Taxonomic changes: T. elegans

[jitami]

Thought you might enjoy this pic of a not so slender girl! She's got to be about ready to pop!


Photo found here: Mather Field Vernal Pools - Garter Snake
This local is about 30 minutes from my house and where Sly was found.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Ahh yes! Taxonomy and the vanity of coining new names or erasing old ones!
I am completely in agreement with the fact that we need to rewrite the Thamnophis family tree in accordance with the cladistic approach. The problem for me taking any current changes seriously is that there have been quite a few mitochondrial DNA studies done on the genus, and so many of them seem to contradict one another. A good friend of mine (who is a local wildlife biologist) mentioned that too few loci have been examined, and that the real reason we haven't solved the garter conundrum is because the genus as a whole has not been completely mapped. This is of course a grand undertaking, and I don't see any funding for such an endeavor any time soon.

I do not have a problem of reassigning terrestris back to the elegans elegans clade, for I have seen some pretty obvious "intergrades". The whole concept of sub-species is becoming rather controversial these days, and many taxonomists would prefer the term "race". Additionally, even species statuses are coming into question. I mean if a CA King and a Corn Snake can produce fertile female "Jungle Corns" (an inter-generic hybrid), what the heck is the definition of a species?!

I agree that terrestris would be closer to the Mountain Garter due to the fact that vagrans ranges further north and east.

There is also a local genetic study that alleges more recent common ancestry between ordinoides, elegans, and atratus. Some suspect hybridization between elegans elegans and atratus. I suspect hybridization between sirtalis infernalis and elegans terrestris in our area (crazy, heh? It's one of the reasons I have chosen to return to school, so I can "spit in the eye" of some of the arrogant PhD's I have met! LOL! Sorry....

But, hey! Everyone! Do not be discouraged by such news! To me it is still a Coast Garter - with different patterns, colors, and habitats.

The is a conservational danger to eliminating certain subspecies or races. If they all become one species, certain localities could come under fire by development, etc. Offenders might say, "There's plenty of them elegans in the mountains; these "Coastals" can make way for some condos near the beach! Tsk! Tsk! The horror!

Ponderously,

Steven

[Garter_Gertie]

Yeah. What he said.

[KITKAT]

Originally Posted by GarterGuy

Just wait 'til they break up sirtalis! I have a feeling it's going to happen. We'll end up with more species and less subspecies.

That will be bad for me.

Ohio law requires a license and really anal book-keeping if you keep sirtalis, but does not apply this to the non-native subspecies. So if sirtalis subspecies are rolled back into the species, I will have to pay about $50 a year, keep the stupid hand-written accounting of each snake and where it went, and have a visit every once in awhile from the "nice wildlife officer" who will stand there in my house and moan about how I am endangering garter species everywhere because I keep a handful of CBB.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

Originally Posted by GarterGuy

Just wait 'til they break up sirtalis! I have a feeling it's going to happen. We'll end up with more species and less subspecies.

Perhaps, but the other possibility (which relates to the terrestris departure) is that there may be less subspecies and only one species (with unsupported races)!

Some geneticists are speciating (breaking up subspecies into individual species statuses) garters, while others counter with a result that aims to lump all subspecies into one species. Who's right? If you want to know , become a genetecist! 'Tis the only way to solve this. Unfortunately there are too many self-righteous PhD's out there.

[Stefan-A]

Originally Posted by Steven@HumboldtHerps

Some geneticists are speciating (breaking up subspecies into individual species statuses) garters, while others counter with a result that aims to lump all subspecies into one species. Who's right? If you want to know , become a genetecist! 'Tis the only way to solve this. Unfortunately there are too many self-righteous PhD's out there.

In my humble opinion, they're both wrong. People have a tendency to try to sort everything into nice little drawers, but does anything at all suggest that it can be done with the natural world? Take the concept of a species, for example. The simple elementary school definition of a species includes that they can't produce fertile offspring with other species. Unfortunately that seems to apply better to genera than to species in a lot of cases.

With all the problems describing the relationships between species and the different methods of determining them, a simple binomial or trinomial name just seems too clean-cut. There are too many exceptions to the rules.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

And I am of the mindset that garters may be constantly re-writing their DNA by constantly intergrading and possibly "re-inventing" via hybridization or at least partial hybridization. Yes Stefan.... The sky's the limit with so many of our beloved serpents!