| Subspecies | PAUWELS et al. (2003) state that P. c. condanarus
and P. s. indochinensis can be distinguished by their
microdermatoglyphic patterns which is said to be “echinate” in
condanarus but “canaliculate” in indochinensis (based on F.
Brandstätter’s PhD thesis of 1995). Psammophis condanarus indochinensis SMITH 1943 is treated here as valid species. (1) Ganesh e.a. 2017: "Smith (1943) described the Indo-Chinese population of P. condanarus as subspecies P. condanarus indochinensis based on the differences in ventral, subcaudal counts and dorsal stripe patterns. Later it was given full species status by Hughes (1999) in his review on primarily African species. Psammophis condanarus is distinct from P. indochinensis by having higher ventrals (165-179 vs. 156-173 in P. indochinensis), higher subcaudals (75-93 vs. 66-85 in P. indochinensis), dorsal pattern (vertebral stripes darker vs. vertebral stripe lighter/absent or variable), number of dark dorsal stripes (3 or 5 vs. 4 in P. indochinensis) and their different geographical distributions. It is noteworthy here that the ventral counts of the new material resemble P. indochinensis much more than P. condanarus. We provisionally consider them to represent P. condanarus, based on congruence of other morphological characters and distribution." |
| Common Names | |
| Synonym | Psammophis condanarus indochinensis SMITH 1943 Psammophis condanarus indochinensis — COX et al. 1998: 56 Psammophis indochinensis — HUGHES 1999 Psammophis indochinensis — PAUWELS et al. 2003 Psammophis indochinensis — DAVID et al. 2004 Psammophis condanarus indochinensis — COTTONE & BAUER 2009 Psammophis indochinensis — SANG et al. 2009 |
| Distribution | Thailand, Myanmar (Burma), Cambodia, Vietnam
- Region according to the TDWG standard, not a precise distribution map. (1)
|
| References |
|
1.jpg)
