Boas of the World (Superfamily Booidae): A Checklist With Systematic, Taxonomic, and Conservation Assessments

2018·3.7 MB·English

by  R. Graham Reynolds

Bulletin

of the
Museum of Comparative Zoology
Volume 162, Number 1 6 September 2018
Boas of the World (Superfamily Booidae): A Checklist with
Systematic, Taxonomic, and Conservation Assessments
R. Graham Reynolds and Robert W. Henderson
US ISSN 0027-4100
MCZ Publications
Museum of Comparative Zoology
Harvard University
26 Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
[email protected]
© The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2018 HARVARD UNIVERSITY | CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, U.S.A.
BULLETIN OF THE
Museum of Comparative Zoology
BOARD OF EDITORS
Editor: Jonathan Losos
Managing Editor: Melissa Aja
Associate Editors: Andrew Biewener, Scott Edwards,
Brian Farrell, Gonzalo Giribet, James Hanken,
Hopi Hoekstra, George Lauder, James McCarthy,
Naomi Pierce, Stephanie Pierce, Mansi Srivastava, and Robert
Woollacott
Publications Issued or Distributed by the
Museum of Comparative Zoology
Harvard University
Bulletin 1863–
Breviora 1952–
Memoirs 1865–1938
Johnsonia, Department of Mollusks, 1941–1974
Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 1945–
General queries, questions about author guidelines, or permissions for
MCZ Publications should be directed to the editorial assistant:
MCZ Publications
Museum of Comparative Zoology
Harvard University
26 Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
[email protected]
EXCHANGES AND REPRINTS
All of our publications are offered for free on our website:
http://www.mcz.harvard.edu/Publications/index.html
To purchase individual reprints or to join our exchange program,
please contact April Mullins at the Ernst Mayr Library:
[email protected].
Photo on the front cover:
This publication has been printed on acid-free permanent paper stock. Adult female Chilabothrus inornatus (Boidae) from Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Photograph by R. Graham
Reynolds, UNC Asheville.
© The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2018.
BOAS OF THE WORLD (SUPERFAMILY BOOIDAE): A CHECKLIST
WITH SYSTEMATIC, TAXONOMIC, AND CONSERVATION
ASSESSMENTS
R.GRAHAMREYNOLDS1ANDROBERTW.HENDERSON2
CONTENTS
Abstract 1 of taxonomic changes have occurred among the
————————————————————————————————————————
Introduction 1 superfamily Booidae over the last decade, including
————————————————————————————————————
SpeciesAccounts 4 the resurrection and description of new families,
———————————————————————————————
FamilyBoidae 4 elevation of a genus, elevation of 13 species, and the
———————————————————————————————
GenusBoa 4 discoveryofanewspecies.Here,weaimtosynthesize
————————————————————————————————
GenusChilabothrus 8 existingknowledgeofbooiddiversity,systematics,and
———————————————————————
GenusCorallus 16 conservation status. We provide a comprehensive
——————————————————————————
GenusEpicrates 19 checklistofall66speciesand33subspeciesofbooid
—————————————————————————
GenusEunectes 21 snakes recognized herein, distributed among 14
—————————————————————————
FamilyCalabariidae 23 genera and six families. For each species and
———————————————————————
GenusCalabaria 23 subspecies, we evaluate taxonomy, distribution, type
————————————————————————
FamilyCandoiidae 23 specimens,andconservationstatus.
—————————————————————————
GenusCandoia 23
——————————————————————————
FamilyCharinidae 29
————————————————————————— Keywords:Boidae,ConservationStatus,Distribution,
GenusCharina 29
—————————————————————————— Phylogeny,Nomenclature,TypeSpecimen
GenusLichanura 30
———————————————————————
GenusExiliboa 31
——————————————————————————
GenusUngaliophis 31
—————————————————————— INTRODUCTION
FamilyErycidae 32
———————————————————————————
GenusEryx 32 The first checklist of the boid (family
—————————————————————————————
FamilySanziniidae 37
———————————————————————— Boidae Gray, 1825) snakes by Stull (1935)
GenusAcrantophis 37
GenusSanzinia —————————————————————— 38 recognized 66 taxa (39 species, 27 subspe-
—————————————————————————
Conservation 39 cies) among 15 genera of what was then
—————————————————————————————————
Acknowledgments ———————————————————————————— 41 considered Boinae Gray 1825, a subfamily
LiteratureCited 41
—————————————————————————————— of Boidae (which also included Pythoninae
IndextoScientificNames 56
———————————————————
and Loxocemus). Since that time, our
ABSTRACT. The booid snakes (superfamily Booidae) understanding of the diversity and system-
areanear–circumgloballydistributedgroupofmacro-
atics of this group has changed a great deal
stoman alethinophidian squamates, and several line-
agesareofsignificantconservationconcern.Anumber (Table 1). For example, Stull’s (1935) list of
Boinae included the genera Tropidophis,
1Department of Biology, University of North Bolyeria, and Casarea; they are now con-
CarolinaAsheville,Asheville,NorthCarolina28804; sidered representatives of distinct families
and Department of Herpetology, Museum of
(Tropidophiidae and Bolyeriidae) of heno-
Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cam-
bridge,Massachusetts02138.Authorforcorrespon- phidian snakes (e.g., Reynolds et al., 2014).
dence ([email protected]). Removing the taxa presently excluded from
2Section of Vertebrate Zoology, Milwaukee Pub-
the booids, Stull’s (1935) treatment includ-
licMuseum,800WWellsSt.,Milwaukee,Wisconsin
53233. ed 30 species among 12 genera. In the
Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 162(1): 1–58, September, 2018 1
2 Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 162, No. 1
TABLE1. THENUMBEROFGENERA,SPECIES,ANDSUBSPECIES deeper in the booid phylogeny (the para-
TREATEDINCHECKLISTSORSYSTEMATICACCOUNTSOFTHEBOOIDAE phyly of Boidae Gray 1825 given inconsis-
SINCE1935.
tent placement of Calabariidae). This led to
Source Genera Species Subspecies a narrowed definition of the Boidae to
Stull,1935 12 30 33 include only the New World genera Boa,
Stimson,1969 14 39 58 Chilabothrus, Corallus, Epicrates, and Eu-
Kluge,1991 8 25 —
nectes, all derived from an ancestral lineage
McDiarmidetal.,1999 8 41 —
Wallachetal.,2014 13 59 — in the Paleogene (Hsiang et al., 2015).
Thispaper 14 66 33 Newly recognized families include Sanzinii-
dae (Acrantophis and Sanzinia), Erycidae
(Eryx), Charinidae (Charina, Exiliboa, Li-
decades following the publication of Stull’s
chanura, Ungaliophis), and Candoiidae
list, boid systematics were frequently re-
(Candoia). Not all workers embrace these
vised and rearranged. Stimson (1969) pub-
changes, instead opting to remain agnostic
lished an updated checklist, recognizing 14
regarding potential paraphyly until further
boid genera, 39 species, and 58 subspecies,
phylogenetic relationships are worked out.
including Xenoboa (¼Corallus) cropanii, a
Nevertheless, the recognition of families
genus no longer recognized. Kluge (1991)
representinggeographically,morphological-
provided a de facto checklist of boids; he
ly, and evolutionarily distinct lineages pro-
recognized 25 species among 8 genera
vides stability in the systematics and
(including Xenoboa). Since Kluge (1991),
taxonomy of the group now and into the
major reorganizations of boid genera have
future, despite ongoing uncertainty in some
occurred over the last 10 years (e.g., Passos
phylogenetic relationships (Pyron et al.,
and Fernandes, 2008; Rivera et al., 2011;
2014). Continued efforts are ongoing to
Reynolds et al., 2013a). Recent larger scale,
resolvesomeofthemorechallengingnodes
species-level, molecular phylogenies (Pyron
in the booid phylogeny, including the
et al., 2013; Reynolds et al., 2014) have application of genomic-scale data (e.g.,
further suggested a historically incomplete Ruane and Austin, 2017) that suggests
representation of booid lineages and some Calabariidae might be sister to the rest of
discordance between taxonomy and phylo- the extant booids (Fig. 1).
genetic relationships.Theseauthorsmade a Additional recent taxonomic changes
number of taxonomic rearrangements and within the Booidae include the resurrection
suggestions, and subsequent work has of the genus Chilabothrus for some West
accepted, expanded, or rejected these Indian boids. Thirteen new species of
recommendations (Reeder et al., 2015; booids have also recently been recognized,
Figueroa et al., 2016; Streicher and Wiens, largely resulting from phylogenetic studies
2016; Zheng and Wiens, 2016; Uetz et al., of molecular data (Passos and Fernandes,
2017). Beginning with higher level system- 2008; Wood et al., 2008; Reynolds et al.,
atics, these molecular phylogenies demon- 2013a, 2014; Card et al., 2016; Reynolds et
strated inconsistencies in the placement of al., 2018) or newly discovered species
the booid family Calabariidae with respect (Reynolds et al., 2016a).
to other alethinophidian lineages (Pyron et MembersofthesuperfamilyBooidaeare
al., 2013; Reynolds et al., 2014; Harrington of Gondwanan origins (Noonan and Chip-
andReeder,2017).Toresolvethis,Pyronet pindale, 2006) and are distributed nearly
al. (2014) erected additional booid families circumglobally (Fig. 2). Major lineages are
to accommodate distinct monophyletic lin- present in the Western hemisphere (Boi-
eages, simultaneously alleviating taxonomic dae þ Charinidae; 43 species), Africa
issues related to phylogenetic uncertainty (Calabariidae þ Erycidae; four species),
BOAS OF THE WORLD (cid:2) Reynolds and Henderson 3
Figure1. Time-calibratedphylogenyofbooidsnakesbasedonan11-genesupermatrix(afterReynoldsetal.,2014).Calibration
oftheageofcrownsnakeswassetto145mya(closetothemeaninferredinZhengandWeins,2016),andthetreewasinferred
usingtheBayesianalgorithmimplementedintheprogramBEASTv.1.8(Drummondetal.,2012).Thisfigureisthereforemerely
intendedtoshowanapproximationofdivergencetimesandevolutionaryrelationshipsamongbooidgeneratoillustrateconcepts
discussedinthetext.
Eurasia(Erycidae;10species),Madagascar regions where they do not presently have
(Sanziniidae; four species), and Oceania extant representatives, such as Eastern
exclusive of Australia (Candoiidae; five North America (Holman, 1998; Mead and
species). Fossil booids are known from Schubert, 2013) and Western Europe
Figure2. Approximateglobaldistributionofbooidsnakesinblue.
4 Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 162, No. 1
outside the distal Balkan Peninsula (Szyn- which the native language is not English. A
dlar, 1991, 2009). representative photograph is provided for
Booid taxonomy and systematics have each genus.
experienced a considerable amount of flux
over the last several decades, motivating a
SPECIES ACCOUNTS
re-evaluation of the current state of taxon-
FAMILY BOIDAE GRAY, 1825
omy and diversity within the superfamily
Boa Linnaeus, 1758
(sensu Pyron et al., 2014). This is especially
relevant given the largely unknown conser- Apart from a brief visit by the Malagasy
vation status of many of the world’s booid boids (Acrantophis and Sanzinia), Boa or
snakes(Bo¨hmetal.,2013;IUCN2017)and Constrictor has been considered a mono-
theworryingprospectsofsomeofthosethat typic genus for over 100 years (1906–2009).
have been evaluated (Tzika et al., 2008; Five species of Boa are now recognized
Reynolds, 2011; Reynolds et al., 2016a; this based on morphological data, molecular
work). Below, we provide generic and data,orboth.Thegenushasavastmainland
species accounts for all recognized species distribution, from northern Mexico to
andsubspeciesofbooids.Foreachaccount, southernSouthAmericainArgentina,Para-
we provide the taxonomic authority, a brief guay, and Brazil, as well as continental and
taxonomichistory,typespecimens,distribu- oceanic (St. Lucia and Dominica in the
tion, and conservation information for the Lesser Antilles) islands. Species of Boa
species and subspecies. Unless we saw a occur in a wide array of habitats, ranging
specificneedtodoso,ourchecklistdoesnot from near-desert circumstances to tropical
repeatlengthysynonymiesthatareavailable rainforests, and from sea level to about
elsewhere(e.g.,theexcellentMcDiarmidet 2,000 m. They range in size from dwarfed
al., 1999). All but one species of boa islandpopulations(ofB.imperator)to.4.0
(superfamily Booidae, formerly family Boi- m in some South American B. constrictor.
dae)areprotectedundertheConventionon Although largely ground dwelling, they are
International Trade in Endangered Species capable of arboreal activity and will hunt in
of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Six trees. Species of Boa take a wide taxonomic
species are listed under CITES Appendix I array of prey, including lizards, birds, and
and are noted below; the rest are listed mammals (including marsupials, rodents,
under CITES Appendix II. Additional carnivores, bats, and primates). In recent
conservation designations have been as- years,speciesofBoahavebeenaccidentally
signed to some taxa, which are also noted. orpurposelyintroducedtogeographicareas
Our taxonomic presentation largely follows wheretheyformerlydidnotoccur,withthe
from McDiarmid et al. (1999), Wallach et potential of negatively affecting wildlife
al. (2014), Pyron et al. (2014), and Uetz et native to those areas (e.g., Quick et al.,
al. (2017), and these references contain full 2005; Romero-Na´jera et al., 2007). Boa is
taxonomic histories for these species. We sister to a clade comprising Chilabothrusþ
re-evaluate standing taxonomy from these CorallusþEpicratesþEunectes.
sources and make several suggestions for
taxonomic revision, recognizing 14 genera Boa constrictor Linnaeus, 1758
(Fig. 1), 66 species, and 33 subspecies of Taxonomy. Originally described as Boa
booid snakes. We have opted not to assign constrictor, this species has had a long
common names to the various species. We taxonomic history placed in either Boa or
were uncomfortable imposing English lan- Constrictor. Many names have been as-
guage names because the majority of the signed to those two genera, and until
speciesinthischecklistoccurincountriesin recently, all have been placed into synony-
BOAS OF THE WORLD (cid:2) Reynolds and Henderson 5
TABLE2. LISTOFMUSEUMABBREVIATIONSUSEDINTHETEXTWITHCORRESPONDINGINSTITUTIONANDLOCATION.
Code InstitutionName Location
AMNH AmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory NewYork,NewYork,USA
AMS AustralianMuseumSydney Sydney,Australia
ANSP AcademyofNaturalSciencesofPhiladelphia Philadelphia,Pennsylvania,USA
BMNH BritishMuseumofNaturalHistory London,England
CM CarnegieMuseum Pittsburg,Pennsylvania,USA
IB InstitutoButantan Sa˜oPaulo,Brazil
KUH KansasUniversityHerpetologicalCollection Lawrence,Kansas,USA
LSUMZ LouisianaStateUniversityMuseumofZoology BatonRouge,Louisiana,USA
MCZ MuseumofComparativeZoology Cambridge,Massachusetts,USA
MNHN MuseumNationald’HistoireNaturelle,Paris Paris,France
MNKNU MuseumofNatureoftheKharkivNationalUniversity Kharkiv,Ukraine
MSNM MuseoCivicodiStoriaNaturale,Milano Milan,Italy
NMBA NaturhistorischesMuseumBasel Basel,Switzerland
NRM NaturhistoriskaRijkmuseet Stockholm,Sweden
SDSNH SanDiegoNaturalHistoryMuseum SanDiego,California,USA
UMMZ UniversityofMichiganMuseumofZoology AnnArbor,Michigan,USA
USNM USNationalMuseumofNaturalHistory Washington,DC,USA
ZFMK ZoologischesForschungsinstitutundMuseumAlexanderKoenig Bonn,Germany
ZISP ZoologicalInstitute,RussianAcademyofSciences St.Petersburg,Russia
ZIUU UppsalaUniversitetZoologiskaMuseum Uppsala,Sweden
ZMB Universita¨tHumboldt,ZoologischesMuseum Berlin,Germany
ZMH ZoologischesMuseumfu¨rHamburg Hamburg,Germany
ZMUC UniversitetsKøbenhavn,ZoologiskMuseum Copenhagen,Denmark
ZSI ZoologicalSurveyofIndia Kolkata,India
ZSM ZoologischeStaatssammlungMu¨nchen Munich,Germany
my or have been described originally as (Hynkova´ et al., 2009). We recognize four
subspecies or have been relegated to subspecies.
subspecific rank. Only recently has B. Type Specimens. Two syntypes, NRM 10
constrictor been partitioned into multiple and NRM 20001, a third syntype is pre-
species (Henderson and Powell, 2009; sumed lost (McDiarmid et al., 1999). Type
Hynkova´ et al., 2009; Reynolds et al., locality ‘‘Indiis’’ (in error, fide Peters and
2014; Sua´rez-Atilano et al., 2014, 2017; Orejas-Miranda, 1970).
Card et al., 2016). See McDiarmid et al. Distribution. South America: Colombia,
(1999) for a more complete synonymy. A Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela (including Isla
number of subspecific epithets continue to Margarita), Guyana, Suriname, French
be used by some sources (e.g., Uetz et al., Guiana, Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, and
2017)butarenotrecognizedbyothers(this Paraguay; Trinidad, Tobago, Puerto Rico
work). This is partly owing to the prelimi- (introduced; Reynolds et al., 2013b), and
nary molecular phylogenetic surveys of the Aruba (introduced; Bushar et al., 2015).
genus, the unknown provenance of some ConservationStatus.This specieshas not
samples used in these analyses (e.g., Hy- received an IUCN Red List assessment.
nkova´ et al., 2009), and lack of a compre-
hensive morphological and molecular study Boa constrictor constrictor Linnaeus, 1758
of the genus. For example, B. c. amarali Taxonomy. Originally described as a full
Stull 1932 is an epithet used to refer to species, but subsequently relegated to
populations from southern Brazil, possess- subspecies rank with the description of
ing lower numbers of scale rows, ventrals, multiple taxa that were either described as
and caudals (Stull, 1932), but is not full species of Boa or Constrictor and then
supported as distinct in other analyses relegated to a subspecies of B. or C.
6 Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 162, No. 1
constrictor, or originally described as sub-
species of B. constrictor or C. constrictor.
See McDiarmid et al. (1999) for a more
thorough synonymy.
Type Specimens. See Boa constrictor
account.
ThistaxonhasnotreceivedanIUCNRed
List assessment, but it has commercial
appeal among boid hobbyists.
Boa constrictor longicauda Price & Russo,
1991
Figure 3. Boa imperator from Cayos Cochinos, Honduras.
Taxonomy. Described as a subspecies of Photo byR. Graham Reynolds, University ofNorth Carolina
Asheville.
Boa constrictor based on tail length, color
pattern, and scale characters.
(i.e., the most endangered and threatened
Type Specimen. The holotype is a sub-
with extinction).
adult male (MCZ R176002) collected ‘‘east
of Tumbes, Tumbes Province, Peru’’ (Price
Boa constrictor ortonii Cope, 1878
and Russo, 1991:32). Later in the descrip-
Taxonomy. Originally described as Boa
tion by (Price and Russo, 1991), the
ortonii; relegated to a subspecies of Con-
holotype is described as a small adult.
strictor constrictor by Schmidt and Walker
Distribution. Known only from Tumbes
(1943); Stimson (1969) was first to use the
Province in coastal Peru.
trinomial B. c. ortonii.
Conservation Status. This taxon has not
Type Specimen. ANSP 11402, ‘‘from
received an IUCN Red List assessment.
Chilete, near Pacasmayo, 3000 feet [915
m] above the sea,’’ Peru (Cope, 1878:35).
Boa constrictor occidentalis Philippi, 1873
Distribution. Peru: regions of Piura,
Taxonomy. Originally described as Boa
Lambayeque, Cajamarca, Amazonas, and
occidentalis;Ihering(1910)subsumedittoa
la Libertad west of the Andes, and along
subspecies within Constrictor constrictor; the R´ıo Maran˜o´n valley at elevations of 0–
Forcart used the trinomial Boa c. occiden-
2000 m (Koch, 2013).
talis. Bezerra de Lima (2016) considered B. Conservation Status. This taxon has not
occidentalis a distinct lineage within the B. received an IUCN Red List assessment.
constrictor complex.
Type Specimen. The type is unlocated Boa imperator Daudin, 1803
(McDiarmid et al., 1999); type locality (fide Taxonomy. Originally described as a full
Stimson, 1969) ‘‘Provinces Mendoza and species, it was subsequently subsumed to a
San Juan, Argentina.’’ subspecies of Constrictor constrictor by
Distribution. Paraguay and Argentina, Ihering (1910); Forcart (1951) recognized
between the Andes (R´ıo Colorado) and the it as B. c. imperator; based on molecular
r´ıosParaguayandParana´,southtoMendoza data, a number of authors (Hynkova´ et al.,
Province,Argentina(Cei,1993;Chiaraviglio 2009; Reynolds et al., 2014; Sua´rez-Atilano
et al., 1998). et al., 2014, 2017; Card et al., 2016)
Conservation Status. This taxon has not suggested elevating it to full species. Be-
received an IUCN Red List assessment; it zerra de Lima (2016) considered B. impe-
is,however,listedunderCITESAppendixI rator a distinct lineage within the B.
BOAS OF THE WORLD (cid:2) Reynolds and Henderson 7
constrictor complex, and this species is Dom´ınguez et al., 2012) and St. Croix
being recognized in contemporary treat- (Golden, 2017).
ments (e.g., Johnson et al., 2015; Garc´ıa- Conservation Status. This taxon has not
Padilla et al., 2016). Two subspecies are received an IUCN Red List assessment.
recognized. Certain populations of B. i. imperator on
Type Specimen. In the MNHN, but not the Bay Islands of Honduras have been
definitely identifiable (J. Guibe´ in Stuart, severely affected by poaching for the pet
1963). Type locality ‘‘l’Amerique meridio- trade, though some populations have recov-
nale principalement au Mexique’’ was ered afterprotection in the Cayos Cochinos
subsequently restricted to Co´rdoba, Vera- Archipelago Natural Marine Monument
cruz, Mexico, by Smith and Taylor (1950); (Wilson and Cruz Diaz, 1993; Reed et al.,
however,DunnandSaxe(1950)favoredthe 2007; Montgomery et al., 2015).
Colombian Choco´ as the type locality.
Distribution. Southeastern Mexico, Bel- Boa imperator sabogae (Barbour, 1906)
ize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Taxonomy. Originally described as Epi-
Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and north- crates sabogae. Barbour and Loveridge
western Colombia; includes many islands (1929) considered it a subspecies of Con-
offtheCaribbean/AtlanticandPacificcoasts strictorconstrictor;Forcart(1951)usedBoa
of several of those countries. Introduced to c. sabogae; Reynolds et al. (2014), recogniz-
CozumelIsland(Va´zquez-Dom´ınguezetal., ing B. imperator as a full species, used the
2012) and St. Croix (Golden, 2017). trinomial B. i. sabogae.
ConservationStatus.This species has not Type Specimens. Description based on
received an IUCN Red List assessment. two syntypes (MCZ R6986) from Saboga
Using IUCN Red List criteria, Acevedo et Island, one of the Islas de las Perlas off the
al. (2010) categorized this species as of Pacific coast of Panama.
Least Concern in Guatemala, as did Green- Distribution.ApparentlyrestrictedtoIsla
baum and Komar (2010) for El Salvador, SabogaandIslaSanJose´,IslasdelasPerlas,
TownsendandWilson(2010)forHonduras, Gulf of Panama, but likely found on other
and Sosa et al. (2010) for Costa Rica; islands in the archipelago.
Jaramillo et al. (2010) gave B. imperator Conservation Status. This taxon has not
an assessment of Vulnerable for Panama. received an IUCN Red List assessment.
Stafford et al. (2010) gave it a low Environ-
mental Vulnerability Score for Belize. Boa nebulosa (Lazell, 1964)
Taxonomy. Originally described as a
Boa imperator imperator Daudin, 1803 subspecies of Constrictor constrictor, it
Taxonomy. See Boa imperator above. waselevatedtospeciesstatusbyHenderson
Type Specimen. See Boa imperator and Powell (2009) based on scale and
above. pattern characters provided by Lazell
Distribution. Southeastern Mexico, Bel- (1964), as well as geographic isolation.
ize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Before Lazell’s description, the boa popu-
Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and north- lation on Dominica was referred to as B.
western Colombia; includes many islands diviniloqua Gu¨nther (1888) and then fell
offtheCaribbean/AtlanticandPacificcoasts under the taxonomic umbrella of the St.
of several of those countries (excluding the Lucia population (Constrictor orophias;
Islas de las Perlas in the Gulf of Panama). e.g.,Barbour,1930,1937).BezerradeLima
Introduced to Cozumel Island (Va´zquez- (2016) considered B. nebulosa a distinct
8 Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Vol. 162, No. 1
lineage within the B. constrictor complex. Conservation Status. This species has
No subspecies are recognized. been assessed as Endangered based on
Type Specimen. The holotype (MCZ IUCN Red List criteria, though that assess-
R65493) is an adult female from Woodford ment is in review. The species has a limited
Hill, Dominica. distribution on a small (604km2) islandand
Distribution. Endemic to the Lesser is often killed because of its superficial
Antillean island of Dominica, West Indies. resemblance to the pit viper Bothrops
Conservation Status. This species has caribbaeus.
been assessed as Least Concern based on
IUCN Red List criteria, though that assess- Boa sigma (Smith, 1943)
ment is in review. Its distribution is limited Taxonomy. Originally described as Con-
to a small (790 km2) island and should strictor constrictor sigma (mistakenly attri-
certainly be assessed as Vulnerable. These butedtoM.A.Smith[1943]byMcDiarmid
boas are killed for the ‘‘medicinal’’ oil et al. [1999]); Zweifel (1960) relegated it to
rendered from their fat and because they the synonymy of Boa constrictor imperator.
prey on domestic chickens (Henderson and Card et al. (2016) recommended elevation
Powell, 2009). to species level based largely on molecular
data, while Sua´rez-Atilano et al. (2017)
Boa orophias Linnaeus, 1758 suggest that the species is further defined
Taxonomy. Originally described as a full ecologically and geographically. No subspe-
species by Linnaeus, it was placed in the cies are recognized.
synonymy of Constrictor diviniloquus (or Type Specimen. An adult female (USNM
diviniloqua or diviniloquax) by Laurenti 46484)fromMar´ıaMadreIslandintheTres
(1768) and subsequently by Dume´ril and Mar´ıas Islands, Nayarit, Mexico (H. M.
Bibron (1844). Barbour (1914) regarded it Smith, 1943).
as full species (C. orophias), but it was Distribution. The Pacific coast of Mexico
subsequently downgraded to subspecies by west of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (in-
Amaral (1929). It was again elevated to cluding three islands in the Tres Mar´ıas
speciesstatusbyStull(1935)asC.orophias, (Nayarit): Mar´ıa Madre, Mar´ıa Magdalena,
butLazell(1964) considereditasubspecies and Mar´ıa Cleofas (Zweifel, 1960; Card et
of C. constrictor, as did Peters and Orejas- al., 2016; Sua´rez-Atilano et al., 2017).
Miranda (1970; as Boa c. orophias). It was Conservation Status. This taxon has not
then given species rank by Henderson and received an IUCN Red List assessment.
Powell (2009) based on scale and pattern
characters in Lazell (1964), as well as Chilabothrus Dume´ril & Bibron, 1844
geography. Bezerra de Lima (2016) consid- The genus Chilabothrus encompasses 13
ered B. orophias a distinct lineage within recognized species restricted to the Greater
the B. constrictor complex. No subspecies Antillean Islands of Puerto Rico, Jamaica,
are recognized. Hispaniola, and the Puerto Rico Bank; as
Type Specimen. An unnumbered speci- well as the Lucayan Archipelago (Bahamas
men in the Museum de Geer (Andersson, and Turks and Caicos). These actively
1899). Type locality not given in original foraging nocturnal booids range in body
description; Lazell (1964) restricted it to sizefrom,1mto~4m,withlargerspecies
Praslin, St. Lucia. being habitat and dietary generalists and
Distribution. Endemic to the Lesser smaller species frequently specializing (Ro-
Antillean island of St. Lucia in the West driguez-RoblesandGreene,1996;Reynolds
Indies. et al., 2016c). Members of Chilabothrus