4.5 Article

A comparative atlas of the skull osteology of European lizards (Reptilia: Squamata)

Journal

ZOOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
Volume 187, Issue 3, Pages 829-928

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz035

Keywords

comparative anatomy; diagnostic key; identification; non-snake squamates; skull

Categories

Funding

  1. Synthesys grants [SYNTHESYS FR-TAF-5007, AT-TAF-4591]
  2. Fondi di Ateneo dell'Universita di Torino (2016-2018)
  3. Generalitat de Catalunya (CERCA Program)
  4. Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigacion (AEI/FEDER, EU) [CGL2016-76431-P]
  5. Earth and Environmental Science Department of the University of Pavia
  6. Societas Herpetologica Italica (SHI)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The fossil record provides evidence of a long evolutionary history of European lizards. Since fossil lizards are regularly represented by bone remains, the knowledge of the origins of extant taxa and their distribution in time and space is hindered by the fact that their comparative osteology is not yet completely and adequately known. In spite of a rising interest in this topic since the end of the 20th century, a gap in our knowledge is still evident. We here report the first broad-scale comparative osteological analysis of the skulls of extant European lizards, highlighting significant differences that can be used in identification. This comparative study, including as many European species as possible, leads to the creation of a detailed diagnostic key for each single bone. Also, our data significantly improve the recognizability of extant European non-snake squamates, with 54% of the current diversity to be recognized based on the new results contra the previously estimated 31%. This recognizability is expected to further increase in the future, with new studies focusing on species that are either missing or poorly represented here, or applying promising advanced methodologies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available