LEVITON, BROWN, & SILER: PHILIPPINE VENOMOUS SNAKES 
499 
Figure 36. Ophiophagus hannah (Cantor, 1836). Illustrations by Marilyn Kramer. 
Figure 37. Ophiophagus hannah. Photo by Hla Tun. 
Subfamily Hydrophiinae 
Remarks. — Sea snakes are, taxonomieally, among the most poorly understood group of rep¬ 
tiles. In reeent years, at least dating from McDowell’s efforts in 1972 to redefine the major groups 
of hydrophine sea snakes, to 2013, with Sanders et al. multilocus phylogeny of viviparous sea 
snakes, rarely do two authors agree on the phylogenetic relations among the snakes let alone the 
reality of species that exist. However, significant strides have been made mostly through the efforts 
of Sanders et al. (2013), Rasmussen (e.g., 1989, 1997, 2010), Rasmussen et al. (2011), Heatwole, 
et al. (2005), Lukoschek and Keogh (2006), Voris (1977), and Voris and Voris (1983), and with the 
further application of molecular RNA/DNA studies, a clearer picture of sea snake diversity and 
relationships should emerge in the forseeable future. In the meantime, we have chosen to follow 
the recommendations of Sanders and co-authors to wit, “Division [of the sea snakes] into multiple 
poorly defined genera would . . . fail to represent the history of recent rapid diversification of these 
taxa . . . For these reasons, we recommend recognizing a single genus, Hydrophis Latreille 1802, 
for the core Hydrophis group [which includes Acalyptophis, Astrotia, Kerilia, Lapemis, Pelamis, 
Thalassophina\. The taxon Hydrophis is well known as comprising dangerously venomous sea 
snakes; hence, retaining this name (instead of adding multiple new genera) will create less confu¬ 
sion for conservationists, medical professionals, and fishing industries/communities as well as her¬ 
petologists.” (Sanders et al. 2013:584.) 
