Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.1006257
Element CodeARADB19090
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassReptilia
OrderSquamata
FamilyColubridae
GenusLampropeltis
SynonymsLampropeltis getula nigra(Yarrow, 1882)
Other Common NamesBlack Kingsnake (EN)
Concept ReferencePyron, 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.
Taxonomic CommentsBased on mitochondrial DNA evidence, ecological niche modeling, morphology, and historical precedence, Pyron and Burbrink (2009) determined that the traditionally recognized Lampropeltis getula comprises five distinct species: L. getula, L. nigra, L. holbrooki, L. splendida, and L. californiae. Crother et al. (in Crother 2012) accepted this taxonomic change. This species comprises the previously recognized subspecies L. g. nigra and L. g. holbrooki (part). Krysko et al. also recognized L. nigrita from Mexico and southeastern Arizona.
Conservation Status
Rank MethodLegacy Rank calculation - Excel v3.1x
Review Date2014-10-30
Change Date1997-02-26
Edition Date2016-04-09
Edition AuthorsMitchell, J. C., C. A. Pague, & G. Hammerson
Threat ImpactLow
Range Extent200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Rank ReasonsWidespread occurrence in a broad range of habitats in central eastern U.S., relatively common in many areas; no major threats.
Range Extent CommentsRange extends from western and southern Illinois, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, and southwestern West Virginia southward to the Gulf Coast of eastern Louisiana, Mississippi, and southwestern Alabama (east of the Mississippi River except apparently in southern Louisiana) (Pyron and Burbrink 2009); also southeastern Missouri (Edmond and Daniel 2021).
Occurrences CommentsThe number of distinct occurrences has not been determined using consistent criteria, but this species is represented by a very large number of collection sites and locations (as defined by IUCN) (e.g., see Mount 1975, Blaney 1977:66).
Threat Impact CommentsLocalized threats include habitat loss/degradation resulting from intensive urbanization, agriculture, and reforestation, and by collection for the pet trade, but on a range-wide basis the overall threat level is relatively low.