Rhinophis fergusonianus Boulenger, 1896

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 : 481

Rhinophis fergusonianus Boulenger, 1896

Rhinophis fergusonianus Boulenger, 1896: 236 .

TYPE MATERIAL. — Holotype: BMNH 1895.7 .29.1 (= 1946.1.16.77).

TYPE LOCALITY. — Cardamom hills, southern Western Ghats, southeastern Kerala state, India.

DISTRIBUTION. — Known only from type locality in the Cardamom hills of India, c. 1100 m (see Ferguson 1895, 1902; Wallach et al. 2014; Ganesh 2015).

DESCRIPTION

Holotype: total length c. 320 mm, 180 ventrals or 196 reported by Gower (2006), subcaudals unknown, dorsal scales in 17 rows at midbody (see Smith 1943). Color-pattern distinctive, with a black dorsum with occasional white speckles, sides yellowishwhite and stippled with black, white venter with black blotches forming an irregular zigzag, and yellow edging on the tail shield.

REMARKS

This species is known only from the type specimen. Since Rhinophis sanguineus has also been reported ( Hutton 1949) from the type locality of R. fergusonianus , some authors have doubted its validity ( Mahendra 1984). Given the differences in their morphology (see key in Aengals & Ganesh 2013), we suggest that R. fergusonianus is distinct from all other sympatric congeners and continue to recognize it as valid.

Rhinophis goweri Aengals & Ganesh, 2013 ( Fig. 6H )

Rhinophis goweri Aengals & Ganesh, 2013: 63 .

TYPE MATERIAL. — Holotype: ZSI/SRC/VRS 256.

TYPE LOCALITY. — Noolathu Kombai, Bodamalai hills, Tamil Nadu state, India.

DISTRIBUTION. — This species is known only from the type locality at the Bodamalai hills, and the nearby Kolli hills, in the southern Eastern Ghats of India at elevations c. 900 m ( Aengals & Ganesh 2013; Wallach et al. 2014; Ganesh 2015; Ganesh & Arumugam 2016).

DESCRIPTION

Holotype: total length c. 270 mm, ventrals 215, subcaudals 5, dorsal scales in 17 rows at midbody. Color pattern unremarkable, uniformly dark-gray or brown ventral coloration, off-white venter with brown stippling, tail with orangish-red blotches underneath, and no discernible pattern otherwise. A collection from the Kolli hills referred to this species has a maximum total length of c. 345 mm, 189-192 ventrals, 8-9 subcaudals, and suggests a faint juvenile pattern of ragged, wavy, black bars across the dorsum ( Ganesh & Arumugam 2016).

REMARK

This species is known only from the type specimen and five uncolleceted specimens from the nearby Kolli hills, and represents the only Rhinophis species reported from the Eastern Ghats.

Rhinophis homolepis ( Hemprich, 1820) ( Fig. 7A )

Anguis (Rhinophis) homolepis Hemprich, 1820: 119 . Holotype: ZMB 3827. Type locality: Unknown; designated as Zeylania ( Sri Lanka) by Peters (1861b). This may need to be restricted by future revisers (see Remarks).

Dapatnaya trevelyanii Kelaart, 1853: 108 . Syntypes lost fide Gans 1966. Type locality: Hills near Kandy, Sri Lanka. Designated as a junior subjective synonym by Peters (1861b).

Mitylia gerrardi Gray, 1858b: 58 . Three syntypes: BMNH 1946.1.16.66-68. Type locality: ‘Ceylon’ ( Sri Lanka). Designated as a junior subjective synonym by Peters (1861b). See Gray (1858b).

DISTRIBUTION. — This species has a moderately large range in the low and mid elevations of the wetzone of Sri Lanka. Records are scattered in the Central, Sabaragamuwa, and Uva provinces, at elevations c. 750-950 m ( Das & de Silva 2005; Somaweera 2006; Wallach et al. 2014).

DESCRIPTION

Maximum total length c. 280 mm, ventrals 180-204, subcaudals 3-5, dorsal scales in 17 rows at midbody (see Smith 1943). Color pattern typically uniformly black dorsum, with single row of partial, irregular white or pinkish-white triangular shaped marks along each side of the body, a white rostral, and a white or yellowish-white ring around the base of the tail.

REMARKS

This has a contentious nomenclatural history with respect to the junior synonym Dapatnaya trevelyanii Kelaart, 1853 , but the name Anguis homolepis Hemprich, 1820 is clearly validly associated with this species (see McDiarmid et al. 1999). As with Rhinophis blythii , the broad type locality of ‘ Sri Lanka’ will likely require subsequent revision after phylogeographic investigation, but we have not examined enough material to identify cryptic species or restrict the locality accurately among the known populations.

Figures

FIG. 6. — Some uropeltid species photographed in life:A, Brachyophidium rhodogaster Wall,1921;B, Melanophidium punctatum Beddome,1871;C, M.wynaudense Beddome, 1863; D, Platyplectrurus madurensis Beddome, 1877; E, Plectrurus perrotetii Duméril & Bibron in Duméril & Duméril, 1851; F, Rhinophis blythii Kelaart, 1853; G, R. erangaviraji Wickramasinghe, Vidanapathirana, Wickramasinghe & Ranwella, 2009; H, R. goweri Aengals & Ganesh, 2013. Photos by RAP, RS, SRG, VS, A. Singh, K. Ukuwela, and R. Pethiyagoda.

FIG. 7. — Some uropeltid species photographed in life: A, Rhinophis homolepis Hemprich, 1820; B, R. melanogaster (Gray, 1858); C, R. oxyrhynchus (Schneider, 1801); D, R. philippinus (Cuvier, 1829); E, R. phillipsi (Nicholls, 1929) n. comb.; F, R. punctatus Müller,1832; G, R. saffragamus (Kelaart, 1853) n. comb.; H, R. sanguineus Beddome, 1863. Photos by RAP, RS, SRG, VS, A. Dey, R. Pethiyagoda, and S. Kehimkar.