Search

Micrelapidae new family. Type genus: Micrelaps Boettger, 1880. Type species: Micrelaps muelleri Boettger, 1880. Etymology: Boettger (Bottger ¨) did not give the etymology for the generic nomen but was almost certainly from the Latin adjective micro-, derived from the Greek mikros (small), and elaps, the Latinised form of the Greek noun´ellops or´elaps (literally sea-fish or serpent, but here in reference to the snake genus Elaps, now a synonym of Homoroselaps). Micrelapidae fam. nov. is derived from Micrelaps by the taking the stem elap- of the root word of the nomen. Content: Micrelaps muelleri Boettger, 1880, Micrelaps bicoloratus Sternfeld, 1908, Micrelaps vaillanti Mocquard, 1888, Brachyophis revoili Mocquard, 1888. Diagnosis and definition: In the crania of Micrelaps and Brachyophis we examined the ectopterygoid was laterally and medially expanded at the point of contact with the pterygoid, with this expansion not being contiguous with the ectopterygoid anterolateral and anteromedial lobes (Fig. 4, Supplementary material fig. 53, 54). The lateral expansion is a posterolaterally and somewhat ventrally directed, very prominent protuberance continuous with a ridge on the ventral surface of the pterygoid. This character state was not present in any other cranium we examined and is very likely a synapomorphy of the family. Other common cranial characters include a premaxilla adapted for a fossorial lifestyle, premaxillary transverse processes closely approaching the maxilla, a short maxilla with ascending processes abutting the prefrontal, well-developed, grooved fangs below the orbit, preceded by a diastema and 2 – 3 teeth, an ectopterygoid deeply forked into anterolateral and anteromedial lobes that articulate with maxillary ectopterygoid processes leaving a foramen in the middle, prefrontal and parietal supraorbital processes laterally bordering the frontal and almost meeting each other, a tendency towards fusion of cranial bones (especially because the supratemporal is absent, very likely fused to the quadrate in Brachyophis and to posterior chondrocranial elements in Micrelaps), and a short quadrate. Brachyophis, however, differs from the type genus in possessing a postorbital (versus postorbital absent in Micrelaps), dorsolateral adductor ridges on the parietal (versus a single sagittal ridge in Micrelaps), only a faint pseudocoronoid ridge on the dentary (versus a prominent process in Micrelaps). Scalation characters that are common in both genera include 1 nasal, 7 supralabials, 15 smooth dorsal scale rows, absence of a loreal, 2 anal shields. Ventrals range from 170 to 280 and subcaudals (paired) 16 – 32 in Micrelaps (Boulenger, 1896; De Witte and Laurent, 1947; Rasmussen, 2002; Werner et al., 2006; Spawls et al., 2018). In Brachyophis, ventrals range from 103 to 123 and subcaudals (single) 8 – 14 (De Witte and Laurent, 1947; Lanza, 1966). Brachyophis has a large, azygous occipital shield (Boulenger, 1896). Micrelaps and Brachyophis possess a rectal caecum and a short genital sinus in the female, two soft tissue traits used to cluster these two genera by Underwood and Kochva (1993). Distribution: Micrelaps spp. is distributed in eastern and northeastern Africa and western Asia. Brachyophis is limited to Somalia in north-eastern Africa. Distribution: Micrelaps spp. is distributed in eastern and northeastern Africa and western Asia. Brachyophis is limited to Somalia in north-eastern Africa. Remarks: Geniez (2018) commented that Micrelaps “could constitute a separate family within its own right, that of Micrelapsidae”. Bar et al. (2021) likewise wrote that “. The actual placement of the genus [Micrelaps] is often poorly supported within studies and inconsistent across them. We suspect it will soon be placed in its own family — as is the norm in taxonomy these days. We predict this family, containing a single genus (Micrelaps), will be called Micrelapidae.”. However, these authors did not explicitly express that they are erecting a new family for these snakes. Rather, it was a suggestion about what should/could be done. It therefore is not in accordance with Article 16.1 and Recommendation 16A of The Code (ICZN, 1999). They also did not also provide characters for the express purpose of differentiating or diagnosing “Micrelapsidae” or “ Micrelapidae ”, nor did they cite a work containing the same (again, very likely because a nomenclatural act presumably was not the intention of Geniez [2018] and it was not the intention of SM, who wrote this in Bar et al. [2021] either) and this contravenes Articles 13.1.1, 13.1.2 and Recommendation 13A of The Code. Hence, we regard the nomen “Micrelapsidae” as unavailable. The ZooBank LSID for this taxonomic action is urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D8475246-AD8E-4886-AB55- 12F6F242E9C4., Published as part of Das, Sunandan, Greenbaum, Eli, Meiri, Shai, Bauer, Aaron M., Burbrink, Frank T., Raxworthy, Christopher J., Weinell, Jeffrey L., Brown, Rafe M., Brecko, Jonathan, Pauwels, Olivier S. G., Rabibisoa, Nirhy, Raselimanana, Achille P. & Merila, Juha, 2023, Ultraconserved elements-based phylogenomic systematics of the snake superfamily Elapoidea, with the description of a new Afro-Asian family, pp. 1-11 in Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 180 on pages 8-9, DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107700, http://zenodo.org/record/7746501, {"references":["Sternfeld, R., 1908. Zur Schlangenfauna Ostafrikas. I. Schlangen aus Sud-Abessinien. Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berlin 4, 239 - 247.","Mocquard, F., 1888. Sur une collection de Reptiles et de Batraciens rapport´es des Pays Comalis et de Zanzibar par M. G. R´evoil. M´emoires Publies par la Soci´ete´ Philomathique a l' occasion du Centenaire de sa fondation 1788 - 1888, 109 - 134.","Boulenger, G. A., 1896. Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural History). Volume III, containing the Colubridae (Opisthoglyphae and Proteroglyphae), Amblycephalidae, and Viperidae. Trustees of the British Museum, London.","de Witte, G. - F., Laurent, R., 1947. R´evision d' un groupe de Colubridae africains: genres Calamelaps, Miodon, Aparallactus et formes affines. M´em. Mus. R. His. Nat. Belg. 29, 1 - 134.","Rasmussen, J. B., 2002. A review of the African members of the genus Micrelaps Boettger 1880 (Serpentes Atractaspididae). Tropical Zoology 15, 71 - 87.","Werner, Y. L., Babocsay, G., Carmely, H., Thuna, M., 2006. Micrelaps in the southern Levant: variation, sexual dimorphism, and a new species (Serpentes: Atractaspididae). Zool. Middle East 38, 29 - 48.","Spawls, S., Howell, K., Hinkel, H., Menegon, M., 2018. Field Guide to East African Reptiles, second edition. Bloomsbury Wildlife, London.","Lanza, B., 1966. Il genere Brachyophis e descrizione di una nuova forma (Reptilia, Serpentes, Colubridae). Monit. Zool. Ital. 74, 30 - 48.","Underwood, G., Kochva, E., 1993. On the affinities of the burrowing asps Atractaspis (Serpentes: Atractaspididae). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 107, 3 - 64.","Geniez, P., 2018. Snakes of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East: A Photographic Guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.","Bar, A., Haimovitch, G., Meiri, S., 2021. Field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of, Israel. Edition. Chimaira, Frankfurt Am Main.","ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature), 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, fourth edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London."]}

Yang, Dian-Cheng, Huang, Ru-Yi, Jiang, Ke, Burbrink, Frank T., Yu, Yan-An Gong Jing, Zhang, Yi, Huang, Tian-Qi, Huang, Song (2022): A new species of the genus Achalinus (Squamata: Xenodermidae) from Ningshan County, Shaanxi Province, China. Zootaxa 5190 (1): 127-140, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5190.1.5

Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. D.C. Yang, R.Y Huang, K. JIANG, F.T. BURBRINK & S. Huang (Figs. 3–5) Suggested English common name: Ningshan Odd-scaled Snake. Suggested Chinese common name: Ťkḛffi (Bopomofo: Níng Shǎn Jǐ Shé). Holotype. ANU20220001 (field number JK0917, Fig. 3), an adult female, collected in summer of 2008 from Xunyangba Town (33.5434 N, 108.5439 E, 1372 m a. s. l.), Ningshan County, Shaanxi Province, China by the team of Ke Jiang. Paratypes. Six females, JK0918, JK0889, JK0890, JK0891, HSR19131, and HSR19132 (Voucher number: ANU20220002–7), all with the same collecting information as the holotype. Diagnosis. Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. can be differentiated from all other members of the genus Achalinus by the following combination of morphological characters:(1) dorsum iridescent and uniformly dark brown in preservative, longitudinal vertebral line absent; (2) brown beneath; (3) dotted black streak in the middle of the subcaudals absent; (4) tail length relatively short, TaL/ToL 12–16% in females; (5) fewer subcaudals, 41–46, in females; (6) dorsal scales 23 rows throughout, strongly keeled, and the outer-most rows on both sides of the body also keeled and slightly enlarged; (7) one loreal; (8) internasal not fused to prefrontal; (9) suture between internasals is similar size when compared to the suture between prefrontals; (10) preocular and postocular absent; (11) 6 supralabials; (12) 5 infralabials, the first 3 (rarely 2) touching the first pair of chin shields; (13) 3 pairs of chin shields. Description of the holotype. An adult female in excellent condition (Figs. 3 & 4). Body slender and subcylindrical, total length 436 mm (SVL 374 mm and Tal 62 mm); tail relatively shorter, TaL/ToL 14%; head slightly distinct from neck dorsally covered with large head scales, head length 13.72 mm; head width 7.16 mm; eyes small with subround pupils. Rostral small, subtriangular in frontal view, barely visible from above. Internasals paired, the suture between internasals (1.94 mm) subequal to that between prefrontals (1.63 mm); prefrontals paired, subrectangular. Frontal shield-shaped, nearly straight anteriorly, pointed backwards, slightly broader than it is long, and much shorter than the parietals. Parietals paired, the parietal suture longer than frontal. Nostril in the anterior part of the nasal. One loreal, rectangular, LorH: 0.97 mm, LorL: 1.90 mm (LorH/LorL: 0.51), extending from the nasal to the eye. One supraocular, in contact with loreal, prefrontals, frontal, parietals, and superior anterior temporals. No preocular or postocular. Temporals 2+3+4, two anterior temporals elongated, the upper one smaller in contact with parietal, the lower one in contact with fifth and sixth supralabials, both in contact with the eye; three elongated middle temporals; four elongated posterior temporals, the uppermost (super-temporal) significantly enlarged, the supertemporal split into two parts on the left, surrounding the parietal; the super-temporals from two sides contacting at the midline. Supralabials six, the first very small, 1–3 contacting the nasal, fourth and fifth contacting the orbit, fourth in narrow contact, fifth in broad contact, and sixth the longest and largest. One mental. Five infralabials, the first pair in contact blocking the mental from contacting an anterior pair of chin shields; first infralabial smallest, increasing in size until the fifth infralabial that is the longest. Three pairs of chin shields followed by ventrals. First three infralabials touching the first pair of chin shields on both sides. Dorsal scale rows 23–23–23, dorsal scales fusiform, not overlapping, distinctly keeled posterior to nape, and outermost dorsal scale row on both sides slightly keeled and enlarged. Ventrals 167; cloacal plate entire; subcaudals 43, uniserial. Coloration of holotype in preservative. Dorsum uniformly dark brown with metallic luster under light, the anterior portion of the head ash black, interstitial skin of dorsal dark brown. Ventral ground color brown, free margins of ventral scales grayish white. Variation. Measurements, body proportions, and scale counts are listed in Table 1. All paratypes are very similar to the holotype except in the following: paratypes JK0889, JK0891, and HSR19132 have two middle temporals; paratypes JK0890 and HSR19131 have two middle temporals and three posterior temporals; paratypes JK0890 have the first two infralabials touching the first pair of chin shields on both sides. The number of anterior temporals that contact the eyes is not a stable trait. Comparisons. Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. can be differentiated from all other known species of snakes in the genus Achalinus by a combination of the following morphological characters: infralabials five, three pairs of chin shields, relatively shorter tail length (TaL/ToL 12–16% in females), longitudinal vertebral line absent, and missing a dotted black streak in the middle of the subcaudals. Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. differs from all other species in Achalinus except A. spinalis Peters, 1869, A. hainanus Huang, 1975, A. emilyae Ziegler, Nguyen, Pham, Nguyen, Pham, Van Schingen, Nguyen & Le, 2019, A. huangjietangi Huang, Peng, & Huang, 2021, and A. dehuaensis Li, Wu, Xu, Zhu, Ren, Guo & Dong, 2021 by having fewer infralabials (five vs. six). Furthermore, it differs from A. spinalis and A. huangjietangi by having the following characters: absent longitudinal vertebral line, and missing a dotted black streak in the middle of the subcaudals; from A. hainanus by having two anterior temporals (vs. only one), three pairs of chin shields (vs. two pairs), fewer subcaudals in females (41–46 vs. 67–69); from A. emilyae by having fewer subcaudals in females (41–46 vs. 63), three pairs of chin shields (vs. two pairs), outermost dorsal scales rows keeled (vs. outmost rows smooth); from A. dehuaensis by having a relatively shorter tail length (TaL/ToL 12–16% vs. 21–22% in females), fewer subcaudals in females (41–46 vs. 63–65), uniformly dark brown above, light brown beneath (vs. greyish brown above, pale yellow beneath). Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. differs from A. werneri Van denburgh, 1912 by having the following characters: absent longitudinal vertebral line, and missing a dotted black streak in the middle of the subcaudals. Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. differs from A. yangdatongi by having fewer infralabials (5 vs. 6), different dorsal scale row counts (23–23–23 vs. 23–23–19) and having three pairs of chin shields (vs. two pairs). Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. differs from A. ater by the suture between internasals subequal to that between prefrontals (vs. suture between internasals distinctly longer than between prefrontals) and having fewer subcaudals (41–46 vs. 56–63). Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. differs from A. juliani by the suture between internasals subequal to that between prefrontals (vs. the suture between internasals distinctly longer than between prefrontals) and having a relatively shorter tail length (TaL/ToL 12–16% vs. 22–37%), fewer subcaudals (41–46 vs. 77–91), different dorsal scale row counts (23–23–23 vs. 25–23–23), and having three pairs of chin shields (vs. two pairs). Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. differs from A. rufescens by having six supralabials, the fourth and fifth widely in contact with the eye (vs. five supralabials, third and fourth entering the eye) and being light brown beneath (vs. uniform yellowish beneath). Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. differs from A. formosanus Boulenger, 1908, A. jinggangensis (Zong & Ma, 1983), A. timi Ziegler, Nguyen, Pham, Nguyen, Pham, Van Schingen, Nguyen & Le, 2019, A. pingbianensis Li, Yu, Wu, Liao, Tang, Liu & Guo, 2020, A. zugorum Miller, Davis, Luong, Do, Pham, Ziegler, Lee, De Queiroz, Reynolds & Nguyen, 2020, by having a separated loreal (vs. absence). Further it is different from A. formosanus by having fewer midbody dorsal scale rows (23 vs. 27), three pairs of chin shields (vs. two pairs), fewer subcaudals in females (41–46 vs. 61–70); from A. jinggangensis by having fewer infralabials (5 vs. 6), three pairs of chin shields (vs. two pairs), fewer subcaudals in females (41–46 vs. 51); from A. timi by different dorsal scale row counts (23–23–23 vs. 25–25–23), fewer infralabials (5 vs. 6), three pairs of chin shields (vs. two pairs), and the suture between internasals subequal to that between prefrontals (vs. the suture between internasals distinctly longer than between prefrontals); from A. pingbianensis by having fewer infralabials (5 vs. 6), fewer supralabials (6 vs. 7), 3 pairs of chin shields (vs. 2 pairs), and being uniformly dark brown above, light brown beneath (vs. uniform black above and beneath), and from A. zugorum by having fewer infralabials (5 vs. 6), 3 pairs of chin shields (vs. 2 pairs). Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. differs from A. meiguensis Hu & Zhao, 1966 and A. panzhihuaensis by having divided internasals (vs. absent), absence of postocular (vs. presence), fewer infralabials (5 vs. 6), mental separated from anterior chin shields (vs. in contact), and the first pair of infralabials in contact (vs. separated). Furthermore, it differs from A. panzhihuaensis by different dorsal scale row counts (23–23–23 vs. 23–23–19). Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. differs from A. niger Maki, 1931 by having fewer infralabials (five vs. six), different dorsal scale row counts (23–23–23 vs. 25–25–23), and fewer subcaudals in females (41–46 vs. 52–58). Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. differs from A. tranganensis Luu, Ziegler, Ha, Lo, Hoang, Ngo, Le, Tran & Nguyen, 2020 by having fewer infralabials (five vs. six), three pairs of chin shields (vs. two pairs), a relatively shorter tail length (TaL/ToL 12–16% vs. 25%), and fewer subcaudals in females (41–46 vs. 73+). Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. differs from A. yunkaiensis Wang, Li & Wang, 2019 by having fewer infralabials (five vs. six), three pairs of chin shields (vs. two pairs), and the outer-most dorsal scales rows keeled (vs. outmost rows smooth). Etymology. The specific epithet refers to the location of type specimens, Ningshan County, Shaanxi Province, China. We suggest Níng Shǎn Jǐ Shé (Ťkḛffi) as Chinese common name, and Ningshan Odd-scaled Snake as English common name. Distribution and habits. Achalinus ningshanensis sp. nov. is currently known only from the type locality Ningshan County, Shaanxi Province, China. All the specimens were found in farmland. The surrounding habitat was composed of secondary conifer/broad-leaved mixed forest. The new species is sympatric with A. cf. spinalis, A. cf. rufescens, Stichophanes ningshaanensis (Yuan, 1983), Euprepiophis mandarinus (Cantor, 1842), Elaphe taeniura (Cope, 1861), E. carinata (Günther, 1864), E. xiphodonta Qi, Shi, Ma, Gao, Bu, Grismer, Li, Wang 2021, Oreocryptophis porphyraceus (Cantor, 1839), Cyclophiops major (Günther, 1858), Lycodon ruhstrati (Fischer, 1886), L. liuchengchaoi Zhang, Jiang, Vogel and Rao, 2011, Pseudoxenodon macrops (Blyth, 1855), Rhabdophis nuchalis (Boulenger, 1891), Zaocys dhumnades (Cantor, 1842), Azemiops kharini Orlov, Ryabov and Nguyen, 2013, Gloydius qinlingensis (Song and Chen, 1985), Protobothrops jerdonii (Günther, 1875), Published as part of Yang, Dian-Cheng, Huang, Ru-Yi, Jiang, Ke, Burbrink, Frank T., Yu, Yan-An Gong Jing, Zhang, Yi, Huang, Tian-Qi & Huang, Song, 2022, A new species of the genus Achalinus (Squamata: Xenodermidae) from Ningshan County, Shaanxi Province, China, pp. 127-140 in Zootaxa 5190 (1) on pages 133-136, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5190.1.5, http://zenodo.org/record/7119993, {"references":["Peters, W. C. H. (1869) Nachtrag zu Uber neue Gattungen und neue oder weniger bekannte Arten von Amphibien (Eremias, Dicrodon, Euprepes, Lygosoma, Typhlops, Eryx, Rhynchonyx, Elapomorphus, Achalinus, Coronella, Dromicus, Xenopholis, Anoplodipsas, Spilotes, Tropidonotus). Monatsberichte der koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1869, 445 - 447.","Huang, R. Y., Peng, L. F., Yu, L., Huang, T. Q., Jiang, K., Ding, L., Chang, J. K., Yang, D. C., Xu, Y. H. & Huang, S. (2021) A New Species of the Genus Achalinus from Huangshan, Anhui, China (Squamata: Xenodermidae). Asian Herpetological Research, 12 (2), 178 - 187. https: // doi. org / 10.16373 / j. cnki. ahr. 200075","Li, K., Wu, Y. Y., Xu, R. Y., Zhu, F., Ren, J. L., Guo, P. & Dong, B. J. (2021) A new species of the Achalinus rufescens complex (Xenodermidae: Achalinus) from Fujian Province, China. Zootaxa, 5026 (2), 239 - 254. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 5026.2.5","Van Denburgh, J. (1912) Concerning certain species of reptiles and amphibians from China, Japan, the Loo Choo Islands, and Formosa. Proceedings of The California Academy of Sciences, 3, 187 - 258.","Boulenger, G. A. (1908) Description of a new frog and a new snake from Formosa. Annals & Magazine of Natural History, 8 (2), 221 - 222. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222930808692472","Zong, Y. & Ma, J. (1983) A new species of the genus Achalinopsis from Jiangxi and the restoration of this genus. Acta Herpetologica Sinica, 2 (2), 61 - 63. [in Chinese]","Li, K., Yu, M., Wu, Y. Y., Liao, L. H., Tang, K., Liu, Q. & Guo, P. (2020) A new species of the genus Achalinus (Squamata: Xenodermatidae) from southeastern Yunnan Province, China. Zootaxa, 4860 (1), 116 - 128. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4860.1.6","Hu, S. Q. & Zhao, E. M. (1966) Three new species of reptiles from Szechwan. Acta Zootaxon Sinica, 3 (2), 158 - 164. [In Chinese with English abstract]","Luu, V. Q., Ziegler, T., Van Ha, N., Van Lo, O., Hoang, T. T., Ngo, H. T., Le, M. D., Tran, D. H. & Nguyen, T. Q. (2020) A new species of Achalinus (Squamata: Xenodermidae) from Trang An Landscape Complex, Ninh Binh Province, Vietnam. Zootaxa, 4877 (1), 174 - 184. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4877.1.8","Wang, J., Li, Y., Zeng, Z. C., Lyu, Z. T., Sung, Y. H., Li, Y. Y., Lin, C. Y. & Wang, Y. Y. (2019) A new species of the genus Achalinus from southwestern Guangdong Province, China (Squamata: Xenodermatidae). Zootaxa, 4674 (4), 471 - 481. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4674.4.6","Qi, S., Shi, J. S., Ma, Y. B., Gao, Y. F., Bu, S. H., Grismer, L. L., Li, P. P. & Wang, Y. Y. (2021) A sheep in wolf's clothing: Elaphe xiphodonta sp. nov. (Squamata, Colubridae) and its possible mimicry to Protobothrops jerdonii. ZooKeys 1048, 23 - 47. https: // doi. org / 10.3897 / zookeys. 1048.65650"]}

A new species of the genus Gonyosoma Wagler, 1828 is described herein based on six specimens from the Diaoluoshan Mountains, Hainan Island, Hainan Province, China. The new species, Gonyosoma hainanense sp. nov., is most similar to its continental sister species, Gonyosoma boulengeri (Mocquard, 1897). Both taxa have a scaled protrusion on the anterior portion of the rostrum, distinct from other congeners. However, Gonyosoma hainanense sp. nov. can be distinguished from G. boulengeri by two significant morphological characters: (1) black orbital stripe absent in adults (vs. present in G. boulengeri); and (2) two loreals (vs. one loreal in G. boulengeri). The new species is also genetically divergent and forms a unique clade from its sister species and all other congeners based on sequences of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome b (cyt b).