Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click here for Dragon Serpents
Click for ZooMed
Click here for Dragon Serpents

five king SPECIES?

rtdunham Sep 28, 2009 11:10 AM

A new monograph says so.

A pdf file is at available from The Center for North American Herpetology, at:

http://www.cnah.org/cnah_pdf.asp or the link at the bottom of this post.

here's the abstract:

SYSTEMATICS OF THE COMMON KINGSNAKE (LAMPROPELTIS GETULA: SERPENTES:
COLUBRIDAE) AND THE BURDEN OF HERITAGE IN TAXONOMY

R. Alexander Pyron & Frank T. Burbrink

2009. Zootaxa 2241: 22-32

Abstract: We present a systematic revision of the Lampropeltis getula group, based on a recent range-wide phylogeographic analysis. We define our theoretical and operational concepts of species delimitation, and provide diagnoses based on mitochondrial DNA evidence, ecological niche modeling, morphology, and historical precedence. We find support for the recognition of five distinct species, which bear the name of the nominate subspecies found primarily within the range of each phylogeographic lineage: the Eastern lineage (Lampropeltis getula, Eastern Kingsnake), the Mississippi lineage (L. nigra, Black Kingsnake), the Central lineage (L. holbrooki, Speckled Kingsnake), the Desert lineage (L. splendida, Desert Kingsnake), and the Western lineage (L. californiae, California Kingsnake). Interestingly, all of these taxa had originally been described as distinct species
and recognized as such for up to 101 years (in the case of L. californiae) before being demoted to subspecies. We discuss the impact that increasingly detailed genetic information from phylogeographic analyses may have on traditional taxonomy.
pdf of study

Replies (46)

CrimsonKing Sep 28, 2009 11:46 AM

Was just reading it but to be honest, I've seen so many similar papers from Burbink that some people (a lot smarter than me) think are bunk, that I tend to skip over most of them these days....
Let me know when the dust settles....I'll go tell my snakes what they are....
:Mark
-----
Surrender Dorothy!

crimsonking.piczo.com/

DMong Sep 28, 2009 12:41 PM

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

FoxTurtle Sep 28, 2009 11:52 AM

This settles the Apalachicola argument... there is no meansi, only getula.

Really, I hope this doesn't come into general acceptance. The rat snake revision from a few years ago is gaining ground. I know Indiana's DNR (and probably other states) recognizes the newer rat snake taxonomy rather than the traditionally taxonomy we are used to.

Bluerosy Sep 28, 2009 12:37 PM

This would change the laws of cerain sates where keeping certain species will, all of a sudden, be illegal.

I toldverybody. Thy will tae our snakes one inch at a time. Same pepleas th gun snatchers. This is wy ay herpetoculturist needs to fight for ALL of our rghts.

But that is ot going to happen with all the tweenies (see long thread from last week below)that want more regulation. Congrats!
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

FoxTurtle Sep 28, 2009 01:27 PM

That any level protection, no matter how severe, is a good thing. Florida just went way overboard with their turtle protection, yet the law was supported by many of the enthusiasts I spoke with. Despite several admitted glaring imperfections, they called it a "good law". I'm sorry, but due to the permanency of laws, and the effect this has on people's freedoms and livelihood, any imperfection in any law makes it a bad law in my book.

Georgia's laws concerning native non-venomous snakes are another example. I talked to a couple from Georgia who bought some corn snakes at the Daytona auction. I mentioned that was technically illegal, and they went on to say it was okay because it was captive-bred and not harming Georgia's wild populations, and if it got out its new genes would only strengthen the Georgia population. I then said "well, Georgia's snake laws are dumb anyway", and the girl defended Georgia's snake laws.

Boggles the mind...

Bluerosy Sep 28, 2009 01:49 PM

I talked to a couple from Georgia who bought some corn snakes at the Daytona auction. I mentioned that was technically illegal, and they went on to say it was okay because it was captive-bred and not harming Georgia's wild populations, and if it got out its new genes would only strengthen the Georgia population. I then said "well, Georgia's snake laws are dumb anyway", and the girl defended Georgia's snake laws.

Boggles the mind...

Yes, I agree it is a type fo thinking. or actualy not thinking.

With this generation TV and internet people listen to all kinds of crap. Hollywood producers and new reporters run this country. We the people can't think straight anymore because of the education process and morals in general. One group wants this and within that same group they stand divided. A house divided cannot stand.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

DMong Sep 28, 2009 01:53 PM

Yeah,.....basically, here's what I tend to see in MANY things around the world,...a lot of things that seem to "sound" great in theory on paper to most people, aren't really thought about very well at ALL, and many times tend to back-fire in general. I could go on and on and on, but won't. Just one good example would be the Marine Toad(Bufo marinus) that was "thought" to be a wise introduction into U.S. crops, but turned out the "targeted" beetle larva was too far up the stalk of the plants for the toad to even reach, so it consumed everything ELSE instead!, .....fabulous idea..LOL!

Need I say more about some of mans "bright" ideas actually being far WORSE than if nothing was done at all??. Now I'm certainly not saying ALL laws are counterproductive, or wrong, it's just that I know the mentality of the general public, and it ain't a real comforting thought many times. People as a general rule just don't think about all aspects of any consiquences that are brought on from the things they initiate, simple as that.

Also on the other side of the coin, like I've said before,...sometimes it's not really about what is really right or wrong, or fair, but more about what is the lesser of the evils.....oh well, enough said, life goes on I guess.

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

Bluerosy Sep 28, 2009 02:50 PM

Also on the other side of the coin, like I've said before,...sometimes it's not really about what is really right or wrong, or fair, but more about what is the lesser of the evils.....oh well, enough said, life goes on I guess.

The evil is you ad I are going to die. 70 years could be a good lifespan. Most die younger. All die. Is it worth it putting on all these resrictions to make life that difficuly for good law abiding citizens??

The quesion is preserving this world in its present state worth it by makng more laws? Or is the world ever changing and will the world (earth) end sometime in the future?

I beleive in the latter. And it ain't gonna take long.

Sure it is great to study animals and classify (name) them. That is what man has been doing since the beginning. But gov't will work off that ad now try to control by taking away our abilities to keep snakes.

That is why the gun control and other issues are so important. It is all a mindset.

In Georgia , where I live, will at least say that we cannot keep floida king morphs because of this new revised species. THEY WILL NEVER EVER REVERSE THE REGULATION NO MATTER HOW STUPID. ONLY ADD TO IT. And until herpers "get it" and make the connection it will be doomsday for all of us.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

rtdunham Sep 28, 2009 08:54 PM

>>" THEY WILL NEVER EVER REVERSE THE REGULATION NO MATTER HOW STUPID. ONLY ADD TO IT. And until herpers "get it" and make the connection it will be doomsday for all of us."

I'm assuming you're excluding speed limit laws from that generalization

But Rainer, help me out. I guess i'm a "splitter" on the need for laws and regulations: I think some are needed, some not. Take for example our rights to own animals in our homes (in residential neighborhoods). I don't want the guy living next to me to have the right to keep a Tiger or to breed cobras, for example, because i have seen how inappropriately some people keep their animals. On the other hand, I don't want government to take away MY right (I know this is the rub) to keep harmless snakes or a ferret.

So for me, it is a matter of deciding where to draw lines, whereas i get the feeling you want no lines (is that anarchy?) did you mean what you wrote in this thread? You said:

>>"bottom line is it all works out. The rats, the weasel, the cackroaches, plants, birds ect. They are all fine. They are part of Hawaii."

I think we need to do what we can to protect our environment. Banning the introduction of aquatic species that could wreak havoc in florida waterways seems sensible to me, for example. I'm not sure where you stand on that: from your quote about Hawaii, you seem to not care what unregulated animal trafficking might mean to an area or a state, (or to be more fair, i should say that whether you care or not what the consequences might be, you don't seem to think it should be regulated) because (I'm paraphrasing here) it's all changing anyway and we're all going to end up dead (soon) anyway.

So--and I'm asking sincerely--is it all-or-nothing for you, with animal control, with gun control, with other rights? (It's a cliche but even the right of free speech has that "fire"-in-a-crowded-theatre limitation). And while I agree there are rights to gun ownership, I don't think the founding fathers envisioned any of us owning howitzers or ground-to-air missiles. So--imho--we have to make hard choices about where to draw lines, not agree to draw none at all.

I DO agree it's better NOT to get a bad law in place than to try to get it changed later. Within that context, how do we decide what the good and bad laws are REGARDING ANIMAL-KEEPING? Or do you believe none of them are justifiable?

DMong Sep 28, 2009 09:26 PM

Hmmm, I guess there IS some rational thought around here once in a while.

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

Bluerosy Sep 28, 2009 10:14 PM

My comments were regarding a mindset. I am more concerned with how this once great nation will turn out than what animals are doing in the wild.

Yes- we are going to end up dead. People today are desensitsed against death. In the past 10,000 years it was more "real". People also made better plans than just a 401K and donating money to insure the earths preservation. We should be looking past death and at the longterm. The real future. No matter how much you want to joke about it, it will come soon enough. Death that is.. Start planning and living your life in that way and pray that others do the same.

So--and I'm asking sincerely--is it all-or-nothing for you, with animal control, with gun control, with other rights? (It's a cliche but even the right of free speech has that "fire"-in-a-crowded-theatre limitation). And while I agree there are rights to gun ownership, I don't think the founding fathers envisioned any of us owning howitzers or ground-to-air missiles. So--imho--we have to make hard choices about where to draw lines, not agree to draw none at all.

I DO agree it's better NOT to get a bad law in place than to try to get it changed later. Within that context, how do we decide what the good and bad laws are REGARDING ANIMAL-KEEPING? Or do you believe none of them are justifiable?

Today I was at the checkout in the grocery store. i bought some wine and the clerk always asks to see my I.D. Evididently it is a law here in Georgia to ask for ID no matter how old one looks.. After 50 year on this earth I only see that Gov't wants to control us. They want us to completly trust and rely on them without reservation. It is about controlling immoral human behavior. They don't want us to even use our common sense because, without God, we have lost it.

His-story
Without God we really don't have any ideal of Good or Bad. If you don't beleive that God raised Himself after He died for us.. If that does not tug at your heart then it never will. Just as many great nations have fallen the past. Unless we do something now, as a nation we are doomed and we will fail.

Nearly 1 Million Crowd the Streets in Washington, DC
SEPT 12, 2009
STOP WATCHING MSNBC, AND THE 3 BROADCAST NETWORKS IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON!
THEY'RE NOT GONNA TELL YOU!

I think this gathering should be appreciated as the extremely
important historical event that it is. This is the first great
conservative anti-statist manifestation in American history.
conservative movement, which developed in the post-WWII,
Cold War environment has now fully matured into the most
significant political movement of the 21st century.. I believe
that this day could be referred to in the not too distant future
as the day that changed America. This was the day the great
silent conservative majority finally found its voice.
Many of the attendees were quite meek and timid and were
unsure of exactly what to expect, this being the first time in
their lives they’d been involved in a protest movement. Their
fears evaporated early in the day and I saw people reveling in
the camaraderie , the joy and sheer civility that was exhibited
at the entire event. Chants of “Freedom, freedom, freedom”,
“No more czars! No more czars!” carried through the air without
the slightest hint of rancor or incivility which is the norm at
the leftist rallies.

There were notable differences though, in the behavior of these attendees. Although the legend of Woodstock is that there was
a friendly atmosphere of camaraderie, the truth is that most
people were there for the drugs, sex and rock and roll. Today in
D.C. there was a true kinship amongst these people based on
shared values and intellectual understanding of what America
is and how its future is imperiled by big radical government.
No one was having sex in the Reflecting Pool let alone the mud,
and I saw no one projectile vomiting on the steps of the Capitol. There were no warnings to avoid the bad acid which would send you on a trip to the hospital. Not just a different era, but a different level of civilized behavior and thought. Oh, and by the way, these people didn’t leave tons of garbage behind when they left. Actually they left no trash behind at all.

-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

rtdunham Sep 28, 2009 10:46 PM

>>My comments were regarding a mindset. I am more concerned with how this once great nation will turn out than what animals are doing in the wild.

And that IS more important. But this is a herp forum, right? I tried to ask some serious questions about snake behavior and snake management in captivity. I wanted to hear your opinions (about snakes) and was -- and am -- willing to learn from your opinions.

So I'm still listening, if you wish to comment about snakes.

====================

(as for the rally you cite, backers on the internet first used pictures of a 1997 Promise Keepers rally to support their crowd-estimate claims; others reported attendance based on a quote that turned out to be from an article estimating the crowds at Obama's inaugural. Estimates from disinterested parties estimating the crowd ranged from 60k to 700k, most of them at the low end of those numbers. And that's ok--it's great for 60 or 100k people who believe deeply in something to stand up and be counted and be civil in the process. I admire that too. If people believe strongly, it shouldn't matter whether one, or 60k to 700k, or one million people are there with them agreeing. But THAT's not what i was asking about. You suggest people stop listening to MSNBC and the three networks (?) but if they listen only to Fox they might not get a balanced report on either the numbers or the validity of photos. Let's stick to stuff we can observe and verify on our own field trips, or in our own snake rooms)

So I'd still value your thoughts on the questions I asked about snakes.

Bluerosy Sep 28, 2009 11:02 PM

as for the rally you cite, backers on the internet first used pictures of a 1997 Promise Keepers rally to support their crowd-estimate claims; others reported attendance based on a quote that turned out to be from an article estimating the crowds at Obama's inaugural. Estimates from disinterested parties estimating the crowd ranged from 60k to 700k, most of them at the low end of those numbers. And that's ok--it's great for 60 or 100k people who believe deeply in something to stand up and be counted and be civil in the process. I admire that too. If people believe strongly, it shouldn't matter whether one, or 60k to 700k, or one million people are there with them agreeing. But THAT's not what i was asking about. You suggest people stop listening to MSNBC and the three networks (?) but if they listen only to Fox they might not get a balanced report on either the numbers or the validity of photos. Let's stick to stuff we can observe and verify on our own field trips, or in our own snake rooms)

The rally article had nothing to with my claims. It is something that just came to me via email and it neither disproves or supports what I said. It just suggests there is always some hope.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

rtdunham Sep 28, 2009 11:14 PM

>>"The rally article had nothing to with my claims. It is something that just came to me via email and it neither disproves or supports what I said.

>>" It just suggests there is always some hope.

I'm all for hope. I'm hoping, for example, that tomorrow you'll expand on the snake/brumation observations, and answer some of the questions I had. They were offered in good faith and, I might add, with civility.

Bluerosy Sep 28, 2009 11:39 PM

I'm all for hope. I'm hoping, for example, that tomorrow you'll expand on the snake/brumation observations, and answer some of the questions I had. They were offered in good faith and, I might add, with civility.

I think you are referring to a previous thread? I think I did post on that thad and ageed with FR's comments.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

rtdunham Sep 29, 2009 04:38 PM

>>I think you are referring to a previous thread? I think I did post on that thad and ageed with FR's comments.

Rainer,

I was referring to the post about 7 posts above this one, that i posted on the 28th at 20:54:13. You had shared some observations about animal-control laws that raised some questions in my mind, and I asked you to elaborate on some of them. TD

(I did see your post on the other thread. Thanks for that).

antelope Sep 29, 2009 09:55 PM

LMAO, Blue, put down the wine and chat!
-----
Todd Hughes

thomas davis Sep 29, 2009 11:53 AM

terry, ALL of the animals were put here for us by our creator to do with what we will. it is WRONG for government to TELL us what we can or cant HAVE. perhaps if they banned finches you would feel different probably not though, some have to be directed.
sad
,,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Bluerosy Sep 28, 2009 03:02 PM

Just one good example would be the Marine Toad(Bufo marinus) that was "thought" to be a wise introduction into U.S. crops, but turned out the "targeted" beetle larva was too far up the stalk of the plants for the toad to even reach, so it consumed everything ELSE instead!, .....fabulous idea..LOL!

As they said in the movie Jurassic park. "LIFE will finda way"

I lived in Hawaii ad worked wth the zoo and the late herpetologist Sean Mckeown. In Hawaii most species are introduced, including the cane/Marine toad which was brought in to control the "introduced" coackroachs. The weasel was introduced to control the introduced rats. I could go on but bottom line is it all works out. The rats , the weasel, the cackroaches, plants, birds ect. They are all fine. They are part of Hawaii.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

RichH Sep 28, 2009 02:03 PM

40 Reasons to Support Gun Control
(Apparently derived from the essay by Michael Z. Williamson.)

Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.

The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.

The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.

These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.

Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.

Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.

The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.

The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

"Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.

When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.

If you read it this far you owe me 2.2 canal phase brooksi LOL

varanid Sep 28, 2009 02:20 PM

Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

Amen! I shoot more than many (though not all) police that I know.
Speaking of, now that ammo's available again I need to go to the range more.

varanid Sep 28, 2009 05:17 PM

what rat snake revision are you referring to? Is it just breaking of New World Elaphe in Panthertophis or did something else happen? I am so out of touch with taxonomy :-/

orchidspider Sep 28, 2009 01:30 PM

This guy sounds like another splitter... it is my observation that they should stay as they are because if you notice how hatchlings of the varieties I work with, and on Fla kings, they all show variations on one basic pattern, that's really stamped out in the Eastern King, thus making it the appropriate nominate species. If you think this stuff is bad, just you look into Orchidology my friends, and they go so far as doing DNA testing to split genuses, and then when that happens, you have to come up with all new names for the multi generic crosses--- and in the process of saying it all your tong twists clean off....
-----
0.1 Bull- Northern
1.0 Bull- TX Red
0.1 Bull- KS Yellow
1.1 Bulls- Red X Yellow
1.0 Bull- Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
1.1 Pines- Carolina Northerns (M from NC, F from SC)
1.1 Ratsnakes- Black, Henderson Co. NC
1.1 Kings- Black Easterns (L.g.nigra) Todd Co. KY
1.2 Kings- Coastal CA
1.1 Kings- Eastern Chain (M from Union Co. NC & F from NC)
1.1 Kings- Gray Banded 'Blair's'
1.1 Kings- Speckled, Harris Co. TX
1.0 Boa- Hogg Island
1.2 Pythons- Ball

varanid Sep 28, 2009 05:15 PM

Can we turn him loose on the milksnake complex? It'd be funny as hell to watch a splitter work on that group :D

disclaimer--I tend to be a splitter as well, but don't see it so much with getula. But then again...speciation can occur so it's good to revist a complex once in a while. After all, evolution doesn't stop.

FR Sep 29, 2009 09:58 AM

These snakes have always been what they are, They know what they are. And will always be what they are. What WE call them has always been about us and will change forth and back. Its people playing silly people games.

The reality is, when you see them in the field, They are what they are, whether we call them one manmade name or the other is meaningless. They are the KINGS. And they look like what they are suppose to look like.

Sadly, its only of meaning to the academics. In this case, those that do not have the oppertunity to actually see them in nature(being what they really are and who they really are) Those folks are trying to get a handle on a natural snake by reading unnatural names.

So for me, I could careless what we call them, I just wish that scientific names were more consistant they common names.

Which brings about this point, non-a-days, common names seem to have more scientific meaning then latin names. Consider, they have utility, they show locality, they show relationships, and now they are more consistant then scientific names. hmmmmmmmmm Cheers

Joe Forks Sep 29, 2009 10:05 AM

absolutely right Frank, the snakes didn't change, only our names AND....

They just made a bunch more snakes for the hybrid haters to hate! hahahaha

FYI to the forum that is supposed to be a humorous remark, so if you don't see the humor, then you don't need to reply
-----
Herp Conservation Unlimited
Conservation through captive propagation
Mexicana Group Directory
Photography by Joseph E. Forks

Tony D Sep 29, 2009 10:32 AM

I was thinking this made fewer hybrids.
-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

rogue_reptiles Sep 29, 2009 05:20 PM

"I was thinking this made fewer hybrids."

Actually all of the natural getula intergrades would now be considered hybrids under this proposal. Huge populations of "hybrids" where these 5 "species" overlap.

Just proves how silly this whole paper is.

FR Sep 29, 2009 06:58 PM

It may not be all that silly, its all about perspective.

At one time, these five kings were most likely were isolated and "different"(a distint species) But as time moved on and climate changed(not weather), they merged and overlap, making hybrids. Then maybe became isolated again, then merged again as the climate changed again. Such is nature.

This an example of how snakes may have started from one type, became several types, then forth and back.

Again, its only names we apply, and these names are catagorized by things we MADE UP. There is no law of nature that says species cannot interbreed or even a law of nature that says there are species. OR that you can tell that by mt dna. Nature is just nature, the rest is us. Cheers

Tony D Sep 30, 2009 07:31 AM

Da!! I was looking at this wrong. I was thinking 5 SUBSPECIES not species. I actually like how animals defy our attempts to classify them. Its appropriately humbling.
-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

rtdunham Sep 29, 2009 05:08 PM

>> ... I just wish that scientific names were more consistent than common names.
>>
>> Which brings about this point, now-a-days, common names seem to have more scientific meaning than latin names. Consider, they have utility, they show locality, they show relationships, and now they are more consistant then scientific names.

great observation.

The naming concerns you describe for animals in the wild also exist in the snake room: We've all seen names for some new morph someone believes they've come up with, and wondered, "hmm, wonder what in the world that is?" (I don't know who came up with the names i'm going to mention here as examples in the kingsnake world, so I'm not trying to offend anyone and i hope no offense is taken. But "peanut butter"? "Jelly"?

I tried once to lobby for a "better" name for a hondo morph: hypoerythristic is more accurately descriptive than the "anerythristic" term already used for about a decade to identify that morph. My campaign failed. It was a good reminder of how little influence i have! On other occasions a morph is named after someone: not much of use there, either, is there?

We're not always consistent, either. We were, for example, when the first double-homozygous anery and amel hondurans were called "snows", the same name already in use for the same double morph in corns. The term was in use, people understood what it meant. On the other hand, "hybino" seemed a better (i.e., more descriptive) term for the double-homozygous hypo and albino hondos, even though earlier examples of those same two morphs in boas had been called something else and, imho, less descriptive.

Just as laws are hard to reverse once they're "out of the bottle" so also is it hard to get a better name embraced in practice, once someone's already given a "name" to something. I'd like to see a list compiled by someone more knowledgeable than i about the many king morphs, putting those that have been given descriptive names in one column, and those that ain't been, in another.

I guess the point i'd make is, if any of us has "naming rights" to something new, live up to that responsibility and give it a name that has as many of the features Frank mentioned as is possible:

>>"have utility, ...show locality, ... show relationships, and ... (be) consistent..."

rtdunham Sep 29, 2009 05:17 PM

>>... when the first double-homozygous anery and amel hondurans were called "snows", the same name already in use for the same double morph in corns. The term was in use, people understood what it meant.

Upon reflection, that's not really so. Granted, "snow" is a lot easier to say/write than "double homozygous anerythristic and amelanistic" or the shorter "double homo anery and amel" or even the simple, "anery and amel". BUT you'd be amazed how often i'd talk to people who wanted to buy a snake "het for snow". Some thought there was a simple recessive gene for snow. Others understood they wanted "double het for snow" but miscalculated the true output of snows from such a pair (1 in 16) for the results you'd get from a "het" x "het" breeding (1 in 4). So by using the "snow" shorthand and compounding it sometimes with the imprecise use of "het", we made things more convenient for many of us, but we confused many others.

I understand Frank's and others' points that the animals in the wild are what they are, no matter what we call them. But if you tell someone you're coming to visit them using transportation, it probably helps to be more specific and say you're coming by train or plane or automobile. Similarly, the choices we make in naming animals has consequences, and we should give our choices careful thought.

FR Sep 29, 2009 07:05 PM

I imagine the same reasons apply to both. To many namers and not enough things to be named.

I must admit, I was terrible at that. I named one type of ackie, yellows and another type reds. The reason was, that is what they were. Then as time went by, it became a big mess, many newbies just thought it was colors and not different subspecies. I tried to rename them, but it was too late. Cheers

chrish Oct 01, 2009 12:17 AM

I just wish that scientific names were more consistent than common names.

The problem is that scientific names serve a particular purpose and are based on an underlying philosophy of phylogenetic relatedness. Common names have no such rules.

Which brings about this point, now-a-days, common names seem to have more scientific meaning than latin names. Consider, they have utility, they show locality, they show relationships, and now they are more consistant then scientific names.

That's ridiculous. How does a common name have more "scientific" meaning?

- Common names may have utility, but so do scientific names.

- Common names don't show locality. What locality is an "Eastern King"? Sure you can say Hyde County, NC Eastern King, but you could just as easily say Hyde County, NC Lampropeltis getula getula. What's the difference?

- Common names don't show relationships, they obfuscate them. For example, is a California Kingsnake more closely related to a Scarlet Kingsnake, a Gray-banded Kingsnake, an Eastern Kingsnake, or a Florida Kingsnake. Hmm, they are all "kingsnakes", they must be all equally closely related. When you use the scientific name, that information is directly implied.
And if we were having this discussion on the "ratsnake" forum, it would be even more absurd.

The naming concerns you describe for animals in the wild also exist in the snake room: We've all seen names for some new morph someone believes they've come up with, and wondered, "hmm, wonder what in the world that is?" (I don't know who came up with the names i'm going to mention here as examples in the kingsnake world, so I'm not trying to offend anyone and i hope no offense is taken. But "peanut butter"? "Jelly"?

Morph names serve a totally different purpose than scientific names. If someone has a "Peanut Butter King", they don't even know from the name that the morph originated from Florida populations. They could be scarlet kings for all the name tells you.

Just as laws are hard to reverse once they're "out of the bottle" so also is it hard to get a better name embraced in practice, once someone's already given a "name" to something. I'd like to see a list compiled by someone more knowledgeable than i about the many king morphs, putting those that have been given descriptive names in one column, and those that ain't been, in another.

Exactly. This is where scientific names are superior. There are rules, standards and practices which prevent the same thing from gettin 5 different names. When that happens there is an official way to select the correct name.

Yeah, I know, anyone can point out where those rules are abused and don't work, but generally they do. Lampropeltis alterna is a good name. It makes sense. So is Lampropeltis getula floridana.

I guess the point i'd make is, if any of us has "naming rights" to something new, live up to that responsibility and give it a name that has as many of the features Frank mentioned as is possible:
"have utility, ...show locality, ... show relationships, and ... (be) consistent..."

You mean like the rules and standards applied to the development of scientific names? How do common names show relationships?

Of course, I have no problem with common names. They serve a different purpose, but they certainly are in no way superior to scientific names.

Of course, I think this whole split of getula was done (as usual with CNAH) to make a point, not to represent any serious scientific proposal.
I have no problem with species that hybridize, just not over such a large area of their range.

-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

FR Oct 01, 2009 09:39 AM

Sorry, but we are coming from two different angles here. You are envolved with the current naming process so it all good for you.

But I and most of we are not you. So what or who is the naming process for? everybody? or only taxo people? This is the big question, WHO IS IT FOR?

If its for everybody, then its lost its purpose, an example is, a Cal king is more accurate as its different from a Az king, there is a Yuma king and a black king and a desert king, etc, all show type and locality. Or a Kitt Peak pyro, is different from a Patagonia pyro or a Santa Rita pyro. For Pyro folks, we even go as far as Canyon or part of a canyon(population) Also have captive morphs, which are understood my these like you, IN THIS ARENA.

And for captive breeders, Peanutbutter without question has a very complex meaning.

Not to shock you, but if you read the title on this page, it will indicate its about these kings in captivity(the keeping and breeding in captivity), so HERE, common names are more important and accurate. At least these days.

At least these days, means with the current changes in scientific nomenclature. I think we are in a wave of change and it will get way worse before it gets better. The truth is, if your going to use genetics. Then every isolated population will end up a species or better. We will need much bigger books.

So yes, on this forum there is reason for concern and to question the usefulness of the current crop of changes. And yes, to us its lost its meaning. No Utility. Whats with all the naming after people?

I am sure to you and others in your area of study its very nice and meaningful. The reason I think you like it is, you enjoy the changes and you enjoy whos doing them and why. But sir, that is not OUR concern or area of enjoyment.

So it goes back to my question, WHO THE HECK ARE THESE NAMES FOR?

This goes back to my "discussions" with a varanid biologist. I told him none of his work helped with my development or success or understanding of monitors. He said, it was not for me. Which is what I said, so why did his undies get all tied up in a knot?????? Same here, if these names are NOT for us common people, who are they for? And why do you get upset that I/we like common names better and find them more useful.

Oh, peanutbutter does indicate history. Ask Bluerosy. Cheers

Bluerosy Oct 01, 2009 03:38 PM

Oh, peanutbutter does indicate history. Ask Bluerosy.

history:
I did not select the name 'peanut butter" for this new morph.

At the time it came out i posted pictures here on the forum and asked for a vote on names. The name peanut butter was chosen by majority vote by POSTERS HERE ON THIS FORUM!

i am gladthe Peanut butter has a different name because it is the only kingsnake that shares and allele with another kingsnake. namely the the T negative albino. So yes i did come up with the name "Jelly' because it was so unusual and the jelly just seemed natural evolutionary choice since it came from the peanut butter in the very first generation.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

"They that can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -Benjamin Franklin

rtdunham Oct 01, 2009 05:17 PM

(I SAID) I guess the point i'd make is, if any of us has "naming rights" to something new, live up to that responsibility and give it a name that has as many of the features Frank mentioned as is possible: "...have utility, ...show locality, ... show relationships, and ... (be) consistent..."
>>
(CHRIS SAID) You mean like the rules and standards applied to the development of scientific names? How do common names show relationships?

Hi Chris, I tried to apply the argument solely to the identification of morphs. Few if any of us on this forum are going to have the opportunity to assign an animal its scientific name.

I'd argue common names can show relationships, and I was merely arguing for "good" common names vs "bad", the "good" being those that achieve as many as possible of the different values Frank mentioned. For example: "Red Rat Snake" is descriptive and expresses relationships; Corn snake isn't and doesn't.

>>Of course, I have no problem with common names. They serve a different purpose, but they certainly are in no way superior to scientific names.

And I have no problem with scientific names, though i find the practice of naming after the person who finds or identifies the animal not particularly useful. At least, not in the context of what it tells us that is important about the animal, not about someone--however brilliant and admirable--who studied it.

There's a different argument/discussion than the one we're having here, that might be interesting. Some of Frank's comments have to do with WHOM the common or scientific names serve. He draws a distinction between those in the field and those in science. I know those aren't mutually exclusive, but i also know what he means. Whether or not it's a sad state of affairs, lots of people on these forums aren't exceptionally knowledgeable about taxonomy, but may have considerable understanding about the animals' natural behavior or captive care. The distinction between field-and-science reminds me of the difference between those at the altar, where Latin is the lingua franca (ooh!) and is guided by strict rules, and those in the pews, speaking English, in varying dialects and with various levels of understanding and control of grammar.
>>
At any rate, I still find it fascinating to anticipate what others smarter than I might learn about the relationships between the different Lampropeltis. Did I read that the Short-tailed Snake just got moved there? If so, is that a generally accepted analysis?

FR Oct 03, 2009 10:23 AM

My posts do not reflect what I actually believe or even feel. I am, like you said, making a point.

I hear people complaining all the time about the constant change in scientific names. I have yet to see any clear benefit in what has been done.

Recently an Australian Fella reclassified the Rattlesnakes. It followed proper procedures and such. He found some very glaring problems with the current names.

He assigned new genus and subgenus status to show groupings, and show relationships. For instance, under the current names A Rock rattlesnake is as closely related to a diamondback as it is to a small mexican montane rattlesnake, C.ravus.

Anyway, he used all australian names, all after folks that worked for a conservation group he works with, EXCEPT one, Tom Cruchfield.

It was brillant, I did not agree with all his groups and of course naming them after people. But he clearly showed the flaws in the system. He even had it reviewed and published by his own company. Again brillant.

The point is, the names get changed because people CAN change them. Not because its helpful or offers a better understanding. In my opinion, it has become a song of the few, and has lost its intended meaning. The Scientific names are actually FOR the public to understand these animals. The Taxo boys already know what they think they know. The names to them are words in a song only they hear. Then they wonder, why don't we like it. Of course we don't like it, we don't hear the new music, we already knew the old song and there was nothing wrong with it.

For instance, greenrat snakes, Hmmmmmmmmmm no longer a rat snake, yet they do everything ratsnakes do. Only have a little longer nose. So NOW I CALL THEM, Green---snakes, The problem is, there is already greensnakes, so what goes in the middle. I mean baby green---snakes can be identicial to baby ratsnakes, same neotenic pattern and such. Grow out of that and become unicolored, or retain some pattern, much like blackrat snakes, heck, the act like and feed like ratsnakes. But sadly, they are not. Well, too bad for them, I have seen more green---snakes them those fellas that screw up the names, and from all over their range, And greenrat was just fine. At least baja rats and subocs have some tiny differences. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm I got it, greenrats have a long nose or a little longer nose. OK, a green longnosed snake, or a green longnosed ratsnake. Thats better, I feel good now.

Sadly, the scientific names are not even as accurate as the silly names I just came up with. Its a good thing I already know what a green--snake is, or I would be real confused. Cheers

rtdunham Oct 03, 2009 04:11 PM

>> Sadly, the scientific names are not even as accurate as the silly names I just came up with...

The following is not to indicate any disrespect for scientific naming, which I support. But I thought it was too good to pass up, given some of the exchanges here:

"The Latin species name aquaticus was given (the Eastern Mole) because the first North American individual described in records was found drowned in a well and presumed--in error--to be aquatic..."
--National Audubon Society Field Guide to Mammals

chrish Oct 04, 2009 10:04 PM

Recently an Australian Fella reclassified the Rattlesnakes. It followed proper procedures and such. He found some very glaring problems with the current names.
It was brillant, I did not agree with all his groups and of course naming them after people. But he clearly showed the flaws in the system. He even had it reviewed and published by his own company. Again brillant.

Using anything that Hoser does to support your argument isn't going to add much credence to it! He is an idiot and has been ranting and putting his pseudo-science on the web for years. Rattlesnakes are only the latest group he has taxonomically screwed up. He usually names things after his friends and family.

The point is, the names get changed because people CAN change them. Not because its helpful or offers a better understanding. In my opinion, it has become a song of the few, and has lost its intended meaning. The Scientific names are actually FOR the public to understand these animals. The Taxo boys already know what they think they know. The names to them are words in a song only they hear. Then they wonder, why don't we like it. Of course we don't like it, we don't hear the new music, we already knew the old song and there was nothing wrong with it.

This is simply indicative of your lack of understanding of the purpose and methodologies of modern taxonomy and phylogenetics. Names are changed to better indicate evolutionary relationships. Senticollis (most of which aren't really green so "green" rat is a stupid name) are not the same as all other "rat" snakes. They are not as closely related to Baja Rats as the Trans-pecos Rat, therefore they should be in different groups. Your common name system doesn't give you that information at all.

Pituophis eat rats. Are they ratsnakes as well?
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

FR Oct 05, 2009 01:25 AM

Hi, Your failing to think about this, you seem to take my comments as an attack on you or science. theres more two it.

Your right, I many not have a complete understanding of taxo or clades, or systematics. But then most here do not either. Thats exactly the point. Do we have to have a masters or better to understand scientific names????? If so, then that is making my point, the scientific names are only for scientists, yes?????

You fail to look about the whole picture. We that lack the understanding you have, are the ones WHO NEED to understand the things your saying.

In the old days, these names discribed the animal. With a few exceptions. Books such as Wright and Wright, would fill in the gaps with locality discriptions.

So whats the deal, no subgenus are being used, or subspecies, or locality types. hmmmmmmmmmm Plants do that, don't they?

About greenrats, there are the greenest dang snake we have out here. So it fits. Actually they are green like our desert. Not really green, but sorta.

I know you like to make me or us feel stupid and of course we are, but could you explain how useful some of these names are, instead of making fun of me QUESTIONING YOU.

Like splitting up the C.viridis group, try that one. the members are closer to eachother, then they are to other Crots, yet, now they are not. Not by name.

I know, read the paper. Hmmmmmmmm thats the point, we should not have to read the paper, the dang dang name should provide that information. Shouldn't it? Really I am asking. I hope this is not too suttle for you, but really, that is the point. The name is suppose to provide information, not the paper or papers.

Ok, at least explain why these getula, are not going to be getula. Cheers

Rick Staub Oct 05, 2009 01:08 PM

Your bias is showing here Frank. Scientists are not bad guys that form clubs and clicks with the goal of trying to make people look stupid. God forbid you should have to read something to learn what the relatedness is between species. How are you going to put all that info into a common name. Here ya go

zonata multicincta = nonvenomous tricolored king that lives in Sierras that is synonymous with zonata zonata and closely related to pyromelana.

Have at it.

Common names have given us

milksnakes that do not drink milk
Round Island boas that are not a boas
Mexican burrowing python that is not a python and lives outside of Mexico

This could be a very very long list. Not only do these names not tell you the info you want scientific names to, but they give you the wrong information about the species.
-----
Rick Staub

DMong Oct 03, 2009 06:48 PM

>> "Corn snake isn't and doesn't.

** Well,..some can, and do argue that the name did originate from the "maze-like" corn pattern on the belly, or even the cornfields in which they are sometimes typically found hunting rodents that are attracted to the corn.

Another way it is thought to have originated is the snake would be found in peoples "corn cribs" where it was typically stored long ago.

Nobody seems to be real sure now about just how their common name really did originate. Just like many other things,...the exact origin of names tends to get lost over a long period of time. All anyone can do now is speculate.

Anyway, the name cornsnake would still be fairly discriptive in certain ways.

I didn't mean to throw a "wrench" into your post with this..LOL!, but I thought I would just mention it for what it's worth.

Carry on folks!..LOL!

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

rtdunham Oct 04, 2009 12:50 AM

>> ** Well,..some can, and do argue that the name did originate from the "maze-like" corn pattern on the belly, or even the cornfields in which they are sometimes typically found hunting rodents that are attracted to the corn.

i thought of that (the ventrals) after i posted, and i figured someone would nail me for it! And it's true. But it's also true for other ratsnakes and lampropeltis, so I'd still argue "corn" is a lot less usefully descriptive than "red rat". Think about the group, too, distinguished by color: Black Rats, Grey Rats, Yellow Rats, Red Rats: they don't call them corn snakes, rice snakes, sugar snakes, and tobacco snakes. It's late and i think i'm babbling. I'm outta here.

DMong Oct 04, 2009 02:14 AM

Oh,..I fully agree with you on the overall scheme of the "Red Ratsnake" being a more descriptive, more generally understood common name that more of the general public would understand, no doubt about that.

And yes, it is now 3:11 am, and I am also OUTA HEAR!..LOL!

snore!, snore!, snore!, snore!

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

fliptop Sep 30, 2009 06:27 PM

There's one big problem with this "silliness"--one which makes it all the more silly: If this proposal becomes accepted, as Rainer pointed out, some people would be automatically breaking the law (e.g., those in Georgia).

Site Tools