224 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 Case 3012 Coluber infernalis B]ainville, 1835 and Eutaenia sirtalis tetrataenia Cope in Yarrow, 1875 (currently Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis and T. s. tetrataenia; Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the subspecific names by the designation of a neotype for T. s. infernalis Sean J. Barry Section ofEvolution and Ecologv. Universitv ofCalifornia, Davis. California 95616. U.S.A. (Present address: Rowe Program in Genetics, Tapper Hall, University of California. Davis, California 95616. U.S.A.) (e-mail: [email protected]) Mark R. Jennings National Biological Service. California Science Center, Piedras Blancas Research Station, P.O. Box 70. San Simeon. California 93452. U.S.A. and Research Associate. Department ofHerpetology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park. San Francisco. California 94118, U.S.A. (e-mail: [email protected]) Abstract.The purpose ofthis application is to conserve the usage ofthe subspecific namesof Thamnophissirtalis infernalis(Blainville, 1835) forthe California red-sided gartersnake(familycolubridae) which is found along theCaliforniancoast, and of T. s. tetrataenia (Cope in Yarrow. 1875) for the San Francisco garter snake from the restricted area of the San Francisco Peninsula. It is possible that the holotype of T. s. infernalis is a specimen of T. s. tetrataenia. formally rendering the name tetrataenia a junior synonym of infernalis. It is proposed that the holotype of infernalis be set aside and a neotype designated in accord with accustomed usage. Keywords. Nomenclature; ta.xonomy; Reptilia; Squamata; colubridae; California red-sided garter snake; San Francisco garter snake; Thamnophis sirtalis infernahs; Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia: California. 1. In 1835 Blainville (pp. 291-292, pi. 26, figs. 3, 3a) described Coluber infernalis, a garter snake, from a specimen collected by Paolo Emilio Botta in 1827 or 1828 MNHN (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, catalog no. 846) from an indeterminatelocalityinCalifornia. Baird &Girard(1853, p. 26)and Bocourt(1892, p. 40) subsequently placed C. infernalis in Eutaenia Baird & Girard. 1853. Van Denburgh & Slevin (1918, p. 198) treated iifeniaUs as a subspecies of Thanmophis sirtalis(Linnaeus. 1758).and Fitch (1941) restricted thedistribution ofT. .v. infernalis to the Pacific coast region ofCalifornia, based on Botta's supposed collecting sites and on consistent taxonomic differences between coastal and interior or northern T sirtalis. Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 225 2. In 1875 Cope (in Yarrow, p. 546) described Eutaenia sinalis leiraiaenia sufficiently to make the name available. No locality or specimens were mentioned, but laterin the same yearCope's Checklist ofNorth American BatrachiaandReptilia was published and recorded (1875, p. 41) that tetratacnia had been collected from Pitt (Pit) River, northeastern California. Yarrow (1883, p. 128) and Cope (1892, p. 665; 1900, p. 1081) listed E. s. leiraiaenia and recorded two specimens from "Pitt River, Cal.' (catalogued as no. 866 in the National Museum of Natural History, USNM Washington; renumbered 21383, 21384); the specimens are labeled as collected by Dr J.S. Newberry (see Fitch, 1941, p. 581; Fox, 1951, p. 259). Unlike these, a third specimen from Puget Sound, Washington, listed by Cope(1892, 1900), is probably not an original syntype (see Fitch, 1941, pp. 584-585; Fox, 1951, pp. 258-259). Garman (1883) included letrataenia in E. s. parieialis. and Bocourt (1892) and Van Denburgh & Slevin (1918, p. 199) included it in E. (Thamnophis) s. infernalis. Fitch (1941, pp. 581-585) showed that the distinctive red-striped color patterns ofthe syntypes of T. s. teirataenia were unlike the patterns ofany T. sinalis obtained since Newberry's time from the Pit River, but could not explain the origin ofthe syntypes. He resurrected teirataenia as the valid name for the Pit River and similar populations because they differed taxonomically from the California coast T. sinalisinfernalis.and(pp. 581, 585)designatedspecimen USNM 21384,whichwas probablythat figuredbyCope(1900, p. 1080,fig, 305), asthelectotypeofteirataenia. Fox (1951) discovered populations of distinctively-striped T. sinalis, identical to Cope's 'Pitt River' E. s. teirataenia. on the San Francisco Peninsula of northern California, andcitedexpedition records to show that Newberry had remainedin San Franciscoandcollected vigorously whiletherestoftheexpedition traveled to the Pit River. Fox (1951, pp. 260-264) then reassigned the name T. s. teirataenia to the population of T. sinalis which occupies the San Francisco Peninsula, excluding the San Francisco Peninsula population from the coastal T. .v. infernalis. and renamed the inland populations (which had been called T. s. teirataenia by Fitch, 1941) as T. s.fitchi. 3. Fornearly 50 years, since themystery ofthe provenance ofCope's (in Yarrow, 1875) T. s. teirataeniawassolved, thenomenclatureofthesubspeciesofT. sinalishas remained stable. With theexception ofBoundy& Rossman (1995; see para. 5 below) and Rossman, Ford & Seigel (1996), all authors known to us have adopted Fitch's (1941) taxonomic arrangement for T. s. infernalis and T. i. teirataenia with Fox's (1951) locality restrictions (i.e. infernalis from the Pacific coast and teirataenia from the San Francisco Peninsula). 4. The literature in which the name T. s. teirataenia appears is voluminous and diverse. We have deposited with the Commission Secretariat a representative list of 127 titles that have appeared since Fox's (1951) revision, only about a quarter of whicharetechnicalbooksand papers. Numerousfieldguides(forexample, Stebbins, 1985), popular accounts (for example, Mattison, 1988), general textbooks (for example, Storer, Usinger, Stebbins&Nybakken. 1972),majornewspaperarticles(for example. Smith, 1978), legal publications (for example, California Department of Fish and Game, 1993), and particularly papers and books from the conservation literature (for example, Thelander & Crabtree, 1994) discuss T. s. letrataenia as an inhabitant solely of the San Francisco Peninsula, and much ofthe same literature refersto T. s. infernalisasanallopatricform thatdoesnotoccurontheSan Francisco 226 Bullelin ofZoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 Peninsula. Furthermore, literature citations of (San Francisco Peninsula) T. s. tetrataeniahaveincreaseddramaticallyduringthepast25yearsbecauseofincreasing popular/conservationist interest. The name telrataenia is established in national (Allen. 1988) and international legislation for the protection of the San Francisco Peninsula subspecies(1993, IVorldchecklistofthreatenedamphibiansandreptiles:and 1996, Red List ofThreatenedAnimals). 5. Boundy& Rossman(1995)showedthat theholotypeofT. s. m/erna/w(MNHN 846 in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris) is similar in coloration to Cope's (in Yarrow, 1875) E. s. tetrataenia. They demonstrated by color pattern evaluation that this specimen may have originated on the San Francisco Peninsula, which was within reach of Botta's (MS) recorded collecting sites. On this basis, Boundy & Rossman (1995) proposed that tetrataenia be treated asajuniorsynonym of infernalis, that the name infernalis be restricted to the San Francisco Peninsula snake population, and that the California coast subspecies of7". sirtalis(exclusive of the San Francisco Peninsula snakes), hitherto called infernalis, be included in T. s. coneinnns Hallowell, 1852, which iscurrently applied to the red-headed subspeciesof T. sirtalis of coastal Oregon. This last proposal is based solely on the red head characteristicofT. s. eoncinnusand T. s. infernalis(andCope's T. s. tetrataenia), and is not based on any published systematic re-evaluation. 6. Adoption of the rearrangement of the subspecific names for western garter snakesproposedby Boundy& Rossman(1995)wouldsignificantlyand unnecessarily affect well-established nomenclature, would confuse the lay audience (which is very interestedin T. s. tetrataeniabecauseofitsendangeredstatus),andwouldcomplicate conservationprogramsfor T. s. tetrataenia. Weproposethatthecurrent usageofthe name T. s. tetrataenia(CopeinYarrow, 1875)beretained on thebasisofthe regular, frequent and unambiguous usage since 1951, summarized in the list held by the Secretariat. Wealso proposethat thecurrent usageofT. s. infernalis. following Fitch (1941), be retained because we feel that the same arguments for nomenclatural stability that support the retention of 7". 5. tetrataenia rightly apply to the current usageof7". s. itifernalis. Synonymylistspublished by Fitch(1941, p. 585)andby Fox (1951, p. 260) demonstrate that no name other than infernalis is available for the California coast subspeciesofT. sirtalis. (The name Eutaenia imperialiswas included bybothauthorsbut isanomennudum. ItwaspublishedinthesynonymyofEutaenia proximaby Coues & Yarrow, 1878, and was based on a subadult specimen, USNM 864, ofT. s. iitfernalis). Thecurrent usageofT. s. infernaliscan be retained bysetting MNHN aside the type status ofthe holotype 846 and designating a neotype that is consistent with Fitch's (1941) diagnosis ofthe subspecies. This action would remove infernalis from the synonymy oftetrataenia, so allowing the usages ofboth names to continue. 7. We propose that the specimen 39197 in the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, be designated as the neotype of T. .s-. infernalis. This is a male, collectedbyJoseph RichardSlevin at PacificGrove, MontereyCounty,California, in May 1914. Thespecimen was figured and fully described by Van Denburgh & Slevin (1918, p. 201, pi. 7)asatypical specimen ofT. .v. infernalis. Fitch (1941) included this specimen in hisevaluation anddiagnosis ofT. s. infernalis and thus this was the first specimenofT. .v. infernalissensu Fitch(1941)withaccuratelocalitydatatobefigured and described under that name. Furthermore, the locality is sufficiently distant from Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 55(4) December 1998 227 theSan FranciscoPeninsulatoeliminateanyconfusionwith T. s. letraiaenia.andour examination ofthe specimen confirms that it does not overlap Cope's (in Yarrow, 1875) concept of T. s. tetrataenia. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations oftype specimens forthe nominal species Coluber infernalis Blainville, 1835 and to designatethe male specimen, catalog no. 39197 in the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, as the neotype; (2) toplaceon theOfficial List ofSpecific Names in Zoologythefollowingnames: (a) infernalis Blainville, 1835, as published in the binomen Coluber infernalis and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above; (b) tetrataenia Cope in Yarrow, 1875, as published in the trinomen Eutaenia sirtalis tetrataenia, and as defined by the lectotype USNM 21384 in the United States National Museum, Washington, D.C.. designated by Fitch (1941). Acknowledgements We thank the curatorial staff of the California Academy of Sciences for the opportunity to examine specimen material, and the special collections librarians at Shields and Bancroft Libraries, University of California, Davis and Berkeley (respectively) for the opportunity to examine historical references. References Allen,W.B.,Jr. 1988. Statelistsofendangeredandthreatenedspeciesofreptilesandamphibians including laws and regulations ofeach slate, iv, 86 pp. Chicago Herpetological Society, Chicago. Baird, S.F. & Girard, C. 1853. Catalogue ofNorth American reptiles in the museum ofthe Smithsonian Institution, part 1 (Serpents). Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. 2(5): 1-72. Blainville,H.D.de. 1835. DescriptiondequelquesespecesdereptilesdelaCalifornie,precedee de I'analyse d'un system general d'erpetologie et d'amphibiologie. Nouvelles Annates du Museum d'Hisloire Naturelle. Paris, (3)4: 233-296. Bocourt, M.-F. 1892. Note sur la variabilite dans le nombre de plaques cephaliques chez certains ophidiens. Bulletin de la Sociele Zoologic/ue de France, 17: 40-41. Botta, P.E. MS, holograph 1826-1829. The Bancroft Library, University of California. Berkeley. Boundy,J.& Rossman,D.A. 1995. Allocationandstatusofthegartersnake Coluberinfernalis Blainville, Eutaenia sirtalis tetrataenia Cope, and Eutaenia imperialis Coues & Yarrow. Copeia, 1995(1): 236-240. California Department of Fish and Came. 1993. California sportfishing regulations. Effective March 1. 1994 through February29. 1996. 40 pp. StateofCalifornia. Resources Agency, California Department ofFish and Game, Sacramento, California. Cope, E.D. 1875. Checklist ofthe North American Batrachia and Reptilia; with a systematic list of the higher groups, and an essay on geographical distribution, based on the specimens in the U.S. National Museum. Bulletinofthe UnitedStales NationalMuseum, 1: 1-104. Cope, E.D. 1892. A critical review of the characters and variations of the snakes of North America. Proceedings ofthe UnitedStates National Museum, 14; 589-694. Cope,E.D. 1900.Thecrocodilians.lizards,andsnakesofNorthAmerica. Reportofthe United States National Museum, 1898: 150-1294. 228 Bullelin ofZoological Nomenclature 55|4) December 1998 Coues, E. & Yarrow, H. 1878. Noteson the heipctology ofDakota and Montana. Bullelin of the UnitedStates Geologicaland GeographicalSarvey ofthe Territories. 4: 589-694. Fitch,H.S. 1941.Geographicvariationingartersnakesofthespecies Thamnophissirtalisinthe Pacific Coast region ofNorth America. American MidlandNaturalist. 26(3): 570-592. Fox, W. 1951. The status ofthe gartersnake Thamnophissirtalis lelrataenia. Copeia. 1951(4): 257-267. Carman,S. 1883. The reptilesand batrachians ofNorthAmerica. Memoirsofthe Museum of Comparative Zoology. 8: 1-85. lUCN& ConservationInternational. 1996. 1996lUCNRedListofthreatenedanimals. 70, 368. 10 pp. Gland & Washington. D.C. Mattison, C. 1988. Keepingandbreedingsnakes. 184 pp. Blandford Press. London. Rossman, D..\., Ford, N.B. & Seigel, R.A. 1996. Thegartersnakes: evolutionandecology, xx, 332 pp. University ofOklahoma. Norman. Oklahoma. Smith,M. 1978. Asnakecalled San Francisco. SanFranciscoSundayExaminerandChronicle. Supplement, p. 12. 12 March 1978. Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Ed. 2. xiv, 336 pp. Houghton Mifflin. Boston. Storer, T.I., Usinger, R., Stebbins, R.C. & Nybakken, J.W. 1972. Generalzoology, Ed. 5. ix, 899 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York. Thelander, C.G. & Crabtree, M. (Eds.). 1994. Life on the edge: a guide to California's eiutangerednaturalresources: wildlife, xvi. 550 pp. Biosystems, Santa Cruz, California. Van Denburgh, J. & Slevin, J.R. 1918. The garter snakes of western North America. Proceedings ofthe California .icademy ofSciences. (4)8: 181-270. World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 1993. World checklist ofthreatened amphibians and reptiles, vi, 99 pp. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Peterborough. Yarrow, H.C. 1875. Report upon thecollections ofbatrachiansand reptilesmade in portions ofNevada.Utah.California.Colorado.NewMexico,andArizona,duringtheyears 1871, 1872, 1873 and 1874. Pp. 509-584 in Engineer Dept., U.S.A. (Ed.), Report upon geographicalandgeologicale.xptorationsandsurveys west ofthe one hundredth meridian, vol. 5 (Zoology), part 4. Yarrow, H.C. 1882. Check list ofNorth American Reptilia and Batrachia with catalogue of specimens in the U.S. National Museum. Bulletin ofthe UnitedStatesNationalMuseum, 24: 1-249. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bullelin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary. I.C.Z.N.. c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road. London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(ajnhm.ac.uk).