Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1474
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Anaheim, California
Contact:

Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Fieldnotes »

Recently the Lampropeltis getula had a name change and now the California Kingsnake is L. californiae.

What is the new common/scientific name of this Kingsnake from Cameron County, Louisiana, US?

Image
User avatar
kyle loucks
Posts: 3147
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 1:40 am
Location: Pennsylvania- Bucks Co. near Phila.

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by kyle loucks »

Morelia spilota
User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1474
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Anaheim, California
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Fieldnotes »

Carpet Python huh. Next time post something that is actually funny ... like this thing :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes:
User avatar
Ross Padilla
Posts: 2666
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 6:29 pm
Location: I love L.A.
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Ross Padilla »

Lampropeltis holbrooki

So that means wherever there are intermediates between these and both desert and black kingsnakes, they are now considered hybrids :?: :cry:

Image
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Fundad »

Were not accepting that name change..

Fundad
User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1474
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Anaheim, California
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Fieldnotes »

Thanks Ross :thumb:
User avatar
Ross Padilla
Posts: 2666
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 6:29 pm
Location: I love L.A.
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Ross Padilla »

No problem, Will. ;) I don't like the name change either. I can see splitting up the Pine/Gopher snakes, but not getula.
jacy
Posts: 13
Joined: July 14th, 2010, 8:14 pm

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by jacy »

can someone please please explain this to me , and is there more good herp forums out there like/close to this 0ne???
User avatar
Ross Padilla
Posts: 2666
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 6:29 pm
Location: I love L.A.
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Ross Padilla »

I've never read the pdf file but from what I've been told, there was a study done on the entire getula complex using DNA. They came to the conclusion there is 5 different species, not one. The symbols found within the map represent the areas that were sampled for DNA. Here is the link to the pdf thanks to Fundad for posting in another thread.

http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/1249.pdf

Image
User avatar
MHollanders
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:32 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by MHollanders »

That snake is and should always remain Lampropeltis getula holbrooki.

Later, Matt
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Fundad »

We will not accept the change dam it.. :lol: :lol:

We wont we wont..
Image

Fundad
User avatar
MHollanders
Posts: 583
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:32 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by MHollanders »

Can somebody post a link to that paper? I don't understand how holbrooki are a distinct species when they breed with splendida...

Later, Matt
User avatar
Ross Padilla
Posts: 2666
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 6:29 pm
Location: I love L.A.
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Ross Padilla »

I posted it above. Just look above the Spok and captain Hubbs photo.
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by FunkyRes »

MHollanders wrote:Can somebody post a link to that paper? I don't understand how holbrooki are a distinct species when they breed with splendida...

Later, Matt
If I understand right, the paper doesn't think they do hybridize. I'm guessing they attribute the appearance of intermediary form to another cause.
User avatar
Knightkrawler5
Posts: 257
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 6:54 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Knightkrawler5 »

I dont completely get that distribution map...because just outside of chattanooga I have found the Eastern (chain link look) kingsnakes...but that map says they should be nigra.....which I have found in West Tennessee and they look completely different
User avatar
Ross Padilla
Posts: 2666
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 6:29 pm
Location: I love L.A.
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Ross Padilla »

Knightkrawler5 wrote:I don't completely get that distribution map...because just outside of chattanooga I have found the Eastern (chain link look) kingsnakes...but that map says they should be nigra.....which I have found in West Tennessee and they look completely different
They don't go by looks, they go by what the DNA tells them. Look at the green area in North Central Arizona. Those kings all look like pure Cal kings, but the DNA tells them they are Desert kings. It doesn't matter, though. The snakes are who they are and who they've always been despite what we call them. :crazyeyes: Oh great, I'm starting to sound like FR. :cry:
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by FunkyRes »

If they can make a niche model from their DNA and then they sample snakes in areas not used to make the model and the dna matches what the model predicts, then maybe they have something.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Brian Hubbs »

Ross and everyone else: If you look at the range map you'll notice there are NO samples from northern AZ where they say splendida occurs (of course, it doesn't) and there are no samples from S Texas, where they say holbrooki occurs (but those are really splendida). This map is so stupid I get mad every time I see it. It's not just stupid, it's idiotic, irresponsible, and reflects really bad science. Anyone who accepts this nonsense is an idiot. See my book, Common Kingsnakes, for the real ranges of getula subspecies (not species), and the real intergrade (not hybrid) zones.

http://www.mountainkingsnake.com

As for Chatanooga, those are black kings with a few that have chain-like patterns (I probably should have included that area in the intergrade zone). here's a free look at one of MY maps (Black Kingsnake):

ImageImage
Image
Image
User avatar
b-Sol
Posts: 33
Joined: June 18th, 2010, 1:25 pm
Location: York County, Pa

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by b-Sol »

Fieldnotes wrote:Recently the Lampropeltis getula had a name change and now the California Kingsnake is L. californiae.

What is the new common/scientific name of this Kingsnake from Cameron County, Louisiana, US?
There arent any counties in Louisiana. The entire post is a hoax!!!

haha!
User avatar
justinm
Posts: 3423
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:26 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by justinm »

Brian I want you to come to So. Illinois and herp with me West to East in that order. I think your range map will change a little on the Speckled vs. Black kings. If you're using the pattern and color as diagnostic. I think you're just a few counties off but not too bad. I can guarantee kings if you come this way just let me know.

I'm on the fence as to the argument here. But it's interesting reading.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Brian Hubbs »

Justin: It's really tough to draw a perfect range map without inspecting every inch of each animals range, and I appreciate your criticism and compliment. I did the best I could with my own experience and the info my spies provided. :lol: My Cal King map is not only totally accurate, but it kicks ass too! Don't tick it off... :o

Image
User avatar
Ross Padilla
Posts: 2666
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 6:29 pm
Location: I love L.A.
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Ross Padilla »

Brian Hubbs wrote:Ross and everyone else: If you look at the range map you'll notice there are NO samples from northern AZ where they say splendida occurs
I knew that, I just wanted to see if you were paying attention. :roll: :D That's just another reason to doubt these findings. I need to read this paper now and see if anything is said about that AZ location. This should be fun.

ps, I think you drew the dinosaur in Arizona to make your map look cool.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Brian Hubbs »

It looks like a dino with his mouth open, huh...I'm sure i could have filled in a lot of that if we knew ANYTHING about the Navajo reservation...but the Indian F&W service is pretty much against any kind of snake surveys...cause the Navajo think snakes are bad omens.
User avatar
Ross Padilla
Posts: 2666
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 6:29 pm
Location: I love L.A.
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Ross Padilla »

Brian Hubbs wrote:cause the Navajo think snakes are bad omens.
I bet its for another reason as well, but I won't get into that.
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by FunkyRes »

Brian Hubbs wrote:It looks like a dino with his mouth open, huh...I'm sure i could have filled in a lot of that if we knew ANYTHING about the Navajo reservation...but the Indian F&W service is pretty much against any kind of snake surveys...cause the Navajo think snakes are bad omens.
There's some Wintu land up here I want to look at.
I know a Wintu Medicine Man but he's actually from a different tribe (feds see them all as 1 tribe, they see themselves as 9 tribes). I asked him about it once, and he said much of it was considered sacred and even Wintu are only allowed on parts of it for specific ceremonial purposes, so he didn't think there was much chance of me being allowed on it.

I want(ed) to look there for Rana draytonii and possibly Phrynosoma blainvillii since it isn't that far from the SDNHM record. However, last month when I was near the land, I could hear the creeks in it were infested with Bullfrogs so Rana draytonii possibly persisting there is unlikely, and Phrynosoma blainvillii was never likely to begin with.
Matt Cage
Posts: 128
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:04 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Matt Cage »

I don't buy it for a second. Personally I think Hubbs maps are the best ever made for the getula group. More research is good, making quick changes is BAD.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Brian Hubbs »

Thanks Matt. Your check is in the mail... :lol:
Brian Eagar
Posts: 430
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:59 pm

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Brian Eagar »

That range map is way off for Utah. It greatly understates the range.
Hubbs's map does a better job.

Hubbs I think you are off base with the Navajo Reservation.
I know someone recently was permitted to collect earless lizards there.
You'll never know if you don't try.
User avatar
Don Becker
Posts: 3312
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:21 am
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Don Becker »

I am still trying to figure out that area on the southern border of Arizona and New Mexico.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Brian Hubbs »

psyon: You need the book to figure out that area.

Brian: I tried, I was denied...actually, I asked permission to survey for milk snakes, and volunteered to photo anything i saw. I don't think they liked the idea that i wanted to keep 2 milk snakes. They said they were "rare." They are morons... :lol:
cjschmidt
Posts: 22
Joined: June 26th, 2010, 9:25 pm

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by cjschmidt »

I'm having a hard time understanding why so many bash this paper and the suggestion that there are multiple species within the getula complex. The science is, for the most part, good. Although I agree that further sampling is needed, the authors are working on that. They are also working on corroborating their data with nuclear DNA (you shouldn't bash them until you know the facts).

You all seem stuck on the idea that if a snake has a particular pattern, it must be lumped in with a particular subspecies....or if it has an intermediate pattern, it is an "integrade". The paper points out that individuals that live in particular environments share the same colors and patterns. As those environmental variables change, so do the phenotypes. This is very simple and makes perfect biological sense. Also, closely related species HYBRIDIZE ALL THE TIME in areas of overlap. NUMEROUS TAXA DO THE EXACT SAME THING AND ARE CONSIDERED VALID SPECIES....YET NOBODY CRITICIZES THEM CONSTANTLY AND THOSE SPECIES ARE WIDELY ACCEPTED.

Hubbs...your range maps and book are great. But they show phenotypic ranges. Science, and conservation biology in particular, depend on much, much more than just what the animals look like. If you all want a reason to accept multiple species, think about state and federal protection and conserving the "species". The more a ubiquitous group is broken up, the easier it is to protect them. The state of California isn't likely to protect the striped phase coastal California Kingsnake (hypothetical scenario).
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by FunkyRes »

cjschmidt wrote:If you all want a reason to accept multiple species, think about state and federal protection and conserving the "species". The more a ubiquitous group is broken up, the easier it is to protect them.
Except political motives need to be kept separate from science or else you are in danger of practicing what is called junk science.
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Fundad »

I'm having a hard time understanding why so many bash this paper and the suggestion that there are multiple species within the getula complex. The science is, for the most part, good. Although I agree that further sampling is needed, the authors are working on that. They are also working on corroborating their data with nuclear DNA (you shouldn't bash them until you know the facts).

Because it goes against everything we were taught, and knew as children.



Fundad
cjschmidt
Posts: 22
Joined: June 26th, 2010, 9:25 pm

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by cjschmidt »

We're not children anymore. And we can continue to learn new things.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Brian Hubbs »

If political reasons are best...then why is the SF Garter not lumped with the red-sided garter as Boundy did in 1995? Because it wouldn't be protected as an endangered color morph! Obviously we do not need all these new species to protect anything. All you need is to petition the right committee to reject the change...like Barry did with the SF Garter, which is the same DNA-wise as the Red-sided. These species are useless, meaningless, and confusing as described. I await the next paper. I think a lot will change...but i will still differentiate with taxonomy and morphology, not DNA. Our current use of DNA is too easy to manipulate. Why don't you guys ask Sam Sweet what he thinks about this...?
User avatar
Ross Padilla
Posts: 2666
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 6:29 pm
Location: I love L.A.
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Ross Padilla »

John Vanek wrote:
Ross Padilla wrote:No problem, Will. ;) I don't like the name change either. I can see splitting up the Pine/Gopher snakes, but not getula.
Ross Padilla wrote:I've never read the pdf file but from what I've been told, there was a study done on the entire getula complex using DNA. They came to the conclusion there is 5 different species, not one. The symbols found within the map represent the areas that were sampled for DNA. Here is the link to the pdf thanks to Fundad for posting in another thread.
Not to call you out, but if you have the link, why not read it? From the article:



"Lineages of L. getula do not follow the currently designated subspecies taxonomy and appear to correspond to historical divergences at the Mississippi River (Western, Desert & Central vs. Eastern & Mississippi); the Rocky Mountains (Western & Desert vs. Central); the Cochise Filter Barrier (Western vs. Desert); and the Appalachian mountains ⁄ Chattahoochee River ⁄ Apalachicola River,here termed the Apalachee formation for ease of reference (Eastern vs. Mississippi). While some lineages (e.g.the Western and Eastern) exhibit strong concordance between the geographical mtDNA lineage and the currently described subspecies based on colour pattern(see Fig. 3; Blanchard 1921, Blaney 1977), others (e.g.,the Central and Gulf lineages) do not. Thus, while morphological differentiation may be at least in part related to ecological divergence, the strength and underlying mechanisms of this pattern remain unclear." (Emphasis added)
I did write this after those quotes:
Ross Padilla wrote: I need to read this paper now and see if anything is said about that AZ location. This should be fun.
You're right, I realize I do need to read this paper before I knock it. I may have more to say on that later. Oh, and thanks for emphasizing that last sentence. Interesting.
cjschmidt
Posts: 22
Joined: June 26th, 2010, 9:25 pm

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by cjschmidt »

I am by no means saying that politics should influence science at all, I'm just saying that you could use that argument in your mind to make you feel better about it. And I don't like the San Francisco garter snake reference. Your point is well taken, but I have little doubt that it is genetically distinct.

Hubbs...I said the paper is not perfect and that they are working on collecting more useful data (nuclear DNA). But I'm also saying that what they propose makes good biological sense. You don't just use DNA to determine a species...you look at its known geographic boundaries. Even with your "morphs" and "subspecies", this method would be a lot simpler and cut and dry...instead of referring to everything as "integrades".

Also...Hubbs....if you are so concerned about filling in gaps where data and samples are missing, maybe you should reconsider you philosophy about collecting specimens. You could have made a HUGE contribution to this work...and still can.
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by FunkyRes »

cjschmidt wrote:I am by no means saying that politics should influence science at all, I'm just saying that you could use that argument in your mind to make you feel better about it. And I don't like the San Francisco garter snake reference. Your point is well taken, but I have little doubt that it is genetically distinct.
If I remember (and I might not), the SF Garter was found to be distinct but took the latin name of T s infernalis while what is currently T s infernalis and T s fitchi were swallowed by T s concinnus.

I believe the rationale for SF Garters going to T s infernalis is because the type specimen for infernalis was actually SF Garter, but I don't remember. Anyway, it supposedly is detailed in a rather expensive Garter book I hope to purchase at some point, since it is used as a textbook I may be able to snag it used.

I personally don't have a problem with the same phenotype showing up in different species, I just want to see the niche modeling predicting the genetics. Maybe it was demonstrated and that was a part of the paper that went over my head. Maybe it will in the future. We'll see I suppose.

I also don't have a problem with getula being split, Florida that I have kept seem radically different than California or Western Black. They eat more often, grow a lot faster, and seem to have a more husky build. They also seem to be less tolerant of low humidity. i just don't know that the current split is the right one.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Brian Hubbs »

CurtisJSchmidt: I'm not interested in contributing my data to someone's study. Those people are supposed to do the work, it's their study, not mine. I already wrote 3 books. They need to get off their asses and go collect some snakes. They need to spend more than 3 or 6 months putting together a major split paper like this one. Anyway, I have other things to do, like make a living. :lol: I'm not really concerned about this (I just like to rant sometimes), as herpetology has changed and evolved for centuries, and will continue to do so. If we enter a period of dark ages where flawed studies run rampant and get accepted by less informed individuals, so be it. Someone will straighten everything out at some point. Maybe it will be me...or maybe I'll become a convert once I see intelligent splits, unlike the currently flawed paper that relied too much on computer models of habitat preference and too few specimens.

So, you didn't like the SF Garter ref. I think it was based on DNA, but I could be wrong. Oh well...

"In 1995, Doug Rossman and Jeff Boundy re-named the Thamnophis sirtalis found on the San Francisco Peninsula T. s. infernalis, (removing the name T. s. tetrataenia, but recognizing that the snakes were still subspecifically distinct), and lumped the coastal T. sirtalis with T. s. concinnus. This taxonomy is shown on the range map in the 1996 book, The Garter Snakes - Evolution and Ecology 1. In 1998, Sean Barry and Mark Jennings petitioned the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) to restore the previous nomenclature 2. With no opposition from Boundy or Rossman, the ICZN agreed to restore the name T. s. tetrataenia to snakes on the San Francisco peninsula 3. Nevertheless, some authors either missed the restoration of this nomenclature or chose to ignore it, and their work still reflects Rossman and Boundy's nomenclature." http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/p ... l#taxonomy
Cheers, my friend...
Paul White
Posts: 2288
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:52 pm
Location: Amarillo, Texas

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Paul White »

FunkyRes: which book is that? I may be interested in it too, as I really love Thamnophis.
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by FunkyRes »

It's the one Hubbs just mentioned -

The Garter Snakes - Evolution and Ecology

http://www.amazon.com/Garter-Snakes-Evo ... 806128208/

I'm not sure what the deal is, I think it is a 2 volume set? Or the second volume was garter snakes and first was something else? I don't know.
cjschmidt
Posts: 22
Joined: June 26th, 2010, 9:25 pm

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by cjschmidt »

I've read it...it's very good. Get it.

Hubbs....I don't understand why you're throwing garter snake taxonomy in here. I understand what you wrote. Has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I just threw out the idea because "in general" taxa afforded species status are more likely to be protected than "populations" at this point in the game. However, things are changing and I hope they continue to do so. It was just a silly excuse for following the proposed getula taxonomy that I threw out there, so maybe some of you haters can accept the change.

So you're too pig headed to help researchers have a more robust sample size? I REALLY don't get that. Some people can't afford to travel across the country for months on end collecting samples. Also, this paper was the first in what will probably be many as they accumulate more data. you really should send them samples.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Brian Hubbs »

I couldn't get to sleep tonite, so I sat down and wrote this for the Intro to my Milk Snake book. Hopefully it will explain part of my reasoning...

The New DNA-based Herpetology

"After I began this expose of Milk Snake natural history, a new technology began to reshape the world of herpetology. Graduate students and professional herpetologists at the university level started exploring the lineages of various species using DNA analysis. The result has been a continuous flow of papers redefining accepted species, and unfortunately, the elimination of many subspecies. There is great debate between scientists over how much of this new knowledge is correct, and how much is due to biased manipulation. Many long-time herpetologists are wary of these new studies and conclusions. Not all seem to be sound, not all seem to reflect serious field work either, and the question has been raised as to the advantage of basing species names on ancient gene flow, as opposed to current evolution. However, those involved seem hell-bent on reshaping everything we used to know about herps. In fact, there hasn’t been such a shake-up of scientific names since the latter 1800s, when it seemed that just about everyone had a better way of defining our species, especially the various kingsnakes. Back in the 1800s a lot of species were relatively new to science, and with more and more data, more papers were written to better define those animals. Today, however, it seems that the game is to change everything based on gene flow that could be over 100,000 years old. I’m sorry, but I do not see the logic. Shouldn’t animals be described today as we see them, and not based on ancient lineages that are not part of present evolution and dispersal?

This situation brought me to a crossroads. I was faced with the question of whether to accept the DNA-based conclusions on Milk Snakes, or to consider them from the traditional standpoint. By the time you read this, Lampropeltis triangulum may have been split into three species (one of which I agree with, by the way). At least, that’s the consensus coming down the pike. Some are proposing to divide the species into two, a western form and an eastern. This will eliminate many subspecies (a term DNA researchers don’t like anyway) in the process. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like it. Our Milk Snakes are found in too many regional patterns, and lumping most of them together is just not applicable to the current situation. The traditional system of species and subspecies makes it easy to tell which form you are looking at, and provides a specific name for each regional color pattern (subspecies). The subspecies are further broken down into regional or pattern morphs. Under the new species delineation each subspecies would only be a morph of the parent species. This does not work well, as there may be six or more different morphs existing within the population of each subspecies, either at the regional level, or simply scattered throughout the population. Do we have to give each a separate name? Will we have to say something like, “This is the Northwestern Nebraska morph of the Pale morph of the Western Milk Snake?” This seems tedious to me, but of course, I’m not always the sharpest tack in the shed, so perhaps I’m missing the beauty of it.

So, for reasons of brevity and clarity, and also to reflect current dispersal and patterns, I decided to treat the snakes in this book from the traditional standpoint. In other words, I left them alone. I described what has always been described, but I did adopt the new species name for the Scarlet Kingsnake (Lampropeltis elapsoides). Of course, this isn’t new, as the snake was known by that name before. The new split is just a retro-refitting of something that was correct to begin with and was changed based on incorrect assumptions. Anyone familiar with the Scarlet Kingsnake has known for a long time that it isn’t a Milk Snake. In fact, it coexists with the Milk Snake in several states, and there is no evidence of interbreeding in those areas. That’s because they are different species. There may have been some ancient hybridization in North Carolina and Virginia, but that’s a subject we’ll discuss later. So, as you read this book, you will see the Milk Snakes treated as one species with eight subspecies. You will also see mention of the new split (which may or may not have been accepted by the time you read this), as well as my comments on such. I hope I’ve made a good case…if not, well, just remember I'm not always the sharpest tack in the shed."

I'm leaving for work in CA today (Sunday), so I won't be around for the barrage of criticism, should anyone care to criticize me more...oh well, see you all in a week. And Curtis, you just don't have a clear vision of what's going on...that's all... :lol: Also, I could be wrong about DNA only refecting ancient traits. If it defines current dispersal, then I will have to change a little of this...maybe...it might be fun to mislead people though...Just Kidding... ;)
Paul White
Posts: 2288
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:52 pm
Location: Amarillo, Texas

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Paul White »

anyone have a link to the paper so I can read the whole thing (or as much of it as I understand) rather than summaries?
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by FunkyRes »

Paul White wrote:anyone have a link to the paper so I can read the whole thing (or as much of it as I understand) rather than summaries?
I think this is it -

http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/1249.pdf
User avatar
Steve Bledsoe
Posts: 1809
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:14 am
Location: San Clemente, CA www.swfieldherp.com
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Steve Bledsoe »

cjschmidt wrote:I'm having a hard time understanding why so many bash this paper and the suggestion that there are multiple species within the getula complex.
And I'm having a hard time understanding the definition of "species". Obviously it doesn't mean the same thing in current DNA science as it did in the era of pre-DNA science.

Seriously, can someone please tell me what the new definition is?
User avatar
justinm
Posts: 3423
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 5:26 am
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by justinm »

Steve Bledsoe wrote:
cjschmidt wrote:I'm having a hard time understanding why so many bash this paper and the suggestion that there are multiple species within the getula complex.
And I'm having a hard time understanding the definition of "species". Obviously it doesn't mean the same thing in current DNA science as it did in the era of pre-DNA science.

Seriously, can someone please please tell me what the new definition is?

When I was in college I asked this same question. I never recieved an acceptable answer. It seems no one can truly agree.
Paul White
Posts: 2288
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:52 pm
Location: Amarillo, Texas

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by Paul White »

back in 2006 my herpetology prof said that the real definition of species (from a practical standpoint) was whatever the hell people agreed for a given type of organism. He flat out admitted that it was a tautology but at the time (and it seems still) there's not actually a working scientific consensus over exactly what qualifies as a species, particularly in herps, inverts and fish. I mean crap, hybridization in the field is hardly unknown in herps (see the entire Cnemidophorus group). So that rules out the biological definition of reproductively isolated organisms...toss the in the infrequent but still documented hybrids you see with other animals (Hubbs mentioned some gopherXking hybrids found in the field in his book, and I've seen photos of a few)...

edit; I should point out he wasn't defending the current state of affairs, just recognizing them as they were.
User avatar
FunkyRes
Posts: 1994
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:19 am
Location: Redding, CA
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by FunkyRes »

Paul White wrote:back in 2006 my herpetology prof said that the real definition of species (from a practical standpoint) was whatever the hell people agreed for a given type of organism. He flat out admitted that it was a tautology but at the time (and it seems still) there's not actually a working scientific consensus over exactly what qualifies as a species, particularly in herps, inverts and fish. I mean crap, hybridization in the field is hardly unknown in herps (see the entire Cnemidophorus group). So that rules out the biological definition of reproductively isolated organisms...toss the in the infrequent but still documented hybrids you see with other animals (Hubbs mentioned some gopherXking hybrids found in the field in his book, and I've seen photos of a few)...

edit; I should point out he wasn't defending the current state of affairs, just recognizing them as they were.
Hybridization though does not mean gene flow. When Cnemidophorus hybridize, genes from one species are not exchanged with the other, a new population results so reproductive isolation still applies. No genes from A enter pop B or vice versa.
hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 8:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: Speckled Kingsnake (?)

Post by hellihooks »

Paul White wrote:back in 2006 my herpetology prof said that the real definition of species (from a practical standpoint) was whatever the hell people agreed for a given type of organism. He flat out admitted that it was a tautology but at the time (and it seems still) there's not actually a working scientific consensus over exactly what qualifies as a species, particularly in herps, inverts and fish. I mean crap, hybridization in the field is hardly unknown in herps (see the entire Cnemidophorus group). So that rules out the biological definition of reproductively isolated organisms...toss the in the infrequent but still documented hybrids you see with other animals (Hubbs mentioned some gopherXking hybrids found in the field in his book, and I've seen photos of a few)...

edit; I should point out he wasn't defending the current state of affairs, just recognizing them as they were.
It is absolutely ludicrous that a majority of well-educated, intelligent biologists out there cannot agree on a definition of something as basic as 'species'... but then again, astronomers can't agree on a definition of 'planet' and 'critical rights theorists' cant agree on the definition of 'rights'... and both those groups of people are way smarter than biologists... :lol: :lol: :lol: jim
BTW... why is it so hard to find a CB Holbrooki? they are awesome snakes... :D
Post Reply