Reptile & Amphibian Forums

can anyone tell me how to get in touch with nate godin,bangor, maine.

Well, you came to the right place... I'm 2-3 weeks behind on e-mail right now so may not have responded if you've tried to contact me recently... what's up? I saw your post over on the kingsnake forum... sorry to hear about that... looking for hatchling hunting tips?

Nate

Hi Nate-I have recently started getting back into the hobby after a 35 year break (late 60s-mid 70s.) I had a fairly large collection of lampropeltis but never managed to get a black milk. Was reading your posts about Sonny & Cher and the striped hatchling. I was amazed at the fact that it looked like twin to a pair of young hybreds (75% Pueblan-25% cal.king) that I got from Mesazoic Reptiles. I have been hoping that you would post some pictures of it as it starts to turn black.

Hello,
Yeah, he does look a lot like an Imperial Pueblan. The last pic I posted (also attached below) was on Feb. 12, so about six weeks ago. I checked just now, and he's grown at 3-4 inches and increased in mass by 40 grams. He's darkening up quite a bit, especially dorsally... probably about 1/3 to 1/2 black now.

Thanks,
Nate

Hello,
Since you mentioned that you were into rare milksnakes 35 years ago... what was the Lampropeltis scene like back then? The first edition of Williams' monograph hadn't even come out yet, so three of the subspecies that are most popular now (Hondurans, Sinaloans, Pueblans) hadn't even been described yet. I hear there were nicer L. t. micropholis available back then, though!

Nate

I only managed to ever get one micropholis (I think from Louie Poras) and if memory serves it looked like your photo. It,along with the remainder of my collection was sold to the San Diego Zoo in 1975. When Williams 'Notes on Lampropeltis' in 1970 I could only get on microfilm so I copied it by hand, including the drawings. Sinaloae and Hondurensis were included. By the early 70s most of my attention had turned to the 'Blairs' and the Nelsoni/Sinaloae that I was cllecting in Mexico.

Hello,
Ah, I didn't realize that Williams had started publishing information on milksnakes as early as 1970. It's interesting to see how taxonomy has changed in the past century... I recently found a copy of Blanchard's "A Revision of the King Snakes: Genus Lampropeltis" from 1921 on Google Books, which is free to view online or download (link below). Was that still the definitive guide to Lampropeltis before Williams came along? Was Williams' work well received in the '70s? I understand that his methods were somewhat controversial at the time... the second edition of his monograph mentions a "Greene" (Harry Greene of Cornell?) who published a highly critical review. I've also heard (via Bill Lamar) that Darrel Frost (now at the American Museum of Natural History) gave Williams a particularly hard time at a presentation back in the late '80s. So, he's had his share of critics all along. Of course, these days, a classification system based purely on scale and band counts seems awfully dated... there have been rumors going around for years that an overhaul of L. triangulum based on mtDNA is in the works, and I'm very much looking forward to that. I suspect that after some analysis of the mtDNA of L. triangulum, there may be some consolidation of the 25 subspecies Williams described. Take L. t. gaigeae, for example... as unique as they seem to be, it's entirely possible that they're nothing more than a melanistic form of stuarti, polyzona, or even andesiana. Lamar mentioned finding several milksnakes in South America (andesiana/micropholis country) that were so dark dorsally, that he had to flip them over to be able to detect the slightest hint of red/white banding. I guess my point is that it will be interesting to find out how the differences in phenotype relate to the differences in genotype.

Anyhoo, here's a picture from this morning... he's darkening up quickly!

Nate
Blanchard's "A Revision of the King Snakes"

That guy is just awesomely cool!!! Wowee!!

Since Blacks got brought up again....can I ask a question? Ok well here goes. Ignore me if this is considered a rude hijack job

I am wondering if all Black Milks (for the most part) are destined to hit the 5 foot mark, or even 6 foot mark. And do they take longer to grow to these sizes than say a Pine or Bull snake? Reason I ask is that I thought these snakes were known for getting quite large, but now I am wondering if it's just the occasional specimen. I was on a site called Reptmart and they are saying that these guys are more of a 3-4 foot snake. I inquired with them and they said their breeders are 4 feet and that they have been breeding Black Milks for years. So I am now wondering if it's only the occasional Black Milk that hits 5 or even 6 feet, or if this is a little bit off and that the majority of Black Milks will in fact hit the higher lengths and maybe they just have a small line there. I have 2 San Antonio line, 1 Florida Zoo line, and the other is unkown. Just curious for any thoughts from long time/experienced Black Milk owners may have.

-----
~Markus

The very existence of flamethrowers means that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves..."You know, I really want to set those people over there on fire...but I'm just not close enough to get the job done!

Hmm... 3-4 feet? Maybe as yearlings! I think that whoever told you that is either thinking of Mexican black kingsnakes, or just has an unusually small pair of gaigeae... could be genetic, or maybe they were kept at the wrong temperature, not fed enough... who knows. Here's a graph showing the growth of my pair from the time I acquired them as hatchlings (fall '02) to their first breeding (spring '05).

Their growth didn't continue along those trend lines for long, of course... the male (Sonny) is now about 6 1/2 feet long, and the female (Cher) is about 5 1/2. They're from the San Antonio Zoo and Mark Bell lines, respectively. From what I've seen and heard from other breeders, they're about average size for black milks.

Thanks,
Nate

Yeah I thought they were confusing the two species as well!! But they stuck by their statement and said they were sure about it! Kinda bummed me out, but your graph just made me a bit more hopeful for my guys! I feed small rats once a week to my 4 footers, and my smaller two get one large mouse a week. I wonder if I should bump it up to more then I dont want to risk their health if that falls into power feeding though. They seem to be thriving thus far so maybe all is well and they will hit those bigger marks soon! Here's to hoping! Thanks for your reply and for your thoughts Nate! Much appreciated!!!

-----
~Markus

The very existence of flamethrowers means that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves..."You know, I really want to set those people over there on fire...but I'm just not close enough to get the job done!

My black milk, obtained from Nate, is about 5'6" as well and nearly 5 years old. She doesn't have the girth of Cher but like you I feed her about every week... if she takes her meal with gusto I'll offer her another rat in 5 days...

Sonny by the way is one awesome looking specimen... too bad there are no recent pics...

Gerry

Thanks for the input Gerry! Much appreciated! I think my two oldest are just over three and a half years old, maybe four at most. The female is about 51 inches, and the male 49. My male is a bit girthier though. But from the looks of things, it appears they are in the timespan of life to start adding some full grown adult length I hope! And yeah they eat with more gusto than I do after a full day of deep sea fishing! And I give them pretty huge meals too! They just annihilate small rats that some might be inclined to say are a tad too big for their size, but it never ever stops them and they always seem to want more even with a huge bulge in their stomachs!!
-----
~Markus

The very existence of flamethrowers means that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves..."You know, I really want to set those people over there on fire...but I'm just not close enough to get the job done!

You are right, Williams work wasn't published that early. I think it was a college paper in '70. It was availabe on microfilm titled "Systematics of the Snake Lampropeltis Triangulum - Lacepede - A Disortation by Kenneth L. Williams - August 1970". Blanchard's bulletin 114 was the 'gospel' up till then. We did a lot of head scratching before and after Williams work. A DNA work would be great. As an example, I had two of the newly described Webbi (1 DOR 1971} from El Palmito that I never figured out. My black milk is from the Costa Rica line - breed it to your line?