MARQUES ET AL.: AMPHIBIANS AND TERRESTRIAL REPTILES OF ANGOLA 
305 
Map 265. Distribution of Python natalensis in Angola. 
Namibe: “Maconjo” [-15.01667, 
Ocurrences in Angola (Map 265): Pub¬ 
lished Angolan records are mostly from south¬ 
ern and western parts of the country. Luanda: 
“Loanda” [-8.83333, 13.26667] (Bocage 
1895a:72; Broadley 1984:364). Mexico: 
“Moxico” [-11.85000, 20.06667] (Machado 
1979:10). Benguela: “Benguella” [-12.58333, 
13.41667] (Bocage 1895a:72; Broadley 
1984:364); “sighting in Ebanga” [-12.73333, 
14.73333] (Monard 1937b:108); “Cubal” 
[-13.03333, 14.25000] (Mertens 1938a:439); 
“Hanha” [13.30000, 14.20000] (Bocage 
1896a:112; Themido 1941:9), “Hanha 
(North)” [-12.25000, 13.75000] (Bogert 
1940:17). HmTa: “Galange” [-13.80000, 
16.11667] (Monard 1937b:108); “Vila-da- 
Ponte” [-14.46667, 16.30000] (Monard 
1937b: 108); “Capelongo” [-14.91667, 
15.08333] (Bogert 1940:17; Broadley 1984:364). 
13.20000](Bocage 1895a:72; Broadley 1984:364); “Rio Giraul” [-15.06833, 12.14222] (Bocage 
1896a: 112; Broadley 1984:364); “Beginning of the forested areas, at the start of the climb to Leba 
Pass (by road), near Bruco village” [-15.12106, 13.18654] (Ceriaco et al. 2016:40). Cunene: 
“Chimporo” [-16.03333, 17.15000] (Monard 1937b:108; Broadley 1984:364); “sighting in Forte 
Rogadas” [-16.73333, 14.98333] (Monard 1937b: 108). Cuando Cubango: “Cubago basin (1)” 
[-16.89413, 17.95766] (Conradie et al. 2016:8-10, 23); “Cuito basin (30a)” [17.50875, 20.06594] 
(Conradie et al. 2016:9, 10, 23). 
Taxonomic and distributional notes: Smith (1833) first used the name Python Natalensis as 
a nomen nudum, giving the locality “from the interior, eastwards of Latakoo [and] in the country 
about Port Natal” [= east of Kuruman, Northern Cape, South Africa and around Durban, KwaZu¬ 
lu-Natal], which is given as the type locality by Wallach et al. (2014). Interestingly, Smith (1840) 
cited the first use of the name as being on page 64 of the South African Quarterly Journal for Octo¬ 
ber 1833. This is indeed a page in an Andrew Smith paper, but the paper deals exclusively with 
mammals and page 64 treats elephant shrews specifically (Broadley 1984). The same citation to 
the original description was provided by McDiarmid et al. (1999). Stimson (1969) considered the 
terra typica unknown and the types untraced. Wallach et al. (2014) likewise considered that no type 
had been designated, but considered the specimens to have been associated with the “Cape Town 
Zool. Soc. Mus.” Although Smith was associated with the nascent South African Museum, the bulk 
of his herpetological material that has survived was deposited either in London or Edinburgh 
(FitzSimons 1937; Branch and Bauer 2005). Broadley (1984) indicated that both syntypes were 
rolled skins preserved in alcohol. The BMNH register notes both from Port Natal, with BMNH 
1946.1.8.3 donated by Andrew Smith and BMNH 1946.1.17.13 without a stated collector and 
noted as “found as stuffed specimen in dry coll.” 
Python natalensis was for a long time considered as a synonym or subspecies of Python sebae 
(Gmelin, 1789) (Broadley 1984), but was elevated to specific status by Broadley (1999) based on 
morphological differences as well the evidence of the overlap in distribution (Broadley and 
Cotterill 2004). Broadley (1984), Spawls and Branch (1995) and Bellosa et al. (2007) provided 
maps with the distribution ranges for both species, in which Python natalensis occurs in central and 
