SWCHR BULLETIN - Southwestern Center for

SWCHR BULLETIN
Volume 2, Issue 2
Summer 2012
ISSN 2330-6025
Conservation - Preservation - Education - Public Information
Research - Field Studies - Captive Propagation
The SWCHR BULLETIN is published quarterly by the
SOUTHWESTERN CENTER FOR HERPETOLOGICAL RESEARCH
PO Box 624, Seguin TX 78156
www.southwesternherp.com
email: [email protected]
ISSN 2330-6025
OFFICERS 2010-2012
COMMITTEE CHAIRS
PRESIDENT
Tom Lott
COMMITTEE ON COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC
NAMES
Tom Lott
VICE PRESIDENT
Todd Hughes
SECRETARY
Diego Ortiz
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Gerald Keown
BOARD MEMBERS
Toby Brock, Riley Campbell, Hans Koenig
BULLETIN EDITOR
Chris McMartin
ABOUT SWCHR
RANGE MAP COMMITTEE
Tom Lott
AWARDS AND GRANTS COMMITTEE
(vacant)
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITEE
Gerald Keown
ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS COMMITTEE
Diego Ortiz
NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE
Gerald Keown
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
(vacant)
Originally founded by Gerald Keown in 2007, SWCHR is a 501(c)
(3) non-profit association, governed by a board of directors and
dedicated to promoting education of the Association’s members
and the general public relating to the natural history, biology, taxonomy, conservation and preservation needs, field studies, and
captive propagation of the herpetofauna indigenous to the American Southwest.
CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
(vacant)
THE SWCHR LOGO
JOINING SWCHR
There are several versions of the SWCHR logo, all featuring the
Gray-Banded Kingsnake (Lampropeltis alterna), a widely-recognized
reptile native to the Trans-Pecos region of Texas as well as adjacent
Mexico and New Mexico.
For information on becoming a member please visit the membership page of the SWCHR web site at
http://www.southwesternherp.com/join.html.
ON THE COVER: Speckled Kingsnake, Lampropeltis getula holbrooki, Brazoria
County, TX (Matt Hollanders). This photograph was voted the winner of the 2011
SWCHR Award for Excellence in Herpetological Photography.
BACKGROUND IMAGE: Elephant Tusk, Big Bend National Park, TX (Chris
McMartin)
MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE
Toby Brock
SWCHR Bulletin
1
Summer 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A Message from the President, Tom Lott
2
Sanderson Snake Days Recap, Chris McMartin
3
Preliminary Results of the Sanderson Snake Days Data Collection Project, Chris McMartin
5
Book Review: Common Kingsnakes: A Natural History of Lampropeltis getula, Tom Lott
8
Geographic Distribution Note: Virginia striatula (Serpentes: Colubridae), Tom Lott
10
A CALL FOR PAPERS
Are you a field herpetologist or a herpetoculturist working with species native to the American Southwest? Do you have a paper or an article
you have written for which you would like to find a permanent repository? Want to be assured you will always be able to share it with the
world? Submit it to the SWCHR Bulletin for possible publication. Submitted manuscripts from SWCHR members, as well as non-members,
will be considered.
To be accepted for publication, submissions must deal with herpetological species native to the American Southwest. Such topics as field
notes, county checklists, range extensions, taxonomy, reproduction and breeding, diseases, snake bite and venom research, captive breeding
and maintenance, conservation issues, legal issues, etc. are all acceptable. For assistance with formatting manuscripts, search ‘scientific journal
article format’ on the internet and tailor the resultant guidance to suit.
Previously published articles or papers are acceptable, provided you still hold the copyright to the work and have the right to re-publish it.
If we accept your paper or article for publication, you will still continue to be the copyright holder. If your submission has been previously
published, please provide the name of the publication in which it appeared along with the date of publication. All submissions should be
manually proofed in addition to being spell checked and should be submitted by email as either Microsoft Word or text documents.
Send submissions to [email protected].
SWCHR Bulletin
2
Summer 2012
A Message from the President
The big occasion for SWCHR occurring during the second quarter of 2012 was the Sanderson Snake Days, which took place on 15-17 June.
I’ll admit to being initially skeptical about the prospects for this inaugural event, given the undeniable logistical limitations of Sanderson, but
Jeff Adams managed to pull it off remarkably well.
Of course there were a few glitches; all things considered, however, I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of the event and I suspect that
SWCHR will continue to be a prominent participant (Jeff intimated that, while next year’s Snake Days will also be in Sanderson - at a larger/
additional venue - future episodes could alternate between Del Rio, Sanderson, and Alpine). At any rate, on behalf of all SWCHR members
who participated in Snake Days, I would like to extend our collective thanks and appreciation to Jeff Adams for organizing everything and
to the city of Sanderson for its hospitality. Thanks also to Toby Brock who represented SWCHR in fine fashion with his presentation on the
husbandry and captive reproduction of the Northern Green Ratsnake, and to our founder and Executive Director, Gerald Keown, whose
elaborate preparations resulted in our impressive display of ALL of the southwestern ratsnakes.
Snake Days also raised a total of $5000, which was contributed directly to Texas Parks and Wildlife’s Wildlife Diversity Program, nearly
equaling the non-dedicated revenue collected from the newly-required Reptile and Amphibian Stamp to date. Several TPWD biologists
enthusiastically participated in the evening snake hunts, and few, if any, negative encounters between herpers and Law Enforcement were
reported. I think we all hope that this represents the dawning of a new era of agreeable relations between the TPWD Enforcement Division
and the multitude of herpers who would like to flock to the state every year.
Although originally our participation in Snake Days was viewed as an opportunity to recruit new members, we succeeded in adding only
two to our ranks at the event itself: Dr. Andy Gluesenkamp, TPWD’s State Herpetologist, and my wife, Sara. Sara considers herself more
of a broad-spectrum naturalist than a herper, but after herping with me for more than 42 years, I suspect that quite a bit has rubbed off on
her. She said that witnessing the thrilled expressions of the local children when viewing our exhibit prompted her to join and volunteer to
chair our long-vacant Education Committee (to which she is hereby appointed). As a retired secondary teacher with more than 30 years of
experience, she has many ideas to bring to the table. Thanks, Andy and Sara.
What we lacked in new recruits, however, I feel we more than made up for in exposure and public relations; there are now many more herpers
who are now aware of our organization and its goals than there were before Snake Days.
Here’s wishing everyone a safe and rewarding summer of herping.
SWCHR Bulletin
3
Sanderson Snake Days Recap
by Chris McMartin
Known as “The Cactus Capital of Texas,” Sanderson may have a
new nickname as the epicenter of a promising new development
in the field herping community. From June 15th through 17th,
the small town in Terrell County hosted the first annual “Snake
Days” event, organized by SWCHR’s Jeff Adams and a planning
board including West Texas Herpetological Society President
Travis Dimler. Although the Trans-Pecos region has unofficially
welcomed field herpers from far and wide for the past several
decades, Snake Days marks the first formal gathering of reptile and
amphibian enthusiasts in the area, and it did not disappoint.
Summer 2012
copied on any data submitted under that program.
The main guest-speaker program took place on Saturday, June
16th and included nine presenters. Leading the charge was
SWCHR’s Toby Brock with “Husbandry and Captive Breeding
the Northern Green Rat Snake (Senticolis triaspis intermedia).” He
covered taxonomy, morphology, range and natural history, captive
husbandry, breeding/incubation, and deformities and dead-inegg issues. Toby compared and contrasted Thurgess Cranston’s
findings with those seen in his own captives. An interesting
observation is that while Robert Stebbins claims green rat snakes
have arboreal tendencies, Toby hasn’t noted such behavior with his
captive specimens, although branches and plants are provided in
the enclosures.
Following Toby was Dan Krull of the Kansas Herpetological
Society and president of Small Scale Films, with “Citizen
Science—A Volunteer Army.” Dan opened with a brief history
of snake hunting, and noted the Trans-Pecos region is a relatively
little-studied area for tissue samples. He presented the KHS field
trips as a model for citizen-science at work. These trips are a winwin for both researchers and hobbyist herpers, and such activities
in Texas would help foster improvements between herpers and
TPWD. Dan concluded his presentation with a demonstration of
his specimen and DNA collecting procedures.
Black-tailed rattlesnake, Crotalus molossus, Terrell County TX (photo by Bonita Taylor)
A crowd of an estimated 150 hobbyists, academics, and professionals
descended upon Sanderson to take part in the historic event, which
included live animal displays by both SWCHR and the West Texas
Herpetological Society, herp books and paraphernalia for sale, a
silent auction (benefiting Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s
Wildlife Diversity program for reptile and amphibian research), an
evening barbecue with live music, and most importantly, numerous
guest speaker presentations and discussions concerning Texas
herping.
Snake Days opened Friday, June 15th with a discussion on the
future of herping in Texas, and pretty much set the tone for
the weekend which was, “we need data!” While the evening’s
discussion focused largely on organizing herpers to ensure our
pastime isn’t legislated out of existence, several people mentioned
the importance of herpers collecting (and submitting) data which
will benefit TPWD and researchers. Dr. Andy Gluesenkamp, Texas
State Herpetologist, explained the data we collectively submit is
important in helping with environment assessments. He helped
allay concerns by stressing that the law enforcement side of TPWD
doesn’t receive submitted data, but noted that data must be collected
legally (e.g., getting permission to be on private land) to be used in
research. Also, data submitted under educational permits doesn’t
get sent directly to him, so he would appreciate being courtesy-
After the lunch break, Gerry Salmon spoke on “The Natural
History of the Gray-banded Kingsnake.” Gerry is a wealth of
knowledge about all things concerning Lampropeltis alterna. He has
been coming out to the Trans-Pecos since 1985. He explained that
the natural history of L. alterna has been a sequence of discovery
over 111 years, with the term “gray-banded kingsnake” first used in
1965. The first specimen was collected in 1901 and was the only
such specimen for 37 years. Gerry estimates the type specimen
came from near Madera Canyon/Little Agaja Canyon (an area
known to herpers as Boy Scout Road). He walked through all the
specimens found through the 1960s, and mentioned in interesting
“death feigning” observation noted in the literature in 1984. In
discussing geographic distribution, he noted L. alterna are associated
with Crotalus lepidus lepidus, but not C. l. klauberi.
Next up was Michael Price from the West Texas Herpetological
Society with his photo essay, “On Geographic Variation of the
Rock Rattlesnake.” He covered all four subspecies (and one no
longer considered valid), noting the high variability within each.
The majority of his presentation focused on the two subspecies
found within the U.S. in which he recognizes three phenotypes
of each. Crotalus lepidus lepidus phenotypes are apparently defined
by the color and makeup of the predominant rock type in their
habitat (light limestone on the Edwards Plateau, darker limestone
on the mesas of the Stockton Plateau, and dark volcanic rock in the
Chihuahuan Desert); whereas Crotalus l. klauberi phenotypes appear
to be delineated by which mountain range they inhabit (Chihuahuan
Desert, Arizona/New Mexico mountain ranges, or the “sky islands”
of the Mexican Highlands). An interesting observation is that C.
l. lepidus and C. l. klauberi do not appear to intergrade where their
ranges meet. Mike then discussed the Mexican subspecies as well
as a population of undetermined status at the southeastern edge
SWCHR Bulletin
4
of the species’ range. He concluded by touching briefly on captive
care—as director of the San Angelo Nature Center in Texas, Mike
received export permits from Mexico and maintains an extensive
locality breeding collection at the Center.
Following Mike was Dustin Rhoads, author of The Complete Suboc,
with a synopsis of his current work with the Trans-Pecos Ratsnake,
Bogertophis subocularis. He gave information on the snakes including
captive care, variation, and a description of his research project
and the chance for herpers to contribute their data. Dusty talked
phylogenetics and the relationship of Bogertophis to other rat snakes,
Pituophis, Arizona, and other lampropeltines. His research project
focuses on the “blonde phase” of B. subocularis, asking if selection
(e.g. predation) involved (he plans to test this with painted clay
models); if genes can be linked to the phenotype (the MC1R gene
is a candidate; Quantitative Trait Locus mapping may prove or
disprove this); and, if the phenotype has a genetic basis, can the
phenotype be linked to the environment (through niche modeling).
Dusty’s talk ended with a call for amateur herper contributions to
his work—he showed a telling map comparing the data he gleaned
from museum collections with submissions from amateur herpers.
Dr. Travis LaDuc of the University of Texas then spoke on “The
Importance of Spatial and Temporal Bias in Museum Herpetology
Collections.” He opened by stating, “Texas is a great place to be
a herpetologist,” and gave a brief history of Texas herpetology.
Dr. LaDuc explained that museum collections are more than
just “snakes in jars”—a voucher specimen can provide clues to
temporal distribution and range expansion—“Each specimen is a
time capsule, and it’s up to us to determine how we open that time
capsule.” He used Sonora semiannulata to illustrate bias in university/
museum collections (showing specimens largely get collected only
where professors choose to organize their field trips), and through
dot maps, showed road bias in specimens. He said when herpers
lost the ability to legally road-collect specimens, the opportunity
to contribute valuable data was lost. As a non-herp example of
the importance of museum collections, he discussed the 1993
Hantavirus outbreak and how it was ultimately traced to a tenfold
increase in rodent populations, based on voucher specimens. Dr.
LaDuc concluded his remarks with a description of his collecting
methodology and an example of revisiting previously-sampled
localities to illustrate changes over time (in this case, the Miller
Ranch in West Texas).
Troy Hibbitts spoke next on “How Field Herpers Can Contribute
to Our Knowledge of Herp Distribution.” He led off by stating
that if an observation is not properly documented, “it’s just a
story.” He noted that society is losing all-around naturalists, and
that field herpers often possess knowledge not represented in
academic or official circles. Troy discussed the pros and cons
of specimens versus photographs for vouchers, and emphasized
that regardless, vouchers must be accompanied by data—locality
(properly formatted; handheld GPS coordinates are preferred, but
Google Earth coordinates are better than nothing), date, time, and
collector’s name; any additional data such as temperature and other
weather conditions are always good. He ended by going individually
over species to watch for in the Trans-Pecos due to their rarity or
lack of records, and mentioned to also document “oddballs” or
Summer 2012
unexpected finds, such as those suspected to be human-transported
into the area.
Following Troy, Dr. Andy Gluesenkamp of TPWD gave a highlyanticipated update on “Current Herp Issues and Their Relevance
to Hobbyists.” He noted that as of June 13th, 560 herp stamps
had been sold [NOTE: Dr. Gluesenkamp provided an update after
Snake Days stating 645 is the current total; most of that 15% increase
can be assumed to be correlated to event participants.]. He discussed the
issue of gassing burrows to collect rattlesnakes, explaining it’s an
indiscriminate means of take, impacting Federally-endangered
karst-dwelling organisms; and that rattlesnakes are the most
resistant (of animals sharing the burrows) to gassing, compounding
the problem. Regarding Federal listings, he said as of June 13th
the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus arenicolus; see SWCHR
Bulletin Vol 1 Issue 2) will NOT be listed; four species of central
Texas salamanders are listed, the Concho Water Snake (Nerodia
paucimaculata) has been delisted (see SWCHR Bulletin Vol 1 Issue 4),
but the Spot-tailed Earless Lizard (Holbrookia lacerata) is in heavy
decline and is a candidate for listing. Dr. Gluesenkamp echoed
previous speakers’ comments on the “senescence of natural
history data,” in that museums are full but lack funding to expand,
and that current “snapshots” are needed. He said citizen-science
data collection by the herper community is “desperately needed”
and mentioned the TPWD Horned Lizard, Box Turtle, and
Amphibian Watch surveys as examples, as well as the Texas Natural
Diversity Database. The TNDD receives over 1,300 requests for
data (external to TPWD) annually; data is shared with agencies such
as the Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Austin Ecological Services Office), and the Nature Conservancy
of Texas. Dr. Gluesenkamp closed with a look at future plans for
the Nongame Division of TPWD: reviewing commercial harvest
of freshwater turtles, herp conservation/research projects that are
high-priority for TPWD and important in which to involve the
amateur herper community, a Texas Tortoise awareness program,
and Biological Inventory Team surveys.
Gray-banded kingsnake, Lampropeltis alterna, Terrell County TX (photo by Blaine
Eaton)
SWCHR Bulletin
5
Dave Barker rounded out the presentations with an entertaining
and colorful account, “Looking for Ridgenose Rattlesnakes and
Mountain Kingsnakes.” He detailed his search for Crotalus willardi
subspecies in Mexico with Barry Armstrong and others in the 1970s
and 1980s, resulting in his 1985 master’s thesis debating whether C.
w. obscurus was a valid subspecies or not. He went on to describe
searching for Lampropeltis pyromelana knoblochi in Mexico in the 1980s,
culminating in bringing the first live L. p. knoblochi back to the U.S.
in 1986. His final tale involved hunting the Peloncillo Mountains
of Arizona for Crotalus apache. Dave’s lively storytelling was the
perfect ending to a day of sharing herpetofaunal information.
Following the guest speakers, Mark Heinrich entertained attendees
with music from his “Alterna Rush” and “Glass of Milk” albums
while they ate a catered barbecue dinner, then it was off for another
night of searching the Trans-Pecos for herps. Sunday the 17th
wrapped up Snake Days with a final opportunity to gather in the
convention center, swap stories, purchase equipment and books,
and vote for the winners of the photography contest.
Jeff Adams and his planning board certainly exceeded expectations
and the event was a resounding success, especially considering this
was the first of its kind. Next year’s Snake Days promises to build
on that success.
Summer 2012
Preliminary Results of the Sanderson Snake
Days Data Collection Project
by Chris McMartin
Though field herpers of every stripe have been making the
pilgrimage to the Trans-Pecos region for decades, Sanderson Snake
Days had the distinction of being the first organized gathering.
As such, it offered an unprecedented opportunity to encourage
participants to not only enjoy their time spent looking for reptiles
and amphibians in the area, but to also submit their observations to
be compiled into one data set for analysis.
While I have received 146 records to date (30 June 2012), the
level of participation to date among event attendees was lower
than hoped (approximately 10 percent of attendees). However,
additional records from attendees may be forthcoming as they
return from their trips and organize their notes. I hesitate to draw
any authoritative conclusions from the data presented here due to
the low response rate combined with anecdotal knowledge of unand under-reported observations; however, it is illustrative of the
type of contributions an event like Snake Days can provide, and
should prove beneficial as additional years’ data are added.
Methodology
Approximately three weeks before Snake Days I proposed the
concept of a survey to Jeff Adams, event organizer, who approved
the idea. I drafted a survey data collection sheet and a corresponding
instruction sheet. The information was reviewed and comments/
suggestions provided by Gerald Keown (SWCHR) and Dr. Andy
Gluesenkamp (Texas State Herpetologist). After refining the data
sheets, I printed 200 copies for distribution at the event. During
the evening “Future of Texas Herping” discussion on Friday, 15
June and periodically throughout the guest speaker day Saturday, 16
June, I made announcements regarding the survey and handed data
sheets to interested attendees. Taking the forms, let alone filling
them out and returning them, was completely optional.
Data sheets requested the following general information:
- Surveyor/Team’s name and contact information (for purposes of
clarification where needed; results are, and will be, kept anonymous)
- Date
- General Area Surveyed (highway, ranch property, etc)
- Start/Stop Time (the intent was to record hours expended herping vs. specimens found; however, many respondents failed to provide this information)
For individual entries, the following columns were provided for
recording data:
- Time
- Location (GPS coordinates preferred)
- Air Temperature
- Surface Temperature (if available--nobody provided this information)
- Species
- Status (e.g. alive-on-road, on cut, etc)
- Gender (if known)
- Length (estimated)
- Disposition (observed only, photographed, or collected)
- Remarks (any other pertinent information; contributors often recorded
where specimens were to be deposited if donated)
SWCHR Bulletin
6
Of 200 data sheet and instruction packages printed, only 50 were
distributed, or roughly one third of the attendance estimate. Of
these, only 6 were returned to date. However, some attendees
indicated they would email the results to me (understandable since
many hobbyists take notes on data sheets of their own design),
and I also made announcements on the Snake Days Facebook
page and on the Field Herp Forum web site (www.fieldherpforum.
com) after the event to encourage those who may not have been
present during my announcements to submit their observations.
To date, I have received 5 additional surveyor/survey teams’ results
in this manner. For purposes of overall individual participation I
counted individuals (n=15), but since in some cases two or more
herpers often carpool and hunt together, I treated submissions in
terms of “surveyor(s),” denoting both individuals and combination
individual/group submissions as discrete but functionally equal
contributors (n=11).
Although the formal Snake Days event was 15 through June, many
participants arrived in the Trans-Pecos earlier and/or stayed later. I
incorporated those observations falling outside the “official” event
without distinction; as of 30 June observations had been submitted
for 14 through 18 June.
Summer 2012
Discussion
Overall, 146 individual records comprising 31 different species
were reported (see Figure 1). 37 animals representing 17 species
were reported collected (alive or dead). 20 specimens, 14 percent
of the total observed, were dead-on-road (DOR). Of the DORs,
9 were collected (current interpretation of the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Code prohibits salvage of DORs by other than properly
authorized/permitted individuals).
Location data for individual records was submitted with varying
degrees of accuracy; in some cases GPS coordinates were
recorded, but in others an approximation of mileage from a known
geographic reference was provided. In subsequent analysis I plan to
plot the records and publish the resulting map for insight into both
spatial and temporal distribution of sightings over time, as well as
illumination of locales targeted and favored by herpers. Obviously,
increased participation at future events will enhance these analyses.
Figure 1. List of records by species. Blue indicates specimens discovered alive (even if they were collected for deposition in a museum collection) and red indicates those
discovered dead-on-road (DOR). Graph by the author.
SWCHR Bulletin
7
Results
Besides the raw numbers provided in Figure 3, some conclusions
may be drawn—exercising caution, though, due to the small sample
size of participants. Besides the “snapshot” the data from this
inaugural event provides, I have identified areas for improvement
and resultant predictions for future event activity.
The average number of records submitted per surveyor/team was
13, with a median of 8. If a similar observational rate is extrapolated
to even a 50% event attendee participation rate, and attendance
remains steady, 600 records could potentially be achieved at the
next Snake Days.
Less than half (45%) of surveyors/teams reported observations of
herps other than snakes, and only 18 percent recorded amphibian
observations. Given the amount of rainfall over the preceding
30 days, as well as isolated showers in some parts of the TransPecos during the event, I suspect amphibians were underreported;
furthermore, many enthusiasts neglect to record any information
other than snake observations, implying many lizards may have
been similarly overlooked. This may result in bias in the records.
Summer 2012
Of the 9 DORs reported salvaged, only 5 were salvaged
“legitimately” (by a properly permitted individual). The reason
given for improperly salvaging DORs was unfamiliarity with the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Code.
Recommendations
I believe this was a respectable first attempt at a formalized data
collection effort for West Texas herpers. That being said, there are
several ways I plan to improve the process for next year. First, the
survey needs to be integrated into the official Snake Days activities
as early as possible—primarily by announcing the survey on the
Snake Days event web site to let prospective attendees learn about
the process and get clarification as needed before arrival. I got a late
start on developing the survey due to personal reasons (foremost
being that I was supposed to be out of the country through June!) so
this should be an easy fix. Second, the data sheets will be included
in the welcome packets/binders provided to attendees. Third, the
web-based submission form will need to be refined to more closely
approximate the ease of manual data sheet completion, in order to
encourage additional contributions.
Figure 2. Disposition of specimens collected. Blue indicates specimens discovered alive; dark blue represents specimens donated for either live display or museum collections,
and light blue are those kept for personal use. Red indicates DORs donated; pink are those apparently kept for personal use. Graph by the author.
SWCHR Bulletin
8
It is important to note the limitation on DOR salvage. Though
a relatively low number of DORs were reported, anyone not on
a Scientific Collecting Permit or otherwise authorized could do
no more than take a simple photographic voucher, preventing
potentially valuable tissue samples from being deposited with
museum collections. Concerned herpers should endeavor to
work to change TPW Code to allow for DOR salvage, especially
at a coordinated event, to avoid missing out on potential voucher
opportunities.
My intent is to continue this effort annually, developing a longitudinal
study in order to discover population trends, possible correlations
between observed herp activity and weather, number of specimens
taken vs. number of herpers/level of effort, sustainability of
locality-specific populations, and demand for various species to
ascertain whether targeted management strategies would be useful
(or even necessary). A common refrain from the hobbyist herping
community is that laws tend to get passed restricting freedom of
action without data backing them up; my hope is that Snake Days
participants will view this survey over time as a chance to provide
that data.
Summer 2012
Book Review: Common Kingsnakes: A Natural
History of Lampropeltis getula
Brian Hubbs, Tricolor Books, Tempe Arizona, 2009
Softcover. xxiv + 412 pp. $60.00
ISBN 978-0-975464-0-6
Review by Tom Lott
Arriving on the heels of his previous effort, Mountain Kings (2004),
Brian Hubbs has raised the bar significantly in terms of what a
“niche publication” can strive to be. Self-published and largely
(some would say incessantly) self-promoted, Hubbs’ Common Kingsnakes harkens back to the day when self-publishing was more often
than not the case with scientific literature of any kind, much less
natural history works dedicated to an in-depth examination of a
single species.
Self-publishing obviously allows an author the luxury of self-editing, but introduces the often tantalizing opportunity to expound
excessively on arcane points and to wander off on irrelevant tangents; fortunately, this does not seem to be the case with the present volume. In fact, I have the impression that if it had been edited
for length some of its quality would have been sacrificed, much
like the regrettable abridged edition of Lawrence Klauber’s Rattlesnakes (Klauber 1984). While I am not quite prepared to state that
the present work is comparable to the full, unabridged edition of
Klauber’s masterpiece (Klauber 1972), but as Hubbs himself states
in the Preface, “This is the most comprehensive look at the species, Lampropeltis getula, the story of the Common Kingsnakes, a
synthesis of accumulated experiences and data about their lives and
surroundings.” I would find it hard to disagree with that statement.
Physically the work is a hefty tome, even as a paperback (there is no
hardcover edition), consisting of 412 heavy, 8.5” X 11” glossy pages
plus 24 pages of introductory material and acknowledgements. It is
well-constructed and appears to be quite durable, slightly exceeding
even Hubbs’ previous effort, Mountain Kings, in those qualities.
This book appeared shortly prior to a taxonomic paper (Pyron and
Burbrink 2009) that proposed to radically split the traditionally
conceived polytypic species, Lampropeltis getula, into five separate
“evolutionary” species. Hubbs has stated, however, that he unconditionally rejects the proposals made in that paper, and most hobbyist and avocational herpers tend to agree, considering them too
non-intuitive to adopt without considerable additional corroboration and clarification from the splitters. Since Common Kingsnakes
is primarily dedicated to the natural history of these snakes rather
than their taxonomy, the unsettled condition of their nomenclature
does not seriously affect the usefulness of the vast amount of information contained in this volume. For the record, the SWCHR
Committee on Common and Scientific Names has also declined to
adopt the proposals made in Pyron and Burbrink (op. cit.) for many
of the same reasons that Hubbs has advanced.
The layout of the book is fairly straight-forward, consisting of
12 pages on “Discovering Common Kingsnakes,” 20 pages on an
“Overview” of Common Kingsnakes, which discusses the fundamental characteristics shared by all of the various subspecies. The
following 113 pages, Chapter 3 in the book, is devoted solely to a
single subspecies, the California Kingsnake (L. g. californiae), with
SWCHR Bulletin
9
Summer 2012
maps, and four pattern diagrams from Blaney [1977] ) along with
the more problematic forms of the “Outer Banks” Kingsnake (L.
g. “sticticeps,” 9 pages, 10 b&w photos, and 1 detailed b&w map),
and the Apalachicola Lowland Kingsnakes (L. g. meansi and L. g.
“goini,” 27 pages, 28 color photos of snakes/habitat [ 5 additional
in b&w], and three detailed color maps). This section also includes
what is the best discussion and illustrations I have yet seen about
the distribution and variation within the getula group, especially the
confusing Florida and Apalachicola Lowland forms.
The range maps (there are 40 of them!) are exquisite and rendered
at a size that allows for a much greater level of detail than is usually
the case in most herpetological publications (e.g., the map for the
entire Eastern [getula] complex takes up almost a full 8.5” X 11”
page). The maps are also very attractively printed in multiple colors
(except, oddly, for the entire Desert Kingsnake chapter, which, as
mentioned above, is printed in black-and-white). The large, multicolor layout also allows for the depiction of intergradation zones,
where they are known or suspected.
which Hubbs is obviously most personally familiar. This chapter
comprises the heart of the book and could surely stand on its own
in terms of its scholarly exposition of the many details of the natural history of this subspecies: 72 naturally-occurring pattern variants are described, mapped, and in most cases illustrated (there are
143 color photographs of this subspecies within this chapter), in
addition to entries on description, discovery, name history, scale
counts, size, similar species, range, habitat, prey, behavior, emergence, general activity, breeding/reproduction, and abundance that
are provided for each subspecies throughout the book.
The second major portion of the subspecies accounts deals with
what Hubbs calls the “Splendida Group.” Included in this assemblage are the Desert Kingsnake (L. g. splendida, 20 pages, 48 photos
of snakes and habitat, 1 map, all in black-and-white), the Speckled
Kingsnake (L. g. holbrooki, 24 pages, 53 color photos of snakes/
habitat, and 1 color map), the Black Kingsnake (L. g. nigra, 24 pages,
37 color photos of snakes/habitat, 4 black-and-white diagrams, and
1 color map), the Western Black Kingsnake (L. g. nigrita, 8 pages, 10
color photos of snakes/habitat, and 3 detailed color maps), and the
problematic Isla Santa Catalina Kingsnake (L. [g.] “catalinensis,” 3.5
pages, 4 color photos of the remarkably well-preserved type and
only known specimen along with a splendida from west Texas for
comparison, and 1 color map).
The third major portion of the subspecies accounts deals with the
eastern-most taxa, the Getula Group. This includes the Eastern
Kingsnake proper (L. g. getula, 27 pages, 46 photos of snakes/
habitat [all but two in color], and 1 color and 1 detailed black-andwhite SC map), the Florida Kingsnake (L. g. floridana, 34 pages, 31
color photos of snakes/habitat, 6 b&w photos, five detailed color
Whenever such a level of detail is attempted in range maps, however, there is also a much greater chance of committing minor errors
in the process. Such errors are of little real consequence and are
likely to be detected only by herpers familiar with the areas incorrectly depicted. Such a minor inaccuracy was almost immediately
noticed by Corpus Christi herpers in Hubbs’ representation of the
range of the Speckled Kingsnake as extending farther to the south
along the St. Joseph and Mustang barrier islands, just off the Texas
coast, than was the case on the adjacent mainland, where intergrades are found.
Another reviewer (Boundy 2011), in what was eventually a similarly favorable evaluation of this book, initially took the author to
task, for the occasional typos and non-sequiturs found especially in
the opening chapters. Admittedly, these do exist, but most of the
intended audience will only gloss over the introductory material,
anxious to get to the meat of the subject, which is well-written in
Hubbs’ unique, engaging, and occasionally humorous style (much
as anyone familiar with his frequent internet postings would expect).
Another advantage to publishing a book such as this is that the
author may freely and honestly express his perception of various state non-game wildlife laws, which vary widely from the rare
“good,” the all too frequent “bad,” and even the occasional “ugly.”
Academically-associated authors, publishing in more traditional
venues, almost invariably tend toward a “politically correct” or
non-committal stance concerning wildlife laws affecting herps and
herpers (they are, after all, generally eligible for special permits from
the authorities to obtain “protected” species that are unavailable
to unaffiliated, hobbyist herpers, and doubtless do not wish to offend the overseers). Happily, Hubbs is not so restricted and, in the
chapter entitled “Kingsnake Collecting and Wildlife Management,”
generally proceeds to “tell it like it is,” including an analysis of the
infamous Texas Operation Rockcut, certainly a prime example of
the “ugly.”
The book concludes with chapters on “How to Search for Com-
SWCHR Bulletin
10
mon Kingsnakes,” “Designer Morphs,” and “Captive Husbandry,”
which will appeal to readers in differing extents based on their personal interests and experience. Also included is an appendix of
“Breeders, Resources, and Organizations,” a glossary, and an appropriately extensive bibliography.
It is obvious that the production of this volume was a labor of love
on Hubbs’ part; it is exactly the sort of publication a devoted hobbyist would wish for, but, unfortunately, not the kind that would
interest the vast majority of commercial publishers. Only an academic press could have possibly published a work with such narrow
appeal (Klauber’s Rattlesnakes was a much less chancy venture), but
even most academic houses would likely have hesitated due to the
author’s relatively sparse peer-reviewed publication record. Hubbs,
however, knew what he wanted and personally undertook the financial risk to create this first-rate contribution to herpetological
knowledge - and in the process, provided an outstanding example
of the tremendous amount of natural history information existing,
largely untapped, within the community of “amateur” naturalists
of all disciplines. The extensive list of mostly (but certainly not
exclusively) “amateur” herpers in the acknowledgements section
confirms that Hubbs has wisely sought out and widely used this
otherwise cryptic wisdom to the best advantage.
The bottom line for some folks will, of course, be: is it worth the
$60 asking price? My response would be, if you are interested
enough in herpetology to be reading this review, absolutely! Common Kingsnakes rests proudly on my bookshelf, and I freely admit
that I am eagerly anticipating his long-promised milk snake treatise
in the hopes that it will equal the current volume (let’s just hope
he’s not waiting for the taxonomic dust to settle before publishing
that one!).
Literature Cited
Boundy, Jeff. 2011. Book Review: Common Kingsnakes - A Natural History of Lampropeltis getula. Herpetol. Rev. 42(3): 453-455.
Blaney, R.M. 1977. Systematics of the common kingsnake, Lampropeltis getulus (Linnaeus). Tulane Stud. Zool. Bot. 19: 47-103.
Hubbs, Brian. 2004. Mountain Kings: A Collective Natural History of
California, Sonoran, Durango and Queretaro Mountain Kingsnakes. Tempe, AZ: Tricolor Books.
Klauber, L. M. 1972. Rattlesnakes: Their Habits, Life Histories, and Influence on Mankind, 2nd ed., 2 Vol. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
1533 pp.
Klauber, L. M. 1984. Rattlesnakes: Their Habits, Life Histories, and Influence on Mankind, Abridged edition. Berkeley: Univ. of California
Press. 400 pp.
Pyron, R.A. and F.T. Burbrink. 2009. Systematics of the common
kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula: Serpentes: Colubridae) and the burden of heritage in taxonomy. Zootaxa 2241: 22-32.
Summer 2012
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
VIRGINIA STRIATULA (Rough Earth Snake). Texas: Atascosa
County: Pleasanton (N 28.983015, W 98.524039; elev. 139 m). 21
April 2008. Tom Lott. NAFHA photo voucher 55679. New county record (Dixon 2000. Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas, 2nd Ed.
Texas A&M Press. College Station. 421 pp.). An additional photo
voucher from the same locality was obtained on 26 March 2012.
Tom Lott. NAFHA 104553. The habitat is a sandy suburban Live
Oak savanna. Both specimens were found under artificial cover.
These records confirm the listing of this species from the county
by Lott 2011 (SWCHR Bulletin 1(3): 10-15). - Tom Lott, SWCHR,
P.O. Box 624, Seguin TX 78156 (e-mail: [email protected])
SWCHR CODE OF ETHICS
As a member of the Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research, I subscribe to
the Association’s Code of Ethics.
Field activities should limit the impact on natural habitats, replacing all cover objects,
not tearing apart rocks or logs and refraining from the use of gasoline or other toxic
materials.
Catch and release coupled with photography and the limited take of non-protected
species for personal study or breeding use is permitted. The commercial take and sale
of wild-caught animals is not acceptable.
Collecting practices should respect landowner rights, including but not limited to
securing permission for land entry and the packing out of all personal trash.
Captive-breeding efforts are recognized as a valid means of potentially reducing
collection pressures on wild populations and are encouraged.
The release of captive animals including captive-bred animals into the wild is
discouraged except under the supervision of trained professionals and in accordance
with an accepted species preservation or restocking plan.
The disclosure of exact locality information on public internet forums is discouraged
in most circumstances. Locality information posted on public internet forums usually
should be restricted to providing the name of the county where the animal was found.
When specific locality data is provided ot one in confidence, it should be kept in
confidence and should not be abused or shared with others without explicit permission.
Other members of the Association are always to be treated cordially and in a respectful
manner.
SWCHR
PO BOX 624
SEGUIN TX 78156