134 University of California Publications in Zoology 



ancestral stock. This statement is uninformative, for they consider all iguanines to have 

 evolved from a common ancestor; it is also misleading when compared with their 

 phylogenetic tree (Fig. 3). For these reasons, I find it impossible to compare my 

 conclusions with those of Avery and Tanner. 



Wyles and Sarich (1983) published the results of immunological comparisons for 10 

 species of iguanines representing all eight genera. Given the limitations of these data, their 

 results are in general agreement with the relationships proposed here. Wyles and Sarich's 

 comparisons are incomplete in that antisera were prepared to only four of the iguanine 

 species, and immunological distances to all other iguanines in the study are given for the 

 antisera to only two of the four, Amblyrhynchus and Conolophus. Assuming that 

 immunological distance is roughly proportional to time of divergence, Wyles and Sarich's 

 data suggest (1) that Amblyrhynchus and Conolophus are sister taxa; (2) that the Galapagos 

 iguanas are roughly equally closely related to Ctenosaura, Cyclura, Iguana, and 

 Sauromalus; and (3) that they are more distantly related to Dipsosaurus and Brachylophus. 

 All of these conclusions are in agreement with those of the present study. 



