Shireenhoserus anchietae (Bocage) – Hoser 2004 (junior synonym of Enygrus Wagler).

Python anchietae Bocage – Henderson and Powell 2007

See Greene et al. (2007), Snow et al. (2007), Pyron et al. (2008), and Barker and Barker (2009) for notes on introduced populations in Florida, USA. For distribution in Nepal, see O’Shea (1998), for distribution in Asia see Pauwels et al. (2003), (Barker and Barker (2008, 2010). Barker and Barker (2010) considered records of the occurrence of bivittatus in the Sichuan Province deviant due to complete isolation from the natural range of bivittatus and therefore excluded the province from the range of occurrence. Records from Sumatra and Borneo are believed to be incorrectly identified (Haile 1958, Groombridge and Luxmoore 1991).

Jacobs et al. (2009) considered this taxon a valid species. Evidence for this placement was already provided by O’Shea (1998, 2007) and Barker and Barker (2008) who pointed out that isolated populations of bivittatus do exist within the distributional range of molurus along the southern Nepalese border and in north-east India as reported from Assam by O’Shea (2007). Jacobs et al. (2009) primarily referred to Barker and Barker (2008) when stating that the isolated populations appear to exist not only sympatrically but syntopically with molurus but maintain their own integrity by avoiding interbreeding. However, O’Shea (pers. obs.) has observed the species inhabiting different habitats. Python molurus appears to occur in dry sandy woodland whereas bivittatus prefers riverine forests and flooded grasslands. O’Shea had not observed the two species occurring sympatrically or syntopically. Jacobs et al. (2009: 12) stated that de Rooij (1917) had assumed the type locality of Kuhl’s (1820) concept of bivittatus, which was based on unverified pictures by Seba, to be in Indochina rather than in the Sundaland and that the populations occurring between China and Java may be considered Python molurus sondaica (sic) Werner 1899. Nevertheless, according to Jacobson et al (2009), Mertens (1930) fixed the type locality to Java without the designation of a neotype, which has led to nomenclatural problems. Mertens (1930) as well as (Werner (1909, 1930) and Pope (1935) assumed that Schlegel (1837) rather than Kuhl (1820) had introduced the name bivittatus. According to Jacobs et al. (2009), Mertens (1930) was aware that Schlegel’s (1837) composite concept of Python bivittatus included several python taxa, namely those from India (Python molurus) and from Africa (Python sebae), respectively.

Python breitensteini Steindachner – Keoghet al. 2001

Aspidoboa breitensteini (Steindachner) – Hoser 2004

Python breitensteini Steindachner – Henderson and Powell 2007

Elevated to specific rank by Keogh et al. (2001).

Python brongersmai Stull – Keoghet al. 2001

Aspidoboa brongersmai (Stull) – Hoser 2004

Python brongersmai Stull – Henderson and Powell 2007

Elevated to specific rank by Keogh et al. (2001).

Python curtus Schlegel – Keoghet al. 2001

Aspidoboa curtus (Schlegel) – Hoser 2004

Python curtus Schlegel – Henderson and Powell 2007

Elevated to specific rank by Keogh et al. (2001).

Python Euboicus Römer, 1870

Heteropython euboicus (Römer) – de Rochebrune 1880

Heteropython euboicus (Römer) – Kuhn 1939, 1963

Python euboicus Römer – Rage 1984

Fragment of the trunk portion of the vertebral column (25 vertebrae and ribs), left dentary. No accession number. According to Szyndlar (1991) the holotype is probably lost.

Kimi (Euboea, Greece), early Miocene (MN ?3).

See Szyndlar (1991) and Szyndlar and Rage (2003: 67–68) for further information.

Python sp. – Rage 1982; Ivanov 2000, 2002

Python europaeus Szyndlar & Rage, 2003

MNHN, VCO 29. One trunk vertebra.

Vieux Collonges (=Mont Ceindre), France, early/middle Miocene (MN 4/5).

See Szyndlar and Rage (2003: 68–72), and Rage and Bailon (2005: 427–428) for further information.

Python natalensis A Smith – Broadley 1999

Helionomus natalensis (A Smith) – Hoser 2004 (nomen nudum, also see remarks on Python)

Python natalensis A Smith – Henderson and Powell 2007

Notes on the distribution of this species can be found in Alexander (2007).

McDiarmid et al. (1999) refer to A. Smith 1833. According to Branch and Bauer (2005), the name “Python Natalensis” already appeared in A. Smith (1833) as well as in A. Smith (1838) but without a description. The name appeared again in A. Smith (1840), but this time was accompanied by a plate. Gray (1842) also cites A. Smith (1840) as do Branch and Bauer (2005). Elevated to specific rank by Broadley (1999).

Shireenhoserus regia (Shaw) – Hoser 2004 (junior synonym of Enygrus Wagler).

Python regius (Shaw) – Henderson and Powell 2007

For notes on the natural history and distribution of this species, see Barker and Barker (2006).

Paleopython sardus – Portis 1901

Paleryx sardus (Portis) – Kuhl 1963

?Python sardus (Portis) – Rage 1984

Articulated palatine and anterior pterygoid fragment (not traced).

Monte Albu (=Alba?)(Sardinia) Italy, middle Miocene (MN 6 or 7+8).

Szyndlar and Rage (2003: 72–73) considered this name a nomen dubium as it is indistinguishable from other (extinct) Python.

Helionomus sebae (Gmelin) – Hoser 2004 (nomen nudum, also see remarks on Python)

Python sebae (Gmelin) – Henderson and Powell 2007

Elevated to specific rank by Broadley (1999).