(Ampisbania,Reptlia .~~~O Th ~~'American Museum of Natural History~~~~~~~~~~~~ Voum 13:Atce2 E Ok16
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
141. Al (AMPISBANIA,REPTLIA .~~~O TH ~~'AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY~~~~~~~~~~~~ VOUM 13:ATCE2 E OK16 A CHECK LIST OF RECENT AMPHISBAENIANS (AMPHISBAENIA, REPTILIA) CARL GANS Research Associate, Department of Herpetology The American Museum of Natural History Professor of Biology State University of New York at Buffalo BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY VOLUME 135 : ARTICLE 2 NEW YORK 1967 BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Volume 135, article 2, pages 61-106 Issued February 20, 1967 Price: $1.50 a copy INTRODUCTION THE AMPHISBAENIA are an excellent demon- contains a remarkably useful section of gen- stration of the futility of the classical, or eric synonyms. typological, species concept. Parallelism and The present check list forms an interim convergence, caused by the strong selec- summary in a program of re-evaluation that tive pressures on the cephalic scutellation, may ultimately result in a monograph of the together with the limited number of external group. Emphasis has been placed on a com- characteristics available to the taxonomist, plete listing of described forms and syn- have provided unusual opportunities for con- onyms, rather than on a review of their ge- fusion. The difficulties are compounded by neric status. In view of my continuing interest the extremely restricted ranges inhabited by in the group, I shall appreciate comments many species, and by the seemingly disjunct and corrections. distribution of more wide-ranging forms. The subterranean mode of life keeps these ani- GENERAL APPROACH mals out of the way of the casual collector. The review of the amphisbaenians of which In consequence they have been scarce in col- this paper forms a part has been designed as a lections, and many species have been inad- basis for additional studies of their system- equately described, often on the basis of atics, morphology, physiology, and behavior. single specimens from vague localities. Extensive systematic work has been and is No complete summary of the group has still required, because the classification of been attempted since Strauch's "Bemer- South American amphisbaenids, as of most of kungen uiber die. Amphisbaeniden" the reptiles from that continent, has been in (1881) and Boulenger's "Catalogue of the a state of chaos. To give an example, I have Lizards" (1885), though the number of spe- found it necessary to change the identifica- cies that have been recognized has tripled.' tions of more than half of the museum speci- For Africa we have Loveridge's (1941) mono- mens of amphisbaenids thus far examined. graph, modified by FitzSimons (1943), Lau- The analysis of a group the internal clas- rent (1947), and Witte (1954) on the basis of sification of which has not recently been re- much additional material. Burt and Burt examined logically requires a review of all the (1933) provided an uncritical check list for names within each unit. Such a review must South America, bringing the catalogue by be based on an examination of types rather Boulenger up to date for that region. Their than a learned discussion of original descrip- list was reviewed by Amaral (1937a, 1937c), tions. The latter serves as a poor substitute who drastically changed the number of forms and should be employed only in cases in and placed many species in synonymy, often which the types are absolutely unavailable or apparently by substituting "judgment" for have been destroyed. I am happy that it has specimens, and with singularly unhappy re- been possible either to visit the institutions sults (Vanzolini, 1948a, 1949, 1951a, 1955). where most of the amphisbaenid types have Vanzolini, in a perceptive study (MS), re- been kept or, through the courtesy and co- viewed the amphisbaenids on the generic operation of many curators, to borrow and level, relying most heavily on cranial char- compare the types with other specimens in acters. It is regrettable that his published my laboratory. summary (Vanzolini, 195 lb) contains a num- The last century has seen an increase in the ber of decisions concerning genera of which he number of collections and a vast amplification saw no material. Finally, there is Romer's of the number of specimens available from (1957) "Osteology of the Reptiles" which many regions. Materials adequate for at least a first-level characterization of many sup- I An unpublished manuscript in the United States posedly rare groups are National Museum collection suggests that Leonhard already available. Yet Stejneger started a review in 1914. This was initially they are scattered, both because of the di- designed as support for the land-bridge hypothesis and verse origins of the workers who have pro- was apparently abandoned in the early 1920's. vided us with collections from tropical re- 63 64 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY VOL. 135 gions, and because of the well-known desire METHOD of museums to have a representative example The format adopted in this check list rep- of each species for comparison. The scatter- resents an effort to effect maximum com- ing tends to give an underestimate of the munication of the results of my search of quantity of materials actually available. literature and collections. Additionally, it Their reassembly during the course of these furnishes an example of a different kind of studies (obviously coupled with additional check list, designed more to summarize the collecting) has permitted me to characterize present state of our knowledge of the group many forms on the basis of sizable samples, and to indicate areas of certainty and of un- forms that had supposedly been known only certainty, than to present a platform for from unique specimens. personal views. Implicit is my conviction The kind of review here outlined does that a check list should provide (1) a listing require considerable resources in terms of of the forms currently recognized, (2) a state- time, of library materials, and of facility to ment regarding the assignment of all names ship and borrow specimens. Institutions sit- based on material of the particular group, and uated within the ranges of these animals (3) enough information so that the user may encounter particular difficulties in this re- form a concept of the form to which the name spect, yet many of the present problems, and, applies. Particular attention has thus been more important, many of those pointed out paid to the citation of the most recent paper by first-level studies such as this one, are or papers that clarify or comment on the most easily and hence most logically tackled status of a species. Divergent opinions are by workers in such institutions. It is then generally mentioned, unless one of the papers necessary to summarize and publish the re- cited presents a review thereof. The worker sults of the primary review in a format de- who desires information on a common form signed to permit its reconsideration with a then need not rely on only the first and nec- minimum of effort. It is particularly neces- essarily the least complete reference. sary to present the results in a format that allows the next worker to identify those speci- The main citations are offered essentially mens (and references) the re-examination of "without judgment." They represent the which would yield the obvious test of new published opinions of authors, and the au- hypotheses, and to keep him from reassembl- thority is always indicated. Decisions on the ing materials that do not pertain to the issue. specific level, made during the process of For these reasons I have published a de- compilation, have been published elsewhere tailed review of the literature as well as lo- and cited here. Other problems, particularly cality data, museum numbers, and descrip- a reconsideration of the generic status of tive values of the majority of specimens many forms, are under investigation or in examined throughout these studies. Other process of publication as this list goes to press. students may thus recombine these data with I have permitted myself the prerogative of those obtained from freshly collected ma- stating my opinions under Discussion of terials and avoid borrowing more than a small Form or in footnotes when as yet unpub- fraction of the specimens seen by me. The lished information seemed to justify doing so. publication of tables of raw data (or their deposition with the American Documentation STYLE Institute) should also permit other workers The check list is restricted to recent forms. to verify my counting methods on the basis For each species and subspecies, the original of only a few of the many specimens seen, a citation and all primary synonyms, but no check that is impossible when only means, new combinations, are listed. Terra typica, ranges, and other statistical parameters are restriction and source, if any, and present presented. The publication of raw data finally location of typical material are shown for permits a check of the accuracy of counts, each name (no particular effort has been particularly on specimens that may not fit a made to check for present paratype locations newly formed scheme. when the holotype was extant). Under the 1967 GANS: CHECK LIST OF AMPHISBAENIANS 65 side heading Discussion of Form, reference is The placement of the amphisbaenians made to the most recent adequate discus- within the Reptilia has been the subject of sions, preferably those giving references to considerable comment. I here choose to treat the earlier literature. Also cited is the paper them as an order, equivalent to the Sauria used as the authority for the inclusion of the and the Serpentes, and with them forming particular form, and occasionally other the superorder Squamata. papers that may help clarify the species con- LOCATION OF THE TYPES cept.