Eryx elegans ( Gray, 1849:107 )

Wagner, Philipp, Bauer, Aaron M., Leviton, Alan E., Wilms, Thomas M. & Böhme, Wolfgang, 2016, A Checklist of the Amphibians and Reptiles of Afghanistan *, Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 63 (13), pp. 457-565 : 504-505

Eryx elegans ( Gray, 1849:107)

1849 Cusoria elegans Gray , Catalogue of the Specimens of Snakes in the Collection of the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum, London. xv + 125 pp.

HOLOTYPE.— BMNH 43 .7.21.70, from “Affghanistan [sic]”.

SYNONYM.— Eryx jaculus czarewskii Nikolskii, 1916 (syntypes ZISP 8462 , 8463 , 8473 , 8489 , 8711 ) from “ Koppet-dag [ Turkmenistan], Nachduin [ Turkmenistan], Gululi-dag [ Iran], Kircher [ Turkmenistan] and Kopet-dag orient [ Turkmenistan]”.

LOCALITIES.— Band-e-Amir [Bamyan Prov., 34°50′N, 67°11′E] ( CAS 24990 ) ; Dasht-e-Nawar [Ghazni Prov., 3000 m] ( ZFMK 8641 ) ; Masgidi-ciovì, Campo 2 ( MZUF 24108–15 ) ; Pagham ( FMNH 161178 ) [see pl. 11, fig. 1 for distribution].

? Eryx johnii persicus Nikolskii, 1907:290 , fig. 8

1907 Eryx persicus Nikolskii , Reptiles et amphibiens recueillis (part.) M. N. A. Zarudny en Perse en 1903– 1904 [in Russian and Latin]. Annuaire du Musee Zoologique de l’Academie de Sciences de St. Petersbourg 10 [1905]:260–301, pl. I.

HOLOTYPE.— ZISP 10343 , from “Aguljaschker” [ Agulyashker , Khuzestan Province, Iran].

LOCALITIES.— Mundi, Hissar south of Kandahar (fide Murray 1892:79) [see pl. 11, fig. 2 for distribution].

REMARKS.— The status of this taxon is still under debate. It was recognized as a subspecies of E. johnii by Stull (1935) and Smith (1943) but later as a synonym of E. jaculus familiaris by Stimson (1969) or of E. jaculus by McDiarmid et al. (1999). More recently, Sindaco et al. (2013) treated it as a synonym of E. johnii , referring to a comment by Rastegar-Pouyani et al. (2008, citing an unpublished manuscript) that “this name [ persicus ] is not available for a western subspecies of Eryx johnii , because it applies to a different species of Eryx .” Therefore, the exact status of this taxon is not sufficiently clarified and we recognize it here as subspecies of E. johnii pending further taxonomic research in this complex. We have not examined any material from Afghanistan and have included it herein based on earlier publications as noted above.

In his review of our manuscript, Dr. Steve C. Anderson (pers. com.) offered the following commentary: “The name Eryx persicus is not a valid name and should not be used here. The name was associated with E. johni by Stull (1935), who never examined the specimen. Stimson (1969) accepted her identification, again without personal verification. At my request, Dr. Natalia Ananjeva of the Zoological Institute, St. Petersburg, examined the type and found it to be in the E. jaculus group (E. j. familiaris) and not E. johni . At present there are no recorded specimens of E. johni from Iran. Should the Afghan population prove to be significantly distinguishable from the recognized population of E. johni , it requires a new taxon name and description.”

We heartily agree with Dr. Anderson’s summation, which is also suggested in our first paragraph in this Remarks section.