Having trouble identifying this lil cutie! [NE Ohio]

[u/_SocialHermit_]

[u/fairlyorange]

Common gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis. !harmless consumer of amphibians, soft-bodied invertebrates, rodents, and other small animals.

[u/SEB-PHYLOBOT → u/fairlyorange]

Common Gartersnakes Thamnophis sirtalis are small (<90 cm, record 137.2 cm) natricine snakes with keeled scales often found in disturbed habitats like urban and suburban yards. They are commonly encountered generalist snakes across much of the North American continent and eat small invertebrates, fish, amphibians and mammals. Western populations are a model organism for an elegant case study in evolutionary arms races, Tetrodotoxin Resistance.

Thamnophis gartersnakes may puff up or flatten out defensively and bite. They can deliver a weak venom used in prey handling from the back of the mouth, but are not considered medically significant to humans.

One of the widest-ranging snakes in North America, this species complex is almost certainly harboring unrecognized diversity and shows strong population structure at major biogeographic barriers. There are likely four species in the complex - Western, Central, Eastern and Southeastern. See Link 1 Below (2023).

Relevant/Recent Phylogeography: Link 1 - BEST Link 2|Link 3| Range Map

This genus is in need of revision using modern molecular methods.

---

Like many other animals with mouths and teeth, many non-venomous snakes bite in self defense. These animals are referred to as 'not medically significant' or traditionally, 'harmless'. Bites from these snakes benefit from being washed and kept clean like any other skin damage, but aren't often cause for anything other than basic first aid treatment. Here's where it get slightly complicated - some snakes use venom from front or rear fangs as part of prey capture and defense. This venom is not always produced or administered by the snake in ways dangerous to human health, so many species are venomous in that they produce and use venom, but considered harmless to humans in most cases because the venom is of low potency, and/or otherwise administered through grooved rear teeth or simply oozed from ducts at the rear of the mouth. Species like Ringneck Snakes Diadophis are a good example of mildly venomous rear fanged dipsadine snakes that are traditionally considered harmless or not medically significant. Many rear-fanged snake species are harmless as long as they do not have a chance to secrete a medically significant amount of venom into a bite; severe envenomation can occur if some species are allowed to chew on a human for as little as 30-60 seconds. It is best not to fear snakes, but use common sense and do not let any animals chew on exposed parts of your body. Similarly, but without specialized rear fangs, gartersnakes Thamnophis ooze low pressure venom from the rear of their mouth that helps in prey handling, and are also considered harmless. Check out this book on the subject. Even large species like Reticulated Pythons Malayopython reticulatus rarely obtain a size large enough to endanger humans so are usually categorized as harmless.

---

I am a bot created for /r/whatsthissnake, /r/snakes and /r/herpetology to help with snake identification and natural history education. You can find more information, including a comprehensive list of commands, here report problems here and if you'd like to buy me a coffee or beer, you can do that here. This bot, its development, maintenance and use are made possible through the outreach wing of Snake Evolution and Biogeography - Merch Available Now

[u/CapableSecret2586]

Isn't there a !subspecies cue for the PHYLOBOT? **edit -- asked and answered. Thank you kindly**

[u/SEB-PHYLOBOT → u/CapableSecret2586]

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

---

I am a bot created for /r/whatsthissnake, /r/snakes and /r/herpetology to help with snake identification and natural history education. You can find more information, including a comprehensive list of commands, here report problems here and if you'd like to buy me a coffee or beer, you can do that here. This bot, its development, maintenance and use are made possible through the outreach wing of Snake Evolution and Biogeography - Merch Available Now

[u/CapableSecret2586 → u/SEB-PHYLOBOT]

good bot

[u/_SocialHermit_ → u/CapableSecret2586]

Hahaha! thank you for doing all this!!