Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hi, Just want to update everyone on my Kings.
They are doing well, not so skinny now. Ive uploaded some new photographs of the female. She is now taking bigger mice (next from fuzzy). Her brother is still taking fuzzys but I feel he may take smaller of the next size up! I have some lovely skins from my snakes sheds! Was great to actually sit and watch one shed!

Photos are at below link.

New Photos:
http://s1120.photobucket.com/albums/l493/paulw156/New Oct 2011/

Old Photos:
http://photobucket.com/paulw156

Links don't work.

Just copy and paste the properties with the "img" symbol on both ends.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

oops lol.

Dont know how so how bout anyone that wants to look at them paste the copy codes to their browser lol Sorry again lol

It is now known......you have a desert kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula splendida krusei).

Now that I've identified it, we can all breathe easy.

http://s1120.photobucket.com/albums/l493/paulw156/New Oct 2011/
Link

-----
Jerry Kruse

UPDATED!
www.zonatas.com

And God said, "Let there be zonata subspecies for all to ponder..."

Those are Splendida phenotypes........
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

why unknown? because when he first posted them asking for ID some of us told him they were to small to say if they were splendid for sure and could possibly turn back and be MBK's. well we said that was a possibility at first, but changed it to most likely splendida in the end. I remember u said they were splendida.
-----

>>why unknown? because when he first posted them asking for ID some of us told him they were to small to say if they were splendid for sure and could possibly turn back and be MBK's. well we said that was a possibility at first, but changed it to most likely splendida in the end. I remember u said they were splendida.
>>-----
>>

Oh....I did not recognize the username nor did I put 2 and 2 together.....so, I still think they are splendida as they would've turned black already at those sizes...in my experience.......

But I am one to think that mbks are melanistic splendida.......
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

"so, I still think they are splendida as they would've turned black already at those sizes...in my experience.

But I am one to think that mbks are melanistic splendida."

Yeah, I remember that post from a while back.

And I also agree that they are definite L.g.splendida or they would have darkened up BIG-TIME by now. I too believe the so-called "L.g.nigrita" is nothing more than a geographical clinal melanistic form of L.g.splendida...

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

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

>>"so, I still think they are splendida as they would've turned black already at those sizes...in my experience.
>>
>>But I am one to think that mbks are melanistic splendida."
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I remember that post from a while back.
>>
>> And I also agree that they are definite L.g.splendida or they would have darkened up BIG-TIME by now. I too believe the so-called "L.g.nigrita" is nothing more than a geographical clinal melanistic form of L.g.splendida...

Then why are these new taxonomy Clare miesters trying to lump mbks in with L. Californiae? Ridiculous.....lol
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

>>>>"so, I still think they are splendida as they would've turned black already at those sizes...in my experience.
>>>>
>>>>But I am one to think that mbks are melanistic splendida."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I remember that post from a while back.
>>>>
>>>> And I also agree that they are definite L.g.splendida or they would have darkened up BIG-TIME by now. I too believe the so-called "L.g.nigrita" is nothing more than a geographical clinal melanistic form of L.g.splendida...
>>
>>
>>Then why are these new taxonomy Clare miesters trying to lump mbks in with L. Californiae? Ridiculous.....lol

Clade not Clare.......damn iPad....lol
>>-----
>>John Lassiter
>>Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...
>>
>>
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

"Then why are these new taxonomy Clade miesters trying to lump mbks in with L. Californiae? Ridiculous.....lol"

I know......nothing like purposely tossing some wrenches into the already very smooth working gears..LMAO!!

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

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

>>"Then why are these new taxonomy Clade miesters trying to lump mbks in with L. Californiae? Ridiculous.....lol"
>>
>>I know......nothing like purposely tossing some wrenches into the already very smooth working gears..LMAO!!

Yea......what happened to using phenotypical expression like they did before mtDNA and nuclear DNA?.........lol
-----
John Lassiter
Poor planning and procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...

Exactly!,......it has been the entire basis of taxonomy description since the 1700's when Linnaeus started the ball rolling. Now some want to re-invent the wheel and make it square..LOL!

I don't really think square wheels work better than the nice round one's that have been around for countless years. Some stuff works better with much newer applications, but in this case, it is a huge freakin flop in my opinion.

Some of the ratsnake stuff royally screwed-up too.

The DNA thing is a new scientific "toy", so they naturally feel compelled to figure out silly ways to use and apply it. The dumb part is you don't use DNA to describe something you are looking at, you use your freakin EYES!..

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

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

The DNA thing is a new scientific "toy", so they naturally feel compelled to figure out silly ways to use and apply it. The dumb part is you don't use DNA to describe something you are looking at, you use your freakin EYES!..

I think it should be a little of both. It is good to have that information avaliable. DNA can assure we can keep animals that are considered native to certain state restrictions. Wheras just the look of a snake can preclude that species to be kept.

Just sayin, herp laws is ridiculous in some states. And law enforcement officials can take it to the extreme. So DNA of species can be a help to herpetocultursits.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I very much agree with that too. It can definitely be an extremely important tool in certain instances and situations just like the one's you mentioned, as well as many others. But to only apply DNA findings to differentiate things that are ridiculously and noticeably different as the very same entity is silly and very counter-productive is all John and I were really saying.

I think we are definitely all on the same page here. And those were some great points you made regarding it.

Many of these wildlife dorks couldn't identify a python from a freakin cornsnake and want to play "FBI agent" jerking people around simply because they can. I know of an instance exactly like this that took place just several days ago...

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

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

I know of an instance exactly like this that took place just several days ago

Yep! And it is an instance we can all find ourselves in at some point.

That is one area we all really need to band together and do whatever is necessary to help and support each other.
-----
www.Bluerosy.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yep! And it is an instance we can all find ourselves in at some point.

That is one area we all really need to band together and do whatever is necessary to help and support each other."

I agree!. It can happen to anyone at any time, and especially with the silly view the general public has regarding snakes.

It's just absurd!

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

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

Another great example of DNA data would pertain to Gibbons and Coker(1978) and Palmer and Braswell(1995) when they no longer recognized "L.g.sticticeps" to be a distinct seperate subspecies on the Outer Banks islands even though their phenotype was very noticeably different from the mainland forms, as well as some head shape discrepency in certain specimens. The molecular data found them to have the exact same haplotype found on the adjacent mainland and as far away as southwest Georgia. This concludes that there isn't any relict geneflow from L.g.floridana as was once theorized by some when their natural ranges might have been far different than it is today.

But regardless of any of that, I do very much believe them to be a very unique race of L.g.getula that deserves recognition due to their very different phenotype from being isolated there on the thin chain of islands off the coast for whatever reason(s). To herpetoculturists and hobbyists, they will always remain very special and bred for their original unique characteristics seperate of the closely related mainland forms..

~Doug

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

serpentinespecialties.webs.com

it could be a mongrel king which has ZERO splendida in its makeup... so without KNOWING what the parents are you have a "pet" kingsnake. it should not be labeled as any particular ssp. without definitive knowledge ESRECIALLY if its to be bred, plain and simple this is how waters are muddied claiming for certain it is something when in fact it may not be.
have fun out there.

,,,,,,,,,thomas davis

mongrel kings 50/50 mx.black(l.g.nigritus) X fla.(l.g.floridana)






-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

Several years ago I proposed some definitions for the term "generic".

1. Any snake that is pure species or subspecies but of mixed locality.

2. Any snake of unknown or incompletely known history that looks like a pure example of a species or subspecies, has no known history of hybridization or crossing, shows no outward evidence of hybridization, yet always carries the possibility of there having been a cross somewhere in the backround.

In fact, I did not invent these definitions, this is the way that I have been familiar with the word being used on price lists and magazine classified advertizements before the internet and it's readily available nit picking arguements came along. There is no need to pick apart somebodies animals if they are only claiming them to be generics.
-----
www.hcu-tx.org/

ok i didnt pick apart anyones animals. i simply stated that it may not be splendida at all and showed some examples i own.
generic huh? ok call them what you will, go ahead and claim them to be whatever trueblue ssp. you want to but, imho if an animal is to be bred/propogated and represented as a valid ssp. you should trace its lineage and if you cant then say so. i dont know is at least honest. i feel nitpicking should be done with potential breeders, case in point some of my mongrelkings could certainly be passed off as splendida yet they have zero splendy in them. and if a questionable animal is a "pet" by all means label it a generic whatever ssp ya want.

,,,,,,,,,,thomas davis
-----
Morphs... just like baseball cards BUT ALIVE, how cool is that???

my website www.barmollysplace.com

But you're doing the same thing by calling your mogrels "50% mex black and 50% florida". I doubt you can you trace both you're parent stocks all the way back to wild caughts, right?
-----
www.hcu-tx.org/

Here's a couple of your pics.

-----
Kent

1.1 Hypo (het lavender, striped) corn snakes, 2010
1.2 Gray-banded king snakes, blairs phase, 2008
0.0.17 Gray-banded king snakes, 2011
1.1 Oregon rubber boas, w/c 2000 and something

Colossians 3:17