Rhinophis punctatus Müller, 1832

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 : 484-485

Rhinophis punctatus Müller, 1832

( Fig. 7F )

Rhinophis punctata Müller, 1832: 248 .

TYPE MATERIAL. — Holotype lost fide Peters (1861b) and Gans (1966). A neotype designation is needed to alleviate potential nomenclatural ambiguity with respect to Rhinophis porrectus (see above).

TYPE LOCALITY. — “ Guiana ”, corrected to Zeylania ( Sri Lanka) by Schlegel in Peters (1861b).

DISTRIBUTION. — Known from a small range at c. 475-600 m elevation in the wet zone of Sri Lanka ( De Silva 1980). However, Karunarathna & Amarasinghe (2011) identified a specimen from the dry lowland forests of Nilgala (Uva province) as Rhinophis cf. punctatus . We did not examine this specimen to confirm its identity.

DESCRIPTION

Maximum total length c. 380 mm, ventrals 236-246, subcaudals 7-9, dorsal scales in 17 rows at midbody ( Smith 1943). As with Rhinophis porrectus , color pattern typically a blackish-brown dorsum with white margins, a white stripe on either side of the body, and a brown vertebral stripe. This coloration is indistinguishable from R. porrectus (see above), from which it is distinguishable only by the lower number of ventral scales (236-246 vs 281).

REMARK

This species may be synonymous with Rhinophis porrectus , but is morphologically and geographically distinct therefrom, and more specimens are needed to settle this question.

Rhinophis saffragamus ( Kelaart, 1853) n. comb. ( Fig. 7G )

Uropeltis saffragamus Kelaart, 1853: 106 . Original type lost fide Taylor (1953). Type locality: Ratnapura, district of Saffragam (an older name for Sabaragamuwa), near Adam’s Peak (Sri Pada), Sabaragamuwa province, Sri Lanka. Designated as a junior subjective synonym by Tennent (1861). The holotype of Uropeltis philippinus Müller, 1832 , MNHN-RA-0.5621, is here designated as the neotype of Uropeltis saffragamus Kelaart 1853 , rendering them objective synonyms.

Uropeltis philippinus – Cuvier 1829: 76, nomen nudum ( Gans 1966; McDiarmid et al. 1999).

Uropeltis philippinus Müller, 1832: 252 , n. syn. Holotype: MNHN- RA-0.5621 (the specimen of Cuvier 1829 fide Gans 1966). Type locality: Philippine islands. Junior homonym of Typhlops philippinus Cuvier, 1829 , as designated here.

Uropeltis grandis Kelaart, 1853: 106 . Holotype: BMNH 1946.1.8.1. Type locality: Kerinday near Matura, Southern province, Sri Lanka. Designated as a junior subjective synonym by Tennent (1861).

Uropeltis pardalis Kelaart, 1853: 107 . Holotype: BMNH 1946.1.16.55. Type locality: Matura, Southern province, Sri Lanka. Designated as a junior subjective synonym by Tennent (1861).

DISTRIBUTION. — This species has a relatively large range in the wet, intermediate, and dry zones of Sri Lanka, c. 0-1035 m ( De Silva 1980; Somaweera 2006; Karunarathna & Amarasinghe 2011; Wallach et al. 2014).

DESCRIPTION

Moderately large, maximum total length c. 340 mm, ventrals 129-147, subcaudals 6-9, dorsal scales in 19 rows at midbody (see Smith 1943). In the four specimens dissected, we observed a relatively low number of tracheal rings (mean 157), whereas fewer than 160 rings was otherwise only observed in Uropeltis ellioti (157), U. macrolepis (131), U. madurensis (158), and U. phipsonii (155). The four specimens also had a relatively large number of left bronchus rings (mean 6), whereas one specimen of U. madurensis had 8, and no other uropeltid specimen examined had more than 5. Variable color-pattern, with a brown to blackish-brown dorsal and ventral coloration, and occasional lighter brown mottling. Tail shield is large and rugose, flatter than most congeners, and rostral does not separate the nasals.

REMARK

This is the only Rhinophis species in which the rostral does not separate the nasals, but it is unclear whether this is a reversal or plesiomorphic feature, as the precise placement of the species within Rhinophis is unclear ( Fig. 1 ). See above for a detailed discussion of the nomenclatural history of this species.

Figures

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.

FIG. 1. — Molecular phylogeny of Uropeltidae Müller, 1832 based on Bayesian inference of 5.248bp of DNA-sequence data from 6 genes. Numbers at nodes represent posterior probabilities.