Rhinophis sanguineus Beddome, 1863

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 : 485

Rhinophis sanguineus Beddome, 1863

( Fig. 7H )

Rhinophis sanguineus Beddome, 1863a: 47 . Beddome (1863a) reports collecting several syntypes, but Boulenger (1893a) reports only one male with 197 ventrals and nine subcaudals. Gans (1966) also states that only one syntype (BMNH 1864.3.9.2 now: 1946.1.16.54), catalogued as “one of the types”, is now known. Wallach et al. (2014) also list BMNH 1874.4.29.110 (= 1946.1.16.76) as a syntype, but this specimen is putatively the holotype of Rhinophis microlepis Beddome, 1863 (see Gans 1966). We designate BMNH 1946.1.16.54 as the lectotype, to remove any ambiguity.Type locality: Cherambadi, northern Kerala state, India.

Rhinophis microlepis Beddome, 1863a: 47 . Holotype: BMNH 1874.4.29.110 (= 1946.1.16.76). Type locality: Minchin estate, Kerala state, India. Designated as a junior subjective synonym by Beddome (1886). See Beddome (1863a).

DISTRIBUTION. — India, known from the Nilgiris northwards to the Agumbe hills, c. 750-1065 m (see Ferguson 1895; Wall 1919; Aengals & Ganesh 2013; Wallach et al. 2014; Ganesh 2015).

DESCRIPTION

Maximum total length c. 460 mm, ventrals 182-218 though Mason (1888) reported 166-183 from putatively conspecific populations in the Wullingy forests near Palghat, subcaudals 5-11, dorsal scales in 15 rows at midbody (see Wall 1919; Smith 1943; Constable 1949). Distinctive color-pattern, with a bluish-black dorsal coloration, bright-red venter with black mottling, and red streaks on the tail.

REMARKS

The original description ( Beddome 1863a) reports the collection of several syntypes, but apparently only a few were catalogued, and only one is now known ( Gans 1966). Boulenger (1893a) reports a large topotypic series collected by Beddome but does not refer to them as types; either they were collected at a later date, or they weren’t catalogued as types initially. The lower ventral count reported by Mason (1888) is of uncertain validity, and may represent a new or cryptic species from the Wullingy forests near Palghat. Records of this species exist from South of Palghat Gap ( Hutton 1949), but we did not examine the specimens to determine their validity.

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.