216 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 
Series 4, Volume 64, No. 8 
abresi 1923; Zavattari 1929, 1930, 1934. 
457cq: KNP 1983/513[2 specimens]; Schleich 
1987. Darnah : 466: Zavattari 1922, 1929, 
1930, 1934; Calabresi 1923. 472: NHMC 
80.3.73.2; Fonseca et al. 2008. 474: MSNG 
28431; MZUF 669; Vinceguerra 1927; Zavat¬ 
tari 1929, 1930, 1934. 475: BMNH 1965.1261; 
MCZ R 46799-800; Salvador 1982. 480: ZSM 
131/1983. 484: ZSM 132/1983. Butnan : 507: 
BMNH 1965.1260; Salvador 1982. 512: ZSM 
190/1979. Al Wahat : 526: MSNG 31574*; 
Vinciguerra 1931. 527: BMNH 1965.1265; 
Salvador 1982; Moravec et al. 1999. 528: 
BMNH 1965.1266; Salvador 1982; Moravec et 
al. 1999. 529: BMNH 1965.1262-64; MSNG 
31574*; NMBA-REPT 15321; Vinciguerra 
1931; Zavattari 1934; Scortecci 1935b; Sal¬ 
vador 1982; Moravec et al. 1999. 544: BMNH 
1932.3.6.7; MSNG 31574*; Vinciguerra 1931; 
Zavattari 1934. “Cyrenaica”: ZMB 10503. “between Darnah and Marsa al Brega”: BMNH 
1965.1267; Salvador 1982. “Marmarica”: Zavattari 1937. “Nordost-Libyen”: ZMB 62964-67. 
“deserto di Sahara”: Rizzardi 1896. “Sirtica”: Zavattari 1937. 
Comments. — Some early citations to A. vulgaris (e.g., Comalia from “Uadi Ahmar”) or 
A. lineomaculatus (von Martens from Benghazi) have been interpreted as referring to A. pardalis. 
However, the similarity of Acanthodactylus species to one another has probably resulted in the 
misidentifications of many specimens and unless confirmed by later specialists (e.g., Salvador 
1982; Moravec et al. 1999) identifications provided in early citations are tentative at best. 
Records from Tripoli cited by Ghigi (1913), Werner (1909) and Zavattari (1934) are all derived 
from Rizzardi (1896), but this author actually reports the species (as Acantodactylus [sic] lineato- 
maculatus ) from the “deserto di Sahara.” Moravec et al. (1999) reviewed the A. pardalis group and 
described A. beershebensis for the taxon inhabiting the Negev, restricting true A. pardalis to North 
Africa. Tamar et al. (2016b) generated a multilocus phylogeny for the genus Acanthodactylus. 
Acanthodactylus pardalis was represented by Egyptian material only in their study and was embed¬ 
ded within A. maculatus, but basal support values within their entire “ pardalis group” are too low 
to infer meaningful support for this pattern. Salvador (1982) and Arnold (1983) recognized essen¬ 
tially the same Libyan taxa and boundaries as later molecular works, although Arnold (1983) 
included what are now A. bedriagai and A. busacki as subspecies within A. pardalis. Wemer (1909) 
referred a juvenile specimen from Gherran (Garyan) to this species and this record was subse¬ 
quently repeated by Ghigi (1913) and Zavattari (1934). Boulenger (1914,1918,1921) believed that 
this species extended to Tripoli and identified material from Al Khums and Misratah (e.g., MSNG 
52517) as A. pardalis. These records, as well as the miscitations of Rizzardi (1896) noted above, 
are also the basis for Zavattari’s (1937) inclusion of the species in the Tripolitanian fauna. Most 
recently Essghaier et al. (2015) noted a record from Murzuq. We regard these as misidentifications 
referable to some congener and have not included them in the accompanying map. 
IUCN Threat Status.— Vulnerable A2c; Blab(I,ii,iii). 
Map 30. Distribution of Acanthodactylus pardalis in 
Libya. 
