Published in the United States of America 2014 * VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 2 AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE CONSERWION COLOMBIA amphibian-reptile-conservation.org ISSN: 1083-446X elSSN: 1525-9153 Board of Directors Craig Hassapakis ARC: Editor, Publisher, and Chairman of the Board of Directors, USA Howard Clark, Jr. ARC: Treasurer & Associate Editor; Garcia and Associates, USA Adel Ibrahim Suez University, EGYPT Franco Andreone Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, ITAEY Bruce Waldman Seoul National University, KOREA Ted R. Kahn Neotropical Conservation Foundation, USA Madhava Meegaskumbura University of Peradeniya, SRI EANKA Peter Uetz Virginia Commonwealth University, USA Indraneil Das Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, MAEAYSIA Michael Hutchins former DirectorAVihiam Conway Chair, Department of Conservation and Science, American Zoo and Aquarium Association [1990-2005] and former Executive Director/CEO, The Wildlife Society [2005-2012], USA Walter R. Erdelen former Assistant Director-General for Natural Sciences of the United Nations Educational, Scientihc and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); FRANCE Editor Craig Hassapakis Utah Valley University, USA Africa Issue Bill Branch Port Elizabeth Museum, SOUTH AFRICA Associate Editors Erik Wild Howard Clark, Jr. Raul Diaz Belo Horizonte, BRAZIL Garcia and Associates, USA La Sierra University, USA Mayra Oyervides Bill Branch The University of Texas-Pan American, USA Port Elizabeth Museum, SOUTH AFRICA Copy Editor Ruthe Smith California, USA Editorial Board C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr. University of Florida, USA Peter Uetz Virginia Commonwealth University, USA Gunther Kohler Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum, GERMANY Aurelio Ramirez-Bautista Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Hidalgo, MEXICO Larry David Wilson Centro Zamorano de Biodiversidad, HONDURAS Melissa Medina-Flores Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Honduras, HONDURAS Rafaqat Masroor Pakistan Museum of Natural History, PAKISTAN Adel Ibrahim Suez University, EGYPT Franco Andreone Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, ITAEY Indraneil Das Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, MAEAYSIA Madhava Meegaskumbura University of Peradeniya, SRI EANKA Javier Sunyer Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nicaragua-Eeon, NICARAGUA Manuel Acevedo Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, GUATEMAEA Ulisses Caramaschi Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIE Roman Nazarov Zoological Museum, Moscow State University, RUSSIA Jelka Crnobrnja Isailovic University of Nis, SERBIA Jianping Jiang Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, CHINA Bruce Waldman Seoul National University, SOUTH KOREA Daesik Park Kangwon National University, SOUTH KOREA Javier Alvar ado-Diaz Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, MEXICO Rdmulo Romeu da Nobrega Alves Universidade Estadual da Paraiba, BRAZIE Antonio Salas Environment and Sustainable Development, PERU Cesar Aguilar Universidad de San Marcos, PERU Bill Branch Port Elizabeth Museum, SOUTH AFRICA Santiago J. Sanchez-Pacheco University of Toronto, CANADA Oxyrhopus petolarius, Yotoco, Reserva forestal, 2012, Fdo Castro. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 1 December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Official journal website: amphibian-reptile-conservation.org Amphibian & Reptiie Conservation 8(2) [Special Section]: 1-18; S1-S24 (e87). Conservation status of the herpetofauna, protected areas, and current problems in Valle del Cauca, Colombia ^Alejandro Valencia-Zuleta, Andres Felipe Jaramillo-Martmez, Andrea Echeverry-Bocanegra, Ron- ald Viafara-Vega, Oscar Hernandez-Cordoba, Victoria E. Cardona-Botero, Jaime Gutierrez-Zuhiga, and Fernando Castro-Herrera Universidad del Valle, Grupo Laboratorio de Herpetologia, Departamento de Biologia, Cali, COLOMBIA Abstract . — In this study, we present an analysis of the conservation status of amphibian and reptile species by associating the natural protected areas and municipalities with the distribution of richness in Valle del Cauca. We establish the percentage of species of amphibians and reptiles in each of the lUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) threat categories and assign local conservation categories to all species, construct distribution maps for the records of species in relation to their threat status, and analyze the endemic and total number of species in each of the protected areas. We found that nearly 50% of the species in the Valle del Cauca are under some degree of risk or threat, that the largest percentage are in the Vulnerable (VU) category, whereas 37% of the fauna is not threatened (Least Concern [LC] and Near Threatened [NT]), and 13% is categorized as Data Deficient (DD). Although the distribution of species is scattered throughout the territory, patterns are maintained within the various regions, with areas of greater richness found in the Pacific region and the cordilleras; the municipalities with the largest number of species under some level of threat are Buenaventura, Darien, El Cairo, Dagua, Cali, La Cumbre, and Yotoco. The types of protected areas with the largest number of species are the Reserves Forestales Protectoras Nacionales (RFPN) 37%, followed by the Parques Nacionales Naturales (PNN) 18%, the Reserves Forestales Protectoras Regionales (RFPR) 10%, and the Parques Naturales Regionales (PNR) 7.5%; 17% (~ 57 spp.) of the species in the Valle del Cauca have not been recorded in any of the protected areas, and more than 65% of these are under some type of threat. We consider this study a starting point for evaluating conservation priorities for the herpetofauna of Valle del Cauca. Key words. Amphibians, reptiles, distribution, lUCN, population declines, threats Resumen . — En este trabajo presentamos un analisis del estado de conservacion de las especies de anfibios y reptiles relacionando las areas naturales protegidas y los municipios con la distribucion de riqueza en Valle del Cauca. Establecemos los porcentajes de especies de anfibios y reptiles en cada categoria de amenaza establecida por UlCN (Union Internacional para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza) y asignamos categorias de conservacion local a todas las especies, se realizo mapas de distribucion de los registros de las especies en relacion a los estados de amenaza, y analizamos el numero de especies totales y endemicas en cada area protegida. Encontramos que cerca del 50% de las especies en el Valle del Cauca presentan algun grade de riesgo o amenaza, que la mayor proporcion se encuentra en la categoria vulnerable (VU), mientras que el 37% de la herpetofauna no se encuentra en riesgo (preocupacion menor [LC] y casi amenazado [NT]) y el 13% esta categorizada en datos deficientes (DD). Aunque la distribucion es diferencial a lo largo del territorio, se conservan patrones a lo largo de las regiones, con sitios de mayor riqueza en la region pacifica y las cordilleras; y los municipios con mayor numero de especies con algun grado de amenaza son Buenaventura, Darien, El Cairo, Dagua, Cali, La Cumbre y Yotoco. Los tipos de areas protegidas con mayor numero de especies son las Reservas Forestales Protectoras Nacionales (RFPN) 37%, seguidas por los Parques Nacionales Naturales (PNN) 18%, Reservas Forestales Protectoras Regionales (RFPR) 10%, y los Parques Naturales Regionales (PNR) 7.5%; el 17% (~ Correspondence. Email: ^alejandwvalencia08@ gmail.com (Corresponding author, Alejandro Valencia-Zuleta). Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 2 December 2014 Volume 8 Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. 57 spp.) de las especies del Valle del Cauca no se han registrado en ningun tipo de area protegida y mas del 65% de ellas presents algun tipo de amenaza. Consideramos este trabajo un punto de partida para evaluar prioridades en la conservacion de la herpetofauna vallecaucana. Palabras claves. Anfibios, reptiles, distribucion, UICN, declive poblacional, amenazas Citation: Valencia-Zuleta A, Jaramillo-Martmez AF, Echeverry-Bocanegra A, Viafara-Vega R, Hernandez-Cordoba O, Cardona-Botero VE, Gutierrez- Zuniga J, Castro-Herrera F. 2014. Conservation status of the herpetofauna, protected areas, and current problems in Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Amphibian & Reptiie Conservation 8(2) [Special Section]: 1-18; S1-S24 (e87). Copyright: © 2014 Valencia-Zuleta et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCom- mercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use for non-commercial and education purposes only, in any medium, provided the original author and the official and authorized publication sources are recognized and properly credited. The official and authorized publication credit sources, which will be duly enforced, are as follows: official journal title Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, official journal website . Received: 12 March 2014; Accepted: 24 November 2014; Published: 09 December 2014 Introduction Many populations of amphibians and reptiles are in de- cline (Mendelson et al. 2006; Bohm et al. 2013), primar- ily as a result of habitat loss, climate change, introduced species, diseases, and illegal trafficking (Young et al. 2001; Stuart et al. 2004; Mendelson et al. 2006; Wake 2007; Rovito et al. 2009; Bohm et al. 2013). Estimates indicate that 15-36% of the world’s species of reptiles are threatened (Bohm et al. 2013), and according to Stu- art et al. (2004) 22.5% of the species evaluated by lUCN lacked sufficient information to evaluate their status. Al- though the lUCN standardized the use of categories that can be applied to any taxon and has attempted to cata- logue the majority of species (lUCN 2012), many spe- cies still have not been evaluated or lack the necessary information for conducting an assessment; in the case of reptiles, 59% of the species have not been assessed. In Colombia, in addition to the above mention fac- tors that threaten populations of amphibians and reptiles (Rueda 1999; Ruiz and Rueda-A 2008; Velasquez et al. 2008; Isaacs and Urbina 2011; Urbina 2011; Urbina et al. 2011; Vargas and Amezquita 2013), the social prob- lem associated with the planting and eradication of illicit crops threatens the fauna because of the destruction of primary forests and the use of pesticides such as Glifo- sato (Arroyo and Lynch 2009; Brain and Solomon 2009). A mining crisis also has developed in the country, where mining permits are granted to people for economic pur- poses while the long-term impact on the environment caused by these activities is ignored (Mancera and Alva- res 2006; UPME 2007; Hernandez et al. 2013). In response to these problems, early in the 1930s “areas naturales protegidas” (= natural protected areas) were designated in the country, which led to the fomia- tion of “zonas forestales protectoras” (= protected forest areas) in the department (dpto= a territorial division m Colombia that has autonomy in the administration of re- gional issues, planning, and the promotion of economic and social development within its territory under the terms established by the Constitution) of Valle del Cauca (decree 1393/40). Regulations for deteimining the exact management categories that competent authorities at dif- Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 3 ferent levels can assign to protected areas, however, still have not been implemented in the country (Vasquez and SeiTano 2009). Currently, 197 reserves of all types exist in the Valle del Cauca; three natural national parks are the most important because of their large size and location in areas of high herpetofaunal diversity, in the dpto and in the country — the “Cordillera Occidental” (= the Western Cordillera) and the “Regibn Pacifica” (= Pacific Region) (Cardona et al. 2013); environmental problems, however, are present in these areas, as their biological patrimony has not been fully elucidated (Patino 2010). Valle del Cauca is one of the dptos with the greatest amount of herpetofaunal species richness (333 species), which represents 24% of the amphibian and 25% of the reptile species recorded from the country (Cardona et al. 2013). We are unaware, however, of the number of threatened species in the dptos, or plans for their con- servation. In a red book of amphibians, Castro-H and Bohvar-G (2010) included 68 species under some type of threat, and along with an action plan for the conservation of amphibians in Valle de Cauca provided by CoiTedor et al. (2010); these publications are considered pioneer ef- forts in conseiwation; in general, research programs usu- ally are developed separately and independently. The objective of this paper is to present an analysis of the conservation status of the species of amphibians and reptiles by associating the natural protected areas and municipalities with the distribution of richness in Valle del Cauca, as a starting point for evaluating conservation priorities for the herpetofauna of this region. Materials and Methods Study area Valle del Cauca is a dpto in southwestern Colombia that consists of 42 municipalities (Eig. 1) with a total surface area of 22,142 km^; it contains a diversity of landscapes, including very humid tropical forests, premontane plu- vial forests in warm transition, dry and very dry tropical forests, and lowland montane to pluvial montane forests that range in elevation from sea level to 4,000 m. This December 201 4 I Volume 8 I Number 2 I e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia dpto has allocated 233,889 ha for parks and natural re- serves, which because of their ecological importance and abundance of natural resources have been established in various strategic ecosystems and protected areas (Gomez et al. 2007). Sources of information In updating their list on the herpetofauna of Valle del Cauca, Cardona et al. (2013) considered the following: • Geographic data: Obtained from bibliographic sourc- es, field notes, and biological collections of amphib- ians and reptiles at the Universidad del Valle (UV-C), and online databases from the Institute de Ciencias Naturales (ICN), and the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution (USNM). • Threat category (species recorded from the dpto were catalogued using the following criteria): trafifieking in speeies, deaths caused by vehicular traffic or by humans, distribution within the dpto (eco-regions, localities, life zones), occurrence in disturbed habi- tats, frequency of observation, number of citations in publications, and the presence of species in protected areas. All these criteria were scored from 0 to 4, where 0 means no risk in the particular criteria, 3 high risk, and 4 is unknown (see supplemental material at am- phibian-reptile-eonservation.org for the definition of the score in each criteria). Based on the data obtained for each species, it calculated the weighted average for the different natural groups (amphibians, lizards, and snakes), and assigned a pereentage in the final score to each criteria according to the natural group, because the same criteria does not affect each natu- ral group in the same way (see supplemental material for the percentage assigned in each criteria). With the weighted average of each species, these were assigned to some of the categories proposed by the lUCN, as follows: LC 0-1.4, NT 1. 5-2.0, VU 2. 1-2.6, EN 2.7- 3.0, CR 3. 1-3.3, DD 3.4^.0. Each category was jus- tified aecording to the appendix of the lUCN (2012), especially considering the threats to each species. Ad- ditionally, the threat status for each species reported from the dpto was examined by searching through the lUCN Red List of Threatened Species (http://www. iuenredlist.org/), the red books of amphibians and rep- tiles in Colombia (Castano-M 2002; Rueda-A et al. 2004), and the red book of amphibians from Valle del Cauca (Castro-H and Bohvar-G 2010). Fig. 1. Political map of Valle del Cauca (Colombia). North: El Aguila (AGE), El Cairo (CR), Ansermanuevo (ASN), Argelia (ARG), Cartago (CTG), Ulloa (ULA), Alcala (ACL), Toro (TR), Versalles (VRSL), Obando (OBD), La Union (UN), El Dovio (DV), Rolda- nillo (RDNL), La Victoria (VTR), Zarzal (ZRZ), Bolivar (BLV); East: Sevilla (SVL), Caicedonia (CDN); Middle: Bugalagrande (BGG), Tmjillo (TIE), Andalucia (ADL), Rio Erio (RE), Tulua (TL), San Pedro (S/PD), Yotoco (YTC), Darien (DR), Buga (BG), Guacari (GCR), Ginebra (GNB), Vijes (VJ), Restrepo (RTP), Cumbre (CMB), El Cerrito (CRT); South: Palmira (PMR), Yumbo (YMB), Cali (CL), Candelaria (CDR), Pradera (PDR), Elorida (ERD), Jamundi (JMD); West: Buenaventura (B/tura), Dagua (DG). Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 4 December 2014 I Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. • Protected areas: Each species was recorded according to geographic location and the use of bibliographic resources on protected areas within the dpto, consid- ering the important areas with a wide extension and with the ability to hold a great diversity of herpeto- fauna. The definition of protected areas were defined based on the Decree-Law 622 of 1977 and 2372 of 2010 of the National Government (in parentheses the areas that were chosen in this work): • Parques Nacionales Naturales (PNN) is an area of great extent permitted ecological autoregula- tion and whose ecosystems in general have not been substantially altered by human exploitation or occupation, where plant and animal species, geomorphological resorts, historical or cultural events have scientific, educational, aesthetic and recreational value and their perpetuation is subjected to an appropriate management regime (Farallones de Cali, Las Hermosas, Uramba- Bahia Malaga, Tatama). • Santuario de Flora y Fauna (SFF) is dedicated to preserving wildlife species or plant conununi- ties to preserve genetic resources of native flora and fauna (Decreto 622 de 1977), (Isla Mal- pelo). • Parque Natural Regional (PNR) is a regional geographic area where landscapes and strate- gic ecosystems, maintain their structure, com- position and function. The natural and cultural values are associated with human disposition for preservation, restoration, knowledge, and enjoyment (La Sierpe and Paramo del Duende). • Reservas Forestales Protectoras (RFP) is a geo- graphical area where forest ecosystems main- tain their function, although their structure and composition have been modified and associ- ated natural values are accessible to the human population to who allocated their preservation, sustainable use, restoration, knowledge, and en- joyment. In this type of protected area are the forests, national (RFPN) (Amaime, Anchicaya, San Cipriano and Escalerete rivers, Bosque de Yotoco, Dagua, Cali, Tulua, Sonso-Guabas, Cerro Dapa-Carisucio) and regional (RFPR) (Bitaco and Frayle-Desbaratado) protection. • Reserva Natural (RN) is an area in which undis- turbed conditions exist or have undergone mini- mal human disturbanee of flora, fauna, and soil, and it is intended for conseiwation, research, and study of its natural wealth (Laguna de Sonso). • Distrito de Manejo Integrado (DM1) is a geo- graphical space where landscapes and ecosys- tems retain their composition and function, al- though their structure have been modified and whose natural and cultural associated values are set to reach the human population who allocated their sustainable use, preservation, restoration, knowledge, and enjoyment (La Plata and En- clave Subxerofitico Atuncela). • Munieipalities: Each species was recorded based on its documented geographic location within the mu- nicipalities of the dpto. Analysis of the Data The species distribution model for each threat category was performed using all the records collected from the different museums and georeferenced using Google Earth 7.1.2.2014; these models were constructed in Max- Ent Version 3.3.3a. The software generated models us- ing the theory of maximum entropy only when presence data were available (Phillips et al. 2006). For this work, we used the 19 climate layers of the WorldClim project (www.worldclim.org, spatial resolution of 30 arc second or ~ 1 km^). To evaluate the predictive ability of the mod- els generated, the Area Under the Curve (AUG) score was taken into account. The AUG is a ranked approaeh for as- sessing model fit, which determines the probability that a presence loeation will be ranked higher than a random background location (Phillips et al. 2006). The predietion models generated by MAXENT were mapped in ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI 2013), with only the detection probabilities above 0.5 taken into aeeount. The percentages of amphibian and reptile species for each threat status was determined, and through histo- grams indicate the endemic number of species and total number of species in each of the protected areas. Results Status of threats to the herpetofauna Approximately 51% of the species in the dpto showed some degree of risk or threat. The majority of amphibians (60%) are in one of the threat categories, with the Vulner- able (VU) containing the most species (59), followed by the Critically Endangered (CR) and Endangered (EN), each with 29, and 27 in the Near Threatened (NT) (Fig. 2 A) categories. Conversely, more than one-third of the reptile species show some degree of risk, with those in the NT and VU containing the largest number of species (38 in each), followed by the EN (14), and a few (six) in the CR (Fig. 2B) categories. Of the remaining herpeto- faunal species in the dpto, 17% show no risk (EC), and 14% are Data Deficient (DD; see supplemental material). Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 5 December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia ® LC m NT ■ VU □ EN ■ CR □ DD Fig. 2. Threat status of the percentage of herpetofaunal species in Valle de Cauca: (A) = Amphibians, (B) = Reptiles. Eighty percent of the amphibian families contain spe- cies under some level of threat, with 40% of the species in the family Craugastoridae in one of the threat catego- ries. In general, the NT species are represented mostly in the families Craugastoridae, Centrolenidae, Hylidae, Dendrobatidae, and Leptodactylidae. In addition, more than one-half of the VU species are in the family Crau- gastoridae; in particular, the VU and EN species follow the same pattern and include the families Craugastoridae, Centrolenidae, Dendrobatidae, and Hylidae. Significant- ly, 70% of the CR species are grouped in the Craugas- toridae, Bufonidae, and Centrolenidae, families with the greatest risk of losing species, along with representatives of the family Hemiphractidae, which are restricted to the EN and CR. As with the amphibians, most families of reptiles (84%) contain species under some level of threat. In particular, most of the threatened species are in the families Colubridae, Dactyloidae, Dipsadidae, and Gym- nophthalmidae, with most in the NT and VU categories. Over 30% of the NT species are in the family Colubridae, followed by the Dipsadidae and Dactyloidae, whereas the VU species are mostly in the Dactyloidae and Dip- sadidae. The majority of EN species are in the families Colubridae, Dipsadidae, and Gymnophthalmidae. Eur- thermore, the CR species are represented by one species in each family, except for the Dactyloidae. The modeling of the maps present an AUC of 0.754- 0.83, indicating a better performance than the random models (Manel et al. 2001). Herpetofaunal richness is scattered throughout Valle del Cauca, but the areas (see Cardona-B. et al. [2013] to define ecoregions in the Valle del Cauca) with the greatest amount of richness are the Pacific region and the Cordilleras (Fig. 3 A). The NT spe- cies show a wide distribution along the western Cordil- lera (specifically in the northern and central area), and cover a large area along the Interandean Valley and the Pacific (Fig. 3B). The VU species are found along the foothills and northern and central portions of the western Cordillera, but are less represented in the central Cor- Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 6 dillera and in the Interandean Valley (Fig. 3C). The EN species are found in two important areas, the Pacific re- gion and the western Cordillera in the northern part of the dpto; in the central Cordillera, a few representatives are found in the high elevation areas of Sevilla, Tulua, and Buga, to the north, and Palmira, Pradera, and Florida, to the south (Fig. 3D). The distribution of the CR species is important, based on the presence of Atelopus in the cen- tral and western Cordilleras and groups of Pristimantis in highland areas of the western and central Cordilleras; in addition, the centrolenids and dendrobatids are found in the western Cordillera and the Pacific region (Fig. 3E). Significantly, the DD species are distributed all along the dpto, but show similar patterns to species in the threat categories (Fig. 3F). In particular, 90% of the municipalities in Valle del Cauca contain one species in at least one of the threat cat- egories, whereas 62% of the municipalities contain more than two species. The municipalities of Buenaventura (82 species), Darien (61), El Cairo (51), Dagua (45), Cali (42), La Cumbre (19), and Yotoco (11) contain the great- est number of species under some level of threat (Fig. 4). A similar pattern was found in these municipalities, where the majority of species fall into the VU category, followed by the EN, and last by the CR, with the only exceptions in the municipalities of Cali and La Cumbre. The municipalities of Buenaventura (six amphibians, five reptiles), El Cairo (10, zero), and Darien (eight, one) contain the largest number of CR species. The herpetofauna and protected areas Protected areas in Valle del Cauca with the greatest num- ber of species are the RFNP (228 species), followed by the PNN (120), RFPR (60), PNR (45), DMI (34), and RN (21), and the area with the least number is the SSF (three species of reptiles). The majority of the species in the RFPN and the PNN are in the VU, and in the remain- ing areas most of the species are in EC, except for the December 2014 I Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. Fig. 3. Distribution maps for the richness of herpetofauna in the most documented areas in Valle del Cauca. (A) richness, (B) NT species, (C) VU species, (D) EN species, (E) CR species, and (E) DD species. SEE (Eig. 5). The areas that protect the largest number of species in a threat category are the REPN (162 species), the PNN (84), the REPR (37), and the PNR (25), and the areas that protect the least numbers are the DMI, RN, and SEE (13, four, and three, respectively). Throughout the dpto, 17% (~ 57 spp.) of the species are not found in a protected area, and more than 65% of those fall into one of the threat categories (NT = four, VU =10, EN = seven, and CR = 15). In addition, information is not available for 31% of these species (DD). The protected area with the largest number of species is the REN de Anchicaya (183 species), followed by the PNN Earallones de Cali (90), the REPN of the rivers San Cipriano and Escalerete (84), and the REPR de Bitaco (49). Endemic species Nineteen endemic species are found in the dpto, which represents only 6% of the species diversity. Amphibians represent the largest number of species (13), with 75% in one of the threat categories: CR (six species), EN (three), and VU (two); the remaining 15% are categorized as DD. With regard to the threat categories for reptiles, three species are in the CR, and the other three are DD because they lacked sufficient information for an assess- ment (Eig. 6). The endemic species are distributed in four types of protected areas, the PNN and the REPN, which contain a high number of species, and it is worth not- ing that the PNR el Paramo del Duende and the SPP Isla Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 7 December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia BVU DEN bCR Fig. 4. Municipalities in Valle del Cauca with the greatest number of species in the threat categories: (A) Buenaventura, (B) Dagua, (C) Cali, (D) Darien, (E) El Cairo, and (E) La Cumbre. de Malpelo are the types of areas with the greatest num- ber of endemic species. Only four species (Pristimantis diaphonus, Anomaloglossus atopoglossus, Nymphargus armatus, and Geophis betaniensis) are not found in any of these areas. Discussion Conservation status of amphibians and reptiies The need to recognize the status of a species in a specific area should be considered baseline information for devel- oping studies and management plans for its conservation. The lUCN categorizations are generally applied globally for each taxon to determine the status of a species at the local or regional levels, and are considered advanced studies (Castro-H. and Bolfvar-G. 2010); information on certain species (e.g., population status, natural his- tory) is necessary to elicit an approximate categorization. Records for the DD species (13% of the species in this study) are not well represented in herpetological collec- tions (some are only known from their original descrip- tions), and thus it is not possible to determine their status. The dpto contains a high proportion of amphibian species (60%) in one of the threat categories, which rep- resents nearly one-half of the total herpetofauna of the dpto, and the majority of these species show a moderate risk of extinction or population decline over the medium term (VU). In comparison with the results of Castro-H and Bolivar-G (2010), we show a significant increase in the number of species in the CR (11), EN (10), VU (12), and NT (one) categories, indicating that the risk of disappearance has increased in certain species, which is troublesome. The lack of a threat status among the reptiles results from insufficient basic ecological information and the actual distribution of their populations (Urbina-Cardona 2008), for which an evaluation of the threat status has focused on specific species or groups (e.g., the red book of reptiles in Colombia), and thus has become a problem for planning conservation strategies. For this reason, the status of populations of reptile species in a given area has been proposed as a mechanism to change attitudes and generate interest in preserving these organisms (Dodd 2001), the protection and restoration of large areas these organism inhabit (Roe et al. 2004; Franga and Araujo 2006), species-specific information, field studies, de- mographics, natural history, and possible threats (Cagle 2008; Fifes et al. 2013). Significantly, this study is a local proposal that easily addresses the status of reptile species in Valle del Cauca, so that more effective strategies can be accomplished. This study is the first to assess many species of reptiles, and in spite of their low density threats might make them vulnerable and affect their abundance in the dpto; in many cases, characteristics of their natural history allow them to avoid these conditions. The conservation of snakes remains subjective, be- cause the current status of many species remains un- Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 8 December 2014 I Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. A Fig. 5. The herpetofauna of Valle del Cauca according to (A) in each type of protected area. Fig. 6. Endemic species listed according to (A) threat category, and (B) by protected areas in Valle del Cauca. known. According to Lynch (2012), these animals are some of the most threatened because their deaths are provoked by people living in rural areas, vehieles trav- eling on highways, the loss of habitat, climate change, and illegal traffieking. Vargas et al. (2011) showed that even in a protected area such as the RFPN Bosque de Yotoeo (Valle del Cauea), some snakes are vulnerable to the effects of roads on account of the prolonged amount of time that deaths by vehicles have been caused, con- sidering the low density of populations and small size of the reserve. Threatened species in the municipaiities and protected areas Because of their considerable size and strategic loca- tion in high diversity life zones, municipalities such as Buenaventura, El Cairo, and Dagua contain a large number of threatened species of both groups (Cardona et al. 2013); however, these areas are the focal point of anthropogenic pressures, and thus certain species have ^ been affected. Moreover, municipalities such as El Agui- la, Ulloa, El Dovio, Versalles, Ansermanuevo, Elorida, Pradera, Palmira, El Cerrito, Buga, Tulua, and Sevilla, among others, laek adequate sampling and are under- represented in collections, and the few data available from these municipalities correspond to widely distrib- uted generalist species, such as colubrid and dipsadid snakes that because of their high dispersal abilities ean easily adapt to anthropogenic environments, and thus are categorized as EC (Adams 1994). Conservation efforts, therefore, should be foeused in habitats influeneed by the western versant of the central Cordillera, important areas for species in the different threat categories. The distribution of the threat categories in the dpto refleets the pressures on the categorized species; for ex- ample, a large number of CR species are in the genus Atelopus and most of these are distributed in the two Cordilleras, and like their eongener speeies possibly have been seriously affected by chytridiomicosis (Bonaccorso Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 9 December 2014 I Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia Hypsiboas picturatus, Buenaventura, San Cipriano, 2003, Fdo Castro. and Guayasainin 2003; Sanchez et al. 2008; Coloma et al. 2010). In addition, the fragmentation and loss of habi- tat due to human activities have affected certain sensitive species (like the centrolenids and dendrobatids) princi- pally distributed in the Andean Cordilleras (Hutter et al. 2013) and in the Pacific region (Castro-H and Bolivar 2010). Besides these pressures, several species have ex- perienced a population decline as a result of illegal traf- ficking and collection for scientific studies (Castro-H and Bolivar-G 2010; Corredor et al. 2010). Additionally, in evaluating natural groups the “Siste- mas Municipales de Areas Protegidas” (Municipal System of Protected Areas; SIMAP) and the “Sistemas Nacionales de Areas Protegidas” (National System of Protected areas; SINAP) have centered in municipalities such as Buenaventura, Cali, Dagua, La Cumbre, El Cai- ro, Darien, and Yotoco in an effort to better understand the conservation status of species in these areas, and to promote the monitoring of populations of these organ- isms. Furthermore, a network of community reserves is present in the municipality of El Cairo, in the Serrania de los Paraguas (which were not included in our analy- sis), and we suggest studying and monitoring the natural populations of many threatened and endemic species in this area in order to promote their conservation. A greater number of species are found in REPN than in the PNN because of three factors: (1) an extensive area of the REPN (ca. 154,091 ha) lies in Valle del Cauca, (CVC 2012); although is not larger than that of the PNN, compared to other types of areas it represents a substan- tial part of the territory; (2) several reserves in the dpto are located in areas of great richness, such as the REPN of Anchicaya, and of the San Cipriano and Escalerete rivers in the Pacific Region (Cardona et al. 2013); and (3) extensive research projects have been conducted in several of these areas, for which many bibliographic ref- erences are available and a large number of specimens are present in collections, such as in the REN del Bosque de Yotoco, in which the research group from the Labo- ratorio de Herpetologia de la Universidad del Valle has been conducting inventories from 1978 until the present and recorded a large list of species, of which some are no longer being reported from the area (Castro et al. 2007). In spite that one of the most effective methods for preserving natural spaces is the use of specific forms of protection and legal regulation that limit or prohibit the development of productive or extractive activities (Vasquez and Serrano 2009), state policies are necessary to guarantee the conservation of important ecological areas (Castro-H and Bohvar-G. 2010) by means of the environmental authority granted to autonomous corpora- tions. In Valle del Cauca, several CR species undergo- ing population pressures were found in the PNN and the REPN, such as Oophaga lehmani, in which the principal causes for decline in protected areas are the loss of habi- tat and illegal trafficking (Avila 2007), a clear example of not applying the articles of the Codigo de Recursos Naturales Renovables y Proteccion del Medio Ambiente Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 10 December 2014 I Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. Bolitoglossa medemi, Buenaventura, Bendiciones, 2011. Strobomantis ruizi, Trujillo, Andinapolis, 2010. Andinobates bombetes, Darien, Lago Calima, 2005. Gastrotheca antomia, Dagua, Alto Queremal, 1993, Extinct. Oophaga histrionica, Buenaventura, Anchicaya, 2000. Agalychnis spurelli, Buenaventura, san Cipriano, 2003. Diasporus gularis, Buenaventura, Bazan, 2010. Pristimantis achatinus, Buenaventura, Bazan, 2010. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 11 December 2014 I Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia {Code of Renewable Natural Resources and Environ- mental Protection; CRN). A similar situation exists with other species of amphibians and reptiles that are under great pressure in protected areas of Valle del Cauca, such as the ones mentioned previously and including mining, death caused by humans, and pesticide contamination from the fumigation of illicit crops, which illustrates a lack of control in these protected areas. In addition, the current laws in these areas and the reasons for proposing them are not clear, such as for preservation, conservation, and ecotourism, and in some areas they could supersede their carrying capacity. Castro-H and Bohvar-G (2010) indicated that with- in the great variety of habitats found in the dpto those with specific characteristics became inclusive centers of speciation, and that these unique areas are of great importance because they contain endemic species. The endemic species in these areas could easily disappear on account of an environmental threat, because of their specialized requirements and limited distribution. The size of their distributional range is indispensable for their conservation, and these species should be included in at least one state protected area where conditions are stable, so there is less potential for risks and their populations can continue to develop (Rueda-A. et al. 2004). These requuements are necessary for their preservation, but it is worth noting that four endemic species {Nymphargus armatus md Anomaloglossus atopoglossus [CR], Pristi- mantis diaphonus [EN]; and the snake Geophis betani- ensis [DD]) are not found in any of protected areas des- ignated by the government and/or autonomous regional corporations (CAR = Institutions that are responsible for implementing the policies, plans, programs, and projects on environment and renewable natural resources. Also, they give a full and application to current legal provi- sions, under the regulations, standards, and guidelines is- sued by the ministry of environment), which makes them even more susceptible to threats. Global categorization vs local situations Many species of continental turtles and crocodilians are sacrificed for consumption of their meat and eggs, and commercialization of their skins. In addition, pet commercialization, global warnung, and developmen- tal activities such as hydroelectric plants also have had a negative impact on their populations (Rueda-A. et al. 2007; Paez et al. 2012). For these reasons, these char- ismatic species are used to promote studies (biological and economic) and the categorization of these organisms (Castano-M. 2002; Paez et al. 2012). Various local pres- sures, however, lead to an analysis of the situation or threat status of these species; for example, Kinosternon leucostomum (NT in this study) is a broadly-distributed species for which we have wide information on its ecol- ogy and reproductive biology (Giraldo et al. 2012), but it has been affected by habitat deterioration and is con- Amphib. Reptile Conserv. sidered the most trafficked pet trade vertebrate species in southwestern Colombia (Galvis-R. and Corredor-L. 2005), which threatens the natural populations. Although the loss of biological diversity in Colombia has been studied for several years, and plans for the man- agement of threatened species that include a prioritized list of amphibians (Castro-H and Bolivar 2010) have been implemented at the regional and national levels, ad- ditional actions and research are still required. Some spe- cies in Valle del Cauca that appear in the lUCN category of LC, such as Gastrotheca argenteovirens (Rarmrez-P. et al. 2004) mdAnolisfraseri (Castaneda et al. 2011), are at risk and others listed as VU, such as Centrolene geck- oideum (Bolivar et al. 2004) and Gastrotheca antomia (Castro and Lynch 2004), have not been reported from the dpto in recent years, which suggests a subjectivity in analyzing the threat category in these species, espe- cially on a regional basis. Also, the fossorial habits and difficulty in locating organisms such as caecilians must be considered, and thus their threat status is difficult to determine. According to the lUCN, most species of cae- cilians are categorized as LC and two species {Caecilia guntheri and Oscaecilia polizona) as DD; however, on a local scale and considering the lack of information for these organisms, not enough data is available to establish a category in the dpto, as reflected in the family Caeci- liidae. Similarly, other species might appear stable, but with additional data and the implementation of manage- ment plans their threat status might be updated so that protected areas will be able to comply with their func- tion and agreements, in addition to the implementation of management plans for the short, medium, and long terms that are in place but have not been assumed by the envi- ronmental authority (CAR del Valle del Cauca, CVC), where all the stakeholders are included. Conclusions One -half of the herpetofauna of Valle del Cauca is under some degree of threat, which is important for the conser- vation of this fauna, mainly in two areas in the western Pacific region (municipality of Buenaventura) and north on western Cordillera (municipality of Cairo). Tliese hotspots are locations where extensive sampling of the herpetofauna has been conducted, and where species un- der some degree of threat occur differentially along the dpto. Additional information on the distribution of amphib- ians and reptiles, the current status of populations, and the natural history of species in Valle del Cauca are nec- essary to develop an initiative for a conseiwation program with specific short-term objectives, so that decisions can help mitigate negative effects in the populations. Fur- thermore, the protected areas and municipahties in the dpto must develop monitoring plans in their areas that contain detailed information on the presence or absence December 201 4 I Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 12 Valencia-Zuleta et al. Hypsiboas rubracila, Buenaventura, Bazan, 2014. Centrolene gekkoideum, La Cumbre, Chicoral, 1988, Extinct. Pristimantis juanchoi, La Cumbre, Chicoral, 2010. Anolis lyra, Buenaventura, Bazan, 2010. Kinosternon Leucostomum, Buenaventura, Zaragoza, 2013. Basiliscus galeritus, Buenaventura, Zaragoza, 2013. Thecadactylus rapicaudus, Buenaventura, Zaragoza, 2009. Diploglossus monotropis, Buenaventura, Bahia Malaga, 2013. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 13 December 2014 I Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia of species, so that along with other organizations they can negotiate the protection and conservation of ecosys- tems essential for the herpetofauna. In particular, we ask the CAR to ensure compliance with the development of these initiatives. The conservation of endemic species of amphibians and reptiles should be clear and we must recognize that this requires special management, but the current regula- tions are not clear enough to define the measures that ac- tually will allow the implementation of specific conser- vation plans for these species; in many places, the type of area will not allow the sustainability of these species, which are an emblem for the dpto. Acknowledgments. — We would like to start by thank- ing Reynel Galvis for his help in the early construction of the manuscript. Thanks goes to the Vicerrectoria de In- vestigaciones of Universidad del Valle and the program of Jovenes Investigadores of Colciencias for their effort and assistance. A special thanks is extended to Azul y Verde Foundation, Serraniagua Foundation, Nasmille and family in Chicoral, Amparo Bubu and family, and all those people at the study sites who have supported and enabled us to gain valuable information for this paper. Final gratitude is extended to the Herpetology lab and the reference collection of amphibians and reptiles of Uni- versidad del Valle (UV-C) where most of the information obtained for this manuscript is deposited. We thank Louis Porras for translating the original version of this paper into English and copy editing the final version. Literature Cited Adams LW. 1994 Urban Wildlife Habitats: A landscape perspective. University of Minnesota Press, Minne- apolis, Minnesota, USA. 208 p. Arroyo SB, Lynch J D. 2009. Risks to Colombian am- phibian fauna from cultivation of coca (Erythroxylum coca): A geographical analysis. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (Part A) 72: 974-985. Avila I (Compiladora). 2007. Planes de manejo para 18 vertebrados amenazados del departamento del Valle del Cauca. Corporacion Autonoma Regional del Valle del Cauca (CVC), Santiago de Cali, Colombia. 130 p. Bohm M, Collen B, Baillie JEM, Bowles P, Chanson J, Cox N, Hammerson C, Hoffmann M, et al. 2013. The conservation status of the world’s reptiles. Biological Conservation 157: 372-385. Bolfvar W, Coloma LA, Ron S, Cisneros-Heredia D, Wild E, Yanez-Munoz M. 2004. Centrolene geckoi- deum. In: lUCN 2013. lUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Available: www.iucnredlist. org [Accessed: 09 March 2014]. Bonaccorso E, Cuayasamin J. 2003. Chytridiomycosis as a possible cause of population declines in Atelopus cruciger (Anura: Bufonidae). Herpetological Review 34(4): 331-334. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. Anolis eulaemus, La Cumbre, Chicoral, 2013. Gontadoes albogularis, Cali, 2014. Bothrocophias myersi, Buenaventura, Bazan, 2013. Bothriechis schelegelii, Yotoco, Reserva Forestal, 2011. 14 December 2014 I Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. Riama laevis, La Cumbre, Chicoral, 2013. Brain RA, Solomon KR. 2009. Comparison of the haz- ards posed to amphibians by the Glyphosate spray control program versus the chemical and physical activities of coca production in Colombia. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (Part A) 72(15): 93^8. Cagle NL. 2008. A multiscale investigation of snake hab- itat relationships and snake conservation in Illinois. Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA. Cardona-B Otero VE, Viafara-Vega RA, Valencia-Zuleta A, Echeverry-Bocanegra A, Hemandez-Cordoba OD, Jaramillo-Martmez AF, Galvis-Cruz R, Gutierrez JA, Castro-Herrera F. 2013 Diversidad de la herpetofauna en el Valle del Cauca (Colombia): Un enfoque basado en la distribucion por ecorregiones, altura y zonas de vida. Biota Colombiana 14(2): 156-232. Castaneda RM, Castro F, Mayer GC. 2011. Anolis fra- seri. In: lUCN 2013. lUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Available: www.iucnredlist. org [Accessed: 09 March 2014]. Castano-Mora OV. 2002. Libro Rojo de Reptiles de Co- lombia. Libros Rojos de Especies Amenazadas de Co- lombia. Institute de Ciencias Naturales-Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Ministerio del Medio Ambi- ente, Conservacion Intemacional-Colombia, Bogota, D. C., Colombia. 160 p. Castro F, Lynch J. 2004. Gastrotheca antomia. In: lUCN 2013. lUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Available: www.iucnredlist.org [Accessed: 09 March 2014]. Castro-Herrera F, Bohvar-Garcia W. 2010. Libro Rojo de los Anfibios del Valle del Cauca. Feriva Impresores S.A., Cali, Colombia. 199 p. Castro-Herrera F, Bohvar-Garcia W, Herrera-Montes MI. 2007. Gula de los Anfibios y Reptiles del Bosque de Yotoco, Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia. 70 p. Coloma LA, Duellman WE, Almendariz A, Ron SR, Teran- Valdez A, Guayasamin JM. 2010. Five new (extinct?) species of Atelopus (Anura: Bufonidae) from Andean Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Zootaxa 2574: 1-54. Corporacion Autonoma Regional del Valle del Cauca - CVC. 2012. Areas protegidas publicas y privadas SINAP y SIDAP Valle del Cauca, Anexo 1.3.4. Corpo- racion Autonoma Regional del Valle del Cauca, grupo Biodiversidad CVC, Santiago de Cali, Colombia. 8 p. Corredor LG, Velasquez EB, Velasco VIA, Castro F, Bolivar W, Salazar VML. 2010. Plan de accion para la conservacion de los anfibios del departamento del Valle del Cauca. Corporacion Autonoma Regional del Valle del Cauca (CVC), Santiago de Cali, Colombia, 44 p. Dodd CK Jr. 2001. Status, conservation, and manage- ment. Pp. 478-513 In: Snakes: Ecology and Evolu- tionary Biology. Editors, Seigel RA, Collins JT, No- vak SS. Reprint of 1st edition. The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, New Jersey, USA. 529 p. Fifes CT, Livingstone SR, Lane A, Lukosche V, Sanders KL, Courtney AJ, Gatus JL, Guinea M, Lobo AS, Mil- ton D, Rasmussen AR, Read M, White M, Sanciangco J, Alcala A, Heatwole H, Kams DR, Seminoff JA, Voris HK, Carpenter KE, Murphy JC. 2013. Fascinat- ing and forgotten: The conservation status of marine elapid snakes. Herpetological Conservation and Biol- ogy 8(1): 37-52. Franga FGR, Araujo AFB. 2006. The conservation status of snakes in central Brazil. South American Journal of Herpetology 1(1): 25-36. Galvis-R CA, Corredor-L G. 2005. Evaluacion del Uso de las Tortugas Continentales en la Costa Pacifica del Departamento del Valle del Cauca. Fundacion Zoologica de Cali, Cali, Colombia. 13 p. Giraldo A, Garces-Restrepo MF, Carr JL. 2012. Kinosternon leucostomum. Pp. 332-339 In: Biologla y conservacion de las tortugas continentales de Co- lombia. Editors, Paez VP, Morales-Betancourt MA, Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 15 December 2014 I Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia Lasso CA, Castano-Mora OV, Bock BC. Serie Edito- rial Recursos Hidrobiologicos y Pesqueros Continen- tales de Colombia. Instituto de Investigacion de Re- cursos Biologicos Alexander von Humboldt (lAvH), Bogota, D. C., Colombia. 528 p. Gomez N, Reyes M, Hernandez M, Rojas Y, Arana AE, Ochoa MI, Palta MV, Garcia F, Guerrero G, Medina E, Salazar ML (compiladores). 2007. Construccion colectiva del sistema departamental de areas prote- gidas del Valle del Cauca (SIDAP): Propuesta con- ceptual y metodoldgica. Corporacion Autonoma Re- gional del Valle del Cauca (CVC), Santiago de Cali, Colombia. 134 p. Hernandez OD, Castro-Herrera F, Paez M. 2013. Bioacu- mulacion de mercurio en larvas de anuros en la zona afectada por la Mineria de Oro en el Rio Dagua, Bue- naventura, Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Acta Bioldgica Colombiana 18(2): 341-348. Hutter CR, Guayasamin JM, Wiens JJ. 2013. Explaining Andean megadiversity: The evolutionary and ecologi- cal causes of glassfrog elevational richness patterns. Ecology Letters 16(9): 1,135-1,344. Isaacs PJ, Urbina JN. 2011 Anthropogenic disturbance and edge effects on anuran assemblages inhabiting cloud forest fragments in Colombia. Natureza & Con- servagdo 9(1): 39-46. Lynch JD. 2012. El contexto de las serpientes de Colom- bia con un analisis de las amenazas en contra de su conservacion. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Eisicas y Naturales 36(140): 435-449. Mancera-Rodriguez N, Alvarez-Leon R. 2006. Estado del conocimiento de las concentraciones de mercurio y otros metales pesados en peces dulceacuicolas de Colomhm. Acta Bioldgica Colombiana 11(1): 3-23. Manel S, Williams HC, Ormerod SJ. 2001. Evaluating presence absence models in ecology: The need to account for prevalence. Journal of Applied Ecology 38(5): 921-931. Mendelson III JR, Lips KR, Gagliardo RW, Rabb GB, Collins JP, Diffendorfer JE, Daszak P, Ibanez DR et al. 2006. Confronting amphibian declines and extinc- tions. Science 313: 48. Paez VP, Morales-Betancourt MA, Lasso CA, Castano- Mora OV, Bock BC (Editors). 2012. V. Biologia y Conservacion de las Tortugas Continentales de Co- lombia. Serie Editorial Recursos Hidrobiologicos y Pesqueros Continentales de Colombia. Instituto de Investigacion de Recursos Biologicos Alexander von Humboldt (lAvH), Bogota, D. C., Colombia. 528 p. Patino C. 2010. Mineria: jHasta en las reservas naturales! UN periodico impreso, Universidad Nacional de Co- lombia, Bogota, D. C., Colombia, 139: 7. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling 190(3^): 231-259. Ramirez M P, Osomo-Munoz M, Rueda JV, Amezquita Amphib. Reptile Conserv. Erythrolamprus mimus, Buenaventura, Zaragoza, 2011. Geophis betaniensis, Trujillo, Andinapolis, 2010. * Imantodes inornatus, Buenaventura, Zaragoza, 2012. Micrurus ancoralis, Buenaventura, Bajo Calima, 1989. December 2014 I Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 16 Valencia-Zuleta et al. A, Ardila-Robayo MC. 2004. Gastrotheca argenteo- virens. In: lUCN 2013. lUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Available: www.iucnredlist. org [Accessed: 09 March 2014]. Roe JH, Kingsbury BA, Herbert NR. 2004. Comparative water snake ecology: Conservation of mobile animals that use temporally dynamic resources. Biological Conservation 118: 79-89. Rovito SM, Parra-Olea G, Vasquez-Almazan CR, Pa- penfiiss TJ, Wake DB. 2009. Dramatic declines in Neotropical salamander populations are an important part of the global amphibian crisis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(9): 3,231-3,236. Rueda JV. 1999. Anfibios y reptiles amenazados de ex- tincion en Colombia. Revista de la Academia Colom- biana de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales 23 (suplemento): 475^98. Rueda-Almonacid JV, Lynch ID, Amezquita A. (Edi- tors). 2004. Libro rojo de los Anfibios de Colombia. Serie Libros Rojos de Especies Amenazadas de Co- lombia. Conservacion Intemacional Colombia, Insti- tuto de Ciencias Naturales - Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Bogota, D. C., Colombia. 384 p. Rueda-Almonacid JV, Carr JL, Mittermeier RA, Rodri- guez-Mahecha JV, Mast RB, Vogt RC, Rhodin AGJ, de la Ossa- Velasquez J, Rueda JN, Mittermeier CG. 2007. Las Tortugas y los Cocodrilianos de los Paises Andinos del Tropico. Serie de guias tropicales de campo N° 6. Conservacion Intemacional. Editorial Panamericana, Formas e Impresos, Bogota, D. C., Colombia. 538 p. Ruiz A, Rueda-Almonacid JV. 2008. Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and chytridiomycosis in anuran am- phibians of Colombia. Ecohealth 5(1): 27-33. Sanchez D, Chacon-Ortiz A, Leon F, Han B, Lampo M. 2008. Widespread occurrence of an emerging patho- gen in amphibian communities of the Venezuelan An- des. Biological Conservation 141(11): 2,898-2,905. Stuart S, Chanson D, Cox N, Young B, Rodrigues A, Fis- chman D, Robert W.2004. Status and trends of am- phibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306: 1,783-1,785. UICN. 2012. Categorias y Criterios de la Lista Roja de la UICN: Version 3.1. Segunda edicion. Gland, Suiza y Cambridge, Reino Unido: UICN. vi -i- 34pp. Original- mente publicado como lUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edition. UPME. 2007. Produccion mas limpia en la mineria de oro en Colombia. Mercurio, cianuro y otras sustan- cias. Subdireccion de Planeacion Minera, Bogota, D. C., Colombia. 65 p. Urbina J. 2011. Gradientes andinos en la diversidad y pa- trones de endemismo en anfibios y reptiles de Colom- bia: posibles respuestas al cambio climatico. Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Bdsicas 7(1): 74-91. y Urbina N, Nori J, Castro F. 2011. Areas vulnerables a la invasion actual y futura de la rana toro (Lithobates catesbeianus: Ranidae) en Colombia: Estrategias pro- puestas para su manejo y control. Biota Colombiana 12(2): 23-34. Urbina-Cardona JN. 2008. Conservation of neotropical herpetofauna: Research trends and challenges. Tropi- cal Conservation Science 1(4): 359-375. Vargas F, Amezquita A. 2013. Stream noise, hybridiza- tion, and uncoupled evolution of call traits in two lineages of poison frogs: Oophaga histrionica and Oophaga lehmanni. PLoS ONE 8(10): e77545. Vargas F, Delgado I, Lopez F. 2011. Mortalidad por atro- pello vehicular y distribucidn de anfibios y reptiles en un bosque Subandino en el Occidente de Colombia. Caldasia 33(1): 121-138. Vasquez V, Serrano A. 2009. Las Areas Naturales Pro- tegidas de Colombia. Conservacion Intemacional- Colombia & Fundacion Biocolombia, Bogota, D. C., Colombia. 696 p. Velasquez BE, Castro F, Bolivar W, Herrera MI. 2008. Infeccion por el hongo quitridio Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis en anuros de la Cordillera Occidental de Colombia. Herpetotropicos 4(2): 65-70. Wake DB. 2007. Climate change implicated in amphib- ian and lizard declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(20): 8,201-8,202. Young B, Lips KR, Reaser JK, Ibanez R, Salas AW, Cedeno JR, Coloma LA, Ron S, La Marca E, Meyer JR, Munoz A, Bolanos F, Chaves G, Romo D. 2001. Population declines and priorities for amphibian con- servation in Latin America. Conservation Biology 15(5): 1,213-1,223. Alejandro Valencia-Zuleta is a biologist from the Universidad del Valle (Cali-Colombia), working in the Young Researcher program of Colciencias and as a volunteer in the group jSalven las ranas! Cali- Colombia, under the campaign SAVE THE EROGS ! His main interests include the conservation, ecology, taxonomy, and natural history of amphibians and reptile of Colombia, with special focus in the Colombian south-west. At present, he studies the eommunity and trophie eeology of anurans in the Colombia Paeifie. Photo by Andres F. Jaramillo. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 17 December 2014 I Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia Andres Felipe Jaramillo-Martinez is a biologist from the Universidad del Valle (Cali-Colombia). His ■ interests are the photography of natural biodiversity, the assessment of the natural history of amphibians reptiles for an ecologic and functional perspective. He is also interested in the taxonomy of salaman- ders, anurans and snakes. He presently works on the ecology of salamanders and anurans populations in the Colombian south-west. Photo by Eliana Barona. Andrea Echeverry-Bocanegra is a biologist from the Universidad del Valle (Cali-Colombia). She did her bachelor thesis research on the presence of skin alkaloids in Colostethus fraterdanieli (Anura: Dendrobati- dae). Her areas of interest include the physiology, ecology, taxonomy, and ethology of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Photo by Andrea Echeverry. a Ronald Andres Viafara-Vega is a biologist from the Universidad del Valle (Cali-Colombia) interested in the natural history, ethology, ecology, and conservation of the amphibians and reptiles, and studies that apply molecular biology in these groups. His interest and future pursuit will be the taxonomy of Glass and leptodactylid frogs. Photo by Ronald A. Vidfara. Oscar D. Hernandez-Cordoba received his B.S degree in biology from the Universidad del Valle (Cali- Colombia), in Cali, Colombia in 2013. As a student, he joined the Laboratorio de Herpetologia de la Universidad del Valle (Cali-Colombia) investigation group, guided by Dr. Fernando Castro. In this group he developed investigative interests in evolutionary ecology, ecotoxicology, and conservation biology of amphibians, reptiles and birds. Photo by Ana Goeta. Victoria E. Cardona-Botero is a biologist from la Universidad del Valle (Cali-Colombia) and young re- searcher of Colciencias. At present, she works on the community ecology of anurans in the Colombian Pa- cific. Her main topics of interest are the ecology, natural history, ethology, and systematics of amphibians and reptiles, with a special focus on the ecology and natural history of birds. Photo by Andres E Jaramillo. Jaime Gutierrez-Zuniga is a biologist from la Universidad del Valle (Cali-Colombia). His topics of inter- est are the bioacoustics and ecology of amphibians and reptiles. Photo by Ronald A. Vidfara. Fernando Castro-Herrera, Biologist, Universidad del Valle (1976) and Ph.D. (Community Ecology) University of North Texas (1988) — advisor Dr. Lloyd C Fitzpatrick. He is presently a professor at la Uni- versidad del Valle (Cali-Colombia) and head of the research group, Laboratorio de Herpetologia founded in 1993 training students in the scientific study and research of amphibians and reptiles in Colombia. This lab has been supported by the Universidad del Valle in Cali Colombia and research focuses on biodiversity, natural history, ecology, toxicology, and assessment in conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. For more information reference: http://herpetologia.correounivalle.edu.co/. Fernando has been the leader of a generation of Colombian biologists, since the latter part of the twentieth century, in studies on amphib- ians and reptiles of Colombia. Three of his latest publications already in circulation are: • Small changes in vegetation structure changes in amphibian create great ensembles in the Colombian Pacific rainforest. Tropical Conservation Science 6(6): 749-769 (2013). Available: http://tropicalconser- vationscience.mongabay.eom/content/v6/TCS-2013-Vol6%286%29_749-769_Cortes-et-al.pdf [Accessed: 30 November 2014]. • Amphibia, Anura, Bufonidae, Atelopus eusebianus (Rivero & Granados-Diaz, 1993): Distribution ex- tension for Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Check List 10(3): 682-683. Available: http://www.biotaxa.org/cl/ article/view/10.3.682/9327 [Accessed: 30 November 2014]. • Diversidad de la herpetofauna en el Valle del Cauca (Colombia): Un enfoque basado en la distribucidn por ecorregiones, alturay zonas de vida. Biota Colombiana 14(2): 156-233. (2013). Available: http://www. redalyc.org/articulo. oa?id=4913 1094008 [Accessed: 30 November 2014]. Animal photo credits: Eernando Castro-Herrera. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 18 December 2014 I Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Official journal website: amphibian-reptile-conservation.org Amphibian & Reptiie Conservation 8(2) [Special Section]: 1-18; S1-S24 (e87). Supplemental Material Conservation status of the herpetofauna, protected areas, and current problems in Valle del Cauca, Colombia ^Alejandro Valencia-Zuleta, Andres Felipe Jaramillo-Martmez, Andrea Echeverry-Bocanegra, Ron- ald Viafara-Vega, Oscar Hernandez-Cordoba, Victoria E. Cardona-Botero, Jaime Gutierrez-Zuhiga, and Fernando Castro-Herrera Universidad del Valle, Grupo Laboratorio de Herpetologla, Departamento de Biologla, Cali, COLOMBIA Citation: Valencia-Zuleta A, Jaramillo-Martmez AF, Echeverry-Bocanegra A, Viafara-Vega R, Hernandez-Cordoba O, Cardona-Botero VE, Gutierrez- Zuhiga J, Castro-Herrera F. 2014. Conservation status of the herpetofauna, protected areas, and current problems in Valle del Cauca, Colombia. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 8(2) [Special Section]: 1-18; S1-S24 (e87). Copyright: © 2014 Valencia-Zuleta et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCom- mercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use for non-commercial and education purposes only, in any medium, provided the original author and the official and authorized publication sources are recognized and properly credited. The official and authorized publication credit sources, which will be duly enforced, are as follows: official journal title Amphibian & Reptile Conservation; official journal website . Received: 12 March 2014; Accepted: 24 November 2014; Published: 19 December 2014 Table 1. Taxonomic list of amphibians and reptile of the department of Valle del Cauca (Cardona-B. et al. 2014). Actualization of threat categories based on: lUCN (red list), Red Book of Amphibians (Rueda et al. ) and Reptile (Castano-M. et al 2002) of Colombia, Red Book of Amphibians of Valle del Cauca (Castro-H. and Bolivar-G 2010), and current categorization of the amphibians and reptile for Valle del Cauca. Also is denoted the municipalities and protected areas where the species is distributed; and a (|) is noted in the category when a species is endemic for the department. TAXON lUCN Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca Categorization for the departament Municipality Protected area CLASS AMPHIBIA ORDEN ANURA FAMILIA AROMOBATIDAE Allobates talamancae (Cope, 1875) LC NT Bu, Dar RFPN Anchicaya Anomaloglossus atopoglossus (Grant, Humphrey & Myers, 1997) DD CR CR, B1ab(iii)(t) Cai Anomaloglossus lacri- mosus (Myers, 1991) DD VU EN, Bla Bu RFPN Anchicaya, PNR La sierpe FAMILIA BUFONIDAE Atelopus cf. famelicus (Rivero and Morales, 1 995) {sensu latu) CR CR CR, Blab(iii) Bu, Cal, Yo RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de Cali Atelopus chocoensis (Lotters, 1992) CR CR CR, B2ab(iii) Cai Atelopus eusebianus (Rivero and Granados, 1993) CR EN CR, B2ab(iii) FI Atelopus cf. ebenoides (Rivero, 1963) CR CR CR, Blab(iii) Ce Correspondence. Email: ^ alejandrovalencia08@gmail.com (Corresponding author, Alejandro Valencia-Zuleta). Amphib. Reptile Conserv. S-1 December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. TAXON lUCN Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca Categorization for the departament Municipality Protected area Atelopus pictiventris (Kattan, 1986) CR CR CR, B2ab(iii)(t) Cal PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN de Cali Atelopus spurrelli (Boulenger, 1914) VU VU EN,A1a Bu, Dar RFPN Anchicaya, DMI La Plata, PNR La sierpe Incilius coniferus (Cope, 1862) LC CR, B2ab(iii) Dar Rhaebo andi- nophrynoides (Mue- ses-Cisneros, 2009) NE DD Bu PNN Farallones de Cali Rhaebo blombergi (Myers and Funkhous- er, 1951) NT NT CR, Blab(iii) Bu, Dar PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchicaya Rhaebo haematiticus (Cope, 1862) LC LC Bu, Da, Dar RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete, PNN Farallones de Cali Rhaebo hypomelas (Boulenger, 1913) NT VU,A1ace Bu, Da, Dar RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete, PNN Farallones de Cali Rhinella cf. mar- garitifera (Laurenti, 1768) LC LC Bu, Dar RFPN Anchicaya, PNR La sierpe, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete, DMI La Plata Rhinella paraguas (Bo- livar and Grant, 2014) EN VU EN, B2ab(iii) Cai Rhinella marina (Lin- naeus, 1758) LC LC Al, An, Ans, Ar, Bo, Bu, Bug, Bui, Ca, Cal, Can, Car, Da, Dar, Do, Cai, Ce, Ag, FI, Gi, Gu, Ja, Cu, Vi, Un, Ob, Pa, Pr, Re, Ri, Ro, Sp, Se, To, Tr, Tu, Ul, Ve, Vij, Yo, Yu, Za RFPR Bitaco, RFN Cerro Dapa-Carisu- cio, PNN Tatama, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de Tulua, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete, PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN de Cali, RNR Laguna de sonso 0 Cienaga de chircal, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, FAMILIA CENTROLENIDAE Centrolene ballux (Duellman & Bur- rowes, 1989) CR CR, B2ab(iii) Da PNN Farallones de Cali Centrolene buckleyi (Boulenger, 1882) VU VU VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cai, Tu, Tr PNN Farallones de Cali, PNR Paramo El Duende Centrolene geckoi- deum (Jimenez de la Espada, 1872) VU VU CR, Alace Cal, Cai, Da, Cu PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchic- aya, RFPR Bitaco Centrolene heloderma (Duellman, 1981) CR CR EN, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cai PNN Farallones de Cali Centrolene peristictum (Lynch & Duellman, 1973) VU VU EN, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cai, Da PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchicaya Amphib. Reptile Conserv. S-2 December 2014 | Volume 8 I Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia TAXON lUCN Centrolene robledoi (Ruiz-Carranza & Lynch, 1995) vu Centrolene savage! (Ruiz-Carranza & Lynch, 1991) vu Cochranella balionota (Duellman, 1981) vu Cochranella megista (Rivero, 1985) NT Espadarana callis- tomma (Guayasamin & Trueb, 2007) DD Espadarana prosoble- pon (Boettger, 1892) LC Hyalinobatrachium au- reoguttatum (Barrera & Ruiz-Carranza, 1989) NT Hyalinobatrachium colymbiphyllum (Tay- lor, 1949) LC Hyalinobatrachium fleischmanni (Boettger, 1893) LC Hyalinobatrachium valerioi (Dunn, 1931) LC Nymphargus armatus (Lynch & Ruiz-Carran- za, 1996) VU Nymphargus gran- disonae (Cochran & Coin, 1970) LC Nymphargus griffithsi (Goin, 1961) VU Nymphargus ignotus (Lynch, 1990) NT Nymphargus prasinus (Duellman, 1981) VU Nymphargus ruizi (Lynch, 1993) VU Rulyrana orejuela (Du- ellman & Burrowes, 1989) DD Sachatamia albomacu- lata (Taylor, 1949) LC Sachatamia ilex (Sav- age, 1967) LC Red book of Red Book of Colombia Valle del Cauca Categorization for the departament Municipality EN, B2ab(iii) Cai, Da, Ri NT Bo, Cal, Da, Cu, Yo CR, B2ab(iii) Da CR, B2ab(iii) Cai NT Bu NT Bu, Dar VU,A3ace Bu, Da, Dar CR, Blab(iii) Bu VU,A3ace Bu VU,A3ace Bu CR, B2ab(iii)(t) Cai VU, Blab(iii) Cai, Da VU,A2ace Cal, Cai, Da NT Cal, Cai, Da, Cu CR, B2ab(iii) Da VU,A2ace Bug, Cal, Cai, Da, Pa EN, Blab(iii) Da EN, B2ab(iii) Bu NT Bu, Da, Dar Protected area RFPN Anchicaya PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchic- aya, RFPN de Cali, RFPN Bosque de Yotoco, RFPR Bitaco RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchi- caya RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchi- caya PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchic- aya, RFPN de Cali, RFPR Bitaco PNN Farallones de Cali, PNN Las hermosas, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de Amaime RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya, DM I La Plata Amphib. Reptile Conserv. S-3 December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. TAXON lUCN Teratohyla pulverata (Peters, 1873) LC Teratohyla spinosa (Taylor, 1949) LC FAMILIA CRAUGASTORIDAE Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca Craugastor fitzingeri (Schmidt, 1857) LC Craugastor longirostris (Boulenger, 1898) LC Craugastor opimus (Savage & Myers, 2002) LC Craugastor raniformis (Boulenger, 1896) LC Hypodactylus babax (Lynch, 1989) LC Hypodactylus manti- pus (Boulenger, 1908) LC Pristimantis acatallelus (Lynch & Ruiz-Carran- za, 1983) LC Pristimantis achatinus (Boulenger, 1898) LC Pristimantis alalo- cophus (Roa-Trujillo & Ruiz-Carranza, 1991) NT Pristimantis albericoi (Lynch & Ruiz-Carran- za, 1996) CR Pristimantis angustilin- eatus (Lynch, 1998) EN Pristimantis aurantigut- tatus (Ruiz-Carranza, Lynch &Ardila-Ro- bayo, 1997) DD Pristimantis boulengeri (Lynch, 1981) LC Pristimantis brevifrons (Lynch, 1981) LC Categorization for the departament Municipality Protected area VU, B2ab(iii) Bu, Da RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchi- caya NT Bu, Da RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchi- caya LC Bu, Dar LC Bu, Dar CR, B2ab(iii) Bu, Dar LC Bu, Da, Dar EN, B2ab(iii) Da, Cai NT Cal, Cu, Da, Dar, Tr, Yo, Yu VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cai LC Bu, Da, Dar VU, B2ab(iii) Bug, FI, Pa, Tu CR, B2ab(iii) Cai VU, B2ab(iii) Cai, Tr DD Cai VU, B2ab(iii) Bug, FI, Pa LC Cal, Cai, Cu, Da, FI, Tr, Yo PNR La sierpe, RFPN Anchicaya PNR La sierpe, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete PNR La sierpe RFPN Anchicaya, DMI Enclave subxe- rofitico de Atuncela, PNR La sierpe, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete RFPN Anchicaya PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN de Cali, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco; RFPN Cerro Dapa - Carisucio PNN Farallones de Cali RFPN Anchicaya, DMI La Plata. RFN Amaime, PNN Las hermosas, RFPR Frayle-Desbaratado RFPR Frayle-Des- baratado, PNN Las hermosas RFPR Bitaco, RFR Frayle-Desbaratado, PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, RFPN Cerro Dapa - Carisucio, RFPN de Cali, RFPN Anchi- caya Amphib. Reptile Conserv. December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia TAXON lUCN Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca Categorization for the departament Municipality Protected area Pristimantis buckleyi (Boulenger 1882) LC NT Cal, Cai, Ce, FI, Pa, Tu RFN Amaime, PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPR Frayle-Des- baratado. Pristimantis calcaratus (Boulenger, 1908) EN EN NT Cal, Cai, Cu, Da, Yo RFPN de Cali, PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco Pristimantis calcarula- tus (Lynch, 1976) VU VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cum PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPR Bitaco Pristimantis capitonis (Lynch, 1998) EN VU VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cai, Da, Tr PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPNAnchi- caya Pristimantis caprifer (Lynch, 1977) LC VU, B2ab(iii) Bu, Da, Dar RFPN Anchicaya Pristimantis chalceus (Peters, 1873) LC NT Bu, Da, Dar RFPN Anchicaya Pristimantis chrysops (Lynch & Ruiz-Carran- za, 1996) EN EN EN, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cai, Da, Yo RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco Pristimantis deinops (Lynch, 1996) EN EN EN, B2ab(iii)(t) Cal, Cai, Da, Yo RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco Pristimantis diaphonus (Lynch, 1986) VU VU EN, B2ab(iii)(t) Da, Re Pristimantis duende (Lynch, 2001) DD CR, B2ab(iii)(t) Tr PNR Paramo el Duende Pristimantis erythro- pieura (Boulenger, 1896) LC LC Cal, Cai, Cu, Da, Dar, Tr, Yo RFPR Bitaco, RFPN de Cali, RFPN Anchi- caya, PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco Pristimantis gaigeae (Dunn, 1931) LC NT Bu RFPN Anchicaya, DMI La Plata, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete Pristimantis gracilis (Lynch, 1986) VU VU CR, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cai, Cu PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPR Bitaco Pristimantis hybotra- gus (Lynch, 1992) VU VU VU, B2ab(iii)(t) Bu, Dar PNR La sierpe, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete Pristimantis juanchoi (Lynch, 1996) VU NT NT Cal, Cai, Cu, Da, Dar, Yo RFPR Bitaco, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco. Pristimantis keiephas (Lynch, 1998) VU VU CR, B2ab(iii) Cai Pristimantis labiosus (Lynch, Ruiz-Carranza & Ardila-Robayo, 1994) LC NT Bu, Dar RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, PNN Farallones de Cali Pristimantis latidiscus (Boulenger, 1898) LC LC Bu, Dar RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchic- aya, DMI La Plata Pristimantis molybri- gnus (Lynch, 1986) NT NT VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Da, Dar, Yo RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco Amphib. Reptile Conserv. S-5 December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. TAXON Pristimantis moro (Savage, 1965) Pristimantis myops (Lynch, 1998) Pristimantis obmutes- cens (Lynch, 1980) Pristimantis orpaco- bates (Lynch, Ruiz- Carranza SArdila- Robayo, 1994) Pristimantis palmeri (Boulenger, 1912) Pristimantis peraticus (Lynch, 1980) Pristimantis permixtus (Lynch, Ruiz-Carranza & Ardila-Robayo, 1994) Pristimantis phalarus (Lynch, 1998) Pristimantis piceus (Lynch, Ruiz-Carranza & Ardila-Robayo, 1996) Pristimantis platychiius (Lynch, 1996) Pristimantis ptochus (Lynch, 1998) Pristimantis quantus (Lynch, 1998) Pristimantis qui- cato (Ospina-Sarria, Mendez-Narvaez, Burbano-Yandi & Bolivar-Garcia, 2011) Pristimantis racemus (Lynch, 1980) Pristimantis restrepoi (Lynch, 1996) Pristimantis ridens (Cope, 1866) Pristimantis roseus (Boulenger, 1918) Pristimantis sanguin- eus (Lynch, 1998) Pristimantis silver- stonei (Lynch & Ruiz- Carranza, 1996) lUCN LC DD Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca Categorization for the departament Municipality VU, B2ab(iii) Bu VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cai, Da VU, B2ab(iii) FI, Gi, Tu VU, Blab(iii) Cal, Cu, Dar, Yo LC Cal, Cai, Cu, Da, Dar, Yo, Yu VU, Blab(iii) Ce, FI, Pa NT Ce, Cu, FI, Pa VU, Blab(iii) Cai VU, Blab(iii) Ce, FI, Pa VU, Blab(iii) Cal, Da DD Cal, Cai VU, Blab(iii) Cai DD (t) Pa VU, Blab(iii) Ce, Gi, Pa, Tu VU, Blab(iii) Cai NT Bu, Dar VU, B2ab(iii) Bu, Da, Dar DD Bu VU, B2ab(iii) Cai, Da Protected area RFPN Anchicaya, PNR La sierpe PNN Farallones de Cali RFPR Frayle-Des- baratado, RFPN de sonso-guabas RFPR Bitaco, RFPN de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, RFPN Cerro Dapa - Carisucio RFPN Amaime, RFPR Frayle-Des- baratado RFPR Bitaco, RFPR Frayle-Desbaratado RFPN Amaime, RFPR Frayle-Des- baratado RFPN de Cali, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPR Bitaco PNN Farallones de Cali PNN Las hermosas RFPN de sonso- guabas PNR La sierpe, RFPN Anchicaya PNR La sierpe, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete PNN Farallones de Cali, PNR Paramo del Duende Amphib. Reptile Conserv. December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia TAXON lUCN Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca Categorization for the departament Municipality Protected area Pristimantis simoteris- cus (Lynch, Ruiz-Car- ranza & Ardila-Robayo 1996) EN EN EN, B2ab(iii) Gi, Tu RFPN de sonso- guabas Pristimantis supernatis (Lynch, 1979) VU VU VU, B2ab(iii) Ce, Gi, Pa, Tu RFPN de sonso- guabas Pristimantis taeniatus (Boulenger, 1912) LC VU, B2ab(iii) Bu DMI La Plata Pristimantis thectopter- nus (Lynch, 1975) LC VU,A1ace Cal, Cu, Da, Dar, FI, Pa, Tr RFPN de Cali, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN Anchi- caya Pristimantis urano- bates (Lynch, 1991) LC EN, B2ab(iii) Ce, Pa RFPN de Amaime Pristimantis viridicans (Lynch 1977) EN VU CR, Alace Cal, Cu PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPR Bitaco Pristimantis w-nigrum (Boettger, 1892) LC LC NT Cal, Cu, Tr, Yo PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco Pristimantis xeniolum (Lynch, 2001) DD DD (t) Tr PNR Paramo el Duende Pristimantis xylocho- bates (Lynch & Ruiz- Carranza,1996) VU VU EN, Alace Cal, Cai PNN Farallones de Cali Strabomantis anatipes (Lynch and Myers, 1983) VU VU CR, Alace Da RFPN Anchicaya Strabomantis anoma- /ws (Boulenger, 1898) LC LC Bu, Da, Dar RFPN Anchicaya Strabomantis bufoni- formis (Boulenger, 1896) LC VU, Alace Bu, Dar PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchi- caya Strabomantis cerastes (Lynch, 1975) LC VU, Alace Cal, Cai, Da, Yo RFPN de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco Strabomantis cheirop- lethus (Lynch, 1990) VU VU VU, Alace Bu, Cai, Da PNN Farallones de Cali. Strabomantis ruizi (Lynch, 1981) EN EN EN VU, Alace (t) Cal, Cu, Da, Tr, Yo RFPR Bitaco, PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco Strabomantis zygo- dactylus (Lynch and Myers, 1983) LC NT Bu, Dar RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete RFPN Anchicaya FAMILIA DENDROBATIDAE Andinobates bombetes (Myers & Daly, 1 980) EN VU EN VU, Blab(iii) Cal, Cai, Cu, Da, Dar, To, Yo RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de Cali, RFPN Bosque de Yotoco, RFPR Bitaco, DMI Enclave subxerofitico de Atuncela Andinobates fulguritus (Silverstone, 1975) LC NT VU, Blab(iii) Bu RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchic- aya, PNR La Sierpe Andinobates minutus (Shreve, 1935) LC LC Bu, Dar PNN Uramba-Bahia Malaga, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete, RFPN Anchicaya, PNR La Sierpe, DMI La plata Amphib. Reptile Conserv. S-7 December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. TAXON lUCN Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca Categorization for the departament Municipality Protected area Andinobates viridis (Myers & Daly, 1976) vu EN VU EN,A1acde (t) Bu RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchi- caya Colostethus agilis (Lynch & Ruiz-Carran- za, 1985) NT NT EN, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cai, Da PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPNAnchi- caya Colostethus brachistri- atus (Rivero & Serna, 1986) DD VU,A1ace FI, Pa, Tu PNN Las Hermosas, RFPR Frayle-Des- baratado Colostethus fraterdan- ieli (Silverstone, 1971) NT NT Bug, Cal, Cu, Da, FI, Ri, Tu, Yo PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchic- aya, RFPN Bosque de Yotoco, RFN de Tulua, RN Laguna de Sonso Epipedobates bou- /enger/ (Barbour, 1909) LC LC Bu RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchic- aya, DMI La plata Hyloxalus abditauran- t/ws (Silverstone, 1975) LC VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cai, Da, Dar PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPNAnchi- caya Hyloxalus chocoensis (Boulenger, 1912) DD EN, B2ab(iii) Da, Dar RFPN Anchicaya Hyloxalus fascianigrus (Grant & Castro-Herre- ra, 1998) NT NT VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cu, Da, Dar, Yo RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN Bosque de Yotoco, RFPN de Cali, PNR Paramo El Duende, RFPR Bitaco, RFPR Frayle- Desbaratado Hyloxalus lehmanni (Silverstone, 1971) NT NT VU,A1ace Bug, Cal, Cai, Cu, Tu PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchic- aya, RFPR Bitaco, RFN de Amaime Oophaga histrionica (Berthold, 1845) LC VU VU,A1acde (t) Bu, Da, Dar RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN Dagua Oophaga lehmanni (Myers & Daly, 1976) CR CR CR CR, A2acde Bu, Da RFPN Anchicaya Phyllobates bicolor (Dumeril & Bibron, 1841) NT NT EN, Alacde Bu, Cai Phyllobates cf. au- rotaenia (Boulenger, 1913) NT NT EN, A2acde Bu RFPN Anchicaya Phyllobates terribilis (Myers, Daly & Malkin, 1978) EN CR CR, Blab(iii) Bu Silverstoneia nubicola (Dunn, 1924) NT NT NT Bu, Dar RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchi- caya FAMILIA ELEUTHERODACTYLIDAE Diasporus tinker (Lynch, 2001) LC LC Bu, Dar PNR La sierpe, DMI La Plata, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete Amphib. Reptile Conserv. S-8 December 2014 | Volume 8 I Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia TAXON lUCN Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca Categorization for the departament Municipality Protected area Diasporus gularis (Boulenger, 1898) LC LC Bu, Da, Dar DMI La Plata, RFPN Anchicaya, PNN Uramba Bahia Malaga, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete Diasporus quidditus (Lynch, 2001) LC DD Bu, Dar Eleutherodactylus johnstonei (Barbour, 1914) LC LC Cal, Ja, Yu FAMILIA HEMIPHRACTIDAE Gastrotheca angus- tifrons (Boulenger, 1898) VU CR, Alace Dar Gastrotheca anto- mia (Ruiz-Carranza, Ardila-Robayo, Lynch & Restrepo, 1997) VU VU CR, Alace Cal, Cai, Cu, Da RFPN de Cali, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPR Bitaco Gastrotheca argenteo- virens (Boettger, 1892) LC EN, Alace Ce, Pa, Tu PNN Las hermosas, RFN de Amaime Gastrotheca cornuta (Boulenger, 1898) EN VU EN, Alace Bu RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete Gastrotheca dendro- nastes (Duellman, 1983) VU VU CR, Alace Cal, Cai, Da, Dar, Yo RFPN Anchicaya, PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco Hemiphractus fascia- tus (Peters, 1862) NT EN EN, B2ab(iii) Bu, Dar FAMILIA HYLIDAE Agalychnis psilopygion (Cannatella, 1980) DD EN, B2ab(iii) Bu, Dar RFPN Anchicaya Agalychnis spurrelli (Boulenger, 1913) LC NT Bu, Dar PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchi- caya Cruziohyla calcarifer (Boulenger, 1902) LC VU,A2acde Bu, Dar RFPN Anchicaya Dendropsophus columbianus (Boettger, 1892) LC LC Al, An, Ans, Ar, Bo, Bug, Bui, Ca, Cal, Can, Car, Da, Dar, Do, Cai, Ce, Ag, FI, Gi, Gu, Ja, Cu, Vi, Un, Ob, Pa, Pr, Re, Ri, Ro, Sp, Se, To, Tr, Tu, Ul, Ve, Vij, Yo, Yu,Za RFPN Cerro Dapa - Carisucio, PNN Tatama, PNN Faral- lones de Cali, PNN Las Flermosas, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN de Amaime, RFPN de Cali Dendropsophus ebrac- catus (Cope, 1874) LC VU, B2ab(iii) Bu RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete Dendropsophus micro- cephalus (Boulenger, 1898) LC EN, B2ab(iii) Bu RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete Hyloscirtus alytolylax (Duellman, 1972) NT NT EN, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cai, Cu, Da RFPR BITACO, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de Cali Amphib. Reptile Conserv. S-9 December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. TAXON lUCN Hyloscirtus larinopy- gion (Duellman, 1973) NT Hyloscirtus palmeri (Boulenger 1908) LC Hyloscirtus simmonsi (Duellman, 1989) EN Hypsiboas boans (Lin- naeus, 1758) LC Hypsiboas pellucens (Werner, 1901) LC Hypsiboas picturatus (Boulenger, 1899) LC Hypsiboas pugnax (Schmidt, 1857) LC Hypsiboas rosenbergi (Boulenger, 1898) LC Hypsiboas rubrac- ylus (Cochran & Coin, 1970) LC Scinax elaeochroa (Cope, 1875) LC Scinax ruber (Laurenti, 1768) (sensu latu) LC Scinax sugillatus (Du- ellman, 1973) LC Smilisca phaeota (Cope, 1862) LC Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca FAMILIA LEPTODACTYLIDAE Leptodactylus colom- biensis (Fleyer, 1994) LC Leptodactylus fragilis (Brocchi, 1877) LC Leptodactylus melano- notus (Flallowell, 1861) LC Leptodactylus rhodo- merus (Heyer, 2005) LC Categorization for the departament Municipality VU,A1ace Cal, Cai, Ce, Cu, Da, FI, Ri NT Bu, Da, Dar CR, Blab(iii) Dar NT Bu, Da, Dar VU, B2ab(iii) Bu LC Bu, Dar LC Bu, Car, Ja, Rol LC Bu, Dar VU, Blab(iii) Bu VU, B2ab(iii) Bu LC Bu, Ja EN, B2ab(iii) Bu LC Bu, Dar Protected area RFPR Bitaco, PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de Cali, RFPN de Amaime PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchi- caya DMI La Plata, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete RFPN Anchicaya PNR La sierpe, DMI La Plata, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete PNR La sierpe, RFPN Anchicaya RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya PNR La sierpe, PNN Farallones de Cali, DMI La Plata, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete LC An, Ans, Bo, Bug, Bui, Cal, Can, Ce, FI, Gu, Ja, Ob, Pa, Un, Ri, Ro, Sp, To, Tr, Tu, Vi, Vij, Yo, Yu,Za RNR Laguna de Sonso LC An, Bug, Cal, Ja, Yu RNR Laguna de Sonso LC Bu RFPN Anchicaya, PNR La Sierpe LC Bu, Dar RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, RFPN Anchicaya, DMI La Plata Amphib. Reptile Conserv. December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia TAXON lUCN Leptodactylus ventri- maculatus (Boulenger, 1902) LC Leptodactylus wagneri (Peters, 1862) LC FAMILIA MICROHYLIDAE Nelsonophryne ater- rima (Gunther, 1900) LC FAMILIA RANIDAE Lithobates catesbei- ana (Shaw, 1802) LC Lithobates vaillanti (Brocchi, 1877) LC Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca ORDEN CAUDATA FAMILIA PLETHODONTIDAE ORDEN GYMNOPHIONA FAMILIA CAECILIIDAE Bolitoglossa biseriata (Tanner, 1962) LC Bolitoglossa walker! (Brame &Wake, 1972) NT Bolitoglossa hiemalis (Lynch, 2001) DD Bolitoglossa vallecula (Brame &Wake, 1963) VU Bolitoglossa silver- stone! (Brame & Wake, 1972) LC Oedipina parvipes (Peters, 1879) LC Caecilia guntheri (Dunn, 1942) DD Caecilia leucocephala (Taylor, 1968) LC Caecilia nigricans (Boulenger, 1902) LC Caecilia occidentalis (Taylor, 1968) DD Caecilia orientalis (Taylor, 1968) LC Caecilia perdita (Tay- lor, 1968) LC Caecilia subdermalis (Taylor, 1968) LC Caecilia subnigricans (Dunn, 1942) LC Caecilia cf. tentaculata (Linnaeus, 1749) LC Oscaecilia polyzona (Fisher, 1880) DD Categorization for the departament Municipality NT Bu, Dar NT Bu Protected area EN, B2ab(iii) LC Bug, Gi, Pa, Ri, Ro, Tu, Yo RN Laguna de Sonso LC Bu RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, RFPN Anchicaya NT Bu, Da VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cai, Cu CR, B2ab(iii)(t) Tr EN, B2ab(iii) Cai DD Bu DD Bu RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, RFPN Anchicaya RFPN de Cali, RFPR Bitaco PNR Paramo El Duende RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya DD Cai DD Bu DD Bu DD Cal, Da DD Se DD Bu DD Cu, Da, Ja DD Re DD Bu, Re DD Bu RFPN Anchicaya RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete PNN Farallones de Cali RFPN Anchicaya, RFPR Bitaco RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete PNR La sierpe Amphib. Reptile Conserv. December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. TAXON lUCN FAMILIA RHINATREMATIDAE LC FAMILIA TYPHLONECTIDAE Epicrionops bicolor (Boulenger, 1883) Typhlonectes natans (Fisher, 1880) CLASS REPTILIA ORDEN CROCODYLIA FAMILIA ALLIGATORIDAE Caiman crocodilus (Linnaeus, 1758) FAMILIA CROCODYLIDAE Crocodylus acutus (Cuvier, 1807) ORDEN SQUAMATA SUBORDEN AMPHISBAENIA FAMILIA AMPHISBAENIDAE Amphisbaena fuligi- nosa (Linnaeus, 1758) SUBORDEN SAURIA INFRAORDEN IGUANIA FAMILIA CORYTOPHANIDAE FAMILIA DACTYLOIDAE Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca Basiliscus basiliscus (Linnaeus, 1768) NE Basiliscus galeritus (Dumeril, 1851) NE Anolis agassizi (Stej- neger, 1900) NE Anolis anchicayae (Poe, Velasco, Miyata & Williams, 2009) NE Anolis antonii (Bou- lenger, 1908) NE Anolis auratus (Daudin, 1802) NE Anolis biporcatus (Wiegmann, 1834) NE Anolis calimae (Ayala, Harris & Williams, 1983) NE Anolis chloris (Bou- lenger, 1898) NE Categorization for the departament Municipality NT Bo, Cu, Da NT An, Ans, Bo, Bug, Bui, Cal, Can, Car, FI, Gu, Ja, Un, Vi, Ob, Ri, Ro, Sp, To, Tr, Tu, Vij, Yo, Yu,Za VU,A1acd Protected area RFPR Bitaco, PNN Farrallones de Cali Bu, Bug RN Laguna de sonso RFPN Anchicaya NT Bu, Bug, Ja, Pa, Yu RFPN Anchicaya, RNR Laguna de Sonso NT Bu, Da PNN Uramba-Bahia Malaga, RFPN Anchi- caya CR, B2ab(iii)(t) Bu VU, B2ab(iii) Bu, Dar LC Cal, Cai, Cu, Ce, Da, Yo LC Bu, Bug, Cal, Ce, Ja, Pa, Yu VU, B2ab(iii) Bu VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Da, Vi VU, B2ab(iii) Bu SFF Isla Malpelo RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchi- caya PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchic- aya, RFPN de Cali, RFPN Bosque de Yotoco, RFPR Bitaco PNN Farallones de Cali RFPN Anchicaya Amphib. Reptile Conserv. December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia TAXON lUCN Anolis chocorum (Williams & Duellman, 1967) NE Anolis eulaemus (Bou- lenger, 1908) LC Anolis fraseri (Gunther, 1859) LC Anolis gracilipes (Bou- lenger, 1898) NE Anolis granuliceps (Boulenger, 1898) LC Anolis heterodermus (Dumeril, 1851) NE Anolis latifrons (Ber- thold, 1846) NE Anolis lyra (Poe, Velasco, Miyata & Wil- liams, 2009) NE Anolis macrolepis (Boulenger, 1911) NE Anolis maculiventris (Boulenger, 1898) NE Anolis mirus (Williams, 1963) NE Anolis notopholis (Boulenger, 1896) NE Anolis propinquus (Williams, 1984) NE Anolis rivalis (Williams, 1984) NE Anolis ventrimaculatus (Boulenger, 1911) NT Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca FAMILIA HOPLOCERCIDAE Enyalioides heterol- epis (Bocourt, 1874) NE Enyalioides oshaugh- nessyi (Boulenger, 1881) NE FAMILIA IGUANIDAE Iguana iguana (Lin- naeus, 1758) NE FAMILIA POLYCHROTIDAE Polychrus gutturosus (Berthold, 1846) NE Categorization for the departament Municipality VU, A2ac Bu VU,A2ac Cal, Cu, Vi VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Da, Yo EN, B2ab(iii) Bu VU, B2ab(iii) Bu, Da VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Cai, Cu, Da NT Bu VU, B2ab(iii) Bu, Dar NT Bu NT Bu CR, Blab(iii) Bu NT Bu, Da, Dar CR, Blab(iii) Da, Dar DD Bu LC Cal, Cai, Cu, Da EN,A2ac Bu, Bug, Cal, Can, Ce, Cu, Da, Gu, Ja, Pa, Sp, Vi, Vij, Yu Bu, Dar Protected area RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchi- caya PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPR Bitaco PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchic- aya, RFPN Bosque de Yotoco RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya, RFPR Bitaco RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchi- caya RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya NT Bu, Da DD Bu PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchic- aya, RFPN de Cali, RFPR Bitaco RFPN Anchicaya RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, RN Laguna de Sonso RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete Amphib. Reptile Conserv. December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. TAXON lUCN Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca INFRAORDEN GEKKOTA FAMILIAGEKKONIDAE Hemidactylus brookii (Gray, 1845) NE Hemidactylus frenatus (Schlegel, 1836) LC Lepidodactylus lugu- bris (Dumeril & Bibron, 1836) NE FAMILIA PHYLLODACTYLIDAE Phyllodactylus trans- versalis {Huey, 1935) NE Thecadactylus rapicauda (Flouttuyn, 1782) NE FAMILIA SPHAERODACTYLIDAE Gonatodes albogularis (Dumeril & Bibron, 1836) NE Lepidoblepharis duol- epis (Ayala & Castro, 1983) NE Lepidoblepharis inter- medius (Boulenger, 1914) NE Lepidoblepharis micro- /ep/s (Noble, 1923) NE Lepidoblepharis perac- cae (Boulenger, 1908) NE INFRAORDEN SCINCOMORPHA FAMILIA GYMNOPHTHALMIDAE Alopoglossus festae (Peracca, 1904) NE Alopoglossus lehm- anni (Ayala & Flarris, 1984) NE Anadia vittata (Bou- lenger, 1913) NE Cercosaura argulus (Peters, 1863) LC Cercosaura vertebra- lis (O’Shaughnessy, 1879) NE Echinosaura horrida (Boulenger, 1890) NE Categorization for the departament Municipality Protected area LC An, Bu, Bui, Cal, Can, Gu, Ja, Ob, Pa, Yu LC An LC Bu, Cal, Yu rete, RFPN Anchi- caya RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchi- caya CR, B2ab(iii)(t) Bu SFF Isla Malpelo LC Bu, Dar RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete LC Bu, Bug, Cal, Cu, Ja, Pa, To, Tu, Vi, Vij, Yo, Yu, Za NT Cal, Tr, Yo VU, B2ab(iii) Bu VU, B2ab(iii) Bu VU, B2ab(iii) Bu RN Laguna de Sonso RFPN Bosque de Yotoco, RFPN de Cali RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya EN, B2ab(iii) Bu, Dar EN, B2ab(iii) Bu, Dar VU, B2ab(iii) Bu NT Cal, Da, FI, Pa, Yo LC Cal, Cai, Cu, Da, To, Tr NT Bu RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escalerete PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchi- caya PNN Farallones de Cali, PNN Las hermo- sas, RFPN Anchic- aya, RFPN Bosque de Yotoco, RFPR Frayle-Desbaratado PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN Anchic- aya, RFPN de Cali, RFPR Bitaco RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchi- caya Amphib. Reptile Conserv. December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia TAXON lUCN Echinosaura orcesi (Fritts, Almendariz & Samec, 2002) NE Gymnophthalmus speciosus (Flallowell, 1861) NE Leposoma south! (Ruthven & Gaige, 1924) NE Ptychoglossus stenol- ep/s (Boulenger, 1908) LC Ptychoglossus vallen- s/s(Flarris, 1994) NE Riama Columbiana (Andersson, 1914) NE Riama laevis (Bou- lenger, 1908) NE Riama striata (Peters, 1863) NE Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca FAMILIATEIIDAE Ameiva ameiva (Lin- naeus, 1758) NE Cnemidophorus lemniscatus (Linnaeus, 1758) NE Holcosus anomalus (Echternacht, 1977) NE FAMILIASCINCIDAE Mabuya sp. {sensu latu) INFRAORDEN DIPLOGLOSSA FAMILIAANGUIDAE Diploglossus mil- lepunctatus (O'Shaughnessy, 1874) Diploglossus monotro- p/s (Kuhl, 1820) SUBORDEN SERPENTES FAMILIA BOIDAE Boa constrictor (Lin- naeus, 1758) NE Corallus annulatus (Cope, 1876) NE FAMILIA COLUBRIDAE Chironius carinatus (Linnaeus, 1758) NE Chironius grandisqua- mis (Peters, 1868) NE Categorization for the departament Municipality VU, B2ab(iii) Bu DD Bug, Ja, Ro, Yu NT Bu NT Cai, Da, Tr, Yo DD Cal VU,A2acd Cal, Cai, Tu EN,A2acd Cai, Cu DD Cal VU, B2ab(iii) Protected area RFPN Anchicaya RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchi- caya RFPN Anchicaya RFPN de Cali PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN de Tulua RFPR Bitaco PNN Farallones de Cali VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Ja, Pa LC Bug, Cal, Ja, Pa, Vij, Yo, Yu NT Bu, Da, Dar Bu, Cal RN Laguna de Sonso RFPN de los rios San Cipriano y Escale- rete, RFPN Anchi- caya PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN de Cali CR, B1ab(iii)(t) Bu SFF Isla Malpelo VU, B2ab(iii) Bu, Dar RFPN Anchicaya VU,A2acd Bu EN, Blab(iii) Bu RFPN Anchicaya NT Bu, Cal PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN de Cali NT Bu RFPN Anchicaya, PNR La Sierpe, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano Amphib. Reptile Conserv. December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. TAXON lUCN Chironius monticola (Roze, 1952) NE Dendrophidion bivit- tatus (Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854) NE Dendrophidion clarkii (Dunn, 1933) NE Dendrophidion percari- natus (Cope, 1893) NE Dendrophidion pro- lixum (Cadle, 2012) NE Drymarchon melanu- rus (Bibron & Dumeril 1854) NE Drymobius rhombifer (Gunther, 1860) NE Lampropeltis triangu- lum (Lacepede, 1789) NE Leptophis ahaetulla (Linneaus, 1758) NE Leptophis depressiros- tris (Cope, 1861) NE Mastigodryas boddae- rti (Sentzen, 1796) NE Mastigodryas danieli (Amaral, 1935) NE Mastigodryas pleei (Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854) NE Mastigodryas pulchri- ceps (Cope, 1868) NE Red book of Red Book of Colombia Valle del Cauca Categorization for the departament Municipality Protected area NT Ar, Bo, Cal, Cai, Cu, Da, Do, Tr, Ve, Yo RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, PNN Faral- lones de Cali, RFPN de Cali NT Bu, Bug, Cal, Cu, Da, Yo PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, RFPN Anchicaya EN, B2ab(iii) Bu, Dar PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano EN, Blab(iii) Ar, Bu, Cai, Dar, Do, Ve RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano DD Bu RFPN Anchicaya NT An, Bu, Cal, Can, Ce, Yo RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco EN, Blab(iii) Bu RFPN Anchicaya; RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano LC Bu, Cal, Cai, Da, Ja, Pa, Tu, Vij, Yu RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de Cali, PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN Cerro Dapa - Carisucio NT Bu, Bui, Cal, Pa, Yo RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco NT Bu RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, RFPN Anchicaya LC Bu, Cal RFPN Anchicaya, PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, DMI La Plata, PNN Uramba Bahia Malaga, PNR La sierpe, RFPN de Cali NT Cal, Cu, Pa RFPN de Cali, PNN Farallones de Cali, PNN Las hermosas NT Bug, Cal, Cu, Da, Gu, Ja, Pa, Re, Ro, Se, Tu, Vi, Vij, Yo, Yu PNN Farallones de Cali NT Bu, Cal RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de Cali, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano Amphib. Reptile Conserv. December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia TAXON lUCN Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca Categorization for the departament Municipality Protected area Oxybelis aeneus (Wa- gler, 1824) NE LC Al, An, Ans, Ar, Bo, Bu, Bug, Bui, Ca, Cal, Can, Car, Da, Dar, Do, Cai, Ce, Ag, FI, Gi, Gu, Ja, Cu, Vi, Un, Ob, Pa, Pr, Re, Ri, Ro, Sp, Se, To, Tr, Tu, Ul, Ve, Vij, Yo, Yu, Za RFPN Anchicaya, PNN Farallones de Cali, PNN Las hermosas, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, DMI La Plata, PNN Uramba Bahia Malaga, PNR La sierpe, RN Laguna de sonso, RFPN de Cali, RFPN Dagua, DMI Enclave subxe- rofitico de Atuncela, PNR Paramo el Du- ende, PNN Tatama, RFPN Amaime, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN Cerro Dapa - Ca- risucio Oxybelis brevirostris (Cope, 1861) NE LC Bu, Da DMI La Plata, RFPN Anchicaya, PNN Farallones de Cali PUocercus euryzonus Cope, 1862 LC VU, B2ab(iii) Bu, Da, Dar RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, PNN Faral- lones de Cali Pseustes poecilonotus (Gunther, 1858) LC VU, B2ab(iii) Bu RFPN Anchicaya, PNN Farallones de Cali Pseustes Shropshire! (Barbour & Amaral, 1924) NE VU, B2ab(iii) Bu RFPN Anchicaya, PNR La sierpe Rhinobothryum bovallii (Anderson, 1916) NE EN, Blab(iii) Bu RFPN Anchicaya, PNR La sierpe Spilotes pullatus (Lin- naeus, 1758) NE LC Al, An, Ans, Ar, Bo, Bu, Bug, Bui, Ca, Cal, Can, Car, Da, Dar, Do, Cai, Ce, Ag, FI, Gi, Gu, Ja, Cu, Vi, Un, Ob, Pa, Pr, Re, Ri, Ro, Sp, Se, To, Tr, Tu, Ul, Ve, Vij, Yo, Yu, Za RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, RFPN de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, RFPN Dagua, RFPN de Amaime, RFPN de sonso-guabas, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN Cerro Dapa - Carisucio, RN Laguna de sonso, PNR La sierpe, DMI La Plata, DMI Enclave subxerofitico de Atuncela, PNR Paramo el Duende, PNN Tatama, PNN Farallones de Cali, PNN las hermosas, PNN Uramba-Bahia Malaga Stenorrina degen- hardtii {Bedho\6, 1845) NE NT Bu, Dar RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, DMI La Plata Amphib. Reptile Conserv. S-17 December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. TAXON lUCN Red book of Red Book of Colombia Valle del Cauca Categorization for the departament Tantilla melanoceph- ala (Linnaeus, 1758) {sensu latu) FAMILIA DIPSADIDAE Atractus boulengerii (Peracca, 1896) NE Atractus clarki (Dunn & Bailey, 1939) NE Atractus lehmanni (Boettger, 1898) NE Atractus melas (Bou- lenger, 1908) NE Atractus multicinctus (Jan, 1865) NE Atractus obesus (Marx, 1960) NE Clelia clelia (Daudin, 1803) NE Clelia equatoriana (Amaral, 1924) NE Diaphorolepis wagneri (Jan, 1863) NE Dipsas sanctijoannis (Boulenger, 1911) DD Dipsas temporalis (Werner, 1909) NE Erythrolamprus bizo- nus (Jan, 1863) LC Erythrolamprus epi- nephelus {Cope, 1862) NE Municipality Al, An, Ans, Ar, Bo, Bu, Bug, Bui, Ca, Cal, Can, Car, Da, Dar, Do, Cai, Ce, Ag, FI, Gi, Gu, Ja, Cu, Vi, Un, Ob, Pa, Pr, Re, Ri, Ro, Sp, Se, To, Tr, Tu, Ul, Ve, Vij, Yo, Yu, Za DD (t) Bu DD Re DD Cal, Cu, Da, Se DD Bu, Cal, Da VU, B2ab(iii) Bu, Cal, Cu, Da DD Cal, Ce, FI LC Bu, Cal, Ce, Cu, Da, Yo, Yu EN, B2ab(iii) Ans, Ar, Bo, Cai, Do, Un, Pr, To, Ve VU, B2ab(iii) Bu, Cal, Cai, Cu, Da LC Bu, Cal, Cu, Da, Yo DD Bu LC Bu, Bug, Cal, Car, Cu, Da, Dar, FI, Ja, Pa, Un, Yu NT Bo, Bu, Bug, Cal, Cai, Da, Tr Protected area RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, RFPN de Cali, RFPNAnchi- caya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN Cerro Dapa - Carisucio, RFPN Dagua, RFPN de Amaime, DMI Enclave subxerofitico deAtuncela, RN Laguna de sonso, PNN Tatama, PNN Farallones de Cali RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya, RFPR Bitaco PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN de Cali RFPN de Cali, RFPN Anchicaya PNN Farallones de Cali, PNN las hermo- sas, RFPR Frayle- Desbaratado RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de Cali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, PNN las hermosas PNN Las hermosas PNN Farallones de Cali RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, PNN Faral- lones de Cali, RFPN deCali, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya, PNN Farallones de Cali, PNN las hermo- sas, RFPN de Cali, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN Cerro Dapa - Carisu- cio, RFPN Dagua RFPN de Cali, RFPN Anchicaya, PNN Farallones de Cali Amphib. Reptile Conserv. December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia TAXON lUCN Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca Erythrolamprus mimus (Cope, 1868) Geophis betaniensis (Restrepo & Wright, 1987) Geophis nigroalbus (Boulenger, 1908) Categorization for the departament VU, B2ab(iii) Imantodes cenchoa (Linnaeus, 1758) Imantodes inornatus (Boulenger, 1896) Imantodes chocoen- sis (Torres-Carvajal, Yanez-Munoz, Quirola, Smith & Almendariz, 2012) Leptodeira annulata (Linnaeus, 1758) Leptodeira septentrio- na//s (Kennicott, 1859) Ninia atrata (Hallowell, 1845) Nothopsis rugosus (Cope, 1871) Municipality Bu, Da Protected area RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, PNN Faral- lones de Cali Bo, Da, Ri Bo,Cu, Tr Al, An, Ans, Ar, Bo, Bu, Bug, Bui, Ca, Cal, Can, Car, Da, Dar, Do, Cai, Ce, Ag, FI, Gi, Gu, Ja, Cu, Vi, Un, Ob, Pa, Pr, Re, Ri, Ro, Sp, Se, To, Tr, Tu, Ul, Ve, Vij, Yo, Yu, Za RFPN de los rios Es- calerete y San Cipria- no, RFPN Anchicaya, PNN Farallones de Cali, DMI La Plata, PNN Uramba Bahia Malaga, PNR La sierpe, RN Laguna de sonso, RFPN de Cali, RFPN Dagua, DMI Enclave subxerofitico deAtuncela, PNR Paramo el Duende, RFPN de Amaime, PNN Tatama, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN Cerro Dapa - Carisucio Al, An, Ans, Ar, Bo, Bu, Bug, Bui, Ca, Cal, Can, Car, Da, Dar, Do, Cai, Ce, Ag, FI, Gi, Gu, Ja, Cu, Vi, Un, Ob, Pa, Pr, Re, Ri, Ro, Sp, Se, To, Tr, Tu, Ul, Ve, Vij, Yo, Yu, Za RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano RFPN Anchicaya, PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, DMI La Plata, PNN Uramba Bahia Malaga, PNR La sierpe, RN Laguna de sonso, RFPN de Cali, RFPN Dagua, DMI Enclave subxe- rofitico deAtuncela, PNN Tatama, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, RFPR Bitaco; RFPN Cerro Dapa - Carisucio, RFPN de Amaime EN, Blab(iii) RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya; RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano Amphib. Reptile Conserv. December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. TAXON lUCN Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca Oxyrhopus petolarius (Linnaeus, 1758) Saphenophis boursieri (Jan, 1867) Saphenophis sneiderni Myers, 1973 Saphenophis tristiatus (Rendahl & Vester- gren, 1941) Sibon nebuiata (Lin- naeus, 1758) Siphiophis compres- sus (Daudin, 1803) Synophis piectoverte- braiis (Sheil & Grant, 2001) Tretanorhinus taenia- tus (Boulenger, 1903) Urotheca decipiens (Gunter 1893) Urotheca fuiviceps (Cope, 1886) Urotheca iateristriga (Berthold, 1859) Xenodon rabdocepha- /us(Wied, 1824) Protected area RFPN Anchicaya, PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, DMI La Plata, PNN Uramba Bahia Malaga, PNR La sierpe, RN Laguna de sonso, RFPN de Cali, RFPN Dagua, DMI Enclave subxe- rofitico de Atuncela, PNN Tatama, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, RFPR Bitaco, RFN Cerro Dapa - Carisucio PNN Farallones de Cali, PNN Las hermosas RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, RFPN de Cali, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN Cerro Dapa - Carisucio, PNR La sierpe, RN Laguna de sonso, RFPN Dagua, DMI La Plata, DMI Enclave subxerofitico de Atuncela, PNN Tata- ma, PNN Farallones de Cali, PNN Uramba - BahiaMalaga RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya PNN Farallones de Cali, RFPR Bitaco, RFPN Cerro Dapa - Carisucio, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco RFPN Anchicaya RFPN de Cali, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPR Bitaco DMI La Plata, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano Amphib. Reptile Conserv. S-20 December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia TAXON lUCN FAMILIA ELAPIDAE Micrurus ancoralis (Jan, 1872) NE Micrurus clarki (Schmidt, 1936) NE Micrurus dumerilii (Jan, 1858) NE Micrurus mipartitus (Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1854) NE Micrurus multifasciatus (Jan, 1858) NE Micrurus multiscutatus (Rendahl & Vester- gren, 1940) DD Red book of Red Book of Colombia Valle del Cauca Categorization for the departament Municipality FAMILIA LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE Trilepida joshuai (Dunn, 1944) LC Trilepida macrolepis (Peters, 1857) NE FAMILIA TROPIDOPHIIDAE Trachyboa boulengeri (Peracca, 1910) NE FAMILIA VIPERIDAE Bothriechis schlegelii (Berthold, 1846) NE Bothrocophias myersi (Gutberlet & Campbell, 2001) LC NT Bu DD Da NT Bu, Da LC Bo, Bug, Bu, Cal, Cai, Cu, Da, Dar, FI, Gu, Ja, Pa, Pr, Ri, Tu, Yo DD Dar DD Bu, Dar Bothrops asper (Gar- man, 1884) Protected area DMI La Plata, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano RFPN Anchicaya RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, RFPN de Cali; PNR La sierpe, PNN Farallones de Cali RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, RFPN de Cali, RFPR Bitaco, PNR La sierpe, RN Laguna de sonso, PNN Farallones de Cali, PNN Las hermosas DD Bo, Cal, Cai, Da RFPN de Cali, PNN Farallones de Cali DD Cal, Dar RFPN de Cali NT Bu RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, DMI La Plata NT Bu, Cal, Cai, Cu, Da, Dar, FI, Pa, Se, Tr, Yo RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, RFPR Bitaco, PNN Las hermosas VU,A2ac Bu, Dar RFPN Anchicaya, PNR La sierpe Bu, Cal, Da, Dar, Pa, Yo RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, RFPN del Bosque de Yotoco, DMI Enclave subxe- rofitico de Atuncela, DMI La Plata, RFPN Dagua, RFPN de Cali, PNR La sierpe, PNN Farallones de Cali, PNN Uramba- Bahia Malaga Amphib. Reptile Conserv. December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. TAXON lUCN Red book of Colombia Red Book of Valle del Cauca Categorization for the departament Municipality Protected area Bothrops punctatus (Garcia, 1896) NE VU, A2ac Bu RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, PNR La sierpe Bothrops rhombeatus (Garcia, 1896) NE VU, B2ab(iii) Cal, Pa RFPN de Cali Lachesis acrochorda (Garcia 1896) NE VU,A2ac Bu RFPN Anchicaya Porthidium nasutum (Bocourt, 1868) LC VU,A2ac Bu RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano ORDEN TESTUDINATA SUBORDEN CRYTODIRA FAMILIA CHELYDRIDAE Chelydra acutirostris (Peters, 1862) NE DD NT An, Bu, Bug, Cal, Car, Pa, Yo, Za RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, RN Laguna de sonso FAMILIA EMYDIDAE Trachemys scripta (Thunberg in Schoepff, 1792) NE LC Bug, Cal RN Laguna de sonso FAMILIA GEOEMYDIDAE Rhinoclemmys annu- lata (Gray, 1860) NT DD VU,A2acd Bu RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, PNR La sierpe Rhinoclemmys mela- nosterna (Gray, 1861) NE NT VU,A2acd Bu RFPN Anchicaya, PNR La sierpe Rhinoclemmys nasuta (Boulenger, 1902) NT DD NT Bu RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, PNR La sierpe FAMILIA KINOSTERNIDAE Cryptochelys dunni (Schmidt, 1947) VU VU VU, B2ab(iii) Bu PNR La sierpe Cryptochelys leucosto- mum (Dumeril, Bibron & Dumeril, 1851) NE NT Bu RFPN Anchicaya, RFPN de los rios Escalerete y San Cipriano, PNR La sierpe Considering that recently some taxonomic problems have been resolved, we provide to some species or groups of species, the taxonomic category of Sensu latu or cf., understanding that these species could eventually change and give new information for the department. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. S-22 December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Conservation status of the herpetofauna in Colombia Table 2. Criteria U it N LO a* Dfil A S3 a* u u . 0 O — JO ^ 0 0 _ "0 CD — 0 O Q. Q. o CD 9 0 CD C 0 O) £ L_ o u LU CO o O O 0 G> . 0 ) O N c 0 >» 0 ^ 0 JO 3 ^ -2 c 0 CL— _ LU 0 o .O 0 0 0 c 0 ■O c 3 JO < ■O 0 o ■O o _0 JO 0 g ■q. Q. 0 _0 JO 0 g ■q. Q. 0 o c c X O CM A 0 0 JO 0 o 0 ? 0 0 1 c o c o o 0 c Q. c 0 CD c F g O N 0 ■o _c 0 0 "O 0 > E § 0 0 ■O c o s 0 <- 0 E 1— 0 c o O o Q. o I 0 g S 0 o c Q. g o 11 M- .P o I C30 ~ 0 ^ c c o 0 ■■= £ 2 !q O 0 'S Q. V ■o 0 2 0 ■0 0 *3 0 0 4 -I 0 c .E -o = ^ ■P ^ > .0 C O) ^ 0 c 0 s. 7-5 4 -I !5 ‘0 CO 0 _g 1^1 9 0 5 0 0 < 5 3 0 . S «- (O h- 00 O) LO LO 0 c o ■O 0 o CD 0 0 ^ E? CM 0 0 L_ 0 ■O 0 o 0 2 Q. ■O 0 o CD 0 0 ^ 2 00 0 0 0 0 ^ 2 0 Is *- o 0 0 0 2 2 Q. o k- 0 . - < C "O 0 O 0 o 0 S 0 . Amphib. Reptile Conserv. S-23 December 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e87 Valencia-Zuleta et al. 1 ' >i- ■ -* N ■ - . ' .a V. . ■ V 'A V* « . "if*- ■^v. it. v/'. Pristimantis achatinus Pristimantis palmeri Anolis maculiventris Anolis chocorum Bothrops asper Clelia clelia Corallus annulata Dendrophidion bivittatus Amphib. Reptile Conserv. S-24 December 2014 I Volume 8 I Number 2 I e87 Comparative dorsal view of the head of Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. (left) and T. sumatranus (right). Left from above: male, female (holotype), male, all alive, from Sumatra Utara Province, Sumatra. Right: adult female alive from Bengkulu Province, Su- matra, adult male alive from Bengkulu Province, Sumatra, preserved female from Borneo. Photos: N. Maury. ( 1 ) September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org Amphibian & Reptiie Conservation 8(2) [General Section]: 1-29. Copyright: © 2014 Vogel et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License, which permits unrestricted use for non-commercial and education purposes only provided the original author and source are credited. The official publication credit source: Amphib- ian & Reptile Conservation at: amphibian-reptile-conservation.org On Trimeresurus sumatranus (Raffles, 1822 ), with the desig- nation of a neotype and the description of a new species of pitviper from Sumatra (Squamata: Viperidae: Crotalinae) ^Gernot Vogel, ^Patrick David, and ^Irvan Sidik ^Society for Southeast Asian Herpetology, Im Sand 3, D-69115 Heidelberg, GERMANY ^Reptiles & Amphibiens, UMR 7205 OSEB, Departement Systematique et Evolution, CP 30, Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, PRANCE ^Laboratory of Herpetology, Museum Zoologicum Bogoriense, Zoology Division, Research Center for Biology, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Widyasatwa Loka Jl. Raya Jakarta-Bogor Km 46, Cibinong 16911, INDONESIA Abstract. — Variation in morphological characters were investigated among 126 specimens from at least 67 populations covering the whole range of the large pitviper currently known as Trimeresurus sumatranus (Raffles, 1822). The results showed that two distinct taxa are involved. Herein Trimeresurus sumatranus is redefined. In order to fix the status of this species, a neotype is selected and described. Its type locality is restricted to the vicinity of Bengkulu, Bengkulu Province, Sumatra. The second taxon represents a distinct, previously unnamed species, which is described. The new species differs from Trimeresurus sumatranus by a lower number of ventrals in males (162-179 against 178-185) and females (164-171 vs. 175-191); a distinctly longer tail in males (value of the ratio tail length/total length: 0.201-0.210 vs. 0.150-0.168), the color of the tail (see the description), the color of the eyes: green in the new species, vs. dark grey in T. sumatranus, the color of the ventrals, which are green with a pale posterior suture in the new species and pale with dark posterior suture in T. sumatranus. The new species lives in higher elevations than T. sumatranus and seems to be endemic to the higher mountain ranges of western Sumatra. Key words. Sumatra, West Malaysia, Borneo, Trimeresurus gunaleni spec, nov., Trimeresurus malcolmi, Trimeresu- rus sumatranus Citation: Vogel G, David P, Sidik I. 2014. On Trimeresurus sumatranus (Raffles, 1822), with the designation of a neotype and the description of a new species of pitviper from Sumatra (Squamata: Viperidae: Crotalinae). Amphibian & Reptiie Conservation 8(2) [General Issue]: 1-29 (e80). Introduction The genus Trimeresurus Lacepede, 1804 is currently composed of 46 species, of which 12 were described since the year 2000 (David et al. 2011). This genus and most of its species have complex systematic and nomen- clatural histories. For example, the generic nomen P arias Gray, 1849 was regarded as a valid subgenus only re- cently (David et al. 2011). This extensive series of confu- sions arose from the fact that many species of this genus are arboreal; green snakes that are superficially similar in color and scalation. This factor is exemplified by the case of Trimeresurus sumatranus (Raffles, 1 822) and its relatives. Trimeresurus sumatranus (Raffles, 1822) was one of the first species of this genus of Asian pitvipers to have been described (as Coluber sumatranus), a point that is quite surprising as it is a rather uncommon spe- cies with a limited distribution in the Sunda Islands. Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles (1781-1826), best known as the founder of Singapore, made a long stay in Bencoolen, now Bengkulu, a city of south-western Sumatra, between March 1818 and August 1824, although this stay was in- Correspondence. Email: ^ Gernot.Vogel@t-online.de Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (2) terrupted several times for trips to Nias and, especially Singapore. He held the position of Governor-General of Bencoolen from 1818 to 1822. An account on the activi- ties of Sir T. Raffles in Sumatra can be found in Raffles (1835). Sir Raffles was definitely not a scholarly natural- ist but had a strong interest in local plants and animals which he described himself (Raffles 1821, 1822). Trimeresurus sumatranus has been extensively con- fused in the literature with Trimeresurus hageni (Van Lidth de Jeude, 1886), a related but distinct species that inhabits lower elevations in Sumatra, Borneo, and the Malay Peninsula. Both species share similar scalation, and juvenile specimens of both species are uniformly green in color. However, although the adults are very different in coloration, the similarities in scalation led Boulenger, the leading herpetologist of his time, to syn- onymize these two species (Boulenger 1896). A reason for this misinterpretation was the fact that at that time, the British Museum of Natural History, the place where Boulenger was working, had only a single specimen of the species T. sumatranus which unfortunately was a ju- venile and thus shared the green color with T hageni. September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Vogel et al. Boulenger’s appraisal was followed by subsequent work- ers, until the works of van Lidth de Jeude (1922) and especially Brongersma (1933). Tliis latter author was the first to show that T. sumatranus and T. hageni were valid, distinct species, and he provided new characters separat- ing both species from one another. Furthermore, it is worth noting that Schlegel (1826) described the taxon Cophias wagleri (nee Cophias wa- gleri Boie, 1827) as a replacement name for Coluber sumatranus (Raffles, 1822). We refer to Savage et al. (2012) for a discussion on the early confusion between these species. Nevertheless, other authors such as Schle- gel (1837), Gray (1842: 48; 1849: 10), Cantor (1847: 1042, PI. 40: Fig. 9), Gunther (1858: 266), Peters (1862: 671) and later as Ouwens (1916: PI. 15: Fig. 22 and 22a) also confused in part or totally Coluber sumatranus with Cophias wagleri Boie, 1827, a totally different species now known as Tropidolaemus wagleri. Loveridge (1938: 45) described Trimeresurus su- matranus malcolmi (Type locahty: “Sungii River, near Bunduntuan, Mount Kinabalu, British Nord Borneo,” a river in the vicinity of Bundu Tuhan, on the southern slopes of Mt. Kinabalu, state of Sabah, Borneo, Federa- tion of Malaysia). This subspecies was regarded as valid by all subsequent authors for some populations of north- ern Borneo whereas other populations of this island were referred to the nominative subspecies (David and Ineich 1999; McDiamiid et al. 1999; Malkmus et al. 2002). Subsequently, Trimeresurus sumatranus malcolmi was raised to full species status by Stuebing and Inger (1998). As a consequence, Trimeresurus sumatranus was subse- quently considered monotypic. More recently, two revisions of the systematics of these two species were published by Sanders et al. (2002, 2004). Results of the first publication, which was based on scalation characters, pattern and coloration, can be summarized as follows: (1) T sumatranus and T hageni are clearly separate as shown by canonical multivari- ate analysis; (2) T sumatranus inhabits South Thailand, Borneo, and central western Sumatra, whereas T. hageni is living in North and South Sumatra, Thailand, Malay- sia, Singapore, Nias, and Siberut; (3) the authors showed clear differences between populations of T. sumatranus inhabiting the central part of western Sumatra and that one living on Borneo; and (4) morphological differences, especially in males, were pointed out between popula- tions of the islands of Nias and Siberut on the one hand, and all other populations on the other hand. In these is- lands, specimens referable to Trimeresurus hageni show some characters of the pattern typical to T. sumatranus, such as black dorsal crossbars and the presence of dark edges on head scales. This partial similarity has led to erroneous records of T. sumatranus from these islands. In contrast, Sanders et al. (2004) included molecu- lar analyses and considered all species of the subgenus Parias Gray, 1849 as defined by Malhotra and Thorpe (2004) (as a genus). For the species treated here, the Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (3) results of Sanders et al. (2004) can be summarized as follows: (1) T hageni has an expanded distribution compared with Sanders et al. (2002), i.e. populations of southern Thailand, West Malaysia, and the islands of Bangka, Sibemt, Nias, and all islands of the Mentawai Archipelago are refen-ed to this species; (2) little mor- phological variation was found between populations of T hageni, in contrast to results presented by Sanders et al. (2002); (3) without justification, populations of South Thailand and West Malaysia were no longer referred to T. sumatranus but to T hageni', as a consequence, the range of T. sumatranus was restricted to a naiTow area covering mid elevations between 650 and 800 m — the central and southern parts of the Barisan Range, western Sumatra, and a wide range throughout Borneo mainly below 300 m; (4) populations of Sumatra and Borneo are separated by a genetic distance of 3.3%; (5) differences in ecol- ogy were pointed out between the Bornean and Suma- tran populations; and (6) ecological adaptation has led to a convergence in the pattern between T hageni and T. sumatranus in Sumatra. Sanders et al. (2004) consid- ered that this convergence made useless some characters which used to be considered diagnostic; for example the separation of the fourth and fifth supralabial with the suboculars (see Brongersma 1933). Sanders et al. (2004) provided quite a different definition of T sumatranus compared with Brongersma (1933). However, it must be emphasized that only two populations of T. hageni and two populations of T. sumatranus, both from Bengkulu Province for this latter species, were compared in mo- lecular analyses. In the frame of a revision of the subgenus Parias in the Sunda Islands, namely of populations referred in the literature to T. sumatranus, T hageni, and T. malcolmi, we examined specimens refeiTed to as Trimeresurus su- matranus originating from throughout the range of this taxon, including material not investigated previously. Our data suggest that the combination of several charac- ters, both of pattern and scalation, allow a clear distinc- tion between T sumatranus and T hageni. Definitions of these two species will be presented in a subsequent paper. In the first step of this revision, presented here, we put emphasis on the morphology of the various popu- lations refen'ed to as T. sumatranus auctorum. Our data also show that two distinct forms of T. sumatranus auc- torum can be defined in Sumatra, both deserving to be recognized as full species. Material and Methods The present paper is based on 126 preserved specimens examined by us from 67 localities covering the whole range of T. sumatranus auctorum and T. hageni, and sev- eral live specimens of both species. Preserved examined specimens of the two forms of T. sumatranus are listed under their respective account; specimens of T. hageni are listed in Appendix I. September 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 A new species of Trimeresurus from Sumatra Selection of morphological characters We retained standard morphological characters used in the genus Trimeresurus by Brongersma (1933), Pope and Pope (1933), and Regenass and Kramer (1981), along with other morphometric characters adapted from Vogel et al. (2004). We made a pre-selection of characters with a limited number of specimens. Characters not suitable, due to variability or uniformity were deleted and a set of 30 characters was retained (Table 1). Measurements, except body and tail lengths, were taken with a slide-calliper to the nearest 0.1 millimeter (nun); all measures on body were taken to the nearest mm. In order to minimize inter-observer error, all mea- surements considered here were made by Gemot Vogel (GV). Ventral scales were counted according to Dowl- ing (1951). The first subcaudal was defined as the first scale posterior to the vent that touched the opposite scale. The terminal scute is excluded from the number of sub- caudals. The numbers of dorsal scale rows are given at one head length behind the head, at midbody (i.e., at the level of the ventral plate corresponding to half of the total number of ventrals), and at one head length anterior to the vent respectively. Values for symmetric head char- acters are given in left/right order. The real coloration of body and eyes were observed only on living animals or freshly preserved specimens. Morphometric, meristic, and coloration characters re- tained for this study are listed in Table 1. Altogether, 30 variables were considered, either standing on their own or derived from the raw characters listed above. Not all variables listed in this table proved to be useful to sepa- rate at least one taxon of the Trimeresurus sumatranus group from the others, but all were investigated and used in combinations of characters and/or were used in uni- variate analyses. Table 1. List of morphological characters and variables used in this study and their abbreviations. Number Abbreviation Character Morphometry 1 SVL Snout-vent length 2 TaL Tail length 3 TL Total length 4 TaL/TL Ratio tail length/Total length Scalation 5 Dorsal scale rows 6 Do Dorsal scale rows at midbody 7 Dorsal scale rows at midbody 8 Ven Ventral plates 9 Sc Subcaudal plates 10 Cep Cephalic scales (scales on a line between the middle of supraoculars) 11 InN Intemasal scale(s) 12 InN sep Intemasal scales touching each other 13 Keeling of the occipital scales 14 Supralabial scales 15 Number of scales between third supralabial and subocular 16 Number of scales between fourth supralabial and subocular 17 Number of scales between fifth supralabial and subocular 18 CtotSL Total number of supralabials touching subocular 19 IL Infralabials Pattern 20 Presence of black margins on dorsal scales of the head 21 Upper labials being lighter than other parts of the head 22 Ventrals with dark margins 23 Subcaudals with dark margins 24 Presence of bands on the body 25 Presence of dorsolateral light spots on the body 26 Coloration and presence of a ventrolateral stripe 27 Coloration and presence of a temporal streak 28 Color of eyes 29 Posterior part of the tail reddish 30 Pattern of the tail Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (4) September 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Vogel et al. The analyses of external morphological data were based on comparisons of statistical values (mean value and standard deviation). A test of Mann- Whitney {U test; see Siegel 1956) was applied as necessary. Calcula- tions were run online on the website: http://elegans.som. vcu.edu/~leon/stats/utest.html (last accessed on 14 July 2014). Abbreviations are: n\ number of specimens; x\ mean value; standard deviation; P: probability of oc- currence of a value as extreme as or more extreme than the observed value; U: the statistic in the Mann- Whitney test. The color of the eyes is shown here to be a taxonomic character. However, it is problematic as it cannot be ob- served in preserved specimens. According to our obser- vations, the eye color in adult animals is stable for each species and sex (Vogel et al. 2004). In the species treated here, there was no sexual dimorphism in eye coloration. The color of the tail is diagnostic and we recognize two patterns: “uniform reddish-brown with dark margins,” or “mottled,” for specimens with a mixture of brown and green colors on the tail. Museum abbreviations BMNH: The Natural History Museum, London, UK; CAS: Cahfornia Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, USA; FMNH: Field Museum of Natural History, Chi- cago, USA; IRSNB: Institut Royal des Sciences Naturel- les de Belgique, Bmssels, Belgium; MNHN: Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France; NHMB: Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, Switzerland; NHMW: Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria; MZB: Mu- seum Zoologicum Bogoriense, Bogor a Cibinong, Java, Indonesia; OMNH: Osaka Museum of Natural History, Osaka, Japan; PSGV: Gemot Vogel’s private collection, Heidelberg, Germany; RMNH: Nationaal Natuurhisto- risch Museum (Naturalis), Leiden, Netherlands; SMF: Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany; ZFMK: Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn, Germany; ZMB: Zoologisches Museum fur Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Ber- lin, Germany; ZMH: Zoologisches Institut und Museum, Universitat Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany; ZRC: Zoo- logical Reference Collection, National University of Sin- gapore, Singapore; ZSM: Zoologische Staatssannnlung, Munchen, Gennany. Other abbreviations Measures and ratios: ED: vertical diameter of the eye. HL: Head length, SVL: Snout- vent length, TaL: Tail length, TL: Total length, TaL/TL: Ratio tail length/total length. Meristic characters: DSR: Formula of dorsal scale rows, IL: Infralabials, SC: Subcaudals, SL: supralabials, VEN: Ventrals. Results In our sample of 53 specimens referred to Trimeresu- rus sumatranus, as currently defined, we noticed that nine specimens from western Sumatra differed in sev- eral morphological characters from other populations. Trimeresurus sumatranus (Raffles, 1 822) was briefly de- scribed (as Coluber sumatranus) without any designation of a name-bearing type. Therefore, we first redefine this species and note intraspecific variation of the characters examined. We then designate a neotype for this species in agreement with Art. 75.3.1 to 75.3.7 of the Interna- tional Code of Zoological Nomenclature (I.C.Z.N. 1999; merely designated below as the Code). Trimeresurus sumatranus (Raffles, 1822) Fig. 1-7 Coluber sumatranus Raffles, 1822: 334. Type locality. By virtue of neotype designation: “SW Sumatra” (original type locality: implicitly “Suma- tra;” restricted to vicinity of Bengkulu city, Bengkulu Province, Sumatra fide Wallach et al. [2014: 527]; see also the discussion given below). Neotype. ZFMK 76340, adult female; deposited by An- dreas Gumprecht (holotype not traced according to McDiarmid et al. 1999: 345, considered to be lost). Trigonocephalus formosus Muller and Schlegel, 1842 (in 1842-1845): PI. 7 [dated 1842]; text [dated 1845]: 52 and 55. Type locality. “Aan de westkust van het eiland Sumatra, in de omstreken van het dorp Limomanis, eenige uren beoosten Padang. . .,” i.e.: on the west coast of Suma- tra Island, in the vicinity of Limomanis, a few hours east of Padang, now near Limau Manis, Province of Sumatera Barat, Sumatra, Indonesia. Holotype. RMNH 1583, adult male; deposited by S. Muller, 1835. Status. Junior subjective synonym of Coluber sumatra- nus Raffles, 1822. Synonymized by Lidth de Jeude (1886: 51). Material Examined {n = 44) Indonesia Sumatra. Bengkulu Province. MZB 1035, Gunung Ge- dang; MZB 2180, “Muara Aman, North Bengkulu;” MZB 3718, ZMB 66177-8; ZMB 76340, ZMB 70490, “Bengkulu;” ZMH R06936, Lebong-Tandai (3°01’S- 101°5’E). Jambi Province. MZB 457, “Jambi.” Lampung Province. MZB 2166, Rimba; MZB 2219, “Propinsi Lampung.” Sumatera Barat Province. OMNH R2135-6, Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (5) September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 A new species of Trimeresurus from Sumatra Kambot, Ulu Gadut, Mt. Gadut, ca. 800 m; MZB 2443, MZB 2445, Anai River. No locality. ZFMK 76340 (neo- type), South-western Sumatra. Borneo (Kalimantan). Kalimantan Barat Province. MZB 1052, Sungai Mentawit Balik; ZSM 283/1977- 1-2, Landak River; MZB 2138a-b, Tangung Lokang, Kapuas Hulu Regency. Kalimantan Tengah Province. MZB 2647, Mamwai. Kalimantan Timur Province. MZB 1340, Mapa Kelai River. Unidentified locality. MZB 2424, Sungai Auge. Federation of Malaysia Borneo (East Malaysia). State of Sabah. FMNH 239949-52, FMNH 239957-8, Tenom District; FMNH 239959, Sipitang District. State of Sarawak. BMNH 91.8.29.33, Mt. Dulit, Miri District, Miri Division; BMNH 1978.1879, Gunung Mulu National Park, Miri District, Miri Division; FMNH 138687-8, FMNH 138690, FMNH 148829, Kapit District, Kapit Division; FMNH 158671, Bintulu, Bintulu Division. West Malaysia. State of Johore. BMNH 1971.1532, Pan- ti Forest Reserve, South Johore. State of Pahang. ZRC 2.2929, Kuala Tahan; ZMB 69982, “Pahang.” State of Trengganu. BMNH 1974.5001-3, Gunong Lawit. Thailand Yala Province. BMNH 1936.9.12.3, “Betong, Pattani.” Taxonomic and nomenclatural comments There is no doubt about the distinct specific status of T. sumatranus and T. hageni. Our material shows that, in contrast to the conclusions of Sanders et al. (2004), Tri- meresurus sumatranus is a rather wide-ranging species. We examined several specimens from West Malaysia and one from extreme southern Thailand, and they are mor- phologically identical with specimens originating from most populations of Sumatra and Borneo. There is no reason for assigning them to any other species of the sub- genus Parias, and definitely not to T. hageni. Furthermore, T. sumatranus auctorum is here shown to be composed of two species in Sumatra. Some popula- tions of Sumatera Barat Province, in the northern part of the range of the species, are here referred to a new species that is described below. We examined the holotype of T. formosus Muller and Schlegel (1842: Fig. 2). We confirm that this specimen is definitely referred to Trimeresurus sumatranus and not to the new species described below that inhabits the same region. Trimeresurus sumatranus, as here redefined, is monotypic. Raffles (1822) deseribed this speeies on the basis of a single specimen. As he was posted in “Bencoolen,” and aeeordmg to S. Raffles (1835: 102-104), his widow, T. Raffles was interested in local “wonders in natural Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (6) history.” Furthermore, T. Raffles announced in a letter dated on 14 March 1820 that he planned to ship home, (England) the whole of his zoological collection “in a few days.” This collection was shipped before 29 March. So, by all evidence, the holotype of Coluber sumatranus originated from Bengkulu or its vicinity. On the basis of these historical considerations, Wallach et al. (2014) re- stricted the type locality of Coluber sumatranus to this city on the south-western coast of Sumatra. Considering that the description of the new species was published in 1822, we may ascertain that the holotype was included in this shipment and originated from the vicinity of Beng- kulu. However, the fate of the specimen is unknown and, by all evidence, it should be considered lost. As a conse- quence, we here designate a neotype for Coluber suma- tranus (Raffles, 1 822). Designation and Description of the Neotype of Coluber sumatranus Raffles, 1 822 The designation is made on the following basis and in agreement with the following articles of the Code: (1) the neotype is designated in order to fix the status of Colu- ber sumatranus (Raffles, 1 822) aceording to its eurrent definition in the literature, especially in regards to popu- lations described below as a new species and of other species of the subgenus Parias (Art. 75.3.1 of the Code); (2) diagnostic characters of Coluber sumatranus for which we designate this neotype, are given below (Art. 75.3.2); (3) the neotype is designated in details below (Art. 75.3.3); (4) a holotype has never been mentioned in the literature, for example by Boulenger (1896). It could not be traced in the collections of the Natural His- tory Museum (London), in contrast to Cox et al.’s (2012) statement, or of the Zoological Reference Collection of the National University of Singapore. For these reasons, we consider the holotype to be lost (Art. 75.3.4); (5) we select a specimen, the morphology of which i.e., scala- tion, pattern, and coloration, that agrees with characters provided in the original description (Art. 75.3.5); (6) as shown above, the holotype most probably originated from Bengkulu Province. We select a neotype from an area of Sumatra that encompasses Bengkulu Province (Art. 75.3.6). For these reasons, and in agreement with Art. 75.3.7 of the Code, we here designate as the neotype of Coluber sumatranus as the following specimen: ZFMK 76340, an adult female, from “Southwestern Sumatra” (Fig. 1) Morphology and measurements Body elongate, compressed; head elongate, relatively naiTow seen from above, massive seen from the side, dis- tinctly triangular, wide at its base, clearly distinct from the neck, flattened but thick, 1.8 times as long as wide; snout quite long, round when seen from above, strongly obliquely truncated when seen from the side, with a mod- September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Vogel et al. A Fig. 1 A-C. Trimeresurus sumatranus, ZFMK 76340, neotype of Coluber sumatranus Raffles, 1822, southwest Sumatra, Bengkulu Province, Sumatra. A. dorsal view of the body, B. ventral view of the body, C. lateral view oft the head. Photo: G. Vogel. September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (7) A new species of Trimeresurus from Sumatra Fig.2A-C. Trimeresurus su- matranus, RMNH 1583, Ho- lotype of Trigonocephalus formosus Muller and Schle- gel, 1842, from Padang, Su- matera Barat Province, Su- matra A. dorsal view of the body, B. ventral view of the body, C. lateral view of the head. Photo: G. Vogel September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (8) Vogel et al. Fig. 3A. MZB.Ophi.5452 live holotype of Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. from Mt. Sibayak, ca. 1,800 m a.s.l., west of Brastagi, Sumatera Utara Province, Sumatra, adult female. Photo: G. Vogel. Fig. 3B. MZB.Ophi.5452 live holotype of Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. from Mt. Sibayak, ca. 1,800 m a.s.l., west of Brastagi, Sumatera Utara Province, Sumatra, adult female. Photo: G. Vogel. September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (9) A new species of Trimeresurus from Sumatra Fig. 4A. Live male of Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. from Mt. Singkut, 1,600 m a.s.L, Sumatra Utara Province, Sumatra. Photo: G. Vogel. Fig. 4B. Live male of Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. from Mt. Singkut, 1,600 m a.s.L, Sumatra Utara Province, Sumatra. Photo: G. Vogel. September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (10) Vogel et al. Fig. 5. Comparative dorsal view of the head of Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. (left) and T. sumatranus (right). Left from above: Male, female (holotype), male, all from Sumatra Utara Province, Sumatra alive, right adult female alive from Bengkulu Province, Sumatra, adult male alive from Bengkulu Province, Sumatra, preserved female from Borneo. Photos: N. Maury. September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (11) A new species of Trimeresurus from Sumatra Fig. 6. Comparative lateral view of the head of Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. (left) and T. sumatranus (right). Left from above: Male, female (holotype), male, all from Sumatra Utara Province, Sumatra alive, right adult female alive from Bengkulu Province, Sumatra, adult male alive from Bengkulu Province, Sumatra, preserved female from Borneo. Photos: N. Maury. September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (12) Vogel et al. Fig. 7. Comparative ventral view of the head of Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. (left) and T. sumatranus (right). Left from above: Male, female (holotype), male, all from Sumatra Utara Province, Sumatra alive, right adult female alive from Bengkulu Province, Sumatra, adult male alive from Bengkulu Province, Sumatra, preserved female from Borneo. Photos: N. Maury. September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (13) A new species of Trimeresurus from Sumatra erate canthus rostralis, totalling 28% of head length and 1.9 times as long as diameter of eye; a large, oval nostril piercing in the middle of nasal scale; nostril-loreal pit distance about 0.4 tunes the distance between the nostril and the eye; eye average, amounting for 0.6 times the distance between the lower margin of eye and upper lip border; tail, tapering and prehensile. SVL 895 mm, TaL 155 mm, TL 1,050 mm; ratio TaL / TL 0. 148. Body scalation DSR: 21-21-15 scales, rhomboid, very weakly keeled with the exception of scales of first dorsal scale row which is smooth and not enlarged; 186 ventrals (+ two pre-ventrals); 61 subcaudals, all paired; anal entke. Head scalation Rostral barely visible from above, triangular, about as high as broad; nasals subrectangular, large, elongate, en- tirely divided by a funow; two subrectangular, laterally elongate internasals, about 1.8 times wider than long, separated each from the other by one small scale; each internasal followed on each side by one very large scale on the snout, much larger than internasals, broader than long, separated each from the other by two longitudinal series of small scales; 2/2 canthal scales bordering the canthus rostralis between intemasal and corresponding supraocular, i.e., the very large scale behind intemasal followed by a small scale smaller than adjacent snout scales between the largest canthal scale and the supra- oculars respectively; on each side, one elongate loreal scale between nasal and the upper preocular; 2/2 pre- oculars above the loreal pit, the upper one visible from above, both scales elongate and in contact with loreal; lower preocular fonning the lower margin of loreal pit; 1/1 thin, elongated, crescent-like subocular; 2/2 small postoculars; 1/1 large supraoculai', broad, 2.2 times as long as wide, about 1.3 times as wide as intemasal, not indented by upper head scales; scales on upper snout sur- face much enlarged, smooth, juxtaposed, subrectangular, with four scales on a line between the scale separating the intemasals and a line connecting the anterior margins of eyes; six cephalic scales on a line between supraocu- lars, smooth, flat, and juxtaposed; occipital scales flat, smooth; temporal scales in two or three rows, smooth, lower ones much enlarged; 9/9 SL, first SL triangular, rather short, completely separated from the nasal; sec- ond SL tall, bordering entirely the loreal pit and ante- riorly in contact with nasal; third SL longest and high- est, about 1 . 1 times longer than high, in contact on both sides with subocular; fourth SL barely shorter than third SL, in contaet with the subocular; fifth SL barely shorter than fourth one, also in contact with the subocular; 10/11 infralabials, those of the first pair not longitudinally in contact, shortly separated by the apex of the mental scale, first-seeond IL in contact with anterior chin shields; four rows of smooth gular scales; thioat shields irregularly ar- ranged. Coloration and pattern The body is olive-green on third-eleventh DSR, slightly paler on the bottom of the sides; most dorsal scales dis- tinctly edged with black producing a reticulate pattern; 46 irregular black crossbars on each side of the body, either symmetrical, forming black rings or more or less set off from each other on each side across vertebral line; scales of the first DSR and lower half of those of the second DSR pale greenish-yellow with black edges, producing a pale, diffuse ventrolateral stripe extending from the area just behind the neck up to vent; scales of the first DSR with a broad, irregular black edge on then- anterior lower part. The tail is olive-green on its anterior half, with scales strongly edged with black, producing a strongly reticulate pattern, and two or three more or less distinct black crossbars anteriorly, becoming progres- sively msty red, strongly reticulate with black. The head is olive-green above and on the temporal region, with cephalic, occipital, and temporal scales strongly edged with black; on each side, another long streak extends from intemasals to the posterior part of the head along the inner edge of supraoculars; two oblique black streaks on the occiput forming an inverted V, its apex pointing forward; supraoculars olive green, broad- ly edged with black; some other cephalic and occipital scales entirely black, so as to produce black blotches and streaks between supraoculars; upper snout surface heavily marked with pure black, producing broad edges around olive-green prefrontals and intemasals; scale be- hind and between intemasals black; black vertical and horizontal streaks on the rostral; supralabials yellowish- green, distinctly paler than upper head surface, strongly edged with black, with a broader streak at the limit be- tween third-fourth supralabials; preoculars olive-green strongly edged with black; a black postocular streak ex- tending from the eye to the area above the corner of the mouth on lower postocular and the upper rows of tempo- rals. Chin and throat pale greenish-yellow; an irregular dark grey spot on eaeh infralabials of the first pair; all infralabials edged with black on their posterior margin; gular scales below the comer of the mouth also narrowly edged with black. The venter is pale greenish-yellow; each ventral nar- rowly edged with black, especially on their central part, sometimes on the whole of their posterior margin; tips of ventrals narrowly edged with black on each side, produc- ing an irregular, zigzag-like black ventral stripe below the pale ventrolateral stripe. The tail is yellowish-green or greyish-yellow below on its anterior half, with subcau- dal scales broadly edged with black producing a conspic- uous reticulation, turning more or less abruptly to msty red, strongly reticulated with black. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (14) September 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Vogel et al. Diagnosis A large species of pitviper of the genus Trimeresurus, characterized by the combination of (1) body elongate, head long and massive in adults; (2) body deep green or dark green with conspicuous, black crossbars on the sides in adults, with a broad, pale ventrolateral stripe, and without sexual dimorphism in coloration; (3) 21 (excep- tionally 23) DSR at midbody; (4) first supralabial dis- tinct from nasal scale; (5) large intemasals, most usually separated by one scale, only exceptionally in contact; (6) three supralabials, third, fourth, fifth SL in contact with subocular, or fifth exceptionally separated by one scale; (7) supraoculars broad, separated by 3-7 (usually 5-6) scales; (8) tail average, with a ratio TaL/TL between 0.150 and 0.168 in males and 0.128 and 0.160 in females; (9) 175-191 VEN; (10) 54-68 SC (males: 66-71; fe- males: 54-68); (11) eye dark grey in life, rather bronze, brown, dark greyish-brown or golden-brown in preserva- tive; (12) supralabials and cephalic scales strongly and broadly edged with black; (13) a black postocular streak; (14) venter is yellowish-green or pale green, with each ventral narrowly edged with black posteriorly; and (15) tail green as the body on its anterior half, becoming more or less abruptly salmon, pinkish-red, or rusty-red on its posterior half, strongly and broadly reticulate with black. Characters separating Trimeresurus sumatranus from the new species and T. malcolmi are discussed below and summarized in Table 2. Description and Variation of T. sumatranus (Fig. 5-9) According to Brongersma (1933), Sanders et al. (2002), Gumprecht et al. (2003), Das (2010), and our material, this large species reaches a maximum total length of 1,355 mm. Gumprecht et al. (2003) mentioned a total length of 1,400 nun. Males are seemingly shorter, the longest male seen by us being only 878 mm long. Adults reach usually a maximum total length of 90-110 cm. The body is robust but elongate in both males and in females, or slightly thinner in males. In adults, the snout is 24.0-28.0% as long as head or 1.8-2. 6 times as long as diameter of eye. Eye average, amounting for 0.6- 1.0 times the distance eye-lower edge of the lip in both sexes. Ratio TaL/TL: 0.128-0.168, with a weak sexual dimorphism: males: 0.150-0.168; females: 0.128-0.160. Hemipenis After Gumprecht et al. (2004: 304: Fig. IV), hemipenes are long and slender, deeply forked, extending up to twenty-secondth subcaudal, forked opposite ninth sub- caudal, smooth at its base and after the forking point, for about a third of the organ, then strongly papillose and spinose, with longitudinal folds. Body scalation DSR: 21-25 one head length posterior to the head; 21 (exceptionally 23) at midbody; 15 (exceptionally 13 or 17) scales one head length before vent, weakly or dis- Table 2. Main characters to distinguish between the species of the Trimeresurus sumatranus complex, source specimens from Ap- pendix I, if not noted different. Characters Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. Trimeresurus sumatranus Sumatra Trimeresurus sumatranus Borneo Trimeresurus sumatranus Peninsular Malaysia Trimeresurus maicoimr N males/females 5/4 2/13 3/19 2/5 3/4 Middorsal scale rows 21 21 21 21 19 Ventrals males 162-179 179-182 182-185 178-183 169-173 Ventrals females 164-174 175-186 176-191 180-186 168-174 Subcaudals males 71-72 66-70 66-71 69-70 64-81 Subcaudals females 58-66 57-68 54-64 61-66 61-64 Total length 1170 1152 1350 1220 1330 Relative tail length males 0.201-0.210 0.160-0.166 0.154-0.168 0.150-0.161 0.160-0.179" Relative tail length females 0.144-0.180 0.130-0.159 0.128-0.150 0.134-0.160 0.158^ White lateral line^ Thin Broad Broad- Broad Absent Ventrals with dark margins No Yes Yes Yes Yes Subcaudals with dark margins No Yes Yes Yes Yes Tail reddish No Yes Yes Yes Yes Eye in life Green Dark grey Dark grey Dark grey Dark grey 'From Stuebing and Inger (1998). “In two specimens there is no real ventrolateral stripe visible, but the outer row of dorsals is pale. ^Sometimes there is a faint black line below the white lateral line. ■*Holotype and one paratype only according to Loveridge (1938). '^One paratype only according to Loveridge (1938). Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (15) September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 A new species of Trimeresurus from Sumatra tinctly keeled, smooth on first DSR; VEN: 175-191 (plus 1-2 preventrals); SC: 54-68, all paired, with a sexual di- morphism (males: 66-71; females: 54-68); anal entire. In our sample of 44 specimens, we have not examined any specimen with 23 DSR at midbody but this value has been recorded in the literature by Brongersma (1933) from a specimen from Borneo. In our material, two spec- imens had 13 scale rows before vent and only one had 1 7 rows before vent. Head scalation Rostral barely visible from above, triangular, wider than high; nasals subrectangular, divided; one large, subrect- angular or nearly square internasal on each side; intema- sals usually separated by one scale or in contact (in 11/44 examined specimens); two (rarely three) canthal scales bordering the canthus rostralis, one lai'ger than the large adjacent snout scales and one (or two) of similar size; two (exceptionally one) postoculars on each side; one very large and wide supraocular on each side, about 1.8-2. 2 times as long as wide, 1.0-1. 3 times as wide as interna- sal, not indented by adjacent cephalic scales; 4-7 much enlarged scales on upper snout surface on a line between the scale separating the internasals and a line connect- ing the anterior margins of eyes, smooth and juxtaposed; 3-7 (usually 5-6) cephalic scales on a line between su- praoculars, large, smooth, flat, and juxtaposed; occipi- tal scales larger than cephalic scales, smooth; temporal scales smooth, large, subequal, in two rows anteriorly, three rows posteriorly; 8-11 (usually 9-10) supralabi- als; first SL always separated from nasal; second SL tall, entirely bordering the anterior margin of the loreal pit, always in contact with nasal; third SL longest and high- est, 1.1-1. 4 times as long as high, always in contact with subocular; fourth SL as long as high, as high or barely shorter than third SL, always in contact with subocular; fifth SL usually in contact with subocular, exceptionally separated by one scale (on one side in 3/44 specimens); 9-15 (usually 10-12) IL; scales of the first pair longitu- dinally in contact or barely separated by the apex of the long mental scale; first two or tliree pairs of infralabials in contact with anterior chin shields; 5-9 rows of smooth gular scales; throat shields irregularly arranged. Coloration and pattern In live adult specimens, the dorsum is yellowish-green, grass green, deep emerald green, or olive green (deep green, bluish-green, or dark brown in preservative); many scales of the body nan'owly edged with black; usu- ally a series of about 45-50 imegular, black crossbars one or two dorsal scales in length, reaching downwards to the third or second dorsal scale rows on each side of the body. These crossbands are either symmetrical, fonning black rings, or offset from each other on each side of the vertebral line. Each crossbar includes one or two entirely black scales, the other dorsal scales are strongly edged in Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (16) black. The interstitial skin between the large dorsal scale is also black, making an overall distinctly baned and reticulate pattern. A more or less conspicuous, cream, greenish-yellow, or pale yellow ventrolateral stripe on the first and lower half to whole of the seeond dorsal scale rows, extends from the base of the neck to the vent. This pale stripe is bordered below by a narrow dark stripe created by the black edge of the outer tips of the ventral scales. The background color of the tail is as green as the body on its anterior half, with scales distinctly edged with black, producing a strongly reticulate pattern. There are 2-5 uTegular black crossbars on each side of the tail which, becomes more or less abruptly greenish-orange, salmon, pinkish-red, or rusty-red on its posterior half. The upper head surface and temporal regions are as green as the body, the sides of the head and temporals are slightly paler and usually more yellowish-green or paler green. The rostral is green with black vertical and horizontal streaks. Scales of the upper snout surface are also green, broadly edged with black, and may be en- tirely black with the exception of a large, round green blotch on each internasal and each scale behind the in- ternasal. Supraoculars green, broadly edged with black; many scales of the cephalic and occipital regions black, producing a pattern of black blotches or streaks. On each side of the head, a long streak usually extends from in- temasals to the posterior part of the head along the inner edge of supraoculars; two oblique black streaks on the occiput forming an inverted V; its apex pointing forward. Supralabials greenish-yellow, pale green, yellowish- green, or bluish-green, paler than the upper head surface, strongly edged with black, black edges at the limits be- tween third-fourth and fourth-fifth supralabials broader and more conspicuous; preoculars and postoculars green and black or entirely black; a black postocular streak extends from the eye to the corner of the mouth on the postoculars or lower postocular and the upper rows of temporals, more or less broadly blotched with the green background color. The chin and throat are white, cream, pale greenish-yellow, or yellowish-green, uniform or with scattered dark grey dots. The infralabials are white, pale bright yellowish-green, or pale green, with or with- out a few dark grey spots, edged with black on their pos- terior margin; gular scales below the corner of the mouth nan'owly edged with black. In life, the eye is rather dark, bronze, brown, dark greyish-brown, or golden-brown. The venter is yellowish-green, pale greenish-yellow, or pale green; each ventral is nanowly edged with black posteriorly, the edge usually broader on their central part tips of ventrals narrowly edged with dark grey or black, producing an inegular, zigzag-like dark ventral stripe be- low the pale ventrolateral stripe. The under surface of the tail is green or greenish-yellow on its anterior half, with subcaudal scales broadly edged with black producing a conspicuous reticulation, becoming more or less abmptly greenish-orange, salmon or pinkish-red, strongly reticu- lated with black. September 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Vogel et al. Fig. 8. Live female of Trimeresurus sumatranus from vincity of Padang Panjang, Sumatera Barat Province, Sumatra. Photo: G. Vogel. Juveniles show a rather different pattern. The dorsum is usually bright or grass-green, with only faint and nar- row black spots or edges of dorsal scales producing faint, diffuse crossbars. The head is speckled with black dots but without dark lines and streaks on the edges of scales; no black edges on the suture of supralabials but with scattered black spots. The orange, salmon color or rusty red color of the tail is brighter than in adults. Distribution (Fig. 8) Indonesia Sumatra. Known from the provinces of Sumatera Barat, Jambi, Bengkulu, and Lampung, in Barisan Range. Borneo (Kalimantan). Seemingly throughout the island. Federation of Malaysia Borneo. Known from the States of Sabah and Sarawak. West Malaysia. Definitely recorded from the States of Perak (Sukumaran 2002 as Tropidolaemus wagleri, pers. comm.), Johore, Pahang, and Trengganu. Thailand Recorded only from Yala Province. In contrast to Sanders et al. (2004), we confirm the occur- rence of T. sumatranus in extreme southern Thailand and West Malaysia. Examined specimens present the com- bination of all scalation and pattern characters, both of the head and body, in full agreement with the definition of this species. They all differ from Trimeresurus hageni and we could not find any reason for not referring them to T sumatranus. The range of T. sumatranus in Sumatra is wider than indicated in Sanders et al. (2004) but the records from the Indonesian islands of Bangka, Belitung, Nias, Simeulue, and the Mentawai Archipelago (see, for example, Brongersma 1933; Dring et al. 1990), are now referred to the T. hageni group. Natural History This beautiful species inhabits regions typically covered with equatorial rainforests, lowland tropical wet forests, and tropical wet submontane forests, from sea level up to about 1,000 m. The species shows a predilection for lowlands in Borneo but, seemingly, only for hilly areas at elevations between 650 and about 900 m in Sumatra (Ryabov et al. 2002; Gumprecht et al. 2003; Sanders et al. 2004). This pitviper is found in tropical forests, along clearings, in bamboo thickets, mangroves, swamps, plantations, and cultivated fields such as coffee and tea estates. However, in Sumatra, all specimens recorded by Ryabov et al. (2002) and Gumprecht et al. (2003) in Bengkulu Province (Sumatra) were found in forest, none in cultivated areas or near villages. September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (17) A new species of Trimeresurus from Sumatra Fig. 9. Live female of Trimeresurus sumatranus from Bengkulu Province, Sumatra. Photo: G. Vogel. Fig. 10. Live female of Trimeresurus malcolmi from Mount Kinabalu, Sabah, Borneo. Photo: M. Dehling. September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (18) Vogel et al. Fig. 11. Live female of Trimeresurus malcolmi from Mount Kinabalu, Sabah, Borneo. Photo: M. Dehling. Fig. 12. Live male of Trimeresurus toba from vincity of Padang Panjang, Sumatera Barat Province, Sumatra, a species sympatric with T. gunaleni spec. nov. Photo: G. Vogel. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (19) September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 A new species of Trimeresurus from Sumatra TRIGUN0002 Q Fig. 13. MZB.Ophi.5452 holotype of Trimeresurus gunaleni spec, nov., adult female. Photo: N. Maury. Fig. 14. Live female of Trimeresurus sumatranus from Bengkulu Province, Sumatra. Photo: N. Maury. 9 TRISUM0001 September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (20) Vogel et al. Trimeresurus siimatranus often occurs along the banks of rivers, ponds, and other watered areas. This di- urnal and nocturnal species is chiefly arboreal but lives in the lower vegetation such as in thick bushes, shrubs, and the tangled lower tree foliage up to 2.5 m above the ground, where it proves to be a skilled climber. Ryabov et al. (2002) found specimens basking in early morning. Tr- imeresurus sumatranus feeds on small mammals, frogs, lizards, and frogs. It is oviparous, but little is known on its breeding habits. Ryabov et al. (2002) mentioned a clutch of 17 eggs that were guarded by the female; we refer to Ryabov et al. (2002) and Gumprecht et al. (2003) for additional data on the biology of this species. In our sample of specimens identified in collections as Trimeresurus sumatranus, we identified a total of six specunens that present noteworthy morphological differ- ences with the species as defined above. We also noted the same differences in three specimens that were kept alive. As these differences with T sumatranus are con- stant, we consider these specimens to be referable to a distinct species that we here describe as: Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. Fig. 3-7, 13 iim;lsid:zoobank.org:act:548DBAC7-D5CC-4D49-9D4F-2A372F0F4520 Trimeresurus sumatranus (nee Coluber sumatranus Raf- fles, 1822): Sanders et al. (2002: 107, part.; 2004: 722, part.). Holotype MZB.Ophi.5452, adult female, fi-om Mt. Sibayak, ca. 1,500-2,200 m a.s.l., west of Brastagi (Berastagi), Karo Regency (Kabupaten Karo), Sumatera Utara Province, Sumatra, Indonesia. Collected by the team of Danny Gu- nalen, Hidekazu Miyake, Cho Sangyeon, and Moon Suk Cha. Paratypes (six specimens) NHMW 28159:1 (male), ZMB 29642 (male), NHMW 23909:4, NHMW 28159:2 (females), “Padang, Suma- tra;” NHMB 2599 (male), “Solok, Sumatra;” SMF 52844 (female), “Padang Mountains, Sumatra, 1,700 m,” all from Sumatera Barat Province, Sumatra. Non-type material (two live male specimens) Mt. Singkut, 1,600 m a.s.l., Karo Regency, Sumatra Utara Province, Sumatra. Diagnosis A large species of pitviper of the genus Trimeresurus, characterized by the combination of (1) body elongate, head long and massive in adults; (2) an overall green Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (21) coloration with interstitial skin forming irregular, hol- low, black dorsal crossbands, with a thin, pale ventro- lateral line; (3) 21 DSR at midbody; (4) first supralabial totally separated from nasal scale; (5) large internasals, most usually separated by one scale, only exceptionally in contact; (6) three supralabials, third, fourth, fifth SL in contact with subocular; (7) supraoculars large but elon- gate, separated by 5-7 cephalic scales; (8) tail long, with a ratio TaL/TL between 0.201 and 0.210 in males and 0.144 and 0.180 in females; (9) 162-179 VEN; (10) 58- 72 SC (males: 71-72; females: 58-66); (11) eye yellow- ish-green in life and preservative; (12) cephalic scales strongly and broadly edged with black but not forming streaks; (13) no black postocular streak; (14) venter greenish-yellow or pale green, unifomi, with posterior margin of ventrals paler green; and (15) tail greyish-red, rusty brown or reddish-brown, mottled with green cross- bars anteriorly. Main characters separating T. gunaleni spec. nov. from other taxa of the complex of T sumatranus are summarized in Table 2. Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. mainly differs from T sumatranus by (1) a lower number of ventrals in males (162-179, x= 168.4 vs. 178-185, x = 181.5; U = 33.5, P < 0.005) and females (164-171, x = 169.5 vs. 175-191, 183.3); (2) a higher value of the ratio TaL/TL in males (0.201-0.210, x = 0.206 vs. 0.150- 0.168, X = 0.161); (3) the color of the tail with hues of red throughout mottled with green crossbars anteriorly vs. green as the body on its anterior half, becoming more or less abruptly red (see above description) posteriorly, strongly reticulate with black; (4) the color of the eyes: green or yellowish-green in T. gunaleni spec. nov. vs. daik brown, dark grey, or bronze in T. sumatranus; (5) the color of the ventral scales, which are green with a paler posterior margin in T gunaleni spec. nov. vs. pale green with a dark grey or black posterior margin in T sumatranus. Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. differs from T mal- colmi by (1) the number of dorsal scales ai'ound mid- body (21 vs. 19); (2) a higher value of TaL/TL in males (0.201-0.210, X = 0.206 vs. 0.160-0.179, x = 0.162, .y = 0.009); (3) the presence of a white lateral stripe in T gunaleni spec, nov., missing in T. malcolmi; (4) the color of the tail: greyish-red, rusty brown or reddish-brown, mottled with green crossbars anteriorly in T. gunaleni vs. greenish-orange, salmon or pinkish-red, strongly reticu- lated with black in T malcolmi; below, the tail is yellow- ish green anteriorly, turning to brown posteriorly in T gunaleni spec. nov. vs. green or greenish-yellow on its anterior half, with subcaudal scales broadly edged with black producing a conspicuous reticulation; (5) the color of the eyes: yellowish-green in T gunaleni spec. nov. vs. dark grey in T. malcolmi. Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. differs from T. hage- ni by (1) a lower number of ventrals in males (162-179, .T= 168.4 against 177-189, x= 181.8; U= 139.5, P < 0.001) and females (164-171, x= 169.5 vs.176-196, x = September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 A new species of Trimeresurus from Sumatra 186.7); (2) by the intemasals being separate (in eight out of nine specimens) against being most usually in contact in T. hageni (in 66 out of 73 specimens; U = 545.5, P < 0.001); (3) by the number of supralabials, usually being nine (in 14 out of 18 cases, only exceptionally 8 or 10, X = 9.11) in T. gunaleni spec. nov. vs. usually 10 or 11 (in 123 of 148 occuiTences, exceptionally 9, 12, or 13, x = 10.54; U = 637.0, P < 0.001) in T. hageni’, (4) by the total number of supralabials (on both sides) touching the subocular, six (in one case in seven, x = 6.1) vs. usually being 2^ (in 56 out of 74 cases, exceptionally 0, 1,5, 6,x = 2.9; U = 632.0, P < 0.001) in T. hageni’, (5) by the number of infralabials, usually 11 (in 11 out of 16 occur- rences, only exceptionally 10 or 12, x = 10.93) vs. usu- ally 12-14 (in 120 of 148 cases, exceptionally 11, 15, or 16, X = 13.08; t/= 710.0, P< 0.001) in T. hageni’, (6) the lack of a pale temporal streak in T. gunaleni spec, nov., usually present in T. hageni, especially in males (in 27 of 29 males of T. hageni)’, and (7) the missing of dorsolat- eral white dots in T. gunaleni spec, nov., are usually pres- ent in T. hageni especially in males (in 27 of 29 males of T. hageni). Etymology The specific nomen is dedicated to Mr. Danny Gunalen, who was the first to find the species alive and who great- ly supported the work resulting in the description of this new species. Suggested common names: English: Gu- nalen’ s Pitviper. Bahasa Indonesia: Ular Hijau Gunung. Karo: Nipe Ratah. Padang (Minang): Ular Ijo Babiso. French: Trimeresure de Gunalen. German: Gunalen’s Gmbenotter. Description of the holotype (Fig. 3, 5-7, 13) Body elongate, compressed; head elongate, distinctly tri- angular, wide at its base, clearly distinct from the neck, flattened anteriorly, thick posteriorly, 1 .6 times as long as wide; snout long, round when seen from above, strongly obliquely tmncated when seen from the side, with a mod- erate canthus rostralis, totaling 32.0 % of head length, and 2.7 times as long as diameter of eye; a large oval nos- tril piercing in the middle of nasal scale; nostril-loreal pit distance about 0.5 times the distance between the nostril and the eye; eye average, totaling 0.65 times the distance between the lower margin of eye and upper lip border; tail rather long, tapering, and prehensile. SVL 995 mm, TaL 195 mm, TL 1,170 mm; largest head width 35.0 mm; ratio TaL / TL 0.167. Body scalation DSR: 21-21-13 scales, rhomboid, distinctly keeled with the exception of scales of first DSR which are smooth; 171 VEN (+ two preventrals); 60 SC, all paired; anal en- tire. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (22) Head scalation Rostral barely visible from above, triangular, much broader than high; nasals pentagonal, partly divided by a shallow furrow; on each side, one large, subtriangular in- temasal, the rounded apex pointing outwards; internasals separated by one small scale; 2/2 canthal scales border- ing the canthus rostralis, not larger than the large adja- cent snout scales on each side, one elongate loreal scale between nasal and the upper preocular; 2/2 preoculai'S above the loreal pit, the upper one visible from above, both scales elongated and in contact with loreal; lower preocular forming the lower margin of loreal pit; 1/1 thin, elongated, crescent-like subocular; 2/2 small post- oculars, followed by 2/3 small scales between postocu- lars and first temporals; 1/1 large, subtriangular, elongate supraocular on each side, 1.8 times as long as wide, 1.1 times as wide as intemasal, not indented by adjacent ce- phalic scales; three much enlarged scales on upper snout surface on a line between the scale separating the inter- nasals and a fine connecting the anterior margins of eyes, smooth and juxtaposed; seven cephalic scales on a fine between supraoculars, smaller than upper snout scales, smooth, flat, and juxtaposed; occipital scales not larger than cephalic scales, smooth; temporal scales smooth, large, subequal, an'anged in two rows anteriorly, three rows posteriorly; 9/9 supralabials, third-fifth SL in con- tact with subocular; first SL entirely separated from na- sal; second SL tall, entirely bordering the anterior margin of the loreal pit, in contact with nasal; third SL longest and highest, 1.4/ 1.5 times longer than high; fourth SL tall and relatively nan'ow, 1.1/1. 2 times higher than long, as high as third SL; fifth SL relatively narrow; 12/12 IL; scales of the first pair longitudinally in contact; first three pairs of infralabials in contact with anterior chin shields; six rows of smooth gular scales; throat shields irregularly arranged. Coloration and pattern The body is unifonnly deep green (bright emerald green in fife), with some scales narrowly edged with black, more strongly on the fore part of the body; a faint, diffuse pattern of black, hollow crossbars resulting from irregu- lar areas of interstitial skin around dorsal scales, more conspicuously visible on the fore part of the body, pro- ducing about 25 crossbars, three or four DSR long and separated by one or two scales around which the skin is grey, reaching downwards the first or second DSR; from about midbody, the black skin is progressively restricted to the eighth or ninth DSR, producing irregular dorsal bars, disappearing entirely before the vent; a naiTow ven- trolateral stripe, pale blue in fife, white in preservative, extends from the neck to the vent on the upper edge of scales of the first DSR, and lower edge of scales of the second DSR; posterior edge of scales of the first DSR also pale blue. The tail is greyish-red throughout, with scales narrowly edged with pale grey and with five pale green incomplete rings anteriorly. September 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Vogel et al. The head is deep green above (bright emerald green in life) and on the temporal region, with scales of the snout, preoculars, supraoculars, cephalic, occipital, and lower temporal scales narrowly edged with black and surround- ed with black interstitial skin, producing a conspicuous pattern of a “mixed” black background with bright green spots; no cephalic or occipital streaks; supraoculars nar- rowly edged with black; top of rostral black; anterior supralabials greenish-yellow, distinctly paler than upper head surface, others supralabials bright yellow in life; first-third SL narrowly edged with black posteriorly; no postocular streak; upper temporals green as the upper head surface. Chin and throat pale bluish-grey (cream in preservative); mental and first three infralabials green- ish-yellow; other infralabials more or less marbled with greenish-yellow; posterior gular scales dotted with green. The venter is uniformly yellowish-green, with the posterior edge of each ventral pale bluish-grey, distinctly paler than the background color of the venter. The tail is greenish-yellow on the first two subcaudals then greyish- red throughout as the upper surface of tail, with scales narrowly edged with pale grey. Description of the paratypes A summary of morphological and meristic data of the paratypes is given in Table 3. None of the paratype sig- nificantly differs from the description given for the ho- lotype. Description and variation The maximal confirmed total length known is 1,170 mm (SVL 995 mm, TaL 195 mm; holotype). The second larg- est female has a length of 1,154 mm (SVL 972 mm, TaL 182 mm; NHMW 28159:2, from Padang). The largest known male is 927 mm long (SVL 732 mm, TaL 195 mm; NHMW 28159:1, from Padang). In our sample of nine specimens, there is a noteworthy difference of size between males and females (see below, sexual dimor- phism). The body is robust but elongate in both males and in females. In adults, the snout is 28.0-32.8 % as long as head or 2. 3-2. 8 times as long as diameter of eye. Eye average, amounting for 0.7-0. 9 times the distance eye- lower edge of the lip in both sexes. Ratio TaL/TL: 0. 144- 0.210, with a sexual dimorphism (see below). Hemipenis Unknown. Body scalation DSR: 21-22 one head length posterior to the head, 21 at midbody, 13-15 scales one head length before vent, dis- tinctly keeled, smooth on first DSR; VEN: 1 62-1 79 (plus preventrals), without sexual dimorphism; SC: 58-72, all paired, with a sexual dimorphism (see below); anal en- tire. In our sample of nine specimens, only one specimen has 22 DSR on the neck, all others have 21 rows. Eur- theiTnore, all males have 13 rows before the vent but two females have 15 rows. Head scalation As described for the holotype, with the following varia- tion for major characters: intemasals separated by one small scale in 8/9 specimens, in contact only in speci- men ZMB 29642; only two canthal scales on each side in all specimens, not larger than adjacent snout scales or slightly smaller, bordering the canthus rostralis between the internasal and corresponding supraocular; two small postoculars, in contact with first temporals or followed by 2-3 small scales between postoeulars and first tem- porals; one large, elongate, subtriangular supraocular on each side, 1. 6-2.1 times as long as wide, 1.0-1. 3 times as wide as internasal, not indented by adjacent cephafic scales; 3-4 enlarged scales on upper snout surface on a line between the scale separating the internasals and a line connecting the anterior margins of eyes, smooth, and juxtaposed; 5-7 cephalic scales (5: 1/9 specimens; 6: 5/9; 7: 3/9) on a line between supraoculars, smaller than up- per snout scales, smooth, flat, and juxtaposed; occipital scales not enlarged and smooth; temporal scales smooth, large, subequal, in two or three rows; 8-10 supralabials (8: 2/18 occurrences; 9: 12/18; 10: 4/18); third, fourth, fifth SL in contact with subocular in all specimens; first SL always separated from nasal; second SL tall, entirely bordering the anterior margin of the loreal pit, always in contact with nasal; third SL longest and highest, 1.2-1. 5 times as long as high; fourth SL higher than long; fifth SL tall and narrow; 10-12 IL (10 or 11 in most specimens); scales of the first pair longitudinally in contact; first three Table 3. Morphological characters of the paratypes of Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. M: male, F: female, for other abbreviations see Table 1 . Collection number Sex SVL (mm) TaL (mm) TaL/ TL VEN SC SL SL touching sublabial Cep IL Do NHMW 28159:1 M 732 195 0.210 162 71 9/9 6 6 11/10 21 NHMB 2599 M 651 inc. inc. 175 inc. 9/9 6 6 11/11 21 ZMB 29642 M 638 165 0.205 179 inc. 9/9 6 6 11/11 21 NHMW 23909:4 F 309 52 0.144 174 58 10/10 7 6 11/11 21 NHMW 28159:2 F 972 182 0.158 169 58 9/10 6 6 11/11 21 SMF 52844 F 400 88 0.180 164 66 9/9 6 7 9^/ 9^= 21 inc.; Tail incomplete or partly destroyed. ^Destroyed. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (23) September 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 A new species of Trimeresurus from Sumatra pairs of infralabials in contact with anterior chin shields; 5-8 rows of smooth gular scales; throat shields irregu- larly arranged. Coloration and pattern The body is bluish-green or deep green (bright green or emerald green in life) with most of the dorsal scales nar- rowly edged with black, usually more strongly on the anterior part of the body; a faint, diffuse pattern of dark, hollow crossbars created by irregular areas of black in- terstitial skin surrounding three or four rows of dorsal scales, most conspicuous and extensive on the fore part of the body, separated by one or two scales around which the skin is grey; these dark crossbands reach downwards the first or second DSR on the anterior part of the body, progressively restricted to the upper DSR posteriorly, producing irregular dorsal bars and disappearing entirely before the vent; a narrow ventrolateral, stripe, white, cream, or pale yellow in preservative (cream or pale blue in life), extends from the neck to the vent on the upper half of scales of the first DSR and sometimes on low- er edge of scales of the second DSR; posterior edge of scales of the first DSR also white or cream (cream or pale blue in life). The tail is greyish-red or rusty-red through- out, with scales narrowly edged with cream to pale grey, and mottled with incomplete cream, pale grey or pale greenish-grey rings (pale greyish-green in life), present on the anterior half of the tail or throughout. The head is deep green above and on the temporal region; scales of the snout, preoculars, supraoculars, cephalic, occipital and lower temporal scales narrowly edged with black and entirely surrounded with interstitial black skin, producing a conspicuous pattern made of a black background “mixed” with bright green spots; no cephalic, occipital, or postocular streaks; supraoculars narrowly edged with black; top of rostral usually black; anterior supralabials green or yellowish-green, distinctly paler than upper head surface, others supralabials yellow, greenish-yellow or green; first-third SL usually narrowly edged with black on their posterior edge; upper tempo- rals green as the upper head surface. Chin and throat cream (pale bluish-grey in life); mental and first three in- fralabials greenish-yellow or pale yellowish-green; other infralabials more or less marbled with greenish-yellow; posterior gular scales sometimes dotted with greyish- green or green spots. Fig. 15. Habitat of Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. Photo: D. Gunalen. September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (24) Vogel et al. The venter is uniformly bluish-green or yellowish- green in preservative (yellow, greenish-yellow, or green in life), with the posterior edge of each ventral pale blu- ish-grey or greyish-green, distinctly paler than the back- ground color of the venter. The tail is greenish-yellow or green anteriorly on a distance varying from the first sub- caudals to the middle of the tail then greyish-red or rusty- red throughout as the upper surface of tail, with scales narrowly edged with pale grey and with cream, pale grey or pale greenish-grey blotches (pale greyish-green in life) corresponding to the rings of the upper surface. Sexual dimorphism Males and females differ in the relative length of the tail, in total length, and in the number of subcaudals: (1) Strong difference in the ratio TaL/TL: males: 0.201-0.210 (J =0.206); females: 0.144-0.180 (J =0.162). (2) Total length: Largest male: 927 mm vs. largest female 1,170 mm. (3) Differences in the number of subcaudals: 71-72 (J=71.5) in two males vs. 58-66 (x =60.5) in four females. There is no difference in the numbers of ventral scales or in other scalation characters, nor in pattern or in eye color. Distribution Indonesia Sumatra. Endemic; Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. is known only from two provinces: Sumatera Barat (Solok and Padang Mountains) and Sumatera Utara (Mt. Sibay- ak, Mt. Sinabung and Mt. Singkut near Berastagi). This species can be expected in higher elevations all over the mountainous areas of Sumatra. Natural History Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. inhabits regions typi- cally covered with tropical moist montane forests, from 1,500 m to as high as at least 2,000 m, perhaps as much as 2,200 m, where it has been observed by local insect collectors (Figs. 15 and 16). There is no record of popu- lations lower than 1,500 m. On Mount Sibayak, Danny Gunalen collected specimens of Trimeresurus hageni at elevation of 500 m, and Tropidolaemus wagleri at 200 m. Trimeresurus gunaleni is clearly isolated as a high mon- tane dweller. The female holotype of T. gunaleni spec. nov. was col- lected during the daytime in dense humid montane for- est scattered with tiny springs. The snake was resting on the ground under tree roots. In another instance, a male was seen perched at night on a tree branch at about two m above the ground. None of the specimens were found near open water, the biotopes are dense humid montane forests. Based on regurgitated prey items and direct observa- tions in the wild, the diet includes rodents, amphibians, and lizards (Gonocephalus lacunosus Manthey and Den- zer, 1991; E. Manik, pers. concun.). In captivity, T. gu- naleni spec. nov. feeds on mice, birds, and lizards (D. Gunalen, pers. comm). Reproductive habits are still un- known. Discussion The differences in pholidosis and coloration, together with the fact that T gunaleni spec. nov. and T. sumatra- nus are living in close proximity, leaves no doubt that T gunaleni spec. nov. deserves full species status. Although T. sumatranus and T gunaleni spec. nov. have been re- corded from the same mountain ranges in Sumatera Barat Province, it is not yet known whether these two species are living in sympatry or syntopy. However T sumatra- nus seems to live at lower elevations than T. gunaleni spec. nov. Too little is known about the exact ranges of both species in western Sumatra to ascertain if there is a zone of true sympatry. The recognition of T gunaleni brings the number of species in the subgenus Parias on Sumatra to three. Su- matra is inhabited by T sumatranus, T hageni, and T. gunaleni spec, nov., whereas Borneo is the home of T. sumatranus and T malcolmi. This latter species is obvi- Fig. 16. Habitat of Trimeresurus gunaleni spec. nov. Photo: D. Gunalen. September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (25) A new species of Trimeresurus from Sumatra ously the highland equivalent of T gunaleni spec. nov. In the Malay Peninsula, only T. sumatranus is known, although this species is rarely collected there. The rela- tionship between the Malayan population and the other two populations of T. sumatranus are not known. In for- mer reviews of this complex (Sanders et al. 2004), the existence of T. sumatranus in Peninsular Malaysia was denied, despite the fact that there are five specimens available in the collections of the Natural History Mu- seum of London. Re-examination of these specimens and new specimens leave no doubt about the occurrence of T. sumatranus in West Malaysia and extreme southern Thailand. So far no highland population corresponding to T. gunaleni spec. nov. or T. malcolmi have been found in Peninsular Malaysia. A rather similar scheme of relationships between zoogeographical entities of the Sunda Shelf can also be defined in other pitvipers. In the subgenus Popeia of the genus Trimeresurus, i.e., the complex of Trimeresu- rus popeiorum Smith, 1937 (see Vogel et al. 2004), the species T. barati Regenass and Kramer, 1981 is known from western and south-western Sumatra whereas T. toba David, Petri, Vogel and Doria, 2009, inhabits mountains of central northern Sumatra. In Peninsular Malaysia, T fucatus Vogel, David, and Pauwels, 2004 is widespread but T. nebularis Vogel, David, and Pauwels, 2004 is cur- rently considered endemic to the Cameron Highlands. However, only T sabahi Regenass and Kramer, 1981 is known in Borneo. As in the subgenus Parias, there is no species of the subgenus Popeia known from Java. The situation is shghtly different for the subgenus Craspedo- cephalus, i.e., the complex of Trimeresurus puniceus (see David et al. 2006). Here we do have T. puniceus (Boie, 1827) widely distributed in Java and in southern Suma- tra, but also a distinct species, T andalasensis David, Vo- gel, Vijayakumar, and Vogel, 2006 in northern Sumatra. Another species, T wiroti Trutnau, 1981 is known from Peninsular Malaysia and southern Thailand, whereas T. borneensis Peters, 1872 is widespread in Borneo. Trimeresurus hageni and T. puipureomaculatus are both distributed on Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia (David and Vogel 1996) but not in Borneo. The system- atics of both species is not resolved and there might be more taxa hidden under these names. The distribution of T. purpureomaculatus is restricted to mangrove areas. Lastly, Trimeresurus albolabris lives in the south of Su- matra (David and Vogel 2000) and on Java (Creer et al. 2003) but is unknown from West Malaysia and Borneo. These species or complexes of pitvipers show the close zoogeographic relationships of the islands of Bor- neo and Sumatra with Peninsular Malaysia. Furthermore, it can also be seen that Sumatra is split into a northern and a southern region, with the larger northern region closely connected to Western Malaysia and Borneo, and the smaller southern region connected with Java. The limit between these two regions seems to be located be- tween Padang and Bengkulu. Previously, these species Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (26) complexes were regarded as widely distributed species, obscuring the zoogeographical relations of these regions. We are not confident that the taxonomy of the genus Trimeresurus is fully resolved and previously mentioned taxa might still prove to be endemic for one of the re- gions. The finding of such a large and venomous pitviper as T gunaleni spec. nov. in a group that was supposed to be well known is quite surprising. It is hard to understand that it was overlooked for such a long time despite the fact that the three specimens in the collection of Vienna have been available for a long time (collected 1899) and were already examined by other groups of herpetolo- gists. The mountainous areas of Sumatra are still very incompletely known and further research in these areas is highly desirable. Acknowledgments. — ^We are grateful to Nathanael Maury (Singapore) and Ludovic David (Bali) for pic- tures and information of the live specimens and help in various aspects. We want to thank the following persons, who gave us access to specimens in their care: Colin J. McCarthy and Patrick Campbell (BMNH), Jens Vindum and Alan Leviton (CAS), Alan Resetar and Harold Voris (FMNH), Georges Lenglet (IRSNB), Alain Dubois, Ivan Ineich, and Annemarie Ohler (MNHN), Heinz Grillitsch, Silke Schweiger, and Richard Gemel (NHMW), Denis Val- lan and Raffael Winkler (NHMB), Kiyotaka Hatooka (OMNH), Esther Dondorp, Pirn Amtzen, and Ronald de Ruiter (RMNH), Gunther Kohler and Linda Acker (SMF), Dennis Rodder, and Wolfgang Bohme (ZFMK), Mark-Oliver R5del and Frank Tillack (ZMB), Jakob Hallermann (ZMH), Kelvin P. P. Lim (ZRC), and Frank Glaw and Michael Franzen (ZSM). We also thank Jakob Hallermann (ZMH) and Frank Tillack (ZMB) who sent us pictures and data about speci- mens in their collections. Max Dehling (Koblenz) pro- vided us with pictures of a live specimen of Trimeresurus malcolmi, and Jeet Sukumaran (Durham) who provided us with additional data on the distribution of T suma- tranus. Wolfgang Bohme (Bonn) provided us with data from ZFMK specimens. Literature Cited Boulenger GA. 1896. Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum (Natural History). Volume III. Con- taining the Colubriclae ( Opisthoglyphae and Protero- glyphae), Amblycephalidae and Viperidae. British Museum (Natural History), London, United Kindom. Xiv+ 727 pp., Pis. 1-25. Brongersma LD. 1933. Herpetological notes I-IX. Zo- ologische Mededelingen Leiden 16 (1-2): 1-29. Cantor TE. 1847. Catalogue of reptiles inhabiting the Malay Peninsula and islands, collected or observed by Theodore Cantor, Esq., M.D., Bengal Medical September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Vogel et al. Service. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 16: 607-656, 897-952, 1026-1078. Creer S, Malhotra A, Thorpe RS. 2003. Assessing the phylogenetic utility of four mitochondrial genes and a nuclear intron in the Asian pit viper genus, Trimeresii- rus: Separate, simultaneous, and conditional data combination analyses. Molecular Biology and Evolu- tion 20{S): 1240-1251. Das I. 2010. A Field Guide to the Reptiles of South-East Asia. New Holland Publishers (UK) Ltd, London, Cape Town, Sydney, Auckland, Australia. 376 p. David P, Ineich I. 1999. Les serpents venimeux du monde: systematique et repartition. Dumerilia (Paris) 3: 3^99. David P, Vogel G. 1996. The Snakes of Sumatra: An an- notated checklist and key with natural history notes. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt-am-Main, Gennany. 260 p. David P, Vogel G. 2000. On the occurrence of Trimeresu- rus albolabris (Gray, 1842) on Sumatra Island, In- donesia (Reptilia, Serpentes, Viperidae, Crotalinae). Senckenbergiana Biologica 80(1/2): 225-232. David P, Vogel G, Vijayakumar SP, Vidal N. 2006. A revision of the Trimeresurus puniceus-compXQ's. (Ser- pentes: Viperidae: Crotalinae) based on morphologi- cal and molecular data. Zootaxa 1293: 1-78. David P, Vogel G, Dubois A. 2011. On the need to fol- low rigorously the Rules of the Code for the subse- quent designation of a nucleospecies (type species) for a nominal genus which lacked one: The case of the nominal genus Trimeresurus Lacepede, 1804 (Rep- tilia: Squamata: Viperidae). Zootaxa 2992: 1-51. Dowling HG. 1951. A proposed standard system of counting ventrals in snakes. British Journal of Herpe- tology 1(5): 97-99. Dring JCM, McCarthy CJ, Whitten AJ. 1990. The terres- trial herpetofauna of the Mentawai Islands, Indonesia. Indo-Malayan Zoology 6[ 1 989] : 119-132. Gray JE. 1842. Synopsis of the species of rattle- snakes, or family of Crotalidae. Zoological Miscellany 2: 47-51. Gray JE. 1849. Catalogue of the Specimens of Snakes in the Collection of the British Museum. British Muse- um (Natural History), London, United Kingdom. Xv 125 p. Gumprecht A, Ryabov S, Orlov N, Shiryaev K, Panteleev D, Tepedelen K. 2003. Die Bambusottem der Gattung Trimeresurus Lacepede Teil VII: Anmerkungen zur Biologic, Haltung und Nachzucht von Trimeresurus sumatranus (Raffles, 1822). Sauria (Berlin) 25(1): 37-14. Gumprecht A, Tillack F, Orlov N, Captain A, Ryabov S. 2004. Asian Pitxipers. Geitje Books, Berlin, Ger- many. 368 p. Gunther ACLG. 1858. Catalogue of Colubrine Snakes in the Collection of the British Museum. British Museum of Natural History, London, United Kingdom. Xvi -i- Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (27) 281 p. ICZN (International Commission on Zoological No- menclature). 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Fourth Edition adopted by the Inter- national Union of Biological Sciences. International Trust of Zoological Nomenclature, London, United Kingdom. Xxix -i- 306 p. Lidth de Jeude, TW van. 1886. Note X. On Cophias wa- gleri, Boie and Coluber sumatranus. Raffles. Notes from the Leyden Museum 8: 43-54, PI. 2. Lidth de Jeude, TW van. 1922. Snakes from Sumatra. Zoologische Mededeelingen Eeiden 6: 239-253. Loveridge A. 1938. New snakes of the genera Calamaria, Bungarus and Trimeresurus from Mt. Kinabalu, North Borneo. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 51: 43—4-6. Malkmus R, Manthey U, Vogel G, Hoffmann P, Kosuch J. 2002. Amphibians and Reptiles of Mount Kinabalu (North Borneo). A.R.G. Gantner Verlag Kommandit- gesellschaft, Ruggell, Liechtenstein. 424 p. Malhotra A, Thorpe RS. 2004. A phytogeny of four mi- tochondrial gene regions suggests a revised taxonomy for Asian pitvipers (Trimeresurus and Ovophis). Mo- lecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 32(1): 83-100. McDiamiid RW, Campbell JA, Toure T’SA. 1999. Snake Species of the World: A taxonomic and geographi- cal reference. Volume 1. The Herpetologists’ League, Washington DC, USA. Xi -i- 511 p. Muller S, Schlegel H. 1842-1845. Over de, in den In- dischen Archipel voorkomende soorten van het slan- gengeslacht Trigonocephalus. Pp. 49-58 In: Editor, Temminck CJ. N erhandelingen over de natuiirlijke geschiedenis der Nederlandsche overzeesche bezittin- gen, door de Eeden der Natuurkundige Commissie in O St-Indie en andere Schrijvers. Zoologie. N° 7. Rep- tilia. Luchtmans SJ, Van der Hoek CC. Leyden, The Netherlands: [dated 1845], PI. 7 [dated 1842]. Ouwens PA. \9\6.De voornaamste giftslangen van Ned- erlandsch Oost-Indie. Met een verhandeling over de verschijnselen en over de Behandeling van giftigen slangenbeet. E. J. Brill, Leyden, The Netherlands. 22 p., (1), PI. 1-19. Peters WKH. 1862. Uber die craniologischen Verschie- denheiten der Grubenottem (Trigonocephali) und iiber eine neue Art der Gattung Bothriechis. Monatsb- erichte der kbniglichen preussiche Akademie der Wis- senschaften zu Berlin 1862: 670-674. Pope CH, Pope SH. 1933. A study of the green pit- vipers of southeastern Asia and Malaysia, commonly identi- fied as Trimeresurus gramineus (Shaw), with descrip- tion of a new species from Peninsular India. American Museum Novitates 620: 1-12. Raffles S. 1835. Memoir of the life and public sendees of Sir Thomas Stamford Rajfes, F.R.S., &c. &c. par- ticularly in the governmen t of Java, 1811-1816, Ben- coolen and its dependencies, 1817-1824; with details of the commerce and resources of the Eastern Archi- September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 A new species of Trimeresurus from Sumatra pelago, and selections from his correspondence. By his Widow. A new edition, in two volumes. Volume II. James Duncan, London, United Kingdom, i-vi, (1): 1 ^ 68 . Raffles TS. 1821. Descriptive catalogue of a zoological collection, made in account of the Honourable East India Company, in the island of Sumatra and its vicin- ity, under the direction of Sir Thomas Stamford Raf- fles, Lieutenant-Governor of Fort Marlborough; with additional notices illustrative of the natural history of these countries. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 13(1): 239-274. Raffles TS. 1822. Second part of the descriptive cata- logue of a zoological collection made in the island of Sumatra and its vicinity. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 13(2): 277-340. Regenass U, Kramer E. 1981. Zur Systematik der griinen Grubenottem der Gattung Trimeresurus (Serpentes, Crotalidae). Revue suisse de Zoologie 88(1): 163-205. Ryabov SA, Orlov NL, Panteleev DM, Shiryaev KA. 2002. Trimeresurus liageni, Trimeresurus puniceus, and Trimeresurus sumatranus (Ophidia: Viperidae: Crotalinae): the data on reproductive biology and methods of captive breeding in laboratory conditions. Russian Journal of Herpetology 9(3): 243-254. Sanders K.L., Malhotra A, Thorpe RS. 2002. A contri- bution to the systematics of two commonly confused pitvipers from the Sunda Region: Trimeresurus hage- ni and T. sumatranus. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum (London), (Zoology) 68(2): 107-111. Sanders KL, Malhotra A, Thorpe RS. 2004. Ecological diversification in a group of Indomalayan Pitvipers {Trimeresurus)'. convergence in taxonomically impor- tant traits has implications for species identification. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17: 721-731. Savage J, David P, Vogel G. 2012. Case 3566. Tropidol- aemus Wagler, 1830 and Cophias wagleri F. Boie, 1827 (currently Tropidolaemus wagleri) (Reptilia, Squamata, Viperidae): proposed conservation. Bulle- tin of Zoological Nomenclature 69(2): 116-121. Schlegel H. 1826. Notice sur Ferpetologie de Pile de Java; par M. Boie (Ouvrage manuscrit). Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et Geologie (Section II, Bulle- tin universel des Sciences naturelles de Ferussac) 9: 233-240. Schlegel H. 1837. Essai sur la physionomie des serpens. II. Partie descriptive. J. Kips, H. Hz. & W. P. Van Stockhum, The Hague, The Netherlands. 606 -i- xv p. Siegel S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behav- ioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, New York, Toronto, London and Tokyo. Xvii -i- 312 p. Stuebing RB, Inger RE. 1998. Additional records on two rare snakes from Borneo, with the co nfir mation of Tri- meresurus malcolmi Loveridge as a distinct species. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 46(2): 325-328. Sumukaran J. 2002. Snaking out the fear factor. Malay- ian Naturalist 52(2): 22-25. Vogel G, David P, Pauwels OSG. 2004. A review of mor- phological variation in Trimeresurus popeiorum (Ser- pentes: Viperidae: Crotalinae), with the description of two new species. Zootaxa (Auckland) 727: 1-63. Wallach V, Williams KS, Boundy J. 2014. Snakes of the World: A catalogue of living and extinct species. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA. Xxvi + 1209 p. Received: 03 June 2014 Accepted: 16 July 2014 Published: 22 September 2014 Appendix I. Additional specimens examined Trimeresurus hageni (n=73). INDONESIA. Sumatra. BMNH 89.12.26.20, District of Deli; BMNH 93.6.5.11, East coast of Sumatra; MNHN 1880.0042, Sumatra; MZB 446, Pulau Batu, west Sumatra; MZB 1740, Padang Bukit Sebelah; MZB 1892a, b, Ketambe Aceh Tenggara; MZB 1898, Aceh Barut; MZB 2886, a, b Kembang Ma- nis, Bengkulu; MZB 3716, Kubu Peraka Primer; NHMB 5108, Pelambeng, South Sumatra; NHMB 9423, Suma- tra; NHMW 23909:1-2, Medan; NHMW 23909:3, Deli; NHMW 28150:1-3; Padang; NHMW 28150:4, Pagay; NHMW 28155:3, Medan; RMNH 5587A, Deli; RMNH RENA 819 (lectotype). Deli; ZFMK 32508, Sumatra; ZMB 15884, Sukuranda, Oberer Langkat, O-Sumatra; ZMB 29642, Padang; ZMB 32193a, b, Sumatra; ZMB 62699, Aceh; ZMB 66176, Bengkulu province; ZMH R06937, Serdang; ZSM 109/1927, Goenoeng Rintels, S. Deli; ZSM 202-1979a, Lau Rakit, near Deli; ZSM 202-1979b, Gunoeng Rinteh. Banka. RMNH 4697, Banka; ZSM 365/1907 (4), ZSM 365/1908 (1-3) Simpang, Banka. SINGAPORE. BMNH 80.9.10.6, Singapore. MALAYSIA. West Ma- laysia. BMNH 1936.9.12.5, “Kualla Taku, Malay Penin;” BMNH 1936.9.91, Perak; BMNH 1967.2290-1, Gu- nong Benom; CAS 16831, Silensing, Pahang; MNHN 1899.0269, Peninsular Malaysia; MNHN 1974.0044, Kuala Lumpur; NHMW 28158:1-2, Kedah; PSGV 393, Kuala Lumpur; S 0117 “West Malaysia;” SMF 64464-5, Perak; ZFMK 16680, Yombak; ZFMK 68522, north of Kuala Lumpur; ZMB 70235, frim, Selangor; ZRC 2.2928, Tasik Bera, Pahang; ZRC 2.2930, Tembeling, Pahang; ZRC 2.2932, Bukit Lagong Forest, Selangor; ZRC 2.2933-4, Ulu Langat, Selangor; ZRC 2.2935, Cameron Highlands, Pahang; ZRC 2.2943, Negeri Sembilan, Gunung Angsi; ZRC 2.5362, Bellum, Perak; ZRC 2.5397, Kepong, Frim, Selangor. THAILAND. BM 1936.9.12.4, Belong, Yala; BM 1988.858-62, Trang; IRSNB 3059 Belong, no locality: ZFMK 18835, no locality; ZFMK 21497, Sunda Islands. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (28) September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Vogel et al. Gernot Vogel was bom in Heidelberg, Germany and received a Ph.D. in Chemistry. Dr. Vogel is now working as a chemist at an international company, doing research and registration of plant protection products in Hirsch- berg, close to Heidelberg. Beginning as a reptile keeper. Dr. Vogel developed a great interest in the snake fauna of the Oriental region. He has concentrated his work on southwestern China, Indonesia, and tropical India. Dr. Vogel has revised large snake genera with a wide distribution, and this has been achieved through international collaborations with, for example, the institutes of Chengdu and Kunming in China, with Lipi and KPH Salvator in Indonesia, and with various Indian groups including ARRS and ANET. His research is based on specimen collections all over the world and on field research in the regions cited above. Dr. Vogel has authored or co- authored the following books: The Snakes of Sumatra', The Snakes of Sulawesi', Amphibians and Reptiles of Mount Kinabalu', and parts I to III in the Terralog Series on the venomous snakes of the world. Patrick David (born in 1959 near Paris, France), received a Ph.D. in polymers chemistry at the University of Paris-Orsay. Dr. David developed an early interest in herpetology as a reptile keeper and then turned to the systematics of Asian reptiles. He is, or has been a member of several international herpetological societies. Dr. David has been involved for nearly 25 years, mostly with Gernot Vogel, in systematic research on several groups of Asian reptiles, especially the Trimeresurus-complox and the genera Oligodon, Amphiesma, Xeno- chrophis, and Cyrtodactylus. His geographic areas of interest include India, Thailand, China, Vietnam, and especially Laos and Sumatra (Indonesia). Dr. David has also addressed problems of nomenclature affecting various taxa of snakes and lizards. As of July 2014, Dr. David is the author or co-author of 121 publications, including five monographs or books. He has co-authored the description of a total of 31 new species of am- phibians and reptiles. Along with Gemot Vogel, Dr. David is preparing a monograph on Asian pitvipers and the snake fauna of Sumatra. Irvan Sidik was bom in Bandung, West Java Province, Indonesia. Irvan obtained a Masters of Science degree in the field of phylogenetics at the Institute Technology of Bandung. Since 1992 Irvan has worked as a staff researcher in the laboratory of herpetology at the Museum Zoologicum Bogoriense, Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) in the Cibinong Science Center. Beginning as an auxiliary field survey researcher, and then as a local CITES officer, Irvan became interested and developed a great interest in the snakes of the region of Sundaland. Irvan has continued with more scholarly work on the mountainous areas of the western part of Indonesia. Irvan’s research is based on museum collections of specimens and field research in Indonesia’s regions mentioned above. Irvan has been involved in several international research collaborations, and is cur- rently working with the University of Texas at Arlington, USA on research of amphibians and reptiles in the mountains of Java and Sumatra. Irvan has published on the herpetofauna of Kalimantan and his first book was about snakes that are traded in Indonesia (CITES appendices I, II, and III) written in Indonesian. Currently, Irvan is studying the phylogeography of the reed snake genera Calamaria for his Ph.D. at the University of Brawijaya, Malang. In accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature new rules and regulations (ICZN 2012), we have deposited this paper in publicly accessible institutional libraries. The new species described herein has been registered in ZooBank (Polaszek 2005a, b), the official online registration system for the ICZN. The ZooBank publication LSID (Life Science Identifier) for the new species described here can be viewed through any standard web browser by appending the LSID to the prefix “http://zoobank.org/”. The LSID for this publication is:um:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:27336534-BAFC-40BE-84F7-43E0334596CD. Separate print-only edition of paper(s) (reprint) are available upon request as a print-on-demand service. Please inquire by sending a request to: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (amphibian-reptile-conservation.org; arc.publisher@gmail.com). Amphibian & Reptile Consen’ation is a Content Partner with the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL); http:///www.eol.org/ and submits information about new species to the EOL freely. Digital archiving of this paper are found at the following institutions: ZenScientist (http://www.zenscientist.com/index.php/filedrawer); Ernst Mayr Library, Museum of Comparative Zool- ogy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (USA); Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida (USA). Complete journal archiving is found at: ZenScientist (http://www.zenscientist.com/index.php/filedrawer); Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida (USA). Citations ICZN. 2012. Amendment of Articles 8,9,10,21 and 78 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to expand and refine methods of publication. Zootaxa 3450: 1-7. Polaszek A et al. 2005a. Commentary: A universal register for animal names. Nature 437: All . Polaszek A et al. 2005b. ZooBank: The open-access register for zoological taxonomy: Technical Discussion Paper. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4): 210-220. September 201 4 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e80 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | amphibian-reptile-conservation.org (29) Official journal website: amphibian-reptile-conservation.org Amphibian & Reptiie Conservation 8(2) [General Section]: 30-35. Short Communication Field surveys in Western Panama indicate populations of Atelopus varius frogs are persisting in regions where Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis is now enzootic ^Rachel Perez, ^’^Corinne L. Richards-Zawacki, ^Alexander R. Krohn, ^Matthew Robak, "^Edgardo J. Griffith, "^Heidi Ross, ^Brian Gratwicke, ^Roberto Ibanez, and ^ *Jamie Voyles ^Department of Biology, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico 87801, USA ^Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, USA ^Department of Environmental Science Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720, USA '^El Valle Amphibian Conservation Center, El Valle, PANAMA ^Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Washington D.C., USA ^Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, PO. Box 0843-03092, Balboa, Ancon, PANAMA Key words. Chytridiomycosis, Central America, Harlequin frog, golden frog, threatened species, emerging infec- tious disease, chytridiomycosis, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Citation: Perez R, Richards-Zawacki CL, Krohn AR, Robak M, Griffith EJ, Ross H, Gratwicke B, Ibanez R, Voyles J. 2014. Field surveys in Western Panama indicate populations of Atelopus varius frogs are persisting in regions where Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis is now enzootic. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 8(2) [General Section]: 30-35 (e85). Copyright: © 2014 Perez et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use for non-commercial and education purposes only, in any medium, provided the original author and the official and authorized publication sources are recognized and properly credited. The official and authorized publication credit sources, which will be duly enforced, are as follows: official journal title Amphibian & Reptile Conservation; official journal website . Received: 18 June 2014; Accepted: 25 August 2014; Published: 11 November 2014 The stunning Harlequin frogs of the genus Atelopus, once common, are now among the most imperiled of all amphibian species (La Marca et al. 2005; Zippel et al. 2006). Of 88 described Atelopus species in Central and South America, 65 (74%) are Critically Endangered (La Marca et al. 2005). The most pressing threat to these frogs is ch54ridiomycosis, a fungal disease caused by Ba- trachochytrium dendrobatidis (hereafter “5 0.999) from a linear regression of log (plasmids) vs. log (zoospores) (t4 = 210.6, P < 0.0001) that we obtained by running the plasmid standard set alongside a series of standards containing known quantities of zoospores (obtained from Alex Hyatt, Australian Animal Health Laboratory). If one of three replicate wells turned up positive, we checked Cycle Threshold (Ct) value to de- termine whether non-amplification in two of three wells could have been caused by a low-level infection (near the detection threshold) and verified that the qPCR was not inhibited (IPC amplified normally). In cases of inhibition or Ct values far from the detection threshold, we re-ran and considered them positive if Bd was detected in any of the three re-run wells. We surveyed 16 field sites from 2012 to 2013, 10 of which were sites where Atelopus species were found in 2004 (Richards and Knowles 2007), prior to the chy- tridiomycosis epidemic. The remaining six sites were chosen based on other biologists’ sightings of Atelopus Figure 1. A female Harlequin frog, Atelopus varius. This spe- cies, classified as Critically Endangered by lUCN, has been found in small numbers in the mountains of Western Panama. Figure 2. A pair of Atelopus varius in amplexus, found in the mountains of Western Panama. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 31 November 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e85 Atelopus varius populations persisting after chytridiomycosis Table 1. Summary of infection prevalence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis from amphibians found at three sites where Atelopus varius still persist. Site (Elevation) Species Prevalence N Lower 95% Upper 95% Highland 1 (735 m) Atelopus varius 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Colostethus flotator 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Craugastor bransfordii 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Craugastor crassidigitus 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Craugastor fitzingeri 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Lithobates warszewitschii 60% 3/5 0.147 0.947 Pristimantis cerasinus 100% 1/1 0.025 1 Pristimantis cruentus 0% 0/2 0 0.842 Pristimantis museosus 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Pristimantis ridens 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Sachatamia albomaculata 25% 2/8 0.0715 0.591 Terahyla spinosa 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Glass frog metamorph 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Highland 2 (521 m) Atelopus varius 0% 0/6 0 0.459 Colostethus flotator 0% 0/7 0 0.41 Colostethus panamensis 25% 1/4 0.073 0.524 Pristimantis ridens 0/1 0/1 0 0.975 Rhaebo haemititicus 42% 1/5 0.057 0.437 Silverstoneia flotator 33% 1/3 0.008 0.906 Smilisca spp. 100% 3/3 0.292 1 Lowland 1 (0 m) Atelopus varius 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Craugastor bransfordii 0% 0/2 0 0.842 Craugastor crassidigitus 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Craugastor longirostris 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Craugastor fitzingeri 0% 0/2 0 0.842 Dendrobates auratus 0% 0/3 0 0.708 Dendrobates minnutus 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Diasperous spp. 0% 0/3 0 0.708 Pristimantis caryophyllaceus 0% 0/1 0 0.975 Rhinella alata 0% 0/10 0 0.308 Silverstoneia flotator 0% 0/1 0 0.975 (e.g., Hertz et al. 2012) or predicted habitat suitability in species distribution models. We found persisting pop- ulations of varius at three of 16 (18.7%) field sites (Fig. 1, Table 1). At one site, we found one juvenile A. varius, five adult males, and two adult females, including one pair in amplexus (Fig. 2). We found individual adult males at each of the other two respective sites (Table 1). We have intentionally only provided general site infor- mation, rather than precise site coordinates, due to the risk of illegal animal collections. We confirmed that Bd is present in two of these three populations based on detection of Bd on skin swabs If om other species (e.g., Lithobates warszewitschii and Sach- atamia albomaculatd), but none of the Atelopus samples were Bd positive on these transects (Table 1). These sites vary in elevation from 45 to 750 m and all three are in areas where fungal epidemics were associated with mas- Amphib. Reptile Conserv. sive amphibian declines from 2004 to 2006 (Lips et al. 2006; Brem and Lips 2008; Kilbum et al. 2010). We did not detects, zeteki ox A. chiriquiensis at any of our study sites. Although suiwey efforts for these species are still underway, the absence of these species is concerning be- cause we know that they previously had restricted ranges (Zipple et al. 2006) and at least A. zeteki is known to be highly susceptible to chytridiomycosis in laboratory in- fection experiments (Bustamente et al. 2010; DiRenzo et al. 2014; Ellison et al. 2014). We found that A. varius is persisting in multiple sites following a chytridiomycosis outbreak in western Pana- ma. Furthermore, our positive qPCR results suggest that these populations have survived despite the presence of Bd. Prior to this study. Hertz et al. (2012) was the only study to document sightings of A. varius in the wild in Panama since 2006. Those observations were made in 32 November 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e85 Perez et al. 2009 at a site in Santa Fe National Park. These popula- tions may be persisting for a wide range of biotic (e.g., changes in host behavioral, innate or acquired immune responses, anti-5(i microbial communities) or abiotic (e.g., environmental/thermal conditions) reasons. How- ever, because there have been few coordinated efforts to locate new populations, resurvey historical localities, or test for Bd infections, the question of how these popu- lations have persisted — and whether any other Atelopus populations have survived — remains to be unraveled. We believe that the lack of post-decline survey effort has not been so much an oversight, but likely a consequence of the enormity of the challenge of monitoring these spe- cies while simultaneously establishing conservation pro- grams to abate the threat of chytridiomycosis to entire amphibian communities. Post-decline surveys are critical for conservation of Atelopus species, as well as for other neotropical am- phibians. Documenting rediscovered species is critically important for informing conservation and management initiatives (Minteer et al. 2014) and, in this case, could be accomplished with photographs, rather than collecting the individuals. Moreover, understanding the variables that permit some populations to persist while others die out will be critical to conservation, especially since sev- eral species are being bred in captivity (e.g., A. varius and A. zeteki) with the expectation of one day return- ing them to the wild (Gagliardo et al. 2008; Zippel et al. 2011). Our discovery of extant populations of A. varius in 5(i-enzootic areas underscores the importance of con- tinued monitoring for species presumed to be “extinct in the wild,” even after long periods without any sightings. Acknowledgments. — Disney Worldwide Wildlife Fund, Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) Con- servation Endowment Fund, Riverbanks Conservation Support Fund, Bay and Paul Foundations, Minnesota Zoo Ulysses S. Seal Conservation Grant, Maryland Zoo Conservation Fund, the Chicago Board of Trade Endan- gered Species Fund, The AZA Amphibian Taxon Advi- sory Group, Stone Center for Latin American Studies, and Project Golden Frog funded this research. We thank the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute for allowing access to their facilities. We thank Maggie Unkefer, Clif- ford Richardson, Kelly Cruz and the Cruz family, Daniel Medina, Karina Klonoski, and Simone Des Roches for their support. This work was conducted under lACUC NMT: 2013-1, lACUC Tulane: 0453, STRI lACUC: 2012-0901-2015, ANAM SE/AH-4-12, SE/AH-1-13, SE/AH-1-12, and SE/AH-4-13. Literature Cited Berger L, Speare R, Daszak P, Green DE, Cunningham AA, Goggin CL, Parkes H. 1998. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with popula- tion declines in the rain forests of Australia and Cen- tral America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95(15): 9031-9036. Brem FM, Lips KR. 2008. Batrachochytrium dendroba- tidis infection patterns among Panamanian amphib- ian species, habitats and elevations during epizootic and enzootic stages. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 81(3): 189-202. Bustamante HM, Livo LJ, Carey C. 2010. Effects of tem- perature and hydric environment on survival of the Panamanian Golden Frog infected with a pathogenic chytrid fungus. Integrative Zoology 5(2): 143-153. DiRenzo GV, Langhammer PF, Zamudio KR, Lips KR. 2014. Fungal Infection Intensity and Zoospore Output of Atelopus zeteki, a Potential Acute Chytrid Super- shedder. PloS One 9(3): e93356. Ellison AR, Savage AE, DiRenzo GV, Langhammer P, Lips KR, Zamudio KR. 2014. Fighting a Losing Bat- tle: Vigorous Immune Response Countered by Patho- gen Suppression of Host Defenses in the Chytridio- mycosis-Susceptible Vrog Atelopus zeteki. G3: Genes Genomes Genetics: g3-114. Gagliardo R, Crump P, Griffith E, Mendelson J, Ross H, Zippel K. 2008. The principles of rapid response for amphibian conservation, using the programmes in Panama as an example. International Zoo Yearbook 42(1): 125-135. Hertz A, Lotzkat S, Carrizo A, Ponce M, Kohler G, St- reit B. 2012. Field notes on findings of threatened amphibian species in the central mountain range of western Panama. Amphibian & Reptile Consei^ation 6(2): 9-30 (e46). lUCN. 2013. Guidelines for using the lUCN Red List categories and criteria. Available: www.iucm-edlist.org [Accessed: 09 March 2014]. Kilbum VL, Ibanez R, Sanjur O, Bermingham E, Sura- ci JP, Green DM. 2010. Ubiquity of the pathogenic chytrid fimgus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, in anuran communities in Panama. EcoHealth 7(4): 537-548. Kilpatrick AM, Briggs CJ, Daszak P. 2010. The ecology and impact of chytridiomycosis: an emerging disease of amphibians. Trends in Ecolog}’ & Evolution 25(2): 109-118. La Marca E, Lips KR, Letters S, Puschendorf R, Ibanez R, Rueda-Almonacid JV, Young BE. 2005. Cata- strophic population declines and extinctions in Neo- tropical harlequin frogs (Bufonidae: Atelopus). Bio- tropica 3>1 {2): 190-201. Lips KR, Brem F, Brenes R, Reeve ID, Alford RA, Voyles J, Collins JP. 2006. Emerging infectious dis- ease and the loss of biodiversity in a Neotropical amphibian community. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(9): 3165-3170. Longcore JE, Pessier AP, Nichols DK. 1999. Batracho- chytrium dendrobatidis gen. et sp. nov., a chytrid Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 33 November 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e85 Atelopus varius populations persisting after chytridiomycosis pathogenic to amphibians. Mycologia 91(2): 219-227. Mendelson JR, Lips KR, Gagliardo RW, Rabb GB, Col- lins JP, Diffendorfer JE, Brodie ED. 2006. Biodiver- sity-Confronting amphibian declines and extinctions. Science 313(5783): 48. Minteer BA, Collins JP, Eove KE, Puschendorf R. 2014. Avoiding (Re) extinction. Science 344(6181): 260- 261. Richards CE, Knowles EE. 2007. Tests of phenotypic and genetic concordance and their application to the conservation of Panamanian golden frogs (Anura, Bu- fomddLQ). Molecular Ecology 16(15): 3119-3133. Woodhams DC, Alford RA, Briggs CJ, Johnson M, Rol- lins-Smith EA. 2008. Eife-history trade-offs influence disease in changing climates: strategies of an amphib- ian pathogen. Ecology 89(6): 1627-1639. Zipell KC, Ibanez R, Eindquist ED, Richards CE, Jara- millo CA, Griffith EJ. 2006. Implicaciones en la con- servacion de las ranas doradas de Panama, asociadas con su revisidn taxonomica. Herpetotropicos 3(1). Available: http://erevistas.saber.ula.ve/index.php/her- petotropicos/article/view/643 [Accessed: 25 October 2014]. Zippel K, Johnson K, Gagliardo R, Gibson R, McFad- den M, Browne R, Martinez C, Townsend E. 2011. The Amphibian Ark: A global community for ex situ conservation of amphibians. Herpetological Conser- vation and Biology 6(3): 340-352. Rachel Perez is a M.S. student in the department of biology at New Mexieo Teeh. She reeeived her B.S. at University of California, Riverside. Her main researeh interests are in the areas of epidemiology, eeoim- munology, and amphibian eonservation. She is eurrently investigating innate defenses and mierohabitat eonditions of neotropieal amphibians. Corinne Richards-Zawacki is a professor in the Eeology and Evolutionary Biology department at Tulane University. Her researeh lies at the interseetion of eeology and evolutionary biology in that she approaehes questions about how ehanges in elimate and habitat shape population and eommunity proeesses in a way that explieitly eonsiders their evolutionary implieations. The questions she asks address (1) the effeets of elimate and landseape ehanges on speeies distributions and diversity, (2) how reproduetive isolation evolves during speeiation, and (3) how elimate and host/pathogen evolution shape the dynamies of wild- life diseases. She is passionate about amphibian eonservation and has 12 years of experienee working on eonservation-oriented projeets in Panama. Mueh of her work in Panama has foeused on the Critieally En- dangered Panamanian golden Ifogs. Her lab has also published studies related to the eaptive management of amphibian speeies threatened by Bd. Alexander Krohn is a eurrent Ph.D. eandidate at the University of California, Berkeley, in the department of Environmental, Seienee, Poliey and Management. His dissertation foeuses on the eonvergent evolution of melanism in desert reptiles, but he has been interested in herpetology, tropieal eeology, and eonservation sinee he was in middle sehool. Matthew Robak is broadly interested in amphibian eonservation. He is eurrently a Ph.D. eandidate at Tulane University where he is researehing how differenees in temperature affeet amphibians’ immune responses to Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis exposure. Edgardo J. Griffith is a world-renowned leader in amphibian eonservation in Panama and one of the founders of the El Valle Amphibian Conservation Center (EVACC). Edgardo is one of the pioneers that has proven that multi-speeies ex situ amphibian eonservation is the only option we have at the moment to fight the dramatie amphibian deelines in Panama. His work has been featured in several eonservation books, doeumentaries, and peer-reviewed seientifie papers. Edgardo has 14 years working with the Panamanian amphibians, ineluding the Panamanian golden frog in situ and breeding them ex situ. Heidi Ross is the projeet direetor at the El Valle Amphibian Conservation Center (EVACC). Heidi and her husband were awarded the San Diego Medal of International Conservation in 2012 for their work at EVACC. Heidi has 10 years of experienee ex situ experienee with Panamanian amphibians leading to the breeding of nine of the 12 priority speeies in the EVACC eolleetion, ineluding the Panamanian golden frog. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 34 November 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e85 Perez et al. Brian Gratwicke is a conservation biologist that leads the amphibian eonservation program at the Nation- al Zoo (Washington, DC, USA). Brian also leads the Panama Amphibian Reseue and Conservation Projeet. Previous eonservation experienee ineludes work on freshwater eeology in Afriea, tropieal marine eeology in the Caribbean, and tiger eonservation efforts in Asia. He has published more than 25 peer-reviewed papers and book ehapters and was a eontributor to Hotspots Revisited. Brian reeeived a Ph.D. in zoology from Oxford University. He obtained his baehelor’s and master’s degrees in zoology and fisheries eeology, respeetively, from the University of Zimbabwe. Roberto Ibanez is the in-eountry Direetor of the Panama Amphibian Reseue and Conservation Projeet, based at the Smithsonian Tropieal Researeh Institute. He has been part-time Assoeiate Professor at the Uni- versidad de Panama (1996—2014), and professor during de Panama Field Study Semester of MeGill Uni- versity (2003—2013). He reeeived his B.S. in Biology from the Universidad de Panama, and his Master’s degree and Ph.D. in Zoology from the Eeology and Evolutionary Biology Department at the University of Conneetieut. He has studied the amphibians and reptiles of Panama for more than 30 years. He has pub- lished more than 30 peer-reviewed papers, more than 20 notes, and a book guide to the amphibians of the lowlands of eentral Panama. He is a distinguished researeher of the national researeh system of Panama. Jamie Voyles is eurrently an Assistant Professor at New Mexieo Teeh working on emerging infeetious diseases in wildlife. She eonduets eh54ridiomyeosis researeh in Central Ameriea and in California. She is a member of multiple working groups investigating disease-related amphibian deelines. She is aetively involved in eonservation initiatives, sueh as Amphibian Reseue and Conservation Projeet, and eontributes to amphibianreseue.org and AmphibiaWeb. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 35 November 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e85 Official journal website: amphibian-reptile-conservation.org Amphibian & Reptiie Conservation 8(2) [General Section]: 36-43. Confirmation of introduced Louisiana pinesnakes, Pituophis ruthveni, in Fiorida based on molecular analyses ^’*Kenneth L. Krysko, ^Dustin C. Smith, ^Michael R. Rochford, "^Guy N. Kieckhefer III, and ^’^Leroy P. Nunez ^Florida Museum of Natural History, Division of Herpetology, 1659 Museum Road, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA ^Zoo Miami, 12400 Southwest 152nd Street, Miami, Florida 33177, USA ^University of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, 3205 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314-7719, USA ‘^1113 Wyoming Street, Belgrade, Montana 59714, USA Abstract — As more wide-range phylogenetic studies are available, the opportunity arises to compare DNAfrom these data sets to suspected introduced individuals in order to confirm species identification and determine their geographic origins. Two recently collected Pituophis specimens in Miami-Dade County, Florida, were examined using molecular analyses. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference methods place our specimens within the P. catenifer sayi I P ruthveni clade. Additional morphological evidence support their identification as the Louisiana pinesnake, Pituophis ruthveni StuW 1929, a species indigenous to a small area in western Louisiana and eastern Texas and candidate for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although P ruthveni is viewed as a distinct species from P catenifer sayi based on allopatry and differences in color pattern, no molecular evidence was found supporting the recognition of P ruthveni as a separate species. However, adding other mtDNA and nuclear DNA genes might provide needed data for distinguishing between these two named taxa. Key words. DNA, exotics, ND4, mitochondrial, mtDNA, nonnative, phylogenetics, Squamata, species Citation: Krysko KL, Smith DC, Rochford MR, Kieckhefer III GN, Nunez LR 2014. Confirmation of introduced Louisiana pinesnakes, Pituophis ruth- veni, in Florida based on molecular analyses. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 8(2) [General Section]: 36-43 (e86). Copyright: © 2014 Krysko et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use for non-commercial and education purposes only, in any medium, provided the original author and the official and authorized publication sources are recognized and properly credited. The official and authorized publication credit sources, which will be duly enforced, are as follows: official journal title Amphibian & Reptile Conservation; official journal website . Received: 19 August 2014; Accepted: 27 October 2014; Published: 19 November 2014 Introduction Introduced species (e.g., stages 2-5 after Colautti and Macisaae 2004) are those transferred from their native range into a new nonindigenous area. Over the past cen- tury it has become increasingly clear how disruptive human-eaused biological introductions have been to the planet. While not all introduced species eause obvious harm, some introdueed speeies can eventually become eeonomic threats and lead to serious conservation prob- lems (Simberloff et al. 1997). As of 2005, it was estimat- ed that the eost of environmental damages, losses, and control due to introdueed speeies exeeeded $120 billion per year in the United States alone (Pimentel et al. 2005). Prior to 2011, the state of Florida had 137 doeumented introdueed reptile and amphibian taxa (56 being estab- lished), which ranks highest in the world (Krysko et al. 2011a, 2012). Invasion pathways in Florida include (few- est to highest numbers) biological control, zoos, cargo/ plant shipments, and the pet trade. Pinesnakes, bullsnakes, and gophersnakes {Pituophis Holbrook 1842) are large (up to 254 em total length) eonstrictors native to North Ameriea, charaeterized by disproportionately small heads, four prefrontal seales, and a large rostral plate that extends upwards between the intemasals (Conant and Collins 1991). Based primar- ily on moleeular data using Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood analyses with 893 base pairs (bp) of the nieo- tinamide adenine dinucleotide dehydrogenase subunit 4 (ND4) region (Rodriguez-Robles and De Jesus-Eseobar 2000), the P. melanoleucus species complex contains three eurrently recognized species; P. melanoleucus (sensu strieto; Pinesnakes; with three subspecies P. m. lodingi, P m. melanoleucus, P m. mugitus), P cateni- fer (gophersnakes and bullsnakes; with six subspecies P. c. affinis, P c. annectens, P c. catenifer, P c. deserti- Correspondence. Email: * kenneyk@ufl.edu (Corresponding author, KLK); ^dustsmi@miamidade.gov; ^ mikerochford@hotmail.com', ^gnkieck@gmail. com ; fherizinosaur@yahoo. com Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 36 November 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e86 Krysko et al. Figure 1. Map of Zoo Miami bounded in green. Note that major roadways, residential areas, and undeveloped proteeted lands surround zoo property. Dots represents loeations of Pituophis found on zoo property; yellow = UF-Herpetology 157954 (gravid female) and red = UF-Herpetology 163092 (adult male). cola, P c. pumilis, P. c. sayi), and P. ruthveni (Louisi- ana pinesnake). Pituophis melanoleucus (Daudin 1803) occurs in the eastern United States from southern New Jersey south to extreme southern peninsular Florida (i.e., Miami-Dade County; Krysko et al. 2011b) and west to Kentueky and southeastern Louisiana (Rodriguez- Robles and De Jesus-Eseobar 2000). This species lacks a dark line from the eye to the angle of the jaw, has a dorsal pattern either absent (uniform blaek), obseure, or whitish to brownish with 23-30 distinct dark dorsal body blotches that are elearly separated from each other both anteriorly and posteriorly along the body and tail (Knight 1986; Powell et al. 1998; Reiehling 1995; Thomas et al. 1976). Pituophis catenifer oceurs from the Paeifie Ocean east to Wiseonsin, Illinois, and Texas, and from Canada south to Mexieo (Rodriguez-Robles and De Jesus-Eseo- bar 2000; Powell et al. 1998). This speeies typically has a dark line from the eye to the angle of the jaw, and a yel- low or cream-eolored dorsal pattern with 41-79 distinet dark dorsal blotehes that are clearly separated from eaeh other both anteriorly and posteriorly along the body and tail (Knight 1986; Powell et al. 1998; Reiehling 1995; Thomas et al. 1976). Pituophis ruthveni occurs in allo- patric populations in western-central Louisiana to eastern Texas (Ealy et al. 2004; Powell et al. 1998). This species sometimes laeks a dark line from the eye to the angle of the jaw, and has a pale brown dorsal pattern with 28-38 dark dorsal blotches; near the head the blotches obscure the ground coloration, whereas near the tail they are dis- tinctly separated from eaeh other (Knight 1986; Pow- ell et al. 1998; Reiehling 1995; Stull 1929; Thomas et al. 1976). Although P. ruthveni is nested within a elade eontaining only P. c. sayi, it is recognized as a separate species because it oceurs in ahopatric populations and is somewhat diagnosable using eolor pattern charaeters (Collins 1991; Knight 1986; Reiehling 1995; Rodriguez- Robles and De Jesus-Escobar 2000; Thomas et al. 1976). Pituophis ruthveni is also a eandidate for listing as an imperiled species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviee (2013). The last known Pituophis melanoleucus from ex- treme southern peninsular Florida (UF-Herpetology 45970) was eohected in 1980 in a disturbed pineland (with Casuarina and Schinus) in Cutler Ridge, Miami- Dade County, and because of ongoing dense urbaniza- tion this speeies is believed to be extirpated along the Atlantie Coast Ridge (Krysko et al. 2011b). In 2010, two Pituophis were eohected on the Atlantie Coast Ridge at Zoo Miami, Miami-Dade County; one was found in an undeveloped area and another near publie aeeess. Based on color pattern alone, these snakes were suspected to be introduced P. ruthveni and reported to represent the first known vouehers for this speeies in Florida (Krysko et al. 2011a). Many doeumented introduetions categorize spe- eies based on sometimes vague superficial morphology, such as color patterns, which may or may not be arbitrary human constructs. However, as more wide-range phylo- genetie studies are conducted and published, the oppor- tunity arises for other researchers to eompare DNA from known data sets to suspected introdueed individuals in Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 37 November 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e86 Verification of introduced Pituophis ruthveni in Florida Figure 2. Well-dQYQlopQd Pituophis embryo (UF-Herpetology 164295) oviposited from wild colleeted gravid female (UF-Herpe- tology 157954) in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. order to confirm species identification as well as deter- mine their geographic origins. In this paper, we conduct molecular analyses of Pituophis in a coalescent frame- work to confirm species identity and phylogenetic place- ment of our two specimens, followed by more detailed examination of morphology and color pattern. Material and Methods Site description and specimen acquisition Zoo Miami is situated at 12400 SW 152* Street, Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, USA (Fig. 1 ; 25.61 1926°N, 80.398042°W, Datum WGS84, elev. 2 m). The property consists of ca. 300 ha, 106 ha of which are undeveloped managed lands, predominantly of pine rockland habitat. Zoo Miami property is surrounded by a mixture of natu- ral areas, disturbed areas, and a county park, followed by dense urbanization. On 16 May 2010 at 1645 h, an didult Pituophis (gravid female, 1,302 mm SVL, 1,486 mm TL; UF-Herpetolo- gy 157954; see Fig. 86 in Krysko et al. 2011) was col- lected in a service area behind a large animal exhibit (25.60395°N, 80.4006°W). This snake was observed by zoo staff the previous day along an adjacent public walkway, but was not captured. This snake was retained in captivity and oviposited three eggs on 22 June 2010. The eggs were viewed with a light on 28 June 2010; all three eggs contained a dark blood spot, but only one egg had an obvious network of veins developing. The first two eggs failed to develop and were discarded on 06 July 2010. The third egg had an unpleasant odor and was fro- zen on 14 September 2010; it was dissected on 20 Sep- tember 2010 and revealed a well-developed embryo (UF- Herpetology 164295; Fig. 2). On 25 December 2010 at 1215 h, another adult (male, 1,425 mm SVL, 1,635 mm TL) Pituophis (UF-Herpe- tology 163092) was collected in an undeveloped area (25.60304°N, 80.40295°W), across a large man-made lake and 0.26 km southwest of the first snake. The well-developed embryo, shed skins from the two adults, and digital images were deposited in the Divi- sion of Herpetology, Florida Museum of Natural His- tory, University of Florida. The female (UF-Herpetology 157954) is currently housed at the Memphis Zoo, and the male (UF-Herpetology 163092) is housed at Zoo Miami. Laboratory techniques DNA isolations were obtained using QIAquick PCR Pu- rification Kit and DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen Sciences, LLC). Using total cellular DNA as a template and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) methodology (Saiki et al. 1988), mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) was amplified and sequenced for the ND4 region follow- ing Rodriguez-Robles and De Jesus-Escobar (2000). The ND4 region includes a section of the 3 ’ end of the ND4 gene, and two subsequent transfer ribonucleic ac- ids (tRNA”‘®, tRNA^®^), which were sequenced using the primers ND4 and Leu (Arevalo et al. 1994). PCR was conducted in 25 pi reactions: 9.5 pi H^O, 12.5 pi GoTaq® Master Mix (Promega Corp, Madison, Wisconsin, USA), 1.0 pi each primer (10 pM), and 1.0 pi DNA template. PCR parameters included initial denaturing at 94 °C for three min, followed by 35 cycles of amplification: de- Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 38 November 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e86 Krysko et al. 98 98 93 CA_SanBenito_Lamprope/f/5 9efi//a_HWG1485 TX_Culberson_Bogerfop/?/s suboct//ans_CME116 CA_Riverside_Anzo^s elegans_W^Z^ ■ OHOttawaPanfPerophis U'U/p/>JUS_CAS1 84362 100 94 — FL_Hi llsborough_P/fiiop/7/s melanoletJCLis mugitus_W\yZ^ 3063 - FL^Waku na^Pituophis melanoleucus mugitusJJSN M2 1 1 452 \^C_Brur\5'Mck_Pituophis melanoleucus mela^oleucus_W\VZ^502^9 •“I NJ_Cumberland_P/fuop/i/s meianoleucus melanoieucus_MVZ225b20 - NJ_Burlington_P/f/;op/7/s meianoleucus melanoleucus_W\WZ22b52) I — Pituophis meianoleucus lod^nglJH\NG2Q5^ L Pituophis meianoleucus lodlngl_HV\lG2652 Pituophis deppei jani q: 100 Mexico_Michoacan_P/^yop/7is deppei deppei_2 Mexico_Durango_P/fL/op/i/s deppei b'eppe/_1 .^0 100 ■ Mexico_BajaCal_P;Yuop^/5 vertebralisJSB Wiex\co_Ba\aCa\_Pituophis vertebra!is_JAR7S — Mexico_BajaCal_P/fuopYj/s catenifer bimans_^ 1 97r 93 97i C 100 Pituophis vertebralis_40 - AZ_Oooh\se_Pituophis cafe/?/feraffi;?/s_MVZ1 37697 ■ AZ_Maricopa_P/fi/opft/s catemfer affln/s_MVZ162369 - CO_Garfield_P/f£/opft/s catenifer deserf/co/a_MVZ150216 NM_Luna_P/fyop/?/5 catenifer 51 1 TX_JeffDavis_P/fmp/?/s catenifer sayi^MVZ 150218 MO^SaintLouis^P/Yuoph/s cafefT/fersayi^MVZ226247 £ cc o LA_Bienville_P/f£iop/7/s ruthveni_32 — OK_Cleveland_P/ftiop/7/s catenifer sayi^37 *- LA_Bienville_P/fL/opYi/s ruthvenl_33 — LA_Bienville_P/fi/opY?/s lvthveniJ3^ — CO_Jefferson_P»ft/opft/s cafef?rfe/'say/_35 74 FL_MiamiDade_UF1 57954 FL MiamiDade UF163092 100r 99 C CD £ 2 a; ‘5; CO CO ti a; - CA_Napa_Pifuopft/s catenifer catenifer - CA_Alameda_Pifuopft(s catenifer catenifer_JAR77 100p CA_Mendocino_P/fuopftis catenifer catenifer_CAS20A258 ' N V^Mineral Pjfuoppjs catenifer deserticolaJtJNZt 37577 v3> 5 CD O CD <2 d; 2 -Q 100 r ■ Gualemala_P/?t/op/7/s//r?eaf/coWs g/jbson/_CJF1500 Guatemala^Prfuop/iis lineaticollis g/ijso/7/^CJF1501 98r 99 97 — UT_Ulah_P/fi;op/7/s catenifer deserticoia CA Kern P/fyopWs catenifer deserficola_RSR 115 Mexico_BajaCal_P/ft/op/7fs catenifer b;mar/s_10 - CA_Monterey_Prtuopb/s catenifer catenifer_JAR75 Mexico_BajaCal_P/ft/op/7/s cafeY7/ferft;//g'//7afi/s Pituophis catenifer bimaris_‘]3 — W\ex\co_BajaOa\_Pituophis cafenife/'d/Vr>ar/5_12 — CA_SanDiego_P/ft/oppys catenifer annectens_M^/Z^ 50206 84l- CA_SanDiego_P/fL/op/7/s catenifer annecteas_MVZ149983 CASantaBarbaraPyfyop/r/s catenifer pumilus_29 CA_SantaBarbara_P/fi;op/7/s catenifer pumllus_30 88 .CO "o .O 03 03 .g q: 0.02 Figure 3. Maximum Likelihood phylogeny for Pituophis (Squamata: Colubridae) snakes, ineluding the two known P. ruthveni (highlighted in yellow, UF-Herpetology 157954 and 163092) eolleeted in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Note that values (> 50%) above nodes represent bootstrap support. Inset photograph of UF-Herpetology 157954 by Dustin C. Smith. naturing at 94 °C for one min, annealing at 52 °C for one min, and extension at 72 °C for one min, followed by a final extension at 72 °C for seven min . Three pi of each PCR product were electrophoresed on a 1% agarose gel, visualized with GelRed™ staining (Biotium Inc., Hayward, California, USA), and compared with a DNA standard. Sequence files from the automated sequencer (Genomics Division, Interdisciplinary Center for Bio- technology Research, University of Florida) were as- sembled and edited as necessary with Geneious software (ver. 6.1, created by Biomatters. Available from http:// www.geneious.com). Phylogenetic analyses. — DNA sequence data were downloaded from GenBank for 46 snakes, including 42 Pituophis, and one of each Lampropeltis getula, Panthe- rophis vulpinus, Bogertophis subocularis, and Arizona elegans incorporating the original data set from Rodri- guez-Robles and De Jesus-Escobar (2000) and current taxonomy after Pyron and Burbrink (2009). GenBank Accession numbers for our two Pituophis specimens (UF-Herpetology 157954 and 163092) are KJ938643 and KJ938644, respectively. A total of 48 specimens with 875 base pairs (bp) of se- quence data were analyzed. Relationships among mtDNA haplotypes were estimated using both Maximum Likeli- hood (ML) and Bayesian Inference (BI) methods. ML was conducted with the General Time Reversible model with gamma distributed rate heterogeneity (GTR + F) and 1,000 nonparametric bootstrap replicates (Felsen- stein 2004) to assess node support using RAxML-HPC BlackBox (Stamatakis 2006; Stamatakis et al. 2008) from the CIPRES Science Gateway (Miller et al. 2010). BI was conducted using BEAST (ver. 1.8; Drummond and Rambaut 2007) from the UF-HPC Galaxy instance (http://hpc.ufl.edu; Blankenberg et al. 2010; Giardine et al. 2005; Goecks et al. 2010). The Bayesian Information Criterion in jModelTest (ver. 2.1.4; Darriba et al. 2012; Guindon and Gascuel 2003) determined the best-fit nu- cleotide substitution model to be Hasegawa, Kishino, and Yano with a proportion of invariant sites and gamma distributed rate heterogeneity (HKY + I + T). A relaxed Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 39 November 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e86 Verification of introduced Pituophis ruthveni in Florida 99 99| 1 99 1 CA_SanBeii1fl_LaffipiTope!fe9eliy/a_HWG1485 CARiverside _Artzofiseiega;is_HVZ137665 TX_Culberson_Sogdop/i/s sui5«ci/)0fi5_CMEI 1 6 0N_0tl3wa_PaafteropWs Ki/lpiii[;s_CAS184362 Pifyop/jiscfeppe/^ani Meaco_MichDacan_fl'(i/opljis [teppef rfeppa_2 Meaco_Durarigo_filuflp/?(s deppei cteppe/_1 GualeTOla_P('t[j<}pfi's//nea!('M!fe giiMf]f_CJF1501 1 Guale™ia_P('!uopfe /meatofe g/iso/jf_CJF1500 1 P. deppei P lineat/collis FLHillsboroi^hPjfijtipte me/araletos rm;^(us_MVZFC13063 FL_Wakulla_R'!uoph(s melano'ei/ws ff!!/jifws_USNM21 1452 NC_Bruisv.'icli_P/fi;w/i/s m. meiar:!>lwMS_MVZ150219 NJ_C jmbeHand_Pft:;!)p/jis m. »7;e/a/!o/ei/cus_MVZ225520 NJ_Burlinglon_Pituophis_rr_rrelanoleu(!us_MVZ225521 Pifiypp/:is ;ne/a™/e(;c!;s /t>dingf_HWG2651 P^uophk mknolsucus Wng[_HIWG2652 CA_Alameda_Pwwp/;is ca/en/fe; cafefflfer_JAR77 CA_Napa_PtftJopPis cafeiiife^ cafemfer CA_MerdocinD_Pm.^fe cateiffer cafenffer_CAS20l258 NV Mineral PifuopA/s Mte/i;fefdeseriia)Ja_MVZ137577 CAKemPdmphis catew/fef dssert'coteRSR1 15 UT_Ulah_P[i'iropft*s' caimkr desejl'ico/a Mexico_BajaCal_Rli;!)p/)(5 calmer lymans_IO CA_Monterey_Pi7t/(3pfjJS cafe/?ter cafenffe,''_JAR75 Mexico_BajaCal_fl'lrjt)pn(s rafenifer Mgmfus Mexico_BajaCal_RK;op/)(5 cafepder lxmans_l2 Prfuop/iis calender toa;;s_1 3 CA_SanDiego_Pflw>pfiis ralenife'aifleciefJs_HVZ15CI206 CA_SanDifigo_Pf!uophis t;atenite'3iinecitefls_HVZ1499B3 CA_SantaBaitara_Pfltjopft,ficafeni/efpOT/ius_2& CA_SantaBaitara_Ptopft,isiafe.ri//efpum/lusJ MeBCO_BajaCal_PfW&pP(S i«/telrelis_38 Me)dco_BajaCal_fl'l[jt)pP(s rafemfer !xmans_1 1 Meaco_BajaCal Rlijoprts i«rteljraI('s_JAR78 Prfvop/iisverfebra/IsJO AZ_Mana)pa_P/f(/(!pf]ys :a!e;!ffer affiffl5_WVZ1 62369 AZ_Cochise_P/!(/opf?ls calaiifer 3]^nis_MVZ137697 CO_6arfield_PJ!'i/op/;fsc3teajferdese.^'coia_UVZ150216 TX_Js1fDavis_P/fuopf}rsc3te,r!/fersayi_MVZ15D218 NM_Ljna_Pikipi)fs ca?ei'w'fera;i?f]fs_H8S151 1 MO_SaintLouis_P/luoptecaIer:/'fersay(_MVZ226247 LA,_Bienville_Pt[/opft/s futhveniJ2 OK_C!evelard_P(‘f[/op^fs catepifersayi_37 LA,_8ienwille_PfT[/opf]/'s LA,_Bienwille_PrT[/opfi/s rutoiJS CO_Jefferson_R1[jopb(sca!a,7ifer53ji_35 FL_MmiDade_UF163092 FL MiamiOade UF157954 P- catenifer c. -c s a; I' to 6 a; Figure 4. Bayesian Inference phylogeny for Pituophis (Squamata: Colubridae) snakes, including the two known P. ruthveni (high- lighted in yellow, UF-Herpetology 157954 and 163092) collected in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Note that values (> 95%) above nodes represent posterior probabilities. Inset photograph of UF-Herpetology 163092 by Dustin C. Smith. phylogenetics method was used without relying on a potentially arbitrary molecular clock (Zuckerkandl and Pauling 1965) that might incorporate uncertainty in the tree estimation process (Drummond et al. 2006). An un- correlated lognormal relaxed clock with coalescent con- stant population size (Kingman 1982), estimated base frequencies, randomly generated starting tree, and nor- mal distribution for the ucld.mean parameter priors were used. Two independent runs were performed consisting of three heated and one cold Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) estimated for 40 million generations, with ev- ery 1,000th sample being retained. Both MCMC runs were analyzed independently (to confirm chains were converging and not sampling local optima) using Tracer (ver. 1.6) for ESS values >200, as well as for a split stan- dard deviation less than 0.005 for -InL tree values among chains that indicate parameter stationarity was achieved. Trees sampled prior to stationarity were discarded as bum-in, which occurred prior to five million generations. Trees from both independent MCMC mns were com- bined and burn-in was removed using LogCombiner (ver. 1.8), the best statistically supported tree (i.e.. Maximum clade credibility tree) with mean heights was obtained using TreeAnnotator (ver. 1.8), and a phylogenetic hy- pothesis with posterior probabilities was created using FigTree (ver. 1.4). The most credible inferences of phylogenetic relation- ships were confined to nodes where nonparametric boot- strap values > 70% and posterior probability (Pp) was > 95% (Hillis and Bull 1993; Felsenstein 2004). Morphology and color pattern We determined sex, snout-vent length (SVF), tail length, number of ventrals, subcaudals, supralabials, infralabi- als, preoculars, postoculars, temporals, loreals, and dor- sal scale rows; and color pattern of dorsum and venter. We compared these data to those found in the literature. Results Phylogenetic analyses. — Both MF and BI methods produced identical phylogenetic groupings (Figs. 3 and 4). Although some of these clades are organized differ- ently in relation to one another the monophyly of Pituo- phis is well supported, which is congment with the find- ings by Pyron and Burbrink (2009), though the latter study used only single samples for each species. Both of Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 40 November 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e86 Krysko et al. our two Pituophis specimens have the same mtDNAhap- lotype, and both phylogenetic methods place them within the P. catenifer sayi / P. ruthveni clade. Morphological data for UF -Herpetology 157954 in- clude 226 ventrals, 55 subcaudals, 8/8 (left/right) supral- abials, 11/11 infiralabials, 1/1 preoculars, 7/7 postoculars, 4 temporals, 1/1 loreals, 27-30-24 dorsal scale rows, 34 body blotches, 8 tail blotches, parietal stripe present, and heavily patterned venter. Data for UF-Herpetology 163092 include 212 ventrals, 57 subcaudals, 8/8 (left/ right) supralabials, 11/11 infralabials, 1/1 preoculars, 7/7 postoculars, 4 temporals, 1/1 loreals, 27-31-23 dorsal scale rows, 32 body blotches, and 11 tail blotches. Discussion Our ML and BI phylogenies produced identical mam phylogenetic groupings (Figs. 3 and 4) as those found in the ML analysis by Rodriguez-Robles and De Jesus- Escobar (2000). However, we found no support for some relationships, and no support values are provided on the original ML tree by Rodriguez-Robles and De Jesus- Escobar (2000). Our two Pituophis specimens were placed within a well-supported P. catenifer sayi / P. ruth- veni clade, the same group of specimens (except for our Florida specimens) uncovered by Rodriguez-Robles and De Jesus-Escobar (2000). Pituophis catenifer sayi and P ruthveni were also found to be sister taxa based on a combined mtDNA and single nuclear (nDNA) (Pyron and Burbrink 2009) and phenetic moiphological similar- ity (Reichling 1995) analyses. Nonetheless, we found no molecular support for the recognition of P ruthveni as a separate species. One of the limitations of our and Rodriguez-Robles and De Jesus-Escobar ’s (2000) mo- lecular studies is the use of only a single locus (ND4 re- gion), and adding additional mtDNA and unlinked nDNA genes might provide needed data for distinguishing be- tween these two named taxa. Pituophis ruthveni is cur- rently recognized as a separate species because it occurs in allopatric populations and is believed to be diagnos- able using color pattern characters, the most diagnostic being 28-38 dark dorsal body blotches and the blotches obscuring the ground coloration anteriorly (Collins 1991 ; Reichling 1995; Rodriguez-Robles and De Jesus-Esco- bar 2000). Our two Pituophis specimens exhibit these three characters, thus we categorized them as P. ruthveni. Before our specimens were found, Pituophis ruthveni was not known to be kept at Zoo Miami, therefore this species is not representative of a zoo-mediated introduc- tion pathway and was likely released by an outside per- son. Other species such as the Reticulated python, Ma- layopython reticulatus (see Kaiser et al. 2013; Reynolds et al. 2014), and Pacific Coast giant musk turtle, Stauro- typus salvinii, are other examples of reptile species that have been illegally released on zoo property, the latter possibly established (Smith et al. 2011). Although we are currently uncertain if P ruthveni is established in the vast protected undeveloped habitats surrounding public ac- cess areas, an adult male and gravid female were found suggesting reproduction might have taken place in the wild. Acknowledgments . — We are thankful to everyone who assisted in this study: Ryan Zach, Kevin Kopf, and Oscar Rodriguez for collecting specimens; Steve Reich- ling for providing data; David L. Reed and Gustav Pau- lay for laboratory space; and R. Alexander Pyron and Craig Hassapakis for reviewing this paper. Literature Cited Arevalo E, Davis SK, Sites Jr JW. 1994. Mitochondrial DNA sequence divergence and phylogenetic relation- ships among eight chromosome races of the Scelopo- rus grammicus complex (Plirynosomatidae) in central Mexico. Systematic Biology 387^18. Blankenberg D, Von Kuster G, Coraor N, Ananda G, Lazarus R, Mangan M, Nekrutenko A, Taylor J. 2010. Galaxy: A web-based genome analysis tool for experimentalists. Current Protocols in Mo- lecular Biology Chapter 19:Unit 19.10.1-21. doi: 10.1 002/047 1 1 42727. mb 1 9 1 0s89 Colautti RI, Macisaac HJ. 2004. A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’species. Diversity and Distributions 10: 135-141. Collins JT. 1991. Viewpoint: A new taxonomic arrange- ment for some North American amphibians and rep- tiles. Herpetological Review 22: 42^3. Conant R, Collins JT. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North Ameri- ca. Third Edition, Expanded. Houghton Mifflin Com- pany, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 363 p. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D. 2012. jModelTest 2: More models, new heuristics and paral- lel computing. Nature Methods 9: 772. Dorcas ME, Willson JD, Reed RN, Snow RW, Rochford MR, Miller MA, Meshaka WE et al. 2012. Severe ma mm al declines coincide with proliferation of inva- sive Bumiese pythons in Everglades National Park. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109: 2418-2422. Drummond AJ, Ho SYW, Phillips MJ, Rambaut A. 2006. Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. Public Library of Science Biology A: e88. doi: 10. 1371/ journal.pbio. 0040088. Drummond AJ, Rambaut A. 2007. “BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees.” Biomed Central Evolutionary Biology 7: 214. Ealy MJ, Fleet RR, Rudolph DC. 2004. Diel activity patterns of the Louisiana pine snake {Pituophis rmth- ven'i) in eastern Texas. Texas Journal of Science 56: 383-394. Ernst CH, Ernst EM. 2003. Snakes of the United States Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 41 November 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e86 Verification of introduced Pituophis ruthveni in Florida and Canada. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C., USA and London, United Kingdom. 668 p. Felsenstein J. 2004. Inferring Phylogenies. Sinauer As- sociates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA. 664 p. Giardine B, Riemer C, Hardison RC, Burhans R, Elnitski L, Shah P, Zhang Y, Blankenberg D, Albert I, Taylor J, Miller W, Kent WJ, Nekmtenko A. 2005. Galaxy: A platform for interactive large-scale genome analysis. Genome Research 15: 1,451-1,455. Goecks J, Nekmtenko A, Taylor J, The Galaxy Team. 2010. Galaxy: A comprehensive approach for sup- porting accessible, reproducible, and transparent computational research in the life sciences. Genome Biology 1 1 : R86. Guindon S, Gascuel O. 2003. A simple, fast and accurate method to estimate large phylogenies by maximum- likelihood. Systematic Biology 52: 696-704. Hillis DM, Bull JJ. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrap- ping as a method for assessing confidence in phyloge- netic analysis. Systematic Biology 42: 182-192. Kaiser H, Crother BI, Kelly CMR, Luiselli L, O’Shea M, Ota H, Passes P, Schleip WD, Wiister W. 2013. Best practices: In the 21st century, taxonomic decisions in herpetology are acceptable only when supported by a body of evidence and published via peer-review. Her- petological Review 44: 8-23. Kingman JFC. 1982. The Coalescent. Stochastic Pro- cesses and their Applications 13: 235-248. Knight JL. 1986. Variation in snout morphology in North American snake Pituophis melanoleucus (Serpentes: Colubridae). Journal of Herpetology 20: 77-79. Krysko KL, Burgess JP, Rochford MR, Gillette CR, Cue- va D, Enge KM, Somma EA, Stabile JE, Smith DC, Wasilewski JA, Kieckhefer III GN, Granatosky MC, Nielsen SV. 2011a. Verified non-indigenous amphib- ians and reptiles in Florida from 1863 through 2010: Outlining the invasion process and identifying inva- sion pathways and stages. Zootaxa 3028: 1-64. Krysko KL, Enge KM, Moler PE. 2011b. Atlas of Am- phibians and Reptiles in Florida. Final Report, Proj- ect Agreement 08013. Florida Fish and Wildlife Con- servation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. 524 p. Krysko KL, Somma LA, Rochford MR, Gillette CR, Enge KM, Cueva D. 2012. Taxonomic corrections of certain verified non-indigenous reptiles from Florida reported by Krysko et al. (2011). Zootaxa 3199: 66- 68 . Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T. 2010. Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phy- logenetic trees. Pp. 1-8 In: Proceedings of the Gate- way Computing Environments Workshop (GCE), 14 November 2010, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. 115 P- Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D. 2005. Update on the enviromnental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecologi- cal Economics 52: 273-288. Powell R, Collins JT, Hooper Jr ED. 1998. A Key to Am- phibians and Reptiles of the Continental United States and Canada. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. 150 p. Pyron RA, Burbrink FT. 2009. Neogene diversification and taxonomic stability in the snake tribe Lampropel- tini (Serpentes: Colubridae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 52: 524-529. Reichling SB. 1995. The Taxonomic status of the Loui- siana Pine Snake {Pituophis melanoleucus ruthveni) and its relevance to the evolutionary species concept. Journal of Herpetology 29\ 186-198. Reynolds RG, Niemiller ML, Revell LJ. 2014. Toward a Tree-of-Life for the boas and pythons: Multilocus species-level phylogeny with unprecedented taxon sampling. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 71 : 201-213. Rodriguez-Robles JA, de Jesus-Escobar JM. 2000. Mo- lecular systematics of New World gopher, bull, and pinesnakes {Pituophis: Colubridae), a transcontinen- tal species complex. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 14: 35-50. Saiki RK, Gelfand DH, Stoffel S, Scharf SJ, Higuchi R, Horn GT, Mullis KB, Erlich HA. 1988. Primer-direct- ed enzymatic amplification of DNA with thermostable DNA polymerases. Science 239 (4839): 487^91. Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC. (Editors). 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. 479 p. Smith DC, Krysko KL, Sorensen TA, Sider MN. 2011. The Pacific Coast Giant Musk Turtle, Staurotypus sal- vinii Gray 1864 (Kinostemidae), a New Non-indige- nous Species in Florida. IRCF Reptiles & Amphibians 18:55-56. Snow RW, Brien ML, Cherkiss MS, Wilkins L, Maz- zotti FJ. Dietary habits of the Burmese python. Py- thon molurus bivittatus, in Everglades National Park. ¥\ondSi. Herpetological Bulletin 101: 5-7. Stamatakis A. 2006. RAxML-VI-HPC: Maximum likeli- hood based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22: 2,688- 2,690. Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J. 2008. A fast boot- strapping algorithm for the RAxML Web-Servers. Systematic Biology 57: 758-771. Stebbins RC. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Amphibians and Reptiles. Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 448 P- Stull OG. 1929. The description of a new subspecies of Pituophis melanoleucus from Eouisiana. Occassional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Mich- igan. No. 205. Thomas RA, Davis BJ, Culbertson MR. 1976. Notes on variation and range of the Louisiana pine snake, Pituo- Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 42 November 2014 | Volume 8 | Number 2 | e86 Krysko et al. phis melanoleucus ruthveni Stull (Reptilia, Serpentes, Colubridae). Journal of Herpetology 10: 252-254. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Form. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/ assessments/20 13/r4/C02C_V01. pdf [Accessed: 25 November 2013]. Zuckerkandl E, Pauling L. 1965. Evolutionary diver- gence and convergence in proteins. Pp. 97-177 In: Evolving Genes and Proteins. Editors, Bryson V, Vo- gel HJ. Academic Press, New York, New York, USA. 629 p Kenneth L. Krysko is a senior herpetologist at the Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida (UF), where he has helped eurate the international researeh and teaehing colleetions for more than 15 years. He studies ecology and molecular systematics on both native and normative herps and produced Florida’s first Atlas of amphibians and reptiles. His research on introduced species has made UF-Herpe- tology the information center for invasive species in Florida. He recently published a large monograph documenting species introductions as far back as 1863 and illustrated that Florida has the worst invasive reptile problem in the entire world. He received his B.S. in Biological Sciences from Florida State Univer- sity, M.S. in Biological Sciences from Florida International University, and Ph.D. in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation from the University of Florida. Dustin C. Smith is a conservation and research specialist at Zoo Miami. He graduated with a B.A. in 2001 from the University of South Florida. He has been involved with research projects in Costa Rica, Panama, and throughout the southeastern US, and is currently working on projects in Puerto Rico and Belize. Most of his current research involves native and non-native amphibians and reptiles in southern Florida. Michael R. Rochford is the Invasive Species Coordinator at the University of Florida’s Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, where he has worked for the last eight years. He received his B.S. in Biol- ogy from Kansas State University in 2004. He has worked extensively on radio-telemetry and diet studies of Burmese pythons in Elorida as well as on projects to assess populations of American alligators and American crocodiles. In addition to his research and conservation interests, he also has strong interest in finding and photographing herpetofauna of the United States and Mexico. Trey “Guy” Kieckhefer graduated with a B.S. in Biology from Eckerd College in Saint Petersburg, Elor- ida. He worked for the University of Elorida studying invasive Burmese pythons in the Everglades, and currently works at the Tavernier Science Center in the Elorida Keys for the National Audubon Society. He conducts surveys for prey fishes in the Everglades and submerged aquatic vegetation. He is interested in Ichthyology, Ornithology, exotic species, and the overall health of the Everglades ecosystem. a Leroy P. Nunez is a collections assistant within the Division of Herpetology at the Elorida Museum of Natural History, University of Elorida (UE). He obtained an Associate’s Degree in Zoology from Santa Ee College and a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from UE. He is currently working on his Master’s Degree in Interdisciplinary Ecology at the School of Natural Resources and Environment at UF. His current research involves studying phytogenies of invasive squamates in Florida and his future research projects will focus on phylogenetics and developmental evolutionary biology. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 43 November 2014 I Volume 8 I Number 2 I e86 CONTENTS Special Section Alejandro Valencia-Zuleta, Andres Felipe Jaramillo-Martinez, Andrea Echeverry-Bocanegra, Ron- ald Viafara-Vega, Oscar Hernandez- Cordoba, Victoria E. Cardona-Botero, Jaime Gutierrez- ZuNiGA, AND Fernando Castro -Herrera — Conservation status of the herpetofauna, proteeted areas, and eurrent problems in Valle del Cauea, Colombia 1 Alejandro Valencia-Zuleta et al. — Supplemental Material SI General Section Gernot Vogel, Patrick David, and Irvan Sidik — On Trimeresurus sumatranus (Raffles, 1822), with the des- ignation of a neotype and the description of a new species of pitviper from Sumatra (Squamata: Viperidae: Crotalinae) 1 Rachel Perez, Corinne L. Richards-Zawacki, Alexander R. Krohn, Matthew Robak, Edgardo J. Griffith, Heidi Ross, Brian Gratwicke, Roberto Ibanez, and Jamie Voyles — Field surveys in Western Panama indicate populations of Atelopus varius frogs are persisting in regions where Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis is now enzootic 30 Kenneth L. Krysko, Dustin C. Smith, Michael R. Rochford, Guy N. Kieckhefer III, and Leroy P. Nu- nez — Confirmation of introduced Louisiana pinesnakes, Pituophis ruthveni, in Florida based on molecular analyses 36 Table of Contents Back cover Cover: Bothrocophias colombianus, by Jorge Alberto Zuniga Baos and Luis Enrique Vera Perez; Allobates juanii, by Alvaro Velasquez; Bolitoglossa savagei and Podocnemis lewyana, by Juan David Jimenez Bolano; Caecilia thomp- soni, by Esteban Alzate; Anolis macrolepis, by Fernando Castro. Instructions for Authors: Located at the Amphibian & Reptile Conservation website: http://amphibian-reptile-conservation.org/submissions.html Copyright: © 2014 Craig Hassapakis/Tw/?/?z/?/^i« & Reptile Conservation volume 8 2014 NUMBER 2