Uropeltis woodmasoni ( Theobald, 1876 )

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 : 498-499

Uropeltis woodmasoni ( Theobald, 1876)

Silybura melanogaster Günther, 1875: 227 . Lectotype: BMNH 1874.4.29.1192 (= 1946.1.15.57). Type locality: Anaimalai hills, Tamil Nadu state, India. Junior secondary homonym of Uropeltis melanogaster Gray, 1858 . Designated as a subjective senior synonym of Silybura nigra Beddome, 1878 by Beddome (1886).

Silybura woodmasoni Theobald, 1876: 135 . Holotype: ZSI 8760 (erroneously listed as the lectotype fide Wallach et al. 2014). Type locality: Palni hills, western Tamil Nadu state, India.

Silybura nigra Beddome, 1878a: 154 . Five syntypes: BMNH 1883.1.12.17.20 (= 1946.1.1.39), BMNH 1878.1.11.4 (= 1946.1.15.54), BMNH 1878.1.11.5 (= 1946.1.15.56), and MNHN-RA-1895.85 (2 specimens). Type locality: Pulney hills, Tamil Nadu state, India. Designated as a junior subjective synonym by Smith (1943). See Beddome (1878a).

Uropeltis ruhunae Deraniyagala, 1954: 24 . Holotype: NMSL R. S. 52. Type locality: Galle District , Sri Lanka. Designated here as a junior subjective synonym.

DISTRIBUTION. — Known from the Palni hills of India, in the Anaimalai-Palni hill complexes, South of the Palghat Gap, c. 1860- 2100 m ( Wall 1923; Wallach et al. 2014; Ganesh 2015).

DESCRIPTION

Relatively small, maximum total length c. 270 mm, ventrals 157-189, subcaudals 6-11, dorsal scales in 19 rows at midbody ( Smith 1943; Constable 1949; Rajendran 1985). Smith (1943) classified the tail as state I, suggesting that it was similar to that of U. nitida . We tentatively agree (our Type IV). However, in the specimens examined here, the tailform is ambiguous; the tail is rather blunt and compressed with no distinct shield, and the scales are smooth or have weak tubercles, not keels or carinations as in U. nitida . The snout is “Alternate Pointed”, with a recurved, angular rostral. Distinctive color-pattern, color changing from olive-green anteriorly to ruddy posteriorly, terminal scute of tail forming projecting cap with several points, and bands of white or yellow flecks ringing the body.

REMARKS

Heavily expanded anterior-trunk musculature and noticeable diminution of body posteriorly. The recurved rostral, blunt tail with expanded terminal scute, and body form with enlarged trunk indicate possible Rhinophis affinities, sensu Smith (1943) and Rajendran (1985) who suggested conspecificity or close relationships with U. pulneyensis and U. grandis , respectively. This species was relatively common at a few sites near the type locality, fide Rajendran (1985), who also suggested possible conspecificity with Uropeltis grandis ( Beddome, 1867) . The difference in midbody scalerows (19 in U. woodmasoni vs 17 in U. grandis ) is in a very stable, non-plastic character that supports their distinctiveness. Smith (1943) also remarked on suggested conspecificity between U. woodmasoni and U. pulneyensis , but this is also rejected on the basis of 19 vs 17 dorsal scale rows, and the rostral not dividing the nasals in U. woodmasoni .