Great Basin Naturalist
Volume 57 Number 1 Article 11
3-7-1997
Type locality restriction of Hypsiglena torquata Günther
Wilmer W. Tanner Brigham Young University
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn
Recommended Citation Tanner, Wilmer W. (1997) "Type locality restriction of Hypsiglena torquata Günther," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 57 : No. 1 , Article 11. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol57/iss1/11
This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Great Basin Naturalist 57(1), e 1997, pp. 79-82
TYPE LOCALITY RESTRICTION OF HYPSIGLENA TORQUATA GUNTHER
Wilmer W Tannerl
Key word.s: Hypsiglena lOrquata, Mexico, Nicaroguo..
Since the description ofHIJPsigl.ena torquata type when compared with specimens from by Giinther in 1860 and the designation of the Mazatlan, Sinaloa. He communicated his con type locality as Nicaragua, specimens have cern with Mr. J. C. Battersby at the British been collected only in central Mexico and Museum, who prOVided basic character infor north into the United States (Tanner 1946, mation for the type specimen. Dixon then con Dixon and Dean 1986). Just how far south in cluded that "the locality from which the type Mexico Hypsiglena may range is perhaps not specimen came is somewhat in doubt" and that yet known. Specimens have been taken in "until both co-types are examined and further Morelos, Guerrero, and Michoacan but not as collecting done, it would be unwise to change yet, to my knowledge, from the states of Mex the type locality, even though it appears to be ico, Puebla, Veracruz, Oaxaca, or Chiapas. If m. error." HIJPsigiena occurs in Nicaragua, the question The original description of Leptockira tor arises as to why additional specimens have not quata Gunther 1860 provides not only an ade been taken from the intervening areas. quate description based on scale patterns but There is now general agreement that Hyp also includes a draWing of the type specimen siglena does not occur south of Mexico, and (Fig. lA). The draWing exhibits a color pattern perhaps not in southern Mexico; however, that is similar to most specimens seen from Smith and Taylor (1945) list it as "perhaps to south central Mexico and is apparently repre Ecuador and Venezuela." Peters (1956) dis sentative of H. torquato from that area (Figs. cusses in detail the specimens responsible for IB, C, D). The ventral-caudal counts of 174 placing HIJPsigl.ena in South America and con 174-46-50 listed in the origin.l description cludes that this genus does not occur south of total 220-224 for the two type specimens. This Costa Rica. Peters and Orejas-Miranda (1970) does not match the totals for specimens ofH. t. list the distribution of H. torquata as "South torquata listed from west central Mexico (Dixon western United States through Mexico and and Dean 1986). A series of 27 specimens that Baja Galifornia to Costa Rica." Savage and Villa (1986) do not include it in their Herpetofauna I have examined from Guanajuato, Guerrero, of Costa Rica, and Villa et al. (1988) do not list Morelos, Michoacan, J.lisco, and Colina have a it in their Middle American Herpetology. ventral-caudal range of202.--214. Ifthe ventrai Peters and Orejas-Miranda (1970) list it only to caudal counts for the types are correct as listed Costa Rica, without including additional records; in the original description, it would be difficult Savage and Villa (1986) and Villa et al. (1988) to include them in the populations of H. t. exclude Hypsiglerw from areas south of Mex torquata ofcentral and southwestern Mexico. ico. Dunn (1936:6) lists a specimen from Costa To verify the accuracy of the published data Rica (Museo Nacional) but provides no museum for the type, I contacted Dr. Colin McCarthy number. at the British Natur.l HistOlY Museum for Dixon (1965) recognized that there was a additional information concerning collecting problem in accepting Nicaragua as the type documentation and the accuracy of the scale locality for Hypsiglerw torquata Gunther. This counts published by Gunther (1860). The fol he based on the similar color pattern of the lowing response was received:
1M. L. Bean Ufe Science Museum, Brighun Young Unive:nlty, Provo, UT 84602.
79 80 GREAT BASIN NATURALIST [Volume 57
A c D
•"
B
Fig. L Hypsiglena torquata. A, Drawing of Leptodeira torqu I am afraid that there is no additional documentary origin in central Mexico. The scale and color evidence here regarding the collectors of the speci patterns could place it in one ofthe states listed mens. I note that we received it from the Derby Museum, so I imagine that if there was ever any above or perhaps in one of several adjoining associated documentation of that sort it might be states. there. The Derby Museum is still in existence Other scale patterns of the type specimen though without any names or reference numbers I taken from the original description are similar would have thought it would be impossible for them to provide information. to specimens from central and western Mexico. Quoting Gunther (1860): "The medial lower Dr. McCarthy provided the following data labial is triangular and rather small; nine lower for the type specimen, 46.1.1.15 (formerly labials, the Ilrst of which is in contact with its 61.12.30.97 as published by Smith and Taylor fellow behind the median shield." One speci 1945): "ventrals 170 (Dowling count, add 2 if men (Taylor 5561, a female) from a series of 8 you prefer to couut from the first expanded specimens from Morelos has nearly all scale scale). Subcaudals 42 pairs (+1 terminal scale). pattern characteristics of the type specimen: It appears to be a female." ventrais 171, pre- and post-oculars 2-2, infra In counting ventrals I have always started labials 9-9, temporals 1-2. The only difference with the Ilrst scale that is noticeably wider is that the type has 8-8 supralabials rather than than long. It appears that there are in tb e type 7-7 as in the Taylor specimen. However, other 2 questionable scales that Dowling considered specimens from Morelos have 8-8 supralabials. gulars; they might be small ventrals. In count A specimen (USNM 46513 female) from ing caudals I have always included the termi Michoacan has 173 ventrals, 39 caudals (total nal scale in the count. Based on the present 212), and 9-10 infralabials. Other specimens data, ventrals of the type are either 170 or 172 from west central Mexico also approach the and caudals 43. These add to 213 or 215 ven scale pattern of the type based on the recount tral-caudals for the type specimen in the ofventrals and caudals ofthe type. British Museum, which is within the range for By carefully examining the drawing of the females in populations ofcentral or southwest type (Fig. 1A), oue can see that the artist ern Mexico. appears to have virtually duplicated the color The present information is not sufficient to pattern of tbe entire snake. The head, nape, place the type locality at a given location, but it and body pattern are near duplicates of some does provide sufflcient data to place the area of specimens from Mexico. The whi> band is 1997] NOTES 81 about 4 scales in length and the dark nape Liverpool wrote anything to suggest that they band 6 or 7. In the series from Morelos, the tllought it was in Nicaragua. On the contrary, Giin ther clearly states that his material was believed to white band is 4-5 scales long and the dark one originate from two quite separate places and mod 5-6 long. Dorsal body spots range fi'om 45 to ern citations of the type locality as "Laguna Island, 52. In the drawing of the type, I count 43, and Nicaragua" seem totally unjustified. In short, I sus there are some hidden by the head. If this is, pect that you have good reason to worry about the and it appears to be, an essentially accurate provenance of these specimens, hecause I can find no very compelling evidence that either snake came drawing ofthe type, it seemingly places it with from Nicaragua!! the Hypsiglena from west cenb·a1 Mexico. Malcom Largen, Curator of The color patterns are helpful in placing the Amphibians and Reptiles type in any of the listed Mexican states, but it is the scale patterns such as the ventral-caudal All data and the information from England totals and the infralabials that effectively relate seemed to confirm my conclusion that the types of H. Gunther had apparently the type to west central Mexico, perhaps to torquato either Marelos or Michoacan. come from Morelos, Mexico. I sent a rough In the original description 2 specimens were draft ofthe manuscript to Dr. Hobart M. Smith available to Gunther. I asked Dr. McCarthy if for his perusal and for any comments he might he knew the location of the 2nd specimen. He provide. His response is as follows: referred me to Mr. Malcom Largen at the Liver Isla Laguna makes no sense as a locality, but there pool Museum. The following, a rather detailed is a "Lagunillas" in Morelos not too far from Mex account ofnot only the record ofthe type spec ico City, well within the range ofthe species and in imen but also documentary information con the area you have concluded most likely includes the geographic source ofthe lectotype. cerning both type specimens, is his complete It is reasonably possible that Lagunillas is the statement: type locality. A label so written could easily be mis~ read as Laguna isla, hence Laguna Isla. Dear Dr. Tanner I regret to report that no example of Hypsigletut With the present data available and the torquata survives in the Liverpool Museum and that information provided by Dr. Colin McCarthy, we have no record of when and how the second Mr. Malcom Largen, and Dr. Hobart Smith, type specimen was lost. The good news is that I have managed to unemth more than might have there is overwhelming evidence to place the been expected about the early history of the type type locality of Hypsigleno torquato torquato material. Gunther in, at, or near Lagunillas, Morelos, The crucial lead came from our copy of Ann. and to designate the available type specimen, Mag. Nat. Hist. for 1860, in which I found that p. British Museum No. 46.1.1.15, as the lectotype 171 had been contemporaneously annotated with the accession numhers of the type specimem! One for Hypsiglena torquato Gunther. of these, 5.8.58.26, appears in the main Stockbook I am indebted to many for help and infor of the '"Liverpool } GONTHER, A. 1860. Description of Leptodei.ra torquata, a ian Institution, U.S, National Musemn Bulletin 187: new snake from Central Amctica. Annals and Maga 1-239. zine of Natural History (series 3) 5: 169-171. TANNER, W. W. 1946. A taxonomic study ofthe genus Hyp PETlms, J. A. 1956. The occurrence of the snake genus siglena. Great Basin Naturalist 5: 25-92. Hypsiglena in Ecuador. Copcia 1956: 57-58. VILlA. j., L. D. WILSON, AND J. D. JOHNSON. 1988. Middle PlITEns, J. A., AND B. OREJAS-MIRANDA. 1970. Catalogue of American herpetology, a bibliographic checklist. Uni the Neotropical Squamata: p:u1 r. Snakes. U.S. versity ofMis..l>Ollrj Press, Columbia. 132 pp. National Museum Bullehn 297: 1--347. SAVAGE, J. M., AND J. VILl...A. 1986. Introduction to the her Received 25 November 1996 petofauna of Costa Rica. Society for the Study of Accepted 17 December 1996 Amphibians and Reptiles. 2J)1 pp. SMITH, H. M., AND TAYLOR, E. H. 1945. An annotated checklist and leey to the snakes of Mexico. Smithson-