1 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
COLUBER CHIAMETLA SHAW, 1802 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES): 
REVIVED PROPOSAL FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE 
PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 1704 
By Hobart M. Smith and Rozella B. Smith (Department 
of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, 
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA) 
In 1965 one of us (H.M.S.) presented a proposal for the 
suppression of Coluber chiametla Shaw, 1802, on the grounds that 
it was a nomen oblitum {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22: 235-6). The 
proposal was supported by Professor Carl Gans but opposed by the 
late James L. Peters (1967, Bull. 24: 138). He claimed that the 
junior name involved, Drymobius margaritiferus (Schlegel, 1837), 
had not been referred to outside the systematic literature, and only 
rarely in that literature. Thus the changes of name (for two 
subspecies, from D. margaritiferus margaritiferus and D.m. 
fistulosus Smith, 1942 to D. chiametla chiametla and D.c. 
margaritiferus) would soon be accepted by the few specialists 
concerned. A reply {Bull. 24: 269) mentioned the existence of 
about 1 25 references to margaritiferus in the Uterature relating to 
Mexico and Guatemala alone (the species ranges from southern 
Texas to northern South America). It is perhaps the commonest 
snake in lowland Mexico and is represented by large numbers of 
specimens in museums and zoos. It is admittedly true that it is 
Uttle known outside the systematic and zoogeographical literature 
except for a few ecological works. 
2. The revised Articles 23 and 79 adopted by the Monaco 
Congress in 1972 require two conditions to be met before sl prima 
facie case can be presented to the Commission for the suppression 
of an unused senior synonym : affirmation that the senior name has 
not been used as a valid name for the past 50 years, and that the 
threatened junior name has been used in at least 10 different works 
by five different authors during the same period. As the original 
proposal in this case came from our laboratories, it is incumbent on 
us to complete the documentation necessary for consideration of 
the case by the Commission. 
3. Usage of the senior synonym.- We know of only four 
usages of the specific name chiametla as a valid name after its first 
proposal: two by Merrem (1820: 135; 1822: 594), and one by 
Wagler (1824: 14) all, as first pointed out by Gans (1964: 35), as 
Matrix chiametla; and one by Boie (1827: 533) as Coluber 
chiametla in a comment on Merrem, 1820. The only other citations 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 35, part 3, February 1979 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1 85 
of the name have followed Gans' rediscovery of its misuse by 
Wagier for Liophis miliaris (Linnaeus, 1758), the references cited 
above in connection with this application, and further discussion of 
this case by Peters and Orejas-Miranda, 1970. In none of these was 
the name adopted as a vaUd name. 
4. We can therefore state without reservation that the name 
chiametla has not been used as a valid name for the past 145 years, 
during which time its junior synonym Herpetodryas margaritiferus 
Schlegel, 1837 (now transferred to Drymobius) has consistently 
been applied to the same species. 
5. Usage of the junior synonym.- It might be construed as 
prejudicial if we were to cite usages of D. margaritiferus subsequent 
to 1965, when the issue of the priority of Coluber chiametla was 
first raised and therefore maintenance of current usage was 
required. We therefore cite only a few of the more influential usages 
before that date: Amaral, 1929: 155; Alvarez del Toro, 1960: 158 
202; Ditmars, 1936: 188, 203; Bogert & Oliver, 1945: 327, 334; 
Duellman, 1965: 651-679; Schmidt, 1953: 192; Schmidt & Davis, 
1941: 131; Smith & Taylor, 1945: 57; Shelford, 1963: 440; Stuart, 
1963: 27; and Taylor, 1951: 89. These works include monographs, 
checkUsts, synoptic reviews and semipopular works. Well over a 
hundred other references could be found if desired. 
6. We therefore ask the Commission 
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name 
chiametla Shaw, 1802, as published in the binomen 
Coluber chiametla, for the purposes of the Law of 
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; 
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology 
the specific name margaritiferus Schlegel, 1837, as 
published in the binomen Herpetodryas margaritiferus; 
(3) to place the specific name chiametla Shaw, 1802, as 
published in the binomen Coluber chiametla, and as 
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the 
Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Specific Names in 
Zoology. 
REFERENCES 
ALVAREZ del TORO, M., 1960. Los reptiles de Chiapas. Tuxtla Gutierrez, 
Chiapas, Mexico, Inst. Zool. del Estado. 204 pp., 111. 
AMARAL, A. do, 1929. Estudos sobre ophidios neotropicos. XVIU. Lista 
remissiva das ophidios do regiao neotropica. Mem. Inst. Butantan, vol. 
4:i-viu, 129-271. 
BOGERT, CM. & OLIVER, J.A. 1945. A preliminary analysis of the herpeto- 
fauna of Sonora. Bull. Am. Mus. not. Hist., vol. 83 (6): 297^26, 
figs. 1-13, pis. 30-37, 2 maps. 
1 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
BOIE, F., 1827. Bemerkungen ueber Merrem's Versuch eines Systems der 
Amphibien. Erste Lieferung: Ophidier. Ms v. Oken, vol. 20: 508-566. 
DITMARS, R., 1936. The reptiles of North America. New York, Doubleday 
Doran. xvi, 476 pp., 135 pi. 
DUELLMAN, W.E., 1965. A biogeographic account of the herpetofauna of 
Michoacan, Mexico. Univ. Kansas Pubis. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 15: 
627-709, figs. 1-5, pis. 29-36. 
GANS, C, 1964. A redescription of, and geographic variation in, Liophis 
miliaris Linne, the common water snake of south eastern South 
America. Am. Mus. Novit., (2178): 1-58, figs. 1-23. 
MERREM, B., 1820. Versuch eines Systems der Amphibien (Tentamen 
Systematis Amphibiorum). Marburg, xv, 191 pp., 1 pi. 
1822. Tentamen systematis amphibiorum. Isis v. Oken, vol. 15: 
688-704. 
PETERS, J. A., 1967. Comment on the proposed rejection of Coluber chiametia 
Shaw, 1802. Bull. zool. Nam., vol. 24: 138. 
& OREJAS-MIRANDA, B.R., 1970. Catalogue of the neotropical 
Squamata: Part 1. Snakes. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 297: i-viii, 1-347 
ill. 
SCHMIDT, K.P., 1953. A checklist of North American amphibians and reptiles. 
6th ed. Chicago, Univ. Chicago Press, viii, 280 pp. 
& DAVIS, D.D., 1941. Field book of snakes of the United States and 
Canada. New York, G.P. Putnam's Sons, xiii, 354 pp., 103 figs., 34 pis. 
SHELFORD, V.E., 1963. The ecology of North America. Urbana, Illinois, 
Univ. Illinois Press, xxii, 610 pp., ill . 
SMITH, H.M., 1965. Coluber chiametia Shaw, 1802 (Reptilla [sic]: Serpentes): 
proposed rejection as a nomen oblitum. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 22: 235- 
236, pi. 5. 
1967. Additional comment on the proposed rejection of Coluber 
chiametia. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 24: 269. 
& TAYLOR, E.H., 1945. An annotated checklist and key to the snakes 
of Mexico. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus., vol. 187 : i-iv, 1-239. 
STUART, L.C., 1963. A checklist of the herpetofauna of Guatemala. Misc. 
Pubis. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, (122): 1-150, map, frontis. 
TAYLOR, E., 1951. A brief review of the snakes of Costa Rica. Kansas Univ. 
Sci. Bull., vol. 34: 3-188, figs. 1-7, pis. 1-23. 
WAGLER, J.G., 1824. Serpentum Brasiliensium species novae, ou histoire 
naturelle des . . . public par Jean de Spix. Monaco, viii, 75 pp.