406 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 
Series 4, Volume 65, Supplement II 
Ocurrences in Angola (Map 371): The 
species is known from northwestern Angola. 
Cabinda: “Chinchoxo” [-5.10000, 12.10000] 
(Peters 1877a:615; Bocage 1887a;186, 
1895a:123-124); “Cabinda” [-5.55000, 
12.18333] (Frade 1963:252). Kwanza Norte: 
“Piri-Dembos” [-8.56667, 14.50000] (Hell- 
mich 1957b;67-68). Kwanza Sul: “Quirimbo” 
[-10.68333, 14.26667] (Parker 1936:125); 
“Congulu” [-10.86667, 14.28333] (Parker 
1936:125). 
Taxonomic and distributional notes: 
Authors including Peters (1877a), Bocage 
(1895a), Parker (1936) and Hellmich (1957b) 
confused this species with Toxicodryas 
blandingii (Hallowell, “1844” 1845), resulting 
in erroneous estimations of species distribu¬ 
tions. Toxicodryas blandingii is limited to 
extreme northeastern Angola (Spawls and 
Branch 1995; Wallach et al. 2014) whereas the distribution of T. pulverulenta (Fischer, 1856) com¬ 
prises a large portion of the northwestern parts of the country. In the original description Fischer 
(1856) referred to two specimens (one subsequently lost fide Hallermann 1998) from “Edina, 
Grand Bassa County in Liberia (West-Afrika),” collected by Dr. Davis and donated to the Hamburg 
Museum. Hughes and Barry (1969), following a personal communication from the curator at that 
time, Werner Ladiges, corrected the type locality of Toxicodryas pulverulenta to “St. Thome,” pre¬ 
sumably Sao Tome and Principe, Gulf of Guinea. Schatti and Loumont (1992) and Wallach et al. 
(2014) followed Hughes and Barry (1969) and Chippaux (2006) incorrectly referred to “Saint 
Thome, Liberia” as the type locality of the species (there is no locality with this or a similar name 
in Liberia). The suggestion by Ladiges was certainly the result of a labeling mistake. The species 
has never subsequently been found on Sao Tome, despite recent extensive collecting by the Cali¬ 
fornia Academy of Sciences and Museu Nacional de Historia Natural e da Ciencia, and it has never 
been cited in any of the works on the herpetofauna of the island (e.g., Bocage 1879, 1886b, 1886c, 
1886d, 1890, 1905; Greef 1884; Bedriaga 1892; Mananas 1958; Capocaccia 1961; Schatti and 
Loumont 1992; Nill 1993; Ceriaco et al. 2018). Therefore, we recommend that original type local¬ 
ity, “Edina, Liberia,” should stand as is. 
Family Natricidae Bonaparte, 1838 
Genus Limnophis Gunther, 1865 
Limnophis bicolor Gunther, 1865 Bicolored Swamp Snake 
Limnophis bicolor Gunther 1865b:96, pi. 2, fig. C. Syntypes: BMNH 1946.1.14.53-54 (formerly BMNH 
64.10.28.16) (eolleetor F.A.P. Bayao, don. J.V. Barboza du Boeage) [2 speeimens]. Type loeality: “pro- 
vinee Duque de Braganee (Angola)” [= Calandula], Malanje Provinee, Angola. 
Limnophis bicolor. Boeage (1866a:47, 1866b:68, 1879b:95), Bogert (1940:36), Hellmieh (1957b:63), 
Mertens (1963:438), Broadley (1974:8), Braneh (1998:82), Broadley et al. (2003:175), Wallaeh et al. 
(2014:376). 
Helicops bicolor. Boeage (1895a:75, 1896a:112, 1897a:200), Boulenger (1905:112, 1915:201), Sehmidt 
(1933:12), Monard (1937b: 116). 
Limnophis bicolor bicolor. Laurent (1964a: 100). 
Il'E L&“E 20°E 24''E 
Map 371. Distribution of Toxicodryas pulverulenta in 
Angola. 
