Taxonomic changes: T. elegans

[Stefan-A]

So, it's been bothering me for a while now. Apparently the taxonomy of Thamnophis elegans has changed a bit and now only two subspecies remain recognized; T. elegans elegans and T. elegans vagrans.

According to:
CNAH

Taxonomic Comments:

• Hammerson (1999 Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Second Edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. xxvi + 484 pp.) presented substantial evidence that the race, Thamnophis elegans arizonae Tanner & Lowe 1989, did not deserve recognition.

• Hammerson (1999 Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Second Edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. xxvi + 484 pp.) presented substantial evidence that the race, Thamnophis elegans vascotanneri Tanner & Lowe 1989, did not deserve recognition.

• Bronikowski and Arnold (2001 Copeia 2001(2): 508-513), using DNA data, concluded that recognition of the race, Thamnophis elegans terrestris Fox 1951, was unsupported.

So what subspecies do the respective populations belong to now? I'm especially interested in what happened to T. elegans terrestris.

[adamanteus]

Originally Posted by Stefan-A

I'm especially interested in what happened to T. elegans terrestris.

So am I.

[GarterGuy]

Yeh I saw awhile ago, that they were going to do away with terrestris, but they haven't said now what subspecies it is. Guess it'll just end up being a erthyristic vagrans or something????

[Stefan-A]

To tell the truth, that's pretty much what they look like. Except for some of the red terrestris that look more like a red morph of elegans elegans.

[ssssnakeluvr]

interesting......I have always wondered about vascotanneri....hadn't been able to get any info on the difference between them and vagrans. we have them here in Utah and was hoping to catch some this summer. Terrestris resembles vagrans, but I didn't think it was that close....

[Loren]

Originally Posted by GarterGuy

Yeh I saw awhile ago, that they were going to do away with terrestris, but they haven't said now what subspecies it is. Guess it'll just end up being a erthyristic vagrans or something????

I didnt know any of this. I would suppose that t.e. terrestris(coast) garters would be considered t. e. elegans (mountain garter), rather than t.e. vagrans(wandering), as the range of vagrans and t.e. terrestris dont touch. So maybe a erythristic, or red phase, elegans??

Kind of depends which book or website you go by, I guess. I still use the 2003 peterson field guide(Stebbins) as my main authority, along with Californiaherps.com. Call me outdated, but its easier than trying to keep up with what they try to change from week to week just so somebody can have his name on a published report.

[GarterGuy]

Originally Posted by Loren

Call me outdated, but its easier than trying to keep up with what they try to change from week to week just so somebody can have his name on a published report.

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.

[Stefan-A]

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.

Is it something that somebody is working towards?

[Stefan-A]

A related question, after seeing several photos of the different T. elegans subspecies: Is it my imagination, or is T. elegans elegans much more slender than vagrans and the subspecies formerly known as terrestris?

[jitami]

I think so Stefan, but I'm only going from pictures. I was actually worried that my elegans was too thin for a while, but he eats well and I'm actually thinking he's a little "fat" right now, even though he's still looooong and slender.