| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| loarie | Big Bend Patchnose Snake (Subspecies Salvadora hexalepis deserticola) |
elevate to species? |
Nov. 13, 2019 22:46:25 +0000 | loarie |
see comments |
Comments
No, I am in agreement w that one and never thought the it fit inside Salvadora hexalepis.
Looking at the Reptile Database entry, it does not appear this elevation of deserticola is based on new research but perhaps just new interpretation of previously presented data. This is one of those taxa that seems to have gone back and forth. The SSAR checklist by Crother et al. (2017) questioned the original justification for elevation by Bogert & Degenhardt (1961) and suggested waiting on new data before a decision is made to (re)elevate. I personally have no preference but would like to see clarification on what Reptile Database based their decision on.
OK thanks @jnstuart , unfortunately I committed the taxon page after I heard from @gtsalmon but before you wrote:
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxon_changes?change_group=Salvadora+hexalepis+swing-split
hope thats ok - would be nice to improve the protocol for how to discuss when we should keep in sync with RD and when we should intentionally depart
@loarie -- Again, I have no strong opinion either way. Although Reptile Database is a good reference for such decisions, I also look to the SSAR list for their opinion, even though that publication is mainly for standardized English names and is not presented as an official taxonomic reference (but often viewed that way). I assume iNat mainly relies on Reptile Database for taxonomy?
Apologize for being short of words and definition in my last entry. I agree w everything that @jnstuart has said here. Most authors including Dixon (2013) in Texas and Degenhardt et. al., 1996 in NM agree with Bogert and Degenhardt, 1961 where it was elevated to species level. Of course, now I see that the junior author on one is the first author on the other (only referencing Bogert's name in the text of the account of S. deserticola in the NM reference). Being now Texas-centric, I frequently defer to Dixon's scholarly work but note that the Stebbbins FG 2003 continued to carry deserticola as a subspecies of S. hexalepis. How to tell the difference in an observation image is then left to appearance and range and when that range is in say Arizona (example: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/3045452) and in an area of possible overlap it would then be left with the rather typical orange stripe of the desericola, and some other visual cues, which may not be sufficient to base a species to species ID on. I have seen S. hexalepis and S. deserticola throughout their ranges but do not know exactly where they divide and something as tenuous as a color difference (as we often deal with in making visual identifications) may not enough to go on. It would be an educated guess on an ID which would probably be correct but its a different matter in the actual taxonomic difference.
Secondly according to A Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Sonora, Rorabaugh and Lemos-Espinal, 2016, there are some facial scale differences (loreals, supralabial scales), and habitat differences (not as high in elevation as S. grahamiae and not in the desert lowlands as S. hexalepis). Visually there are differences in color and pattern but are hard to articulate. Given the recent published works, I do believe there are three different species and recognizing Salvadora deserticola is appropriate, but I had to get out a lot of references.
Perhaps @wild-about-texas could offer some opinion here.
Reptiles Database elevates Salvadora hexalepis deserticola to species (Salvadora deserticola), we're currently deviating.
But any objection to following Reptile Database @wild-about-texas @gtsalmon?