mobile - desktop
3 months for $50.00
News & Events:
Posted by 59herps on February 22, 2003 at 15:28:12:
In Reply to: Re: Xenosaurus grandis and former X. rackhami taxon questio posted by Jan Grathwohl on February 22, 2003 at 05:20:28:
Well actually stuart was the first to designate it as a subspecies in 1941, that same year he elevated it to species status.
1st Xenosaurus grandis rackhami STUART 1941
then reconcidered it and it became
2nd Xenosaurus rackhami STUART 1941 (fide VILLA et al. 1988)
3rd Xenosaurus rackhami - SMITH & TAYLOR 1950: 208
4th Xenosaurus grandis - LINER 1994
What I really want to know is if X. g. sanmartinensis is obviously a subspecies of rackhami due to population isolation shouldn't sanmartinensis be a subsubspecies of Xenosaurus rackhami?
:To my knowledge rackhami has not been considered at seperate species for quite a few years.
:According to Ballinger, R.E. et al. 2000, the first use of the combination Xenosaurus grandis rackhami was by Lynch and Smith in 1965.
:Ballinger, R.E., J.A. Lemos-Espinal & G.R. Smith. 2000. Xenosaurus grandis. Cat. Amer. Amphib. Rept., 713: 1-4.
::It was xenosaurus rackhami but rack hami was synonymized and made just into the subspecies xenosaurus grandis rackhami. There was no xenosaurus rackhami rackhami to my knowledge.
::::Ok.... Here is my question. Xenosaurus grandis and Xenosaurus rackhami were considered seperate species until recently. Xenosaurus rackhami had a subspecies called X. r. sanmartinensis. This subspecies is very similair to rackhami differing mainly in scalation. It has become a subspecies due to population isolation in the crater of a volcanoe. When rackhami became a subspecies of X. grandis X. r. sanmartinensis became X. g. sanmartinensis. But technically isn't sanmartinensis a subsub species of a sub species of a species? Since it descended from rackhami which descended from grandis, instead of from the normal grandis.
:::Do you have a citation for this name change? 'Cause I don't know much about Xenosaurus... but www.reptile-database.org's reference (which, oddly, does not include a citation) indicates that this the two species were synonymized, rather than Xenosaurus rackhami being reduced to subspecific status. This would mean that the subspecies of Xenosaurus rackhami were simply transferred to Xenosaurus grandis, so what is now Xenosaurus grandis rackhami was Xenosaurus rackhami rackhami, rather than Xenosaurus rackhami.