Mabuya guadeloupae, 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 : 104-107

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3288.1.1
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/39191A7F-076E-FF96-2DA9-EBF37918FEC4
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Mabuya guadeloupae
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

Mabuya guadeloupae sp. nov.

Guadeloupe Skink

( Figs. 31A View FIGURE 31 , 32E View FIGURE 32 , 42 View FIGURE 42 )

Eumeces mabouia — Duméril & Bibron, 1839:646 (part).

Mabouya cepedii — Gray, 1845:95 (part).

Mabuya mabouia — Barbour, 1914:321 (part).

Mabuya sp. indet.—Barbour, 1930:105.

Mabuya mabouia — Barbour, 1935:129 (part).

Mabuya mabouya mabouya — Dunn, 1936:544 (part).

Mabuya mabouia — Barbour, 1937:147 (part).

Mabuya mabouia — Underwood, 1963:83 (part).

Mabuya mabouya mabouya — Schwartz & Thomas, 1975:141 (part).

Mabuya mabouya mabouya — MacLean et al., 1977:38 (part).

Mabuya mabouya mabouya — Schwartz & Henderson, 1988:150 (part).

Mabuya bistriata — Malhotra & Thorpe, 1999:84 (part).

Mabuya sloanii — Mayer & Lazell, 2000:883 (part).

Mabuya mabouya — Breuil, 2002:267 (part).

Mabuya mabouya —Miralles, 2005:49 (part).

Mabuya mabouya — Henderson & Powell, 2009:292 (part).

Holotype. FMNH 213 About FMNH , an adult female, " Guadeloupe " (no specific locality, but assumed to be Basse-Terre ; see Remarks), collected by Charles B. Cory in ca. 1892.

Paratypes (n = 2). Guadeloupe. FMNH 212 About FMNH , an adult female with same data as holotype; FMNH 214 About FMNH , an adult male, " Guadeloupe " (no specific locality), collected by W. W. Brown, Jr, in 1892 .

Diagnosis. Mabuya guadeloupae sp. nov. is characterized by (1) maximum SVL in males, 94.3 mm; (2) maximum SVL in females, 106 mm; (3) snout width, 2.63–2.99% SVL; (4) head length, 16.4–17.3% SVL; (5) head width, 11.6–12.0% SVL; (6) ear length, 1.28–1.82% SVL; (7) toe-IV length, 8.77–9.72% SVL; (8) prefrontals, two; (9) supraoculars, three; (10) supraciliaries, four; (11) frontoparietals, two; (12) supralabial below the eye, five; (13) nuchal rows, one; (14) dorsals, 60–63; (15) ventrals, 67–70; (16) dorsals + ventrals, 128–133; (17) midbody scale rows, 32–34; (18) finger-IV lamellae, 14; (19) toe-IV lamellae, 18–21; (20) finger-IV + toe-IV lamellae, 32–35; (21) supranasal contact, N; (22) prefrontal contact, N; (23) supraocular-1/frontal contact, Y; (24) parietal contact, Y; (25) pale middorsal stripe, Y; (26) dark dorsolateral stripe, Y (short, a thin line on nape); (27) dark lateral stripe, Y; (28) pale lateral stripe, Y; and (29) palms and soles, dark ( Tables 3–5).

Within the Genus Mabuya , M. guadeloupae sp. nov. and the other three species inhabiting Guadeloupe and its islets ( M. cochonae sp. nov., M. desiradae sp. nov., and M. grandisterrae sp. nov.), here placed in the M. guadeloupae sp. nov. species group, have a similarly-proportioned frontonasal scale that distinguishes them from other species in the genus ( Fig. 34 View FIGURE 34 ). Species in the M. guadeloupae sp. nov. species group have a longer frontonasal compared with M. montserratae sp. nov. (frontonasal length/head length 0.176 –0.199 versus 0.165 – 0.168) and a shorter frontonasal compared with other species in the genus (0.176 –0.199 versus 0.205 –0.239 in M. dominicana , M. hispaniolae sp. nov., and M. mabouya ). In addition, M. guadeloupae sp. nov. differs from M. dominicana by having a shorter, wider supranasal scale (supranasal length/supranasal width 3.17–3.29 versus 4.57–6.57 in M. dominicana ; Fig. 35). It differs from M. hispaniolae sp. nov. and M. montserratae sp. nov. in having a longer supraciliary-2 (supraciliary-2/supraciliary-3 length ratio 2.06–2.40 versus 1.39–1.66; Fig. 36 View FIGURE 36 ). It differs from M. mabouya in having a narrower head (11.6–12.0% SVL versus 12.1–14.9% SVL), shorter toe (toe- IV length 8.77–9.72% SVL versus 10.2–12.5% SVL), dark dorsolateral and pale lateral stripes (absent in M. mabouya ), and well-defined dorsolateral stripes (weakly-defined in M. mabouya ).

Mabuya guadeloupae sp. nov. differs from M. cochonae sp. nov. in having a shorter head (16.4–17.3% SVL versus 18.7–19.1% SVL), a narrower head (11.6–12.0% SVL versus 12.8–13.1% SVL), a larger ear (ear length 1.28–1.82% SVL versus 1.02–1.12% SVL), a shorter toe (toe-IV length 8.77–9.72% SVL versus 11.1–11.6% SVL), more digital lamellae (finger-IV + toe-IV lamellae 32–35 versus 29–31), lack (versus presence) of supranasal contact, a shorter anterior loreal scale (1.28–1.36% SVL versus 2.26–2.47% SVL; Fig. 37A View FIGURE 37 ), a shorter interloreal suture (0.64–0.85% SVL versus 0.91–1.03% SVL; Fig. 37B View FIGURE 37 ), a shorter suture length between the upper secondary temporal and the parietal scale (1.68–1.98% SVL versus 2.12–2.29% SVL; Fig. 37C View FIGURE 37 ), a shorter supralabial-7 (1.36–1.44% SVL versus 1.68–1.87% SVL; Fig. 37D View FIGURE 37 ), and a pattern consisting of dark dorsolateral stripes and well-defined pale lateral and dorsolateral stripes (versus no dark dorsolateral stripes or well-defined pale lateral stripes). Mabuya guadeloupae sp. nov. differs from M. desiradae sp. nov. in having a shorter head (16.4–17.3% SVL versus 18.5–19.0% SVL), a narrower head (11.6–12.0% SVL versus 13.6% SVL), a shorter toe (toe-IV length 8.77–9.72% SVL versus 10.2–10.4% SVL), a shorter anterior loreal scale (1.28–1.36% SVL versus 1.70–1.99% SVL; Fig. 37A View FIGURE 37 ), a shorter interloreal suture (0.64–0.85% SVL versus 0.92–1.07% SVL; Fig. 37B View FIGURE 37 ), a shorter supralabial–7 scale (1.36–1.44% SVL versus 1.65–1.81% SVL; Fig. 37D View FIGURE 37 ), and a pattern consisting of dark dorsolateral stripes and well-defined pale lateral and dorsolateral stripes (versus no well-defined dark or pale dorsolateral stripes or pale lateral stripes in M. desiradae sp. nov., only weakly defined pale dorsolateral stripes). Mabuya guadeloupae sp. nov. differs from M. grandisterrae sp. nov. in having a narrower head (11.6–12.0% SVL versus 12.5–13.9% SVL), a shorter toe (toe-IV length 8.77–9.72% SVL versus 10.2–12.8% SVL), a higher supraciliary-2/supraciliary-3 length ratio (2.06–2.40 versus 1.67–1.79; Fig. 36 View FIGURE 36 ), a shorter interloreal suture (0.64– stripes (versus no well-defined dark or pale dorsolateral stripes or pale lateral stripes in M. grandisterrae sp. nov.).

Description of holotype ( Figs. 31A View FIGURE 31 , 42 View FIGURE 42 ). An adult female in poor state of preservation, without injuries and with an abdominal slit. SVL 100 mm; tail length 25.9 mm (broken); HL 17.0 mm; HW 11.6 mm; SW 2.63 mm; EL 1.45 mm; and toe-IV length 8.84 mm; ear-opening average 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 octagonal, in contact with the first supraoculars and paired frontoparietals. Frontoparietals also in contact with parietals and interparietal. Interparietal tetragonal and lanceolate, separated from nuchals by parietals; parietal eye distinct. Parietals in contact with upper secondary and tertiary temporal scales. Three supraoculars, the first one being the longest and largest. Four supraciliaries, the second the longest. Nostril in posterior part of the nasal. A small postnasal, bordered by supranasal, anterior loreal and first supralabial. Anterior loreal squarish and posterior loreal rectangular with posteromedial projection on latter. Three upper preoculars and two lower preoculars. Seven supralabials, the fifth being the widest and forming the lower border of the eyelid. Six moderately enlarged scales behind eye comprising the postoculars; similar to temporal scales but smaller. One primary temporal, two secondary temporals, and three tertiary temporals; all imbricate, smooth, cycloid, not distinctly delimited from the scales on the nape and the sides of the neck. Eight infralabials (nine on the left). Mental scale wider than long, posterior margin straight. Postmental scale and one pair of adjoining chin shields in contact with anterior infralabials. First pair of chin shields in contact medially; second and third pairs separated by a smaller cycloid scale.

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, 63 in a longitudinal row; ventrals similar to dorsals; 70 in a longitudinal row; 32 scales around midbody. No distinct boundaries between dorsals, laterals and ventrals. Scales on tail and limbs similar to dorsals, except smaller on limbs. Palmar and plantar regions with small tubercles, subequal in size and delimited by a surrounding region of flatter scales. Subdigital lamellae smooth, single, 14 under finger-IV and 18 under toe-IV. Fingers and toes clawed. Four preanals larger than adjacent ventral scales. No enlarged median subcaudal scales on tail.

Pattern and coloration. Stripe lengths and widths mostly could not be determined due to the preservation status of the specimen. Dorsal ground color dark brown with small dark brown spots. Dark dorsolateral stripes (a thin line on nape) and dark lateral stripes present, darker brown than ground color; the dark lateral stripes extend to the groin. Pale middorsal stripe present, brown. Pale dorsolateral stripes present, whitish. Pale lateral stripes present, whitish, extending from behind the ear. Ventral surface of body without pattern. Palmar and plantar surfaces dark brown. No information is available for color in life of the holotype.

Variation. In coloration and scalation, the paratypes resembled the holotype ( Tables 4–5). All appear to have been darkly colored in life, although the condition of preservation is poor (most scales have fallen off).

Distribution. The species is distributed on Guadeloupe (1,628 km 2), with no specific locality. However, it is assumed here (see Remarks) that the species was collected on Basse-Terre, and that is probably the only island where it was distributed ( Fig. 11B View FIGURE 11 ).

Ecology and conservation. No ecological information exists for this species. It has not been observed in about a century, likely because of predation by the introduced mongoose or other mammalian predators. However, Guadeloupe is a large island, and there are small, fringing islets that might provide a mongoose-free haven for this species.

Based on IUCN Redlist criteria ( IUCN 2011), we consider the conservation status of Mabuya guadeloupae sp. nov. to be Critically Endangered and possibly extinct (CR A2ace). It faces a primary threat from the introduced mongoose, which has probably led to its extinction. Secondary threats include habitat destruction from agriculture and urbanization, and predation from other introduced predators, including black rats. Studies are needed to determine if the species still exists, the health of any remaining populations, and threats to the survival of the species. Captive breeding programs should be undertaken, if the species still exists, because eradication of introduced mammalian predators is not possible on large islands.

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

Etymology. The species name ( guadeloupae ) is a feminine genitive singular noun, referring to the distribution of the species on Guadeloupe. In the past, the name " Guadeloupe " was used synonymously with Basse-Terre, where the type material was probably collected and the island where the species is thought to be endemic.

Remarks. See the Remarks for the previous species ( Mabuya grandisterrae sp. nov.) concerning the presumed distributions of M. guadeloupae sp. nov. and M. grandisterrae sp. nov. Although the locality information for FMNH 212–214 only records " Guadeloupe," and no additional notes (non-electronic) were located for those specimens, we found evidence that they were taken on Basse-Terre and not on Grande-Terre. The collector, Charles B. Cory, published a catalogue of birds ( Cory 1892) at about the same time, and in it he refers to the western half of Guadeloupe as " Guadeloupe," not "Basse-Terre," and the eastern half as Grande-Terre. Also the islands are labeled as such on his map at the end of the book, and " Guadeloupe island" is written on original labels of birds that he collected, now in the FMNH (John Bates, personal communication). This all suggests that the type-locality for M. populated and had the major port of entry to the country (the city of Basse-Terre), hence it took the name " Guadeloupe." Eventually, Pointe-à-Pitre on Grande-Terre increased in size, and today it is much larger than the capital city of Basse-Terre. It is most likely that the two species were allopatric on the separate (but nearly connected) islands of Basse-Terre ( M. guadeloupae sp. nov.) and Grande-Terre ( M. grandisterrae sp. nov.).