Cubatyphlops notorachius (THOMAS & HEDGES, 2007)
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Cubatyphlops notorachius?
|Higher Taxa||Typhlopidae (Typhlopinae), Typhlopoidea, Serpentes, Squamata (snakes)|
|Common Names||E: Imias Blindsnake|
|Synonym||Typhlops notorachius THOMAS & HEDGES 2007: 21|
Cubatyphlops notorachius — HEDGES et al. 2014
Typhlops notorachius — PYRON & WALLACH 2014
Cubatyphlops notorachius — NAGY et al. 2015
|Distribution||E Cuba (east of Guantánamo Bay)|
Type locality: 9.4 km W Imias, Guantánamo Province, Cuba, 5 m elevation.
|Types||Holotype: MNHNCu 4551 (field tag number 191322), a male, collected on 1 July 1990 by S. Blair Hedges, Richard Thomas, and Daniel McCallister.|
|Diagnosis||Diagnosis: A relatively large species of the Typhlops biminiensis group differing from T. biminiensis in having a rostral with an acuminate posterior edge, not broadly rounded. Also, the rostral has parallel sides and is not indented at apex of the snout (Fig. 8). Additionally, T. notorachius has a proportionately smaller rostral than the preceding species (T. biminiensis, T. arator, T. perimychus, and T. anousius) (Figs. 8, 10A). The difference in body size between T. notorachius and T. perimychus is striking; not considering the associated specimen of the latter species (which may be a different species), all four specimens of T. notorachius (282– 301 mm TL) are larger than all 18 specimens of T. perimychus (130–280 mm TL). Because each species was collected at multiple localities and, in the case of T. perimychus, over four decades, we surmise that the body size difference is real and not the result of collecting bias. Also, T. notorachius differs from T. perimychus in having a greater anterior nasal width (ANTNAS/RW1): 0.42–0.53 versus 0.34–0.39 in T. perimychus. From T. anousius, T. notorachius also differs in its point of scale row reduction: 15–40% TL versus 2% TL in T. anousius.|
|Etymology||An adjective made from the Greek, notos, south, and rhachia, shore, meaning “of the southern shore.”|