Panolopus aenetergum SCHWARTZ & JACOBS, 1989
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Panolopus aenetergum?
Panolopus aenetergum
We have no photos, try to find some by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Diploglossidae, Diploglossa, Anguimorpha, Sauria, Squamata (lizards) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | E: Isla Catalinita Forest Lizard |
| Synonym | Celestus costatus aenetergum — POWELL & HENDERSON 2012 Panolopus costatus aenetergum — SCHOOLS & HEDGES 2021 (by implication) Panolopus aenetergum — SCHOOLS & HEDGES 2024: 134 |
| Distribution | Isla Catalinita Type locality: Isla Catalinita, La Altagracia, Dominican Republic, on 27 July 1975 (18.195, -68.638; 0 m) |
| Reproduction | ovoviviparous |
| Types | Holotype: MCZ 3606. Holotype: USNM 197323 [aenetergum] Holotype: MCZ 77158 [chalcorhabdus] Holotype: USNM 167300, adult female; paratypes: CM, USNM, MCZ [emys] Holotype: MCZ 77154 [leionotus] Holotype: MCZ 77157 [melanchrous] Holotype: MCZ 77155 [neiba] Holotype: MCZ 77153 [nesobous] Holotype: MCZ 74940 [oreistes] Holotype: MCZ 12457 [phoxinus] Holotype: MCZ 77156 [psychonothes] Holotype: CM 52285, adult female [saonae] |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis: Panolopus aenetergum has (1) a dorsal pattern of irregular dots, (2) head markings absent, (3) markings in the longitudinal paramedian area absent, (4) dots arranged in bars in the lateral band present, (5) an adult SVL of 83.0–92.0 mm, (6) ventral scale rows, 80–86, (7) midbody scale rows, 35–36, (8) total lamellae on one hand, 40, (9) total strigae on ten scales, 267, (10) relative length of all digits on one hindlimb, 26.8 %, (11) relative distance between the angled subocular and mouth, 0.717 %, (12) relative eye length, 3.34 %, (13) relative forelimb length, 20.6 %, (14) relative ear width, 1.29 %, (15) relative rostral height, 2.09 %, (16) relative head length, 17.5 %, (17) relative mental width, 1.63 %, (18) relative postmental width, 2.62 %, (19) relative cloacal width, 7.60 %, (20) relative prefrontal width, 4.15 %, (21) relative largest supraocular width, 2.49 %, (22) relative longest finger length, 4.83 %, (23) relative distance between the ear and eye, 8.40 %, (24) relative head width, 76.4 %, (25) relative frontal width, 88.2 %, (26) relative nasal height, 1.15 %, (27) relative angled subocular height, 1.08 %, (28) relative distance between the eye and naris, 4.35 %, (29) relative canthal iii length, 1.86 %, (30) relative angled subocular width, 2.07 %, and (31) relative nasal length, 1.92 %. No genetic data are available to estimate the species stem or crown time. Panolopus aenetergum has a smaller relative angled subocular width (2.07) and a larger relative frontal width (88.2) than most other species of the genus. From Panolopus aporus, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the midbody scale rows (35–36 versus 37–42), the total strigae on ten scales (267 versus 150–235), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (26.8 versus 27.7– 33.7), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.717 versus 0.441–0.669), the relative mental width (1.63 versus 1.72–2.08), the relative cloacal width (7.60 versus 7.92–8.86), the relative prefrontal width (4.15 versus 4.18–4.53), the relative largest supraocular width (2.49 versus 2.74–3.62), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 61.7–75.1), the relative angled subocular height (1.08 versus 0.638–1.02), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.35 versus 4.69–5.44), the relative angled subocular width (2.07 versus 2.32–2.73), and the relative nasal width (1.92 versus 1.56–1.78). From P. chalcorhabdus, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the ventral scale rows (80–86 versus 88–97), the total strigae on ten scales (267 versus 184–233), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (26.8 versus 31.3–36.0), the relative cloacal width (7.60 versus 7.74–9.08), the relative prefrontal width (4.15 versus 4.37–4.93), the relative largest supraocular width (2.49 versus 2.52–2.86), the relative longest finger length (4.83 versus 5.29–6.97), the relative head width (76.4 versus 65.0–76.3), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 62.5–80.8), the relative angled subocular height (1.08 versus 0.739–0.854), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.35 versus 4.93–5.62), the relative width of canthal iii (1.86 versus 1.98–2.05), and the relative angled subocular width (2.07 versus 2.36–2.71). From P. costatus, we distinguish P. aenetergum the ventral scale rows (80–86 versus 89–106), the midbody scale rows (35–36 versus 39–43), the total lamellae on one hand (40 versus 49–58), the total strigae on ten scales (267 versus 158–217), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (26.8 versus 31.5–37.8), the relative mental width (1.63 versus 1.66–2.00), the relative longest finger length (4.83 versus 5.53–6.66), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 56.2–67.4), the relative angled subocular height (1.08 versus 0.562–0.886), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.35 versus 5.08–5.50), the relative angled subocular width (2.07 versus 2.36–2.81), and the relative nasal width (1.92 versus 1.58–1.74). From P. curtissi, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots versus absent/irregular flecks), the dots arranged in bars in the lateral areas (present versus absent), the ventral scale rows (80–86 versus 90–103), the total lamellae on one hand (40 versus 32–39), the total strigae on ten scales (267 versus 165–260), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.717 versus 0.393–0.587), the relative forelimb length (20.6 versus 15.1–20.5), the relative longest finger length (4.83 versus 3.59–4.54), the relative distance between the ear and eye (8.40 versus 5.36–7.71), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 65.4–83.1), the relative angled subocular width (2.07 versus 2.26–2.76), and the relative nasal width (1.92 versus 1.44–1.82). From P. diastatus, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots versus absent/irregular flecks), the total strigae on ten scales (267 versus 169– 234), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.717 versus 0.00–0.614), the relative eye length (3.34 versus 2.71–3.32), the relative forelimb length (20.6 versus 16.2–20.1), the relative head width (76.4 versus 69.4–74.8), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 57.4–86.2), and the relative nasal width (1.92 versus 1.41–1.77). From P. emys, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots versus absent/irregular flecks), the adult SVL (83.0–92.0 versus 99.0–113), the ventral scale rows (80–86 versus 89–104), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (26.8 versus 28.9–35.2), the relative rostral height (2.09 versus 2.10–2.37), the relative cloacal width (7.60 versus 8.24–8.96), the relative longest finger length (4.83 versus 5.15–5.83), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 67.7–74.5), the relative nasal height (1.15 versus 0.963–1.10), the relative angled subocular height (1.08 versus 0.696–0.981), and the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.35 versus 4.37–5.19). From P. hylonomus, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots versus absent/irregular flecks), the dots arranged in bars in the lateral areas (present versus absent), the adult SVL (83.0–92.0 versus 59.3–76.5), the total strigae on ten scales (267 versus 169–222), the relative postmental width (2.62 versus 2.67–2.89), the relative cloacal width (7.6 versus 7.98–8.57), the relative prefrontal width (4.15 versus 4.23–4.87), the relative largest supraocular width (2.49 versus 2.65–2.90), the relative distance between the ear and eye (8.40 versus 6.78–8.05), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 64.0–74.5), and the relative width of canthal iii (1.86 versus 1.95–2.03). From P. lanceolatus sp. nov., we distinguish P. aenetergum by the longitudinal paramedian lines (absent versus present), the ventral scale rows (80–86 versus 93–102), the midbody scale rows (35–36 versus 37–43), the total lamellae on one hand (40 versus 41–52), the total strigae on ten scales (267 versus 186–234), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (26.8 versus 28.4–35.9), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.717 versus 0.567– 0.704), the relative cloacal width (7.60 versus 8.01–8.76), the relative distance between the ear and eye (8.4 versus 6.45–7.70), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 63.1–72.1), the relative nasal height (1.15 versus 0.904–1.06), the relative angled subocular height (1.08 versus 0.484–0.854), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.35 versus 4.58–5.05), and the relative angled subocular width (2.07 versus 2.38–3.09). From P. lapierrae sp. nov., we distinguish P. aenetergum by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots versus absent/dots in chevrons) and the ventral scale rows (80–86 versus 90–98). From P. leionotus, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the total lamellae on one hand (40 versus 43–48), the total strigae on ten scales (267 versus 191–266), the relative mental width (1.63 versus 1.67– 2.02), the relative cloacal width (7.60 versus 8.03–8.69), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 68.7–81.2), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.35 versus 4.46–5.61), and the relative angled subocular width (2.07 versus 2.48–2.95). From P. marcanoi, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the head markings (absent versus present), the longitudinal paramedian lines (absent versus present), the ventral scale rows (80–86 versus 89–102), the midbody scale rows (35–36 versus 38–45), the total strigae on ten scales (267 versus 141–254), the relative mental width (1.63 versus 1.75–2.33), the relative prefrontal width (4.15 versus 4.19–5.19), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 59.0–73.0), the relative angled subocular height (1.08 versus 0.505–0.793), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.35 versus 4.68–5.82), and the relative angled subocular width (2.07 versus 2.19–3.14). From P. melanchrous, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the longitudinal paramedian lines (absent versus present), the adult SVL (83.0–92.0 versus 93.2–124), the ventral scale rows (80–86 versus 89–113), the total lamellae on one hand (40 versus 47–58), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (26.8 versus 30.7–41.3), the relative postmental width (2.62 versus 2.71–3.38), the relative cloacal width (7.60 versus 7.61–9.20), the relative prefrontal width (4.15 versus 4.21–5.06), the relative longest finger length (4.83 versus 5.76–7.09), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 61.3– 71.4), the relative nasal height (1.15 versus 0.897–0.952), the relative angled subocular height (1.08 versus 0.680– 0.856), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.35 versus 4.89–5.59), and the relative angled subocular width (2.07 versus 2.28–2.82). From P. neiba, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots versus irregular flecks/dots in chevrons), the total lamellae on one hand (40 versus 45–49), the total strigae on ten scales (267 versus 179–239), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (26.8 versus 29.5–36.6), the relative mental width (1.63 versus 1.66–2.36), the relative prefrontal width (4.15 versus 4.41–5.49), the relative longest finger length (4.83 versus 5.61–6.66), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 63.3–74.0), the relative nasal height (1.15 versus 0.963–1.08), the relative angled subocular height (1.08 versus 0.713–0.885), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.35 versus 4.51–5.01), and the relative angled subocular width (2.07 versus 2.34–2.83). From P. nesobous, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the longitudinal paramedian lines (absent versus present), the midbody scale rows (35–36 versus 38–43), and the total lamellae on one hand (40 versus 50–59). From P. oreistes, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the longitudinal paramedian lines (absent versus present), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (26.8 versus 31.2–40.1), the relative prefrontal width (4.15 versus 4.18–4.96), the relative longest finger length (4.83 versus 5.27–7.23), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 61.6–76.9), the relative nasal height (1.15 versus 0.878–1.06), the relative angled subocular height (1.08 versus 0.737–0.978), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.35 versus 5.01–5.63), the relative angled subocular width (2.07 versus 2.13–3.04), and the relative nasal width (1.92 versus 1.37–1.65). From P. psychonothes, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the ventral scale rows (80–86 versus 88–109), the total strigae on ten scales (267 versus 172–244), the relative longest finger length (4.83 versus 4.89–5.81), the relative distance between the ear and eye (8.4 versus 6.79–8.29), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 66.5–81.0), and the relative angled subocular height (1.08 versus 0.803–0.952). From P. saonae, we distinguish P. aenetergum by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots versus absent), the ventral scale rows (80–86 versus 92–95), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.717 versus 0.517–0.630), and the relative eye length (3.34 versus 3.06–3.20). From P. semitaeniatus sp. nov., we distinguish P. aenetergum by the total strigae on ten scales (267 versus 174–204), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (26.8 versus 30.4– 34.6), the relative forelimb length (20.6 versus 21.3–23.8), the relative ear width (1.29 versus 1.90–2.30), the relative mental width (1.63 versus 1.69–2.09), the relative cloacal width (7.60 versus 8.08–8.23), the relative prefrontal width (4.15 versus 4.38–4.94), the relative largest supraocular width (2.49 versus 2.59–3.32), the relative longest finger length (4.83 versus 5.17–6.05), the relative distance between the ear and eye (8.40 versus 6.64–7.90), the relative head width (76.4 versus 58.8–63.8), the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 63.6–76.5), and the relative angled subocular height (1.08 versus 0.654).From P. unicolor sp. nov., we distinguish P. aenetergum by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots versus absent), the longitudinal paramedian lines (absent versus present), the total strigae on ten scales (267 versus 144), and the relative frontal width (88.2 versus 58.2). (Schools & Hedges 2024) |
| Comment | Distribution: for a map see Schools & Hedges 2024: 134 (Fig. 50) Habitat: Comptus and Panolopus have both ground and tree-adapted ecomorphs (Schools et al. 2022). |
| References |
|
| External links |