February, 2004] NOTES 123 Hamadryad Vol. 28, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 123 – 126, 2004 Thailand, an illustrated checklist. Bushmaster Copyright 2004 Centre for Herpetology Publications, Wuerselen. 240 pp. Madras Crocodile Bank Trust CHOU, L. M. 1978. Some bionomic data on First record of Lytorhynchus the house geckos of Singapore. Malay. nat. J. 31: paradoxus (Günther, 1875) (Serpentes: 231-235. DE ROOIJ, N. 1915. The reptiles of the Colubridae) from the Republic of India, Indo-Australian Archipelago. I. Lacertilia, with notes on its distribution Chelonia, Emydosaura. E.J. Brill, Leiden. 384 (with two text-figures) pp. GILL, B. J., D. BEJAKOVICH & A. H. In August 2003, two of the authors came across WHITAKER. 2001. Records of foreign reptiles an unusual looking colubrid snake in Ramgadh and amphibians accidentally imported to New (Sikkar district, Rajasthan, western India). The Zealand. New Zealand J. Zool. 28: 351-359. snake was found at night, photographed the next GROSSMANN, W. 1993. Ungewöhnlich morning and released immediately thereafter. hohe Populationsdichte bei Gekko monarchus The only scalation data recorded was the number (Duméril & Bibron, 1836). Sauria 15: 13-16. of midbody scale rows. No voucher specimen LEVER, C. 2003. Naturalized reptiles and was collected, but two photographic slides of the amphibians of the world. Oxford University snake- a dorsal view of the entire body (Fig. 1) Press, Oxford. xviii + [2] + 318 pp. and another in which the left lateral aspect of the LIM, K. K. P. & F. L. K. LIM. 1992. A guide head is visible, enabled us to identify the snake as to the amphibians & reptiles of Singapore. Sin- Lytorhynchus paradoxus. gapore Science Centre, Singapore. 160 pp. After consulting literature, especially com- MANTHEY, U. & W. GROSSMANN. 1997. prehensive checklists of Indian snakes by Amphibien & Reptilien Südostasiens. Natur und Whitaker (1978) and Das (1997, 2003), we find Tier – Verlag, Münster. 512 pp. this snake represents the first record of this genus Schäfer, C. & W. Grossmann. 1992. Reptilia: and species from within the political boundaries Sauria: Gekkonidae. Gekko monarchus of present day India. High resolution scans of the (Duméril & Bibron). Sauria 14, Suppl.: aforementioned images have been deposited at 243-246. the Centre for Herpetology, Madras Crocodile YOUMANS, T. M., R. ESCOBAR, III, J. L. Bank Trust, Mamallapuram 603 104, Tamil GRISMER, L. L. GRISMER & R. JOHNSON. Nadu, India. 2002. First report of the herpetofauna of Pulau Scalation, morphological details and colour Pemanggil, Johor, West Malaysia. Hamadryad pattern based on field observations as well as 27: 148-149. those gleaned from scanned images of the Indian specimen- Scales smooth, in 19 rows at midbody. Aaron M. Bauer, Department of Biology, Head slightly broader than neck; snout decliv- Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Avenue, ous; body mildly, but noticeably triangular in Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085, U.S.A. cross section; tail short, tip pointed. Rostral Email: [email protected] rhomboidal; pointed in front, angular behind. William R. Branch, Bayworld, P.O. Box Eye large with vertically elliptical pupil; nostril - 13147, Humewood 6013, South Africa. narrow slit between two large scales; frontal ex- Email: [email protected]. panded anteriorly; touching upper preocular; prefrontals larger than internasals; preoculars 3; Received: 23 October 2003. loreal 1; postoculars 2. Pale brown above; Accepted: 28 November 2003. midline of back with a series of at least 40 ‘H’ or ‘X’- shaped dark brown marks connected by a white, ribbon-like stripe. Sides of body with smaller, less distinct brown spots which alternate 124 HAMADRYAD [Vol. 28, Nos.1&2, February, 2004] NOTES 125 with those on the mid-back. Back of head with dia– rostral shield narrowed and pointed, not large brown, elongate blotch; broad brown truncate, broader at its base than at its anterior streak from eye to angle of mouth; a similar col- most projection; prefrontals paired; ground col- oured mark below eye. Underside glossy white. our greyish brown with series of darker brown, We were unable to determine the number and not black, blotches, not cross bars. We were un- condition of the supralabials from the images able to determine the number of ventrals, with any certainty, as sand particles had adhered subcaudals and the condition of the anal (also to and obscured some of their margins. used by the aforementioned in their key to mem- The snake was identifiable as a member of the bers of this genus). Dorsal body pattern closely genus Lytorhynchus on the bases of its midbody resembles Leviton and Anderson’s depiction of a scale rows; awl-shaped head; uniquely shaped specimen from the California Academy of Sci- rostral scale; oblique, slit-like nostril and moder- ences– CAS 101412. However the dorsal aspect ately short tail. of the rostral scale of the Rajasthan snake is dis- Identification to species was made after com- tinctly unlike that of Lytorhynchus paradoxus as paring scanned dorsal and lateral views of the depicted by Leviton and Anderson in figure 21 head with descriptions and figures in Günther (1970: 269) and Khan (2003: 111). Despite this (1875: 576), Boulenger (1890: 322-3), Smith glaring discrepancy, it compares well with fig- (1943: 189-192), Minton (1966: 130-1, plate ures and descriptions in other literature cited 29), Leviton and Anderson (1970: 255, 268-270) above as well as the holotype BMNH and Khan (2002: 111, 143). It should be noted 1946.1.14.75 (formerly BMNH 72.4.17.162) that though captioned correctly, Fig. 59 depict- and we are convinced that the abovementioned ing dorsal and ventral aspects of the head of L. snake from Ramgadh (Sikkar district, Rajasthan, maynardi has been placed under the description western India) is indeed Lytorhynchus of Lytorhynchus paradoxus Smith (1943: 191). paradoxus. Boulenger (1890: 322) provided dorsal and lat- Natural history notes.- The snake was found eral views of the head of L. paradoxus. Compari- lying straight on a sand dune (Fig. 2) at approxi- sons of the scanned images with the holotype mately 2130 h after a spell of rain. When first BMNH 1946.1.14.75 (formerly BMNH handled, it coiled up like a cylindrical spring with 72.4.17.162) revealed no notable differences in its head on the uppermost coil. This behaviour dorsal colour pattern or scalation of the head, was not repeated subsequently. Whilst photo- consistent with the identification as graphing the snake, it persistently burrowed into Lytorhynchus paradoxus. the sand with its snout. It made no attempt to bite We follow Smith (1943: 189-192) who used when handled. the shape and condition of the rostral scale to dis- Günther (1875), who first described this spe- tinguish between the three species of cies as Acontiophis paradoxa wrote, “A single Lytorhynchus that are known to occur in this re- specimen, twelve inches long (tail 1½ inches); is gion. The rostral scale of the snake from in the late Dr. Jerdon’s collection. It is rather Rajasthan is neither “truncate anteriorly- L. shrivelled and unfortunately no record as regards ridgewayi”; nor is it “anchor-shaped when the locality where it was found was placed on the viewed from above- L. maynardi”. The rostral is bottle. He obtained it probably within the Hima- undoubtedly, “pointed anteriorly, angular poste- layan region or in Khassya (= the Khasi Hills of riorly” and separates the internasals for between the modern Meghalaya State, north-eastern In- half to one-third of their length - key characters dia)”. This is incorrect as the snake is a desert for L. paradoxus. species. Boulenger (1890) recorded “Sind” (at The following key characters used by Leviton present a Province in Pakistan) as a locality and and Anderson (1970: 255, 270) to diagnose rightly commented that these were desert snakes, Lytorhynchus paradoxus are also evident in adapted for burrowing in the sand. Wall (1923) scans of the snake from Ramgadh, Rajasthan, In- recorded L. paradoxus from Sind, Punjab, 126 HAMADRYAD [Vol. 28, Nos.1&2, Multan (all in Pakistan). Smith (1943) gave the DAS, I. 1997. Checklist of the reptiles of India range of this species as “Sind (Zangipur); W. with English common names. Hamadryad 22: Punjab (Multan)”- based on four specimens. 32-45. These localities are also in Pakistan. He also ________. 2003. Growth of knowledge on cited “N. India” as the type locality for the reptiles of India, with an introduction to sys- Acontiophis paradoxa (= Lytorhynchus tematics, taxonomy and nomenclature. J. Bom- paradoxus) presumably condensing Günther bay nat. Hist. Soc. 100: 446-501. supposition that Jerdon’s specimen came from GÜNTHER, A. 1875. Second report on col- “within the Himalayan region or in Khassya”. lections of Indian reptiles obtained by the British Though Khan (2002) also cites the type locality Museum. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1875: 224-34, as “Northern India”, he goes on to write that this 4 pl. species is “restricted to Zangipur, northern KHAN, M. S. 2002. A guide to the snakes of Sindh, Pakistan”. Minton (1966) examined spec- Pakistan. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main. imens from Dadu or Hyderabad; Muzaffargar; 265 pp. Sanghar and Thar Parkar districts- all localities LEVITON, A. E. & S. C. ANDERSON. 1970. in Pakistan. The Bombay Natural History Soci- Review of the snakes of the genus Lytorhynchus ety has a single, undated specimen from Thar, Proc. California Acad. Sci., ser. 4, 37 (7): Parkar collected by E. Priestly. A typographical 249-274. error noticed by us was that Minton (1966: 131) MINTON, S. A. 1966. A contribution to the cites the type as Aconitophis paradoxus Günther, herpetology of West Pakistan. Bull. Amer. Mus. 1875. Khan (2002) also follows this spelling. Nat. Hist. 134(2): 27-184, pl. 9-36, maps 1-5. The actual citation is Acontiophis paradoxa- this SMITH, M. A. 1943. The fauna of British In- was followed by both Boulenger (1890: 323) and dia, Ceylon and Burma, including the whole of Smith (1943: 191).