Eremias fahimii Mozaffari & Ahmadzadeh & Saberi-Pirooz 2020, sp. nov.
Creators: name: Mozaffari, Omid
name: Ahmadzadeh, Faraham
name: Saberi-Pirooz, Reihaneh
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Reptilia
Squamata
Lacertidae
Eremias
Eremias fahimii

description: Eremias fahimii sp. nov.
(Figs. 3 and 4)
Eremias persica Anderson, 1999: 221 (part.); Leviton, Anderson, Adler and Minton, 1992: 57 (part.); Mozaffari, Kamali and Fahimi, 2006: 176 (part.).
Diagnosis. An Eremias species with three nasals; lower nasal resting on two supralabials; subocular bordering mouth; lateral scales of forth toe not forming distinct fringes; forth toe with single complete row of subdigital scales; the two series of femoral pores separated by a single scale; collar scales distinctly larger than adjacent gulars; 30–31 gulars in straight median series; 60–63 dorsals; 31 scales in the tenth caudal annulus; upper caudal scales smooth and without distinct keels.
Comparisons. Whether the subgenera represent monophyletic groups or not, as morphologically-defined taxa they are useful bins for comparing and diagnosing our new species. Eremias fahimii sp. nov. can be excluded from the subgenus Scapteira by lacking the lateral fringes on the fourth toe (Fig. 3D) and by a subocular scale that is in contact with the edge of mouth (Fig. 3C). The latter character also excludes it from the subgenus Ommateremias. It can be excluded from the subgenus Rhabderemias by its large size and by having longitudinal dorsal stripes that are broken into a spotted pattern (Anderson, 1999). Within the Iranian members of the subgenus Eremias, E. fahimii sp. nov. can be differentiated from E. isfahanica by having more supralabial scales (9–10 vs. 6–8) 6–7 of them located anterior to subocular (vs. 5), smaller gap between femoral pores (1 scale vs. 3) (Fig. 3E), fewer supraciliary scales (5–6 vs. 7) and fewer subdigital lamella under the 4 th toe (20–21 vs. 22–26). It can be distinguished from Eremias kopetdaghica Szczerbak, 1972 by having more mid-dorsum scales (60-63 vs. 48-59), more scales in the 10 th caudal annulus (31 vs. 20–26), more gular scales (30–31 vs. 19–28) (Fig. 3A) and the absence distinctly keeled upper caudal scales (Fig. 3F). With the latter character, it can be distinguished from Eremias strauchi Kessler, 1878. It can be distinguished from E. lalezharica by having more mid-dorsum scales (60–63 vs. 54–59), more pairs of submaxillary shields (5 vs.4) (Fig. 3A), fewer gular scales (30–31 vs. 33–40), fewer collar scales (12 vs. 13–15), more femoral pores (19–21 vs. 16–18) and a smaller gap between the femoral pores (1 scale vs. 3–5). It can be distinguished from E. montana by having more transverse rows of ventral plates (31–32 vs. 27–28), more scales in the 10 th caudal annulus (31 vs. 27–28), more gular scales (30–31 vs. 23–25), more collar scales (12 vs. 9–11) and more supralabials anterior to subocular (6–7 vs. 4–5) (Fig. 3C). It can be distinguished from E. papenfussi by having more supralabial scales (9–10 vs. 8), 6–7 of them located anterior to the subocular (vs. 5), more gular scales (30–31 vs. 24–28) and more scales in the 10 th caudal annulus (31 vs. 23–28). There are also very obvious differences in the shape and size of the parietals, interparietal and frontoparietals. E. fahimii sp. nov. has a relatively large quadrilateral interparietal (vs. small oval in E. papenfussi) and the length of this scale is almost as long as the parietals’ junction and a little bit shorter than the frontoparietals’ junction; While this length is about half of the parietals’ junction and a third of the frontoparietals’ junction in E. papenfussi. Quadrilateral shape of interparietal in E. fahimii sp. nov. has led frontoparietals to grow trapezoidal and parietals to grow almost rectangular. But in E. papenfussi that is opposite. Frontoparietals are rectangular and parietals are trapezoidal (Figs. 3B and 6). E remias fahimii sp. nov. can be distinguished from Eremias suphani Basoglu and Hellmich, 1968 by lacking the extension of gular scales to the second inframaxiallary scales (Franzen & Heckes, 1999) (the second and third pair of submaxillary shields are in contact) (Fig. 3A). It can be distinguished from Eremias velox Pallas, 1771 by having more mid-dorsum scales (60–63 vs. 46–56) and more gular scales (30–31 vs. 23–25). Regarding to its color pattern in adult form, it can also distinguish from E. kopetdaghica, E. strauchi, E. lalezharica and E. velox by absence of lateral color ocellus (Fig. 4) (Mozaffari et al., 2016).
Description of Holotype (ZFMK 102757). Size: A medium-sized Eremias with a SVL of 54.5 mm and TL of 147 mm.
Scalation (Fig. 3): Subocular bordering mouth; 9/10 supralabials, six/seven anterior to subocular; lower nasal rests on first and second supralabials as well as the frontonasal; three (two large and one small) supraocular scales; lateral scales of the fourth toe do not form distinct fringes and 20/21 subdigital lamella under the toe; two rows of 19/20 femoral pores separated by a single scale that reach the knee; five submaxillary shields, first three pairs in contact; 30 gular scales between submaxillary shields and collar; collar made up of 12 scales; 60 scales across middorsum; 15 longitudinal and 32 transverse rows of ventral plates; 31 scales in the 10 th caudal annulus; upper caudal scales smooth and without distinct keels.
Description of Paratype (ZFMK 102758). Size: SVL of 56 mm and TL of 149.7 mm.
Scalation: Subocular bordering mouth; 9 supralabials, six anterior to subocular; lower nasal rests on first and second supralabials as well as the frontonasal; three (two large and one small) supraocular scales; lateral scales of the fourth toe do not form distinct fringes and 20 subdigital lamella under the toe; two rows of 20/21 femoral pores separated by a single scale that reach the knees; five submaxillary shields, first three pairs in contact; 31 gular scales between submaxillary shields and collar; collar made up of 12 scales; 63 scales across mid-dorsum; 15 longitudinal and 32 transverse rows of ventral plates; 31 scales in the 10 th caudal annulus; upper caudal scales smooth and without distinct keels. Table 1 shows the variation between the holotype and the paratype.
Coloration. In life, the dorsum is dark brown to black with a series of five longitudinal light cream or milky white stripes. The medial stripe starts anteriorly at the posterior margin of the parietals. But four other stripes start from the anterior margin of parietals, passing through them. The inner stripe pair connect with each other in the pelvic region; but the outer pair extends to at least the anterior third of the tail. Sometimes the black or dark brown space between light stripes breaks up and makes dark irregular spots in a light brown or sandy background. Another two pairs of light lateral stripes on each side of body, one starts at the upper and the other starts about the lower edge of the ear opening. Both stripes may break up into small light spots on flanks. Head is sandy to light brown with irregular black spots. Dorsal side of the limbs is light brown with black irregular cloudy patterns and light spots. Dorsal side of the tail light brown, dark brown or black with previous mentioned light stripes (Fig. 4). The venter and ventral side of tail milky white.
Etymology. According to Arnold et al. (2007), “ Eremias is a Greek noun meaning solitary devotee, and is related to Eremia, signifying an isolated place or desert.” (Arnold et al., 2007; Mozaffari & Parham, 2007) The epithet fahimii is for Hadi Fahimi (1980-2018), a great young ecologist, environmentalist, herpetologist, mammalogist, co-author of the Atlas of Reptiles of Iran (Mozaffari et al., 2016) and friend of the authors, who passed away too soon in a plane crash.
Remarks. Habitat in type locality consists of mild slopes and covered with highly weathered rocky materials. The dominant vegetation is Atriphaxis, Artemisia, Peganum and annual grass (Fig. 5).
Examining fecal materials shows that like almost all Eremias species, they feed on small arthropods. The main ingested food of the two specimens were coleopterans, because of their availability due to the beginning of the dispersal season of these insects.
The other reptile species syntopic with Eremias fahimii sp. nov. are Eumeces schneiderii Daudin, 1802, Malpolon insignitus Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 1809, Mesalina watsonana Stoliczka, 1872, Ophisops elegans Menetries, 1832, Psammophis schokari Forskal, 1775 and Trapelus agilis Olivier, 1807.
description: Published as part of Mozaffari, Omid, Ahmadzadeh, Faraham & Saberi-Pirooz, Reihaneh, 2020, Fahimi's racerunner, a new species of the genus Eremias Fitzinger, 1834 (Sauria: Lacertidae) from Iran, pp. 565-578 in Zootaxa 4768 (4) on pages 571-573, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4768.4.7, http://zenodo.org/record/3785866