: I think the article in Evolution was the DNA part of the article I mentioned also by Burbrink (and others).
: As i read the article their is enough evidence to show that the previous taxonomy is wrong, as you the variation among the former subspecies are so great, that you cannot tell them apart for sure, without knowing the exact locality of origin. This is also one of the reasons why many scientist no longer use the subspeciesterm.
On the other hand, while dumping everything in E. obsoleta as separate subspecies results in having subspecies that can be difficult or impossible to identify with certainty without knowing their origin, splitting E. obsoleta into three new species results is having species that can be difficult or impossible to identify with certainty without knowing their origin. Instead of not being sure whether a snake is E. o. lindheimeri or E. o. spiloides, you end up not being sure whether that snake is E. obsoleta, E. alleghaniensis, or E. spiloides! Unfortunately I am unable to read the paper in Herpetological Monographs at the moment, as that issue of H. M. is out for binding repair at the biology library, but I've got the Evolution paper, and, so far as I can tell, considering the clades he shows based on his mtDNA data to be separate species will result in morphologically identical populations that belong to different species... so far as usefulness in describing morphological variation, and usefulness in identification based on morphological features, leaving E. obsoleta as a single species is clearly the better of the two possibilities.
: I think we have to get used to the new taxonomy, whether we like it or not. And this probably will mean that many amateur herpetologist will have to rename the animals they are keeping/breeding.
Nah... E. o. deckerti, E. o. williamsi, E. o. rossalleni, and E. o. lindheimeri were done away with back in the '50's, but E. o. rossalleni and E. o. lindheimeri are still in common use, with E. o. williamsi and E. o. deckerti still showing up occasionally.
