4.3 Article

Species delimitation methods put into taxonomic practice: two new Madascincus species formerly allocated to historical species names (Squamata, Scincidae)

Journal

ZOOSYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 92, Issue 2, Pages 257-275

Publisher

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/zse.92.9945

Keywords

Madascincus miafina sp n.; Madascincus pyrurus sp n.; Madagascar; phylogeny; morphology; integrative taxonomy; species complex; biogeography

Categories

Funding

  1. Volkswagen Foundation
  2. Humboldt Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In a previous study, Miralles & Vences (2013) compared seven different methods of species delimitation applied to the genus Madascincus. While focusing on methodological aspects their study involved an extensive data set of multilocus DNA sequences and of comparative morphology. On this basis they emphasized the need of revising the taxonomy of Madascincus, and revealed the existence of at least two well-supported candidate species. The present paper provides formal descriptions of these two taxa: (1) M. miafina sp. n., a species from dry areas of northern Madagascar, morphologically very similar to M. polleni (although both species are not retrieved as sister taxa), and (2) M. pyrurus sp. n., a montane species occurring > 1500 m above sea level, endemic to the central highlands of Madagascar (Ibity and Itremo Massifs). Phylogenetically, M. pyrurus is the sister species of M. igneocaudatus, a taxon restricted to the dry littoral regions of the south and south-west of Madagascar in lowlands < 500 m above sea level. To facilitate future taxonomic work, we furthermore elaborated an identification key for species of Madascincus. Finally, some aspects of the biogeographic patterns characterising the different main clades within the genus Madascincus are provided and discussed for the first time in the light of a robust phylogenetic framework.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available