Hydrophilus yesterday, infernalis today.

[jitami]

Good stuff as usual, Steve!

[Mike Spencer]

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????

The ONLY way it could be elegans is if it is terrestris. I found it maybe 5 miles from the coast in Mendocino Co, wayyy west of any known range of elegans elegans. Plus I've caught countless of both species in my life and in person it resembles atratus from the area much more than any elegans I've found in the vicinity.
I try not to rely on scale counts either because here I too have found a variance between different populations. I'm not ruling out that it's not an atratus hydrophilus x elegans terrestris hybrid though. That could be plausible, however, it does have atratus chinshields.

[Stefan-A]

The ONLY way it could be elegans is if it is terrestris. I found it maybe 5 miles from the coast in Mendocino Co, wayyy west of any known range of elegans elegans.

I'm afraid terrestris is no more. It's part of elegans elegans at the moment.

[Mike Spencer]

Hmm. Last I heard they were still working on the terrestris/elegans but I haven't read anything about it being official yet.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

I'm afraid terrestris is no more. It's part of elegans elegans at the moment.

I am still going to make the distinction!

[Mike Spencer]

I am still going to make the distinction!

Same. Until I find a red Mountain garter, to me Mountains will be Mountains, Coasts will be Coasts, elegans will be elegans, and terrestris will be terrestris. I can't find anything that's even published the merge yet.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Many of the newer taxonomic revisions (including elegans/terrestris) won't be found in any herp books as far as I know of yet. The research, however, has been published. This stuff is ongoing, and is often revealed in increments as the research continues. It takes a while for the gathered publications (check the science journals) to make it into a sellable book either as an ingredient or as the whole topic.

I honestly can't speak for Mendocino specimens; I'd actually like to check out the garter variation there.

Despite the taxonomic revisions, whether or not a Coast is now a Mountain doesn't really matter; I still respect the characteristics of the line(s). Note however, terrestris in my neck of the woods (at least from Garberville to Crescent City) are highly variable: typical coastal phase complete with the random red flecking (all over the place), "blue-gray" phase (Mad River), tan and brown phase (Mad River to Redwood Creek), dull brown phase (Bald Hills, RNSP), black "mountain" phase (Blue Lake, Kneeland , Lower Van Duzen River). The range maps do indeed show elegans elegans further inland . In fact, I have been calling some of my western black specimens Mountains, when they are probably just dark Coasts.

Perhaps the most important question is "In what habitat did you find this snake?" Please understand, I'm not doubting your personal experience with the locals; I am fascinated. If you like, check out my sightings listings at:

Thamnophis

[Mike Spencer]

I've found lots of 'coasts' (I might as well use quotes now if I'm gonna have to get used to the new taxon. haha) in San Mateo, Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino, and southern Humboldt Counties, so I definitely know how variable they are. There's a San Mateo Co. population that is almost solid red with a brown head. There's a Mendocino County spot I find them where most are brown with just random red speckling. There's a different spot in Mendocino Co. (near Gualala) where they are commonly fairly red as well. As far as I'm concerned, most of the Garter complex in CA is screwed up right now.

I do love how variable Northwesterns are. I've caught them in Del Norte Co. as well as in random counties up through Oregon, close to 100 this summer in Multnomah County, Oregon, some in Washington, and some in Vancouver, British Columbia. I've found brown ones, tan ones, really dark one, patternless, stripeless, single striped, triple striped, yellow striped, bright red striped, orange striped, blue striped, a melanistic population, etc. etc.

I have a spot here in Ukiah for infernalis where almost every one I find has no blue whatsoever, but I took a friend there last week so he could find his first infernalis and the one he found was really high blue.
I've found the super high blues in Marin County as well.

I've love the blue phase elegans elegans from Mt. St. Helena in Napa County too.

I think what attracts me to garters so much IS how variable they can be, and how you can find them with many different appearences in such small areas.

[ssssnakeluvr]

I love the variability in ordinoides...I have a melanistic male....am hoping to get a large group of them next spring

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

I currently do not have any ordinoides but have access to Del Norte County, which has an incredible variety of morphs. My favorites are the red-morphs that are almost burgundy.