Your next snake

[Stefan-A]

Good luck with that viv!

[adamanteus]

Originally Posted by Stefan-A

I understood that there was a bit of debating going on at that time, but that they eventually were recognized, or rather kept, as two distinct subspecies.

I've not seen the paper saying they are a recognised sub-species. I was under the impression that was just "the hobby" that referred to them as tetrataenia, for convenience.

Guys? Anyone know whether or not science recognises tetrataenia as a distinct sub-species? And whos' published work indicates this?

[Josh]

Originally Posted by adamanteus

I've not seen the paper saying they are a recognised sub-species. I was under the impression that was just "the hobby" that referred to them as tetrataenia, for convenience.

Guys? Anyone know whether or not science recognises tetrataenia as a distinct sub-species? And whos' published work indicates this?

Im pretty sure this has it.
SF Garter Snake

[Stefan-A]

Originally Posted by adamanteus

I've not seen the paper saying they are a recognised sub-species. I was under the impression that was just "the hobby" that referred to them as tetrataenia, for convenience.

Guys? Anyone know whether or not science recognises tetrataenia as a distinct sub-species? And whos' published work indicates this?

I did 30 seconds of googling.
CNAH

• Barry et al. (1996 Herpetological Review 27(4): 172-173) have petitioned the ICZN to suppress the changes proposed by Boundy and Rossman (1995 Copeia 1995(1): 236-240) wherein the subspecies tetrataenia was synonymized with T. s. infernalis (in part). The remaining populations of T. s. infernalis were allocated to T. s. concinnus. Users of Collins (1997 Herpetological Circular 25: 1-40) should continue to recognize T. s. tetrataenia, the San Francisco Garter Snake, until the ICZN rules on this matter (see Article 80 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature).

• The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2000 Opinion 1961, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57(3): 191-192) has voted to retain the historical taxonomic arrangement of subspecies within this evolutionary lineage, rejecting the arrangement proposed by Boundy and Rossman (1995 Copeia 1995(1): 236-240). Accordingly, the subspecies tetrataenia is reinstated (see below) and the races concinnus and infernalis retain their historical definition.

[Josh]

your site is better then mnine.

[adamanteus]

Thanks Josh! There's the answer....tetrataenia retains it's sub-specific status.

I stand corrected!

[adamanteus]

Originally Posted by Stefan-A

I did 30 seconds of googling.

Stefan, you know I don't google!

[Josh]

Originally Posted by adamanteus

Thanks Josh! There's the answer....tetrataenia retains it's sub-specific status.

I stand corrected!

I never seen tetra look like that i thought the hada a red head and red and Blue stripes?

[adamanteus]

Reading through your link, Josh, I wouldn't be surprised to see tetrataenias' status change a few more times before a definitive decision is made. My personal though is still "regional variation", but what do I know about taxonomy?

But to bring it back to the point (somebody) made, tetrataenia and infernalis are very similar. Already having tetrataenia, I won't bother with infernalis until I have every other Garter species and sub-species!

I would love to get my hands on some of the Mexican species.

[drache]

since I cannot have tetras and really never had them on my wishlist anyhow, I feel totally covered with my concinnus and never did covet infernalis, but I may still get a couple of fulvus, since Scott just emailed me that he ended up with a couple of small litters after all