2013
DOI: 10.1643/ce-12-026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Acoustic Features of the Weeping Lizard's Distress Call

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
62
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
1
62
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on the cyt-b locus, the uncorrected average pairwise difference between Liolaemus zabalai and Liolaemus buergeri is 2.94% (Medina et al 2014), greater than the values reported for other Liolaemus widely accepted as valid species (see discussion). Also, Liolaemus zabalai can vocalize, a feature only documented for Liolaemus chiliensis in the entire genus Liolaemus (Labra et al 2013). Finally, although the ranges overlap, males of Liolaemus buergeri have 3–4 (x = 3.3) precloacal pores, whereas males of Liolaemus zabalai have 3–5 (x = 3.9) precloacal pores (Medina et al 2014).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Based on the cyt-b locus, the uncorrected average pairwise difference between Liolaemus zabalai and Liolaemus buergeri is 2.94% (Medina et al 2014), greater than the values reported for other Liolaemus widely accepted as valid species (see discussion). Also, Liolaemus zabalai can vocalize, a feature only documented for Liolaemus chiliensis in the entire genus Liolaemus (Labra et al 2013). Finally, although the ranges overlap, males of Liolaemus buergeri have 3–4 (x = 3.3) precloacal pores, whereas males of Liolaemus zabalai have 3–5 (x = 3.9) precloacal pores (Medina et al 2014).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In comparison, other Liolaemus lizards widely accepted as valid species show a lower level of differentiation for the mitochondrial gene cyt-b, for example: Liolaemus martorii Abdala, 2003 vs. Liolaemus morenoi Etheridge & Christie, 2003, 2.73% (Avila et al 2010b); Liolaemus riojanus Cei, 1979 vs. Liolaemus multimaculatus (Duméril & Bibron, 1837), 1.23% (Avila et al 2009); Liolaemus chacabucoense Núñez & Scolaro, 2009 vs. Liolaemus kingii (Bell, 1843), 2.22% (Breitman 2013). Liolaemus zabalai can vocalize, a trait only documented for Liolaemus chiliensis (Labra et al 2013) and also taken as diagnostic feature in Liolaemus (Pincheira-Donoso and Núñez 2005: 232) and the closely related genus Phymaturus (Lobo et al 2010a: 118). Regarding the morphological diagnosis included in previous studies, Pincheira-Donoso and Núñez (2005) reviewed two specimens of Liolaemus kriegi from Laja Lagoon (here described as Liolaemus zabalai ), which they described and provided the following diagnosis “the species is very similar to Liolaemus buergeri , differing in that the latter has a lighter color, brown or dark brown; in combination with a smaller number of keeled scales on the dorsum” (Pincheira-Donoso and Núñez 2005: 289, our translation).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For lizards, there are no studies on the role of these vocalizations even if many species vocalize under predation risk (see Labra et al. ). It is probable that lizards use conspecific calls to reduce their predation risk, because many species respond to the sounds associated with predation even if they do not use sounds in social interactions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…) commonly called the weeping or crying lizard (Donoso‐Barros ), because it emits distress calls when it is subdued (Labra et al. ). Interestingly, this species is the only one of this highly diverse genus (>230 spp; Breitman et al.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reptiles emit vocalizations in a broad range of frequencies-they produce sounds mainly between 0.1-4 kHz-but some turtles, crocodiles, and also lizards are able to generate calls above 20 kHz [5,6]. In addition, as a consequence of their behavior and small size, most reptiles can be very difficult to detect in the field using visual surveys [7], which can lead to an underestimation of species richness.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%