Apostolepis tertulianobeui DE LEMA, 2004
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Apostolepis tertulianobeui?
|Higher Taxa||Colubridae (Dipsadinae), Colubroidea, Caenophidia, Alethinophidia, Serpentes, Squamata (snakes)|
|Synonym||Apostolepis tertulianobeui DE LEMA 2004|
Apostolepis parassimilis DE LEMA & RENNER 2011
Apostolepis tertulianobeui — COSTA & BÉRNILS 2015
Apostolepis tertulianobeui — NOGUEIRA et al. 2019
|Distribution||Brazil (Minas Gerais, Bahia)|
Type locality: "Hinterland" Minas Gerais state, region Cerrado morphoclimatic domain
parassimilis: Type locality: Minas Gerais State, in the municipality of Uberlândia
|Types||Holotype: MCP 8535 (originally IP 1934 = Instituto Pinheiros Produtos Terapêuticos S.A.), later transferred to the Museu de Ciências Naturais from Fundação Zoobotânica do Rio Grande do Sul (MCP hereafter) in Porto Alegre, Brazil.|
Holotype: MCNRS 8535, young male; from IPSP (formerly IPSP.1934), with the pattern well visible; paratype: MNRJ 6524, young female, from Bahia State, with visible pattern and colors [parassimilis]
|Diagnosis||Diagnosis. Species similar to Apostolepis assimilis (Reinhardt 1861), from which differs presenting: (a) head high (vs head flat); (b) snout rounded not projecting (vs projecting); (c) inner margins of the parietal plates light marbled (vs fully black); (d) mental and gular regions white unblemished (vs strong blotched with black, or almost fully black); (e) black cervical collar small, long as 1/3 +1 DO rows; reach- ing the up side of the 3rd row; (f) tail blotch black only dorsally, grayish bellow (vs fully black); (g) terminal shield fully white (vs fully black). It’s similar also, to Apostolepis freitasi Lema 2002, from which differs by the snout round not projecting (vs projecting); white snout (not red); small cervical black blotch (vs normal or long); lower sides immaculate white (vs blotched on lower head); and by the higher number of ventral scales, 236-270 instead 208-245; and by distribution: A. freitasi that’s restricted to SE of Bahia, near Atlantic littoral, into the Caatinga domain.|
|Comment||Abundance: Lema (2004) described Apostolepis tertulianobeui based on a single specimen (a young male), hence it seems to be rare.|
Synonymy: listed as synonym of Apostolepis assimilis by WALLACH et al. 2014: 50. Ferrarezzi et al. (2005) synonymized A. tertulianobeui with A. assimilis as follows: ‘In most relevant diagnostic features presented by Lema (2004b), the holotype of A. tertulianobeui does not differ from the range of variation we have observed in a large sample of A. assimilis [...]. Therefore, even though we did not examine the holotype of A. tertulianobeui, we have no doubt that this name must be relegated as a junior synonym of A. assimilis.’ (Ferrarezzi et al. 2005: 218). Two years later, Lema & Renner (2007:129–130) compared the holotype of A. tertulianobeui with over 100 specimens of A. assimilis and resurrected A. tertulianobeui from the synonymy of the last species [COSTA & BÉRNILS 2015].
Types: The holotype of A. parassimilis is MCN 8535, the same onomatophore that based the description of A. tertulianobeui (although the provenance has been attributed by Lema & Renner 2012 to the municipality of Uberlândia, state of Minas Gerais, Brazil). Despite minor rephrasing and other writing details, the description of the holotype of A. parassimilis is virtually identical to that of A. tertulianobeui. The main difference is that Lema & Renner (2012) describe the snout of MCN 8535 as ‘not projecting’, in contrast to Lema’s (2004) description of the same specimen. Lema & Renner (2012) also make no reference to A. tertulianobeui; it is also worth noting that illustrations of the holotype of A. tertulianobeui and A. parassimilis are clearly based on different specimens. Actually, Figures 5–8 in Lema & Renner (2012) are based on MNRJ 6524, the paratype of A. parassimilis (Fig. 1E–H) [COSTA & BÉRNILS 2015].