Abstract
Within Dipsadinae, some recent authors have recognized a tribe Nothopsini containing the genera Diaphorolepis, Emmochliophis, Nothopsis, Synophis, and Xenopholis, on the basis of a number of putative morphological synapomorphies. However, molecular results suggest that Nothopsis, Synophis, and Xenopholis do not form a monophyletic group, while the remaining taxa are unsampled in recent molecular phylogenies. Here, DNA-sequence data for some Diaphorolepis and Synophis species are provided for the first time, as well as additional new sequences for Nothopsis and some Synophis species. Including these and other existing data for nothopsine species, previous studies showing that Nothopsini is not a natural group are corroborated. Nothopsini Cope, 1871 is restricted to Nothopsis. Diaphorolepidini Jenner, 1981 is resurrected and re-delimited to include only Diaphorolepis, Emmochliophis, and Synophis. Finally, Xenopholis remains Dipsadinae incertae sedis. Known material of Diaphorolepidini is reviewed to generate revised and expanded descriptions and diagnoses at the tribe, genus, and species level. Numerous cryptic species are likely present in Synophis bicolor and Synophis lasallei. Finally, a new population from the low-elevation cloud forests of SW Ecuador is reported upon, which is genetically and morphologically distinct from all other species, that is here named Synophis zaheri sp. n.
Highlights
Within Dipsadinae, Diaphorolepis, Emmochliophis, Nothopsis, Synophis, and Xenopholis were historically thought to form a monophyletic group on the basis of scutellation, osteological, histological, hemipenial, and respiratory characters
Species in Dipsadinae can be broadly grouped into a primarily North American clade (Contia to Carphophis when viewing Fig. 1), a primarily Central American clade (Diaphorolepis to Atractus in Fig. 1), and a primarily South American clade (Crisantophis to Apostolepis in Fig. 2), though many species in the latter two clades range across both Central and South America
In agreement with previous results (Grazziotin et al 2012; Pyron et al 2013), we find that Nothopsini is not a natural group (Fig. 1)
Summary
Within Dipsadinae (sensu Pyron et al 2013), Diaphorolepis, Emmochliophis, Nothopsis, Synophis, and Xenopholis were historically thought to form a monophyletic group on the basis of scutellation, osteological, histological, hemipenial, and respiratory characters (see Sheil and Grant 2001). Molecular phylogenetic analyses have strongly supported Nothopsis (Vidal et al 2010), Synophis (Sheehy 2012), and Xenopholis (Vidal et al 2010; Pyron et al 2011; Grazziotin et al 2012) as dipsadines, as does hemipenial morphology (Zaher 1999) These genera do not form a monophyletic group within Dipsadinae in molecular phylogenies, and are widely separated in different dipsadine clades (Vidal et al 2010; Grazziotin et al 2012; Sheehy 2012; Pyron et al 2013)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
