A CHECK LIST OF NORTH AMERICAN AMPHIRIANS AND REPTILES BY LEONHARD STEJNEGER AND THOMAS BARBOUR FIFTH EDITION COPYRIGHT, 1917, 1923, 1933, in39iiiirl 1943 BY THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE «iUL 291843•) PRINTED FOR THE L'NIVERSITY CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U.S.A. SEP 22 1843 I I B H A « "1, Mrs. Gaige suggests the following changes ; SEP 2lj 1943 Dear Sir : It has just been called to my attention that, by some unexplainable oversight the entry of Sceloporus umlulatus undulatus has been omitted from the Checklist. The final citation should be to the paper by H. M. Smith in Occ. Papers, Mus. Zool., Univ. of Mich., no. 387, Oct. 31, 1938, p. 7. Type locality: Charleston, South Carolina. Range: Coastal areas from southeastern Louisiana across the basal half of the Florida Peninsula to central South Carolina. \'ery truly, T. B. l.S','. Coluber iaeiiialus rnthveiii: .San Luis Potosi & Michoacan. Smith, Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci., 39 (<>), 1941 : 388-98. l+.'i. Jjimnrnnellis iiliertta: Coahuila. Smith. Cooeia ("i). 1941 : lii. Dear Sir: Mr. Roger Conant calls to my attention another oversight, the omission of Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma (Troost), Gloyd and Conant, Bull. Chicago Acad. Sci., Vol. 7, No. 2, 1943, p. 164. Type locality: Western Tennessee. Range : The valley of the Rio Grande (Mouth of Devil's River and Eagle Pass) and the Gulf Coastal Plain of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, eastward at least to the vicinity of Mobile, Alabama; north in the Mississippi Valley through western Tennessee to southern Illinois, and west as far as Miller County, Missouri, and eastern Oklahoma. Very truly, T. B. t^) * 22 1843 I B R * «Jt Mrs. Gaige suggests the following changes : se of revision. 12. Range of Ambystoma I. tigrinum in need = /. 13. Amhystoma ligrluum xhiteri Dunn J. melanosiictum (Baird). Bishop, Copeia (4-), lO^^: 2.56. should be 4.4.. Authority for Biifo -icoodhousii foicleri Hinckley. (References reversed in press (in errore).) 5i. Authority for Faun areolata circulnsa should be Rice and Davis, according to (loin & Netting. be revised. 60. Rjuige of Raiia sijlvatica cantahrigeiisis should Cruz S. 61. Gastrophryrie olivacea: Pena Blanca Spr., Santa Co., Arizona (Campbell, Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool., Univ. Mich., 289, 1934: 6-7) and Noria, Sonora (Morrow Allen, ibid., 1933: 3). Taylor also reports it from Coahuila & Durango. n. e. California. 68. Crotap/ii/lus col/arix baileyi: Lassen Co., Fitch, Herpetologica, 1 (6), 1939: 131-2. I'niv. Sci. 78. Sreloporus jarrovii Jarrovii. See Smith, Kans. Bull., 24-, 1938: 62 t. 132. Coluber laetiialus nithveiii: San Luis Potosi & Michoacan. Smith, Jouni. Wash. Acad. Sci., 39 (9), 19^1: 388-98. 1911 : 12. 145. Lampropellix alterna: Coahuila. Smith, Copeia (2), 154. Sonora occipitalis occipitalis (Hallowell): California, Riverside, Cos. Clark San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Kern, Inyo ; Nevada, & Cos. Co. ; Arizona, Mohave Maricopa S. o. anniilata (Baird): California, Imperial it San Diego Cos.; Arizona, Maricopa Co. Pima & Pinal loc. S. 0. klanberi, n. subsp. ; Arizona, Cos., type Tucson. Stickel, Bull. Chi. Acad. Sci., 6 (7), 1941 : 135-140, Pis. appeared too late for inclusion. 168. Thamnophis macrostemma (Kennicott) has precedence over mega- 1939: 15-35. lops Smith, Zool. Ser. Field Mus. N. H., 24, Chi- 177. Tantilla nigriceps nigriceps: Rio Santa Maria, near Progreso, huahua, & T. n.fumiceps: Mier, Tamaulipas. Smith, Zoologica, 27 (7), 1942: 38-9. Errata found by T. Barbour page vi. Seventh line from bottom: Substitute 'of'' for "or." 18. Plethodon idahoensis Slater and Slipp : Tj'pe locality should be Kootenai Co. 44. Bitfo xcnodhousii foxcleri Baile.v and Bailey: Add Jan. 1941 to reference. 90. Streptosaurus : "(Genera)" should be "(Genus)." 114. NeocepA- reynohlsl Stejneorer: Range: Alochua" should be "Alachua." 143. Pitiiopliis melaiioleuctis ruthveni StuU : Type locality: Substitute Parish" for County." " 163. Footnote: Substitute taeniata for fasciata." 218. Ambystoma: Cal'{fornien.se" should be cal{foniienxe.'^ Postscript T. Barbour A message received but an hour ago tells me that since February 28th Leonhard Stejneger has gone and left but the shadow of his great name. He was the heir of virile knightly a hardy and race ; a viking in the great tradition. This is no place to set forth his magnificent record of achievement, the simplicity of his character nor the versatility of his agile mind. It is but to say that for me a new and sadder day has da\\'ned which will onlv close when I close mv own eves for the last time. Coconut Grove, Florida INTRODUCTION TO FIFTH EDITION The senior author feels that "Rev^iewing genera has hitely become a fashion and when carefully and competently done is a good fashion. ]\Iany of the modern revisionists have be- come infected with the nazi formcnkreis or rassenkreis idea, and that may not be such a bad fashion either if the search for true relationship and affinity is carried out in its legiti- mate field which is phylogeny and not taxonomy. Speculat- ing al)out ])hylogeny of an aggregation of so-called species and subsj)ecies is an interesting occupation and has often hccii of great j)rofit to the taxonomist. But when the phylogenists begin to play with the nomenclature and want to express their (often very tenuous, sometimes fant^istic) ideas in the names, then goodbye to stability of nomenclature which we have been sweating for all these years. Smith's nomenclature in I he Sceloporus difsparilis group is a shining example. "Now that may be all right in special papers over their own signatures. They are resj)onsible for their own ideas and have a right to express them, but the case is entirely di tie rent with a check-list. "A check-list should not be made the means of propaga?ida for anybody's phylogenetic imaginations. Its object is to give its users a key to the normal taxonomic status of the named forms and their geographic distribution. And for this purpose a name is a name and its main function is to give a handle to the form (species, subspecies, race) we are talking about. And for that purpose, in my opinion Scelopo- rus disparilis is just as good as Sceloporus m. disparilis or Sceloporus g. disparilis, so why not leave it that way until others but J. and S. agree about the m. and the g? For if in VI INTRODUCTION such a case J. and S. agree does that of necessity follow that Nature agrees? "With regard to Smith's notes about the distribution of S. graciosus and hiseriatus I have no data to the contrary. Blanchard identified some specimens which Dr. Mearns collected at Ft. Hancock, Texas as hiseriatus, but as far as I can see they are consobrinus." I am glad to have this opportunity to quote from a letter which says so concisely just what my own opinion long has been though I have never expressed it so well. The only reason for bringing out a new edition of the Checklist now is the fact that there has been an increase in herpetological activity apparently in some degree activated by the appearance of each edition of this list and that was certainly never more true than when the fourth edition ap- peared. The number of additions and rectifications have been so great as to necessitate practically making the list de novo. For doing a vast deal of work in this connection I have to thank Miss H. M. Robinson who has devoted an enormous amount of painstaking care to this task. Many others have also been very helpful. As usual Mrs. F. M. Gaige has contributed a list of suggested changes or range and a number of details I had not caught myself. Messrs. M. B. Mittleman and A. B. Grobman have also supplied a great number of welcome details. Doctor A. F. Carr, Jr. and Mr. Coleman Goin have given me a vast amount of in- formation regarding new data on ranges in Florida. All these have my warmest and deepest thanks. T. B. INTRODUCTION TO FOURTH EDITION We have, in the previous introductions, at least been candid in trying to set forth the manner in which we have made these check Hsts and it is for that reason that we reprint them. There are obviously three methods of making a check list. 1. The first method is that which has been used by Gerrit S. Miller, which follows published information without ex- ercising personal judgment. This is certainly a defensible method. 2. The American Ornithologists' Union Check List is prepared another way altogether. Here a committee, in some instances quite a large committee, has met from time to time and sat in judgment on all kinds and conditions of cases, with more or less success. 3. The third method is that which we have followed. A friend writes, "You get no criticism in the first method. I don't know what happens in the second. But you get a — of a lot of criticism by your method." I suppose that we should feel worried about this and perhaps very penitent, but we don't. While there is perhaps no reason to doubt that the welkin is ringing with curses on our evil ways, our friends have been kind and have generally pointed their loud speakers away from both Washington and Cambridge. So we have simply made the best list which we know how to make. There is, by our method, also inev^itably a good deal of give and take, for naturally no two authors see quite eye to eye on every point. We have had, however, no friction between ourselves and, as might be expected, the junior author has usually acquiesced to the preferences of the senior author, except in cases where he really cared and in those the senior author has been very patient and pliant.