Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hello,

My name is Timothy, and I am from Western Massachusetts. I have kept snakes for ~20.5 years since 11/21/1991 and have lived up here my whole 28-year life. I am very familiar with my native 14 species of snakes, and taxonomy and (natural!) genetics (-in general; id est, not just native animals) were always my specialty...until I became lazy to keep up.

First, I just want to confirm my former Elaphe obsoleta ["Black Rat Snake"] became Pantherophis alleghaniensis ["Eastern Rat Snake"] ~10 years ago, correct? And there are currently nine (9) species in the genus Pantherophis? (I don't care about subspecies at the moment.) These links agree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantherophis
http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/comm_names/Pantherophis_main.php

According to this awesome DVD I have on ALL 52 species of herps that breed in New England, Rattlers, Peepers & Snappers (Copyright 2008), it is Pantherophis alleghaniensis, and I'd think herpetologists of New England would know best. But I admit I often turn to Wikipedia among a few other sites for validation, and these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantherophis_obsoletus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantherophis_alleghaniensis

...perplex me! What slammed the brakes on this one is that both pages state the same range! I understand that Pantherophis obsoletus, P. alleghaniensis, and P. spiloides were made three separate species by Burbrink in 2001, and they should be, but on the second link, it says, "Pantherophis alleghaniensis has sometimes been considered a subspecies of Pantherophis obsoletus, to which it is closely..." and just stops there...!

So, was my native "Black Rat Snake" initially Pantherophis obsoletus alleghaniensis but now full species status: P. alleghaniensis? And then, on http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/species_info/nhfacts/pantherophis_alleghaniensis.pdf, it states the "Eastern Rat Snake" is P. alleghaniensis with five (5!) subspecies: the Black, Gray, Yellow, Texas, and Everglades...?!?? It makes no sense, they're too different to be subspecies. Id est, the Gray, Yellow, Texas, and Everglades cannot all be P. a. ssp....! They should be five (5) separate species, thus, with five different binomials...

I don't know, this is the most messed up taxonomy I've ever seen.

This page: http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/species?genus=Pantherophis&species=alleghaniensis just confuses me even more to where I couldn't even finish reaidng it!

I anxiously await any and all input. Thanks much!!

Sincerely,
Timothy
-----
T.J. Gould

I certainly recognize that there's been a change in taxonomy, but I still use the old names.

You and I both, Alex. I don't take to change well as pro-Science as I am, which is of course all about making new findings and correcting old ones, and dispelling myths. But You "can't teach an old dog new tricks," and after 20.5 years in the hobby, it is difficult breaking away from the nomenclature I grew up with and memorized so well, then rooted out and defined via etymology and semantics when I took three years of Latin in high school: Latin I, Latin II Honours, Latin III AP (Advanced Placement).

Ah well,
Timothy
-----
T.J. Gould

Your native black rat snake was Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta, and is now considered Pantherophis alleghaniensis.

Pantherophis alleghaniensis is comprised of all obsoleta-complex rat snakes found east of the Appalachian Mountains, and the Chattahoochee/Apalachicola Rivers further south. It is has not been broken into any other subspecies, and is not in and of itself considered a subspecies.
-----
www.brooksi.com

"foxturtle",

Thank You. I had actually forgotten it was formerly a subspecies: Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta. And so, Pantherophis alleghaniensis stil covers the range it always had (basically, the whole East Coast...) as "Elaphe obsoleta sspp." in the past; just as one species now instead of subspecies.

Thanks again!!

Timothy

>>Your native black rat snake was Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta, and is now considered Pantherophis alleghaniensis.
>>
>>Pantherophis alleghaniensis is comprised of all obsoleta-complex rat snakes found east of the Appalachian Mountains, and the Chattahoochee/Apalachicola Rivers further south. It is has not been broken into any other subspecies, and is not in and of itself considered a subspecies.
>>-----
>>www.brooksi.com

-----
T.J. Gould

It states:

Nevertheless, even before Utiger et al.'s publication, the paraphyly of Elaphe was already widely known for decades, but no taxonomist before Utiger et al. has formally proposed resurrecting Pantherophis as the generic name for the North American species of Elaphe, primarily because *the two genera cannot be distinguished from each other morphologically*.

Indeed, of the dozen or so old generic names Utiger et al. have resurrected from the synonymy of Elaphe in their attempt to reduce paraphyly, none of them can be distinguished from Elaphe morphologically and Utiger et al. did not provide any diagnostic characters for any of the genera they resurrected. Utiger et al. therefore provided no new information, and they made many distinctions without any difference.

They split Elaphe for no other reason than the same old cladistic *intolerance of paraphyletic taxa*. Recognizing Pantherophis contributes nothing to scientific progress because it is a distinction without a difference. Many reference materials still contain the old name Elaphe guttata.

*The old name remains valid, and no one is required to following Utiger et al.'s taxonomic proposal, even if other cladists follow their lead because of their shared intolerance of paraphyletic taxa.*

What makes sense to me? Keeping the known scientific names that show obvious subspecies with obvious trait differences which are duplicable:

Elaphe guttata Red Rat
Elapha obsoleta Black Rat
Elaphe rossalenni Everglades Rat
Elape schrencki Russian Rat

"Ameron",

I am glad I provided a "helpful" article, but which of the three (3) Wikipedia articles are You referring to? Sorry, but having been over two (2) months ago, and too lazy to read again, I forget.

Agreed, many people stick to old nomenclature, or hint it somehow, and it often makes most sense to. Take the Heterodon nasicus (Western Hognose) complex as a perfect example: it used to be H. n. nasicus (nominate species); H. n. gloydi (Dusty Hognose); and H. n. kennerlyi (Mexican Hognose). As of 2004, I believe, all subspecies status was done away with, and the Western and Dusty were merged into simply H. nasicus, and the Mexican Hognose granted its own species status as H. kennerlyi. Yet some still refer to a Heterodon "gloydi" nasicus phase of the Western Hognose.

Anyway, yeah, We old-schoolers can't change sometimes, or We do so ever so slowly. But not changing and remaining stagnant "just because", or because We simply don't like change and/or are just stubborn (and not accepting) is just ridiculous and irrational IF the changes make sense. Now, in the case of Elaphe/Pantherophis, the changes aren't exactly justified, I further agree, and therefore people who stick to old nomenclature don't bother me. Sometimes, even, it's best to hyphenate or slash new and old names like I did in the preceding sentence, at least in initial conversation, so all parties can make the link/connection.

Thanks for acknowledging and responding to my post!! I thought it was a good topic, heh.

Sincerely,
Timothy
-----
T.J. Gould