Geophis cansecoi, Grünwald & Ahumada-Carrillo & Grünwald & Montaño-Ruvalcaba & García-Vázquez, 2021
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13259347 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B0980607-EBC4-4B57-A3E0-F140F2C263AA |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E27A87BB-665E-FFDA-BB59-DA9FFA9FF90C |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Geophis cansecoi |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Geophis cansecoi View in CoL sp. nov.
Figs. 1–6 View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig .
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:0F7EF314-A7DC-4DC6-B7D8-9B99255A367F
Holotype ( Figs. 1–2 View Fig View Fig ). MZFZ 4432 (field number, CIG 1161 ). Adult male, collected at 0.9 km south of Los Capulines, on Misantla-Chiconquiaco Hwy., Municipio de Yecuatla, (19.811724°, -96.824587°, datum WGS84, 1,590 m asl), Veracruz, Mexico on 5 June 2017 by Christoph I. Grünwald, André J. Grünwald, and Iván T. Ahumada-Carrillo.
Paratypes (n = 14, Figs. 3–6 View Fig View Fig View Fig View Fig ). MZFZ 4433 ( CIG 01162 ). Adult , DOR, collected at 1.1 km south of Los Capulines, on Misantla-Chiconquiaco Hwy., Municipio de Yecuatla, (19.810740°, -96.824874°, datum WGS84, 1,626 m asl), Veracruz, Mexico, on 6 June 2017 by Christoph I. Grünwald, Iván T . Ahumada-Carrillo, and André J. Grünwald. MZFZ 4434–35 ( CIG 01378–79 ), MZFZ 4436–38 ( CIG 01393–95 ), INIRENA 2811–14 ( CIG 01396–99 ), MZFZ 4448–49 ( CIG 01490–91 ). Adults and juveniles, collected at Los Capulines , on Misantla-Chiconquiaco Hwy., Municipio de Yecuatla , (19.813360°, -96.827240°, datum WGS84, 1,570 m asl), Veracruz, Mexico, on 8 June 2019 by Christoph I. Grünwald, André J. Grünwald, and Carlos E. Montaño-Ruvalcaba. INIRENA 2815–16 ( CIG 01386–87 ). Adults, collected at 3.7 km S of Los Capulines, on Misantla-Chiconquiaco Hwy., Municipio de Chinconquiaco, (19.793370°, -96.822970°, datum WGS84, 1,763 m asl), Veracruz, Mexico, on 8 June 2019 by Christoph I. Grünwald, André J. Grünwald, and Carlos E. Montaño-Ruvalcaba .
Diagnosis. A member of the Geophis dubius group, as defined by Downs (1967) and expanded by Wilson and Townsend (2007), and characterized by the following combination of traits: eye relatively small; single supraocular and postocular present on each side (with one exception, see below); no anterior temporal scale, penultimate supralabial and parietal in contact; second infralabials small, broadly separated from each other; mental scale and anterior chinshields in contact; smooth dorsal scales throughout the body arranged in 17 rows; ventrals 134–142 in females (n = 7), and 125–131 in males (n = 7); subcaudals 28–35 in females (n = 7), and 34–37 in males (n = 7), with ventral + subcaudal totals 163–173 in females (n = 7) and 159–165 in males (n = 7); tail length 11.6–16.3% of TotL in females, 16.7–19.0% of TotL in males; dorsal pattern slate gray, with crimson red lateral stripe on each side, usually on first three or four scale rows but occasionally occupying part of the fifth; venter pale cream, except on the ventral surfaces of the head and throat, which are gray; maxillary teeth 6–8.
Geophis cansecoi is distinct from all species in the G. championi and G. semidoliatus groups, as well as most species in the G. sieboldi group by possessing the dorsal scales arranged in 17 rows (vs. 15 rows), and from the remaining species in the G. sieboldi group by possessing smooth dorsal scales throughout the body (vs. dorsal scales keeled on posterior half of body). Geophis cansecoi differs from all species in the G. omiltemanus and G. chaylybeus groups by a small eye, 10–12% of head length (vs.>12%); furthermore, from the species in the G. omiltemanus group by lacking an anterior temporal scale, thus either the fourth or fifth supralabial in contact with parietal (vs. fifth supralabial separated from parietal by anterior temporal scale); from some species in the G. chalybeus group ( G. dugesii , G. nigrocinctus , and G. tarascae ) by possessing dorsal scales arranged in 17 rows (vs. 15 rows) and from the remaining species by possessing a mental and anterior chinshields in contact (vs. separated by a pair of enlarged first infralabials, which are in contact). Geophis cansecoi can be distinguished from members of the G. latifrontalis group as follows: from G. latifrontalis and G. mutitorques by lacking an anterior temporal scale and possessing the fourth or fifth supralabial in contact with parietal (vs. fifth supralabial separated from parietal by anterior temporal scale); from G. blanchardi and G. latifrontalis by possessing mental and anterior chinshields in contact (vs. separated by a pair of enlarged first infralabials which are in contact), as well as from all species by its unique color pattern of slate gray ground coloration with two crimson red lateral stripes (vs. variable ground coloration with or without bands and without lateral stripes).
Geophis cansecoi can be distinguished from species within its own Geophis dubius group, as follows: from G. carinosus , G. juarezi , G. rostralis , and sometimes G. turbidus by possessing smooth scales throughout the body (vs. strongly keeled dorsal scales on posterior portion of the body or above vent); from G. anocularis , G. duellmani , and G. rhodogaster by usually possessing a supraocular scale (vs. supraocular scale absent); from G. anocularis and G. duellmani by possessing a postocular scale (vs. postocular scale absent); from G. dubius and G. fuscus (see below) by possessing internasal scales and prefrontal scales that are not fused (vs. fused); from G. carinosus , G. dubius , G. immaculatus , G. juarezi , G. nephodrymus , G. rhodogaster , and sometimes G. turbidus by first infralabial scales that are broadly separated, never in contact (vs. in contact or narrowly separated); from G. carinosus , G. juarezi , and sometimes G. anocularis and G. fulvoguttatus by possessing more than 125 ventral scales in males (vs. less than 125); from G. anocularis and usually from G. carinosus and G. immaculatus by possessing more than 134 ventral scales in females (vs. usually fewer); from G. dubius by possessing fewer than 142 ventral scales in females (vs. more than 144); from G. carinosus , G. duellmani , G. juarezi , G. rhodogaster , and G. rostralis by possessing fewer than 38 subcaudal scales in males (vs. 39 or more); from G. nephodrymus and G. lorancai by possessing 34 or more subcaudal scales in males (vs. 35 or less); from G. carinosus and G. juarezi by possessing fewer than 35 subcaudal scales in females (vs. 37 or more); from all species in the species group other than G. lorancai by possessing fewer maxillary teeth 6–8 (vs. 9 or more); from G. annocularis , G. carinosus , G. duellmani , G. juarezi , G. rhodogaster , and G. rostralis by possessing a shorter tail in males, 17–19% of TotL (vs. more than 19% of TotL); from G. nephodrymus by possessing a longer tail in males 17–19% of TotL (vs. less than 17% of TotL); from G. carinosus , G. duellmani , and G. juarezi , by possessing a shorter tail in females, 12–16% of TotL (vs. more than 16% of TotL); and from all species in the species group by its unique color pattern of slate gray ground coloration with two crimson red lateral stripes (vs. variable ground coloration with or without bands and without lateral stripes). A comparison of the diagnostic characters of all species of the G. dubius species group is given in Table 2. Many species of Mexican Geophis are poorly understood, and in many cases photographs of live individuals have not been published. For comparative purposes, we have included photos of closely related species of the Geophis dubius group as well as sympatrically occurring species of Geophis from other species groups ( Figs. 7–9 View Fig View Fig View Fig ).
Description of holotype ( Figs. 1–2 View Fig View Fig ). MZFZ 4432. Adult male. SVL 227 mm; TL 47; TotL 274 mm. HL 8.6 mm (from tip to posterior border of parietal); HW 5.1 mm, head slightly (1.3 times) distinct from body. Snout long, SL 3.7 mm, with HL 2.3 times SL, rounded from above, obtusely pointed from lateral profile, projecting anteriorly 1.0 mm beyond the lower jaw. Rostral 1.6 times as broad as high (2.6 mm wide, 1.6 mm high), portion visible from above (1.0 mm) is 0.3 times as long as its distance from frontal (3.3 mm), 1.4 times as long as common internasal suture (0.7 mm), with posterior end approximately at level of anterior margin of nostrils; internasals as broad as long (length / width) = (1.2 mm / 1.2 mm), angular anteriorly, in lateral contact with anterior and posterior nasals. Prefrontals in lateral contact with postnasal, loreal, and eye on each side, their length 2.7 mm, 73% of the length of SL, and their common suture 1.7 mm, 63% of the length of frontal. Frontal wider than long, 3.1 mm wide, 2.7 mm long, 1.2 times as wide as long. Supraocular large, in contact with prefrontal, frontal, parietal, and postocular. Postoculars moderately sized, in contact with supraocular, parietal, and fourth and fifth supralabials. Parietal 3.8 mm long, 2.7 mm wide, 1.4 times as long as wide, length of parietal 44% of HL, the common suture between parietals 2.4 mm, 89% of frontal length. Nasal divided, postnasal longer than prenasal with combined length of both nasals (2.1 mm) longer than loreal. Loreal 1.6 mm long, 1.1 mm high, longer than high, and reaching orbit. Eye small, 0.9 mm, 10% of HL. Supralabials six on both sides, first in contact with nasals, second and third in contact with loreal, third and fourth
A
B C D E entering orbit, fifth largest and in contact with parietal and posterior temporal. Anterior temporal absent, one posterior temporal. Four nuchal scales in contact with parietals.
Mental 1.2 times as broad as long (1.4 mm broad, 1.2 mm long), rounded anteriorly, in posterior contact with both anterior chinshields. Infralabials five left / six right, first through third in contact with anterior chinshields, and third and fourth in contact with posterior chinshields. Anterior chinshields irregular, left chinshield 2.4 mm
D E long and 1.0 mm wide (2.4 times as long as wide) and right anterior chinshield 2.1 mm long and 1.0 mm wide (2.1 times as long as wide). Left posterior chinshield 1.4 mm long and 1.0 mm wide (1.4 times as long as wide) and right posterior chinshield 1.7 mm long and 1.1 mm wide (1.5 times as long as wide). Three midgular scales. Infralabials and scales in chin region smooth. Dorsal scales in 17-17-17 rows, smooth throughout body; no evident apical pits. Ventrals 125; cloacal plate single; subcaudal scales paired, 34 on both sides.
Coloration in life ( Fig. 1 View Fig ). Dorsal coloration of head and mid-dorsal region of body and tail slate gray, with one crimson red lateral stripe on each side. The red lateral stripe restricted to scale rows 1 and half of 2 at one head length behind the neck, then expanding to cover scale rows 1–3 and lower portions of 4 at mid-body, and continuing to cover scale rows 1–3 and lower portions of 4 above vent. Dorsal coloration of tail slate gray, and red lateral stripe continues on scale 1 and half of 2 (with some speckling on 3) on anterior half of tail, and then
A remnants of red lateral stripes continue on scale 1 and parts of 2 on posterior half of the tail, with the tail tip slate gray. The ventral coloration in life of the head and neck is dark gray on the mental and anterior chinshields and infralabials, light gray on the posterior chinshields, gulars, and first 15 ventral scales, fading after the ninth ventral. The ventral coloration on the body is white/pale cream. The ventral scales are outlined in pink, which represents the remnants of the red lateral stripe which fades out on the ventrals. The pink ventral scale outlines intensify in color towards the posterior portion of body and become wider, enclosing the pale cream coloration present on the ventral scales; and the last three ventral scales, as well as the cloacal plate, are crimson red. Subcaudals are crimson red, barely outlined in white/ cream on anterior three-fourths of tail and then outlined in slate gray on posterior eight subcaudal pairs. Tail tip is slate gray above and below.
Coloration in preservative ( Fig. 2 View Fig ). General coloration bicolor. Dorsal surfaces of head, body, and tail predominately dark gray; ventral surfaces of body and tail predominately pale cream, with dark gray stippling on subcaudals, increasing towards tip of tail. Lateral surfaces of body pale cream on first and lower portions of second scale rows on anterior third of body, increasing to first, second, third, and very bottom of fourth scale rows on latter two-thirds of body. Light lateral stripe on latter two-thirds of body variable but with slight amounts of light salmon, remnants of the red lateral stripe in life.
Variation. Morphological variations observed on 13 specimens are as follows: MZFZ 4436–37 has only five supralabials on the right side (supralabials 3 and 4 are fused or partially fused). Four midgulars in MZFZ 4434 and MZFZ 4449, and irregularly split in INIRENA 2816, where it can be understood to represent either three or four midgulars between the posterior chinshields and first ventral. Supraocular absent on the right side of the head in INIRENA 2811. Meristic variation is given in Table 3.
Color in life. An adult female paratype had the following coloration. Dorsal coloration of head and mid-dorsal region of body and tail slate gray, with one crimson red lateral stripe on each side. The red lateral stripe restricted to scale rows 1 and 2 at one headlength behind the neck, then expanding to cover scale rows 1‒4 and lower portions of 5 at midbody, and continuing to cover scale rows 1‒4 and lower portions of 5 above vent. Dorsal coloration of tail slate gray, and lateral stripe dissipates on anterior one-fourth of tail; however, remnants of red lateral stripes continue to outline some of the lower dorsal scales on the tail onto the anterior three-fourths of the tail. The ventral coloration in life dark gray on the mental and anterior portions of the chinshields, light gray on the remaining gulars and first seven ventral scales, and then off white/pale cream on the remaining ventral scales of the anterior one-third of the body, changing to off white/pale cream with orange outline on sides and borders on the remaining two-thirds of body. Dorsal coloration of anterior half of tail red with slate gray outlines on sides and borders, posterior half of tail slate gray.
Two juvenile paratypes, a male and a female, had a dorsal coloration of head and mid-dorsal region of body and tail dark gray, with one crimson red lateral stripe present on each side. The red lateral stripe was confined to scale rows 1 and 2 at one head length behind the neck, expanding to scale rows 1‒3 and the very bottom edge of 4 at mid-body, and reducing to scale rows 1‒3 above vent. Dorsal coloration of tail dark gray with red lateral stripes fading out on anterior one-fourth of the tail. Ventral coloration in life dark gray on the mental and anterior portions of the chinshields, then light gray on the gulars and first two ventral scales, changing to cream/off white on the remaining ventrals. Ventrals on the latter one-third of the body on the male outlined in red. Subcaudals of the tail red with dark gray outlines, turning completely dark gray toward the tip of the tail.
Dentition. An adult female paratype (MZFZ 4434) had six teeth visible and two spaces, which probably represented missing teeth. The anterior maxillary tooth was opposite the first supralabial. The holotype appears to have 6–8 maxillary teeth visible; however, we did not remove the jaw.
Distribution, habitat, and ecology. This species appears to be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the type locality in the Sierra de Misantla portion of the Sierra Madre Oriental of Veracruz, Mexico ( Fig. 10 View Fig ). It has been collected between 1,550 –1,763 m asl in mesic cloud forest. Specimens were found beneath a variety of decomposing logs, trash, and rocks, and also crossing the road at night. All specimens were collected in the month of June.
Etymology. The specific epithet honors to Luis Canseco-Márquez, a Mexican herpetologist who has dedicated a portion of his career to the study of snakes of the genus Geophis .
Relationships of Geophis cansecoi . The final sequence alignment consisted of 1,055 bp. The partitions and models that best fit the data were GTR+G for the first and second codon positions, and GTR+G+I for the third codon position. The phylogenetic hypotheses support the morphological data, which places G. cansecoi in the Geophis dubius group and supports the genetic distinctiveness of this species from other congeners in Mexico and northern Central America ( Fig. 11 View Fig ). In the Maximum Credibility Tree, the sequence of Geophis from this population forms a strongly supported clade (Pp = 1.0) with other species currently placed in the Geophis dubius group ( G. carinosus , G. dubius , G. lorancai , G. juarezi , and G. turbidus ). Furthermore, our results suggest that Geophis cansecoi forms a strongly supported clade (Pp = 0.97) with its sister group, which includes G. carinosus , G. dubius , G. lorancai , and G. juarezi . Geophis turbidus appears to form the sister taxon to all the remaining haplotypes of the Geophis dubius group.
| T |
Tavera, Department of Geology and Geophysics |
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.