Uropeltis grandis ( Beddome, 1867 )

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 : 492

Uropeltis grandis ( Beddome, 1867)

Rhinophis grandis Beddome, 1867: 15 . Three syntypes: BMNH 1946.1.16.82 and MNHN-RA-1895.79 (two specimens). These three specimens are thus the syntypes of both Rhinophis grandis erected by Beddome (1867), previously considered a nomen praeoccupatum by Gans (1966), and of Uropeltis smithi Gans 1966 . Type locality: Anaimalai hills, eastern Kerala /western Tamil Nadu state, India.

Uropeltis smithi Gans, 1966: 22 . Objective junior synonym (see Remarks).

DISTRIBUTION. — This species has a relatively small range near the type locality in the Anamalai hills of India, c. 1220-2155 m ( Wallach et al. 2014; Ganesh 2015).

DESCRIPTION

Maximum total size c. 470 mm, ventrals 190-218, subcaudals 6-12, dorsal scales in 19 rows at midbody ( Smith 1943; Constable 1949). Snout is “Alternate Pointed” with “boomerang” rostral resembling Rhinophis , to which the species was originally assigned, but does not divide the nasals in the specimens examined. Smith (1943) classified the tail as state III, a group which contains a great deal of variation in observed tail morphology. In the syntypes examined, the tail is compressed laterally and dorsally, and the expanded multicarinate scales encircle the entire tail. The terminal scute is enlarged, projecting, and rugose, ending in two larger points. We tentatively agree with Smith’s classification (our Type III), but it is also possible that this is a Rhinophis -like Type VI tail, masquerading as Type III. Distinctive color-pattern, with a dark violet dorsum and venter, and alternating yellow spots or crossbands on the sides of the body. The single specimen dissected lacks an intrapulmonary bronchus, unlike any other uropeltid specimen examined, and has a large number of tracheal rings (336), of which only U. myhendrae (353) also has more than 300 among the examined specimens of sampled uropeltid taxa.

REMARKS

This species bore a replacement name, having originally been described as Rhinophis grandis by Beddome (1867), creating an issue of homonymy when transferred to Uropeltis by Smith (1943), U. grandis Kelaart, 1853 being a pre-existing name, though it had already been relegated to the synonymy of Pseudotyphlops philippinus (now R. saffragamus ). However, this species may actually be a Rhinophis , as it bears Rhinophis- like rostral and shield morphology, in which case Rhinophis smithi ( Gans 1966) is the proper name if transferred into that genus. Beddome (1867) stated that it was clearly congeneric with U. pulneyensis , which also has Rhinophis -like rostral and tail-shield morphology. Further analyses using additional characters such as DNAsequence data will be needed to resolve the relationships of these species.