Eremias montana RASTEGAR-POUYANI & RASTEGAR-POUYANI, 2001
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Eremias montana?
Eremias montana
We have no photos, try to find some by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Lacertidae, Eremiadinae, Sauria, Lacertoidea, Squamata (lizards) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | E: Mountain racerunner |
| Synonym | Eremias (Eremias) montanus RASTEGAR-POUYANI & RASTEGAR-POUYANI 2001 Eremias novo RASTEGAR-POUYANI & RASTEGAR-POUYANI 2006 Eremias (Eremias) montana — SINDACO & JEREMČENKO 2008 Eremias montanus — PYRON & BURBRINK 2013 Eremias nova — ŠMÍD et al. 2014 Eremias montanus — MOZAFFARI et al. 2016 |
| Distribution | W Iran (Kermanshah Province) Type locality: upland regions of the Zagros mountains, 60 km NE of city of Kermanshah (47° 5’ E, 34° 52’ N), Kermanshah Province, W Iran, about 1800 m elevation novo: Iran (Zagros Mountains); Type locality: upland area (about 2700 m elevation)surrounded by the Zagros Mountains, about 21 km southwest of the city of Hamedan, Hamedan Province, western Iran. |
| Reproduction | oviparous |
| Types | Holotype: RUZM (Razi University Zoological Museum, fide Nasrullah Rastegar, pers. comm., 12 June 2019), only a field number is given in the original description: P198. Type: RUZM 96T-104T (not explicitely called holotype) (Razi University Zoological Museum) [novo] |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis and comparison: A small-sized lacertid, maximum snout-vent length (SVL)= 57.2mm, tail length = 95mm, with 13-14 longitudinal and 27-28 transverse rows of ventral plates, slightly converging posteriorly; with 63-67 small, granular scales across middle of dorsum. A species belonging to the subgenus Eremias: subocular reaches mouth edge; one frontonasal; two supraoculars which are not completely separated from frontal and frontoparietals; distance between the femoral pores being narrow; color pattern "striped"; inhabitant of steppe and mountain-steppe landscapes (Szczerbak, 1974: 83). On the other hand, it differs from all other species of its relevant subgenus based on having several distinguishing characters; the color pattern is distinctive and it is distinguishable from all other species in this character i. e., dorsum uniformly dark-brown without spots and ocelli, interrupted by five light longitudinal stripes; the vertebral stripe bifurcating on the nape, two paravertebrals on each side; a broad dorso-lateral stripe containing one or two regularly arranged light spots (different from the other Eremias species in this character); Furthermore, it differs from each species of the typical subgenus in the following character combinations (Bischoff and Bohme, 1980; Bohme and Szczerbak, 1991; Rastegar-Pouyani and Nilson, 1997; Szczerbak, 1974): From Eremias nigrolateralis Rastegar-Pouyani and Nilson, 1997 in having a much smaller size, lack of separation of the third pair of submaxillary shields by granular scales (0% versus 100%), lower count of gulars (23-24 versus 41-42), variable number of submaxillary shields (33% versus 0%), reach of femoral pores to the knee (100% versus 0%), and distinct differences in color pattern. From Eremias persica Blanford, 1874 in having a smaller size, lower count of gulars (23-24 versus 28-38), the absence of distinctly keeled upper caudal scales (100% versus 75%), variable number of submaxillary shields (33% versus 4%) and distinct differences in color pattern. From E. velox (Pallas, 1771) in having a smaller size, in the absence of distinctly keeled upper caudal scales (100% versus 0%), variable number of submaxillary shields (33% versus 5%) and in color pattern. From E. strauchi Kessler, 1878 in having a smaller size, the absence of distinctly keeled upper caudal scales (100% versus almost 0%), variable number of submaxillary shields (33% versus 9%) and in color pattern. From E. lalezharica Moravec, 1994 in having variable number of submaxillary shields (33% versus 0%), higher count of dorsals (63-68 versus 54-59), no contact of gulars with the second pair of submaxillary shields, lack of a small scale between prefrontals, and distinct differences in color pattern. From E. afghanistanica Bohme and Szczerbak, 1991 in a much higher count of dorsal scales (63-68 versus 44-46), lower count of gulars (23-24 versus 25-28), variable number of submaxillary shields (33% versus 0%), and in color pattern. From E. nikolskii Bedriaga, 1905 in a higher count of dorsals (63-68 versus 45-59), variable number of submaxillary shields (33% versus 8%), and in color pattern. From E. regeli Bedriaga, 1905 in a higher count of dorsals (63-68 versus 43-61), higher number of scales in the 9th-10th caudal annulus (27-28 versus 17-25), the absence of distinctly keeled upper caudal scales (100% versus 0%), variable number of submaxillary shields (33% versus 3%), and in color pattern. (RASTEGAR-POUYANI & RASTEGAR-POUYANI 2001) 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 5158 characters) are available for collaborators and contributors. Please contact us for details. |
| Comment | Distribution: See map in SMID et al. 2014 for distribution in Iran. |
| Etymology | Named after its apparent restriction to the the upland and mountainous steppes of the NE Kermanshah province, Iran. |
| References |
|
| External links |