HE first attempt to allocate the name Coluber eques Reuss (1834: 152155, pl. 8, fig. 2) was that of Boulenger (1893: 209), who attached it to a series of specimens (actually several closely related species and subspecies were included) from various localities over a considerable area in southwestern United States and Mexico. In his admirable monograph of the genus Thamnophis, Ruthven (1908: 158-164) followed, with refinement, Boulenger's allocation. Smith later did the same (1942: 106-108), with, however, an expression of doubt based upon Reuss' illustration, which did not depict characters of the species to which the name had been allocated in the past. This doubt ultimately has proved well founded, thanks to the foresight and considerateness of Mr. K. P. Schmidt, who obtained a photograph (P1. I) of Reuss' type of Coluber eques (Senckenberg Mus. No. 7209a) and took certain critical data, all of which he generously turned over to me. The type of Coluber eques is a female with 155 ventrals, 25 + caudals, 23-21-19-17 scale rows, and a sharply defined lateral light stripe on scale rows 3 and 4. These data unquestionably demonstrate that the name has been misapplied in the past and actually belongs to the species currently known as Thamnophis subcarinata (Gray, 1839), which name T. eques antedates and replaces. The oldest name referable to the species previously known as T. eques is Eutaenia cyrtopsis Kennicott, 1860. Three lines of evidence provide conclusive information regarding the subspecific identity of Coluber eques. The two subspecies of T. subcarinata currently recognized (T. s. subcarinata and T. s. megalops) differ as a whole solely in ventral and caudal counts. Since the type of C. eques has an incomplete tail, the ventral count is the only significant character remaining. In females of T. s. subcarinata, 39 percent (28) of 72 counts are 155 or less; in T. s. megalops, only 10 percent (4) of 40 counts are as low as 155. Accordingly, on this basis, the type of C. eques is more likely referable to the subspecies T. s. subcarinata than to T. s. megalops. The lower figures in ventral counts occur in about the same frequency in all parts of the range of T. s. subcarinata, however, and thus give no clue to the general area the type may represent. Of greater significance, although not useful as a key character because of its limited geographic occurrence, is the pattern represented by the type found in this species only in the subspecies T. s. subcarinata. Ruthven (loc. cit.) and Brumwell (1939: 426-427) have described pattern groups in this species. The type of C. eques corresponds perfectly with Ruthven's third group (from Chalco, Mexico), and with Brumwell's second group (from La Quemada, Jalisco). Both groups represent the southern subspecies (T. s. subcarinata). The pattern apparently does not occur in the northern subspecies. Again this character yields no dependable clue to the geographic provenance of the type of C. eques. Furthermore, on the basis of probability of access in the early 1800's, the southern subspecies is much more to be expected.
Read full abstract