Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Has the genus Masticophis recently been placed back into the genus Coluber? I was browsing a well-respected site (see link) last night about my favorite North American genus when I noticed the change.
I am aware that there has been some speculation as to whether or not Coluber and Masticophis should be united under the same name, but I wasn't aware that the change had actually been put in place.
What are everyone's thoughts on this?
Link

-----
Roy Blodgett
Green Man Herpetoculture
royreptile@yahoo.com

1.1 Drymarchon corais
2.2 Pseustes sulphureus
1.1 Pseustes poecilonotus poecilonotus
1.1 Lystrophis pulcher
1.1 Lampropeltis getula californiae (desert phase)
1.1 Boiga dendrophila dendrophila
2.3 Pogona vitticeps (snow and red/gold)
1.0 Iguana iguana

“All men lie enveloped in whale-lines. All are born with halters round their necks; but it is only when caught in the swift, sudden turn of death, that mortals realize the silent, subtle, ever-present perils of life.”- Herman Melville

The authors of that site are right up on the very latest taxonomy, and meticulous in their publication terminology. I have looked at that very site this year and the change is recent, since the last time I checked. If they say Masticophis is revised into Coluber, that's good enough for me.

The revision is based on this paper: http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/540.pdf.

It found that two specimens of M. flagellum nested within between two specimens of C. constrictor in their taxonomic tree. However, an earlier paper using the same four individuals
(http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/186.pdf) recovered C. constrictor and M. flagellum as sister species.

In my estimation that is insufficient evidence for taxonomic change, though I suspect further study will find that Coluber and Masticophis are in fact the same genus. The Brian Crother and the writers of the new SSAR common names list agree; they have retained Masticophis as a separate genus pending further research; however, I think the new CNAH list will combine them, reflecting Joseph Collins' tendency to favor what he considers 'taxonomic conservatism' over 'social' or 'usage conservatism'. Collins has published several papers proposing sweeping taxonomic changes based on no more than diagnosability and published range maps. I believe his approach has some philosophic validity but is hampered by often insufficient study and is too much of a PITA for non-taxonomists.

Wow, that last post was just full of typos. Please ignore them; I rewally need to learn to proofread.