A critical review and systematic discussion of recent classification proposals for liolaemid lizards

Abstract

We provide a critical review of a recent taxonomic revision of Chilean Liolaemus lizards (Iguania: Liolaemidae) by Pincheira-Donoso and Núñez (2005) and a recent paper (PincheiraDonoso et al. 2008), which proposed several new taxonomic and phylogenetic arrangements. We document fundamental problems with many of the proposed taxonomic revisions in both publications, which if followed, could lead to serious taxonomic confusion. In Pincheira-Donoso and Núñez (2005) a subgeneric classification is erected, which was produced by outdated methods (phenetic analyses), cannot be replicated (no matrix is presented), and is taxonomically untenable (some of the subgenera are nested within other subgenera). Most of the taxonomic groups that are proposed have been previously proposed, albeit differently constituted, yet often previous research is not given attribution; when findings are different, the research of others is either overlooked or dismissed without comment. The diagnoses of species and subspecies (including several newly proposed taxa) are often written in an authoritative manner (without supporting data or information), making them insufficient for distinguishing the focal taxon from others belonging to the same group, finally leading to uncertainty regarding the validity of several of the newly proposed taxa, combinations, or synonymies. We also describe less egregious errors of omission and commission. In Pincheira-Donoso et al. (2008), most of the proposals follow the Pincheira-Donoso and Núñez (2005) revisions, some species are allocated to groups without consistent cladistic support and other proposed relationships are based on incomplete evidence from other studies dismissing the limitations of the arrangement. Critical species are not identified in a list of material examined. Finally, Pincheira-Donoso et al. (2008) present a somewhat outdated and biased discussion of the relative value of using molecules or morphology in systematics. In light of these limitations, and in an effort to stabilize and prevent further taxonomic confusion, we provide an updated phylogenetic classification of the currently recognized lizards of the family Liolaemidae (Ctenoblepharys, Liolaemus, and Phymaturus), which is based on a consensus of studies published since the first phylogenetic major revision of the clade in 1995.

Evidence of hybridization in the Argentinean lizards Liolaemus gracilis and Liolaemus bibronii (IGUANIA: LIOLAEMINI): An integrative approach based on genes and morphology

“…These were the ''focal species'' (Wiens and Penkrot, 2002) of this study, and three samples of L. saxatilis (Avila et al, 1992), and one each of L. robertmertensi (Hellmich, 1964) and L. ramirezae (Lobo and Espinoza, 1999) (also recovered within this clade by Morando et al (2007)) were included as non-focal species. Liolaemus punmahuida , a member of the chiliensis subgenus (Lobo et al, 2010), was used to root the trees. Appendix A summarizes the number of individuals sequenced per locality and distributional information for all taxa used in this study.…”

Molecular Phylogeny of the Liolaemus kriegi Complex (Iguania, Liolaemini)

“…The genus is distributed over a wide geographic area and occupies latitudes from 14uS-52uS, altitudes from 0 m to almost 5000 m, and a variety of climatic regions ranging from the world's driest desert to the humid Nothofagus forests (Donoso-Barros 1966;Cei 1986Cei , 1993Lobo et al 2010). Liolaemus includes two major subgenera, Liolaemus and Eulaemus (Laurent 1983;Etheridge 1995;Schulte et al 2000;Pincheira-Donoso et al 2008;Lobo et al 2010). Within the Liolaemus clade, several species complexes have been described, one of which is the L. kriegi complex (Cei 1972).…”

“…This group was defined as the L. elongatus-kriegi complex (Cei 1974), on the basis of several diagnostic morphological characters, and later redefined again as the L. kriegi complex (Cei 1986). More recently, different taxonomic groupings have been proposed for this complex (Morando et al 2003;Avila et al 2004;Lobo et al 2010).…”

“…1). In a recent taxonomic review of the genus, based mainly on morphological data, Lobo et al (2010) also included Liolaemus cristiani within the L. kriegi complex. In an earlier mtDNA-based study, Morando et al (2003) proposed three candidate species within this complex: Liolaemus sp.…”

A New Species ofLiolaemus(Iguania: Liolaemidae) of theAlticolorGroup from La Paz, Bolivia

“…THE GENUS Liolaemus contains 233 species that range from Argentina (Tierra del Fuego) to central Perú, and occur in several habitats in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, and the coasts of Uruguay and southeastern Brazil (Cei, 1993;Lobo et al, 2010). Several new species have been recognized in recent years, and thus the composition of the genus has increased over time dramatically and almost exponentially.…”