Geophis cansecoi GRÜNWALD, AHUMADA-CARRILLO, GRÜNWALD, MONTAÑO-RUVALCABA & GARCÍA-VÁZQUEZ, 2021
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Geophis cansecoi?
Geophis cansecoi
We have no photos, try to find some by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Colubridae (Dipsadinae), Colubroidea, Caenophidia, Alethinophidia, Serpentes, Squamata (snakes) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | |
| Synonym | Geophis cansecoi GRÜNWALD, AHUMADA-CARRILLO, GRÜNWALD, MONTAÑO-RUVALCABA & GARCÍA-VÁZQUEZ 2021 |
| Distribution | Mexico (Veracruz : northern slopes of the Sierra de Misantla,between the cities of Misantla and Xalapa). Type locality: 0.9 km south of Los Capulines, on Misantla-Chiconquiaco Hwy., Municipio de Yecuatla, (19.811724°, -96.824587°, datum WGS84, 1,590 m asl), Veracruz, Mexico. |
| Reproduction | |
| Types | Holotype: MZFZ 4432, adult male, collected by Christoph I. Grünwald, André J. Grünwald, and Iván T. Ahumada-Carrillo on June 5, 2017 Paratypes: (n=14) MZFZ 4433 (CIG 01162). Adult, DOR, collected at 1.1 km south of Los Capulines, on Misantla-Chiconquiaco Hwy., Municipio de Yecuatla, (19.810740°, -96.824874°, datum WGS84, 1,626 m asl), Veracruz, Mexico, on 6 June 2017 by Christoph I. Grünwald, Iván T. Ahumada-Carrillo, and André J. Grünwald. MZFZ 4434–35 (CIG 01378–79), MZFZ 4436–38 (CIG 01393–95), INIRENA 2811–14 (CIG 01396–99), MZFZ 4448–49 (CIG 01490–91). Adults and juveniles, collected at Los Capulines, on Misantla-Chiconquiaco Hwy., Municipio de Yecuatla, (19.813360°, -96.827240°, datum WGS84, 1,570 m asl), Veracruz, Mexico, on 8 June 2019 by Christoph I. Grünwald, André J. Grünwald, and Carlos E. MontañoRuvalcaba. INIRENA 2815–16 (CIG 01386–87). Adults, collected at 3.7 km S of Los Capulines, on MisantlaChiconquiaco Hwy., Municipio de Chinconquiaco, (19.793370°, -96.822970°, datum WGS84, 1,763 m asl), Veracruz, Mexico, on 8 June 2019 by Christoph I. Grünwald, André J. Grünwald, and Carlos E. Montaño-Ruvalcaba |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis: “A member of the Geophis dubius group, as defned by Downs (1967) and expanded by Wilson and Townsend (2007), and characterized by the following combination of traits: eye relatively small; single supraocular and postocular present on each side (with one exception, see below); no anterior temporal scale, penultimate supralabial and parietal in contact; second infralabials small, broadly separated from each other; mental scale and anterior chinshields in contact; smooth dorsal scales throughout the body arranged in 17 rows; ventrals 134–142 in females (n = 7), and 125–131 in males (n = 7); subcaudals 28–35 in females (n = 7), and 34–37 in males (n = 7), with ventral + subcaudal totals 163–173 in females (n = 7) and 159–165 in males (n = 7); tail length 11.6–16.3% of TotL in females, 16.7–19.0% of TotL in males; dorsal pattern slate gray, with crimson red lateral stripe on each side, usually on frst three or four scale rows but occasionally occupying part of the ffth; venter pale cream, except on the ventral surfaces of the head and throat, which are gray; maxillary teeth 6–8.” Comparisons: “Geophis cansecoi is distinct from all species in the G. championi and G. semidoliatus groups, as well as most species in the G. sieboldi group by possessing the dorsal scales arranged in 17 rows (vs. 15 rows), and from the remaining species in the G. sieboldi group by possessing smooth dorsal scales throughout the body (vs. dorsal scales keeled on posterior half of body). Geophis cansecoi differs from all species in the G. omiltemanus and G. chaylybeus groups by a small eye, 10–12% of head length (vs. >12%); furthermore, from the species in the G. omiltemanus group by lacking an anterior temporal scale, thus either the fourth or fifth supralabial in contact with parietal (vs. fifth supralabial separated from parietal by anterior temporal scale); from some species in the G. chalybeus group (G. dugesii, G. nigrocinctus, and G. tarascae) by possessing dorsal scales arranged in 17 rows (vs. 15 rows) and from the remaining species by possessing a mental and anterior chinshields in contact (vs. separated by a pair of enlarged first infralabials, which are in contact). Geophis cansecoi can be distinguished from members of the G. latifrontalis group as follows: from G. latifrontalis and G. mutitorques by lacking an anterior temporal scale and possessing the fourth or fifth supralabial in contact with parietal (vs. fifth supralabial separated from parietal by anterior temporal scale); from G. blanchardi and G. latifrontalis by possessing mental and anterior chinshields in contact (vs. separated by a pair of enlarged first infralabials which are in contact), as well as from all species by its unique color pattern of slate gray ground coloration with two crimson red lateral stripes (vs. variable ground coloration with or without bands and without lateral stripes). Geophis cansecoi can be distinguished from species within its own Geophis dubius group, as follows: from G. carinosus, G. juarezi, G. rostralis, and sometimes G. turbidus by possessing smooth scales throughout the body (vs. strongly keeled dorsal scales on posterior portion of the body or above vent); from G. anocularis, G. duellmani, and G. rhodogaster by usually possessing a supraocular scale (vs. supraocular scale absent); from G. anocularis and G. duellmani by possessing a postocular scale (vs. postocular scale absent); from G. dubius and G. fuscus (see below) by possessing internasal scales and prefrontal scales that are not fused (vs. fused); from G. carinosus, G. dubius, G. immaculatus, G. juarezi, G. nephodrymus, G. rhodogaster, and sometimes G. turbidus by frst infralabial scales that are broadly separated, never in contact (vs. in contact or narrowly separated); from G. carinosus, G. juarezi, and sometimes G. anocularis and G. fulvoguttatus by possessing more than 125 ventral scales in males (vs. less than 125); from G. anocularis and usually from G. carinosus and G. immaculatus by possessing more than 134 ventral scales in females (vs. usually fewer); from G. dubius by possessing fewer than 142 ventral scales in females (vs. more than 144); from G. carinosus, G. duellmani, G. juarezi, G. rhodogaster, and G. rostralis by possessing fewer than 38 subcaudal scales in males (vs. 39 or more); from G. nephodrymus and G. lorancai by possessing 34 or more subcaudal scales in males (vs. 35 or less); from G. carinosus and G. juarezi by possessing fewer than 35 subcaudal scales in females (vs. 37 or more); from all species in the species group other than G. lorancai by possessing fewer maxillary teeth 6–8 (vs. 9 or more); from G. annocularis, G. carinosus, G. duellmani, G. juarezi, G. rhodogaster, and G. rostralis by possessing a shorter tail in males, 17–19% of TotL (vs. more than 19% of TotL); from G. nephodrymus by possessing a longer tail in males 17–19% of TotL (vs. less than 17% of TotL); from G. carinosus, G. duellmani, and G. juarezi, by possessing a shorter tail in females, 12–16% of TotL (vs. more than 16% of TotL); and from all species in the species group by its unique color pattern of slate gray ground coloration with two crimson red lateral stripes (vs. variable ground coloration with or without bands and without lateral stripes).” Morphological variations (13 specimens): “MZFZ 4436–37 has only five supralabials on the right side (supralabials 3 and 4 are fused or partially fused). Four midgulars in MZFZ 4434 and MZFZ 4449, and irregularly split in INIRENA 2816, where it can be understood to represent either three or four midgulars between the posterior chinshields and first ventral. Supraocular absent on the right side of the head in INIRENA 2811.” |
| Comment | |
| Etymology | The specifc epithet honors to Luis Canseco-Márquez, a Mexican herpetologist who has dedicated a portion of his career to the study of snakes of the genus Geophis. |
| References |
|
| External links |