2 Australasian Journal of Herpetology Australasian Journal of herpetology 10: 2-32. ISSN 1836-5698 (Print) Published 8 April 2012. ISSN 1836-5779 (Online) AN UPDATED REVIEW OF THE PYTHONS INCLUDING RESOLUTION OF ISSUES OF TAXONOMY AND NOMENCLATURE. RAYMOND T. HOSER 488 Park Road, Park Orchards, Victoria, 3134, Australia. Phone: +61 3 9812 3322 Fax: 9812 3355 E-mail: [email protected] Received 27 March 2012, Accepted 5 April 2012, Published 8 April 2012. ABSTRACT This paper reviews the python group of snakes. It resolves issues of taxonomy and nomenclature, including by means of publication (this paper), effectively settling any disputes about potential validity of names for use according to the ICZN rules for various well-defined taxa. In accordance with the ICZN code, this paper formally names one new genus (Jackypython gen. nov.), one new subgenus (Rawlingspython subgen. nov), two new species, (Morelia wellsi sp. nov. and Australiasis funki sp. nov.) and one new subspecies, (Chondropython viridis adelynhoserae subsp. nov.). A neotype is desig- nated for A. amethistina. Furthermore, four subspecies within the genus Aspidites and one subspecies within Leiopython are formally named. Assessed are matters relating to the genus Leiopython and a 2008 paper by Wulf Schleip. This paper redefines the family composition at tribe level. As a result, one new tribe is erected, namely Broghammerini tribe nov.. For the pre-existing tribe Moreliini there are four newly identified subtribes, namely Moreliina subtribe nov., Aspiditesina subtribe nov., Katrinina subtribe nov. and Antaresiina subtribe nov.. Refer also to relevant notes within this paper. Keywords: snake; reptile; Jackypython; Rawlingspython; adelynhoserae; Leiopython; hoserae; Schleip; Wüster; Williams; smuggling, animal cruelty; albertisi; taxonomy; fraud; wikipedia; biakensis; barkerorum; bennettorum; huonensis; fredparkeri; wellsi; antaresia; Morelia; funki; Chondropython; Australiasis; Katrinus; Shireenhoserus; Lenhoserus; Aspidites; neildavieii; rickjonesi; adelynensis; panoptes; python; Broghammerini; Aspiditesina; Katrinina; Antaresiina; Moreliina; Moreliini; Pythonini. INTRODUCTION Due to a number of factors including the commercial significance The “true” pythons of Africa, Asia and Australasia had for most of of these snakes, their generally large size and popularity among the last century been placed in the sub-family Pythoninae, although hobbyist keepers and more recently government-backed attempts in recent years, there has been a move by taxonomists to elevate to remove these snakes from private keepers in several countries, this status to full family (as in Pythonidae), which is agreed by this there have been numerous studies into the taxonomy of these author. snakes. The classification of the pythonidae as defined by Romer (1956) p. Furthermore, there has also been a vast amount of previously 572, (he referred to them as pythoninae) has been the subject of unreported or relatively little-known information about the intense debate. pythonidae published in other scientific and popular literature, The pythonidae are separated from the boidae by the presence of including in such publications as: Banks (1974, 1980), Barker and a supraorbital bone, egg-laying versus live bearing, scalation Barker (1994a, 1994b, 1995, 1999), Barnett (1979, 1987, 1993, differences and other characters (McDowall 1975). 1999), Broghammer (2001), Bullian (1994), Chiras (1982), Comber (1999), Covacevich and Limpus (1973), Cox (1991), David and There have also been numerous published studies detailing the Vogel (1996), Dunn (1979), Ehmann (1992), Fearn (1996), morphology and biochemistry of the pythonidae and related FitzSimmons (1970), Gharpurey (1962), Gow (1977, 1981, 1989), snakes. Greer (1997), Heijden (1988), Hoser (1981a, 1981b, 1981c, 1982, Hoser 2012 - Australasian Journal of Herpetology 10:2-32. Hoser 2012 - Available online at www.herp.net Copyright- Kotabi Publishing - All rights reserved Australasian Journal of Herpetology 3 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991a, 1991b, 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1995, 1996, adequately separates the best known component species as cited 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 1999d), Kend (1992, 1997), Kend and Kend at the rear of this paper. This paper does not significantly amend (1992), Kortlang (1989), Krauss (1995), Maguire (1995), Martin the taxonomy used in the paper Hoser (2000b), save for the (1973), Maryan (1984), Maryan and George (1998), Mattison addition of more recently described species and/or subspecies. (1980), Mavromichalis and Bloem (1994), McDowell (1984), The taxonomy used in Hoser (2000b) has been widely adopted in McLain (1980), Mirtschin and Davis (1992), Murdoch (1999), the twelve years since publication. Examples include: Clark 2002, O’Shea (1996), Reitinger (1978), Romer (1956), Rooyendijk Kuroski 2001 and 2002 (all for Morelia harrisoni), and Schleip 2001 (1999), Ross (1973, 1978), Ross and Marzec (1990), Schwaner (for the various subspecies of L. albertisi) as named formally by and Dessauer (1981), Sheargold (1979), Shine (1991), Shine, Hoser (2000b). Ambariyanto, Harlow, Mumpuni, (1998), Smith (1981a, 1981b, In this paper is a list of all currently (as of this paper) recognised 1985), Sonneman (1999), Storr, Smith and Johnstone (1986), Stull tribes, genera, subgenera, species and subspecies of python, (1932, 1935), Thomson (1935), Webber (1978), Weigel (1988), including those formally named for the first time herein. It should Wells and Wellington (1983, 1985), Williams (1992), Wilson and be noted that in the period 2000 to present (March 2012) claims Knowles (1988), Worrell (1951, 1970) and the many further have been made that certain taxa named by this author in sources of information referred to directly in these publications. publications prior to this date (2012) were not validly published Even this list of publications is far from the complete available according to the ICZN’s code (in force from 2000)(cited herein record about pythons. twice, as “Ride et. al. 1999” and also “ICZN 1999”). While I would Among the better known taxonomic studies in recent times dealing dispute these claims, the problem is more easily dealt with by way specifically with the Pythonidae are Harvey, Barker, Ammerman of description herein “as new” to settle the nomenclature and give and Chippendale. (2000), Keogh, Barker and Shine (2001), Kluge stability of names for other workers. (1993), McDowall (1975) and Rawlings et. al. (2008), Underwood These formal descriptions are incorporated within the text of this and Stimson (1990) and others. paper. This forms an enormous database of information on these snakes. RELEVANT KEY FACTS AND COMMENTS Notwithstanding this vast body of available evidence, the taxo- The following is directly relevant to the formal descriptions that nomic arrangements used in the past by most authors have been follow, the general taxonomy used and forms a part of the generally inconsistent across the group. However Hoser 2004a, descriptions and this paper. presented a classification that made sense of the data and was The list published with this paper of all python taxa, arranged via later corroborated in full by the data presented by Rawlings et. al. their tribe arrangements in itself shows the taxonomic conclusions 2008, (see in particular Fig A at top of page 614), although the made by this author. authors stopped short of going the logical next step and adopting in However a few other comments in this regard are warranted. full the nomenclature of Hoser 2004a. Two genera of snakes, namely Loxocemus and Calabaria are not They did however adopt usage of the genus name Broghammerus closely related to other python genera and were removed from the Hoser 2004 for the species reticulatus, adding to the genus, the “Pythoninae” in 1976 by Underwood. They are now placed in species timoriensis, transferring it from the Hoser 2004 position of different subfamilies or in a different family altogether. Australiasis. That move is currently supported herein, but solely on the basis of acceptance of the data of rawlings, et. al. 2008. More recent evidence (including Heise, et. al. (1995) p. 261, Fig. 1.) confirms this move by Underwood and those two genera have As the rest of the data of Rawlings et. al. 2008 and later authors been effectively ignored for the purposes of this paper. (e.g. Schleip 2008), supports the Hoser 2004a taxonomy, it stands to reason that over time, the nomenclature of Hoser 2004a, will Calabaria are readily separated from all true pythons (excluding move into general usage, unless earlier overlooked synonyms for Aspidites from Australia) by their more-or-less cylindrical body names used emerges. shape and the fact that their head is not distinct from the neck as in true pythons (again excluding Aspidites). This paper does not seek to rehash the detail of Hoser 2004a, which in effect is adopted herein in toto, save for additions or Aspidites can be readily separated by their yellowish brown body changes indicated here. However it does seek to revist the colour and dorsal pattern with a tendency towards distinct or taxonomy and nomenclature with a view to filling gaps, in particular indistinct transverse banding. By contrast for Calabaria the dorsal the division of the Pythonidae at the level between family and colour in Calabaria is a more dark and reddish brown and the genus. To do this, all genera are assigned to appropriate tribes pattern is not tending towards transverse banding in any way. which are formally described according