Zoologist, Herpetologist, Protozoologist/Parasitologist, Nature Photographer
| Türkçe Anasayfa | Homepage | Publications | Other Academic Activities | Other Information |
| AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES of NORTHERN CYPRUS || NATURE PHOTOGRAPHY |
|
|
Prof. Dr. Bayram GÖÇMEN |
Zoologist, Herpetologist, Protozoologist/Parasitologist, Nature Photographer |
||
| Türkçe Anasayfa | Homepage | Publications | Other Academic Activities | Other Information | | AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES of NORTHERN CYPRUS || NATURE PHOTOGRAPHY | |
||
|
. |
Blunt-nosed viper, Macrovipera lebetina lebetina from Dikmen, N. Cyprus, photo by B. Göçmen.
A female Green toad, Bufo viridis specimen from Kilis (Turkey), photo by B. Göçmen.
A female Desert cobra, Walterinnesia aegyptia specimen from Kilis (Turkey), photo by B. Göçmen.
A female White-striped skink, Eumeces pavimentatus specimen from Adana (Turkey), photo by B. Göçmen. |
|||||
| Family EUBLEPHARIDAE The only
thorough review of this taxon is that of Grismer (1988). He follows Kluge (1987) in
presenting evidence that the eublepharids are a monophyletic subgroup of the Gekkota
on the basis of derived character states (medial contact of pares frontales, wide anterior
section of nasal bones, and dorsal end of clavicle not projecting above dorsal end of
scapulocoracoid). He recognizes two subfamilies, Aeluroscalabotinae and Eublepharinae, on
the basis of his analysis. In his consideration of relationships among the outgroups of
the Gekkota used in his analysis, Grismer (1988:372, fig. 4) utilizes Kluge’s
(1987:39-40) classification. He regards the Gekkota as composed of three families, the
Eublepharidae, the Diplodactylidae (consisting of the Diplodactylinae and the
Pygopodinae), and the Gekkonidae (Gekkoninae, Teratoscincinae, and Sphaerodactylinae).
His hypothesis of the relationships among the Eublepharidae is summarized in his
cladogram (Grismer, 1988:452, fig. Genus Eubtepharis Gray, 1827 Eublepharis Gray, 1827:56 (Type
species: Eublepharis hardwickii Gray, 1827, by
monotypy). Definition: Flat basioccipital bone; deep axial pockets
(Grismer, 1988:441). Digits short, cylindrical, with transverse lamellae beneath, clawed,
the claw partly concealed between two or four lateral scales and an upper scale; both
eyelids well developed and movable; pupil vertical; males with preanal pores; dorsum with
small juxtaposed scales and larger tubercles; tail shorter than head and body. Distribution: A disjunct Southwest Asian distribution,
including Iraq, Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northern India. At least
four valid species, two known definitely from Iran. Borner (198 la) removed the East Asian
species (F. kuroiwai and F. hichtenfelderi) from this genus, and Grismer
(1988:37 1) concurred, placing both in the resurrected genus Goniurosaurus Barbour, 1908. Eublepharis angramainyu and E. turcmenicus have been recorded from Iran, but E. cf. macularius
occurs in eastern Afghanistan and eastern Baluchistan, Pakistan. Specimens were
collected in eastern Khorasan by Zarudny (1903:9-10), but subsequently lost. Below, I list
his localities tentatively under E. macularius.
The distributions of the known populations of these closely related forms appear to be
disjunct, and the observed morphological differences among populations is to be expected.
Börner (1974, 1976, 198 la, 198 lb) has seen fit to assign subspecific or specific names
to each of the populations known from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India. The distribution
of these geckos as currently known extends primarily along the edges of the Iranian
Plateau. This suggests that a once-continuous distribution has been fragmented by
paleogeographic events antedating the development of the present fauna of Southwest Asia.
Possibly the distributional discontinuity dates back to the uplifting of the Iranian
Plateau during the Pliocene. In light of recent discoveries indicating previous faunal
connections between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, Eublepharis should be looked for in the upland
regions of Oman. Closely related to the macularius group
is F. hardwickii, known with certainty only from
the hills of Chota Nagpur and Orissa and the adjacent districts, again a region of fairly
long historical continuity as a continental area, but having been separated from areas now
occupied by E. maculariuss by an arm of the
Tethys Sea during the mid-Miocene, and since that time intermittently by climatic events,
including increasing aridity in recent time (see discussion above, in section on
paleogeography). A curious structure in some eublepharid species is a deep axial pocket of
unknown function. This is an invagination of the skin just behind the insertion of the
forelimb. It is well developed in the Southwest Asian species of Eublepharis, but is absent in Goniurosaurus. It is not present in Coleonyx nor Aeluroscalabotes. This pocket has its greatest
development in Hemitheconyx caudicinctus from
Mauritania, but is less developed in H. caudicinctus from Ghana. Axillary pockets are
not present in Holodactylus africanus that I
have examined. I am confused by Grismer’s (1988) remarks on axial pockets; on page 410
he lists character S92 as present = primitive, absent derived, while in his matrix on page
468 he lists this character (C92 [lapsus?]) as derived in Eublepharis, variable in Coleonyx and Hemitheconyx. His fig. 31 (p. 409) shows Eublepharis as defined by the derived condition
of character S92, and be includes the presence of deep axillary pockets in his diagnosis of Eublepharis. My observations of captive E. macularius have not shed any light on the
function of these pockets. In preserved specimens they often contain many small mites.
They bring to mind pockets in the neck and postanal regions of species of Sceloponus, which similarly harbor mites. Loveridge
(1925) described a similar structure in Gymnodactylus
lawdenanus Stoliczka and termed it a “mite pocket.” More recently, Arnold (1986)
proposed that such pockets reduce the damage done to lizard hosts by ectoparasitic larval
trombiculid mites, or chiggers, by concentrating them in restricted areas. Bauer et al. (1990, 1993) argued that such pockets result
from phylogenetic and/or structural constraints on the skin of these lizards. Key to the Species of Eublepharis la. 5-9 preanal
pores (Fig. A); first labial not in contact with large, postmental chin shield (Fig. B) ........ Eublepharis
turcmenicus Darevsky, 1977 lb. 11-17
preanal pores; first labial usually in contact with chin shield (Fig. C) 2a.
Subdigital lamellae smooth (Fig. D) ........ Eublepharis angnamainyu Anderson and
Leviton, 1966 2b. Subdigital lamellae each with several small tubercles (Fig. E).........*Eublepharis macularius (Blyth, 1854).
Further Readings 1. Anderson, SC, 1999. The Lizards of Iran (Contrubution to Herpetology, Vol. 15), Missouri, USA: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. 442 pp. 2.
Anderson, S. C. & Leviton, A. E. (1966). A New species of Eublepharis
from southwestern Iran (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Occas. Pap. California Acad. Sci. 53,
1-5. 3.
Leviton, A. E., Anderson, S. C., Adler, K. & Minton, S. A. (1992). Handbook
to Middle East Amphibians and Reptiles (Contributions to Herpetology, Vol.8).
Missouri, USA: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. 4.
Rösler, H. (1995). Geckos der Welt. Leipzig, Jena, Berlin:Urania-Verlag. 5.
Szczerbak, N. N. & Golubev, M. L. (1996). Gecko Fauna of the USSR and Contiguous
Regions. Contributions to Herpetology, Vol.13, Adler, K. R. Perry, T. D. (eds.).
Missouri (USA): Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Back to Leopard Geckos Homepage [Site Main Page] [Site Ana Sayfa]
|
|
||||||
©Bayram GÖÇMEN, All Rights Reserved. |
