Editing King cobra (section)

=== Synonyms ===
In 1838, Cantor proposed the name ''Hamadryas ophiophagus'' for the king cobra and explained that it has dental features intermediate between the genera ''Naja'' and ''[[Bungarus]]''.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Cantor |first=T. E. |year=1838 |title=A notice of the Hamadryas, a genus of hooded serpent with poisonous fangs and maxillary teeth |journal=Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London |volume=6 |pages=72–75 |url=https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/30571131 |access-date=14 October 2019 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191014075823/https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/30571131 |archive-date=14 October 2019}}</ref>
''Naia vittata'' proposed by [[Walter Elliot (naturalist)|Walter Elliot]] in 1840 was a king cobra caught offshore near [[Chennai]] that was floating in a basket.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Elliot |first=W. |year=1840 |title=Description of a New Species of Naga, or Cobra de Capello |journal=Madras Journal of Literature and Science |volume=11 |pages=39–41 |url=https://archive.org/details/madrasjournalofl1118madr/page/n55}}</ref> This provenance is disputed, as wild king cobras have never occurred near Chennai, and an analysis of this specimen has found it to be more similar to the northern king cobra.<ref name=Das2024/>
''Hamadryas elaps'' proposed by [[Albert Günther]] in 1858 were king cobra specimens from the [[Philippines]] and [[Borneo]]. Günther considered both ''N. bungarus'' and ''N. vittata'' a variety of ''H. elaps''.<ref>{{cite book |last=Günther |first=A. |date=1858 |title=Catalogue of colubrine snakes in the collection of the British Museum |publisher=Printed by order of the Trustees |location=London |page=219 |url=https://archive.org/details/catalogueofcolub00brituoft/page/219}}</ref> ''Naja ingens'' proposed by {{ill|Alexander Willem Michiel van Hasselt|nl|Alexander Willem Michiel van Hasselt|fr|Alexander Willem Michiel Van Hasselt|de|Alexander Willem Michiel van Hasselt}} in 1882 was a king cobra captured near [[Tebing Tinggi]] in northern Sumatra.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Van Hasselt |first=A. W. M. |year=1882 |title=Eene Monster-Naja |language=German |journal=Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen |series=2 |volume=17 |pages=140–143 |url=https://archive.org/details/verslagenenmeded2171koni/page/n157}}</ref> 

The earliest [[scientific name]] for the king cobra was ''[[Naja]] bungaroides'', given by [[Friedrich Boie]] in 1828 based on a juvenile specimen from [[Java]]. This description was improperly done, leaving it a ''[[nomen nudum]]'' at the time. However, [[Johann Georg Wagler]] validated the name in 1830 with a sufficient diagnosis, and also proposed a new genus for it, ''[[Hoplocephalus]]''. In 1837, [[Hermann Schlegel]] used the name ''Naja bungaroides'' for his description of the Australian [[broad-headed snake]], which was later reclassified into Wagler's ''Hoplocephalus'', and used the species name ''Naja bungarus'' for the king cobra.<ref>{{cite book |last=Schlegel |first=H. |year=1837 |title=Essai sur la physionomie des serpens |language=French |trans-title=Essay on the physiognomy of snakes |chapter=Le Naja Bongare. ''N. bungarus'' |publisher=Schonekat |location=Amsterdam |page=476 |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/essaisurlaphysio02schl/page/476}}</ref> Since then, the species name ''Naja''/''Hoplocephalus bungaroides'', originally coined for the king cobra and improperly assigned to the broad-headed snake, became conflated with the broad-headed snake and used as the type species of ''Hoplocephalus'', while the species name ''Naja bungarus'' was treated as a [[Synonym (taxonomy)|junior synonym]] of the king cobra (until its revival as the species name for the [[Sunda king cobra]] in 2024). This longstanding discrepancy, which breaks the [[principle of priority]], was overlooked for nearly two centuries and only discovered in 2024. Due to the long presence of the names ''Ophiophagus hannah'' and ''Hoplocephalus bungaroides'' in the literature, which would be upended if these two species were reclassified based on this issue, it was decided to maintain the longstanding scientific names for both taxa and designate a new, accurate type specimen for the broad-headed snake.<ref name=Das2024/>