Geophis turbidus PAVÓN-VÁZQUEZ, CANSECO-MÁRQUEZ & NIETO-MONTES DE OCA, 2013
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Geophis turbidus?
|Higher Taxa||Colubridae (Dipsadinae), Colubroidea, Caenophidia, Alethinophidia, Serpentes, Squamata (snakes)|
|Synonym||Geophis turbidus PAVÓN-VÁZQUEZ, CANSECO-MÁRQUEZ & NIETO-MONTES DE OCA 2013|
Geophis rostralis — WEBB & FUGLER 1957
Geophis cf. rostralis — BOGERT & PORTER 1966
Geophis carinosus — DOWNS 1967
Geophis dubius — PÉREZ-HIGAREDA & SMITH 1988
|Distribution||Mexico (N Puebla)|
Type locality: 3.5 km W of Xocoyolo, municipality of Cuetzalan, Puebla, Mexico (19859.4320N, 97833.3250W; datum 1⁄4 WGS84), 1225 m elevation.
|Types||Holotype: MZFC 27254 (field number IFP 105), female, collected 24 March 1998 by Israel Fentanes Patiño, (Fig. 2).|
Paratypes.—Ten specimens, all from the Sierra Norte region of Puebla, Mexico: four from the municipality of Cuetzalan (one [EBUAP 1021] from 2 km NW of Xocoyolo, near Vista Hermosa [19858.6770N, 97832.2940W], 1345 m elevation; one [EBUAP 521] from 5.5 km SSW of Cuetzalan; one [MZFC 27253] from hillside in Xocoyolo, on road to Apulco River [19857057.600N, 97832013.100W]; and one [EBUAP 1022] from La Loma del Chivo, on the road to Tacopixacta [19858.4100N, 97830.9860W], 1215 m elevation); four from the municipality of Tepango de Rodr ́ıguez (three [CNAR 6886– 6888] from Tepango de Rodr ́ıguez, and one [CNAR 6889] from 5 km S of Tepango de Rodr ́ıguez); one (KU 39642) from 16.09 km SW of Villa Juárez (Xicotepec de Juárez), and one (CNAR 8233) from 3 km N of Zacapoaxtla, on road to Cuetzalan.
|Diagnosis||Diagnosis (short): G. turbidus possesses most of the diagnostic characters of the G. dubius group but differs from all other species of Geophis by having the loreal shorter than the combined prenasal and postnasal length, one postocular scale, one supraocular scale, the fifth supralabial and parietal in contact, dorsal scales in 17 rows, dorsal scales smooth throughout the length of the body or, if keeled, not anteriorly to the posterior fourth of the body, 129–140 ventrals in females and 125–139 in males, 26–31 subcaudals in females and 34–39 in males, 159–170 ventrals plus subcaudals in females and 161–174 in males, 9 maxillary teeth, anterior tip of the maxilla toothless, an overall dark dorsum, a predominantly cream venter, and a short tail in males.|
Diagnosis: Geophis turbidus differs from all of the species in the G. championi and G. semidoliatus groups, and from some species in the G. chalybeus (G. dugesi, G. nigrocinctus, and G. tarascae) and G. sieboldi (G. bellus, G. betaniensis, G. brachycephalus, G. damiani, G. hoffmanni, G. laticollaris, G. nigroalbus, G. petersii, G. russatus, G. ruthveni, G. sallei, G. talamancae, G. tectus, and G. zeledoni) groups, by having dorsals arranged in 17 rows (versus dorsals arranged in 15 rows in the aforementioned species); from all of the species in the G. latifrontalis group except for G. blanchardi, and all of the species in the G. omiltemanus group, by having the fifth supralabial and parietal in contact (versus fifth supralabial and parietal separated by one anterior temporal in the aforementioned species); and from some species in the G. dubius group (G. carinosus and G. juarezi) and the remaining species of the G. sieboldi group (G. dunni, G. nasalis, G. occabus, and G. sieboldi) by having dorsal scales smooth throughout the body or, if keeled, not anteriorly to the posterior 1/4 of the body (versus at least posterior half of the body keeled in the aforementioned species).
Geophis turbidus differs from the remain- ing species in the G. chalybeus group (G. bicolor and G. chalybeus) as follows: from G. bicolor by having one postocular scale (versus two postocular scales in G. bicolor); and from G. chalybeus by having fewer ventrals in females (129–140, n 1⁄4 4, versus 154–155, n 1⁄4 3, in G. chalybeus) and fewer subcaudals in females (26–31, n 1⁄4 4, versus 38–41, n 1⁄4 3, in G. chalybeus); and from the remaining species in the G. latifrontalis group, G. blanchardi, by having a predominantly cream venter (versus venter checkered with yellowish orange and black in G. blanchardi).
Geophis turbidus differs from the remain- ing species in the G. dubius group as follows: from G. anocularis, G. duellmani, and G. rhodogaster by having one supraocular (versus supraocular absent in the aforementioned species); from G. dubius by having internasals that are distinct from the prefrontals (inter- nasals and prefrontals usually fused in G. dubius), the loreal shorter than the combined prenasal and postnasal length (versus loreal slightly longer than combined prenasal and postnasal length in G. dubius), and usually fewer ventrals in males (125–139, n 1⁄4 7, versus 137–149, n 1⁄4 8, in G. dubius) and fewer subcaudals in males (34–39, n 1⁄4 6, versus 36– 50, n 1⁄4 8, in G. dubius); from G. fulvoguttatus by having an overall dark dorsum (versus irregular red or yellow dorsal blotches present in G. fulvoguttatus); from G. immaculatus by having fewer maxillary teeth (9, n 1⁄4 2, versus 12, n 1⁄4 2, in G. immaculatus), the first tooth located posteriorly to the anterior tip of the maxilla (versus first tooth at anterior tip of maxilla in G. immaculatus), more subcaudals in males (34–39, n1⁄46, versus 31, n1⁄41, in G. immaculatus), and predominantly cream midgulars and ventrals (versus midgulars and ventrals predominantly dark in G. immacula- tus); from G. nephodrymus by having a higher segmental count in males (161–174, n 1⁄4 6, versus 151–160, n 1⁄4 6, in G. nephodrymus); and from G. rostralis by having a smaller tail length:total length ratio in males (0.15–0.18, n 1⁄4 6, versus 0.20–0.21, n 1⁄4 2, both specimens with an incomplete tail, in G. rostralis) and usually fewer subcaudals in males (34–39, n 1⁄4 6, versus 39–43, n 1⁄4 3, lowest and highest counts corresponding to specimens with an incomplete tail, in G. rostralis).
|Comment||Synonymy: after PAVÓN-VÁZQUEZ et al. 2013.|
The status of the species is still uncertain
|Etymology||Etymology.—The specific name comes from the Latin word turba, meaning confusion, turmoil, and makes reference to the past confusion regarding the taxonomic status of the new species.|