Python Daudin, 1803

Marques, Mariana P., Ceríaco, Luis M. P., Blackburn, David C. & Bauer, Aaron M., 2018, Diversity and Distribution of the Amphibians and Terrestrial Reptiles of Angola Atlas of Historical and Bibliographic Records (1840 - 2017), Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 65, pp. 1-501 : 304-306

Genus Python Daudin, 1803

Python anchietae Bocage, 1887 ANCHIETA’S DWARF PYTHON

Python Anchietae Bocage 1887d:87 . Syntypes: MBL T89-1206, T89-1207 (collector J. d’Anchieta), destroyed by fire 18 March 1978. Type locality: “Catumbella” [= Catumbela] Benguela Province, Angola. Python Anchietae : Bocage (1895a:73, 1897a:199). Python anchietae : Boulenger (1893:88, 1915:199), Monard (1937b:108), Bogert (1940:18), Frade (1963:253),

Laurent (1964a:92), Branch (1998:59), Wallach et al. (2014:607).

Global conservation status (IUCN): Least Concern.

Global distribution: The species is known from southern Angola and central and northern Namibia.

Ocurrences in Angola (Map 264): The species is known from the southwestern Angola regions of Angola. Benguela: “Hanha road,

18 km from Lobito” [-12.26667, 13.70000]

( Laurent 1964a:92); “Catumbella” [-12.43333,

13.55000] ( Bocage 1887d:87, 1895a:73,

1897a:199; Boulenger 1893:88, 1915:199;

Monard 1937b:108; Wallach et al. 2014:607);

“Hanha” [-12.25000, 13.75000] ( Bogert

1940:18).

Taxonomic and distributional notes:

This species was described by Bocage (1887d)

based on two specimens from “Catumbella”

collected by Anchieta. Anchieta’s Dwarf

Python is poorly recorded in the country and the current gaps in its distribution should be considered artifactual. The IUCN map of its distribution (http: //maps.iucnredlist.org/map.

MAP 264. Distribution of Python anchietae in Angola.

html?id=177539) is entirely incorrect for all but the southernmost part of the species range.

Python natalensis Smith, 1840 SOUTHERN AFRICAN ROCK PYTHON

Python sebae natalensis Smith 1840 : pl. 9, first of three accompanying unnumbered text pages. Syntypes: BMNH 1946.1.8.3 (formerly 1940.3.27.1) and 1946.1.17.13 (formerly 1940.3.27.2) (fide Broadley 1984). Type locality: none explicitly stated, although it is “not to be found within hundreds of miles of the boundaries of the [Cape] Colony, and few specimens have been obtained nearer than Port Natal. “ Given the specific epithet, the terra typical may be interpreted as Port Natal.

Python natalensis : Bocage (1895a:72, 1896a:112), Branch (1998:59), Broadley (1999:31), Broadley and Cotterill (2004:45), Bates et al. (2014:328), Ceríaco et al. (2014b:672, 2016a:40), Wallach et al. (2014:609), Conradie et al. (2016:23) .

Python sebae : Monard (1937b:108), Mertens (1938a:439), Bogert (1940:17, 18), Themido (1941:9), Machado (1979:10, 46), Spawls and Branch (1995:19), Bellosa et al. (2007:30).

Python sebae natalensis : Broadley (1984:362).

Global conservation status (IUCN): Not Evaluated. Global distribution: The species ranges across south-central Africa from Angola southeast to South Africa and north to the southeastern Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Tanzania and the Kenya highlands.

Ocurrences in Angola (Map 265): Published Angolan records are mostly from southern and western parts of the country. Luanda:

“Loanda” [-8.83333, 13.26667] ( Bocage

1895a:72; Broadley 1984:364). Moxico:

“ Moxico ” [-11.85000, 20.06667] ( Machado

1979:10). Benguela: “Benguella” [-12.58333,

13.41667] ( Bocage 1895a:72; Broadley

1984:364); “sighting in Ebanga” [-12.73333,

14.73333] ( Monard 1937b:108); “Cubal”

[-13.03333, 14.25000] ( Mertens 1938a:439);

“Hanha” [13.30000, 14.20000] ( Bocage

1896a:112; Themido 1941:9), “Hanha

(North)” [-12.25000, 13.75000] ( Bogert

1940:17). Huíla: “Galange” [-13.80000,

16.11667] ( Monard 1937b:108); “Vila-daPonte” [-14.46667, 16.30000] ( Monard

1937b:108); “Capelongo” [-14.91667, MAP 265. Distribution of Python natalensis in Angola. 15.08333] ( Bogert 1940:17; Broadley 1984:364). Namibe: “Maconjo” [-15.01667, 13.20000]( Bocage 1895a:72; Broadley 1984:364); “Rio Giraul” [-15.06833, 12.14222] ( Bocage 1896a:112; Broadley 1984:364); “Beginning of the forested areas, at the start of the climb to Leba Pass (by road), near Bruco village” [-15.12106, 13.18654] (Ceríaco et al. 2016:40). Cunene: “Chimporo” [-16.03333, 17.15000] ( Monard 1937b:108; Broadley 1984:364); “sighting in Forte Roçadas” [-16.73333, 14.98333] ( Monard 1937b:108). Cuando Cubango: “Cubago basin (1)” [-16.89413, 17.95766] ( Conradie et al. 2016:8-10, 23); “Cuito basin (30a)” [17.50875, 20.06594] ( Conradie et al. 2016:9, 10, 23).

Taxonomic and distributional notes: Smith (1833) first used the name Python Natalensis as a nomen nudum, giving the locality “from the interior, eastwards of Latakoo [and] in the country about Port Natal” [= east of Kuruman, Northern Cape, South Africa and around Durban, KwaZulu-Natal], which is given as the type locality by Wallach et al. (2014). Interestingly, Smith (1840) cited the first use of the name as being on page 64 of the South African Quarterly Journal for October 1833. This is indeed a page in an Andrew Smith paper, but the paper deals exclusively with mammals and page 64 treats elephant shrews specifically ( Broadley 1984). The same citation to the original description was provided by McDiarmid et al. (1999). Stimson (1969) considered the terra typica unknown and the types untraced. Wallach et al. (2014) likewise considered that no type had been designated, but considered the specimens to have been associated with the “ Cape Town Zool. Soc. Mus.” Although Smith was associated with the nascent South African Museum, the bulk of his herpetological material that has survived was deposited either in London or Edinburgh ( FitzSimons 1937; Branch and Bauer 2005). Broadley (1984) indicated that both syntypes were rolled skins preserved in alcohol. The BMNH register notes both from Port Natal, with BMNH 1946.1.8.3 donated by Andrew Smith and BMNH 1946.1.17.13 without a stated collector and noted as “found as stuffed specimen in dry coll.”

Python natalensis was for a long time considered as a synonym or subspecies of Python sebae ( Gmelin, 1789) ( Broadley 1984) , but was elevated to specific status by Broadley (1999) based on morphological differences as well the evidence of the overlap in distribution (Broadley and Cotterill 2004). Broadley (1984), Spawls and Branch (1995) and Bellosa et al. (2007) provided maps with the distribution ranges for both species, in which Python natalensis occurs in central and south Angola, bordered in the north by the Kwanza River and overlaping in Luanda Province with Python sebae , which occurs in northern regions of Angola, including the enclave of Cabinda.

Python sebae ( Gmelin, 1789) AFRICAN ROCK PYTHON

Coluber Sebae Gmelin 1789:1118 . Syntypes: specimen described and illustrated by Seba (1735:105, pl. 99,

fig. 2) and specimen described by Gronovius (1756:56) Type locality: “Brasiliensis, è regione Guairâ”

[= Guíra, Brazil], Brazil. Python Sebae : Bocage (1866a:47, 1867b:224). Python sebae : Peters (1877:614), Laurent (1954a:38, 1964a:91), Hellmich (1957a:70), van den Audenearde

(1966:32), Machado (1979:10), Haacke (1982b:8), Spawls and Branch (1995:19), Bellosa et al. (2007:30). Python sebae sebae : Broadley (1984:362), Broadley (1999:31), Wallach et al. (2014:611).

Global conservation status (IUCN): Not Evaluated.

Global distribution: The species is very widespread in sub-Saharan Africa, from southern Mauritania to southern Chad, South Sudan and Ethiopia, south to Tanzania and Rwanda with is southern limit in northern Angola and the southern Democratic Republic of Congo.

Ocurrences in Angola (Map 266): The species distribution is limited to the northern regions of the country. Cabinda: “Chinchoxo”

[-5.10000, 12.10000] ( Peters 1877a:614).

Bengo: “Nambuangongo” [-7.97438,

14.18924] ( Machado 1979:10); “Ambriz”

[-7.844312, 13.106493] ( Broadley 1984:362).

Kwanza Norte: “ Rio Cuanza, nahe Mucoso”

( Hellmich 1957a:70). Lunda Norte: “Dundo”

[-7.36667, 20.83333] ( Laurent 1954a:38,

1964a:91; Thys van den Audenaerde 1966:32;

Broadley 1984:362). Lunda Sul: “Saurimo”

[-9.65000, 20.40000] ( Haacke 1982b:8).

Undetermined Locality: “Without precise location” ( Bocage 1866a:47, 1867b:224; Laurent 1964a:91).

Taxonomic and distributional notes:

Gmelin (1789) gave two indications to older MAP 266. Distribution of Python sebae in Angola. works in his description of Coluber Sebae : “Gron. Mus. 2. N. 11” and “Seb. mus. 2. t. 199. f. 2,” although he provides only one set of scale counts: 272 ventrals and 70 caudals, corresponding to Gronovius’s specimen. This implies that there were two original syntypes, not a single holotype as incorrectly stated by McDiarmid et al. (1999). Loveridge (1957) refered to the specimen figured by Seba as the type and Wallach et al. (2014) cited this specimen as the lectotype. However, as no pre-2000 work appears to have explicitly recognized this as a lectotype designation, both specimens must still be considered syntypes. The Seba specimen has been stated to be in Uppsala ( Stimson 1969; McDiarmid et al. 1999), but its actual whereabouts are unknown. The history of Seba’s collections have been discussed in detail ( Engel 1937, 1961; Boeseman 1970; Juriev 1981; Adler 1989; Bauer 2002; Bauer and Günther 2013). Seba’s second collection (the first had been sold to Peter the Great of Russia in 1716; Driessen-van het Reve 2006) was sold after his death at auction ( Anonymous 1752). Seba specimens are known or believed to be present in collections in St. Petersburg, London, Leiden (including specimens until recently in Amsterdam), Paris, Copenhagen , Stockholm, Bremen and Berlin ( Boeseman 1970; Juriev 1981; Thireau et al. 1998; Bauer and Günther 2013) but few can be traced to particular plate figures, and the lectotype of Python sebae is not among these. Likewise, the specimen noted by Gronovius (1756) is also untraceable. His collection was dispersed as a result of an auction held in Leiden in 1778 ( Wheeler 1958). Gronovius refered to Seba’s plate in his own work and repeated the locality “Brasiliensis, è regione Guairâ,” however, his measurements and scale counts were based on a specimen in his own collection. FitzSimons (1962) and McDiarmid et al. (1999) incorrectly gave the type locality as “America” and the former author corrected this to “America.” The extraordinary confusion over the type specimens and localities of both P. natalensis and P. sebae suggest that most modern authors have relied on secondary sources for their information. Spawls and Branch (1995:19) and Bellosa et al. (2007) provided a map with the distribution ranges for both large species of Angolan Python in which P. sebae is limited to the northern regions of Angola from northern Moxico to Luanda, where it overlaps with Python natalensis , which occurs in central and south Angola.