Download Full Document - Mountain Boomer Music!

1996 McGUIRE-SYSTEMATICS OF CROTAPHYTID LIZARDS 3
likely influenced by the similarity in head morphology
and squamation in these genera. Furthermore,
Dumiril (1 856) suggested that C. fasciatus
Hallowell was synonymous with Leiosaurusfusciatus
Dumiril and Bibron 1 837 (= Pristidactylus fmciarus
fide Etheridge and Williams, 1985). However,
he provided the substitute name L. hallo~vellii to be
used in the event that they were not found to be the
same species. This taxonomy was not addressed by
North American herpetologists until Cope (1 900).
Baird (1 858) described Crotaphptcs reticulatus
based on specimens collected by J. H. Clark and A.
C. B. Schott ofthe Mexican Boundary Survey. Baird
designated syntypes (both labeled as USNM 2692)
taken from Ringgold Barracks, Texas (Fort Ringgold
Military Reservation, Starr County). In his description,
Baird (1858), without comment, erected the
subgenus Gambelia for Crotaphytus bvislizenii.
Yarrow ( 1 8826) described Crotaphyfus copeii from
La Paz, California (Baja California Sur, Mexico),
based on a specimen collected by L. Belding.
Stejneger (1 890) described Crotaphytus baileyi
from the Painted Desert, Little Colorado River, Arizona.
This western form was recognized on the basis
of two rows of interorbital scales, compared with
the single row found in C. collaris, as well as smaller
supraoculars, and a narrower head with a longer
snout. He did not believe that C. baileyi warranted
more than subspecific recognition; however, no intergradation
zone was known at the time, and following
the rules of the American Ornithologist's
Union, he felt obligated to describe the form as a
distinct species. Stejneger (1 890) also described Crotaphytus
silus from the San Joaquin valley of California.
In 1 899, Mocquard described Crotaphytus fasciatus
from Cerro Las Palmas, Baja California. It is
clear from his description and the accompanying
figure that this is a juvenile specimen of what is now
referred to as Crotaphytus vestigitrnt, and, as the
name fmciatus predates that of vestigiurn by 73 years,
the former name has priority (see the C. vestigium
taxonomic account for an assessment of the nomenclatorial
implications of this taxonomy).
Cope (1900) resolved several long-standing taxonomic
problems within Croraphyrzcs when he synonymized
C. gambelii, C. fasciatus (Hallowell), and
Leiosaurtcs hallowellii (= C. fasciatus), with C. wislizenii.
He also synonymized C, copeii and C. silus
with C. ,vislizenii, citing an absence or gradation of
distinguishing morphological features. Citing the
work of Stejneger (1 890), Cope did not support the
recognition of Crotaphytus baileyi at either the specific
or subspecific rank. Over the next 50 years,
there would be considerable disagreement with respect
to the proper taxonomic ranking of baileyi,
with some authors recognizing baileyi as a subspecies
of C. collaris, others as a distinct species, and
still others choosing not to recognize it at any taxonomic
level.
Mocquard (1903), apparently realizing that the
name Crotaphytus fmciatus had already been applied
to a leopard lizard species by Hallowell (1 852),
provided a substitute name (C. fasciolatus) for the
Baja California species. However, Cope (1900) had
already synonymized C. fasciatus Hallowell with C.
wislizenii. Thus, C. fasciatus Mocquard remained
the senior synonym for the Baja California species
of collared lizard.
Stone and Rehn (1903), noting a series of 1 1 specimens
collected in the Pecos region of Texas that
displayed the diagnostic characteristics of both C.
collaris and C. baileyi, recognized the western populations
as a subspecies of C. collaris, Crotaphytes
(sic) collaris baileyi. Meek (1905), citing the constancy
with which the supraorbital semicircles were
unfused in the specimens he examined from Baja
California, California, Arizona, and Utah, again followed
Stejneger (1 890) in recognizing Crotaphytus
baileyi at the specific level. Over the following few
years the taxonomic rank of baileyi jumped back
and forth between the species and subspecies level.
Ruthven (1 907) followed Stone and Rehn (1 903) in
recognizing baileyi as a subspecies. After 1907, the
taxonomy of baileyi more or less stabilized, with
most workers recognizing this form as a subspecies
of C. collaris.
Van Denburgh and Slevin ( 192 1 ) provided a brief
description of Crotaphytus insularis from Isla Angel
de La Guarda in the Gulf of California, Mexico.
Van Denburgh (1 922) could find no differences between
C. copeii from Islas de Cerros (= Cedros) and
Magdalena and C. tvislizenii, and following Cope
(1900), recognized only the latter. Also, Van Denburgh
(1922) incorrectly synonymized both C. fasciatus
Mocquard and C. fmciolatus Mocquard with
C. tvislizenii.
In 1922, Schmidt described Crotaphyzus dickersonae
from Isla Tiburon in the Gulf of California,
Mexico. In the description, he correctly hypothesized
that the species might be found on the adjacent
Sonoran mainland as well. Schmidt agreed with Van
Denburgh (1 922) in not recognizing C. copeii, citing
extreme variation in the color pattern of this species