I seem to recall a lot debating going on right here and in other communities. I also seem to recall yourself doubting the validity of species, let alone subspecies, since most of the current taxonomy is based on outward appearance and geographic range instead of DNA. I do know that if subspecies were based on DNA instead of outward appearance then concinnus and pickeringi would be the same subspecies, just different color morphs.

For that matter, why aren't Vancouver Island northwesterns a separate subspecies? They're geographically distinct, and they tend to all be very dark or melanistic. The snakes there are very uniform in color. Black or dark grey with dirty white stripes. You don't see the typical yellows, reds, etc. If they aren't a subspecies than what does it take to make them one? If it's DNA differences then you can just invalidate many subspecies.

This is the kind of debating I'm talking about. It's been going on for decades.