MARQUES ET AL.: AMPHIBIANS AND TERRESTRIAL REPTILES OF ANGOLA 
55 
Materials and Methods 
Data.— Data on the distribution of amphibians and reptiles (exeluding marine turtles) of 
Angola were obtained from all available bibliographie sourees. No museum reeords or data on 
reeently eolleeted material were added, although many of the eompiled reeords will overlap with 
these. We undertook a thorough literature review, foeusing on studies on the herpetofauna of Ango¬ 
la and on subsequent studies within whieh Angola speeimens were eited, ineluding taxonomie revi¬ 
sions and fieldguides. For eaeh taxon, information on known oeurrenees in Angola, type data, the 
lUCN Global Conservation status (gathered from the lUCN offieial website http://www.iue- 
nredlist.org), the global distribution of the speeies (following available bibliographie data), and 
eomments relating to the taxonomy of the speeies, the status of types, or issues relating to distri¬ 
bution, was eompiled and presented in individual aeeounts (see Account Standardization see- 
tion below). Taxonomy and nomenelature of all the speeies was updated following the most reeent 
available reviews and authorities for amphibians (e.g., Channing 2001; Channing and Howell 
2006; Amiet 2012; Frost 2014; Sehiotz 1999), turtles (Turtle Taxonomy Working Group 2014), 
eroeodilians (Eaton 2009; Hekkala et al. 2010), “lizards” (e.g.. Bayless 2002; Tilbury 2010; Bates 
et al. 2013), and snakes (e.g., Haaeke 1997; Broadley and Wallaeh 2009; Wallaeh et al. 2014). 
Other sourees and/or taxonomie/nomenelatural deeisions are detailed in the relevant speeies 
aeeounts. In some eases, speeies identifieations were updated on the basis of reexamination of the 
speeimens upon whieh published reeords were based. In addition, the authors used their own 
knowledge of the groups to estimate when literature reeords likely represented misidentifieations. 
In sueh eases, reeords have been presented under their revised identities, usually with eomments 
explaining the aetion. While in many eases it was possible to assign previously ineorreet identifi¬ 
eations (e.g., speeies that were highly unlikely to oeeur in the eountry or with extralimital distrib- 
tuions) to the eorresponding eorreet taxa with a reasonable degree of eertainty, in many eases this 
was not possible. This was partieularly eommon in taxonomieally and nomenelatural problematie 
groups, as for example the ease of Hyperolius. In these eases, we opt to leave the originally eited 
names, even if we strongly suspeet that they do not oeeur in the Angola. This option was based on 
the faet that the eurrent taxonomy of the groups and in many eases the destruetion of key type mate¬ 
rial prevents us from assigning them to a more appropriate name, but we have kept them as the pur¬ 
pose of the Atlas is to reseue these referenees from obseurity and flag them for future revisions. In 
one instanee (see Trachylepis monardi nom. nov. aeeount), a nomenelatural aet was implemented 
following the International Code of Zoologieal Nomenelature (ICZN; ICZN 1999). 
Mapping species occurrences. — The eolleeting loeality for eaeh bibliographie referenee 
was georefereneed using deeimal degree eonversions of: 1) the gazetteer for all the vertebrate eol- 
leetions in Angola for publieations before 1989 (Cabral and Mesquitela 1989) and 2) GPS loeation 
records in the case of more recent publications. When no explicit spatial data were available in 
Cabral and Mesquitela (1989) or in the recent publications, we used the GEOLocate online appli¬ 
cation (http://www.museum.tulane.edu/geolocate/). Data for each species were then prepared as 
separate spreadsheets and opened as XY points in an Angola base map prepared in ArcGIS ArcMap 
ver. 10.4.1. Records were plotted as points for each locality. Each point only represents the pres¬ 
ence of a taxon in a given locality, independent of the number of records for that given taxon at that 
same locality. Each map corresponds to a single taxon, with the exception of those presenting more 
than one currently recognized subspecies, each of which is represented by a different symbol. 
When the status of subspecies was considered unresolved or particularly problematic they were 
treated as one single taxon on the map. For dubious records we plotted the record with a “?,” 
whereas for clearly erroneous records we plotted the record as an “X.” 
