Crotalus ruber

Cope, 1892

Red Diamond Rattlesnake

G4Apparently Secure Found in 19 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G4Apparently SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
MediumThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100051
Element CodeARADE02090
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassReptilia
OrderSquamata
FamilyViperidae
GenusCrotalus
Concept Reference
Murphy, R. W., V. Kovac. O. Haddrath, G. S. Allen, A. Fishbein, and N. E. Mandrak. 1995. MtDNA gene sequence, allozyme, and morphological uniformity among red diamond rattlesnakes, Crotalus ruber and Crotalus exsul. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:270-281.
Taxonomic Comments
The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom 1964) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987) and McCranie (1988) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al. 2013) (Crother 2017).

Murphy et al. (1995) examined variation in mtDNA, allozymes, and morphology of red diamond rattlesnakes and concluded that Crotalus ruber and C. exsul should be considered a single species (C. exsul) with three subspecies (C. e. exsul, C. e. ruber, and C. e. lorenzoensis. Smith et al. (1998) applied to the ICZN to conserve the name Crotalus ruber for the red diamond rattlesnake by giving the name Crotalus ruber precedence over the name C. exsul. ICZN (2000) gave Crotalus ruber precedence over C. exsul whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms.

Harris and Simmons (1978) recognized as endemic subspecies the populations on Isla Monserrate and Isla Angel de la Guarda, but "the justification for doing so was so feeble that their recommendations have not been taken seriously by subsequent investigators" (Campbell and Lamar 1989).
Conservation Status
Review Date2012-04-20
Change Date2012-04-20
Edition Date2012-04-20
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G.
Threat ImpactMedium
Range Extent20,000-2,500,000 square km (about 8000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 - 300
Rank Reasons
Apparently secure in most of the range (Baja California, southwestern California), based on the existence of fairly large areas of occupied suitable habitat (but scant population data); threatened by habitat loss caused by development in inland valleys in California.
Range Extent Comments
The range extends from southwestern California (from near Pioneertown and Morongo Valley of San Bernardino County and southeastern Los Angeles County) south through Baja California, including several islands in the Gulf of California (e.g., Angel de la Guarda, Pond, San Lorenzo del Sur, San Marcos, Danzante, Monserrate, and San Jose islands) and Isla de Santa Margarita and Isla Cedros along the Pacific coast of Baja California (Murphy et al. 1995, Grismer 2002, Campbell and Lamar 2004). This species does not occur in the desert east of the Sierra de Juarez in northeastern Baja California del Norte (Campbell and Lamar 2004). Elevational range extends from near sea level to about 1,500 meters but usually below 1,200 meters (Campbell and Lamar 2004).
Occurrences Comments
This species is represented by a large number of occurrences (subpopulations). In California, Jennings and Hayes (1994) mapped roughly 80 extant locations and about 45 locations from which the species was believed to be extirpated. Campbell and Lamar (2004) mapped about 27 collection sites in Baja California.
Threat Impact Comments
Across the range, no major threats are known. However, the species is threatened by habitat loss caused by residential and agricultural development in inland valleys in portions of California, where killing by humans likely has depleted populations near developed areas (Armstrong and Murphy 1979, Jennings and Hayes 1994).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

A large (adults usually 75-162 cm), robust, tan, pink, or reddish snake with a series of large diamond-shaped markings (sometimes indistinct) on the back and a horny button or rattle on the end of the tail; tail has alternating broad black and white rings; first pair of lower labials usually is divided transversely; dorsal scales are keeled, in 29 rows at mid-body; young initially are dark gray, changing to reddish brown in the northern part of the range (Stebbins 1985). See Campbell and Lamar (1989) for many further details.

Diagnostic Characteristics

Differs from the western diamondback rattlesnake (CROTALUS ATROX) in generally being more reddish (vs. pale gray-brown), lacking conspicuous dark dots in the body blotches, and in having the first pair of lower labials usually divided transversely. Differs from the western rattlesnake (CROTALUS VIRIDIS) in having usually only two internasals in contact with the rostral and in having broader black rings on the tail. Differs from the speckled rattlesnake (CROTALUS MITCHELLII) in having conspicuous tail rings, lacking conspicuous dark speckling on the ground color, not having the prenasals separated from the rostral by a series of small scales, and lacking pits, furrows, or irregular outer edges on the supraoculars. Differs from the Baja California rattlesnake (CROTALUS ENYO) in lacking supraoculars that are inclined considerably upward toward the lateral side of the head, lacking knobby scales in the frontal region, and in having a tail that is conspicuously banded with dark and light rings. Differs from the Mojave rattlesnake (CROTALUS SCUTULATUS) in being generally reddish or tan (vs. gray to olive or brown), having broader dark tail rings, and lacking enlarged scales between the supraoculars. See Campbell and Lamar (1989) for further details.

Habitat

Habitats are varied and include rocky areas of tropical deciduous forest, ocean shores, desertscrub, thornscrub, open chaparral, mesquite/cactus, and pine-oak woodland, sometimes also dunes, grassland, and cultivated areas between rock outcrops (Grismer 2002, Stebbins 2003, Campbell and Lamar 2004). In southern California, this snake is most common in the western foothills of the Coast Ranges and in dry rocky inland valleys (Ernst 1992, Ernst and Ernst 2003, based on Klauber's studies in San Diego County); it often inhabits areas of granite rock outcroppings, especially in winter (Armstrong and Murphy 1979). In southern Baja California, it is most common in heavy brush where rocks and rocky outcrops are prevalent, but it also occurs in desert and open arid plains (Armstrong and Murphy 1979). This terrestrial snake commonly climbs into low vegetation. Refuges include rock crevices, animal burrows, brush piles, surface debris, or similar sites.

Ecology

May congregate at winter den sites.

Reproduction

Mating has been observed mainly in spring. Viviparous. Bears 3-20 (average around 8-10) young during the summer (August-September).
Terrestrial Habitats
Woodland - HardwoodWoodland - MixedShrubland/chaparralDesertBare rock/talus/scree
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN3
ProvinceRankNative
CaliforniaS3Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentHigh (continuing)
1.1 - Housing & urban areasHigh (continuing)
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureHigh (continuing)
2.1 - Annual & perennial non-timber cropsHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource useHigh (continuing)
5.1 - Hunting & collecting terrestrial animalsHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (19)
California (19)
AreaForestAcres
Barker ValleyCleveland National Forest11,940
Cactus Springs BSan Bernardino National Forest3,106
Cahuilla MountainSan Bernardino National Forest6,952
CalienteCleveland National Forest5,953
ColdwaterCleveland National Forest8,402
Cucamonga BSan Bernardino National Forest11,933
Cutca ValleyCleveland National Forest14,530
Eagle PeakCleveland National Forest6,481
Heartbreak RidgeSan Bernardino National Forest4,455
Hixon FlatSan Bernardino National Forest8,095
Horse Creek RidgeSan Bernardino National Forest8,969
LaddCleveland National Forest5,300
No NameCleveland National Forest4,897
Pine CreekCleveland National Forest503
Pyramid Peak BSan Bernardino National Forest7,194
Rouse HillSan Bernardino National Forest13,745
San SevaineSan Bernardino National Forest6,866
TrabucoCleveland National Forest23,341
WildhorseCleveland National Forest1,483
References (26)
  1. Armstrong, B. L., and J. B. Murphy. 1979. The natural history of Mexican rattlesnakes. Univ. Kansas Museum Natural History Special Publication. No. 5. vii + 88 pp.
  2. Behler, J. L., and F. W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 719 pp.
  3. Brattstrom, B. H. 1964. Evolution of the pit vipers. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 13(11):185-268.
  4. Campbell, J. A., and E. D. Brodie, Jr., editors. 1992. Biology of the pit vipers. Selva, Tyler, Texas.
  5. Campbell, J. A., and W. W. Lamar. 1989. The venomous reptiles of Latin America. Comstock Publ. Associates, Division of Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. xii + 425 pp.
  6. Campbell, J. A., and W. W. Lamar. 2004. The venomous reptiles of the Western Hemisphere. 2 volumes. Cornell University Press.
  7. 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.
  8. Crother, B. I. (editor). 2017. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. 8th edition. SSAR Herpetological Circular 43:1-104. [Updates in SSAR North American Species Names Database at: https://ssarherps.org/cndb]
  9. Ernst, C. H. 1992. Venomous reptiles of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. ix + 236 pp.
  10. Ernst, C. H., and E. M. Ernst. 2003. Snakes of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C.
  11. Gloyd, H. 1940. The rattlesnakes. Chicago Academy Science, Special Publication No. 4.
  12. Grismer, L. L. 2002. Amphibians and reptiles of Baja California including its Pacific islands and islands in the Sea of Cortes. University of California Press, Berkeley. xiii + 399 pp.
  13. Harris, H. S., Jr., and R. S. Simmons. 1978. A preliminary account of the rattlesnakes with the descriptions of four new subspecies. Bulletin of the Maryland Herpetological Society 14:105-211.
  14. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). 2000. <i>Crotalus ruber</i> Cope, 1892 (Reptilia, Serpentes): specific name given precedence over that of <i>Crotalus exsul</i> Garman, 1884. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57:189-190.
  15. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Final Report submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Contract No. 8023. 255 pp.
  16. Klauber, L. M. 1972. Rattlesnakes: their habits, life histories, and influence on mankind. Second edition. Two volumes. Univ. California Press, Berkeley.
  17. Knight, A., D. Styer, S. Pelikan, J. A. Campbell, L. D. Densmore III, and D. P. Mindell. 1993. Choosing among hypotheses of rattlesnake phylogeny: a best-fit rate test for DNA sequence data. Systematic Biology 42(3):356-367.
  18. McCranie, J. R. 1988. Description of the hemipenis of <i>Sistrurus ravus </i>(Serpentes: Viperidae). Herpetologica 44:123-126.
  19. Murphy, R. W., J. Fu, and A. Lathrop. 2002. Phylogeny of the rattlesnakes (<i>Crotalus </i>and <i>Sistrurus</i>) inferred from sequences of five mitochondrial DNA genes. Pages 69-92 in G. W. Schuett, M. Hoggren, M. E. Douglas, and H. W. Greene, editors. Biology of the Vipers. Eagle Mountain Publishing, Eagle Mountain, Utah.
  20. Murphy, R. W., V. Kovac. O. Haddrath, G. S. Allen, A. Fishbein, and N. E. Mandrak. 1995. MtDNA gene sequence, allozyme, and morphological uniformity among red diamond rattlesnakes, <i>Crotalus ruber</i> and <i>Crotalus exsul</i>. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:270-281.
  21. Parkinson, C. L. 1999. Molecular systematics and biogeographical history of pitvipers as determined by mitochondrial ribosomal DNA sequences. Copeia 1999:576-586.
  22. Pyron, R. A., F. T. Burbrink, and J. J. Wiens. 2013. A phylogeny and revised classification of Squamata, including 4161 species of lizards and snakes. BMC Evolutionary Biology 29:131.
  23. Smith, H. M., et al. 1998. <i>Crotalus ruber</i> Cope, 1892 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed precedence of the specific name over that of <i>Crotalus exsul</i> Garman, 1884. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55:229-232.
  24. Stebbins, R. C. 1985a. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. xiv + 336 pp.
  25. Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
  26. Stille, B. 1987. Dorsal scale microdermatoglyphics and rattlesnake (<i>Crotalus </i>and <i>Sistrurus</i>) phylogeny (Reptilia: Viperidae: Crotalinae). Herpetologica:98-104.