Anyone breed Grey Banded Kings?

[tyflier]

Actually, they ARE still part of the mexicana complex. They are NOT currently considered a subspecies of L. mexicana like they were in the past, but that doesn't mean they still aren't part of the mexicana complex.

"Complex" doesn't mean "species" or even a single taxa. Just thought you might wanna know that...

Lampropeltis alterna are not classified as part of Lampropeltis mexicana. They are not part of the mexicana complex. They are part of the Lampropeltis complex, the Squamata complex, and the Animalia complex...but not the Mexicana complex. If they were, they would be Lampropeltis mexicana alterna. They are not, and haven't been for around 10 years now. Nice try, though.

Mike--
I made no implications about you in my post other than to correct a very minor error you made. Continuing to refer to alterna as part of the mexicana complex is just not taxonomically correct, at this moment in time. As fast as things change in the world of taxonomy, it's real easy to miss changes, and I was genuinely, albeit tongue in cheek, trying to give you some information that I thought you might not have, but would find useful...

Heck, someone else had to tell me that Crotalus oreganus is no longer a complex, and hasn't been for about 3 or 4 years. Things change. If no one tells you...how do you know? Next time I'll let you go on not knowing, if it offends you so much.

The rest of my post was a warning about breeders in general...

 

[KJUN]

Lampropeltis alterna are not classified as part of Lampropeltis mexicana. They are not part of the mexicana complex.

They are NOT part of the mexicana species - they are still part of that particular complex. You are erroneously trying to make "complex" synonymous with "clade" or "taxa." It isn't. I'm not disagreeing with you on them NOT being L. m. alterna. That classification is generally not accepted any longer. You are correct there. No doubts.

Where your are grossly incorrect is in how you are making up a definition of "complex" that has nothing at all to do with how it is used in modern systematics. You might as well argue that grass is blue and the sky is pink. No matter how many times you say it, it is still not correct.

Continuing to refer to alterna as part of the mexicana complex is just not taxonomically correct, at this moment in time.

Again, you sound like you are trying to equivalent "complex" with a single clade. It isn't - it is a complex of closely related taxa with a confusingly similar phenotype.....if I am allowed to simplify for brevity.

 

[wade]

I don't know which side of the discussion this falls, I just didn't what to be left out.

Complex (taxonomy), in biology, a cluster of species so closely related that they intergrade, can interbreed, and are difficult to firmly distinguish except at the extremes of their ranges.
A group of organisms involved in mimicry, being made of one or more mimics, models or dupes

 

[stephen]

BOI

JFYI,checking the boi is a good thing but the person you may choose to buy your animals from may still not be the best person to deal with, ALOT of breeders have done, ALOT of shady things and nobody has posted anything about them there.Hope you find your Kings!

 

[KJUN]

I don't know which side of the discussion this falls, I just didn't what to be left out.

In actual practice (at least in herpetoculture), the definition is expanded to include things like the guttata-complex (i.e., are they separate species?), the mexicana-complex (including alterna), the entire Pituophis genus in the US), etc.

Obviously, reptiles break the rules of many of the commonly used species concepts (Jungle corns!). Your listed complex definition is more similar to the "cryptic species complex" definition so common in other classes (i.e., aves and mammalia). In reptiles, "complex" is used to represented a more realistic biological entity/entities just like our grade school definition of "species" has to be modified to be at all meaningful in the reptile and amphibian classes.

Ultimately, the definition used by herpetologists is not different from that quoted definition: it's a group of closely related organisms that are of confusing taxonomic status (i.e., where are the exact lines between species that do and do not overlap in the wild?) that appear pretty darn similar in many, many ways.

 

[KJUN]

JFYI,checking the boi is a good thing but the person you may choose to buy your animals from may still not be the best person to deal with, ALOT of breeders have done, ALOT of shady things and nobody has posted anything about them there.Hope you find your Kings!

Nah. Rich Hume made a post about that guy already.

LOL!
KJ

 

[tyflier]

In actual practice (at least in herpetoculture), the definition is expanded to include things like the guttata-complex (i.e., are they separate species?), the mexicana-complex (including alterna), the entire Pituophis genus in the US), etc.

Obviously, reptiles break the rules of many of the commonly used species concepts (Jungle corns!). Your listed complex definition is more similar to the "cryptic species complex" definition so common in other classes (i.e., aves and mammalia). In reptiles, "complex" is used to represented a more realistic biological entity/entities just like our grade school definition of "species" has to be modified to be at all meaningful in the reptile and amphibian classes.

Ultimately, the definition used by herpetologists is not different from that quoted definition: it's a group of closely related organisms that are of confusing taxonomic status (i.e., where are the exact lines between species that do and do not overlap in the wild?) that appear pretty darn similar in many, many ways.

Come on KJUN...you're really going to start an argument about the common usage amongst hobbyists versus the actual, clinical definition of the word "complex" and how it is applied taxonomically?

Seriously dude. I don't care how loosely you or others use terms amongst yourselves. But using a loose definition of "complex" just because it's "easier" with snakes doesn't make it right, or even accurate.

And to start an argument about it is just ridiculous, don't you think?

 

[KJUN]

Come on KJUN...you're really going to start an argument about the common usage amongst hobbyists versus the actual, clinical definition of the word "complex" and how it is applied taxonomically?

You try to make me look like the bad guy for correcting your incorrect usage while you tried to make Mike look like the bad guy for using it correctly. I'm not sure what your point is, but fine: if you don't want this forum to be a medium for learning, you are welcome to that opinion.

I just corrected an an incorrect usage of it. Period. I wasn't starting an argument. If there was an argument, you are the one that started it by correcting Mike when he was NOT using it incorrectly in the least little bit. I wasn't defending Mike, though - I just hate to see hobbyists spew nonsense while using "big words" - often incorrectly - to try and make themselves sound more knowledgeable than they really are. You are welcome to continue using it wrong and saying the grass is blue, but that won't make it correct.

Additionally, you didn't seem able to comprehend Wade's post or my reply to him. I expanded on his definition, but his definition proved you incorrect and my usage as the proper one. Even if you insist on his definition, current systematics studying the mexicana-complex make it a COMPLEX by his definition. A clade is NOT a complex like you tried to pretend.

Just because you are a hobbyist, it does not mean you shouldn't try to use terms correctly. ....and if you insist on NOT using them correctly, don't correct people that DO use them correctly.

 

[stephen]

Ok....

Thats Enough,I think you guys should kiss and makeup!...:sidestep:

 

[KJUN]

Thats Enough,I think you guys should kiss and makeup!...:sidestep:

Me and Chris ...or me and Joe?

LOL!
:dgrin:

 

[tyflier]

You try to make me look like the bad guy for correcting your incorrect usage while you tried to make Mike look like the bad guy for using it correctly. I'm not sure what your point is, but fine: if you don't want this forum to be a medium for learning, you are welcome to that opinion.

I just corrected an an incorrect usage of it. Period. I wasn't starting an argument. If there was an argument, you are the one that started it by correcting Mike when he was NOT using it incorrectly in the least little bit. I wasn't defending Mike, though - I just hate to see hobbyists spew nonsense while using "big words" - often incorrectly - to try and make themselves sound more knowledgeable than they really are. You are welcome to continue using it wrong and saying the grass is blue, but that won't make it correct.

Additionally, you didn't seem able to comprehend Wade's post or my reply to him. I expanded on his definition, but his definition proved you incorrect and my usage as the proper one. Even if you insist on his definition, current systematics studying the mexicana-complex make it a COMPLEX by his definition. A clade is NOT a complex like you tried to pretend.

Just because you are a hobbyist, it does not mean you shouldn't try to use terms correctly. ....and if you insist on NOT using them correctly, don't correct people that DO use them correctly.

I know, Dude!

And if you type out this same circular logic enough times, you might even convince yourself of it!

 

[mike17l]

So Mike would be a reputable breeder. I wouldn't hesitate to buy an established grayband from him. That would be cool if he could get some pics of his locality graybands up!

Hey Nanci, I posted a few in the ad, but here are some of them.
0.1 04 intermediate phase, proven
$200

1.0 02 generic alterna phase, proven
$150

1.1 08 Christmas mountain local, still pretty small
$250
The male

The Female

I also have others (not for sale) posted in my forum, here on CS.com.

 

[KJUN]

And if you type out this same circular logic enough times, you might even convince yourself of it!

I can lead you to knowledge, by I can't make you learn. Only you can do that, and you have to WANT to learn. I just feel sorry for you if you really DO like to wallow in ignorance knowing you don't have to spend your life that way.

 

[Kanchii]

Arg, okay guys, lets stop taking over my thread on this debate, go PM each other if you find it necessary, please >>;

Jeesh

Gorgeous Kings, mike. But I'm going to hold off on those. I'm looking for the ones that look more like this:

But I'm still learning about all these different grey banded types... Is this what you'd call a "generic"?

 

[mike17l]

Arg, okay guys, lets stop taking over my thread on this debate, go PM each other if you find it necessary, please >>;

Jeesh

Gorgeous Kings, mike. But I'm going to hold off on those. I'm looking for the ones that look more like this:

But I'm still learning about all these different grey banded types... Is this what you'd call a "generic"?

Grey banded kings generally come in two phases, blairs (which you just pictured, they generally have wider saddles/orange and less "alternates") and alterna (which are like the ones that I pictured, they generally have narrower saddles/orange and more "alternates"). A generic is a grey banded king that does not have locality data. Many people in "alterna culture" think that one of the most important things is to maintain locality data on their animals. Some will go so far, as to only breed animals if they were collected within a few hundred yards of each other.

I do have a couple adult blairs phase females for sale, I just do not have any pictures of them right now. If you shoot me a PM I will see if I can get you some. And, I will most definitely have blairs phase babies this year.

 

[KJUN]

Beautiful light to medium blairi like that are my favorite, too. The "light" phase isn't overly common in Langtry locality snakes, but it IS still my favorite. Although I am NOT saying a locality is a better pet than a generic or vice versa, that "light Langtry blairs" look is my absolute favorite, too! Too bad not even all the ones from Langtry look even remotely similar, eh?

Grey banded kings generally come in two phases, blairs (which you just pictured, they generally have wider saddles/orange and less "alternates") and alterna (which are like the ones that I pictured, they generally have narrower saddles/orange and more "alternates").

Mike, in case you don't know. The two types (blairi and alterna) are now the same species. I'm just telling you that in case you missed the change.

 

[wade]

I found an interesting quote, didn't know for sure where to post it.

Of those who say nothing, few are silent. ~Thomas Neiel

Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it. --Robert Frost

Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something. – Plato

Human conversation is largely an endless attempt to convince others that we are more assertive or clever or generous or successful than they might think if we did not carefully educate them. --John Ortberg

There are two types who say very little: the quiet type and the gabby type. –Unknown

English is the perfect language for preachers because it allows you to talk until you think of what to say.-- Garrison Keillor

 

[Kanchii]

THanks so much for the info, Mike! I've definitely noticed the obsession with localities with the grey banded folks... Interesting stuff, but not for me. xD I just like the "blairs" apparently. How do you pronounced that, by the way? Is it like saying "Claire's" but with a B instead of a C?

lol noob question ftw

I'll shoot you a pm to see if you can get me pics of your adult female blairs, buddy!

 

[Kanchii]

One more noob question...
Do they shed well, like corns usually do?