Taxonomic discussion

[Zephyr]

Okay... I can't help but think... How many Thamnophis species/ subspecies there are and who could be making the decisions about them.
Two of which being T. sirtalis pallidulus vs T. sirtalis sirtalis and T. sirtalis tetrataenia vs T. sirtalis infernalis.

[Stefan-A]

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) decides what gets changed (and garters get moved around a lot), based on the suggestions that people make. Some suggestions they reject, some get approved. If you want a change made, you better have a good reason. Somebody suggested merging tetrataenia with infernalis and some populations of infernalis with concinnus in 1996, but Barry protested and the ICZN rejected the proposal.

IIRC


Here are the species that are currently recognized:

1. Thamnophis angustirostris (Longnose Garter Snake)

2. Thamnophis atratus (Pacific Coast Aquatic Garter Snake)
T. a. atratus (Santa Cruz garter snake)
T. a. hydrophilus (Oregon garter snake)
T. a. zaxanthus (Diablo Range garter snake)

3. Thamnophis bogerti (Bogert's Garter Snake)

4. Thamnophis brachystoma (Short-Headed Garter Snake)

5. Thamnophis butleri (Butler's Garter Snake)

6. Thamnophis chrysocephalus (Golden-Headed Garter Snake)

7. Thamnophis conanti (Conant's Garter Snake)

8. Thamnophis couchii (Sierra Garter Snake)

9. Thamnophis cyrtopsis (Black-Necked Garter Snake)
T. c. collaris (Tropical blackneck garter snake)
T. c. cyrtopsis (Western blackneck garter snake)
T. c. ocellatus (Eastern blackneck garter snake)

10. Thamnophis elegans (Western Terrestial Garter Snake)
T. e. elegans (Mountain garter snake)
T. e. terrestris (Coast garter snake) <---- Uncertain.
T. e. vagrans (Wandering garter snake)

11. Thamnophis eques (Mexican Garter Snake)
T. e. carmenensis
T. e. cuitzeoensis
T. e. diluvialis
T. e. eques (Mexican garter snake)
T. e. insperatus
T. e. obscurus
T. e. patzcuaroensis
T. e. scotti
T. e. megalops (Northern Mexican garter snake)
T. e. virgatenuis

12. Thamnophis errans (Mexican Wandering Garter Snake)

13. Thamnophis exsul (Exiled Garter Snake)

14. Thamnophis fulvus (Mesoamerican Highlands Garter Snake)

15. Thamnophis gigas (Giant Garter Snake)

16. Thamnophis godmani (Godman's Garter Snake)

17. Thamnophis hammondii (Two-Striped Garter Snake)

18. Thamnophis lineri (Liner's Garter Snake)

19. Thamnophis marcianus (Checkered Garter Snake)
T. m. bovallii
T. m. marcianus
T. m. praeocularis

20. Thamnophis melanogaster (Mexican Black-Bellied Garter Snake)
T. m. canescens (Gray blackbelly garter snake)
T. m. chihuahuaensis (Chihuahuan blackbelly garter snake)
T. m. linearis (Lined blackbelly garter snake)
T. m. melanogaster (Mexican blackbelly garter snake)

21. Thamnophis mendax (Tamaulipan Montane Garter Snake)

22. Thamnophis nigronuchalis (Southern Durango Spotted Garter Snake)

23. Thamnophis ordinoides (Northwestern Garter Snake)

24. Thamnophis postremus (Tepalcatepec Valley Garter Snake)

25. Thamnophis proximus (Western Ribbon Snake)
T. p. alpinus (Chiapas Highland ribbon snake)
T. p. diabolicus (Aridland ribbon snake)
T. p. orarius (Gulf coast ribbon snake)
T. p. proximus (Western ribbon snake)
T. p. rubrilineatus (Redstripe ribbon snake)
T. p. rutiloris (Mexican ribbon snake)

26. Thamnophis pulchrilatus (Yellow-Throated Garter Snake)

27. Thamnophis radix (Great Plains Garter Snake, Plains Garter Snake)

28. Thamnophis rossmani (Rossman's Garter Snake)

29. Thamnophis rufipunctatus (Narrow-Headed Garter Snake)

30. Thamnophis sauritus (Eastern Ribbon Snake)
T. s. nitae (Bluestripe ribbon snake)
T. s. sackenii (Peninsula ribbon snake)
T. s. sauritus (Eastern ribbon snake)
T. s. septentrionalis (Northern ribbon snake)
31. Thamnophis scalaris (Mexican Alpine Blotched Garter Snake, Longtail Alpine Garter Snake)

32. Thamnophis scaliger (Mesa Central Blotched Garter Snake, Short-tail Alpine Garter Snake)

33. Thamnophis sirtalis (Common Garter Snake)
T. s. annectens (Texas garter snake)
T. s. concinnus (Red-spotted garter snake)
T. s. dorsalis (New Mexico garter snake)
T. s. fitchi (Valley garter snake)
T. s. infernalis (California red-sided garter snake)
T. s. pallidulus (Maritime garter snake)
T. s. parietalis (Red-sided garter snake)
T. s. pickeringii (Puget Sound garter snake)
T. s. semifasciatus (Chicago garter snake)
T. s. similis (Blue-striped garter snake)
T. s. sirtalis (Eastern garter snake)
T. s. tetrataenia (San Francisco garter snake)

34. Thamnophis sumichrasti (Sumichrast's Garter Snake)

35. Thamnophis validus (Mexican Pacific Lowlands Garter Snake)
T. v. celaeno
T. v. isabelleae
T. v. thamnophisoides
T. v. validus

[Garter_Gertie]

Stefan, I think that's one o'those sticky/article things. That's important stuff to have around here to refer to. GOOD JOB!

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

I personally think that florida blue easterns should be their own subspecies... or something. They are simply way too different from all other easterns to be just typical easterns in my book. You look at any other eastern garter and you would have no clue where it came from. You look at the FL blues and you can identify them in a heartbeat, EVEN when they have no blue. They have a different head and body shape than other sirtalis, especially as babies. And I noticed on my female that she has VERY large rear teeth (fangs) the likes of which I have never seen on other easterns. Their scales are even more keeled than my other easterns and there is just so much about them tht I notice that is so different from ALL other sirtalis.

[Zephyr]

I personally think that florida blue easterns should be their own subspecies... or something. They are simply way too different from all other easterns to be just typical easterns in my book. You look at any other eastern garter and you would have no clue where it came from. You look at the FL blues and you can identify them in a heartbeat, EVEN when they have no blue. They have a different head and body shape than other sirtalis, especially as babies. And I noticed on my female that she has VERY large rear teeth (fangs) the likes of which I have never seen on other easterns. Their scales are even more keeled than my other easterns and there is just so much about them tht I notice that is so different from ALL other sirtalis.
I agree.
They have a more pronounced dorsal stripe as well.
There's definitely more of a difference between them and other easterns than there is between sirtalis sirtalis and sirtalis pallidulus.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

yes... a LOT. haha. In fact.... I don't really see anything alike between the FL blue sirtalis and other sirtalis... everything about their patterns, body shapes... enlarged rear teeth (can someone check out their fl blues and see if they notice this too?)

[snakeman]

All garters have enlarged rear teeth.Just let one chew on you for a while.You will feel and probally see them.I agree on the florida blues also.I am wondering what the easterns look like as you get up into n. florida and georgia.

[Zephyr]

On the T. s. tetrataenia and infernalis... I think they may just be color phases of one another with tetrataenia being morph... Obviously this was rejected, but I don't know if they actually did blood work to test the hypothesis.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

On the T. s. tetrataenia and infernalis... I think they may just be color phases of one another with tetrataenia being morph... Obviously this was rejected, but I don't know if they actually did blood work to test the hypothesis.

I would agree that there are many similarities b/n tetrataenia and infernalis, but then a subspecies is just a subspecies, meaning that they should technically be able to intergrade in the wild - they are the SAME species. As for the similar colors and variable patterns, or whether or not recessive genes are responsible - I don't know. We know striping is a recessive gene in corn snakes, but recessive genes vary from species to species, genus to genus, and so forth... The blues that show up in both subspecies may actually have nothing to due with recessive genes. The effects could be ontogenetic, as when a local population changes its diet or migrates to new terrain. You are what you eat, and appropriate camouflage and behaviors addressing a new locale are a big part of where evolutionary change begins. For instance, we know a lot of animals display bright red colors when they are toxic, or even when they perhaps dine on normally toxic prey. Could red flecking in some of our western species be a by-product of salamander toxins? Questions, questions....

Thamnophis genetics is still so elusive in its understanding, more genetic sampling needs to be done! The sirtalis clade is so widespread over the continent, I am curious if Eastern and Western species can intergrade so smoothly. I personally don't endorse far-flung intergrades, nor any captive intergrades due to preferring to maintain the integrity of the "local" characteristics. still, what would the verdict be? Does anyone know if it's been done (whether or not it produces a muddled mutt or takes on a dominant trait from one of the parents)?

The infernalis / concinnus connection seems to be way off in my mind. These two subspecies are separated by fitchi populations. I guess, though after a long passage of time, genetic traits could "pass the bucket" all the way up the coast!?

While the eastern / western ssp. intergrade question remains, I am still more interested in the possibility of inter-special hybrids occurring right here in Humboldt County, CA.

I've gone on about this topic before, but I'd like to post a few example photos here to show my frustration with the gestalt of some of these snakes. First, Stefan-A, I understand T. e. terrestris has been absorbed by T. e. elegans (Great! Now the elegans clade has a whole plethora of morphs to add to its list!), but could you find me a link about this, as I would love to read it. So... "Mountain Garters" here on the coast and in our coastal ranges come in all kinds of patterns and colors, but most all the coastals have olive-green, olive-brown, light olive-tan, or near black heads.
Contrarily CA Red-sided Garters usually have red heads perhaps with some black. Also, I am not going to focus too much on labial scale counts, as they are highly variable b/n the 2 species. Designated scale rows b/n the species are also sometimes variable (19 or 21). Red dorso-lateral or ventral flecking is characteristic of coastal elegans. Faded or absent lateral stripes are characteristic of infernalis.

So what do you think of these?

http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_A2_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg
Ignore the title of the picture, as I believe ordinoides might not be the culprit here. This snake basically looks like an infernalis (perhaps with some light fitchi influence - the further north you travel up Humboldt, the more fitchi they appear...)
http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_northwestern_A3_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg
A closer look reveals red-flecking.
http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_A4_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg
...and ventral flecks at the caudal end...

http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_B1_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg
This 2nd specimen at the same location looks like an infernalis with subdued features, but what's with the olive head?
http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_B2_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg
Olive or red? Both!? Hmmm....
http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_B3_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg
Looks like sirtalis from the side....

I've got one more pic of what looks like a bonafide coastal elegans. But i've posted 6 pics already... To be continued.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_C1_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg
A muddled "Coast" with all the red flecking...
http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_C3_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg

While these specimens might just be crazy variations, the possibility of hybridization in the wild fascinates me. I don't believe that there's any complete hybridization possible, since that might muddle all the local traits (unless we are really dealing with a variety of recessive or co-dominant, etc traits). I suspect partial hybridization where perhaps fertile females are possible. As with inter-generic crosses like that of creating jungle corns, males are often sterile. Keeping this in mind, it is possible that subspecies traits could be reaffirmed by crossing female hybrids back to one or the other subspecies, thus preventing over-all muddling within a specific locality.

The truth (HA!) of the matter is, we just don't know it all yet. Recessives, co-dominants, intergrade and hybrid effects, diet, environment, inter-breeding in isolated populations.... The sky is the limit.

Thamnophis - truly a conundrum at times!

Steve

[Stefan-A]

So what do you think of these?

They all look like definite fitchi to me, but you're the local. ;)

This next one, however, is very interesting:


http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_C1_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg
A muddled "Coast" with all the red flecking...

Are you positive that it's not something else? I know counting supralabials isn't a fool proof way of identifying T. elegans, since it can be 7 on one side and 8 on the other, but that one does have 7. I know this is going to sound stupid, but is there any chance at all that it could actually be an ordinoides? Nevermind, the scale rows seem to be 19, not 17.

[guidofatherof5]

Great looking snakes. They would be welcome here in Iowa anytime.

[Garter_Gertie]

Oh, Steve Have I missed you. Great brain candy! Don't stop!

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

They all look like definite fitchi to me, but you're the local. ;)

This next one, however, is very interesting:


Are you positive that it's not something else? I know counting supralabials isn't a fool proof way of identifying T. elegans, since it can be 7 on one side and 8 on the other, but that one does have 7. I know this is going to sound stupid, but is there any chance at all that it could actually be an ordinoides? Nevermind, the scale rows seem to be 19, not 17.

Not at all stupid! My first impression was ordinoides. The coastal elegans though often displays these colorful fusions that are very reminiscent of Northwesterns. It is currently believed that ordinoides, elegans, and atratus may all be sister taxons. Check out Californiaherps.com - Gary Nafis' site is a great quick resource for pics and info for western herps. The coastal elegans variations are shown. The Natives sightings on HumboldtHerps.com also shows many of our local morphs. I believe guide map ranges are out of date (even Peterson's). You are right regarding the fitchi-like appearance of the 1st 2 garters. This also has to do with range map interpretation. T. s. infernalis is confined to south of the Klamath River and fitchi is to the north. I have seen the effects of fitchi all the way to the Mad River (30+ mi. south), but then this could be a grand assumption, for the appearances may just be a result of ecotypic plasticity. I personally believe the whole subspecies concept is no longer an applicable taxonomical interpretation of what is really happening with some of these species. Nature abhors a vacuum, and it is always changing. It's we humans who always feel compelled to have everything in order. "Mother Nature" doesn't care. "She" is just doing her thing. I also suspect ordinoides' range to be much further south than what is printed even in the latest guides.

Steve

[Stefan-A]

Keep talking, Steve. :) This is the most interesting stuff I've seen on this forum in months. :)

[prattypus]

Geez. I don't understand 80% of what's been said here, but here I am enthralled and nodding like I get it. This is great!

[GartersRock]

Keep talking, Steve. :) This is the most interesting stuff I've seen on this forum in months. :)

Agreed! Keep talking! I love it!! :cool:

[ssssnakeluvr]

[quote=Steven@HumboldtHerps;85937]

I've gone on about this topic before, but I'd like to post a few example photos here to show my frustration with the gestalt of some of these snakes. First, Stefan-A, I understand T. e. terrestris has been absorbed by T. e. elegans (Great! Now the elegans clade has a whole plethora of morphs to add to its list!), but could you find me a link about this, as I would love to read it. So... "Mountain Garters" here on the coast and in our coastal ranges come in all kinds of patterns and colors, but most all the coastals have olive-green, olive-brown, light olive-tan, or near black heads.


I thought I read that terrestris was now vagrans....let me know what you find out....I am trying to look up and find out what I can also.....





So what do you think of these?

http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_A2_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg

http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_northwestern_A3_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg

http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_A4_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg

Definitely think this is fitchi....I have a male fitchi from Utah with the orange flecking on the belly....plus, being all black with the red...haven't seen a fitchi with any other background colors.... VERY nice female too!!!!! I love fitchi!!!!




http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_B1_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg
may be also a fitchi.....good pic, but can't quite tell the colors well enough....




http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_B2_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg

http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_B3_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg
well....ooops....by looking at the neck shot.....I would say formerly terrestris.....has more greenish background colors......

[ssssnakeluvr]

http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_C1_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg
A muddled "Coast" with all the red flecking...
http://www.humboldtherps.com/images/CA_Red-sided_X_Northwestern_C3_-_Mad_River_pump_station_-_04-15-2007.jpg



I would say this is a coast garter for sure......

[anji1971]

Geez. I don't understand 80% of what's been said here, but here I am enthralled and nodding like I get it. This is great!

You took the words right out of my mouth! :D
It is quite interesting stuff, isn't it? I guess if I lived in an area with so much variety in species, I'd probably be more knowledgeable of the subject. Steve, you're a lucky guy to live where you do!

[mtolypetsupply]

I agree with Gertie, awesome brain candy! But I don't get 80% like Pratty does, I'm down more around the 50% mark, maybe. I request some photoshopping of pics with arrows and highlighting and such so that us newbies can really drink in the depth of this!

Thanks!

[Stefan-A]

I managed to dig up this:.


http://apt.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1643%2F0045-8511(2001)001[0508%3ACBPDNM]2.3.CO%3B2&ct=1

Cytochrome b Phylogeny Does Not Match Subspecific Classification in the Western Terrestrial Garter Snake, Thamnophis elegans

We sequenced a 307-bp fragment of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene from 42 individuals representing 14 populations of the western terrestrial garter snake, Thamnophis elegans. Current taxonomy recognizes either five or six subspecies of T. elegans based on color and scale morphology, but all agree on three major geographic races (T. e. elegans, terrestris, and vagrans). Although the cytochrome b phylogeny did not match subspecific classification of the populations, it did yield geographically proximate groups. Populations from the Sierra Nevada range and Monterey, California, formed one monophyletic group of T. e. elegans and T. e. terrestris. This Sierran/Monterey group was included in a larger group with eastern populations from the Great Basin (T. e. vagrans). The other well-supported group was comprised of populations from the western Great Basin (T. e. vagrans). One population from the northern California coast (T. e. terrestris) was basal to both groups of populations. Thus, neither T. e. vagrans nor T. e. terrestris formed monophyletic groups. Average percent sequence divergence between the outgroup (T. sirtalis) and T. elegans was 7.9–12%. Within T. elegans, divergence among populations ranged from 0.3–7.7%.

http://www.eeob.iastate.edu/faculty/BronikoA/annespdfs/Bron&arn2001cop.pdf

[Garter_Gertie]

Steph, what a GREAT idea! That would be so helpful!

[Zephyr]

I like it here in MI... Where it's either T. sirtalis sirtalis, T. sauritus sauritus, or T. butleri butleri.
:)

[ssssnakeluvr]

I managed to dig up this:.

http://www.eeob.iastate.edu/faculty/BronikoA/annespdfs/Bron&arn2001cop.pdf
interesting article.....some of the terminology lost me...but I get the idea...needs more genetic research..good reading!

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

I managed to dig up this:.

http://www.eeob.iastate.edu/faculty/BronikoA/annespdfs/Bron&arn2001cop.pdf

Thank you so much for this article Stefan. You don't know how much enthusiasm it has injected into my bloodstream. I am virtually foaming at the mouth! Although I am many classes away from understanding the genetic details (basically, how these tests are performed), I do understand cladistics, and the results are clear to me that ONCE AGAIN we are reminded of just how much more testing needs to be done. The results of this article do however tell me that the terrestris nomenclature is not necessarily dead yet! So far, it only implies that the Monterrey terrestris specimens need reassignment to the Mountain Garter (T. e. elegans) clade. The vagrans groups are of course also in need of revision.

So what do I mean when I say I don't think the terrestris group is "dead" yet? I am referring to the Coast garters here in Humboldt. The article says this population is basal to the other clades, meaning there are fewer derived characteristics in Humboldt Coasts than in all T. e. elegans and vagrans elswhere. Thus, one could technically keep the nomenclature for this particular group. The next question is where do the known regions of all previously known Coast Garters diverge; somewhere between Monterrey and Humboldt? Is there an obvious geographical barrier somewhere? Is there intergradation between subspecies? The fact that Humboldt Coasts have been singled out is especially fascinating to me because of all of the crazy Coast morphs I come across here in Humboldt County.

I would like to illustrate or explain some simple cladistic terminology in my next reply to this thread, but I have to run a few scans of the paper Stefan referred to me. I feel this is necessary - good for a garter forum, especially for all of you who aren't science majors, but would like to learn more about species relationships.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Hello again! So we're discussing (We are?!):

"Cytochrome b Phylogeny Does Not Match Subspecific Classification in the Western Terrestrial Garter Snake, Thamnophis elegans"

by Anne M. Bronikowski and Stevan J. Arnold (Copeia, 2001 (2), pp. 508-513)

I scanned the charts and map (Hope I don't get in trouble) and outlined what I think the results mean to me. Please do your own research, and respond accordingly, for I am one who loves it when I have to stand corrected. All good research aims to disprove as as well as prove a theory! Short primer first.

Back in the ol' days (not too long ago!) taxonomical divisions (the Linnaeus system - which was brilliant for its time - until molecular biology came to town...) was primarily based on morphological (anatomical) features, similarities and differences. A lot of the species' organizations were right on! Genetic research has changed some of that. The new system is known as cladistics, it uses many of the traditional classification terminologies such as Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, species / subspecies (epithet), but the classification is based on groups that have shared derived characteristics that stemmed from one common ancestor. Thamnophis is a pain when it comes to comparing morphology; they are so variable in their expression. For those of you who are familiar with the taxonomy you know a lot of the genetic research done so far may only be scraping the surface of what may still be revealed. Branches on a cladogram (cladistic tree) may represent either a monophyletic group, a paraphyletic group, or a polyphyletic group. Taxonomists always want to end up with a monophyletic group; this group is composed a of a single common ancestor and all its descendants. A group that includes the common ancestor and only some of the descendants is paraphyletic. A polyphletic group shows descendants, but not the common ancestor (this one doesn't help at all).

Here is the T. elegans cladogram. You'll notice it includes the outgroup used to test elegans: sirtalis. T. sirtalis and T. elegans share ancestry, but are quite distinct from one another. Call it a control group... I honestly recommend reading the paper; I personally had to gloss over a good part of the "Materials and Methods".

The colors used should be self-explanatory when compared to the map, but basically: RED is the entire group of those T. elegans tested (incl. elegans, terrestrus, and vagrans); ORANGE is the sirtalis outgroup; AQUA is the Sierra/Shasta Mountain Garter and Monterrey Coast Garter grouping (clade) which has close lineages (YELLOW, LAVENDER, & PINK) with Wandering Garters in the eastern Great Basin (BLUE) - This group mentioned so far comprises the LIGHT GREEN. Wanderings in the western Great Basin (BROWN) are a sister group to LIGHT GREEN; likewise our lonely Humboldt Coast Garter seems to create a 3rd group. This new cladistic interpretation shows 3 different groups of elegans (PURPLE or RED) that have one common ancestor. I understand how sister taxons can be separated over time as in the case of western Great Basin species being different from their western and eastern "cousins' (Just look at Sand Boas and Rosy Boas!), but what's the deal with the Humboldt terrestris (if that's what we're still going to call it...). Is it an ancestral line? Does it look like other groups simply because of convergent evolution (when 2 species with no immediate common ancestor and often from different latitudes around the world look similar because of adaptations to the similar environment they both live in...Compare Central American Eyelash Vipers to Tanzanian Bush Vipers!). Or even if we could go back in time and see the common ancestor of these 3 groups, would we be able to tell the difference even then?

Ah, the questions I have! I need to find these scientists and volunteer to find samples for them or something. :)

Thanks for your patience.

Steve

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

I am glad that I am actually able to understand this stuff :D


I do not however... take the time to study too much of it past which snake are which species... primarily because we are humans applying strict and exact labels to things that are constantly changing and evolving around the groups we put them into. Our labels can only be so exact... and who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong? When is that exact moment that an isolated population of a species has changed enough to be its own species? When in reality... it is still what it originally was... just slightly modified! And will continue to change... forever! Who are we to make up names and stick them on everything? :rolleyes: In the eyes of the animals... it is totally irrelevant. A snake is a snake no matter what his lineage, and unfortunately we will never be able to truely label a snake that is on the fence like the ones in the pictures without knowing his exact ancestry. We could speculate until the end of time.. but it will never reach a definite no matter how many agree. And even when you have a captive bred specimen... you can never actually be 100% sure that a parent of a snake does not have some tiny amount of another species or subspecies in it. You can be 99, but you can't be 100. So it's all very confusing and there are never true definites other than the assumed ones. That is the only reason I really don't bother joining in on stuff like this.

personally.... I am positive that the san francisco garter is doomed, as it stands now. Even if they did somehow make a comeback... which is doubtful considering the vast majority of the world does not give two sh*ts about snakes and will not move over or stop to avoid smushing one with their car... (hell some will even aim for the snake) And simply not enough land or snakes remains for them to make a sufficient comeback. Inhabitable land even in protected zones will get smaller every year due to the usual pollution and drying up of ponds and creek beds. If the species does somehow make a comeback... They will have expierienced such a tight genetic bottleneck that they may eventually phase out anyway... they will basically be genetic clones of one another... much like the way cheetahs went through. Yes, it is sad, yes it is awful, and no one wants to see the beautiful snake dissapear... but I simply do not see much hope for them unless a taxonomic change is made to group san frans and cali red sideds closer together. When I look at a San fran... I see a striped cali red sided... but that's just me and I have never had the opportunity to study any of it in detail.

[Stefan-A]

When is that exact moment that an isolated population of a species has changed enough to be its own species?
The linnean system wasn't designed to take evolution into account. Had the guy lived 150 years later, we might have ended up with a much more accurate method of naming and classifying organisms.

[Garter_Gertie]

And that's why we're changing the process, Stefan, because we know more now than 150 years ago.

Just think what scientests will be able to do 150 years from now.

But always, I think, we're getting closer and closer to either grouping better or realizing it's fruitless.

Fascinating.

[prattypus]

I am glad that I am actually able to understand this stuff :D


I do not however... take the time to study too much of it past which snake are which species... primarily because we are humans applying strict and exact labels to things that are constantly changing and evolving around the groups we put them into. Our labels can only be so exact... and who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong? When is that exact moment that an isolated population of a species has changed enough to be its own species? When in reality... it is still what it originally was... just slightly modified! And will continue to change... forever! Who are we to make up names and stick them on everything? :rolleyes: In the eyes of the animals... it is totally irrelevant. A snake is a snake no matter what his lineage, and unfortunately we will never be able to truely label a snake that is on the fence like the ones in the pictures without knowing his exact ancestry. We could speculate until the end of time.. but it will never reach a definite no matter how many agree. And even when you have a captive bred specimen... you can never actually be 100% sure that a parent of a snake does not have some tiny amount of another species or subspecies in it. You can be 99, but you can't be 100. So it's all very confusing and there are never true definites other than the assumed ones. That is the only reason I really don't bother joining in on stuff like this.

personally.... I am positive that the san francisco garter is doomed, as it stands now. Even if they did somehow make a comeback... which is doubtful considering the vast majority of the world does not give two sh*ts about snakes and will not move over or stop to avoid smushing one with their car... (hell some will even aim for the snake) And simply not enough land or snakes remains for them to make a sufficient comeback. Inhabitable land even in protected zones will get smaller every year due to the usual pollution and drying up of ponds and creek beds. If the species does somehow make a comeback... They will have expierienced such a tight genetic bottleneck that they may eventually phase out anyway... they will basically be genetic clones of one another... much like the way cheetahs went through. Yes, it is sad, yes it is awful, and no one wants to see the beautiful snake dissapear... but I simply do not see much hope for them unless a taxonomic change is made to group san frans and cali red sideds closer together. When I look at a San fran... I see a striped cali red sided... but that's just me and I have never had the opportunity to study any of it in detail.
While the San Fran is limited in it's range, what's left has been protected- so I believe, so what habitat remains will not be further imposed upon.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

I am in complete agreement over the fact that nature is always changing, and the finality of reaching a sound conclusion really only makes humans feel better. On the other hand, trying to figure out the mechanics as to what is really happening among all these populations can lead us to the understanding of whether or not certain activities (e.g. hybridization in the wild) are possible. The tetrataenia/infernalis intergrade relationship leads to all others within the sirtalis clade.... same for elegans... New genetic understanding might lead to extra afforded protections (and I do say might, since there is a lot of politics involved in land development or protection).

Even though species continue to change, to be able to compare a map of ages gone by to the current geography, and then discover the route(s) that ancestors took and how they split to live where and look like they do today is absolutely fascinating to me. Any time you want to understand the present, you usually have to look into the past....

[Garter_Gertie]

Even though species continue to change, to be able to compare a map of ages gone by to the current geography, and then discover the route(s) that ancestors took and how they split to live where and look like they do today is absolutely fascinating to me.


Yup. Furshure. What HE said.

[Garter_Gertie]

It's like that DNA deal going down with the one woman from Africa a trazillion years ago and tracing your ancestory through the DNA of your mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother.

You know what I mean?

[reptile3]

I am at a lost here, but I enjoy reading everyone's posts!! Very interesting & informative!! Love the pictures!!

[drache]

it's a fascinating subject, to be sure
to me mostly a spectator sport

[infernalis]

While the San Fran is limited in it's range, what's left has been protected- so I believe, so what habitat remains will not be further imposed upon.


Deterioration of that habitat is inevitable.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Yes, Bay Area habitat is a rare commodity. Dare I say we should not forget all those species upon which garters prey?! If there even was a rare chance of re-introduction (setting diseases, immunities, etc. aside... HA!), success of the species would be based on whether or not there are any prey species left. In the case of tetrataenia, habitat loss (primarily) and over-collection are the danger. Frogs and salamanders however are on the decline everywhere. Chytrid fungus has no cure; pollution, global warming are additional factors we can throw into the disaster plan.

I hate to sound depressing, but I think we can count on more garter species' declines in the future due simply to loss of prey species.

Steven

[drache]

Deterioration of that habitat is inevitable.
actually - no
there are places where degradation of the environment has been halted and even reversed - this is true for some river systems that used to be so polluted that the only life forms they supported any more were molds and algae, and that now support a thriving population of fish, amphibians and water fowl
I am not entirely certain of the exact habitat parameters of the SF garter, but if it's the SF peninsula . . .
Loren, Jerry, help me out here - where do they live? up along Skyline Blvd, in the farm areas along the coast, or by the ditches of the inner Bay (Bair Island and that area)?
I may be in denial, but I think the area west of 280 is mostly threatened by construction and that has been limited by zoning laws; the inner bay has been blighted already and is been rehabilitated
not that I know anything . . .
but I don't think their habitat is going to shrink much further
it is true though, that whatever niche of this area they inhabit, the range is small and thus the population cannot be large enough to support collecting, even at optimal habitat conditions

[infernalis]

Good point and an optimistic view Rhea.

However as time moves forward and if the human race continues in the current direction it has been, that little preserve would need a miracle to remain un affected by urban progress.

Folks have strange views concerning snakes, Like Shannon pointed out, Many will deliberately aim the tires of their car at a snake crossing the street.

As Steve pointed out just this morning, something that seems harmless, Stocking trout for fishermen has left a sizable dent in garter populations.

One swarm of bugs carrying the wrong pathogen, one ruptured pipeline, one derailed train carrying the wrong cargo, Or how about those rampant wild fires or whatever...

Will the primary food source still be available in necessary numbers say in 100 years from now? Will acid rain change the PH of the water ways?

Too much population surrounding too small of an area.

[Garter_Gertie]

I agree with Rhea, and I agree with Dekay.

Size has ssssoooo much to do with success. It's like a fish tank: it's easier to maintain a correct balance in a larger one than smaller since with smaller problems become more urgent or deadly more quickly due to the small size. A bigger tank is more forgiving with errors and there's more time to correct them.

[jitami]

Very good stuff guys! Thank you Stefan for finding that article and thank you Steven for interpreting some of it. A lot of it is over my head, but I love to learn, especially when the subject is near and dear to my heart. I need to look at range maps of tetrataenia a little closer, but there is still a decent amount of land in that area. Maybe this little recession we're in will halt building for a while? Now, whether more sensitive prey can survive on that land I don't know... is there any thought that perhaps the range could be expanded some or would that be too detrimental to that area's current occupants? It's sad no matter how you look at it, but I'm going to share Rhea's optimism for now.

[mtolypetsupply]

I have to compliment everyone on this forum. This seems like a topic that could have sparked arguement, flaming, etc. and, instead, it's been an *Intelligent Disucssion*. Oh, how refreshing, and what a pleasure!

Forgive me for not quoting you all directly, I don't know how to do multiple direct quotes, yet.:rolleyes:

It was said we'll either finally decide what is right, or decide it's fruitless to try. I believe that the most valuable thing we can decide is that the nature of our Earth and all facets thereof is fluid, and continuous. We can only recognize that we need a frame of reference on that continuum, and that a consensus on classification is not an absolute and final answer as to what is "right" and what is "wrong".



but the classification is based on groups that have shared derived characteristics that stemmed from one common ancestor.

Just wondering how that fits with Maternal Mitochondrial DNA. Since different humans have different mitochondrial DNA, that "proves" that we came from different ancestors. So where are we in the classification system? At what point would the Taxonomy differ, if we were to acknowledge this as a significant difference, subspecies level? Are we assuming that one human man bred a bunch of different women and *he* would be the common ancestor? (goodness I hope not, as the bad men out there will claim infidelity is genetic!!!! lol)

And if reproduction takes two, how is there ONE common ancestor? Wouldn't there be two? Each offspring, descendant, etc. received DNA from each parent, which either denied or permitted the traits by which we are classifying them, so had the ancestor bred with a different specimen, we may not even see this morphology in the first place, right? Or does "One Common Ancestor" actually mean "one common Ancestral Pairing"?

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Just wondering how that fits with Maternal Mitochondrial DNA. Since different humans have different mitochondrial DNA, that "proves" that we came from different ancestors. So where are we in the classification system? At what point would the Taxonomy differ, if we were to acknowledge this as a significant difference, subspecies level? Are we assuming that one human man bred a bunch of different women and *he* would be the common ancestor? (goodness I hope not, as the bad men out there will claim infidelity is genetic!!!! lol)

And if reproduction takes two, how is there ONE common ancestor? Wouldn't there be two? Each offspring, descendant, etc. received DNA from each parent, which either denied or permitted the traits by which we are classifying them, so had the ancestor bred with a different specimen, we may not even see this morphology in the first place, right? Or does "One Common Ancestor" actually mean "one common Ancestral Pairing"?

In cladistics, when you are referring to a "single common ancestor", you are actually referring to a particular species from which all others within the group derived. Please don't interpret it as evolution spinning around activities like incest or polygamy. Actually, in many cases it does, but that is not the point I am trying to make. Single common ancestor usually doesn't mean SINGLE (individual) ancestor; it's a reference to a species' collective!

Steve