Uropeltis macrorhyncha ( Beddome, 1877 )

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 : 493

Uropeltis macrorhyncha ( Beddome, 1877)

Silybura macrorhyncha Beddome, 1877: 167 .

TYPE MATERIAL. — Holotype: BMNH 1883.1 .12.24 (= 1946.9.7.45).

TYPE LOCALITY. — Anamalai hills, southern Western Ghats, eastern Kerala and western Tamil Nadu state, India.

DISTRIBUTION. — Restricted to the Anaimalai hills of the southern Western Ghats of India, c. 100-1335 m ( Roux 1928; Wallach et al. 2014; Ganesh 2015).

DESCRIPTION

Ventrals 203-213 or 226 reported by Beddome (1877) for the holotype, subcaudals 6, dorsal scales in 17 rows at midbody (see Smith 1943). Smith (1943) reports the maximum total size as 740 mm; it is unclear if this is a typographical error, or if this species truly does grow exceedingly large compared to all other uropeltid taxa. Beddome (1877) reports the holotype as 546 mm total length. As with U. ellioti , the tail was coded as state I by Smith (1943), but approaches state II, with a flattened caudal disk with multicarinate scales in the holotype and specimen examined here. We cannot differentiate it between our Types III and IV if retained in Uropeltis . Color-pattern non-descript, with a brown dorsal and ventral coloration mixed diffusely with yellow, a yellow streak along either side of the neck, and a yellow streak on either side of the tail connected by a crossbar over the vent. Rostral strongly keeled, enlarged, and recurved, indistiguishable from most Rhinophis species at first glance, but not separating the nasals. We classify it as “Alternate Pointed”, but the tail and snout could qualify as Type VI and “Boomerang Rostral”, and the species may belong to Rhinophis .

REMARKS

This species, along with Uropeltis grandis and U. pulneyensis , may be allied with Rhinophis , as the rostral strongly resembles most Rhinophis species in being “boomerang” shaped, significantly enlarged with a dorsal keel that projects rearwards, nearly separating the nasals.Future analyses may result in these species being re-assigned. Reported as very rare by Beddome (1877); only a few specimens seem to exist ( Boulenger 1890; Smith 1943; Appendix 1).