Python bivittatus (Kuhl, 1820)

Schleip, Wulf D. & O'Shea, Mark, 2010, Annotated checklist of the recent and extinct pythons (Serpentes, Pythonidae), with notes on nomenclature, taxonomy, and distribution, ZooKeys 66, pp. 29-80 : 49-50

Python bivittatus (Kuhl, 1820)

Distribution:

See Greene et al. (2007), Snow et al. (2007), Pyron et al. (2008), and Barker and Barker (2009) for notes on introduced populations in Florida, USA. For distribution in Nepal, see O’Shea (1998), for distribution in Asia see Pauwels et al. (2003), ( Barker and Barker (2008, 2010). Barker and Barker (2010) considered records of the occurrence of bivittatus in the Sichuan Province deviant due to complete isolation from the natural range of bivittatus and therefore excluded the province from the range of occurrence. Records from Sumatra and Borneo are believed to be incorrectly identified ( Haile 1958, Groombridge and Luxmoore 1991).

Remarks:

Jacobs et al. (2009) considered this taxon a valid species. Evidence for this placement was already provided by O’Shea (1998, 2007) and Barker and Barker (2008) who pointed out that isolated populations of bivittatus do exist within the distributional range of molurus along the southern Nepalese border and in north-east India as reported from Assam by O’Shea (2007). Jacobs et al. (2009) primarily referred to Barker and Barker (2008) when stating that the isolated populations appear to exist not only sympatrically but syntopically with molurus but maintain their own integrity by avoiding interbreeding. However, O’Shea (pers. obs.) has observed the species inhabiting different habitats. Python molurus appears to occur in dry sandy woodland whereas bivittatus prefers riverine forests and flooded grasslands. O’Shea had not observed the two species occurring sympatrically or syntopically. Jacobs et al. (2009: 12) stated that de Rooij (1917) had assumed the type locality of Kuhl’s (1820) concept of bivittatus, which was based on unverified pictures by Seba, to be in Indochina rather than in the Sundaland and that the populations occurring between China and Java may be considered Python molurus sondaica (sic) Werner 1899. Nevertheless, according to Jacobson et al (2009), Mertens (1930) fixed the type locality to Java without the designation of a neotype, which has led to nomenclatural problems. Mertens (1930) as well as ( Werner (1909, 1930) and Pope (1935) assumed that Schlegel (1837) rather than Kuhl (1820) had introduced the name bivittatus. According to Jacobs et al. (2009), Mertens (1930) was aware that Schlegel’s (1837) composite concept of Python bivittatus included several python taxa, namely those from India ( Python molurus ) and from Africa ( Python sebae ), respectively.