Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I have a question. Did McGuire do a study of all the criteria of all the different color phases of collaris such as bone structure, scalation, etc. that would differentiate them as subspecies? It seems as scaltion does not really matter anymore anyway as was proven with Hollingsworth's work on the phylogeny of Sauromalus. He lumped all mainland chucks into one species with no subspecies and there is clearly scale differences among what used to be differnet subspecies. Also did he ever submit his work to the IUCZN(??) for review and was it reviewed by his peers? Was there ever a ruling made to support McGuires findings? If not the subspecies technically may still be valid. I don't think names can be changed just because someone thinks they should be. I think that there is a proccess that has to be followed. Maybe Fabian can help me out here with facts on changing taxonomy. There is a real problem with Uromastyx taxonomy now as several European herpetologist or maybe just serious hobbiest are making up new species or at least changing subspecies to species level I think just because they think that is the way it should be. I have noticed the the ISIS page still recognizes collaris subspecies but then again they still recognize Sauromalus obesus and its subspecies and it has been official since March that they are all Sauromalus ater. Just some things I was wondering about. And since it is so slow and I was a little bored. Maybe we can make this like the monitor forum. That would really get us up on the post number list. HEHE! Tom

.

ah yes the tired wandering mind to get a good conversation going. too bad i know nothing about this conversation so i thought i would say: you just used the word "phylogeny" in your post. i think we can forgive the spelling mistakes
-----
vonnie
***Marriage is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution yet. Mae West ***

When talking about my chuckwallas, they change it to
Sauromalus ater. Their all differences.

I dont understand WHY they have to keep changing at all. I never did quite understand what gave one person the right to do this?????????
-----
___

Eve / PHEve

Hi Tom,

I agree with you, and I think you are correct. Just because someone believes that C. c. auriceps is not a valid subspecies doesn't mean that the subspecies doesn't exist. There must be an agreement among the respective systematic authorities. But I think that in this case, there has not been enough material to prove that the subspecies of C. collaris represent different lineages. One is not required to prove that C. collaris has no subspecies. In contrast, the supporters of "subspecies" are the ones required to show the validity of those so-called subspecies. At least that is how I understand it.

McGuire writes:

"For example, Ingram and Tanner (1971) showed the integrade zone between C. c. auriceps and C. c. baileyi to be larger than the range of C. c. auriceps itself. The only characters that have been presented that are thought to separate C. c. baileyi from C. c. collaris are the following C. c. collaris features: supraorbital semicircles fused medially to form one or more azygous frontal scales, gular pouch yellow-orange, a shorter broader head, and larger supraocular scales. Of these, the first two are usually considered to be the principle diagnostic features... and both intergrade extensively. The condition of the supraocular semicircles varies considerably in Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas populations... which prompted Burt to synonymize C. c. baileyi with C. c. collaris. The yellow-orange gular pattern of C. c. collaris occurs at least as far south as Fredericksburg, Gillespie County, in southern Texas. Individuals from northeastern Mexico near the south end of Don Martin Dam and the vicinity of Allende, Coahuila, and 3.2 km NW of Mina, Nuevo Leon, have a gular coloration of yellow-orange surrounded by olive green. Individuals to the south and west... have the standard olive green coloration. Thus, it appears that gular coloration grades smoothly from yellow-orange to green in northeastern Mexico."

"An additional problem with the currentl alpha taxonomy of Crotaphytus collaris is that the paucity or lack of adequate character support for the subspecies makes it necessary to rely on color pattern differences as means of identification."

"...Thus, the subspecies of C. collaris do not appear to be on separate phylogenetic trajectories and do not even seem to represent useful pattern classes."

As you will see, McGuire goes into great depth when attempting to show the invalidity of C. collaris subspecies, and he uses skeletal structure, coloration, as well as squamation.

Thanks for the post, Tom!

Kind regards,

Fabián

-----
Fabián Aguirre
Zookeeper/ Freshwater Aquarist
Department of Herpetology and Freshwater Biology
The Dallas World Aquarium
(214) 720-2224
fabian@dwazoo.com
www.dwazoo.com

The International Species Information System (ISIS)? or did you mean the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS)?

ITIS is an international authority on nomenclature, but I don't think they review all species every year. I think the database is pretty incomplete as I have noticed that other species (known to be currentl valid) are not shown as valid.

I have been unable to find current information on this issue from authorities such as SPECIES 2000 (http://www.sp2000.org/), The GBIF (http://www.gbif.org/), Systema Naturae (website not found), or the ICZN (website not found). I wish someone had a way to access this information.....

Fabian
-----
Fabián Aguirre
Zookeeper/ Freshwater Aquarist
Department of Herpetology and Freshwater Biology
The Dallas World Aquarium
(214) 720-2224
fabian@dwazoo.com
www.dwazoo.com

HA! I was talking about ISIS. That is the only profesional website I could find at the moment. OK very good info you posted. I can't wait to see the article online. Talk to ya later. I will see what I can dig up from my friend at Clemson, Dr. Richard Montanucci. I know he has done work with Crotaphytus in the past. Tom

The International Code for Zoological Nomenclature

http://www.iczn.org/

Here is an interesting quotation from the Taxonomy Forum. As you can see, others are also complaining about "unnecessary" taxonomic proposals that are in the opinion of many, not supported by scientific data that follows the code.

CKing writes:

"Changing the rules of the ICZN is not a cure for "Taylor taxonomy," the practitioners [who] simply name new species on the basis of a difference in the appearance of as few as a single specimen."

Cheers!

Fabian
-----
Fabián Aguirre
Zookeeper/ Freshwater Aquarist
Department of Herpetology and Freshwater Biology
The Dallas World Aquarium
(214) 720-2224
fabian@dwazoo.com
www.dwazoo.com

Well Tom-your a lot further along than I am on the subject, but as I have stated before, the people that have been keeping lizards for years and years even without counting scales can see the distinct differences in certian types of lizards--for instance the chuckwallas was a good example, I need to read up on some of the latest stuff going on out there but I think some of these findings must have some type of a base to it that keeps the conclusions within a certian confine for an answer. I just know the diferences seem to be distinct inspite of what some the new findings are saying.............

Tom,
Those are great questions. I'll have to reread Jimmy's book. I'm wondering if DNA was the deciding factor for the elimination of the subspecies. Another researcher emailed me that they sequeneced the DNA of collaris and nebrius and determined they were seperate species.

Hi Will,

I was under the impression that McGuire himself upgraded C. nebrius to full species. Is this not correct?

_______________________________

Eve wrote:
"I dont understand WHY they have to keep changing at all. I never did quite understand what gave one person the right to do this?????????"

If it weren't for these "changes," C. nebrius, for example, would only be a subspecies of C. collaris. Change is a good thing, Eve! It means we (humans) are slowly narrowing down the evolutionary history of these natural gems!!!!!

Fabián
-----
Fabián Aguirre
Zookeeper/ Freshwater Aquarist
Department of Herpetology and Freshwater Biology
The Dallas World Aquarium
(214) 720-2224
fabian@dwazoo.com
www.dwazoo.com

A guy named David Orange wrote me once that he helped sequence the DNA of C.nebrius and collaris. I'm not sure if Jimmy was involved but probably was. David Orange had a website, not sure if he still does.

http://www.ultimanet.com/~davido/

After reading all the posts and coming to my own conclusion, I have decided to propose that the collared lizard community become locale specific and keep their lizards based on were they are from and keep those records. I have already done this with my leopard lizards and my C. bicinctores. I have found that the pattern and coloration of each population to be unique. This will also help when the "subspecies", of which I recognize the five collaris, are recognized as a whole based on simply where the animal was found it will also in my opinion deture anyone from hybridizing (hopefully). This is a current project and could help even in the progression of crotaphytidae taxonomical nomenclature.
-----
infinitescales.com