Liolaemus scorialis TRONCOSO-PALACIOS, DÍAZ, ESQUERRÉ & URRA, 2015
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Liolaemus scorialis?
Liolaemus scorialis
Find more photos by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Liolaemidae, Iguania, Sauria, Squamata (lizards) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | E: Slag Lizard S: Lagarto del escorial |
| Synonym | Liolaemus scorialis TRONCOSO-PALACIOS, DÍAZ, ESQUERRÉ & URRA 2015 Liolaemus buergeri — PINCHEIRA-DONOSO 2001: 8 (part?) Liolaemus buergeri — PINCHEIRA-DONOSO & NÚÑEZ, 2005: 285 (part?) Liolaemus scorialis — TRONCOSO-PALACIOS et al. 2019 |
| Distribution | Chile (Biobío Region) Type locality: 7 km NW of the summit of the Antuco Volcano, near the Laja Lagoon, Biobío Region, Chile (37°21'S – 71°23'W, 1450 m elevation) |
| Reproduction | viviparous (not imputed, fide Zimin et al. 2022) |
| Types | Holotype: SSUC Re 617 (Fig. 1). Male. Collected by J. Troncoso-Palacios, F. Urra and H. Díaz. 08/01/2014. Paratypes. SSUC Re 615–16 two males and 612–614 three females (Figs 1 and 3). The same data as the holotype. MRC 675, 677, 680, 682. Four males. La Mula Lagoon (37°53'S – 71°22'W), Ralco National Reserve. Unknown coll. 01/12/2001. |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis: Liolaemus scorialis belongs to the elongatus-kriegi complex, but its specific assignation to a particular subclade is currently unknown since we have no molecular data for this new species, and molecular and morphological phylogenies for the elongatus-kriegi complex disagree in the arrangement of this complex subgroups (see discussion). Below a wide diagnosis is provided on aspect of all species of the complex. Liola- emus scorialis differs from almost all species of the elongatus-kriegi complex by its size (maximum SVL = 69.9 mm), smaller than L. antumalguen (Table 3), L. austromen- docinus (max. SVL = 103.0 mm, Espinoza et al. 2000), L. buergeri (Table 3, Fig. 2), L. burmeisteri (Table 3), L. capillitas (max. SVL = 93.0 mm, Espinoza et al. 2000), L. choique (Table 3), L. dicktracyi (max. SVL = 91.0 mm, Espinoza and Lobo 2003), L. elongatus (max. SVL = 94.7 mm, Avila et al. 2012), L. flavipiceus (Table 3, Fig. 2), L. frassinettii (max. SVL = 91.1 mm), L. gununakuna (max. SVL = 97.5 mm, Avila et al. 2004), L. kriegi (max. SVL = 101.0 mm; Avila et al. 2003), L. leopardinus (max. SVL = 98.2 mm), L. petrophilus (max. SVL = 100.0 mm; Espinoza et al. 2000), L. punmahuida (Table 3), L. ramonensis (max. SVL = 94.9 mm), L. shitan (max. SVL = 98.3 mm, Abdala et al. 2010), L. talampaya (max. SVL = 85.5 mm, Avila et al. 2004), L. thermarum (max. SVL = 85.0 mm, Videla and Cei 1996), L. tregenzai (Table 3), L. ubaghsi (max. SVL = 89.6 mm), L. umbrifer (max. SVL = 89.0 mm, Espinoza and Lobo 2003), L. valdesianus (max. SVL = 93.4 mm) and “L. kriegi/Liolaemus sp. A” (max. SVL = 92.0 mm, described below). Liolaemus scorialis has probably been previously confused with L. buergeri (see dis- cussion), but in addition to the size difference, L. scorialis differs from L. buergeri be- cause the latter has a vertebral stripe on the tail, whereas the tail is ringed in L. scorialis. Moreover, L. buergeri has more midbody scales (x = 89.4 ± 5.5, n = 14) than L. scorialis (x = 82.0 ± 4.7, n = 10) (Mann–Whitney U = 20.5, P < 0.01, DF = 21) and more dor- sal scales (x = 84.1 ± 4.4) than L. scorialis (x = 76.5 ± 4.3) (Mann–Whitney U = 15.0, P < 0.01, DF = 21); but L. buergeri has fewer ventral scales (x = 118.7 ± 4.7) than L. scorialis (x = 124.0 ± 6.0) (Mann–Whitney U = 36.0, P = 0.05, DF = 21). Liolaemus scorialis is syntopic with “L. kriegi/Liolaemus sp. A”, but in addition to the size difference, the latter has more midbody scales (x = 94.3 ± 4.8, n = 8) than it (Mann–Whitney U = 1.5, P < 0.01, DF = 16). Moreover, the dorsal scale count range of L. scorialis does not overlap with the range of “L. kriegi/Liolaemus sp. A” (Table 3). There is a black lateral band running from the tip of snout to the groin in “L. kriegi/ Liolaemus sp. A”, whereas in L. scorialis there is a dark brown lateral band running from the shoulder to the groin. Liolaemus scorialis differs from similar size species of the elongatus-kriegi complex as follows. Liolaemus scorialis differs from L. cristiani because the males of the latter lack precloacal pores and have reddish ventral coloration, whereas males of L. scorialis have 3–4 precloacal pores and no reddish ventral coloration. Liolaemus scorialis differs from L. heliodermis, because the males of the latter have a black head and sulfur-yellow dorsum (Espinoza et al. 2000), an unique feature in the Liolaemus subgenus. Moreover, L. heliodermis has 62–69 midbody scales (Espinoza et al. 2000), whereas L. scorialis has 76–90. Liolaemus scorialis differs from L. parvus, because the latter has 60–77 midbody scales and 96–113 ventral scales (Quinteros et al. 2008), whereas L. scorialis has 76–90 midbody scales and 115–131 ventral scales. Liolaemus scorialis has a ringed tail, where- as L. parvus has weak or absent rings on the tail (Quinteros et al. 2008). Liolaemus scorialis differs from L. smaug, because the latter has marked sexual di- chromatism with white spots dispersed on the dorsum of males and absent in females (Abdala et al. 2010), whereas both males and females of L. scorialis have white spots on the dorsum. Liolaemus scorialis has ringed tail, whereas L. smaug has weak or no rings on the tail (Abdala et al. 2010). Males of L. smaug have bright golden yellow dorsal color, a trait absent in L. scorialis. |
| Comment | |
| Etymology | The species name refers to the habitat, which is composed of accumulations of igneous rocks from the Antuco Volcano, called “scoria” from the Greek “skoria”. |
| References |
|
| External links |