Trilepida dimidiata (JAN, 1861)
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Trilepida dimidiata?
|Higher Taxa||Leptotyphlopidae, Epictinae, Epictini, Typhlopoidea, Serpentes, Squamata (snakes)|
|Common Names||Dainty Blind Snake|
|Synonym||Stenostoma dimidiatum JAN 1861: 188|
Glauconia dimidiata — BOULENGER 1893: 64
Leptotyphlops dimidiata - AMARAL 1929: 76
Leptotyphlops dimidiatus - OREJAS-MIRANDA 1967
Leptotyphlops dimidiatus — MCDIARMID, CAMPBELL & TOURÉ 1999: 27
Rena dimidiata — ADALSTEINSSON, BRANCH, TRAPE, VITT & HEDGES 2009
Tricheilostoma dimidiatum — PINTO & FERNANDES 2012
Tricheilostoma dimidiatum — COLE et al. 2013
Trilepida dimidiata — WALLACH et al. 2014: 738
|Distribution||Guyana, Surinam, N Brazil, SE Venezuela ?|
Type locality: Brazil, restricted by PETERS & OREJAS MIRANDA (1970:169) to San Marcos, near confluence of Rios Uriracuera and Tacutu, both tributaries of Rio Branco, Territorio de Roraima, Brazil; neotype locality: Brazil, State of Roraima, Boa Vista Municipality, São Marcos, 03°05’N, 60°25’W, elevation 75 m. Map legend:
- Type locality.
|Types||Neotype: IBSP 24011, adult female, Alphonse Richard Hoge expedition, 27 May 1964.|
Holotype: MSNM. - destroyed (according to HAHN 1980)
|Comment||Not listed by GASC & RODRIGUES 1980.|
Synonymy: WALLACH et al. 2014: 724 list this species under Trilepida without justification. They cite Pinto 2010 but that paper neither mentions Trilepida nor dimidiatum.
Distribution: Not listed for French Guiana by STARACE 1998. The first mention of the species in Venezuela was apparently by Lancini (1979), who based the record on Orejas-Miranda (1966, 1969) and cited the species from the country with no voucher mentioned. Hence, RIVAS et al. 2012 do not include it in their list of Venezuelan reptiles although most likely it occurs there.
Diagnosis.—Tricheilostoma dimidiatum can be distinguished from other congeneric species by the following combination of characters: snout rounded in dorsal and ventral views, obtusely rounded in lateral view; supraocular present; ocular subhexagonal with anterior border slightly rounded at eye level and superior border straight; rostral subtriangular in dorsal view, not reaching (67%) or reaching (33%) anterior border of ocular scales; frontal longer than other middorsal cephalic shields, slightly smaller than supraocular; temporal not distinct (74%) or distinct (26%); two supralabials (1+1); four infralabials; robust body width (43.1 6 8.9); 198–215 middorsal in females and 191–214 in males; 185–200 ventral in females and 175–197 in males; 13–16 subcaudal in females and 12–18 in males; fused caudals present; 10 scales around middle of tail; and seven dorsal scales rows with pale brown pigmentation in contrast with seven unpigmented ventral rows that are cream [from PINTO & FERNANDES 2012].
As link to this species use URL address:
without field 'search_param'. Field 'search_param' is used for browsing search result.