>>>>>but there's not bonding in the conventional sense.
>>really? hmmm, why/how have you formed this opinion? kings are usually found in group populations in the wild, groups that are bonded.
>>,,,,,,,,,,thomas davis
Hi Tom, I'm sorry I was unable to respond sooner.
Perhaps we've just had different experiences that led us to different conclusions. It's certainly not been true in my experience that "kings are usually found in group populations in the wild".
What led me to form the opinion that "there's not bonding in the conventional sense" is that of at least 50 eastern kings i've caught or been with people when they were caught, only two were found together--that proximity being a requirement if "bonding" is taking place--a pair HAS to be in the same place for some extended time, to "bond" by the terms that were seemingly being suggested.
My admittedly limited experience:
Four or five black kings
Half a dozen or so Eastern Chain Kings north of the florida border
Dozens of kings in the central florida area
Of all of those, only two of the eastern chain kings were found together. That's maybe four percent of the total, and a unique enough experience to be considered statistically insignificant.
Now, i try to be analytical. IF pairs stick together (need to stick together, to bond, as you say) then when collecting in the spring--that's when i've done most of mine--a significant percentage of specimens would be found together. That's not been MY experience. Nor is it what i see being reported here or in the field collecting forum. When someone finds two together, it's reported as a great stroke of good fortune, not a commonplace occurrence.
So I formed a different opinion: that both genders emerge, search for food, move about, leading a more solitary existence. When a male comes across an ovulating female's path, he follows her, finds her, they breed. IMHO it's a short-term experience (see above).
Remember, we were discussing this behavior in terms of its ramifications for captive breeding.
If other behaviors I observed contradicted that hypothesis, I'd review it and revise it as necessary. But consider my experience with captive breeding:
1) Depending on the timing, a male and female eastern king would sometimes breed immediately upon their first introduction (no bonding period, as they'd always been housed separately).
2) A male might breed with a female, 3 days later be introduced to another female and promptly breed, etc.--with up to four or five females, with no pre-coital bonding as it were, unless you call the 15 minutes of cruising and courting in the cage "bonding", but in the context of the question that prompted this thread, that's not what was being called bonding.
My experience with breeding eastern kings is limited. But if you include other Lampropeltis as well, I think my captive breeding experience might well match anyone's here.
I don't present this further argumentation to dispute your opinion. I'm just presenting this information to explain how MY experience and observations caused me to formulate MY opinion. It's entirely possible we've had entirely different experiences in the field. What percent of kings you've found have been in the company of one or more other kings? (I'd define that as in very close proximity in an AC field, for example, if not actually under the same board or tin. Or within a relatively short distance in more natural terrain: two animals on opposite sites of a canal or a field might not be considered a pair in bonding, but perhaps (by my scenario) a roaming male and roaming female that might or might not soon encounter one another, or had (in my scenario) already briefly encountered one another and then separated.
If in your experience, and as you report, "kings are usually found in group populations in the wild" i can understand how that would lead to the opinion that bonding's occurring in the wild, and by extension, that that might be useful knowledge in captive breeding. I've just had a lot of experiences that contradict that observation, and that conclusion.
peace
td
