Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I have read different information on different snake books and websites. Can we consider milksnakes, kingsnakes? Since they are also Lampropeltis. Or does the Lampropeltis Triangulum can't be considered kingsnakes?

Thank you.

Luis;

Yes, milksnakes (and all members of Lampropeltis) can be considered to be "kingsnakes", milksnakes, mountain kings, prarie kings, and common kings are all "subsets" if you will of the kingsnake genus.

Peter
-----
Peter and Sara
Beouf River Reptiles

I'm still confused, since I keep on getting different answers to this question. In the Milk Snake forum I got this reply to the same question:

Milk snakes are not king snakes. They are simply in the same genus. They are the milk snake within the Lampropeltis genus.
Genus - Lampropeltis
Species - triangulum (milks)
ssp - triangulum, syspila, etc....

The Lampropeltis getula species are the kings. They are related, but a different species within the Genus.

Just like the Elaphe (now Pantherophis) Genus....
within it you have the rats, corns, and fox snakes species and ssp.

Same thing goes with a myriad of other snakes like the Pituophis Genus - Pines, bulls and gophers. All related at the Genus level, but seperate species that are separated further into ssp.

Here is an eastern milk taxonomic break down for you....

Class - Reptilia
Order - Squamata
Suborder - Serpentes
Family - Colubridae
Genus - Lampropeltis
Species - triangulum
sub-species - triangulum

Hope this isnt too confusing

"I'm still confused, since I keep on getting different answers to this question."

and you should be. the problem you're running into is basically like comparing two different languages -- one is latin and part of an attempt to classify organisms in way that resembles "nature" and true evolutionary relationships, the other is derived from common english language (with some input from other languages, e.g. massasauga). you're likely to encounter many different common names for the same organism, but "we" all pretty much agree on the latin or scientific names.

that said, i would tend to agree with the information you got from the milk snake folk. i think fewer people would call all members of the same genus by the same common name. but there are those who would do this. go looking for rattlesnakes in oregon and the locals will tell you about all the timbers, diamondbacks, and sidewinders they've seen. but to a herpetologist, these are very different at the species level. a herpetologist would not tell you about the cribos native to florida, or the scarlet kings or coral kings in the sierra.

i think most people would look at you with a funny look on their face if you said, "nice milk snake" and they were holding a striped cal king.

cetainly not always, but common names tend to follow species designations.

my $0.02

matt

its like this, a milk snake is a kingsnake but a kingsnake isnt necesarily a milk snake. kingsnake is the genus, and milk snake is the species. kinda like a taod is a frog but a frog isnt neceasarily a toad. or saying is a timber rattlesnake a rattlesnake? yes, because a timber is a species in the rattlesnake genus crotalus. a milk snake is a species in the kingsnake genus lampropeltis.

a toad is not a frog(???)....and a milk is not a kingsnake...the post two lines above mine here probably explained it best.despite the fact there are several subspecies of kings,and even several different species of kings,but only one species of milk,a milk is a milksnake in it's own right,just as much as a king is a kingsnake...to say it's related to a king is accurate,but technically,to say it's even 'a type of king' is incorrect.

Milksnakes are members of the genus Lampropeltis, which makes them kingsnakes. Period. There is absolutely no way to define a kingsnake that does not include milksnakes as well.

Look it up in any dictionary you care to:

milk snake n.:
Any of various nonvenomous king snakes of the species Lampropeltis triangulum ranging from the eastern and central United States south to Ecuador, often having red, black, and yellow or white bands.

milk snake n : nonvenomous tan and brown king snake with an arrow-shaped occipital spot; southeastern ones have red stripes like coral snakes

Furthermore, toads have been classified as frogs for quite a few years now.

ok,here we go-yes they are both of the genus lampropeltis...beyond that we start pointing to common or vernacular names,which gets very grey to say the least....e.g.-is a scarlet kingsnake a king or a milksnake?well,'scientifically speaking',it is now considered a miksnake,it's taxonmonic name being lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides(it has been reclassified several times,once being a it's own species of kingsnake)...the following species are the snakes generally considered to be what is commonly refferred to as 'kingsnakes'-lampropeltis getula,lampropeltis alterna,lampropeltis pyromelana,lampropeltis zonata,lampropeltis mexicana,and lampropeltis ruthveni.the latter is the most recent addition to the genus,and was formerly a subspecies of lampropeltis triangulum,the milksnakes.in my humble opinion,it is also the most similar to the milksnakes,more so than even mexicana and at least as much as pyromelana and even zonata....milks and kings are in the same genus,and that is it...so yes they are closely related...it has just become widely accepted,but misleading and technically erroneous,to call them kingsnakes,or even a 'type of kingsnake'...they are each their own species in their own right.yes they can produce viable offspring when hybridized together,though i have never done so;i don't like hybridization in my personal collection....and who told you toads are frogs?....since when?at least kings and milks are in the same genus;toads and frogs are not....also,i would not always base your future arguments on general dictionary definitions-milks from the midwest,not just the southeast,are also 'striped' to coin the phrase you copped(i think we all know that your dictionary meant banded),and only a few milks have that occipital spot;only one single subspecies,the nominate,is regularly tan and brown,for that matter.

All milks are kings. Period. There is no rational way to define what a kingsnake is that doesn't also include the milksnakes.

*** ...it has just become widely accepted,but misleading and technically erroneous,to call them kingsnakes,or even a 'type of kingsnake'...they are each their own species in their own right. ***

There is nothing "technically erroneous" about it. It does not follow the common naming convention that you, for whatever reasons, prefer. That does not make it wrong. All kingsnake species, by definition, are species "in their own right." That does not stop them from being kingsnakes.

My naming convention (kingsnake = Lampropeltis) is widely used, and has the advantage of being rational, not the result of historical accidents where some species of getula got named kings and other got named milks (and still other subspecies of the milks got named kings again).

You're all incorrect when when you try to argue propriety out of common nomenclature. L. triangulum and L. getula are both lampropeltids, neither of these speceis are anything until you give them a name. Taxonomy allocates species in taxons based on similarity. We call animals like L. alterna, and L. pyromelana kingsnakes, yet they are as disimilar from L. getula as L. triangulum is. The fact of the matter is that none of these animals are male monarchs, or mammalian lactate. There is a reason we use a binomial system in the first place, and thats because vulgar terms dont acurately describe a specimens relation to other species. Bufonids, ranids, hylids, dendrobatids, and bombinatorids, are all members of the order Anura. They are all seperated at the family level, and no two should be compared more closely then any other. However in the world of vulgar nomenclature, ranids, hylids, and dendrobatids are called frogs. Bufonids and bombinatorids are called toads. Let me also remind everyone that we speak English, in other countries these animals might have distinct unrelated name assignments. My point is that "kingsanke" is in no way a definitive term, and arguing this kind of symantics in a taxonomy forum is just pointless.

I'm perfectly aware of why latin binomials are used. However, even scientists do use common names. Some groups (birds, for example) even have "official" common names.

Along those lines, there is one, and only one, reasonable interpretation for what constitutes a kingsnake, and that is that it corresponds to the genus Lampropeltis. Furthermore, there is no rational way to define what a kingsnake is that includes all the snakes currently called kingsnakes without also including L. triangulum.

Has to agree completely. Popular names has no meaning in a taxonomic forum.

Popular names, are as implied by the word, popular names placed for at species to make it easier for people to talk about these species, but their is no universal names for these - and they can vary from location to location - even within the US the same species can have multiple vernacular-names as i understand (e.g. Elaphe obsoleta is called various thinks depending on were in the origin you ask the local people)

Here in Denmark eg. we call ALL Lampropeltis for kingsnakes (in danish Kongesnoge), milksnake is not used, and ALL species, including triangulum subspecies are called kingsnakes. Another example is the firebellied toad mentioned in this thread. We call this species for Bell Frog here in Denmark (klokkefrø). This name is not more correct or wrong than firebellied toad, its just a vernacular name which is to be used in the local language for at certain genus (Bombina).

Other examples:

Boa constrictor = King boa (kongeboa)
Ballpython = Kingpython (kongepython)
Ribbon and Gartersnakes = Ribbonsnakes (strømpebåndssnoge) - we don't split them into different groups.

and lots more

It gives no meaning to discuss these common names, as they have no taxonomically universal meaning.
-----
Regards

Jan Grathwohl

HERPBREEDER.com - The Herpetological database

GECKOHOLICS.dk

>>I have read different information on different snake books and websites. Can we consider milksnakes, kingsnakes? Since they are also Lampropeltis. Or does the Lampropeltis Triangulum can't be considered kingsnakes?
>>
>>Thank you.

As a matter of fact, the scalet kingsnake (Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides) is considered by most biologists as a subspecies of the milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum). Yes, you can call a milksnake a kingsnake.

Most contemporary taxonomists consider elapsoides to be something different than triangulum. In fact I have heard that there is a lot of evidence to show that they are more closely related to zonata. Wouldn't that mean that they are monophyletic?

>>Most contemporary taxonomists consider elapsoides to be something different than triangulum. In fact I have heard that there is a lot of evidence to show that they are more closely related to zonata. Wouldn't that mean that they are monophyletic?

What? elapsoides being more closely related to zonata than to triangulum? That would post an enormous biogeographical problem since these two species are separated by thousands of miles! Further, there is at least some evidence that elapsoides interbreeds with L. t. triangulum but no evidence that zonata is even in contact with any subspecies of L. t. triangulum, let alone interbreed with any of them.