Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hi again,

new game, good luck:

#1:

#2:

#3:

#4:

#5:

#6:

Lampropeltis - Koenigsnattern

-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

that's a hodge-podge of central american milks....i'll get to each one.........

Hiya Gerrit!
I believe there's a bunch of Oligozona from Oxaca, a Polyzona in 2 pics , and a Sinaloan.
I'd be curious to see the responses on that pic I sent you from Berlin. Would you post it?
Here's a couple old shots of some odd (sibling) Gentilis...guess the locality tough guys?
All for now, Jeff

is this some kinda trick question???.....locale data is on the pic

Wanted: one editor for web pics, must have own eraser. Experience probably needed....sigh....Jeff

and forgot to remove the data on the pics .

I do not have permission to post that Berlin-pic. But you could post the link, can't you?

For all the other's: nobody solved the puzzle, till yet.

Greets,
Gerrit
Lampropeltis - Koenigsnattern

-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

Those are beautiful! Drool Drool Drool !
-Phil

sorry i had to waffle on a couple of my choices...1)abnorma,or stuarti....2)nelsoni.....3)micropholis,or hondurensis.....4)stuarti.....5)polyzona.....6)sinaloae....p.s. what species is that in the lower portion of pic#4? it looks very different than the other snake in the pic.

Hi guys,

c'mon, more guesses. Nobody got them all. Little hint on each pic there is just one ssp.

I will solve on sunday!

Greets,
Gerrit
Pic shows #1's male, spotted edition!

Lampropeltis - Koenigsnattern

-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

Please tell me that's Polyzona. Jeff

Hi again!

#1 L. t. polyzona (Guatemala)
#2 L. t. oligzona (Salina Cruz, Mexico)
#3 L. t. polyzona (Belize)
#4 L. t. conanti (both) (Acapulco, Mexico)
#5 L. t. conanti (Acapulco, Mexico)
#6 L. t. sinaloae

I also added the spotted male L. t. polyzona (Guatemala) in this post.

Greets,
Gerrit

Lampropeltis - Koenigsnattern

-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

now this is ineresting-two of my more trusted books on triangulum-one by williams,one by markel-both stae emphatically that conanti has a black snout,no mention whatsoever of so much as white stippling,let alone a clear v-shaped snout band as yours show in pics 4 and 5,albeit incomplete....also-oligozona is known to have a body red ring count of 10 to 16;the specimen you list as oligozona in pic #2 has what appears to be 18 red body rings....i am sort of curious as to the origin of these -were they wild caught/captive bred,etc...no offense intended,but how reliable was the source from where/whom they came,or if you collecteed them,how sure are you of their original locale?i know variation is pretty strong in some species,and triangulum is no exception...but that being said,these are two awfully highly respected authors i am quoting here,in regards to pattern.

Hi,

this are good commands and I try to explain as well as possible.
First I will just answer with the help of Williams, because Markel does not have any more informations, in my oppinion.

The L. t. conantiare also mentioned to have "white flecks" on the snout (page 133, Williams SE). My animals are F1 and F2 from wildcaughts from around Acapulco, Mexico. They were collected from a 100% trustable source. Hope this is proof enough.

Explaining the L. t. oligozona is a bit harder. They are egg imports from the area Salina Cruz, Mexico, which is described as L. t. oligozona area in the Williams book. They are from the same trustable source. Williams is also reporting "white flecks" on their snouts (page 137, Williams SE). The various number of red body rings could be explained by the low number of specimens Williams examined. He had just 16 L. t. oligozona to look at. In my oppinion this is not enough to be sure, that L. t. oligozona does not have more red body rings, if they are found in the described area.

I had to use the dictonary a lot. Hope, I did not offend you,

Greets,
Gerrit

Another oligozona from same clutch and area.

Lampropeltis - Koenigsnattern

-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

well burnsy,no i'm not offended at all...acapulco?clearly conanti range....yes,oligozona is much less clear...yes williams only exmined 16 pure oligozona specimens...but notice he also examined an additional 11 specimens now considered to be intergrades,from a unique area where the ranges of 3 subspecies overlap/merge "in the vicinity of tehuantepec,oaxaca,are considered to be oligozona x conanti x campbelli intergrades...the influence of conanti(and campbelli) is evident in the number of red body rings..."(p. 139)-on average,a higher number of red body rings than pure oligozona-as is that of nelsoni,which explains that as my incorrect guess for pic no.2 in your photo quiz,lol....you mentioned yours being from salina cruz-an area that appears to fall into this zone of intergradation,from what i can gather(see p.140).....regardless,those are healthy looking and beautiful snakes you've got there-do you keep any n. americans,e.g. temporalis,multistrata,amaura?if so,how about some pics/another i.d. quiz?

Hi,

a few other good posts from your side.

The L. t. polyzona is explained by Scott Ballard and there is nothing more to add from my side.

The L. t. oligozona are from that locality, but to me, they do not look like having L. t. campbelli influence.

There may be L. t. conanti influence, but again a number of 16 and 11 animals is not enough, to divide a ssp. from an other ssp.. This is just my oppinion.

Even the meristic data from the L. t. conanti do not fit to Williams obversations. I did not have the best shedding til yet, but it seems, that one of the Acapulco females does have 226 ventrals. They are so variable in this area. Remember, Williams reports the low red body ring counts in the region around Acapulco and the female I'm referring to has 19 RBR. Pretty high count.

Here is an animal, nobody would have a doubt that it is L. t. oligozona, but it is L. t. conanti.

More research has to be done!

Greets,
Gerrit

Here is another L. t. polyzona.

Lampropeltis - Koenigsnattern

-----
http://www.lampropelten.de.vu

lol....ok,going out on a limb here-about pics 1 and 3-from guatemala and belize,respectively-after doing a little more research,it appears polyzona only occurs in the northwest of guatemala,and even then likely has strong abnorma influence;notice abnorma(my first inclination for the snake in pic#1) is the predominant triangulum in guatemala,i.e. it has the largest range of all milks there....as for pic#3,well i don't see polyzona coming close to belize on any range maps-just blanchardi,and/or abnorma(both independently,as well as intergrades of the two)...my initial guess was incorrect-i was thinking photo #3 was micropholis or hondurensis.

While Williams does give the range of abnorma as most of Guatemala, this doesn't seem to be accurate. As Hobart Smith pointed out in a 1942 paper, L.t.abnorma is limited to the central montane highlands of Guatemala and no where else; whereas L.t.polyzona is a lowland form. The range of polyzona actually extends from the lowlands of Veracruz into Tabasco and then into the low areas of northern Guatemala and Belize. There would be no abnorma influence in polyzona until you got to the northern edge of the central highlands of Guatemala.

I learned that the hard way when I had some animals imported from the Lago de Peten- Flores area of northern Guatemala many many years ago as "abnorma". The male had 24 red body rings, the females 19 and 21. After breeding them, the young had as low as 15 and 17 red body rings. That didn't quite fit what abnorma was supposed to have. Then I started looking at elevational data on both subspecies. That cinched it. The snakes that Williams called "abnorma" in northern Guatemala were actually polyzona.

If you look on page 78 of Williams' second edition, you will see a picture of L.t.polyzona from Belize. Why this wasn't included in the text and maps is not known.

A lot of the "Guatemalan milks" that end up with a relatively lower band count and become totally bicolored red and black as adults are actually polyzona, and not abnorma. True abnorma have a much higher red body ring count (25-32) compared to polyzona (15-25), and while the white body rings darken somewhat as adults, they don't get bicolored like polyzona does.

Actually, it is polyzona that comprises the largest range of the milks in Guatemala. It occurs in the northern low area of the country, and then abnorma picks up in the central montane highlands. Two other subspecies also occur in Guatemala, L.t.oligozona in the extreme southwestern corner, L.t.stuarti in the extreme southeastern corner, and then oligozona X stuarti intergrades in the larger south central portion of Guatemala. Also, L.t.blanchardi intergrades with polyzona in northeastern Guatemala.

There are a few things that are being re-looked at from Williams' monograph, but for the most part, it is the best guide there is to the tropical triangulum

Scott Ballard

ok,that's good deal of info,thanks....hey what other publications do you know of that show some central/south american milks' range maps?(clearly,if possible,lol)...hey i'm not a herpetologist,and don't pretend to be-but all this is what i consider good evidence that this is one species that may just be way too damned divided into 'legitimate' subspecies.

So far the only really good publication that based the localities on actual museum specimens is Williams. Yes, there are some things that need to be corrected with some of his range maps and pattern differences, but overall it is a good monograph on all the recognized subspecies to date.

Markel did more of a photo book and summarized the original info in his book that Williams did initially.

Actually, I consider the differences in range and pattern GOOD evidence to support the subspecies. There are some older threads on this forum that discuss the subspecies concept as it deals with milksnakes. You may want to look at those when you have time.

Subspecies are less exact than species, but do represent geographical variants within a full species. What makes a Honduran milk different from a Sinaloan? What makes a red milk different than a central plains milk? Two things: where it came from geographically, and pattern differences.

At some point the milks will probably be separated into 4 or 5 different species groups, but there will probably always be subspecies within those groups. You cannot recognize the different types or subspecies of milks currently and not believe in the subspecies concept. Otherwise there would be just one type of milksnake

Scott Ballard

well scott,thanks for the referal to the previous post- i had seen that,and read the posts,yours included.yeah that is a controversial and hotly debated topic,that concept of subspecies and it's validity/overuse/etc...i too see geographic origin and pattern consistincies as usually reliable terms of i.d....one thing you say,though,i am not sure what you mean-'you cannot recognize the different types/subspecies of milks currently and not believe in the subspecies concept'...i for one recognize the current taxonomy of them,it makes sense to me,i.e. i have a pretty good understanding of how it was arrived at,and what it's based upon,etc...that doesn't mean i have to agree with it;right now,i just think there is too much division-it should not be so hard to identify any given specimen-there is so much uncertainty involved with making a proper i.d....

Let me clarify what I meant by that statement. There are some who do NOT believe in subspecies at all. And in that belief, it would be difficult to "define" different types or subspecies of milks. If there were no such thing as subspecies, or one did not believe in the subspecies concept, all of them would be just "milksnakes". There would be no groupings as "Hondurans", "Sinaloans", "Pueblans", etc.

What you said in your previous post is that you believe in the subspecies concept, but that you feel there may be too many of them in the milksnake group. Maybe that too many were divided into subspecies that should have not been, correct? Others also feel this is true; the age old argument between "lumpers" and "splitters".

However with subspecies, there isn't going to be that nice division as there is with full species. A real good example of this is in eastern Kansas. Try flipping rocks there and distinguishing individual animals between syspila and gentilis. In large intergrade zones like that, all animals must be considered to be intergrades, even though you can get very different looking individuals under the same rock-- some of which look more like syspila and some of which look more like gentilis.

It certainly is easier to I.D. subspecies that are from the middle of their geographic ranges. However, the "fun" (if you want to call it that) comes with trying to I.D. them from the edges of their ranges that are really close to intergrade zones.

You are right that it is a topic that always has and for a while, at least, always will provoke conversation amongst all of us-- the lumpers vs. the splitters

Scott