Below is an article from Reptile Magazine and a conversation from 2004 posted on this Website showing the difference of opinion. However, all of the information I have obtained online indicates that they were reclassified, albeit correctly or incorrectly. I guess I'll just keep postin' on both Websites!!!!! 
This is from Reptile magazine.
Changing Names and Peer Review
Scientific name changes are not automatically accepted. Proposed changes are often published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, where their merits are judged by other scientists. Sometimes changes are published in nonpeer-reviewed journals, such as those produced by herpetological societies. As long as the name changes meet the criteria of the ICZN, they may be accepted.
However, neither method of publication ensures that a name change will be accepted.
In the end, it is up to the scientific community as a whole to either accept or reject a name change. In most cases, the majority rules. If the new name is accepted by the scientific community, it slowly begins to appear in the scientific literature and other publications.
Recent Elaphe Changes
Let's examine some specific revisions that have taken place within the genus Elaphe.
Ratsnakes comprise a group of highly variable Old World and New World snakes. Because ratsnakes in the genus Elaphe can be so different, most herpetologists believed that as soon as they were extensively studied that their names would change. Indeed, that seems to be the case.
Helfenberger also found that another group of Elaphe species formed a separate group in most phylogenetic trees that he constructed. This group included, among others, the Ceylon trinket snake (formerly Elaphe helena), the radiated ratsnake (formerly E. radiata) and the black-copper ratsnake or yellow-striped ratsnake (formerly E. flavolineata). These snakes have been removed from the genus Elaphe, and the synonym Coelognathus (first used to describe the radiated ratsnake in 1843) has been elevated from a synonym to a valid genus. The new names for these snakes are now Coelognathus helena, C. radiatus and C. flavolineatus, respectively.
More than half of the other genus names of Old World Elaphe were changed again in an article by Utiger and coworkers in 2002. New genus names include Zamenis, Euprepiophus, Oreophis and Orthriophis. It will take time and debate before these name changes come into common usage, and there is no guarantee that they will.
This is the 2004 discussion.
Posted by: Terry Cox at Sun Apr 11 07:46:13 2004 [ Email Message ]
Greetings, Dr. Fry...
I'm going to have to take the opposite view on Coelognathus for the sake of argument. I believe the radiateds are ratsnakes for the following reasons.
First, we have such a broad view of what a ratsnake is. The radiateds have a lot of ratsnake characteristics, and many of these characteristics are shared with other ratsnake genera. Many snakes are called ratsnakes that aren't closely related to each other and is a pretty accepted thing as far as the 'ratsnake' name goes. We'd have to get very narrow to exclude any species not in the Elaphe/Pantherophis groups.
Second, all of the Asian ratsnakes have some racer-like characteristics too. The further south you go the more racer-like they seem to be, but I believe they are all in the same branch of the colubrid tree, very close to the racer branch, btw. The American ratsnakes seem to have lost the racer-like qualities, and some of the other characteristics, but we can't argue that they aren't related to the Asians.
In the most recent taxonomic revisions/literature the ratsnakes (old Elaphe) have been split even more into new and revised genera. The (Elaphe) species I now work with are in the genera: Orthriophis, Oreophis, Euprepiophis, Elaphe, Zamenis, and Pantherophis. That's on top of the Coelognathus and other genera that were created in the recent past. I still consider them all ratsnakes though, and I definately think they are all related.
I have worked with Coelognathus (Elaphe) radiatus in the past and they are a very fiesty snake, as are other sps. in that group. The Oreophis porphyracea are very fiesty too and noone is saying they are a racer and not a ratsnake. ASAMOF, I think the O. p. coxi are more closely related to the Coelognathus than other ratsnakes (my opinion). I also think the leopard rats, Z. situla, are close to the racers and have a lot of racer characteristics. Finally, there are some other sps. that are not assigned to a genus, yet, such as prasina and frenata (still in Elaphe), that should be put in another genus, like Gonyosoma, that are called ratsnakes. In my opinion, they are all ratsnakes in the evolutionary scheme of things.
Hope you don't mind the post, but I think there's definately going to be two sides on this issue. Thanks for listening.
PS: I'm not arguing that the Elaphe wasn't a 'dumping ground' for various sps. Much work needs to be done in this area. Also, Coelognathus wasn't part of the testing, as far as I know, in the last review (Utiger, et al, 2002). Coelognathus is obviously related to the racers, but so are many other ratsnakes, as the two groups are very close on the evolutionary tree. I think we'll find this genus to be quite primitive, with characteristics of both groups, if tested with equal numbers of sps. from ratsnakes and racers.
Terry
>>Yep, the radiated ratsnakes aren't a rat snake at all. Elaphe was a taxonomically dumping ground for a large collection of snakes that only superficially resembled each other. It turns out that the radiateds are much more genetically related to racers than to the conventionally regarded rat snakes, and thus they are now in the genus Coelognathus. This is just as the Colubridae family was a dumping ground for what turned out to be a half dozen or so families that were utterly unrelated to each other (and in some cases are much more closely related to cobras than corn snakes)
>>
>>
>>Cheers
>>B
>>-----
>>Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
>>Deputy Director
>>Australian Venom Research Unit
>>University of Melbourne
>>
>>www.venomdoc.com