Liolaemus Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Check List 10(1): 221–229, 2014 © 2014 Check List and Authors Chec List ISSN 1809-127X (available at www.checklist.org.br) Journal of species lists and distribution N Revision of the geographic distribution of three species of the montanus group of Liolaemus Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia: ISTRIBUTIO Squamata: Liolaemidae) D RAPHIC Jaime Troncoso-Palacios G EO G N O E-mail: [email protected] Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Medicina, Programa de Biofísica y Fisiología. Casilla 70005. Santiago, Chile. OTES N Abstract: Here I review the distribution of three Liolaemus species of the montanus group. I conclude that L. signifer has been recorded in Peru (Puno, Tacna and Moquegua, departments), Bolivia (La Paz, Cochabamba and Oruro departments) and northern Chile (Arica and Parinacota Region). Liolaemus multicolor and L. andinus should be restricted to Argentina. Liolaemus is one of the most diverse genera of as widely distributed in the highlands of Peru, Bolivia, iguanian lizards, with 239 species presently recognized Chile and Argentina (Koslowsky 1898; Donoso-Barros (Uetz 2013). The genus is divided into two subgenera: 1966). Later, Cei et al. (1980) rediscovered the holotype Liolaemus (sensu stricto) and Eulaemus (Laurent 1985). (MNHN-Paris 6860) and restricted the type locality to The montanus group belongs to the nigriceps series of the the “highlands of Peru and Bolivia”. This decision is in montanus section of the subgenus Eulaemus (Fontanella et al. 2012). Lobo et al. (2010) listed 59 species for this group. However, they omitted to include L. lopezi Ibarra- (Chile),accordance Puerto with de D’OrbignyCobija (Chile), (1847), Puerto who de collectedArica (Chile), the Vidal, 2005. Later, four new species were described for the Tacnaholotype (Peru) and mentionedand La Paz his (Bolivia). route as follows:In this Valparaísotrajectory, group: L. cazianiae Lobo, Slodki & Valdecantos, 2010; L. specimens of the montanus group have only been recorded halonastes Lobo, Slodki & Valdecantos, 2010; L. vulcanus between Tacna and La Paz (all current records are referred Quinteros & Abdala, 2011; and L. porosus Abdala, Paz & as L. signifer). Also, Cei et al. (1980) indicated the existence Semhan, 2013. Therefore, the montanus group currently of one specimen from Huaracone, Puno department, Peru comprises 64 species. (MNHN-Paris 2503). However, Laurent (1984) highlighted Here, I review the records of three species of the notable differences between measurements of the body montanus group. For this purpose, I examined museum specimens (Appendix I) and reviewed the literature on (1843), compared to the measurements reported by Cei et each species. Examination of scales was made using lenses aland. (1980) tail indicated for the holotype by Duméril of L. and signifer Bibron. Although (1837) there and Bell are doubts regarding the specimen MNHN-Paris 6860 as really taken with a digital vernier caliper (±0.02 mm precision). being the holotype of L. signifer, there is no a conclusive Dorsalof different scales magnifications,were counted between and measurements the occiput and were the level of the anterior border of the hind limbs. Acronyms (1843) mentioned that there is only one type specimen, I mentioned in this publication are: BMNH (Natural History considerstudy and the because specimen Duméril MNHN-Paris and Bibron 6860 (1837)as the holotype.and Bell Museum, Londres), CBF (Colección Boliviana de Fauna), On the other hand, despite the restriction of the type FMNH (Field Museum of Natural History), KU (University locality made by Cei et al. (1980), these authors keep L. of Kansas, Biodiversity Institute), MCN (Museo de Ciencias signifer as a species distributed in the highlands of Peru, Naturales de la Universidad Nacional de Salta), MNHN-CL Bolivia, Chile and Argentina “considering the literature (Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Chile), MNHN-Paris data” (my own translation, p. 923). Therefore, an analysis (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris), SDSU (San of the publications that mention L. signifer after 1980 is Diego State University Collection) and SSUC (Colección required. Regarding Argentina, Cei (1993) and Avila et al. (2010, Universidad Católica de Chile). Finally, I discuss the 2013) exclude Liolaemus signifer from this country. recordsde Flora for y these Fauna three Patricio species, Sánchez ordered accordingReyes, Pontificia to their Regarding Bolivia, Fugler (1989) reported a population geographical distribution (north to south). from Pacajes Province, but did not list specimens. De la Riva et al. (1992) reported a population from Ulla-Ulla but also Liolaemus signifer Duméril & Bibron, 1837. This did not list specimens. Ibisch and Böhme (1993) recorded poorly known species was described for “Chili” based specimens from Palamani Pampa and Jachcha Kochi on a single specimen. Shortly after, this specimen was (Cochabamba). Aparicio (1993) recorded this species from redescribed by Bell (1843) and illustrated by Duméril et Huaraco. Later, Dirksen and De la Riva (1999) reviewed all al. (1854) (Figure 1). Since the type locality was poorly these locations and added more records based on museum collection catalogues, and also they provided coordinates defined, several authors have considered this species 221 Troncoso-Palacios | Geographic distribution of three species of Liolaemus for those they could identify: Road between Caracoles and W Tincopalca; Tacna department: 16 Km S Taratara and 5 Quime, Cordillera Tres Cruces, road between La Paz and km E Lago Suches; Moquegua department: Pampa Huatire; Tiahuanaco, La Cumbre, 130 km NE of La Paz, 35 mi NW of Arequipa department: Vicoyaca; Ayacucho department: La Paz, Potone, Tiahuanaco, Esperanza (Province Pacajes), 35 km NE Puquio; and Apurimac department: 40 Km SW Chalhuanca. Records from Arequipa department are very km E of Achacachi), Patacamaya, Altiplano (Oruro), 5 close to the distribution of Liolaemus annectens Boulenger km7 km NE E ofof Oruro,Ulla Ulla, 15 Caupolicánkm NE of Oruro, (Hacienda 60 km Corpaputu, NE of Oruro, 10 1901, a species previously considered a subspecies of Hacienda Huancaroma, 8 km S of Eucaliptos, Chocaya, L. signifer (Laurent 1992), but recently elevated to full et species (with no data provided) by Pincheira-Donoso et al. al (2008). It is necessary to carry out a study to clarify the Finally,30 mi N De of laPotosí Gálvez and and 7 km Pacheco S of Potosí. (2009) Later, indicated Abdala the relationships between these species and check the records presence. (2008) of listed L. signifer specimens at 20 locations from Confital between (Cochabamba). Titicaca and of L. signifer from Arequipa. The same goes for the records La Paz and in southern La Paz. The authors also provide from Apurimac and Ayacucho (Figure 2), which are close a map, but unfortunately did not refer to the names and to the type locality of L. melanogaster Laurent 1998. coordinates for these locations. Even though many of these Regarding Chile, Veloso and Navarro (1988), indicated that this species occurs in the highlands of the Antofagasta are all in the department of La Paz and the neighboring Region between 3600 and 4600 m, although they do not departmentsrecords are not of specificCochabamba (only indicatingand Oruro thein areas province), bordering they La Paz department, except the records from the vicinity and Jaksic (1992), included it for Chile without data. mention specific localities or specimens examined. Núñez which are more than 220 Km S (straight line) from any for Liolaemus signifer in the catalog of geographic data otherof Potosí location and (FigureChocaya, 2). locatedI believe in that Potosí these department, records are ofInterestingly, Chilean reptiles Núñez and (1992) snakes did innot the indicate Museo locationsNacional that the similar species Liolaemus schmidti Marx 1960 has Veloso (2001) also mentioned that this species occurs doubtful and need confirmation, especially considering inde theHistoria highlands Natural of Antofagastade Chile. However,Region withoutNúñez andany Riva 1999). data. Valladares et al. (2002) listed one specimen from beenAs recorded for Peru, Abdalain Potosí et al.department (2008) listed (Dirksen specimens and Defrom la Cariquima, Tarapacá (SDSU 1600), but this record is Puno department: Lago Titicaca, Lago Titicaca road to not from Cariquima since the specimen SDSU 1600 was Puno, 82 Km W Puno, Pichupichuin (8 km NW Huacallani), collected in Puno (Peru) by W.E. Duellman (R. Langstroth, Caccahara (probably Cacachara), 12.9 km SW Limbani, 4 km NW of Juliaca, Huaylarco (88.5 km NE Arequipa; included L. signifer for Chile and provided a description. probably Huaylarco from Moquegua department) and 5 km pers.In the comm.). section Finally, Material Pincheira-Donoso Estudiado (p. 450), and Núñezthese authors (2005) indicated that they examined the specimens BMNH- specimen51.7.17.76 is from too vague “Chili” to and sustain BMNH-1902.5.29.63-73 the presence of L. signifer from Uyuni, (Potosí, Bolivia). The locality “Chili” for the first could represent an important distributional expansion. However,in Chile. OnL. schmidtithe other hand, Uyuni (Potosí department) (2005) indicated that hasL. schmidti been recorded is a synonym in Potosí of L. andinus(FMNH without204525-26), providing and anysince data Pincheira-Donoso (Lobo et al. 2010) theand status Núñez of the specimens from Uyuni should be revised. that they examined two specimens from Tacora (Visviri, Also, Pincheira-Donoso and Núñez (2005) indicate specimens were not included in the