Mabuya mabouya ( Bonnaterre 1789 )

Mabuya mabouya ( Bonnaterre 1789)

Greater Martinique Skink

( Figs. 31C View FIGURE 31 , 32G View FIGURE 32 , 44 View FIGURE 44 )

Lacerta mabouya — Bonnaterre, 1789:51 (new neotype designation: MNHN 5421 View Materials , from " Martinique ") .

Lacerta mabouya —Shaw, 1802:287.

Scincus mabouya — Daudin, 1803:375.

Scincus cepedii — Merrem, 1820:71.

Mabuya dominicensis — Fitzinger, 1826:52 (substitute name).

Scincus mabouya —Gray, 1831:69.

Tiliqua cepedii —Cocteau, 1837 (substitute name; mentioned in Duméril & Bibron, 1839, p. 646, and by later authors; two brief extracts published by Cocteau [1837a,b], but apparently the full manuscript, with names, was never published).

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

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

Mabuia cepedii —Cope, 1862:186 (part).

Mabuya cepedi — Bocourt, 1879:406 (part).

Mabuya maboia — Barbour, 1914:355 (part; incorrect emendation).

Mabuya mabouia —Barbour, 1930:105 (part; incorrect emendation).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mabuya mabouya mabouya — Schwartz & Henderson, 1991:457 (part).

Mabuya bistriata — Powell et al., 1996:82 (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).

Material examined (n = 9). Martinique. MNHN 5421 View Materials (neotype; photographs), donated by Neumann , no other information available; BMNH 53.2 .4.39, accessioned in the BMNH 4 February 1853; MCZ R-6010, W. B. Richardson; MCZ R-6047, Samuel Walton Garman , St. Pierre, Martinique, 3 February 1879; MCZ R-6048 and R- 185621, Samuel Walton Garman, Fort-de-France , Martinique, 8 February 1879; MNHN 1785 View Materials , Auguste Plée, no specific locality, ca. 1820; MNHN 5110 View Materials , Droz, no specific locality. “Antilles.” MNHN 1889.0664 View Materials , Gardemal, 1889 .

Diagnosis. Mabuya mabouya is characterized by (1) maximum SVL in males, 83.9 mm; (2) maximum SVL in females, 101.2 mm; (3) snout width, 2.52–3.23% SVL; (4) head length, 16.2–19.4% SVL; (5) head width, 12.1– 14.9% SVL; (6) ear length, 1.09–1.91% SVL; (7) toe-IV length, 10.2–12.5% SVL; (8) prefrontals, two; (9) supraoculars, three; (10) supraciliaries, three (13%), four (88%); (11) frontoparietals, two; (12) supralabial below the eye, five (63%), six (38%); (13) nuchal rows, one (88%), two (13%); (14) dorsals, 55–61; (15) ventrals, 65–75; (16) dorsals + ventrals, 122–135; (17) midbody scale rows, 26–34; (18) finger-IV lamellae, 13–16; (19) toe-IV lamellae, 17–19; (20) finger-IV + toe-IV lamellae, 30–34; (21) supranasal contact, Y (13%), N (88%); (22) prefrontal contact, N; (23) supraocular-1/frontal contact, Y; (24) parietal contact, Y; (25) pale middorsal stripe, N; (26) dark dorsolateral stripe, N; (27) dark lateral stripe, Y; (28) pale lateral stripe, Y (17%), N (83%); and (29) palms and soles, dark ( Tables 3–5).

Within the Genus Mabuya , M. mabouya is separated from M. cochonae sp. nov., M. desiradae sp. nov., M. grandisterrae sp. nov., and M. guadeloupae sp. nov. by having a longer frontonasal scale (frontonasal length 20.7– 23.5% HL versus 17.8–19.9% in those other species; Fig. 34 View FIGURE 34 ). It differs from M. dominicana by having a wider supranasal (supranasal length/supranasal width 3.61–4.28 versus 4.57–6.57 in M. dominicana ; Fig. 35). It differs from M. grandisterrae sp. nov., M. hispaniolae sp. nov. and M. montserratae sp. nov. by having a higher supraciliary-2/supraciliary-3 length ratio (1.92–2.19 versus 1.39–1.79; Fig. 36 View FIGURE 36 ). In pattern ( Fig. 32 View FIGURE 32 ), M. mabouya differs from M. dominicana and M. hispaniolae sp. nov. in having a shorter dark lateral stripe and in lacking a dark ventrolateral stripe.

Description of neotype ( Fig View FIGURE 44 . 44A–C). The following is based on our examination of photographs. An unsexed adult in excellent state of preservation, without injuries and without an abdominal slit. SVL 99.8 mm; tail length not measured (regenerated); HL 19.4 mm; HW, SW, EL, and toe-IV length not measured; ear-opening average in size and round; fingers and toes clawed; order of toe length could not be scored.

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 supraocular, and frontal. Frontal pentagonal, in contact with the first supraocular and paired frontoparietals. Frontoparietals also in contact with parietals and interparietal. Interparietal tetragonal and acorn-shaped, 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 and posterior loreals and forming the lower border of the eyelid. Five to seven 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. Seven infralabials. Mental scale wider than long, posterior margin straight. Postmental scale and two pairs 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, 55 in a longitudinal row; ventrals similar to dorsals; not counted; 29 scales around midbody. No distinct boundaries between dorsals, laterals and ventrals. Scales on tail and limbs similar to dorsals, except smaller on limbs. On tail, one enlarged row each of middorsal and midventral scales with lateral 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, not counted on fingers or toes. Preanal scales similar to ventrals. Enlarged median subcaudal scales on tail.

Pattern and coloration. Dorsal ground color medium brown with small dark brown spots, distributed on body, limbs, and tail, but largely absent in pelvic region and anterior portion of tail. Dark dorsolateral stripes absent. Dark lateral stripes present, dark brown, extending from loreal region to first third of body. Pale middorsal stripe absent. Pale dorsolateral stripes present, gray, extending from top of head to approximately the forelimbs. Pale lateral stripes absent. Ventral surface of body without pattern. Color of palmar and plantar surfaces could not be scored. No information is available on color in life of the neotype.

Variation. Variation in scalation and coloration ( Tables 4–5) appears to be slightly greater than seen in other species, but Martinique is a large island that is a composite of multiple paleoislands, and other reptiles show geographic variation within Martinique ( Breuil 2002; Hedges 2008; Thorpe et al. 2010). For example, midbody scale rows vary from 26–34, and one individual (MCZ R-6010; Fig. 44D View FIGURE 44 ) is heavily spotted. However the variation appears to be discordant, and most specimens do not have specific locality data, preventing any geographic associations. The pattern of one fetus examined (from MCZ R-6048) is also heavily spotted, contrasting with fetuses of other species in the genus. There is a trace of throat (ventral) striping in one specimen (BMNH 53.2.4.39), but it is difficult to tell if it is real or an artifact of preservation. We score toe length order in this species as I <V <II <III <IV; Miralles (Miralles 2005) scored the neotype order as I <II <III = V <IV, but we suspect the difference may reflect different methods of scoring this trait.

Distribution. The species is distributed on Martinique, where it is known from two specific localities on the west coast of the island: St. Pierre and Fort-de-France ( Fig. 11C View FIGURE 11 ), but likely occurred throughout the island (or at least the north paleo-island), before the mongoose was introduced.

Ecology and conservation. No ecological data are recorded for any of the specimens. Because populations and species of Mabuya are exceedingly rare or possibly extinct on essentially all islands where the mongoose has been introduced, and because this species has not been seen since 1889, it may be extinct as well ( Lorvelec et al. 2007; Breuil 2009). Barbour (1937) considered it to be extinct on Martinique.

Based on IUCN Redlist criteria ( IUCN 2011), we consider the conservation status of M. mabouya 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. There are islets of Martinique that do not have mongooses and might sustain populations of this skink.

Reproduction. MCZ R-6048 (99.5 mm SVL; coll. 8 February, 1879) has two well-developed young, although both are fragmentary due to poor preservation.

Etymology. The species name (mabouya) is a feminine singular noun derived from the same name used by native peoples of the Americas, especially the Antilles, for various types of lizards.

Remarks. Miralles (2005) designated a neotype (MNHN 5421) for Lacertus mabouya Lacepède , but the ICZN (2005) has ruled that the entire work of Lacepède (1788) is rejected as an unavailable, non-binominal work. Therefore the species name reverts to Bonnaterre (1789). However, Bonnaterre did not indicate a type, and thus we have designated MNHN 5421 as the neotype of Lacerta mabouya Bonnaterre (1789) .

Miralles (2005) reported that MNHN 1889.0664 was from Guadeloupe. However, the MNHN records the locality as "Antilles" (no specific locality). Our examination indicates that it has the diagnostic characters of Mabuya mabouya and therefore is likely from Martinique. Auguste Plée (1787–1825) collected in Martinique in ca. 1820 for the MNHN, therefore constraining the date of collection of MNHN 1785.