Plethodon teyahalee

Formerly included in P. jordani in some literature (see Highton 1987). A member of the Plethodon glutinosus group. Plethodon teyahalee was regarded as specifically distinct from Plethodon glutinosus by Highton (1983, 1987), but Hairston et al. (1992) regarded the separation as unjustified and continued to use the name Plethodon glutinosus for the slimy salamanders of the southern Appalachians. Hairston (1993) pointed out that the type specimen of Plethodon teyahalee came from an area of hybridization; he therefore collected a new type specimen and changed the name of this salamander from Plethodon teyahalee to Plethodon oconaluftee. Petranka (1998) followed Hairston (1993) and used Plethodon oconaluftee as the name of this salamander. However, because the type specimen of teyahalee is not an F1 hybrid, the name teyahalee is available under the rules of zoological nomenclature and Plethodon oconaluftee is a junior synonym of Plethodon teyahalee (Crother et al. 2000). See also Wiens et al. (2006) and Highton et al. (2012).

Plethodon jordani and Plethodon teyahalee hybridize near Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory at intermediate elevations in the Nantahala Mountains, North Carolina; apparently the hybrid zone spread upward between 1974 and 1990; probably the hybridization began at the end of the time of intense timbering in the early 1900s (Hairston et al. 1992).

Small range in four southeastern states; formerly threatened by logging, now stable and unthreatened.

Range includes the Blue Ridge physiographic province of southwestern North Carolina west of French Broad River, and immediately adjacent Tennessee; also northern Rabun County, Georgia, and Oconee, Pickens, Abbeville and Anderson counties, South Carolina (Highton 1983, Petranka 1998, Dodd 2004). Tennessee: Unicoi Mountains in Monroe and Polk counties and the Great Smoky Mountains in Sevier and Cocke counties (Redmond and Scott 1996). Elevational range extends as high as 1,550 meters (Petranka 1998).

This species is represented by a large number of occurrences (subpopulations) (Highton 1987). Estimated 5 or less extant sites in Georgia (R. MacBeth, pers. comm., 1997). Common in main portion of range in North Carolina (J. Petranka, pers. comm., 1997); not tracked by North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Redmond and Scott (1996) mapped 21 collection localities in Tennessee.

Historically threatened by clearcutting. Populations stabilized as very little clearcutting occurs in this region any longer (J. Petranka, pers. comm., 1997). Too much foot traffic in habitat could be detrimental even if not overly destructive.