Reptile & Amphibian Forums

While scrolling through some herp data bases I found a Heterodon species named Heterodon gloydi. After some more research I found that it was proposed as first a species, then a sub species of Heterodon nascius, to be Heterodon nascius gloydi but isn't recognized. I was wandering if anyone here knows some more about the history of the arrival and dismissal of the idea of Heterodon gloydi. Just some about the history for the purpose of reading, not about the generalized rules and what not of nomenclature like some may go on and on about instead of addressing the subject of Heterodon gloydi itself. If anyone knows anything more that was going on around the discussion of this as a species, or has any old journal links etc that have stuff about it, that would be great.

Pulled my old copy of" Wright's Handbook of Snakes" published in 1957 and it states "In December, 1952, RA Edgren (1952) published his synopsis of Heterodon. He recognized a new form, H. n. gloydi.". There was no mention at all about gloydi's natural history in the "Handbook". Just a few notes on distribution. Do not know when gloydi was lumped with H. n. nasicus. Interesting, nasicus ranges from north central Illinois to Montana, south to Arizona. Must be doing something right to be so widespread. I do not know if Mexican hognoses is still a valid species, a subspecies of nasicus or just synonymy with nasicus.

Well crap. Just gets more confusing. Some field guides still recognize gloydi as valid subspecies, some do not. Common name is dusky hognose. And not sure about Mexican hog. Is it considered a valid species? Regardless, pretty cool little animals that have been highly successful. Probably something to do with the fact that they occur in lowly populated western US. That and the fact that they're often underground in pretty harsh habitat. Impact of humans on eastern snake species much more devastating. Too many people, not enough land.

I believe that the mexican hognose is a subspecies. Modern phylo-genetics classes it as a subspecies as far as I am aware. The only real difference is minor color morphology, maybe a few scales but not that I can remember, though I don't work with Heterodon nascius sp. or live where H. n. nascius and H. n. kennerlyi overlap. Even by old terms it occupies the same niche and has an overlapping range with H. n. nascius which also occupies the same niche, and they are capable of interbreeding, which is enough for "original phylogeny" to be happy.

With how much discrepancy there is as to whether either gloydi or kennerlyi are their own, I am going to go with they are subspecies of H. nascius nascius. At least until I find an article that provides sufficient DNA evidence, as is the basis with modern phylogenetics, to determine Heterodon nascius kennerlyi or Heterodon nascius gloydi as anything more than a subspecies.

I don't know about gloydi, but I asked a similar question regarding the differences between H. nasicus nasicus and H.n. kennerlyi in a previous post. As of yet I don't believe that there have been any DNA comparison between H.n.n and H.n.k. I believe they are separated based on physical appearance alone w/ H.n.k.being the smaller of the two, and having 6 head scales as opposed to H.n.n.'s 3. I don't know if anyone is doing studies in the locales in TX and NM where their ranges possibly overlap. Oh, to have time, gas and alot grant money. Happy herping.

reako45

Heterodon gloydi is not a valid species. It is not even a valid subspecies anymore. In fact, Heterodon nasicus nasicus is no longer valid because there are no subspecies. Heterodon "gloydi" has been absorbed into Heterodon nasicus and Heterodon kennerlyi has been granted full species status and 100% valid.

So the Latin/scientific name for Wester Hogs is simply H. nasicus and Mexican Hogs are simply H. kennerlyi.

reako45

That is correct.

Hi Gregg, my computer crashed, so I would have to look up that paper describing Kenneryli. But, its not a clear species, in fact, the authors called them semi species. As the two characters that are different, the azygous and loreals. Had a difference, one was clinal, which indicates, they are the same, the other was not, which indicate, they are different.
But both these animals and Gloydi, are old style morphology. Which means, as soon as someone applies Mtdna to this group, it will change all of this. So there is no sense arguing about what is no longer valid. My bet is, there will be many many species in this group. Best wishes