Ameiva ameiva

Harvey, Michael B., Ugueto, Gabriel N. & Gutberlet, Ronald L., 2012, 3459, Zootaxa 3459, pp. 1-156 : 88-89

Ameiva ameiva Group

Definition.— The following combination of characters distinguishes the Ameiva ameiva Group ( Table 5) from other groups of Ameiva : frontal usually entire, its posterior suture usually contacting second supraocular or aligned with suture between second and third supraoculars; frontal ridge absent (faint indication of frontal ridge evident in some specimens of A. atrigularis ); interparietal entire with rare exceptions; parietal series (including interparietal) composed of five (only in rare occasions three) relatively long plates; narial suture passing through nostril; first supralabial usually curved; first subocular usually separated from supralabials by anterior expansion of the second subocular; intertympanic crease present; pectoral sulcus absent; ventral scales in 10–12 longitudinal rows (usually 10); plate-like antebrachials continuous with or narrowly separated from brachial scales; combined femoral and abdominal pores 28–45; fifth toe reduced; complete row of scales separating supradigital and subdigital lamellae along postaxial edge of each toe; generation glands absent; tip of snout of adult males never reddish; conspicuous ontogenetic changes in coloration; adults without dorsolateral and vertebral stripes, or only vertebral stripe apparent on posterior dorsum; flanks with pale ocelli; hemipenis with fewer distal (5–9) than proximal laminae (14–23); about four discontinuous laminae present on sulcate side of hemipenis; asulcate expansion pleat welldeveloped.

Content.— Ameiva ameiva ameiva (Linnaeus) , A. a. fuliginosa Cope, A. a. tobagana (Cope), A. atrigularis Garman , A. pantherina Ugueto and Harvey , A. praesignis (Baird & Girard) .

Distribution.—Most of South America east of the Andes south to Bolivia, also present in northern Colombia, Panama, extreme southern Costa Rica, Trinidad, Tobago, Isla de Providencia, St. Vincent, Grenada, and The Grenadines; apparently extinct on Swan Island.

Remarks.—Status of the insular species Ameiva ameiva fuliginosa from Providencia Island and A. a. tobagana from the Grenada Bank should be reconsidered. The first taxon was originally described by Cope (1892) as Tiaporus fuliginosus . He remarked that Tiaporus was identical to Ameiva except that it lacked femoral pores. Burt and Burt (1931) added Cope’s name to the synonymy of Ameiva after they revised the four cotypes of T. fuliginosus and found that all have femoral pores (17–18 on each leg). Lizards from the Swan Islands were also found to be conspecific with those from Providencia formerly described as A. panchlora by Barbour (1921). Dunn and Saxe (1950) could not differentiate these insular populations from continental A. ameiva and thus preferred to treat panchlora as a subspecies. The same authors reported that the population on the Swan Islands was extinct by 1914. Cope (1879) also described another insular population, Ameiva surinamensis (= ameiva ) tobaganus purportedly collected on the island of Tobago. Almost a decade later, Garman (1887) named another insular variant of A. surinamensis , A. s. var. aquilina , based on a series of eight specimens from Grenada and 39 from St. Vincent. Apparently, Garman was unaware of Cope’s description of A. s. tobaganus and did not compare his specimens with the taxon described from neighboring Tobago. In their revision of the genus Ameiva, Barbour and Noble (1915) considered the population purportedly from Tobago and the one from the Grenada Bank as full species closely associated with A. ameiva . Peters and Donoso-Barros (1970) considered both populations to be subspecies of A. ameiva . Tuck and Hardy (1973) concluded that A. a. tobagana was likely collected in Grenada, the Grenadines or St. Vincent (populations previously allocated to A. a. aquilina) rather than on Tobago but continued to regard it as a subspecies of the widespread mainland species A. ameiva .

We have observed photographs of both Ameiva ameiva fuliginosa and A. a. tobagana and they sharply differ in coloration from other Ameiva of the A. ameiva Group. Additionally, both taxa are isolated on islands far from the range of A. ameiva ( Ugueto & Harvey 2011) and thus likely represent separate evolutionary lineages. Accordingly, we continue to recognize these taxa as subspecies until they can be reviewed.