Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I put this here because I thought someone here could clear this up.

Pennsylvania just passed a law that states that we can only have 1 E. alleghaniensis - Eastern Rat Snake (without a special permit - which I will gladly get if I know I need it.

I have 3 E. alleghaniensis (formerly E. obsoleta obsoleta) x Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata- intergrade (Often called the Greenish Ratsnake)

I looked on CNAH and it no longer lists Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata as a seperate species which seems odd.

See:{url]http://www.cnah.org/nameslist.asp?id=6[/url]

The game Fish and Boat Commission who are in charge of this are very slow in answering questions. Does anyone have any idea what to do?

>>I put this here because I thought someone here could clear this up.
>>
>>Pennsylvania just passed a law that states that we can only have 1 E. alleghaniensis - Eastern Rat Snake (without a special permit - which I will gladly get if I know I need it.
>>

The Pantherophis obsoletus sub-species were done away with. They were all merged into one of 3 species based on geographical location. Eastern (alleghaniensis), Midland (spiloides), Western (obsoleus)... some like the black rat and gray rat are now part of all three groups as it's a geographical based breakdown.

If I remember correctly, the merger was...

P. obsoletus - Western Rats were made up from: P. o. spiloides, P. o. lindheimerii, P. o. obsoletus

P. spiloides - Midland Rats were made up from: P. o. obsoletus, P. o. spiloides

P. alleghaniensis - Eastern Rats were made up from: P. o. obsoletus, P. o. quadrivittata, P. o. rossalleni, P. o. spiloides
-----
_____

PHWyvern

Since they have them all now as Elaphe alleghaniensis-that makes my Yellow rat, and greenish rats all one thing-even though-you will never find a yellow or greenish rat in PA?

That's silly.....I have to ask the fish and boat commission how to handle that-I talked to one ans she thinks that's a silly thing too but she has nothing to with the law..except enforcing it-and she wouldn't think a Yellow Rat illegal..so off to annoy the state Herpetologist I go.

I wonder what they will say about my Everglades x Otakee (sp)

Sigh.....

"The Pantherophis obsoletus sub-species were done away with. They were all merged into one of 3 species based on geographical location. Eastern (alleghaniensis), Midland (spiloides), Western (obsoleus)... some like the black rat and gray rat are now part of all three groups as it's a geographical based breakdown.

If I remember correctly, the merger was...

P. obsoletus - Western Rats were made up from: P. o. spiloides, P. o. lindheimerii, P. o. obsoletus

P. spiloides - Midland Rats were made up from: P. o. obsoletus, P. o. spiloides

P. alleghaniensis - Eastern Rats were made up from: P. o. obsoletus, P. o. quadrivittata, P. o. rossalleni, P. o. spiloides"

Frank Burbrink, who made these changes, did not recognize the genus Pantherophis. So names like "Pantherophis allegheniensis" and "Pantherophis spiloides" have never been formally proposed, to my knowledge. In deciding on legitimate names here, then, you can either accept Burbrink's species, or accept Pantherophis, but not both.

In any case, Burbrink's species are nonsense, as has been discussed on the forum before; and as a result, Pennsylvania has apparently created laws that are to some extent unenforcable. Phenotypically "pure" yellow or Everglades rat snakes would be unquestionably E. allegheniensis (but would also be unquestionably not native to PA) but other members of this group, probably including hybrids between yellow rats and other forms, are not identifiable to species without either a known geographic origin or mitochondrial DNA analysis.

Patrick Alexander

>>Frank Burbrink, who made these changes, did not recognize the genus Pantherophis. So names like "Pantherophis allegheniensis" and "Pantherophis spiloides" have never been formally proposed, to my knowledge. In deciding on legitimate names here, then, you can either accept Burbrink's species, or accept Pantherophis, but not both.

Not quit true, you can in fact accept both. If you agree with Utiger et al. that Elaphe in its traditional broad sense is non-monophyletic and needs splitting, then the correct generic name for the group is Pantherophis, irrespective of whether you accept Burbrink's species arrangement, and irrespective of whether Burbrink accepted them (I dimly recall that his papers predated the general Elaphe rejigging). Using the combination Pantherophis alleghaniensis is simply the logical outcome of accepting the biological conclusions of both Utiger's and Burbrink's work, and does not require any specific proposal, although in a taxonomic work, the new combo would be highlighted in some way.

Cheers,

WW
-----
WW Home

Ah. Apparently this is a difference between the botanical and zoological codes that I wasn't aware of. I'm more familiar with the botanical code, and under the ICBN names (whether new species or only new combinations) aren't valid until published.

I always thought the ICZN was a bit degenerate. It doesn't track authority worth anything, either.

Patrick Alexander

>>Ah. Apparently this is a difference between the botanical and zoological codes that I wasn't aware of. I'm more familiar with the botanical code, and under the ICBN names (whether new species or only new combinations) aren't valid until published.

Under the ICZN, that also applies for new names. However the ICZN is about rules of nomenclature, and does not seek to govern taxonomic judgement. New combinations arise logically as a result of taxonomic judgement (in this case, accepting the arguments of both Burbrink and Utiger et al. logically leads to the combination Pantherophis alleghaniensis), and thus fall outside the principal remit of the ICZN. The first use of a new combination in a Code-compliant publication will be of interest to the compilers of synonymies, but that's as far as it goes.

I am actually somewhat surprised that the ICBN handles that differently - surely none of the Codes aims to dictate scientific judgement?

Cheers,

Wolfgang
-----
WW Home

"Under the ICZN, that also applies for new names. However the ICZN is about rules of nomenclature, and does not seek to govern taxonomic judgement. New combinations arise logically as a result of taxonomic judgement (in this case, accepting the arguments of both Burbrink and Utiger et al. logically leads to the combination Pantherophis alleghaniensis), and thus fall outside the principal remit of the ICZN. The first use of a new combination in a Code-compliant publication will be of interest to the compilers of synonymies, but that's as far as it goes."

Interesting. I guess I ought to go read more of the ICZN code someday...

"I am actually somewhat surprised that the ICBN handles that differently - surely none of the Codes aims to dictate scientific judgement?"

The goal seems only to be to ensure that all names are clearly tracable and published formally & explicitly along with some sort of justification. You can excersize whatever taxonomic judgment you like, so long as you publish it.

As a random example, here's a paper associated with a genus I'm working with, Boechera:

http://apt.allenpress.com/aptonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1055-3177&volume=013&issue=04&page=0381

The paper in this case gives a history of the relevant generic names, explains the rationale for moving most former Arabis of North America into Boechera, and then provides new combinations for these species along with synonymy, citation of types, notes on the more confusing names, etc. Seems like without this kind of system, things could easily get quite confusing if you're dealing with large numbers of taxa.

Patrick Alexander