The Project Gutenberg eBook of Occurrence of the Garter Snake, Thamnophis sirtalis, in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Occurrence of the Garter Snake, Thamnophis sirtalis, in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains

Author: Henry S. Fitch

T. Paul Maslin

Release date: September 28, 2010 [eBook #33966]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Alison Hadwin, Joseph Cooper and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK OCCURRENCE OF THE GARTER SNAKE, THAMNOPHIS SIRTALIS, IN THE GREAT PLAINS AND ROCKY MOUNTAINS ***

Transcriber's Note: Original spelling and punctuation have been retained. In particular, both Eutainia and Eutaenia are used in the original, as are both pickeringi and pickeringii.

University of Kansas Publications

Museum of Natural History

Volume 13, No. 5, pp. 289-308, 4 figs.

February 10, 1961

Occurrence of the Garter Snake, Thamnophis sirtalis, in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains

BY

HENRY S. FITCH AND T. PAUL MASLIN

University of Kansas

Lawrence

1961

University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History

Editors: E. Raymond Hall, Chairman, Henry S. Fitch,

Robert W. Wilson

Volume 13, No. 5, pp. 289-308, 4 figs.

Published February 10, 1961

University of Kansas

Lawrence, Kansas

PRINTED IN THE STATE PRINTING PLANT

TOPEKA, KANSAS

1961

Occurrence of the Garter Snake, Thamnophis sirtalis, in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains

BY

HENRY S. FITCH AND T. PAUL MASLIN

Introduction

The common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) has by far the most extensive geographic range of any North American reptile, covering most of the continental United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from south of the Mexican boundary far north into Canada and southeastern Alaska. Of the several recognized subspecies, the eastern T. s. sirtalis has the most extensive range, but that of T. s. parietalis in the region between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains is almost as large. The more western T. s. fitchi occurring from the Oregon and California coasts east through the northern Great Basin, has the third largest range, while the far western subspecies pickeringi, concinnus, infernalis and tetrataenia, and the Texan T. s. annectens all have relatively small ranges.

Since the publication of Ruthven's revision of the genus Thamnophis more than 50 years ago, little attention has been devoted to the study of this widespread and variable species, except in the Pacific Coast states (Van Denburgh, 1918; Fitch, 1941; Fox, 1951). However, Brown (1950) described the new subspecies annectens in eastern Texas, and many local studies have helped to clarify the distribution of the species in the eastern part of the continent and to define the zone of intergradation between the subspecies sirtalis and parietalis. In our study attention has been focused upon parietalis in an attempt to determine its western limits and its relationships to the subspecies that replace it farther west.

Taxonomic History

Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis Say was described (as Coluber parietalis) in 1823 from a specimen obtained in what is now Washington County, Nebraska, on the west side of the Missouri River three miles upstream from the mouth of Boyer's River [Iowa], or approximately eight miles north of Omaha. Although the type locality was unequivocally stated in the original description, Nebraska was not mentioned since the state was not yet in existence. Because the mouth of Boyer's River, the landmark by means of which the type locality is defined, is in Iowa, the impression has been imparted that the type locality itself is in Iowa (Schmidt, 1953:175), and to our knowledge the type locality has never been associated with Nebraska in the literature.

Like all the more western subspecies, parietalis is strikingly different from typical sirtalis in having conspicuous red markings. The relationship between the two was early recognized. Several of the other subspecies were originally described as distinct species. Coluber infernalis Blainville, 1835; Tropidonotus concinnus Hallowell, 1852; Eutainia pickeringi Baird and Girard, 1853; and others now considered synonyms eventually came to be recognized as conspecific with Thamnophis sirtalis. Ruthven (1908:166-173) allocated all western sirtalis to either parietalis or concinnus, the latter including the populations of the northwest coast in Oregon, Washington and British Columbia.

Subsequent more detailed studies by later workers with more abundant material led to the recognition of some subspecies that Ruthven thought invalid and led to the resurrection of some names that he had placed in synonomy. Van Denburgh and Slevin (1918:198) recognized infernalis as the subspecies occurring over most of California and southern Oregon, differing from more northern populations in having more numerous ventrals and caudals and a paler ground color. Fitch (1941:575) revived the name pickeringii for a melanistic population of western Washington and southwestern British Columbia, restricting the name concinnus to a red-headed and melanistic population of northwestern Oregon, and restricting the name infernalis to a pale-colored population in the coastal strip of California.

These changes left most of the populations formerly included in concinnus and infernalis without a name, and Fitch (op. cit.) revived Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia (Cope) to apply to them. However, Fox (1951:257) demonstrated that the type of T. s. tetrataenia came from the San Francisco peninsula (rather than from "Pit River, California" as erroneously stated in the original description) and that the name was applicable to a localized peninsular population rather than to the wide-ranging far western subspecies, which he named T. s. fitchi. The range of fitchi includes California west of the Colorado and Mohave deserts (except for the narrow strip of coast occupied by infernalis and tetrataenia), Oregon except the northwestern part, Washington east of the Cascade Range, most of British Columbia, extreme southeastern Alaska (occurring farther north than any other terrestrial reptile of North America) and parts of Idaho.

Neither Fox (1951) nor Fitch (1941) defined the eastern limits of fitchi or discussed its relationship to the subspecies parietalis. Wright and Wright (1957:849) stated: "Fitch ... did not even mention the big scrap basket form parietalis, from which he pulled T. s. fitchi (old tetrataenia). That comparison remains to be made, and the east boundary of fitchi and the west boundary of parietalis are still nebulous." We have undertaken to define better than has been done before the ranges of parietalis and fitchi and to list the diagnostic characters separating these two subspecies. Freshly collected material of both has been compared. At the time of his 1941 revision the senior author had never seen a live or recently preserved specimen of parietalis.

Discontinuity of Range

Wherever it occurs at all, the common garter snake is usually abundant. Because of its diurnal habits and the concentration of its populations along watercourses, it is not likely to be overlooked. There are few, if any, remaining large areas in the United States where herpetologists have not carried on field work. It may be anticipated that certain rare and secretive species will still be found far from any known stations of occurrence, and seeming gaps in the ranges of these species will eventually be filled. But for the common garter snake the negative evidence provided by the lack of records from extensive areas should be taken into account in mapping the range.

Most large collections of garter snakes contain misidentified specimens. The diagnostic differences in color and pattern are often obscured, especially if the specimens are poorly preserved. Many specimens deviate from the scalation typical of the form they represent, and key out to other species. Isolated records should therefore be accepted with caution. A case in point is Colorado University Museum No. 46, from Buford, Rio Blanco County, Colorado, originally identified by Cockerell (1910:131) as Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis. This specimen, and another, now lost, from Meeker in the same county seemingly served as the basis for mapping the range of sirtalis across the western half of Colorado, for there seem to be no other records from this part of the state. However, a re-examination of the specimen from Buford shows it to be an atypical individual of another species, T. elegans vagrans. A specimen of T. radix haydeni (Col. U. Mus. No. 3165) was the basis for Maslin's (1959:53) record of parietalis in Baca County on the north fork of the Cimarron River in southeastern Colorado. Brown (1950:203) has mentioned the difficulty of defining the range of sirtalis in the southern Great Plains because of misidentifications of the similar T. radix.

The range of the common garter snake has never been adequately mapped in the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin states. Recent general works (Smith, 1956:291; Wright and Wright 1957:834; Stebbins 1954:505; Conant 1958:328) which have shown maps of the over-all range of sirtalis, differ sharply as to the extent of its distribution in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, but all show its distribution as continuous over the more northern Great Basin and Rocky Mountain states. However, specimens and specific locality records from this extensive area seem to be scarce and some are based on early collections of doubtful provenance. Throughout this region the low rainfall, fluctuating and uncertain water supply, and general lack of mesic vegetation along many of the streams render the habitat rather hostile to garter snakes in general. Thamnophis elegans vagrans, highly adapted to conditions in this region and generally distributed over it, doubtless offers intensive competition to the species sirtalis wherever they overlap and perhaps constitutes a limiting factor for sirtalis in some drainage basins.

Convincing records of sirtalis are lacking from all of Colorado—except for those in the drainage basins of the South Platte, and the Río Grande east of the Continental Divide—from the eastern half of Utah (east of the Wasatch Range), from New Mexico except for the Río Grande drainage (with one record each for the Canadian and Pecos river drainages), from southwestern Wyoming (at least that part in the Colorado River drainage basin), from the western half of Oklahoma, and from Texas, except the eastern and extreme western and northern parts. The species occurs in Nevada only near that state's western and northern boundaries. The range is therefore much different than it has been depicted heretofore, with the populations living east of the Continental Divide widely separated from those to the west for the entire length of the Rocky Mountains south of the Yellowstone National Park region. The populations of northern Utah, southern Idaho, and Nevada, which have been considered parietalis are thus far removed from the main population of that subspecies to the east and are isolated from them by the barrier of the Continental Divide and arid regions farther west.

Although some of the records published for Thamnophis sirtalis are erroneous, being based on misidentifications of other species, various outlying records, including those in western Kansas, the Panhandle of Texas, and southeastern New Mexico probably represent localized relict populations that have survived from a time when the species was more generally distributed in this region. The population of T. sirtalis in the Río Grande drainage of New Mexico is geographically isolated and remote from other populations of the species. Except for a few isolated and highly localized populations the species is absent from the Republican, Smoky Hill, Arkansas, Cimarron, Canadian, Red, Brazos, Colorado and Pecos rivers and their tributaries west of the one hundredth meridian in the arid High Plains.

Streams in this region of High Plains are in most instances unsuitable habitats because they are in eroded channels, have a variable and uncertain water supply, and have poorly developed riparian communities. The marsh and wet meadow habitat preferred by sirtalis in most parts of its range is almost absent. T. radix and T. marcianus, well adapted to conditions in this region, perhaps provide competition that is limiting to T. sirtalis. However, several well-isolated populations of sirtalis have survived as relicts in the southern Great Plains, presumably from a time several thousand years ago when mesic conditions were more prevalent, perhaps in an early postglacial stage.

Fig. 1. Map of a part of the United States in the region of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, and adjacent northwestern Mexico showing supposed range (shaded) and localities of authenticated occurrence (dots) of Thamnophis sirtalis. 1. T. s. fitchi, 2. T. s. parietalis, 3. T. s. annectens, 4. T. s. ornata. Records from Idaho and Wyoming are based on specimens in the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History collection. Other records are based on Woodbury (1931) for Utah, Hudson (1942) for Nebraska, Maslin (1959) for Colorado, Smith (1956) for Kansas, R. G. Webb (MS) for Oklahoma, Brown (1950) and Fouquette and Lindsay (1955) for Texas, Cope (1900), Van Denburgh (1924), Little and Keller (1937) for New Mexico, and Smith and Taylor (1945) for Mexico.

Smith (1956:292) recorded parietalis from three outlying stations in the western quarter of Kansas, from Wallace, Hamilton and Meade counties in the drainages of the Smoky Hill River, Arkansas River, and Cimarron River, respectively. Permanent springs in Meade County State Park perhaps account for the survival of an isolated colony there. Several specimens from that locality seen by Fitch in August, 1960, when recently collected by a University of Michigan field party, seemed to be of the Texas subspecies annectens, as their dorsal stripes were reddish orange, and markings on the dorsolateral area were pale yellow rather than red. Specimens from the Texas Panhandle, from Hemphill County (Brown, 1950:207) and nine miles east of Stinnet, Hutchison County (Fouquette and Lindsay, 1955:417) likewise are most nearly like annectens judging from the authors' descriptions. The specimens from nine miles east of Stinnet averaged large; the two largest would have attained or slightly exceeded four feet in length if they had had complete tails. No sirtalis so long as four feet has been recorded elsewhere.

Records are lacking from the drainages of the Republican, North Canadian, Brazos and Colorado River drainages in the High Plains, but possibly isolated populations occur in some of these also. The only record from the Pecos River drainage is that of Bundy (1951:314) from Wade's Swamp near Artesia, Eddy County, New Mexico. This locality is separated by some 140 miles from any other known station of occurrence.

From extreme southern Colorado south across New Mexico to the Mexican border T. sirtalis occurs in continuous or nearly continuous populations in the Río Grande Valley, and has been recorded from many localities. It has been recorded from relatively few localities of tributary streams (Los Pinos, Abiqui, Santa Fe) all near the main valley. There is one record from the Ocate River, a headwaters tributary of the Canadian River, in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains near other localities in the Río Grande drainage. The southwestern-most known locality of occurrence is Casas Grandes in the Mexican state of Chihuahua some 130 miles southwest of El Paso, Texas, and near the Continental Divide. The Río Casas Grandes must have once been a tributary of the Río Grande, but now its desert drainage basin is isolated.

Re-description of a Subspecies from New Mexico

Most specimens of a population of sirtalis occurring in New Mexico are recognizably different from most specimens of other populations. This New Mexican population is therefore here recognized as a distinct subspecies:

Thamnophis sirtalis ornata Baird

Eutaenia ornata Baird, 1859:16.

Eutaenia sirtalis dorsalis Cope, 1900:1076.

Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis (part) Van Denburgh, 1924:222.

Type.—U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 960, obtained at El Paso, Texas, at some time in the eighteen fifties by Col. J. D. Graham.

Range.—Río Grande and vicinity, from Conejos and Costilla counties in extreme south-central Colorado south across New Mexico to Mexican border. Records from neighboring drainage systems, Casas Grandes in Chihuahua and Artesia and Ocate River in New Mexico, probably also pertain to ornata.

Description.—A specimen in the University of New Mexico Natural History Museum (E. D. Flaherty No. 560, obtained one mile west and one-half mile south of Isleta, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, on May 31, 1959) was described as follows while its colors were still but little altered by preservatives: Top of head olive, supralabials pale gray, edged with black posteriorly; chin milky white, with dark edges posteriorly on fifth, sixth and seventh infralabials; dorsal stripe yellow; including middorsal row of scales and little more than adjacent half of row on either side of it; dorsolateral area olive-brown with row of black spots on its lower half, these spots elliptical, averaging about size of one scale on anterior part of body, smaller posteriorly; adjacent spots separated by interspaces of approximately their own length, irregular black markings on upper half of dorsolateral area not forming definite spots but fused longitudinally to form continuous black border to dorsal stripe; crescent-shaped red markings in areas between scale rows three to nine, these markings invading edges of scales, and themselves having ill-defined edges blending into the darker ground color; lateral stripe pale, yellowish gray, limited to scale rows two and three for most of its length, but including rows four and five in neck region; row of irregular black marks low on each side, with each mark centering on anterior part of lower half of scale of first row but overlapping onto corners of adjacent ventrals; approximately every other scale of first row so marked; ventral surface pale, suffused with bluish tint; most of ventrals marked on anterior edges with pair of semicircular black spots, each situated about two-thirds of distance from mid-line to lateral edge of ventral; these marks diminishing in size and finally disappearing on posterior part of body; ventral surface otherwise immaculate.

Lepidosis normal for genus and species, with preoculars single on each side, supralabials 7-7, infralabials 8-8, ventrals 159, anal entire, subcaudals 77 (including terminal spine), paired except for second, third and fourth; scale rows 19 from neck slightly beyond mid-body, fifth on left side ending opposite 86th ventral; length from snout to vent 670 mm., tail 202 mm.

Comparisons.—From T. s. parietalis, T. s. ornata differs in its consistently pale ground color, olive instead of dark brown or black. In respect to color-pattern ornata stands in approximately the same relation to parietalis as, farther west, T. s. infernalis, a pale subspecies of the California coast, stands in relation to T. s. fitchi. Nevertheless, fitchi consistently has a dark ground color, whereas parietalis is highly variable, and the color of an occasional specimen (for example KU 17032 from Douglas County, Kansas) matches ornata in olive coloration. These unusually pale specimens of parietalis differ from ornata in not having a continuous black edge along each side of dorsal stripe; black pigment of this area is concentrated into rows of spots alternating with those of lower series. From T. s. infernalis, ornata differs in having paired black spots on the ventrals and in having more than three series of red crescents on dorsolateral area of each side.

Remarks.—The type of ornata seems to have been lost, and the available information concerning it is far from satisfactory. In the original description, Baird listed three specimens, purportedly from "Indianola, Texas" (J. H. Clark, 438), from the Río Grande, Texas (J. H. Clark, 768), and from near San Antonio, Texas (Dr. Kennerley, no number). None of these three specimens could have been ornata as conceived of by us because all were collected outside the geographic range of ornata. However, there was also included a plate with a drawing of a specimen and a reference to an earlier paper (Baird and Girard, 1853) in which a specimen obtained by Col. Graham "Between San Antonio and El Paso" was described. Smith and Brown (1946:72) have presented evidence that this specimen figured (rather than any of the three specifically mentioned) served as a basis for the plate, and they therefore considered it to be the holotype of ornata, even though Baird referred this specimen to "Eutaenia parietalis Say" in the same paper (1859) in which the original description of ornata was published. Cope (1900:1079) listed under Eutaenia sirtalis parietalis a specimen, U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 960, from El Paso, obtained by Col. Graham, and referred to it as a type (without specifying of what it was the type). Smith and Brown (loc. cit.) interpreted this statement by Cope as further evidence that the specimen in question should be considered the type of ornata, and they restricted the type locality, originally stated as "between San Antonio and El Paso" to "El Paso." Actually all valid records of the species sirtalis from the vicinity of the Río Grande are from the El Paso region or from farther north.

It is with some misgivings that we herewith accept the interpretation proposed by Smith and Brown regarding the applicability of the name ornata and the designation by these authors of the now missing specimen from the region of El Paso as the holotype of that form. The evidence linking the name ornata with the New Mexican subspecies is tenuous; there is some doubt as to the provenance of U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 960 (the supposed type), and even more doubt as to whether this is the specimen depicted in the plate that formed part of the original description.

Cope (1900:1076) recognized as a distinct subspecies, Eutaenia sirtalis dorsalis, the same population that we recognize herein as T. s. ornata, and Smith (1942:98) considered the name dorsalis to be a synonym of T. s. parietalis. However, it is almost certain that both authors misapplied the name, since the type of Baird's and Girard's (1853:31) Eutainia dorsalis was obtained in Coahuila, Mexico, between Monclova and the Río Grande, far south of the known range limits of T. sirtalis in Texas. The description does not fit T. sirtalis and almost certainly pertains to another species.

Specimens examined.—Univ. of Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. (hereafter abbreviated to "KU") Nos. 5479 to 5497, from the north end of Elephant Butte Reservoir, Sierra County, New Mexico, and 8592 and 8593 from near Las Lunas, Valencia County, New Mexico; Univ. of New Mexico Mus. Nos. 571 and 572 (J. S. Findley) from 2 miles west and 1/4 mile north of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, and No. 4021 (E. D. Flaherty) from 1 mile west and 1/2 mile south of Isleta, Bernalillo County, New Mexico.

Description of T. s. parietalis

From most of the vast area occupied by parietalis, material has not been available to us, and our concept of this subspecies is based chiefly on specimens and living material from Kansas and northeastern Colorado. A total of 520 live parietalis has been examined from the University of Kansas Natural History Reservation some 130 miles south and a little east of the type locality in Nebraska. These probably differ but little from typical specimens. The range of individual variation in pattern is especially notable. In those from the Reservation, the ground color varies from dull olive-brown to almost jet black. The markings on the dorsolateral area vary in color, in shade and in extent. These marks are chiefly confined to the skin between the scales of rows three to nine. Although most typically these marks are of some shade of red (hence the name "red-sided garter snake"), they may be pale buff, or pale greenish yellow, or may even have a bluish tint. In approximately ten per cent of the specimens from the Reservation there is no red at all in the pattern, which hence is similar to that of T. s. sirtalis in the eastern United States. Only a minority have all the dorsolateral marks red, and in some of these specimens the marks higher on the sides are progressively paler red, having a bleached out appearance. Most typically the marks between rows three to six are some shade of red while the smaller marks between rows six to nine are pale—yellowish, greenish, or buffy. In some the pale area of the lateral stripe is in varying degrees suffused with red, which may extend onto the edges of the ventrals and even to the underside of the tail.

T. s. parietalis may be diagnosed, on the basis of these snakes from northeastern Kansas, as follows: Size medium large (length 23.5 to 34.5, or, exceptionally 43.5 inches in adult males; 32.5 to 46.0 inches in adult females), dorsolateral color olive to black. Approximately every other scale of the third row is bordered above and anteriorly by a crescent-shaped area of scarlet colored skin. Similar crescent-shaped areas border the scales of the fourth and fifth rows and often two adjacent crescents meet at the ends of an intervening scale and fuse forming an H-shaped mark. Placed alternately with these markings are similar but smaller crescent-shaped markings on the skin of the upper half of the dorsolateral area on each side bordering every other scale of the sixth, seventh and eighth rows. The crescents of this upper series also may fuse to form series of H-shaped markings alternating with those of the lower series. The dorsal stripe is yellow with a faint dusky suffusion; it involves all of the middorsal scale row and approximately the adjacent half of the row on either side. The lateral stripe is faint, yellowish gray, chiefly on the upper half of the second scale row, lower half of third, and the intervening skin, and is often invaded or suffused by the red marks of the dorsolateral area. The first scale row, adjacent corners of the ventrals, and lower half of the second scale row are suffused with dark pigment and appear dusky, but this area is often marked with black, setting off the paler area of the lateral stripe. The ventrals are dull, whitish, faintly suffused with yellowish, greenish or bluish, each ventral having a black dot usually of semicircular shape on its anterior margin near the anterolateral corner.

Comparison of T. s. parietalis and T. s. fitchi

Like most widely ranging subspecies, parietalis and fitchi vary geographically and local populations often are noticeably different from typical material. It is possible that future revisors will recognize additional subspecies, but in the variant populations known to us the degree of differentiation is slight as compared, for instance, with that in the subspecies of Thamnophis elegans. Scalation is remarkably uniform in all the subspecies of sirtalis, but coastal and northern populations tend to have fewer ventrals and subcaudals than do their counterparts farther inland and farther south. In their geographic variation the ventrals and subcaudals follow clines, and do not in themselves warrant subspecific divisions. Variation occurs chiefly in the color and pattern including the intensity of dark pigmentation of the dorsolateral area, head, ventral surface and lower edge of the lateral stripe; in extent, position and shade of red or pale colored markings on the dorsolateral area; in presence and extent of reddish suffusion on the head, in the region of the lateral stripe, and on the ventral surface of the tail. Most of these same characters vary within the subspecies fitchi, but the range of variation is relatively minor. Fitch (op. cit.:582-584) described typical populations and also described briefly several small series from British Columbia, Idaho, Oregon, and California which were not entirely typical. Most frequent variation was in heavy reddish suffusion on the sides of the head not found in typical fitchi. In each local population of this subspecies the characters seem to be remarkably uniform and stable.

Fig. 2. Diagrammatic drawing of pattern in stretched skin of T. s. fitchi; the pale markings on the black dorsolateral area are scarlet (× 2-1/2).

Fig. 3. Diagrammatic drawing of stretched skin of T. s. parietalis; the scarlet markings extend farther dorsally than in T. s. fitchi and black spots are prominent on the ventrals laterally. Some individuals of parietalis have much paler ground color, resembling ornata except in minor details (× 2-1/2).

Fig. 4. Diagrammatic drawing of stretched skin of T. s. ornata. The ground color is like that of parietalis but paler with a continuous black area bordering the dorsal stripe (× 2-1/2).

T. s. parietalis differs from fitchi in several trenchant characters, and there are additional slight or average differences between the two. In approximate order of their importance the differences are as follows: 1) The red (or pale yellow or green or buffy) marks on skin between the scales on the upper half of the dorsolateral area (that is between the sixth and seventh, seventh and eighth and eighth and ninth scale rows) present in parietalis are missing in fitchi or are represented by only an occasional small fleck. 2) The dorsolateral area is black or nearly so in fitchi but averages paler in parietalis, in which a wide range of shades may be found from black to olive brown. 3) The red of the dorsolateral area frequently invades the lateral stripe, which sometimes is mostly red, and may even invade the ventrals in parietalis, but in fitchi the red marks are usually confined to the dorsolateral area, and do not invade the lateral stripe. 4) The prominent paired black dots or semicircular marks on the anterior edge of each ventral in parietalis are largely lacking in fitchi, which rarely has any dark marks on the ventral surface. 5) The dorsal stripe consistently involves the middorsal scale row and the adjacent half of the next row on each side, and is bright yellow in fitchi, but in parietalis it may be slightly wider, may be duller with more dusky suffusion, and its edges may be less sharply defined.

Intermediate and Atypical Populations

Of many specimens examined from eastern Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado, few were typical of either parietalis or fitchi. Many were intermediate in some respects or showed a composite of characters of the two subspecies. No well-defined belt of intergradation exists, but the transition extends over more than a thousand miles, with local populations somewhat isolated and slightly differentiated along divergent lines. In view of this situation some plausibility could be claimed for any of several dividing lines between the subspecies. However, by far the most logical division is the Continental Divide; south of the Teton Range it constitutes a broad barrier separating eastern and western populations. Across Montana and Canada also it constitutes a more or less formidable barrier, with high altitudes and cold climates that probably are limiting to garter snakes. With few exceptions the snakes from east of the Continental Divide are more nearly like parietalis in the sum of their characters whereas those from west of the Divide are more nearly like fitchi.

In the Teton Range and in Yellowstone National Park these garter snakes occur in headwater streams up to the Continental Divide. KU 27956 from Two Ocean Lake 3-1/2 miles northeast of Moran, Teton County, Wyoming, agrees in its characters with fitchi, having the red lateral marks small and inconspicuous, discernible only on the anterior half of the body. The dorsolateral area is dark, almost black. The ventrals lack dark markings.

In Utah, populations of sirtalis occur in the drainages of the Bear, Weber and Sevier rivers and other smaller streams of the western half of the state. Obviously the species invaded Utah from the north, probably at a time when Lake Bonneville, the predecessor of the present Great Salt Lake, drained into the Snake River of Idaho. Van Denburgh and Slevin (1918:190) separated from their western "concinnus" and "infernalis" and allocated to parietalis the populations of Utah and southeastern Idaho, but presumably these authors were not familiar with typical parietalis of the Mid-west. Subsequent authors (Wright and Wright, 1957:834; Stebbins, 1954:505; Conant, 1958:328) have followed this arrangement. A re-examination of specimens from Utah, including living individuals collected at Bear Lake in the summer of 1959, indicates that they should be assigned to fitchi rather than to parietalis.

Likewise various specimens from the drainage basin of the Snake River in Idaho are predominantly fitchi in the sum of their characters, although they differ from that subspecies in its most typical form and resemble parietalis in some respects. KU 23133 from two miles east of Notus, Canyon County, Idaho, has the red crescents on the lower part of the sides (between scale rows six and seven) consistently developed on the anterior half of the body. KU 21873, a large female from Bannock County, Idaho, is exceptional in having small lateral black spots on the ventrals, resembling parietalis most closely in this respect. Also, it has the red lateral crescents unusually well developed; the first three series are conspicuous, those of the fourth series are consistently developed, and those of the fifth series show occasionally.

Forty-five specimens in the University of Colorado Museum from northwestern Colorado were subjected to pattern analysis. In three specimens the dorsolateral black area between the dorsal stripe and the lateral stripe on each side has no markings, and in eight others there is only an occasional fleck or crescent on the skin between the sixth and seventh scale rows. All others have the normal complement of dorsolateral crescents or flecks between the scales of rows three and four, four and five, and five and six. But, these specimens vary in extent of development of the crescents in the upper half of the dorsolateral area on each side—between scale rows six and seven, seven and eight, and eight and nine. Only six snakes show traces of the crescents of the uppermost series (between scale rows eight and nine). Development of these crescents is variable but in all the specimens the crescents are confined to the anterior half of the body. The crescents between rows six and seven and between seven and eight are present in 20 specimens and in ten of these the crescents are conspicuous and regularly arranged, often meeting and consequently form H-shaped markings. In most of the snakes the crescents are best developed in the second fifth of the body and disappear posteriorly. In five of the twenty, crescents between rows six and seven are fairly regular, but those between rows seven and eight are few and appear only sporadically. In eight specimens there are no crescents between either rows seven and eight or eight and nine. In eight others the crescents between rows six and seven are likewise absent, and only the crescents between rows three to six are present.

These specimens from Colorado also differ from typical parietalis in having the black spots on the anterolateral edges of the ventrals less developed. In three of the 45 these spots are lacking entirely and in four others they are few and small. In the majority of specimens the spots are from 1/4 to 1/5 the length of the ventrals. In approximately one-third of the specimens the spots are absent posterior to mid-body. In five specimens obtained at Sheridan Lake, Pennington County, South Dakota, in the Black Hills in August, 1960, dorsolateral areas are dark with red crescents small and inconspicuous, and with black spots either lacking from the ventrals or only faintly developed. In two specimens from Sundance, Crook County, northeastern Wyoming, the red crescents are small and inconspicuous also. In one of these specimens, KU 28028, small black spots are present in the corners of the ventrals, but in the other, KU 23654, the spots are absent.

In having the dorsolateral area consistently black, with the three uppermost series of red crescents reduced or absent, and in having the ventral black spots reduced or absent, these specimens from Colorado, Wyoming, and South Dakota differ from more eastern and more typical parietalis, and tend toward fitchi, even more strongly than some Idaho specimens tend toward parietalis. Nevertheless, all things considered, the Continental Divide is the most logical boundary between the two subspecies, even though occasional individuals and even local populations deviate from the general trend of characters from east to west.

Acknowledgments

Dr. Doris M. Cochran of the United States National Museum kindly furnished information concerning the type specimen of Eutainia dorsalis formerly in the National Museum collection but now lost. Dr. James S. Findley of the University of New Mexico and Dr. Ralph J. Raitt of New Mexico State University contributed habitat notes and records of specimens and loaned us critical specimens of T. sirtalis from New Mexico. Drs. George F. Baxter of the University of Wyoming, John M. Legler of the University of Utah, and Wilmer W. Tanner of Brigham Young University kindly provided us with information concerning the specimens in the collections of their respective institutions, and their personal observations concerning the distribution of garter snakes in their states. Alice V. Fitch, Chester W. Fitch and Donald S. Fitch assisted in the collection of fresh specimens in Oregon and Utah and the unsuccessful search of many a mosquito-infested meadow in southern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado in July, 1959. Dr. R. G. Webb made available his MS on reptiles of Oklahoma.

This taxonomic study of garter snakes originated as a by-product of the senior author's study of ecology and economic bearing of snakes in the central Plains Region of the United States, for which support received from the National Science Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

Literature Cited

Baird, S. F.

1859. Reptiles of the boundary. United States and Mexican Bound. Surv., 2, 1-35, 41 pls.

Baird, S. F., and Girard, C.

1853. Catalogue of North American reptiles in the Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. Smithson. Miscl. Col., part 1, Serpents., pp. xvi + 172.

Brown, B. C.

1950. An annotated check list of the reptiles and amphibians of Texas. Baylor Univ. Studies, pp. xii + 259.

Bundy, R. E.

1951. New locality records of reptiles in New Mexico. Copeia, 1951 (4):314.

Cockerell, T. D. A.

1910. Zoology of Colorado. Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, vii + 262 pp.

Conant, R.

1958. A field guide to the reptiles and amphibians of the United States and Canada east of the 100th Meridian. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, xviii + 366 pp.

Cope, E. D.

1900. The crocodilians, lizards and snakes of North America. Rept. U. S. Nat. Mus. for 1898, pp. 153-1270.

Fitch, H. S.

1941. Geographic variation in garter snakes of the species Thamnophis sirtalis in the Pacific Coast region of North America. Amer. Midland Nat., 26:570-592.

Fox, W.

1951. The status of the gartersnake, Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia. Copeia, 1951:257-267.

Fouquette, M. J., and Lindsay, H. L., Jr.

1955. An ecological survey of reptiles in parts of northwestern Texas. Texas Jour. Sci., 7(4):402-421.

Hudson, G. E.

1942. The amphibians and reptiles of Nebraska. Nebraska Conserv. Bull. No. 24, pp. 1-146.

Little, E. L., Jr., and Keller, J. G.

1937. Amphibians and reptiles from the Jornada Experimental Range, New Mexico. Copeia, 1937 (4):402-421.

Maslin, T. P.

1959. An annotated check list of the amphibians and reptiles of Colorado. Univ. Colorado Studies, Ser. Biol. No. 6, 98 pp.

Ruthven, A. G.

1908. Variations and genetic relationships of the garter-snakes. Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., 61:xii + 201 pp.

Schmidt, K. P.

1953. A check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. Univ. Chicago Press, vii + 280 pp.

Smith, H. M.

1942. The synonymy of the garter snakes (Thamnophis), with notes on Mexican and Central American species. Zoologica, 27(17):97-123.

1956. Handbook of amphibians and reptiles of Kansas (2nd ed.). Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Misc. Publ. No. 9, 356 pp.

Smith, H. M., and Brown, B. B.

1946. The identity of certain specific names in Thamnophis. Herpetologica, 3:71-72.

Smith, H. M., and Taylor, E. H.

1945. An annotated check list and key to the snakes of Mexico. Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., 187, 239 pp.

Stebbins, R. C.

1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., xxiv + 528 pp.

Van Denburgh, J.

1924. Notes on the herpetology of New Mexico, with a list of the species known from the state. Proc. California Acad. Sci., 4th ser., 13(12):189-250.

Van Denburgh, J., and Slevin, J.

1918. The garter-snakes of Western North America. Proc. California Acad. Sci., 4th ser., 8:181-270.

Woodbury, A. M.

1931. A descriptive catalog of the reptiles of Utah. Univ. Utah Biol. Ser., 1(4):1-129.

Wright, A. H., and Wright, A. A.

1957. Handbook of snakes of the United States and Canada. Comstock Publ. Associates, Cornell Univ. Press, vol. 2, pp. i + ix and 565-1106.

Transmitted November 8, 1960.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK OCCURRENCE OF THE GARTER SNAKE, THAMNOPHIS SIRTALIS, IN THE GREAT PLAINS AND ROCKY MOUNTAINS ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

back

back

back

back