Taxonomic discussion

[Stefan-A]

So what do you think of these?

They all look like definite fitchi to me, but you're the local.

This next one, however, is very interesting:

A muddled "Coast" with all the red flecking...

Are you positive that it's not something else? I know counting supralabials isn't a fool proof way of identifying T. elegans, since it can be 7 on one side and 8 on the other, but that one does have 7. I know this is going to sound stupid, but is there any chance at all that it could actually be an ordinoides? Nevermind, the scale rows seem to be 19, not 17.

[Steven@HumboldtHerps]

They all look like definite fitchi to me, but you're the local.

This next one, however, is very interesting:


Are you positive that it's not something else? I know counting supralabials isn't a fool proof way of identifying T. elegans, since it can be 7 on one side and 8 on the other, but that one does have 7. I know this is going to sound stupid, but is there any chance at all that it could actually be an ordinoides? Nevermind, the scale rows seem to be 19, not 17.

Not at all stupid! My first impression was ordinoides. The coastal elegans though often displays these colorful fusions that are very reminiscent of Northwesterns. It is currently believed that ordinoides, elegans, and atratus may all be sister taxons. Check out Californiaherps.com - Gary Nafis' site is a great quick resource for pics and info for western herps. The coastal elegans variations are shown. The Natives sightings on HumboldtHerps.com also shows many of our local morphs. I believe guide map ranges are out of date (even Peterson's). You are right regarding the fitchi-like appearance of the 1st 2 garters. This also has to do with range map interpretation. T. s. infernalis is confined to south of the Klamath River and fitchi is to the north. I have seen the effects of fitchi all the way to the Mad River (30+ mi. south), but then this could be a grand assumption, for the appearances may just be a result of ecotypic plasticity. I personally believe the whole subspecies concept is no longer an applicable taxonomical interpretation of what is really happening with some of these species. Nature abhors a vacuum, and it is always changing. It's we humans who always feel compelled to have everything in order. "Mother Nature" doesn't care. "She" is just doing her thing. I also suspect ordinoides' range to be much further south than what is printed even in the latest guides.

Steve