identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
EA7A8799FF81FFB4FEBEFD3541E3FB6E.text	EA7A8799FF81FFB4FEBEFD3541E3FB6E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cercosaura ocellata Wagler 1830	<div><p>CERCOSAURA OCELLATA WAGLER</p> <p>Cercosaura ocellata Wagler, 1830: 158.</p> <p>Emminia olivacea Gray, 1945: 24.</p> <p>Cercosaura humilis Peters, 1862: 180.</p> <p>Euspondylus simonsii Burt &amp; Burt, 1931: 337.</p> <p>Cercosaura ocellata ocellata Ruibal, 1952: 494.</p> <p>Cercosaura ocellata petersi Ruibal, 1952: 497.</p> <p>Cercosaura ocellata bassleri Ruibal, 1952: 499.</p> <p>The subspecies of Cercosaura ocellata that were diagnosed by Ruibal (1952) have not been disputed by other authors. For the purposes of this study all subspecies were treated together. Specimens of C. o. petersi were not available for examination; therefore, C. o. ocellata and C. o. bassleri were included.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/EA7A8799FF81FFB4FEBEFD3541E3FB6E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Doan, Tiffany M.	Doan, Tiffany M. (2003): A new phylogenetic classification for the gymnophthalmid genera Cercosaura, Pantodactylus and Prionodactylus (Reptilia: Squamata). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 137 (1): 101-115, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x
EA7A8799FF81FFB3FCC9FF1C47E0FC8B.text	EA7A8799FF81FFB3FCC9FF1C47E0FC8B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pantodactylus schreibersii (WIEGMANN)	<div><p>PANTODACTYLUS SCHREIBERSII (WIEGMANN)</p> <p>Cercosaura schreibersii Wiegmann, 1834: 10.</p> <p>Pantodactylus dorbignyi Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1839: 431.</p> <p>Cercosaura (Pantodactylus) schreibersii: Peters, 1862: 182.</p> <p>Pantodactylus bivittatus Cope, 1863: 103.</p> <p>Pantodactylus schreibersii: Boulenger, 1885: 388.</p> <p>Pantodactylus borelli Peracca, 1894: 176.</p> <p>Prionodactylus albostrigatus Griffin, 1917: 314.</p> <p>Euspondylus quadrilineatus: Burt &amp; Burt, 1931: 335. Pantodactylus schreibersii albostrigatus: Parker, 1931: 286.</p> <p>Pantodactylus schreibersii schreibersii: Ruibal, 1952: 515.</p> <p>Pantodactylus schreibersii: Tedesco &amp; Cei, 1999: 314 (exclusive of P. s. parkeri).</p> <p>Ruibal (1952) recognized three subspecies of Pantodactylus schreibersii corresponding with geographical groups of forms that had been considered to be different species (P. albostrigatus, parkeri and schreibersii). I was not able to examine P. s. albostrigatus. Ruibal (1952) had considerable difficulty with this subspecies because he was only able to examine females of Prionodactylus albostrigatus and the original description was also restricted to females (Griffin, 1917). Burt &amp; Burt (1931) had synonymized Pr. albostrigatus with Pa. quadrilineatus and, because Ruibal (1952) only examined female Pr. albostrigatus specimens and male Pa. quadrilineatus specimens, he expressed concern that there was a possibility that they could be conspecific (in agreement with Burt &amp; Burt, 1931). * Ruibal (1952) noted that scalation of P. s. albostrigatus was similar to P. s. schreibersii except where noted. He did not mention the postoculars.</p> <p>However, Ruibal (1952) supported the distinctness of the two forms based on his limited data.</p> <p>Although I was not able to examine P. s. albostrigatus, most of the P. quadrilineatus that I examined were females, in contrast to the sex of those specimens examined by Ruibal (1952). I was therefore able to compare the original description of Prionodactylus albostrigatus and the comments of Ruibal (1952) concerning his female specimens with the mostly female specimens of P. quadrilineatus that I examined; many differences were found (Table 2). The differences are great enough to convince me that P. s. albostrigatus is closely related to P. schreibersii and only distantly related to P. quadrilineatus. This conclusion is supported by the molecular analysis of Pellegrino et al. (2001) in which P. s. albostrigatus and P. s. schreibersii were sister taxa, whereas P. quadrilineatus did not form a clade with either species.</p> <p>Ruibal (1952) treated P. s. parkeri as a subspecies comprising the western populations of P. schreibersii from Peru, Bolivia and extreme western Brazil. The known range was later extended to north-west Argentina (Viñas &amp; Daneri, 1991). A recent study by Tedesco &amp; Cei (1999) utilized osteological characters to determine if the two Argentinean forms, P. s. parkeri and P. s. schreibersii, merited species status. Their study revealed several osteological characters that distinguished the two forms. Therefore, Tedesco &amp; Cei (1999) raised both P. s. schreibersii and P. s. parkeri to species status. Tedesco &amp; Cei (1999) did not examine any specimens of P. s. albostrigatus, nor did they mention what status that subspecies might have. From the available data (based on the 61 characters that I examined and published information), P. s. albostrigatus appears to be quite similar to P. s. schreibersii and less similar to P. s. parkeri. Therefore, I tentatively consider P. s. albostrigatus to be a subspecies of P. schreibersii, whereas P. parkeri should retain the specific status granted by Tedesco &amp; Cei (1999).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/EA7A8799FF81FFB3FCC9FF1C47E0FC8B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Doan, Tiffany M.	Doan, Tiffany M. (2003): A new phylogenetic classification for the gymnophthalmid genera Cercosaura, Pantodactylus and Prionodactylus (Reptilia: Squamata). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 137 (1): 101-115, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x
EA7A8799FF86FFB3FC38FC6640FDF9E8.text	EA7A8799FF86FFB3FC38FC6640FDF9E8.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pantodactylus parkeri RUIBAL	<div><p>PANTODACTYLUS PARKERI RUIBAL</p> <p>Pantodactylus schreibersii albostrigatus: Parker (part), 1931: 286.</p> <p>Euspondylus champsonatus: Burt &amp; Burt (part), 1931: 335.</p> <p>Pantodactylus schreibersii parkeri Ruibal, 1952: 518.</p> <p>Pantodactylus parkeri: Tedesco &amp; Cei, 1999: 314.</p> <p>To assess the assertion of Tedesco &amp; Cei (1999) about the specific status of P. parkeri, I examined 61 morphological characters to determine if a notable difference between this species and P. schreibersii existed. Although I found colour and pattern differences and overlapping meristic variation in several characters, the differences between the species for external morphology were few (Table 2). No external morphological character differences appeared to be fixed; however, based on the significant, presumably fixed osteological differences discovered by Tedesco &amp; Cei (1999), I continue to recognize this taxon as a distinct species.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/EA7A8799FF86FFB3FC38FC6640FDF9E8	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Doan, Tiffany M.	Doan, Tiffany M. (2003): A new phylogenetic classification for the gymnophthalmid genera Cercosaura, Pantodactylus and Prionodactylus (Reptilia: Squamata). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 137 (1): 101-115, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x
EA7A8799FF86FFB2FC2BF98440AFFA34.text	EA7A8799FF86FFB2FC2BF98440AFFA34.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Prionodactylus argulus : Boulenger 1885	<div><p>PRIONODACTYLUS ARGULUS (PETERS)</p> <p>Cercosaura (Pantodactylus) argulus Peters, 1862: 184. Prionodactylus argulus: Boulenger, 1885: 391. Prionodactylus oshaughnessyi Boulenger, 1885: 392. Prionodactylus holmgreni Andersson, 1914: 9. Prionodactylus columbiensis Werner, 1916: 306.</p> <p>When Uzzell (1973) synonymized P. oshaughnessyi with P. argulus, he did so because he did not find sufficient differences between the two species based on the four specimens of P. oshaughnessyi that he examined. Avila-Pires (1995) examined 90 individuals that she considered to be P. oshaughnessyi and presented evidence for its recognition as a distinct species. She provided a table of seven characters that differed between the species and also used two other characters as supporting evidence (numbers of transverse rows of ventral scales and transverse rows of dorsal scales). In many cases the meristic characters had overlapping ranges that made interpretation difficult. I examined 39 individuals for seven of her nine characters and 50 other external morphological characters to determine if a significant difference was in fact apparent.</p> <p>Upon examination of specimens for this study I could not distinguish between the species using the characters designated by Avila-Pires (1995) because the defining characters did not appear to be correlated with each other. Therefore, I chose one of those characters, lateral scale size, to name individuals. Avila- Pires (1995) states that P. argulus has lateral scales that are moderately smaller than the dorsals, whereas P. oshaughnessyi has lateral scales that are distinctly smaller than the dorsals. Although this character could appear to be subjective, it was actually obvious as to which lateral scale condition the specimen possessed. Therefore, in all subsequent analyses I grouped the specimens based on this character.</p> <p>Of the nine characters of Avila-Pires (1995), seven were examined in this study: lateral scale size, number of femoral pores in males and females, presence of preanal pores, number of scales in a transverse ventral row between pores, transverse rows of ventrals, and transverse rows of dorsals. Of the other two characters, scales around midbody is too variable to be reliable (because an exact scale position for counting was not stated) and tail/snout-vent length ratio was not possible due to the fact that most specimens did not have complete, original tails. To determine if Avila- Pires’s (1995) characters in fact may be used to differentiate between species, I constructed a correlation matrix of five of the Avila-Pires characters for which I had data for 23 individuals (Table 3). If these characters serve to diagnose the two species, each of the characters should correlate strongly with one another. This was not the case - only number of ventral scale rows and presence of preanal pores were moderately negatively correlated with each other (R = - 0.65235). None of the other characters displayed high correlation with any other.</p> <p>To simultaneously examine multiple characters, a principal components analysis (PCA) was performed. The analysis utilized 49 characters, including seven of those used by Avila-Pires (1995), to determine if distinct groups were obvious from the data. As can be seen in Fig. 1, no real structure is apparent and there appears to be intergradation between the two putative species. A cluster analysis of 55 characters showed the same pattern of no separation of species based on morphology (Fig. 2). Specimens did not convincingly cluster by species or by geographical location. Thus, each analysis suggests that P. argulus represents only one species, with P. oshaughnessyi being a junior synonym (in agreement with Uzzell, 1973).</p> <p>Although specimens did not cluster by species, the cluster analysis suggested a possible geographical trend (Fig. 2), potentially representing clinal variation within the species. In order to examine this, I conducted a multiple regression of the five Avila-Pires (1995) characters on latitude. This type of analysis is possible because the specimens represented here occur almost in a linear distribution, following the eastern Andean foothills in a north–south direction. The regression was significant (R = 0.87616; F = 9.2511; P = 0.00046). This implies significant clinal variation in the five characters, which further refutes the recognition of two separate taxa (Endler, 1977). Even though specimens from the entire geographical range of the species were not examined, the specimens examined for this study did cover the entire range of character variation as those examined by Avila-Pires (1995). Thus, the variation found by Avila-Pires (1995) appears to have been clinal in nature and not due to distinct species.</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/EA7A8799FF86FFB2FC2BF98440AFFA34	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Doan, Tiffany M.	Doan, Tiffany M. (2003): A new phylogenetic classification for the gymnophthalmid genera Cercosaura, Pantodactylus and Prionodactylus (Reptilia: Squamata). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 137 (1): 101-115, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x
EA7A8799FF84FFB1FC97FCA44670F94F.text	EA7A8799FF84FFB1FC97FCA44670F94F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Prionodactylus vertebralis (O'SHAUGHNESSY)	<div><p>PRIONODACTYLUS VERTEBRALIS (O’SHAUGHNESSY)</p> <p>Cercosaura (Pantodactylus) vertebralis O’Shaughnessy, 1879: 298.</p> <p>(O) Madre de Dios, Peru</p> <p>(O) Napo, Ecuador</p> <p>Prionodactylus vertebralis: Boulenger, 1885: 394.</p> <p>(O) Meta, Colombia</p> <p>Prionodactylus palmeri Boulenger, 1908: 518.</p> <p>(O) Meta, Colombia</p> <p>Prionodactylus marianus Ruthven, 1921: 1.</p> <p>(A) Meta, Colombia</p> <p>Euspondylus ampuedae Lancini, 1968: 4.</p> <p>(A) Madre de Dios, Peru</p> <p>Prionodactylus ampuedai: La Marca &amp; García-Pérez, 1990: 111.</p> <p>(A) Cochabamba, Bolivia</p> <p>(A) Cochabamba,Bolivia</p> <p>When Uzzell (1973) synonymized Euspondylus ampuedae with Prionodactylus vertebralis, he did so without examining any specimens of E. ampuedae. There were few specimens known at that time. La Marca &amp; García-Pérez (1990) reported additional specimens and resurrected the species as Prionodactylus ampuedai (correcting the latinized name ending). They based their conclusion on five differences, three of which are based on colour pattern. Similar to Uzzell (1973), I have not been able to examine any of the specimens designated as P. ampuedai (most of which are held in private collections), but I tend to follow Uzzell (1973) because the differences presented in the La Marca &amp; García-Pérez (1990) table are poorly delineated and not convincing (i.e. shape of pale lip line and overlapping femoral pore counts). Until more definitive evidence is presented, the status and relationships of P. ampuedai will not be assessed.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/EA7A8799FF84FFB1FC97FCA44670F94F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Doan, Tiffany M.	Doan, Tiffany M. (2003): A new phylogenetic classification for the gymnophthalmid genera Cercosaura, Pantodactylus and Prionodactylus (Reptilia: Squamata). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 137 (1): 101-115, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x
EA7A8799FF84FFB0FCC7F92A4160FB67.text	EA7A8799FF84FFB0FCC7F92A4160FB67.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Prionodactylus phelpsorum (LANCINI)	<div><p>PRIONODACTYLUS PHELPSORUM (LANCINI)</p> <p>Euspondylus phelpsi Lancini, 1968: 2.</p> <p>Euspondylus phelpsorum: Myers &amp; Donnelly, 1996: 23.</p> <p>Euspondylus goeleti Myers &amp; Donnelly, 1996: 23.</p> <p>Prionodactylus phelpsorum: Gorzula &amp; Señaris, 1998:</p> <p>139.</p> <p>Prionodactylus goeleti Myers &amp; Donnelly, 2001: 60.</p> <p>It seemed questionable that this taxon belongs to Prionodactylus because of the condition of its gular scales. Uzzell (1973) re-diagnosed the genus Prionodactylus as having a double widened row of gular scales, at least posteriorly. He was not able to examine Euspondylus phelpsi but, because Lancini (1968) did not mention the gular scales, he retained E. phelpsi as Euspondylus. Gorzula &amp; Señaris (1998) also did not mention the gulars, but decided without explanation that the taxon should be included in Prionodactylus. I found the gular character to be variable in the three individuals I examined (see Appendix 1), with one individual possessing a complete double row, one individual without any differentiation in size from the ventrolateral gular scales, and one individual with the double widened row only posteriorly. The photographs of P. goeleti in Myers &amp; Donnelly (1996, 2001) also display variation in the gular character. I would be hesitant to decide on its generic status except for its obviously close relationship with P. nigroventris (see below), a species that possesses all the diagnostic characters of Prionodactylus. Based on these similarities, I retain this species in Prionodactylus.</p> <p>The status of P. goeleti remains in question with alternating publications of Myers &amp; Donnelly (1996, 2001) and Gorzula &amp; Señaris (1998). I was unable to examine specimens assigned to P. goeleti and only consider P. phelpsorum for this study.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/EA7A8799FF84FFB0FCC7F92A4160FB67	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Doan, Tiffany M.	Doan, Tiffany M. (2003): A new phylogenetic classification for the gymnophthalmid genera Cercosaura, Pantodactylus and Prionodactylus (Reptilia: Squamata). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 137 (1): 101-115, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x
EA7A8799FF8AFFBEFC02FE474793F910.text	EA7A8799FF8AFFBEFC02FE474793F910.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cercosaura Wagler 1830	<div><p>GENUS CERCOSAURA WAGLER</p> <p>Cercosaura Wagler, 1830: 158.</p> <p>Pantodactylus Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1839: 428. Syn. n. Emminia Gray, 1845: 24.</p> <p>Prionodactylus O’Shaughnessy, 1881: 231. Syn. n.</p> <p>Definition. Tongue at least anteriorly covered by imbricate scale-like papillae. Head scales smooth and consist of the following: frontonasal divided or undivided; single frontal and interparietal; paired prefrontals and parietals; usually a median and two paramedian occipitals; nostril pierced in a single or divided nasal; loreal and frenocular present; supraoculars two to four; superciliary series usually complete, first expanded dorsally or not; palpebrals one to four; suboculars three to seven; single postmental followed by one to three pairs of genials and one to two pairs of chin shields that do not contact at midline; gular scales flat, rectangular, median two rows of scales usually forming a double widened row of scales, at least posteriorly. Collar fold weak to well developed. Limbs pentadactyl, digits clawed. Dorsal scales imbricate, quadrangular or hexagonal, keeled, homogeneous; forming transverse rows, forming longitudinal or oblique rows occasionally. Ventral scales as wide or wider than dorsals, smooth, quadrangular, in longitudinal and transverse rows. Preanal scales in two rows. Femoral pores present in males, occasionally absent in females. Preanal pores may or may not be present in either sex. Tail round or cyclotetragonal; caudal scales like dorsals but smaller; subcaudals like ventrals, two medial rows widest.</p> <p>Diagnosis. Cercosaura differs from other genera of the Cercosaurini (sensu Pellegrino et al., 2001) in the following characters (condition for Cercosaura in parentheses): Anadia and Opipeuter: smooth dorsal scales (keeled); Bachia: diminunitive limbs (fully developed); Echinosaura, Neusticurus, and Teuchocercus: dorsal scalation heterogeneous (homogeneous); Euspondylus: postorbital bone expanded into supratemporal fenestra (no expansion); Macropholidus: medial two dorsal scale rows greatly enlarged (not enlarged); Pholidobolus: tympanum deeply recessed (slightly recessed); Placosoma: femoral pores in a continuous series from one thigh to another (distinct femoral and preanal pores, if present); Proctoporus: prefrontal scales absent (present); Ptychoglossus and Riolama: lingual papillae plicate anteriorly (scale-like anteriorly).</p> KEY TO THE SPECIES OF CERCOSAURA 1a. Dorsal scales quadrangular........................................................................................................... C. ocellata 1b. Dorsal scales hexagonal................................................................................................................................ 2 2a. Dorsal scales arranged in transverse and oblique series........................................................................... 3 2b. Dorsal scales arranged in transverse series only........................................................................................ 5 3a. Ventral scales in 4 longitudinal rows.................................................................................. C. quadrilineata 3b. Ventral scales in 6 or more longitudinal rows............................................................................................. 4 4a. Postoculars 3.................................................................................................................................... C. parkeri 4b. Postoculars 2............................................................................................................................. C. schreibersii 5a. Supradigital lamellae of the fifth toe 4 or less...................................................................... C. eigenmanni 5b. Supradigital lamellae of the fifth toe 5 or more.......................................................................................... 6 6a. Subdigital lamellae not turberculate for entire length of toes................................................................... 7 6b. Subdigital lamellae turberculate for entire length of toes......................................................................... 8 7a. Posterior cloacal plate of males composed of 2 scales.................................................................. C. argulus 7b. Posterior cloacal plate of males composed of more than 2 scales................................................... C. dicra 8a. Palbebral disc divided into 5–8 scales...................................................................................... C. vertebralis 8b. Palpebral disc undivided or divided into 2–4 scales................................................................................... 9 9a. Venter light in colour, being yellow and/or white...................................................................... C. manicata 9b. Venter dark in colour, being brown and/or black..................................................................................... 10 10a. Medial region of ventral surface of tail beige........................................................................ C. nigroventris 10b. Medial region of ventral surface of tail dark brown or black............................................... C. phelpsorum <p>Content. The genus Cercosaura, as currently recognized, contains 11 species and seven subspecies (see Table 4).</p> <p>Distribution. The genus Cercosaura occurs in 12 of 13 countries in South America (absent from Chile) and in one Central American country (Panama), ranging from temperate Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay in the south, through Amazonian Bolivia, Peru, Brazil, Ecuador and Colombia, the western slope of the Andes in northern Peru and Ecuador, the Chocó region of Colombia and Panama, and in the Guianan Shield region of Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, and north-central Brazil (Ruibal, 1952; Uzzell, 1973; Avila-Pires, 1995). The elevational distribution of the genus is known to extend from 100 m to at least 2500 m (Ruibal, 1952; Uzzell, 1973).</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/EA7A8799FF8AFFBEFC02FE474793F910	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		Plazi	Doan, Tiffany M.	Doan, Tiffany M. (2003): A new phylogenetic classification for the gymnophthalmid genera Cercosaura, Pantodactylus and Prionodactylus (Reptilia: Squamata). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 137 (1): 101-115, DOI: 10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x, URL: https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article-lookup/doi/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2003.00043.x
