Uropeltis petersi
Creators: name: Gower, David J.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Squamata
Uropeltidae
Uropeltis
Uropeltis petersi

description: Uropeltis petersi (Beddome, 1878)
Figs. 1–3; Table 1
Lectotype. BMNH 1946.1.16.75 (formerly BMNH 78.1.11.3: Fig. 1) by present designation. Male from Anamallays, 4,000 feet; provided by R. H. Beddome.
Paralectotype (n = 1). BMNH 1946.1.17.9 (male; Fig. 2) from Anamallays, 4,000 feet; provided by R. H. Beddome.
Referred material (n = 8). BMNH 1946.1.17.7 (female; Fig. 3) from Anamallays, 4,000 feet; provided by R.H. Beddome; MNHN 1895.80 (3 specimens; 2 female, 1 male) from Anamallays forest, 4,000 feet; MCZ 6201 (4 specimens; 3 female, 1 male) from Anamallays, 4,700 feet.
Revised diagnosis. A species of Uropeltis that differs from all congeners except U. liura, U. maculata and U. tricuspida sp. nov. in having 17 rows of dorsal scales at midbody, nasals that make contact along the midline posterior to the rostral, and that lack a flattened or mildly longitudinally convex tail shield composed of matt scales with substantial keels—instead having a strongly longitudinally convex tail tip with scales bearing low, inconspicuous ridges. Differs from U. liura in having fewer ventral (156–163 versus>172) and subcaudal scales (5– 6 and 10–11 versus 7–9 and 11–13 in males and females, respectively), in having typically two versus three small, non-subcaudal scales overlapped by each anal shield, and in lacking yellow dots on most of the body scales on the dorsum. Differs from U. tricuspida sp. nov. in having fewer ventral scales in females (156–162 versus 163–174) and fewer subcaudal scales (5–6 and 10–11 versus 6–10 and 10–13 in males and females, respectively). Differs from U. maculata in having fewer subcaudal scales (5–6 in females and 10–11 in males versus 7–9 and 11–13, respectively), fewer and less sexually dimorphic ventrals (156–163 and 157–163 versus 163–174 and 154–163 in females and males, respectively) and in lacking large yellow spots or blotches laterally on the anterior end of the body. Uropeltis petersi is distinct from these three phenotypically superficially similar congeners (and all other species) also in DNA sequence data (Sampaio et al. 2023).
Remarks. Beddome (1878) did not specify the number of type specimens used for the description of Silybura petersi but, given that the number of ventral scales was reported as “155 to 158” and the number of subcaudal scales as “ten to twelve pairs”, it is clear that there was more than one type. McDiarmid et al. (1999) report four types (1946.1.17.7–9 and 1946.1.16.75), but Pyron et al. (2016) report “putatively” six—the four reported by McDiarmid et al. (1999) plus MNHN 1895.80a–b that were also reported as types by Gans (1966) and Wallach et al. (2014). Several of these specimens can be ruled out as potential types. BMNH 1946.1.17.7 and two of the MNHN specimens have only five or six subcaudals on each side. Additionally, BMNH 1946.1.17.8 (Fig. 4) is clearly not one of the types given that it has 183 ventrals (many more than the range of 155–158 reported by Beddome 1878 or Beddome 1886). The latter specimen is here referred to the new species described below. Of the remaining specimens, I select BMNH 1946.1.16.75 (previously 78.1.11.3) as the lectotype because it is the only unambiguously Beddome specimen that is associated with a precise accession date (11 January 1878), and it was accessioned on that date under the name Uropeltis petersi in the same year that the name was first published. BMNH 1946.1.17.9 is considered the sole paralectotype, being the only other BMNH Beddome specimen that has a ventral and subcaudal count within the range reported in the original description.
In his characterisation of Uropeltis petersi, Beddome (1886) extended the reported range in numbers of ventrals from 155–158 to 155–160, and also added that females had 6 subcaudals (and males 10–12)—the additional, female specimen(s) that this characterisation is based on might have been or included BMNH 1946.1.17.7 that was subsequently considered a type specimen by other workers. Boulenger (1893: 48; plate VI, fig. 1) documented 11 specimens of U. petersi, with four reported as types (presumably the BMNH types reported by Gans 1966, McDiarmid et al. 1999 and Pyron et al. 2016), and the remaining seven specimens likely being the four subsequently sent to Harvard (MCZ 6201) and three sent to Paris (MNHN 1895.80). According to Boulenger (1893), the four BMNH specimens were from Beddome, and the other seven from W. Davison. Constable (1949: 122) briefly reported on the four topotypic (“Anaimalai Hills at 4,700 feet ”) specimens sent from the British Museum to Harvard (MCZ 6201). Data for all of the known specimens are presented here in Table 1.
I concur with Pyron et al. (2016) that U. petersi has seemingly not been collected or new field sightings reported in the scientific literature since before 1900. The precise location of the previously collected or any extant populations are currently unknown, other than likely being in the region of 1,200 m elevation in the Anamalai hills.
description: Published as part of Gower, David J., 2023, On the taxonomy of Uropeltis petersi (Beddome, 1878) (Serpentes: Uropeltidae) and description of a new, closely related species from the Western Ghats of India, pp. 103-119 in Zootaxa 5319 (1) on pages 104-109, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5319.1.7, http://zenodo.org/record/8182235