Uropeltis ceylanica Cuvier, 1829

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 : 490-491

Uropeltis ceylanica Cuvier, 1829

( Fig. 8D )

Uropeltis ceylanica Cuvier, 1829: 76 . Lectotype: MNHN-RA-0.39 by subsequent designation of Gans (1966). Type locality: ‘Ceylan’ ( Sri Lanka), in error.

Uropeltis affinis Jerdon, 1854: 527 . No type. A nomen dubium fide Boulenger (1890). Designated as a junior subjective synonym by Wallach et al. (2014). Type locality:Western Coast, peninsular India.

Silybura brevis Günther, 1862: 56 . Holotype: BMNH 1946.1.16.42. Type locality: Anaimalai hills, Tamil Nadu state, India. Designated as a junior subjective synonym by Smith (1943). As per McDiarmid et al. (1999), NMW 14056 is not a paratype, contra Tiedemann & Häupl (1980).

Silybura nilgherriensis Beddome, 1863a: 47 . Holotype: BMNH 1874.4.29.88 (= 1946.1.16.41). Type locality: Ooty, Tamil Nadu state, India. Designated as a junior subjective synonym by Günther (1875). See Beddome (1863a).

DISTRIBUTION. — Apparently a widespread species in India, found in the Western Ghats South of the Goa Gap, c. 500-1500 m ( Wallach et al. 2014). One of the most-cited species in local faunal lists, second only perhaps to U. ellioti .

DESCRIPTION

Gower et al. (2008) did not re-diagnose U. ceylanica when they re-described U. bicatenata , and the status of much material referred to U. ceylanica is thus unclear, as is variation in external morphology. Following Smith (1943), U. ceylanica is relatively large, maximum total length c. 460 mm, ventrals 119-146, subcaudals 8-12, with dorsal scales in 17 fows midbody. The tail of specimens examined matches Smith’s (1943) state II (our Type V), being sharply truncated dorsally at a c. 45° angle, with the enlarged dorsal scales bi- or tri-carinate. Variation in the number of shield scales and their carinations may be helpful in delimiting species in future revisions ( Gower et al. 2008). Snout is “Alternate Rounded”. Color-pattern typically non-descript, with a primarily dark brown or black dorsal and ventral coloration, with irregular yellow blotches extending onto the dorsum ventrolaterally. The single specimen dissected had a larger left kidney (10% SVL) than any other Uropeltis specimen examined (mean of 7%).

REMARKS

This is the type species of the genus Uropeltis . Two specimens were sent to the MNHN in 1822, which were described in detail and one illustrated by Cocteau (1833). Cocteau also indicates that the specimens seem to have been examined already by Cuvier, thus making it likely that the specimen illustrated by Cuvier (1829) was one of the two from 1822, possibly the same one illustrated by Cocteau. One specimen was subsequently lost according to Gans (1966), while the second (MNHN-RA-0.39) was designated by Gans (1966: 18) as the lectotype. However, MNHN-RA-0.39 may have been the specimen illustrated by Cuvier (1829), Cocteau (1833), or both, and thus may have already been the holotype. Populations currently referred to Uropeltis ceylanica have relatively little dorsal patterning, compared to species such as U. bicatenata or U. shorttii that have recently been resurrected from the synonymy of U. ceylanica ( Gower et al. 2008; Ganesh et al. 2014). There may still be cryptic species in this taxon (see Gower et al. 2008; Ganesh et al. 2014). Morphologically similar populations exist in southern Eastern Ghats ( Boulenger 1893a; Ganesh & Arumugam 2016). A detailed, rangewide comparison of material is needed to determine the true diversity and distribution of species, to assign the lectotype to one of these lineages, and revise the type locality.

Uropeltis dindigalensis ( Beddome, 1877) ( Fig. 8E )

Silybura dindigalensis Beddome, 1877: 167 .

TYPE MATERIAL. — Four syntypes: BMNH 1883.1.12.5 (= 1946.1.16.2), BMNH 1883.1.12.7 (= 1946.1.16.4), BMNH 1877.8.10.3 (= 1946.1.16.37), and MNHN-RA-1895.88.

TYPE LOCALITY. — Near Dindigul, Sirumalai hills, Eastern Ghats, Tamil Nadu state, India.

DISTRIBUTION. — Endemic to the Sirumalai hills of India in the extreme southern Eastern Ghats at elevations> 1000 m ( Wallach et al. 2014; Ganesh 2015; Ganesh & Arumugam 2016).

DESCRIPTION

Maximum total length c. 370 mm, ventrals 155-168, subcaudals 5-12, dorsal scales in 17 rows at midbody ( Smith 1943; Rajendran 1985). Distinctive color-pattern, with a primarily dark brown or black dorsal and ventral coloration, with yellowish-white spots or crossbars ringing the body, and yellowish-white triangular markings on the side of the neck and tail. The MNHN specimen examined does not have a yellow streak on the lips, as described by Smith (1943), presumably from the BMNH specimens. Color pattern is somewhat similar to U. broughami . Snout is “Alternate Pointed”, with recurved rostral highly reminiscent of Rhinophis . The tail generally agrees with Smith’s state I (our Type IV), being slightly compressed dorsally, but not approaching the ‘sliced-off’ state II. The shield scales are enlarged and multicarinate, extending around the tail to the subcaudals. The terminal scute is enlarged and projecting, ending in two points.

REMARKS

This species is apparently rare, having been collected only near the type locality in 1972 ( Rajendran 1985), an undated recent collection ( Ganesh & Asokan 2010), and a recent report of nine uncollected specimens from the Sirumalai hills ( Ganesh & Arumugam 2016). The taxonomic identity of Uropeltis cf. dindigalensis reported by Chandramouli & Ganesh (2010) from the High Wavys is unresolved.

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.