Uropeltis macrolepis (Peters, 1861)

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 : 492-493

Uropeltis macrolepis (Peters, 1861)

( Fig. 8H )

Silybura macrolepis Peters, 1861a: 904 . Holotype: BMNH 1884.4.20.4 (= 1946.1.15.99). Type locality: Given as “ Ceylon?” by Peters (1861a); revised to Bombay hills, Maharashtra, India by Smith (1943). See Peters (1861a).

Uropeltis macrolepis mahableshwarensis Chari, 1955: 901 . Holotype: BNHM 1994 . Type locality: Mahableshwar , Satara District, Maharashtra state, India.

DISTRIBUTION. — This species has a relatively large distribution in the northern Western Ghats of India, North of the Goa Gap to the Pune hills, and Salsette Island (c. 0-1370 m).

DESCRIPTION

Maximum total size c. 320 mm, ventrals 120-140, subcaudals 7-13 ( Smith 1943; Whitaker & Captain 2004). The only Uropeltis with dorsal scales arranged in 15 rows at midbody. Color pattern varies extensively, with numerous drastically different morphs found in different populations (pictured in Whitaker & Captain 2004). Coloration is often black or a dark purplish-brown, with no dorsal pattern or sometimes with lighter edging to scales, or speckles, or yellow ocellations dorsolaterally, or yellow stripes dorsolaterally, a yellow stripe on the lips and side of neck, sometimes breaking up into several large yellow spots ventrolaterally, and a yellow stripe on either side of the tail. The tail is Smith’s (1943) state II (our Type V), being sharply truncated dorsally at a c. 45° angle, with the enlarged dorsal scales bi- or tri-carinate. Snout is “Alternate Rounded”. The single specimen dissected had a larger avascular portion of the right lung (17% of SVL) than any other Uropeltis specimen examined (mean of 7%), a larger liver-gallbladder interval (10% vs 3%), and the lowest number of tracheal rings (131) of any examined uropeltid specimen (mean of 204) and any Uropeltis species in particular (mean of 228).

REMARKS

This species is not very well-studied, but is apparently common at several sites throughout its range, and exhibits polytypic color-patterns ( Whitaker & Captain 2004). One population with thick yellow stripes running down either side of the body was previously described as a separate subspecies U. m. mahableshwarensis (see Chari 1952, 1955). Having examined the holotype of Silybura macrolepis Peters, 1861 (BMNH 1946.1.15.99), it is clearly this same striped mahableshwarensis form, visually similar to the holotype of U. m. mahableshwarensis (BNHM 1994). It seems evident that Chari (1952, 1955) did not actually examine Peter’s (1861a) type before describing U. m. mahableshwarensis. Additionally, there is no genealogical exclusivity between the striped and patternless forms ( Fig. 1 ). Thus, we synonymize Uropeltis macrolepis mahableshwarensis Chari, 1955 with Uropeltis macrolepis (Peters, 1861) . Any subspecific taxon based on the striped form would have to carry the name U. m. macrolepis (Peters, 1861) by the Principle of Coordination. We thus revise the type locality of U. macrolepis to Mahableshwar, Satara District, Maharashtra state, India. This species is polytypic, with unpatterned, striped, ocellated, speckled and broken-striped populations (see photos in Whitaker & Captain 2004), some of which may also represent additional cryptic species based on our genetic analyses ( Fig. 1 ).

Figures

FIG. 8. — Some uropeltid species photographed in life: A, Rhinophis zigzag Gower & Maduwage, 2011; B, Teretrurus sanguineus (Beddome, 1867); C, Uropeltis bicatenata (Günther,1864); D, U. ceylanica Cuvier,1829; E, U.dindigalensis (Beddome,1877);F, U. ellioti (Gray,1858); G, U. liura (Günther,1875);H, U. macrolepis (Peters, 1861). Photos by RAP, RS, SRG, VS, S. Kehimkar, A. Mohan, and D. Raju.

FIG. 1. — Molecular phylogeny of Uropeltidae Müller, 1832 based on Bayesian inference of 5.248bp of DNA-sequence data from 6 genes. Numbers at nodes represent posterior probabilities.