question.....

[enigma200316]

well I was on Alan Frances web site today and saw how he has it to wear.

the California red-sided-T.s. infernalis is not known by that name any more because it has now been reserved for the San Fransico sub-species, and is now know as been in with the concinnus? just woundering if there is any truth to this........

[Stefan-A]

It's old information. The page was last modified 7 years ago and that was just after Rossman and somebody else had suggested a couple of changes that were ultimately rejected.

Originally Posted by Stefan-A

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.

edit: I just have to say once again that it never ceases to amuse me how vague the species and subspecies concepts are, in contrast to the system we use to NAME them, which is pretty absolute. As much as I would like to keep snakes "pure", there's really no way to guarantee it by just staring at their scientific names. Actually, it's just a tool to help us remember how they are related to each other and not much more.

[enigma200316]

Originally Posted by Stefan-A

It's old information. The page was last modified 7 years ago and that was just after Rossman and somebody else had suggested a couple of changes that were ultimately rejected.



edit: I just have to say once again that it never ceases to amuse me how vague the species and subspecies concepts are, in contrast to the system we use to NAME them, which is pretty absolute. As much as I would like to keep snakes "pure", there's really no way to guarantee it by just staring at their scientific names. Actually, it's just a tool to help us remember how they are related to each other and not much more.

Thanks Stefan, it just through me and being fairly new to garters that can
happen very easily.......well even if I wasn't new it would probably still happen...lol

[Stefan-A]

Believe me, it's just as confusing for everybody else. Today I tried to confirm something Roy said regarding the currently recognized Thamnophis elegans subspecies and I only ended up even more confused. Thamnophis elegans only has two subspecies at the moment; T. e. elegans and T. e. vagrans. Goodbye, arizonae, hueyi, terrestris and vascotanneri. I'd imagine it's even harder to keep up with changes in taxonomy, when you're used to using the old names.

[GarterGuy]

Yeh, it is really tough to keep up on current nomenclature. I was just at a reptile zoo here in PA and was amused when I saw that they still have their ratsnakes as Elaphe and not Pantherophis. I was going to ask someone about it, but my wife told me not to bother them....LOL.

Stefan: I wonder with all the "old" subspecies not being used for T.elagans what the red terrestris are now? Are they just erythristic T.e.vagrans or T.e.elagans? It's funny how they don't have a problem getting rid of the names, but don't let us know what we're supposed to call the old ones now.

[Stefan-A]

Originally Posted by GarterGuy

Stefan: I wonder with all the "old" subspecies not being used for T.elagans what the red terrestris are now? Are they just erythristic T.e.vagrans or T.e.elagans? It's funny how they don't have a problem getting rid of the names, but don't let us know what we're supposed to call the old ones now.

Well said. Somebody must know how and why they were rearranged.

My Google searches are coming up dry, though. Although there might be some clues..

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?requ....0.CO%3B2&ct=1