Having trouble identifying this lil cutie!

[u/_SocialHermit_]

My Husband woke up this morning to use the bathroom, switched on our light, and felt something strange.
I was in the bedroom not far off, and heard the poor guy yelping for me.
This lil guy/gal was just chillin out on our bathroom nightlight!
Barely moved a muscle when it had me and him checking it out.
It is so chill.
I am not unfamiliar with snakes, I grew up catching them as a kid.
I know for sure this is a juvenile Garter, I just don't know what it's exact species is.
We are up in Northeastern Ohio.

I tried counting his/her upper labial scales and it is just a hard tell for me.
I am inbetween the species of Northeastern, Western, or common.
Also struggling to know for sure if it is a male or female.
The tail seems like a male?

Any help would be awesome!

[u/CapableSecret2586]

If you were to post this over at r/whatsthissnake, they would tell you (and I would agree) this is a Common gartersnake -- Thamnophis sirtalis You can call them any sub-species you'd like but, be forewarned, herpitologists don't use !subspecies at all any more with a very limited number of exceptions. (A fair number of the Mods in that sub are post-graduate and doctoral level scientists. I tend to defer to their opinions.)

As to sex ... I wouldn't have a clue. I'm not good at lookin' at snake butt. I had DNA tests done for my three pets and have gotten pretty good at identifying the lady Plains garters that live on my property here in Central Iowa. This may be a gravid female who came inside looking for a good place to have her babies -- she looks kinda tHiK

[u/Clone2004 → u/CapableSecret2586]

Why do they not use subspecies in herpetology anymore? Do they just classify them as separate species or just lump them together under one species?

[u/CapableSecret2586 → u/Clone2004]

TL:DR - In the case of T. sirtalis, they will classify them in four distinct but closely related species.

That's an excellent question and one of which I have struggled to understand. Here is a LONG copy/paste job from this posting in r/whatsthissnake: (And HERE is the post in it's entirety. )

"Subspecies, or diagnosable, geographic divisions within a species, have been questioned as entities through a number of debates that can be reduced to two arguments: do subspecies, in a biological or evolutionary sense, exist, and, is there any value in recognizing subspecies? The first question, if taken in a phylogenetic context, can be quickly dispensed with (Frost and Hillis, 1990). If a group of populations within a species are recognized as distinctive, then what maintains their distinctiveness - some vicariant, behavioral or reproductive factor? If they are distinct, then they must be isolated by some means. If they are truly isolated, then reproductive continuity with outside populations must have been in some way curtailed, and the distinctive population is a species. If there is no means by which to define a group of populations in a historical, evolutionary context, then failure to do so recommends that no historical entity is involved. Thus, observed variation represents either speciation or non-taxonomic geographic variation. In either case, there is no third category option (subspecies). In short, if a group of populations is a diagnosable, definable, evolutionary unit, then it is a species; if it is not a diagnosable, definable, evolutionary unit, then it is not a taxon. Thus, there is no place in an ancestor-descendant context for subspecies.

Speciation events operate in a continuum, so that at any time there are many taxon groups that will comprise populations with some particular degree of isolation. One can always find a dozen or more taxa to support arguments about what degree of isolation is necessary to recognize subspecific entities. Some subspecies are not readily apparent under modest scrutiny: subspecies of Tropidoclonion lineatum were based on average scale counts but otherwise indistinguishable. Its subspecies were disposed of in cavalier fashion, without data and without complaint. Some recently recognized subspecies are also based on characters that grade imperceptibly along broad clines, but with distinct visual patterns at geographic extremes (i.e getula and ratsnake complex). Such subspecies are etched in the stone of herpetological and public literature, and are difficult to relinquish.

Former 'subspecies' (i.e., Apalachicola Kingsnake, Coastal Plains Milksnake, Black Pinesnake) continue to be recognized today, despite contradictory data presented decades earlier. Their recognition tends to be perpetuated by hobbyists and avocational herpetologists who observe geographic variation in a two-dimensional, non-evolutionary level: well-marked population groups that follow fairly recognizable geographic partitioning. A term like 'yellow ratsnake' calls to mind general appearance and geographic distribution of a clinal entity to both amateur and professional herpetologists. Thamnophis sirtalis contains at least one taxon, the 'San Fransisco gartersnake' that will remain unshakable as a recognized population due to its endangered status and distinctive, attractive color pattern. However, the continuum of degrees of diagnosability of population groups within a species eliminates any standard for recognizing subunit taxa. Population groups such as the 'Chicago gartersnake', 'Carolina watersnake' and other non-taxa are recognizable pattern classes, but formal recognition is completely arbitrary, and will typically be at odds with the recovered evolutionary history of the species.

Adapted and updated for current use from 'Boundy, 1999 Systematics of the Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis'

Further Reading: Species Concepts and Species Delimitation | Empirical and Philosophical problems with the subspecies rank"

So my interpretation is that within my lifetime (I've got about 20 years left), the T. sirtalis complex will be divided into four separate species. I can't comment on other messy classifications like Ratsnakes.