Lumping subspecies together

[rubbertoes]

So rat snakes were grouped into 3 species a few years ago, western, central, and eastern. a similar thing was recently done with watersnakes, particularly nerodia erythrogaster. all the different subspecies of erythrogaster are now one species. do you guys agree or disagree with it? i personally disagree just because i prefer more individuality, although i have read several research papers and i undersand why they did it.

[FWK]

This is the paper from 2002 that first proposed taking New World Rat Snakes out of the genus Elaphe and resurrecting Pantherophis:

Molecular systematics and phylogeny of Old and New World ratsnakes, Elaphe Auct., and related genera (Reptilia, Squamata, Colubridae)

This is the landmark paper published in 2007 building on the changes proposed in the paper above:

How and when did Old World rat snakes disperse into the New World?

This paper from 2009 provided additional support for some of these changes:

Neogene diversification and taxonomic stability in the snake tribe Lampropeltini (Serpentes: Colubridae)

To summarize the currently recognized New World Rat Snake scientific nomenclature to the best of my understanding (I am still trying to wrap my head around all of this, there is a massive amount of data in those papers and it may as well be in a foreign language to me. Learning as I go.):

The Black Rat complex:
Western Rat Snakes (Pantherophis obsoletus) are found west of the Mississippi River.
Midland Rat Snakes (P. spiloides) are found between the Mississippi River and the Appalachian Mountains.
Eastern Rat Snakes (P. alleghaniensis) are found east of the Appalachian Mountains.

Former Black Rat subspecies no longer recognized and included in the species listed above:
Black Rat Snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta)
Texas Rat Snake (E. o. lindheimeri)
Gray Rat Snake (E. o. spiloides)
Yellow Rat Snake (E. o. quadrivittata)
Everglades Rat Snake (E. o. rossalleni)

Other New World Rat Snake species now in the genus Pantherophis:

Baird's Rat Snake: P. bairdi, formerly E. bairdi
Corn Snake: P. guttata, formerly E. guttata
Slowinski's Corn Snake: P. slowinskii, formerly E. guttata
Emory's Rat Snake: P. emoryi, formerly E. g. emoryi
Western Fox Snake: P. vulpinus, formerly E. vulpina vulpina
Eastern Fox Snake: P. gloydi, formerly E. v. gloydi

If I missed anything please correct me. I'll post about Water Snakes (Nerodia sp.) tomorrow after work, it is getting late and I'm tired. The Rat Snake changes proposed in the papers I listed here are widely accepted at this time, though there does seem to be some controversy still. I'm just a hobbyist, I'll let the scientific types duke it out over the details.

[rubbertoes]

Yeah, that really clarified stuff for me on the rat snakes, thanks alot! i can understand putting stuff like grey, black, and texas together, but what about yellow and everglades? Those have completely dofferent patterns as adults. I will try to find a link about nerodia. i have it somewhere

[rubbertoes]

Phylogeographic analysis and environmental niche modeling of the plain-bellied watersnake (Nerodia erythrogaster) reveals low levels of genetic and ecological differentiation. This is for the water snakes.

[RAD House]

Classifying species based on pattern and coloring was necessary in the past as there was not better methods to group animals. With better understanding of genetic factors like isolation and more importantly genetic markers classifying animals in such a manner is a disservice to science.

[FWK]

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

Classifying species based on pattern and coloring was necessary in the past as there was not better methods to group animals. With better understanding of genetic factors like isolation and more importantly genetic markers classifying animals in such a manner is a disservice to science.

Exactly. But there has been heavy resistance to many of the changes being brought about by molecular taxonomy, especially from older herpers who have spent many years memorizing dozens and dozens of subspecies that are being erased. I have heard rumblings from people far more educated than me on these things that some of the recent research has been rushed and not thoroughly executed, but like I said I'll leave the details to them.

Originally Posted by rubbertoes

Phylogeographic analysis and environmental niche modeling of the plain-bellied watersnake (Nerodia erythrogaster) reveals low levels of genetic and ecological differentiation. This is for the water snakes.

As far as I know N. erythrogaster is the only Water Snake species to get a recent full-scale review. I'm hoping to see N. fasciata and N. sipedon looked at one of these days, I expect to see those subspecies go away as well.

A few more I've read recently:
Considering gene flow when using coalescent methods to delimit lineages of North American pitvipers of the genus Agkistrodon - Proposes changes for Copperheads and Cottonmouths.

Testing monophyly without well-supported gene trees: Evidence from multi-locus nuclear data conflicts with existing taxonomy in the snake tribe Thamnophiini - Proposes changes for Crayfish Snakes and Earth Snakes, including genus changes.

PHYLOGEOGRAPHY OF NORTHERN POPULATIONS OF THE BLACKTAILED RATTLESNAKE (CROTALUS MOLOSSUS BAIRD AND GIRARD, 1853), WITH THE REVALIDATION OF C. ORNATUS HALLOWELL, 1854 - Proposes changes for Blacktail Rattlesnakes.

The Trimorphodon biscutatus (Squamata: Colubridae) Species Complex Revisited: A Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Geographic Variation - Proposes changes for Lyre Snakes.

Coalescent Species Delimitation in Milksnakes (Genus Lampropeltis) and Impacts on Phylogenetic Comparative Analyses - Proposes changes for Milksnakes.

Systematics of the Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula; Serpentes: Colubridae) and the burden of heritage in taxonomy - Proposes changes for Kingsnakes.

The last two have been met with major resistance, they have been the subjects of countless heated debates on many herping forums. If y'all have any links, especially to species review/reclassification type papers, please share.

[jjhill001]

I feel that even though they might all be the same species, the simple fact of the matter is that these are different snakes in my mind. There has always been debate with some of them. IE, yellow vs everglades and emorys vs corns, bairds vs texas etc.

However, if someone sells you a corn snake and sends you a fox snake you are gonna be pretty ticked off. The older herpers are annoyed by it because many of them have worked to make sure that their lines are clean and pure to whichever particular subspecies they may be working with. And now there is something there saying that they are all just keeping Black Rat snakes.

I am one of those people who can appreciate locality specimens and think that all of these subspecies are distinctly different. Are they all different species? No, am I happy to say that I have a Baird's Rat Snake and not just a "Rat Snake". Yes.

Regardless of what the scientific community thinks it is in the best interest of the hobby to consider these to be different snakes in the same way that we don't consider a pug to be the same thing as a golden retriever. They are both the same animal but both have vastly different activity levels, personalities and habits.

[RAD House]

A pug and a golden retriever have been the same species for a long time without any adverse effects on people selling them. Science in no way should bend to how people in the hobby feel. The fact of the matter is no matter how you twist it Science is more relevant than the hobby.

[FWK]

Originally Posted by jjhill001

I feel that even though they might all be the same species, the simple fact of the matter is that these are different snakes in my mind. There has always been debate with some of them. IE, yellow vs everglades and emorys vs corns, bairds vs texas etc.

However, if someone sells you a corn snake and sends you a fox snake you are gonna be pretty ticked off. The older herpers are annoyed by it because many of them have worked to make sure that their lines are clean and pure to whichever particular subspecies they may be working with. And now there is something there saying that they are all just keeping Black Rat snakes.

I am one of those people who can appreciate locality specimens and think that all of these subspecies are distinctly different. Are they all different species? No, am I happy to say that I have a Baird's Rat Snake and not just a "Rat Snake". Yes.

Regardless of what the scientific community thinks it is in the best interest of the hobby to consider these to be different snakes in the same way that we don't consider a pug to be the same thing as a golden retriever. They are both the same animal but both have vastly different activity levels, personalities and habits.

No one is suggesting that Baird's and Texas (Western) Rats Snakes are the same species. Nor are Foxes and Corns, or even Corns or Emory's. In fact, prior to the paper published in 2007 linked above, there was one species of Corn Snake, E. guttata and one subspecies, E. g. emoryi (Emory's). Now it is recognized that Emory's (P. emoryi) are a genetically distinct species and that there are two genetically distinct species of Corn Snakes, P. guttata and P. slowinskii.

I certainly agree with you that locality specimens can be appreciated, same as Corn Snake morphs can be appreciated. But nobody is going to argue that a Corn Snake that carries the albino gene should be recognized as a separate subspecies just because it is a different color.

[rubbertoes]

Originally Posted by jjhill001

I feel that even though they might all be the same species, the simple fact of the matter is that these are different snakes in my mind. There has always been debate with some of them. IE, yellow vs everglades and emorys vs corns, bairds vs texas etc.

However, if someone sells you a corn snake and sends you a fox snake you are gonna be pretty ticked off. The older herpers are annoyed by it because many of them have worked to make sure that their lines are clean and pure to whichever particular subspecies they may be working with. And now there is something there saying that they are all just keeping Black Rat snakes.

I am one of those people who can appreciate locality specimens and think that all of these subspecies are distinctly different. Are they all different species? No, am I happy to say that I have a Baird's Rat Snake and not just a "Rat Snake". Yes.

Regardless of what the scientific community thinks it is in the best interest of the hobby to consider these to be different snakes in the same way that we don't consider a pug to be the same thing as a golden retriever. They are both the same animal but both have vastly different activity levels, personalities and habits.

This. I understand why they are making these changes but regardless of what scientists decide, i will still think of them as different species. Like if i have been finding "old" black rat snakes all my life, and i find a grey, im still gonna consider the grey a lifer.

[RAD House]

Originally Posted by rubbertoes

This. I understand why they are making these changes but regardless of what scientists decide, i will still think of them as different species. Like if i have been finding "old" black rat snakes all my life, and i find a grey, im still gonna consider the grey a lifer.

That's fine but then you can't use the word species to describe your animals. Species is a very well defined and researched designation where as there is really no control of common names. Use common names as you would like.

[jjhill001]

Originally Posted by FWK

No one is suggesting that Baird's and Texas (Western) Rats Snakes are the same species. Nor are Foxes and Corns, or even Corns or Emory's. In fact, prior to the paper published in 2007 linked above, there was one species of Corn Snake, E. guttata and one subspecies, E. g. emoryi (Emory's). Now it is recognized that Emory's (P. emoryi) are a genetically distinct species and that there are two genetically distinct species of Corn Snakes, P. guttata and P. slowinskii.

I certainly agree with you that locality specimens can be appreciated, same as Corn Snake morphs can be appreciated. But nobody is going to argue that a Corn Snake that carries the albino gene should be recognized as a separate subspecies just because it is a different color.

I was just saying those were comparisons and arguments in some of the older Rat Snake care books from the library I read as a kid. I am not saying that just because something is a different color that it's a different species.

[jjhill001]

Originally Posted by MesoCorney

A pug and a golden retriever have been the same species for a long time without any adverse effects on people selling them. Science in no way should bend to how people in the hobby feel. The fact of the matter is no matter how you twist it Science is more relevant than the hobby.

However it hasn't stopped people in the dog world from crossing the breeds. Now in the dog world pure bred animals have turned into a weird thing with mutated sick animals.

But in our hobby I fear people just breeding (for example) texas rats and black rats justifying it as they are the same species, then when no one wants them they will just call them whichever species the offspring most resembles and try and pass them off as a morph or fake locality.

I just think it's important to honor the natural history of these now former subspecies.

[RAD House]

Originally Posted by jjhill001

However it hasn't stopped people in the dog world from crossing the breeds. Now in the dog world pure bred animals have turned into a weird thing with mutated sick animals.

But in our hobby I fear people just breeding (for example) texas rats and black rats justifying it as they are the same species, then when no one wants them they will just call them whichever species the offspring most resembles and try and pass them off as a morph or fake locality.

I just think it's important to honor the natural history of these now former subspecies.

Dogs have become sick mutated weird things because people become obsessed with creating pure lines with little consideration for genetic health. The market is run by demand not by people denying science because it does not fit to their beliefs. What you are talking about comes down to you taking the responsibility to find quality animals from a quality breeder. By attacking scientific progress as harmful to the hobby you are hurting both science and the hobby. Unfortunately people will breed crap as long as it can make them money. Your energy would be far better spent talking about the importance of responsible breeding than trying to counter act scientist who have put countless hours of work to better understand these animals. It is in no way natural history if it was incorrectly designated by humans with not enough information.