I agree... very much appreciated. It would almost seem that there is an intergrade zone from K Plat/Tehtch from Northern--> Southern clades, with rather than a mixing of phenotypes, there is a gradient (or distribution curve) of percentage of boas expressing the two phenotypes. very interesting. thx again... jim

RobertH:
I sent Gary Nafis a copy of my post on the forum in case he wished to revise his treatment of the distribution of the SRB and NRB populations.

Here is part of my message to Gary:
"Not certain from where you obtained that information. CDFG once had the SRB as occurring on Mt. Pinos, the Tehachapi Mt., and I believe the southern Greenhorn Mts. and possibly Breckenridge Mt.---- all of which was in gross error. If your source was from some CDFG site, that should have been changed a few years ago as I informed the individual in charge in Sacramento of those errors and she indicate she would have it corrected."

Richard F. Hoyer

After our great day in the Tehachapi Mts. of the Tejon Ranch on May 6th, that evening I headed back towards Oregon. On my way home on the 7th, I stopped at my boa sites in the mountains east of Ashland, Oregon and came away with 20 boas, all found under A/C on rock outcrops. I am now just beginning to examine those specimens most of which I hope are recaptures as such recaptures produce the best information.

The first specimen was a female I had originally captured on 9-28-97 and which had been recaptured in 2005, 2006, 2010 and 2011. She was a subadult of 16 3/4 inches when first captured and is now 24 3/8 inches. I automatically knew the specimen was a recapture as she possessed the scar on the right dorsal side of her tail where I removed a tissue sample back in 1997. A very nice find but not all that unusual.

The second specimen I just examined had no scar so possibly was a new capture. But I went through my data sheets for that particular site and received a great surprise as she too is a recapture. She was first captured on 6-7-98 as an 8 7/8 inch juvenile. My notes indicate she had been born the year before. There was no scar as I generally do not remove tissue
from such small and fragile specimens.

The big surprise is that I haven't seen this boa since she was first captured and thus there as been a lapse of 14 years in-between her initial in recent captures. I believe that represent the longest gap I have experience with this species. She is now 22 1/4 inches in total length which along with data from other recaptures like the one above, provides basic information on the growth of the species at this mountainous site.

Richard F. Hoyer.

Thanks for setting me straight Richard. I have changed my range maps and descriptions. I was following the distribution used by the California Dept. of Fish and Game who call the Mt. Pinos boas C. b. umbratica. That was from a 2004 report that I showed you which you have since told me is full of mistakes and which should have been updated. Maybe it has been and I haven't yet found it. Finding the most recent information regarding the distribution of protected species on their web site is difficult, since it seems every report they have ever published shows up on a search. I will try to contact their biologists to find out what their current position is.

In the mean time, as we discussed last week, now that Charina has been confirmed from San Luis Obispo County, there are two huge gaps in its range north and south of SLO. Maybe someone from NAFHA can find some and help to fill in those gaps...

Gary, you deserves a HUGE APPLAUSE from everyone interested in herps. Your site is exemplary in everyway as an informational resource. I can't imagine the serious work you put into keeping that updated as a single individual. No ads, no profit, just pure good info as best as you can manage.

THANKS MUCH!

Hey Gary,

Boas are known from nearly the entire Santa Lucia range. I have found them DOR on HW 1 well south of Big Sur (there is a record in MVZ). They should be present in the entire range close to the coast. I think they love the coastal scrub but also make it up the canyons. They are nowhere nearly as common as they are to the North, however. Just one range North in the Santa Cruz mountains, they are WAY more common.

FH

Thanks monklet. Unfortunately, I do have a couple of pay-to-click links buried in there somewhere which someone paid for. After realizing how stupid they are I declined to put up any more, even though I could definitely use the money.


FH,

Rubber boas may be known from the entire Santa Lucia range, but there are no museum records for most of the central coast that I know of, (and only one NAFHA record) so until there are it is only hearsay. There is one MVZ record from 12 miles north of Nacimiento road in Monterey County (which is also well south of Big Sur) and nothing south of there until you get to Mt. Pinos. I know of two sightings from San Luis Obispo County just south of Morro Bay, one of which was entered into the NAFHA database by Fundad. I have seen an old California Dept. of Fish and Game range map that shows boas throughout the Santa Lucias, but I suspect that is just a projection and not based on any museum records. If Richard Hoyer or anyone else has any other information about this please let me know.

I was talking to some rangers up at the top that range... and they say they see Mt Kings there, and the habitat up there looks great for rubbers as well. Wouldn't mind camping out up there for a weekend... jim

Gary--that record from 12mi N of N. Road is a snake that I picked up and gave to Rick Staub to deposit in the museum.

Hellihooks--zonata are also found throughout the entire Santa Lucia range, even though there are few museum records from there. It seems that anyone who lives down there sees them. What is cool is that through most of the range, they get RIGHT down to the ocean, as close as you can get. I wouldn't doubt that they crawl onto the beach at times. I have found them where I could literally throw a rock into the ocean.

FH

Gary,

I lived in Morro bay for years and have herped all over Slo county and I have also ran into 2 rubber boas near there at slightly higher elevations. One was flipped and the other was DOR but unfortunately I lost the pic of the flipped one when my old iPhone took a swim:( So for now they are fabled (unconfirmed) but they do exist in the area!

-Tony

Gary:
Your post of May 12th brings up a couple of interesting issues --hearsay (anecdotal accounts) and museum records. I could go on an on about both topic but will try to limit my comments.

There is good reason why much anecdotal information should not be accepted as if completely factual as experience has shown such information often to be unreliable. Thus in scientific endeavors, it is not ethical to report anecdotal information as if such were fact. On the other hand, the type of anecdotal information and its source are important factors to consider so it is likewise folly to brush aside all such information as if it were meaningless.

As for museum records, they represent the minimum known distribution of any species and not their actual distribution. Museum vouchers only represent verified localities and
cannot possibly represent the either the total extent of a species' distribution nor all localities that lie within a species' known distribution. This is due to the nature / process of how species end up becoming vouchers. Consequently it is a mistake to cite and rely on museum records as if such records were etched in stone and represent the final word.

Richard F. Hoyer

Nice work guys. And when I say what I'm about to say, I don't want it to take away from the great find and hard work, so don't take it that way.

My expectations have always been that bot species are there and will show up at some point. So although a great find, it was expected.

Now lets find something that would really be interesting coming from the Tejon Ranch.... Salvadora hexalepis virgultea. I'm not sure if the habitat exists on the ranch itself for this species, but I'm betting it does, and if there is suitable habitat, then I think it would be a pretty cool find. I suspect there are fingers or pockets of them that extend all the way to Lake Isabella, but I have no proof of it and like I said, I only suspect it.

In any event, great work Brian and gang.

I second that! That website comes in handy all the time.

Richard:

In my previous post I was not implying that vouchers represent a species' total distribution, or that a lack of vouchers proves a species' absence from an area. It's the State which uses that logic either to allow a business to develop land if a consulting firm they hire finds no protected species on the land, or to prohibit development based on the existence of a voucher (however old or dubious it may be.) Vouchers are valuable as factual records, but they can also be dubious and within the range of human error and fraud - the California Baja Ratsnake record and the Rubber Boa record in the San Gabriel Mountains are two examples of dubious vouchers. There is no doubt in my mind that, due to basic human nature, vouchers have been falsified to prevent development, and surveys have been falsified to hide their discovery of protected species, but those cases can't be more than a tiny minority.

My previous comments were regarding the definition and description of the known range of a species (Charina) using vouchers, which are the only recorded public evidence available to me, including museum records, and photo vouchers such as the NAFHA database. Anecdotal evidence is rarely available, or is difficult to find, and is ultimately unreliable because it cannot be substantiated and is too easily falsified or exaggerated. The results of private consultant surveys are also difficult to locate, if they're made public at all. (I don't think they add their findings to museums because they don't collect specimens.) Unless they show only specific voucher localities (dot-locality maps) all species distribution maps and descriptions represent some speculation - the projection of a species' likely distribution through suitable habitat near known voucher localities - but as someone who is not an expert on rubber boas and the entire range of available habitat on the south coast, I choose to limit the evidence I use to describe their distribution to vouchers and the existing speculations of experts (usually in the form of range maps they have made.) I try to keep my own speculations and other rumors to a page I have made to keep track of them. http://www.californiaherps.com/info/possiblyoccuring.html There it's all hearsay and speculation.

I just want to comment on the voucher issue... In the past I've noticed, someone posting some unique herp, and then someone pops up and says, "I've been catching those for years" or "I found four of those, but I never bothered to take pictures" or "I had the pic of a three-tailed Jack-a-lope, but I lost the pic.." If you are into herping... and you know enough, to know you found something special, take a voucher shot! Then you have proof. When I posted the white-bellied ringneck and the blue/grey olive sierra garters... I got comments saying, "I found a few of those but never took a pic." The same people, photographing the hell out of the common species... TAKE A PIC!

On the other hand... I'm no stranger to the, "wishing I had proof" sinario. When I was a kid, I found my first Yellow-bellied Racer, basking/hunting, half sub-merged in water, on top of those water weeds where gigas are normally found. It was more than five feet from the bank, with water inbetween the snake and the bank. (I'm guessing he was hunting for frogs) I was in the water, waste deep, and netted the first "green watersnake" I had ever seen. The only witness to that is my friend Mike and my father who watched me make the catch. (I kept the snake as a pet) However, Yellow-bellied Racer displaying aquatic watersnake behavior... sounds a little far fetched for the species. Video or pic would have been a greater observation.

In the case of the boas... they all look alike and a voucher doesn't really proove where in was found. In a situation where you have to, "take someones word for it..." The more logical thing to do, is deny the hear-say stuff. Thats like putting Bigfoot on a range map... sure, tons of people have seen him. But all that deserves is a crappy T.V. show