>>Kisatchie corns are, indeed, Elaphe guttata slowenski. They were proposed elevated to species status in a "scientific" paper, but the change is entirely unwarrented. At most, subspecific status should be given. Most taxonomists consider kisatchies a colorful integrade between the eastern E.g.guttata and the western E.g.emoryi. Where you at on this one, KJ? lol
>>-Cole
Cole,
They were, but that is bunk. Burbrink's own data proves that they shouldn't be their own species, but he is too bad of a scientisdt to know it or to care that he is lying. Hei's a name hunter and not after the truth like scientists should be. He refused to work with others on this same study. Do I need to go on further?
Most people do consider them to be the result of HISTORIC intergrades between E. guttata and E. emoryi. They are more guttata-like than emoryi-like, too. New species? Impossible thanks to the MINOR amount of gene flow going on. They aren't that different from corns, either. However, they have been MOSTLY (but not completely) isolated from corns and emorys for centuries. They are different. A most, they should be a separate subspecies. Research going on in Texas (many of my animals have been bleed for them and I've donated a few roadkills, etc.) is saying that, too. They will MOST likely remove it as a species and call it a subspecies of the cornsnake (e.g., Elaphe guttata slowenskii). I agree more with their explanation, so I've started calling it by that name. It makes more biological and ecological sense to me.
Sounds like you and I agree, doesn't it? Sorry I got on that soapbox...lol.
KJ