Uropeltis ocellata (Beddome, 1863)

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 : 495-496

Uropeltis ocellata (Beddome, 1863)

Silybura ocellata Beddome, 1863a: 46 . Lectotype: BMNH 1946.1.15.59 by subsequent designation of Gans (1966). Paralectotypes: MNHN-RA-1895.83-84 (see Remarks). Type locality: Walaghat, on the western slopes of the Nilgherries, Kerala state, India. See Beddome (1863a).

Silybura dupeni Beddome, 1878b: 801 . Holotype: BMNH 1883.1.12.25 (= 1946.1.1.42). Type locality: Nelliampathi, Kerala state, India. Designated as a junior subjective synonym of Silybura ocellata Beddome, 1863 by Boulenger (1893a). See Beddome (1878b).

Silybura ochracea Beddome, 1878b: 801 . Type material of unclear number and status in the ranges BMNH 1946.1.2.30-31, BMNH 1946.1.2.43-45, BMNH 1946.1.15.69-71, and BMNH

1946.1.15.85-86. Type locality: Nelliampathi, Ponachi, and Bolumputty hills, Kerala state, India. Designated as a junior subjective synonym of Silybura ochracea Beddome, 1878 by Beddome (1886). See Beddome (1878b).

DISTRIBUTION. — India; known only from the Nilgiris and nearby hills (Anaimalai, Munnar, Wynaad, and Nelliampathi) North of the Palghat Gap ( Wall 1919), at elevations c. 610-1980 m, and the Anaimalais South of the gap (see Boulenger 1893a; Ferguson 1895, 1902; Wall 1919; Smith 1943; Constable 1949; Rajendran 1985; Wallach et al. 2014; Ganesh 2015).

DESCRIPTION

Relatively large, maximum total length c. 530 mm, subcaudals 6-11, dorsal scales in 17 rows at midbody (see Boulenger 1893a; Smith 1943; Constable 1949; Rajendran 1985). Ventral scale-counts represent multiple discontinuous ranges in different populations. Collections from the Munnar hills, Kerala state, India, have 162-174 ( Rajendran 1985), which is well outside the range of 196-199 from the Nilgiri and Wynaad hills, and both 184-195 and 214-231 from the Anaimalai hills, the latter representing “ dupeni ” and “ ochracea ” populations ( Boulenger 1893a; Constable 1949; Rajendran 1985). Distinctive color-pattern, with a brown or yellowishbrown dorsal coloration banded with transverse rows of four or five yellowish-white spots or blotches, ringed with black. Smith (1943) classified the tail as state I (our Type IV), but like U. ellioti , the tail approaches state II (our Type V) in the specimens examined, being relatively flattened dorsally with multicarinate shield scales distinct from the surrounding dorsals, and an enlarged, projecting terminal scute ending in two points (see also Rajendran 1985). Constable (1949) also reports variation between specimens representing Type IV and Type V tails, but without good locality data. Snout is “Alternate Pointed”, with variation in the acuteness of the rostral (see Constable 1949). This species likely represents a complex, likely including U. nitida , in which the “ dupeni ” and “ ochracea ” populations from the Anaimalai hills (see Boulenger 1893a; Constable 1949) and the relatively patternless populations from the Munnar hills (see Rajendran 1985) may all represent distinct species.

REMARKS

The types of Silybura ocellata Beddome, 1863 , S. ochracea Beddome, 1878 , and S. dupeni Beddome, 1878 are still in a state of confusion (see McDiarmid et al. 1999). For S. dupeni, Beddome (1878b) reported collecting only a single specimen, believed to be BMNH 1883.1.12.25 (= 1946.1.1.42). Thus, NMW 18695 is not a paratype of S. dupeni , contra Tiedemann & Häupl (1980). For S. ochracea, Beddome (1878b) reports at least three specimens from at least three localities (Nelliampathi, Ponachi, and Bolumputty hills) in the Anaimalais. Boulenger (1893a) listed five types, and the BMNH collection reportedly contains five jars labeled “types” with 10 specimens, in the ranges BMNH 1946.1.2.30-31; BMNH 1946.1.2.43-45 from Polghat, a locality not reported by Beddome (1878); BMNH 1946.1.15.69-71; and BMNH 1946.1.15.85-86 ( Gans 1966). The origin of this confusion (e.g., potential mistakes of Boulenger, the BMNH catalog, or Gans) is unclear; this issue should be resolved and a lectotype chosen by future researchers. For S. ocellata, Beddome (1863b) clarifies that he procured three specimens, upon which his (1863a) description was based. These are BMNH 1946.1.15.59, designated by Gans (1966) as the lectotype, and two MNHN specimens, designated by Gans (1966) as the paralectotypes. Gans (1966) listed MNHN “95.83-95. 89” as the Paris specimens, which was likely a typographical error. McDiarmid et al. (1999) interpreted this to mean MNHN-RA-1895.83 and MNHN-RA-1895.89 were the syntypes, but this is incorrect.Having examined the specimens (see Appendix I) and the Paris catalog, the S. ocellata syntypes are MNHN-RA-1895.83-84, while the range from MNHN- RA-1895.85-95 contains a number of other uropeltid species accessioned around the same time. In particular, MNHN- RA-1895.89 is a syntype of S. levingii Beddome, 1878 , and therefore represents Uropeltis broughami . Thus, NMW 13962 is not a paratype of S. ocellata , contra Tiedemann & Häupl (1980). One extralimital record of U. ocellata from Madhya Pradesh ( Chandra & Gajbe 2003) was examined by us and found to be U. ellioti ,with 166 ventrals and seven subcaudals. Although believed to be a common and widespread species, the only records that we deem likely to represent U. ocellata sensu stricto are those of Wall (1919), as they are from a topo- typic population from Wayanad, North of the Palghat Gap. The status of populations from the Anaimalai hills South of the Palghat Gap, bearing the currently synonymised nomina Silybura ochracea Beddome, 1878 and S. dupeni Beddome, 1878 , require re-evaluation. Rajendran (1985) reported differences within his concept of U. ocellata from the Munnar hills, also South of the Palghat Gap, with significantly lower ventral-scale counts (162-174). It is thus clear that U. ocellata needs a range-wide phylogeographic assessment (see also Constable 1949), and that, at a minimum, populations North and South of the Palghat gap are likely different species.