Liolaemus (Donosolaemus), Pincheira-Donoso & Nunez, 2005

Pincheira-Donoso, Daniel, Scolaro, J. Alejandro & Sura, Piotr, 2008, A monographic catalogue on the systematics and phylogeny of the South American iguanian lizard family Liolaemidae (Squamata, Iguania), Zootaxa 1800, pp. 1-85 : 34-35

Subgenus Donosolaemus Pincheira-Donoso & Núñez

Rhytidodeira Laurent 1985b: 7 (invalid designation; see below).

Liolaemus Cei 1986: 187 ; Etheridge 1995: 32; Etheridge & Espinoza 2000: 5.

Donosolaemus Pincheira-Donoso & Núñez 2005: 59 (type species: Liolaemus archeforus Donoso-Barros & Cei 1971 ).

This group of patagonian lizards, commonly recognized as archeforus-kingii group (see Scolaro & Cei 1997; Pincheira-Donoso & Núñez 2005), has a controversial and complex nomenclatural and systematic history. Over the last few decades, some authors have identified a series of phenotypic traits observed in a unique combination in these species ( Laurent 1985b; Cei 1986; Scolaro & Cei 1997; Pincheira-Donoso & Núñez 2005). Interestingly, recent phylogenetic hypotheses based on both molecular and morphological variables have also suggested that lizards belonging to the groups archeforus and kingii would represent a monophyletic clade within the genus Liolaemus (e.g. Schulte et al. 2000; Espinoza et al. 2004).

The first explicit proposal suggesting that the groups archeforus and kingii should be formally placed in a separate lineage was provided by Laurent (1985b), who resurrected the genus Rhytidodeira established long before by Girard (1858a) for a series of Liolaemus species ( Etheridge 1995). Laurent (1985b) designated Liolaemus kingii (Bell) as the type species for this genus, in which also included L. archeforus and L. ruizleali (see Donoso-Barros & Cei 1971), this last taxon conspecific to L. rothi ( Cei & Scolaro 1987; see also Etheridge & Espinoza 2000) and belonging to the unrelated clade fitzingerii ( Schulte et al. 2000; PincheiraDonoso et al. 2007a; Fig. 4 ). However, Etheridge (1995) returned Rhytidodeira to the synonymy of the Liolaemus genus, arguing that “ Liolaemus kingii and L. archeforus have all of the synapomorphies that diagnose Liolaemus , and, according to Laurent (1985b), differ from other Liolaemus in being "primitive." No derived characters are known to unite L. kingii and L. archeforus , the species assigned to Rhytidodeira by Laurent (1985) ”.

More recently, Pincheira-Donoso & Núñez (2005) studied a large subset of exomorphological, anatomical and biogeographical characteristics of the groups archeforus and kingii , and concluded that they should be placed in a separate lineage, in agreement with Laurent (1985b). Nevertheless, in contrast to Laurent’s (1985b) opinion, these authors suggested that the subgenus Rhytidodeira may not be valid for L. kingii and for the remaining species belonging to the archeforus and kingii groups, because in a previous study Donoso-Barros (1970b) had already designated Liolaemus bibronii as the type taxon for Rhytidodeira , a species belonging to the Liolaemus subgenus (or chiliensis clade; see above). According to the article 69.1 of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature (2000), if an author establishes a genus or subgenus with no official designation of a type species, the first later explicit designation of a type species from one of the taxa originally included as members of that genus or subgenus is the only valid type species for that genus or subgenus, and any other type species designated later is not valid. Consequently, the only valid type species for Rhytidodeira is Liolaemus bibronii (included in this genus by Girard 1858a, as Proctotretus bibronii ). Since Rhytidodeira is therefore a synonym of the subgenus Liolaemus, Pincheira-Donoso & Núñez (2005) proposed for the species belonging to the groups archeforus and kingii (see Scolaro & Cei 1997) the subgenus Donosolaemus . These authors designated Liolaemus archeforus Donoso-Barros & Cei as the type species for Donosolaemus , in which also included L. baguali Cei & Scolaro , L. escarchadosi Scolaro & Cei , L. gallardoi Cei & Scolaro , L. kingii (Bell) , L. sarmientoi Donoso-Barros , L. scolaroi Pincheira-Donoso & Núñez , L. somuncurae Cei & Scolaro , L. tari Scolaro & Cei , L. tristis Scolaro & Cei , and L. zullyi Cei & Scolaro (it was also recently included in this lineage the species L. uptoni Scolaro & Cei 2006 ; see below). Due to these nomenclatural aspects established in the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature, the valid subgeneric name for these Patagonian Liolaemus lizards is Donosolaemus .

Figures

FIGURE 4. Phylogenetic relationships between the Liolaemus species of the series signifer (subgenera Donosolaemus, Vilcunia and Eulaemus, and line magellanicus). The main structure of the tree is based on Schulte et al.’s (2000, 2004) and Espinoza et al.’s (2004) phylogenetic hypotheses. Additional details on phylogenetic relationships between species within each clade have been taken from specific phylogenetic studies (e.g. Avila et al. 2007; Pincheira-Donoso et al. 2007a).