Reptile & Amphibian Forums

what is the real difference between nelson's & sinaloan milks? apart from the width of the red bands? (some sinaloans have relatively narrow red bands). i ask because i have a pair of nelsons, & have just got a pair of sinaloans, but the male looks like a nelson to me! i'm told the black collar band is complete in a sinaloan, but broken ventrally in a nelson- but my male sinaloan has a white venter, from throat to vent, so all his bands stop ventrally anyway! or is adult size a clue? my nelsons are 3 year olds, & 3ft long, but my sinaloans, also adults, are much bigger- at least 4ft. can somebody please help?

You can get your head bitten off for asking that on this forum. This is an excerpt from a site that I found when I asked the same question a while back and had to find the answer myself:

There is some confusion in the hobby between the Nelsons Milksnake & The Sinaloan Milksnake as they are very similar looking in both pattern and colouration, both were classified together as Lampropeltis triangulum nelsoni, it wasn't until 1978 that the population of Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico were described as Lampropeltis triangulum sinaloae. The main difference between the two is the spacing of the bands, in "nelsoni" the red body rings are are twice as wide as the black-white rings in the "sinaloae" they are three times as wide. Nelsons Milksnake is known to intergrade with "sinaloae" in the north of it's range.
Nelsons Milksnakes have black, white, black, red bands the red bands are twice the thickness of the black,white band combination. Albino Nelsons are bright red, white & yellow.

Are there normal variations in milksnakes that can cause them to look like another subspecies? Yes, and who knows, there might be some nelson in your sinaloan.

snake adventures

>>"Nelsons Milksnake is known to intergrade with "sinaloae" in the north of it's range"

Yes, and also in many breeders plastic tubs!..LOL!

~Doug

here's a good example of a "genuine" nelsoni,... it's as far from a sinaloae specimen as you can get.

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

Doug,

that nelsoni rocks. As I recall you moved it out? WTF were you thinking? lol

Dave
DNS Reptiles

Thanks Dave!,.

Yeah, I know!,....it's a long ugly story, and it really BLOWS I don't still have that awesome creature!

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

Sounds like you're on top of some of the differences. Posting pics might help us with ID.

The picture Doug posted is a very classic looking nelsoni.

Here are some neck shots and a shot of a classic looking sinaloan for you to compare to DMong's nelsoni.

I'm sure someone will chime in with how all the animals in the US these days are crosses between nelsoni and sinaloae, so I won't go there. BUT there are some that are working with pure nelsoni and pure sinaloae

Here's a pure sinaloae

And then a few neck shots for comparison. Although the nelsoni is amel, you can see how the black ring (white in this specimen) would not encircle the neck.

Hope this helps- post some pics of your animals.

Dave

DNS Reptiles

Man!,...you just can't beat those Cosala's as far as sinaloae go!.....like I always have said, the true "Ferrari's" of the sinaloan world!

~Doug

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

Nelsons are also ferraris, just a slightly different variation in the paint theme. For me there is really not much debate because these are both incredible milks and nowadays if red is your thing, you can get one that is solid red.
snake adventures

Oh, I definitely agree!. Nelson's are certainly awesome in their own right!. That's why I posted that awesome male specimen I used to have many years back. I also had a really nice female at that same time period too that was acquired from Gary Sipperly. This was back when hardly anyone at all even knew what these were, and before any albino's where ever produced. I got the female just after the first albino's where first produced, and the female was a possible het. and was then considered a very big deal.

Here is a pic of her. Her meristics keyed-out perfectly, although she may not have been quite as nice in my opinion as the unrelated male from my previous posted photo.

~ Doug

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

i don't yet have any pics, but my sinnies have red bands narrower than in your pic, but wider than in my nelsons, or in doug's pic.(in my nelsons, they are about 1'' wide, in my sinnies they are more than 2'') also, the white bands on my sinnies are wider than a nelson's, & the black bands narrower. plus, both sinnies are about 4ft, in comparison to my nelson's 3ft. the nelsons look slimmer, too. i have no doubt my female is a sinny- it is the male i'm not certain about, as his collar band is broken at the throat, & the bands on his underside are broken by a plain white line running along the centreline of his underside. otherwise he is identical to her. could he be a true sinny with slight aberrent traits affecting the colour of his underside, resulting in a broken collar band?

ahh well is an obk a lgg? or goini a fl.king? is lgnigra a melanistic holbrooki? yes,yes, and yes just differant naturally occuring types. the whole SUBspecies is outta control, splitters gone wild.
thank the taxonimist trying to justify their work for this confusion.
IMHO they(nelson,sinaloae) are the same snake of course some feel crossing them is creating MUTTS so it is a personal choice or a particular look you are going after no more no less.
have fun.
ALL snakes are cool and our captives are DEAD to nature anyway, so what does it really matter?
best of luck,,,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

"ALL snakes are cool and our captives are DEAD to nature anyway, so what does it really matter?"

Yes, captives are dead to nature but does it matter? To this I say 'yes', it matters to me. My interest in snakes is much tied to my enjoyment of natural history and creatures as products of evolutionary process, refined over eons to perfection. I will always enjoy a natural morph most of all for what it represents and so hope that there will always be responsible, dedicated breeders to maintain that natural heritage.

Yes, I do accept that you can't reproduce nature, but at least we can maintain faithful representations.

This is not to say I'm down on morphs and breeds etc, but I believe it is our responsibilty to "label" them clearly to avoid corruption of native lines.

A recent case in point has made this very clear to me and that involves the extremely rare Louisiana Pine Snake, of which a critical line was "tainted" years back and now there are animals out there which appear to match the phenotype but are not pure. This to me, and many is tragic. Fortunately there are some careful breeders who are commited to restoring the genetic integrity of the captive population. There will continue to be questionable animals out there but at least some clean lines with documented history will continue to exist.

I'm not an absolute purist and this isn't about righteousness, just felt the need to present an alternative perspective and share what is most important to me about the hobby.

We can all do our thing and do it responsibly

hi monklet i am going to paste your reply to address a few things, but first let me say i TOTALLY agree in proper representation of what we produce unfortunately that has not always been done, i do know that i properly represent everything i produce and sell.

>>>Yes, captives are dead to nature but does it matter? To this I say 'yes', it matters to me. My interest in snakes is much tied to my enjoyment of natural history and creatures as products of evolutionary process, refined over eons to perfection. I will always enjoy a natural morph most of all for what it represents and so hope that there will always be responsible, dedicated breeders to maintain that natural heritage.

> oh i so hope so to. but let me ask why do you feel its eons? have you ever bred locales and watch what happened after just 3 generations or even crossed ssp. and then line or backbred to parent ssp.? i have and i respectfully disagree that its eons. and what do you feel about intergradation over ranges like nelsoni&sinaloae?

>>>Yes, I do accept that you can't reproduce nature, but at least we can maintain faithful representations.

>what is your definition of faithful representation?

>>>This is not to say I'm down on morphs and breeds etc, but I believe it is our responsibilty to "label" them clearly to avoid corruption of native lines.

>corruption? i agree labeling what we produce should be truthful but unfortunately it always isnt. but corruption?!?! poor choice of words imho. where is the line? on a range map created by a taxonimist who's goal is to proove there are diff. enough to warrant a new ssp., let me ask you if a breed an e.milk from ny. to one from ky. are those animals now corrupt?

>>>A recent case in point has made this very clear to me and that involves the extremely rare Louisiana Pine Snake, of which a critical line was "tainted" years back and now there are animals out there which appear to match the phenotype but are not pure. This to me, and many is tragic. Fortunately there are some careful breeders who are commited to restoring the genetic integrity of the captive population. There will continue to be questionable animals out there but at least some clean lines with documented history will continue to exist.

>tainted?!? no the sad truth is there are breeders marketing what they feel is pure for money, has nothing to do with genetic integrity or even the look of whats produced. clean lines haha after F3,F4 any locale starts to change in looks we breed for looks, and looks are ever changing even introducing animals from the same area is gonna change that look.

>>>I'm not an absolute purist and this isn't about righteousness, just felt the need to present an alternative perspective and share what is most important to me about the hobby.

>good for you, i myself am a lumper NOT a splitter and have my own perspective as well.

>>>We can all do our thing and do it responsibly

>absolutely, but crossing a nelson and a sinaloan isnt about responsibility they are the same snake imho.
,,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Points well taken Thomas. I respect your experience, which is obviously way beyond my own. I was just reprensenting an alternate view point and there certainly are some spongy areas there that you pointed out and of which I was aware of when composing that simplistic response. Probably most important is the generation of open dialogue on an important subject which helps us form our view points and guides our actions.

One issue I would like to clarify though is that the refinement over eons comment was meant in respect of the fact that organisms form in nature to what they are through long periods of time in response to environmental challenges and so ultimately represent genetic success. I didn't mean to say that you can't muck up superficial characteristics such as color/pattern over a couple generations but such will not have been selected for under rigorous natural conditions. I don't have a problem with that but this artifice generally does not satisfy my particular aesthetics. Heck, if albinism was beneficial to a species why is the trait so rare?

As for the "tainted" comment...sure, line breeding does in effect taint as species but at least for the expression of its natural genetic potential (sure I'll get blasted for this

Thanks for your informed and thoughtful response.

Oh, and just for the record, I do keep a lucy S. Pine and a couple Stillwaters so who am I too spout this b.s.

Probably most important is the generation of open dialogue on an important subject which helps us form our view points and guides our actions.

ABSOLUTELY!!!
good luck in your endevours,,,,,,,,,,thomas
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

to read, Thomas. I mean no disrespect, here, but it's more than apparent that you've got some anti-intellectual sentiment which is boiling to the top of your posts. I’ve sat back and read numerous insulting and derogatory remarks involving various forms of science- and scientist-bashing, and feel compelled to speak up and say something. As a professional “scientist” (to ‘lump’…), I deal with stereotypes and misconceptions on a daily basis.

I enjoyed your article in REPTILES, and congratulated you on the write-up, but, I’ve had enough of this. There are a number of things I want to address, but in view of my time limits, I’ve chosen to pick out just a few.

First, you’re grossly misunderstanding the roll of subspecific designation. A subspecies is named when a segment (= population) of a given species has fairly similar and geographically cohesive characteristics (be they morphological or biochemical) which can be used to differentiate them from other such segments within the species. A subspecies is NOT a discrete reproductive unit, and freely intergrades with neighboring populations. These “intergrades” result from non-differentiation (often due to transitional habitat and the lack of directional selection for a particular suite of characters), and are generally a phenotypic blend between the “pure” subspecies on either side. Intergrades of this type are referred to as “primary intergrades”. Secondary intergradation is the term applied when 2 populations which have been allopatric are reunited, and begin to interbreed and exchange genetic material. This is a possible explanation for “temporalis” along the coastal plain of eastern North America.

Second, the difference between “splitters” and “lumpers” in taxonomy is mostly semantic. The utility of naming populations geographically cohesive characteristics is the drive behind “splitting”, while the realism of recognizing only the species as a discrete unit is the drive behind “lumping”. There’s much middle ground, here, and you’re ignoring that. What we’re labeling with subspecific epithets may or may not be a distinct evolutionary unit. Those that are diverging from the genetic “whole” of the species are said to be in the process of insipient speciation.

As for our captive animals being dead to the wild… well, I suppose that’s the view some folks have. I’d say that the introduction of Python molurus and numerous other species in FL and the prevalence of escaped Colubrids throughout their native ranges in NA speak strongly to the contrary… I won’t even touch on the fact that there are other segments of the herp-keeping hobby which are involved in species survival and reintroduction programs, in spite of what some of the outspoken “hybridizers” (see, I can lump, too…) may preach.

-Cole Grover

I agree Cole. In this case it's called ignorance. To be more specific it's being ignorant to education about the animals that are being discussed.
-----
Please don't talk about snake prices when my wife is around!!

ignorance is bliss
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

i responded above cole in "lets dance"
,,,,,,,thomas
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Thank you Cole!
-----
Joe

That's better! Thank you Cole for adding some excellent MEANINGFUL information.
-----
Joe