![]() Consequently, reclassification schemes are being examined. (2002) and Burbrink and Lawson (2007), it seems clear that North American Elaphe (new world ratsnakes), as formerly classified, would comprise a paraphyletic genus. For example, given the recent phylogenetic examinations of Utiger et al. The taxonomic designation of the Foxsnake remains unsettled, however, both on the specific level (see Genetic Description), and on the generic level. Nevertheless, this taxonomic change (Eastern Foxsnake = E. gloydi) was recognized in Crother (2001), which standardized names for North American herpetofauna, and has been adopted by federal and provincial agencies in Canada. The taxonomic change was not without its detractors, however, as Cook (1991) suggested that splitting the western and eastern forms into two distinct species would obscure important zoogeographic relationships. This proposal was majority approved by a North American snake taxonomy group composed of John E. Cadle, Brian I. Gloyd.īecause the distributions of the Western and Eastern Foxsnakes are allopatric (likely since the end of the Wisconsin glaciation) with no evidence of gene exchange, and are distinct based on external morphology, Collins (1991) recommended that the Eastern Foxsnake be designated a full species, E. gloydi. The eastern form was named to honour the American herpetologist H. Second, those familiar with both foxsnake and fox odours have commented that they bear little resemblance to each other (J. First, because the specimen originally described by Baird and Girard (1853) was preserved, and was collected by a Reverend Charles Fox, it is more probable that the species name was intended as a Latin translation of the collector’s name (Conant 1940, Rivard 1979, F. However, this seems unlikely due to two factors. The Latin name vulpina (= fox) has been reported by many authors to derive from the fox-like musk which the snake exudes when disturbed. ![]() However, there is no completely reliable morphological separation and the best distinction is simply that their ranges do not overlap (Harding, 1997). ![]() Morphologically, the only “distinguishing” feature is the number of dorsal blotches: the Western Foxsnake with 32–52 (mean = 41) and the Eastern Foxsnake with fewer and larger dorsal blotches, 28–43 (mean = 35) (Ernst and Barbour 1989, Harding 1997). As a result of these differences, and because the eastern and western forms were geographically separated, Conant (1940) described two subspecies: the Western Foxsnake (Elaphe vulpina vulpina) and the Eastern Foxsnake (E. v. Conant (1940) described the foxsnake throughout its range and concluded that specimens from eastern localities differed from the typical western variety in both habitat and colour pattern.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |