Reptile & Amphibian Forums

The difference with "goini" is that the patternless and striped individuals occur within populations of blotched individuals which are in turn surrounded by floridana on one side and easterns on the other.

"goini" are completely surrounded by Eastern Kings...Florida Kings don't come anywhere near the range of "goini". I think this perception is because many used to think "goini" were FL X Eastern intergrades as it was stated in many books. But if you look at range maps, and get out and herp areas surrounding the "goini" population, you won't find Florida Kings.

Please take no offense, but I asked, have you ever keyed them out. Sir, I would think that is the first step to understanding what something is or is called by humans.

Please I am the first to understand, that scientific nomenclature, is for people and about people. It has little to do with an actual animal. Notice I said little, not nothing, but something to do with the actual animal, its just that the animal is not the purpose of naming. The purpose is all about people.

To name something is to give title so we as humans can carry on some sort of conversation with the possibility of talking about the same animal.(please remember this, this is very important)

To clarify even more, ,these names change all the time, forth and back and all around. It itself, the history of these names is very important as each name does not lose its meaning, but becomes a part of that snakes history. A snakes legancy of names, is a legancy of human understanding of that snake(or any animal) Understand, we are humans and this legacy should be important.

To again clarify, the names do not and are not, in many cases, accurate, they are simply names. But please understand, these names have a difinition, this is part of the name, the difinition is expressed in a Key. In order to discribe a species, you must include the difinition that fits in the current key for that type animal.

So in desperation, I ask, has anyone keyed out goini and is it different from its surrounding neighbors?

ALso, a giant problem I see here is new and modern. While some are talking about Wild occuring kingsnakes, which the scientific names were designed for. Many are using captive bred individuals as examples. Which is totally useless. Even if you think they are of pure blood. They are useless. Nature has more controls that simply genetics. In fact, these other controls are very important with color and pattern on a short term basis.

The thought that many are outbreed(bred to something they would not breed in nature)(even if YOU call it the same type) or crossed(to another type of kingsnake) makes these discussions almost useless, no totally useless.

Some reasons why color and pattern are not of taxo importance is they migrate, they change not only forth, but back as well. So what your seeing can be very normal. It also may return to what it was 30 years ago. Consider, and this is a huge consider, these snakes have been doing this for tens of thousands of years, which means, chill out, they are only being themselves.

Now back to names and snakes, for you all to fight forth and back is silly, as the snake in question, is what it is, you can call it anything you like. Its still is that same snake. You can think of it in any way you like, its still the same snake. You see, its all about you(humans) because the snake is still the same snake, whether you understand it or not. I hope this opens a few eyes, FR

Cant there be variation in scalation? Of course there can. In some of the keys for various snakes Ive seen there is a range of variables but then again thats set by a person not by nature. I think genetic testing is best

Keith
-----

Please take no offense, but I asked, have you ever keyed them out. Sir, I would think that is the first step to understanding what something is or is called by humans.

I'm not experienced in "keying" something out. Please clarify exactly what it is you are requesting. If you're looking for scale counts, SVL, subcaudal scales, etc. I think you'll find among Eastern, Florida, and Apalachicola Kings in the state of Florida they are very similar if not identical.

When these subspecies were identified and named, weren't they based on color, pattern, number of bands, width of bands, ventral scale pattern, etc.? I thought that is what was used to identify and name them in the first place.

Sean, Please investigate and learn to use a key. A key, is the law. That is, its accepted just like law. From that point all these type discussions can start. That is, is there something wrong with the law? was the law written improperly. Or even interpited improperly. But all and all its the law. If it keys out to be an eastern king, then by law it is an eastern king.

Are all laws right, heck no, and surely they can be rewritten and modernized. But in order to do that, you must know the old law and its interpitations. Then point out what was in error and show proof that is was wrong. For you to stand and yell, your wrong, its wrong and they are wrong, is totally useless, and all you will recieve is what your recieving, grief. You must understand what is was wrong from and show proof that it is wrong. The reality is, you may be right, but we will never know.

About characteristics. As I mentioned before, some are fast changing like color and pattern, some are slower, like scalation, some are much slower like organ development, etc.

To understand that, color and pattern can and has changed and is changing. Scalation has changed much much slower, like in, hundreds or even thousands of years. Organ structure, as with skeletal structure is even slower to change. But please understand, all of this is always changing.

This is reflected in naming. Color and pattern is not suppose to be a tool for genura or species, but has been allowed(in error) with subspecies. Some schools of taxo do not believe in subspecies. So I imagine thats why they were allowed. I really don't know why it was allowed.(poor judge)

If goini does not key out any different then the surrounding easterns and Fla's, then it was and should be considered a localized morph. Which there are many of in kingsnakes. Until someone proves different.

The better question is, are these morphs recent(due to habitat changes)(advancing) or relic(due to habitat loss)(receding). Also is that a correlation between this morph and other morphs of getulus? Is there a common thread? You know, the things I already brought up.

Again, please research the keys, and the latest ones, as well as old ones. It would surely be a waste for you to do all this work and not even get off the ground. Good luck FR

Sean, Please investigate and learn to use a key. A key, is the law. That is, its accepted just like law. From that point all these type discussions can start. That is, is there something wrong with the law? was the law written improperly. Or even interpited improperly. But all and all its the law. If it keys out to be an eastern king, then by law it is an eastern king.

FR, do you know how to use a key? If so, please explain. You are the person that brought up keys to begin with and so I am asking you to explain.

Also, are keys exact or do they range? Justinian2120 posted above where FL, Eastern, and even "goini" have ranges in scale counts, ventrals, and subcaudals. If one is going by these keys alone, how does one use those keys to interpret what they have?

Get a book with a key, it will explain everything. Its easy particularly with dor's.

Basically a key, presents you will a question, the answer leads to another question, etc. Until the animal in questions have narrowed it down to what that specimen is and identified. FR

All these disscusions are very interesting and it is fun to postulate on what they once were and what they may become. In fact both the island theory and the intergrade theory and the morph within and island or morph with in and intergrade, morph withing an intergade island population could all have happened. I would say that is why I mostly like locality snakes because they just are what they are, snakes that came from a particular region that look they way they do.

the generally accepted school of thought-and which i think makes sense-is not that goini are on the fringes of both g.getula's and g.floridana's current ranges-that would be somewhere about 1/3 of the way down peninsular florida(and most range maps show a major pocket of floridana in the extreme ne corner of the state)-but a surviving relict pocket that marks where floridana USED to be found,and integradedd with the nominate getulas...then again the same is said about sticticeps(obx kings)...and that one,well does'nt sit as easily with me,but who knows?

That would make sense to me if the populations surrounding "goini" look like they have any kind of Florida influence. But they don't. I have found Easterns just east of "goini" range and they have no speckling whatsoever and normal band counts for Eastern Kings. To say "goini" are relict FL X Eastern intergrades really means nothing to me as there is no documentation whatsoever of any Florida King being found in this area. It's all based on theory. How do we know the FL King didn't evolve from Easterns and simply lighten over time?

easterns evolved from Floridas, according to a paper Mr Hillson sent me.

Lets consider that the Apalachicola king evolved on a barrier island. The population of kings on this island could have been floridana, getula, or some intermediate or intergrade form. Regardless of the form of getula it evolved from, it evolved into a distinct subspecies. I don't think there is any proof of Floridana influence in Apalachicola kings, though I do acknowledge the possibility of it having evolved from an intergrade form.

Do you have a copy of that paper Nick? I would be very interested in reading it. I'm curious with the much larger range of the Eastern King how they evolved from Florida Kings having such a small range (compared to Easterns) today.

I should still have the paper. I put up a copy for you to download a little later today.

He doesnt say that Easterns sprung from but he does say Floridana has influnced the southern type L.g.g. I believe his theory is all Kings migrated from the west and then evolved into their various habitats etc...

Keith
-----

Keith, Is that the paper where it is believed all getula evolved from splendita? Or is it nigrita? Either way, if kings started out west and migrated eastward, it seems logical to assume Florida Kings evolved from Easterns since FL Kings are south of EK's range. And "goini" would have nothing to do with Florida Kings as the range of Florida Kings is further east and to the south of "goini".

Yeah thats what I would think to. Its the Blaney paper from Tulane University.

Keith
-----

Actually Blaney was at LSU not Tulane.
Jim

Oh I figured Tulane since the paper was published in Tulane Studies In Zoology And Botanylol now that I just opened the paper up at the time(1977)he was at the West Virginia State College Institute.

Keith
-----

I may be remembering the article wrongly, or thinking of a different article.

I couldnt remember either lol but I had the paper at my desk and I couldnt find any reference to such but then again I just grazed it. It does make more sense that they came from the west though seing as Florida is just hangin down there.

Keith
-----

and into page 97... it says a little about getula evolving from floridana. I must've read this thing at 4am or something the last time I read it!

I agree with you sean, fla was the sea botton when there were kingsnakes on the eastern seaboard. Fla's have to be a more recent occurring group and had to change to invade a new habitat, piles of sand left over from hurricanes, hahahahahahahaha. FR

LOL Just kidding guys. But you should both be careful picking on my home state like that.
Later Jason

again,this is a theory,not initially proposed by me;rememeber,i have not done field work regarding goinis...another theory is that the range of goini was once isolated from the mainland by salt water,not just a fresh water river....and now that is not the case and so are getting inundated with the mainland forms' genetics(i.e. g.getula)....and i'm sorry but off the top of my hea i can't remember where i have read these hypotheses.....btw 'keying it out' means using a key to use,yes,meristics/variations in scalation more than anything as a process of elimination,to ultimately id a specimen....and florida kings have 23 dorsal scale rows;chain and goinis have 21.....fla ventrals=210 to 221;chain kings ventrals=200to223....fla subcaudals=44 to 58;chain kings subcaudals=37to57....the ventrals and subcaudals of goinis are 216 and 53,respectively,falling easily into the count range of both floridana and getula....in other words yes floridana can easily be distinguished from g. getula with scale counts,but goini cannot....these counts were taken from markel's book.

Curious, why is it that the ventral and subcaudals on FL Kings and Eastern Kings have a range whereas "goini" have an exact number? Is this correct?

And how are these keys used to define a subspecies? Amongst the three populations of getula in Florida, I don't see how keys could be used to differentiate the three.

well you always have to take into account two more obvious factors-1.site of capture('locale') and 2.general appearence(coloration,pattern,size etc. are usually helpful of course)....i use keys as a third means of i.d.,when the first two above don't lead to a clear i.d.-and that usually settles it

Well it seems as if FR is suggesting we don't look at color, pattern, etc. It seems he's saying keys are the most important, if not the only, factor to look at.

It's a written tool for identifying biological specimens based on diverging characteristics. It would be difficult/useless to construct one that differentiates between Florida Lampropeltis getula based on scalation because of the extensive overlap in these characteristics. The only useful difference in scalation is that floridana have 23 scale rows (most of the time) and getula getula have 21. So this whole 'key them out' thing is borderline rediculous.

Basic Tutorial on Taxonomic Keys

-----
Pierson Hill

thanks for reminding me of dichotomous keys, ahhhh i fondly remember tediously keying out ferns in lab...hmmmm....
-daveb

with fronds like these who needs anemones???
:Mark

Taken from Dr. Bruce Means and Kenny Krysko's paper:

Quote:

"Abstract - Morphology of kingsnakes, Lampropeltis getula, is described and analyzed in the Apalachicola region of the Florida panhandle. Populations inhabiting the eastern Apalachicola Lowlands, a distinct biotic province, are different from the surrounding populations in having fewer and wider light body crossbands, distinct ontogenetic interband lightening, unique ventral patterns, and the presence of non-banded (striped and patternless) individuals. We conclude that the name L. g. goini as well as the hypothesis that Apalachicola L. getula are relict populations of intergrades between L. g. getula and L. g. floridana are invalid. We believe the polymorphic eastern Apalachicola Lowlands populations are most closely related to L. g. getula, and evolved in isolation on a barrier island or the coastal strand of a peninsula during one of the many higher stands of sea in the Pleistocene."

I know people have different opinions, but I believe in this theory. I realize this whole subject is still up in the air, but it really irks me when I hear people label Apalachicola Lowland Kingsnakes as L. getula getula X L. getula floridana.
-----
Will

Thanks for the great post,maybe certain people will use a "KEY" to obtain a "CLUE", keep posting the good stuff.

.