Great Basin Naturalist Volume 56 Number 3 Article 16 7-26-1996 Snakes of Utah by Douglas C. Cox and Wilmer W. Tanner Andrew H. Barnum Dixie College, St. George, Utah Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Barnum, Andrew H. (1996) "Snakes of Utah by Douglas C. Cox and Wilmer W. Tanner," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 56 : No. 3 , Article 16. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol56/iss3/16 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Great Basin Naturalist 56(3), © 1996, pp. 283-285 BOOK REVIEW Snakes of Utah. Douglas C. Cox aud Wilmer would be more useful if a caption were shown W. Tanner; Mark Philbrick, photography. by the other photographs throughout the text, Monte L. Beau Life Science Museum, Brig­ e.g., the photo opposite page 1 aud those shown ham Young University, Provo, UT. 1996. on pages 3, 4, 5, 8. The herpetologist will $17.95 softcover. probably recognize these without caption, but, as stated, it's likely these specialists will not be Snakes of Utah, anticipated for some time, the primary users of the text. Identification of is finally available for distribution. This book­ snakes by these photographs may not be obvi­ let (92 total pages) includes all known species ous to most readers. Most photos show colors aud subspecies of snakes found in the state, aud patterns of snakes, but a few, such as the with brief descriptions, habits, and habitats, full view of the Upper Basin garter snake on along with colored photographs ofeacb. While page 59, do not show these identifiable fea­ most people will likely shudder at the thougbt tures. It's interesting that the only snake not ofsnakes, especially while viewing photographs, represented by a photo of the entire body is the enthusiast will recognize the value of the the Sonoran lyre snake on page 67. One won­ illustrations aud other published information. ders why. Perhaps it's because this snake is Generally, the booklet is written in nonscien­ "considered to be rare." However, the Dixie tific language, but it also includes some scien­ College Natural Science Museum contains tific notations. For instance, scientific names records of7 specimens, 2 having been found in and authorities ofthe 33 species aud subspecies, what is now considered "downtown" St. George, along with common names, are included for 1 specimen as recently as 1980. It seems likely each. Of interest (perhaps only to the special­ that with a little effort, one ofthese "rare" snakes ist) is the fact that only 2 binomials are found might have been found. The photo ofthe Utah among all Utah snakes; 31 are trinomials. It blind snake on page 17 is a surprise. Of the might be concluded that, because of subspeci­ several dozen blind snakes observed by this ation, only 27 kinds ofsnakes are found in Utah. writer, representing localities from the Red To the general public, a night snake is a night Cliffs Recreation Area near Leeds, Washing­ snake, a garter snake is a garter snake, and a ton County, to the extreme northwest corner rattlesnake is a rattlesnake. Herpetologists have of Arizona, not 1 specimen even approached named subspecies for practically all snakes, this dark phase. They have all been a pale tan compounding one's knowledge ofthese auimals. color, frequently shOWing a suffusion of pink. Technically, where closely related subspecies Another important contribution ofthis book­ show sympatric distribution, there should be let is the distribution maps included with each intergradation between the 2 types. Most indi­ species along with the general aud sometimes viduals using this booklet will probably not specific distribution of the snake within the recognize differences between related sub­ state. While it is difficult to show accuracy on species found especially in these sympatric a small map, some maps are erroneous. For regions. If intergrades are not present, then instance, the distribution ofthe Painted Desert these should be elevated to species aud not kept glossy snake is "in the extreme southeastern as subspecies. Little information is found in the sector of the state, adjacent to northeastern booklet on intergradation ofcharacteristics. Arizona" (page 40). The map, however, shows it An important contribution of this booklet is is found more south central than southeastern. the colored photographs. While not captioned, An inconsistency from text to map is also most photographs are obvious because they are observed with the California king snake (page shown on the page opposite the name and other 46). If this snake occurs "from the southwest information on that snake. This publication corner east to the Colorado River," why does 283 284 GREAT BASIN NATURALIST [Volume 56 the distributional map extend considerably The writer wonders at the importance of beyond the Colorado River along the San]uan the full page of illustrations (page 13) showing Hiver? Nothing in the text is speculative of a scaIation with so little reference to most of these range extension. The maps of the Utah moun­ features in descriptions. Some of these features tain king snake (page 48) and the Utah milk arc referenced; most are not. snake (page 50) do not accurately depict their While full pages ofcolor separate groups of known distributions in \Vashington County. snakes, does this mean that Joshua trees are On page 60, of the western blackneck garter characteristic of the distribution of tbe Utah snake, the text states "its northernmost habitat blind snake? Although the illustration on page is associated with streams. ,. in the regions of 18 may be typical of the habitat of the rubber southeastern Utah." The map shows its distri~ boa in Utah, and on page 72 of the habitat of hution into cast central Utah. Reference is some of the rattlesnakes, does the illustration made to a ground snake having been collected on page 22 depict tbe typical distribution of in Carbon County, far from its knmvn range, the colubrids? Perhaps these "division pages" and this area is shown on the map. Might this were added merely for color; nevertheless, they specimen have been one that escaped or was are attractive. released fi'om captivity? (Reports have been The authors ofthe booklet include a number made of individuals transporting this snake of interesting anthropomorphisms, perhaps from the St. George area, where it is common, intentionally, Some of these are noted: (1) In to elsewhere in the state.) There is speculation the introduction, the statement is made (page that the Utah blackhead snake "may occur fur­ 5) that "the snake employs rocks and brush to ther north in Emery and Carbon Counties." snag the skin and hold it while the snake crawls (The proposed expansion is not shown on the out." One wonders if the snake does this inten­ map,) Why might it not, then, be found in tionally, (2) "Denning is a behavior pattern that Wayne County and perhaps even San Juan and provides the snake with an opportunity to Grand counties? If the midget faded rattle­ come in contact with other snakes of the same snake is found at Flaming Gorge, why does the species" (page 6). (3) Ofthe rubber boa, "it will map not show distribution in that area? often cling likc a bracelet and seem to enjoy it Wbile it would add to the length ofthe text, as much as tbe person" (page 20). (4) The it would have been better had the authors given statement is made about the western yellow­ complete distribution ranges for all species belly racer (page 28) that "it will attempt to bite and subspecies, rather than just a few. A snake if it feels at all threatened." (5) Another exam­ doesn't recognize a political boundary as being ple is that rattlesnakes use the rattle "as a its limits! However, it could be reasoned, if the warning device to intimidate other animals distribution extends to the Utah boundary, the that may harm the snake" (page 75). occurrence of that snake would also be in the Miscellaneous errors or inconsistencies in neighhoring state. narrative, grammatical or otherwise, are found. The full-page map ofthe state ofUtah (page The introduction, for instance, discusses tall 11) is a good addition to the text. However, tales and folklore of the American West. Tbis with the number ofsnakes found only in Utah's booklet is, ofcourse, about snakes ofone region Mojave Desert, this feature might have been of the American West, but tall tales and folk­ identiHed along with the others. In the geo­ lore-even some of the same stories heard in graphical and ecological descriptions of Utah the American West-are repeated wherever (pages 9-10), considerable discussion is given snakes are found. about montane regions, some at high eleva­ On pages 4 and 5 the statement is made tions, yet little is written about the low, hot that "the mouth is the most universally used desert or the higher, cold desert, although the weapon employed by snakes in self-defense." authors admit to the richness of reptile fauna, The emphasis is obvious because the accom­ especially in the low, hot desert, the south­ panying text is about self-defense, but snakes western region of the state. usc their mouths more often as a means of In addition to these other features, Snakes obtaining food. Also, in the introduction, the of Utah includes both glossary, though not statement is made that "these studies and our inclusive of all technical words used in the museum program help them to understand." text, and index.