On some taxonomically confused species of the genus Amphiesma Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854 related to Amphiesma khasiense (Boulenger, 1890) (Squamata, Natricidae)

Abstract

Three species of the genus Amphiesma Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854 have long been confused in the literature, with each other and with other species of the genus. Amphiesma khasiense (Boulenger, 1890) has been considered to inhabit a large geographical region, extending from northeastern India, east to Vietnam and southern Thailand. Amphiesma boulengeri (Gressitt, 1937) has been regarded as a species endemic to southeastern China. Amphiesma inas (Laidlaw, 1901) has been recorded from West Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia (Sumatra). A multivariate analysis of morphometric and meristic characters shows that these three species can be separated by combinations of characters in the scalation and pattern, the most obvious being the structure of the postocular streak. On the basis of our analysis and after comparison with name-bearing type specimens, Amphiesma khasiense is restricted to northeastern India, Myanmar, western Yunnan Province of China, northern Laos and northern and western Thailand. Other populations from southeastern China, Vietnam, other parts of Laos, Cambodia and central Thailand, which have been recorded in the literature as A. khasiense, A. johannis or Amphiesma modestum (Günther, 1875), should be referred to Amphiesma boulengeri. Amphiesma inas (Laidlaw, 1901) is a valid species endemic to mountain ranges of southern Peninsular Thailand and West Malaysia. The mention of Amphiesma inas in Sumatra is erroneous, being based on the second known specimen of Amphiesma kerinciense David & Das, 2003, which is here redescribed. A key to species of the Amphiesma khasiense group and other species sharing a greyish-brown background without conspicuous dark and pale stripes, is provided.

Parahelicops, Pararhabdophis,Paraphyly: Phylogenetic Relationships among Certain Southeast Asian Natricine Snakes (Hebius)

“…We also corroborate the findings of David et al (2013) and Guo et al (2014), who reported variation suggestive of additional unrecognized species diversity under the names H. boulengeri and H. venningi, the latter of which is polyphyletic in Guo et al (2014) and herein. Stuart et al (2006) suggested that there are no "geographically widespread, forest-dwelling frog species in Southeast Asia. "…”

A taxonomic revision of the Asian keelback snakes, genus Amphiesma (Serpentes: Colubridae: Natricinae), with description of a new species

“…In this work, it is not our main aim to explore and address species level taxonomy, but several species are apparently non-monophyletic, and should be examined in future studies. Previously, morphological work indicated that some species of Amphiesma sensu lato were poorly diagnosed and quite variable, contributing to frequent misidentification and confusion between these species (David et al 2007(David et al , 2013.…”

New records and an updated list of snakes (Squamata: Serpentes) from Xuan Lien nature reserve, Thanh Hoa province, Vietnam

“…Field surveys were conducted in the Xuan Lien Nature Reserve by C. T. Pham Taxonomic identification of the specimens were made mainly based on the following literature: Gressit (1937) [4], Smith (1943) [20], Schulz (1996) [19], Orlov et al (2004) David et al (2013David et al ( , 2015b [1,3]. For common names, we followed Nguyen et al (2009) [13] …”

“…In Vietnam, this species is known from Ha Tinh, Quang Binh, Quang Tri, Thua Thien Hue, Da Nang, and Kon Tum provinces [3]. Elsewhere, this species is recorded from Laos [3].…”

“…Parahelicops annamensis is morphologically similar to Pararhabdophis chapaensis but it differs from P. chapaensis by having venter pale, more subcaudals (116-146 vs. 90-114 in P. chapaensis) [3]. Ecological notes.…”