Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hi all. How rare are ringneck snakes in the San Diego area? They (and a gopher snake) are one of my lifelong target species. I expect it will take me a few months of searching before I find a ringneck, but does anyone have any tips for finding them?
I'm also wondering if there are any herps in San Diego that you can see year-round. Thanks.

James:
From messages that appeared on this forum up to Feb. when most regulars became disgruntled and left for another field herping forum, there were posts indicating the Ringneck Snake was reasonably common in that region and that the Gopher Snake was very abundant.

Let me also add my perspective that except at the fringe of a species distribution where their habitat requirments become marginal, no snake could possibly be 'rare' for how on earth would they find one another to carry out reproduction? 'Rare', when applied to most species of herps, arises from impressions and perceptions and thus is not founded in reality.

Richard F. Hoyer

n/p

Eric:
Certain mutations or other types of genetic morphs occur so infrequently in many species that the term 'rare' is fitting. The frequency of occurrence in populations and the distribution of certain morphs would tend to blur the situation some. Instead of using the word in absolute terms, I believe its use with hedge terms / modifiers is more preferable.

The problem is not so much with lay persons using this term but when biologists and academic use the term 'rare' when the basis for making such an assertion lacks factual support. This situation is exacerbated when research studies and wildlife agencies publish official documents that use the term 'rare' in an absolute manner given the impression of legitimacy to the claim. Invariably these assessments are subjective and based on anecdotal information such and in frequent encounters or observation which only produce an (illusionary / imagined) impression or perception of 'rarity'.

On this forum and elsewhere, I have cited two classical examples in which official, published wildlife agency documents have desigated species as 'rare' without having factual support. And since I performed studies on both species, it turns out that these 'official' impressions of 'rare', stated as if such was fact, were grossly in error.

Richard F. Hoyer

Just because the word "rare" is a relative term to be interpreted by the user, you seem to think if a population has the numbers to sustain itself that it cannot be considered rare. I think in this case "rare" is refering to the frequency of sightings of ringneck snakes as compared to other snakes in the area. If one sees a couple gopher snakes on every outing but only sees a ringneck once every hundred then YES it would in my books be considered "rare" in comparison given that suitable habitat and conditions were present durring the search.

You can argue this either way. Your example can be broken down to time of day, weather, setting or location. Species with identicle numbers within a certain geographic area are not encountered at the same rate. A great example here in Utah is the rubber boa and the gopher snake. I would have argued that gopher snakes are by far more abundant that the elusive boa. In fact, several friends have looked for it for greater than 15 years and never found one. However, under the right conditions and settings it can be found with regularity and in numbers that exceed gopher snakes.

A certain number of reproductive adults within a species is required to ensure mating. Richard is trying to educate us that simply because we dont commonly find a given species does not necessarily mean their numbers are low. Rather, secretive habits may be the answer. Another non-reptile example is the Cougar. How many of us see them here in Utah? Not many, yet the DWR states the numbers are higher than they ever have been. Why the discrepancy? habits.

Dr. G

A few points:

Clearly, not all species are occurring in populations that can sustain themselves (particularly when you're dealing with areas near large cities like San Diego!). So the argument that there must be a fair number of a given species because otherwise it wouldn't be able to sustain itself is of limited applicability.

Though the members of a population must be occurring at a great enough density to be able to encounter each other to mate if the population is capable of sustaining itself indefinitely, I don't think we know what those densities are in snakes. Maybe they're low enough that the snakes could be rare, but still able to find each other.

Even if a species occurs at very high densities, it can still be rare in an area if it only occurs in very small parts of that area.

Patrick Alexander

If the field, hill, or habitat in San Diego has not been plowed or graded. There are as many snakes and lizards of EVERY Species
as there are 20 miles outside of the city....... This I know from experience... Including isolated lots with in the city limits............

Fundad
Posted by: paalexan at Wed Oct 1 14:01:25 2003 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ]

A few points:

Clearly, not all species are occurring in populations that can sustain themselves (particularly when you're dealing with areas near large cities like San Diego!). So the argument that there must be a fair number of a given species because otherwise it wouldn't be able to sustain itself is of limited applicability.

Though the members of a population must be occurring at a great enough density to be able to encounter each other to mate if the population is capable of sustaining itself indefinitely, I don't think we know what those densities are in snakes. Maybe they're low enough that the snakes could be rare, but still able to find each other.

Even if a species occurs at very high densities, it can still be rare in an area if it only occurs in very small parts of that area.

Patrick Alexander

Patrick:

From my field experence, I have yet to encounter a sitation in which I would consider a species as being rare. Snakes are mostly subterranean dwellers so when you find a specimen or two, you are observing only a very small tip of the iceberg. The notion or concept of species being 'rare' is usually a fuction of infrequent observations. In that context, the notion of rarity is based on anecdotal opinion and not science based.

As I mentioned in a prior post, where conditions are marginal for species' survival, they clearly have to be very scarce - rare. But within any species' distribution, it is far more likely that the vast majority of existing habitat and envirnomental conditions range from above marginal all the way to optimal. From my understanding of biology and populations, other than in very unusual circumstances, it makes no sense that species would be rare. The frequency of observation is what is rare, not the species themselves.

Regarding your point, "Even if a species occurs at very high densities, it can still be rare in an area if it only occurs in very small parts of that area.", in that context, you are correct. See my example of the San Francisco Garter Snake elsewhere in this thread.

The way in which you worded your first paragraph (below), I am not certain I grasp exactly what you are trying to say.

"Clearly, not all species are occurring in populations that can sustain themselves (particularly when you're dealing with areas near large cities like San Diego!). So the argument that there must be a fair number of a given species because otherwise it wouldn't be able to sustain itself is of limited applicability."

Species not able to sustaining themselves go extinct. This can occur: 1) Where habitat fragmentation prevents a species from carrying on some critical function necessary for survival; 2) where habitat is degraded in some critical manner; 3) where some factor interferes with normal reproductive efforts to such and extent that the species cannot sustain its numbers. But from my perspective, the above circumstance are very uncommon. Far more likely that species eventually can become 'rare' due to outright loss of most of their habitat.

Even some of our largest species (gopher snakes) can be found sustaining themselves in some of the most partitioned
habitats near and within cities. They persist in those situations until the inevitable development of the land obliterates these isolated populations.

As I recall, you live somewhere in the midwest (Ohio) so circumstance may differ there. But here on the west coast, a number of species of snakes occur in vacant city lots, in city parks, in the medians between freeway lanes, and in isolated islands created by crisscrossing roads and freeways. In fact, some of the smaller species do quite well within urban areas and the small Sharp-tailed Snake is such a species, existing in gardens and vacant lots in towns in both Oregon and Calif.

Richard F. Hoyer

Richard,

I applaud your patience and expertise. You bring much to this board. Well said.

Thanks,
Dr G.

:O)

`From my field experence, I have yet to encounter a sitation in which I would consider a species as being rare. Snakes are mostly subterranean dwellers so when you find a specimen or two, you are observing only a very small tip of the iceberg. The notion or concept of species being 'rare' is usually a fuction of infrequent observations. In that context, the notion of rarity is based on anecdotal opinion and not science based.'

OTOH, I'm not sure what evidence you could have of rarity other than infrequent observation--unless you're in a position to find and mark every individual of a population (and who is?) that's as good as it gets.

`Regarding your point, "Even if a species occurs at very high densities, it can still be rare in an area if it only occurs in very small parts of that area.", in that context, you are correct. See my example of the San Francisco Garter Snake elsewhere in this thread.

OK. I'd also extend this to species that require a limited microhabitat, so even though the habitat as a whole is plentiful, if that microhabitat is scarce the species will be, as well. It makes it hard to draw a line between rarity within habitat and rarity because of limited habitat.

`Species not able to sustaining themselves go extinct. This can occur: 1) Where habitat fragmentation prevents a species from carrying on some critical function necessary for survival; 2) where habitat is degraded in some critical manner; 3) where some factor interferes with normal reproductive efforts to such and extent that the species cannot sustain its numbers. But from my perspective, the above circumstance are very uncommon. Far more likely that species eventually can become 'rare' due to outright loss of most of their habitat.'

Again, this is a case where I know plants better (because, well, there really aren't many herps here)--there are plenty of species that occur in very low densities within appropriate habitat, there are even a bunch of species that I've never seen despite having spent many hours this summer out in appropriate habitat. There are even a couple of species I know of that seem to have become distributed in very small and localized patches after having been abundant (a century or so ago) even though their habitat, so far as I can tell, is still common. So my impression generally is that habitat availability, though probably the most important factor, is just one of many, and that there are a substantial number of species that have just never been common in their habitats.

Actually, now that I think of it, I seem to remember Pianka's book on desert lizard ecology addressing this sort of thing a fair amount... in the US, we don't have many rare desert lizards because we don't have many desert lizards--go to the Kalahari or wherever it was he did his research in Australia, and you get a whole lot more species, and a whole lot more of them occurring at low densities within appropriate habitat.

`As I recall, you live somewhere in the midwest (Ohio) so circumstance may differ there.'

Indiana, but close. : )

` But here on the west coast, a number of species of snakes occur in vacant city lots, in city parks, in the medians between freeway lanes, and in isolated islands created by crisscrossing roads and freeways. In fact, some of the smaller species do quite well within urban areas and the small Sharp-tailed Snake is such a species, existing in gardens and vacant lots in towns in both Oregon and Calif.'

Here in IN, I've never seen a snake of any kind within city limits. Even outside of city limits you're lucky to be able to find anything other than a ringneck or a Nerodia...

Patrick Alexander

Patrick:

Not certain how to repond as I have done about all I can think of
by citing examples and using reasoned analogies.

"OTOH, I'm not sure what evidence you could have of rarity other than infrequent observation--unless you're in a position to find and mark every individual of a population (and who is?) that's as good as it gets."

With respect to your first comments above, there are essentially two ways to assess the status of species: 1) using non-scientific methods and 2) using science-based methods. If you consider the use of #1 as valid, end of discussion. If you believe as I do that accepted scientific methods are best,
then you should reject simple observations as being a valid means of assessing whether or not a species is rare, common, or somewhere inbetween.

When I was in college in the early to mid 1950's, conventional wisdom throughtout the herpetological community was that the Rubber Boa was a 'rare' species. The Southern Rubber Boa was listed as "RARE" in 1971 by the Calif. Dept. of F & G based on few observations and other types of anecdotal input by a number of herpetologists. As it has turned out, they were all wrong in their 'preceptions' that the SRB was rare.

To this day, the myth that the Rubber Boa is rare persists amongst many individuals including biologists with various wildlife agencies in the west where the species occurs. Just this summer, my son Ryan encountered a biologist with the Utah Wildlife agency that mentioned to him that the Rubber Boa was rare in Utah. Also in August, Brian Price of Elko, Nev. found 4 boas near that city. He told me that a Nev. biologist mentioned the species was rare. And in late Aug. we visited a couple near Skamania, Wash. (30 miles east of Portland, Ore.) that had boas come out of their attic. Not knowing what they were, they had a biologist identify the snake for them who also mentioned that the species was rare in Washington.

Concerning your second point, I agree. Species with narrow, specific habitat requirments are far more likely to be impacted by human activites and perhaps become truly rare than species that occur a broad array of habitat types.

I was not certain as to the point you were making in the last part of your post so cannot comment one way or the other. Let me once again urge you to try and obtain a reprint of the following published article:

"Perceptions of Species Abundance, Distribution, and Diversity: Lessons from Four Decades of Sampling on a Government-Managed Reserve' J. Whitfield Gibbons et. al. Environmental Management
Vol. 21. No. 2, pp.259-268

Richard F. Hoyer

P.S. Let me add that simply because studies are conducted in an acceptable scientific manner, that does not guarantee that the results obtained represent reality. My state's wildlife agency commissioned a 2 year herpetofauna study of the Oak-woodland habitat in four counties from south of Portland to just north of Eugene, Oregon. It was conducted by a private environmental consulting firm. The first year (started in May 1997) they used time constrained searches (transects) along with drift fence, pit fall and funnel traps. After the first 1997 season they had a reasonable sample of amphibian but almost no reptiles. They contacted Dr. Robert Mason (Ore.St U. herpetologist) and myself, and both of us recommended they deploy artifical cover objects. They did this at about half of their sites but only had time to monitor them 2 - 3 times during 1998.

When you read their methods section, you find that they conducted the vast majority of their searches and checks for reptiles during mid day and mid summer conditions. Thanks to the A/C, they did increase the number of reptiles but in one day, I could have found 2-3 times their entire sample. They collected one Sharp-tailed Snake (in a funnel trap). During the second year (1998), I had begun my study of the Sharp-tailed Snake and while they found the one specimen in their two year study across four counties, I found 129 in two of those four counties in just one year.

If you grasp the underlying consideration is my analogy of the gopher snake and worms in San Diego County, you may then understand why observations and perceptions can be in gross error. Understanding the biology of species and knowing when, where and how to conduct searches cannot be over emphasized.

RFH

Sorry for the late response... I don't check this forum all that often.

`When I was in college in the early to mid 1950's, conventional wisdom throughtout the herpetological community was that the Rubber Boa was a 'rare' species. The Southern Rubber Boa was listed as "RARE" in 1971 by the Calif. Dept. of F & G based on few observations and other types of anecdotal input by a number of herpetologists. As it has turned out, they were all wrong in their 'preceptions' that the SRB was rare.'

So what changed since then? I don't know a whole lot about SRB's, but my impression was that people have always been relying on frequency of observation to judge their status, but just have better observational techniques and more time spent studying them now. The same seems to apply in both the situation you describe in your postscript, and in Gibbons et al.... better observational technique and longer-term study yield better estimates of abundance and distribution. Gibbons et al. mostly address species presence rather than abundance, though, and, in addition to finding that Tantilla is much more abundant than previously though, mention that `several species exhibit remarkably restricted ranges on the SRS-NERP despite continued efforts to locate additional populations.' They go on to say that long-term intensive search is necessary to determine that a species is rare in an area, but they still seem in agreement with the idea that some species are rare, and that those species can be determined to be rare from the infrequency of observation.

`I was not certain as to the point you were making in the last part of your post so cannot comment one way or the other.'

Sorry for any unclarity... my points were that:
There definitely are species that occur at very low densities within their habitat, both in plants here in Indiana and in desert lizards in southern Africa and in Australia.
When you've got a lot of taxa within a group you get more specialization, and comparative rarity in the more specialized taxa. Conversely, if you've got smaller numbers of more divergent and less specialized taxa (which I think is the case for reptiles, but not amphibians, in the Pacific Northwest), they're more likely to all be abundant.

Patrick Alexander

"Frequency of observation" can mislead us about the abundance or rarity of a species, as Mr. Hoyer has pointed out. Even scientific surveys can mislead if the proper technique is not used, as he also pointed out. "Better observational techniques" can indeed lead to more reliable information about abundance. The development of better techniques must however depend on better knowledge of a particular species, which can only be gained if one spends more time in the field observing it and familiarizing oneself with it. The Desert Night lizard, Xantusia vigilis, is a classic example. It was once thought to be extremely rare, ostensibly because it was infrequently observed. Once scientists became familiar with this species and its peculiar habitat, however, it is now known to be one of the most abundant lizards (Stebbins 1985). The key to finding this species is of course fallen Joshua trees, where most individuals live. The "better technique" for finding this species, namely searching in and around fallen Joshua trees and under cowchips, came about because there is a better understanding of this species in nature. When Mr. Hoyer began his project with sharp-tailed snakes, he found few of them because he was unfamiliar with this species. Once he became familiar with it, he was able to find its true abundance. Unfortunately, many species are poorly understood, and their relative abundance or rarity cannot be ascertained unless and until scientists get to know these species better. Quite often the lists of "rare" species are in reality lists of poorly understood species.

doctorgar:
That wildlife biologists (agencies) do not apply the simple tenets of population biology to which they were all exposed as undergraduates has been a big puzzle and very dissapointing to say the least. Where two species occupy the same general habitat, as a general rule the smaller species should have higher relative densities and numerical abundance. Thus, you are certainly correct in that where the Gopher Snake and Rubber Boa occupy the same habitat and environmental conditions are reasonably optimal for both species, given that their prey base is very similar, the smaller species is likely to be more abundant. That is certainly the case here in western Oregon with those two species.

A more instructive example is the Sharp-tailed Snake here in Oregon. Our wildlife agency placed the species in a
'protected' category back in 1971 (based on perceptions as there was no factual data to support that listing) and in 1991 the ODFW official status account says that here in the Willamette (where I live in Corvallis, Ore.) the species is "--rare---".

A cursory examination of existing literature shows that the distributions of both of these species in W. Oregon are essentially identical. In Dec. 1997 I initiated a study of the Sharp-tail Snake in Oregon. In Feb. 1998, before I had captured my first Sharptail, I had a discussion with herpetologist Dr. John Applegarth of Eugene. He sort of sided with ODFW as he had encountered so few Sharptails while in the field. I mentioned the point that the Sharptail was about 100 times smaller than the Gopher Snake, occupied the same habitat, and its known prey was slugs. With slugs being everywhere and infinately more abundant than small mammals, (main prey for the Gopher Snake), given the huge difference in size, how could the Gopher Snake be more abundant than the Sharptail?

Over the years, both of us had not observed very many Sharptails. A good year for me would be 6-7 and some years I wouldn't see any while out making my rounds finding all other species including the then considered 'rare' Rubber Boa. I took awhile, but after I learned when, where, and how to locate the species, by the end of my four year field study, I had recorded data on over 1700 initial captures and over 300 recapture events of the Sharp-tailed Snake. Keep in mind, this study was unfunded and pursued by just one individual. You don't need much of an imagination to realize that had it been a funded study involving a team, the results would have been even more staggering. As it is, I am still somewhat stunned by what transpired as it simply never occurred to me that I would encounter that level of success.

Richard F. Hoyer

Shadowman:

Your first sentence has two parts and I agree with both. Concerning the first part, "Just because the word "rare" is a relative term to be interpreted by the user---", I agree that the term is so subjective that considerable variation between individuals exists as to how they interpret the word. In my follow-up above to a prior post, I spell out my position of the use of the term 'rare'.

With respect to the second part of the sentence, "---you seem to think if a population has the numbers to sustain itself that it cannot be considered rare." If you use the term 'rare' as indicating 'scarce', very uncommon', etc., that is exactly my position. And with my understanding of population biology and the concept of habitat association, with only 'rare' exceptions I find it impossible to believe species can truly be rare except where their habitat requirements become marginal or some factor is interfering with reproduction in a signficant manner.

If the term is uses to mean 'isolated' such as species or subspecies with relatively restricted distributions, that usage is technically correct. But unless that distinction is specified, then most individuals will misinterpret the context and believe that the species in question is very scarce where it occurs. As an example, the subspecies of the Common Garter Snake,
the San Francisco Garter Snake (federally listed 'Threatened') has an extremely restricted distribution so the term 'rare' to indicate such an isolated range is technically correct. But to the best of my knowledge, the S. F. Garter Snake is reproducing normally and is quite abundant in much of the remaining habitat it occupies.

("I think in this case "rare" is refering to the frequency of sightings of ringneck snakes as compared to other snakes in the area. If one sees a couple gopher snakes on every outing but only sees a ringneck once every hundred then YES it would in my books be considered "rare" in comparison given that suitable habitat and conditions were present durring the search."

I understand your point in the last part of your post (above) if indeed, the use of the term 'rare' did not refer to relative abundance but instead referred to the frequency the species was encountered.

But by that interpretation, at this time of year
in San Diego region, you would come to the conclusion that because you can occasionally observed gopher snakes on the surface or under cover objects and you never see earthworms, that gopher snakes are clearly more abundant than earthworms and the latter species must be rare (or do not even occur in that habitat) because you never observe them either on the surface or under cover objects. The 'kicker' in your sentence is the words 'suitable--conditions'. What may be suitable conditions for finding the Gopher Snake may not be suitable for finding either the Ringneck or earthworms.

So let me ask you: in habitat occupied by the following species in Africa, do you consider that elephants are less abundant than zebras, that zebras are less abundant than rabbits, and rabbits are less abundant than mice? (There is a broad principle involved.) If you accept the above as being reality, then I ask how could anyone consider that the Gopher Snake is more abundant than the Ringneck Snake in habitat considered suitable and occupied by both species?

Let me cite one reference I would make manditory reading for all biologists, professional and serious amateur herpetologists.

"Perceptions of Species Abundance, Distribution, and Diversity: Lessons from Four Decades of Sampling on a Government-Managed Reserve' J. Whitfield Gibbons et. al. Environmental Management
Vol. 21. No. 2, pp.259-268

Richard F. Hoyer

What seems to be called into question here is the ambiquous word "rare" James used. I dont believe it's population dynamics were of his concern but rather, what his chances are of finding one in the S.D area. Sure your analogy of looking for worms on the dry dirt one could conclude that they were rare when in fact they might have walked over hundreds of them just inches below the soil. But by rating Jame's chances of success from excellent to poor on the assumption he WILL be looking in the appropriate environment, one CAN use the word "rare" strictly in terms of sightings (not population dynamics)in relation to other herps he will encounter in that given area ie. gopher snake.

shadowman:

Immediately below is the first part of Jame's post and the first part of my reply.

"Hi all. How rare are ringneck snakes in the San Diego area?"

"James:
From messages that appeared on this forum up to Feb. when most regulars became disgruntled and left for another field herping forum, there were posts indicating the Ringneck Snake was reasonably common in that region and that the Gopher Snake was very abundant."

The second part of my response was a (over) reaction on my part to the term 'rare'. Had he asked 'How common are ringneck snakes ---' I would have left off with the first part of my response (below).

Clearly your view of the matter is correct.

Richard F. Hoyer

The following estimates of population density is from Harry Greene's book Snakes:

p. 138

Number of snakes per hectacre (roughly the size of two football fields)

719-1,849 ringneck snakes (Diadophis punctatus)
fewer than 1 milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum)
fewer than 1 gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus catenifer)
6-9 copperheads (Agkistrodon contortrix)
4-46 four-striped ratsnakes (Elaphe quadrivirgata)
1,289 striped swampsnakes (Regina alleni)

Not sure how he got these numbers but if they are correct, ringnecks are by no means rare, at least in some habitats.

About 2 years ago in series of 6 posts on snake ecology, Dr. Harold DeLisle posted the following information on densities. This information undoubtedly came from various studies. The density figures for each species would vary with the methods used, locality of study area, skill of the researcher, etc. But they do give an overview of what others have reported and certain trends, as pointed out by Dr. DeLisle, can be observed from such data.

It would be my best guess that the Ringneck Snake figures arose from populations in the the midwest (Henry Fitch's studies in Kansas) and perhaps the east coast where the species is quite small and mainly prey on eartworms. Specimens of the same species here in the west are much larger and thus probably do not approach the densities shown in the table below and repeated by Dr. Green.

On the other side of the coin, clearly some of the reported figures represent the low end of densities for some species perhaps having been conducted in marginal habitat, at the wrong time of year, by less than optimal methods, etc. This is particularly true for the Pacific Gopher Snake (P. c. cantenifer) which is reported as having a density of 0.12/ha. or almost one snake for every 10 square football fields. Having researched this species in W. Oregon, I would suggest that such a low density is well below the mean home territory for the species and reproduction might be impossible with such a low density. I suspect that perhaps the region used for this study
may have included certain areas (cultivated land) in which the species had formerly occupied but no longer was present. In average to optimum habitat, this species can be moderately to incrediably abundant for one of our larger native snakes, well exceeding the 1-3/ha. reported for the P. c. deserticola in Utah.

Richard F. Hoyer

Examples of Snake Density

Carphophis amoenus (Kansas) 375-729 per hectare
Coluber constrictor (Kansas) 3-7
Diadophis punctatus (Kansas) 719-1849
Elaphe obsoleta (Maryland)

About 2 years ago in series of 6 posts on snake ecology, Dr. Harold DeLisle posted the following information on densities. This information undoubtedly came from various studies. The density figures for each species would vary with the methods used, locality of study area, skill of the researcher, etc. But they do give an overview of what others have reported and certain trends, as pointed out by Dr. DeLisle, can be observed from such data.

It would be my best guess that the Ringneck Snake figures arose from populations in the the midwest (Henry Fitch's studies in Kansas) and perhaps the east coast where the species is quite small and mainly prey on eartworms. Specimens of the same species here in the west are much larger and thus probably do not approach the densities shown in the table below and repeated by Dr. Green.

On the other side of the coin, clearly some of the reported figures represent the low end of densities for some species perhaps having been conducted in marginal habitat, at the wrong time of year, by less than optimal methods, etc. This is particularly true for the Pacific Gopher Snake (P. c. cantenifer) which is reported as having a density of 0.12/ha. or almost one snake for every 10 square football fields. Having researched this species in W. Oregon, I would suggest that such a low density is well below the mean home territory for the species and reproduction might be impossible with such a low density. I suspect that perhaps the region used for this study
may have included certain areas (cultivated land) in which the species had formerly occupied but no longer was present. In average to optimum habitat, this species can be moderately to incrediably abundant for one of our larger native snakes, well exceeding the 1-3/ha. reported for the P. c. deserticola in Utah.

Richard F. Hoyer

Examples of Snake Density

Carphophis amoenus (Kansas) 375-729 per hectare
Coluber constrictor (Kansas) 3-7
Diadophis punctatus (Kansas) 719-1849
Elaphe obsoleta (Maryland)

I note that only a small part of Dr. DeLisles table emerged on my post so I will try once again to post the entire table.

Since 'Kingsnake' revamped this site, I have had repeated problems with posting, a situation that I do not encounter on the 'Field herpers' forum. I wish Kingsnake would either fix these glitches or return to the old format where I encountered no problems with this same computer.

Richard F. Hoyer

TABLE
Examples of Snake Density
Carphophis amoenus (Kansas) 375-729 per hectare
Coluber constrictor (Kansas) 3-7
Diadophis punctatus (Kansas) 719-1849
Elaphe obsoleta (Maryland)

For some reason, Kingsnake will not produce the full table that shows up when I preview my post.

TABLE
Examples of Snake Density
Carphophis amoenus (Kansas) 375-729 per hectare
Coluber constrictor (Kansas) 3-7
Diadophis punctatus (Kansas) 719-1849
Elaphe obsoleta (Maryland)

Will type out the table and see if it will go through.

Table: Examples of Snake Density

Carphophis amoenus (Kansas) 375- 729 per hectare
Coluber constrictor (Kansas) 3-7
Diadophis punctatus (Kansas) 719-1849
Elaphe obsoleta (Maryland)

For anyone interested in viewing the table on snake densities by Dr. DeLisle, I posted it on the 'field herpers'.with some added comments.

Richard F. Hoyer

The problem you have posting the table may be the use of the "less than" math symbol. This character is interpreted as a html code and will cause the rest of your table to disappear from view. I experienced this problem when I posted my figures from Greene's book. So I solved it by substituting it with the words fewer than. It solved the problem and may solve yours.

The gopher snake number does seem unrealistically low. Personally I find this species to be quite abundant, either by road cruising or by turning rocks, logs etc.

James,

I have lived in Southern California my entire life and the last 23 years in San Diego. Ringneck snakes are what I would classify from my personal experience as locally common in that when you find them there usually are many in the same area however if you are not looking in the right area then one could certainly consider them "rare". This year I have found two while walking on trails late in the day, this is typical for me however I walk extensively, the best method is searching under rocks, debris, logs, etc. my best luck has been along the fringes of riparian areas, they seem to like a little moisture and cover. I have also seen many along chaparral transition zones in the mountain areas of San Diego, again, they tend to be secretive so search under cover for them. Many years ago a friend and I discovered a "spot" in Orange county (now a housing track unfortunately) where we counted well over 150 individuals in an afternoon, all were found under flat rocks in a grassland field no more than a few acres across (interesting note is that there were quite a few young black-headed snakes as well, wonder in retrospect if they were dinner for the ringnecks...), the field was situated along a creek, about 100 yards from the streambed.

In terms of finding herps year round, I have found Southern Pacific Rattlesnakes, San Diego Gopher Snakes and California Kingsnakes every month of the year, San Diego Alligator Lizards, Fence Lizards and Western Skinks can be found more or less year round as well. In the late fall and winter you can find them under appropriate cover (boards, tins, etc.) in all but the coldest of conditions. February actually used to be my favorite month for hunting herps in So. Cal. as we would usually get a few days of warming sometime in the month, turning over debris was very productive as I recall!

Hope this helps a bit. Good luck!
Brad

I spent a winter in s. CA one year while in the army. As I recall, a friend and I saw a few alligator lizards and ringneck snakes under flat rocks in mid-winter near the coast. I think winter herping would be fun in California because several kinds of herps hibernate near or on the surface. I have noticed this in AZ also, whereas, here in MI herps are many feet below the surface.

>>Hi all. How rare are ringneck snakes in the San Diego area? They (and a gopher snake) are one of my lifelong target species. I expect it will take me a few months of searching before I find a ringneck, but does anyone have any tips for finding them?
>>I'm also wondering if there are any herps in San Diego that you can see year-round. Thanks.

I sent you an e-mail about the NARBC show. I didnt recieve any mail for a few days and I suspect my inbox was full. I deleted a bunch of stuff and got two today. I'm not sure how this works with outlook (I thought it went to my hard drive) but this isn't the first time it's happened. If you didn't reply yet thats all right but let me know if you can come, should work now.
Take care,

Andrew Myers

This is what you do.. If you do this and you hunt hard you will find a few..... Search December through March.......... January and Febuary best.... Search under trash, rocks, boards, mattresses, etc....... A fews days after a good rain. You WILL find 1 to 10 in a full day hunting.................

Ringnecks are not nearly as commonly found as they are in Kansas, but can still be found in decent #'s... I have a 25 incher (big for SD county that just loves to eat Skinks......

You will also find Helleri, and a maybe a YOY king or gophersnake.

Just about Every dirt road in San Diego county lead to trash...

Good Luck
Fundad

not so fundad... If you've been out lately i'm sure you will have noticed that some of your favorite haunts have been... to my dismay... been cleaned up.
As to all that other crap that was being thrown around earlier... was there a point to be made????? It amazes me how some folks in their attempt to show how much they know, totally loose the point they are trying to make in all the babble.
Also, I didn't notice that not one person mentioned that just because it is not found it does not mean it is rare.
Ed

first off none of MY spots have been cleaned up.....
(what makes you think you know where any of MY spots are... Highly unlikly........)

Second what the hell are you talking about in the rest of your post..... ???

Don't be a Dickhead.......

Fundad

.

Ed:
Below is part of an admission to shadowman posted Thu Oct 2 12:21:00 2003 in which I mentioned:

"The second part of my response was a (over) reaction on my part to the term 'rare'. Had he asked 'How common are ringneck snakes ---' I would have left off with the first part of my response--."

After thinking about what you said, to some degree you are probably correct. However, if I over-reacted to the use of the term 'rare', the same might be said of you!

Quote:
"As to all that other crap that was being thrown around earlier... was there a point to be made????? It amazes me how some folks in their attempt to show how much they know, totally loose the point they are trying to make in all the babble."

Knowing I struggle with written communications (excess verbage, mispelled words, typing errors, etc.), I will give pause before I again post on this message board. However, should I again weaken, feel the urge for an ego 'fix' by trying to impress others, I suggest that to avoid having your time wasted, becoming agitated, and by your own admission, seemingly losing the point, from hereon you simply bypass my posts.

Richard F. Hoyer

In other words...
If I don't have anything nice or relavant to say, don't say it?
Yea, I know what you mean. I'll try to control that in the future.
Its just that your posts require too much thought and that's obviously a problem on my part.
I really need to think about my posts before posting.
As to the 'ego' part... won't deny that.
Ed