Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hey guys I have a question : I know that Lampropeltis has an abundance of taxonomic disputes already in session, but this isn't really concerning "lumping" or "separation" at a taxonomic level.

My question is more of a technicality. I have seen the Black kingsnake named Lampropeltis getula nigra and also named Lampropeltis getula niger .

I usually go by the CNAH's standards, but they are not entirely bulletproof and they certainly do not deal with just Lampropeltis, so they have a lot on their plate to give one genus its utmost attention(as a lot of you guys do....or maybe just a couple genera).

Anyways, can some help me here? Which name should I go by? Or does it even matter....as they both allude to the same ssp?
-----
1.0.0 Lampropeltis getula holbrooki
0.1.0 Lampropeltis getula californae
0.0.1 Lampropeltis getula nigra
1.0.0 Lampropeltis mexicana thayeri
2.3.0 Eublapharis macularius macularius
0.0.2 Rhacodactylus ciliatus
0.1.0 Gerrhosaurus major major

I use nigra since getulus was changed to getula. It seems to be in the correct gender that way.
:Mark
-----
Surrender Dorothy!

crimsonking.piczo.com/

Yes, that does seem to be the general concession when people actually use "getula", but a lot of people don't...............why did they change the "getula" in the first place? Was it to fit the rhyme and rhythm of "suffixes" pertaining to different taxons("ia", "dae", "nae", "is", "a"?
-----
1.0.0 Lampropeltis getula holbrooki
0.1.0 Lampropeltis getula californae
0.0.1 Lampropeltis getula nigra
1.0.0 Lampropeltis mexicana thayeri
2.3.0 Eublapharis macularius macularius
0.0.2 Rhacodactylus ciliatus
0.1.0 Gerrhosaurus major major

I read in a kingsnake book that Lampropeltis is feminine in meaning, rather than masculine. So the masculine getulus was changed to the feminine getula. The subspecies names changed from masculine to feminine at the same time.

Yes, that is true.

Anyone know what happened to that line of amelanistic black kings that Lemke had way back when?
-----
Mark