56 
Northcutt 
Figure 21. Dendrogram illustrating phyletic relationships of lizards as proposed by C.L. Camp (1923). 
Present figure redrawn from Camp’s original dendrogram, deleting extinct groups and updating family 
names. Camp divided lizards into two divisions, the Ascalabota and Autarchoglossa, and concluded that the 
Ascalabota retain the largest number of primitive features. 
the suggestion of McDowell and Bogert 
(1954) and Hoffstetter (1962) that cordylids 
are closely related to, if not members of, the 
gerrhosaurids, and has transferred the 
cordylids to the lacertoids. 
Camp believed DibamiLs to be a close rela- 
tive of skinks, but Underwood (1957) sug- 
gested that it might be more closely related 
to the Gekkota. Case (1968) erected a sepa- 
rate suborder for Dihamus after concluding 
that the muscles and skeleton were conver- 
gent with both scincomorphs and gekkotans. 
Underwood (1971) has incorporated Case’s 
suggestion in his summary. 
Camp concluded that the Ascalabota retain 
more primitive features than do the Autar- 
choglossa. The distribution of derived brain 
characters in lizards indicates that the mor- 
phology of the central nervous system does 
not support Camp’s contention. Two major 
patterns of brain variation {lacertid and 
iguanid patterns) have been summarized 
earlier, and I have argued that the iguanid 
pattern is the more derived relative to lacer- 
tids, and to Sphenodon and turtles. An alter- 
nate classification, based solely on brain 
characters, is presented in Figure 22B. The 
criteria on which this classification is based 
will be published in more detail elsewhere 
(Northcutt and Senn, in preparation). How- 
ever, the major changes suggested by the 
central nervous system are the affinity of the 
teiids and varanids, and the erection of new 
major subdivisions. Camp’s division of 
Ascalabota and Autarchoglossa is abandoned, 
and a new division is suggested on the basis 
of the lacertid pattern, Lacertomorpha, and 
the iguanid pattern, Dracomorpha. These 
