Lampropeltis californiae ??

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
User avatar
Gary N
Posts: 206
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:07 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by Gary N »

No more getula?

(I want my money back, Hubbs!)

I was just shown this on the SSAR List http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/comm_nam ... s_main.php, so I don't know how long it's been in use. CNAH is using the same:

The composition of this group was recently investigated by Pyron and Burbrink (2009, Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 52:524-529) and, with exception to Stilosoma, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. Reviews of the status of various species and the recognition of additional taxa are forthcoming (F. Burbrink et al., pers.comm.).

Lampropeltis Fitzinger, 1843—KINGSNAKES Notes

L. alterna (Brown, 1901)—Gray-banded Kingsnake Notes
L. californiae (Blainville, 1835)—California Kingsnake Notes
L. calligaster (Harlan, 1827)—Yellow-bellied Kingsnake
L. c. calligaster (Harlan, 1827)—Prairie Kingsnake
L. c. occipitolineata Price, 1987—South Florida Mole Kingsnake
L. c. rhombomaculata (Holbrook, 1840)—Mole Kingsnake
L. elapsoides (Holbrook, 1838)—Scarlet Kingsnake Notes
L. extenuata (Brown, 1890)—Short-tailed Snake Notes
L. getula (Linnaeus, 1766)—Eastern Kingsnake
L. holbrooki Stejneger, 1903—Speckled Kingsnake Notes
L. nigra (Yarrow, 1882)—Eastern Black Kingsnake Notes
L. pyromelana (Cope, 1867)—Sonoran Mountain Kingsnake Notes
L. p. infralabialis Tanner, 1953—Utah Mountain Kingsnake
L. p. pyromelana (Cope, 1867)—Arizona Mountain Kingsnake
L. splendida (Baird and Girard, 1853)—Desert Kingsnake Notes
L. triangulum [1] [2] (Lacépède, 1789)—Milksnake Notes
L. t. amaura Cope, 1860—Louisiana Milksnake
L. t. annulata Kennicott, 1860—Mexican Milksnake
L. t. celaenops Stejneger, 1903—New Mexico Milksnake
L. t. gentilis (Baird and Girard, 1853)—Central Plains Milksnake
L. t. multistriata Kennicott, 1860—Pale Milksnake
L. t. syspila (Cope, 1888)—Red Milksnake
L. t. taylori Tanner and Loomis, 1957—Utah Milksnake
L. t. triangulum (Lacépède, 1789)—Eastern Milksnake
L. zonata (Lockington ex Blainville, 1876)—California Mountain KingsnakeNotes
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by Fundad »

I won't use that name, Getula are all the same species as far I am concerned... What the hell are we going to call all those SE AZ kings?

When I read a paper that uses nDNA and has better sampling that includes the SE forms and proves the separations go back a million years, I am ignoring it. HAHA..

My dad used to breed Florida kings to Cal kings when I was a kid, awesome looking babies, btw..
And they breed like rabbits..

Fundad
User avatar
kricket
Posts: 106
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 2:19 pm
Location: Alexandria, VA

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by kricket »

Meh, herp taxonomy has been in flux lately and whether something gets considered a species or subspecies is largely based on the philosophy of the authors of the latest paper about it. Some taxonomists are splitters and some are lumpers. Pyron and Burbrink are splitters and the overall taxonomic trend lately is to split. Eastern and California kingsnakes are estimated to have split about 5 million years ago and since the populations aren't sympatric, they have no chance to interbreed naturally so according to the biological species concept they are two different species. At least, that's how the story goes...
User avatar
natrix
Posts: 48
Joined: June 29th, 2012, 6:08 pm
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by natrix »

I agree. For a layperson like me it is impossible to follow all the changes in genera and species designation. I have several friends who are evolutionary ecologists and herpetologists. They are not happy either. As I understand it there are a number of problems with this new frenzy of DNA based taxonomy:

1. Since the investigators cannot use the whole genome they have to select a small number of genes. What does that mean with respect to the validity of constructed evolutionary trees?

2. The construction of branches and time lines (as a social scientist I am curious about how they can infer age of evolutionary lineages without a fossil record - is it really possible to make temporal inferences from contemporary data in the way it is done???) are arbitrary as is the cut-off points in designation of a species and genera.

3. The 'traditional' morphological taxonomy coupled with behavior and ecological 'niches' designate species for the field worker. A species behave like a species in the real world irrespective of dna sequencing. That is, its habitat niche and behavior.

My own thought are that:

The species concept is vague and has no real definition that holds everywhere and always. For example the notion that different species cannot produce fertile offspring. Therefore I prefer to be a 'lumper' rather than a 'splitter.'

I agree. They are all getula! Interestingly the newly published California Field Guide has not adopted the new toad taxonomy. My rule of thumb is to follow the judgements of older established herpetologists who work in the field - not the lab!

Tom
User avatar
kricket
Posts: 106
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 2:19 pm
Location: Alexandria, VA

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by kricket »

natrix wrote:2. The construction of branches and time lines (as a social scientist I am curious about how they can infer age of evolutionary lineages without a fossil record - is it really possible to make temporal inferences from contemporary data in the way it is done???) are arbitrary as is the cut-off points in designation of a species and genera.
...
The species concept is vague and has no real definition that holds everywhere and always. For example the notion that different species cannot produce fertile offspring. Therefore I prefer to be a 'lumper' rather than a 'splitter.'
The timelines are based on the idea that DNA mutations accumulate at a steady rate so can be used as a sort of clock to infer how long two species have been separated. Except that, um, mutations don't actually accumulate at a steady rate! The mutation rates differ from species to species and they change over time as well. So the timelines are actually pretty crude estimates in many cases.

People really want to put each living thing into a category and give it a name, which certainly makes it easier to talk about them. But we forget that there really is no such thing as a discrete species - evolution leads to a continuum and we just cleave off a "species" from the next one in the continuum and pretend it is distinct. Not to mention that each "species" is actually an ecosystem comprised of all the species that live in and on us, without which we couldn't survive!

I'd say if you want to keep thinking of them as all getula then go right ahead - it will probably get changed again soon anyway! :roll:
User avatar
monklet
Posts: 2648
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 4:44 pm
Location: Ventura, CA
Contact:

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by monklet »

[quote="cricket"]But we forget that there really is no such thing as a discrete species - evolution leads to a continuum and we just cleave off a "species" from the next one in the continuum and pretend it is distinct.[\quote]

Amen! :thumb: Great to read. Been saying this since I was a kid. Hope these desperate researchers aren't receiving government grants to pursue their folly.
User avatar
AndyO'Connor
Posts: 1019
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:14 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by AndyO'Connor »

I think there are more obvious groups of snakes they could research if they want to split, like some of the western ringnecks from each other and the eastern ssp. I think they are all, or at least mostly, getula, there may be a couple of valid splits, but like everyone else here, when these papers are released, my first reaction is usually :sigh: again?
User avatar
sjfriend
Posts: 257
Joined: February 20th, 2011, 1:38 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by sjfriend »

I like the "splitters". Give me more species to look for!
User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1474
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Anaheim, California
Contact:

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by Fieldnotes »

Lichanura orcutti is out
User avatar
Gary N
Posts: 206
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:07 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by Gary N »

Fieldnotes wrote:... Also, Lichanura orcutti is out, just ask Fundad for the details about that screw up. The below list might clear things up. Simply email or post if you have any question.... *Note this list does not follow SSAR or CNAH cause they are both too wishy-washy even for me... Mohave Desert ... whats nexts Hila Monster.

LICHANURA (Rosy Boa)
Lichanura trivirgata, Rosy Boa
L. t. gracia, Desert Rosy Boa
L. t. roseofusca, Coast Rosy Boa

The traditional Lichanura taxonomy you're using will still be changed. There will still be two species. L. orcutti will probably be dropped and replaced with another name once all the work is finished.
User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by Fundad »

Only in Mexico though, not in Cali.
User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1474
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Anaheim, California
Contact:

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by Fieldnotes »

It will be something like Lichanura roseofusca for Cali and Lichanura trivirgata for Mexico.
User avatar
Kent VanSooy
Posts: 1100
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:51 am
Location: Oceanside

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by Kent VanSooy »

How does a geographic split for rosys make sense? - individuals found on the extreme southern US side of the border look like they could be from Baja. Just curious what the latest thinking is!
User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1474
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Anaheim, California
Contact:

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by Fieldnotes »

There is a broad transition zone that is washing things out so by the time trivirgata reaches California the Mexican genes are essentially wiped out and replaced by roseofusca. They may look the same, but you know... its a DNA thing.
Aaron
Posts: 287
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:46 pm

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by Aaron »

All the ones in southeast AZ are released pets.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: Lampropeltis californiae ??

Post by Brian Hubbs »

DNA studies? Hogwash mumbo jumbo to get published and secure a job so they can stay in school the rest of their lives...lazy, good for nuthin' moochers... :o

But seriously, I will not accept any new species created from 10 years ago until the next century. It's all BS...lazy stool sitters...they need to get in the field and learn something real. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Post Reply