Aurivela tergolaevigata (CABRERA, 2004)
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Aurivela tergolaevigata?
Aurivela tergolaevigata
Find more photos by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Teiidae, Teiinae, Gymnophthalmoidea, Sauria, Squamata (lizards) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | |
| Synonym | Cnemidophorus tergolaevigatus CABRERA 2004: 266 Aurivela tergolaevigata — HARVEY et al. 2012 Cnemidophorus tergolaevigata — AVILA et al. 2013 Aurivela tergolaevigata — AVILA et al. 2021 |
| Distribution | W Argentina (La Rioja, Catamarca, Salta) Type locality: Chilecito, Cerro (= Sierra de) Velasco, Villa Unión and Cerro Famatina, La Rioja province, Argentina. |
| Reproduction | oviparous |
| Types | Holotype: MACN 6827, adult male (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales) |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis (n=9). A small sized teiid lizard (adults up to 58 mm SVL), bisexual, characterized by a broad light brown-grayish middorsal field spanning at least 17 granular scales at midback; lack of vertebral and paravertebral stripes; a striped pattern of alternating white and brown lines, from dorsolateral region to the flanks; 10 longitudinal rows of ventral scales (scales on the extremes of the rows, usually small); 13-16 femoral pores on each leg; 28-31 subdigital lamellae under fourth toe; snout pointed; postnasal scale usually (78% of the sample) longer than loreal scale, or subequal; tympanum partially covered by an "opercular" skin projection from the anterodorsal border of the ear; supraoculars 4/4; small scales in row separating supraoculars 2-4 from neighbour scales, occasionally excluding also these three supraoculars from contact to first supraocular. Cnemidophorus tergolaevigatus can be distinguished from all the other South American species [except Cnemidophorus longicauda (Bell, 1843)] by the presence of an "opercular" projection of skin from the anterodorsal margin of each ear. Other particular differences follow. It may be differentiated from Cnemidophorus vittatus Boulenger, 1902 by the presence of four supraoculars (two in C. vittatus); from members of the lacertoides species group (Cnemidophorus lacertoides Duméril and Bibron, 1839; C. leachei Peracca, 1897; C. serranus Cei and Martori, 1991, and C. vacariensis Feltrim and Lema, 2000) by the presence of granular row(s) separating supraoculars from frontal, frontoparietal, and superciliary scales (granular rows absent in the lacertoides group). Cnemidophorus tergolaevigatus differs from taxa of the lemniscatus species group [C. lemniscatus lemniscatus leg: 28-31 subdigital lamellae under fourth toe; snout pointed; postnasal scale usually (78% of the sample) longer than loreal scale, or subequal; lympanum partially covered by an "opercular" skin projection from the anterodorsal border of the car; supraoculars 4/4; small scales in row separating supraoculars 2-4 from neighbour scales, occasionally excluding also these three supraoculars from contact to first supraocular. Cnemidophorus tergolaevigatus can be distinguished from all the other South American species [except Cnemidophorus longicauda (Bell, 1843)] by the presence of an "opercular" projection of skin from the anterodorsal margin of each ear. Other particular differences follow, It may be differentiated from Chemidophorus vittatus Boulenger. 1902 by the presence of four supraoculars (two in C. vittatus): from members of the lacertoides species group (Chemidophorus lacertoides Duméril and Bibron. 1839; C. leachei Peracca. 1897; C, serranus Cei and Martori, 1991, and C. vacariensis Feltrim and Lema, 2000) by the presence of granular row(s) separating supraoculars from frontal, frontoparietal, and superciliary scales (granular rows absent in the lacertoides group). Chemidophorus tergolaevigures differs from taxa of the lemniscatus species group [C, lemniscatus lemniscatus (Linnaeus, 1758); C. l. splendidus Markezich, Cole and Dessauer, 1997; C. gramivagus McCrystal and Dixon, 1987; C. cryptus Cole and Dessauer, 1993; C. pseudolemniscatus Cole and Dessauer, 1993, and C. arenivagus Markezich, Cole and Dessauer, 1997] in the lack of preanal spurs in males (present in all members of this species group). It is differentiated from C. ocellifer (Spix, 1825) and C. nativo Rocha, Bergallo and Peccinini-Seale, 1997 by a greater number of longitudinal rows of ventral scales (10 versus 8) and more femoral pores (13-16 on each side versus 7-12 in C. ocellifer and 11-13 in C. nativo; moreover, the latter is unisexual, Rocha et al., 1997). It differs from Cnemidophorus littoralis Rocha, Araújo, Vrcibradic and Costa, 2000 in the lack of vertebral stripe (always present in the latter), and different pattern. It is distinguished from C. abaetensis Dias, Rocha and Vrcibradic, 2002 by a greater number of supraoculars (4 versus 3), more longitudinal rows of ventral scales (10 versus 8) and color pattern. The species most similar to Cnemidophorus tergolaevigatus is C. longicauda, because both bear the "opercular" skin projection forward of the tympana, and are characterized by striped pattern on the body flanks. They can be distinguished from one another by different dorsal patterns (unstriped back in Cnemidophorus tergolaevigatus vs. patterned back including paravertebral and, frequently, vertebral stripes, in C. longicauda; see fig. 1), a longer snout in Cnemidophorus tergolaevigatus, with postnasal scale usually longer than loreal (usually shorter in C. longicauda), suture between anterior nasals 1.4 to 3-fold longer than suture between prefrontals (suture between anterior nasals shorter, equal, or slightly longer than suture between prefrontals in C. longicauda). (Cabrera 2004) Unfortunately we had to temporarily remove additional information as this was scraped by multiple AI companies who sell that data to their customers. These details, e.g. detailed descriptions or comparisons (about 8054 characters) are available for collaborators and contributors. Please contact us for details. |
| Comment | Group: member of the longicauda group, see C. longicauda for details. |
| Etymology | Named after the Latin words tergum (back) and laevigatus (smooth), to remark its unstriped back in contrast with the multistriped pattern of its more allied species, Cnemidophorus longicauda. |
| References |
|
| External links |