Podarcis lusitanicus GENIEZ, SÁ-SOUSA, GUILLAUME, CLUCHIER & CROCHET, 2014
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Podarcis lusitanicus?
Podarcis lusitanicus
Find more photos by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Lacertidae, Lacertinae, Sauria, Lacertoidea, Squamata (lizards) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | |
| Synonym | Podarcis guadarramae lusitanicus GENIEZ, SÁ-SOUSA, GUILLAUME, CLUCHIER & CROCHET 2014 Podarcis guadarramae lusitanicus — MALKMUS 2018 Podarcis lusitanicus — CAEIRO-DIAS et al. 2021 Podarcis lusitanicus — PINHO et al. 2022 |
| Distribution | N Portugal, NW Spain Type locality: 1 km past Âncora towards Póvoa de Varzim (south of Caminha, Portugal, district of Viana do Castelo) [41.794°N / 8.864°W], 30 m elevation. |
| Reproduction | oviparous |
| Types | Holotype: MNHN-RA 2012.0263 (Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, formerly BEV.3987), holotype by present designation; an adult male collected in May 1985 by C.P. Guillaume, P. Geniez, U. Mathis and J. Magraner (Fig. 7). Paratypes: RMNH RENA 35253, 35297, 35317, males from a quarry in Coto de Caza San Martin near Ardia (Spain, province of Pontevedra) [42.4553°N / 8.8744°W]; EBD.16033, female from Hío, near Cangas (Spain, province of Pontevedra) [42.271°N / 8°.830°W]; EBD.9247, 9252, males, EBD.9249- 9251, females, from Pouso da Serra, Donón (province of Pontevedra) [42.275°N / 8.847°W]; BEV.6299-6307, males, BEV.6308, female, from Vila Real (Portugal, district of Vila Real) [41.310°N / 7.839°W] [lusitanicus] |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis (lusitanicus). This is the lineage referred to as Podarcis hispanicus “type 1A” by Pinho et al. (2006, 2007), Carretero (2008) and Kaliontzopoulou et al. (2011, 2012). A typical wall lizard of moderate size (adult males 41.5 mm to 62.5 mm, mean 51.5, adult females 40.0 mm to 60.0 mm, mean 48.7), very similar to Podarcis guadarramae guadarramae (see Fig. 8) and often not safely identifiable based on present knowledge. On average has a slightly more flattened appearance with a flatter head (Fig. 9B); a lower number of femoral pores (13 to 21 for males, average 16.5, 12 to 19 for females, average 15.6) and lower number of dorsal scales (47 to 66 for males, average 56.9, 46 to 61 for females, average 53.4); “guadarramae striped pattern” rare in females, when present pale dorsolateral stripes are narrower and less obvious than in P. g. guadarramae (compare Fig. 10B with Fig. 5B), dark supradorsolateral stripes usually wider, leaving a narrower area of pale coloration in the middle of the back, in many adult males the dark supra-dorsolateral stripes can be very wide and very fragmented, invading the dorsal region, where they create a reticulated, dappled or ocellated pattern of light green, white or creamy spots on black back devoid of stripes (this pattern is typical to P. g. lusitanicus and seems to be unknown in other taxa of the Podarcis hispanicus complex, see Figs. 7 & 8B), pale spots inside the light dorsolateral stripes more contrasting and isolated as they are often positioned on a darker background, green-backed individuals not rare especially in mountains but also along the Atlantic coast. Diagnostic positions in the DNA sequence of the mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase subunit 4 (ND4) gene relative to other lineages of the P. hispanicus complex include an A at position 10905, C at position 11395 and A at position 11448 (positions numbered according to the P. muralis mitochondrion complete genome GenBank accession number NC_011607). |
| Comment | Distribution: see map in Geniez et al. 2014: 8 (Fig. 2), Caeiro-Dias et al. 2018: Fig. 1, Caeiro-Dias et al. 2021. Species delimitation: Caeiro-Dias et al. 2021 provide evidence that supports the recognition of lusitanicus as a valid, but cryptic species. P. lusitanicus and P. guadarramae are the only (sub-) species of the Podarcis hispanicus complex that even experienced observers cannot (yet) reliably distinguish based on morphology. Based on their analysis P. bocagei is more closely related to guadarramae than it is to lusitanicus, hence elevation to species level would avoid the paraphyly with P. bocagei (although all 3 could be also considered subspecies of bocagei). |
| Etymology | Named after the type locality. |
| References |
|
| External links |