theTegu.com - Tegu information, photo gallery, forums, caresheets, diet & nutritional info, taming tips and more for the argentine black and white tegu, argentine red tegu, blue tegu, colombian black tegu and the colombian gold-phased black tegu. Tupinambis merianea, teguixin & rufescens.
Unfortunately, the subspecies in question doesn't exist. The species in question was written up in Müller, 1968. Die Herpetofauna der Insel von São Sebastião (Brasilien). Saarbrücken (Verl.Saarbr.Zeitung). At that time, what was referred to as Tupinambis teguixin is now recognized as Tupinambis merianae, so what you are really looking for is Tupinambis merianae sebastiani which, basically, still doesn't officially exist. Müller was proposing two subspecies on the basis of colouration without knowing that Tupinambis merianae is highly polymorphic and that the colour patterns he was regarding do not hold true in order to be classified as distinct subspecies (ie. you do not see particular areas where one form exists in exclusion of the other, offspring in a single clutch can resemble both forms, etc.). Therefore the scientific community has not adopted his proposal for subspecies status. His proposal was that T.m.sebastiani were T.merianae tegus whose backs were nearly black with only indistinct patterning, while Tupinambis merianae merianae would have backs brighter and with a clear pattern.
Off topic, but when did T. Teguixin split off into the Teguixin and Merianae?
My copy of Giant Lizards by Robert Sprackland still lumps them together, and that was published in '92. Help would be appreciated.. I want to make a note of it in my book. _________________ 2.1 Beardies
1.1 Red Ackies
1.1 B.C.C.
-Recouperating-
It isn't a case of split off, it's a case of rediscovery of older primary descriptions and all that stuff. The first account to describe a species gets precedence. So, if someone eventually discovers an even older discription of tegus, there may be a name shift yet again. Any how, Ávila-Pires, (1995) re-established that what used to be T.teguixin was previously described as Salvator merianae by Dumeril & Bibron (1839) (the Tupinambis takes precedence for Salvator, and merianae takes precedence for teguixin) and what used to be T.nigropunctatus (Spix, 1825) was previously described as Lacerta teguixin by Linneaus (1758) (in our current understanding of squamate taxonomy, these animals are clearly not Lacertids, and so they were dropped from that genus, but the species epithet still stands - Linneaus abhored reptiles and amphibians and didn't tend to pay as much attention to their classification as he did for other organisms, and therefore often lumped unrelated species together).
It isn't a case of split off, it's a case of rediscovery of older primary descriptions and all that stuff. The first account to describe a species gets precedence. So, if someone eventually discovers an even older discription of tegus, there may be a name shift yet again. Any how, Ávila-Pires, (1995) re-established that what used to be T.teguixin was previously described as Salvator merianae by Dumeril & Bibron (1839) (the Tupinambis takes precedence for Salvator, and merianae takes precedence for teguixin) and what used to be T.nigropunctatus (Spix, 1825) was previously described as Lacerta teguixin by Linneaus (1758) (in our current understanding of squamate taxonomy, these animals are clearly not Lacertids, and so they were dropped from that genus, but the species epithet still stands - Linneaus abhored reptiles and amphibians and didn't tend to pay as much attention to their classification as he did for other organisms, and therefore often lumped unrelated species together).
So, nigropunctatus was the columbian, later relabeled to teguixin when the then Teguixin (Arg) was relabeled merianae in '95 when older data was brought up for the species was earlier described?
Was this simultaneous? As my book evidently refers to them as the same species which would show that they were put together at that time, or Robert just had his sources a bit mixed up.
I feel sorry for taxonomists, for, if they exist, they must be confused souls.
I believe what you say as it is in accordance with the Tegu taxonomy I've been researching as of late... I'm just infernally curious, and I'd like to know what happened.
Or is it possible that Robert himself lumped them together on a hunch, or perhaps that at this time it was his belief (whether his personal, or what the herp community thought at the time, not sure) nigropunctatus really.. the Columbian was thought of as a subspecies of the Teguixin?
These things happen as far as I've seen, I'm still confused whether to call the Ornate monitor a subspecies of Niloticus or it's own V. ornatus.. ugh. _________________ 2.1 Beardies
1.1 Red Ackies
1.1 B.C.C.
-Recouperating-
There's rather good reason to be confused, as many people have been throughout the ages with these two.
As stated earlier, the first description we see of a "tegu" is Linneaus, 1758, in which he named Lacerta teguixin. From its description and the locality (Surinam) of the specimen, we know this to be the one hobbyists now refer to as the Colombian. The next description we come across is an erroneous "first description" of Seps marmoratus by Laurenti, 1768 which he placed in the "Indias" (believe it or not, this happened a number of times for South American species). Still afterwards, we see Latreille in 1801 give a description for Lacerta monitor for a specimen from Surinam (you have to remember, back then naturalists did not have access to all publications of other naturalists). In 1825, we see Spix redescribe the Colombian as Tupinambis nigropunctatus.
For Tupinambis merianae, the first description we see accurately describing this species comes from Dumeril & Bibron in 1839 as Salvator merianae. Then a little over a century later, in 1968, Muller "erroneously" applies his proposed subspecies Tupinambis teguixin sebastiani to what is clearly a Tupinambis merianae, and hence the confusion over merianae/teguixin/nigropunctatus begins. Unfortunately, I don't read the languages a lot of these earlier documents were written in, so I don't know the full details. But from a few of these earlier blunders, you got later researchers who were not so stringent in their identification of the species, and often applied whatever name so-n-so said it was, only further fueling the confusion. Believe it or not, I heard tale of one particular Ph.D. candidate who was defending his thesis on some biochemical properties he'd found in the fish Bufo marinus (evidently everyone else in the lab worked on fish, he had never seen the whole organism from which he was working on, he was supposedly just given tissues of Bufo marinus, and from this concluded that the toad Bufo marinus must be a fish).
Likewise, you get people who are unfamiliar with nomenclature rules, and they promote names that are not recognized. Take for instance Tupinambis quadrilineatus. My friend Augusto Abe had worked with G.R. Colli (I think) on identifying this particular species sometime in the late 80s, I believe I was told. But neither of them got off their lazy butts and published in a timely manner. Roughly a decade later, both of them realized they should really get their findings published (but for some reason they didn't talk to each other about it), and each in collaboration with several others published their own accounts in different journals - Manzani & Abe got theirs published 1997 in a poorly known Brazilian journal Boletin do Museu Nacional, Nova Serie, Rio de Janeiro describing the species Tupinambis quadrilineatus, while independently Colli, Peres & da Cunha published their account of Tupinambis cerradensis in 1998 in the more widely known journal Herpetologica. Since then, people unfamiliar with the fact that both are describing the same species, have promoted the idea that there are two different species where really there is only one. As Manzani & Abe were published earlier, their Tupinambis quadrilineatus takes precedence.
I didn't grasp all of that (it's a great deal to absorb.. haha)
But I got the concept.. and I believe I can see where Sprackland made the mistake.
I still hold onto the idea that taxonomists... or whoever really holds and sorts through those old records must be very confused men who do a lot of note checking.. at one point the scientific names and the descriptions just all about sound and look alike..
Or perhaps I've done a bit too many late night study sessions.
I need to start drinking coffee.. _________________ 2.1 Beardies
1.1 Red Ackies
1.1 B.C.C.
-Recouperating-
I heart of Müllers article. Oh, that was a subspecies of T. merianae. Maybe that is the reason why I didn´t found more about sebastianis . I´ll try to get that article as soon as possible. The taxonomy of Tupinambis is really confused!
BTW I´m also looking for another article:
PRESCH,W. 1973 A review of the tejus lizard genus Tupinambis (Sauria: Teiidae) from South America. Copeia 1973 (4): 740-746. Presch
Whoops! I forgot about that one. In that paper, Presch VERY incorrectly synonomizes a bunch of other tegu species into two major ones. He proposed that there were truly only T.teguixin and T.rufescens, and synonomized T.nigropunctatus with T.teguixin and further synonomized T.duseni and T.teguixin sebastiani with T.rufescens. Ok, sorry everyone, this is the paper where I think a LOT of the confusion arose over the systematics in the genus Tupinambis, and it clearly describes in alarming detail where a lot of changes and such were made over time and Presch felt it was best to lump everything together into two species. I'll admit, I'm no taxonomist . To Tejubensch and Slizarus, if you want to get a copy of this blundering paper, PM me your emails and I'll send you a pdf copy.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login
. I´ll try to get that article as soon as possible. The taxonomy of Tupinambis is really confused!
