NO. 3506 ANOLIS LINEATOPUS — RAND 47 



The establishment of dominance hierarchies is a common phenom- 

 enon in caged iguanids: A. carolinensis, Evans (1936), Crotophytus 

 collaris, Greenberg (1945), Uro.saurus ornafus, Carpenter and Grubits 

 (1960). Dominance hierarchies in the field also have been reported 

 in Ctenosaura pectinata, Evans (1951) and Sceloporus (jraimnicus, 

 Evans (1946). 



Tlie brief report on the social behavior of A. sagrei given by Oliver 

 (1948) suggests that that species is very similar to A. lineafopus in 

 its social beha\dor. 



Anolis lineaiopus difTers from the usual territorial pattern in verte- 

 brates chiefly in the uivolvement t)f a variety of sizes of juveniles that 

 hold territories and defend them against one another and, in the case 

 of large suliadult males, against adult females. The laboratory 

 studies of Greenberg (1947) show that juvenile green sunfish may 

 hold territories and suggest that in tlie ^\ild they may behave as do 

 A. lineaiopus. The basic pattern in A. lincatojms and some of tlie 

 possible complexities can be described effectively by ])rcsenting 

 abstracts from my field notes. 



In the following series of examples I have begun with interactions 

 between individuals of similar size living in adjacent activity ranges. 

 In these first two cases, the disputes were brief. They occurred on 

 the mutual range boundary or at the point when one A. lineafopus 

 entered the activity range of the other and ended when the former 

 left. Either lizard invaded, always as a by-product of some other 

 activity, but the resident always was both the aggressor and the 

 winner. 



(1) Hibiscus hedge, Mona [fig. 9] — Seven disputes between No. 4, a 36 mm 

 male and No. 7, a 35 mm female, with activity ranges which overlapped very 

 shghtly. 



13 April. No. 4 ch.ased a smaller lizard (No. 6) out of his own area and well 

 into that of No. 7. No. 7 charged at No. 4 and he retreated back toward his 

 usual perch. 



18 April. Both lizards met at the boundary between the two areas and 

 displayed repeatedly at one another. First No. 7 retreated into her area and 

 No. 4 remained where he had been displaying. After several minutes No. 7 came 

 back toward No. 4 and displayed. No. 4 returned the display and then retreated 

 to his usual perch. No. 7 did not chase him. 



20 April. Twice a larger lizard (No. 5) chased No. 4 who fled into the activity 

 range of No. 7. The first time, No. 7 charged at No. 4 and the second tiine 

 charged, then stopped and displayed. Each time No. 4 fled back to his own 

 activity range. The second time, he stopped when he was well within it to dis- 

 play back at No. 7. In neither case did No. 7 carry her chase beyond her usual 

 activity range. 



27 April. The two liz.'irds were s(H>n displaying to each other on tlu^ bound- 

 ary area but a bit nearer one of No. 7's perches than to No. 4's usual perch. 

 No. 4 retreated. 



