Thanks for representing the issue well, Chris (and Hi by the way, long time no see).
The gloydi issue remains somewhat complicated because it still has some issues. The description of H. n. gloydi was clearly based on clinal characters and so technically H. nasicus could have been divided in many places based on ventral scale counts and still come out statistically different. This is the nature of how a cline works. However, I will say that the relative isolation of the "gloydi" population leaves me a little baffled. I did a small project where I projected population distribution using GIS and this is what I came up for Heterodon nasicus. (The URL below shows a picture of a maximum distribution estimate).
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~curteck/pics/fig13d.gif
For the complete report on this small project I did and how I did it go to...
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~curteck/hognoseGIS.PDF
(This work is unpublished but I am working on writing it up in the future.)
Anyway, I believe that the river corriders in Texas may be serving as a dispersal corridor between the old "gloydi" population and the main population but I don't know if this is truly the case since there are no specimens from that area even though there is some anectodal evidence they can be found there.
So the isolation of that population seems to indicate that at least they are on their own "evolutionary trajectory" but this is likely a recent event and so it will be difficult to see any changes in morphology or the DNA (some of this work has been done already).
Basically, in the light of poor use of characteristics to define gloydi and the lack of any other suitable morphological or genetic characters (many were looked at in my thesis) the subspecies was sunk and subsumed into H. nasicus. So I am left a little unsatisfied in the end with it all but that is because there is just simply not enough information at this time to make a definitive judgement about gloydi except that based on the characters used to describe it.. it is no good.
I am happier with the H. kennerlyi situation. Recently Smith, Chizar and myself made the decision to go ahead and elevate kennerlyi to its own species. Originally I was a little nervous about this but the azygous scale characteristic was too obvious to ignore. Unlike ventral scale counts, azygous scales show a definitive pattern between H. nasicus and H. kennerly that changes over a very short distance. My original thought was that this could be a step cline or represent secondary contact but there are very very few integrade-like individuals present and within the populations of nasicus and kennerly there seems to be no definitive pattern as to geographic differences (something you would expect if this character was clinal in nature). The pattern only really exists in the zone of parapatry between the two species. Some recent genetic patterns also show a difference as well (unpublished). There is still some debate over the biogeography but I think that will get hammered out soon as well.
Anyway, I'm working to get my master's thesis in PDF format so that you can download it but it isn't up at the moment. I'll let you know when it is up.
Curtis Eckerman
cmeckerman@dmacc.edu