NO. 3545 LIZARDS — PETERS 3 



Classification 



Since the check Hst is arranged entirely on an alphabetical basis to 

 facilitate quick and effective use, it tells nothing about the relationships 

 and phylogenetic position of the genera and species. The list below will 

 fill this gap, placing the genera in their familial positions. It will be noted 

 that I have not indicated position of the families within the higher categories. 

 This is a consequence of the dilemma posed by the two most recent reviews 

 of lizard classification, published by Romer (1956) and by Underwood 

 (1957). In an analysis of the Ecuadorian lizards alone I find that these 

 authors differ either in the level of category or in the name used (or both) 

 in 28 of 32 instances. To accept either would indicate a completely un- 

 justified negation of the other, unless done on the basis of adequate and 

 thorough review, which I have not undertaken. I follow Underwood 

 (1954) in recognizing the Sphaerodactylidae as a family distinct from the 

 Gekkonidae. 



Iguanidae 

 Anolis, Basiliscus, Enyalioides, Enyalius, Iguana, Morunasaurus, Ophryoessoides, 

 Plica, Polychrus, Proctotretus, Stenocercus, Tropidurus, Uracentron 

 Gekkonidae: gekkoninae 



Phyllodactylus, Thecadactylus 

 Sphaerodactylidae 



Gonatodes, Lepidoblepharis, Sphaerodactylus 

 Teiidae 

 Alopoglossus, Ameiva, Anadia, Arthrosaura, Callopistes, Dicrodon, Echinosaura, 

 Ecpleopus, Euspondylus, Iphisa, Kentropyx, Leposoma, Macropholidus, 

 Monoplocus, Neusticurus, Ophiognomon, Pholidobolus, Prionodactylus, 

 Proctoporus, Ptychoglossus, Tupinambis 



SCINCIDAE 



Ablepharus, Mabuya 

 Anguidae: diploglossinae 



Diploglossus 

 Amphisbaenidae 



Amphisbaena 



Omissions 



There are many species that have been recorded as members of the 

 Ecuadorian fauna on the basis of erroneous identification of individual 

 specimens. Where possible, these errors have been placed in their proper 

 species in this check Hst and can be found in the index. This is based 

 either upon a reidentification appearing in the literature, or upon my own 

 reexamination of the specimens. In addition, however, I have prer>umed 

 to omit several things, even though a recheck has not been possible. Thus, 

 I have omitted Ecpleopus gaudichaudii Dumeril and Bibron, which 

 was recorded from Ecuador by F. Miiller (1882, p. 157), since it is quite 



