Download Full Document - Mountain Boomer Music!

McGUIRE-SYSTEMATICS OF CROTAPHYTID LIZARDS
Fig. 29.-A postfemonl mite pocket in a juvenile Croraphytus hicinctores.
humeral fold was not observed in any of the outgroup
taxa examined and, thus, appears to be unique
to Croraphyttrs, excluding C. dickersonae. As discussed
above, the antehumeral fold of C. dickersonae
terminates further anteriorly than in any other
crotaphytid, usually failing to reach the forelimb
insertion, which probably explains the absence of
an antehumeral mite pocket in this species.
Pos~emoral Mire Pockets (Character 58; Fig.
29).-In most crotaphytids, subdermal mite pockets
are present at the posterodorsal border of the hindlimb
insertion where a patch of finely scaled or unscaled
skin dips inward between M. iliofibularis and
M. iliofemoralis. These pockets usually are inhabited
by trombiculid mite larvae and occasionally
ticks. Arnold (1 986) noted that mite pockets, which
may occur in a variety of anatomical regions, often
vary both intra- and interspecifically in terms of
their presence, degree of development (e.g., depth),
and in the nature of their squamation, and in this
respect Crotaphytidae is no exception. However,
pockets were absent only in Crorapl~us reticularus
and occasionally in C. collaris and C. nebrius.
In Croraphytus, the depth of the mite pocket may
be correlated with the degree of development of the
antehumeral mite fold. For example, in C. reficulatrrs,
which lacks the postfemoral pocket, the mite
pockets of the antehumeral fold (discussed above)
are strongly developed. In contrast, the mite pockets
of the antehumeral fold are absent in C. dickersonae.
while the postfemoral pockets are the most strongly
developed (deepest) of all Crotaph))rus.
Postfemoral mite pockets are not unique to Crotaphytidae.
Smith (1 939) noted that they are present
in seven species of Sceloporucs, including the five
species in his S. variabilis group, as well as S. macltlosus
and S. gadoviae. Shallow postfemoral pockets
were also observed in Uta squamara and U. paltneri,
but not other Ura. Although not observed here,
shallow mite pockets are occasionally present in several
species of Urosaurus (J. Wiens, personal communication,
1994). However, the absence of postfemoral
pockets in Pf?r)mosoma, the sand lizards,
Petrosaurus, most Uta (in those species that lack
pockets, mites may accumulate in the postfemoral
region, but an obvious subdermal pocket is lacking),
most Urosaurus. Sator, as well as most Sceloporus,
suggests that the pockets observed in subsets of Uro-