Anyone Gravid??

[MasSalvaje]

I do believe you're talking about florida blues. Thamnophis sirtalis similis. The more obvious blue striped dark background snake is a puget.

Similis isn't always blue, and to me, even the "blue" one's are more of a gray/blue. Often they are green or gray. Very blue one's are the exception really.

Gregmonsta's (not in the U.S.?) expecting florida blue:
http://www.thamnophis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6521

Florida "blue"


Blue phase Puget:


Also a puget (not blue, red-spotted phase)



So, florida "blue" doesn't necessarily mean it's blue and just because it's a puget doesn't mean it's blue either.

Again just to clarify, a "Florida Blue" is just a blueish Eastern Garter from Florida still making it a T. s. sirtalis.

A "Florida Blue Stripe" is a sub of the Eastern hence the name T. s. similis.

The pics I posted previously were a T. s. similis. The pic that ConcinnusMan posted is a T. s. sirtalis.

Follow this link to read how to tell them apart: http://www.thamnophis.com/caresheets...d_Garter_Snake

-Thomas

[ConcinusMan]

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification!

So people selling "florida blue" garters could actually be selling a bluish looking eastern, and not similis.

It was my understanding though, that even people IN florida and IN the range of similis have noted that they are often NOT blue.

It almost sounds to me like even similis is just an eastern with a locale where they happen to be blue. (microgenetics)

If that's the case, then perhaps the green/blue anery concinnus I (and others) have been finding in NW oregon deserve to be considered a different subspecies? I mean, a sub of a sub sounds a bit ridiculous.

Personally, I don't understand why concinnus isn't just called Thamnophis Concinnus in the first place. If they did the genetic testing it wouldn't surprise me if they found that concinnus isn't any more releated to other sirtalis than an ordinoides is. They already proved that concinnus is more closely related to other garters than they are to species that look similar.

That would make these weird green anery's Thamnophis concinnus viridis perhaps.

Afterall, if all it takes is morph differences and location to make a subspecies....

I know, confusion runs amok. Family and species is one thing but when you start naming subspecies, things get complicated.

[prattypus]

ConcinnusMan- that top one isn't a Similis, is it?

[ConcinusMan]

Good question. Is it?

Understand that similis is a subspecies of t. sirtalis, not a seperate species. All that is needed to differentiate a T. sirtalis concinnus (or T.s. similis) from a T. sirtalis sirtalis anything, is morphology and range.

In other words, a similis IS a T. sirtalis. The only thing that makes it a T. sirtalis similis is it's range, and the fact that it's a little different. It's no surprise that it looks like an eastern garter because it IS one.

It's also no surprise that T. sirtalis concinnus look more like a puget, (T. sirtalis pickeringii) as you get into the northern part of it's range. Likewise, pickeringii start to look more like concinnus in the southern part of their range. Why? They used to overlap, and still might, and they are THE SAME SPECIES!!!

It would be like aliens came down to study humans. They decided that the "black" part of town was "Homo sapiens negro", and the "white" part of town was a seperate subspecies called "H. s. blanca". Get it?

The only difference is morphology (color, habits, lip size if you will) and range.(what part of town they live in) They are still all homo sapiens!

Where their ranges overlap, intergrades occur!

[Stefan-A]

The only thing that makes it a T. sirtalis similis is it's range, and the fact that it's a little different. It's no surprise that it looks like an eastern garter because it IS one.

Reproductive isolation makes it a T. sirtalis similis and it's a common garter, not an eastern garter. They're two different taxonomic levels, one applies to both sirtalis sirtalis and sirtalis similis and the other to sirtalis sirtalis, but not sirtalis similis.

It's also no surprise that T. sirtalis concinnus look more like a puget, (T. sirtalis pickeringii) as you get into the northern part of it's range. Likewise, pickeringii start to look more like concinnus in the southern part of their range. Why? They used to overlap, and still might, and they are THE SAME SPECIES!!!

There are several possible reasons for their similarities. The first is common ancestry. A second reason could be convergent evolution. A third intergradation. But as long as there is reproductive isolation on a larger scale, they are distinct.

It would be like aliens came down to study humans. They decided that the "black" part of town was T.s. negro, and the "white" part of town was a seperate subspecies called "T.s. blanca". Get it?

The only difference is morphology and range.

It so totally isn't. The range is only relevant insofar that it has an impact on genetics and the same applies to morphology. While morphology and range might give clues as to how organisms are related, that method of classifying organisms is obsolete.

[ConcinusMan]

It so totally isn't. The range is only relevant insofar that it has an impact on genetics and the same applies to morphology. While morphology and range might give clues as to how organisms are related, that method of classifying organisms is obsolete.

And yet the latin subspecies names applied under that obsolete method still apply.

The reason for latin names are apparent however. What you call a "common" garter seems to only apply to specific garters. It applies to all North American garters as far as I'm concerned. I only use the term "eastern" to apply to t.s.sirtalis or garters mainly confined to the east coast US.

to me, even a "Northwestern Garter snake" T. ordinoides, can still fall under the umbrella of "common garter snake". If I want to use common names to differentiate between the two, then T.s sirtalis is an "eastern garter" and a T. ordinoides is a "northwestern" To me, they are both "common garter snakes"

[Stefan-A]

And yet the latin subspecies names applied under that obsolete method still apply.

Scientific names, not latin names. Most of them have Greek origins, including "thamnophis".

It's not true, by the way. Our newly acquired ability to measure the actual relationships between organisms has really shuffled the deck these last 10-15 years and now even single populations are getting reassigned to new subspecies.

The reason for latin names are apparent however. What you call a "common" garter seems to only apply to specific garters. It applies to all North American garters as far as I'm concerned. I only use the term "eastern" to apply to t.s.sirtalis or garters mainly confined to the east coast US.

to me, even a "Northwestern Garter snake" T. ordinoides, can still fall under the umbrella of "common garter snake". If I want to use common names to differentiate between the two, then T.s sirtalis is an "eastern garter" and a T. ordinoides is a "northwestern" To me, they are both "common garter snakes"

What's the point in further exacerbating the problems caused by trivial names, by using the same names as colloquialisms?

[ConcinusMan]

Oh darn. Just when you think we (biological sciences) are making progress...

That's all fine and dandy. It reminds me of when I first started learning about how computers and software works. The more I learned, and thought I understood, the more I realized how dead wrong I really was!

The answer to one question and my understanding of it, only left 1,000 unanswered questions. As each question was answered, it went on, and on, and so on, and so on.

I just love it when that happens.

[MasSalvaje]

It's not true, by the way. Our newly acquired ability to measure the actual relationships between organisms has really shuffled the deck these last 10-15 years and now even single populations are getting reassigned to new subspecies.

I want to first apologize to Devon for taking this thread completely off course.

Stefan would the Upper Basin Garter, T. e. vascotanneri be an example of that? Do you happen to know if this is still a recognized sub? I know there are a lot of people that do not recognize it as a seperate sub but just a variation of the vagrans, there are others that don't even go that far and just lump it all into the Thanophis elegans elagans, (I.E. DWR in some of its publications).

-Thomas

[Stefan-A]

I want to first apologize to Devon for taking this thread completely off course.

Stefan would the Upper Basin Garter, T. e. vascotanneri be an example of that? Do you happen to know if this is still a recognized sub? I know there are a lot of people that do not recognize it as a seperate sub but just a variation of the vagrans, there are others that don't even go that far and just lump it all into the Thanophis elegans elagans, (I.E. DWR in some of its publications).

-Thomas

Last time I checked the status of elegans, there were only e. elegans and e. vagrans left. Even terrestris got merged with e. elegans, IIRC. I think I have some article somewhere, but I have no idea if I can still find it. I have hundreds of articles in .pdf format and they aren't easy to archive in a sensible manner.