Reptile & Amphibian Forums

In light of the consideration of an imminent change to zonata nomenclature as we have known them over the past half-century (R. Zweifel, 1955), whereby multicincta, zonata zonata, multifasciata, and the two recognized natural intergrades of the north between zonata zonata/multicincta and zonata zonata/multifasciata are under strong consideration for being lumped together as a "northern clade", and that pulchra, parvirubra, and agalma (both Juarez and Martir pending further Martir status) will be lumped into a "southern clade" classification. This will then render all mountain kingsnakes, with the exception of herrerae, into simply Lampropeltis zonata of the northern/southern clade populations. Granted, and my question is, since the state of California has no limit on how many "agalma" one can have since they are indigenous to Mexico, will there now be a limitation on them given their inclusion into the "southern clade" form??

Although I'm pin-pointing Rick, who is a pioneer with zonata and has had an impact in this area as a result of research, I am also inquiring with others in the general community for their thoughts/opinions (professional or not) on this profound change within Lampropeltis. Thanks!

" alt="Image">
-----
Jerry Kruse

And God said, "Let there be zonata subspecies for all to ponder..."

Hey Jerry,

No tellin' what California will do with Agalma if the taxonomy changes officially, but here in Oregon sub-species are already not recognized by the laws that regulate zonata and getula (which are both illegal to collect in the wild).

The Oregon law states that it is legal to keep:
"Lampropeltis getula, L.zonata, and Pituophis catenifer;
(iv) Kingsnakes and gopher (bull) snakes – Colubridae – Individuals of Lampropeltis getula, L. zonata and Pituophis catenifer that are morphologically distinct from native species."

So, if it doesn't look like it is native to Oregon, then it's supposedly legal.

What looks native and what doesn't is really open to the interpretation of law enforcement(which I really don't trust). Local pet stores will sell designer cal-king morphs, but I have not seen zonata (even agalma) offered for sale.

Maybe California would adopt a similarly worded law?

Greg Huston

Hopefully, and with the hard work of zonata experts, logic will prevail and the law will protect those mountain kings that need it by locality. Because, when you think about it, it is essentially that way now.

For example, multicincta are legal to have (1), and they live in the Sierras, so make Sierra kings legal. Mtn kings from mtns in San Diego county and Orange county can be protected if they want to continue that. Same for Santa Monica mtns if they want to continue that. I don't care what ssp they are or were, protect by locality. Basically, that is what is being done now anyway, its just that they call them a ssp.

It is so hard to tell a mtn king from San Bernardino from one from Santa Monica mtns anyway, yet the law makes a distinction now, so the same distinction may be kept, just lose the ssp title.

The worst case would be that zonata are illegal in total. But, as long as they allow possession via a captive breeding permit, those that really want zonata may have them here in Calif. As it is now, if I have a Calif reptile breeding permit, I could legally possess zonata far outnumbering the Fish and Game bag limit of 1. As long as that stays, who cares what the gov't calls these snakes.
-----
Mark

Hi Jerry. Very nice head patterns on the first and third pics. I've got some nice San Mateo County zonata with some very cool head patterns that I'll post up.

I think this has all gotten a little ahead of itself. Crother (2003) wanted to drop all subspecies of zonata based on the Rodriguez et al paper (1999) even though there were difinitive northern and southern clades. The Calif Species of Special Concern group states that Rodriguez et al did not recommend any taxonomic changes then cites the paper to support inclusion of pulchra, parvs and agalma as a single southern clade. Both camps make large assumptions and are not examining all characters involved. The largest over sight is the presence of coloration on the snout and the position of the first white ring with respect to the margin of the jaw. Both of these characters were used by Zweifel to define the seven subspecies but were not examined by Rodriguez et al. This certainly shows the bias in how mDNA phylogenies are elevated and given greater weight. Agalma is certainly diagnosable and definitely easier to distinguish then several AZ rosy pops which the DFG allows Calif residents to breed and sale without a permit even though they are the same subspecies as those within Calif. Where all of this is going is just a guess.

-----
Rick Staub