Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Apalachicola kingsnakes? What do you think about CNAH recognizing "meansi" on it's site? Do you think the Judd & Krysco report is convincing enough?
To me the Apalachicola king is just a mere variation , a natural occurring morph of L.g.getula, surrounded by more typical L.g.getula. thanks in advance.
here's a typical blotched phase Apalachicola king.

What's the Judd & Krysko report? I'm not familiar with that, though I have seen Krysko's dissertation. His analyses aren't that great (the basic question is: do these things form groups?--but he never uses a statistic designed to test that question!), but it sounds like L.g. meansii represents recognizable geographic variation accompanied by some amount of genetic differentiation... since that's about as much as you can ask of a subspecies, seems like a good enough subspecies to me.

Yes, the dissertation, it's just a school report to me, well anyway the new 2006 Krysco & Judd disseration is in the CNAH library.
What makes you think the Apalachicola kingsnake in it's blotched/banded/striped/patternless variations is not a variation of L.g.getula?

This reminds me of reading about when striped cali were a diff. taxon than banded cali.

cheers.....

If striped L. g. californiae populations were geographically restricted & (at least marginally) genetically differentiated from the rest of L. g. californiae... well, then we'd call those a subspecies, too.

Hey guys. I actually liked the K&J paper as I have often wondered what some researchers would propose if their data supported previously named subspecies. I guess I am just used to seeing..."[place whatever subspecies name here] sunk" in manuscript titles. I always get a kick out of that.

I agree with aspidocelis, their analysis is probably as good as it's ever going to get in support of subspecies recognition. However, like any other paper of this type there must be (and are) quite a lot of statistics involved, including Bootstraps and Posterior Probabilities.

Jetzen, trust me, there is a lot more to it to obtain a PhD than just writing a "school report"! I have not read the dissertation you refer to, but I suspect it's very similar to this paper. Keep in mind that dissertations/theses are written to complete a degree. These usually consist of multiple chapters, which are later prepared as papers submitted to peer-reviewed journals. They are not accepted until published. Also, if this Apalachicola entity was simply a color variant it would not appear as a natural clade in both of the molecular and morphological phylogenies. I personally view it as a species.

I specifically enjoyed the comparisons of the different species concepts. It appears that the names "sticticeps" and "goini" do not represent populations, but that's not suprising since they have not been recognized in 30 years. The old name "goini" part interested me as well and makes perfect sense since the holotype is the name bearer, which is veiewed as an intermediate or hybrid, therefore one cannot redefine the old name to include something that is different than it. That's why we have the ICZN, there are specific rules in place for taxonomy! Looks like they actually helped (pers. comm.) on this paper too.

One thing I did not care for in this paper is the continuance of subspecies. Yes, I know, but this is my personal view/preference, and I view natural clades as species, regardless of how closely related they are to each other. If you can distinguish it, they are species. I suspect researchers will simply view these and other named subspecies as species in the near future. Hey, let's talk Phylocode!

if i wanted to discuss phylogenetics i'd go to school.

Phylocode isn't phylogenetics. It's a taxonomic system based on phylogenetics. It's also a horrendously bad idea. But, since this is a taxonomy discussion forum... what are you doing here if you aren't interested in taxonomy?

Patrick Alexander

Did i say they were the same thing? No, and don't be concearned with what i'm doing here, end of discussion with you.
cheers......

Thanks for abdicating.

And don't waste your time with the whole "even though my post hinged entirely upon assuming X, I didn't actually say X, so why do you think you've rebutted me by pointing out X isn't true?" nonsense. Oldest trick in the book when it comes to dodging an argument and even in the best case it just wastes time.

Patrick Alexander

.

Ok I am not a taxonomist but something about this bothers me - a clade of closely related species which freely interbreed is what? Sounds like you are just going to have to exchange the name species for clade, and the name subspecies for species if you wish to express that thought. It is already expressed simply with subspecies already. The relationships close, closer, closest exist no matter what we call them and at the closest level they are always going to be instances where they hard to differentiate.

Apalachicola kings are geographicly restricted from the more typical L.g.getula?
If so please read this,about the eastern king L.g.getula,
"Coloring/scale form
Kingsnakes from everywhere in Florida vary enormously in dorsolateral pattern and coloration,and in the past many of these COLOR PATTERN VARIANTS WERE THOUGHT TO BE SEPARATE RACES. Typical eastern kingsnakes possess black to deep-brown dorsums patterned with less than 30 narrow,white or yellow dorsal crossbands that split to form a chain-like pattern on their sides. Kingsnakes from the panhandle's Apalachicola Basin-which were once thought to be a separate species known as "L.g.goini"-have much wider bands and blotches. Other kingsnakes FOUND IN THE SAME AREA exhibit typical L.g.getula patterns, however, along with various combinations of blotched , striped, and patternless variants, and it now recognized that both 'goini" and the blotched and striped kingsnakes LIVING IN THE SAME RANGE are actually merely pattern variants of L.g.getula."

from "Snakes of Florida" pg. 197

Don't believe that dissertation B.S., just because some guy is trying to earn a Phd.

So... because an author you don't even mention by name says there isn't any kind of clear boundary between L. g. goini & L. g. getula I'm supposed to believe that there isn't any kind of clear boundary between L. g. meansii and L. g. getula? How does that work?

And... keep in mind, Krysko doesn't recognize L. g. goini. He calls it an intergrade between L. g. getula & L. g. meansii.

"Don't believe that dissertation B.S., just because some guy is trying to earn a Phd."

Are you just an anti-academic, then?

Patrick Alexander

I gave you the book title and pg # look it up.
And yes in some cases i am anti-academic, so?

Don't bother me anymore until you understand the variability of Lampropeltis,getula,getula.
thanks for your opinion and like i said b/4 end of discussion w/you.

"I gave you the book title and pg # look it up."

You missed the point completely. What's the point of arguing from authority if you don't even mention the authority? Kinda pulls the rug out from under what is, regardless, a crappy form of argument. The fact that your authority makes a different point than the one you're trying to make is a second major problem.

"And yes in some cases i am anti-academic, so?"

Well, it does make discussing science a bit difficult. Like trying to have a meaningful discussion about herps with birders. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with birders, just means you aren't going to get anywhere talking to them.

Patrick Alexander

.

n/m
-----
"with head raised regally,and gazing at me with lidless eyes,he seemed to question with flicks of his long forked tongue my right to trespass on his territory" Carl Kauffeld