Celestus duquesneyi ( Grant 1940b )
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5554.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:26D520E1-4A81-42FC-B9D5-5056605586A1 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C887D9-FFB5-FF86-FF07-BC73FAD5E25F |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Celestus duquesneyi ( Grant 1940b ) |
status |
|
Celestus duquesneyi ( Grant 1940b) View in CoL
Jamaican Blue-tailed Forest Lizard
(Fig. 18–19)
Celestus duquesneyi Grant, 1940b:157 View in CoL . Holotype: MCZ R-45194, collected by Chapman Grant at Portland Point, Clarendon Parish, Jamaica, on 18 April 1937 (17.72, -77.16).
Celestus duquesneyi View in CoL — Grant, 1940a:105.
Celestus duquesneyi View in CoL — Schwartz & Henderson, 1991:372.
Celestus duquesneyi View in CoL — Wilson & Vogel, 2000:244.
Celestus duquesneyi View in CoL — Hedges et al., 2019:17.
Celestus duquesneyi View in CoL — Schools & Hedges, 2021:220.
Celestus duquesneyi View in CoL — Landestoy et al., 2022:204.
Material examined (n=1). JAMAICA. Clarendon. MCZ R-45194, Chapman Grant, Portland Point , 18 April 1937 .
Diagnosis. Celestus duquesneyi has (1) a dorsal pattern of bands, (2) head markings absent, (3) markings in the longitudinal paramedian area absent, (4) dots arranged in bars in the lateral band absent, (5) an adult SVL of 62.1 mm, (6) ventral scale rows, unavailable, (7) midbody scale rows, 48, (8) total lamellae on one hand, 64, (9) total strigae on ten scales, 130, (10) relative length of all digits on one hindlimb, 31.4 %, (11) relative distance between the angled subocular and mouth, 0.644 %, (12) relative eye length, 4.36 %, (13) relative forelimb length, 24.4 %, (14) relative ear width, 2.45 %, (15) relative rostral height, 2.14 %, (16) relative head length, 21.6 %, (17) relative mental width, 2.35 %, (18) relative postmental width, 3.19 %, (19) relative cloacal width, 9.98 %, (20) relative prefrontal width, 5.41 %, (21) relative largest supraocular width, 2.66 %, (22) relative longest finger length, 6.52 %, (23) relative distance between the ear and eye, 7.68 %, (24) relative head width, 64.6 %, (25) relative frontal width, 75.2 %, (26) relative nasal height, unavailable, (27) relative angled subocular height, 1.61 %, (28) relative distance between the eye and naris, 5.46 %, (29) relative canthal iii length, 1.59 %, (30) relative angled subocular width, 2.90 %, and (31) relative nasal length, 2.01 %. The species stem time is 3.59 Ma and the species crown time is not available (Fig. 4).
Celestus duquesneyi differs from most other species of the genus in having a dorsal pattern of bands. This species also has a smaller relative head width (64.6) than all other species of the genus. Celestus duquesneyi also has a larger total lamellae count on one hand (64), relative length of digits on one hindlimb (31.4), relative eye length (4.36), relative ear width (2.45), relative rostral height (2.14), relative head length (21.6), relative mental width (2.35), relative cloacal width (9.98), relative longest finger length (6.52), relative angled subocular height (1.61), and relative angled subocular width (2.90) than most other species of the genus.
From Celestus barbouri , we distinguish C. duquesneyi by the dorsal pattern (bands versus chevrons), the adult SVL (62.1 versus 78.4–93.6), the total lamellae on one hand (64 versus 36–49), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (31.4 versus 18.2–23.5), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.644 versus 0.437 – 0.556), the relative eye length (4.36 versus 2.87–3.63), the relative forelimb length (24.4 versus 15.4–19.0), the relative ear width (2.45 versus 0.810–1.86), the relative rostral height (2.14 versus 1.41–1.66), the relative head length (21.6 versus 14.6–16.6), the relative mental width (2.35 versus 1.51–1.85), the relative cloacal width (9.98 versus 7.64–8.26), the relative prefrontal width (5.41 versus 3.97–4.33), the relative longest finger length (6.52 versus 2.92–3.81), the relative distance between the ear and eye (7.68 versus 6.23–7.15), the relative head width (64.6 versus 73.8–81.7), the relative angled subocular height (1.61 versus 0.553–1.16), the relative distance between the eye and naris (5.46 versus 4.68–4.83), the relative angled subocular width (2.90 versus 1.97–2.52), and the relative nasal width (2.01 versus 1.38–1.65). From C. capitulatus sp. nov., we distinguish C. duquesneyi by the dorsal pattern (bands versus irregular dots/dots in chevrons), the midbody scale rows (48 versus 37–47), the total lamellae on one hand (64 versus 25–38), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (31.4 versus 17.6–22.3), the relative eye length (4.36 versus 2.75–3.80), the relative forelimb length (24.4 versus 14.3–18.1), the relative ear width (2.45 versus 0.671–2.04), the relative rostral height (2.14 versus 1.51–2.03), the relative head length (21.6 versus 15.1–17.7), the relative mental width (2.35 versus 1.28–1.84), the relative postmental width (3.19 versus 2.62–2.97), the relative cloacal width (9.98 versus 7.84–8.67), the relative prefrontal width (5.41 versus 4.30–4.72), the relative largest supraocular width (2.66 versus 2.03–2.61), the relative longest finger length (6.52 versus 3.45– 3.75), the relative head width (64.6 versus 71.6–78.6), the relative frontal width (75.2 versus 78.1–81.6), the relative angled subocular height (1.61 versus 0.586–1.01), the relative distance between the eye and naris (5.46 versus 4.57–5.03), the relative angled subocular width (2.90 versus 1.93–2.32), and the relative nasal width (2.01 versus 1.40–1.84). From C. crusculus , we distinguish C. duquesneyi by the dorsal pattern (bands versus absent/flecks in series/dots in chevrons), the longitudinal paramedian lines (absent versus present), the midbody scale rows (48 versus 37–44), the total lamellae on one hand (64 versus 30–39), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (31.4 versus 18.7–24.7), the relative eye length (4.36 versus 2.93–3.61), the relative forelimb length (24.4 versus 12.8– 20.7), the relative ear width (2.45 versus 0.716–2.00), the relative rostral height (2.14 versus 1.62–2.04), the relative head length (21.6 versus 15.5–20.3), the relative mental width (2.35 versus 1.37–2.31), the relative cloacal width (9.98 versus 6.89–8.77), the relative prefrontal width (5.41 versus 3.93–4.67), the relative largest supraocular width (2.66 versus 1.97–2.65), the relative longest finger length (6.52 versus 2.94–4.10), the relative frontal width (75.2 versus 82.6–91.1), the relative angled subocular height (1.61 versus 0.953–1.21), the relative distance between the eye and naris (5.46 versus 4.31–4.86), the relative angled subocular width (2.9 versus 2.03–2.43), and the relative nasal width (2.01 versus 1.27–1.60). From C. hesperius sp. nov., we distinguish C. duquesneyi by the dorsal pattern (bands versus dots in chevrons), the midbody scale rows (48 versus 39–44), the total lamellae on one hand (64 versus 29–34), and the relative ear width (2.45 versus 1.52–1.59). From C. hewardi , we distinguish C. duquesneyi by the adult SVL (62.1 versus 129–171), the total lamellae on one hand (64 versus 50–61), the total strigae on ten scales (130 versus 164–315), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (31.4 versus 24.1–30.6), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.644 versus 0.744–1.40), the relative eye length (4.36 versus 2.98– 4.05), the relative ear width (2.45 versus 1.40–1.82), the relative rostral height (2.14 versus 1.50–1.76), the relative mental width (2.35 versus 1.75–1.81), the relative cloacal width (9.98 versus 8.81–9.89), the relative prefrontal width (5.41 versus 4.18–4.80), the relative longest finger length (6.52 versus 5.03–5.66), the relative head width (64.6 versus 68.4–77.1), the relative angled subocular height (1.61 versus 0.918–1.30), the relative width of canthal iii (1.59 versus 1.70–2.12), the relative angled subocular width (2.90 versus 1.63–2.23), and the relative nasal width (2.01 versus 1.56–1.88). From C. jamesbondi sp. nov., we distinguish C. duquesneyi by the dorsal pattern (bands versus absent/irregular dots/dots in chevrons), the midbody scale rows (48 versus 35–44), the total lamellae on one hand (64 versus 30–36), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (31.4 versus 19.8–26.3), the relative eye length (4.36 versus 2.94–4.06), the relative forelimb length (24.4 versus 14.4–19.9), the relative ear width (2.45 versus 0.917–2.18), the relative head length (21.6 versus 15.1–20.4), the relative mental width (2.35 versus 1.59–2.01), the relative postmental width (3.19 versus 2.61–2.92), the relative cloacal width (9.98 versus 6.59–9.08), the relative prefrontal width (5.41 versus 4.29–5.09), the relative longest finger length (6.52 versus 3.66–4.33), the relative head width (64.6 versus 76.0–80.8), the relative angled subocular height (1.61 versus 0.893–1.18), the relative width of canthal iii (1.59 versus 1.75–2.16), the relative angled subocular width (2.90 versus 2.09–2.76), and the relative nasal width (2.01 versus 1.42–1.75). From C. macrolepis , we distinguish C. duquesneyi by the dorsal pattern (bands versus bicolored), the adult SVL (62.1 versus 254–316), the total strigae on ten scales (130 versus 398), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.644 versus 1.39–1.66), and the relative ear width (2.45 versus 0.760–1.43). From C. macrotus , we distinguish C. duquesneyi by the longitudinal paramedian lines (absent versus present), the dots arranged in bars in the lateral areas (absent versus present), the midbody scale rows (48 versus 41–45), the total lamellae on one hand (64 versus 39–40), the relative ear width (2.45 versus 1.75–2.08), and the relative rostral height (2.14 versus 1.61–1.95). From C. microblepharis , we distinguish C. duquesneyi by the dorsal pattern (bands versus chevrons), the total lamellae on one hand (64 versus 30), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (31.4 versus 16.6), the relative eye length (4.36 versus 1.83), the relative forelimb length (24.4 versus 14.2), the relative ear width (2.45 versus 0.446), the relative mental width (2.35 versus 1.44), the relative longest finger length (6.52 versus 3.11), and the relative angled subocular height (1.61 versus 0.778), and the relative nasal width (2.01 versus 1.11). From C. molesworthi , we distinguish C. duquesneyi by the dorsal pattern (bands versus dots in chevrons), the adult SVL (62.1 versus 78.1–103), the total lamellae on one hand (64 versus 32–44), the total strigae on ten scales (130 versus 138–159), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (31.4 versus 22.4–29.4), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.644 versus 0.653 –0.845), the relative eye length (4.36 versus 3.28–3.70), the relative forelimb length (24.4 versus 17.5–24.2), the relative ear width (2.45 versus 1.37– 1.50), the relative rostral height (2.14 versus 1.72–1.81), and the relative head length (21.6 versus 17.2–20.0). From C. occiduus , we distinguish C. duquesneyi by the dorsal pattern (bands versus absent), the adult SVL (62.1 versus 269–367), the total strigae on ten scales (130 versus 374), and the relative ear width (2.45 versus 0.948–1.39). From C. oligolepis sp. nov., we distinguish C. duquesneyi by the dorsal pattern (bands versus dots in chevrons), the head markings (absent versus present), the longitudinal paramedian lines (absent versus present), and the total lamellae on one hand (64 versus 30). From C. striatus , we distinguish C. duquesneyi by the dorsal pattern (bands versus absent/chevrons), the adult SVL (62.1 versus 145), the total strigae on ten scales (130 versus 279), and the relative ear width (2.45 versus 1.30).
Description of holotype. MCZ R-45194. An adult; SVL 62.1 mm; tail nearly cylindrical, broken, 121 mm (195% SVL); axilla-to-groin distance 33.2 mm (53.5% SVL); forelimb length 15.2 mm (24.5% SVL); hindlimb length 23.2 mm (37.4% SVL); head length 13.4 mm (21.6% SVL); head width 8.63 mm (13.9% SVL); head width 64.4% head length; diameter of orbit 2.71 mm (4.36% SVL); horizontal diameter of ear opening 1.52 mm (2.45% SVL); vertical diameter of ear opening 1.77 mm (2.85% SVL); length of all toes on one foot 19.5 mm (31.4% SVL); shortest distance between angled subocular and lip 0.40 mm (0.644% SVL); shortest distance between the ocular and auricular openings 4.77 mm (7.68% SVL); longest finger length 4.05 mm (6.52% SVL); largest supraocular width 1.65 mm (2.66% SVL); cloacal width 6.20 mm (9.98% SVL); mental width 1.46 mm (2.35% SVL); postmental width 1.98 mm (3.19% SVL); prefrontal width 3.36 mm (5.41% SVL); frontal width 75.2% frontal length; angled subocular height 1.00 mm (1.61% SVL); shortest distance between the eye and naris 3.39 mm (5.46% SVL); canthal iii width 0.99 mm (1.59% SVL); angled subocular width 1.80 mm (2.90% SVL); nasal width 1.25 mm (2.01% SVL); rostral 2.14X as wide as high, visible from above, not in contact with nasals, in contact with 1 st supralabial and anterior internasal (left)/(right); anterior internasals are narrower than posterior ones; frontonasals and prefrontal fused into a single large plate with a concave posterior margin, much wider than long, bordered by posterior internasals, 1 st loreals, 1 st and 2 nd median oculars, and the frontal; frontal longer than wide; a pair of frontoparietals (left damaged), separated by the posterior prolongation of the frontal; interparietal plate smaller than parietals and separating them, posteriorly touching the interoccipital, which is wider than long; parietal separated from supraoculars by 1 st temporal and frontoparietal (right)/damaged (left); nasal single; nostril above suture between 1 st and 2 nd supralabials (left)/(right); 1 postnasal (left)/(right); 2 (left)/(right) loreals; 1 st loreal higher than wide (left)/(right), in contact with postnasal, posterior internasal, prefrontal/frontonasal complex, 1 st median ocular, canthal iii, 2 nd loreal, and 3 rd –5 th supralabials (left)/(right); 2 nd loreal shorter than 1 st, approximately as high as wide (left)/(right), excluded from contact with supraocular by canthal iii (left)/(right); final loreal posteriorly bordering the upper and lower preoculars (left)/(right); canthal iii wider than high (left)/(right), contacting 1 st median ocular, anterior supraciliary, upper preocular, and 1 st and 2 nd loreals (left)/(right); 10 median oculars (left)/(right), 1 st and 2 nd contacting the prefrontal (left)/(right); 1 upper preocular (left)/(right); an irregular anterior supraciliary (left)/(right); 6 lateral oculars (left)/(right); 6 (right)/damaged (left) temporals; 3 (left)/4 (right) suboculars; posterior subocular large and elongate (left)/(right); anterior subocular small (left)/(right); 10 supralabials (left)/(right), 7 to level below center of eye (left)/(right); 11 infralabials (left)/(right), 7 to level below center of eye (left)/(right); mental small, followed by a single, larger postmental; 6 pairs of enlarged chin shields; 1 st pair in contact with one another; 2 nd –6 th pairs separated by 1–7 scales; 114 transverse rows of dorsal scales from interoccipital to base of tail; 48 scales around midbody; 5 digits; finger lengths 3>4>52>5>1; 15 (right)/damaged (left) lamellae under longest finger; 64 total lamellae on one hand; toe lengths 4>3>5>2>1; 23 (left)/24 (right) lamellae under longest toe; striate with a median keel dorsal body and caudal scales; faintly striated ventral scales; 130 total strigae counted on ten scales.
FIGURE 18. (A–F) Celestus duquesneyi (MCZ R-45194, holotype), SVL 62.1 mm.
Color (in alcohol): dorsal surface of head golden tan and patternless; lateral surfaces of head grading from golden tan to cream with darker brown eye masks; dorsal surfaces of the body are medium brown and covered in darker brown and cream bands; dorsal surface of tail paler cream with spots that fade to stripes of dark and pale brown; lateral areas are the same color as the dorsum with the dots from the dorsum aligning on the sides, which fade to cream; dorsal surfaces of the limbs are golden tan with paler mottling; lateral and ventral areas of the limbs fade to pale cream, patternless; ventral surfaces of the head, body, and tail are pale cream and patternless (blue in life, especially in young and young adult specimens).
FIGURE 19. Celestus duquesneyi (vouchers not available), in life. From Hellshire Hills, St. Catherine Parish, Jamaica. Photo by Byron S. Wilson.
Variation. No other specimens were available for examination. Measurements and other morphological data for the holotype are presented in Table 1.
Distribution. Celestus duquesneyi is found on the Portland Ridge peninsula and in the Hellshire Hills region of southern Jamaica at elevations of 10–160 m (Fig. 12).
Ecology and conservation. Little information is available on the ecology of Celestus duquesneyi . This species has been observed in dry leaf litter of a dry forest ( Grant 1940a, b; Wilson & Vogel 2000).
The IUCN Redlist ( IUCN 2023) considers the conservation status of Celestus duquesneyi to be Critically Endangered B1ab(iii,v) because “following this species’ presumed extinction at Portland Ridge it is restricted to a single location, the Hillshire Hills, with an extent of occurrence (and consequently a maximum area of occupancy) estimated to be no more than 13 km 2. It is undergoing continuing declines in the extent, area, and quality of habitat, and number of mature individuals, and has lost one of its two subpopulations within the past 80 years.” Arboreal habits might have allowed this species to persist after the introduction of the mongoose in Jamaica ( Schools & Hedges 2022). Studies are needed to determine the health and extent of remaining populations and threats to the survival of the species. Captive-breeding programs should be undertaken because eradication of introduced mammalian predators is not yet possible on Jamaica.
Reproduction. No data on reproduction are available for this species.
Etymology. The species name refers to Douglas DuQuesnay, the collector of the type specimen.
Remarks. In the original description, this species was identified as unique based on its banded blue and black tail and was placed in the “long-legged” group of Jamaican celestines ( Grant 1940a). At the time, Grant (1940a) suspected that it was most closely related to Celestus occiduus . Upon collection, the nearby lighthouse custodian noted that he had seen others of the species ( Grant 1940a). Later, an individual C. hewardi , collected far from the type locality of C. duquesneyi , had blue and brown bands on its tail ( Schwartz 1971a). This led to speculation that a close relationship existed between C. duquesneyi , C. fowleri (another member of the “long-legged” Jamaican celestines; determined to be a synonym of C. striatus in this work), and C. hewardi ( Schwartz 1971a) .
Celestus duquesneyi is included in our genetic dataset and is identified as the closest relative of C. hewardi in our ML analysis with a significant support value and in our Bayesian analysis with a support value of 71%. Genomic data from Schools et al. (2022) identified C. duquesneyi as the closest relative of C. molesworthi with a support value of 52% in ML analyses and a significant support value in Bayesian analyses. Based on our timetree (Fig. 4), C. duquesneyi diverged from its closest relative 3.59 Ma, consistent with typical species of vertebrates (> 0.7 Ma; Hedges et al. 2015). Celestus duquesneyi was recognized as a distinct species by our ASAP analysis.
MCZ |
Museum of Comparative Zoology |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Celestus duquesneyi ( Grant 1940b )
Schools, Molly & Hedges, Blair 2024 |
Celestus duquesneyi
Landestoy, M. & Schools, M. & Hedges, S. B. 2022: 204 |
Celestus duquesneyi
Schools, M. & Hedges, S. B. 2021: 220 |
Celestus duquesneyi
Hedges, S. B. & Powell, R. & Henderson, R. W. & Hanson, S. & Murphy, J. C. 2019: 17 |
Celestus duquesneyi
Wilson, B. S. & Vogel, P. 2000: 244 |
Celestus duquesneyi
Schwartz, A. & Henderson, R. W. 1991: 372 |
Celestus duquesneyi
Grant, C. 1940: 157 |
Celestus duquesneyi
Grant, C. 1940: 105 |