Taxonomic changes: T. elegans

[Stefan-A]

So, it's been bothering me for a while now. Apparently the taxonomy of Thamnophis elegans has changed a bit and now only two subspecies remain recognized; T. elegans elegans and T. elegans vagrans.

According to:
CNAH (http://www.naherpetology.org/detail.asp?id=368)

Taxonomic Comments:
Hammerson (1999 Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Second Edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. xxvi + 484 pp.) presented substantial evidence that the race, Thamnophis elegans arizonae Tanner & Lowe 1989, did not deserve recognition.
Hammerson (1999 Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Second Edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. xxvi + 484 pp.) presented substantial evidence that the race, Thamnophis elegans vascotanneri Tanner & Lowe 1989, did not deserve recognition.
Bronikowski and Arnold (2001 Copeia 2001(2): 508-513), using DNA data, concluded that recognition of the race, Thamnophis elegans terrestris Fox 1951, was unsupported.So what subspecies do the respective populations belong to now? I'm especially interested in what happened to T. elegans terrestris.

[adamanteus]

I'm especially interested in what happened to T. elegans terrestris.

So am I.:mad:

[GarterGuy]

Yeh I saw awhile ago, that they were going to do away with terrestris, but they haven't said now what subspecies it is. Guess it'll just end up being a erthyristic vagrans or something????

[Stefan-A]

To tell the truth, that's pretty much what they look like. Except for some of the red terrestris that look more like a red morph of elegans elegans. :rolleyes:

[ssssnakeluvr]

interesting......I have always wondered about vascotanneri....hadn't been able to get any info on the difference between them and vagrans. we have them here in Utah and was hoping to catch some this summer. Terrestris resembles vagrans, but I didn't think it was that close....

[Loren]

Yeh I saw awhile ago, that they were going to do away with terrestris, but they haven't said now what subspecies it is. Guess it'll just end up being a erthyristic vagrans or something????

I didnt know any of this. I would suppose that t.e. terrestris(coast) garters would be considered t. e. elegans (mountain garter), rather than t.e. vagrans(wandering), as the range of vagrans and t.e. terrestris dont touch. So maybe a erythristic, or red phase, elegans??

Kind of depends which book or website you go by, I guess. I still use the 2003 peterson field guide(Stebbins) as my main authority, along with Californiaherps.com. Call me outdated, but its easier than trying to keep up with what they try to change from week to week just so somebody can have his name on a published report.

[GarterGuy]

Call me outdated, but its easier than trying to keep up with what they try to change from week to week just so somebody can have his name on a published report.

Just wait 'til they break up sirtalis!:eek: I have a feeling it's going to happen. We'll end up with more species and less subspecies.

[Stefan-A]

Just wait 'til they break up sirtalis!:eek: I have a feeling it's going to happen. We'll end up with more species and less subspecies.
Is it something that somebody is working towards?

[Stefan-A]

A related question, after seeing several photos of the different T. elegans subspecies: Is it my imagination, or is T. elegans elegans much more slender than vagrans and the subspecies formerly known as terrestris?

[jitami]

I think so Stefan, but I'm only going from pictures. I was actually worried that my elegans was too thin for a while, but he eats well and I'm actually thinking he's a little "fat" right now, even though he's still looooong and slender.

[jitami]

Thought you might enjoy this pic of a not so slender girl! She's got to be about ready to pop!

http://www.sacsplash.org/cimages/GarterSnake.jpg
Photo found here: Mather Field Vernal Pools - Garter Snake (http://www.sacsplash.org/critters/gartersnake.htm)
This local is about 30 minutes from my house and where Sly was found.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Ahh yes! Taxonomy and the vanity of coining new names or erasing old ones!
I am completely in agreement with the fact that we need to rewrite the Thamnophis family tree in accordance with the cladistic approach. The problem for me taking any current changes seriously is that there have been quite a few mitochondrial DNA studies done on the genus, and so many of them seem to contradict one another. A good friend of mine (who is a local wildlife biologist) mentioned that too few loci have been examined, and that the real reason we haven't solved the garter conundrum is because the genus as a whole has not been completely mapped. This is of course a grand undertaking, and I don't see any funding for such an endeavor any time soon.

I do not have a problem of reassigning terrestris back to the elegans elegans clade, for I have seen some pretty obvious "intergrades". The whole concept of sub-species is becoming rather controversial these days, and many taxonomists would prefer the term "race". Additionally, even species statuses are coming into question. I mean if a CA King and a Corn Snake can produce fertile female "Jungle Corns" (an inter-generic hybrid), what the heck is the definition of a species?!

I agree that terrestris would be closer to the Mountain Garter due to the fact that vagrans ranges further north and east.

There is also a local genetic study that alleges more recent common ancestry between ordinoides, elegans, and atratus. Some suspect hybridization between elegans elegans and atratus. I suspect hybridization between sirtalis infernalis and elegans terrestris in our area (crazy, heh? It's one of the reasons I have chosen to return to school, so I can "spit in the eye" of some of the arrogant PhD's I have met! LOL! Sorry....

But, hey! Everyone! Do not be discouraged by such news! To me it is still a Coast Garter - with different patterns, colors, and habitats.

The is a conservational danger to eliminating certain subspecies or races. If they all become one species, certain localities could come under fire by development, etc. Offenders might say, "There's plenty of them elegans in the mountains; these "Coastals" can make way for some condos near the beach! Tsk! Tsk! The horror!

Ponderously,

Steven

[Garter_Gertie]

Yeah. What he said. :eek: :confused:

[KITKAT]

Just wait 'til they break up sirtalis!:eek: I have a feeling it's going to happen. We'll end up with more species and less subspecies.

That will be bad for me.

Ohio law requires a license and really anal book-keeping if you keep sirtalis, but does not apply this to the non-native subspecies. So if sirtalis subspecies are rolled back into the species, I will have to pay about $50 a year, keep the stupid hand-written accounting of each snake and where it went, and have a visit every once in awhile from the "nice wildlife officer" who will stand there in my house and moan about how I am endangering garter species everywhere because I keep a handful of CBB.:(

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Just wait 'til they break up sirtalis!:eek: I have a feeling it's going to happen. We'll end up with more species and less subspecies.

Perhaps, but the other possibility (which relates to the terrestris departure) is that there may be less subspecies and only one species (with unsupported races)!

Some geneticists are speciating (breaking up subspecies into individual species statuses) garters, while others counter with a result that aims to lump all subspecies into one species. Who's right? If you want to know , become a genetecist! 'Tis the only way to solve this. Unfortunately there are too many self-righteous PhD's out there.

[Stefan-A]

Some geneticists are speciating (breaking up subspecies into individual species statuses) garters, while others counter with a result that aims to lump all subspecies into one species. Who's right? If you want to know , become a genetecist! 'Tis the only way to solve this. Unfortunately there are too many self-righteous PhD's out there.
In my humble opinion, they're both wrong. People have a tendency to try to sort everything into nice little drawers, but does anything at all suggest that it can be done with the natural world? Take the concept of a species, for example. The simple elementary school definition of a species includes that they can't produce fertile offspring with other species. Unfortunately that seems to apply better to genera than to species in a lot of cases.

With all the problems describing the relationships between species and the different methods of determining them, a simple binomial or trinomial name just seems too clean-cut. There are too many exceptions to the rules.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

And I am of the mindset that garters may be constantly re-writing their DNA by constantly intergrading and possibly "re-inventing" via hybridization or at least partial hybridization. Yes Stefan.... The sky's the limit with so many of our beloved serpents! :)