Downloaded from Brill.Com09/25/2021 12:27:07AM Via Free Access BIJDRAGEN TOT DE DIERKUNDE, 56 (2) - 1986 215
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde, 56 (2): 214-220 — 1986 Notes on the distribution and phylogenetic significance of post-cloacal sacs and bones as occurring in the Gekkota (Reptilia) by J. Bastinck do Institute of Taxonomic Zoology, P.O. Box 20125, 1000 HC Amsterdam, The Netherlands this which Abstract cloacal sac variability in genus, was first noted by Hoogmoed (1973), is here con- On the basis of Kluge’s (1982) paper on post-cloacal sacs firmed and commented upon. and bones in the Gekkota the following matters are the situation in the use of the names Gekkota and Gek- presented: (1) gekkonid genera Kluge's Microscalabotes and Paragehyra is recorded, (2) the situation konoidea, and his interpretation of the in the is reviewed gekkonid genus Lygodactylus extensively of phylogenetic significance post-cloacal sacs, and commented the upon, (3) post-cloacal sac variability here commented well. are upon as in the first noted gekkonid genus Thecadactylus, by Hoogmoed (1973) and evidently overlooked by Kluge, is confirmed and commented upon, (4) Kluge’s interpreta- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION tion of the phylogenetic significance of post-cloacal sacs is discussed. USE OF THE NAMES GEKKOTA AND GEKKONOIDEA used the name Gekkota sensu Zusammenfassung Kluge (1967: 10) Underwood (1957). According to Underwood Anhand Kluges (1982) Veröffentlichung über Post- the infra-order Gekkota consists of the families kloakalspalten und -knochen bei den Gekkota, wird Eublepharidae, Gekkonidae, Sphaerodac- Folgendes behandelt: (1) die Situation innerhalb der three families Gekkoniden-Gattungen Microscalabotes und Paragehyra wird tylidae (these collectively dokumentiert, (2) die Situation innerhalb der Gekko- Gekkonidae regarded as one family by Kluge) wird kritisch niden-Gattung Lygodactylus zusam- take it that and Pygopodidae. We may then, mengefasst, (3) die Variabilität der Postkloakalspalten bei whenever Kluge is using the name Gekkota he der Gekkoniden-Gattung Thecadactylus, erstmalig is referring to the Gekkonidae and Pygopodidae wahrgenommen von Hoogmoed (1973) und offenbar übersehen wird und von Kluge, bestätigt besprochen, (4) collectively. Kluges Interpretation der phylogenetischen Bedeutung also used the Kluge name Gekkonoidea. von Postkloakalspalten wird diskutiert. Perusal of his paper shows that Kluge is not referring here to the Gekkonoideasensu Under- INTRODUCTION in of wood, as could have been expected view review his but Kluge (1982) published an extensive of use of the name Gekkota, to the Gek- of and bones in konoidea the occurrence post-cloacal sacs sensu Hoffstetter (1964) (see Kluge, the Gekkota. In that paper Kluge noted that he 1967: 12). Hoffstetter considers the superfami- had been able the Gekkonoidea contain the families not to study gekkonid genera ly to Microscalabotes and Paragehyra, and that the situa- Ardeosauridae (|) and Gekkonidae (and, ten- tion in the gekkonid genus Lygodactylus required tatively, Bavarisauridae (f) and Palaeolacer- I able tidae further study. was to study these three (f)). This would mean that Kluge, by and I to some extent observa- the name is refer- genera put my using Gekkonoidea, simply tions record here. Gekkonidae far families on ring to the as as recent A concerned. remarkable omission in Kluge's otherwise are One gets the strong impression, work is formed the that considers the Gekkonoidea very comprehensive by however, Kluge situation in of the and peculiar regarding post-cloacal sacs to consist Gekkonidae Pygopodidae. the The is of gekkonid genus Thecadactylus. post- This notion fully supported by Kluge's use Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 12:27:07AM via free access BIJDRAGEN TOT DE DIERKUNDE, 56 (2) - 1986 215 the name Gekkonoidea in later works (Kluge, In order to investigate the presence/absence 1976; 1982). Reference to Underwood shows of post-cloacal sacs and bones in this species, that this author considers the Gekkonoidea to Hoogmoed (1973) examined 39 specimens. He contain the Eublepharidae, Gekkonidae and found 21 specimens (o*C + 9 9) in which sacs Sphaerodactylidae, which means that Kluge's were present and 17 specimens (o*cc + 9 9) in of is which these absent use the name Gekkonoidea evidently not structures were (in one Underwood's definition For he based on either. juvenile specimen could not decide whether this novel Gek- He all males apparently use of the name sacs were present or not). found to konoidea fails line of Kluge to give any reason- be in possession of post-cloacal bones. cite of the I examined 17 of T. ing or to any authority. Kluge's use specimens rapicauda names Gekkota and Gekkonoidea means that in them 5 of the myself, among specimens already effect from he is treating them as synonyms. examined by Hoogmoed. Apart 1 In the remainder of this the Gek- in which I could paper name specimen not unequivocally used determine whether I kota will be sensu Underwood; the name sacs were present or not, Gekkonoidea will not be used. found 8 specimens (4 CO", 4 9 9) in which sacs and 8 3 in were present specimens (5 CO", 9 9) which absent. All in DISTRIBUTION OF POST-CLOACAL SACS AND BONES they were males were IN THE GEKKONIDAE of I thus possession post-cloacal bones. can con- firm Hoogmoed's observations. Introduction The above-mentionedobservations show that who examined According to Kluge (1982), the Gekkoninae there is least among at one almost all constituting the family Gek- genera genus in which post-cloacal sacs are not konidae, post-cloacal sacs and bones are invariably present or absent; in fact, this situa- distributed as follows: tion be the Gek- appears to unique among (1) in all of the Diplodactylinae present genera konidae in general. Apparently, Kluge and Eublepharinae; overlooked this variability in Thecadactylus absent of in all genera the Sphaerodac- and/or of (2) was not aware Hoogmoed's obser- tylinae; vations. in the (3) variably present Gekkoninae. Kluge listed the following taxa belonging to the Gekkoninae characterized the The situation in Microscalabotes and as being by absence of both and bones: the post-cloacal sacs Paragehyra genera Aristelliger, Asaccus, Millotisaurus, As noted above, Kluge (1982) stated that he did Narudasia, Pristurus, Quedenfeldtia and Saurodac- examine the Microscalabotes and not genera and of the tylus, two species genus Phyllodactylus, Paragehyra in the course of his survey of the Gek- viz., P. riebeckii and P. (Peters, 1882), koninae. trachyrhinus 1899. Boulenger, The sole of the Microscalabotes species genus Kluge noted that the situation in Lygodactylus Boulenger, 1883 is M. bivittis (Peters, 1883), required further study and declared not to have which is known from a very few specimens examined the genera Microscalabotes and (Pasteur, 1967). According to Pasteur (1964b) Paragehyra. the is characterized the absence of genus by post-cloacal sacs; Pasteur does not provide The situation in Thecadactylus information concerning post-cloacal bones. I One of the listed able M. genera by Kluge (1982) as was to study the single specimen of and bivittis that is in the collection of the possessing post-cloacal sacs (0'0' + 9 9) present bones is 1817. This Paris (CCf) Thecadactylus Oken, museum (MNHNP A.61). Although the of T. is in bad it is clear that genus is composed a single species: specimen a rather state, I thus rapicauda (Houttuyn, 1782). no post-cloacal sacs are present; can con- Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 12:27:07AM via free access 216 - POST-CLOACAL J. BASTINCK SACS AND BONES IN GEKKOTA firm Pasteur's I could (1964b) statement. not genus is apparently very close to Agamura (De detect the of bones. The I that it presence post-cloacal Witte, 1980), suspect Kluge treats as a absence of bones is corroborated the of the latter. It should be by junior synonym noted of series of that the has presence a well-developed preanal up to now genus Rhinogekko not it that the been pores, which makes extremely likely formally suppressed. in which Szczerbak specimen is a male, case post-cloacal Golubev & (1981) erected the if should have been detec- accommodate the bones, present, easily genus Carinatogecko to species these known table (in the bone-bearing genera struc- originally as Bunopus aspratilis Anderson, tures are invariably present in males). 1973 and Tropiocolotes heteropholis Minton, is another Apparently, Microscalabotes member Anderson & Anderson, 1970. It seems possible the series of that of the of gekkonid genera characterized Kluge was unaware description of the absence of and bones. this the time he by post-cloacal sacs genus at was writing his 1982 The genus Paragehyra Angel, 1929 likewise is paper. However, since both Bunopus and its P. monotypic; only member, petiti Angel, Tropiocolotes were found by Kluge to be in 1929, is known only from the holotype. This possession of both post-cloacal sacs and bones, specimen was studied by Brongersma (1934), and since C. aspratilis and C. heteropholis do not who observed that post-cloacal sacs were pres- seem to differ from their former respective con- bones not. in in this ent, while post-cloacal were I was geners respect (Anderson, 1973; Minton the of P. it certain that position to study the holotype petiti et al., 1970), seems Carinatogecko Post-cloacal is characterized the of these (MNHNP 29-75) myself. sacs are too by presence present in this specimen indeed, albeit rather structures. weakly developed. I could not detect the The situation in Lygodactylus will be discussed of bones. presence post-cloacal Thus, the at end of this paper. observations Brongersma's apparently were correct. The evident absence of bones, the weak DISTRIBUTION OF POST-CLOACAL SACS AND BONES development of the sacs (in males sacs are IN THE PYGOPODIDAE almost always strongly developed), and the lack examined all of the Kluge (1982) genera of a swollen tail-base make it noticeably very Pygopodidae and found post-cloacal bones to be likely that the specimen is a female.