BAUER, DEBOER, & TAYLOR: ATLAS OF THE REPTILES OF LIBYA 
185 
(Trapelus mutabilis poppeki): TRIPOLITANIA: Tripoli : 45: ZFMK 20848; Wagner and 
Bohme 2007; Wagner et al. 2011. FEZZAN: Murzuo : 327: ZFMK 63678; Wagner et al. 2011. 
Comments. — Trapelus mutabilis was previously regarded as having a broad distribution 
across North Africa from Western Sahara to Egypt (Le Berre 1989). Wagner and Bohme (2007) 
described T. schmitzi from Ennedi Mountains of Chad. Subsequently, Wagner et al. (2011) revised 
the T. mutabilis complex and recognized an apparently endemic Libyan subspecies, T. m. poppeki, 
until now known only from two specimens from the north and south of western Libya. However, 
they did not explicitly refer other Libyan material to particular taxa within the T. mutabilis group. 
Their newly described T. boehmei occurs from Mauritania through Morocco and at least in one 
locality in northwestern Algeria (Wagner et al. 2011). Trape et al. (2012) considered that material 
from Libya and Egypt was referable to T. mutabilis, whereas material from further west, including 
Algeria, was T. boehmei, however, they did not differentially plot these two taxa on their map. 
Wagner et al. (2011) left open the possibility that Agama aspera Werner, 1893, with its type local¬ 
ity in the northeast of the Algerian Sahara, might be a valid species of Trapelus. It is possible that 
Libyan Trapelus from the west of the country, may be referable to this form. On the other hand, 
T. mutabilis mutabilis, with its neotype from near Cairo, Egypt, almost certainly is the correct name 
for Libyan specimens east of the T. m. poppeki sites. However, the two localities from which T. m. 
poppeki is known are very close to sites for T. m. mutabilis and we think it is likely that a single 
taxon may extend westwards from Egypt to at least eastern Algeria and that the genetic distance 
between the two forms is at least partly reflective of the more than 1500 km between the only sam¬ 
ples used in the study by Wagner et al. (2011). We here treat Libyan material not explicitly assigned 
to T. m. poppeki by Wagner et al. (2011) as referable to the nominotypical form and tentatively 
regard T. m. poppeki as valid pending further study. 
IUCN Threat Status. — Not evaluated, but anticipated to be Least Concern. 
Family Uromastycidae 
Uromastyx acanthinura Bell, 1825:457, pi. xvii. (Fig. 13) 
1825 Uromastyx acanthinurus Bell, Description of a new species of lizard. The Zoological Journal 1: 
457^160, pi. xvii. 
Holotype.— OUM 7845 fide Wilms et al. (2007) [originally stated by Bell as “In Mus. Nost.” referring 
to his own collection, the majority of which was purchased by Rev. Frederick W. Hope and, following the lat¬ 
ter’s death in 1862, were donated to the Oxford University Museum in a series of transactions lasting well into 
the 20 th century (Davies and Hull 1976).], “Habitat in Africa.” Restricted to “Algeria ‘near Biskra, northwards 
to El Kantara” by Flower (1933), based on Hartert’s (1913) description of the distribution of the nominotyp¬ 
ical form of the species. 
Uromastix acanthinura [part], Le Berre 1989:130. 
Uromastyx acanthinura [part], Schleich, Kastle and Kabisch 1996:298 
Uromastyx acanthinura, Sindaco and Jeremcenko 2008:165. 
Complexe Uromastyx acanthinura, Trape, Trape, and Chirio 2012:168. 
Distribution. — Northwestern Africa, from the northern border of Western Sahara to west- 
central Libya. Schleich et al. (1996) included all of Libya and Egypt west of Sinai in the distribu¬ 
tion of the species and Sindaco and Jeremcenko (2008) plotted several localities in eastern Libya 
and Egypt as questionably referable to this taxon. However, Wilms (2001, 2005) and Wilms and 
Bohme (2007) excluded the northeastern quadrant of Libya from the distributional range of the 
genus Uromastyx and we regard records from this region to be in error. 
