Pseudemys concinna

This database follows the Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (2021) in recognizing two subspecies: Pseudemys concinna concinna and P. c. suwanniensis, and treating P. floridensis as a distinct species. Crother (2017) recognizes Pseudemys concinna concinna, and P. c. floridana, and recognizes P. suwanniensis as a distinct species. Further study is needed to resolve these taxonomic discrepancies.

Based on a morphometric analysis, Seidel (1994) recommended that floridana be regarded as a subspecies of P. concinna, with nominal P. c. suwanniensis and P. f. peninsularis recognized as full species. Seidel (1994) concluded that, due to clinal variation, nominal subspecies hieroglyphica, metteri, and mobilensis are unworthy of taxonomic recognition. Jackson (1995) presented an alternative taxonomic evaluation and strongly recommended that suwanniensis and peninsularis be retained as populations or subspecies of the distinct species P. concinna and P. floridana, respectively. See Seidel (1995) for a rebuttal. Seidel and Dreslik (1996) followed the taxonomic arrangement of Seidel (1994) except that suwanniensis was treated as a subspecies of P. concinna. Crother et al. (2000, 2003) and Crother (2008) included floridana as a subspecies of P. concinna and recognized P. peninsularis and P. suwanniensis as distinct species. Jackson (2006) continued to regard suwanniensis and peninsularis as populations or subspecies of the distinct species P. concinna and P. floridana, respectively.

Jackson et al. (2012) used mitochondrial DNA sequence data to address relationships within the genus Pseudemys. They found that Pseudemys forms a well-supported monophyletic group, but relationships among species were not well resolved. Most taxa did not appear to be monophyletic, with the exception of P. gorzugi (Rio Grande Cooter) and P. texana (Texas Cooter), suggesting the possibility of mitochondrial introgression as a result of historic or continuing hybrid swarms across the range of the genus, or the lack of resolution may reflect a pattern of recent speciation. The authors concluded that taxonomic relationships within Pseudemys remain complex and elusive and continue to warrant further work.

In the Atlantic drainages of the east-central United States, P. rubriventris is morphologically distinct from P. floridana and P. concinna, though in the southern part of its range P. rubriventris is somewhat morphologically convergent with floridana; this may reflect hybridization or convergent evolution (Seidel and Palmer 1991).

Pseudemys texana formerly was included in P. concinna (Ward 1984). Subspecies gorzugi, described by Ward (1984), was treated as a full species by Ernst (1990) and Seidel (1994).

Spinks et al. (2013) examined variation in mitochondrial and nuclear DNA across all recognized taxa of Pseudemys, and revealed almost no support for the currently recognized species groups, species, or subspecies. They concluded that the genus was probably over-split, but offered no explicit taxonomic suggestions. Pending more extensive genetic sampling and phylogenetic analyses, and in the interest of stability, Crother (2017) continue to follow the content recommended by Seidel (1994).

This species sometimes has been placed in the genus Chrysemys.

Range extends from Maryland to Florida Panhandle and northwestern peninsular Florida, west to eastern Texas, eastern Oklahoma, and eastern Kansas, north to Missouri, Illinois (Dreslik 1998), Indiana, and the Ohio River valley of West Virginia, south to the Gulf Coast (Conant and Collins 1991, Seidel and Dreslik 1996).

Decline in north probably is due to degradation and loss of habitat (Herkert 1992).