just wondering

[EasternGirl]

So basically...what I was originally saying...that any subspecies of garter falling under the species of T.sirtalis technically can be referred to as a common garter...is correct then? That is how it is listed in the evolution and ecology book.

And I was also wondering what Greene meant by "full species status"....

[chris-uk]

...what I was originally saying...that any subspecies of garter falling under the species of T.sirtalis technically can be referred to as a common garter...is correct then? That is how it is listed in the evolution and ecology book.

And I was also wondering what Greene meant by "full species status"....

I think so, but why would you? Just because it's technically correct to call any sirtarlis a Common Garter Snake, nobody who knows what they are looking at would want to use a more generic name when a more precise name is available?

[greene]

I meant not considered a subspecies and is its own species

[ConcinusMan]

So basically...what I was originally saying...that any subspecies of garter falling under the species of T.sirtalis technically can be referred to as a common garter...is correct then?

Yes. You are correct. However, each subspecies also has its own common name, i.e. "red spotted" , "Valley garter", etc.

I meant not considered a subspecies and is its own species

well in that case, T. ordinoides has no subspecies, nor does T. radix or T. gigas.

all T. sirtalis' are split into subspecies. its just that eastern garters were described first, so their species and subspecies name is "sirtalis"

maybe this will answer your question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garter_snake#Taxonomy