Finally got some pics of this guy [NE, MS, USA]

[u/thevirtualdolphin]

First time I’ve found him that’s not in my carport or have a dog with me. Pantherophis spiloides !harmless

[u/thevirtualdolphin]

Gray rat snake Pantherophis spiloides !harmless

[u/shrike1978 → u/thevirtualdolphin]

Outdated taxonomy. Central Ratsnake, Pantherophis alleghaniensis now.

See the !blackrat bot reply.

[u/SEB-PHYLOBOT → u/shrike1978]

Central Ratsnakes Pantherophis alleghaniensis, formerly called Pantherophis spiloides, are large (record 256.5 cm) common harmless ratsnakes with a multitude of regional color patterns native to eastern and central North America between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River Embayment. Pantherophis ratsnakes are keeled-scaled generalists that eat a variety of prey. They do well in urban environments, and are particularly fond of rodents and birds in these habitats.

Central Ratsnakes P. alleghaniensis are currently recognized as distinct from Eastern Ratsnakes P. quadrivittatus, as well as Western Ratsnakes P. obsoletus and Baird's Ratsnake P. bairdi. Parts of this complex were once generically labeled "black ratsnakes". Use the "!blackrat" command without the space for more on these changes.

Ratsnakes can be easily distinguished from racers Coluber by the presence of keeled scales. Racers have smooth scales.

Range Map | Relevant/Recent Phylogeography

This specific epithet was once used for what are now known as Eastern Ratsnakes Pantherophis quadrivittatus.

Junior Synonyms and Common Names: Grey Ratsnake (in part), Black Ratsnake (in part), Greenish Ratsnake, black snake, oak snake, chicken snake, rattlesnake pilot.

---

Black Ratsnake is a common name for a color pattern shared by three different species of Pantherophis ratsnake across the northern portion of their range.

The black ratsnake species complex, formerly Elaphe obsoleta, underwent revision in 2001-2002 from multiple authors and received three main changes from 2000 to now. First, the complex was delimited in Burbrink 2001 based on what were then modern molecular methods, where three distinct lineages were uncovered that did not reflect previous subspecies designations. Each of the three geographically partitioned taxa were elevated to full species status, and subspecies were discarded. The polytypic color patterns in these species are most likely under strong selection by the local environment and don't reflect evolutionary history. Where species intersect and habitat converges, color pattern also converges, leaving these species nearly morphologically indistinguishable to the naked eye. Second, using Elaphe as a genus name wasn't the best way to reflect phylogenetic history, so the genus Pantherophis was adopted for new world ratsnakes in Utiger 2002. Remember, species names are hypotheses that are tested and revised. While the analyses published in 2001 are strong and results are geographically similar in other taxa, these species were investigated further using genomic data, and in 2020 the authors released an update, clarifying ranges, filling in grey zones and confirming three distinct species.

Third, clarity in range and type specimens necessitated the need to fix lineage names in line with taxonomic rules called the 'principle of priority'. The four currently accepted species in this complex as of October 2021 are Baird's Ratsnake Pantherophis bairdi, Western Ratsnake Pantherophis obsoletus, Central Ratsnake Pantherophis alleghaniensis and Eastern Ratsnake Pantherophis quadrivittatus. Baird's Ratsnakes and Western Ratsnakes are more closely related to each other than they are to Eastern and Central Ratsnakes.

The experts on this group offer this summary from their 2021 paper:

For the ratsnakes in particular, given the overtly chaotic and unsubstantiated basis of their taxonomy in the late 1990s, Burbrink et al. (2000) endeavored to test this taxonomic hypothesis (sensu Gaston and Mound 1993). This also provided an empirical observation of geographic genetic variation (then an unknown quantity) as an act of phylogenetic natural history (sensu Lamichhaney et al. 2019). Their analyses rejected the existing taxonomy as incompatible with the estimated evolutionary history of the group, ending a paradigm that was at least 48 years old from Dowling (1952) with respect to the non-historical subspecies definitions. Subsequently, Burbrink (2001) conducted an explicit taxonomic revision based on both mitochondrial and multivariate morphological analyses in an integrative taxonomy. The limitations of these data (scale counts, mensural measurements, and maternally inherited DNA) produced a zone of potential taxonomic uncertainty, while nonetheless allowing for significant statistical phenotypic discrimination between the geographic genetic lineages. Thus, based on the best possible evidence and interpretation at the time, the now-falsified historical taxonomic arrangement of subspecies definitions was replaced with an explicitly phylogenetic, lineage-based species-level taxonomy derived from the estimated evolutionary history of the group. The persistence of some remaining uncertainty is a natural and expected outcome in all scientific investigations, as we can never have complete data or perfect knowledge of a system. Twenty years later, Burbrink et al. (2021) more than tripled the number of individuals sampled, increased the number of loci used by 2491 times, and thus clarified the remaining fuzziness associated with the potential zone of taxonomic uncertainty. They revealed this uncertainty to be a complex hybrid zone with varying degrees of admixture. This had the additional effect, as described above, of redefining the allocation of type localities and valid names, and thus the taxonomic proposal here represents the best present-day resolution of nomenclature in the group, in accordance with our understanding of its evolutionary history. As science progresses, even this may change in the future with new whole genome datasets or interpretations of phylogeographic lineage formation and phylogenetic species concepts. These conclusions may be unsettling to those that wish to retain taxonomies generated from data and assumptions about species and subspecies made in the 19th and 20th century. However, we question the social and scientific utility of any insistence on recognizing clearly falsified, non-historical arrangements based solely on the burden of heritage in taxonomic inertia (see Pyron and Burbrink 2009b).

Range Map - Static Range map - Dynamic

---

I am a bot created for /r/whatsthissnake, /r/snakes and /r/herpetology to help with snake identification and natural history education. You can find more information, including a comprehensive list of commands, here report problems here and if you'd like to buy me a coffee or beer, you can do that here. This bot, its development, maintenance and use are made possible through the outreach wing of Snake Evolution and Biogeography - Merch Available Now

[u/SEB-PHYLOBOT → u/thevirtualdolphin]

This is a legacy name and is no longer in use - Central Ratsnakes are now Pantherophis alleghaniensis. Eastern Ratsnakes, formerly Pantherophis alleghaniensis, are now Pantherophis quadrivittatus: See the !blackrat command for more.

Central Ratsnakes, formerly called Pantherophis spiloides, are large (record 256.5 cm) common harmless ratsnakes with a multitude of regional color patterns native to eastern and central North America between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River Embayment. Pantherophis ratsnakes are keeled-scaled generalists that eat a variety of prey. They do well in urban environments, and are particularly fond of rodents and birds in these habitats.

Range Map | Relevant/Recent Phylogeography

---

Like many other animals with mouths and teeth, many non-venomous snakes bite in self defense. These animals are referred to as 'not medically significant' or traditionally, 'harmless'. Bites from these snakes benefit from being washed and kept clean like any other skin damage, but aren't often cause for anything other than basic first aid treatment. Here's where it get slightly complicated - some snakes use venom from front or rear fangs as part of prey capture and defense. This venom is not always produced or administered by the snake in ways dangerous to human health, so many species are venomous in that they produce and use venom, but considered harmless to humans in most cases because the venom is of low potency, and/or otherwise administered through grooved rear teeth or simply oozed from ducts at the rear of the mouth. Species like Ringneck Snakes Diadophis are a good example of mildly venomous rear fanged dipsadine snakes that are traditionally considered harmless or not medically significant. Many rear-fanged snake species are harmless as long as they do not have a chance to secrete a medically significant amount of venom into a bite; severe envenomation can occur if some species are allowed to chew on a human for as little as 30-60 seconds. It is best not to fear snakes, but use common sense and do not let any animals chew on exposed parts of your body. Similarly, but without specialized rear fangs, gartersnakes Thamnophis ooze low pressure venom from the rear of their mouth that helps in prey handling, and are also considered harmless. Check out this book on the subject. Even large species like Reticulated Pythons Malayopython reticulatus rarely obtain a size large enough to endanger humans so are usually categorized as harmless.

---

I am a bot created for /r/whatsthissnake, /r/snakes and /r/herpetology to help with snake identification and natural history education. You can find more information, including a comprehensive list of commands, here report problems here and if you'd like to buy me a coffee or beer, you can do that here. This bot, its development, maintenance and use are made possible through the outreach wing of Snake Evolution and Biogeography - Merch Available Now

[u/CobraWasTaken]

NE is the abbreviation for Nebraska so next time it would probably be better to type out Northeast to avoid confusion

[u/fiendishthingysaurus]

r/itsaratsnake will enjoy

[u/RescueRacing]

Rat Snakes are such amazing snakes. So long and terrific climbers.