Celestus crusculus (GARMAN, 1887)
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Celestus crusculus?
Celestus crusculus
Find more photos by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Diploglossidae, Diploglossa, Anguimorpha, Sauria, Squamata (lizards) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | E: Jamaican Galliwasp, Garman's Galliwasp |
| Synonym | Diploglossus crusculus GARMAN 1887: 22 Diploglossus bakeri BOULENGER 1900 (fide BARBOUR 1910) Celestus crusculus — BARBOUR 1910: 298 Celestus crusculus crusculus — GRANT 1940: 102 Celestus crusculus cundalli GRANT 1940: 157 Celestus crusculus cundalli — GRANT 1940: 103 Celestus crusculus cundalli — SCHWARTZ & HENDERSON 1988 Diploglossus crusculus crusculus — GREER 1967 Celestus crusculus — SCHWARTZ & HENDERSON 1991: 369 Celestus crusculus — WILSON 2011 Celestus crusculus crusculus — HEDGES et al. 2019 Celestus crusculus cundalli — HEDGES et al. 2019 Celestus crusculus cundalli — SCHOOLS & HEDGES 2021 Celestus crusculus — SCHOOLS & HEDGES 2021 Celestus crusculus — SCHOOLS & HEDGES 2024: 49 |
| Distribution | Jamaica crusculus: coastal areas of Jamaica; delineation of the range is tentative. Type locality: Kingston, Kingston Parish, Jamaica. cundalli (invalid): interior of Jamaica, at elevations of 2000 to 4000 ft.; Type locality: Mandeville, Manchester Parish, Jamaica. Delineation of the range is tentative. |
| Reproduction | ovoviviparous |
| Types | Holotype: MCZ 6051 (crusculus) Holotype: CAS-SUR 9298, MCZ 45163 [cundalli] |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis. Celestus crusculus has (1) a dorsal pattern of absent/flecks in series/dots in chevrons, (2) head markings absent/present, (3) markings in the longitudinal paramedian area present, (4) dots arranged in bars in the lateral band absent, (5) an adult SVL of 59.6–77.6 mm, (6) ventral scale rows, 98–114, (7) midbody scale rows, 37–44, (8) total lamellae on one hand, 30–39, (9) total strigae on ten scales, 106–194, (10) relative length of all digits on one hindlimb, 18.7–24.7 %, (11) relative distance between the angled subocular and mouth, 0.339–0.884 %, (12) relative eye length, 2.93–3.61 %, (13) relative forelimb length, 12.8–20.7 %, (14) relative ear width, 0.716–2.00 %, (15) relative rostral height, 1.62–2.04 %, (16) relative head length, 15.5–20.3 %, (17) relative mental width, 1.37–2.31 %, (18) relative postmental width, 2.73–3.37 %, (19) relative cloacal width, 6.89–8.77 %, (20) relative prefrontal width, 3.93–4.67 %, (21) relative largest supraocular width, 1.97–2.65 %, (22) relative longest finger length, 2.94–4.10 %, (23) relative distance between the ear and eye, 6.07–8.61 %, (24) relative head width, 72.1–76.4 %, (25) relative frontal width, 82.6–91.1 %, (26) relative nasal height, 0.925–1.37 %, (27) relative angled subocular height, 0.953–1.21 %, (28) relative distance between the eye and naris, 4.31–4.86 %, (29) relative canthal iii length, 1.59–2.07 %, (30) relative angled subocular width, 2.03–2.43 %, and (31) relative nasal length, 1.27–1.60 %. The species stem time is 4.73 Ma and the species crown time is 1.75 Ma (Fig. 4). we distinguish Celestus crusculus from the other species of Celestus based on a complex of traits. From Celestus barbouri, we distinguish C. crusculus by the dorsal pattern (absent/flecks in series/dots in chevrons versus chevrons), the longitudinal paramedian lines (present versus absent), the adult SVL (59.6–77.6 versus 78.4–93.6), the ventral scale rows (98–114 versus 118–151), the midbody scale rows (37–44 versus 47–56), and the relative frontal width (82.6–91.1 versus 65.6–82.1). From C. capitulatus sp. nov., we distinguish C. crusculus by the relative frontal width (82.6–91.1 versus 78.1–81.6). From C. duquesneyi, we distinguish C. crusculus by the dorsal pattern (absent/flecks in series/dots in chevrons versus bands), the longitudinal paramedian lines (present versus absent), the midbody scale rows (37–44 versus 48), the total lamellae on one hand (30–39 versus 64), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (18.7–24.7 versus 31.4), the relative eye length (2.93–3.61 versus 4.36), the relative forelimb length (12.8–20.7 versus 24.4), the relative ear width (0.716–2.00 versus 2.45), the relative rostral height (1.62–2.04 versus 2.14), the relative head length (15.5–20.3 versus 21.6), the relative mental width (1.37–2.31 versus 2.35), the relative cloacal width (6.89–8.77 versus 9.98), the relative prefrontal width (3.93–4.67 versus 5.41), the relative largest supraocular width (1.97–2.65 versus 2.66), the relative longest finger length (2.94–4.10 versus 6.52), the relative frontal width (82.6–91.1 versus 75.2), the relative angled subocular height (0.953–1.21 versus 1.61), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.31–4.86 versus 5.46), the relative angled subocular width (2.03–2.43 versus 2.90), and the relative nasal width (1.27–1.60 versus 2.01). From C. hesperius sp. nov., we distinguish C. crusculus by the relative head width (72.1–76.4 versus 76.5–79.8). From C. hewardi, we distinguish C. crusculus by the dorsal pattern (absent/flecks in series/dots in chevrons versus mottled/bands), the adult SVL (59.6–77.6 versus 129–171), the total lamellae on one hand (30–39 versus 50–61), the relative forelimb length (12.8–20.7 versus 22.2–24.6), the relative cloacal width (6.89–8.77 versus 8.81–9.89), the relative longest finger length (2.94– 4.10 versus 5.03–5.66), the relative frontal width (82.6–91.1 versus 57.3–75.3), and the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.31–4.86 versus 5.00–5.60). From C. jamesbondi sp. nov., we distinguish C. crusculus by the relative frontal width (82.6–91.1 versus 70.5–77.6). From C. macrolepis, we distinguish C. crusculus by the dorsal pattern (absent/flecks in series/dots in chevrons versus bicolored), the longitudinal paramedian lines (present versus absent), the adult SVL (59.6–77.6 versus 254–316), the midbody scale rows (37–44 versus 46–48), the total lamellae on one hand (30–39 versus 52–54), the total strigae on ten scales (106–194 versus 398), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (18.7–24.7 versus 27.5–28.0), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.339–0.884 versus 1.39–1.66), the relative eye length (2.93–3.61 versus 3.63–3.70), the relative forelimb length (12.8–20.7 versus 26.1–26.7), the relative postmental width (2.73–3.37 versus 3.81), the relative cloacal width (6.89–8.77 versus 11.2), the relative longest finger length (2.94–4.10 versus 5.47–5.51), the relative frontal width (82.6–91.1 versus 78.4), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.31–4.86 versus 6.02), the relative angled subocular width (2.03–2.43 versus 2.57), and the relative nasal width (1.27–1.60 versus 1.75). From C. macrotus, we distinguish C. crusculus by the dorsal pattern (absent/flecks in series/dots in chevrons versus chevrons/bands), the dots arranged in bars in the lateral areas (absent versus present), the ventral scale rows (98–114 versus 87–93), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (18.7–24.7 versus 30.2–31.2), the relative eye length (2.93–3.61 versus 3.79–5.17), the relative forelimb length (12.8–20.7 versus 22.4–25.0), the relative prefrontal width (3.93–4.67 versus 4.87–5.55), the relative largest supraocular width (1.97–2.65 versus 2.96–4.03), the relative longest finger length (2.94–4.10 versus 6.43–6.67), the relative frontal width (82.6–91.1 versus 57.6–66.1), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.31–4.86 versus 5.48–5.60), the relative angled subocular width (2.03–2.43 versus 2.77–2.83), and the relative nasal width (1.27–1.60 versus 2.08–2.33). From C. microblepharis, we distinguish C. crusculus by the dorsal pattern (absent/flecks in series/dots in chevrons versus chevrons), the longitudinal paramedian lines (present versus absent), the adult SVL (59.6–77.6 versus 96.4), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (18.7– 24.7 versus 16.6), the relative eye length (2.93–3.61 versus 1.83), the relative ear width (0.716–2.00 versus 0.446), the relative head length (15.5–20.3 versus 14.7), the relative postmental width (2.73–3.37 versus 2.47), the relative nasal height (0.925–1.37 versus 0.726), the relative angled subocular height (0.953–1.21 versus 0.778), the relative angled subocular width (2.03–2.43 versus 2.90), and the relative nasal width (1.27–1.60 versus 1.11). From C. molesworthi, we distinguish C. crusculus by the adult SVL (59.6–77.6 versus 78.1–103), the relative longest finger length (2.94–4.10 versus 4.28–5.19), and the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.31–4.86 versus 5.32– 5.50). From C. occiduus, we distinguish C. crusculus by the longitudinal paramedian lines (present versus absent), the adult SVL (59.6–77.6 versus 269–367), the midbody scale rows (37–44 versus 46–56), the total lamellae on one hand (30–39 versus 50–66), the total strigae on ten scales (106–194 versus 374), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.339–0.884 versus 1.26–1.27), the relative forelimb length (12.8–20.7 versus 23.5– 23.9), the relative head length (15.5–20.3 versus 20.4–20.6), the relative postmental width (2.73–3.37 versus 3.57), the relative cloacal width (6.89–8.77 versus 9.00), the relative prefrontal width (3.93–4.67 versus 4.76), the relative longest finger length (2.94–4.10 versus 4.77–5.46), the relative distance between the ear and eye (6.07–8.61 versus 8.98–10.9), the relative frontal width (82.6–91.1 versus 63.8), the relative angled subocular height (0.953–1.21 versus 1.30), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.31–4.86 versus 6.51), the relative angled subocular width (2.03–2.43 versus 2.52), and the relative nasal width (1.27–1.60 versus 1.83). From C. oligolepis sp. nov., we distinguish C. crusculus by the midbody scale rows (37–44 versus 35). From C. striatus, we distinguish C. crusculus by the adult SVL (59.6–77.6 versus 145), the total lamellae on one hand (30–39 versus 59–66), the total strigae on ten scales (106–194 versus 279), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (18.7–24.7 versus 37.8), the relative eye length (2.93–3.61 versus 3.85), the relative forelimb length (12.8–20.7 versus 26.1), the relative prefrontal width (3.93–4.67 versus 5.68), the relative longest finger length (2.94–4.10 versus 7.48), the relative distance between the ear and eye (6.07–8.61 versus 9.00), the relative frontal width (82.6–91.1 versus 76.5), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.31–4.86 versus 6.16), and the relative width of canthal iii (1.59–2.07 versus 2.12). (Schools & Hedges 2024) Additional details (1835 characters) are available for collaborators and contributors. Please contact us for details. |
| Comment | For illustrations see Schwartz and Henderson, 1985. Synonymy: BOULENGER (1888: 9) in the Zoological Record of 1888 noted that maculatus is synonymous with striatus. Schools & Hedges 2024 follow Cousens 1956 in considering Celestus crusculus cundalli GRANT 1940 as invalid. The classification of C. crusculus by Schools & Hedges 2021 is inconsistent. They treated Celestus crusculus molesworthi as full species status without having DNA sequences and without further comment but left cundalli and crusculus stand as paraphyletic clades, without explicitly changing their status (although they do mention that cundalli may warrant specific status). Reference images: see Uetz et al. 2024 for high-resolution reference images for this species. |
| Etymology | Named after Latin “crusculum” meaning “little leg”, likely in reference to the species’ shorter legs. Garman does not explain the etymology. C. c. cundalli was named after Mr. Frank Cundall. |
| References |
|
| External links |