Cylindrophis

Kieckbusch, Max, Mecke, Sven, Hartmann, Lukas & Ehrmantraut, Lisa, 2016, An inconspicuous, conspicuous new species of Asian pipesnake, genus Cylindrophis (Reptilia: Squamata: Cylindrophiidae), from the south coast of Jawa Tengah, Java, Indonesia, and an overview of the tangled taxonomic history of C. ruffus (Laurenti, 1768), Zootaxa 4093 (1), pp. 1-25 : 2

The genus Cylindrophis .

The henophidian snake genus Cylindrophis Wagler, 1828 currently comprises 13 secretive, semifossorial species, including C. aruensis Boulenger, 1920 ; C. boulengeri Roux, 1911 ; C. burmanus Smith, 1943 ; C. engkariensis Stuebing, 1994 ; C. isolepis Boulenger, 1896 ; C. jodiae Amarasinghe et al., 2015 ; C. lineatus Blanford, 1881 ; C. maculatus (Linnaeus, 1758) ; C. melanotus Wagler, 1828 ; C. mirzae Amarasinghe et al., 2015 ; C. opisthorhodus Boulenger, 1897 ; C. ruffus (Laurenti, 1768) ; and C. yamdena Smith & Sidik, 1998 (see Wallach et al. 2014; Amarasinghe et al. 2015). These snakes are collectively referred to as Asian pipesnakes due to their cylindrical appearance, with a body of near-uniform diameter. Members of the genus are small- to mediumsized (total length 125–857 mm), rather stout-bodied snakes that may be defined on the basis of the following eidonomic characters: (1) a relatively blunt head with minute eyes, head not distinct from neck, bearing a mental groove; (2) absence of true gastrosteges, with ventral scales only slightly larger than or equal in size to dorsal scales; (3) presence of a pair of pelvic spurs (= cloacal spurs) in both sexes; (4) a very short tail, often with conspicuous ventral coloration; and (5) contrasting light and dark ventral blotching (e.g., de Rooij 1917; Smith 1943; Taylor 1965; Greene 1973; pers. obs.). The conspicuous ventral color pattern plays a vital role in the defensive behavior of Cylindrophis species. When threatened, pipesnakes will flatten the posterior portion of their body and arch it above the ground to display their ventral pattern, while the head remains concealed among the body coils (e.g., Flower 1899; Barbour 1912; Smith 1927, 1943; Campden-Main 1970; Deuve 1970; Greene 1973).

Distribution. Cylindrophis is a widely distributed genus (Flower 1899; de Rooij 1917; Smith 1943; Lal Hora & Jayaram 1949; Taylor 1965; Campden-Main 1970; Deuve 1970; McDowell 1975; in den Bosch 1985; Stuebing 1991; Adler et al. 1992; Iskandar 1998; Zug et al. 1998; McDiarmid et al. 1999; Orlov et al. 2000; de Lang 2011) with species occurring from Sri Lanka (one species) throughout the continental and insular parts of Southeast Asia (12 species currently recognized). In Southeast Asia the genus is distributed from southern China and Hong Kong through Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, Peninsular Malaysia, and Singapore including Singapore, south to the Greater Sunda Islands (Borneo, Sumatra, Java, as well as some of their offshore islands), Sulawesi, the Lesser Sunda Islands (Lombok, Komodo, Flores, Sumbawa, Timor), and east to the Maluku Islands (Halmahera, Wetar, Damar, Babar, and into the Tanimbar Archipelago); the eastern distributional limit, the Aru Islands, was considered questionable by Iskandar (1998). However, within this vast range, smaller-scale zoogeographic patterns, phylogenetic relationships, and even the true species richness of the genus remain poorly known.

Many species of Cylindrophis , especially those from the eastern end of the distribution (e.g., C. aruensis , C. boulengeri , C. isolepis , C. yamdena ), are known from very few specimens (McDowell 1975; Iskandar 1998; Smith & Sidik 1998). This is likely due to both the remoteness of the eastern Indonesian islands and the secretive lifestyle of these snakes, and Cylindrophis diversity in this region may still be underestimated. Even on Borneo, an island with a relatively well-studied herpetofauna (Das 2004), Stuebing (1994) discovered C. engkariensis , a species with a potentially very restricted range. More recently, Amarasinghe et al. (2015) described two new species (one from Singapore and one from Vietnam) that had been masquerading under the name C. ruffus . However, the descriptions and redescriptions (including of C. ruffus ) presented by these authors contain some inaccuracies, including descriptive errors, which unfortunately increase the complexity of an already intricate taxonomic situation.