The distributions of amphibians, birds and mammals have underpinned global and local conservation priorities, and have been fundamental to our understanding of the determinants of global biodiversity. In contrast, the global distributions of reptiles, representing a third of terrestrial vertebrate diversity, have been unavailable. This prevented the incorporation of reptiles into conservation planning and biased our understanding of the underlying processes governing global vertebrate biodiversity. Here, we present and analyse the global distribution of 10,064 reptile species (99% of extant terrestrial species). We show that richness patterns of the other three tetrapod classes are good spatial surrogates for species richness of all reptiles combined and of snakes, but characterize diversity patterns of lizards and turtles poorly. Hotspots of total and endemic lizard richness overlap very little with those of other taxa. Moreover, existing protected areas, sites of biodiversity significance and global conservation schemes represent birds and mammals better than reptiles. We show that additional conservation actions are needed to effectively protect reptiles, particularly lizards and turtles. Adding reptile knowledge to a global complementarity conservation priority scheme identifies many locations that consequently become important. Notably, investing resources in some of the world’s arid, grassland and savannah habitats might be necessary to represent all terrestrial vertebrates efficiently

No abstract

Comprehensive assessments of species’ extinction risks have documented the extinction crisis1 and underpinned strategies for reducing those risks2. Global assessments reveal that, among tetrapods, 40.7% of amphibians, 25.4% of mammals and 13.6% of birds are threatened with extinction3. Because global assessments have been lacking, reptiles have been omitted from conservation-prioritization analyses that encompass other tetrapods4–7. Reptiles are unusually diverse in arid regions, suggesting that they may have different conservation needs6. Here we provide a comprehensive extinction-risk assessment of reptiles and show that at least 1,829 out of 10,196 species (21.1%) are threatened—confirming a previous extrapolation8 and representing 15.6 billion years of phylogenetic diversity. Reptiles are threatened by the same major factors that threaten other tetrapods—agriculture, logging, urban development and invasive species—although the threat posed by climate change remains uncertain. Reptiles inhabiting forests, where these threats are strongest, are more threatened than those in arid habitats, contrary to our prediction. Birds, mammals and amphibians are unexpectedly good surrogates for the conservation of reptiles, although threatened reptiles with the smallest ranges tend to be isolated from other threatened tetrapods. Although some reptiles—including most species of crocodiles and turtles—require urgent, targeted action to prevent extinctions, efforts to protect other tetrapods, such as habitat preservation and control of trade and invasive species, will probably also benefit many reptiles.

Exquisitely preserved fossil lizards from 99-million-year-old Burmese amber provide new insights into paleotropical diversity.

No abstract

No abstract

CommentAvailability of new Bayesian-delimited gecko names and the importance of character-based species descriptions Leaché & Fujita [1] present an empirical example of Bayesian species delimitation (BSD; [2]) to recognize three new species of African geckos from within the range of the widespread taxon Hemidactylus fasciatus, Gray 1842. As with any new method, BSD will undoubtedly generate questions and discussions about its practicality and assumptions. However, the use of this method of delimiting species does not obviate the need to adhere to the practice of describing or defining species on the basis of intrinsic characters.In order for any species name in zoology to be available, it must satisfy the applicable provisions of Articles 11 -20 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999) (hereafter 'the Code'). Relevant to this issue, 'To be available, every new name published after 1930 . . . must be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon (Article 13.1.1, p. 17)' where a character is 'any attribute of organisms used for recognizing, differentiating, or classifying taxa' (Glossary, p. 101). Leaché & Fujita [1] do not provide descriptions or definitions for their new taxa, only putative diagnoses (recommended but not required under the Code (Recommendation 13A)), and these are based not upon characters but upon degree of support under their species delimitation model (e.g. 'This species includes all populations that cluster with those from the Togo Hills included in this study with strong support in the Bayesian species delimitation model'). Although geographical location could be argued to be an organismal attribute, (i) Article 12.3 and, by implication, Article 13.1 [3] clarify that the mention of a locality does not in itself constitute a description, and (ii) Leaché & Fujita [1] have not actually used locality as a character, but as an indicator of the cluster to which populations belong. The new names they propose thus lack definitions or descriptions of organismal attributes (characters) as required by the Code and their diagnoses consist solely of extrinsic relational statements about populations. The new names proposed for members of the H. fasciatus group (Hemidactylus coalescens, Hemidactylus eniangii, Hemidactylus kyaboboensis) fail to conform to Article 13 and are nomina nuda, and thus unavailable under the Code.The diagnoses of their new species are similar to the definitions of clade names under phylogenetic taxonomy, but their species descriptions are also unavailable under the PhyloCode [4], which defers to 'provisions of the appropriate rank-based code (e.g. . . . ICZN)' for species availability.The unavailability of Leaché and Fujita's gecko names rests on more than a technicality. We emphasize this point to highlight the very purpose of the taxonomic protocols inherent in the Code's adherence to character-based species definitions. The application of Leaché & Fujita's approach would no doubt fac...

Aim Variation in body size across animal species underlies most ecological and evolutionary processes shaping local‐ and large‐scale patterns of biodiversity. For well over a century, climatic factors have been regarded as primary sources of natural selection on animal body size, and hypotheses such as Bergmann's rule (the increase of body size with decreasing temperature) have dominated discussions. However, evidence for consistent climatic effects, especially among ectotherms, remains equivocal. Here, we test a range of key hypotheses on climate‐driven size evolution in squamate reptiles across several spatial and phylogenetic scales. Location Global. Time period Extant. Major taxa studied Squamates (lizards and snakes). Methods We quantified the role of temperature, precipitation, seasonality and net primary productivity as drivers of body mass across ca. 95% of extant squamate species (9,733 spp.). We ran spatial autoregressive models of phylogenetically corrected median mass per equal‐area grid cell. We ran models globally, across separate continents and for major squamate clades independently. We also performed species‐level analyses using phylogenetic generalized least square models and linear regressions of independent contrasts of sister species. Results Our analyses failed to identify consistent spatial patterns in body size as a function of our climatic predictors. Nearly all continent‐ and family‐level models differed from one another, and species‐level models had low explanatory power. Main conclusions The global distribution of body mass among living squamates varies independently from the variation in multiple components of climate. Our study, the largest in spatial and taxonomic scale conducted to date, reveals that there is little support for a universal, consistent mechanism of climate‐driven size evolution within squamates.