An evaluation of the nomina for death adders (Acanthophis Daudin, 1803) proposed by Wells & Wellington (1985), and confirmation of A. cryptamydros Maddock et al., 2015 as the valid name for the Kimberley death adder Author Ellis, Ryan J. Collections & Research, Western Australian Museum, Welshpool WA 6016, Australia & Biologic Environmental Survey, 24 - 26 Wickham St, East Perth, Western Australia 6004, Australia. Author Kaiser, Hinrich Department of Vertebrate Zoology, Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, 53113 Bonn, Germany; and Department of Biology, Victor Valley College, 18422 Bear Valley Road, Victorville, California 92395, USA Author Maddock, Simon T. Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, WV 1 1 LY, United Kingdom & Department of Life Sciences, The Natural History Museum, London, SW 7 5 BD, United Kingdom & Island Biodiversity and Conservation Centre, University of Seychelles, Mahé, Seychelles Author Doughty, Paul Collections & Research, Western Australian Museum, Welshpool WA 6016, Australia Author Wüster, Wolfgang 0000-0002-4890-4311 Molecular Biology and Evolution at Bangor, School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, LL 57 2 UW, United Kingdom Corresponding author. w. wuster @ bangor. ac. uk; https: // orcid. org / 0000 - 0002 - 4890 - 4311 w.wuster@bangor.ac.uk text Zootaxa 2021 2021-06-29 4995 1 161 172 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.4995.1.9 1175-5326 5043906 959FF3A5-63AD-496D-AB24-B704C998B8FF Availability of Acanthophis armstrongi Wells & Wellington, 1985 The name Acanthophis armstrongi has not given rise to much discussion since its initial establishment. Shea (1987) , Aplin (1999), and Aplin & Donnellan (1999) regarded it as a nomen nudum, noting that Storr (1981) treated the populations concerned as part of his concept of A. pyrrhus , without any attempt to differentiate between populations. The name has remained unused in the peer-reviewed scientific literature ( sensu Kaiser et al . 2013 ) since then. The description of A. armstrongi reads as follows, reproduced here as in the original, including errors in spelling and punctuation ( Wells & Wellington 1985: 43 ): FIGURE 1. The four death adder species, genus Acanthophis , whose valid nomina we discuss herein. (A) A. cryptamydros Maddock et al. , 2015 from the Mueller Ranges, ca. 110 km southwest of Halls Creek, Western Australia. (B) A. pyrrhus Boulenger, 1898 from 40 km south of Port Hedland, Western Australia. (C) A. hawkei Wells & Wellington, 1985 from the Barkly Tableland, Northern Territory, Australia. (D) A. antarcticus ( Shaw & Nodder, 1802 ) from Canning Dam, near Ashendon, Western Australia. Photos by Ray Lloyd (A, B, D) and Tom Parkin (C). “ Acanthophis armstrongi sp.nov. Holotype : An adult specimen in the Western Australian Museum R 61357. Collected at 5 km East of Giralia , Western Australia . Diagnosis: A member of the Acanthophis pyrrhus complex, readily distinguished by the excellent diagnostic illustations and data in the existing literature. Storr (1981:207-208) provided a description of a species from north western Australia that he regarded as Acanthophis pyrrhus . However, we consider that this is really an undescribed species, herein named Acanthophis armstrongi , and that the species Acanthophis pyrrhus is confined to central Australia . Acanthophis armstrongi is believed confined to the Pilbara and Kimberley regions of Western Australia and can be identified by referring to the illustrations in Storr (1981 : Fig.3) and Gow (1983: Plate 15, (upper), specimen from Port Hedland, Western Australia vide Gow, pers. comm.). A comparative illustration of Acanthophis pyrrhus can be found in Cogger (1983 : Plate 765 from Alice Springs, Northern Territory ). Etymology: Named for Neil Armstrong, first man on the Moon.” The name A. armstrongi is unavailable for the same reasons we outlined for A. lancasteri . Gow (1983) and Cogger (1983) are only cited as sources for images and have no bearing on establishing the nomen. In Storr (1981: 207) , the only possibility to validate the name according to Article 13.1.2., an account for Acanthophis pyrrhus Boulenger, 1898 begins halfway down the page. Storr provided what he inappropriately termed a “diagnosis,” which in actuality is a paragraph listing the features of A. pyrrhus (i.e., a description in the meaning of the Code ’s Glossary). This description is based on specimens from four land divisions of Western Australia (Kimberley, North-West, South- West, Eastern), listed on the following page ( Storr 1981: 208 ). As in the case of A. lancasteri , Storr was describing A. pyrrhus , not a subset thereof. Thus, there is no description “purported to differentiate the taxon ,” as required by Article 13.1.1. Furthermore, as in the case of A. lancasteri , Wells & Wellington themselves regarded the specimens and populations described by Storr (1981) as polyspecific: only the specimens from the Kimberley and Pilbara were regarded as A. armstrongi , yet the set of specimens on which the “diagnosis” of Storr is based pertains to a mixed sample that also includes material that Wells & Wellington explicitly excluded from A. armstrongi . As in the case of A. lancasteri , a description of a sample explicitly stated to consist of multiple species cannot be used to differentiate only one of them (i.e., the taxon sensu Article 13.1.). This therefore confirms the views of Shea (1987) , Aplin (1999), and Aplin & Donnellan (1999) that Acanthophis armstrongi Wells & Wellington, 1985 is a nomen nudum under the Code . The current valid name of these snake populations is A. pyrrhus ( Fig. 1B ).