Amphisbaena caeca
species of reptile
Amphisbaena caeca, commonly known as the Puerto Rican worm lizard or blind worm lizard, is a species of worm lizard endemic to Puerto Rico. These animals are vermicular reptiles that live under logs, rocks, and dirt. Other species of Amphisbaenids in the Caribbean include Amphisbaena bakeri, Amphisbaena fenestrata, Amphisbaena schmidti, Amphisbaena xera, and Cadea blanoides.
Amphisbaenids are legless, worm-like reptiles with elongated bodies nearly uniform in diameter. They are covered with ring-like scales similar in appearance to earthworms. They are underground animals, hence the eyes have degenerated to tiny indistinct spots under the rings.
Description
Amphisbaena caeca is pinkish-brown on the head and tail, with dark spots on each of the scales found throughout its annuli (body rings), of which there are between 214 and 237 in this species. This helps distinguish it from A. bakeri, whose annuli count is greater. It is one of the two largest amphisbaenids on the island (the other being A. bakeri), measuring up to 10 inches (250 millimeters) in snout to vent length (SVL). Like other members of its clade, it has only one median tooth.
“Amphisbaena caeca” enters the record as species of reptile. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Amphisbaena, caeca and species can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Amphisbaena caeca” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Amphisbaena, caeca and species provides the most credible route into that argument.
The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 26, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2844298. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Amphisbaena caeca”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Amphisbaena caeca primary sources, Amphisbaena caeca archive and Amphisbaena research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Amphisbaena caeca”?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Amphisbaena caeca” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.