawn up by Blaney. I didn't think you saw good "splendida" down into Sinaloa unless you only define nigrita as jet black.

A better analogy is comparing Black kings in the mexicana(southern tip of az) population to Stripes and bandeds in San Diego. (and its not all that good either) In the San diego kings, you find stripes and bandeds, with a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of abberants. Abberants are more common on the extreme limits of their range and only in a few places. Stripes even at their extreme eastern limits, rarely show intermediates.

But in the case of Cal Kings, it is a single genetic character that leads to the striping. I don't believe this has been shown in nigrita. And you could say the same thing about speckled kings. It is simply a regional variant of the splendida pattern.

I would also argue that the head shape in nigrita is noticeably different than that of splendida.

About my data, its taken only from wild individuals seen in nature. Which is pretty good as its not heresay, or second hand, or a friend of a friend and its from the source.

I don't doubt you have field experience. But I would rather go back and read my copy of Blaney since he looked carefully at hundreds of specimens from throughout the range of the taxon.

Whats odd about all this is, todays herpers do not seem to have much field experience. (not you Joe)hahahahahahahaha

I have my share, as well as a lot of museum experience looking at pickled AZ getula.

they make new taxonomists, cladist, systemisis(sp) every year(graduate from school) But new species(their work) is not made every day. So they really have nothing to do, just do the same thing, OVER AND OVER, hahahahahahahahahaha So at this time, they have over thought scientific nomenclature to a point of its no longer of utility(of practical use)

Actually, that isn't what is going on at all. They are rethinking the concept of the species and what defines a species. That's what is leading to the changes in taxonomy.

As an example, pyros occur in many many mountains ranges, from Utah to central mex. Yet, most all of these ranges are isolated. Which means they do not interbreed. That means they will all be different species.

Certainly not, but it does make us reflect on what our species definition is and isn't.

For example, if you find a dead pyro from the Ritas that died and was preserved 150 years ago, is it the same species as those present there today? What about a fossil 1500 years old? 15,000 years? 150,000 years? Where do you draw the temporal line?

Spatial isolation creates the same problems.
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

For example, if you find a dead pyro from the Ritas that died and was preserved 150 years ago, is it the same species as those present there today? What about a fossil 1500 years old? 15,000 years? 150,000 years? Where do you draw the temporal line?

IMO the earth is not that old. It all depends what school of thought you come from. All you know is what you have been taught. In FR's case it a matter of thinking for yourself a little rather than follow the guidlines set for by colleges and universities.

Have you done any research on lichinura trivigagata? Every isolated rockpile in the desert and every mountain range has a different looking population. I never liked spiteri's version nor the older one.
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Sorry Chris I hit "post message" button before I was done editing.. what i meant to say was..

IMO the earth is not that old. After researching opposing veiws from what is taught in schools I lean toward a young earth but it took me a while to come to those conclusions.

All "we" know is what "we" have been taught. In FR's case its more a matter of thinking for yourself a little rather than follow the guidlines set for by colleges and universities and first hand experience.

Have you done any research on lichinura trivigagata? Every isolated rockpile in the desert and every mountain range has a different looking population. I never liked spiteri's version nor the older one. Just wondering what your views were on those, if any?
-----
"Yeah ya told me, and ya wrote it down too. But how the hell am I supposed to remember!"

Something you need to consider. Those papers you cite, YOU NEED TO RESEARCH them. Research the papers, one of the problems was, lack of numbers. They used one individual from here, and one from there, and two from over there.

Compare that to what we did. We found dozens from each locality, some more. So we have a totally different view as to whats going on.

Most early works on snakes are really weak in this are.

I was researched a paper on pyros. The study named the different types we have. That study use 55 specimens for the entire range. It named a few (4) types. Funny thing, I found all four types in one canyon, but that one canyon included several hundred pyros.

So to put your mind at ease, go check the numbers per locality. Cheers

Now Frank, I KNOW you didn't find all 4 in the same canyon. Nope, no way. That is an EXAGERATION. lol Unless it was in the Chiricauhas...That might have worked, since it is a transition zone between woodini (now defunct, damnit) and pyro pyro. OK, forget what I said. lol

>> But I would rather go back and read my copy of Blaney since he looked carefully at hundreds of specimens from throughout the range of the taxon.

If you check your copy of Blaney, he clearly states in his conclusions of nigrita "unless additional collecting in Southern Sonora reveals specimens with L.g.splendida pattern, the differentiation of the population is sufficient to warrant it's recognition."

Yet, in his earlier discussion he sites an adult specimen caught 25.6 miles s Los Mochis, Sinaloa with typical splendida pattern. He attributes this specimen and another with a more reduced pattern to intergradation, even though this is near the southern portion of nigritas range, and the closest known population of typical splendida is seperated by the Sierra Madre Occidental. So, these specimens TO ME clearly fill his "specimens in Southern Sonora" that he himself says would invalidate nigrita.

-----
Ace

My experience with this complex is mostly from Sonora and S.Az. with a few animals(dor) on the road to Choix(mouth of copper canyon)

As I have stated, my experience appears to agree with Blaney.

I also have experience with Splendida from central to west texas down to the highlands in Neuvo Leon. Where it occurs with Thayeri. Cheers