Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Does anyone know the difference between insularis and bicinitores?

They both seem the same to me Just want to know.

First there are two forms of collareds, C. collaris and C. insularis, Insularis form has a long snout, and a laterally compressed OR wedged shape tail rather than the round of the collaris. They also lack the oral melanin.

C. insularis vestigium are on the baja peninsula, and C. insularis insularis occur on Isla de la Guardia, so these two became two sub species of insularis.
-----
PHEve / Eve

Like Eve, was saying, there are two BASIC forms, collaris type, and insularis type. Most collareds fit in to either one of these forms, based on physical characteristics. Older literature listed vestigium, bicinctores, etc. as subspecies of insularis. Also, collaris contained the sub species; auriceps (yellow head), baileyi (western), collaris (eastern), fuscus (chihuahuan), and nebrius (sonoran).
Mcguire revised the taxonomy somewhat recently.
Now, the genus is broken into individual species; Antiquus, Bicinctores, Collaris, Dickersonae, Grismeri, Insularis, Nebrius, Reticulatus, Vestigium.
Everything in the insularis group was divided into seperate species, with the angel island collareds keeping the name insularis. C. nebrius was considered different enough to be a seperate species, and the other sub species of collaris were disregarded, and are now simply considered different geographic variants of the single species. I still like to call collaris types by their former sub species names, just for the sake of being more specific. Scientists make revisions to taxonomy prety frequently.
So, it depends on the source of the pictures you are looking at.
Some old field guides show pictures of what is now considered bicinctores and call them insularis, or insularis bicinctores.
What is now considered C. insularis looks like, and is closely related to C.vestigium.
Some good literature on this subject is available on Will Wells' web site, or in Grismer's book of reptiles and amphibians of baja. If you can track down a copy of Mcguires book, that has the most info in it.

Hopefully, this helps clear things up.

I think the Baileyi should be separate as well because there are noticeable differences between them and other collaris, and I also like to call all of them by their former names. Its just so danged hard when someone knows that I keep collareds and asks where they can get a "collared lizard" I just can't give them a simple answer!

Nick, you are right about the Sonoran. The one that I got from you is truly different, having attributes of both groups and then some, and I think these White Tanks are different from typical bicintores, at least the bicintores that I have kept and seen.

Ain't collareds cool???

Thanks you guys cleared it all up for me. And Rosebuds is right, I ve noticed that the bicinitores at the White Tanks are different. They are more white and bright colored.

The C. bicinctores from the White Tanks and several of the mountains around Wickenburg have collaris DNA in their system from hybrdization in the recent past with nearby populations of C. collaris.
All C. bicinctores in southwest Az from the White Tanks to the Colorado River have C. collaris DNA from 2 to 3 hybredization events that have happened over the past 2 to 3 million years.
The White Tanks/Wickenburg area lizards are the result from the most recent event.
I've found a couple of spots where C. bicinctores and C. collaris are found within a few miles of each other and have a found rocky habitat where they could be mixing currently. Just need to get out and search this spring.

Will, what do you think would happen if I put a non hybrid bicintores with one of my baileyi "type" collaris? I was told that the collaris in these hybrids is probably the Baileyi. I am trying to make a male wt as I don't have one! LOL!

Yeah, Sonorans definitely show traits from both groups, neat little species.
I agree that bayleyi should be recognised at least as a sub species. Most that I have seen seem to have a different build than easterns. Most easterns seem to have more of a blunt snout, compared to westerns, and even yellow heads. I have a picture of a hatchling Oklahoma collaris next to a hatchling yellow head. Even at less than a week old, you can really notice the difference in head shape. I will have to see if I can dig it up to post it. Anyway, like I said, taxonomy changes all the time. New studies may reveal reasons to further split or consolidate the genus. This is just one more reason to keep breeding groups locale specific. The names may change, but the animals are still true to their origins. As breeders, we can simply call collaris by "type" names like "baleyi type" etc. The same characteristics that once made baleyi a recognised sub species, can still be used to distingish them from other varieties of collaris. Just like dogs are considered one species, yet there are many distinct breeds, each with a "breed standard", a set of characteristics that set them apart from other breeds. Breeders strive to produce a dog that comes as close as possible to the ideal breed standard. Why not apply this idea to breeding collared lizards as well? As breeders, we can choose to simply produce "generic C.collaris", or strive to produce "type specific" animals, which have been selectively bred to encourage certain characteristics. IE; why not breed yellow heads to encourage the yellow headed trait? Although, all collareds are awesome animals, and make great and interesting pets, weather you call them "generic"(I don't mean it in a derrogatory way.) or "type specific". I just mean that even if science doesn't recognise them as a valid sub species, we can still recognise them as a type, or breed.