Distribución del gecko introducido <em>Hemidactylus frenatus<em> (Dumeril y Bribon 1836) (Squamata: Gekkonidae) en Colombia

The common house gecko, Hemidactylus frenatus, is a native species from Asia and the Indo-Pacific region. It has been found extensively in areas of the tropics both in the Old as well as the New World. Through the revision of museum specimens, we found 32 H. frenatus that have been erroneously identified with another invasive species, H. angulatus. The first record of H. frenatus in Colombia was reported in 2000 from the Magdalena Medio region, since that date to the present, the species has been founded in different localities into the Caribbean, Andean valleys, Pacific coastal and Orinoquia. The species has predilection for urban and suburban environments, but no records exist on its natural environment. According to our observations, this gecko is now more abundant than its conspecific, H. angulatus, and therefore we assume a strong competition between both species as well as other native and exotic geckos, mainly those that inhabit the San Andrés and Providencia islands. We recommend future studies that examine the degree of pressure and competition of H. frenatus on other native and exotic species of lizards

Distribución del gecko introducido Hemidactylus frenatus (Dumeril y Bribon 1836) (Squamata: Gekkonidae) en Colombia

The common house gecko, Hemidactylus frenatus, is a native species from Asia and the Indo-Pacific region. It has been found extensively in areas of the tropics both in the Old as well as the New World. Through the revision of museum specimens, we found 32 H. frenatus that have been erroneously identified with another invasive species, H. angulatus. The first record of H. frenatus in Colombia was reported in 2000 from the Magdalena Medio region, since that date to the present, the species has been founded in different localities into the Caribbean, Andean valleys, Pacific coastal and Orinoquia. The species has predilection for urban and suburban environments, but no records exist on its natural environment. According to our observations, this gecko is now more abundant than its conspecific, H. angulatus, and therefore we assume a strong competition between both species as well as other native and exotic geckos, mainly those that inhabit the San Andrés and Providencia islands. We recommend future studies that examine the degree of pressure and competition of H. frenatus on other native and exotic species of lizards.El gecko casero Hemidactylus frenatus es originario de Asia y la región Indo-Pacífica pero se ha distribuido en grandes áreas de las zonas tropicales del Viejo y Nuevo mundo. Por medio de la revisión de ejemplares de museos se encontraron 32 H. frenatus, que habían sido erróneamente identificados con otra especie introducida de este género, Hemidactylus angulatus. El primer registro de H. frenatus para Colombia se hizo en el 2000 en la región del Magdalena Medio, desde esa fecha hasta el presente, se encontraron reportes de esta especie en varias localidades del Caribe, los valles interandinos, la costa Pacífica y la Orinoquía. La especie ha mostrado predilección por ambientes urbanos y suburbanos y nunca se ha detectado en ambientes naturales. De acuerdo con las observaciones realizadas en Colombia, este gecko es ahora mucho más abundante que su co-específico H. angulatus, lo que puede indicar una fuerte competencia con éste y otras especies nativas, especialmente en las islas de San Andrés y Providencia. Se recomienda realizar estudios que permitan determinar el grado de presión y competencia que puede estar ejerciendo H. frenatus sobre especies nativas e introducidas de lagartijas

REDESCUBRIMIENTO DE MABUYA BERENGERAE, MABUYA PERGRAVIS (SQUAMATA: SCINCIDAE) Y CONIOPHANES ANDRESENSIS (SQUAMATA: COLUBRIDAE) Y EVALUACIÓN DE SU ESTADO DE AMENAZA EN LAS ISLAS DE SAN ANDRÉS Y PROVIDENCIA, COLOMBIA

Se presenta nueva información sobre la taxonomía, la distribución y la historia natural de los lagartos Mabuya berengerae y M. pergravis; así como de la serpiente Coniophanes andresensis, tres especies endémicas y poco conocidas de las islas de San Andrés y Providencia, las cuales se creían muy raras e incluso extintas. A pesar del poco tiempo de estudio en las islas, se evidenció que los lagartos no son raros, encontrándose hasta ocho ejemplares cada media hora. La evaluación del estado de conservación según los parámetros de la IUCN para las tres especies, clasifica a M. berengerae y M. pergravis como especies casi amenazadas (NT) y a C. andresensis como una especie en peligro crítico de extinción (CR). La pequeña área de distribución geográfica, el impacto antrópico y la introducción de especies exóticas pueden ser las principales causas de la disminución de la población de C. andresensis. Se analizaron algunos caracteres taxonómicos en M. berengerae (hasta ahora conocida de un solo ejemplar), encontrándose ciertas discrepancias que hacen necesaria su redefinición. Se recomienda realizar programas de investigación básica, conservación y educación, así como proteger los hábitats naturales de las islas

Tricheilostoma joshuai Dunn 1944

&lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma joshuai&lt;/i&gt; (Dunn 1944) &lt;p&gt;Figs. 4, 5&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops joshuai&lt;/i&gt; Dunn 1944, Caldasia 3:53.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops joshuai&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Bailey 1946, Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology the University of Michigan, 492:4. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops joshuai&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Dunn 1946, Caldasia, 4:122.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops joshuai&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Peters &amp; Orejas-Miranda 1970, Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 297:170. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops joshuai&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hahn 1980, Das Tierreich, 101:19.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops joshuai&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; McDiarmid, Campbell &amp; Tour&eacute; 1999, Snakes Species of the World, 1:33&ndash;34. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops joshuai&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Passos, Caramaschi &amp; Pinto 2006, Amphibia-Reptilia, 27:349. &lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma joshuai&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hedges, Adalsteinsson &amp; Branch &lt;i&gt;in&lt;/i&gt; Adalsteisson &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. 2009, Zootaxa, 2244:11.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Holotype.&lt;/b&gt; MLS 13, from municipality of Jeric&oacute; (05o 47' N, 0 75o 47' W; ca. 1967 m), department of Antioquia, Colombia (see remarks).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Paratypes:&lt;/b&gt; MLS 11, MLS 2646&ndash;2647 from municipality of Jeric&oacute;, department of Antioquia. MLS 12 from &ldquo;R&iacute;o Cauca&rdquo;, department of Antioquia. MLS 14 lacking specific locality, department of Antioquia. MLS 15 from Villamar&iacute;a (05o 62' N, 0 75o 31' W; ca. 1840 m), department of Caldas, Colombia.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Diagnosis.&lt;/b&gt; &lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma joshuai&lt;/i&gt; is distinguished from all congeners by the following combination of characters: snout rounded in dorsal view, truncate in lateral view; supraocular present; rostral triangular in dorsal view; ocular subhexagonal, with rounded shape in the eye level; temporal distinct; fused caudals; eye in anterior portion of expanded area of ocular scale; three supralabials (2+1); four infralabials; 174&ndash;193 middorsal scales in males and 184&ndash;199 in females; 169&ndash;181 midventral scales in males and 172&ndash;187 in females; 13&ndash;17 subcaudals in males and 13&ndash;15 in females; 12 scales around the middle of tail; seven dark brown dorsal scale rows with pale brown edge, venter and labial scales cream.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Redescription of the holotype.&lt;/b&gt; Adult female, 259 mm TL, 16 mm TAL; 8.3 mm MB; 16.2 TL/TAL; 31.2 TL/ MB; 4.9 mm HL; 3.0 mm relative eye diameter; 0.3 mm relative rostral width; head slightly depressed; body subcylindrical, slightly enlarged on head and slightly tapered caudally near the tail.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Head subcylindrical, almost twice as long as wide; cervical constriction barely distinct; snout slightly truncate in dorsal and ventral views, slightly obtuse in lateral view; rostral straight in frontal and ventral views, dorsal apex triangular, reaching an imaginary transverse line between anterior margins of ocular scales; rostral contacting supranasal and infranasal laterally and frontal dorsally; nasal completely divided horizontally by oblique suture crossing nostril; nostril roughly elliptic, obliquely oriented and placed in the middle of the nasal suture; supranasal about twice as high as long, bordering rostral anteriorly, infranasal inferiorly, first supralabial and ocular posteriorly, and frontal and supraocular dorsally; supranasal as long as upper border of infranasal scale; infranasal about twice as high as long; upper lip border formed by rostral, infranasal, two anterior supralabials, ocular and posterior supralabial scales; temporal scale distinct from dorsal scales of lateral rows; three supralabials (five according to Dunn 1944), two anterior and one posterior to ocular (2+1); first supralabial small, not reaching level of nostril and eye; second supralabial about twice as high as long, exceeding nostril and the lower portion of eye level; third supralabial with trapezoidal shape, lower than second one, slightly longer than high, reaching eye level, its posterior margin in broad contact with temporal; ocular enlarged, subhexagonal, rounded in the eye level, twice as high as long, contacting the posterior margins of supranasal and second supralabial anteriorly, parietal and third supralabial posteriorly, and supraocular dorsally, its dorsal apex straight; eye distinct (0.6 mm), placed in the anterior area of the expanded upper part of ocular, displaced above the nostril level; supraocular three times longer than wide, subtly longer and slender than frontal scale, contacting supranasal anteriorly, frontal, postfrontal and ocular scales laterally, and parietal posteriorly; midsaggital head scales (postfrontal, interparietal and interoccipital) subequal in size, hexagonal in dorsal view, weakly imbricate; frontal not enlarged, smaller than other midsaggital scales, as wide as long, contacting rostral and supranasals anteriorly, supraoculars laterally, and postfrontal posteriorly; postfrontal as wide as long, contacting frontal, supraoculars, parietals and interparietal; interparietal wider than long, contacting postfrontal, parietals, occipitals, and interoccipital; interoccipital contacting interparietal, occipitals, and the first dorsal scale of the vertebral row; parietal and occipital similar in shape, irregularly pentagonal; parietal twice as wide as long, lower margin contacting the upper border of third supralabial, posterior margin contacting temporal, occipital and interparietal, anterior border in broad contact with ocular, supraocular and postfrontal; occipital twice as wide as long, its lower limit not attaining the level of the upper margin of third supralabial, though separated of the latter by temporal; symphysial trapezoidal, anterior and posterior borders respectively straight and slightly convex, three times as wide as long; four infralabials behind symphysial on both sides; first three infralabials subequal, slightly higher than long; fourth longer than other infralabials, approximately as long as second one; dorsal scales homogeneous, cycloid, smooth, slightly imbricate, and almost two times as wide as long; 195 (191 according to Dunn 1944) middorsal scales; 181 midventral scales; 14 scale rows around midbody, reducing to 12 rows in the middle of the tail; cloacal shield short and semicircular, wider than long; 15 subcaudals; caudals fused; terminal spine short, conical, with stout base, longer than wide.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Colour of the holotype in preservative:&lt;/b&gt; Seven dorsal scale rows uniformly dark brown and seven ventral scale rows cream; head dorsally paler than dorsal scales of body, with some brown pigmentation concentrated on centre portion of cephalic scales; paler colour extending from rostral to interoccipital; lower margins of scales forming the creamish upper lip border; cloacal shield pale brown, slightly darker than general ventral coloration; terminal spine not pigmented.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Sexual dimorphism:&lt;/b&gt; Females were significantly longer (F(1,13) = 11.8; p &lt;0.01) and showed a higher TL/TAL ratio (F(1, 13) = 7.1; p &lt;0.05) than males. However, males have significantly more subcaudal scales (F(1,13) = 11.2; p &lt;0.01) and largest tail F(1, 13) = 8.1; p &lt;0.01) than females.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Variation:&lt;/b&gt; Middorsal scales 174&ndash;193 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 187.4 &plusmn; 5.2, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 10) in males and 184&ndash;199 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 193.8 &plusmn; 6.7, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 4) in females; midventral scales 169&ndash;181 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 173.9 &plusmn; 4.2, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 8) in males and 172&ndash;187 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 180.0 &plusmn; 7.6, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3) in females; subcaudal scales 13&ndash;17 in males (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 16.0 &plusmn; 1.2, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 10) and 13&ndash;15 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 13.8 &plusmn; 1.1, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 5) in females; TL 90&ndash;218 mm (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 149.3 &plusmn; 49.5, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 10) in males and 163&ndash;300 mm (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 246.2 &plusmn; 55.6, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 5) in females; TL/TAL ratio 10.8&ndash;17.0 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 13.1 &plusmn; 1.9, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 10) in males and 13.6&ndash;24.6 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 17.3 &plusmn; 4.3, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 5) in females; TAL 5.9&ndash;9.3% of TL in males (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 7.8 &plusmn; 0.0, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 10) and 4.1&ndash;7.4% in females (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 6.0 &plusmn; 0.0, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 5); TL/MB ratio 37.8&ndash;50.0 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 42.3 &plusmn; 4.2, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 10) in males and 34.0&ndash;55.2 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 43.9 &plusmn; 9.4, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 5) in females; TAL/MT ratio 2.8&ndash;3.6 (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 2) in males and 2.9&ndash;3.5 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 3.2 &plusmn; 0.3, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3) in females; relative eye diameter 0.3&ndash;0.4 (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 2) in males and 0.4&ndash;0.5 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 0.5 &plusmn; 0.0, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3) in females; rostral width 2.4&ndash;3.7 (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 2) in males and 2.1&ndash;2.3 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 2.2 &plusmn; 0.1, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3) in females.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Distribution.&lt;/b&gt; Cauca valley between the Cordilleras Occidental and Central of Colombia, from Jeric&oacute; (05&ordm;47&rsquo;39&rdquo;N, 75&ordm;47&rsquo;23&rdquo;W), department of Antioquia south to San Antonio (03&ordm;13&rsquo;N, 76&ordm;39&rsquo;W), department of Valle del Cauca; between altitudes of 1600 up to 2200 m (Fig. 3).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Remarks.&lt;/b&gt; Dunn (1944) described &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops joshuai&lt;/i&gt; on the basis of seven specimens from the Cauca Valley. However, the author did not provide the institutional number for all specimens in the type series. Although La Salle types actually are kept together in a separate cabinet from remaining collection, the specimen currently labelled as holotype did not match with morphometric and meristic data given in the original description. As most of the bottles and labels in the La Salle collection were replaced after the fire accident in 1948 (frequently without the maintenance of the original species label), many types were mixed with specimens from the main collection or lost (P. Passos pers. obs.). Besides, the specimen separated in the type&rsquo;s cabinet (MLS 11) was not labelled as such, while other leptotyphlopid types were properly labelled (e.g., &lt;i&gt;L. brevissimus&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;L. nicefori&lt;/i&gt;). In this context, we here propose the recognition of MLS 13 as the holotype based on the similarity of morphometric and meristic data with the original description.&lt;/p&gt;Published as part of &lt;i&gt;Pinto, Roberta Richard, Passos, Paulo, Portilla, José Rances Caicedo, Arredondo, Juan Camilo &amp; Fernandes, Ronaldo, 2010, Taxonomy of the Threadsnakes of the tribe Epictini (Squamata: Serpentes: Leptotyphlopidae) in Colombia, pp. 1-28 in Zootaxa 2724&lt;/i&gt; on pages 7-10, DOI: &lt;a href="http://zenodo.org/record/199951"&gt;10.5281/zenodo.199951&lt;/a&gt

Tricheilostoma brevissimum Shreve 1964

&lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma brevissimum&lt;/i&gt; (Shreve 1964) &lt;p&gt;Figs. 1, 2&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops brevissima&lt;/i&gt; Shreve 1964, Breviora, 211:1.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops brevissimus&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Orejas-Miranda 1967, Atas do Simp&oacute;sio sobre a Biota Amaz&ocirc;nica, 5:421&ndash;442. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops brevissimus&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Peters &amp; Orejas-Miranda 1970, Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 297:168. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops brevissimus&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hahn 1980, Das Tierreich, 101:9.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops brevissimus&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; McDiarmid, Campbell &amp; Tour&eacute; 1999, Snakes Species of the World, 1:24. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops brevissimus&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Passos, Caramaschi &amp; Pinto 2006, Amphibia-Reptilia, 27:349.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma brevissimum&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hedges, Adalsteinsson &amp; Branch &lt;i&gt;in&lt;/i&gt; Adalsteisson &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. 2009, Zootaxa, 2244:11.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Holotype.&lt;/b&gt; MLS 1311, collected by Brother Nic&eacute;foro Maria on February 10, 1951, from municipality of Florencia (01o 37&rsquo;N, 0 75o 37&rsquo;W; ca. 560 m), department of Caquet&aacute;, Colombia.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Paratype.&lt;/b&gt; MCZ 38950, collected by Brother Nic&eacute;foro Maria in 1925, from municipality of Sons&oacute;n (05&ordm;43&rsquo;N, 75&ordm;19&rsquo;W; ca. 2240 m), department of Antioquia, Colombia. The paratype was taken from the stomach of &lt;i&gt;Micrurus mipartitus&lt;/i&gt; (MCZ 21988), so the head is partially destroyed.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Diagnosis.&lt;/b&gt; &lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma brevissimum&lt;/i&gt; is distinguished from all congeners by the following combination of characters: snout truncate in dorsal view; rounded in lateral view; supraocular present; rostral scale subtriangular in dorsal view; ocular subhexagonal with rounded shape at the eye level; supraocular longer than frontal scale; temporal distinct; fused caudals present; nostril posterior to nasal suture; three supralabials (2+1); four infralabials; 152&ndash;162 middorsal scales; 141&ndash;152 midventral scales; 12&ndash;14 subcaudals; 10 scales around the middle of tail; seven dorsal scale rows uniformly brown, and seven ventral series pale brown.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Redescription of the holotype.&lt;/b&gt; Juvenile male, 66 mm TL, 5 mm TAL; 1.6 mm MB; 13.2 TL/TAL; 41.3 TL/ MB; 3.1 mm HL, 1.8 mm HW; head slightly depressed; body subcylindrical, slightly enlarged on the head and slightly tapered caudally near of tail.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Head subcylindrical, almost twice as long as wide, cervical constriction indistinct; snout truncate in dorsal and ventral views, rounded in lateral view; rostral straight in frontal and ventral views, dorsal apex triangular, reaching a transverse imaginary line between anterior margins of ocular scales; rostral contacting supranasal and infranasal laterally and frontal dorsally; nasal completely divided horizontally by an oblique suture crossing nostril and descending posteriorly near to first supralabial; nostril roughly elliptic, obliquely oriented and placed posteriorly in the nasal suture; supranasal about twice as high as long, bordering rostral anteriorly, infranasal inferiorly, first and second supralabials and ocular scale posteriorly, and frontal and supraocular scales dorsally; supranasal longer than upper border of infranasal scale; infranasal about twice as high as long; infranasal and second supralabial with similar size; upper lip border formed by rostral, infranasal, two anterior supralabials, ocular, and posterior supralabial; temporal scale distinct from dorsal scales of lateral rows; three supralabials, first two anterior to ocular and one posterior (2+1); first supralabial higher than long, not reaching nostril and eye level; second supralabial twice as high as long, higher than first supralabial, crossing level of nostril and reaching eye level; third supralabial trapezoidal, longer than high, not reaching eye level, its posterior margin in broad contact with temporal; ocular enlarged, with rounded shape in the eye level, twice high as long, contacting posterior margins of supranasal and second supralabial anteriorly, parietal and third supralabial posteriorly, and supraocular dorsally, with its dorsal apex straight; eye distinct, concentrated in the central area of the expanded upper part of ocular; supraocular about twice as long as wide, subtly longer and smaller than frontal, placed between ocular and frontal, contacting supranasal anteriorly, frontal, postfrontal and ocular laterally, and parietal posteriorly; midsaggital head scales (frontal, postfrontal, interparietal and interoccipital) subequal in size, hexagonal in dorsal view, non imbricate; frontal wider than long, contacting rostral, supranasal, supraocular and postfrontal; postfrontal wider than long, contacting frontal, supraocular, parietals and interparietal; interparietal wider than long, contacting postfrontal, parietals, occipitals and interoccipital; interoccipital wider than long, contacting interparietal, occipitals and the first dorsal scale of the vertebral row; parietal and occipital subequal, irregularly hexagonal; parietal almost twice as wide as long, lower margin contacting upper border of third supralabial, posterior margin contacting respective temporal, occipital and interparietal, anterior border in broad contact with ocular, supraocular and postfrontal; occipital almost twice as wide as long, its lower limit attaining the level of the upper margin of third supralabial, separated from latter by temporal; symphysial trapezoidal, anterior and posterior borders respectively straight and slightly convex, four times wider than long; four infralabials on both sides (six according to Shreve 1964); first three infralabials similar in size, slightly higher than long; fourth infralabial distinctively longer than first three scales, almost three times longer than high, as long as third supralabial. Dorsal scales homogeneous, cycloid, smooth, weekly imbricate, and almost twice as wide as long; 152 middorsal scales; 141 midventral scales; 14 scale rows around midbody, reducing to 10 rows in the middle of the tail; cloacal shield semicircular, almost twice as wide as long; 12 subcaudals (13 according to Shreve 1964); fused caudals present; terminal spine large, conical, longer than wide.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Colour of the holotype in preservative.&lt;/b&gt; Its colour has considerably faded after preservation. Seven dorsal scale rows uniformly pale brown and seven ventral scale rows beige; lower margins of scales forming the upper lip border beige; cloacal shield pale brown, slightly paler than dorsal coloration; terminal spine not pigmented.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Variation.&lt;/b&gt; Middorsal scales 152&ndash;162 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 158.7 &plusmn; 5.8, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3); midventral scales 141&ndash;152 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 148.0 &plusmn; 6.1, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3); subcaudal scales 12&ndash;14 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 13.0 &plusmn; 1.0, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3); TL 66&ndash;139 mm (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 102.0 &plusmn; 36.5, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3); TL/TAL ratio 12.6&ndash; 13.2 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 12.9 &plusmn; 0.3, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3); TAL 7.6&ndash;7.9% of TL (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 7.8 &plusmn; 0.0, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3); TL/MB ratio 30.3&ndash;41.3 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 34.8 &plusmn; 5.7, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3); TAL/MT ratio 2.8&ndash;3.3 (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 2); relative eye diameter 1.7&ndash;2.5 (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 2); rostral width 0.4 (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 2).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Distribution.&lt;/b&gt; Florencia (01&ordm;37&rsquo;N, 75&ordm;37&rsquo;W) in the east versant of Cordillera Oriental and Sons&oacute;n (05&deg;43'33''N 74&deg;43'46''W) in the east versant of Cordillera Central of Colombia (Fig. 3).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Remarks.&lt;/b&gt; Shreve (1964) distinguished &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops brevissimus&lt;/i&gt; from &lt;i&gt;L. anthracinus&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;L. macrolepis&lt;/i&gt; by the lower middorsal and subcaudal scale counts and venter light brown (vs. black in &lt;i&gt;L. anthracinus&lt;/i&gt; or brown with distinct ventral scales white bordered in &lt;i&gt;L. macrolepis&lt;/i&gt;). Shreve (1964) also compared &lt;i&gt;L. brevissimus&lt;/i&gt; with &lt;i&gt;L. dugandi&lt;/i&gt;, which according to him have similar middorsal scale counts, but differing the first by lower number of subcaudals, dorsum uniformly dark brown and venter light brown (vs. dorsum stripped, uniformly white ventrally, and with anterior portion of head white in &lt;i&gt;L. dugandi&lt;/i&gt;). Shreve (1964) pointed out that &lt;i&gt;L. anthracinus&lt;/i&gt; was close related to &lt;i&gt;L. brevissimus&lt;/i&gt;, and suggested both species may be only subspecifically distinct. Orejas-Miranda (1967) argued that criteria used by Shreve (1964) to recognize &lt;i&gt;L. brevissimus&lt;/i&gt; was puzzled, since there is a specimen of &lt;i&gt;L. anthracinus&lt;/i&gt; (FMNH 34353) with 172 middorsal scales close to the known range of &lt;i&gt;L. brevissimus&lt;/i&gt;. However, we re-examined this specimen and found that middorsal scales in fact are 187 instead of 172 as previously reported by Orejas-Miranda (1967), and besides the additional differences between these taxa (see above), the number of middorsal scales still differs between the two taxa. The paratype presented 162 middorsal scales instead of 164 according to Shreve 1964.&lt;/p&gt;Published as part of &lt;i&gt;Pinto, Roberta Richard, Passos, Paulo, Portilla, José Rances Caicedo, Arredondo, Juan Camilo &amp; Fernandes, Ronaldo, 2010, Taxonomy of the Threadsnakes of the tribe Epictini (Squamata: Serpentes: Leptotyphlopidae) in Colombia, pp. 1-28 in Zootaxa 2724&lt;/i&gt; on pages 3-6, DOI: &lt;a href="http://zenodo.org/record/199951"&gt;10.5281/zenodo.199951&lt;/a&gt

Epictia magnamaculata Taylor 1940

&lt;i&gt;Epictia magnamaculata&lt;/i&gt; (Taylor 1940) &lt;p&gt;Fig. 13&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops magnamaculata&lt;/i&gt; Taylor 1940 [dated 1939], University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 26(15):540.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops albifrons magnamaculata&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Dunn &amp; Saxe 1950, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 102:159&ndash;161.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops goudotii magnamaculatus&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Peters &amp; Orejas-Miranda 1970, Bulletin of the United States of National Museum, 297:169&ndash;170.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops phenops&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Wilson &amp; Hahn 1973, Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, 17(2):120.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops goudotii magnamaculatus&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hahn 1980, Das Tierreich, 101:15.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops goudotii magnamaculatus&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; McDiarmid, Campbell &amp; Tour&eacute; 1999, Snake Species of the World, 1:30&ndash;32.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Epictia magnamaculata&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hedges, Adalsteinsson &amp; Branch &lt;i&gt;in&lt;/i&gt; Adalsteisson &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. 2009, Zootaxa, 2244:11.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Holotype.&lt;/b&gt; USNM 54760, collected by F.J. Dyer in April 9, 1916, from &Uacute;tila Island (16o 06&rsquo;N, 0 86o 55&rsquo;W), Honduras.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Diagnosis.&lt;/b&gt; &lt;i&gt;Epictia magnamaculata&lt;/i&gt; is distinguished from all congeners by the following combination of characters: snout slightly truncate in dorsal and ventral view, rounded in lateral view; supraocular present, not in contact with first supralabial; first supralabial longer, reaching eye level; rostral scale subtriangular in dorsal view; ocular hexagonal with straight shape at the eye level; supraocular longer than frontal scale; temporal indistinct; fused caudals absent; two supralabials (1+1); four infralabials; 245&ndash;262 middorsal scales; 237&ndash;246 midventral scales; 15&ndash;18 subcaudal scales; 10 scales around the middle of tail; seven dorsal scale rows dark brown in the centre of scales with paler border forming longitudinal zig-zag lines; seven lateroventral scale rows brown in the centre of scales with border lighter forming soft zig-zag lines; gular region paler than venter.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Variation.&lt;/b&gt; Middorsal scales 245&ndash;262 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 252.6 &plusmn; 4.9, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 12); midventral scales 237&ndash;246 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 240.3 &plusmn; 4.0, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 4); subcaudal scales 15&ndash;18 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 16.8 &plusmn; 1.1, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 13); TL 98&ndash;195 mm (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 154.5 &plusmn; 28.3, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 12); TL/TAL ratio 14.1&ndash;21.0 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 16.9 &plusmn; 1.8, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 12); TAL 4.8&ndash;7.1% of TL (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 6.0 &plusmn; 0.0, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 12); TL/MB ratio 52.7&ndash;61.5 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 57.9 &plusmn; 3.7, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 4); TAL/MT ratio 2.8&ndash;4.0 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 3.5 &plusmn; 0.6, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 4); relative eye diameter 1.3&ndash;2.5 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr; =&lt;/i&gt; 1.9 &plusmn; 0.5, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 4); rostral width 0.4&ndash;0.5 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 0.4 &plusmn; 0.0, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 4).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Distribution.&lt;/b&gt; In Colombia, known form the Archipelago of San Andr&eacute;s, Providencia y Santa Catalina in the Providencia (13&ordm;20&rsquo;56&rdquo;N 81&ordm;22&rsquo;29&rdquo;) and San Andr&eacute;s (12&ordm;35&rsquo;N 81&ordm;42&rsquo;W) islands (Fig. 3).&lt;/p&gt;Published as part of &lt;i&gt;Pinto, Roberta Richard, Passos, Paulo, Portilla, José Rances Caicedo, Arredondo, Juan Camilo &amp; Fernandes, Ronaldo, 2010, Taxonomy of the Threadsnakes of the tribe Epictini (Squamata: Serpentes: Leptotyphlopidae) in Colombia, pp. 1-28 in Zootaxa 2724&lt;/i&gt; on pages 22-24, DOI: &lt;a href="http://zenodo.org/record/199951"&gt;10.5281/zenodo.199951&lt;/a&gt

Epictia signata Jan 1861

&lt;i&gt;Epictia signata&lt;/i&gt; (Jan 1861) &lt;p&gt;Fig. 14&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Stenostoma signatum&lt;/i&gt; Jan 1861, Archivio Per La Zoologia, L&rsquo;Anatomia e La Fisiologia, Genova, 1:188. &lt;i&gt;Stenostoma signatum&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Jan &amp; Sordelli 1861, Icnographie generale des Ophidiens, vol. I, livr. 2, fig. 3. &lt;i&gt;Glauconia signata&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Boulenger 1893, Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum, 1:64. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops amazonicus&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hahn 1979, Herpetologica 33:58.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops amazonicus&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Peters &amp; Orejas-Miranda 1970, Bulletin of the United States of National Museum, 297:173. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops amazonicus&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hahn 1980, Das Tierreich, 101:7.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops signatus&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hahn 1980, Das Tierreich, 101:26.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops signatus&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; McDiarmid, Campbell &amp; Tour&eacute; 1999, Snake Species of the World, 1:43. &lt;i&gt;Epictia signata&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hedges, Adalsteinsson &amp; Branch &lt;i&gt;in&lt;/i&gt; Adalsteisson &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. 2009, Zootaxa, 2244:1&ndash;50.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Holotype.&lt;/b&gt; MNHN 3235 from &ldquo;patrie inconnue&rdquo; (= unknown country).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Diagnosis.&lt;/b&gt; &lt;i&gt;Epictia signata&lt;/i&gt; is distinguished from all congeners by the following combination of characters: snout truncate in dorsal and ventral views, rounded in lateral view; supraocular present, not in contact with first supralabial; rostral scale triangular in dorsal view; ocular subhexagonal with straight shape at the eye level; supraocular longer than frontal scale; temporal indistinct; fused caudals absent; eyes concentrated in the middle area of the expanded upper part of ocular; two supralabials (1+1); four infralabials; 208&ndash;282 middorsal scales; 261&ndash;214 midventral scales; 14&ndash;17 subcaudal scales; 10 scales around the middle of tail; seven dorsal scale rows uniformly brown, and seven lateroventral series light brown; rostral, last subcaudals, and terminal spine white coloured.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Distribution.&lt;/b&gt; The single specimen found along collections examination has no specific data other than &ldquo; Colombia &rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Remarks.&lt;/b&gt; &lt;i&gt;Stenostoma signatum&lt;/i&gt; was described by Jan (1861) through a specimen of unknown provenance. Later the holotype was illustrated by Jan and Sordelli (1861). Hahn (1979), based on the data from Jan (1861), pointed out that this specimen was purchased by the Mus&eacute;um National d&rsquo;histoire Naturalle of Paris in 1858 and originally labelled as &ldquo; Madagascar?&rdquo;. Because there are no Leptotyphlopid record&rsquo;s to Madagascar, Hahn (1979) argued that the label was in error. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops amazonicus&lt;/i&gt; was described by Orejas-Miranda (1969) based on five specimens from southeastern Venezuela and one without specific provenance, possibly from Amazon Rainforest of Ecuador. Orejas-Miranda (1969) cited that the paratype (ANSP 3290) from Ecuadorian Amazon was from the Orton collection. However Cope (1876; 1877) did not mention any specimen of &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops&lt;/i&gt; from Ecuador and Peru collected by the Orton expedition. The Orton expedition was divided in two parts, one ascending the Orinoco River and the other one through the Amazon basin. Thus, it seems that this specimen was collected by the first part while in Venezuela and not by the second in the Amazon (Cisneros-Heredia 2008).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; Hahn (1979) examined the supposed holotype of &lt;i&gt;Stenostoma signatum&lt;/i&gt; (MNHN 3235), comparing it with the type series of &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops amazonicus&lt;/i&gt;. According to Hahn (1979), the holotype of &lt;i&gt;S. signatum&lt;/i&gt; is comparable with the &lt;i&gt;L. amazonicus&lt;/i&gt; type series in all meristic and morphometic characters and, therefore, he relegated &lt;i&gt;L. amazonicus&lt;/i&gt; to the synonymy of the first, restricting the type locality to northern region of Amazonia.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; Despite few known specimens and uncertain distribution there are characteristics figured by Jan and Sordelli (1861) and Hahn (1979) that apparently diagnose &lt;i&gt;E. signata&lt;/i&gt; from sympatric congeners (e.g., uniformly brown dorsum except for snout and last subcaudal scale white pigmented combined with higher number of middorsal scales and elongate first supralabial). On the basis of such characteristics we identified the specimen IBSP 7204 as &lt;i&gt;E. signata&lt;/i&gt;, which is first specimen recorded from Colombia and the eighth known of the species.&lt;/p&gt;Published as part of &lt;i&gt;Pinto, Roberta Richard, Passos, Paulo, Portilla, José Rances Caicedo, Arredondo, Juan Camilo &amp; Fernandes, Ronaldo, 2010, Taxonomy of the Threadsnakes of the tribe Epictini (Squamata: Serpentes: Leptotyphlopidae) in Colombia, pp. 1-28 in Zootaxa 2724&lt;/i&gt; on page 24, DOI: &lt;a href="http://zenodo.org/record/199951"&gt;10.5281/zenodo.199951&lt;/a&gt

Tricheilostoma dugandi Dunn 1944

&lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma dugandi&lt;/i&gt; Dunn 1944 &lt;p&gt;Figs. 8, 9&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops dugandi&lt;/i&gt; Dunn 1944, Caldasia, 3:52&ndash;53.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops dugandi&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Bailey 1946, Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology in the University of Michigan, 492:4. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops dugandi&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Dunn 1946, Caldasia, 4:122.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops dugandi&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Shreve 1964, Breviora, 211:4.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops dugandi&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Peters &amp; Orejas-Miranda 1970, Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 297:169. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops dugandi&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hahn 1980, Das Tierreich, 101:12.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops dugandi&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; McDiarmid, Campbell &amp; Tour&eacute; 1999, Snake Species of the World, 1:28. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops dugandi&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Passos, Caramaschi &amp; Pinto 2006, Amphibia-Reptilia, 27:349. &lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma dugandi &mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hedges, Adalsteinsson &amp; Branch in Adalsteisson &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. 2009, Zootaxa, 2244:11.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Holotype.&lt;/b&gt; A non catalogued male specimen originally housed in the Colegio Biffi, from municipality of Juanmina (= Juan Mina; 10&ordm;57&rsquo;N, 74&ordm;53&rsquo;W; ca. 30 m), department of Atl&aacute;ntico, Colombia. Specimen not localized, probably lost (see remarks).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Paratype.&lt;/b&gt; A non catalogued female specimen originally housed in the Colegio Biffi, from municipality of Barranquilla (10&deg;57'N, 074&deg;47'W; ca. 30 m), department of Atl&aacute;ntico, Colombia.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Diagnosis.&lt;/b&gt; &lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma dugandi&lt;/i&gt; is distinguished from all congeners by the following combination of characters: snout truncated in dorsal and ventral views, and rounded in lateral view; supraocular present; ocular subhexagonal, dorsal apex straight and anterior border slightly rounded in the eye level; three supralabials (2+1); four infralabials; fused caudals present; temporal scale indistinct; rostral semicircular in dorsal view; 171&ndash;184 middorsal scales; 158&ndash;172 midventral scales; subcaudal scales 10&ndash;13; 10 scales around the middle of tail; dorsum brown with dark brown copper in the centre and median portion of dorsal scales, forming seven longitudinal lines from occipital scales to terminal spine; seven remaining ventrolateral scale rows whitish cream.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Redescription of the topotype [MCZ 58785].&lt;/b&gt; Juvenile female, 143 mm TL, 7 mm TAL; 4.1 mm MB; 3.0 mm MT; 20.4 TL/TAL; 35.2 TL/MB; 5.7 mm HL, 3.1 mm HW; 1.5 mm relative eye diameter; 0.4 mm relative rostral width; head slightly depressed; body subcylindrical, slightly enlarged on the head and slightly tapered caudally near of tail.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Head subcylindrical, distinguishable from neck, almost twice as long as wide; snout truncated in dorsal and ventral views, and rounded in lateral view; rostral straight in frontal and ventral views, dorsal apex semicircular, not reaching a transverse imaginary line between anterior margins of ocular scales; rostral contacting supranasal and infranasal laterally and frontal dorsally; nasal completely divided horizontally by oblique suture crossing nostril; nostril roughly elliptic, obliquely oriented and placed in the middle of the nasal suture; supranasal almost twice as high as long, bordering rostral anteriorly, infranasal inferiorly, two anterior supralabials, and ocular posteriorly, and frontal dorsally; supranasal as long as upper border of infranasal scale; infranasal as high as long; upper lip border formed by rostral, infranasal, first two supralabials, ocular, and posterior supralabial; temporal scale indistinct from dorsal scale of lateral rows; three supralabials (2+1); first supralabial twice as higher than long, not reaching nostril and eye levels; second supralabial about three times higher than long, crossing nostril level and lower portion of eye; third supralabial trapezoidal lower than second, slightly longer than high, reaching eye level, its posterior margin in broad contact with temporal; ocular enlarged, subhexagonal, slightly rounded in eye level, almost twice as high as long, contacting posterior margins of supranasal and first supralabial anteriorly, parietal and third supralabial posteriorly, and supraocular dorsally, its dorsal apex straight; eye distinct (0.6 mm), situated at upper part of ocular, displaced above nostril; supraocular longer than wide, subtly longer than frontal scale, contacting supranasal anteriorly, frontal, postfrontal, ocular laterally, and parietal posteriorly; midsaggital head scales (frontal, postfrontal, interparietal, and interoccipital) similar in size, subcircular in dorsal view, weakly imbricate; frontal short, almost twice as wide as long, contacting rostral, supranasals, supraocular, and postfrontal; postfrontal slightly wider than long, contacting frontal, supraoculars, parietals, and interparietal; interparietal wider than long, contacting postfrontal, parietals, occipitals, and interoccipital; interoccipital slightly wider than long, contacting interparietal, occipitals, and the first dorsal scale of vertebral row; parietal and occipital similar in shape, irregularly pentagonal; parietal almost twice as wide as long, lower margin contacting the upper border of third supralabial, posterior margin contacting temporal, occipital, and interparietal; anterior border in broad contact with ocular, supraocular, and postfrontal; occipital almost twice as wide as long, its lower edge attaining level of upper margin of third supralabial; symphysial trapezoidal, almost three times wider than long, anterior and posterior borders straight and slightly convex, respectively; four infralabials behind symphysial; first three infralabials subequal, somewhat higher than long; fourth infralabial longer than others, twice as long as high; dorsal scales homogeneous, cycloid, smooth, weekly imbricate, and wider than long; 182 middorsal scales; 172 midventral scales; 14 scale rows around midbody, reducing to 10 rows at middle of tail; cloacal shield short and semicircular, almost twice as wide as long; 10 subcaudals; caudals fused; terminal spine short, conical, with stout base, slightly wider than long.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Colour of the topotype in preservative.&lt;/b&gt; Seven dorsal scale rows brown with dark copper in the centre and median portion of each scales, forming seven longitudinal lines from occipitals to terminal spine; seven ventral scale rows whitish cream; head uniformly brown; frontal margin of snout near postfrontal dorsally and ocular laterally whitish cream; cloacal shield whitish cream; terminal spine dark brown.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Sexual dimorphism.&lt;/b&gt; Females have higher middorsal scales than males (U = 0.0; P &lt;0.05), although males have more subcaudal scales than females (U = 0.0; P &lt;0.05).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Variation:&lt;/b&gt; Middorsal scales 181&ndash;184 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 182 &plusmn; 1.3, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 5) in females, 171&ndash;174 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 172.3 &plusmn; 1.5, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3) in males; midventral scales 158&ndash;160 (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 2) in females, 172 in males; subcaudal scales 9&ndash;10 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 10 &plusmn; 0.4, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 5) in females, 12&ndash;13 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 12.3 &plusmn; 0.6, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3) in males; TL 143&ndash;257 mm (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 182 &plusmn; 45.4, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 5) in females, 84&ndash;174 mm (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 137.7 &plusmn; 47.4, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3) in males; TL/TAL ratio 18.4&ndash;30.0 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 22.2 &plusmn; 3.7, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 5) in females, 15.5&ndash;19.3 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 17.2 &plusmn; 2.0, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3) in males; TAL 3.3&ndash;5.5% of TL (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 4.5% &plusmn; 0.0, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 5) in females, 5.2&ndash;6.5% of TL (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 5.9 &plusmn; 0.0, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3) in males; TL/MB ratio 27.0&ndash;37.5 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 33.5 &plusmn; 3.8, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 5) in females, 33.7&ndash;52.5 (&lt;i&gt;x&macr;&lt;/i&gt; = 40.4 &plusmn; 10.6, &lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3) in males; TAL/MT ratio 2.4 (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 1) in females; relative eye diameter 1.5 (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 1) in females; relative rostral width 0.4 (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 1) in females.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Distribution.&lt;/b&gt; Caribbean coast of Colombia near sea level, from Juan Mina to Barranquilla (Fig. 3).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Remarks.&lt;/b&gt; Dunn (1944) proposed &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops dugandi&lt;/i&gt; through brief description based on two specimens from the Caribbean coast of Colombia. Both were housed at Colegio Biffi in the city of Barranquilla, a small collection made by the efforts of fathers from La Salle order. Although many researchers unsuccessful tried to exam this collection in the past at least part of it was apparently lost during transportation to a new building (J. Lynch pers. comm.). Given the apparent loss of the types, conservative nature of the general colour pattern, and large overlap of meristic and morphometric characters in the genus (the only data provided by Dunn 1944), the designation of a neotype may be desirable.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; According to ICZN (1999) the designation of a neotype is allowed when a name-bearing type is necessary to define the nominal taxon objectively (art. 75.1, ICZN 1999). On the basis of voucher species the only leptotyphlopid that occur sympatrically with &lt;i&gt;T. dugandi&lt;/i&gt; in the Atlantic coast of Colombia is &lt;i&gt;E. goudotii&lt;/i&gt;. However, both species differ greatly in the number of middorsal scale rows (171&ndash;184 in &lt;i&gt;T. dugandi&lt;/i&gt; vs. 227&ndash;260 in &lt;i&gt;E. goudotii&lt;/i&gt;) precluding the neotype designation at this time. However, we redescribed specimens of &lt;i&gt;T. dugandi&lt;/i&gt; from Barranquilla, which we consider as topotypes. These data can provide additional support to the diagnosis of the species and characterization, facilitating future comparisons and/or identifications.&lt;/p&gt;Published as part of &lt;i&gt;Pinto, Roberta Richard, Passos, Paulo, Portilla, José Rances Caicedo, Arredondo, Juan Camilo &amp; Fernandes, Ronaldo, 2010, Taxonomy of the Threadsnakes of the tribe Epictini (Squamata: Serpentes: Leptotyphlopidae) in Colombia, pp. 1-28 in Zootaxa 2724&lt;/i&gt; on pages 13-15, DOI: &lt;a href="http://zenodo.org/record/199951"&gt;10.5281/zenodo.199951&lt;/a&gt

Tricheilostoma nicefori Dunn 1946

&lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma nicefori&lt;/i&gt; (Dunn 1946) &lt;i&gt;&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; new combination &lt;p&gt;Figs. 6, 7&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops nicefori&lt;/i&gt; Dunn 1946, Caldasia, 4:121.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops nicefori&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Orejas-Miranda 1967, Atas do Simp&oacute;sio sobre a Biota Amazonica, 5:421&ndash;442. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops nicefori&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Peters &amp; Orejas-Miranda 1970, Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 297:171. &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops nicefori&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hahn 1980, Das Tierreich, 101:22.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops nicefori&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; McDiarmid, Campbell &amp; Tour&eacute; 1999, Snakes Species of the World, 1:39. &lt;i&gt;Rena nicefori &mdash;&lt;/i&gt; Hedges, Adalsteinsson &amp; Branch &lt;i&gt;in&lt;/i&gt; Adalsteisson &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. 2009, Zootaxa, 2244:11.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Holotype.&lt;/b&gt; MLS 17, from municipality of Mogotes (06o 29'N, 0 72o 58'W; ca. 1824 m), department of Santander, Colombia.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Diagnosis.&lt;/b&gt; &lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma nicefori&lt;/i&gt; is distinguished from all congeners by the combination of the following characters: snout rounded in dorsal and lateral views; supraocular present; ocular subhexagonal, dorsal apex straight and anterior border rounded in the eye level; first supralabial not reaching nostril level; two supralabials (1+1); three infralabials; fused caudals; temporal scale indistinct; rostral triangular in dorsal view; 167&ndash;168 middorsal scales; 153 midventral scales; 13&ndash;16 subcaudal scales; 10 scales around the middle of tail; dorsum with seven dorsal scale rows uniformly brown, contrasting to the beige covering the seven scale rows of the belly.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Redescription of the holotype.&lt;/b&gt; Juvenile male, 90 mm TL, 7 mm TAL; 2.1 mm MB; 12.9 TL/TAL; 42.9 TL/ MB; 3.9 mm HL, 2.4 mm HW; head slightly depressed; body subcylindrical, not enlarged on the head and slightly tapered caudally near the tail.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Head subcylindrical, almost twice as long as wide, slightly depressed, cervical constriction indistinct; snout rounded in dorsal and lateral views; rostral straight in frontal and ventral views, dorsal apex triangular, crossing the transverse imaginary line between anterior margins of ocular scales; rostral contacting supranasal and infranasal laterally and frontal dorsally; nasal completely divided horizontally by oblique suture crossing nostril; nostril roughly elliptic, obliquely oriented and placed in the middle of the nasal suture; supranasal about twice as high as long, bordering rostral anteriorly, infranasal inferiorly, first supralabial and ocular posteriorly, and frontal and supraocular dorsally; infranasal twice as high as long; upper lip border formed by rostral, infranasal, anterior supralabial, ocular, and posterior supralabial scales; temporal scale indistinct from the dorsal scales of lateral rows; two supralabials, entirely separated by ocular (1+1); first supralabial slightly higher than long, not reaching the level of nostril and eye; second supralabial slightly longer than high, its posterior margin in broad contact with temporal, not reaching eye level; ocular enlarged, subhexagonal, rounded in the eye level, twice as high as long, contacting the posterior margins of supranasal and first supralabial anteriorly, parietal and second supralabial posteriorly, and supraocular dorsally, its dorsal apex straight; eye distinct, situated in the middle area of the expanded upper part of ocular, displaced above the level of nostril; supraocular twice as long as wide, subtly longer than frontal scale, contacting supranasal anteriorly, frontal, postfrontal and ocular laterally, and parietal posteriorly; midsaggital head scales (frontal, postfrontal, interparietal and interoccipital) similar in size, hexagonal in dorsal view, weakly imbricate; frontal barely wider than long, contacting rostral, supranasals, supraoculars and postfrontal; postfrontal slightly wider than long, contacting frontal, supraoculars, parietals and interparietal; interparietal wider than long, contacting postfrontal, parietals, occipitals, and interoccipital; interoccipital slightly wider than long, contacting interparietal, occipitals, and the first dorsal scale of the vertebral row; parietal and occipital similar in shape, irregularly pentagonal; parietal almost twice as wide as long, lower margin contacting the upper border of second supralabial, posterior margin contacting respective temporal, occipital and interparietal, postfrontal laterally, anterior border in broad contact with ocular and supraocular; occipital twice as wide as long, its lower limit not attaining the level of the upper margin of second supralabial; symphysial trapezoidal, four times wider than long, anterior and posterior borders straight and slightly convex, respectively; three infralabials behind symphysial on both sides; third infralabial twice as long as high, longer than others, as wide as second supralabial; dorsal scales homogeneous, cycloid, smooth, weekly imbricate, slightly wider than long; 167 (170 according to Dunn 1946) middorsal scales; 153 midventral scales; 14 scale rows around midbody, reducing to 10 scale rows in the middle of tail; cloacal shield rounded, twice as wide as long; 16 subcaudals (14 according to Dunn,1946); fused caudals; terminal spine conical, with stout base, longer than wide.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Colour of the holotype in preservative.&lt;/b&gt; Seven dorsal scale rows uniformly brown and seven remaining scale rows beige; lower margins of scales forming the upper lip border and infralabials cream; cloacal shield beige, darker than venter coloration; terminal spine follows the dorsal pattern.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Hemipenis:&lt;/b&gt; Left organ partially everted with chalice shape and strait base; protected area has no evident ornamentation.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Variation.&lt;/b&gt; Middorsal scales 167&ndash;168 (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 2); subcaudal scales 13&ndash;16 (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 2); TL 90&ndash;147 mm (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 3); TL/TAL ratio 12.9&ndash;14.7 (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 2); TAL 6.8&ndash;7.8% of TL (&lt;i&gt;n&lt;/i&gt; = 2).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Distribution.&lt;/b&gt; East versant of Cordillera Oriental from Mogotes (06o 29'N, 0 72o 58'W; ca. 1824 m) and Ca&ntilde;averales (06&ordm;06&rsquo;N, 73&ordm;13&rsquo;W; ca. 1750 m), department of Santander, Colombia (Fig. 3).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Remarks.&lt;/b&gt; Dunn (1946), based on morphological features (e.g., low middorsal scales) and distribution range suggested that &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops nicefori&lt;/i&gt; was closely related to some species of the Leptotyphlopids occurring in Colombia (&lt;i&gt;L. dugandi&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;L. joshuai&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;L. macrolepis&lt;/i&gt;) and Ecuador (&lt;i&gt;L. anthracinus&lt;/i&gt;). Nonetheless, Dunn (1946) pointed out that &lt;i&gt;L. nicefori&lt;/i&gt; differs from all of them by having just one supralabial before the ocular scale. He also affirmed that this supralabial pattern could have significant systematic importance, placing &lt;i&gt;L. nicefori&lt;/i&gt; as an allied of the species having a higher middorsal scale counts. Orejas-Miranda (1967) suggested &lt;i&gt;L. nicefori&lt;/i&gt; was possibly related to &lt;i&gt;L dulcis&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;L. dimidiatus,&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;L. affinis&lt;/i&gt; on the basis of the number of supralabials. Moreover, Orejas- Miranda (1967) commented that the taxon was known only from the brief original description, which lacks illustrations of the holotype. For that reason, Orejas-Miranda (1967) pointed out &lt;i&gt;L. nicefori&lt;/i&gt; could be close related to species lacking supraocular scale, such as &lt;i&gt;L. humilis&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;L. septemstriatus&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;L. borrichianus&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;L. cupinensis&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;L. brasiliensis&lt;/i&gt;. Orejas-Miranda (1967) also considered the holotype of &lt;i&gt;L. nicefori&lt;/i&gt; as missing. Peters and Orejas- Miranda (1970) allocated &lt;i&gt;L. nicefori&lt;/i&gt; in the &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops albifrons&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; species group. However, the characters used by Peters and Orejas-Miranda (1970) to diagnose &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops dulcis&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; from the &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops albifrons&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; group are variable, not distinguishing any group unambiguously (Pinto &amp; Curcio &lt;i&gt;in press&lt;/i&gt;). Passos &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (2006) and Pinto and Curcio (&lt;i&gt;in press&lt;/i&gt;) proposed some additional characters of external and internal morphology that can support the &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops dulcis&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; group, such as: midsaggital cephalic scales with moderate size, rostral scale subtriangular in dorsal view, presence of fused caudals, subhexagonal ocular scale with rounded shape at the eye level, enlarged terminal spine, longer than wide, and narrow basal and robust terminal portions of the hemipenial body.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; Adalsteinsson &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; (2009) allocated the &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops dulcis&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; group in two genera (&lt;i&gt;Rena&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma&lt;/i&gt;), and the &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;Leptotyphlops albifrons&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; group into &lt;i&gt;Epictia&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;Rena&lt;/i&gt;. According to Adalsteinsson &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2009), &lt;i&gt;Rena nicefori&lt;/i&gt; was close to &lt;i&gt;R. affinis&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;R. dimidiata&lt;/i&gt;, &lt;i&gt;R. unguirostris&lt;/i&gt; and North and Central America species, based on small size of supraocular scales, white venter, two supralabials and higher number of middorsal scales. However, the diagnostic characters used by the authors for the genus &lt;i&gt;Rena&lt;/i&gt; are ambiguous, since the white venter does not occur in &lt;i&gt;R. nicefori&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;R. affinis&lt;/i&gt; (R.R. Pinto pers. obs.). Furthermore, the higher number (on average) of middorsal scales diagnosing them from &lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma&lt;/i&gt; (according to the authors) was not cited on their Table 2, suggesting to us that this is not a relevant character in the generic level recognition. Therefore, herein we transfer &lt;i&gt;R. nicefori&lt;/i&gt; to the genus &lt;i&gt;Tricheilostoma&lt;/i&gt; based on the characters proposed above and detailed in Pinto and Curcio (&lt;i&gt;in press&lt;/i&gt;), and we emphasize the needs of corroboration of these genera also through morphological synapomorphies.&lt;/p&gt;Published as part of &lt;i&gt;Pinto, Roberta Richard, Passos, Paulo, Portilla, José Rances Caicedo, Arredondo, Juan Camilo &amp; Fernandes, Ronaldo, 2010, Taxonomy of the Threadsnakes of the tribe Epictini (Squamata: Serpentes: Leptotyphlopidae) in Colombia, pp. 1-28 in Zootaxa 2724&lt;/i&gt; on pages 10-13, DOI: &lt;a href="http://zenodo.org/record/199951"&gt;10.5281/zenodo.199951&lt;/a&gt

Species delimitations in the Atractus collaris complex (Serpentes: Dipsadidae)

Passos, Paulo, Prudente, Ana L. C., Ramos, Luciana O., Caicedo-Portilla, José Rances, Lynch, John D. (2018): Species delimitations in the Atractus collaris complex (Serpentes: Dipsadidae). Zootaxa 4392 (3): 491-520, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4392.3.