Hebius shantianfangi Liu, Wang, Hou, Zhang, Wang, Zong, Zhou, Rao, David & Vogel, 2025, sp. nov.

Hebius shantianfangi sp. nov. Figs 2, 3, 4, 5 A, 6 A Type materials. Holotype • KIZ 064970; adult female; Longlin Village, Mengla Town, Mengla County, Xishuangbanna Prefecture, Yunnan Province, China; 21°38′15″N, 101°27′0″E, 1,040 m; 27 April 2019; JiShan Wang leg. Paratypes • KIZ 064971; adult male; Yutang Village, Yixiang Town, Simao District, Pu’er City, Yunnan Province, China; 22°36′58″N, 101°7′32″E, 1,300 m; 18 September 2018; Mian Hou leg. • KIZ 064972; adult female; Guangfeng Village, Sinanjiang Town, Mojiang County, Pu’er City, Yunnan Province, China; 22°56′49″N, 101°49′51″E, 1810 m; 31 May 2023; Mo Wang leg. • KIZ 064973; adult female; Bingli Village, Yutang Town, Mojiang County, Pu’er City, Yunnan Province, China; 23°7′10″N, 101°31′46″E, 1850 m; 26 June 2023; Mo Wang leg. Diagnosis. Body slender, SVL 332–406 mm, TL 506–610 mm; tail relatively long, TaL / TL 0.31–0.34; dorsal scales in 19-19 - 17 rows, all strongly keeled except for 1 st row on each side; ventrals 148–155; cloacal plate divided; subcaudals 90–105, paired; loreal one, not entering orbit; preocular one, postoculars three; supralabials mostly nine, rarely ten, mostly 4 th – 6 th entering orbit, rarely 5 th – 7 th entering orbit; infralabials 9–11; maxillary teeth 23–25, last one or two distinctly enlarged, no diastema separating enlarged posterior teeth with anterior ones; a distinct continuous white streak from posteroventral margin of eye extending backward and upward to nape on each side; dorsolateral stripes present; venter white, ventrolateral blotches present, composed of a dark grey spot on edge of each ventral on each side. Etymology. Named after the late renowned Chinese storytelling artist, Tianfang Shan (17. 12.1934 – 11.09. 2018). This species was previously confused with H. boulengeri, whose Chinese name is “ 白眉腹链蛇 ”. In China, when “ 白眉 ” is mentioned, people first think of Tianfang Shan’s classic storytelling “ 白眉大侠 ”. This specific epithet commemorates Tianfang Shan, who devoted his whole life to storytelling and left countless indelible memories for people. We suggest “ Shan’s keelback ” as the English name and “ 单氏腹链蛇 ” (Pinyin: shàn shì fù liàn shé) as the Chinese name of the new species. Description of holotype. Body cylindrical, slender (TL 539 mm), tail relatively long (TaL / TL 0.31); head moderately large, elongate (HL / SVL 0.044), distinct from neck; snout narrow, relatively long (SnL / HL 0.24), tip obtuse; eye large (EDH / SnL 0.72, EDV / DLip 2.36), pupils round; nostrils oriented laterally. Rostral wider than high, approximately twice as width as high, nearly invisible from above; nasal divided into two halves, posterior half slightly larger than anterior half; internasals two; prefrontals two, in contact with loreal, prefrontal suture slightly longer than internasal suture; frontal shield shaped, elongate, approximately 1.4 times as long as width, approximately 2.2 times length of prefrontal suture; supraocular one on each side, elongate, almost as long as frontal; parietals two, large, approximately 1.9 times as long as width, almost 1.5 times length of frontal, parietal suture almost equal to length of frontal; loreal one on each side, in contact with 2 nd – 3 rd supralabials on left side and 3 rd – 4 th supralabials on right side, not entering orbit; preoculars one on each side, vertically elongate; postoculars three on each side, size decreasing from top to bottom; supralabials nine on left side and ten on right side, 4 th – 6 th entering orbit on left side and 5 th – 7 th entering orbit on right side, penultimate one largest; anterior temporal one on each side, posterior temporals two on each side; mental triangular, small; infralabials ten on each side, first pair in contact with each other after mental, 1 st – 5 th in contact with anterior chin shield; chin shield two pairs; posterior chin shields longer than anterior ones. Dorsal scales in 19-19 - 17 rows, all strongly keeled except for 1 st row on each side smooth or feebly keeled; preventrals two, ventrals 148; subcaudals 90, paired; cloacal plate divided. Maxillary teeth 25 (24 + 1), becoming enlarged posteriorly with last one distinctly enlarged, no proper diastema between last enlarged one and anterior ones. Coloration in life. Dorsal surface of head reddish brown with some white vermiculate stripes or spots; lateral surface of head reddish brown, a distinct continuous white streak from posteroventral margin of eye extending backward and upward to nape to connect with dorsolateral stripe on each side, edges of white streak jagged and bordered by indistinct black color; upper lip white with some vertical black stripes anterior to eye; iris bronze; ventral surface of head creamy white with some indistinct dark stripes on lower lip. Dorsal surface of body gradually from greyish brown to black posteriorly; dorsolateral stripes indistinct anterior and distinct posteriorly, light yellow intermixed with light orange spots from nape to anterior tail; venter white with grayish black spots on edges of each ventral. Dorsal surface of tail black, ventral surface of tail grayish white. Variation. The paratypes are very similar to the holotype in morphological characters (Table 3). The total length varies from 506 mm to 610 mm, the number of ventrals varies from 149 to 155, the number of subcaudals varies from 99 to 105, and the number of maxillary teeth varies from 23 (22 + 1) to 25 (23 + 2) in the paratypes. Comparisons. Hebius shantianfangi sp. nov. can be easily distinguished from all other species of the genus, except H. boulengeri, in having a distinct continuous white streak from the posteroventral margin of the eye extending backward and upward to the nape and connecting with the dorsolateral stripe on each side. Hebius shantianfangi sp. nov. further differs from H. annamensis (Bourret, 1934), H. arquus (David & Vogel, 2010), H. atemporalis (Bourret, 1934), H. celebicus (Peters & Doris, 1878), H. chapaensis (Bourret, 1934), H. citrinoventer Xu, Yang, Gong, Ouyang, Weng, Deng, Huang & Peng, 2024, H. frenatus (Dunn, 1923), H. groundwateri (Smith, 1922), H. maximus (Malnate, 1962), H. nigriventer (Wall, 1925), H. sarasinorum (Boulenger, 1896), H. sarwacensis (Günther, 1872), H. sauteri (Boulenger, 1909), H. taronensis (Smith, 1940), H. venningi (Wall, 1910), and H. youjiangensis Yang, Xu, Wu, Gong, Huang & Huang, 2023 in having 19 dorsal scale rows at midbody (vs 15 or 17 rows at midbody). Hebius shantianfangi sp. nov. further differs from H. annamensis, H. chapaensis, H. deschauenseei (Taylor, 1934), H. igneus David, Vogel, Nguyen, Orlov, Pauwels, Teynie ́ & Ziegler, 2021, H. modestus (Günther, 1875), H. nigriventer, H. taronensis, H. venningi, and H. youjiangensis in having a white venter (vs dark venter). Hebius shantianfangi sp. nov. further differs from H. andreae (Ziegler & Le Khac Quyet, 2006), H. arquus, H. beddomei (Günther, 1864), H. celebicus, H. concelarus (Malnate, 1963), H. flavifrons (Boulenger, 1887), H. frenatus, H. groundwateri, H. ishigakiensis (Malnate & Munsterman, 1960), H. lacrima Purkayastha & David, 2019, H. nicobariensis (Sclater, 1891), H. optatus (Hu & Zhao, 1966), H. petersii (Boulenger, 1893), H. pryeri (Boulenger, 1887), H. sanguineus (Smedley, 1932), H. sarasinorum, H. sarwacensis, H. vibakari (Boie, 1826), and H. yanbianensis Liu, Zhong, Wang, Liu & Guo, 2018 in having dorsolateral stripes (vs no dorsolateral stripes but blotches or crossbars). Hebius shantianfangi sp. nov. further differs from H. bitaeniatus (Wall, 1925) in having more subcaudals (90–105 vs 76–86), further differs from H. clerki (Wall, 1925) in having fewer ventrals (148–155 vs 162–173), further differs from H. craspedogaster (Boulenger, 1899) in having unkeeled the 1 st dorsal scale row on each side (vs keeled the 1 st dorsal scale row), further differs from H. inas (Laidlaw, 1901) in having dark grey blotches on the edges of each ventral (vs dark reddish-brown on the outer quarter or third of each ventral on each side), further differs from H. jingdongensis Ma, Shi, Ayi & Jiang, 2023 in having fewer ventrals (148–155 vs 163–166), further differs from H. johannis (Boulenger, 1908) in having fewer ventrals (148–155 vs 165–170), further differs from H. kerinciensis (David & Das, 2003) in having more ventrals (148–155 vs 138–140), further differs from H. leucomystax (David, Bain, Quang Truong, Orlov, Vogel, Ngoc Thanh & Ziegler, 2007) in having a white streak from the posteroventral margin of the eye extending to the nape on each side (vs a white streak from the tip of the snout extending under the eye to the nape on each side), further differs from H. metusia (Inger, Zhao, Shaffer & Wu, 1990) in having fewer ventrals (148–155 vs 159–176), further differs from H. miyajimae (Maki, 1931) in having more supralabials (9–10 vs 8), further differs from H. octolineatus (Boulenger, 1904) in having more subcaudals (90–105 vs 70–80), further differs from H. parallelus (Boulenger, 1890) in having fewer ventrals (148–155 vs 160–173), further differs from H. popei (Schmidt, 1925) in having more ventrals (148–155 vs 130–142), further differs from H. sangzhiensis Zhou, Qi, Lu, Lyu & Li, 2019 in having fewer ventrals (148–155 vs 160–164), further differs from H. septemlineatus (Schmidt, 1925) in having fewer ventrals (148–155 vs 164–175), further differs from H. terrakarenorum Hauser, Smits & David, 2022 in having fewer ventrals (148–155 vs 159–171), further differs from H. viperinus (Schenkel, 1901) in having more ventrals (148–155 vs 101), and further differs from H. weixiensis Hou, Yuan, Wei, Zhao, Liu, Wu, Shen, Chen, Guo & Che, 2021 in having fewer ventrals (148–155 vs 171–182). Hebius shantianfangi sp. nov. is closely related to H. khasiensis, H. gilhodesi, and H. boulengeri according to the molecular phylogeny. However, Hebius shantianfangi sp. nov. can be easily distinguished from H. khasiensis and H. gilhodesi in having a continuous white streak from the poster