Another intergrade theory: T. elegans X T.s.? = T.s. concinnus?

[ConcinusMan]

Sorry for the double post, but it's too late to modify my last one. the dna study of western garters came to some startling conclusions. Most notably, this one:

"...some populations of a given
morphologically based subspecies are more closely related
to populations of another subspecies than they are to other
populations of their own subspecies. Furthermore, even
the colour pattern characters (e.g. head colour, the width
and colour of dorsal stripes, background colour, the
presence of lateral stripes, and ventral pigmentation) on
which the subspecies descriptions are primarily based
(Rossman et al. 1996) do not hold up under scrutiny."

So, it is possible that the so-called fitchii that look so much like concinnus, aren't fitchii at all. They could be more closely related to sirtalis than they are to other fitchii populations, or not related at all to either one. Even though the study only dealt with sirtalis, ssp. it does raise the question, and more possibilities. It also raises the possibility that the mostly orange headed Benton County, OR concinnus are more closely related to fitchii, or another subspecies of sirtalis, than they are to other populations of concinnus, such as the clark Co. WA population. Fascinating.

I know I'm way behind on snake news and such, but I just now realized that the CA king has been crossed with milk snakes, resulting in what the pet trade calls "jungle corns". I didn't know it was possible. Even more surprising is that the hybrids are often fertile. Scary. To me that suggests that the ca king and milk snakes are not seperate species at all, but are instead subspecies of the same snake, only separated by geography and morphology.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

I know I'm way behind on snake news and such, but I just now realized that the CA king has been crossed with milk snakes, resulting in what the pet trade calls "jungle corns". I didn't know it was possible. Even more surprising is that the hybrids are often fertile. Scary. To me that suggests that the ca king and milk snakes are not seperate species at all, but are instead subspecies of the same snake, only separated by geography and morphology.

You have the right intentions with your ideas but you have been mislead. A species becomes its own species exactly because it is separated by geography and morphology. There are many, many examples of hybrids that are of totally different species and genus' but still produce offspring, even fertile ones. A jungle corn is actually a cross between a cali king and a corn snake, not a milk snake. They are very common in the pet trade because of their wide variety in pattern and colors that are so different from other snakes. They are fertile. Cali kings are also commonly hybridized with many species of milk snakes and other species of kingsnakes as well. Just because they will mate and produce viable offpsring does not denote that they should be categorized as the same species, if that were the case, SO MANY snakes would all be the same species. All corn snakes, all king snakes, all milk snakes, pine snakes, bull snakes, gopher snakes and rat snakes would all have to be categorized as the same species. Because all of those snakes have been crossed with each other every which way and will produce viable offpsring that are capable of making their own babies. Ever seen a turbo corn? That is a corn snake crossed with a gopher snake. Why some people find them desirable, I am not sure, but they are, to many. A turbo corn is the genus pantherophis x genus pituophis. I think the weirdest colubrid hybrid I ever saw was a cornsnake x taiwan beauty snake. It was sitting in an unmarked deli cup and I had examined it for almost 10 minutes before someone finally told me what the heck it was. I personally do not have a problem with hybrids as long as they are honestly and accurately represented for what they are. I personally do not see any point whatsoever in mating two snakes that already look very similar. Such as graybanded kingsnake x thayeri kingsnake. I mean, what is the point of that? You still get a pretty lame looking snake but now, it's not even pure. A lot of people don't even realize that even creamsicle cornsnakes are hybrids. Some of the coolest looking snakes I have ever seen were hybrids. Ball python x woma python comes to mind. So does ball python x blood python, reticulated python x burmese python, carpet python x green tree python, as well as ball python x burmese python. Whether or not two species can meet up and breed, and produce viable offpsring, has a lot to do with their chromosomes and how well they happen to line up, and less to do with how closely they may or may not be related. Personally, I think that since an ecosystem is CONSTANTLY changing and evolving that it's a bit inefficient to so scrutinizingly label certain animals, especially ones that are very closely related, such as separate but virtually impossible to tell apart subspecies. What we are classifying as a distinct subspecies may just be the beginnings of a larger divergence or even a few simple random changes between a few different specimens. This is the reason I do not obsess over the fine details of taxonomy. Scientists are constantly changing their minds, nothing is ever concrete and quite honestly it's more trouble than it is worth. If I buy what I presume to be concinnus, and they look like concinnus to me, then concinnus they are, and I shall keep them and breed them with my other snakes that I presume to be concinnus. I could go on all day, but I think you know what I mean!

[ConcinusMan]

Thanks for your input but it occurs to me that this is coming from one of the people who insisted that the snake I pictured is a fitchii? Looked a like a concinnus to me and it amounts to comparing apples to apples. Not that it really matters. It just makes for interesting conversation.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

but, it does look like a fitchii to me! If I had that snake, I would call it a fitchii, and keep it with other fitchii! I think I am missing something here. I do not get how me thinking that the original snake is a valley garter, and not an oregon red spot or a wandering says anything for or against what I said above? Besides, you said that it is not a concinnus, even though it looks like one, it most likely is not given the range it was found in? Kind of like this eastern I have. She looks like a maritime garter, small, colorful, lacking stripes and all that jazz, but she was found well outside the range of maritime garters. So, she can't be a maritime. If I had picked this snake up off the ground and it was within maritime range, I would have surely thought it was one, and not an eastern. When I think concinnus,I just don't think of a snake with bright tan stripe and lateral stripes, with black and red in between. And since Stefan mentioned that it was within their known range, that kind of makes some sense I guess.... I mean surely the range of different snakes is always changing and could expand... but this is why trying to obsess over the fine details just does not work. This is why i will use the given names of species and subspecies as my general guidelines, but never my bible.

[ConcinusMan]

I didn't see any tan stripes in that pic. Looks light yellow to me. It looks like a typical concinnus with only one little detail difference. The upper labials. I guess that comes from the fact that I'm used to seeing concinnus with lateral stripes AND yellow stripes. They do exist. I've bred them from parents that both lack the lateral stripes, and the female had lime-green stripes, while males stripes were lemon yellow. What I was saying earlier is that you say you don't obsess over fine details. That's the only thing indicating that it's a fitchii. One fine detail, and you say another detail: range. Well, fitchii also occurs inside concinnus territory, although they usually don't look like a concinnus when I find them.

[Stefan-A]

How that snake could be mistaken for concinnus is beyond me. It could perhaps pass for a parietalis, if it wasn't for those red cheeks and the location.

[ConcinusMan]

I don't understand your response at all. It looks exactly like many concinnus found in my area. Except for that one fine detail on the labials, and since I cannot see the underside, it might be different too. The red cheeks you speak of is a trait that all concinnus in Clark/multnomah counties have. In fact, that's the only red on their heads at all. The rest is black with perhaps blue-green under the chin/neck area.

Typical concinus found in my county looks like this, but some have lateral stripes, just like the so-called fitchii in the original post:


Also, many of them have much more red spotting on the side. I say red, but it's never red, it's orange. The stripe color varies too. From a sort of lime green, or lemon yellow. My pair both lacked lateral stripes, but the offspring were about 30% latterly striped. Some had nearly no red spots at all, and some had very pronounced spotting but almost no variation in the head. Always just a spot of orange on the cheeks. What do I have to do? collect a few of the variations and send them to you? (I say all of this with a light heart, don't take it wrong)

[Stefan-A]

And that one looks like a concinnus. The one in the original post doesn't look like any concinnus I've ever seen, but exactly like a typical fitchi. So when it looks like a fitchi and is from within fitchi's, but not concinnus' range, what exactly is there left that would suggest that it's a concinnus or an intergrade between the two?

What do I have to do? collect a few of the variations and send them to you? (I say all of this with a light heart, don't take it wrong)

mtDNA tests.

[ConcinusMan]

OK, OK. I get the point. Funny thing is, as far as I know mtDNA tests so far have confirmed that some populations of sirtalis ssp. are actually more closely related to other subspecies of sirtalis, than they are to other populations of their own(based on morphology and range) subspecies.

This has all been very educational and thanks much for the feedback and opinions. It has helped me a lot in my understanding. I'm sure there is much more to be discussed on this subject.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Gestalt recognition regarding garters is really a pain in the ---! I have read countless threads discussing the issue, and recent DNA results just raise bigger questions. I love it!

Yes, the first pic posted has all the fitchi traits. I think that issue is dead now. The question becomes how exactly do we all isolate traits? I am sure many of us have our own words to describe certain features. For instance, for me (and my area), typical fitchis have what I like to call red indentations (fat, thin,or upside down V-shape) rising up from the lateral line region into a black field. This field is usually solid, but may appear as bars or vaguely distorted as diluted checkers or spots (usually in two lateral rows, the most obvious spots being the lower lateral row; the upper muddled). We have specimens in Del Norte Co. with virtually no red at all, almost solid black. Heads are typically black, but red cheeks are common. Locally, dorsal stripes range from a light cream white to a bright orange-yellow. South of the Klamath near the coast fitchi intergrades with infernalis, but infernalis' typical characteristics don't shine until you get near Arcata. It's as if the heads just gradually get redder, and less black; lower laterals get lighter, and the barring and spotting variability increase.

I can pretty well imagine why some of the DNA results have shown that some ssp. are more closely related to other ssp. than to others in their own local group. We are only now learning about all of their prehistoric and more current migrations. Since there is still so much we don't know about their population genetics, we can't assume too much. The genus Thamnophis continues to baffle and amaze. Looks are deceiving. Diet and locality may have much to do with the natural selection process and thus perhaps color and pattern types. The conclusion that one of two snakes of the same ssp. from different localites may be more closely linked to another ssp. perhaps in a completely different range only reaffirms, for me, that current species and subspecies nomenclatures are outdated and out of context. Subspecies are more like races of a species. Let us all continue to appreciate the uniqueness of the individual ssp., but try not to get caught up in the tunnel vision that so often pops up when we want to say something is this or that. I keep having to retrain my own perceptions over the issue.

Say you do have a ssp. intergrade and one of the offspring migrates to another neck of the woods over the hill. Let's say it's a concinnus/fitchi intergrade, and this guy has quite a few concinnus features. Now let's say this new area whereto he has migrated is pretty much dominated by fitchis. Next, this intergrade breeds with the fitchis, and suppose that after subsequent generations you still get some obvious concinnus traits... What are you going to call them? concinnus or fitchi? Do you see what I am trying to say? It's just not as black and white as some of us humans like it to be.

On that note, I'm going to drink a beer! Cheers to all the unidentifiable, often drab, mutt garter intergrades (and maybe hybrids) out there that never get any respect! Glorious be their dullness and the confusion they inspire!