Diadophis punctatus - (Linnaeus, 1766)
Ringneck Snake
Other English Common Names: Ring-necked Snake, ring-necked snake
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Diadophis punctatus (Linnaeus, 1766) (TSN 174158)
French Common Names: couleuvre à collier
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100405
Element Code: ARADB10010
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Reptiles - Snakes
Image 10856

© Michael Patrikeev

 
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Reptilia Squamata Colubridae Diadophis
Genus Size: A - Monotypic genus
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Help
Concept Reference: Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. 3rd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 19. 41 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B90COL01NAUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Diadophis punctatus
Taxonomic Comments: This species is in need of further phylogenetic and taxonomic study. Available information suggests that multiple species may be represented but elevation of taxa is premature in the absence of a range-wide phylogeographic analysis (see commentary in Crother et al. 2008). For example, Pinou et al. (1995) examined geographic variation in serum albumin and concluded that Diadophis may comprise at least two genetically distinct species. Populations assigned to subspecies arnyi, amabilis, and occidentalis were distinct immunologically from eastern D. p. edwardsii. They pointed out the need for additional study of the taxonomic status and relationships among the nomimal taxa within Diadophis, especially subspecies regalis and dugesii (morphological data of Gehlbach [1974, Herpetologica 30:140-148] indicate that arnyi and regalis intergrade over a broad section of central Texas). In ongoing genetic studies, Feldman and Spicer (2006) found that the subspecies in California (amabilis, modestus, occidentalis, pulchellus, similis, and vandenburghii) are nearly indistinguishable and do not represent unique evolutionary lineages.

Subspecies acricus was proposed as a distinct species by Collins (1991). Collins (1991) further proposed that the species punctatus be split into two species, D. punctatus (including the subspecies arnyi, edwardsii, regalis, punctatus, and stictogenys) and D. amabilis (including the subspecies modestus, occidentalis, pulchellus, similis, and vandenburghii). However, Collins did not present supporting data, and this proposal has not been adopted by others.
Conservation Status
Help

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 02Feb2016
Global Status Last Changed: 29Oct1996
Ranking Methodology Used: Ranked by inspection
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N5 (05Oct1996)
Nation: Canada
National Status: N5 (02Feb2016)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Alabama (S5), Arizona (S4), Arkansas (S5), California (SNR), Colorado (S2), Connecticut (S5), Delaware (S5), District of Columbia (S4), Florida (S5), Georgia (S5), Idaho (S3), Illinois (SNR), Indiana (SNR), Iowa (S5), Kansas (S5), Kentucky (S5), Louisiana (S5), Maine (S5), Maryland (S5), Massachusetts (S5), Michigan (S5), Minnesota (S4), Mississippi (S5), Missouri (SNR), Nebraska (S5), Nevada (S3), New Hampshire (S5), New Jersey (S5), New Mexico (S4), New York (S5), North Carolina (S5), Ohio (SNR), Oklahoma (S5), Oregon (S4?), Pennsylvania (S5), Rhode Island (SNR), South Carolina (SNR), South Dakota (S2), Tennessee (S5), Texas (S5), Utah (S3), Vermont (S4), Virginia (S5), Washington (S3S4), West Virginia (S5), Wisconsin (SNR)
Canada New Brunswick (S4), Nova Scotia (S5), Ontario (S4), Quebec (S3S4)

Other Statuses

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Candidate (Medium) (10Jul2017)
IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: The range extends from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast of North America (Conant and Collins 1991, Stebbins 2003). The northern limit of the more or less continuous portion of the range reaches Nova Scotia, southern Quebec, southern Ontario, Minnesota, southeastern South Dakota, eastern Nebraska, southeastern Colorado, and Arizona. The southern limit extends to San Luis Potosi (Mexico), the Gulf Coast of the United States, and southern Florida. The species also occurs disjunctly in western North America in eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, and it ranges from southern Washington through western Oregon and throughout much of California (except the Central Valley and deserts) into northwestern Baja California, including Islas Todos Santos and San Martin along the Pacific Coast (Grismer 2002). This species has been introduced on Grand Cayman Island (probably via ornamental plants from southern Florida), but it is unknown whether or not the species is established there (Schwartz and Henderson 1991).

Area of Occupancy: >12,500 4-km2 grid cells
Area of Occupancy Comments:  

Number of Occurrences: > 300
Number of Occurrences Comments: This species is represented by thousands of occurrences or subpopulations.

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but undoubtedly exceeds 1,000,000. Local subpopulations may include several thousand individuals (e.g., Fitch 1975, 1982).

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very many (>125)

Overall Threat Impact: Unknown
Overall Threat Impact Comments: No major threats have been identified. Many local populations have been lost or reduced as a result of habitat destruction (Ernst and Ernst 2003), but these appear to amount to a small minority of the total distribution.

Short-term Trend: Relatively Stable (<=10% change)
Short-term Trend Comments: Extent of occurrence, area of occupancy, number of subpopulations, and population size are very large and probably relatively stable.

Long-term Trend: Decline of <30% to increase of 25%

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Distribution
Help
Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) The range extends from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast of North America (Conant and Collins 1991, Stebbins 2003). The northern limit of the more or less continuous portion of the range reaches Nova Scotia, southern Quebec, southern Ontario, Minnesota, southeastern South Dakota, eastern Nebraska, southeastern Colorado, and Arizona. The southern limit extends to San Luis Potosi (Mexico), the Gulf Coast of the United States, and southern Florida. The species also occurs disjunctly in western North America in eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, and it ranges from southern Washington through western Oregon and throughout much of California (except the Central Valley and deserts) into northwestern Baja California, including Islas Todos Santos and San Martin along the Pacific Coast (Grismer 2002). This species has been introduced on Grand Cayman Island (probably via ornamental plants from southern Florida), but it is unknown whether or not the species is established there (Schwartz and Henderson 1991).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV
Canada NB, NS, ON, QC

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted.

Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2005


U.S. Distribution by County Help
State County Name (FIPS Code)
CA Inyo (06027), Kern (06029), Los Angeles (06037), Riverside (06065), San Bernardino (06071), San Diego (06073), Ventura (06111)
FL Monroe (12087)
IA Van Buren (19177)
ID Bannock (16005), Boise (16015)*, Clearwater (16035), Franklin (16041), Idaho (16049)*, Latah (16057), Nez Perce (16069), Power (16077), Twin Falls (16083), Valley (16085)
SD Bon Homme (46009), Charles Mix (46023), Clay (46027)*, Lincoln (46083), Minnehaha (46099), Union (46127)*, Yankton (46135)
UT Beaver (49001), Box Elder (49003)*, Garfield (49017), Iron (49021), Juab (49023), Kane (49025)*, Millard (49027), Piute (49031)*, Salt Lake (49035)*, Sanpete (49039), Tooele (49045), Utah (49049), Washington (49053)
WA Asotin (53003)+, Clark (53011)+, Cowlitz (53015)+, Garfield (53023)+, Kittitas (53037)+, Klickitat (53039)+, Skamania (53059)+, Whitman (53075)+, Yakima (53077)+
WI Crawford (55023), Grant (55043), Vernon (55123)
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
U.S. Distribution by Watershed Help
Watershed Region Help Watershed Name (Watershed Code)
03 Florida Bay-Florida Keys (03090203)+
07 Coon-Yellow (07060001)+, Grant-Little Maquoketa (07060003)+, Lower Wisconsin (07070005)+, Lower Des Moines (07100009)+
10 Fort Randall Reservoir (10140101)+*, Lower James (10160011)+, Lewis and Clark Lake (10170101)+, Vermillion (10170102)+*, Lower Big Sioux (10170203)+
15 Upper Virgin (15010008)+, Fort Pierce Wash (15010009)+*, Lower Virgin (15010010)+*, Piute Wash (15030102)+
16 Middle Bear (16010202)+, Utah Lake (16020201)+, Jordan (16020204)+*, Hamlin-Snake Valleys (16020301)+, Pine Valley (16020302)+, Rush-Tooele Valleys (16020304)+, Skull Valley (16020305)+, Southern Great Salt Lake Desert (16020306)+*, Northern Great Salt Lake Desert (16020308)+*, Curlew Valley (16020309)+*, Upper Sevier (16030001)+*, East Fork Sevier (16030002)+, Middle Sevier (16030003)+, San Pitch (16030004)+*, Lower Sevier (16030005)+, Escalante Desert (16030006)+*, Beaver Bottoms-Upper Beaver (16030007)+*
17 Upper Yakima (17030001), Naches (17030002), Lower Yakima, Washington (17030003), American Falls (17040206)+, Portneuf (17040208)+, Upper Snake-Rock (17040212)+, Payette (17050122)+*, North Fork Payette (17050123)+, Lower Snake-Asotin (17060103), Lower Grande Ronde (17060106), Lower Snake-Tucannon (17060107), Lower Salmon (17060209)+, Clearwater (17060306)+, Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula (17070101), Middle Columbia-Hood (17070105), Klickitat (17070106), Lower Columbia-Sandy (17080001), Lower Columbia-Clatskanie (17080003), Lower Willamette (17090012)
18 Middle Kern-Upper Tehachapi- (18030003)+, Ventura (18070101)+, Calleguas (18070103)+, Santa Monica Bay (18070104)+, Santa Ana (18070203)+, Aliso-San Onofre (18070301)+, Santa Margarita (18070302)+, San Diego (18070304)+, Cottonwood-Tijuana (18070305)+, Death Valley-Lower Amargosa (18090203)+, Mojave (18090208)+, Southern Mojave (18100100)+*
+ Natural heritage record(s) exist for this watershed
* Extirpated/possibly extirpated
Ecology & Life History
Help
Reproduction Comments: Lays clutch of 1-18 eggs, usually in June or July. Eggs hatch in up to about 8 weeks. Sexually mature in 2-3 years. May possibly lay two clutches in south. Eggs are laid from late May through August in Florida. Communal nesting common.
Ecology Comments: Population density was estimated to be 719-1849/ha in Kansas study. Distances between recaptures averaged 80 m (range 0-1700 m) in same study; home range had maximum dimension of about 140 m (Fitch 1975).
Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Mobility and Migration Comments: Distance between hibernaculum and summer range estimated to average 121 m in Kansas study (Fitch 1975).
Palustrine Habitat(s): Riparian
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Desert, Forest - Conifer, Forest - Hardwood, Forest - Mixed, Grassland/herbaceous, Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed
Special Habitat Factors: Burrowing in or using soil, Fallen log/debris
Habitat Comments: This snake occurs in forests, woodlands, grassland, chaparral, and riparian corridors in arid regions (Stebbins 2003). Habitats are moist, at least seasonally. One or multiple individuals often are found near abandoned buildings and in junk piles in wooded areas. During daylight hours, this snake generally hides underground, in or under logs, or under rocks, stumps or other surface cover. Eggs are laid (often communally) underground or under logs or rocks.
Adult Food Habits: Carnivore, Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Carnivore, Invertivore
Food Comments: Eats earthworms; slugs; small salamanders, frogs, lizards, and snakes; and various other small invertebrates.
Adult Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Hibernates/aestivates, Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Inactive in winter in most areas.
Length: 76 centimeters
Economic Attributes Not yet assessed
Help
Management Summary Not yet assessed
Help
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Help
Group Name: Small Colubrid Snakes

Use Class: Not applicable
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including eggs) in or near appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Separation Barriers: Busy highway or highway with obstructions such that snakes rarely if ever cross successfully; major river, lake, pond, or deep marsh (this barrier does not apply to aquatic or wetland species); densely urbanized area dominated by buildings and pavement.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Data are limited to only a few species, but small colubrid snakes such as Diadophis punctatus (Fitch 1975) and Carphophis amoenus (Barbour et al. 1969, Clark 1970) generally have relatively small home ranges less than, or much less than, 1 ha. However, because even small snakes occasionally move large distances (e.g., up to at least 1.7 km in Diadophis punctatus, Fitch 1975). Also, these snakes tend to be secretive and may be easily overlooked or not recorded in areas where they do in fact occur. It seems unlikely that occupied locations separated by a gap of less than several kilometers of suitable habitat would represent independent occurrences over the long term.
Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .2 km
Date: 21Sep2004
Author: Hammerson, G.
Notes: This specs group is a somewhat arbitrary assemblage of small snakes that are believed to be among the most sedentary species of the family Colubridae.
Population/Occurrence Viability
Help
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
Help
Authors/Contributors
Help
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 06Sep2005
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Author: Hammerson, G.
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 06Sep2005
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

References
Help
  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Aquin, P. 1999. Évaluation de la situation des groupes taxonomiques des reptiles du Québec. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune. 2 pages.

  • Bider, J. R., and S. Matte. 1994. Atlas des amphibiens et des reptiles du Quebec. Societe d'histoire naturelle de la vallee du Saint-Laurent, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, and Ministere de l'Environnement et de la Faune, Direction de la faune et des habitats, Quebec. 106 pp.

  • Bider, R. J. et S. Matte. 1994. Atlas des amphibiens et des reptiles du Québec. Société d'histoire naturelle de la vallée du Saint-Laurent, Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune, Direction de la faune et des habitats. 106 p.

  • Bleakney, S. 1958. A zoogeographical study of the amphibians and reptiles of Eastern Canada. Musée national du Canada, Bulletin no 155 119

  • Bosworth, W. R., J. M. Meik, K. Setser, and C. Steele. 2004. The distribution of the ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus) in Utah. Herpetological Review 35:238-239.

  • Burnley, J.M. 1971. Late date records of amphibians and reptiles on Long Island. Engelhardtia 4(3):17-22.

  • COLLINS, J.T. 1982. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES IN KANSAS. UNIV.KANS.MUS.NAT.HIST., PUB.EDUCA.SERIES NO.8.

  • CONANT, R. 1975. A FIELD GUIDE TO REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OFEASTERN AND CENTRAL NORTH AMERICA.

  • Chambers, R.E. 1983. Integrating timber and wildlife management. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

  • Cimon A. 1986. Les reptiles du Québec, bio-écologie des espèces et problématique de conservation des habitats. Ministère du Loisir, de la Chasse et de la Pêche. 85 p.

  • Cliburn, J.W. 1976. A key to the amphibians and reptiles of Mississippi. Fourth edition. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi. 71 pp.

  • Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. 3rd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 19. 41 pp.

  • Collins, J. T. 1991. Viewpoint: a new taxonomic arrangement for some North American amphibians and reptiles. SSAR Herpetol. Review 22:42-43.

  • Conant, R., and J. T. Collins. 1998. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central North America. Third edition, expanded. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 616 pp.

  • Cook, F. R. 1984. Introduction to Canadian amphibians and reptiles. National Museum of Natural Sciences, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

  • Cook, F.R. 1984. Introduction aux Amphibiens et Reptiles du Canada. Musée national des sciences naturelles. 211 p.

  • Crother, B. I. (editor). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 37:1-84.

  • Crother, B. I. (editor). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 37:1-84. Online with updates at: http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/comm_names/Index.php

  • Crother, B. I. (editor). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 37:1-84. Online with updates at: http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/comm_names/Index.php

  • Crother, B. I. (editor). 2012. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. 7th edition. SSAR Herpetological Circular 39:1-92.

  • DEGRAFF, R.M. AND D.D.RUDIS. 1983. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OF NEW ENGLAND. HABITATS AND NATURAL HISTORY. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS PRESS. 83PP.

  • DIXON, JAMES R. 1987. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OF TEXAS, WITH KEYS, TAXONOMIC SYNOPSES, BIBLIOGRAPHY, AND DISTRIBUTION MAPS. TEXAS A& M UNIV. PRESS, COLLEGE STATION. xii + 434 pp.

  • DeGraaf, R.M. and D.D. Rudis. 1981. Forest habitat for reptiles and amphibians of the northeast. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI. 239 pp.

  • Desroches, J.-F. et D. Rodrigue 2004. Amphibiens et reptiles du Québec et des Maritimes. Éditions Michel Quintin. 288 pages.

  • Desrosiers A., F. Caron et R. Ouellet. 1995. Liste de la faune vertébrée du Québec. Les publications du Québec. 122

  • Dundee, H.E., and D.A. Rossman. 1989. The amphibians and reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge. 300 pp.

  • ESHER, ROBERT J. AND DWITHT K. BRADSHAW, 1988. AN ECOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE SSC AREA POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY AN ADVANCED SOLID ROCKET MOTOR MANUFACTORY AND TEST FACILITY. MS. STATE RES. CENTER. 20 MAY. 45 PP.

  • Eckel, E.C. and F.C. Paulmier. 1902. Catalogue of New York reptiles and batrachians. New York State Museum Bull. No. 51. Albany, NY.

  • Feldman, C. R., and G. S. Spicer. 2006. Comparative phylogeography of woodland reptiles in California: repeated patterns of cladogenesis and population expansion. Molecular Ecology 15:2201-2222.

  • Fitch, H. S. 1970. Reproductive cycles of lizards and snakes. Univ. Kansas Museum Natural History Miscellaneous Publication 52:1-247.

  • Fitch, H. S. 1975. A demographic study of the ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus) in Kansas. Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Misc. Pub. 62:1-53.

  • Fitch, H. S. 1982. Resources of a snake community in prairie-woodland habitat of northeastern Kansas. Pages 83-97 in N. J. Scott, Jr. (editor). Herpetological Communities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Res. Rep. 13.

  • Fitch, H.S. 1999. A Kansas Snake Community: Composition and Changes over 50 Years. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida. 165 pp.

  • Fontanella, Frank M. et al. 2008 Phylogeography of Diadophis punctatus: extensive lineage diversity and repeated patterns of historical demography in a trans-continental snake. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 46: 1049-1070. http://publicdocs.mnr.gov.on.ca/View.asp?Document_ID=20118&Attachment_ID=42576

  • GEHLBACH, FREDERICK R. 1991. THE EAST-WEST TRANSITION ZONE OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATES IN CENTRAL TEXAS: A BIOGEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS. TEXAS J. SCI. 43(4):415-427.

  • Green, N. B., and T. K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and reptiles in West Virginia. University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. xi + 241 pp.

  • Hammerson, G. 2001. EO Specs for Small Colubrid Snakes (ELCODE ARADB00001). NatureServe, unpublished. 1 pp.

  • Hammerson, G. A. 1982. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. vii + 131 pp.

  • Hammerson, G. A. 1982b. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver. vii + 131 pp.

  • Harding, J. H. 1997. Amphibians and reptiles of the Great Lakes region. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. xvi + 378 pp.

  • Huheey, J.E. and Stupka, A. 1967. Amphibians and Reptiles of Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

  • Logier, E. B. S. 1958. The snakes of Ontario. University of Toronto Press, Canada. Pp. 56-69.

  • Lohoefener, R. and R. Altig. 1983. Mississippi herpetology. Mississippi State University Research Center, NSTL Station, Mississippi. 66 pp.

  • MCCOY CJ 1982 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES IN PENNSYLVANIA: CHECKLIST, BIBLIOGRAPHY, AND ATLAS OF DISTRIBUTION. SP PUB CARNEGIE MUS NAT HIST, NO 6 PG 1-91,74MAPS

  • Minton, S. A., Jr. 1972. Amphibians and reptiles of Indiana. Indiana Academy Science Monographs 3. v + 346 pp.

  • Mirarchi, R.E., editor. 2004. Alabama Wildlife. Volume 1. A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 209 pages.

  • Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pages.

  • Mount, R.H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn. 347 pp.

  • Mélançon C. 1950. Inconnus et méconnus (amphibiens et reptiles de la province de Québec). La Société Zoologique de Québec. 148

  • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1985. Checklist of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of New York State, including their protective status. Nongame Unit. Wildlife Resources Center. Delmar, NY.

  • Pinou, T., C. A. Hass, and L. R. Maxson. 1995. Geographic variation of serum albumin in the monotypic snake genus Diadophis (Colubridae: Xenodontinae). Journal of Herpetology 29:105-110.

  • Presnall, C. C. 1937. Herpetological notes from Zion National Park. Copeia 1937: 232.

  • Provancher, L. 1874. Faune canadienne : les reptiles. Le Naturaliste canadien 6(9). p. 330

  • RUDOLPH, D. CRAIG AND JAMES G. DICKSON. 1990. STREAMSIDE ZONE WIDTH AND AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE ABUNDANCE. SOUTHWEST. NAT. 35(4):472-476.

  • Reilly, E.M. 1955. Snakes of New York. New York State Conservationist: 22-23 and 26.

  • Ryke, N., D. Winters, L. McMartin and S. Vest. 1994. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands. May 25, 1994.

  • SEYLE, W., AND G. K. WILLIAMSON. 1988 (IN PREP). REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF GEORGIA: RANGE MAPS

  • SMITH,H.M.1956. HANDBOOK OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OF KANSAS. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS, MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. LAWRENCE.

  • Schlauch, F.C. and J.M. Burnley. 1972. Distributional survey of the indigenous Herpetozoans of Long Island. Revised edition. Engelhardtia 5(3):13-17.

  • Schwartz, A., and R. W. Henderson. 1991. Amphibians and Reptiles of the West Indies: Descriptions, Distributions, and Natural History. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. xvi + 720 pp.

  • Schwinn, M. A., and L. Minden. 1980. Utah reptile and amphibian latilong distribution. Publ. No. 80-1. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah.

  • Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. xiv + 336 pp.

  • Stebbins, R. C. 1985a. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. xiv + 336 pp.

  • Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

  • Tanner, V. M. 1927. Distributional list of the amphibians and reptiles of Utah (no. 1). Copeia. No. 163:54-58

  • Tanner, V. M. 1935. Western worm snake, Siagonodon humilis (Baird and Girard), found in Utah. Proc. Utah Acad. Sci. Arts Letters 12: 267-270.

  • Tanner, W. W. 1940. Notes on the herpetological specimens added to the Brigham Young University vertebrate collection during 1939. Great Basin Natur. 1: 138-146.

  • Tanner, W.W. 1969. New records and distributional notes for reptiles of the Nevada Test Site. Great Basin Nat. 29:31-34.

  • Vogt, R. C. 1981c. Natural history of amphibians and reptiles of Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum. 205 pp.

  • WARD, ROCKY, EARL G. ZIMMERMAN, AND TIM L. KING. 1994. ENVIRONMENTAL CORRELATES TO TERRESTRIAL REPTILIAN DISTRIBUTIONS IN TEXAS. TEXAS J. SCI. 46(1):21-26.

  • WARD, ROCKY, EARL G. ZIMMERMAN, AND TIMOTHY L. KING. 1990. MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES OF TERRESTRIAL REPTILIAN DISTRIBUTION IN TEXAS: AN ALTERNATE VIEW. SOUTHWEST. NAT. 35(4):441-445.

  • Wauer, R. H. 1964. Reptiles and amphibians of Zion National Park. Zion Natural History Association, Zion National Park, Utah. 54 pp.

  • Weller, W. F., and M. J. Oldham. 1988. Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary: 1986. Ontario Field Herpetologists. Cambridge, Ontario. 221 pp.

  • Woodbury, A. M. 1928. The reptiles of Zion National Park. Copeia 1927: 14.

  • Woodbury, A. M. 1931. A descriptive catalog of the reptiles of Utah. Bull. Univ. Utah 21 (5) [Biol. Ser. 1 (4)]: i-xii + 1-129.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2018.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2018 NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22203, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/birdDistributionmapsmetadatav1.pdf.

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:
http://www.natureserve.org/library/mammalsDistributionmetadatav1.pdf.

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.