Molecular evidence for a species complex in the patagonian lizard Liolaemus bibronii and phylogeography of the closely related Liolaemus gracilis (Squamata: Liolaemini)

Molecular phylogeny, species limits, and biogeography of the Brazilian endemic lizard genus Enyalius (Squamata: Leiosauridae): An example of the historical relationship between Atlantic Forests and Amazonia

“…Recent herpetological studies in other biomes (e.g. Geurgas and Rodrigues, 2010;Morando et al, 2007Morando et al, , 2013Werneck et al, 2012;Fouquet et al, 2012a) have reached similar conclusions.…”

Molecular phylogenetic analyses reveal the importance of taxon sampling in cryptic diversity: Liolaemus nigroviridis and L. monticola (Liolaeminae) as focal species

“…Several studies using molecular phylogenetic analyses have inferred L. monticola and L. nitidus as sister species [3,31,39,60,78], a result that might contribute to the complexity of determining the main process (either deterministic or stochastic) that explains our results. Incomplete lineage sorting and mitochondrial introgression have been discussed as probable causes to explain paraphyletic patterns in Liolaemus [4,5,40,64,66]. We found that almost all haplotypes of L. nitidus and L. monticola (except L. nitidus H34; Fig.…”

“…Reciprocal monophyly may not be achieved in taxa with different evolutionary trajectories [62,63] leading to inconclusive support for species designation. The genus Liolaemus provides several examples of this situation [5,12,[64][65][66][67], with a number of taxa still waiting to be studied or validated. Here we used a higher number of samples that included sister species for phylogenetic reconstructions, with two Topologies for L. nigroviridis with ML and Bayesian inference recovered all haplotypes in a supported clade, with strong phylogeographic structure congruent with previous results [27].…”

“…Cytochrome b and cytochrome oxidase I are among the most common markers; they are particularly useful in phylogeography and species delineation studies [3][4][5][6][7][8].…”

Checklist of lizards and amphisbaenians of Argentina: an update

“…We gathered published information that included new species descriptions and/or geographic distributions, and included of these in the References section (we assume that bibliography published before 2,000 was already included in that publication). Information taken from bibliographic sources can be ordered into three main categories: a) Revisionary studies of specific genera or species complexes, including: Diplolaemus Victoriano et al 2010), Liolaemus and/or Phymaturus (Abdala 2007a;Avila et al 2006b;Morando et al 2003Morando et al , 2004Morando et al , 2007Morando et al , 2008Lobo & Quinteros 2005a,b;Pincheira-Donoso et al 2008, Breitman et al 2011a, Pristidactylus ), Stenocercus (Torrez-Carvajal 2007, and Urostrophus and Anisolepis (Etheridge & Williams 1991); b) Checklists of some species/subspecies complexes and new geographic citations, including: Ameiva ameiva (Cabrera 2002), Amphisbaena plumbea (Avila et al 2007a), Anisolepis grillii (Alvarez 2000), A. longicauda (Waller 2009), Cnemidophorus lacertoides (Federico 2000;Pérez & Grassini 2001), C. longicauda (Pérez & Petracchi 2004, Frutos et al 2005, C. serranus (Pérez et al 2004;Arias & Lobo 2005), C. tergolaevigatus (Cabrera & Etheridge 2006), Diplolaemus darwinii (Ibargüengoytía & Schulte 2001), Homonota andicola (Acosta & Blanco 2001), H. fasciata Etchepare et al 2011), H. underwoodi (Pérez et al 2005), patagonian Liolaemus 2004a), L. chiliensis (Christie 2002a), L. bibronii , L. buergeri (Abdala & Robles 2007), L. ditadai (Abdala 2007b), L. donosobarrosi (Abdala & Juarez 2006), L. fitzgeraldi , Avila 2004), L. fitzingerii …”