Copeoglossum margaritae, Hedges & Conn, 2012

Hedges, S. Blair & Conn, Caitlin E., 2012, A new skink fauna from Caribbean islands (Squamata, Mabuyidae, Mabuyinae) 3288, Zootaxa 3288 (1), pp. 1-244 : 79-82

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3288.1.1
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/39191A7F-0747-FFAC-2DA9-EC517E7BFDE4
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Copeoglossum margaritae
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

Copeoglossum margaritae sp. nov.

Margarita Skink

( Figs. 23B View FIGURE 23 , 24B View FIGURE 24 , 28 View FIGURE 28 )

Mabuya nigropunctata —Miralles et al., 2005:833 (part).

Mabuya nigropunctata — Rivas et al., 2005:349 (part).

Mabuya nigropunctata —Miralles et al., 2009:609 (part).

Mabuya nigropunctata — Ugueto & Rivas, 2010:208 (part).

Holotype. USNM 217141 About USNM , an adult female, collected 3 km NE La Asuncion, Margarita Island , Nueva Esparta, Venezuela (11° 03' N, 63° 51' W, 410 m), in February , 1967. Collector unrecorded. Field number SVP 12355 (Smithsonian Venezuelan Project). GoogleMaps

Paratypes (n = 2). Margarita Island , Venezuela. MHNLS 3401–02 View Materials , Cerro Copey (Collected in 1953 by Felipe Martín). Photographs examined .

Diagnosis. Copeoglossum margaritae sp. nov. is characterized by (1) maximum SVL in males, not available; (2) SVL of holotype female, 118.8 mm; SVL of unsexed paratype MHNLS 3401 (probably female), 121 mm; (3) snout width, 2.93% SVL; (4) head length, 17.1% SVL; (5) head width, 12.6% SVL; (6) ear length, 1.14% SVL; (7) toe-IV length, 9.06% SVL; (8) prefrontals, two (n = 3); (9) supraoculars, four (n = 3); (10) supraciliaries, six (n = 3); (11) frontoparietals, two (n = 3); (12) supralabial below the eye, six (n = 2) or seven (n = 1); (13) nuchal rows, one (n = 2); (14) dorsals, 53–55 (n = 3); (15) ventrals, 66 (n = 2); (16) dorsals + ventrals, 119–120 (n = 2); (17) midbody scale rows, 30–31 (n = 2); (18) finger-IV lamellae, 15–16 (n = 2); (19) toe-IV lamellae, 16–17 (n = 2); (20) finger-IV + toe-IV lamellae, 32–33 (n = 2); (21) supranasal contact, N (n = 3); (22) prefrontal contact, N (n = 3); (23) supraocular-1/frontal contact, N (n = 3); (24) parietal contact, N (n = 2); (25) pale middorsal stripe, N (n = 3); (26) dark dorsolateral stripe, N (n = 3); (27) dark lateral stripe, Y (n = 3); (28) pale lateral stripe, Y (n = 3); and (29) palms and soles, dark (n = 3); data based on holotype unless indicated ( Tables 3–5).

Within the Genus Copeoglossum , C. margaritae sp. nov. differs from all other species by having a higher number of ventral scales (66 versus 54–65 in other species), a larger body size (121 mm maximum SVL versus 100–113 mm maximum SVL ), and chin spotting (absent in the other species). It differs from C. arajara (Rebouças- Spieker 1981), additionally, in having more finger-IV + toe-IV lamellae (32–33 versus 26), more supraciliaries (six versus 3–5), and dark palms and soles (pale in C. arajara ). It differs from C. aurae sp. nov., additionally, by having a longer supraocular-2 scale (supraocular-2/supraocular-1 length ratio 0.75–0.88 in C. margaritae sp. nov. versus 0.38–0.69 C. aurae sp. nov.) ( Fig. 27 View FIGURE 27 ) and in having a shorter toe-IV (9.06% SVL versus 10.1–12.7% SVL). It differs from C. nigropunctatum , additionally, in having a narrower frontonasal scale (frontonasal width/length 1.20–1.26 (n = 3) versus 1.30–2.03 in C. nigropunctatum ; Fig. 26 View FIGURE 26 ), by lacking supranasal contact (in contact in 94% of C. nigropunctatum ), and by having a high number (32–33) of finger-IV + toe-IV lamellae (versus 94% of C. nigropunctatum with fewer than 32 lamellae). It differs from C. redondae sp. nov., additionally, by having a longer supraocular-2 scale (supraocular-2/supraocular-1 length ratio 0.75–0.88 in C. margaritae sp. nov. versus 0.58 in C. redondae sp. nov.; Fig. 27 View FIGURE 27 ), more finger-IV + toe-IV lamellae (32–33 versus 29), and a smaller ear (ear

Description of holotype ( Figs. 23B View FIGURE 23 , 28 View FIGURE 28 ). An adult female in excellent state of preservation, with a small ventral injury and an abdominal slit. SVL 118.8 mm; tail length 135 mm (regenerated); HL 20.3 mm; HW 15.0 mm; SW 3.48 mm; EL 1.35 mm; and toe-IV length 10.8 mm; ear-opening small in size and round; toe length in the following order: I <V <II <III <IV.

Head scalation. Rostral wider than high, contacting first supralabials, nasals and supranasals. Paired supranasals not in median contact, contacting anteriormost loreal. Frontonasal diamond-shaped, wider than long, laterally in contact with anterior loreal scale. A pair of quadrilateral prefrontals, separated medially, and in contact with frontonasal, both anterior and posterior loreals, first supraciliary, first supraoculars, and frontal. Frontal by parietals; parietal eye distinct. Parietals in contact with primary postocular and upper secondary and tertiary temporal scales. Four supraoculars, the second one being the largest. Six supraciliaries, approximately equal in length (third largest, fifth and sixth smallest). Nostril in posterior part of the nasal. A small postnasal, bordered by supranasal, anterior loreal and first supralabial (left) and first and second supralabials (right). Anterior and posterior loreals squarish with posteromedial projection on latter. Three upper preoculars and two lower preoculars. Eight supralabials, the sixth being the widest and forming the lower border of the eyelid. Five moderately enlarged scales behind eye comprising the postoculars; similar to temporal scales but smaller. One primary temporal, two secondary temporals, and three tertiary temporals on the right and four on the left; all imbricate, smooth, cycloid, not distinctly delimited from the scales on the nape and the sides of the neck. Eight infralabials. Mental scale wider than long, posterior margin straight. Postmental scale and zero pairs of chin shields in contact with anterior infralabials. Two pairs of chin shields in contact medially.

Body and limb scalation. One row of paired nuchal scales. Other scales on nape similar to dorsals. On lateral sides of neck, scales slightly smaller. Dorsal scales cycloid, imbricate, smooth, 54 in a longitudinal row; ventrals similar to dorsals; 66 in a longitudinal row; 30 scales around midbody. No distinct boundaries between dorsals, laterals and ventrals. Scales on tail and limbs similar to dorsals, except smaller on limbs. On regenerated portion of tail, one row each of enlarged middorsal and midventral scales with 1–2 lateral scale rows on each side similar to dorsals and ventrals. Palmar and plantar regions with small tubercles, subequal in size and delimited by a surrounding region of flatter scales. Subdigital lamellae smooth, single, 15 under finger-IV and 17 under toe-IV. Six preanals, with scales similar to ventrals.

Pattern and coloration. Dorsal ground color dark grayish-brown with small-to-medium dark brown spots distributed on body, tail, and limbs (limbs more densely spotted and mottled). Dark dorsolateral stripes absent. Dark lateral stripes present, dark brown, extending from loreal region to tail. Pale middorsal stripe absent. Pale dorsolateral stripes absent. Pale lateral stripes present, whitish, extending from below eye to hindlimbs, bordered below by a series of irregular dark brown spots. The entire chin is patterned with small dark brown spots and flecks. The remainder of the ventral surface is unpatterned. Palmar and plantar surfaces dark brown. No information is available on color in life of the holotype.

Variation. Measurements and other morphological data for the holotype and (where available) paratypes are presented in Tables 3–5. Examination of the paratypes (unsexed) was made using photographs. Both paratypes had major ventral incisions and some damage to dorsal scalation, precluding the scoring of some characters. Measurement of SVL from images was done by following the curvature of the specimens, and checked by measuring from dorsal and ventral views. Ugueto and Rivas (2010) considered the mabuyine skinks on Margarita to belong to C. nigropunctatum , but they noted paler coloration in individuals from the island .

Distribution. The species is distributed on Isla de Margarita (920 km 2), Venezuela ( Fig. 9D View FIGURE 9 ).

Ecology and conservation. Ugueto and Rivas (2010) report, concerning the occurrence of this species on Isla de Margarita, that "it has been found in premontane evergreen and cloud forests at 200– 700 m. Although frequently observed on the ground, this skink is also occasionally observed perched on tree trunks, shrubs, and bushes." Ecological notes associated with the holotype (provided by the USNM) indicate that it was taken on a ridge top in moist evergreen forest scrub, captured at night under partly cloudy skies with a light breeze. The island continues to be developed as a tourist destination, domestically and internationally. A critically endangered primate, Cebus apella margaritae , occurs on the island, and one of the reasons it is threatened is because of forest fragmentation and "ongoing habitat loss" ( IUCN 2011).

Based on IUCN Redlist criteria ( IUCN 2011), we assess the conservation status of Copeoglossum margaritae sp. nov. as Vulnerable (VU A2ac). It faces a primary threat from habitat alteration (as for the primate). Its apparent preferred habitat (montane forest) is only a small portion of the island (and is shrinking because of development), and the small number of specimens (three) in museums suggests that it is uncommon. Studies are needed to determine if the species still exists, the health of any remaining populations, and threats to the survival of the species.

Reproduction. The female holotype does not contain developing young, which is perhaps consistent with its capture in the mountains (410 m) during February. Notes on reproduction in Ugueto and Rivas (2010), for C. nigropunctatum , apparently are not specific to this species on Isla de Margarita.

Remarks. The fact that two of the three known specimens of Copeoglossum margaritae sp. nov. are larger than any other species in the Subfamily Mabuyinae further supports its distinction and suggests that this species may reach an even larger size. Also, that it is found on an island is consistent with the general pattern of body size extremes often evolving on islands. Apparently this is because there are more open ecological niches on islands— whether from excess extinction or the filtering effect of overwater dispersal—permitting species that are present to evolve larger or smaller body sizes (Hedges 2008). The size difference is even more remarkable given that the species with which C. margaritae sp. nov. has been confused, Copeoglossum nigropunctatum , is widespread in South America and known from many hundreds of museum specimens, yet the largest specimen of that species (113 mm SVL) is smaller ( Avila-Pires 1995). Miralles et al. (2005 a, 2006b, 2009), Rivas et al. (2005), and Miralles and Carranza (2010) examined specimens (MHNLS 3401–02) designated here as C. margaritae sp. nov. but considered them to be members of C. nigropunctatum . USNM 217141, which was collected much earlier, was not examined or noted by those authors.