Search for: All records

The subspecies rank has been widely applied by taxonomists to capture infraspecific variation within the Linnaean classification system. Many subspecies described throughout the 20th century were recognised largely based on perceived variation in single morphological characters yet have since been found not to correspond to separately evolving population lineages, thus requiring synonymy or elevation to full species under lineage-based views of species. These modern lineage-based taxonomic resolutions have resulted from a combination of new molecular genetic techniques, improved geographical sampling of specimens, and more sophisticated analyses of morphological variation (e.g., statistical assessments rather than solely univariate descriptive ones). Here, we revisit the current taxonomic arrangement of species-level and subspecific taxa in the Lerista microtis (Gray) group, which is distributed along a narrow ~2000 km strip on the southern coast of Australia. From specimens of the L. microtis group, an additional species (Lerista arenicola) and two additional subspecies (L. m. intermedia and L. m. schwaneri) were described. We collected data on mensural, meristic, and colour pattern characters to explore morpho-spatial relationships among these taxa. Although our morphological analyses revealed some distinctiveness among specimens from locations assigned to each taxon, this variation is continuous along Australia’s southern coastline, assuming the form of a geographic cline rather than discrete forms. For many characters, however, spatial patterns were inconsistent with the original descriptions, particularly of the subspecies. Moreover, analysis of genome wide restriction-associated DNA loci revealed multiple instances of paraphyly among taxa, with phylogenetic clustering of specimens assigned to distinct species and subspecies. These emerging patterns provide no support for L. arenicola as a species evolving separately from L. microtis. Additionally, our findings challenge the presumed distinctiveness and coherence of the three subspecies of L. microtis. We thus synonymise L. arenicola and the L. microtis subspecies with L. microtis and provide a redescription of a single yet morphologically variable species—an arrangement that best reflects evolutionary history and the continuous nature of morphological variation across space. 

Abstract AimSquamate fitness is affected by body temperature, which in turn is influenced by environmental temperatures and, in many species, by exposure to solar radiation. The biophysical drivers of body temperature have been widely studied, but we lack an integrative synthesis of actual body temperatures experienced in the field, and their relationships to environmental temperatures, across phylogeny, behaviour and climate. LocationGlobal (25 countries on six continents). TaxaSquamates (210 species, representing 25 families). MethodsWe measured the body temperatures of 20,231 individuals of squamates in the field while they were active. We examined how body temperatures vary with substrate and air temperatures across taxa, climates and behaviours (basking and diel activity). ResultsHeliothermic lizards had the highest body temperatures. Their body temperatures were the most weakly correlated with substrate and air temperatures. Body temperatures of non‐heliothermic diurnal lizards were similar to heliotherms in relation to air temperature, but similar to nocturnal species in relation to substrate temperatures. The correlation of body temperature with air and substrate temperatures was stronger in diurnal snakes and non‐heliothermic lizards than in heliotherms. Body‐substrate and body‐air temperature correlations varied with mean annual temperatures in all diurnal squamates, especially in heliotherms. Thermal relations vary with behaviour (heliothermy, nocturnality) in cold climates but converge towards the same relation in warm climates. Non‐heliotherms and nocturnal species body temperatures are better explained by substrate temperature than by air temperature. Body temperature distributions become left‐skewed in warmer‐bodied species, especially in colder climates. Main ConclusionsSquamate body temperatures, their frequency distributions and their relation to environmental temperature, are globally influenced by behavioural and climatic factors. For all temperatures and climates, heliothermic species' body temperatures are consistently higher and more stable than in other species, but in regions with warmer climate these differences become less pronounced. A comparable variation was found in non‐heliotherms, but in not nocturnal species whose body temperatures were similar to air and substrate irrespective of the macroclimatic context. 

Abstract Comprehensive assessments of species’ extinction risks have documented the extinction crisis 1 and underpinned strategies for reducing those risks 2 . Global assessments reveal that, among tetrapods, 40.7% of amphibians, 25.4% of mammals and 13.6% of birds are threatened with extinction 3 . Because global assessments have been lacking, reptiles have been omitted from conservation-prioritization analyses that encompass other tetrapods 4–7 . Reptiles are unusually diverse in arid regions, suggesting that they may have different conservation needs 6 . Here we provide a comprehensive extinction-risk assessment of reptiles and show that at least 1,829 out of 10,196 species (21.1%) are threatened—confirming a previous extrapolation 8 and representing 15.6 billion years of phylogenetic diversity. Reptiles are threatened by the same major factors that threaten other tetrapods—agriculture, logging, urban development and invasive species—although the threat posed by climate change remains uncertain. Reptiles inhabiting forests, where these threats are strongest, are more threatened than those in arid habitats, contrary to our prediction. Birds, mammals and amphibians are unexpectedly good surrogates for the conservation of reptiles, although threatened reptiles with the smallest ranges tend to be isolated from other threatened tetrapods. Although some reptiles—including most species of crocodiles and turtles—require urgent, targeted action to prevent extinctions, efforts to protect other tetrapods, such as habitat preservation and control of trade and invasive species, will probably also benefit many reptiles.