I am just getting into the Latin names.

I know my Elaphe and my Lampropeltis LOL! Colubrids rule

I posted pics of the Eastern Wormsnake I found! And of the baby salamanders' progress... Did you see them? If I see anything else, I will definitely do my best to share photos!

__________________
Amy

Bulls and Gophers are the same thing...I think they have another common name that escapes me right now...

Either way around here we call them Gopher Snakes. One of my favorite natives because they are so docile, the let you pick them up and they will just stay wrapped around your arm for hours on a cool day. I guess the promise of warmth outweighs the fear of being eaten.

__________________

"If you're not falling, you're not trying." - Sonni Trotter

~*~Lacey~*~

My Photos

Pituophis has gone through so many changes, I have a hard time keeping up, lol. The way I think it goes, is that it used to be gopher snakes were mostly various subspecies of P. catenifer, the bullsnake being one of them (P. catenifer sayi). Pine snakes (the other name Lacey was thinking of) were P. melanoleucus.

From what I understand, most have now been condensed into P. melanoleucus, with the Pacific gopher snake (the former type species of P. catenifer) becoming P. melanoleucus catenifer and the bullsnake becoming P. melanoleucus sayi.

Lacey gets great basin gopher snakes in her area, which would have formerly been P. catenifer deserticola and are now P. melanoleucus deserticola. Basically there used to be a difference between pine, gopher, and bullsnakes, and though there still is, it's less defined, with all of them now being subspecies of the pine snake. Lacey's area sees no bullsnakes though.

I could possibly have my research backward too, in which case they all USED to be pine snakes, but are now divided. I think at one point in time the bullsnake was even it's own species, P. sayi, but don't quote me on that. I haven't done any research on the genus since Lacey first took that picture and haven't done any extensive reading on it in years.

EDIT: 4/2008
Disregard my statements that the genus had been condensed. The Pituophis Page is actually correct, and as I was afraid, I had my information backwards P. catenifer USED to be a part of P. melanoleucus, but was split some time ago.

__________________
+5 bonus points to whoever finds me a job!

"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." - John Benfield

Man, that IS confusing!

Is the Fox Snake wrapped up in this as well?

Nope, fox snakes are wrapped in their own blanket of confusion. They're part of what used to be Elaphe (rat snakes), but Elaphe's gone through far more extensive changes than Pituophis has. Western fox snakes might now be Pantherophis vulpina, rather than Elaphe, or they could be something new, Elaphe's still under the microscope. The eastern fox snake is a separate species, Pantherophis (Elaphe?) gloydi.

The Pantherophis/ Elaphe split is supposed to separate the New World rat snakes from Old World rat snakes, but since there is also some differences even among the New World rat snakes, not all New World Elaphe are being considered for Pantherophis (such as Bogertrophis). Corn snakes are still under debate I believe, and I'm not sure if they're a subspecies or their own species yet. I don't even know if they're Pantherophis or not, lol.

__________________
+5 bonus points to whoever finds me a job!

"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." - John Benfield

Thank you for that extensive write-up. Seriously.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about taxonomy. Taxonomy is in great change right now for a number of reasons, the most important because it is being restructured from the Linnaean system of taxonomy, which it has been historically and from years when evolution was not known, to a system based on Phylogenetic relationships (evolutionary histories) of clades (like groups of species/genera). The reason why as time goes on more and more changes are taking place is because more and more phylogenies are being made because of more and better access to DNA technologies, which show these phylogenetic relationships.

After the phylogenies are made for a set group of reptiles and amphibians, there will be less change for it, but for now, from the outside, it appears like it is out of control, but there is a system to the apparent madness. Changes are not made for the sake of change. Change must be on the basis of evidence. No evidence or not enough evidence- the species or genus in question will be back where it was. This happens occasionally, but peer review stops most of this.

Cheers,
Michael

Matt explained it marvelously, as usual. In the meanwhile, I found the Pituophis page (don´t know if it is updated), that may complement Matt´s words: The Pituophis Page - The Online Reference Guide to Snakes of the Genus Pituophis

__________________
Regards,
Joao

That's a good site for illustrating it, but it looks like it's a bit outdated (1998). It's showing the way it used to be. It has them all divided into separate genera.
And I may have explained the "what" portion, but Michael explained the "why" very well

EDIT: 4/2008
Disregard my statements that the genus had been condensed. The Pituophis Page is actually correct, and as I was afraid, I had my information backwards P. catenifer USED to be a part of P. melanoleucus, but was split some time ago.

__________________
+5 bonus points to whoever finds me a job!

"Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines." - John Benfield