2018
DOI: 10.3897/evolsyst.2.28059
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An updated diagnosis of the rare Amphisbaena slateri Boulenger, 1907, based on additional specimens (Squamata, Amphisbaenia, Amphisbaenidae)

Abstract: Amphisbaenaslateriis a rare species of worm lizard from Peru and Bolivia, known only from three specimens. We found two additional specimens of this taxon, housed at the herpetological collections of the Zoological Museum (Cenak), Universität Hamburg, and the University of Kansas Biodiversity Institute, updating its known geographic distribution and morphological variation. We also discovered an unpublished manuscript by late Carl Gans reporting the finding of the Hamburg specimen, which we reproduce here with… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since Gans and Mathers (1977) early efforts to establish species boundaries between Amphisbaena from northern South America (sensu Eva and Huber 2005), few researchers have focused on continuing studies on the zoogeography and systematics of these uncommon reptiles (Costa et al 2018b). The Northern South American Amphisbaena currently comprise eight nominal species: A. alba Linnaeus, 1758;A.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Since Gans and Mathers (1977) early efforts to establish species boundaries between Amphisbaena from northern South America (sensu Eva and Huber 2005), few researchers have focused on continuing studies on the zoogeography and systematics of these uncommon reptiles (Costa et al 2018b). The Northern South American Amphisbaena currently comprise eight nominal species: A. alba Linnaeus, 1758;A.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Precloacal pores (P); supralabial scales (SS); infralabial scales (IS); temporal scales (TS); number of segments of the first postgenial scale row (FPG); number of segments of the second postgenial scale row (SPG); malar scales (M); number of segments of the postmalar scale row (PM); body annuli (BA); caudal annuli (CA); number of dorsal segments perannulus at midbody (DS); number of ventral segments per annulus at midbody (VS); number of segments per annulus at anterior edge of the cloaca (SAC); number of segments perannulus at posterior edge of the cloaca (SPC); number of cloacal annuli [(CCA) Cloaca annuli are those between anterior and posterior edge of the cloaca]; autotomy sites on caudal annuli (AUC). Source: * = This study, 1= (Linnaeus 1758), 2= (Gans 1962), 3= (Gans 1963), 4= (Vanzolini 2002), 5= (Maciel 2011), 6= (Dal Vechio et al 2016), 7= (Boettger 1885), 8= (Perez and Borges-Martins 2019), 9= (Cope 1861), 10= (Rodrigues 2003), 11= (Vanzolini 1991b) , 12= (Teixeira et al 2016), 13= (Vanzolini 1964), 14= (Vanzolini 1991a), 15= (Mertens 1929), 16= (Montero 2019), 17= (Peracca 1897), 18= (Gray 1865), 19= (Cope 1862), 20= (Gans 1965), 21= (Montero et al 1997), 22= (Montero 2001), 23= (Strussman and Carvalho 2001), 24= (Hoogmoed & Ávila-Pires, 1991), 25= (Duméril and Bibron 1839), 26= (Teixeira et al 2014), 27= (Gonzalez-Sponga and Gans 1971), 28=(Señaris 1999), 29=(Gans 1971), 30=(Gans and Mathers 1977), 31=(Vanzolini 1991c), 32=(Schmidt 1936), 33=(Vanzolini 1950), 34=(Rodrigues et al 2003), 35= (Rojas et al 2016, 36=(Costa et al 2018b), 37=(Vanzolini 1996), 38= (Meza-Joya 2015), 39=(Klappenbach 1960), 40=(Hoogmoed 1989), 41=(Gans 1966), 42= (Souza e Lima et al 2014), 43= (Cope 1875), 44=(Noble 1921), 45= (Gray 1872), 46=(Werner 1901), 47= (Cope 1885), 48=(Boulenger 1890), 49=(Lancini 1963), 50=(Costa et al 2018a), 51=(Vanzolini 1994), 52= (Castro-Mello 2003, 53=(Boulenger 1907), 54=(Gans 1967), 55=(Thomas 1966), 56=(Boulenger 1915), 57=(Strauch 1881), 58 =(Ruthven 1922), 59=, 60=(Vanzolini 1995), 61=(Costa et al 2019), 62=…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%