# found another odd lookin tegu



## Mvskokee (Jun 16, 2008)

this is a cool lil guy has a lil tick problem though


----------



## PuffDragon (Jun 16, 2008)

I dunno who's fatter the ticks or the tegu. He's a lil on the obese side. Where did you find the pic?


----------



## Mvskokee (Jun 16, 2008)

flickr


----------



## VARNYARD (Jun 16, 2008)

That is an adult Colombian Gold tegu.


----------



## angelrose (Jun 16, 2008)

omg, I would have never guessed that. he looks pretty big.


----------



## Mvskokee (Jun 16, 2008)

really? thats crazy i would have never thought


----------



## tupinambis (Jun 16, 2008)

Sorry, Bobby, I not so sure that's _Tupinambis teguixin_ at all. The head shape and, from what I can see of, the cranial scalation is wrong. That looks like what is currently classified as _Tupinambis quadrilineatus_.


----------



## Mvskokee (Jun 16, 2008)

whatever it is it needs some ticks removed


----------



## VARNYARD (Jun 16, 2008)

tupinambis said:


> Sorry, Bobby, I not so sure that's _Tupinambis teguixin_ at all. The head shape and, from what I can see of, the cranial scalation is wrong. That looks like what is currently classified as _Tupinambis quadrilineatus_.



I was under the impression that the T. quadrilineatus looked more like this.






I seen I adult Golden at Daytona last year that could have been that tegu's twin.


----------



## Mvskokee (Jun 16, 2008)

this has to be my favorite tegu of all time Tupinambis duseni


----------



## angelrose (Jun 16, 2008)

I know the gold tegus are around but are the other tegus still around ? they are sweet looking.


----------



## Azaleah (Jun 16, 2008)

I honestly didn't even know ticks could GET that big lol.

But yea that animal is a monster. Gorgeous creature though.


----------



## tupinambis (Jun 16, 2008)

Rostral pentagonal, wider than tall, visible from above, separated from frontonasal by upper nasals. Frontonasal hexagonal, approximately as long as wide. Prefontals irregular, hexagonal, longer than wide, about as long as frontal. Frontal irregular, octagonal, almost elliptical, longer than wide, with anterior and posterior parts of similar width, reaching middle of orbits, in contact with first and second supraoculars. A pair of irregular, pentagonal frontoparietals in contact with the three posterior supraoculars, medial suture longer than that between prefontals. Interparietal pentagonal, longer than wide, wider anteriorly. One parietal on each side, irregular, hexagonal, wider than interparietal, not reaching the temporal angle. Three occipitals, irregularly shaped, middle one as long as wide, laterals wider than long, separated from supraciliaries by row of three small scales; right occipital separated from middle one by small rectangular scale. Four supraoculars, first narrower, second largest; 2nd, 3rd, and 4th wider than long. Supraciliaries 9-11, in dirrect contact with supraoculars, most anterior largest. A large loreal in contact with lower nasal. Frontonasal, prefrontal, first supraciliar, frenocular, and thrid supralabial not reaching upper nasal. Seven supralabials on each side, decreasing in size abruptly at eye level, followed to commissure of mouth by small scales. Temporals polygonal, upper ones smaller; supratemporal row of four scales much larger than temporal. Ear-opening taller than wide, slightly oblique, with smooth margins.


----------



## Kazzy (Jun 17, 2008)

This is pretty wicked too:


----------



## DaveDragon (Jun 17, 2008)

tupinambis said:


> Rostral pentagonal, wider than tall, visible from above, separated from frontonasal by upper nasals. Frontonasal hexagonal, approximately as long as wide. Prefontals irregular, hexagonal, longer than wide, about as long as frontal. Frontal irregular, octagonal, almost elliptical, longer than wide, with anterior and posterior parts of similar width, reaching middle of orbits, in contact with first and second supraoculars. A pair of irregular, pentagonal frontoparietals in contact with the three posterior supraoculars, medial suture longer than that between prefontals. Interparietal pentagonal, longer than wide, wider anteriorly. One parietal on each side, irregular, hexagonal, wider than interparietal, not reaching the temporal angle. Three occipitals, irregularly shaped, middle one as long as wide, laterals wider than long, separated from supraciliaries by row of three small scales; right occipital separated from middle one by small rectangular scale. Four supraoculars, first narrower, second largest; 2nd, 3rd, and 4th wider than long. Supraciliaries 9-11, in dirrect contact with supraoculars, most anterior largest. A large loreal in contact with lower nasal. Frontonasal, prefrontal, first supraciliar, frenocular, and thrid supralabial not reaching upper nasal. Seven supralabials on each side, decreasing in size abruptly at eye level, followed to commissure of mouth by small scales. Temporals polygonal, upper ones smaller; supratemporal row of four scales much larger than temporal. Ear-opening taller than wide, slightly oblique, with smooth margins.


In English???

Pictures are worth a thousand words.


----------



## tupinambis (Jun 17, 2008)

That is english, it's the scientific description of the scalation on the head of _Tupinambis quadrilineatus_ as per Colli, Peres & da Cunha, 1998.

Pictures can be worth a thousand words, but they also tend to be the crutch of the functionally illiterate.


----------



## DaveDragon (Jun 17, 2008)

We are not scientists, therefore we do not speak their (your) language.

I don't care to be bored with the details. 2 pictures to compare would be a summation of the differences to be determined by the viewer. 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Is there a scientific explanation for that??


----------



## tupinambis (Jun 17, 2008)

Let me get this straight...the means by which to accurately identify what species a lizard is is meaningless to you, but a mostly meaningless photo of which you can't tell the defining characters is more important? I understand the craving of a photo, but as has been said numerous times, and should be readily apparent to anyone who is at all familiar with tegus, going by colour alone is totally falacious. To be able to discern the species, one needs to be able to correctly and reliably describe the specific differences and understand their variation. If you cannot describe what it is exactly that is being validated in a photo, then that photo is pointless as a descriptor. Beautiful, yes; informative, only if you understand the information.


----------



## DaveDragon (Jun 17, 2008)

Some people are more visual than verbal oriented. I am one of those people. My wife is the opposite. She can not read a map but can follow directions.

My point is accompanying pictures showing the differences would make the description easier to "visualize".


----------



## Lexi (Jun 17, 2008)

I agree with dave on this one... there are alot of younger people on here which might not understand the scientific description...so pictures of what you are explaining would be a great help.


----------



## tupinambis (Jun 17, 2008)

Unfortunately, this forum does not have the means to upload photos nor do I know of a site that will accurately and graphically depict what it is I think you are looking for. I have photos of what I can guarantee are _T.quadrilineatus_, but otherwise I can only tell you to look up the two articles describing the species (Colli, Peres & da Cunha, 1998; Manzani & Abe, 1997).

Secondly, my going rate as an instructor is $50/hr, as a TA is $25/hr, if you want free instruction the library and internet are wide open for your self education. I can point you in the direction of a few books if you'd like.


----------



## PuffDragon (Jun 17, 2008)

tupinambis you can email me the pictures and I will host them for you. I think everyone would appreciate that.



tupinambis said:


> Secondly, my going rate as an instructor is $50/hr, as a TA is $25/hr, if you want free instruction the library and internet are wide open for your self education. I can point you in the direction of a few books if you'd like.



Your going rates have nothing to do with this forum. They will be better suited when applying for grants. People come here at free will to discuss and hopefully _share_ information. No where in the description of TeguTalk do rates apply for sharing of knowledge. No matter how acredited a person is. 

What tupinambis is referring to when stating the authors Colli, Peres & da Cunha, 1998; Manzani & Abe, 1997, are primarily Scientific Journal entries that have been submitted and approved by peer review. There a number of free journal sites across the web if you are interested in trying to find some. The really good ones are private and require access through educational facilities. Without a scientific background it may also seem to be a bunch of jibberish, but with some analytical thinking you can determine what is being said.

I would be interested in the books you speak of. What are they?


----------



## Beazer (Jun 17, 2008)

Well, all the tegus are gorgeous. As for the bickering. Tup, I will say that people on these forums range in all ages, have less or more of an education in zoology/biology. If you are giving a description on a species to argue your point and people want to understand it you dont have to charge to educate just putting a simple description in parenthesis like (scale below eyeball) would be enough. Also, I believe if you are apart of the scientific community you should educate. Disproving is a very important part of science and arguing your point is too. But you also have to watch how cocky you get and how you go about it and that you may be wrong as well. 

As for what you are saying about not being able to identify a species just off coloration (though some subspecies it is possible). You are correct. Theres a lot more to identifying a species besides color. Though some subspecies maybe identifiable using coloration(like some animals are even classified as a subspecies because of different coloration in salivary glands) color (sometimes size and shape too) may just resemble the animals geographic location (area it comes from, locality) though maybe the same species still. I believe that would be called a race? Though also it could be variablitiy within the species. Kind of like how you could breed 2 garden phase tree boas together and get a clutch with red babies, organe babies, halloweens, etc. all in the same clutch. Theres lots of good examples of how coloration doesnt matter and does support what you are saying to people who arent very scientific. Also, mind you taxonomy is almost always revised/changing and it could even be a new species, or subspecies even, that hasnt been described.

And yes, in a way science can be another language so a brief interpretation would be nice and then people wouldnt really need pictures to know what you are talking about. If you (not just you but anybody) are here just to argue and disprove people so you think you are right and holier than thou, that will not be tollerated. This forum was made to be peaceful and to be unbias to any tegu keeper of any knowledge. So please, if you are going to argue your point, use laymen terms so others can know what you are talking about. You can argue you're point however watch how you go about it and if you feel it will cause an argument, just let it go. Though, I do agree with you that you cannot judge by color, I do not know much about tegus at all. Pictures do help but yes you would need one from several angles. Mind you, sometimes the only way to positively ID an animal is through DNA. Just remember use it in laymen terms. It will help everybody understand and get along. 

-Jon DeLong


----------



## tupinambis (Jun 17, 2008)

> Your going rates have nothing to do with this forum. They will be better suited when applying for grants. People come here at free will to discuss and hopefully share information. No where in the description of TeguTalk do rates apply for sharing of knowledge. No matter how acredited a person is.



PuffDragon, you are completely correct, people do come here to discuss and share information freely. That is exactly what I did, I shared the information freely. I was then basically requested to instruct on what that information means. The time it took me to write that description was significant enough, if someone wants further expansion into what it all means, they are asking for instruction that frankly goes beyond the simple conveyance of knowledge. I shared the knowledge freely, understanding comes from effort.

Currently, some of the better books to get good graphical identification of the names of scales would be found in "field guides", particularly some of the older ones. Stebbins' 1966 "A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians" was particularly informative for some of those criteria. Arnold & Ovenden's 2002 "Reptiles and Amphibians of Europe" is also quite excellent. Savage's 2002 "The Amphibians and Reptiles of Costa Rica" has a few helpful cartoons. Unfortunately, there isn't a good complete resource for South America that I'm aware of. 

I've sent a collage of _T.quadrilineatus_ photos to that email address.


----------



## PuffDragon (Jun 17, 2008)

Gotta head to class, very cool photos though. Thank you for sharing.


----------

