Swchr Bulletin

SWCHR Volume 2, Issue 2 BULLETINSummer 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 COMMITTEE ON COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC Tom Lott NAMES Tom Lott VICE PRESIDENT Todd Hughes RANGE MAP COMMITTEE Tom Lott SECRETARY Diego Ortiz AWARDS AND GRANTS COMMITTEE (vacant) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Gerald Keown COMMUNICATIONS COMMITEE Gerald Keown BOARD MEMBERS Toby Brock, Riley Campbell, Hans Koenig ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS COMMITTEE Diego Ortiz BULLETIN EDITOR Chris McMartin NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE Gerald Keown

ABOUT SWCHR 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 MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE dedicated to promoting education of the Association’s members Toby Brock and the general public relating to the natural history, biology, tax- onomy, conservation and preservation needs, field studies, and captive propagation of the herpetofauna indigenous to the Ameri- CONSERVATION COMMITTEE can Southwest. (vacant)

THE SWCHR LOGO JOINING SWCHR

There are several versions of the SWCHR logo, all featuring the For information on becoming a member please visit the member- Gray-Banded Kingsnake (Lampropeltis alterna), a widely-recognized ship page of the SWCHR web site at reptile native to the Trans-Pecos region of Texas as well as adjacent http://www.southwesternherp.com/join.html. Mexico and New Mexico.

ON THE COVER: Speckled Kingsnake, Lampropeltis getula holbrooki, Brazoria BACKGROUND IMAGE: Elephant Tusk, Big Bend National Park, TX (Chris County, TX (Matt Hollanders). This photograph was voted the winner of the 2011 McMartin) SWCHR Award for Excellence in Herpetological Photography. 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 Summer 2012

Sanderson Snake Days Recap copied on any data submitted under that program. by Chris McMartin 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 Known as “The Cactus Capital of Texas,” Sanderson may have a the Northern Green Rat Snake ( ).” He new nickname as the epicenter of a promising new development Senticolis triaspis intermedia covered taxonomy, morphology, range and natural history, captive in the field herping community. From June 15th through 17th, husbandry, breeding/incubation, and deformities and dead-in- the small town in Terrell County hosted the first annual “Snake egg issues. Toby compared and contrasted Thurgess Cranston’s Days” event, organized by SWCHR’s Jeff Adams and a planning findings with those seen in his own captives. An interesting board including West Texas Herpetological Society President observation is that while Robert Stebbins claims green rat snakes Travis Dimler. Although the Trans-Pecos region has unofficially have arboreal tendencies, Toby hasn’t noted such behavior with his welcomed field herpers from far and wide for the past several captive specimens, although branches and plants are provided in decades, Snake Days marks the first formal gathering of reptile and the enclosures. amphibian enthusiasts in the area, and it did not disappoint. 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 win- win 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.

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 Black-tailed rattlesnake, Crotalus molossus, Terrell County TX (photo by Bonita Taylor) such specimen for 37 years. Gerry estimates the type specimen came from near Madera Canyon/Little Agaja Canyon (an area A crowd of an estimated 150 hobbyists, academics, and professionals known to herpers as Boy Scout Road). He walked through all the descended upon Sanderson to take part in the historic event, which specimens found through the 1960s, and mentioned in interesting included live animal displays by both SWCHR and the West Texas “death feigning” observation noted in the literature in 1984. In Herpetological Society, herp books and paraphernalia for sale, a discussing geographic distribution, he noted L. alterna are associated silent auction (benefiting Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s with Crotalus lepidus lepidus, but not C. l. klauberi. Wildlife Diversity program for reptile and amphibian research), an evening barbecue with live music, and most importantly, numerous Next up was Michael Price from the West Texas Herpetological guest speaker presentations and discussions concerning Texas Society with his photo essay, “On Geographic Variation of the herping. Rock Rattlesnake.” He covered all four subspecies (and one no longer considered valid), noting the high variability within each. Snake Days opened Friday, June 15th with a discussion on the The majority of his presentation focused on the two subspecies future of herping in Texas, and pretty much set the tone for found within the U.S. in which he recognizes three phenotypes the weekend which was, “we need data!” While the evening’s of each. Crotalus lepidus lepidus phenotypes are apparently defined discussion focused largely on organizing herpers to ensure our by the color and makeup of the predominant rock type in their pastime isn’t legislated out of existence, several people mentioned habitat (light limestone on the Edwards Plateau, darker limestone the importance of herpers collecting (and submitting) data which on the mesas of the Stockton Plateau, and dark volcanic rock in the will benefit TPWD and researchers. Dr. Andy Gluesenkamp, Texas Chihuahuan Desert); whereas Crotalus l. klauberi phenotypes appear State Herpetologist, explained the data we collectively submit is to be delineated by which mountain range they inhabit (Chihuahuan important in helping with environment assessments. He helped Desert, Arizona/New Mexico mountain ranges, or the “sky islands” allay concerns by stressing that the law enforcement side of TPWD of the Mexican Highlands). An interesting observation is that C. doesn’t receive submitted data, but noted that data must be collected l. lepidus and C. l. klauberi do not appear to intergrade where their legally (e.g., getting permission to be on private land) to be used in ranges meet. Mike then discussed the Mexican subspecies as well research. Also, data submitted under educational permits doesn’t as a population of undetermined status at the southeastern edge get sent directly to him, so he would appreciate being courtesy- SWCHR Bulletin 4 Summer 2012

of the species’ range. He concluded by touching briefly on captive unexpected finds, such as those suspected to be human-transported care—as director of the San Angelo Nature Center in Texas, Mike into the area. received export permits from Mexico and maintains an extensive locality breeding collection at the Center. Following Troy, Dr. Andy Gluesenkamp of TPWD gave a highly- anticipated update on “Current Herp Issues and Their Relevance Following Mike was Dustin Rhoads, author of The Complete Suboc, to Hobbyists.” He noted that as of June 13th, 560 herp stamps with a synopsis of his current work with the Trans-Pecos Ratsnake, had been sold [NOTE: Dr. Gluesenkamp provided an update after Bogertophis subocularis. He gave information on the snakes including Snake Days stating 645 is the current total; most of that 15% increase captive care, variation, and a description of his research project can be assumed to be correlated to event participants.]. He discussed the and the chance for herpers to contribute their data. Dusty talked issue of gassing burrows to collect rattlesnakes, explaining it’s an phylogenetics and the relationship of Bogertophis to other rat snakes, indiscriminate means of take, impacting Federally-endangered Pituophis, Arizona, and other lampropeltines. His research project karst-dwelling organisms; and that rattlesnakes are the most focuses on the “blonde phase” of B. subocularis, asking if selection resistant (of animals sharing the burrows) to gassing, compounding (e.g. predation) involved (he plans to test this with painted clay the problem. Regarding Federal listings, he said as of June 13th models); if genes can be linked to the phenotype (the MC1R gene the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus arenicolus; see SWCHR is a candidate; Quantitative Trait Locus mapping may prove or Bulletin Vol 1 Issue 2) will NOT be listed; four species of central disprove this); and, if the phenotype has a genetic basis, can the Texas salamanders are listed, the Concho Water Snake (Nerodia phenotype be linked to the environment (through niche modeling). paucimaculata) has been delisted (see SWCHR Bulletin Vol 1 Issue 4), Dusty’s talk ended with a call for amateur herper contributions to but the Spot-tailed Earless Lizard (Holbrookia lacerata) is in heavy his work—he showed a telling map comparing the data he gleaned decline and is a candidate for listing. Dr. Gluesenkamp echoed from museum collections with submissions from amateur herpers. previous speakers’ comments on the “senescence of natural history data,” in that museums are full but lack funding to expand, Dr. Travis LaDuc of the University of Texas then spoke on “The and that current “snapshots” are needed. He said citizen-science Importance of Spatial and Temporal Bias in Museum Herpetology data collection by the herper community is “desperately needed” Collections.” He opened by stating, “Texas is a great place to be and mentioned the TPWD Horned Lizard, Box Turtle, and a herpetologist,” and gave a brief history of Texas herpetology. Amphibian Watch surveys as examples, as well as the Texas Natural Dr. LaDuc explained that museum collections are more than Diversity Database. The TNDD receives over 1,300 requests for just “snakes in jars”—a voucher specimen can provide clues to data (external to TPWD) annually; data is shared with agencies such temporal distribution and range expansion—“Each specimen is a as the Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Commission time capsule, and it’s up to us to determine how we open that time on Environmental Quality, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service capsule.” He used Sonora semiannulata to illustrate bias in university/ (Austin Ecological Services Office), and the Nature Conservancy museum collections (showing specimens largely get collected only of Texas. Dr. Gluesenkamp closed with a look at future plans for where professors choose to organize their field trips), and through the Nongame Division of TPWD: reviewing commercial harvest dot maps, showed road bias in specimens. He said when herpers of freshwater turtles, herp conservation/research projects that are lost the ability to legally road-collect specimens, the opportunity high-priority for TPWD and important in which to involve the to contribute valuable data was lost. As a non-herp example of amateur herper community, a Texas Tortoise awareness program, the importance of museum collections, he discussed the 1993 and Biological Inventory Team surveys. 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 Gray-banded kingsnake, Lampropeltis alterna, Terrell County TX (photo by Blaine weather conditions are always good. He ended by going individually Eaton) over species to watch for in the Trans-Pecos due to their rarity or lack of records, and mentioned to also document “oddballs” or SWCHR Bulletin 5 Summer 2012

Dave Barker rounded out the presentations with an entertaining Preliminary Results of the Sanderson Snake and colorful account, “Looking for Ridgenose Rattlesnakes and Mountain Kingsnakes.” He detailed his search for Crotalus willardi Days Data Collection Project subspecies in Mexico with Barry Armstrong and others in the 1970s by Chris McMartin 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 Though field herpers of every stripe have been making the searching for Lampropeltis pyromelana knoblochi in Mexico in the 1980s, pilgrimage to the Trans-Pecos region for decades, Sanderson Snake culminating in bringing the first live L. p. knoblochi back to the U.S. Days had the distinction of being the first organized gathering. in 1986. His final tale involved hunting the Peloncillo Mountains As such, it offered an unprecedented opportunity to encourage of Arizona for Crotalus apache. Dave’s lively storytelling was the participants to not only enjoy their time spent looking for reptiles perfect ending to a day of sharing herpetofaunal information. and amphibians in the area, but to also submit their observations to be compiled into one data set for analysis. Following the guest speakers, Mark Heinrich entertained attendees with music from his “Alterna Rush” and “Glass of Milk” albums While I have received 146 records to date (30 June 2012), the while they ate a catered barbecue dinner, then it was off for another level of participation to date among event attendees was lower night of searching the Trans-Pecos for herps. Sunday the 17th than hoped (approximately 10 percent of attendees). However, wrapped up Snake Days with a final opportunity to gather in the additional records from attendees may be forthcoming as they convention center, swap stories, purchase equipment and books, return from their trips and organize their notes. I hesitate to draw and vote for the winners of the photography contest. any authoritative conclusions from the data presented here due to the low response rate combined with anecdotal knowledge of un- and under-reported observations; however, it is illustrative of the Jeff Adams and his planning board certainly exceeded expectations type of contributions an event like Snake Days can provide, and and the event was a resounding success, especially considering this should prove beneficial as additional years’ data are added. was the first of its kind. Next year’s Snake Days promises to build on that success. 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 Summer 2012

Of 200 data sheet and instruction packages printed, only 50 were Discussion distributed, or roughly one third of the attendance estimate. Of these, only 6 were returned to date. However, some attendees Overall, 146 individual records comprising 31 different species indicated they would email the results to me (understandable since were reported (see Figure 1). 37 animals representing 17 species many hobbyists take notes on data sheets of their own design), were reported collected (alive or dead). 20 specimens, 14 percent and I also made announcements on the Snake Days Facebook of the total observed, were dead-on-road (DOR). Of the DORs, page and on the Field Herp Forum web site (www.fieldherpforum. 9 were collected (current interpretation of the Texas Parks and com) after the event to encourage those who may not have been Wildlife Code prohibits salvage of DORs by other than properly present during my announcements to submit their observations. authorized/permitted individuals). To date, I have received 5 additional surveyor/survey teams’ results in this manner. For purposes of overall individual participation I Location data for individual records was submitted with varying counted individuals (n=15), but since in some cases two or more degrees of accuracy; in some cases GPS coordinates were herpers often carpool and hunt together, I treated submissions in recorded, but in others an approximation of mileage from a known terms of “surveyor(s),” denoting both individuals and combination geographic reference was provided. In subsequent analysis I plan to individual/group submissions as discrete but functionally equal plot the records and publish the resulting map for insight into both contributors (n=11). spatial and temporal distribution of sightings over time, as well as illumination of locales targeted and favored by herpers. Obviously, Although the formal Snake Days event was 15 through June, many increased participation at future events will enhance these analyses. 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.

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 Summer 2012

Results Of the 9 DORs reported salvaged, only 5 were salvaged Besides the raw numbers provided in Figure 3, some conclusions “legitimately” (by a properly permitted individual). The reason may be drawn—exercising caution, though, due to the small sample given for improperly salvaging DORs was unfamiliarity with the size of participants. Besides the “snapshot” the data from this Texas Parks and Wildlife Code. inaugural event provides, I have identified areas for improvement and resultant predictions for future event activity. Recommendations

The average number of records submitted per surveyor/team was I believe this was a respectable first attempt at a formalized data 13, with a median of 8. If a similar observational rate is extrapolated collection effort for West Texas herpers. That being said, there are to even a 50% event attendee participation rate, and attendance several ways I plan to improve the process for next year. First, the remains steady, 600 records could potentially be achieved at the survey needs to be integrated into the official Snake Days activities next Snake Days. as early as possible—primarily by announcing the survey on the Snake Days event web site to let prospective attendees learn about Less than half (45%) of surveyors/teams reported observations of the process and get clarification as needed before arrival. I got a late herps other than snakes, and only 18 percent recorded amphibian start on developing the survey due to personal reasons (foremost observations. Given the amount of rainfall over the preceding being that I was supposed to be out of the country through June!) so 30 days, as well as isolated showers in some parts of the Trans- this should be an easy fix. Second, the data sheets will be included Pecos during the event, I suspect amphibians were underreported; in the welcome packets/binders provided to attendees. Third, the furthermore, many enthusiasts neglect to record any information web-based submission form will need to be refined to more closely other than snake observations, implying many lizards may have approximate the ease of manual data sheet completion, in order to been similarly overlooked. This may result in bias in the records. 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 Summer 2012

It is important to note the limitation on DOR salvage. Though Book Review: Common Kingsnakes: A Natural a relatively low number of DORs were reported, anyone not on a Scientific Collecting Permit or otherwise authorized could do History of Lampropeltis getula no more than take a simple photographic voucher, preventing Brian Hubbs, Tricolor Books, Tempe Arizona, 2009 potentially valuable tissue samples from being deposited with Softcover. xxiv + 412 pp. $60.00 museum collections. Concerned herpers should endeavor to ISBN 978-0-975464-0-6 work to change TPW Code to allow for DOR salvage, especially Review by Tom Lott at a coordinated event, to avoid missing out on potential voucher opportunities. Arriving on the heels of his previous effort, Mountain Kings (2004), Brian Hubbs has raised the bar significantly in terms of what a My intent is to continue this effort annually, developing a longitudinal “niche publication” can strive to be. Self-published and largely study in order to discover population trends, possible correlations (some would say incessantly) self-promoted, Hubbs’ Common King- between observed herp activity and weather, number of specimens snakes harkens back to the day when self-publishing was more often taken vs. number of herpers/level of effort, sustainability of than not the case with scientific literature of any kind, much less locality-specific populations, and demand for various species to natural history works dedicated to an in-depth examination of a ascertain whether targeted management strategies would be useful single species. (or even necessary). A common refrain from the hobbyist herping community is that laws tend to get passed restricting freedom of Self-publishing obviously allows an author the luxury of self-ed- action without data backing them up; my hope is that Snake Days iting, but introduces the often tantalizing opportunity to expound participants will view this survey over time as a chance to provide excessively on arcane points and to wander off on irrelevant tan- that data. gents; fortunately, this does not seem to be the case with the pres- ent 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 Rattle- snakes (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 spe- cies, 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 uncon- ditionally rejects the proposals made in that paper, and most hob- byist and avocational herpers tend to agree, considering them too non-intuitive to adopt without considerable additional corrobora- tion 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 in- formation 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 funda- mental 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, multi- color layout also allows for the depiction of intergradation zones, where they are known or suspected.

Whenever such a level of detail is attempted in range maps, howev- er, 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 incor- rectly 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 which Hubbs is obviously most personally familiar. This chapter coast, than was the case on the adjacent mainland, where inter- comprises the heart of the book and could surely stand on its own grades are found. in terms of its scholarly exposition of the many details of the natu- ral history of this subspecies: 72 naturally-occurring pattern vari- Another reviewer (Boundy 2011), in what was eventually a simi- ants are described, mapped, and in most cases illustrated (there are larly favorable evaluation of this book, initially took the author to 143 color photographs of this subspecies within this chapter), in task, for the occasional typos and non-sequiturs found especially in addition to entries on description, discovery, name history, scale the opening chapters. Admittedly, these do exist, but most of the counts, size, similar species, range, habitat, prey, behavior, emer- intended audience will only gloss over the introductory material, gence, general activity, breeding/reproduction, and abundance that anxious to get to the meat of the subject, which is well-written in are provided for each subspecies throughout the book. Hubbs’ unique, engaging, and occasionally humorous style (much as anyone familiar with his frequent internet postings would ex- The second major portion of the subspecies accounts deals with pect). what Hubbs calls the “Splendida Group.” Included in this assem- blage are the Desert Kingsnake (L. g. splendida, 20 pages, 48 photos Another advantage to publishing a book such as this is that the of snakes and habitat, 1 map, all in black-and-white), the Speckled author may freely and honestly express his perception of vari- Kingsnake (L. g. holbrooki, 24 pages, 53 color photos of snakes/ ous state non-game wildlife laws, which vary widely from the rare habitat, and 1 color map), the Black Kingsnake (L. g. nigra, 24 pages, “good,” the all too frequent “bad,” and even the occasional “ugly.” 37 color photos of snakes/habitat, 4 black-and-white diagrams, and Academically-associated authors, publishing in more traditional 1 color map), the Western Black Kingsnake (L. g. nigrita, 8 pages, 10 venues, almost invariably tend toward a “politically correct” or color photos of snakes/habitat, and 3 detailed color maps), and the non-committal stance concerning wildlife laws affecting herps and problematic Isla Santa Catalina Kingsnake (L. [g.] “catalinensis,” 3.5 herpers (they are, after all, generally eligible for special permits from pages, 4 color photos of the remarkably well-preserved type and the authorities to obtain “protected” species that are unavailable only known specimen along with a splendida from west Texas for to unaffiliated, hobbyist herpers, and doubtless do not wish to of- comparison, and 1 color map). fend the overseers). Happily, Hubbs is not so restricted and, in the chapter entitled “Kingsnake Collecting and Wildlife Management,” The third major portion of the subspecies accounts deals with the generally proceeds to “tell it like it is,” including an analysis of the eastern-most taxa, the Getula Group. This includes the Eastern infamous Texas Operation Rockcut, certainly a prime example of Kingsnake proper (L. g. getula, 27 pages, 46 photos of snakes/ the “ugly.” habitat [all but two in color], and 1 color and 1 detailed black-and- white SC map), the Florida Kingsnake (L. g. floridana, 34 pages, 31 The book concludes with chapters on “How to Search for Com- color photos of snakes/habitat, 6 b&w photos, five detailed color SWCHR Bulletin 10 Summer 2012

mon Kingsnakes,” “Designer Morphs,” and “Captive Husbandry,” GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION which will appeal to readers in differing extents based on their per- sonal interests and experience. Also included is an appendix of VIRGINIA STRIATULA (Rough Earth Snake). Texas: Atascosa “Breeders, Resources, and Organizations,” a glossary, and an ap- County: Pleasanton (N 28.983015, W 98.524039; elev. 139 m). 21 propriately extensive bibliography. April 2008. Tom Lott. NAFHA photo voucher 55679. New coun- ty record (Dixon 2000. Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas, 2nd Ed. It is obvious that the production of this volume was a labor of love Texas A&M Press. College Station. 421 pp.). An additional photo on Hubbs’ part; it is exactly the sort of publication a devoted hob- voucher from the same locality was obtained on 26 March 2012. byist would wish for, but, unfortunately, not the kind that would Tom Lott. NAFHA 104553. The habitat is a sandy suburban Live interest the vast majority of commercial publishers. Only an aca- Oak savanna. Both specimens were found under artificial cover. demic press could have possibly published a work with such narrow These records confirm the listing of this species from the county appeal (Klauber’s Rattlesnakes was a much less chancy venture), but by Lott 2011 (SWCHR Bulletin 1(3): 10-15). - Tom Lott, SWCHR, even most academic houses would likely have hesitated due to the P.O. Box 624, Seguin TX 78156 (e-mail: [email protected]) author’s relatively sparse peer-reviewed publication record. Hubbs, however, knew what he wanted and personally undertook the fi- nancial 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! Com- mon 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 Natu- ral History of Lampropeltis getula. Herpetol. Rev. 42(3): 453-455.

Blaney, R.M. 1977. Systematics of the common kingsnake, Lampro- peltis 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. Tem- pe, AZ: Tricolor Books.

Klauber, L. M. 1972. Rattlesnakes: Their Habits, Life Histories, and Influ- ence on Mankind, 2nd ed., 2 Vol. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. 1533 pp.

Klauber, L. M. 1984. Rattlesnakes: Their Habits, Life Histories, and In- fluence 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 bur- den of heritage in taxonomy. Zootaxa 2241: 22-32. 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 keptin 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