Panolopus psychonothes ( Schwartz 1964 )

Schools, Molly & Hedges, Blair, 2024, A new forest lizard fauna from Caribbean islands (Squamata, Diploglossidae, Celestinae), Zootaxa 5554 (1), pp. 1-306 : 204-208

Panolopus psychonothes ( Schwartz 1964)

Constanza Forest Lizard

(Fig. 75)

Diploglossus costatus psychonothes Schwartz, 1964:32 . Holotype: MCZ R-77156, collected by David C. Leber from 1 mi. S Constanza , La Vega province, Dominican Republic, on 30 June 1963 (18.893, -70.738; 1,164 m).

Celestus costatus psychonothes — Schwartz & Henderson, 1988:96.

Celestus costatus psychonothes — Schwartz & Henderson, 1991:367.

Celestus costatus psychonothes — Hedges et al., 2019:16.

Panolopus costatus psychonothes — Schools & Hedges, 2021:230.

Material examined (n=19). DOMINICAN REPUBLIC. AMNH 16017–20 , Rollo H. Beck , January 1917 – June 1917 . Azua. AMNH 16021–5 , Rollo H. Beck, interior of Azua , 1917. La Vega . KU 225034–5 , 7.2 mi S Constanza , 30 June 1963 ; KU 225643–8 , 16 km SE Constanza , 25 December 1970 ; KU 225651 , 17.2 km SE Constanza , 21 August 1973 ; MCZ R-77156, David C. Leber, 1 mi. S Constanza , 30 June 1963 .

Diagnosis. Panolopus psychonothes has (1) a dorsal pattern of irregular dots/dots in series/dots in chevrons, (2) head markings absent/present, (3) markings in the longitudinal paramedian area absent/present, (4) dots arranged in bars in the lateral band absent/present, (5) an adult SVL of 70.9–97.2 mm, (6) ventral scale rows, 88–109, (7) midbody scale rows, 36–42, (8) total lamellae on one hand, 37–44, (9) total strigae on ten scales, 172–244, (10) relative length of all digits on one hindlimb, 26.5–33.1 %, (11) relative distance between the angled subocular and mouth, 0.505–1.03 %, (12) relative eye length, 2.74–3.87 %, (13) relative forelimb length, 17.4–23.8 %, (14) relative ear width, 0.954–2.31 %, (15) relative rostral height, 1.80–2.32 %, (16) relative head length, 15.9–19.5 %, (17) relative mental width, 1.47–2.91 %, (18) relative postmental width, 2.46–3.34 %, (19) relative cloacal width, 7.56–8.53 %, (20) relative prefrontal width, 3.89–4.75 %, (21) relative largest supraocular width, 1.92–2.68 %, (22) relative longest finger length, 4.89–5.81 %, (23) relative distance between the ear and eye, 6.79–8.29 %, (24) relative head width, 68.4–78.6 %, (25) relative frontal width, 66.5–81.0 %, (26) relative nasal height, 1.12–1.32 %, (27) relative angled subocular height, 0.803 –0.952 %, (28) relative distance between the eye and naris, 4.00–5.62 %, (29) relative canthal iii length, 1.16–2.01 %, (30) relative angled subocular width, 2.01–2.44 %, and (31) relative nasal length, 1.68–1.94 %. No genetic data are available to estimate the species stem of crown time.

We distinguish Panolopus psychonothes from the other species of Panolopus based on a complex of traits. From Panolopus aenetergum , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the ventral scale rows (88–109 versus 80–86), the total strigae on ten scales (172–244 versus 267), the relative longest finger length (4.89–5.81 versus 4.83), the relative distance between the ear and eye (6.79–8.29 versus 8.40), the relative frontal width (66.5–81.0 versus 88.2), and the relative angled subocular height (0.803 –0.952 versus 1.08). From P. aporus , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the relative largest supraocular width (1.92–2.68 versus 2.74–3.62). From P. chalcorhabdus , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the angled subocular width by the angled subocular height (2.37–2.72 versus 2.77–3.28) (see Remarks). From P. costatus , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the total lamellae on one hand (37–44 versus 49– 58). From P. curtissi , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots/dots in series/dots in chevrons versus absent/irregular flecks) and the relative longest finger length (4.89–5.81 versus 3.59–4.54). From P. diastatus , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots/dots in series/dots in chevrons versus absent/irregular flecks) and the relative longest finger length (4.89–5.81 versus 3.48–4.87). From P. emys , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots/dots in series/dots in chevrons versus absent/irregular flecks), the adult SVL (70.9–97.2 versus 99.0–113), the relative nasal height (1.12–1.32 versus 0.963–1.10), and the relative nasal width (1.68–1.94 versus 1.23–1.58). From P. hylonomus , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots/dots in series/dots in chevrons versus absent/irregular flecks). From P. lanceolatus sp. nov., we distinguish P. psychonothes by the relative nasal height (1.12–1.32 versus 0.904–1.06). From P. lapierrae sp. nov., we distinguish P. psychonothes by the relative cloacal width (7.56–8.53 versus 8.55–8.81), the relative longest finger length (4.89–5.81 versus 4.49–4.55), the relative nasal height (1.12–1.32 versus 1.06–1.09), and the relative angled subocular width (2.01–2.44 versus 2.71). From P. leionotus , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the relative angled subocular width (2.01–2.44 versus 2.48–2.95). From P. marcanoi , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the relative angled subocular height (0.803 –0.952 versus 0.505 –0.793). From P. melanchrous , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the total lamellae on one hand (37–44 versus 47–58) and the relative nasal height (1.12–1.32 versus 0.897 –0.952). From P. neiba , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the total lamellae on one hand (37–44 versus 45– 49) and the relative nasal height (1.12–1.32 versus 0.963–1.08). From P. nesobous , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the total lamellae on one hand (37–44 versus 50–59), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (26.5–33.1 versus 35.1), the relative largest supraocular width (1.92–2.68 versus 2.85–3.11), the relative longest finger length (4.89–5.81 versus 6.19–6.33), the relative frontal width (66.5–81.0 versus 60.8–63.5), the relative angled subocular height (0.803 –0.952 versus 0.669 –0.750), and the relative angled subocular width (2.01–2.44 versus 2.61–2.82). From P. oreistes , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the relative nasal height (1.12–1.32 versus 0.878–1.06) and the relative nasal width (1.68–1.94 versus 1.37–1.65). From P. saonae , we distinguish P. psychonothes by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots/dots in series/dots in chevrons versus absent), the relative postmental width (2.46–3.34 versus 2.43), the relative largest supraocular width (1.92–2.68 versus 2.77), the relative nasal height (1.12–1.32 versus 1.01), and the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.00–5.62 versus 6.43). From P. semitaeniatus sp. nov., we distinguish P. psychonothes by the relative rostral height (1.80–2.32 versus 2.41–2.63), the relative head width (68.4–78.6 versus 58.8–63.8), the relative nasal height (1.12–1.32 versus 1.08), the relative angled subocular height (0.803 –0.952 versus 0.654), the relative angled subocular width (2.01–2.44 versus 2.62), and the relative nasal width (1.68–1.94 versus 1.51). From P. unicolor sp. nov., we distinguish P. psychonothes by the dorsal pattern (irregular dots/dots in series/dots in chevrons versus absent), the adult SVL (70.9–97.2 versus 67.6), the total lamellae on one hand (37–44 versus 48), the total strigae on ten scales (172–244 versus 144), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (26.5–33.1 versus 36.8), the relative largest supraocular width (1.92–2.68 versus 3.12), the relative longest finger length (4.89–5.81 versus 6.65), the relative frontal width (66.5–81.0 versus 58.2), the relative angled subocular width (2.01–2.44 versus 2.90), and the relative nasal width (1.68–1.94 versus 2.00).

Description of holotype. MCZ R-77156. An adult female; SVL 87.2 mm; tail nearly cylindrical, broken in life midway, regenerated, 62.0 mm (71.1% SVL); axilla-to-groin distance 52.5 mm (60.2% SVL); forelimb length 17.4 mm (20.0% SVL); hindlimb length 24.4 mm (28.0% SVL); head length 13.9 mm (15.9% SVL); head width 9.51 mm (10.9% SVL); head width 68.4% head length; diameter of orbit 2.39 mm (2.74% SVL); horizontal diameter of ear opening 0.93 mm (1.07% SVL); vertical diameter of ear opening 0.69 mm (0.791% SVL); length of all toes on one foot 24.7 mm (28.3% SVL); shortest distance between angled subocular and lip 0.44 mm (0.505% SVL); shortest distance between the ocular and auricular openings 6.09 mm (6.98% SVL); longest finger length 4.81 mm (5.52% SVL); largest supraocular width 1.67 mm (1.92% SVL); cloacal width 7.22 mm (8.28% SVL); mental width 2.54 mm (2.91% SVL); postmental width 2.38 mm (2.73% SVL); prefrontal width 3.39 mm (3.89% SVL); relative frontal width 73.1% frontal length; nasal height 1.15 mm (1.32% SVL); angled subocular height 0.83 mm (0.952% SVL); shortest distance between the eye and naris 3.49 mm (4.00% SVL); canthal iii width 1.01 mm (1.16% SVL); angled subocular width 1.97 mm (2.26% SVL); nasal width 1.69 mm (1.94% SVL); rostral 2.32X 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 slightly concave posterior margin, wider than long and divided into two scales, bordered by posterior internasals, 1 st loreals, 1 st median oculars, and the frontal; frontal longer than wide; a pair of frontoparietals, separated by the posterior prolongation of the frontal and the interparietal plate; interparietal plate smaller than parietals and separating them, posteriorly touching the interoccipital, which is wider than long; parietal separated from supraoculars by 1 st and 2 nd temporals and frontoparietal (left)/(right); nasal single; nostril above suture between 1 st and 2 nd supralabials (left)/(right); 1 postnasal (left)/(right); 2 loreals (left)/(right); 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 –4 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 lower preocular (left)/upper and lower preoculars (right); canthal iii wider than high (left)/(right), contacting 1 st median ocular, anterior supraciliary, upper and lower preoculars, and 1 st and 2 nd loreals (left)/1 st median ocular, anterior supraciliary, upper preocular, and 1 st and 2 nd loreals (right); 9 median oculars (left)/(right), 1 st contacting the prefrontal (left)/(right); 1 upper preocular (left)/(right); an irregular anterior supraciliary (left)/(right); 6 (left)/5 (right) lateral oculars; 5 temporals (left)/(right); 2 suboculars (left)/(right); posterior subocular large and elongate (left)/(right); anterior subocular small (left)/(right); 10 supralabials (left)/(right), 6 to level below center of eye (left)/ (right); 11 infralabials (left)/(right), 6 to level below center of eye (left)/(right); mental small, followed by a single, larger postmental; 4 pairs of enlarged chin shields, followed by 1 pair of reduced chin shields; 1 st pair in contact with one another; 2 nd –5 th pairs separated by 1–5 scales; 101 transverse rows of dorsal scales from interoccipital to base of tail; 101 transverse rows of ventral scales from mental to vent; 40 scales around midbody; 5 digits; finger lengths 3>4>2>5>1; 10 lamellae under longest finger (left)/(right); 37 total lamellae on one hand; toe lengths 4>3>5>2>1; 16 (17th divided) (left)/15 (right) lamellae under longest toe; keelless and striate dorsal body and caudal scales; smooth-faint striations ventral scales; 188 total strigae counted on ten scales.

Color (in alcohol): dorsal surface of head pale tan, patternless; lateral surfaces of head grading from pale tan to cream with darker brown eye masks and other darker brown areas on the labial scales and sides of neck; dorsal surfaces of the body are gray-red with several darker brown, broken longitudinal paramedian lines that end before the forearms and darker brown spotting that covers the entirety of the back; dorsal surface of tail dark yellow-orange on the regenerated section, patternless; lateral areas grading from dark brown to yellow-cream with darker brown and off-white dots in bars; dorsal surfaces of the limbs are dark brown with paler cream spotting; lateral and ventral areas of the limbs fade to pale cream with some darker brown flecks; ventral surfaces of the head, body, and tail are pale cream with darker streaking on the throat, darker spots on the tail, and some brown spotting towards the lateral areas.

FIGURE 75. (A–F) Panolopus psychonothes (MCZ R-77156, holotype), SVL 87.2 mm.

Variation. The majority of the examined material resembles the holotype in having irregular spots down the back. In some specimens the dots are arranged into broken chevrons. The majority of specimens have patternless heads whereas AMNH 16024 and AMNH 16019 have some darker borders to their head scale plates and several others have dark, irregular areas on their head scales. All specimens except for KU 225644 have markings in the longitudinal paramedian area. Most often these markings are complete longitudinal paramedian lines whereas some specimens have broken longitudinal paramedian lines or dots in series. KU 225651 possesses multiple longitudinal paramedian lines. All specimens have dots arranged in bars in the lateral band. Measurements and other morphological data for the holotype and other examined material are presented in Table 1.

Distribution. Panolopus psychonothes is distributed in the Cordillera Central of the Dominican Republic at elevations of 1180–2360 m (Fig. 50). It has an extent of occurrence of ~ 280 km 2.

Ecology and conservation. Schwartz (1964) noted that three specimens were found under rocks in pastures or cut over and burned mountainsides. “When exposed by turning rocks, the lizards were so cold that it was a simple matter to collect them.”

We consider the conservation status of Panolopus psychonothes to be Endangered B1ab(iii), based on IUCN Redlist criteria ( IUCN 2023). It is likely a common species tolerant of some habitat disturbance, based on what is known of most species of Panolopus . However, it has a very small distribution, which is a concern. It also faces a primary threat of habitat destruction resulting from deforestation, especially given its distribution in the highly developed areas around Constanza. A secondary threat is predation from introduced mammals, including the mongoose and black rats. Studies are needed to determine the health and extent of remaining populations and better understand the threats to the survival of the species.

Reproduction. No data on reproduction are available for this species.

Etymology. The species name ( psychonothes ) means “torpid from the cold,” in reference to the lethargy of the type specimens, which were easily collected from under rocks on a cold mountainside.

Remarks. Previously considered to be a subspecies of Panolopus costatus , we consider P. psychonothes to be a full species based on the morphological differences reported herein. Panolopus psychonothes and P. chalcorhabdus cannot be morphologically separated based on our standard suite of characters; however, they can be separated by the angled subocular width divided by the angled subocular height (2.37–2.72 [n=5] versus 2.77–3.28 [n=5]).

Additional museum specimens catalogued as P. costatus from within the distribution of P. psychonothes should be examined to determine if they are members of this species. Panolopus psychonothes is not included in our genetic dataset and future studies should be conducted using genetic or genomic data from this species.