Liolaemus nigrodorsum TRONCOSO-PALACIOS & CONTRERAS, 2023
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Liolaemus nigrodorsum?
Liolaemus nigrodorsum
We have no photos, try to find some by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Liolaemidae, Iguania, Sauria, Squamata (lizards) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | |
| Synonym | Liolaemus nigrodorsum TRONCOSO-PALACIOS & CONTRERAS 2023 Liolaemus nigroviridis — TORRES-PÉREZ et al. 2005: 80 Liolaemus nigroviridis — GARÍN & HUSSEIN 2013: 48 Liolaemus nigroviridis — CIANFERONI, et al. 2013 Liolaemus nigroviridis (?) — TRONCOSO-PALACIOS et al. 2016: 91 Liolaemus nigroviridis — TORRES-PÉREZ, et al. 2017: 3 |
| Distribution | Chile (Valparaíso Region) Type locality: ski center El Arpa (32°39’31’’S – 70°28’46’’W, 2604 m above sea level), approximately 21 km NE Los Andes city, Valparaíso Region, Chile. |
| Reproduction | |
| Types | Holotype. SSUC Re 787. Adult male (Fig. 4A, B). Collectors: J. Troncoso-Palacios and F. Contreras. January 11, 2021. Paratypes: SSUC Re 788–90, three males. SSUC Re 791–93, three females. SSUC Re 794, juvenile. Same data as the holotype. SSUC Re 005–06. Two males. SSUC Re 001–04. Four juveniles. Ski center El Arpa (32°39’S – 70°28’W) Collectors: F. Torres-Pérez and G. Lobos. September 10, 2003. (Fig. 4C, D, E, F in ) |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis. DNA phylogenetic evidence shows that Liolaemus nigrodorsum sp. nov. is a member of the L. nigroviridis group (Cianferoni et al., 2013; Torres-Pérez et al., 2017), being the sister species of L. nigroviridis (Fig. 1, Table 3). It shows the morpho- logical features of this group (Pincheira-Donoso and Núñez, 2005; Troncoso-Palacios et al., 2016), which are robust lizards with black dorsal stripes and yellow dorsal scales, males have precloacal pores and are bigger than females. Almost all species have approximately 54–64 scales around midbody. Liolaemus nigrodorsum sp. nov. strongly differs from L. campanae in color pattern, especially among males (Fig. 5). The males of L. campanae have orange or yellow background color on the occipital band (wide and extended between the lateral fields) and light green on the lateral fields, with thin black stripes forming a reticu- lation; whereas the males of L. nigrodorsum sp. nov. have yellow or white background color on the occipital band (wide and extended between the lateral fields) and yellow on the lateral fields (light green color is absent or is inconspicuous, restricted to the sides of the neck and the dorsal base of the tail), with thick black stripes forming a reticulation or almost complete melanism on the occipital band area. Females of L. campanae have brown background color between the dorsolateral bands with reddish shades on the dorsolateral bands and the lateral fields in several individuals, whereas the females of L. nigrodorsum sp. nov. completely lack the reddish color. Liolaemus nigrodorsum sp. nov. is bigger than L. fuscus (maximum SVL = 78.8 mm vs 52.3 mm, Tables 2 and 4), has more midbody scales (60.3 ± 2.9 vs 45.4 ± 2.5, Table 2, 4) and more dorsal scales (54.8 ± 1.1 vs 35.6 ± 3.9, Tables 2 and 4). Moreover, L. fuscus lack sexual dichromatism and although its dorsal color pattern loosely resembles the color pattern in the juveniles and females of L. nigrodorsum sp. nov., the males never have black thick dorsal reticulation or partial melanism as the males of L. nigrodorsum sp. nov. (Fig. 5). We remark that L. nigrodorsum sp. nov. and L. fuscus do not overlap in the PC1 vs PC2 and PC2 vs PC3 graphs, in both, the PCA with the snout-vent length and the PCA with the residuals of each character regressed on snout-vent length (Figs. 2 and 3), explained by the small size and the slender body shape of L. fuscus. Liolaemus nigrodorsum sp. nov. has more supralabial scales than L. nigroviridis (7 vs 5.8 ± 0.6, Table 2, 4). The dorsal color pattern of the males of L. nigroviridis is more variable than in the other species analyzed, but never has a pattern similar to Liolaemus nigrodorsum sp. nov. (Fig. 5). In fact, L. nigroviridis males have the following color combinations of background color on the occipital band (wide and extend- ed between the lateral fields) and the lateral fields, respectively: light green-light green, light green-yellow and yellow-yellow, always with thin black stripes forming a reticulation, whereas the males of L. nigrodorsum sp. nov. have only yellow-yellow or white-yellow color combinations, with thick black stripes forming a reticula- tion or almost complete dorsal melanism and the light green color is absent or is inconspicuous (restricted to the sides of the neck and/or on the dorsal base of the tail). We point out that L. nigrodorsum sp. nov. and L. nigroviridis overlap, but always with different orientation axis, in the PCAs graphs constructed with the residuals of each character regressed on snout-vent length (Fig. 2). Remarkably, both species do not overlap in in the PCAs graphs constructed with the snout-vent length (Fig. 3), probably explained by the bigger size of L. nigrodorsum sp. nov. (maximum SVL = 78.8 mm vs 73.8 mm, Table 4). Liolaemus nigrodorsum sp. nov. is smaller than L. uniformis (SVL = 78.8 mm vs 89.1 mm, Tables 2 and 4). Both species are easily distinguishable, because L. uniformis lacks sexual dichromatism and has no noticeable dorsal color pattern (Fig. 5). In fact, it has brown dorsal color, with few whitish or dark scales dispersed, whereas L. nigrodorsum sp. nov. has marked sexual dichromatism and males and females have dorsal pattern with think black stripes forming a reticulation or partial melanism on males, and dorsolateral dark bands with fragmented vertebral line in females. A summary of these features is provided in Table 4. (TRONCOSO-PALACIOS & CONTRERAS 2023) |
| Comment | |
| Etymology | The name of this species is a composition of “nigro”, from the Latin word “niger” (black) and the Latin word “dorsum” (back). The species epithet made reference to the color pattern of the males. |
| References |
|
| External links |