 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by JJFeldner on April 21, 2003 at 01:42:53:
In Reply to: Re: A DI chuckwalla is not a chuckwalla at all but is a> posted by eve on April 20, 2003 at 07:01:18:
First off, you don't have to use all caps unless you don't know where the caps lock key is.
Now, to answer your question, there are no subspecies of Chuckwallas. Since 1998 when Dr. Brad Hollingsworth reclassified all the chucks in his monograph on the genus Sauromalus on the basis of precedence, all of the chucks became Sauromalus ater with no recognized ssp. S. obesus and its attendant ssp of S.o.obesus, S.o. tumidus, etc, including S. multiforaminatus. The fact that Stebbins continues to use S. obesus without ssp indicates that the old guy has partially accepted the new taxonomy but not completely. The ICZN has accepted Hollingsworths nomenclature and rejected Montanucci's attempt to continue to use S. obesus.
All of the Baja species continue to exist as before. The great confusion comes in the fact that Sauromalus are extremely variable with their morphology often changing from one mountain range to the next. The pattern classes are so tied to one area or another that the origin of a lizard can be determined with some certainty strictly by color of the body and tail, banding lasting into adulthood, etc.
