Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I just read the paper on re-classifying Common Kingsnakes into seperate species...yes I said species not sub species. Generally they propose to lump some subs together and make them their own species and doing away with any subspecies at all. No more Florida King or Mexican Black King etc...

Eastern Kingsnake Lampropeltis getula
includes the Florida Kingsnake, Eastern Kingsnake and the Apalachicola Kingsnake or Goini if you will.

Black Kingsnake Lampropeltis nigra
Includes the Black Kingsnake

Speckled Kingsnake Lampropeltis holbrooki
Includes the Speckled Kingsnake

Desert Kingsnake Lampropeltis splendida
Includes the Deserrt Kingsnake and the Mexican Black Kingsnake

California Kingsnake Lampropeltis californiae
Includes the California Kingsnake

I understand what they are saying sorta that the color and pattern differences are due to habitat but what I wasnt grasping was did they do genetic testing? My pea brain couldnt understand much of the terminology so forgive my ignorance. Did the genetic testing show that all the Kings in the Eastern group were genetically the same? What about testing on Kings from Georgia near Atlanta that look to be intergrades with Nigra? Anyway like someone mentioned here earlier this doesnt bode well for Georgia keepers since owning Aplachicola King and Florida Kings are now Illegal to keep Eastern Kings! I wonder how well this is going over in the Academic community. Do state DNR's follow the majority when it comes to new research or do they formulate their own opinions regarding whats what in wildlife? Well the lumpers will be happy sorta lol

Enjoy the picture of my Eastern King below

Actually the Mexican Black King would be now a California King and not a Desert King as I listed it above.

Bone

>>Actually the Mexican Black King would be now a California King and not a Desert King as I listed it above.
>>
>>Bone

Kinda funny because an MBK is a melanistic Splendida.......LOL
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

**Kinda funny because an MBK is a melanistic Splendida**

Actually it is not, at least by taxonomist and most herpetologist.

Kerby...
-----

>>**Kinda funny because an MBK is a melanistic Splendida**
>>
>>Actually it is not, at least by taxonomist and most herpetologist.

Yeah I know...but it is way closer to a splendida than a california king.......Some hatch with splendida patterns.....wtf?
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous for the scientific world to be making MORE confusion, and not less. I talked about that very thing in a post below too....geez!

No DOUBT a nigrita is FAR closer, if not the very same thing as an ontogenetic melanized splendida, and FAR less similar to californiae. Don't know what those people are going by, but I strongly suggest that they just open their eyes..LOL!

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

my website -Serpentine Specialties

Agreed, its a little ridiculous to only go by genetics in terms of identifying a species. Burbank is clearly not taking into account the phenotypic plasticity that is in every species that allows them to adapt to fluctuations in their environments. While it may be true that cal kings and eastern kings have evolved to meet the requirements of their differing geographic regions i have no doubt if eastern kings were placed in a similar habitat to cal kings they would likely adapt after only a few generations. But more importantly I believe he is forgetting some of the tenets that traditionally mark a barrier between species - namely that different species that interbreed produce a hybrid that is sterile and incapable of procreation. You cross a cal king and a florida king you will get viable offspring that can and will reproduce. That to me tells me they are still too closely related to be given separate species tags.

I somewhat get it from a habitat perspective. As always, it is a judgement call. When is a species not a subspecies?

I almost prefer Lampropeltis getula and then a region or locality. Done. Laws can protect the locality or region, not the species.
-----
Mark

>>Speckled Kingsnake Lampropeltis holbrooki
>>Includes the Speckled Kingsnake
>>
>>Desert Kingsnake Lampropeltis splendida
>>Includes the Desert Kingsnake

These two species must have the largest hybrid zone of any two species in the US!
-----
Chris Harrison
San Antonio, Texas

np

Could you post a link to this paper?
I am glad I just keep pyros; I don't foresee them being reclassified in with Mexicana or zontata! LOL!
-----
Bob/Chris
Pyromaniac AKA Greatballzofire

I would think that if they were going to reclassify anything it would be Lampropeltis triangulum, given the wide variations in color, pattern and shape over their vast range.
-----
---
http://www.mikefoux.com
http://snakerack.blogspot.com

2.6.2 Hondurans (Normal, amel, hypo, anery, ghost)
1.2.0 Pueblans (Normal, hypo)
0.1.0 Corn Bloodred
0.0.1 GBK Blair's Phase
1.1.0 California King (normal, blue-eyed blond)
0.2.0 Speckled Kings Calcasieu Parish locality
1.1.0 Brooksi Hypo
1.1.0 Goini/Brooks Cross (Blaze and hypo)
1.1.0 San Diego gophers
0.0.1 Texas Rat
0.0.1 Jungle Carpet
0.1.0 Ball, Normal
0.0.1 Sulcata
1.2.1 Leopard Geckos(various morphs)
0.1.0 Wife, Caucasius Mexicana Integrade WC

That is already in the making too. Will it simplify things and classify them more accurately than it was before?.....very doubtful.

Taxonomy originally was intended to classify animals by phenotype and other key body differences to be able to universally identify them from all the others so there was no confusion. Now calling these already long known, well-accepted different types all the same thing to me is like going ass-backwards to purposely ADD as much confusion as possible!..LOL!

Sometimes I think all this recent game of "link-the-snake-by DNA ONY" is pretty ridiculous, when for hundreds of years the system (although imperfect of course)has still been working pretty well. I think one huge reason for all this is because if all these scientists didn't keep striving to change things and leave certain things well enough alone, they wouldn't be able to "justify" slipping into their white lab coats every morning and getting paid for staring at their beakers..LOL!

Now just for one example, the DNA findings in the early-mid 90's that concluded the Outer Banks king's DNA had the very same identical haplotype as those getula found on the mainland, and even as far away as southwestern Georgia seems to work okay in distiguishing that "sticticeps" is probably not an intergrade getula x floridana as was once earlier thought when their ranges may have been much different because of the influence the last "ice-age" might have played in it over 10,000 years ago.

But for nigrita (MBK) to now be considered a "californiae", and not a splendida, when in fact nigrita is very likely simply a mere melanistic form of splendida. This is just bizarre and confusing to me....talk about trying to UN-SIMPLIFY things!..LMAO!!. In many nigrita you can very plainly see the distinct splendida phenotype and color in their pattern. There are MANY more in the wild that are like this as opposed to most captive-bred nigrita because of the limited genepools of them in this country to begin with, and also the fact that more herpetoculturists have been striving to produce as less pattern and specks of light color as possible through selective breeding. These BARELY reach the US border(if at all)anyway, and the studying of snakes in Mexico has been very sparce and incomplete at best over the years. After all, who wants to attempt to go over the border and risk their life over a few kingsnakes and end up receiving the "business" end of a machette or sub-machine gun from some Mexican cartel??..LMAO!!

Anyway, most all breeders will pretty much stick with what these kings previously were called anyway, as this is the only way to describe what we are breeding and selling..LOL!. It really doesn't matter what label someone wants to paste on them now, or in the near future.

~Doug
-----
"a snake in the grass is a GOOD thing"

my website -Serpentine Specialties

too much real work needed there, ya know.
:Mark
-----
Surrender Dorothy!

crimsonking.piczo.com/

it's a burbrink paper IIRC (same guy that did hte ratsnake revision recently). He hates subspecies as a concept. He also relies heavily on genetics to determine species.
-----
We wouldn't have 6 and a half billion people if you had to be beautiful to get laid.
6.6 African House snakes
3.2 reticulated pythons
.1 corn snake
4.2 Florida Kings
1.2 speckled kings
1.2 ball pythons
0.0.1 Argentine boa

Well sounds like this guy has to show he is doing SOME work to get more grants so he thought he would tackle this one. I read about some forshadowings of this in Hubb's book- but he was more on the lines of the Eastern, Fla, Eastern Black and Speckled all being one species... with the Cals as their own species, and the Splendidas and Nigritas being another which at least has more sense to it if at all.
-----
BULLS: Pr normal (KS&TX), Pr Northern (M Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada & F Minn), Pr Kankakee Co, Ill, CORNS: Pr Okeetee, SC, FOXES: Pr Western, KINGS: F Black Eastern (L.g.nigra) Todd Co. KY, Pr. NC Eastern Chains (M from Union Co. & F from Mecklenburg Co.), Pr."Goini", Franklin Co. Fla, Pr. Costal Banded Cal (M Hypo & F normal) Pr Speckled, Harris Co. TX, MILKS: F Eastern, Charlotte, NC area, PINES: Pr Louisiana (pure descendants of Terry Vandeventer stock), Pr Southern (F light phase & M- Aiken, SC), PYTHONS: Pr normal Ball, RATS: Pr Black, Henderson Co. NC, Pr Black (M White Side & F Leucistic), F Western Green,(Mt. Hopkins, Cochise Co. AZ), OTHERS: 10 Tarantulas, 155 Orchid plants, 30 assorted tropical plants and African violets, 3 Freshwater Planted Aquariums with West African Dwarf Cichlids and 2 condo-porch gardens with Bonsai, Roses and more.

Is that Frank Burbrink? I remember him from the book "Snakecharmer" about Joe Slowinski.
Burbrink named Elaphe (Pantherophis) slowinskii right?
-----
---
http://www.mikefoux.com
http://snakerack.blogspot.com

2.6.2 Hondurans (Normal, amel, hypo, anery, ghost)
1.2.0 Pueblans (Normal, hypo)
0.1.0 Corn Bloodred
0.0.1 GBK Blair's Phase
1.1.0 California King (normal, blue-eyed blond)
0.2.0 Speckled Kings Calcasieu Parish locality
1.1.0 Brooksi Hypo
1.1.0 Goini/Brooks Cross (Blaze and hypo)
1.1.0 San Diego gophers
0.0.1 Texas Rat
0.0.1 Jungle Carpet
0.1.0 Ball, Normal
0.0.1 Sulcata
1.2.1 Leopard Geckos(various morphs)
0.1.0 Wife, Caucasius Mexicana Integrade WC

Yep. pretty sure it's the same Frank Burbrink.

I can't make out most of his paper though; it's all genetics based and I'm weak on genetics. I just disagree with ditching subspecies as a concept, and I don't know about totally ignoring external morphology or interbreeding in favor of genetic differences.
-----
We wouldn't have 6 and a half billion people if you had to be beautiful to get laid.
6.6 African House snakes
3.2 reticulated pythons
.1 corn snake
4.2 Florida Kings
1.2 speckled kings
1.2 ball pythons
0.0.1 Argentine boa