Contomastix celata CABRERA, CARREIRA, DI PIETRO & RIVERA, 2019
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Contomastix celata?
Find more photos by Google images search:
|Higher Taxa||Teiidae, Teiinae, Gymnophthalmoidea, Sauria, Squamata (lizards)|
|Synonym||Contomastix celata CABRERA, CARREIRA, DI PIETRO & RIVERA 2019|
|Distribution||Argentina (Buenos Aires, Córdoba)|
Type locality: Villa La Arcadia (38 ̊06’50.42” S, 61 ̊46’22.4” W, 423 m a.s.l.), Partido de Coronel Suárez, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina
|Types||Holotype. MZUC C 672, adult male (Museo de Zoología, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina). 15 September 2012. Collected by D. Di Pietro. The acronym MZUC corresponds to Museo de Zoología, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina. Paratypes. MACN 32867 (adult male) and MLP.S 1049/1050 (adult female and male, respectively) from Sierra de Ventania, Ernesto Tornquist Provincial Park, Partido de Tornquist, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. 16 March 1985. Collected by J. Cranwell, G. Gnida and J. Soroka. MLP.S 1166 (adult female) from Achiras, Río Cuarto Department, Córdoba Province, Argentina. 19 November 1991. Collected by R. Martori and L. Aun. MZUC-C 563 (adult male) from Achiras, Río Cuarto Department, Córdoba Province, Argentina. 4 November 1990. Collected by L. Avila and A. Pettinichi. MZUC-C 567 (adult female) from Achiras, Río Cuarto Department, Córdoba Province, Argentina. 29 December 1990. Collected by L. Avila. MZUC-C 676 (juvenile) from Piedra del Aguila (33 ̊09’33.7”S, 64 ̊59’10.6”W, 828 m a.s.l.), Achiras, Río Cuarto Department, Córdoba Province, Argentina. 11 March 2013. Collected by M. R. Cabrera and R. Torres.|
|Diagnosis||Diagnosis. A small-to-medium sized lizard (70.3 mm maximum SVL), recognisable by the following combination of characters in both sexes: 72–87 granular dorsal scales across midbody; 164–193 dorsal scales along midline; 18–25 scales at midbody between the medialmost light stripes; 10, rarely 8, longitudinal rows of quadrangular ventral scales; 16–23 femoral pores in total; 12–16 subdigital lamellae under fourth finger; 20–24 lamellae under fourth toe; 3–4 supraoculars on each side. Contomastix celata can be distinguished phenotypically from C. leachei (character states in parenthesis) by having fewer lamellar scales under fourth toe (20–24 vs. 27– 30), lateral light stripe broken (continuous), and dorsal ground colour brown (greenish). It is distinguishable from C. serrana (character states in parenthesis) in having fewer lamellar scales under fourth toe (20–24 vs. 23–28), more dorsal scales across (72–87 vs. 63–75) and along the body (164–193 vs. 146–177), 10, rarely fewer, longitudinal rows of ventral scales versus generally 8 in C. serrana, and dorsolateral and/or lateral light stripes usually broken (both invariably continuous). Contomastix celata is distinguishable from the probably extinct C. charrua in having a smaller body (SVL up to 70.3 mm vs. 75.2 mm), fewer dorsal scales across midbody (72–87 vs. 81–98) and along the body (164–193 vs. 201–229), and in always having a striped pattern, whereas C. charrua is completely unstriped or has two thin light stripes on each side of the body, with feeble to no expression of black bars between them. It is distinguishable from C. vacariensis in having fewer dorsal scales across midbody (72–87 vs. 89–98) and along the body (164–193 vs. 212–233), and a different pattern of the light stripes, which in C. vacariensis is formed by dots or spots. Contomastix celata is distinguishable from C. vittata in having a smaller body (SVL up to 70.3 mm vs. 76 mm), more dorsal scales across midbody (72–87 vs. 64), and fewer lamellar scales under the fourth toe (20–24 vs. 24–28), and frequently broken light lateral stripes (continuous in C. vittata). Contomastix celata most closely resembles C. lacertoides in size, body habitus, colour and pattern. It is distinguishable from the latter in having fewer dorsal scales across midbody (72–87 vs. 79–100) and along the body (164–193 vs.175– 230), fewer scales at midbody between the medialmost light stripes (18–25 vs. 20–30), and (statistically) fewer subdigital lamellae on both fourth finger and fourth toe.|
|Comment||Relationships: closely related to C. lacertoides.|
Karyotype: (population of C. celata in Sierras de Córdoba) 2n = 52 with 26 macrochromosomes (12 pairs telocentric, 1 pair submetacentric) and 26 microchromosomes (Delia Aiassa, pers. comm., cited in Cabrera et al. 2019). It is different from the karyotype of C. lacertoides from Uruguay described by Cole et al. (1979), which is 2n = 50 with 26 macrochromosomes (12 pairs telocentric or essentially so, and one pair of submetacentric) and 24 microchromosomes. The karyotype of the populations of C. celata from Sierras de Ventania remains unknown.
|Etymology||The specific epithet is an adjective derived from the Latin word celatus (celata in feminine form), meaning hidden or concealed, in reference to the phenotypical similarity to Contomastix lacertoides, under whose name these populations have been hitherto masquerading.|
Is it interesting? Share with others:
As link to this species use URL address:
without field 'search_param'. Field 'search_param' is used for browsing search result.