×

Aim To map and assess the richness patterns of reptiles (and included groups: amphisbaenians, crocodiles, lizards, snakes and turtles) in Africa, quantify the overlap in species richness of reptiles (and included groups) with the other terrestrial vertebrate classes, investigate the environmental correlates underlying these patterns, and evaluate the role of range size on richness patterns. Location Africa. Methods We assembled a data set of distributions of all African reptile species. We tested the spatial congruence of reptile richness with that of amphibians, birds and mammals. We further tested the relative importance of temperature, precipitation, elevation range and net primary productivity for species richness over two spatial scales (ecoregions and 1° grids). We arranged reptile and vertebrate groups into range-size quartiles in order to evaluate the role of range size in producing richness patterns. Results Reptile, amphibian, bird and mammal richness are largely congruent (r = 0.79–0.86) and respond similarly to environmental variables (mainly productivity and precipitation). Ecoregion size accounts for more variation in the richness of reptiles than in that of other groups. Lizard distributions are distinct with several areas of high species richness where other vertebrate groups (including snakes) are species-poor, especially in arid ecoregions. Habitat heterogeneity is the best predictor of narrow-ranging species, but remains relatively important in explaining lizard richness even for species with large range sizes. Main conclusions Reptile richness varies with similar environmental variables as the other vertebrates in Africa, reflecting the disproportionate influence of snakes on reptile richness, a result of their large ranges. Richness gradients of narrow-ranged vertebrates differ from those of widespread taxa, which may demonstrate different centres of endemism for reptile subclades in Africa. Lizard richness varies mostly with habitat heterogeneity independent of range size, which suggests that the difference in response of lizards is due to their ecological characteristics. These results, over two spatial scales and multiple range-size quartiles, allow us to reliably interpret the influence of environmental variables on patterns of reptile richness and congruency.

×

A commented lacertids list for Europe, Africa, the Middle East, including the Arabian Peninsula and Asia is given.

×

Aim Body size is instrumental in influencing animal physiology, morphology, ecology and evolution, as well as extinction risk. I examine several hypotheses regarding the influence of body size on lizard evolution and extinction risk, assessing whether body size influences, or is influenced by, species richness, herbivory, island dwelling and extinction risk. Location World-wide. Methods I used literature data and measurements of museum and live specimens to estimate lizard body size distributions. Results I obtained body size data for 99% of the world`s lizard species. The body size–frequency distribution is highly modal and right skewed and similar distributions characterize most lizard families and lizard assemblages across biogeographical realms. There is a strong negative correlation between mean body size within families and species richness. Herbivorous lizards are larger than omnivorous and carnivorous ones, and aquatic lizards are larger than non-aquatic species. Diurnal activity is associated with small body size. Insular lizards tend towards both extremes of the size spectrum. Extinction risk increases with body size of species for which risk has been assessed. Main conclusions Small size seems to promote fast diversification of disparate body plans. The absence of mammalian predators allows insular lizards to attain larger body sizes by means of release from predation and allows them to evolve into the top predator niche. Island living also promotes a high frequency of herbivory, which is also associated with large size. Aquatic and nocturnal lizards probably evolve large size because of thermal constraints. The association between large size and high extinction risk, however, probably reflects a bias in the species in which risk has been studied.

×

Aim: Small geographic ranges make species especially prone to extinction from an- thropogenic disturbances or natural stochastic events. We assemble and analyse a comprehensive dataset of all the world’s lizard species and identify the species with the smallest ranges—those known only from their type localities. We compare them to wide-ranging species to infer whether specific geographic regions or biological traits predispose species to have small ranges. Location: Global. Methods: We extensively surveyed museum collections, the primary literature and our own field records to identify all the species of lizards with a maximum linear geo- graphic extent of <10 km. We compared their biogeography, key biological traits and threat status to those of all other lizards. Results: One in seven lizards (927 of the 6,568 currently recognized species) are known only from their type localities. These include 213 species known only from a single specimen. Compared to more wide-ranging taxa, they mostly inhabit relatively inaccessible regions at lower, mostly tropical, latitudes. Surprisingly, we found that burrowing lifestyle is a relatively unimportant driver of small range size. Geckos are especially prone to having tiny ranges, and skinks dominate lists of such species not seen for over 50 years, as well as of species known only from their holotype. Two- thirds of these species have no IUCN assessments, and at least 20 are extinct. Main conclusions: Fourteen per cent of lizard diversity is restricted to a single location, often in inaccessible regions. These species are elusive, usually poorly known and little studied. Many face severe extinction risk, but current knowledge is inadequate to properly assess this for all of them. We recommend that such species become the focus of taxonomic, ecological and survey efforts.

×

The present paper of N. N. SZCZERBAK was originally published in Russian as `Katalog afrikanskih Jascurok` by the Academy of Sciences, Institute of Zoology, Museum of Zoology, USSR, Kiev (83 pp., 30 maps) in 1975. Lists of synonyms, bibliography, maps and table of contents - all being parts of the original paper - have not been included in this translation which was carried out with the consent of the author by R. GÜNTHER (Berlin) and H. GRILLITSCH (Vienna). The English summary was taken over as provided in the original version. As a SHORT NOTE in this issue of HERPETOZOA subsequent to the translation comments and updated addenda by W. MAYER are provided indicated by [aa* bb* etc.] in the text.