# Mount Warning Skink - ID please.



## Poyt448 (Dec 7, 2012)

This skink is about one and a half times the size of Lampropholis delicata. The red mark behind the forelegs appears to be a natural coloration, and not an injury. The lizard is in the sub-tropical rainforest at Mount Warning, NSW. Please identify.


----------



## Stuart (Dec 7, 2012)

I think the image didn't work...

Try the Go Advanced option and then Manage Attachments


----------



## richoman_3 (Dec 7, 2012)

cant see the pic but sounds like eulamprus!


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Dec 7, 2012)

Saproscincus, Eulamprus... something?


----------



## richoman_3 (Dec 7, 2012)

sorry read the description wrong,
could be a spotted python!


----------



## PieBald (Dec 7, 2012)

It spamming numbers and letters for me


----------



## Bananapeel (Dec 7, 2012)

All I see is a ****** load of numbers and letters. goes on forever....................


----------



## Jeffa (Dec 7, 2012)

Enter the Matrix!!!


----------



## Bushman (Dec 8, 2012)

It's definitely a member of the Saproscincus genus. Based on what I can see from the photo and the locality, it's most probably _Saproscincus challengeri_ or _Saproscincus spectabilis. 
_


----------



## eipper (Dec 8, 2012)

Looks like rosei to me


----------



## PieBald (Dec 8, 2012)

works 4 me now


----------



## Bushman (Dec 8, 2012)

eipper said:


> Looks like rosei to me



...bring it on Scott!


----------



## Shotta (Dec 8, 2012)

challenging shade skink


----------



## Bushman (Dec 8, 2012)

I'll relinquish _spectabilis _but maintain that it's most likely _challengeri_.


----------



## eipper (Dec 8, 2012)

Head shape is to blunt for both spectabilis and challengeri for me and from those shots I cannot count the supralabials

- - - Updated - - -

Btw Patrick I hope pAin is your friend lol


----------



## Bushman (Dec 8, 2012)

According to Wilson and Swan*, whilst _rosei_ is extremely variable geographically, within populations and sexually; it is "typically brown above with narrow, ragged-edged dark dorsolateral stripes on body, reddish brown dorsolateral stripes on hips and tail and narrow dark ventrolateral stripes on tail. Backs of sthn pops are uniform or with scattered paler scales...The reddish brown hip stripe, most typical of ♀, is ill-defined in s." 
In my opinion, these features are too vague or absent in this specimen, even considering the southern variations described, to be _Saproscincus __rosei._

* _A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia_, Wilson & Swan, 2008.

- - - Updated - - -



eipper said:


> Head shape is to blunt for both spectabilis and challengeri for me and from those shots I cannot count the supralabials
> 
> Btw Patrick I hope pAin is your friend lol



Using snouts as a distinguishing criterion for these species is new to me Scott. 
Is that your own observation or is it published somewhere? 

P.S Scott - Yes, pain is my friend :lol:, but I've got a good feeling about this one.
I'm not convinced about _rosei_, despite the snout criterion. Is that _all_ you've got?


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Dec 8, 2012)

I will buy into the argument and say it looks most like _S. challengeri._ I'll provide my reasons when I have more time.


----------



## eipper (Dec 8, 2012)

So because its extremely variable it's excluded.... I cannot see the sense in that one.

The supralabials are the most reliable feature in this area to split up the three sympatric species and having spent a hell of a lot of time in the rainforests of the McPherson range I am fairly well versed in nuances of the group there.


The snout/ head shape in longer in some of the sapro's .... Spectabilis, challengeri, eungellenisis, mustelina and shorter in others hannahae, rosei etc. while this does not translate to a key or text well it seems to be quite reliable (when used in conjunction with scale counts).


As I said its rosei for my mind... But I cannot make out the supralabials and even the angle is fairly poor.


Cheers
Scott


----------



## Bushman (Dec 9, 2012)

*challengeri challenge!*

That's more like it Scott. 8) Well argued. 
I like the snout feature that you use to split the genus.
How are supralabials used to differentiate the species? Who's done the latest key to this genus? Does anyone know?
According to Wilson and Swan, _challengeri_ usually have 6 supraciliary scales, whereas _rosei_ usually have 7. 
Unfortunately the photos don't allow us to count these scales. 
The OP has sent me the originals to examine more closely. I'll crop them and post them up soon if I can.
Welcome to the discussion Blue, your input into ID threads is always valued, especially when you agree with me. 
I look forward to reading your reasons.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Dec 9, 2012)

I will admit right now Patrick, whenever I have been odds with Scott, more often than not I end up licking my wounds. Lol.

Blue


----------



## Bushman (Dec 9, 2012)

Pain is our friend Blue.  I usually agree with Scott too, and it is rare that we differ. 
Hopefully some cropped originals will be attached to this post for a better look.


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Dec 9, 2012)

I would say challengeri, I've seen few challengeri and I find differentiating spectabilis and rosei a pain but I've certainly never found upper labials to be at all helpful, below is a link to a rosei showing 6 upper labials, one less than the usual 7 putting it in direct overlap with spectabilis and challengeri. The head characteristic is more interesting, I've never noticed much difference in that and would be interested in trying to use it next time I'm IDing these. 

The reason I don't go with rosei is similar to Bushmans, rosei may be highly variable but almost all of its variations include more pattern than other species of saproscincus, whereas this individual looks extremely plain. I don't believe whatever its validity that head length/shape can be used accurately in an image where the individuals head is angled strongly away from the camera as it is.

Those white dots on the tail may not rule out anything, but they are certainly prominently present on every challengeri that I have seen. Form one of the key features highlighted in wilson and swan for the species. And while as I say they don't rule it out, I have never seen those white spots on the tail of a Sapro that I have ID'd as rosei.

To clarify what method I use in the field for ID, I usually use supracilliary scales and found enough skinks to have at least some individuals for whom the counts are not in the overlap zone between species. 
I admit that this particular genus is to me one of my greatest challenges in ID, since apart from the supracilliaries I've never seen a characteristic that I can use to get anywhere near a positive ID.

I've also disagreed with Scott before, and like you guys, usually come off the worse. But safety in numbers? 

All sizes | Saproscincus rosei | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## eipper (Dec 9, 2012)

I stuffed up I meant supracilliaries not supralabials. Sorry for the confusion.

As I have said, the angle is poor and from the images shown i cannot make out scalation at all. My FEELING is still rosei, with the exception of the female only border ranges striped ones I would not use colouration to split them.

I well am off herping in the rf today.

cheers
Scott


----------



## Poyt448 (Dec 9, 2012)

thanks everyone for your contributions, you fellas seem a clever bunch of people!


----------



## Bushman (Dec 9, 2012)

You're welcome mate and even though we can't say with certainty exactly which species it is, at least we narrowed it down to two. Although Scott was outnumbered on this occasion, we all respect his ID skills enough to not discount _S. rosei_. We will have to agree to differ, as it's hard to be definitive without being able to count scales like supraciliary and subdigital lamellae. 
Thanks for your input there Stephen and all contributors to this thread. It's been a very good discussion and it's great that we can all present our arguments harmoniously, despite disagreeing about which species it is. 8)


----------



## eipper (Dec 9, 2012)

Exactly Patrick, we can disagree (look lets face it you were wrong but ok we will call it a harmonious disagreement) without a thread getting turfed over pety name calling. Well done to all involved.

cheers
Scott


----------



## richoman_3 (Dec 9, 2012)

hi, i want to play.
it is actually a weasel skink


----------



## Darlyn (Dec 9, 2012)

Best ID thread I have ever read.

Stands and applauds : )


----------



## Bushman (Dec 9, 2012)

Darlyn said:


> Best ID thread I have ever read.
> 
> Stands and applauds : )


Thanks Darlyn. It's good to hear you enjoyed it so much. 

Richoman, it's not a Weasel Skink (_Saproscincus mustelinus_) because it doesn't have the distinctive pale mark below the eye and orange-ruddish tail base.

Scott, I'd rather be proved wrong and learn something new, than to be right and learn nothing.
On this occasion, I've learn't something new _and_ I was right.


----------

