ID

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

I am comfortable saying it looks like an intergrade. The dorsal oranges speak zaxanthus, but the visible spots look more like atratus atratus. Pretty snake!
Have you compared the pics on californiaherps.com?

Steven

[Loren]

I lean toward agreeing with Steven- looks like an intergrade to me. There is quite a bit of intergrading area all around the bay area. Kind of depends where you caught it too.
This page on Caherps.com actually just shows intergrades, some of which look very much like yours.
Thamnophis atratus intergrades

[Zephyr]

I'm beginning to think that some of these so-called subspecies shouldn't be subspecies anymore. :P

[Loren]

I'm beginning to think that some of these so-called subspecies shouldn't be subspecies anymore. :P

There has been quite a bit of changes in the whole aquatic garter family tax. over the years already. T. couchii (sierra garter) used to be in with them, and many of the intergrades near the s.f. bay used to be a distinct subspecies too. Probably wont be the last of the changes.
Personally, I do see distinct visual differences between the mt. diablo, santa cruz, and oregon subspecies. Are they enough to require separate subspecies? Heck if I know

[Zephyr]

Eventually the only ones who are gonna know who's what are the snakes. :P

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Since mitochondrial DNA studies have been changing the face of taxonomy throughout the animal, plant, fungi kingdoms (and more!), I do agree that there will be more changes to come.

Intergrade zones contract and expand all the time. Nature doesn't rest. Change is always imminent.

I think the whole concept of subspecies isn't much different than the idea of race. There are countless individual features among the so-called races of humanity, and far more "intergrades' to mention. We do not technically call all our human varieties subspecies. Why should it be any different with garters?

I do believe it is vital we continue to itemize the race differences however, so we can preserve the genetic heritages of the known "subspecies" and guard the known localities where they occur.

I think it should be left to nature "to decide" what crosses and what doesn't. Unfortunately, anyone who owns a pet, at some point plays "God"; at this juncture we are the one responsible for risking contamination of genetic lines. This isn't an argument about racial purities, but simply a "It's not for us to decide..." situation.

Localities like the Bay Area and up here in Humboldt County are large intergrade zones. It's natural. Non-native intergrades however should always be considered as a pollutant mix, even if the effects are not necessarily obvious to us!

Additionally there is the possibility of actual inter-special hybrids, which, if accurate, throws the whole classification thing into chaos mode (with garters we are basically already there anyway!). Discoveries in this realm may force us to redefine the word "species". New DNA work is suggesting this may be the case. Old school taxonomists may be reluctant to reclassify nomenclatures not just for vanities sake, but for certain protections afforded certain species. For instance if 2 or 3 species were to be considered "subspecies" within one larger group, certain race types might lose fish and game protections in a certain locale due to there being "plenty of this species" in other areas! Some "races'" or "subspecies'" ranges might be subject to development....

....unless you are especially pretty like a San Francisco Garter....

Just babblin'

Steve