Uropeltis ellioti (Gray, 1858)

Pyron, Robert Alexander, Ganesh, Sumaithangi Rajagopalan, Sayyed, Amit, Sharma, Vivek, Wallach, Van & Somaweera, Ruchira, 2016, A catalogue and systematic overview of the shield-tailed snakes (Serpentes: Uropeltidae), Zoosystema 38 (4), pp. 453-506 : 491

Uropeltis ellioti (Gray, 1858)

( Fig. 8F )

Siloboura ellioti Gray, 1858a: 261 . Holotype: BMNH 1946.1.16.6. Type locality: Given only as “Madras”. The phrase probably refers to the Madras Presidency, a colonial province encompassing most of southern and southeastern India, and not the city of Madras (present-day Chennai). Restriction of this locality by subsequent revision will likely be needed in the future, as this is likely a complex of species (see below). See Gray (1858a).

Silybura punctata Günther, 1875: 229 . Five syntypes: BMNH 1946.1 .16.40, Golcondah hills, Kerala state, India; BMNH 1946.1.16.43-46, Pulney hills, Tamil Nadu state, India. Designated as a subjective junior synonym by Boulenger (1893a) .

DISTRIBUTION. — Apparently a widespread Indian species (see Wallach et al. 2014; Ganesh 2015), occurring in both the Eastern ( Rajendran 1985; Guptha et al. 2012; Ganesh & Arumugam 2016) and Western Ghats as far North as Gujarat (VS, pers. obs.); a patched form also occurs in the Satpura hills of Central India at varying elevations (500-1800 m; Wadatkar & Chikhale 2010).

DESCRIPTION

Maximum total size c. 320 mm, ventrals 144-176, subcaudals 5-11, dorsal scales in 17 rows at midbody ( Whitaker & Captain 2004). Ganesh & Arumugam (2016) report 137-153 ventrals from the Jawadi and Shevaroy hills. Smith (1943) classified the tail as state I, but in the MNHN specimens examined, it exhibits his state II, being relatively truncated and compressed dorsally, with clear separation between the bi- or tri-carinate shield scales and the smooth dorsal scales on the side of the tail (see Rajendran 1985). We classify the tail as Type IV. The snout is “Alternate Pointed”, with an enlarged and recurved rostral. Color pattern is variable, with a dark brown or black dorsal coloration with occasional yellowish-white spots, short stripes on the side of the neck and tail, a dark brown venter with small yellow dots, and a transverse yellow bar across the vent connecting the stripes on either side of the tail. The tail and color-pattern clearly varies geographically, in comparison with the specimen pictured by Whitaker & Captain (2004), and those examined here (Appendix I). This is likely a complex of species.

REMARKS

The distribution of this species is not very well-studied, but it is apparently common at several sites throughout its range, with wide geographic variation in meristic characters (particularly ventral-scale counts) and tail morphology suggesting the presence of cryptic species (see Rajendran 1985). Thus, a detailed comparison of multiple populations will be needed to determine the phylogeographic structure and correct geographic assignment of the holotype for the nominal lineage.

Figures

FIG. 8. — Some uropeltid species photographed in life: A, Rhinophis zigzag Gower & Maduwage, 2011; B, Teretrurus sanguineus (Beddome, 1867); C, Uropeltis bicatenata (Günther,1864); D, U. ceylanica Cuvier,1829; E, U.dindigalensis (Beddome,1877);F, U. ellioti (Gray,1858); G, U. liura (Günther,1875);H, U. macrolepis (Peters, 1861). Photos by RAP, RS, SRG, VS, S. Kehimkar, A. Mohan, and D. Raju.