identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03E087E56935FF99DFA8F9D8FEA6E04C.text	03E087E56935FF99DFA8F9D8FEA6E04C.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lacerta capensis , Smith 1838	<div><p>Lacerta capensis Smith, 1838</p><p>The specimen BMNH 1946.8.7.86 (previously IV.42.a; Fig. 3), presented by Lord Derby to the collection, is considered to be the type of Lacerta capensis Smith, 1838 (Table 1). However, after careful examination we found that neither this nor any of the other specimens presented by Smith or Lord Derby match exactly the original description provided by Smith (1838). With the exception of BMNH 1946.8.7.86, BMNH 1865.5.4.87 and BMNH 1865.5.4.88, none of the specimens collected by Smith or presented by Lord Derby (including all Southern African specimens of Lacertidae) can be the original type of L. capensis as they lack the feature mentioned in the species’ description of possessing granules surrounding the inner edges of the supraoculars. Of the three specimens that have these granules, only BMNH 1946.8.7.86 and BMNH 1865.5.4.87 have 11 or 12 femoral pores, (although BMNH 1946.8.7.86 has 11 on both legs, with one additional but underdeveloped pore on the left leg, whilst BMNH 1865.5.4.87 has 12 on both legs, including one underdeveloped pore on the left leg). Finally, BMNH 1865.5.4.87 clearly has 9 enlarged scales in the collar, as in Smith’s (1838) description, whereas BMNH 1946.8.7.86 has 10. In 1845, when Smith published drawings of E. capensis, he must have examined both these specimens as both appear to be depicted in the plates. The specimen depicted in Plate 45: 2 (Smith 1845) conforms with its colouration and pattern with BMNH 1865.5.4.87, whilst the figures 7 and 7a in Plate 48 agree with BMNH 1946.8. 7.86 in depicting an incomplete inner row of granules around the supraoculars (Fig. 3) (this is more complete in BMNH 1865.5.4.87). However, the presence of scales between the subocular and the freno-ocular shown in the drawing fits only BMNH 1946.8.7.86, assuming that the image has not been reversed in the lithographic process and that it does depict the left side of the head. As noted by FitzSimons (1937) this should not be the case and the drawing should actually be mirrored and show the opposite (right) side. This would then conflict with the number of scales between the subocular and the frenoocular in this specimen (Fig. 3, Table 2). However, as indicated in previous articles (FitzSimons 1937, Branch &amp; Bauer 2005), these figures are not the original first description of L. capensis, and Smith’s (1945) illustrations may be based on different individuals from that used in the original description. Finally, neither BMNH 1946.8.7.86 nor BMNH 1865.5.4.87 match the total length of the type of around 8 inches [197.8 mm] given in Smith’s (1838) description, with BMNH 1946.8.7.86 measuring only 148 mm (including its original tail) and BMNH 1865.5.4.87 measuring 170 mm total length (although a few mm may be missing from the broken tail).</p><p>Since the name Lacerta capensis Smith, 1838 is a primary junior homonym (and therefore unavailable following Article 57.2 of the Code; ICZN 1999), there are no nomenclatural consequences for the taxon Pedioplanis laticeps (Smith, 1845) in maintaining the current status of BMNH 1946.8.7.86 as the holotype of Lacerta capensis Smith, 1838, despite the minor inconsistencies between its scalation and that detailed in the original description.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E087E56935FF99DFA8F9D8FEA6E04C	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sebastian Kirchhof;Johannes Penner;Mark-Oliver Rödel;Johannes Müller	Sebastian Kirchhof, Johannes Penner, Mark-Oliver Rödel, Johannes Müller (2017): Resolution of the types, diagnostic features, and distribution of two easily confused Sand Lizards, Pedioplanis laticeps (Smith, 1845) and P. burchelli (Duméril & Bibron, 1839) (Squamata: Lacertidae). Zootaxa 4318 (1): 82-109, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4318.1.3
03E087E56934FF99DFA8FC40FC89E5CF.text	03E087E56934FF99DFA8FC40FC89E5CF.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eremias laticeps Smith 1845	<div><p>Eremias laticeps Smith, 1845</p><p>The type specimen BMNH 1946.8.7.56 (Fig. 4), collected by Smith, matches perfectly his description and drawings (Smith 1845). However, it is evident that Smith described only one side of the voucher; femoral pores are given by Smith (1845) as 13, but are left side 13, right side 14; Smith described the freno-nasal and the freno-ocular plate (Smith 1845) as “freno-nasal plate small, quadrangular, rather longer than deep, freno-ocular plate large and subtriangular” (Plate 48: 3 and 3a), whereas on the right side the freno-nasal plate is small, quadrangular, rather longer than deep, and the freno-ocular plate large and subtriangular, and on the left side the freno-nasal and freno-ocular are fused (Fig. 4). This is consistent with the lithograph in Plate 48: 3 and 3a being reversed and showing the right side of the head, which as FitzSimons (1937) explained, is a consequence of this printing technique. However, this contradicts our findings regarding Plate 48: 7a (Smith 1845) depicting E. capensis .</p><p>Why the description of the type specimen given by Boulenger (1921) does not match with Smith (1845) cannot be determined. All specimens of P. laticeps examined by Boulenger (1921) are still in the BMNH collection and can be assigned correctly, plus three specimens (BMNH 1988.511, BMNH 1988.513–514) subsequently presented by E. N. Arnold in 1988 (Table 2).</p><p>Although BMNH 1946.8.7.56 is treated as the type of E. laticeps, it should be noted that Smith described one voucher in detail but mentioned a total of three specimens (Smith 1845), which consequently form syntypes. All other specimens in the collection of the BMNH presented by Smith or Lord Derby cannot be the one described by Smith as none has only 5 upper labials in front of the subocular (Smith 1845, Plate 48: 3a; Fig. 4 and Table 2 this work). For stability we herein designate in accordance with Articles 74.1. and 74.7. of the Code (ICZN, 1999), specimen BMNH 1946.8.7.56 as lectotype of Pedioplanis laticeps Smith, 1845, which is depicted on plate 46 figure 1 and plate 48, figures 3 and 3a of the original description. Consequently, specimens BMNH 1865.5.4.87 and BMNH 1865.5.4.88 become paralectotypes.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E087E56934FF99DFA8FC40FC89E5CF	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sebastian Kirchhof;Johannes Penner;Mark-Oliver Rödel;Johannes Müller	Sebastian Kirchhof, Johannes Penner, Mark-Oliver Rödel, Johannes Müller (2017): Resolution of the types, diagnostic features, and distribution of two easily confused Sand Lizards, Pedioplanis laticeps (Smith, 1845) and P. burchelli (Duméril & Bibron, 1839) (Squamata: Lacertidae). Zootaxa 4318 (1): 82-109, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4318.1.3
03E087E5693BFF91DFA8FD1FFD09E101.text	03E087E5693BFF91DFA8FD1FFD09E101.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pedioplanis laticeps (Smith 1845)	<div><p>Variations within Pedioplanis laticeps (Smith, 1845)</p><p>A total of 36 individuals were examined (Table 2).</p><p>Max. SVL: 67 mm (ZMB 23443, adult male, Warmbad, Namibia).</p><p>Scalation: The 3 nasal scales on each side always bulging, the interior ones usually separated by the rostral and the frontonasal, only in 3 out of 36 specimens the nasals meet in a suture (which is shorter than in burchelli); 29 to 36 transverse ventral rows (median 32); 14 to 18 longitudinal ventral rows (median 16). The anterior 6 to 11 transverse rows (sometimes called pectoral scales) are arranged in a V-shape and scale numbers are substantially reduced around the armpits, after which they are aligned horizontally onto the flanks, often only gradually decreasing in size and merging into the dorsal scales.</p><p>Midbody scales smooth, arranged in 46 to 64 rows (median 56) (48 to 62 in Branch 1998, Conradie et al. 2012). In nine individuals (25%) the prefrontals are in contact (mostly separated by 1 scale; 2 in one individual, or by a suture between the frontal and the frontonasal in one individual). Scales in the temporal region show a tendency to enlarge towards the ear opening (in case there is an enlarged scale at the anterodorsal edge of the ear opening, it is not curved and there is at least one additional row of scales separating it from the ear opening); tympanic shield and elongate scales (lobes) absent; upper labials 8 to 13 (usually 11), with 4 (in two individuals) to 7 (usually 5 or 6) in front of the subocular scale which borders the lip; usually 2 scales between the subocular and the freno-ocular; lower labials 5 (in one individual on one side only) to 9, usually 7 or 8; femoral pores 11 to 18 on each thigh; enlarged scales in collar 6 to 11; occipital scale present; interparietal usually longer than broad, in four individuals occipital and interparietal are separated by 1 additional scale or granule; supraoculars 2, bordered by small granules anteriorly, posteriorly and along the supraciliaries in all individuals. In 61% the anterior supraocular is also surrounded with granules along its inner border, separating it from the frontal, and in 28% both supraoculars have the inner border edged with granules. Usually 15 or more granules anterior to the supraoculars. Chin shields pairs usually 5 (exceptionally up to 7), in most cases the anterior 3 are entirely in contact along their interior edge (in three individuals only the anterior 2 chin shields). Freno-ocular 1, frenonasal 1, in one individual (the holotype of E. laticeps) they are fused on one side, in a second one there is one additional scale below the freno-ocular; supraciliaries 6 (in one individual) to 12, usually 9 to 10; lower eyelid covered with several small, semi-transparent scales.</p><p>……continued on the next page</p><p>……continued on the next page</p><p>……continued on the next page</p><p>……continued on the next page Fore limb scales mainly small, flat and smooth, anteriorly large in a longitudinal row extending to the toes; hind limb scales small and smooth posteriorly and externally, below larger and imbricate with a row of large shieldlike plates anteriorly; tibia scales small and not keeled as are the top of the feet; soles of the hind feet covered in granular scales, each with 3 spines (1 median large, 2 lateral small ones) directed towards the 5th toe. There are 28– 32 spiny lamellae (mainly bi- or tricarinate, sometimes additional diminutive carinae) beneath the 4th toe.</p><p>Colouration is variable. The examined young are brownish-black above with up to 6–8 whitish stripes in the neck region. Shortly behind the occiput the median pair fuses, towards midbody the next pair fuses which extend to the tail base. The number of white streaks from the occiput to the tail base is hence 8, 7, 6, 5 (or 7, 6, 5 or 6, 5). Adults can display similar striping (with up to 9 stripes in the neck in two individuals). The median stripes can also be of a light creamish-brownish colour. Other individuals have indistinct light stripes. The back may be yellowish brown, with or without small dark spots or chevrons, sometimes with two dorsal bands of black spots. There can be white ocelli on the sides. Laterally, the brown spaces between the stripes can be speckled with white, yellow and orange. The limbs are dark brown with whitish, black-edged ocelli. Ventral surfaces of belly, throat and limbs are white but can turn orange at the tail and the thighs.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E087E5693BFF91DFA8FD1FFD09E101	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sebastian Kirchhof;Johannes Penner;Mark-Oliver Rödel;Johannes Müller	Sebastian Kirchhof, Johannes Penner, Mark-Oliver Rödel, Johannes Müller (2017): Resolution of the types, diagnostic features, and distribution of two easily confused Sand Lizards, Pedioplanis laticeps (Smith, 1845) and P. burchelli (Duméril & Bibron, 1839) (Squamata: Lacertidae). Zootaxa 4318 (1): 82-109, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4318.1.3
03E087E5693CFF8DDFA8FD0EFC39E702.text	03E087E5693CFF8DDFA8FD0EFC39E702.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pedioplanis burchelli (Dumeril & Bibron 1839)	<div><p>Pedioplanis burchelli (Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1839)</p><p>Synonyms</p><p>Eremias burchelli. — Smith 1845.</p><p>Mesalina burchelli .— Szczerbak 1975. Pedioplanis burchelli .— Balletto 1968 [by implication].</p><p>We examined three specimens designated as types of Eremias burchelli Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1839 from the BMNH collection (BMNH 1946.8.7.80–82). However, Duméril &amp; Bibron clearly stated that they received only a single specimen from Smith (Duméril &amp; Bibron 1839 p. 304). Their description matches best with BMNH 1946.8.7.82 (Fig. 5, Table 3). However, the number of ventral scale rows counted both longitudinally (Duméril &amp; Bibron 1839: douzaine [twelve or around twelve]; this study 14) and transversely (Duméril &amp; Bibron 1839: 27 to 28; this study: 32) differ. BMNH 1946.8.7.80 is too small to be the type described by Duméril &amp; Bibron (1839) (Table 3). Specimen BMNH 1946.8.7.81 is not P. burchelli but P. namaquensis as it has a large tympanic shield (absent in laticeps and burchelli) and large, distinctly keeled scales on the tibia (small and smooth in laticeps and burchelli). In combination with the longitudinal number of ventral scale rows, lower eyelid consisting of 10–12 semitransparent scales in two rows, colour, pattern and a subocular scale bordering the lip between the 4th and 5th labial this discriminates it from all other species of Lacertidae from Southern Africa (see e.g. Branch 1998). Given the possibility that the original specimen was given to Lord Derby before being accessioned into the collection in London we also investigated specimen BMNH IV.42.b. However, it cannot be the type due to the lower number of femoral pores (10 left, 12 right), the number of transversal scale rows (Table 3), as well as the colouration. There is no indication that Smith collected a series of specimens from the type locality, and we therefore designate in accordance with Articles 74.1. and 74.7. of the Code (ICZN, 1999), BMNH 1946.8.7.82 as the holotype of Pedioplanis burchelli (Duméril &amp; Bibron 1839) .</p><p>Re-description of the holotype of Eremias burchelli Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1839 (BMNH 1946.8.7.82; previously 65.5.4.39)</p><p>We added the values from Smith´s (1845) original description in square brackets when they differed from our own measurements.</p><p>Type locality: “ l’Afrique australe” [Southern Africa] (Duméril &amp; Bibron 1839 p. 304).</p><p>Adult male; SVL 58 mm [head length 1.7’’ + neck 1’’ + trunk length 3’’3’’’ = 6’’ = 60 mm]; tail broken (1 piece plus remainder at the trunk: 16 mm, 90 mm = 106 mm) [11’’ = 110 mm]; 3 nasal scales on each side, only slightly bulging, the interior ones in contact with each other; 32 transverse ventral scale rows; 14 longitudinal ventral scale rows (counted at the 16th transverse ventral scale row); 68 dorsal scale rows (counted at the 16th transverse ventral scale row); prefrontals separated by 1 scale; no tympanic shield; 9/8 upper labials, 4 plus 1 extra small scale/4 of them anterior to the subocular scale [4] that borders the lip; 1 scale between the subocular and the freno-ocular; 6 lower labials; 13/14 femoral pores; 11 [around 12] enlarged scales in the collar; there is an occipital scale and an interparietal longer than broad; the 2 supraoculars are edged by small granules anteriorly, posteriorly and along the supraciliaries but not interiorly; 13 granules anterior to the supraoculars (the anterior 4 larger than the others); 4 pairs of chin shields, the anterior 3 are entirely in contact along their interior edge; 1 freno-ocular and 1 freno-nasal scale; 9/8 supraciliaries; lower eyelid with small, semi-transparent scales; 28 spiny lamellae beneath the 4th toe.</p><p>Colouration: light brown with 4 partly broken white stripes (2 lateral, 2 dorsolateral); dorsally 4 broken dark series of spots or short lines, the outer ones broader and with large grey spots; the limbs are speckled with white spots; ventral surfaces of belly, throat and limbs white.</p><p>Variations within Pedioplanis burchelli (Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1839)</p><p>A total of 11 individuals were examined (Table 3).</p><p>Max. SVL: 62 mm (BMNH 1974.2312, adult male, Bushman Pass, Mountain Road, Lesotho).</p><p>Scalation: The 3 nasal scales on each side not or only slightly bulging, the interior ones usually meet in a suture (except in one individual where they are separated by the rostral and the frontonasal); 27 to 35 transverse ventral rows (median 33); 12 to 16 longitudinal ventral rows (median 14). The 6 to 10 pectoral scale rows are arranged in a V-shape and their numbers are substantially reduced around the armpits, after which they are aligned horizontally onto the flanks, often only gradually decreasing in size and merging into the dorsal scales.</p><p>Midbody scales smooth, arranged in 64 to 80 rows (median 70) (62 to 75 in Branch 1998, Conradie et al. 2012). In 73% of the individuals the prefrontals are not separated. Scales in the temporal region show a tendency to enlarge towards the ear opening (in case there is an enlarged scale at the anterodorsal edge of the ear opening, it is not curved and there is at least one additional row of scales separating it from the ear opening); tympanic shield and elongate scales (lobes) absent; upper labials 8 to 10, with usually 4 (5 or 6 in three individuals) being in front of the subocular scale which borders the lip; usually 1 scale between the subocular and the freno-ocular; lower labials 5 (in one individual on one side only) to 8, usually 6 or 7; femoral pores 10 to 15 on each thigh; enlarged scales in collar 8 to 13; occipital scale present; interparietal longer than broad; supraoculars 2, bordered by small granules anteriorly, posteriorly and along the supraciliaries in all individuals, inner row of granules absent. Usually less than 15 granules anterior to the supraoculars, only one individual has more than 15. Chin shields pairs 4, the first 3 are entirely in contact along their interior edge. Freno-ocular 1, freno-nasal 1, in one individual there is 1 additional scale below the freno-ocular; supraciliaries 7 to 10; lower eyelid covered with several small, semi-transparent scales.</p><p>continued.</p><p>continued.</p><p>continued.</p><p>continued.</p><p>Fore limb scales mainly small, flat and smooth, anteriorly large in a longitudinal row extending to the toes; hind limb scales small and smooth posteriorly and externally, below larger and imbricate with a row of large shieldlike plates anteriorly; tibia scales small and not keeled; soles of the hind feet covered in granular scales, each with 3 spines (one median large, two lateral small ones) directed towards the 5th toe. There are 25 to 28 spiny lamellae (mainly bi- or tricarinate, sometimes with additional diminutive carinae) beneath the 4th toe.</p><p>Colouration is variable. Specimens can be dark brown above with small whitish spots and a light-edged bifurcating vertebral band or greyish above with 4 to 5 black stripes (7 white stripes in hatchlings following Branch 1998, Conradie et al. 2012, which is not exclusive as we also found it in hatchlings of P. laticeps). Other specimens are light brown with longitudinal series of dark brown markings consisting of narrow spots or short lines or (laterally) of broader round dark and white spots. The limbs are dark brown or grey with round whitish spots or dark-edged ocelli. The ventral surfaces of belly, throat and limbs are white.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E087E5693CFF8DDFA8FD0EFC39E702	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sebastian Kirchhof;Johannes Penner;Mark-Oliver Rödel;Johannes Müller	Sebastian Kirchhof, Johannes Penner, Mark-Oliver Rödel, Johannes Müller (2017): Resolution of the types, diagnostic features, and distribution of two easily confused Sand Lizards, Pedioplanis laticeps (Smith, 1845) and P. burchelli (Duméril & Bibron, 1839) (Squamata: Lacertidae). Zootaxa 4318 (1): 82-109, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4318.1.3
03E087E56920FF8DDFA8FB05FE06E58B.text	03E087E56920FF8DDFA8FB05FE06E58B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pedioplanis laticeps (Smith 1845)	<div><p>Comparison of P. laticeps and P. burchelli</p><p>The most informative characters to distinguish P. laticeps from P. burchelli were found to be (in combination): having 46 to 64 dorsal scale rows (64 to 80 in burchelli) and 16 to 18 enlarged longitudinal ventral scale rows across the midbody at the median transverse ventral row (12 to 16 in burchelli). In addition, P. laticeps usually has 3 bulging nasal scales on each side with the interior ones separated from each other (non-bulging or only slightly bulging and broadly in contact in burchelli), five or more upper labials anterior to the subocular (mostly 4 in burchelli), five or more pairs of chin shields (mostly 4 in burchelli), 28–32 lamellae beneath the 4th toe (25–28 in burchelli), and generally more and smaller granules around the supraoculars; particularly the inner row of granules around the supraoculars is always absent in burchelli .</p><p>Based on the re-description of P. laticeps and P. burchelli we conclude that BMNH 1988.512 collected as P. laticeps is in fact P. burchelli, as it has only 14 transverse ventral scale rows, 72 dorsal scale rows, only 10 granules in front of the supraoculars, only 4 chin shields. Additionally, specimen BMNH 1988.515 can be identified as Meroles knoxii as the subocular is separated from the lip by a labial scale, it has 3 scales rather than several small granules anterior to the first supraocular, and 4 chin shields of which only the first two are in contact along their entire interior edge (Table 2).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03E087E56920FF8DDFA8FB05FE06E58B	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Sebastian Kirchhof;Johannes Penner;Mark-Oliver Rödel;Johannes Müller	Sebastian Kirchhof, Johannes Penner, Mark-Oliver Rödel, Johannes Müller (2017): Resolution of the types, diagnostic features, and distribution of two easily confused Sand Lizards, Pedioplanis laticeps (Smith, 1845) and P. burchelli (Duméril & Bibron, 1839) (Squamata: Lacertidae). Zootaxa 4318 (1): 82-109, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4318.1.3
