Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I just finished reading a good portion of some of the discussions from below and here are a few observations as to how ANF kings may compare to getula, floridana or any other ssp's for that matter.

Meristical data is used to key a species more often than a ssp's. There is much overlap between subspecies when it comes to ventrals, subcaudals,infralabials and supralabials and even mid dorsal scale rows. Where the ANF king falls into the range is basically meaningless. If you run a count on a series of snakes you will have an upper and lower variance and can of course figure an average.

I have alse heard it referenced that there are slightly different skull shapes in getula ssp's. I don't know how conclusive this line of thought turned out to be but may be worth taking a closer look at. I can look at my black kings for example and recognize that the skull is generally taller and narrower by proportion in comparison to the Florida kings I keep. Hardly scientific, but something to think about. The most obvious key when it comes to ssp's is coloration. This may not be as simple as it sounds and there are variables to consider. Remember, this is only a tool. After all classification is simply a system for us to put things in a biologically meaningful order. In a polymorphic species such as getula that encompasses a vast range this is to be expected. It should be remembered that this form of classification is only a guide line and the actual relationships may be more complex than we know. Not a bad starting point though IMO.

One other thought on the thread in which someone was concerned that herpers may be threatening populations of kings in the ANF (or anywhere for that matter!). I have to agree with Mayday and some of the others that this notion is simply not the case. There are far greater perils to herp populations than field herpers could ever exert. No more than a drop in the proverbial bucket lol!

I hope this post does not offend anyone. It is certainly not my intent. I'm just a guy that likes talking about snakes. Phil
Official Black Kingsnake Website

Hi Phil, First, to understand the how they fit in a key for getulus is first and foremost. To go about saying, but overlap, and maybe, and possibly, is not very smart. That is plain and simple. You simply have to start at the begining and the key is that.

Once you understand how they relate, then meaningful conversations can take place. Until then, its meaningless babble(in real taxo scientific terms)

About collectors and populations, of course bull dozers are far better at eliminating whole areas where snakes occur. But by sheer numbers, collectors needlessly "kill" lots of individuals. When you take a snake from nature, you have indeed killed it. What you do with that snake after you take it, is meaningless to its envolvement in nature. The question is, after all the bull dozers, how much of this can the snakes afford?

Some goody thoughts, Lets just say, taking a snake from nature is a crime against nature. Of course there are lots of degrees of how serious the crime is. For instance, taking a snake from a highway, is not such a bad crime, because it would have most likely been killed, sooner or later. Of course theres various degrees of this. Then theres taking babies, not so bad again, most die before adulthood. Taking adults, should be avoided. Taking gravid females is a high crime and taking breeding pairs from areas away from mans destruction is the most deplorable crime.

But indeed non of these compare to that bull dozer fella.

Once I saw some reptile fella(researcher) on TV and he explained that studying reptiles is basically, reptile harassment. I could not believe he said that, he was so right. hahahahahahahahaha, no matter what we call it or tell ourselves, we are indeed doing little more then harassing the beans out of them.

After all this "stuff" on goini, I have come to the conclusion that they the snakes are only one more tool for people to harass other people. Hey, thats not a bad thing. Its better we harass eachother then the snakes. FR

wow,fr,i have to say,(yeah,you hit a button of mine)...are you aware of how condescending you come off on this,and other posts?you are basically questioning phil's intelligence here,and accusing anyone of mindless babble?who the hell died and named you the authority on anything?i know have a biting tone sometimes myself,but you really seem like you are actually trying to estrange people-in this case fellow herpers(??!)nobody likes that....that being said,i think that bit about what is best left alone,and what is not so bad to collect if you must-well said...i even had to agree to a point,about the 'harrassing' deal,like i always say to people-these snakes mostly just want to be left alone.

Do your understand, its doesn't matter if I am rude, stupid, a genius, totally insame, or right, its in the eyes of science and taxo, as I mentioned, mindless babble. From a bystanders(me) point of view, its appears that way too.

Its fairly funny that people are screaming, they are the same, no they're different, no there the same, but no one is saying different then what! So I asked, what are they different then, and how.

Please understand, I am an expert of mindless babble. I hope that does not make me a bad person. The truth is, a person, once put me in my place, James Murphy, former director of Dalles zoo. Again the truth was, he was right. If I or you or anyone is going to do this kind of talk, there are certain protocals to be followed, or at least started with.

If a person chooses to skip the rules that allow this sort of discussion, what will that get them?????? That is the point sir, It doesn't matter what I think or say. I am not the one trying to convince anyone of anything with goini. I merely find it strange that most here completely skipped, ignored, or bypassed the start, to key them out. I am not saying they are this or that, I merely wanted to know where they fit? Its horribly strange that no one knows.

As a bystander I asked a question, where do goini key out. There was absolutely no answer. Some did not know about species keys were or how to use them. Or that they are the guide to what is a species(accepted names) You do understand, a name only follows a discription. A discription equals a name. There not one without the other. That no one knew the discription is important. I believe they need to understand that.

Some said, they are different then getulus, and different then fla's, I asked how? color? color does not get you anywhere with kingsnakes and many other species.

Also understand, the name and following discription does not end all discussions, its the start of discussions. Someone please explain to me, how can you go around in any meaningful way, saying something is this or that, without knowing what this or that is??????????????

I also think, its the task of this forum to learn, and is that not part of learning. That you have the oppertunity to learn should not make you feel stupid. If it does, then the shoe may fit. FR

If a person chooses to skip the rules that allow this sort of discussion, what will that get them?????? That is the point sir, It doesn't matter what I think or say. I am not the one trying to convince anyone of anything with goini. I merely find it strange that most here completely skipped, ignored, or bypassed the start, to key them out. I am not saying they are this or that, I merely wanted to know where they fit? Its horribly strange that no one knows.

Some said, they are different then getulus, and different then fla's, I asked how? color? color does not get you anywhere with kingsnakes and many other species.

I spoke with several other people about this and a few here have even posted their responses. Simply put, counting scales at mid row, ventral scales, and subcaudal scales will not work with trying to differentiate amongst the populations of getula in Florida. Their numbers aren't exact, rather they have a range which overlap so trying keying out a subspecies of getula in Florida by this method is pointless. This is why scientists, biologists, etc. have used number of bands, width of bands, interband lightening, etc. to distinguish what is what. When it all comes down to it, they're all basically the same thing...they're all getula. What makes them different is the location at which certain patterned individuals occur.

Sean, I would imagine they would fit well within the range of all the surrounding "normal populations" of, L.g.g. and L.g.F.

But yes, that would be a guess, that no one has actually checked tells volumes.

That they do fit in would mean they are the same, except for pattern, which as I have mentioned is very normal for kingsnakes of many types, not just getulus.

So, with the guess that they fit into normal eastern kings morphology, What are you saying they are? are you saying they are not an eastern king? then what are they? See, this is what I am missing, there is all this arguement going on, but no one is saying anything concrete. In other words, what is the arguement????????

With the above in mind, is a striped king a different speceis? how about a newporter? or the dark weird pattern morphs farther north? are they not cal kings. So why would a goini color pattern be something different?

Aren't there normal eastern kings in the same area? don't they border normal Fla kings close by.

Anyway, thanks FR

That they do fit in would mean they are the same, except for pattern, which as I have mentioned is very normal for kingsnakes of many types, not just getulus.

Agreed.

So, with the guess that they fit into normal eastern kings morphology, What are you saying they are? are you saying they are not an eastern king? then what are they? See, this is what I am missing, there is all this arguement going on, but no one is saying anything concrete. In other words, what is the arguement????????

I'm saying exactly what you stated above. Most getula are the same, except for pattern. And I believe the patternless, striped, and light colored banded forms of getula in the Apalachicola Region are different because their pattern is unlike anything else found amongst getula period. No they are not Eastern Kings but they are closely related. Not sure why you don't get this.

With the above in mind, is a striped king a different speceis? how about a newporter? or the dark weird pattern morphs farther north? are they not cal kings. So why would a goini color pattern be something different?

I've never found a Cal. King nor have I ever studied them. Know Brian Hubbs or who he is? You may want to ask him as he's probably one of the most knowledgeable people on Kingsnakes.

Aren't there normal eastern kings in the same area? don't they border normal Fla kings close by.

Normal Easterns in the range of the Apalachicola King? Yes. AK's naturally intergrade with EKs. But AK's don't come near the range of FL Kings...EK's exist inbetween the two.

Are you saying a normal striped Ak normally produces stripe offspring? Or are you saying they will produce pattenless and striped offspring?

To be a type(species or whatever) It would have to produce individuals of its own type. Is that what they do?

Then why on earth are there every step of intermediates from a normal eastern to a patterless and striped? If it was its own type, it would breed pure(kinda what makes a type)

As I mentioned before, I only have experience with one WC gravid Goini phase. It produced a wide range of offspring. That is where I saw my first striper and patternless.

While I do understand you really want them to be a different type, what evidence do you have to say they are different. Please understand, at this time, I do not mean in any scientific terms. Just you opinion of what makes them different? Thanks FR

"newporter"is a good example and how bout "blairi"/"alterna"these were also at one time thought to be seperate, just because they have diff. color/pattern.

L.g."goini"= L.g.getula w/o a doubt!

FR, You have made numerous comments on this forum about animals that you have collected and just posted a photo of a pit you collected on your property. You seem like the last guy that should be criticizing people for collecting. Maybe it's OK for you, but not for other people?
I know you often feel unfairly criticized on this forum, but I have to agree with the others that say you come off as condecending and hypocritical. While I respect your years of experience and knowledge, your lack of tact and social skills prevent you from getting your message across.

I have a strong fear that thinking and reading, may hurt your brain.

Did I say, do not collect? no.

Did I say, to collect? no.

Did I say I did not collect? no.

I merely indicate some thought should be envolved with collecting.

Do I think about how collecting effects the enviornment, obviously yes.

Am I very selective about what I collect, yes.

Do I consider how it effects nature, yes.

If you had a brain, which I am starting to wonder about, you would realize I did not recomend "not" collecting. Where does it say, do not collect. you know, if your brains(ability to read) were rocket fuel, you couldn't launch a pencil(humor)(laugh, hehehehehe)

I know, to think, to consider, and thought, are hard concepts for you. Try grasping them, hahahahahahahahahaha slippery slope.

Please, if your going to only attack me for asking people to think, please entertain me while your at it. Be a little more creative and actually learn to read. Good on you, FR

Is English your second language?
-----
Pierson Hill

Yea, what of it? FR

smile

It just makes your posts a little difficult to read is all.

I agree with you on the keying issue as being step one. My point was using scale counts to determine ssp's is meaningless. Too much over lap means exactly that. When considering keys we must remember which are appropriate to species and which relate to ssp's.There is not only over lap between ssp's but you will find significant variance sometimes between two snakes found under the same board at the same site. That being what it is, I would not perform scale counts if what I was trying to determine was what ssp's I was looking at. Scale counts would be a better tool in determining affinities with other species. Okay, so what else is there? You mentioned descriptions somewhere in one of your posts. Original descriptions are based on a type specimen. Along with the usual scale counts, location of capture and a physical description of the creature in question are made. If the general morphology confirms that this species is one that has been described already, what else is there? How is this animal different than others of its species? Coloration? Pattern? Distinguishing features that differentiate it from others of its species? Yes!! Thats what we have left. Thats how it is done. And thus a proposed subspecies is born. We must all remember science is always changing and more information is learned. There have been many ssp's as well as full species that have not stood the test of time and have been sunk. No doubt, its a tricky business riding the fine line between what is a ssp's and what may only be localized color variation. At the same time there are many in the academic world that would very much like to do away with the ssp's concept all together. I will be the first to admit that it is often a vague system with lots of interpretation injected liberally but I still think its the best system available. Phil

There was discussion on where getula evolved and where it dispersed. It is commonly believed that calligaster may well have been the ancestral stock of all Lampropeltis and it is considered the most primitive form. Just something to think about. Phil

Blaney's splendida theory is more believable, get a clue,lol!

.

But where did splendida come from? I think what is being said is that the species getula evolved from calligaster. Phil

Sorry i jumped the gun, i didn't read your post right and thought you were saying that the getula subs were descended from caligaster, maybe so if caligaster is the ancestor of all Lamps, i never heard about it so i don't know.

Blaney's theory from what i understand is that splendida pushed north from Old Mex. and simultaneously spread west and east evolving into the diff. subs.
If anyone want's to correct me about this or disagree that's fine. thanks

Wrap your mind around this; how many calligaster subs are there? how many getula? Maybe the more archaic form didn't diversify as there was no need to make a more complicated species? Both theories hold water but the calligasters from Texas differ only slightly from the moles in Florida, in size and color. That is a HUGE range for a species. HMMMMMMMM?!
Todd Hughes

Obviously calligaster and getula have a common ancestor, I don't know which one came from the other, if they did come from each other. Off the top of my head i would have to say calligaster is the more primitive but more closly related to certain triangulums like L.t.triangulum, syspila, elapsoides, etc. than the getula

What i do believe is, splendida or possibly some type of extinct getula sub. pushed north thru Mexico then spread west and east or vice versa or at the same time and gradually evolved into all existing getula subs.

And my mind is warped NOT wrapped,lol!,have a great day.


thanks for looKING

Keys include a range, like ventrals, 190 to 220, subcaudals, 33 to 41, mid body scale rows, 29 to 34. Then you have scale type, keeled etc. head scalation. If you find an individual that does not fit within those ranges. You have the option to publish it and have you data included in the range. Or you can try and gather more information and provide evidence that you snake is something else.

I will say, if you find an individual and it fits in all catagories except color, you will play hell trying to get it accepted as a new species.

Please understand, you are allowed to think whatever you like.

Please understand, you need more then thoughts to defend your position of this. Thanks FR

Okay, I think I also said that the subspecies concept was vague at best and more than just a little arbitrary. I think I mentioned that scientific thought is forever changing. I think I also said that many do not even accept the subspecies concept. I also stated there is much over lap in scale counts between subspecies. Its not my rules FR. Its the way the game is played. Are you telling me that whether it be right or wrong the regional variation of color within a species has never been part of the equation when new subspecies were named? Have you ever read any of the original descriptions? Color and location are prominent when describing type specimens. I'm not sure where your line of reasoning is going. Are you saying that although its clear that there is over lap in scale counts between ssp's we should still use this as a foundation to differentiate between them and to use this as a key? If so, I'm afraid that wouldn't get you very far. Phil

Maybe you are confused? It was me that was arguing all along that scale counts were relevant to species NOT subspecies. The conversation was differences between ssp's and you brought up scale counts. Remember? Phil

First, I was asking questions to clarify. I have no idea what you all are trying to get at, All I hear is its different. No one wants to state if they are thinking, species, subspecies, etc. Just, Oh my god, its different.

I agree, subspecies seems to be a convience name, many do not hold subspecies as valid. So we agree.

But, even a subspecies has a consistancy, that is, in order to be a group or subspecies, you have to have a pure group or subspecies. Which Goini is missing. There is no substantual area that goini are pure goini. They are never consistant. That is, even where goini occur in the highest density, there are striped, patternless, blotched individuals, as well as more eastern looking individuals. There is no consistancy. So how are you going to name it? The striped form is the subspecies, or the patternless form?

Are you saying, eveything that is not normal easterns is another subspecies, even if they hatch out of the same clutch?????

If one could show a whole county or area of a certain pattern, then maybe you have a start. But where is that? FR

quote: There was discussion on where getula evolved and where it dispersed. It is commonly believed that calligaster may well have been the ancestral stock of all Lampropeltis and it is considered the most primitive form. :end quote
noway nohow will i ever buy that theory(no offense phil), i personally beleive calligaster is a triangulum. i really would like to read this paper where it is even cosidered getula came from calligaster, seems like a theory i heard about humans evolving from primates,, darwin was wrong in that theory but yet it seems excepted as truth,, what a world what a world
,,,,,,,,,,,thomas

< As to calligaster being the ancestral stock of Lampropeltis >

Whether its true or not I do not know. I simply pointed out that there are many in the academic world that hold this belief. Is this the first time you have heard this?

As for calligaster being a triangulum? I have absolutely no idea how you can arrive at this, but hey, I'm an open minded guy. I would love to hear your rationale. Phil

yes its the first ive ever heard of getula coming from calligaster. and how do i come to the opinion that calligaster is triangulum is pattern,color,size,habitat and years of keeping/breeding them. i have no evidence.just an opinion,,,,,,,,,thomas