Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Just when you thought you had a handle on tegu systematics.....

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,233

    Default Just when you thought you had a handle on tegu systematics.....

    Well folks, it appears once again someone has felt it necessary (and rightly so) to revamp Teiidae systematics. If fully accepted, it means what we call tegus are now divided into two genuses, much along the lines of the previous 'clades' that I've sometimes talked about. This revision is purely based on morphology, and although they do a generally indepth analysis, it is clear the authors are not as familiar with the material as I'd like them to be (ie. for one, they continue to stress the importance of one vs. two loreal scales between the two groups, and as anyone with enough experience will point out, there are rather common exceptions to this).
    So, according to this new scheme, they've re-enlisted the old genus of Salvator first proposed by Dumeril and Bibron in 1839. With this new scheme we now have:

    Salvator duseni Yellow or Duseni's tegu
    Salvator rufescens Argentine Red Tegu
    Salvator merianae So many names......
    Tupinambis teguixin Colombian Black&White/Gold tegu
    Tupinambis longilineus Rhondonia tegu
    Tupinambis palustris Swamp tegu (I was rather pleased my old friends' designation stood, there was contention by some that this wasn't a distinct species)
    Tupinambis quadrilineatus Four-lined tegu

    While I think this is a great development, I still have some reservations, and I'd REALLY like someone to do a more modern up-to-date genetic analysis.
    Last edited by tupinambis; 09-09-2012 at 07:21 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    Oops, sorry folks, I forgot to write up the reference:

    Harvey, M.B., Ugueto, G.N., & Gutberlet, R.L.Jr., 2012. Review of Teiid Morphology with a Revised Taxonomy and Phylogeny of the Teiidae (Lepidosauria: Squamata). Zootaxa 3459: 1-156.

    http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2012/f/z03459p156f.pdf

    And you read it here first on the internet's #1 site for tegu information, www.thetegu.com
    Last edited by tupinambis; 09-09-2012 at 08:06 AM. Reason: felt the need to add a shameless plug

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Central FL
    Posts
    4,349

    Default

    haha, yes, this is the #1 site for scientific information because we have YOU!

    Do you mind if I share with others?
    Laura R (FL)
    1.0.0 Colombian Tegu
    1.4.0 Argentine B&W Tegu
    1.2.0 Red Tegu
    1.2.0 B/WxRed Tegu
    1.0.0 Green Ameiva (yet another teiid)
    7 other lizards
    1 little gator
    3 FL box turtle
    1 Sulcata tortoise
    16 snakes
    5 fuzzy pets
    4 little frogs
    a bunch of creepy bugs
    and a partridge in a pear tree

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    Not at all, that is why I posted it here.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Boston England
    Posts
    152

    Default

    so will the blue & b&w still have the same name.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    The blue is a morph of what you hobbyists like to call the Argentinian black & white tegu, therefore it is now called Salvator merianae.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Central FL
    Posts
    4,349

    Default

    In your opinion, is that a valid classification, blue as Salvator merianae?
    Laura R (FL)
    1.0.0 Colombian Tegu
    1.4.0 Argentine B&W Tegu
    1.2.0 Red Tegu
    1.2.0 B/WxRed Tegu
    1.0.0 Green Ameiva (yet another teiid)
    7 other lizards
    1 little gator
    3 FL box turtle
    1 Sulcata tortoise
    16 snakes
    5 fuzzy pets
    4 little frogs
    a bunch of creepy bugs
    and a partridge in a pear tree

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Central,IL.
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Fantastic news! Thanks for all the info. : )

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    San Antonio,TX
    Posts
    9,505

    Default

    Thank God that we have you tupinambis on our team . I'm very honored. It would be great to have some photos with those names for our new members. Thank you for all your help.
    Rich is not how much you have, or where you are going, or what you are.Rich is who you have beside you.

    Our videos :

    http://www.youtube.com/user/txrepgirl

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,233

    Default

    In your opinion, is that a valid classification, blue as Salvator merianae?
    Not exactly sure what you are asking here. In my opinion, yes, blues are Salvator merianae. As are Chacoans, Extreme giants, Argentine black & whites, and any number of other common names that crop up. Or, to put it another way, these are all the same species (albeit, the concept of species is more traditional than accurate, but that's another discussion).

    Are you asking whether I accept the resurrected genus Salvator? Yes, but with caution. The problem I have with this new revision is that it is solely on morphology. Morphology is a good start, but anyone familiar with taxonomy can tell you that morphology (the more traditional system) has its limitations, and depends immensely on the characters the scientists choose to use and the weight they give those characters (admittedly, the same can be said for other comparisons, but it is more so with morphology). In other words, the criteria used can be quite arbitrary. This has lead us to classification systems in the past that proved to be quite faulty when compared with modern genetic analysis. For instance, in older morphological based systematics systems, Rodents and Bats were considered closely related. Modern genetic analysis showed this to be quite erroneous, and Bats have actually turned out to be much more closely related to Primates. Now all this being said, an earlier genetic analysis by Fitzgerald et al. (1991) did show a rather strongly divergent separation between the two clades. However, Fitzgerald's analysis was rather incomplete, and because of his comparison groups, wasn't really focusing on whether Tupinambis should be split up into 2 genuses, or, better put, that Tupinambis was polyphyletic.

    Do I accept the term Salvator? If the divide between the two clades is great enough to warrant 2 genuses, then indeed this is a valid name. It isn't pulled out of nowhere, it was initially used to describe specimens that we would identify as Argentines. Likewise, Tupinambis was originally used to describe species we would recognize as Colombians.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •