An updated and annotated list of Indian lizards ... - Lacertilia.de

Checklist of Indian sauridshave been published. These publications have furtheredthe growth of knowledge on systematics, distributionand biogeography of Indian reptiles, and the field ofherpetology in India in general. The primary objective ofthese publications, except those providing information ofspecies distribution (for example - Murthy 1985; Tikader &Sharma 1992) and taxonomic development in India (Das2003), included enlisting the reptilian species occurringin India. However, some of these publications have comeunder severe criticism (see review by Das 1996b; Pawar1998), with reservation over the quality of the informationpresented. Especially the publications of the ZoologicalSurvey of India, which still are followed by many workersin India, have especially been criticized for their failureto follow the changes in the taxonomic and distributionalinformation of species.An apparent inadequacy of the above-mentionedchecklists of Indian reptiles published over the past 20years is that species with valid distributional records arenot differentiated from those with questionable records.While a reference to the taxonomic treatise has beenprovided (e.g. Das 2003), a valid reference or source forthe distribution records corroborating the inclusion andomission of species have not been cited by any of thesechecklists. It is observed that despite being compilations,neither all of the bibliographic sources referred nor thedetails on locality records have been provided in mostof the checklists (regional, state-wise or national) ofIndian reptiles. For example, Vyas (2000) has notedand criticized the absence of source literature within thechecklist of Gujarat reptiles provided by Gayen (1999).The failure to acknowledge all the literary sources usedfor the compilation of the species list is a reproachableattribute of these publications that is tantamount toplagiarism.In addition to this significant limitation, the distributionrecords of species pre and post partition of British Indiahave not been distinguished, resulting in erroneousinclusion of many species into the checklist. Incorrectinclusion of species that were not recorded within India,doubtful records and omissions of valid species has alsobeen common. The inclusion or omission of species hasnot been corroborated with references or notes therebyrendering the information presented unverifiable. As aresult, mistakes in species inclusion or omission havebeen perpetuated, and without any grounds for furtherverification. I quote Bobrov (2005) to illustrate thispoint with an example – “Phrynocephalus reticulatuswas reported in Ladakh (Smith 1935). Later this singleand clearly erroneous finding was mentioned in everypublication on the herpetofauna of India, Kashmir andLadakh.” If the publications listing them had provided thesource literature, it would have provided an opportunityfor verification.Furthermore, the lack of rationale for inclusion andomission of species has resulted in inconsistenciesP.D. Venugopalin the lists contributed by the same individual workers.For example Murthy (1985) erroneously included Dasiagrisea in the list of Indian reptiles, with Andaman &Nicobar Islands as its distributional range. However, thelist of reptiles provided by Murthy (1990) rightfully did notinclude this species. However, it erroneously appearedagain in the list provided by Murthy (1994). SimilarlyDas (1994) & Das (1996a) did not include India in thedistributional range of Phyrnocephalus luteoguttatus,but it was erroneously listed for India by Das (1997a).However this species was not included in a later list byDas (2003).A direct consequence of the poor reporting standardsof the checklists of Indian reptiles is that the exact numberof reptilian species with valid distributional recordswithin India still remains unclear. It has also renderedthe information presented unverifiable directly, therebyhindering their further usage. This can be overcomeonly when checklists justify the inclusion and omissionof each species by providing a valid reference/sourcefor distribution records and the taxonomic treatise. Thepresent communication is part of an effort to verifythe validity of Indian reptile species listings, based ondistributional records and a review of the earlier checklistsof the Indian reptiles. In this paper, the species listings havebeen verified and species have been categorized basedon the distributional records. A review of the checklistsof Indian reptiles published over the past two decadeshas also been performed. Finally, a comprehensive list oflizards (Reptilia: Sauria) with valid distribution records inIndia has been provided along with source literature.Recent developments (past 6 years) in the taxonomyand species occurrence information on Indian reptilesnecessitates an update in the checklists of Indian lizards.Some of the new developments include records ofHemidactylus persicus from Gujarat (Vyas et al. 2006)and Japalura kaulbackii in Arunachal Pradesh (fromKunte & Manthey 2009). Recent rediscoveries includethat of Japalura sagittifera from Arunachal Pradesh (fromKunte & Manthey 2009) and Lygosoma vosmaerii fromAndhra Pradesh (Seetharamaraju et al. 2009). Doubtsover the occurrence of H. karenorum in India (Zug etal. 2007; Mahony & Zug 2008) and questions on thetaxonomic validity of H. mahendrai and H. subtriedrushad been raised (Zug et al. 2007) and acknowledged byother workers (Giri & Bauer 2008, Giri et al. 2009). Thetaxonomic revision of genus Mabuya (Mausfeld 2002),Cnemaspis anaikattiensis (Manamendra-Arachchi et al.2007), C. kandiana (Wickramasinghe & Munindradasa2007), Phrynocephalus alticola (Barabanov & Ananjeva2007), Calotes andamanensis (Krishnan 2008),Teratolepis fasciatus (Bauer et al. 2008) and Dasiahalianus (Wickramasinghe, submitted; Wickramasinghe,pers. comm.) from India have resulted in other changes.Description of new species included those of Cnemaspisaustralis, C. monticola and C. nilagirica (Manamendra-726Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | March 2010 | 2(3): 725-738