identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
06E763D74D165004AFD507F6090D8EB7.text	06E763D74D165004AFD507F6090D8EB7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Indotyphlops gyirongensis Lyu & Tan & Zhao & Wallach & Liu & Guo 2026	<div><p>Indotyphlops gyirongensis sp. nov.</p><p>Figs 3, 4, 5</p><p>Holotype.</p><p>• YBU 251031, adult female collected from <a href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=85.33&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=28.31" title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 85.33/lat 28.31)">Gyirong Town</a>, Gyirong County, Xizang, China (28.31°N, 85.33°E), at an elevation of 2262 m in August 2025.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>A blind snake distinguished from congeners by a combination of characters: 1) large size with 265 mm in total length, 2) SIP T-V, 3) midbody scales in 18 rows, 4) total middorsal scales 432, 5) subcaudals 17, 6) infralabials 2, 7) absence of a terminal tail spine, and 8) light-colored head cap.</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>A slender female blind snake with total length (TL) of 265 mm and tail length (TaiL) of 7.5 mm (TaiL / TL = 2.8 %), midbody diameter (BD) of 3.5 mm (TL / BD = 76), midtail diameter (TD) 3.4 (TaiL / TD = 2.2); dorsal scale row formula 18-18 - 18, uniform in size, smooth and glossy; total middorsals 432, subcaudals 17; tail lacking spine but terminating in a nubbin.</p><p>Head rounded in dorsal profile, indistinct from body; rostral ogival in shape, approximately 1 / 3 the width of midocular level of head (RW / HW = 0.35); frontal and postfrontal transversely enlarged; supraoculars oblique, slightly narrower than frontal; parietals and occipitals slightly broader than frontal and transversely oriented. Head bluntly rounded in lateral profile; nasal semidivided, nostril semilunar in shape and vertically oriented, inferior nasal suture contacting 2 nd supralabial; superior nasal suture extending 2 / 3 nasal-rostral distance; preocular single, 1.5 times the width of the nasal; ocular slightly narrower than preocular, dark eyespot present, lacking pupil and iris; postoculars 2; supralabials 4, SIP T-V, with 2 nd supralabial overlapping the preocular and 3 rd supralabial overlapping the ocular (see Pyron and Wallach 2014 for definition); infralabials 2.</p><p>In coloration, it is distinguished by a light cream-colored head cap, lacking pigmentation posteriorly as far as the ocular and 4 th supralabial; dorsal coloration light brown, gradually fading towards the tail, each scale covered with dark pigmentation on the posterior half and lacking pigmentation on anterior half; venter and subcaudals cream, lacking pigmentation and partially transparent to internal viscera; lateral body region lacking discrete demarcation between dorsum and venter.</p><p>Comparisons.</p><p>Currently there are at least 20 recognized species in the genus Indotyphlops, including I. combank Wickramasinghe et al., 2023, I. albiceps, I. braminus, I. exiguus (Jan, 1864), I. jerdoni (Boulenger, 1890), I. laca (O’Shea et al., 2023), I. lankaensis (Taylor, 1947), I. lazelli (Wallach &amp; Pauwels, 2004), I. leucomelas (Boulenger, 1890), I. longissimus (Dumeril &amp; Bibron, 1844), I. loveridgei (Constable, 1949), I. malcolmi (Taylor, 1947), I. meszoelyi (Wallach, 1999), I. pammeces (Gunther, 1864), I. tenebrarum (Taylor, 1947), I. veddae (Taylor, 1947), I. porrectus (Stoliczka, 1871), I. schmutzi (Auffenberg, 1980), I. tenuicollis (Peters, 1864), and I. violaceus (Taylor, 1947) (Hedges et al. 2014; Pyron and Wallach 2014; Uetz et al. 2026). Uetz et al. (2026) recognize I. ahsanai (Khan, 1999), I. fletcheri (Wall, 1919), and I. madgemintonae (Khan, 1999) . Hedges et al. (2014) also recognize I. filiformis (Dumeril &amp; Bibron, 1844), I. hypsibothrius (Werner, 1917), I. khoratensis (Taylor, 1962), I. madgemintonae (Khan, 1999), and I. “ ozakiae ” (Wallach in Niyomwan, 1999). The new species is most similar to taxa with a T-V SIP pattern and 18 scale rows ( I. exiguus, I. laca, I. lazelli, I. porrectus, and I. schmutzi).</p><p>The new species can be differentiated from its congeners by the following characters:</p><p>1) It differs from I. albiceps in its SIP (T-V vs. T-III) and fewer scale rows (18 vs. 20).</p><p>2) It differs from I. braminus in its SIP (T-V vs. T-III), fewer scale rows (18 vs. 20), its superior nasal suture (invisible dorsally vs. visible dorsally), its inferior nasal suture contact (preocular vs. supralabial 2), and a light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>3) It differs from I. combank in having fewer scale rows (18 vs. 20), a larger body size (total length 265 mm vs. 131 mm), and a stouter body (TL / BD = 76 vs. &lt;57), its superior nasal suture (invisible dorsally vs. visible dorsally), having more postoculars (2 vs. 1), and a light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>4) It differs from I. exiguus in having more middorsals (432 vs. 348) and a light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>5) It differs from I. jerdoni in its SIP (T-V vs. T-III), having fewer midbody scale rows (18 vs. 20-22), by its superior nasal suture (invisible dorsally vs. visible dorsally), having more postoculars (2 vs. 1), in its eye (lacking pupil vs. distinct pupil present), and its light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>6) It differs from I. laca in a larger body size (total length 265 mm vs. 121 mm), relative tail length (TaiL / TL = 2.8 vs. 1.6), and in its light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>7) It differs from I. lankaensis in its SIP (T-V vs. T-III), having fewer midbody scale rows (18 vs. 20), having more total middorsals (432 vs. &lt;261), having a more gracile body (TL / BD = 76 vs. &lt;35), its lateral snout profile (rounded vs. obtuse), its superior nasal suture (invisible dorsally vs. visible dorsally), in the inferior nasal suture contact (preocular vs. supralabial 2), having more postoculars (2 vs. 1), and a light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>8) It differs from I. lazelli in its larger body size (total length 265 mm vs. 158 mm), a longer tail (TaiL / TL = 2.8 vs. 1.8), and its light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>9) It differs from I. leucomelas in its SIP (T-V vs. T-III), fewer midbody scale rows (18 vs. 22), more total middorsals (432 vs. &lt;325), a larger body size (TL 265 mm vs. 130 mm), a more gracile body (TL / BD = 76 vs. &lt;32), by its superior nasal suture (invisible dorsally vs. visible dorsally), its eye (lacking pupil vs. distinct pupil present), and its light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>10) It differs from I. longissimus in its SIP (T-V vs. T-III), fewer midbody scale rows (18 vs. 22), its tail proportion (TaiL / TD = 2.2 vs. 1.0), its rostral width (RW / HW = 0.35 vs.&gt; 0.48), its relative tail length (TaiL / TL = 2.8 vs. 1.5), and its light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>11) It differs from I. loveridgei in its SIP (T-V vs. T-III), its tail proportion (TaiL / TD ratio 2.2 vs. 1.4), more postoculars (2 vs. 1), its eye (eyespot present vs. absent), and its light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>12) It differs from I. malcolmi in its SIP (T-V vs. T-III), fewer midbody scale rows (18 vs. 20), more total middorsals (432 vs. &lt;308), a larger body size (total length 265 mm vs. &lt;135 mm), a more gracile body (TL / BD = 76 vs. &lt;32), its tail proportion (TaiL / TD ratio 2.2 vs. &lt;1.2), its superior nasal suture (invisible dorsally vs. visible dorsally), more postoculars (2 vs. 1), and in its light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>13) It differs from I. meszoelyi in its SIP (T-V vs. T-III), more postoculars (2 vs. 1), and its light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>14) It differs from I. pammeces in its SIP (T-V vs. T-III), fewer midbody scale rows (18 vs. 20), its superior nasal suture (invisible dorsally vs. visible dorsally), and its light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>15) It differs from I. porrectus in its anterior scale rows (18 vs. 20), more postoculars (2 vs. 1), and a light-colored head cap (present vs. absent), stout body (TL / BD = 78 vs. 86), more subcaudals (17 vs. 7-12).</p><p>16) It differs from I. schmutzi in having a larger body size (TL 265 mm vs. &lt;140 mm), more postoculars (2 vs. 1), and a light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>17) It differs from I. tenebrarum in its SIP (T-V vs. T-III), fewer midbody scale rows (18 vs. 20), a larger body size (TL 265 mm vs. &lt;144 mm), its superior nasal suture (invisible dorsally vs. visible dorsally), more postoculars (2 vs. 1), and a light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>18) It differs from I. tenuicollis in its SIP (T-V vs. T-III), fewer midbody scale rows (18 vs. 22), fewer total middorsals (432 vs. 480-523), rostral width (RW / HW = 0.35 vs.&gt; 0.45), and its light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>19) It differs from I. veddae in its SIP (T-V vs. T-III), fewer midbody scale rows (18 vs. 20), more total middorsals (432 vs. &lt;309), a larger body size (TL 265 mm vs. 93 mm), its tail proportion (TaiL / TD = 2.2 vs. 1.4), its superior nasal suture (invisible dorsally vs. visible dorsally), more postoculars (2 vs. 1), and a light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>20) It differs from I. violaceus in having fewer midbody scale rows (18 vs. 20), more total middorsals (432 vs. &lt;308), a larger body size (TL 265 mm vs. &lt;135 mm), a thinner body width (TL / BD = 76 vs. &lt;43), its lateral snout profile (rounded vs. obtuse), its superior nasal suture (invisible dorsally vs. visible dorsally), its inferior nasal suture contact (preocular vs. 2 nd supralabial), more postoculars (2 vs. 1), and its light-colored head cap (present vs. absent).</p><p>Habitat and distribution.</p><p>The specimen was collected under a stone at the edge of a roadside forest near the China-Nepal border, which strongly suggests that this new species also occurs in Nepal. The sampling site is located within an evergreen broad-leaved forest, characterized by deep humus soil and a thick layer of leaf litter (Fig. 5). The sympatric herpetofauna at this locality includes Protobothrops himalayanus, Orthriophis hodgsoni, Ablepharus mahabharatus, and Bufo himalayanus .</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet Gyirong is a noun in apposition, referring to the type locality, Gyirong Town, Gyirong County, Xizang, China. We suggest the English common name “ Gyirong blind snake ” and the Chinese common name “吉隆盲蛇” (Jílóng Mángshé) for this new species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/06E763D74D165004AFD507F6090D8EB7	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Pensoft via Plazi	Lyu, Bing;Tan, Songwen;Zhao, Zhichao;Wallach, Van;Liu, Qin;Guo, Peng	Lyu, Bing, Tan, Songwen, Zhao, Zhichao, Wallach, Van, Liu, Qin, Guo, Peng (2026): A new species of blind snake, Indotyphlops (Serpentes, Typhlopidae), from the Qinghai-Xizang Plateau, China. ZooKeys 5555: 261-273, DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.1292.197322
