but do you hold with pjay that we should, until further evidence appears, regard "elaphe obsoleta" as 4 species simply because burbink, et al have described them as such . . . or do you stick with your own conclusions based on their paper - that they haven't convinced you yet, and you're waiting on more data?
see, that's my point - some would have you use any names published until someone counter publishes to refute the name change, regardless of whether or not the data really supports this name change.