Prioritising search effort to locate previously unknown populations of endangered marine reptiles

Strategies aimed to conserve and manage rare species are often hindered by the lack of data needed for their effective design. Incomplete and inaccurate data on habitat associations and current species distributions pose a barrier to effective conservation and management for several species of endemic sea snakes in Western Australia that are thought to be in decline. Here we used a correlative modelling approach to understand habitat associations and identify suitable habitats for five of these species (Aipysurus apraefrontalis, A. foliosquama, A. fuscus, A. l. pooleorum and A. tenuis). We modelled species-specific habitat suitability across 804,244 km(2) of coastal waters along the North-west Shelf of Western Australia, to prioritise future survey regions to locate unknown populations of these rare species. Model projections were also used to quantify the effectiveness of current spatial management strategies (Marine Protected Areas) in conserving important habitats for these species. Species-specific models matched well with the records on which they were trained, and identified additional regions of suitability without records. Subsequent field validation of the model projections uncovered a previously unknown locality for A. fuscus within the mid-shelf shoal region, outside its currently recognised global range. Defining accurate geographic distributions for rare species is a vital first step in defining more robust extent of species occurrence and range overlap with threatening processes

An evaluation of nest predator impacts and the efficacy of plastic meshing on marine turtle nests on the western Cape York Peninsula, Australia

Nest predation is considered to be one of the most significant biotic threats to marine turtle populations globally. The introduction of feral predators to nesting beaches has dramatically increased nest predation, reaching near total egg loss in some regions. We monitored a 48 km stretch of beach along western Cape York Peninsula, Australia, from June – November 2018. We recorded a total of 360 nests comprising 117 flatback and 243 olive ridley nests. We installed plastic meshing (90 cm × 100 cm) on 110 olive ridley nests (45.2% of total olive ridley clutches laid) within the study area. We classified all nest predation attempts into three categories: complete, partial, or failed predation events. In total, 109 (30.2%) of all marine turtle nests were depredated by a variety of predators, including feral pigs, dingoes, goannas, and humans. The addition of plastic meshing reduced the likelihood of dingoes gaining access to eggs, but not goannas or feral pigs. Further, we found no difference in the proportion of hatchling emergence between meshed and un-meshed nests. Additionally, while hatchling emergence was reduced in nests that had been partially depredated, these nests still produced live hatchlings and contributed to recruitment. The success of particular predator control methods is often predator, and/or regionally, specific. Our findings highlight a thorough understanding of predator guilds and their relative impacts is required to deploy targeted and predator-specific strategies to maximize conservation results. We present a strong case for data-driven adaptive management that has implications for designing optimal predator management plans

Effects of global change on snakebite envenoming incidence up to 2050: a modelling assessment

Background Human activities are driving climate, land cover, and population change (global change), and shifting the baseline geographical distribution of snakebite. The interacting effects of global change on snakes and communities at risk of snakebite are poorly understood, limiting capacity to anticipate and manage future changes in snakebite risk. Methods In this modelling study, we projected how global change will affect snakebite envenoming incidence in Sri Lanka, as a model system that has a high incidence of snakebite. We used the shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) scenario analysis framework to integrate forecasts across the domains of: climate change (historical trend from WorldClim plus three underlying regional circulation models [RCMs] in the Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment-South Asia repository, with two emissions pathways [representative concentration pathways RCP4.5 and RCP8.5]); land cover change (Dyna-CLUE model); and human population density change (based on Gridded Population of the World data) from Jan 1, 2010 to Dec 31, 2050. Forecasts were integrated under three different development scenarios: a sustainability pathway (SSP1 and no further emissions), a middle-of-the-road pathway (SSP2 and RCP4.5), and a fossil-fuelled pathway (SSP5 and RCP8.5). For SSP2 and SSP5, we nested three different RCMs (CNRM-CM5, GFDL-CCM3, and MPI-ESM-LR; mean averaged to represent consensus) to account for variability in climate predictions. Data were used as inputs to a mechanistic model that predicted snakebite envenoming incidence based on human–snake contact patterns. Findings From 2010 to 2050, at the national level, envenoming incidence in Sri Lanka was projected to decrease by 12·0–23·0%, depending on the scenario. The rate of decrease in envenoming incidence was higher in SSP5-RCP8.5 than in SSP1 and SSP2-RCP4.5. Change in envenoming incidence was heterogenous across the country. In SSP1, incidence decreased in urban areas expected to have population growth, and with land cover changes towards anthropised classes. In SSP2-RCP4.5 and SSP5-RCP8.5, most areas were projected to have decreases in incidence (SSP5-RCP8.5 showing the largest area with incidence reductions), while areas such as the central highlands and the north of the country showed localised increases. In the model, decreases occurred with human population growth, land use change towards anthropised classes (potentially shifting occupational risk factors), and decreasing abundance of some snake species, potentially due to global warming and reduced climatic and habitat suitability, with displacement of some snake species. Interpretation Snakebite envenoming incidence was projected to decrease overall in the coming decades in Sri Lanka, but with an apparent emerging conflict with sustainability objectives. Therefore, efforts to mitigate snakebite envenoming incidence will need to consider the potential impacts of sustainability interventions, particularly related to climate and land use change and in areas where increases in incidence are projected. In view of global change, neglected tropical diseases and public health issues related to biodiversity, such as snakebite, should be managed collaboratively by both environment and health stakeholders

Climate change maladaptation for health: Agricultural practice against shifting seasonal rainfall affects snakebite risk for farmers in the tropics.

Snakebite affects more than 1.8 million people annually. Factors explaining snakebite variability include farmers' behaviors, snake ecology and climate. One unstudied issue is how farmers' adaptation to novel climates affect their health. Here we examined potential impacts of adaptation on snakebite using individual-based simulations, focusing on strategies meant to counteract major crop yield decline because of changing rainfall in Sri Lanka. For rubber cropping, adaptation led to a 33% increase in snakebite incidence per farmer work hour because of work during risky months, but a 17% decrease in total annual snakebites because of decreased labor in plantations overall. Rice farming adaptation decreased snakebites by 16%, because of shifting labor towards safer months, whereas tea adaptation led to a general increase. These results indicate that adaptation could have both a positive and negative effect, potentially intensified by ENSO. Our research highlights the need for assessing adaptation strategies for potential health maladaptations

Determinants of Habitat Selection by Hatchling Australian Freshwater Crocodiles

Animals almost always use habitats non-randomly, but the costs and benefits of using specific habitat types remain unknown for many types of organisms. In a large lake in northwestern Australia (Lake Argyle), most hatchling (<12-month-old) freshwater crocodiles (Crocodylus johnstoni) are found in floating vegetation mats or grassy banks rather than the more widely available open banks. Mean body sizes of young crocodiles did not differ among the three habitat types. We tested four potential explanations for non-random habitat selection: proximity to nesting sites, thermal conditions, food availability, and exposure to predation. The three alternative habitat types did not differ in proximity to nesting sites, or in thermal conditions. Habitats with higher food availability harboured more hatchlings, and feeding rates (obtained by stomach-flushing of recently-captured crocodiles) were highest in such areas. Predation risk may also differ among habitats: we were twice as likely to capture a crocodile after seeing it in open-bank sites than in the other two habitat types. Thus, habitat selection of hatchling crocodiles in this system may be driven both by prey availability and by predation risk

Rhinophis saffragamus

&lt;i&gt;Rhinophis saffragamus&lt;/i&gt; (Kelaart, 1853) &lt;p&gt; Cuvier (1829:76) indicated a new species &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829; based on a specimen (MNHN-RA-0.5621; Fig. 3) in the Paris museum, but without an illustration or description that could be considered valid (Gans 1966). M&uuml;ller (1832) later provided a valid description and illustration for the species &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; M&uuml;ller, 1832. Schlegel (1839) then erected the genus &lt;i&gt;Pseudotyphlops&lt;/i&gt; Schlegel, 1839 for species from &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829 and &lt;i&gt;Rhinophis&lt;/i&gt; Hemprich, 1820; which he stated were excessively divided. He included &lt;i&gt;Anguis oxyrhynchus&lt;/i&gt; Schneider, 1801; &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829; and &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis ceylanica&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829. Schlegel (1839) did not designate a type species for &lt;i&gt;Pseudotyphlops&lt;/i&gt; Schlegel, 1839; but Smith (1943) considered the type to be &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829 by &ldquo;elimination,&rdquo; as &lt;i&gt;Anguis oxyrhynchus&lt;/i&gt; Schneider, 1801 is the type species of &lt;i&gt;Rhinophis&lt;/i&gt; Hemprich, 1820 (fixed by Wagler 1830) and &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis ceylanica&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829 is the type species of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829 (fixed by Fitzinger 1843). While &ldquo;fixation by elimination&rdquo; is currently proscribed by the Code (Article 69.4), and a species can be the type of multiple genera, Smith&rsquo;s action is nonetheless valid under Article 69.1, as the stated reason for fixation is not important. There is some confusion, though, as Schlegel (1839:44) clearly indicated that his &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;Pseudo-Typhlops philippinus&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; is &lt;i&gt;Typhlops philippinus&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829 (currently included in &lt;i&gt;Rhinophis&lt;/i&gt; Hemprich, 1820), as he cited Cuvier (1829:74) specifically. He then stated that he believed that &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829 from Cuvier (1829:76) was the same taxon, because it was not found in the Paris museum. The species &lt;i&gt;Rhinophis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; (Cuvier, 1829) is represented by the currently extant holotype MNHN-RA-64.94. However, in discussing his &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;Pseudo-Typhlops philippinus,&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; he is clearly describing MNHN-RA-0.5621, for which he reported 145 ventrals and 6 subcaudals. The coloration, he noted (translated), is &lt;i&gt;&ldquo;above coffee-brown, with light spots and cross-ribbons on the sides of the back; yellowish and brown-spotted below.&rdquo;&lt;/i&gt; This agrees with our observations, with a measurement of 205mm SVL and 8mm TL (Fig. 3; see Wallach &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. 2014). While the coloration of the specimen is faded in preservative, the described pattern is still faintly evident. Thus, he may have mistaken MNHN-RA-0.5621 for MNHN-RA-64.94, believing he was examining the holotype of &lt;i&gt;Typhlops philippinus&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829, rather than that holotype of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829, which he thought to be lost, based on his comments. However, under Article 70.3 (regarding misidentified type species), we continue to consider as valid Smith&rsquo;s (1943) designation of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; M&uuml;ller, 1832 as the type species of &lt;i&gt;Pseudotyphlops&lt;/i&gt; Schlegel, 1839.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; Subsequently, Kelaart (1853) described three new species from what are now the Sabaragamuwa and Southern provinces of Sri Lanka. In terms of distinguishing characteristics, &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis saffragamus&lt;/i&gt; Kelaart, 1853 from Sri Pada (holotype lost, &lt;i&gt;fide&lt;/i&gt; Taylor 1953) was said to be ~ 230 mm in total length, have a blackish brown dorsum with bluish bronze reflections, white beneath, and with a pale white spot on either side of the neck. Similarly, &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis grandis&lt;/i&gt; Kelaart, 1853 from &ldquo;Kerinday&rdquo; near Matara (holotype BMNH 1946.1.8.1) is ~ 510 mm in length, dark brown dorsally with a bluish metallic luster, a paleyellow venter, and darker spots on the anterior portion of all scales (Fig. 4). Contrastingly, &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis pardalis&lt;/i&gt; Kelaart, 1853 from Matara (holotype BMNH 1946.1.16.55) is ~ 160 mm in length, with a black dorsum with bluish bronze reflections and irregular white spots, and a yellowish white venter with irregular black spots both large and small (Fig. 5).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; Peters (1861) placed all three species in the synonymy of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829; tentatively suggesting that the variation was due to sex and age. Tennent (1861) agreed with this change, suggesting that at a minimum, &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis grandis&lt;/i&gt; Kelaart, 1853 and &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829 were identical. The species was thereafter referred to as &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis grandis&lt;/i&gt; Kelaart, 1853 by subsequent authors such as G&uuml;nther (1864), Beddome (1886), Boulenger (1893), and Wall (1921), before Smith (1943) resurrected both the genus &lt;i&gt;&ldquo;Pseudotyphlops&rdquo;&lt;/i&gt; and the species &lt;i&gt;&ldquo; philippinus &rdquo;&lt;/i&gt; (see McDiarmid &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. 1999).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; Taylor (1953) then reported on a collection of four specimens from the Tonacombe Estates in the Namunukula range of the Uva province, near Badulla. Of these, Taylor suggested that a female (KU 31249; 345 mm total length) matched the description of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829 in having a deep, iridescent lavender dorsally with a darker area on each dorsal scale, lighter ventral scales with darker areas, a paired series of alternating or fused ventral spots, a yellow spot curving around the base of the tail shield, and lighter labials. A small male (KU 31248; 148mm) was said to match &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis pardalis&lt;/i&gt; Kelaart, 1853 in being black dorsally with numerous scattered yellow dots, a greenish-white venter with numerous black spots, an immaculate chin and throat, and whitish labials. Contrastingly, the larger male specimens KU 31250 (318 mm) and KU 31251 (360 mm) were said to match &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis grandis&lt;/i&gt; Kelaart, 1853 in being brownish dorsally with dark markings on all scales and an indistinctly lighter venter.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; An additional specimen (BMNH 1968.871) from the same collection described by Taylor (1953), a female of ~ 300 mm total length, also resembles the &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;grandis&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; &lt;i&gt;-&lt;/i&gt; type color pattern (Van Wallach, &lt;i&gt;pers. comm.&lt;/i&gt;) in being uniformly brown dorsally with darker tips of each scale. Similarly, adult specimens were photographed by Pyron &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2016:483, Fig. 7G) from Telijjawila (Southern Prov., near Matara) and amateur observers (see https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/ 122283) from Thalgampala (Southern Prov., near Galle) both of which resemble the &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;saffragamus&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; &lt;i&gt;&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; or &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;grandis&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; &lt;i&gt;-&lt;/i&gt; type, with a faint remnant of pattern both dorsally and ventrally. Taylor (1953) suggested that the &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;grandis&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; &lt;i&gt;&mdash;&lt;/i&gt; and &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;pardalis&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; &lt;i&gt;-&lt;/i&gt; type represent two distinct &ldquo;forms,&rdquo; either species or subspecies. However, all forms have been reported in the southern lowlands, the Rakwana massif, and the eastern part of the Central massif. Furthermore, we observe here at least a qualitative relationship between patterning and size, with the smallest specimens having the &ldquo;pardalis&rdquo;- type pattern, and the largest having the &ldquo;grandis&rdquo;- type.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; Indeed, the holotype of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829 and the description of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis saffragamus&lt;/i&gt; Kelaart, 1853 appear to be intermediate between the &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;grandis&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; and &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;pardalis&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; types. Concomitantly, Dum&eacute;ril &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (1854:161) remark in their description of MNHN-RA-0.5621 that (translated): &lt;i&gt;&ldquo;The spots on the upper parts seem to be the remnants of a yellowish-white half-ring that would have been offered by this little serpent at a young age.&rdquo;&lt;/i&gt; Thus, we concur with Peters (1861) and G&uuml;nther (1864) that the forms of Kelaart (1853) are synonyms of Uropeltis philippinus M&uuml;ller, 1832, and that the color-pattern variation represents ontogenetic change, which to our knowledge has not been reported among uropeltids.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; Nuclear, mitochondrial, and allozyme data indicate that &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; M&uuml;ller, 1832 is nested within Sri Lankan &lt;i&gt;Rhinophis&lt;/i&gt; Hemprich, 1820 (Cadle &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. 1990; Pyron &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. 2013). Thus, &lt;i&gt;Typhlops philippinus&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829 takes precedence over &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; M&uuml;ller, 1832 when the two are considered congeneric (Article 57.3.1). As Kelaart&rsquo;s (1853) names are the most senior available synonyms, Pyron &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2016) selected the first, &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis saffragamus&lt;/i&gt; Kelaart, 1853 as the replacement under Article 60.1. Because the holotype of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis saffragamus&lt;/i&gt; Kelaart, 1853 is lost (&lt;i&gt;fide&lt;/i&gt; Taylor, 1953). Pyron &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2016) were thus able to designate MNHN-RA-0.5621, the holotype of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis philippinus&lt;/i&gt; Cuvier, 1829, as the neotype of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis saffragamus&lt;/i&gt; Kelaart, 1854, rendering the two names objective synonyms.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; Because Pyron et al. (2016) included no further statement correcting the type locality after the neotype designation, the type locality of Rhinophis saffragamus (Kelaart, 1853) is currently &ldquo;de Philippinischen Inseln&rdquo; (in error) as reported by Schlegel (1839) for MNHN-RA-0.5621, under Article 76.3. Neither Cuvier (1829) or M&uuml;ller (1832) mentioned an explicit locality, but the name &lt;i&gt;&ldquo; philippinus &rdquo;&lt;/i&gt; from Cuvier (1829) clearly indicates the Philippines, as does the Paris catalogue and the account thereof by Dum&eacute;ril &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (1854). We refrain from correcting this locality here (under Recommendation 76A.2), given the continued uncertainty in the origin of the specimen, and the potential for multiple geographic species in the group.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; The specimens analyzed by Cadle &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (1990) and Pyron &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2013) originated from the Badulla district, Uva province, near the collection reported by Taylor (1953) containing both &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;grandis&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo;&mdash;and &ldquo; &lt;i&gt;pardalis&lt;/i&gt; &rdquo; &lt;i&gt;-&lt;/i&gt; type individuals. No molecular sequence data are currently available from Southern or Sabaragumuwa populations. Morphometric analysis or formalin sequencing of MNHN-RA-0.5621 may allow more precise population-level assignment in the future. We leave a comprehensive molecular phylogeographic assessment and analysis of comparative variation in the series of known material to future authors. Regardless, Kelaart&rsquo;s (1853) names remain the available and valid senior synonyms for any such future divisions.&lt;/p&gt;Published as part of &lt;i&gt;Pyron, Robert Alexander &amp; Somaweera, Ruchira, 2019, Further notes on the Sri Lankan uropeltid snakes Rhinophis saffragamus (Kelaart, 1853) and Uropeltis ruhunae Deraniyagala, 1954, pp. 592-600 in Zootaxa 4560 (3)&lt;/i&gt; on pages 592-599, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4560.3.13, &lt;a href="http://zenodo.org/record/2627777"&gt;http://zenodo.org/record/2627777&lt;/a&gt

Catalogue et révision systématique des serpents à queue armée (Serpentes: Uropeltidae)

Nous présentons un catalogue et une révision systématique des Uropeltidae Müller, 1832 basés sur des données moléculaires et morphologiques déjà publiées et nouvelles, et sur une nouvelle analyse phylogénétique moléculaire. Nous confirmons la monophylie et la validité de Brachyophidium Wall, 1921, Melanophidium Günther, 1864, Platyplectrurus Günther, 1868, Pseudoplectrurus Boulenger, 1890, et Teretrurus Beddome, 1886. Nous transférons Uropeltis melanogaster (Gray, 1858), U. phillipsi (Nicholls, 1929), et Pseudotyphlops Schlegel, 1839 dans Rhinophis Hemprich, 1820 et nous renommons Pseudotyphlops philippinus (Müller, 1832) en R. saffragamus (Kelaart, 1853) et U. smithi Gans, 1966 en U. grandis (Beddome, 1867). Grâce à ces changements, la taxonomie de tous ces genres semble basée sur des entités monophylétiques. Des diagnoses fondées sur des caractères méristiques et métriques de l’anatomie externe et interne sont fournies pour la famille et pour tous les genres, et des descriptions sont données pour toutes les espèces actuellement reconnues, résumant la variation morphologique connue. Nous indiquons plusieurs taxons dont les relations phylogénétiques restent incertaines et mettons en avant les études qui seront nécessaires dans le futur sur la variation de caractères significatifs en systématique, comme la morphologie du rostre et de la queue. Une variation cryptique est probablement présente chez de nombreuses espèces et la collecte supplémentaire de spécimens et de données sur les séquences d’ADN sera certainement nécessaire pour résoudre les problèmes taxonomiques restants. De nombreuses questions subsistent concernant la systématique des Uropeltidae telles que la description d’espèces cryptiques, la clarification du placement phylogénétique des quelques taxons restants, et la quantification de l’extension de la variation intra- et interspécifique des caractères morphologiques déterminants. Nous espérons que ce travail servira de base pour poursuivre la recherche sur ce groupe.We present a catalogue and systematic overview of Uropeltidae Müller, 1832 based on both new and previously published molecular and morphological data, and a new molecular phylogenetic analysis. We support the monophyly and distinctiveness of Brachyophidium Wall, 1921, Melanophidium Günther, 1864, Platyplectrurus Günther, 1868, Pseudoplectrurus Boulenger, 1890, and Teretrurus Beddome, 1886. We move Uropeltis melanogaster (Gray, 1858), U. phillipsi (Nicholls, 1929), and Pseudotyphlops Schlegel, 1839 to Rhinophis Hemprich, 1820, and re-name Pseudotyphlops philippinus (Müller, 1832) as R. saffragamus (Kelaart, 1853), and U. smithi Gans, 1966 as U. grandis (Beddome, 1867). Thanks to these changes, the taxonomy of all these genera is based on monophyletic entities. Diagnoses based on meristic and mensural characters for external and internal anatomy are provided for the family and all genera, and accounts are given for all currently recognized species, summarizing known morphological variation. We note several taxa that continue to be of uncertain phylogenetic affinity, and outline necessary future studies of variation in systematically valuable characters such as rostral and tail morphology. Cryptic variation is likely present in many species, and additional collection of specimens and DNA-sequence data will likely be needed to provide conclusive resolution for remaining taxonomic issues. Numerous questions remain for the systematics of Uropeltidae, and we hope that this study will provide a platform for ongoing research into the group, including the description of cryptic species, clarifying the phylogenetic placement of some remaining taxa, and quantifying the range of intra- and inter-specific variation in crucial morphological characters.</p

Uropeltis ruhunae Deraniyagala 1954

&lt;i&gt;Uropeltis ruhunae&lt;/i&gt; Deraniyagala, 1954 &lt;p&gt; As detailed by Pyron &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2016), Deraniyagala (1954) described &lt;i&gt;Platyplectrurus&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;ruhunae&lt;/i&gt; Deraniyagala, 1954 and &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis ruhunae&lt;/i&gt; Deraniyagala, 1954 (both with type locality &ldquo;Galle&rdquo;) from specimens found in a jar containing snakes from both the Galle district of Sri Lanka and the Madurai district of India (De Silva 1980). Thus, origin of the holotypes from Sri Lanka is in serious doubt. While recent works (e.g., McDiarmid &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. 1999; Wallach &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. 2014) considered &lt;i&gt;Platyplectrurus&lt;/i&gt; &lt;i&gt;ruhunae&lt;/i&gt; Deraniyagala, 1954 to be a synonym of &lt;i&gt;Platyplectrurus madurensis&lt;/i&gt; Beddome, 1877; &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis ruhunae&lt;/i&gt; Deraniyagala, 1954 was still considered valid (see Wallach &lt;i&gt;et al.&lt;/i&gt; 2014). Pyron &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2016:464) compared the scalation of the holotype (NMSL R.S. 52) of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis ruhunae&lt;/i&gt; Deraniyagala, 1954 to known populations of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis woodmasoni&lt;/i&gt; (Theobald, 1876), concluding that it was a member of that species. Here, we present photographs of NMSL R.S. 52 (Fig. 1), as well as photographs of two syntypes of &lt;i&gt;Silybura nigra&lt;/i&gt; Beddome, 1878 (MNHN-RA-1895.85a&ndash;b; Figs. 2 a&ndash;d), a junior synonym of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis woodmasoni&lt;/i&gt; (Theobald, 1876). In addition to the lepidosis data reported by Pyron &lt;i&gt;et al&lt;/i&gt;. (2016), visual comparisons of the dorsal and ventral color-pattern further cement this association. The holotype (ZSI 8760) of &lt;i&gt;Uropeltis woodmasoni&lt;/i&gt; (Theobald, 1876) is in relatively poor condition, but photographs provided by I. Das are essentially identical to the &lt;i&gt;nigra&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;ruhunae&lt;/i&gt; types in overall shape and remaining visible color-pattern. Specifically, hypertrophied anterior trunk musculature and &ldquo;swollen&rdquo; aspect of the first ~1/4 of body; irregular yellow stripe on the first several dorsal scale rows, beginning on posteriormost labials and extending ~1/4 the length of the body, dark brown dorsum with broken rings of yellow ocellations or speckles on the posteriormost &frac34; of body, spaced 3-4 scale rows apart; and irregular yellow and brown zigzags or blotches on the venter, with yellow occasionally and irregularly extending on to the first few dorsal scale rows.&lt;/p&gt;Published as part of &lt;i&gt;Pyron, Robert Alexander &amp; Somaweera, Ruchira, 2019, Further notes on the Sri Lankan uropeltid snakes Rhinophis saffragamus (Kelaart, 1853) and Uropeltis ruhunae Deraniyagala, 1954, pp. 592-600 in Zootaxa 4560 (3)&lt;/i&gt; on page 592, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4560.3.13, &lt;a href="http://zenodo.org/record/2627777"&gt;http://zenodo.org/record/2627777&lt;/a&gt