Hi there
Just happened by, and noticed your query. Perhaps I can help a little, so here are the facts - Amphibolurus was originally erected by Wagler in 1830 as a substitute name for Gemmatophora of Kaup (1827) which had itself been based upon Lacerta muricata of White (1790). Thus the original basis for the name Amphibolurus was, ipso facto, the muricatus species-group. Although Wagler's original dismal of Gemmatophora was not without challenge from a nomenclatural point of view, overall Wagler prevailed largely due to support from Boulenger and others, and this resulted in the entrenchment of the name Amphibolurus for most of the Australian Agamidae for the next 100 years or so. The occasional use of Gemmatophora later by some workers even up until the 1980's failed to gain support due to the nomenclatural consequences of such use. This broad application of Amphibolurus ultimately resulted in a mish-mash of species that really had little in common with one another but in the conservative tone of the period big generic assemblages were the order of the day. For better or worse this arrangement prevailed right up until the 1980’s, with Amphibolurus embracing the Bearded Dragons until Glen Storr split the group off as Pogona in 1982. I was told at the time that this change could not be included in time for the 1983 Edition of Cogger’s Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia, so the widespread acceptance of Pogona was delayed somewhat. Thus the work of Obst et al (1988) that you refer to would have been more or less up to date for the period in which it was written, as Cogger’s text, as well as the Zoological Catalogue of Australia – Amphibia and Reptilia volume (Cogger, Cameron and Cogger, 1983) were the prevailing ‘standards’ – and these works all used Amphibolurus for the group. I should also mention that at the time, Storr was heavily criticised for his establishment of Pogona within the sacred catacombs of the Australian Museum, so the delay in its acceptance was not all that surprising I suppose. As for the current (stupid) concept of Ctenophorus, well that’s another matter that needs sorting out too, but for now…I’m going to take the garbage outside before my wife suppresses ME.

Best Regards


Richard Wells

It may have also escaped the attention of some, but Wells and Wellington (1985) actually considered Pogona itself to comprise two groups - the barbatus-group (Pogona), and the microlepidotus-group (for which they proposed the new generic name Uxoriousauria)

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]