Hydrophilus yesterday, infernalis today.

[charles parenteau]

Very nice find !!both snake are beautiful,very good pictures.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

is there any chance that the first snake pictured could be a thamnophis elegans elegans, and not atratus?

[sirtalis01]

they are beautiful, they pictures are great....

[ssssnakeluvr]

is there any chance that the first snake pictured could be a thamnophis elegans elegans, and not atratus?

I am thinking the same thing....since I have a trio of elegans....look exactly like that

[Mike Spencer]

Thanks everyone.
Although it doesn't look typically atratus, it is from a coastal river in Mendocino County, quite a ways west of T. e. elegans range.
The only other thing it can be from this area is T. e. terrestris, though I've never seen them close to this locale, as it's a little far inland I believe.
I did hold onto it though, to get better pics and whatnot, so I'll do a full scale count and everything.

Crikey, I did pose it for the pics. It's pretty hard to get a garter to naturally sit still in a photogenic pose. Haha

[jitami]

That's pretty far out of elegans range. My first (relatively inexperienced!) impression when I looked at it yesterday is that it's not clean and clear enough, especially through the head/labial area to be elegans. Also, it has a hint of, but is basically lacking the labial stripes that many elegans have. The dorsal stripe doesn't seem wide enough, either. This is all just based on first impressions, though. When looking at cal herps and trying to differenciate between the two, other than range maps, looks like the chin shields may be the key. Elegans front and rear will be equal in length, Hyrdophilus rear will be longer than the front pair.

Thanks for a bit of education this morning, though. It has been interesting thinking, "no, I don't think so?" and trying to back up my first impression. I wouldn't say that I've really suceeded in doing that, but time spent staring at garter snakes is always worthwhile

[Mike Spencer]

That's pretty far out of elegans range. My first (relatively inexperienced!) impression when I looked at it yesterday is that it's not clean and clear enough, especially through the head/labial area to be elegans. Also, it has a hint of, but is basically lacking the labial stripes that many elegans have. The dorsal stripe doesn't seem wide enough, either. This is all just based on first impressions, though. When looking at cal herps and trying to differenciate between the two, other than range maps, looks like the chin shields may be the key. Elegans front and rear will be equal in length, Hyrdophilus rear will be longer than the front pair.

Thanks for a bit of education this morning, though. It has been interesting thinking, "no, I don't think so?" and trying to back up my first impression. I wouldn't say that I've really suceeded in doing that, but time spent staring at garter snakes is always worthwhile

Yeah. Chin shields, scale counts, etc. all say it's atratus, and I've been finding/IDing garters for years. I have no doubts. I've lived in and have been herping Northern CA my whole life, so I know which Thamnophis are where and everything. Haha.

Glad you were able to get some education out of it. It's fun sometimes having to force yourself around a gut feeling or something and then dig around to find out what it really is, even if it does end up being what you think it was all along.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Hello Mike,

I am going to have to go with aSnakeLovinBabe (what's your real name?) and Don's first assumption that it may be a Mountain Garter. In fact, I am pretty confident that it is without looking at the chin shields. First, the head shape and supralabials scream T. e. elegans to me. The colors are typically T. e. elegans. T. a. hydrophilus usually (not always) has a brighter yellow about the throat, and the head is a bit more elongated. This guy's head is a bit more snub-nosed. Also, although I don't have a good view of the ventrals, I fail to see any salmon coloration creeping up the sides; hydrophilus usually will always have a salmon belly, especially near the caudal region.

Please be careful not to rely soley on the ranges in guidebooks. Californiaherps does a pretty good job, especially with the dot locality maps, but many may be out of date. I have found both Audubon and Stebbins 2003 to be inaccurate as well in the case of some species and ssp. I am currently trying to prove and redraw T. ordinoides' southern range here in Humboldt.

I acknowledge your assumption, especially if you look at the southern populations of hydrophilus. The common southern pattern for hydrophilus (and I believe this will match Mendocino and Southern Trinity Co. accounts) is a yellow stripe on a black background, which you also commonly find on T. e. elegans.

As you venture north along hydrophilus' range (Trinity Alps/Salmon River area - SW Siskiyou Co.), you see a blending of 2 phases: striping, spotting, or both. Even further north (i.e.: Smith River in Del Norte County or the Chetco in SW OR) spots or checkers are most common (a trait which I believe enhances their camouflage when swimming in serpentine rock rivers). Dull, gray dimly striped variants may be found throughout most of hydrophilus' range. Dull, spotted ones may also be found further north.

As for this snake, which I believe is indeed an elegans, I should remind everyone (Stefan originally gave me the link) that the latest DNA studies on the elegans complex (Brownikowsi and Arnold) revealed a total of three subspecies clades within the species' entire known range. One clade proved to be entirely vagrans; the largest clade was composed of T. e. elegans and snakes which were originally thought to be vagrans and terrestris by characteristics alone. This larger clade, in fact, absorbed every terristris tested except one. This one lonely specimen, and only representaitive of the third clade, was from Humboldt County, and it is an anomaly I would like to research myself. The research paper concluded with an alluding to the idea that terrestris be nullified as a ssp. namesake, but there was no further mention of the Humboldt specimen. Gotta test more than one snake! Interestingly, the larger group's findings revealed that there have been various migrations within the group, ones that crossed Great Basin barriers at some point in time. So, some of the subspecies ranges need to be entirely rewritten. Some of the "wanderers" out there are actually "mountains"; and now all of the "coasts", but one are "mountains" as well. Oh, the lumping and splitting of taxonomic groups - always a headache!

This may also explain why your "mountain" was so far west. Assuming that terrestris still was a viable ssp. for your area, its still a ssp. and can freely intergrade with the mountain clade. At some point the geographical subtleties will mix to produce a muddling of the typical traits - to resemble one ssp. or the other, or perhaps neither! I am pretty sure that at this point you are basically dealing with polygenic traits similar to the color phases you might find in a Miami or an Okeetee corn snake; mix 'em and ya get a mutt or a variations of either of the parents.

We may know of simple recessive traits and others within the captive trade of garters, but garter genetics over-all has been baffling us for decades, and who knows what else random, wild gene pools are capable of...?! The facts are only facts until nature changes the rules, or genes anyway... I believe there's all kinds of rules being broken in my neck of the woods. Humboldt County has 4 species of garters (elegans, sirtalis, atratus and ordinoides) including additional ssp. (elegans/terrestris and infernalis/fitchi). I still suspect there may be some cross-overs in this region; this place may just be an intergrade/hybrid hell! (Heaven for me!)

Great infernalis pic, by the way!

Steve

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Oh, and I forgot to mention, that for here in Humboldt and Del Norte County - I no longer believe that labial scale and scale row counts should be used as a definitive means of identifying species. I have experienced so much variation amidst at least 3 of the species, I am pretty much convinced they are too unstable a trait to use in classification. I am only saying this for my area; this may not apply to other regions! T. a. hydrophilus is the only garter I have found to be pretty stable in its gestalt.

Should I also mention that there was a study done which revealed the possibility that elegans and atratus share a more recent common ancestor closely linked to ordinoides? That, in itself, might explain your elegans/atratus! It wouldn't be the first time 2 different snake species have hybridized. The more I look at Thamnophis, the more I wonder, what the hell is a species these days anyways.. just a convenient grouping????

[Stefan-A]

, what the hell is a species these days anyways.. just a convenient grouping????

Yes. That's exactly what it is. It worked fine when they were still considered immutable.