Research Article |
Corresponding author: Wolfgang Denzer ( wolfdenoxford@yahoo.co.uk ) Academic editor: Alexander Haas
© 2020 Wolfgang Denzer, Jakob Hallermann, Ulrich Manthey, Annemarie Ohler.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Denzer W, Hallermann J, Manthey U, Ohler A (2020) Lophyrus spinosus C. Duméril & A. Duméril, 1851, a case of mistaken identity. Evolutionary Systematics 4(1): 45-52. https://doi.org/10.3897/evolsyst.4.49023
|
Lophyrus spinosus Duméril & Duméril, 1851 has been considered synonymous with Bronchocela marmorata Gray, 1845 since its original description. The name-bearing type of Lophyrus spinosus is the specimen collected by Hombron and Jacquinot (
Our comparison of the holotypes reveals that these two species are not identical. Therefore we resurrect Lophyrus spinosus from its synonymy with Bronchocela marmorata and show that the specimen collected by Hombron and Jacquinot actually belongs to the genus Hypsilurus.
Lophyrus spinosus, Bronchocela marmorata, synomymy, taxon resurrection, Hypsilurus spinosus comb. nov.
While the plate depicting L. spinosus was already published in 1843, the publication of the text volume was delayed for another ten years, and finally
The name-bearing type of Lophyrus spinosus is the specimen collected by Hombron and Jacquinot,
Only
Recently, one of us (WD) came across the original plate (Figure
In order to evaluate the taxonomic status of Lophyrus spinosus Duméril & Duméril, 1851 we studied museum specimens including the type specimens of Gonocephalus sophiae and Hypsilurus auritus and compared the respective data to those of the holotype of Lophyrus spinosus.
Meristic and morphometric data were recorded from type specimens and additional material mentioned in the text. Measurements were taken using a sliding calliper with a precision of 0.1 mm or using a ruler with a precision of 1 mm. Abbreviations used are as follows: SVL: snout-vent length; TL: tail length; HL: head length; HW: head width, dtymp: diameter of the tympanum, deye: diameter of the eye.
Collection acronyms are as follows:
In his review of the genus Bronchocela
In their original description of Lophyrus spinosus
More importantly there is one specific character given in the description of
“Related to the preceding species [Gonyocephalus (Hypsilurus) binotatus], but much smaller. Crest hardly interrupted, low. A black mark on the sides of the head that encircles the ear. No large plates below the tympanum. Gular pouch large, covered with small keeled scales.” The reference to Hypsilurus binotatus was presumably made because of the dark coloured mark on either side of the neck. Otherwise the similarity between these two species is rather low.
Further and more detailed descriptions of Hypsilurus auritus can be found in
Consequently, we compared the description and illustration as well as the holotype of Lophyrus spinosus (
Holotype of Lophyrus spinosus Duméril & Duméril, 1851, valid as Hypsilurus spinosus comb. nov. (
a Syntype 1 of Hypsilurus auritus (
Scale characters differentiating the holotype of Lophyrus spinosus from the syntypes of Hypsilurus auritus.
Character | Lophyrus spinosus | Hypsilurus auritus |
---|---|---|
Number of scales between nasal and first supralabial | Three | Single |
Size of enlarged scales adjacent to the infralabials | Equal in size until approx. 6th/7th infralabial scale | Decreasing in size, largest adjacent to the 1st infralabial scale |
Shape of scale of nuchal | Lanceolate, longer than the diameter of the tympanum | Triangular, smaller than the diameter of the tympanum |
Size of first dorsal crest scales | Nearly equal in size to the ones of the nuchal crest | Smaller than largest nuchal crest scale |
Shape of scales of dorsal crest | Lanceolate and backward curved; initially larger or as large as the diameter of the tympanum | Triangular, much smaller than the diameter of the tympanum |
The morphometric data of L. spinosus also differ from those that have been reported for H. auritus specimens. Urban (1977, unpubl. PhD thesis) examined 45 auritus specimens (27 males, 18 females) and recorded a maximum SVL of 130 mm (vs. 140 mm in spinosus) and a maximum TL of 390 mm (vs. 425 mm in spinosus). The tympanum / eye ratio in auritus was given as 1 (vs. smaller than 1 [0.6–0.76] in spinosus: right side dtymp 5.0 mm, deye 6.6 mm / ratio ~ 0.76, left side dtymp 4.5 mm, deye 7.5 mm / ratio = 0.6). With respect to auritus Urban (1977) characterized the shape of nuchal crest scales as triangular and equal in size to that of the diameter of the eye (vs. lanceolate and larger than the diameter of the eye in spinosus).
Furthermore the colouration of the L. spinosus holotype is different from that of the two known type specimens of H. auritus (see Figures
Although the illustration of L. spinosus is pretty detailed and clearly depicting the actual type there is one character that could not be verified and may be down to the artist’s impression; the illustrated specimen has nuchal and dorsal crest continuous, however the type does not. We examined the type for a possible loss of crest scales on the neck and concluded that no scales are missing and therefore nuchal and dorsal crest have to be considered as interrupted.
As a result of our research we remove Lophyrus spinosus Duméril & Duméril, 1851 from its synonymy with Bronchocela marmorata Gray, 1845. Furthermore we resurrect L. spinosus to full species status to which the name Hypsilurus spinosus (Duméril & Duméril, 1851) should be applied. Based on our comparisons with respect to the type material we conclude that Hypsilurus spinosus and Hypsilurus auritus (Meyer, 1874) are not conspecific and should be considered as distinct species
Given the “nomenclatural rollercoaster” Lophyrus spinosus went through, we present a short list of synonyms and chresonyms as follows:
Lophyre épineux –
Bronchocela marmorata – Gray, 1845: 242. Comment: when describing Bronchocela marmorata, the specimen figured by Hombron and Jacquinot is cited by
Lophyrus spinosus – Duméril & Duméril, 1851: 91. Name-bearing type:
Calotes marmoratus – Boulenger, 1885: 318 (partim). Comment:
Calotes marmoratus marmoratus –
Gonocephalus sophiae –
Hypsilurus spinosus belongs to the H. nigrigularis species group of as defined by
The L’Astrolabe and La Zélée expedition sailed along the New Guinean coast three times. The first approach was from Ambon Island towards the southwestern coast of New Guinea but they did not land and proceeded to the north-western coast of Australia. Their second approach coming from Australia past Aru Island was in April 1839 as detailed in
The expedition’s third and last approach was from the Louisiade Archipelago near the eastern most tip of New Guinea in late May / early June 1840 (see
Consequently, Hombron and Jacquinot could have collected the specimen only on New Guinea or perhaps on Aru Island. Aru (and Kei) have been well sampled by Beccari in 1873 (see
The Naturalis collection holds two specimens (ZMA.RENA.18893) that were collected at Etna Bay, merely 25 km away from our assumed collection locality for H. spinosus. These specimens have three scales between the nasal and first supralabial, a character found in the holotype of H. spinosus. Else they rather agree with the characters described above for H. auritus, e. g. the development of the nuchal and dorsal crest. Without additional material it is impossible to determine whether the differences we found between the type specimens of auritus and spinosus are sufficient to define each taxon or whether they represent clinal variations of phenotypic characters within the same species as the Etna Bay specimens would indicate. Until further (topotypic) specimens of spinosus become available we propose to consider both Hypsilurus spinosus and H. auritus as species in their own right.
The distributional ranges of the two species cannot be defined currently.
Additionally, further fieldwork will help to clarify not only the distribution but also the taxonomic status of different populations. It may well be the case that there exist additional undescribed species that are morphologically similar to H. auritus and H. spinosus.
We highly appreciate the help of Antoine Fraysse (