Eutropis multicarinata (GRAY, 1845)
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Eutropis multicarinata?
|Higher Taxa||Scincidae, Mabuyinae, Scincoidea, Sauria, Squamata (lizards)|
|Synonym||Tiliqua multicarinata GRAY 1845|
Tiliqua multicarinata — MÜLLER 1880
Mabuia multicarinata — BOULENGER 1887
Mabuia multicarinata — DE ROOIJ 1915: 161
Mabuya multicarinata — TAYLOR 1918
Mabuia multicarinata — STERNFELD 1918: 395
Mabuya multicarinata — TAYLOR 1922
Mabuya multicarinata — BROWN & ALCALA 1980: 125
Mabuya multicarinata — GREER et al. 2000
Eutropis multicarinata — MAUSFELD et al. 2002 (misidentification)
Eutropis multicarinata multicarinata — KOCH 2012: 212
Eutropis multicarinata — BARLEY et al. 2020: 58
|Distribution||Philippines (NE Mindanao Island: Agusan del Sur Province, Dinagat, Samar, Leyte, Camiguin Sur)|
Type locality: Philippines
|Types||Holotype: BMNH 1922.214.171.124-15; otherwise given as syntypes: BMNH 19126.96.36.199-15 (formerly xv.94a-c), collected H. Cuming.|
Additional specimens: KU
|Diagnosis||Diagnosis: A species of Eutropis, distinguished by the following combination of characters: (1) body medium-sized (SVL 61–72 mm in adults); (2) interparietal large, parietals not in contact, or in some cases, interparietal fused to nuchal; (3) paravertebrals 34–39; (4) sum of subdigital lamellae on all five toes of one foot 74–80; (5) ventral scales rows 24–29; (6) midbody scale rows 30–33; (7) keels on dorsal and lateral body scales moderately defined, 5–10; (8) lower eyelid scaly; (9) supraciliaries 4–5; (10) prefrontals separated or in contact; (11) primary temporal scales two; (12) dorsal and lateral body surface having relatively uniform bronze and dark brown coloration, respectively, without pronounced light stripes (Barley et al. 2020).|
Comparisons: Critical comparisons for Eutropis multicarinata include other Philippine Eutropis, particularly species from the archipelago’s southern islands. Eutropis multicarinata can be distinguished from members of the E. indeprensa complex (such as E. lapulapu, with which it occurs sympatrically) by its larger (61–72-mm adult SVL), more robust body (vs. 45–70-mm adult SVL in E. lapulapu) and fewer vertebral scale rows (34–39 vs. 39–45). Eutropis multicarinata can be readily distinguished from E. englei by its relatively uniform brown to olive-green dorsum (vs. a prominent series of five dark brown and four bluish-white stripes on the dosum in E. englei). Eutropis multicarinata differs from E. multifasciata by its smaller size, less robust body (adult SVL 61–72 vs. 101–141 mm) and by more numerous (5–10 vs. 3) and moderate (vs. weak) keels on its dorsal scales (Fig. 8). Eutropis multicarinata can be distinguished from E. islamaliit by color pattern in having a gradual mottled light and dark color transition between the light venter and dark lateral band (vs. a crisply defined inferior lateral band border), by a smaller number of total toe lamellae (74–80 vs. 86–92), and slightly smaller adult body size (61–72 vs. 70–97). Eutropis multicarinata is very morphologically similar to E. caraga despite the fact that they occur sympatrically and are highly distinctive genetically (Fig. 5), though E. multicarinata usually has a smaller number of subdigital toe lamellae than E. caraga (74–80 vs. 80–91; trait means are significantly different) (Barley et al. 2020).
Coloration in life: Remains unrecorded, but in our experience, Eutropis coloration in preservative is usually quite similar to that in life, with only minor fading, reduction in brilliance and stark contrasts of light and dark adjacent color features, and loss of vibrant reds, blues, and yellows (Barley et al. 2020).
|Comment||Distribution: previously considered to be a widespread species that occurs in Malaysia (Borneo), Philippines (incl. Bohol, Mindanao), Indonesia (Talaud archipelago, Sulawesi), Palau (Belau) islands, Taiwan (Lanyu), Micronesia, and possibly others, but restricted to populations on Mindanao and nearby islands by Barley et al. 2020. Barley et al. (2013) determined that the southern Philippine populations of E. multicarinata were actually composed of two distinct species (E. multicarinata and Clade E, which they described as E. caraga) that occur syntopically on Mindanao, Samar, and Dinagat Island, and assumed that the Leyte populations were representative of true E. multicarinata. Although these two species are extremely morphologically similar, they do usually differ based on lamellae count (74–80 for E. multicarinata and 80–91 for E. caraga).|
History: Gray (1845) initially described E. multicarinata (the first species described from the endemic Philippine radiation) based on three specimens collected by H. Cuming, but the locality was only labeled as ‘‘Philippines.’’ Brown and Alcala (1980) found that two of the specimens (which Gray mistakenly identified as juveniles, an assumption that was perpetuated by later researchers including Taylor) were mature adults that belonged to a new species they described as E. cumingi. They also suggested that the third specimen (BMNH 19188.8.131.52, which they assigned as the E. multicarinata holotype) was likely drawn from one of the southern populations in the archipelago (which they then described as the subspecies E. m. multicarinata) based on the fact that the interparietal is relatively long and narrow, and the presence of dark markings under the chin and throat. They designated Leyte (somewhat arbitrarily) as the type locality based on the fact that Cuming was known to have visited several islands in the southeastern portion of the archipelago (including Leyte, but also Samar, and Dinagat) (from Barley et al. 2020: 58).