Field Guide Reference
The table below shows a comparison of scientific and common names of Missouri amphibians and reptiles for this project compared to two different field guides: Johnson's The Amphibians and Reptiles of Missouri (2000) and Conant and Collins' A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians: Eastern and Central North America (1998). Currently recognized names for this project are from Crother et al. (2012). The chosen common name represents the most restrictive name available and refers to the variety found within the state of Missouri. If two or more subspecies are recognized in the state, the species common name was used. Click on the column headings to sort by that column. See the Species History page for a discussion about scientific and common name changes. Click here to show all species.
Notes
- 1 Lemmon et al. (2008) described this cryptic species of trilling chorus frog from the interior highlands based on genetic differentiation and call characteristics. This species was formerly assigned to Pseudacris triseriata or P. feriarum.
- 2 Johnson (2000) did not recognize these species as part of the current state herpetofauna and included them only as species of possible occurrence. Since 2000, two of these species, Clonophis kirtlandii and Heterodon gloydi have been rediscovered in the state.
- 3 Crother et al. (2011) determined that fox snakes represented two distinct haplotypes separated by the Mississippi River and past glaciation events. They applied the name Pantherophis ramspotti to the western haplotype. Previously, all Missouri specimens were assigned to P. vulpinus.
- 4 Kubatko et al. (2011) determined that massasauga subspecies in Missouri represented two distinct species. Known extant populations were assigned to the species Sistrurus tergeminus while the poplations in the eastern part of the state, likely extirpated, retained the name Sistrurus catenatus.
- 5 Pyron and Burbrink (2009) hypothesized the historical Mississippi River a phylogenetic boundary between speckled kingsnakes, previously known from Missouri, and black kingsnakes. Black kingsnakes were subsequently discovered, and confirmed with genetic analysis, in southeast Missouri (Edmond and Daniel 2014).
- 6 This species is not native to Missouri. Thus far, non-native reptiles in Missouri have only been found in urban areas and do not appear to constitute a threat to our native herpetofauna. This is not the case everywhere and non-native species that become invasive are considered by many biologists to be a major threat, second only to habitat loss, to our native species. Care should be taken to prevent the spread of this and all non-native species. Furthermore, it is illegal to release non-native species into the environment.
Literature Cited
- , and . 1998. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians. Eastern and Central North America. (3rd ed., Expanded) Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 616p.
- , , , , , and . 2011. Reevaluation of the Status of the Foxsnakes Pantherophis gloydi Conant and P. vulpinus Baird and Girard (Lepidosauria). ISRN Zoology 2011 (Article ID 436049):15.
- (chair, Committee on Standard English and Scientific Names) 2012. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America, North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding. (7th ed.) SSAR Herpetological Circular (39): 101p.
- and . 2014. A New Kingsnake for Missouri and Some Comments on the Biogeography of Southeast Missouri. Missouri Herpetological Association Newsletter 27: 18-21.
- 2000. The amphibians and reptiles of Missouri. (2nd ed.) Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 400p.
- , , and 2011. Inferring Species-Level Phylogenies and Taxonomic Distinctiveness Using Multilocus Data in Sistrurus Rattlesnakes. Systematic Biology 60(4): 393-409.
- Zootaxa. 1675: pp. 1-30. , , , and . 2008. A New North American Chorus Frog Species (Pseudacris: Hylidae: Amphibia) from the South-Central United States.
- , and . 2009. Systematics of the Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula; Serpentes: Colubridae) and the burden of heritage in taxonomy. Zootaxa 2241:22-32.