Celestus microblepharis ( Underwood 1959 )

Schools, Molly & Hedges, Blair, 2024, A new forest lizard fauna from Caribbean islands (Squamata, Diploglossidae, Celestinae), Zootaxa 5554 (1), pp. 1-306 : 83-87

Celestus microblepharis ( Underwood 1959)

Small-eyed Forest Lizard

(Fig. 28)

Diploglossus microblepharis Underwood, 1959:2 . Holotype: MCZ R-55764, collected by R. P. Bengry and G. R. Proctor at Boscobel, Saint Mary Parish, Jamaica, on 8 July 1953 (18.40, -76.97).

Celestus microblepharis — Schwartz & Henderson, 1991:377.

Celestus microblepharis — Hedges et al., 2019:17

Celestus microblepharis — Schools & Hedges, 2021:220.

Celestus microblepharis — Landestoy et al., 2022:204.

Material examined (n=1). JAMAICA. Saint Mary. MCZ R-55764 , R. P. Bengry and G . R. Proctor, Boscobel, 8 July 1953 .

Diagnosis. Celestus microblepharis has (1) a dorsal pattern of chevrons, (2) head markings absent, (3) markings in the longitudinal paramedian area absent, (4) dots arranged in bars in the lateral band absent, (5) an adult SVL of 96.4 mm, (6) ventral scale rows, 109, (7) midbody scale rows, 43, (8) total lamellae on one hand, 30, (9) total strigae on ten scales, 165, (10) relative length of all digits on one hindlimb, 16.6 %, (11) relative distance between the angled subocular and mouth, 0.820 %, (12) relative eye length, 1.83 %, (13) relative forelimb length, 14.2 %, (14) relative ear width, 0.446 %, (15) relative rostral height, 1.71 %, (16) relative head length, 14.7 %, (17) relative mental width, 1.44 %, (18) relative postmental width, 2.47 %, (19) relative cloacal width, 8.02 %, (20) relative prefrontal width, 4.37 %, (21) relative largest supraocular width, 2.06 %, (22) relative longest finger length, 3.11 %, (23) relative distance between the ear and eye, 7.05 %, (24) relative head width, 75.4 %, (25) relative frontal width, unavailable, (26) relative nasal height, 0.726 %, (27) relative angled subocular height, 0.778 %, (28) relative distance between the eye and naris, 4.79 %, (29) relative canthal iii length, 1.74 %, (30) relative angled subocular width, 2.90 %, and (31) relative nasal length, 1.11 %. No genetic data are available for estimating the species stem time or crown time.

Celestus microblepharis has a smaller relative length of all digits on one hindlimb (16.6), a smaller relative eye length (1.83), a smaller relative forelimb length (14.2), a smaller relative auricular length (0.446), relative head length (14.7), relative postmental width (2.47), relative longest finger length (3.11), relative nasal height (0.726), and relative angled subocular height (0.778) than most other species of the genus. This species also has a larger relative angled subocular width (2.90) than most other species of the genus.

From Celestus barbouri , we distinguish C. microblepharis by the adult SVL (96.4 versus 78.4–93.6), the ventral scale rows (109 versus 118–151), the midbody scale rows (43 versus 47–56), the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 36–49), the total strigae on ten scales (165 versus 105–136), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (16.6 versus 18.2–23.5), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.820 versus 0.437 –0.556), the relative eye length (1.83 versus 2.87–3.63), the relative forelimb length (14.2 versus 15.4–19.0), the relative ear width (0.446 versus 0.810–1.86), the relative rostral height (1.71 versus 1.41–1.66), the relative mental width (1.44 versus 1.51–1.85), the relative postmental width (2.47 versus 2.51–3.29), the relative prefrontal width (4.37 versus 3.97–4.33), the relative nasal height (0.726 versus 0.930–1.12), the relative angled subocular width (2.90 versus 1.97–2.52), and the relative nasal width (1.11 versus 1.38–1.65). From C. capitulatus sp. nov., we distinguish C. microblepharis by the dorsal pattern (chevrons versus irregular dots/dots in chevrons), the adult SVL (96.4 versus 62.1–81.8), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (16.6 versus 17.6–22.3), the relative eye length (1.83 versus 2.75–3.80), the relative forelimb length (14.2 versus 14.3–18.1), the relative ear width (0.446 versus 0.671–2.04), the relative head length (14.7 versus 15.1–17.7), the relative postmental width (2.47 versus 2.62–2.97), the relative longest finger length (3.11 versus 3.45–3.75), the relative nasal height (0.726 versus 0.953–1.42), the relative angled subocular width (2.90 versus 1.93–2.32), and the relative nasal width (1.11 versus 1.40–1.84). From C. crusculus , we distinguish C. microblepharis by the dorsal pattern (chevrons versus absent/flecks in series/dots in chevrons), the longitudinal paramedian lines (absent versus present), the adult SVL (96.4 versus 59.6–77.6), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (16.6 versus 18.7–24.7), the relative eye length (1.83 versus 2.93–3.61), the relative ear width (0.446 versus 0.716–2.00), the relative head length (14.7 versus 15.5–20.3), the relative postmental width (2.47 versus 2.73–3.37), the relative nasal height (0.726 versus 0.925–1.37), the relative angled subocular height (0.778 versus 0.953–1.21), the relative angled subocular width (2.90 versus 2.03–2.43), and the relative nasal width (1.11 versus 1.27–1.60). From C. duquesneyi , we distinguish C. microblepharis by the dorsal pattern (chevrons versus bands), the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 64), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (16.6 versus 31.4), the relative eye length (1.83 versus 4.36), the relative forelimb length (14.2 versus 24.4), the relative ear width (0.446 versus 2.45), the relative mental width (1.44 versus 2.35), the relative longest finger length (3.11 versus 6.52), the relative angled subocular height (0.778 versus 1.61), and the relative nasal width (1.11 versus 2.01). From C. hesperius sp. nov., we distinguish C. microblepharis by the dorsal pattern (chevrons versus dots in chevrons), the adult SVL (96.4 versus 54.0–62.3), the ventral scale rows (109 versus 111–114), the relative eye length (1.83 versus 3.61–3.74), and the relative ear width (0.446 versus 1.52–1.59). From C. hewardi , we distinguish C. microblepharis by the dorsal pattern (chevrons versus mottled/bands), the adult SVL (96.4 versus 129–171), the ventral scale rows (109 versus 113–137), the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 50–61), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (16.6 versus 24.1–30.6), the relative eye length (1.83 versus 2.98–4.05), the relative forelimb length (14.2 versus 22.2–24.6), the relative ear width (0.446 versus 1.40–1.82), the relative head length (14.7 versus 16.8–21.5), the relative mental width (1.44 versus 1.75–1.81), the relative postmental width (2.47 versus 2.84–3.44), the relative cloacal width (8.02 versus 8.81–9.89), the relative largest supraocular width (2.06 versus 2.43–2.96), the relative longest finger length (3.11 versus 5.03–5.66), the relative nasal height (0.726 versus 1.21–1.24), the relative angled subocular height (0.778 versus 0.918–1.30), the relative distance between the eye and naris (4.79 versus 5.00–5.60), the relative angled subocular width (2.9 versus 1.63–2.23), and the relative nasal width (1.11 versus 1.56–1.88). From C. jamesbondi sp. nov., we distinguish C. microblepharis by the dorsal pattern (chevrons versus absent/irregular dots/dots in chevrons), the adult SVL (96.4 versus 54.7–72.0), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (16.6 versus 19.8–26.3), the relative eye length (1.83 versus 2.94–4.06), the relative forelimb length (14.2 versus 14.4–19.9), the relative ear width (0.446 versus 0.917–2.18), the relative head length (14.7 versus 15.1–20.4), the relative mental width (1.44 versus 1.59–2.01), the relative postmental width (2.47 versus 2.61–2.92), the relative largest supraocular width (2.06 versus 2.16–2.79), the relative longest finger length (3.11 versus 3.66–4.33), the relative head width (75.4 versus 76.0–80.8), the relative nasal height (0.726 versus 1.12–1.21), the relative angled subocular height (0.778 versus 0.893–1.18), the relative width of canthal iii (1.74 versus 1.75–2.16), the relative angled subocular width (2.90 versus 2.09–2.76), and the relative nasal width (1.11 versus 1.42–1.75). From C. macrolepis , we distinguish C. microblepharis by the dorsal pattern (chevrons versus bicolored), the adult SVL (96.4 versus 254–316), the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 52–54), the total strigae on ten scales (165 versus 398), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (16.6 versus 27.5–28.0), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.820 versus 1.39–1.66), the relative eye length (1.83 versus 3.63–3.70), the relative forelimb length (14.2 versus 26.1–26.7), the relative ear width (0.446 versus 0.760–1.43), the relative longest finger length (3.11 versus 5.47–5.51), and the relative nasal height (0.726 versus 1.18). From C. macrotus , we distinguish C. microblepharis by the longitudinal paramedian lines (absent versus present), the dots arranged in bars in the lateral areas (absent versus present), the adult SVL (96.4 versus 60.0–86.1), the ventral scale rows (109 versus 87–93), the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 39–40), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (16.6 versus 30.2–31.2), the relative eye length (1.83 versus 3.79–5.17), the relative forelimb length (14.2 versus 22.4–25.0), the relative ear width (0.446 versus 1.75–2.08), the relative longest finger length (3.11 versus 6.43–6.67), the relative nasal height (0.726 versus 1.15–1.62), and the relative nasal width (1.11 versus 2.08–2.33). From C. molesworthi , we distinguish C. microblepharis by the dorsal pattern (chevrons versus dots in chevrons), the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 32–44), the total strigae on ten scales (165 versus 138–159), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (16.6 versus 22.4–29.4), the relative eye length (1.83 versus 3.28–3.70), the relative forelimb length (14.2 versus 17.5– 24.2), the relative ear width (0.446 versus 1.37–1.50), the relative rostral height (1.71 versus 1.72–1.81), the relative head length (14.7 versus 17.2–20.0), and the relative nasal height (0.726 versus 1.17–1.26). From C. occiduus , we distinguish C. microblepharis by the dorsal pattern (chevrons versus absent), the adult SVL (96.4 versus 269–367), the midbody scale rows (43 versus 46–56), the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 50–66), the total strigae on ten scales (165 versus 374), the relative distance between angled subocular and mouth (0.820 versus 1.26–1.27), the relative eye length (1.83 versus 2.87–3.33), the relative forelimb length (14.2 versus 23.5–23.9), the relative ear width (0.446 versus 0.948–1.39), the relative nasal height (0.726 versus 1.16), and the relative angled subocular height (0.778 versus 1.30). From C. oligolepis sp. nov., we distinguish C. microblepharis by the dorsal pattern (chevrons versus dots in chevrons), the head markings (absent versus present), the longitudinal paramedian lines (absent versus present), the ventral scale rows (109 versus 98), the midbody scale rows (43 versus 35). From C. striatus , we distinguish C. microblepharis the total lamellae on one hand (30 versus 59–66), the total strigae on ten scales (165 versus 279), the relative length of digits on one hindlimb (16.6 versus 37.8), the relative eye length (1.83 versus 3.85), the relative forelimb length (14.2 versus 26.1), the relative ear width (0.446 versus 1.30), the relative longest finger length (3.11 versus 7.48).

Description of holotype. MCZ R-55764. An adult; SVL 96.4 mm; tail nearly cylindrical, broken in life near tip, regenerated, 87.3 mm (90.6% SVL); axilla-to-groin distance 58.2 mm (60.4% SVL); forelimb length 13.7 mm (14.2% SVL); hindlimb length 21.3 mm (22.1% SVL); head length 14.2 mm (14.7% SVL); head width 10.7 mm (11.1% SVL); head width 75.4% head length; diameter of orbit 1.76 mm (1.83% SVL); horizontal diameter of ear opening 0.43 mm (0.446% SVL); vertical diameter of ear opening 0.48 mm (0.498% SVL); length of all toes on one foot 16.0 mm (16.6% SVL); shortest distance between angled subocular and lip 0.79 mm (0.820% SVL); shortest distance between the ocular and auricular openings 6.80 mm (7.05% SVL); longest finger length 3.00 mm (3.11% SVL); largest supraocular width 1.99 mm (2.06% SVL); cloacal width 7.73 mm (8.02% SVL); postmental width 2.38 mm (2.47% SVL); mental width 1.39 mm (1.44% SVL); prefrontal width 4.21 mm (4.37% SVL); nasal height 0.70 mm (0.726% SVL); angled subocular height 0.75 mm (0.778% SVL); shortest distance between the eye and naris 4.62 mm (4.79% SVL); canthal iii width 1.68 mm (1.74% SVL); angled subocular width 2.80 mm (2.90% SVL); nasal width 1.07 mm (1.11% SVL); rostral 1.71X as wide as high, visible from above, not in contact with nasals, in contact with 1 st supralabial and anterior internasal (left)/(right); anterior internasals are narrower than posterior ones (left divided); frontonasals and prefrontal fused into a single large plate with an irregular posterior margin, much wider than long, bordered by posterior internasals, 1 st and 2 nd loreals, 1 st median oculars, and the frontal; frontal and frontoparietals fused into a single plate, wider than long; interparietal plate slightly smaller than parietals and separating them, posteriorly touching the interoccipital, which is wider than long; parietal separated from supraoculars by 1 st temporals and frontoparietal/frontal plate (left)/(right); nasal single; nostril above suture between 1 st and 2 nd supralabials (left)/(right); 1 postnasal (left)/(right); 2 loreals (left)/(right); 1 st loreal approximately as high as wide (left)/(right), in contact with postnasal, posterior internasal, prefrontal/ frontonasal complex, 2 nd loreal, and 3 rd –4th supralabials (left)/postnasal, posterior internasal, prefrontal/frontonasal complex, 2 nd loreal, and 3 rd –5 th supralabials (right); 2 nd loreal shorter than 1 st, approximately as high as wide (left)/ (right), in contact with supraocular (left)/(right); final loreal posteriorly bordering the lower preocular (left)/(right); 7 (left)/6 (right) median oculars, 1 st contacting the prefrontal (left)/(right); 0 upper preoculars (left)/(right); an irregular anterior supraciliary (left)/(right); 4 lateral oculars (left)/(right); 4 temporals (left)/(right); 1 subocular (left)/(right); posterior subocular large and elongate (left)/(right); 8 supralabials (left)/(right), 5 to level below center of eye (left)/(right); 8 infralabials (left)/(right), 5 to level below center of eye (left)/(right); mental small, followed by a single, slightly larger postmental; 4 pairs of enlarged chin shields; 1 st pair in contact with one another anteriorly, posteriorly separated by one scale; 2 nd –4 th pairs separated by 1–5 scales; 105 transverse rows of dorsal scales from interoccipital to base of tail; 109 transverse rows of ventral scales from mental to vent; 43 scales around midbody; 5 digits; finger lengths 3>4>2>5>1; 7 (left)/8 (right) lamellae under longest finger; 30 total lamellae on one hand; toe lengths 4>3>5>2>1; 11 (left)/12 (right) lamellae under longest toe; striate with a median keel dorsal body and caudal scales; smooth ventral scales; 165 total strigae counted on ten scales.

Color (in alcohol): dorsal surface of head yellow-tan, patternless; lateral surfaces of head grading from yellow-tan to pale yellow ventrally with darker faded eye masks; dorsal surfaces of the body are yellow-tan with remains of a faded dotted chevron pattern; dorsal surface of tail the same yellow-tan to pale yellow as noted on the head, remains of a faded dotted chevron pattern appear as very pale brown; lateral areas are pale yellow with no pattern to indicate the presence of a lateral band; dorsal surfaces of the limbs are pale yellow with some pale brown spots; lateral and ventral areas of the limbs fade to pale yellow-tan; ventral surfaces of the head, body, and tail are yellow-tan, patternless.

FIGURE 28. (A–F) Celestus microblepharis (MCZ R-55764, holotype), SVL 96.4 mm.

Variation. No other specimens are known. Measurements and other morphological data for the holotype are presented in Table 1.

Distribution. Celestus microblepharis is known only from the holotype, collected at Boscobel, on the north-central coast of Jamaica where it was collected at 20 m elevation (Fig. 11).

Ecology and conservation. The holotype of this species was collected under rotting coconut husks with Celestus jamesbondi sp. nov. near a coastal area that backed up to limestone hills covered with dry scrub forest.

The IUCN Redlist ( IUCN 2023) considers the conservation status of Celestus microblepharis to be Critically Endangered B 1ab(iii,v) because “the species’ has a tiny known extent of occurrence and has not been found within or beyond the type locality despite extensive surveys over the last 40 years; it occurs (or occurred) at one locality, within which the extent and quality of its habitat (although poorly-known) is assumed to be declining based on inference given the extent of conversion of remnant forest, scrub, and coconut plantations for tourism and residential development.” Studies are needed to determine the health and extent of remaining populations and threats to the survival of the species. Captive-breeding programs should be undertaken, because eradication of introduced mammalian predators is not yet possible on Jamaica .

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

Etymology. The species name is an adjective from the prefix micro- (small), the Greek word blepharon (eyelid), and the prefix - aris (pertaining to), referring to the small eyes of this species.

Remarks. The original description of Celestus microblepharis placed it in a group with Diploglossus delasagra and Diploglossus pleii , presumably based on morphological similarities ( Underwood 1959). This grouping was retained in later works ( Schwartz 1971a) but is contradicted by our placement in Celestus . Celestus microblepharis was not included in our genetic dataset. Future studies using genetic or genomic data are needed to determine the relationships of C. microblepharis within Celestus .