Hey Everyone,

I did a loose translation of the burmese paper on the CNAH using babblefish. The text in bold was already in english. I did not do the charts or photo captions. You will also find the link to the actual paper below.

To the taxonomy of the dark Tigerpythons, Python molurus bivittatus KUHL, 1820, particularly the population of Sulawesi

Abstract
The taxonomic status of the Burmese Python (Python molurus bivittatus) is reassessed and elevated to specific rank
again. The population from Sulawesi, Indonesia, is a dwarf form of this giant snake that is redefined as Python bivittatus
progschai ssp. n.
Key words: Reptilia; Squamata: Pythonidae: Python bivittatus bona species; P. b. progschai ssp. n.; Indonesia: Sulawesi;
taxonomy.

Introduction That admitted at present circulation area of the Tigerpythons (Python molurus ssp.) exhibits substantial disjunctions. During the light Tigerpython (Python M. molurus) from the extreme east of Pakistan over the whole Indian subcontinent including Sri Lankas until Assam, is that seems clearly larger dark Tigerpython (P.M. bivittatus) of Bangladesh and Myanmar over the whole behind-Indian range, east to Hainan and in Thailand south approximately up to the Isthmus of Kra, spreads (Bellosa et al. 2007, Barker & Barker 2008).
On the Malayi peninsula (Malakka, versus Werner 1909) and on Sumatra is missing this powerful giant queue (versus Werner 1897) probably, just as probably on Borneo (versus Manthey & Grossmann 1997, Iskandar & Colijn 2002); the only one Indication for this island refers itself on allegedly out Pontianak coming piece in the Raffles museum (Smith 1943:108, see also Witkamp 1932, Groombridge & Lux moorlands 1991, Auliya & Abel 2000, Auliya 2006, Barker & Barker 2008). Only on Java (Schlegel 1837) and its Neighbour islands, e.g. the small, dry sandstone island Nusa Barung (Iskandar & Colijn 2002), and up the many larger islands Sumbawa (Mertens 1930) and Bali (McKay 2006) was proven P. to M. bivittatus, and places itself about to question thereby that biogeographical causes of this disjunction. Those obvious chorologische relationship between the “areas Malakka peninsula, Sumatra and Borneo with that, left blank by P.M. bivittatus „ exactly these three areas settling P. curtus complex (Keogh et al. 2001, Auliya 2006) are frappant, does not appear to us however at present plausibly explainably. The biogeographical mystery becomes larger further by the fact that also on Sulawesi, thus east that the eastern of indo Australian fauna separating Wallace line (map 1), again darken Tigerpythons occur, of where (Macassar; Ujung Pandang) it were already announced 1897 (Boulenger 1897). Against the statement of Bellosa, that it kleinwüchsige populations („dwarf forms “) of these to „the Big Four “(Bellosa et al. 2007) counting giant queue do not give, prove those from Sulawesi coming dark Tigerpythons as expressed kleinwüchsig, which also de Lang & Bird (2005) stress. This differentiates between it together with some reproduction-biological parameters (see below) both of their far west living persons Used the Sundainseln mentioned and of the indochinesischen mainland representatives clearly. The spontaneous Erstannahme, this unusual zoo geographical picture would know its cause in simpler anthropogener displaced person have, probably seizes too briefly, there the periods for this which are applicable would have never been sufficient, in order to lead to a such morphologic variability. The following further reasons speak against such an acceptance: (1) already Schlegel (1837) quotes - however without precise source data, but confirms among other things of Bleeker (1857) and Kopstein (1930) - detailed earlier Herpetologen trusted with javanischen reptiles like e.g. Boie, Diard, Kuhl and Reinwardt, itself from own opinion over Tigerpythons from Java expressed. Their observations of Beginning 19.Century took place at a time, where at least no larger quantities of reptiles, over far distances does not transport giant queues already at all became, like it only many decades later through the commercial animal trade became common. We think from there that Java occurrence of the dark one Tigerpython autochthon and not on displaced person is reducible and hold this acceptance also for Bali for valid. Somewhat differently the case lies with Sumbawa. Here it gives only only one proof, the separated Head (SMF 22111) of a dealer a skinned Animal, the Mertens (1930) there to guarantee could. Afterwards is no further Copy on this - already east the Wallace line lying - Island more admits nascently. However one of us experienced (A) with the visit (2005) one up Sumbawa for many years established Netzpython Dealer of the existence there living Tigerpythons, and also an exporter in Jakarta confirmed the occurrence Dark Tigerpythons on Sumbawa and even on Lombok (Saputra pers. Memo. June 2009). (2) some other kinds of reptile have likewise spreading areas, both the Hinterindien and some Sundainseln and Sulawesi include, thus for instance the Bindenwarane (Varanus salvator complex). Here the sulawesischen populations are over those Kind border outside of those of the Sundaschelfs differentiates, belong however to another, also the Philippines including type of spreading, where however no Tigerpythons seem to net (Cook et al. 2007). (3) Kleinwüchsige populations in the southwest Sulawesis are well-known also from the Netzpython (P. reticulatus). Here it showed up that it itself - in one of the cases also molecular-genetically manifests - actually around own Taxa acts, which was described accordingly also as own subspecies (Auliya et al. 2002). In view of this situation it appeared advisable us to examine a row us accessible Tigerpythons more near which was imported from Sulawesi to Germany. It concerns thereby eight copies. Two halbwüchsige (well 1 m long) and a young animal of scarcely 70 cm length (exact measures see Tab. 1) lie in the meantime conserved forwards and are under in the zoo-logical research museum A. Koenig the numbers ZFMK 87481-482 and ZFMK 88386 deposited. In addition we knew still some photographic material (into de Lang & Bird 2005; unpubl. Photo evaluate by M. Auliya and A. Koch, see below). Results and discussion Discussion of the taxonomischen status of the Taxa molurus Linnaeus, 1758 and bivittatus Kuhl, 1820 The measures of the three conserved, nor subadulten Individuals and the five living copies are in the table 1 in summary. It is shown that none of the animals an overall length of 185 cm exceeds. Despite the small body size animals have this size class already successfully in human care and thus its Adultsein reproduces proven. Their egg and slack sizes (see below) it pointed out in the further one that it not simply as minus variants in the Schwankungsbereich the dark Tigerpythons long up to 7 m dismissed will can, but that the dwarf stature and probably a genetic difference is the basis for the clearly reduced egg and slack sizes. There such a difference here with a large geographical disjunction, from Java to SW-Sulawesi approx. 680 km, over a clear zoo-geographical Faunenscheide away, of Sumbawa nevertheless Fig./Fig. 2: Python bivittatus progschai ssp. n.still, is correlated 400 km, regards we the observed differences as at the beginning a standing And the kleinwüchsigen Sulawesi Pythons describes kind education process (Speziation in statu nascendi) as an own subspecies. First is to be clarified however, it to which artlichen Taxon is to be subordinated. Because: Although P. molurus bivittatus of Kuhl (1820) as its own kind, P. bivittatus, described was and first also from various other authors (e.g. Schlegel 1837, in addition, Werner 1909, 1930) thus, it was classified generally became generally accepted later, particularly because of allo to parapatrischen spreading, the Taxon bivittatus than subspecies of Python molurus (Linnaeus, 1758) to understand (see de Rooij 1917, Mertens 1930, Smith 1943, Stimson 1969, into the Bosch 1985, Manthey & Grossmann 1997, de Lang & Bird 2005, Bellosa 2007, Bellosa et al. 2007, Nguyen et al. 2009). Mertens (1930) stressed, as before it also Werner (1909), not only the large morphologic, but also ethologischen differences between both forms, held however because of the parapatrischen spreading and because of the intermediately working, with de Rooij (1917) mentioned pieces (Hyderabad/are and Assam) to Concept of the Konspezifität of molurus and bivittatus firmly. We consider it attached, also in this Case a comparable yardstick as with the three to put on earlier subspecies of the P. curtus complex, their kind status (Keogh et al. 2001) today generally one recognizes. A similar situation as those the two Tigerpython forms concerns the Felsenpythons of the Python of sebae complex in Africa, P. sebae and its earlier subspecies P.S. natalensis, which have similarly parapatrische surface areas and whose artliche self-sufficiency is likewise generally accepted since Broadley (1984, 1999). The main argument however, P. bivittatus again as own kind to understand, O supplied `Shea (2007) and Barker & Barker (2008) through the reference to the Isolate of bivittatus within the molurus area along the Nepalese south border and in the northeast of India (see map 1), where after these authors does not only exist Sympatrie, but where it can come even to syntopem occurrence! Is still unclear, as exactly the two interfertilen forms maintain their respective identity and Intergradation to avoid can (see O `Shea 2007); but that they can do it, it is sufficient, over on a selection printing directed against Bastardierung to close, which a clear reference to kind formation in statu nascendi is. Also for category-hierarchical reasons it appears us as the more logical concept to understand bivittatus again than own kind because the extremely kleinwüchsigen Tigerpythons from south Sulawesi the enormous dark Tigerpythons from Indochina and naturally more near stand for the Sundabereich than in order of size the bright Tigerpythons of the Indian subcontinent ranking between them. It the latters as molurus subspecies to subordinate, would be called however, to equate she with bivittatus klassifikatorisch which would contradict the morphologic data situation however clearly. We arrange the Sulawesi population thus the dark one Tigerpython as its eastern subspecies too. Description of the new subspecies Python bivittatus progschai ssp. n. Synonymie/Chresonymie (specified only designations are, itself also on Sulawesi Tigerpythons refer):
1887 Python molurus – A.B. Meyer, Abh. Mus.
Dresden, 1886/87: 13 („Macassar“).
1897 Python molurus – Boulenger, Proc. Zool. Soc.
London, 1897: 196 & 217 („Southern Celebes“,
„Macassar (Meyer)”).
1917 Python molurus bivittatus – de Rooij, Rept. Indo-
Aust. Archipel. II.: 24 («Bonthain, S. Celebes»).
1930 Python bivittatus – Werner (partim), Zool.
Anz., 87: 205 („Celebes“).
1935 Python molurus bivittatus – Pope (partim),
Rept. China: 73 („Celebes“).
1943 Python molurus bivittatus – Smith (partim),
Fauna Brit. India, 3: 108 (“Celebes”).
1969 Python molurus bivittatus – Stimson (partim),
Das Tierreich, 89: 30 („Celebes“).
1985 Python molurus bivittatus – In den Bosch (partim),
Zool. Verh., 217: 8 („Sulawesi“).
1997 Python molurus bivittatus – Manthey &
Grossmann (partim), Amph. Rept. Südostasiens:
429 („Sulawesi“).
1998 Python molurus bivittatus – Walls (partim),
Living Pythons: 135 (“Sulawesi”).
2000 Python molurus bivittatus – Auliya & Abel (partim),
Herpetofauna, 22 (127): 8 („Bira in Süd-Sulawesi“).
2002 Python molurus bivittatus Iskandar & Colijn
(partim), Checkl. SE Asian New Guinea Rept., I.
Snakes: 31 („Sulawesi“).
2005 Python molurus bivittatus – de Lang & Vogel
(partim), Snakes of Sulawesi: 198–201 („Sulawesi:
Bantaeng; Barru; Bira; Bulukumba; Jeneponto;
Maros; Pangkep; Sungguminasa; Takalar;
Ujung Pandang (uncertain)“.
2006 Python molurus – McKay (partim), Field Guide
Amph. Rept. Bali: 138 S. (“Sulawesi”). 86.
2007 Python molurus bivittatus – Bellosa (partim),
Python molurus, der Tigerpython: 32 („Sulawesi“).
2007 Python molurus bivittatus – Bellosa, Dirksen
& Auliya (partim): Faszination Riesenschlangen:
18 („Sulawesi“).
2008 Python molurus bivittatus – Barker & Barker
(partim), Bull. Chicago Herpet. Soc., 43 (3): 35
(“southern Sulawesi”).
Diagnosis A small, up to 240 cm is enough (de Lang & Bird 2005; H. Lowi, pers. Memo. and own data) Form of the dark Tigerpythons (Python bivittatus), itself of nominotypischen, to over 6 m (de Rooij 1917 and Werner according to 1909 even to 10 m) long becoming, i.e. indochinesischen and sunda insularen populations (P. bivittatus bivittatus) by its much smaller body size, the frequent occurrence brightly gerandeter dorsaler saddle marks and the accumulated occurrence of otherwise rather molurustypischen ozellierten flank marks differentiates. Correlated with so clearly smaller size are also around approx. 50% smaller Eimaße and slack sizes the young animals diagnostically (B. Soetanto pers. Memo. ; see below). Holotypus: Zoo-logical research museum A. King: ZFMK 87481, subadultes male, SW-Sulawesi, put. more native Collecting tank, import. D. Animal trade, 2007 (fig. 3). Description of the Holotypus Overall length 113 cm (head Fuselage length 100, tail length 13 cm); Habitus slim, Head clearly set off from the neck, with (left/right) 11/12 Supralabialia and 17/17 Sublabialia. Those in each case first two Supralabialia carry, like also the outer edges of the Rostrale, ever a thermalsensory sense pit. Zirkumokularring closed, therefore hold Subocularia the Supralabialia of the lower edge of eye far; for each eyepiece ring are 10 sheds taken part. Around the body center 65 smooth Dorsalschuppen, unterseits 255 Ventralia and 59 Subcaudalia pairs Colouring and design: Basic colour oberseits brightly ochers with numerous brown, black gerandeten Saddle marks, which release the Grundfärbung as Gittermuster. In the entire fuselage area are those black edges saddle marks still with one white edge by shed width surround. Head top side with lanzettartiger design, in which in the Hinterbereich a bright, intensified forward Longitudinal line remains left blank, which is black gerandet inside likewise - like the exteriors of the dorsal fairing leakages -. A ockerfarbenes strut, that into the bright lattice design, dorsolaterales on the left and on the right of it, of the Neck range turns into. Among them a dark Frenal and speed ral region, which include the Supralabialia in front also, within the rear range of the Supralabialia however diagonally to the rear a pulling, schwarzgerandeten Subokularfleck release in each case. Neck, trunk and tail top side with 43 serial arranged brown, outside brown gerandeten Saddle marks, which show different dissolution conditions; partly they are straight over the back center, often posed in addition, alternating transferred, frequently in addition, in pairs, the Vertebralregion releasing. Out mostly only weakly marks, of them darkened flank design dark edge partly forward remains open, thus only caudad closed is, partly in addition, the bright center encloses and with it genuine Flankenozellen forms (fig. 5). Lower surface white-yellowish, on both sides limits from dark point rows on the marginal plaques. Only the tail lower surface is irregularly darkly gefleckt. Paratypen: ZFMK 87482, subadultes female and 88386, juv. ; Origin like the Holotypus. ZFMK 87482 is with an overall length of 105,4 cm (head fuselage length 93 cm, tail length 12.4 cm) only insignificantly smaller than the Holotypus and Supra and 17 Sublabialia possess on both sides 11. The complete Zirkumokularring consists of on both sides 9 Shed. Dorsalia around the body center 63, Ventralia 252 and Subcaudalia pairs 67; ZFMK 88386, 75 cm long (head fuselage length 66.5 cm, tail length 8,5 cm), has (l/r) 13/12 Supra, and 17/17 Sublabialia as well as 9/10 Zirkumocularia, 61 Dorsalia around the body center and 256 Ventralia and 59 Subcaudalia pairs. Colouring and design of the two copies are essentially correct with that of the Holotypus . Both Paratypen have however a bright connection between supraokularen strut and the white subokularen diagonal mark, so that the dark speed ral volume no contact to that first lateral neck marks as with the Holotypus possesses. Also with the Paratypen are over 40 (42-43) dorsale saddle marks (with P. b. bivitta tus are it 30-40; Embankment 1998), as well as brightly Flankenozellen gekernte, with the young animal (ZFMK 88386) however more numerously than with the paratypischen subadulten Female (fig. 4). With the latter (ZFMK 87842) extend the dark point rows of the lower surface, in contrast to the Holotypus, also on those Outer edges of the Ventralia. With the juvenilen Paratypus this is only in the rear fuselage area that Case. Further copies: The measures and Pholidosewerte the further examined, still living copies are in Tab. 1 in summary and there still once the values of the conserved type series confronted. It pay attention that the determination these values at the living animal by far more with difficulty and from there naturally also with a größteren Measuring error is afflicted. However those appear Shed numbers with these comparisons between narrow-related forms - apart from the small Random inspection size - anyway not too relevant, there not even the two kinds P. molurus and P. bivittatus due to their high pholidotischen variability according to morphometrischen criteria alone are separable. New pictorial material of sulawesischer Tigerpythons can only regarding design and colouring are evaluated. Already with de Lang & Bird (2005: 200, fig. 137) falls shown copy by a here extremely clear white edge and verge its dark dorsalen saddle marks up, which are inclined here also very strongly to „the Verschnörkelung of “their edges. With Bira (SWSulawesi) of the secondary author photographed copy (Fig. 5) corresponds to this characterisation well; with it there is included into the Dorsalflecken even, also inside black gerandete (!) dorsale Ozellenflecken (fig. 6). Us available photos one further SW-sulawesischen copy from Gowa show likewise „zerfranste “, clearly white set in edges saddle marks and suggested lateral Ozellenbildung. Spreading Only from the southwest Sulawesis admits (see. Map with de Lang & Bird 2005:198). The following discovery sites are secured: Macassar (Meyer 1887); Bonthain (de Rooij 1917); Bira (Auliya & Abel 2000); Bantaeng, Barru, Bulukumba, Jeneponto, Maros, Pangkep, Sungguminasa, Takalar (de Lang & Bird 2005, H. Lowi, pers. Memo.); Gowa, Pakalotr, Bantai to Bulukumba (H. Lowi, A. Koch, mdl. Memo.) Etymologie We dedicate the new Python subspecies to Mr. Karl- Heinz Progscha, Cologne, itself more than a half Century used for the attitude and breed of queues, in particular giant queues, and as a director/conductor of many years of the DGHT Stadtgruppe Cologne the interest to the Herpetologie and Terrarienkunde considerably promoted. Its influence many younger ones have, under it also one of us (J) coined/shaped. Discussion de Rooij (1917) confesses within the dark Tigerpythons, thus between China and Java the living persons „dark race “, the form living on Java too, that it as P. molurus sondaica (sic) Werner 1899 to be designated could („May fuel element named “). This meant that it the missing Typuslokalität that verifiable, illustrations being based Kuhl schen on Seba ``do not schen (1820) „Syntypen “in Indochina and not in Sundaland assumes. In contrast to this Mertens has (1930: 287, see also Stimson 1969) the Typuslokalität however on Java fixes, there it before no clear indication in addition gave. This designation or restriction would however be according to the article 75 of the ICZN (ICZN 1999) valide been only if simultaneous with this action also a Neotypus fixed would be. From this one results nomenklatorisch complicated situation. Because as Mertens its „Restriction “made, believed it, as also before it Werner (1909, 1930) and Pope (1935) that not Kuhl, but Schlegel (1837) the name bivittatus set up (itself however very clearly up Kuhl had referred!). Schlegel (1837) however, recognized by Mertens (1939) correctly, understood under the name P. bivittatus several Pythontaxa also such from India (P. molurus) and even Africa (P. sebae)! Its statements of size for javanische Animals, on already above once the mentioned Authorities (Boie, Diard, Kuhl, Reinwardt) decrease/go back, move between 17 and 25 foot (thus approx. 5 to 7.5 m), thus already is to for this Belonging one „the Big Four “possible upper limit, whereby the largest copy 17 examined by it Foot measured. These statements are for the evaluation that Dwarf form of Sulawesi particularly importantly, since they occupy, that the populations of the Sundainseln the same gigantic size class like the festländischen belong, and there are no referring to a Zusammengehörigkeit javanisch more balinesischer on that and more sulawesischer on the other side. This statement is also important for ours Renaming of the Sulawesi population. Because, as mentions above, there is still that up to now as available synonym understood name „var. sondaica “ Werner, 1899 (see de Rooij 1917, Stimson 1969) for the sundanischen populations, although these is related to Sumatra. There P is missing as well known. bivittatus, and a view in Werner (1899) extremely short „description of original “shows that here none available name, but a clear noun nudum is present: „var. sondaica. Colouring very darkly, figure slim, nearly as with P. sebae. Only one copy with Hagenbeck in Hamburg seen (April 1898): Sumatra. “This is reliably no valide new description, but if one this names in check lists already as synonym carries along (Stimson 1969), he would have to be called P. bivittatus sondaicus, there Werner it naturally only because of the feminine noun „varietas “with feminine ending provided. But is those Question about the availability of sondaicus also out the following reason obsolet: 10 years after its „description of original “ synonymisierte Werner (1909) the name directly and moved thereby also of the indication of origin Sumatra again off. The illustration to P. bivittatus on board XV (Figs. 1-4) with Schlegel (1837), those of Pope (1935: pl. 5: A-D) in the acceptance, it is obvious Schlegels „ikonotypisches “reference copy was reproduced, shows a ambivalenten Tigerpython, that as „Ikonotypus “, thus figurative representation one no more did not existenten Holotypus, a little helpfully would be: It possesses for molurus characteristic, forward dissolved lance design up the head, has however that for bivittatus typical closed Zirkumokularring, its Subocularia the Supra labialia of Edge of eye keep away (Fig. 7). Still more with difficulty becomes the type Identification, if we the Kuhls actually Erstbeschreibung (1820) at the basis lying pictures regard. These are those Boards II.19.1 and II.27.1. from Albertus Sebas (1735) vorlinnaeischem „thesaurus “, here reproduces as Fig. 10, those, with all respect for illustration techniques at that time, straight still another Tigerpython as such appear interpretable leaves safe, but no additional taxonomische Dif fe renzierung permit. It is from there after our opinion indispensably, the name P. bivittatus by a Neotypus with its more obligatorily Typuslokalität (those, there Mertens `(1930) restriction invalid is (see also Iskandar & Colijn 2002), rather not on Java, but on the mainland area to be fixed should define), what shortly on other place to take place is. Remarkable it is still that Schlegel (1837) also first biological data to food and reproduction from P. bivittatus on Java made: that in stomach contents the hooves of deer was found, whereby it remains open whether it itself around Muntjaks or SAM bar deer (Muntiacus and/or Rusa) and that also pigs acted to the booty spectrum belong. Finally mentioned it also that a hunted, large female contained 31 ledrige eggs. Today the Eizahlen of the large P becomes. b. bivittatus with 30-58, as extreme value even also over 100 indicated, the Eigrößen as 100-120 × 60 mm (Smith 1943, Manthey & Grossmann 1997, Bellosa et al. 2007). The slack sizes become with 2 ft, 5 inches (Smith 1930) and/or with 500-700 mm Overall length (Manthey & Grossmann 1997, Bellosa et al. 2007) number. In contrast to this we have for P. b. progschai data concerning clutch of eggs sizes of only 9-11, and the slack sizes of the sulawesischen dwarf form amounted to only 300-350 mm (B. Soetanto and P. Foulsham, pers. Memo.). These low values speak certainly just like the small final size for one independent taxonomischen Status of the southwest sulawesischen Populations. A zoo-geographical - position can here in details do not take place, however becomes with P. bivittatus progschai again the meaning SW-Sulawesis as Endemismus Underlined center, where itself one of altogether seven subendemischen Lowlands Sulawesis finds (Natus 2005). Already the brothers Sarasin (see Elbert 1912) had recognized, that itself fauna that at that time Celebes island mentioned from several Faunenregionen builds up that kinds thus over different routes (land bridges) to immigrate could, e.g. from Java to Sulawesi or also from Borneo, however only during the Tertiary period (Moss & Wilson 1998). Michaux (1995) counts the south Sulawesis as well as Sabah and south Kalimantan to fragments of the former Burma Plate. Taxonomi and zoo-geographical studies in the southwest Sulawesis knew further Endemiten terrestrial Vertebraten of this region occupy (Auliya et al. 2002, Evans 2003) and thus the privileged position regarding geological history this southwest island part underline. Future molecular-biological studies will show, like far P. bivittatus progschai genetically of that Populations of the mainland and those the Sundainseln is distant. To hold however already now is, that this Taxon belongs to the queues on Sulawesi, for de Lang & Bird (2006) recently already strengthened and prioritäre investigations in for the determination of its threat situation called. Owing to We thank Mr. Andreas Kirschner, Karlsruhe, for the hiring of the young, now paratypischen Sulawesi Tigerpythons for the ZFMK, that Mr. Buntje Soetanto, Peter Foulsham, George Saputra and Halim Lowi for their co-operation, and André cook (ZFMK Bonn) and Philipp Wagner (ZFMK Bonn) for photo proofs.

Summary
On the Taxonomy of the Burmese Python, Python molurus
bivittatus KUHL, 1820, specifically on the Sulawesi Population
The Indian python, Python m. molurus (Linnaeus, 1758) and
the Burmese Python, P. m. bivittatus Kuhl, 1820 are constantly
distinguished by two morphological characters, viz. “supralabials
touching eye” versus “complete circumocular ring” and “lanceolate
dorsal head pattern indistinct in front of eyes” versus “lanceolate
dorsal pattern distinct to tip of snout”. Despite their subspecific
status (which requires allopatry or parapatry at least), the
latter co-occur as several relict populations within the distribution
range of the former (viz. at some sites in North India along the
Nepalese border, and in East India in the Bengal region: Barker
& Barker 2008), and, despite their close relationship and their
ability to crossbreed in captivity (O’Shea 2007), both maintain
their phenotypic identities without interbreeding in nature. This
argues strongly for selective pressures against hybridization, which
is what we regard as typical for incipient speciation. We therefore
once more raise the Burmese Python to specific rank.
Python bivittatus occupies a large distribution area, ranging from
Bangladesh and Myanmar through Thailand, Cambodia, Laos,
and southern China including Hainan Island, to Vietnam. Peninsular
Malaysia, Borneo and Sumatra are largely free of P. bivittatus,
with this area being occupied by the three species of the P.
curtus complex. Whether the absence of the former is influenced
by the presence of the latter is difficult to say, and to-date, there is
no plausible hypothesis to explain this strikingly allopatric pattern
between the two species. However, P. bivittatus is found again on
some Sunda Islands, viz. Java and its offshore island Nusa Baring,
Bali and Sumbawa, perhaps also Lombok. While it would appear
clear that the occurrence on Java and Bali is authochthonous, it has
still to be demonstrated whether records from Sumbawa (Mertens
1930; M. Auliya, unpubl. data) might be due to human transportation,
because Sumbawa and Lombok are situated east of Wallace’s
line. The designation of the type locality “Java” by Mertens (1930)
is invalid due to the Code (ICZN 1999) because it was fixed without
designating a neotype. We stress that in view of the taxonomic
problems of this giant snake; designation of a neotype is indispensible
and will be addressed in the course of our ongoing research.
However, the records from Sulawesi, known as long ago as in
the 1890’s and being restricted only to the southwestern tip of
this island, refer to a distinct dwarf form of P. bivittatus which
is described here as a new subspecies: Python bivittatus progschai
ssp. n. It is clearly referable to P. bivittatus (rather than to P.
molurus) by constantly having a complete circumocular ring (the
supralabials thus being separated from the lower orbit) and a lanceolate,
dark dorsal head pattern, which remains distinct to the
tip of snout. But while P. b. bivittatus on the mainland and on
Java and Bali is an extremely large-growing and heavy snake (belongig to the so-called “big four”), specimens from Sulawesi represent a dwarf form not exceeding 2.40 m in total length. Related to this minor size is that the number of eggs per clutch is only about one third or less and the hatchling size only about 50% of those known from P. b. bivttatus. We regard these natural history data also as diagnostic for P. b. progschai ssp. n. Moreover, we discuss some differences in colour pattern which have, however, still to be verified on the basis of more specimens with reliable locality data. Molecular data will finally reveal the degree of its genetic distinctness in our ongoing studies of these pythons.
Finally, the distinct, endemic form of Python bivittatus in
SW Sulawesi also poses a conservation problem, and surveys of
its population status should be given high priority.
To the taxonomy of the dark Tigerpythons, Python molurus bivittatus KUHL, 1820


-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

[ Show Entire Thread ]