1,721,023 research outputs found
Systematics of the blindsnakes (Serpentes: Scolecophidia: Typhlopoidea) based on molecular and morphological evidence
No full textPyron, Robert Alexander, Wallach, Van (2014): Systematics of the blindsnakes (Serpentes: Scolecophidia: Typhlopoidea) based on molecular and morphological evidence. Zootaxa 3829 (1): 1-81, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3829.1.
Further notes on the Sri Lankan uropeltid snakes Rhinophis saffragamus (Kelaart, 1853) and Uropeltis ruhunae Deraniyagala, 1954
No full textPyron, Robert Alexander, Somaweera, Ruchira (2019): Further notes on the Sri Lankan uropeltid snakes Rhinophis saffragamus (Kelaart, 1853) and Uropeltis ruhunae Deraniyagala, 1954. Zootaxa 4560 (3): 592-600, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4560.3.1
FIGURE 2. Approximate distribution maps for species from 11 in Systematics of the blindsnakes (Serpentes: Scolecophidia: Typhlopoidea) based on molecular and morphological evidence
No full textFIGURE 2. Approximate distribution maps for species from 11 of 19 typhlopoid genera; Amerotyphlops, Xenotyphlopidae (Xenotyphlops), Gerrhopilidae (Gerrhopilus), Typhlops, Rhinotyphlops, Anilios, Xerotyphlops, Indotyphlops, Madatyphlops, Argyrophis, and Malayotyphlops. Seven other genera are pictured in Figure 4. Note that I. braminus has an essentially cosmopolitan distribution, and is not factored into the range for Indotyphlops (see Wallach 2009 for a recent summary of known localities).Published as part of Pyron, Robert Alexander & Wallach, Van, 2014, Systematics of the blindsnakes (Serpentes: Scolecophidia: Typhlopoidea) based on molecular and morphological evidence, pp. 1-81 in Zootaxa 3829 (1) on page 42, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3829.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/28655
FIGURE 1. Results from a in Systematics of the blindsnakes (Serpentes: Scolecophidia: Typhlopoidea) based on molecular and morphological evidence
No full textFIGURE 1. Results from a molecular phylogenetic analysis of 95 of the 275 known, extant species of typhlopoid blindsnakes. Tree represents the ML estimate from a concatenated matrix of 4 mitochondrial and 6 nuclear genes (6290bp total), inferred using 200 independent searches in RAxMLv7.2.8, with support estimated from 1000 non-parametric BS replicates (>50% shown).Published as part of Pyron, Robert Alexander & Wallach, Van, 2014, Systematics of the blindsnakes (Serpentes: Scolecophidia: Typhlopoidea) based on molecular and morphological evidence, pp. 1-81 in Zootaxa 3829 (1) on page 40, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3829.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/28655
A catalogue and systematic overview of the shield-tailed snakes (Serpentes: Uropeltidae)
No full textPyron, 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): 453-506, DOI: 10.5252/z2016n4a2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5252/z2016n4a
FIG. 9 in A catalogue and systematic overview of the shield-tailed snakes (Serpentes: Uropeltidae)
No full textFIG. 9. — Some uropeltid species photographed in life: A, Uropeltis madurensis (Beddome, 1878); B, U. phipsonii (Mason, 1888); C, U. pulneyensis (Beddome, 1863); D, U. shorttii (Beddome, 1863). Photos by SRG and S. Ramchandran.Published as part of 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), pp. 453-506 in Zoosystema 38 (4) on page 495, DOI: 10.5252/z2016n4a2, http://zenodo.org/record/457834
FIG. 8 in A catalogue and systematic overview of the shield-tailed snakes (Serpentes: Uropeltidae)
No full textFIG. 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.Published as part of 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), pp. 453-506 in Zoosystema 38 (4) on page 487, DOI: 10.5252/z2016n4a2, http://zenodo.org/record/457834
FIG. 7 in A catalogue and systematic overview of the shield-tailed snakes (Serpentes: Uropeltidae)
No full textFIG. 7. — Some uropeltid species photographed in life: A, Rhinophis homolepis Hemprich, 1820; B, R. melanogaster (Gray, 1858); C, R. oxyrhynchus (Schneider, 1801); D, R. philippinus (Cuvier, 1829); E, R. phillipsi (Nicholls, 1929) n. comb.; F, R. punctatus Müller, 1832; G, R. saffragamus (Kelaart, 1853) n. comb.; H, R. sanguineus Beddome, 1863. Photos by RAP, RS, SRG, VS, A. Dey, R. Pethiyagoda, and S. Kehimkar.Published as part of 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), pp. 453-506 in Zoosystema 38 (4) on page 483, DOI: 10.5252/z2016n4a2, http://zenodo.org/record/457834
Xenotyphlops Wallach & Ineich 1996
No full textXenotyphlops Wallach & Ineich, 1996 Type species. Typhlops grandidieri Mocquard, 1905 Species content. Xenotyphlops grandidieri. Diagnosis. Xenotyphlops can be distinguished from all other typhlopoids by its very broad, oval-shaped rostral with a nearly vertical lateral profile that terminates in an acute point and a single, large cloacal shield, rather than 4 or 5 as in most other scolecophidians. Small- to moderate-sized (total length 168–284 mm), moderate- to slenderbodied (length/width ratio 62–86) snakes with 20 scale rows (without reduction), 469–545 total middorsals, cloacal shield transversely enlarged, moderate tail (3.1–3.7 % total length) with 20–23 subcaudals (length/width ratio 2.3–3.2), and lacking apical spine. Dorsal head profile tapered, rostral very broad and oval (0.76–0.91 head width), terminating in an acute point, lateral head profile with nearly vertical rostral, frontal transversely enlarged (3–4 times as wide as long), subocular present, T-0 SIP, postoculars 2–3. Lateral tongue papillae present; left, tracheal and cardiac lungs absent, right lung unicameral; rectal caecum moderate (2.2–2.5 % SVL). Coloration is uniformly pink (pigmentless, without other marks). Phylogenetic definition. This genus is currently monotypic, but would include any newly discovered species more closely related to Xenotyphlops grandidieri than to Gerrhopilus ater or Typhlops lumbricalis. Etymology. From the Greek for strange (xenos), blind (typhlos) and eye (ops). Distribution. Northeastern Madagascar. Remarks. A second species (Xenotyphlops mocquardi) was described by Wallach et al. (2007 b), but has been shown to be a synonym of Xen. grandidieri (Wegener et al. 2013).Published as part of Pyron, Robert Alexander & Wallach, Van, 2014, Systematics of the blindsnakes (Serpentes: Scolecophidia: Typhlopoidea) based on molecular and morphological evidence, pp. 1-81 in Zootaxa 3829 (1) on page 45, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3829.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/28655
Cathetorhinus Dumeril & Bibron 1844
No full textCathetorhinus Duméril & Bibron, 1844 Type species. Cathetorhinus melanocephalus Duméril & Bibron, 1844 Species content. Cathetorhinus melanocephalus. Diagnosis. Cathetorhinus can be distinguished from all other typhlopoids by the combination of a T-II SIP and absence of preocular (fused with nasal). Small-sized (total length 183 mm), slender-bodied (length/width ratio 92) snakes with 18 scale rows throughout, 525 total middorsals, moderate tail (2.7 % of total length) with 20 subcaudals (length/width ratio 2.5), and minute apical spine. Dorsal head profile bluntly rounded, lateral profile pointed with a ventral rostral keel that terminates in a blunt point, large oval rostral (0.71 head width), eye discernible as a faint eyespot, and postocular single. Coloration of head in preservative is blackish-brown, dorsum tan with lighter venter. Phylogenetic definition. This genus is currently monotypic, but would include any newly discovered species more closely related to Cathetorhinus melanocephalus than to Gerrhopilus ater. Etymology. Unclear; likely refers to keeled, pointed condition of snout, from the Greek for perpendicular (cathetos) and having such a nose (rhinus). Distribution. Unknown. Collected during the Baudin voyage (1800–1804), which made landfall at the Azores, Cape of Good Hope (South Africa), Mauritius, W Australia, and Timor. Timor seems the most likely origin based upon these possible localities and their ophiofaunas, though one author suggested a potential origin from Mauritius (Cheke 2010). Remarks. The genus Cathetorhinus is resurrected here from the synonymy of Ramphotyphlops (Hedges et al. 2014). Previous authors considered Typhlops melanocephalus Typhlopidae incertae sedis, including Dixon & Hendricks (1979), Hahn (1980), and McDiarmid et al. (1999). The type and only known specimen (MNHN 138), which is in poor condition, has been re-examined by Wallach & Pauwels (2008), and does not fit the definitions of any other typhlopoid genera. Those authors resurrected Cathetorhinus. The combination of a T-II SIP and 18 dorsal scale rows clearly allies it with Gerrhopilidae, as this is a common combination of characters in Gerrhopilus, and only found in some individuals of one other African typhlopid species (Letheobia debilis; Table 2). Thus, we transfer Cathetorhinus to Gerrhopilidae (Table 1).Published as part of Pyron, Robert Alexander & Wallach, Van, 2014, Systematics of the blindsnakes (Serpentes: Scolecophidia: Typhlopoidea) based on molecular and morphological evidence, pp. 1-81 in Zootaxa 3829 (1) on page 44, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3829.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/28655
- …
