Originally Posted by
Spankenstyne 
Without trying to confuse the issue further, No they're not illegal.
Both the common and scientific names are taken into consideration when identifying an animal. If there's a discrepency between the two that leads to confusion as to what's being referred to then the scientific name takes precedence.
To dissect this a bit with examples that reflect both cases above...
The law lists:
Bullsnake, Pituophis melanoleucus
Red-sided garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis
Long-toed salamander, Ambystoma macrodactylum
European fire newt, Salamandra salamandra
In the first two examples, the common name does NOT apply to the species as a whole. It ONLY applies to a particular subspecies which is native to Alberta. So when the law comes into play and BOTH common and scientific names are applied, this is the interpretation:
Bullsnake, Pituophis catenifer sayi [the only subspecies called simply bullsnake, using the current scientific name]
Red-sided garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis [the only subspecies called by this common name]
The current names for the animals potentially affected here are:
Gopher snake, Pituophis catenifer [formerly P.melanoleucus, multiple subspecies]
Cape gopher snake, Pituophis vertebralis [formerly Pituophis melanoleucus vertebralis]
Pine snake, Pituophis melanoleucus
Louisiana pine snake, Pituophis ruthveni [formerly Pituophis melanoleucus ruthveni
Common garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis.
Note that the common names for the species as a whole are different from the common names for the forms in Alberta, which is why both names must be used. Thus, any member of these species which is not the same subspecies and common name as those found in Alberta, is "exotic". Since none is among the controlled "species", all the non-native forms are legal. A careful read of the law also indicates that any hybrid of a protected native with a legal exotic is no longer 'native' and thus is legal.
In the third example, the native form is Ambystoma macrodactylum krausei [northern long-toed salamander], and possibly A.m.columbianum [eastern long-toed salamander]. However, the law refers to the common name for the entire species. That has the effect of making ALL subspecies "native" in the law and thus equally regulated.
In the final example, we finally have a case of using the scientific name only. No member of the genus Salamandra is known as "fire newt", and no animal on the planet is known as a "European fire newt". Consequently, the so-called common name must be ignored entirely and only the scientific name is used. Since at the time of the law being instated, all but Salamandra lanzai and the Salamandra atra complex were considered a single species, this has the effect of prohibiting virtually all fire salamanders. That is, except perhaps S.lanzai which was described as a completely new species.
I'm sure that confuses most people more than it helps. Basically, for the law to apply, an animal must be accurately described by both names. Only in rare cases of the common name being blatantly wrong is the scientific name used alone.
The trend is to post names and numbers of "pets" here. That seems...um...bulky.
23+ species of salamander
28+ families and subfamilies of reptile, amphibian, and arachnid.
Only one has a name. The Beast.
Reply With Quote
