Oreocryptophis porphyraceus ( Cantor, 1839b )

Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore’s herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, Zootaxa 5287 (1), pp. 1-378 : 269-270

Oreocryptophis porphyraceus ( Cantor, 1839b) — Erroneous.

Red Bamboo Snake

Singapore records.

Psammophis nigrofasciatus — Cantor, 1839b: 53.

Coluber porphyraceus — Boulenger, 1894: 34.— Flower, 1896: 882.—Ridley, 1899: 208.— Boulenger, 1912: 140.— de Rooij, 1917: 99.

Elaphe porphyracea —Sworder, 1923: 63.— Smith, 1930: 48.—Smedley, 1931e: 118.—K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 53.—K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 145.—L.M. Chou et al., 1994: 105.— David & Vogel, 1996: 83.—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 146.

Elaphe porphyracea — de Haas, 1950: 549.

Elaphe porphyracea nigrofasciata — Iskandar & Colijn, 2001: 60.

Oreocryptophis porphyracea —N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 169.

Oreocryptophis porphyraceus — Das, 2010: 295.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 169.—Wallach et al., 2014: 511.

Oreocryptophis porphyraceus porphyraceus —Schulz et al., 2010: 31.

Oreocryptophis porphyraceus nigrofasciatus — Messenger, 2021: 153.

Remarks. Cantor (1839b) first described O. porphyraceus as a new species (i.e., Psammophis nigrofasciatus ) with Singapore as the type locality based on specimen NHMUK 1946.1.14.69 ( Table 1 ). The type locality was changed to Assam, India once Ģnther (1864) synonymised the species with O. porphyraceus . Curiously, Cantor (1847) did not include the record in his catalogue of reptiles from the Malay Peninsula. Smith (1930) and Smedley (1931e, 1932) rejected Singapore as the locality of Cantor’s specimen, particularly because of uncertainty surrounding some of Cantor’s specimens and because O. porphyraceus only occurs in montane habitats (Smedley 1931e; Tweedie 1983). Schulz & Helfenberger (1998) suggested that a mixup in locality may have occurred if the specimen was shipped from Singapore, and Schulz (2013) stated that Cantor’s locality “appears to be highly erroneous; probably due to the confusing labels used in the collection of snakes described”.

Pope (1935) examined the holotype and believed the specimen originated from China. He therefore corrected the type locality to “eastern China ” (not Smith [1930]) as cited in Wang et al. [2019]), and recognised the populations from eastern China, Hainan, and Taiwan as O. p. nigrofasciatus (Pope 1935) . However, in their revision of O. porphyraceus, Schulz & Helfenberger (1998) indicated that O. p. nigrofasciatus was only known from the type specimen and recognised the eastern China form as O. p. vaillanti. This is supported by Wang et al. (2019) who also found evidence separating O. p. nigrofasciatus and O. p. vaillanti. Indeed, Schulz (2013) determined that Cantor’s (1839b) description matches a specimen of O. p. porphyraceus from Sikkim, India, and synonymised O. p. nigrofasciatus with O. p. porphyraceus . A second specimen of O. porphyraceus allegedly from Singapore is ROM 19175. This specimen possesses no other data aside from locality. We reviewed photographs of the specimen and find it to resemble O. p. porphyraceus . Therefore, we can only conclude that both specimens originated outside of Peninsular Malaysia as they do not match O. p. laticincta.

LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Singapore (no locality) : BMNH 1946.1 .14.69 (no date) [holotype of Psammophis nigrofasciatus ] .

Additional Singapore museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): ROM.

Genus Ptyas Fitzinger, 1843 (1 species)