Taxonomía De Elápidas De Australia

AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS
Mengden, G. A., 1983. The taxonomy of Australian elapid snakes: a review. Records of the Australian Museum 35(5): 195–222. [30 December 1983]. doi:10.3853/j.0067-1975.35.1983.318 ISSN 0067-1975 Published by the Australian Museum, Sydney

nature culture discover nature culture discover
Australian Museum science is freely accessible online at AustralianMuseum science is freely accessible online at w w w. aa u s t r a i aa n m u s e u m . n e t . a u / p u b i cc a t o n ss / w w w. u s t r a l l i n m u s e u m . n e t . a u / p u b l l i a t i i o n / 6 College Street, Sydney NSW 2010, Australia 6 College Street, Sydney NSW 2010, Australia

Records of the Australian Museum (1983) Vol. 35: 195-222. ISSN-0067-1975

195

The Taxonomy ofAustralian Elapid Snakes: A Review
GREGORY

A. MENGDEN

Population Biology, Research School of Biological Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600*

ABSTRACT. Published data on Australian elapid snake taxonomy are reviewed. Both classical morphological studies and relevant ecological, chromosomal and biochemical data are summarized. Attention is focused on two majorareas: (1) the phylogenetic relationships between Australian terrestrial elapids and other proteroglyphs; and (2) the interrelationships among the Australian terrestrial elapids. From this review four key questions are identified: (1) Are the continentally endemic groups of terrestrial elapids confamilial? (2) Do the Australian elapids represent a distinct familial group? (3) Are the Australianelapids monophyletic or have the extant forms been derived from distinct lineages which may represent more than one invasion of the continent? (4) What is the precise relationship between laticaudine and hydrophiine sea snakes and the Australian elapids? There is considerable disagreement concerning generic allocations and suprageneric relationships within the Australian proteroglyphs. Ecological,cytological and biochemical studies currently under way may be useful adjuncts to morphological information in resolving these questions.
MENGDEN, GREGORY A., 1983. The taxonomy of Australian elapid snakes: a review. Records of the Australian Museum 35(5): 195-222.

CONTENTS Abstract .................................................... 195 Introduction........................................................ 196
0 • • • • • ••

I. A BACKGROUND TO ELAPID CLASSIFICATION ................. 196

1. The Origins and Affinities of Terrestrial Proteroglyphs ............. l(a) The morphological data .................................... l(b) The biochemical data .................................... l(c) Dendroaspis-A distinctive elapid? ........................... 2. The Origins andAffinities of the Marine Proteroglyphs ......... 2(a) The morphological data ..................................... 2(b) The biochemical data ....................................... 2(c) The chromosomal data ............................... 3. A Summary of Proteroglyph Relationships ........................
0

0"

0

•••

0

••••••

196 196 197 198 198 198 199 199 200

*Present Address:Herpetoiogy Department, Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000.

196

Records of the Australian Museum (1983), Vol. 35

n. TAXONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE AUSTRALIAN
TERRESTRIAL ELAPIDS ........................................ 1. The Classifications since Giinther (1858) .......................... 2. The Morphological Data ........................................ 2(a)Taxonomic changes to Boulenger's Denisonia .................. 2(b) Taxonomic changes to Boulenger's Diemenia (Demansia) ....... 2(c) Taxonomic changes to Pseudelaps, Furina and G/yphodon ...... 2(d) Taxonomic changes to Vermicella and Simoselaps .............. 2(e) Additional taxonomic changes to Australian elapids ............ 2(D The intergeneric relationships proposed by McDowell ........... 3....