Celestus oligolepis SCHOOLS & HEDGES, 2024
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Celestus oligolepis?
Celestus oligolepis
We have no photos, try to find some by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Diploglossidae, Diploglossa, Anguimorpha, Sauria, Squamata (lizards) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | |
| Synonym | Celestus oligolepis SCHOOLS & HEDGES 2024: 97 Celestus crusculus — Schwartz & Henderson 1991: 369 (part) Celestus crusculus crusculus — Hedges et al. 2019: 17 (part) Celestus crusculus — Schools & Hedges 2021: 220 (part) Celestus crusculus — Landestoy et al. 2022: 204 (part) |
| Distribution | Jamaica Type locality: 7.0 km WSW of Old Hope, Westmoreland Parish, Jamaica |
| Reproduction | |
| Types | Holotype. USNM 328158, a juvenile, collected by S. Blair Hedges and Carla Ann Hass on 29 May 1988 (18.2232, -78.2861; 0 m). |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis. Celestus oligolepis sp. nov. has (1) a dorsal pattern of dots in chevrons, (2) head markings present, (3) markings in the longitudinal paramedian area present, (4) dots arranged in bars in the lateral band absent, (5) a SVL of 30.7 mm (juvenile, only specimen), (6) ventral scale rows, 98, (7) midbody scale rows, 35, (8) total lamellae on one hand, 30, (9) total strigae on ten scales, 83, (10) relative length of all digits on one hindlimb, 34.6 %, (11) relative distance between the angled subocular and mouth, 0.651 %, (12) relative eye length, 4.85 %, (13) relative forelimb length, 21.4 %, (14) relative ear width, 2.28 %, (15) relative rostral height, 2.11 %, (16) relative head length, 19.5 %, (17) relative mental width, 2.28 %, (18) relative postmental width, 4.20 %, (19) relative cloacal width, 8.95 %, (20) relative prefrontal width, 6.41 %, (21) relative largest supraocular width, 4.03 %, (22) relative longest finger length, 5.14 %, (23) relative distance between the ear and eye, 9.14 %, (24) relative head width, 78.3 %, (25) relative frontal width, 74.3 %, (26) relative nasal height, 2.34 %, (27) relative angled subocular height, 1.89 %, (28) relative distance between the eye and naris, 5.63 %, (29) relative canthal iii length, 2.77 %, (30) relative angled subocular width, 3.12 %, and (31) relative nasal length, 2.44 %. The species stem time is 4.20 Ma and the species crown time is unavailable (Fig. 4). Because the only known specimen of Celestus oligolepis sp. nov. is a juvenile, we only differentiate it from other species of Celestus based on pattern and scale count characters. Although pattern can have ontogenetic differences, the number of scales usually does not change with age. Celestus oligolepis sp. nov. has a smaller number of midbody scale rows than most other species of the genus. From Celestus barbouri, we distinguish C. oligolepis sp. nov. by the dorsal pattern (dots in chevrons versus chevrons), the longitudinal paramedian lines (present versus absent), the ventral scale rows (98 versus 118–151), the midbody scale rows (35 versus 47–56), and the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 36–49). From C. capitulatus sp. nov., we distinguish C. oligolepis sp. nov. by the midbody scale rows (35 versus 37–47). From C. crusculus, we distinguish C. oligolepis sp. nov. by the midbody scale rows (35 versus 37–44). From C. duquesneyi, we distinguish C. oligolepis sp. nov. by the dorsal pattern (dots in chevrons versus bands), the head markings (present versus absent), the longitudinal paramedian lines (present versus absent), and the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 64). From C. hesperius sp. nov., we distinguish C. oligolepis sp. nov. by the head markings (present versus absent), the ventral scale rows (98 versus 111–114), and the midbody scale rows (35 versus 39–44). From C. hewardi, we distinguish C. oligolepis sp. nov. by the dorsal pattern (dots in chevrons versus mottled/bands), the head markings (present versus absent), the ventral scale rows (98 versus 113–137), the midbody scale rows (35 versus 43–59), and the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 50–61). From C. jamesbondi sp. nov., we distinguish C. oligolepis sp. nov. by the relative mental to vent scales (2.80 versus 2.14–2.77) (see Remarks). From C. macrolepis, we distinguish C. oligolepis sp. nov. by the dorsal pattern (dots in chevrons versus bicolored), the head markings (present versus absent), the longitudinal paramedian lines (present versus absent), the ventral scale rows (98 versus 112–116), the midbody scale rows (35 versus 46–48), and the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 52–54). From C. macrotus, we distinguish C. oligolepis sp. nov. by the dorsal pattern (dots in chevrons versus chevrons/bands), the dots arranged in bars in the lateral areas (absent versus present), the ventral scale rows (98 versus 87–93), the midbody scale rows (35 versus 41–45), and the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 39–40). From C. microblepharis, we distinguish C. oligolepis sp. nov. by the dorsal pattern (dots in chevrons versus chevrons), the head markings (present versus absent), and the longitudinal paramedian lines (present versus absent). From C. molesworthi, we distinguish C. oligolepis sp. nov. by the ventral scale rows (98 versus 102–125), the midbody scale rows (35 versus 41–49), and the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 32–44). From C. occiduus, we distinguish C. oligolepis sp. nov. by the dorsal pattern (dots in chevrons versus absent), the head markings (present versus absent), the longitudinal paramedian lines (present versus absent), the ventral scale rows (98 versus 109–134), the midbody scale rows (35 versus 46–56), the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 50–66). From C. striatus, we distinguish C. oligolepis sp. nov. by the dorsal pattern (dots in chevrons versus absent/chevrons), the ventral scale rows (98 versus 101–109), the midbody scale rows (35 versus 41–43), and the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 59–66). (Schools & Hedges 2024) |
| Comment | |
| Etymology | Named after Latin oligolepis, an adjective meaning “few scales,” in reference to the low scale counts of this species. |
| References |
|
| External links |