Figure 10 . Plot of spectral reflectance profiles of all under
the study specimens; A) sandy (a) and stony (b); B) midbody dorsal
surfaces; C) tail dorsal surfaces. E. rafsanjanicus (c), L.
maynardi (d), E. macmahonii (e), E. carinatus (Kerman)
(f), C. gasperettii (g), E. carinatus (Lavan) (h),P. urarachnoides (i), P. feldi (j), and P. persicus(k).
For instance, the reflectance value of UV for the knob-like structure on
the tail tip in P. urarachnoides reaches up to 10, while the
value for dorsal scales drops down below one (Figure 10B and 10C (curve
i)). So, the reflectance magnitude of emitted UV by the tail tip is at
least 10 times greater than that of dorsal scales. When UV light was
emitted by FluoVision Imaging System on the tail of P.
urarachnoides , the knob-like structure glowed while the rest of the
body did not. Conversly, in UV wavelength, the the tail tip in P.
persicus did not glow while the rest of the body glowed (Figure 8).
In C. gasperettii , the UV reflectance values reach up to six and
30 for dorsal and caudal scales, respectively, indicating a five-times
difference in UV reflectance between these two regions of the body.
Spectral reflectance from the midbody dorsal surfaces of all specimens
under this study (i.e., P. persicus , P. fieldi , P.
urarachnoides , E. macmahonii , C. gasperettii , E.
carinatus , E. rafsanjanicus , and L. maynardi ) was plotted
beside spectra from stony and sandy samples (Figure 10). In the UV light
range, dorsal scales of P. urarachnoides and E. macmahoniishowed the greatest decrease in reflection, while E.
rafsanjanicus , L. maynardi , C. gasperettii, and E.
carinatus indicated the highest reflection (Figure 10). The highest
reflection in the range of visible light belongs to E.
macmahonii . Overall, due to high light absorption, reflection in the
dorsal scale samples was very low. In stone and sand samples, light
reflection was significantly more than that in scale samples, and the
most fluctuation in reflection was between 310- 420 wavelengths.