CONSERVATION

Published in the United States of America 

2013 • VOLUME 7 • NUMBER 1 

AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE 

CONSERVATION 

SPECIAL MEXICO ISSUE 

amphibian-reptile-conservation.org 

ISSN: 1083-446X eISSN: 1525-9153

Raul E. Diaz 

University of Kansas, USA 

Editor 

Craig Hassapakis 

Berkeley, California, USA 

Associate Editors 

Howard O. Clark, Jr. 

Garcia and Associates, USA 

Erik R. Wild 

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, USA 

Alison R. Davis 

University of California, Berkeley, USA 

Assistant Editors 

Daniel D. Fogell 

Southeastern Community College, USA 

David C. Blackburn 

California Academy of Sciences, USA 

C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr. 

University of Florida, USA 

Harvey B. Lillywhite 

University of Florida, USA 

Peter V. Lindeman 

Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, USA 

Jaime E. Péfaur 

Universidad de Los Andes, VENEZUELA 

Jodi J. L. Rowley 

Australian Museum, AUSTRALIA 

Editorial Review Board 

Bill Branch 

Port Elizabeth Museum, SOUTH AFRICA 

Lee A. Fitzgerald 

Texas A&M University, USA 

Julian C. Lee 

Taos, New Mexico, USA 

Henry R. Mushinsky 

University of South Florida, USA 

Rohan Pethiyagoda 

Australian Museum, AUSTRALIA 

Peter Uetz 

Virginia Commonwealth University, USA 

Jelka Crnobrnja-Isailovć 

IBISS University of Belgrade, SERBIA 

Adel A. Ibrahim 

Ha’il University, SAUDIA ARABIA 

Rafaqat Masroor 

Pakistan Museum of Natural History, PAKISTAN 

Elnaz Najafımajd 

Ege University, TURKEY 

Nasrullah Rastegar-Pouyani 

Razi University, IRAN 

Larry David Wilson 

Instituto Regional de Biodiversidad, USA 

Allison C. Alberts 

Zoological Society of San Diego, USA 

Michael B. Eisen 

Public Library of Science, USA 

Russell A. Mittermeier 

Conservation International, USA 

Antonio W. Salas 

Environment and Sustainable Development, PERU 

Advisory Board 

Aaron M. Bauer 

Villanova University, USA 

James Hanken 

Harvard University, USA 

Robert W. Murphy 

Royal Ontario Museum, CANADA 

Dawn S. Wilson 

AMNH Southwestern Research Station, USA 

Walter R. Erdelen 

UNESCO, FRANCE 

Roy W. McDiarmid 

USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, USA 

Eric R. Pianka 

University of Texas, Austin, USA 

Joseph T. Collins 

University of Kansas, USA 

Cover: 

Honorary Member 

Carl C. Gans 

(1923 – 2009) 

Upper left: Bolitoglossa franklini. Photo by Sean Rovito. 

Upper right: Diaglena spatulata. Photo by Oscar Medina Aguilar. 

Center left: Agkistrodon bilineatus. Photo by Chris Mattison. 

Center right: Trachemys gaigeae. Photo by Vicente Mata-Silva. 

Lower left: Heloderma horridum. Photo by Tim Burkhardt. 

Lower right: Cerro Mariana, Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression, ca. 12 km NW of Caracuaro, Michoacán. 

Photo by Javier Alvarado-Díaz. 

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation—Worldwide Community-Supported Herpetological Conservation (ISSN: 1083-446X; eISSN: 1525-9153) is 

published by Craig Hassapakis/Amphibian & Reptile Conservation as full issues at least twice yearly (semi-annually or more often depending on 

needs) and papers are immediately released as they are finished on our website; http://amphibian-reptile-conservation.org; email: 

arc.publisher@gmail.com 

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is published as an open access journal. Please visit the official journal website at: 

http://amphibian-reptile-conservation.org 

Instructions to Authors: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation accepts manuscripts on the biology of amphibians and reptiles, with emphasis on 

conservation, sustainable management, and biodiversity. Topics in these areas can include: taxonomy and phylogeny, species inventories, distribution, 

conservation, species profiles, ecology, natural history, sustainable management, conservation breeding, citizen science, social networking, 

and any other topic that lends to the conservation of amphibians and reptiles worldwide. Prior consultation with editors is suggested and 

important if you have any questions and/or concerns about submissions. Further details on the submission of a manuscript can best be obtained 

by consulting a current published paper from the journal and/or by accessing Instructions for Authors at the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 

website: http://amphibian-reptile-conservation.org/submissions.html 

© Craig Hassapakis/Amphibian & Reptile Conservation

Copyright: © 2013 Wilson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivs 

3.0 Unported License, which permits unrestricted use for non-commercial 

and education purposes only provided the original author and source are credited. 

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1): i–ii. 

PREFACE 

AMPHIBIAN & REPTILE CONSERVATION 

SPECIAL MEXICO ISSUE 

Citation: Wilson LD. 2013. Preface (Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Special Mexico Issue). Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1): i–ii. 

The allure of Mexico first beckoned me in 1957, but only 

from across the border, as along with my parents and 

sister I was visiting family members in Mission, Texas. 

Mission is a bit west of McAllen, just north of the international 

border, with Reynosa located on the southern bank 

of the Río Bravo directly across from McAllen. We went 

to Reynosa just to say we had been in Mexico. 

My first herpetological trip to Mexico occurred in 

1966, when Ernest A. Liner kindly took me on one of his 

many journeys. We traveled as far south as Chiapas, and 

saw much of the country and plenty of amphibians and 

reptiles. 

In the ensuing years, I traveled south of the border on 

several occasions, and ultimately visited all but one of 

Mexico’s 31 states. Among several others, I took one of 

those trips with Louis Porras, the senior author of the paper 

on cantils in this issue. I made another extensive trip 

with my father, Ward Wendell Wilson, and visited many 

of the ancient ruins for which the country is well known. 

During my career I have always been interested in 

Mexico, although in recent years I spent much of my 

time in Central America. Nevertheless, I was delighted 

at the opportunity to work on the book Conservation of 

Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles (2010), which 

dealt with all of Mexico and Central America. This massive 

undertaking presented me with the chance to work 

closely with two long-time friends, Jerry Johnson, one of 

my co-editors, and Louis Porras, the proprietor of Eagle 

Mountain Publishing, LC, and both are involved in this 

Special Mexico Issue. 

The herpetofauna of Mexico is impressive from a 

number of perspectives. At 1,227 species, it is almost 

twice the size of that of its northern neighbor (presently, 

the United States is known to contain 628 native species, 

according to the Center for North American Herpetology 

[naherpetology.org]; data accessed 17 March 2013); 

Mexico, however, is only about one-fifth the size of the 

United States. Mexico’s herpetofauna also is larger than 

that of the seven Central American nations combined 

(1,024 native species, according to Wilson and Johnson 

[2010], and my updating since), although the disparity between 

Mexico and its southern neighbors is much smaller. 

Notably, Central America’s land area is slightly over onefourth 

that of Mexico. 

The level of endemicity in Mexico also is spectacular. 

In this Special Mexico Issue, Wilson, Mata-Silva, and 

Johnson report that 482 species of reptiles (excluding 

the marine species) of a total of 849 (56.8%) are Mexican 

endemics; Wilson, Johnson, and Mata-Silva indicate 

that 253 species of amphibians of a total of 378 (66.9%) 

are not found outside of Mexico. The combined figure is 

736 endemics out of 1,227 species (60.0%), a percentage 

substantially higher than that for Central America. 

In Central America, 367 endemic species have been recorded 

to date (Wilson and Johnson [2010], and my updating 

since), which equates to 35.8%. According to the 

accounting at the Center for North American Herpetology 

website (www.cnah.org), however, compared to the 

figures for Mexico (see the two Wilson et al. papers indicated 

below), Canada (www.carcnet.ca) and the West 

Indies (Powell and Henderson 2012), of the 628 species 

listed, 335 are endemic to the United States, for which 

the resulting percentage (53.3%) is much closer to that 

of Mexico than for Central America. Because the United 

States is about five times the size of Mexico, when one 

compares the degree of endemism in these two countries 

with their respective land areas (area/number of endemics), 

the resulting figures (areas from the CIA World Factbook; 

www.cia.gov) are as follows: Mexico (1,943,945 

km 2 /736 = 2,641); and the United States (9,161,966 

km 2 /335 = 25,808). Thus, the area/endemism ratio for the 

United States is almost 10 times that of Mexico, indicating 

that endemism in Mexico is that much greater than 

that of its neighbor to the north. The comparable figure 

for Central America is 507,966 km 2 /367 = 1,384, which is 

even lower than that for Mexico, and this region already 

is regarded as a major source of herpetofaunal diversity 

(Wilson et al. 2010). 

The Mexican herpetofauna also is of immense importance 

and interest from a conservation standpoint. In both 

of the Wilson et al. papers indicated below, the authors 

applied the Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS) 

measure to Mexico’s herpetofauna and found that 222 

of 378 amphibian species (58.7%) and 470 of 841 reptile 

species in (55.9%) were assigned an EVS that falls 

into the high vulnerability category. In total, 692 species 

(56.8%) fall into the highest category of susceptibility to 

environmental deterioration. The relatively small portion 


i 

June 2013 | Volume 7 | Number 1 | e62

Preface 

of humanity that recognizes the value and critical necessity 

of biodiversity is fighting an uphill battle to salvage 

as much biodiversity as possible before it disappears into 

extinction (Wilson 2006). Given the rate of human population 

growth and the commensurate rate of loss of natural 

habitats, populations of these unique components of 

the Mexican patrimony likely will decline steadily, as is 

happening over the remainder of the planet (Raven et al. 

2011). 

One of the most important imperatives we face, therefore, 

is to take appropriate steps to conserve the Mexican 

herpetofauna. Toward this end, five papers collectively 

written by 10 contributors are expected to appear in this 

Special Mexico Issue of Amphibian & Reptile Conservation. 

These papers are as follows: 

A conservation reassessment of the reptiles of Mexico 

based on the EVS measure by Larry David Wilson, 

Vicente Mata-Silva, and Jerry D. Johnson. 

A taxonomic reevaluation and conservation assessment 

of the common cantil, Agkistrodon bilineatus 

(Squamata: Viperidae): a race against time by 

Louis W. Porras, Larry David Wilson, Gordon W. 

Schuett, and Randall S. Reiserer. 

Patterns of physiographic distribution and conservation 

status of the herpetofauna of Michoacán, Mexico 

by Javier Alvarado-Díaz, Ireri Suazo-Ortuño, 

Larry David Wilson, and Oscar Medina-Aguilar. 

Taxonomic reevaluation and conservation of beaded 

lizards, Heloderma horridum (Squamata: Helodermatidae) 

by Randall S. Reiserer, Gordon W. 

Schuett, and Daniel D. Beck. 

A conservation reassessment of the amphibians of 

Mexico based on the EVS measure by Larry David 

Wilson, Jerry D. Johnson, and Vicente Mata-Silva. 

All of these papers deal with issues of herpetofaunal conservation, 

and range in coverage from the entire country 

of Mexico, through a single Mexican state, to what have 

been regarded as single species. Each study provides a set 

of recommendations. 

These five papers are gathered under this Preface and 

an issue cover. The concept behind the cover is to draw 

the papers into a coherent whole that reinforces the mission 

of the journal, which is to “support the sustainable 

management of amphibian and reptile biodiversity.” 

Thus, the photograph of Cerro Mariana, located in the 

Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression between Huetamo and 

Morelia, in Michoacán, is intended to illustrate dry forest, 

the type of vegetation most heavily damaged in Mesoamerica 

(Janzen 1988), one of the major features of the 

state’s environment and in which a significant portion of 

the herpetofauna is found. This type of environment is 

inhabited by two of the reptiles featured in this issue, the 

common cantil (Agkistrodon bilineatus) and the beaded 

lizard (Heloderma horridum), as well as the shovel-headed 

treefrog (Diaglena spatulata); all three of these species 

are relatively broadly distributed in subhumid environments 

along the Pacific coastal region of Mexico, as well 

as in the extensive valley of the Balsas and Tepalcatepec 

rivers, of which the western portion lies in the state of 

Michoacán. 

Finally, our aim is to examine the conservation status 

of the amphibians and reptiles of Mexico, in general, and 

to focus more closely on a state herpetofauna (of Michoacán) 

and on two prominent and threatened Mexican flagship 

species, the common cantil and the beaded lizard. 

Thus, we hope to contribute to the ongoing effort to provide 

for a sustainable future for the world’s amphibians 

(Stuart et al. 2010) and reptiles (Böhm et al. 2013). 

Literature Cited 

Böhm M et al. 2013. The conservation status of the 

world’s reptiles. Biological Conservation 157: 372– 

385. 

Janzen DH. 1988. Tropical dry forests: the most endangered 

major tropical ecosystem. Pp. 130–137 In: 

Biodiversity. Editor, Wilson EO. National Academy 

Press, Washington, DC, USA. 

Powell R, Henderson RW (Editors). 2012. Island lists of 

West Indian amphibians and reptiles. Florida Museum 

of Natural History Bulletin 51: 85–166. 

Raven PH, Hassenzahl DM, Berg LR. 2011. Environment 

(8 th edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, 

New Jersey, USA. 

Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE. 2010. The 

global decline of amphibians: current trends and future 

prospects. Pp. 2–15 In: Conservation of Mesoamerican 

Amphibians and Reptiles. Editors, Wilson 

LD, Townsend JH, Johnson JD. Eagle Mountain Publishing, 

LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA. 

Wilson, EO. 2006. The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life 

on Earth. W. W. Norton & Company, New York, New 

York, USA. 

Wilson LD, Johnson JD. 2010. Distributional patterns 

of the herpetofauna of Mesoamerica, a biodiversity 

hotspot. Pp. 30–235 In: Conservation of Mesoamerican 

Amphibians and Reptiles. Editors, Wilson LD, 

Townsend JH, Johnson JD. Eagle Mountain Publishing, 


Wilson LD, Townsend JH, Johnson JD. 2010. Conservation 

of Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles. Eagle 

Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah, 

USA. 

Larry David Wilson 

2 May 2013 


ii 


Copyright: © 2013 Johnson et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons 

Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License, which permits unrestricted use for non-commercial 


Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1): iii–vi. 

DEDICATIONS 

Citation: Johnson JD, Porras LW, Schuett GW, Mata-Silva V, Wilson LD. 2013. Dedications (Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Special Mexico Issue). 

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1): iii–vi. 

With the publication of this Special Mexico Issue (SMI), 

the contributing authors were provided with an opportunity 

to dedicate it to herpetologists who have played a significant 

role in their lives, as well as the lives of other herpetologists 

past and present. Each of the 10 contributors 

was asked to identify the person who was most influential 

in their respective careers, especially with respect to what 

each of them has contributed to SMI. The dedicatees are: 

Miguel Álvarez del Toro. 

Miguel Álvarez del Toro (August 23, 1917–August 2, 

1996) was born in the city of Colima, Colima, México, 

according to an obituary in Herpetological Review by Oscar 

Flores-Villela and Wendy Hodges in 1999. He moved 

to Mexico City in 1932, where he attended and later graduated 

from high school. Although his formal education 

was limited, his repute as an avid naturalist spread rapidly 

and at the age of 21, while still in Mexico City, he began 

a long career devoted to a multitude of zoological and 

conservation related disciplines. He moved to Chiapas in 

1942, and after a short stint as keeper and curator became 

the Director of what then was known as the Instituto de 

Historia Natural located near downtown Tuxtla Gutiérrez. 

His reputation grew exponentially because of his tireless 

work at the Zoological Park and Natural History Museum, 

his publication record, including books and papers on 

numerous vertebrate and invertebrate groups, and his solemn 

activism on conservation issues. One of his greatest 

legacies was convincing several generations of politicians 

in Chiapas to help develop a system of natural protected 

areas, and also to expand the Zoological Park and move it 

to “El Zapotal,” a relatively pristine site on the southern 

edge of the city. That new and remarkable facility was 

named “Zoológico Regional Miguel Álvarez del Toro, or 

ZOOMAT as it is popularly called today. Because of his 

lifetime efforts, “Don Miguel,” as he was called respectfully, 

was justly awarded honorary doctoral degrees from 

the Universidad de Chapingo, in 1992, and from the Universidad 

Autónomo de Chiapas, in 1993. Over his long 

career he received a plethora of other awards, and also 

was involved in numerous conservation projects in conjunction 

with various local, state, national, and international 

organizations. 

Jerry D. Johnson, an avid “herper” since grade school 

and recently discharged from the Marine Corps after a 

stint in Viet Nam, enrolled in the 1971 wintermester 

course at Fort Hays State University (Kansas), and accompanied 

Dr. Charles A. Ely to Chiapas on a migratory 

bird study. Dr. Ely, after recognizing Johnson’s eagerness 

to search for amphibians and reptiles through all sorts 

of tropical and highland environments, included him on 

many return trips during the next several years. On that 

initial 1971 trip, Johnson briefly met Don Miguel at the 

old Zoological Park. In 1974, Dr. Ely arranged for he and 

Johnson to pitch tents in Don Miguel’s back yard, located 

near the Zoo. This initiated an opportunity to mingle with 

all sorts of interesting people, including the Álvarez del 

Toro family, their friends, and a continuous flow of traveling 

naturalists who were visiting the Zoo. During those 

times Johnson realized just how influential Don Miguel’s 

scientific and conservation work had become, in Chiapas 

and elsewhere. On a typical day, Don Miguel often would 

walk among the Zoological Park’s animal enclosures, and 

during those walks Jerry came to know him while discussing 

the status of herpetology in Chiapas, how conservation 

efforts were in dire straits, and pondering his 

doubts about the possibility that anything resembling a 

natural Chiapas would persist into the future. In 1985, 

Don Miguel published a book entitled ¡Asi Era Chiapas! 

that described how Chiapas had changed in the 40 years 

since he had arrived in the state. Even today, Johnson often 

thinks about how habitat destruction had altered the 

Chiapan environment since he began investigations there 

in 1971, as a college sophomore. He now realizes that 

his life and professional experiences have passed rather 

quickly, but sadly, environmental decay is accelerating 

at an even greater pace. Johnson now concentrates much 

of his professional efforts on conservation issues, hoping 

that humankind can avoid total environmental devastation. 

Jerry also is reasonably sure that Don Miguel really 

didn’t expect preservation efforts to be very successful, 


iii 


Dedications 

but he didn’t give up his dream of a more conservationoriented 

populace by continually teaching people why 

preserving natural habitats is important to their own wellbeing, 

which probably is the only way conservation will 

ever succeed. With great pleasure, Johnson dedicates his 

contributions to this special Mexico edition of Amphibian 

and Reptile Conservation to Miguel Álvarez del Toro, 

who in his opinion was the leading advocate and pioneer 

of biodiversity conservation in 20 th century Mexico. 

book that set the standard for state herpetological publications. 

Roger perhaps is best known as the author of the 

best selling book in herpetological history, A Field Guide 

to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern North America, 

which was illustrated by Isabelle. The book was published 

in 1958, and expanded versions followed in 1975, 

1991, and 1998. For the majority of amphibian and reptile 

enthusiasts and herpetologists living in the eastern part of 

the United States during those years, this book became 

their bible. In 1973, Roger retired early from the Philadelphia 

Zoo, after Isabelle had become ill. The Conants then 

moved to Albuquerque, where Roger became an adjunct 

professor at the University of New Mexico and devoted 

much of his time to herpetology. Isabelle passed away 

in 1976, and soon after Roger discovered that his close 

friend, Howard K. Gloyd, was terminally ill. Howard had 

been busy working on a project that he and Roger started 

in 1932, and because of Howard’s deteriorating condition 

Roger made an enormous commitment and assured 

Howard that the project would be completed. This hugely 

important contribution, entitled Snakes of the Agkistrodon 

Complex: a Monographic Review, was published 

by the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles 

(SSAR) in 1990. During this time Roger also was busy 

writing his memoirs, A Field Guide to the Life and Times 

of Roger Conant, which was published in 1997 by Selva, 

and details his remarkable life and illustrious career. 

Roger Conant in his early 20s. 

Roger Conant (May 6, 1909–December 19, 2003) was 

born in Mamaroneck, New York, USA. As a child he developed 

a passion for reptiles, especially snakes, and at 

the age of 19 became the Curator of Reptiles at the Toledo 

Zoo. After assembling a sizeable collection of reptiles 

for public display, he was promoted to General Curator. 

Because of the close proximity of Toledo to Ann Arbor, 

he occasionally would visit herpetologists at the University 

of Michigan and became close friends with a thengraduate 

student, Howard K. Gloyd. Eventually, Roger 

left Toledo to become the Curator of Herpetology at the 

Philadelphia Zoo, and in time became the zoo’s Director. 

Throughout his 38-year career at Philadelphia he participated 

in weekly radio shows, edited the zoo’s publications, 

and made frequent television appearances. During 

this time he also helped establish the Philadelphia Herpetological 

Society, served as President of the Association 

of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, and as President of 

the American Association of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. 

In 1947 Roger married Isabelle Hunt Conant, 

an accomplished photographer and illustrator who had 

been working at the zoo for several years, and during the 

following two decades the couple made several collecting 

trips to Mexico. Roger’s first of 240 scientific publications 

(including 12 books) came at the age of 19; about a 

decade later he authored The Reptiles of Ohio, a landmark 


iv 

Roger Conant in Santa Rosa National Park, 

Costa Rica (1982). 

Louis W. Porras and Gordon W. Schuett, two very 

close friends of Roger’s, were involved at several levels 

with the Agkistrodon monograph and Roger’s autobiography. 

Because of their mutual interest in Agkistrodon, in 

January of 1982 the trio traveled to Costa Rica in search 

of cantils and although no individuals were found in the 


field, they managed to secure preserved specimens for 

study. In July of that year, Porras returned to Costa Rica 

with John Rindfleish and collected what became the holotype 

of Agkistrodon bilineatus howardgloydi. Additional 

information on the life of Roger Conant appears in an 

obituary published in the June 2004 issue of Herpetological 

Review. Among several solicited tributes indicating 

how Roger had affected his colleague’s lives and careers, 

Porras wrote the following summary: 

As a giant in herpetology, no doubt many will be writing 

about Roger Conant’s amazing organizational skills, attention 

to detail, literary contributions, lifelong productivity, 

and so on. From a personal perspective, however, 

Roger was my friend, mentor, and father figure. He enriched 

my life in so many ways, and it would warm his 

heart to know that by simply following his example, he 

will continue to do so. 

Schuett summarized his tribute as follows: 

Dedications 

In reflection, I have no doubt that Roger Conant possessed 

genius. His was not displayed in eccentric mannerisms 

and arrogant actions, but in a subtle and quiet 

ability to collect, organize, and process information for 

large-scale projects. In his research, each and every detail 

was painstakingly considered. Roger’s vast achievements 

are even more remarkable knowing that he was 

largely self-educated. If genius is measured by the degree 

to which one’s ideas and work influence others, Roger 

stands among the giants of knowledge…Cheers to you, 

Roger, to your remarkable and enviable life. 

Yes, Indeed! 

Aurelio Ramírez-Bautista in Chamela, Jalisco (2011). 

Aurelio Ramírez-Bautista was born in Xalapa, Veracruz, 

Mexico, and today is a professor and biological investigator 

at the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo. 

Dr. Ramírez-Bautista has authored or co-authored 

more than 100 publications, including five books and 

40 book chapters, made numerous presentations on the 

ecology and conservation of the Mexican herpetofauna, 

and has become one of the leading herpetologists in the 

country. During his many years as an educator and researcher, 

Dr. Ramírez-Bautista advised numerous bachelor, 

master, and doctoral students. Vicente Mata-Silva met 

Dr. Ramírez-Bautista in the summer of 1998, as an undergraduate 

student working on his thesis on the herpetofauna 

of a portion of the state of Puebla. They developed 

a friendship, and through Dr. Ramirez-Bautista’s mentoring 

Vicente developed a passion for Mexican herpetology, 

especially Chihuahuan Desert reptiles, that continued 

throughout his undergraduate studies and later through 

master’s, doctoral, and post-doctoral work in the Ecology 

and Evolutionary Biology program at the University of 

Texas at El Paso. They have continued to work on significant 

research projects on the conservation and ecology 

of the Mexican herpetofauna. Vicente is extremely grateful 

to Dr. Ramírez-Bautista for his farsighted and life-altering 

introduction to herpetology. Their association has 

led to a lifetime friendship, and a road of excitement and 

opportunities that Vicente never envisioned possible. Dr. 

Ramírez-Bautista is the epitome of what an educator and 

mentor should be, providing students the opportunity to 

become professional scientists working in a world sorely 

in need of commitment to environmental sustainability. 

Hobart M. Smith in Mexico (1930). 

Hobart Muir Smith (September 26, 1912–March 4, 

2013) was born Frederick William Stouffer in Stanwood, 

Iowa, USA. At the age of four, he was adopted by Charles 

and Frances Smith; both of his adoptive parents died, 

however, before Dr. Smith finished college at Kansas 

State University (KSU). In the engaging “historical perspective” 

written by David Chiszar, Edwin McConkey, 


v 


Dedications 

and Margaret M. Stewart and published in the 2004(2) 

issue of Copeia, the authors recount an amazing story indicating 

that when Dr. Smith (HMS) was in his senior 

year in high school he was plagued by tachycardia and 

an allergy to caffeine, which ended his interest in running 

and led to youthful resolution that they reported as follows: 

“If I’m gonna do anything worthwhile, I had better 

get to it, because I not gonna live very long” (!). Upon 

completing high school, he headed for KSU with expectations 

of a major in entomology. A fortunate meeting with 

Howard K. Gloyd, a somewhat older student who was 

majoring in herpetology, brought HMS a change of heart, 

however, and he became determined to study amphibians 

and reptiles. He made this decision after having traveled 

to the American West on collecting trips with Dr. Gloyd, 

whose association with Dr. Conant is discussed above. 

Gloyd and his major professor at the University of Michigan, 

Dr. Frank Blanchard, suggested that HMS contact 

Edward H. Taylor at the University of Kansas (KU). As 

noted by Chiszar et al. (2004: 419), “this was probably the 

act that cinched HMS to a herpetological orientation and 

kiboshed entomology.” In fact, these authors also claim 

that “HMS literally collected his BA and moments later 

hopped into Taylor’s car bound for Mexico,” and that “the 

rest is history.” 

Hobart M. Smith and Rozella B. Smith at the 

University of Wyoming (1960). 

In 1940 (Wilson’s birth year), at age 26, he married 

Rozella Pearl Beverly Blood, who he met while both 

were graduate students at KU. Their marriage endured 

until Rozella’s death in 1987. Dr. Smith began working 

in Mexico in 1932, before any of the SMI contributors 

was born, and those early collecting trips instilled a lifelong 

dedication for studying the Mexican herpetofauna. 

Other collecting ventures followed during the remainder 

of the decade. The material assembled during these trips 

allowed him to begin a life-long journey to record the 

composition, distribution, and systematics of the amazing 

Mexican herpetofauna. During his long life he authored 

more than 1,600 publications, including 29 books––the 

greatest output in the history of herpetology. Chiszar et al. 

(2004: 421–422) indicated that HMS was most proud of 

the three Mexican checklists, the Sceloporus monograph, 

the Handbook of Lizards, the comparative anatomy textbook 

(which Wilson used when he took the course under 

HMS), the Synopsis of the Herpetofauna of Mexico, the 

Pliocercus book, and the Candoia monograph. In 1947, 

HMS became a professor of zoology at the University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and remained there until 

1968. During this period in his career, one of the SMI 

contributors came under his influence. In 1958, Larry David 

Wilson graduated from Stephen Decatur High School 

in Decatur, Illinois, and the following year enrolled at 

Millikin University in that city. After two years and having 

exhausted the coursework offered by the biology 

department at Millikin, Wilson decided to move to the 

U of I, which became a turning point in his life. There, 

he met HMS and managed to survive a number of his 

courses, including comparative anatomy. During the two 

years that led to his graduation, Wilson cemented his interest 

in zoology and, due to Smith’s influence, decided 

to attend graduate school and major in herpetology. Also, 

due to Smith’s interest in Mesoamerican amphibians and 

reptiles, Wilson was determined to specialize in studying 

these creatures, and in 1962 ventured south and never returned 

to live in the flatlands of the “Great Corn Desert.” 

In 1983, Wilson had the opportunity to acknowledge his 

gratitude to the Smiths by organizing a symposium on the 

Mexican herpetofauna in their honor, which was held in 

connection with the annual SSAR meeting in Salt Lake 

City, Utah. Although much of Wilson’s overall work has 

focused on the Honduran herpetofauna, this special issue 

on the Mexican herpetofauna provided him with an opportunity 

to reawaken his love for the country where his 

fieldwork outside the US began in 1966, and to again acknowledge 

his debt to Dr. Hobart Muir Smith, one of the 

most important people in the history of herpetology. As 

Wilson stated in a tribute to HMS on his centenary published 

last year in Herpetological Review, “I know I am 

only one of many people who are indebted to Dr. Smith 

in ways small and large. For me, however, his influence 

determined the direction of my career and, in a significant 

way, the nature of the contributions I have made to our 

field.” 

Acknowledgments.—The authors of the papers comprising 

the Special Mexico Issue are very grateful to Sally 

Nadvornik, who kindly supplied the photographs we used 

of her father, Hobart M. Smith, and Uriel Hernández-Salinas, 

who helpfully provided the image we used of Aurelio 

Ramírez-Bautista. Louis Porras provided the photographs 

of Roger Conant. The image of Miguel Álvarez del Toro 

was taken from the 3 rd edition of his book, Los Reptiles 

de Chiapas. 


vi 


Xenosaurus tzacualtipantecus. The Zacualtipán knob-scaled lizard is endemic to the Sierra Madre Oriental of eastern Mexico. 

This medium-large lizard (female holotype measures 188 mm in total length) is known only from the vicinity of the type locality 

in eastern Hidalgo, at an elevation of 1,900 m in pine-oak forest, and a nearby locality at 2,000 m in northern Veracruz (Woolrich- 

Piña and Smith 2012). Xenosaurus tzacualtipantecus is thought to belong to the northern clade of the genus, which also contains X. 

newmanorum and X. platyceps (Bhullar 2011). As with its congeners, X. tzacualtipantecus is an inhabitant of crevices in limestone 

rocks. This species consumes beetles and lepidopteran larvae and gives birth to living young. The habitat of this lizard in the vicinity 

of the type locality is being deforested, and people in nearby towns have created an open garbage dump in this area. We determined 

its EVS as 17, in the middle of the high vulnerability category (see text for explanation), and its status by the IUCN and SEMAR- 

NAT presently are undetermined. This newly described endemic species is one of nine known species in the monogeneric family 

Xenosauridae, which is endemic to northern Mesoamerica (Mexico from Tamaulipas to Chiapas and into the montane portions of 

Alta Verapaz, Guatemala). All but one of these nine species is endemic to Mexico. Photo by Christian Berriozabal-Islas. 


01 


Copyright: © 2013 Wilson et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons 



Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1): 1–47. 

A conservation reassessment of the reptiles of Mexico 

based on the EVS measure 

1 

Larry David Wilson, 2 Vicente Mata-Silva, and 3 Jerry D. Johnson 

1 

Centro Zamorano de Biodiversidad, Escuela Agrícola Panamericana Zamorano, Departamento de Francisco Morazán, HONDURAS 2,3 Department 

of Biological Sciences, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 79968–0500, USA 

Abstract.—Mexico is the country with the most significant herpetofaunal diversity and endemism 

in Mesoamerica. Anthropogenic threats to Mexico’s reptiles are growing exponentially, commensurate 

with the rate of human population growth and unsustainable resource use. In a broad-based 

multi-authored book published in 2010 (Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles; 

CMAR), conservation assessment results differed widely from those compiled in 2005 by IUCN for 

a segment of the Mexican reptile fauna. In light of this disparity, we reassessed the conservation 

status of reptiles in Mexico by using the Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS), a measure previously 

used in certain Central American countries that we revised for use in Mexico. We updated the 

total number of species for the Mexican reptile fauna from that reported in CMAR, which brought 

the new number to 849 (three crocodilians, 48 turtles, and 798 squamates). The 2005 assessment 

categorized a small percentage of species in the IUCN threat categories (Critically Endangered, Endangered, 

and Vulnerable), and a large number of species in the category of Least Concern. In view 

of the results published in CMAR, we considered their approach overoptimistic and reevaluated the 

conservation status of the Mexican reptile fauna based on the EVS measure. Our results show an 

inverse (rather than a concordant) relationship between the 2005 IUCN categorizations and the EVS 

assessment. In contrast to the 2005 IUCN categorization results, the EVS provided a conservation 

assessment consistent with the threats imposed on the Mexican herpetofauna by anthropogenic environmental 

degradation. Although we lack corroborative evidence to explain this inconsistency, we 

express our preference for use of the EVS measure. Based on the results of our analysis, we provide 

eight recommendations and conclusions of fundamental importance to individuals committed to 

reversing the trends of biodiversity decline and environmental degradation in the country of Mexico. 

Key words. EVS, lizards, snakes, crocodilians, turtles, IUCN categories, IUCN 2005 Mexican Reptile Assessment 

Resumen.—México es el país que contiene la diversidad y endemismo de herpetofauna más significativo 

en Mesoamérica. Las amenazas antropogénicas a los reptiles de México crecen exponencialmente 

acorde con la tasa de crecimiento de la población humana y el uso insostenible de los recursos. 

Un libro publicado por varios autores en 2010 (Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians and 

Reptiles; CMAR) produjo resultados sobre conservación ampliamente contrarios a los resultados 

de una evaluación de un segmento de los reptiles mexicanos conducida en 2005 por la UICN. A la 

luz de esta disparidad, se realizó una nueva evaluación del estado de conservación de los reptiles 

mexicanos utilizando una medida llamada el Cálculo de Vulnerabilidad Ambiental (EVS), revisado 

para su uso en México. Se actualizó el número de especies de reptiles mexicanos más allá del estudio 

de CMAR, por lo que el número total de especies se incrementó a 849 (tres cocodrílidos, 48 

tortugas, y 798 lagartijas y serpientes). La evaluación de 2005 de la UICN clasificó una proporción 

inesperadamente pequeña de especies en las categorías para especies amenazadas (En Peligro 

Crítico, En Peligro, y Vulnerable) y un porcentaje respectivamente grande en la categoría de Preocupación 

Menor. En vista de los resultados publicados en CMAR, consideramos que los resultados 

de este enfoque son demasiado optimistas, y reevaluamos el estado de conservación de todos los 

reptiles mexicanos basándonos en la medida de EVS. Nuestros resultados muestran una relación 

inversa (más que concordante) entre las categorizaciones de la UICN 2005 y EVS. Contrario a los 

resultados de las categorizaciones de la UICN 2005, la medida de EVS proporcionó una evaluación 

para la conservación de reptiles mexicanos que es coherente con las amenazas impuestas por la 

degradación antropogénica del medio ambiente. No tenemos la evidencia necesaria para proporcionar 

una explicación para esta inconsistencia, pero expresamos las razones de nuestra preferencia 

por el uso de los resultados del EVS. A la luz de los resultados de nuestro análisis, hemos 

Correspondence. Emails: 1 bufodoc@aol.com (Corresponding author), 2 vmata@utep.edu, 3 jjohnson@utep.edu 


02 


Wilson et al. 

construido ocho recomendaciones y conclusiones de importancia fundamental para las personas 

comprometidas en revertir las tendencias asociadas con la pérdida de biodiversidad y la degradación 

del medio ambiente. 

Palabras claves. EVS, lagartijas, culebras, cocodrílidos, tortugas, categorías de UICN, 2005 UICN valoración de 

reptiles mexicanos 

Citation: Wilson LD, Mata-Silva V, Johnson JD. 2013. A conservation reassessment of the reptiles of Mexico based on the EVS measure. Amphibian & 

Reptile Conservation 7(1): 1–47 (e61). 

The history of civilization is a history of human beings as 

they become increasingly knowledgeable about biological 

diversity. 

Introduction 

Beattie and Ehrlich 2004: 1. 

From a herpetofaunal standpoint, Mexico is the most 

significant center of diversity in the biodiversity hotspot 

of Mesoamerica (Mexico and Central America; sensu 

Wilson and Johnson [2010]). Of the 1,879 species of 

amphibians and reptiles listed by Wilson and Johnson 

(2010) for all of Mesoamerica, 1,203 (64.0%) occur in 

Mexico; reptiles are especially diverse in this country, 

with 830 species (72.3%) of the 1,148 species distributed 

throughout Mesoamerica. 

Wilson and Johnson (2010) also reported that the 

highest level of herpetofaunal endemism in Mesoamerica 

is found in Mexico (66.8% for amphibians, 57.2% for 

reptiles [60.2% combined]), with the next highest level 

in Honduras (36.2% for amphibians, 19.2% for reptiles 

[25.3% combined]). The reported level of herpetofaunal 

diversity and endemism in Mexico has continued to increase, 

and below we discuss the changes that have occurred 

since the publication of Wilson et al. (2010). 

Interest in herpetofaunal diversity and endemicity in 

Mexico dates back nearly four centuries (Johnson 2009). 

Herpetologists, however, only have become aware of the 

many threats to the survival of amphibian and reptile 

populations in the country relatively recently. The principal 

driver of these threats is human population growth 

(Wilson and Johnson 2010), which is well documented as 

exponential. “Any quantity that grows by a fixed percent 

at regular intervals is said to possess exponential growth” 

(www.regentsprep.org). This characteristic predicts that 

any population will double in size depending on the 

percentage growth rate. Mexico is the 11 th most populated 

country in the world (2011 Population Reference 

Bureau World Population Data Sheet), with an estimated 

mid-2011 total of 114.8 million people. The population 

of Mexico is growing at a more rapid rate (1.4% rate of 

natural increase) than the global average (1.2%), and at a 

1.4% rate of natural increase this converts to a doubling 

time of 50 years (70/1.4 = 50). Thus, by the year 2061 

the population of Mexico is projected to reach about 230 

million, and the population density will increase from 59 

to 118/km 2 (2011 PBR World Population Data Sheet). 

Given the widely documented threats to biodiversity 

posed by human population growth and its consequences 

(Chiras 2009; Raven et al. 2011), as well as the increasing 

reports of amphibian population declines in the late 

1980s and the 1990s (Blaustein and Wake 1990; Wake 

1991), the concept of a Global Amphibian Assessment 

(GAA) originated and was described as “a first attempt 

to assess all amphibians against the IUCN Red List Categories 

and Criteria” (Stuart et al. 2010). The results of 

this assessment were startling, and given broad press 

coverage (Conservation International 2004; Stuart et al. 

2004). Stuart et al. (2010) reported that of the 5,743 species 

evaluated, 1,856 were globally threatened (32.3%), 

i.e., determined to have an IUCN threat status of Critically 

Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), or Vulnerable 

(VU). An additional 1,290 (22.5%) were judged as Data 

Deficient (DD), i.e., too poorly known for another determinable 

status. Given the nature of the Data Deficient 

category, eventually these species likely will be judged 

in one of the threat categories (CR, EN, or VU). Thus, 

by adding the Data Deficient species to those determined 

as globally threatened, the total comes to 3,146 species 

(54.8% of the world’s amphibian fauna known at the 

time of the GAA). Our knowledge of the global amphibian 

fauna has grown since the GAA was conducted, and 

a website (AmphibiaWeb) arose in response to the realization 

that more than one-half of the known amphibian 

fauna is threatened globally or too poorly known to conduct 

an evaluation. One of the functions of this website is 

to track the increasing number of amphibian species on a 

global basis. On 8 April 2013 we accessed this website, 

and found the number of amphibian species at 7,116, an 

increase of 23.9% over the number reported in Stuart et 

al. (2010). 

As a partial response to the burgeoning reports of 

global amphibian population decline, interest in the conservation 

status of the world’s reptiles began to grow 

(Gibbons et al. 2000). Some of this interest was due to 

the recognition that reptiles constitute “an integral part 

of natural ecosystems and […] heralds of environmental 

quality,” just like amphibians (Gibbons et al. 2000: 653). 

Unfortunately, Gibbons et al. (2000: 653) concluded that, 

“reptile species are declining on a global scale,” and further 

(p. 662) that, “the declines of many reptile populations 

are similar to those experienced by amphibians in 


03 


Conservation reassessment of Mexican reptiles 

Dermatemys mawii. The Central American river turtle is known from large river systems in Mexico, from central Veracruz southward 

into Tabasco and Chiapas and northeastward into southwestern Campeche and southern Quintana Roo, avoiding the northern 

portion of the Yucatan Peninsula. In Central America, it occurs in northern Guatemala and most of Belize. The EVS of this single 

member of the Mesoamerican endemic family Dermatemyidae has been calculated as 17, placing it in the middle of the high vulnerability 

category, and the IUCN has assessed this turtle as Critically Endangered. This image is of an individual emerging from its 

egg, with its egg tooth prominently displayed. The hatching took place at the Zoológico Miguel Álvarez del Toro in Tuxtla Gutiérrez, 

Chiapas, as part of a captive breeding program for this highly threatened turtle. The parents of this hatchling came from the 

hydrologic system of the Río Usumacinta and Playas de Catazajá. Photo by Antonio Ramírez Velázquez. 

Terrapene mexicana. The endemic Mexican box turtle is distributed from southern Tamaulipas southward to central Veracruz and 

westward to southeastern San Luis Potosí. Its EVS has been determined as 19, placing it in the upper portion of the high vulnerability 

category, but this turtle has not been evaluated by IUCN. This individual is from Gómez Farias, Tamaulipas, within the Reserva 

de la Biósfera El Cielo. Photo by Elí García Padilla. 


04 


Wilson et al. 

terms of taxonomic breath, geographic scope, and severity.” 

They also identified the following significant threats 

to reptile populations: habitat loss and degradation, introduced 

invasive species, environmental pollution, disease 

[and parasitism], unsustainable use, and global climate 

change. Essentially, these are the same threats identified 

by Vitt and Caldwell (2009) in the Conservation Biology 

chapter of their textbook Herpetology. 

In the closing chapter of Conservation of Mesoamerican 

Amphibians and Reptiles, Wilson and Townsend 

(2010: 774–777) provided six detailed and intensely 

critical recommendations for the conservation of the 

herpetofauna of this region, based on the premise that 

“problems created by humans … are not solved by treating 

only their symptoms.” Because of the nature of these 

recommendations, we consider it important to note that 

the IUCN conducted a conservation assessment of the 

Mexican reptiles in 2005, for which the results were made 

available in 2007 (see NatureServe Press Release, 12 

September 2007 at www.natureserve.org). The contents 

of this press release were startling and unexpected, however, 

as indicated by its title, “New Assessment of North 

American Reptiles Finds Rare Good News,” and contrast 

the conclusions of Wilson and Townsend (2010), which 

were based on the entire herpetofauna of Mesoamerica. 

The principal conclusion of the press release was that “a 

newly completed assessment of the conservation status 

of North American reptiles shows that most of the group 

is faring better than expected, with relatively few species 

at severe risk of extinction.” Wilson and Townsend 

(2010: 773) commented, however, that “conserving the 

Mesoamerican herpetofauna will be a major challenge 

for conservation biologists, in part, because of the large 

number of species involved and the considerable number 

that are endemic to individual countries, physiographic 

regions, and vegetation zones.” 

Given the contrast in the conclusions of these two 

sources, and because the 2005 Mexican reptile assessment 

was based on the IUCN categories and criteria 

without considering other measures of conservation status, 

herein we undertake an independent reassessment of 

the reptile fauna of Mexico based on the Environmental 

Vulnerability Score (EVS), a measure developed by 

Wilson and McCranie (2004) for use in Honduras, which 

was applied to the herpetofauna of certain Central American 

countries in Wilson et al. (2010), and modified in 

this paper for use in Mexico. 

The IUCN System of Conservation Status 

Categorization 

The 2005 Mexican reptile assessment was conducted 

using the IUCN system of conservation status categorization. 

This system is used widely in conservation biology 

and applied globally, and particulars are found at the 

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species website (www. 

iucnredlist.org). Specifically, the system is elaborated in 

the online document entitled “IUCN Red List of Categories 

and Criteria” (2010), and consists of nine categories, 

identified and briefly defined as follows (p. 9): 

Extinct (EX): “A taxon is Extinct when there is no reasonable 

doubt that the last individual has died.” 

Extinct in the Wild (EW): “A taxon is Extinct in the 

Wild when it is known only to survive in cultivation, 

in captivity or as a naturalized population (or populations) 

well outside the past range.” 

Critically Endangered (CR): “A taxon is Critically Endangered 

when the best available evidence indicates 

that it meets any of the criteria A to E for Critically 

Endangered, and it is therefore considered to be facing 

an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.” 

Endangered (EN): “A taxon is Endangered when the 

best available evidence indicated that it meets any of 

the criteria A to E for Endangered, and is therefore 

considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction 

in the wild.” 

Vulnerable (VU): “A taxon is Vulnerable when the best 

available evidence indicates that it meets any of the 

criteria A to E for Vulnerable, and it is therefore considered 

to be facing a high risk of extinction in the 

wild.” 

Near Threatened (NT): “A taxon is Near Threatened 

when it has been evaluated against the criteria but 

does not quality for Critically Endangered, Endangered, 

or Vulnerable now, but is close to qualifying 

for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in 

the near future. 

Least Concern (LC): “A taxon is Least Concern when 

it has been evaluated against the criteria and does not 

qualify for Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable 

or Near Threatened. Widespread and abundant 

taxa are included in this category.” 

Data Deficient (DD): “A taxon is Data Deficient when 

there is inadequate information to make a direct, or 

indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on 

its distribution and/or population status.” 

Not Evaluated (NE): “A taxon is Not Evaluated when 

it is has not yet been evaluated against the criteria.” 

As noted in the definition of the Near Threatened category, 

the Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable 

categories are those with a threat of extinction in the 

wild. A lengthy discussion of criteria A to E mentioned 

in the definitions above is available in the 2010 IUCN 

document. 

A Revised EVS for Mexico 

In this paper, we revised the design of the EVS for Mexico, 

which differs from previous schemes in the components 

of geographic distribution and human persecution. 

Initially, the EVS was designed for use in instances 

where the details of a species’ population status (upon 


05 



Trachemys gaigeae. The Big Bend slider is distributed along the Rio Grande Valley in south-central New Mexico and Texas, as well 

as in the Río Conchos system in Chihuahua. Its EVS has been calculated as 18, placing it in the upper portion of the high vulnerability 

category, and the IUCN has assessed this turtle as Vulnerable. This individual is from the Rio Grande about 184 straight kilometers 

SE of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua. Although the picture was taken on the US side (about 44 km SSW of Van Horn, Hudspeth 

County, Texas), it was originally in the water. Photo by Vicente Mata-Silva. 

Kinosternon oaxacae. The endemic Oaxaca mud turtle occurs in southern Oaxaca and adjacent eastern Guerrero. Its EVS has been 

estimated as 15, placing it in the lower portion of the high vulnerability category, and the IUCN considers this kinosternid as Data 

Deficient. This individual was found in riparian vegetation along the edge of a pond in La Soledad, Tututepec, Oaxaca. Photo by 

Vicente Mata-Silva. 


06 


Wilson et al. 

which many of the criteria for the IUCN status categorizations 

depend) are not available, so as to estimate its 

susceptibility to future environmental threats. In this 

regard, the EVS usually can be calculated as soon as a 

species is described, as it depends on information generally 

available when the species is discovered. Use of 

the EVS, therefore, does not depend on population assessments, 

which often are costly and time consuming. 

Nonetheless, its use does not preclude the implementation 

of other measures for assessing the conservation status 

of a species, when these measures can be employed. 

After all, conservation assessment measures are only a 

guide for designing conservation strategies, and constitute 

an initial step in our effort to protect wildlife. 

The version of the EVS algorithm we developed for 

use in Mexico consists of three scales, for which the values 

are added to produce the Environmental Vulnerability 

Score. The first scale deals with geographic distribution, 

as follows: 

1 = distribution broadly represented both inside 

and outside Mexico (large portions of range are 

both inside and outside Mexico) 

2 = distribution prevalent inside Mexico, but 

limited outside Mexico (most of range is inside 

Mexico) 

3 = distribution limited inside Mexico, but prevalent 

outside Mexico (most of range is outside 

Mexico) 

4 = distribution limited both inside and outside 

Mexico (most of range is marginal to areas 

near border of Mexico and the United States or 

Central America) 

5 = distribution only within Mexico, but not restricted 

to vicinity of type locality 

6 = distribution limited to Mexico in the vicinity of 

type locality 

The second scale deals with ecological distribution 

based on the number of vegetation formations occupied, 

as follows: 

1 = occurs in eight or more formations 

2 = occurs in seven formations 

3 = occurs in six formations 

4 = occurs in five formations 

5 = occurs in four formations 

6 = occurs in three formations 

7 = occurs in two formations 

8 = occurs in one formation 

The third scale relates to the degree of human persecution 

(a different measure is used for amphibians), as follows: 

1 = fossorial, usually escape human notice 

2 = semifossorial, or nocturnal arboreal or aquatic, 

nonvenomous and usually non-mimicking, 

sometimes escape human notice 

3 = terrestrial and/or arboreal or aquatic, generally 

ignored by humans 

4 = terrestrial and/or arboreal or aquatic, thought to 

be harmful, might be killed on sight 

5 = venomous species or mimics thereof, killed on 

sight 

6 = commercially or non-commercially exploited 

for hides, meat, eggs and/or the pet trade 

The score for each of these three components is added to 

obtain the Environmental Vulnerability Score, which can 

range from 3 to 20. Wilson and McCranie (2004) divided 

the range of scores for Honduran reptiles into three categories 

of vulnerability to environmental degradation, as 

follows: low (3–9); medium (10–13); and high (14–19). 

We use a similar categorization here, with the high category 

ranging from 14–20. 

For convenience, we utilized the traditional classification 

of reptiles, so as to include turtles and crocodilians, 

as well as lizards and snakes (which in a modern context 

comprise a group). 

Recent Changes to the Mexican Reptile 

Fauna 

Our knowledge of the composition of the Mexican reptile 

fauna keeps changing due to the discovery of new 

species and the systematic adjustment of certain known 

species, which adds or subtracts from the list of taxa that 

appeared in Wilson et al. (2010). Since that time, the following 

nine species have been described: 

Gopherus morafkai: Murphy et al. (2011). ZooKeys 

113: 39–71. 

Anolis unilobatus: Köhler and Vesely (2010). Herpetologica 

66: 186–207. 

Gerrhonotus farri: Bryson and Graham (2010). Herpetologica 

66: 92–98. 

Scincella kikaapoda: García-Vásquez et al. (2010). 

Copeia 2010: 373–381. 

Lepidophyma cuicateca: Canseco-Márquez et al. 

(2008). Zootaxa 1750: 59–67. 

Lepidophyma zongolica: García-Vásquez et al. 

(2010). Zootaxa 2657: 47–54. 

Xenosaurus tzacualtipantecus: Woolrich-Piña and 

Smith (2012). Herpetologica 68: 551–559. 

Coniophanes michoacanensis: Flores-Villela and 

Smith (2009). Herpetologica 65: 404–412. 

Geophis occabus: Pavón-Vázquez et al. (2011). Herpetologica 

67: 332–343. 


07 



Abronia smithi. Smith’s arboreal alligator lizard is endemic to the Sierra Madre de Chiapas, in the southeastern portion of this 

state. Its EVS has been determined as 17, placing it in the middle of the high vulnerability category; the IUCN, however, lists this 

lizard as of Least Concern. This individual was found in cloud forest in the Reserva de la Biósfera El Triunfo, Chiapas. Photo by 

Elí García-Padilla. 


08 


Wilson et al. 

The following 18 taxa either have been resurrected from 

the synonymy of other taxa or placed in the synonymy of 

other taxa, and thus also change the number of species in 

the CMAR list: 

Phyllodactylus nocticolus: Blair et al. (2009). Zootaxa 

2027: 28–42. Resurrected as a distinct species 

from P. xanti. 

Sceloporus albiventris: Lemos-Espinal et al. (2004). 

Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society 39: 

164–168. Resurrected as a distinct species from S. 

horridus. 

Sceloporus bimaculatus: Leaché and Mulcahy (2007). 

Molecular Ecology 16: 5216–5233. Returned to 

the synonymy of S. magister. 

Plestiodon bilineatus: Feria-Ortiz et al. (2011). Herpetological 

Monographs 25: 25–51. Elevated to 

full species from P. brevirostris. 

Plestiodon dicei: Feria-Ortiz et al. (2011). Herpetological 

Monographs 25: 25–51. Elevated to full 

species from P. brevirostris. 

Plestiodon indubitus: Feria-Ortiz et al. (2011). Herpetological 

Monographs 25: 25–51. Elevated to full 

species from P. brevirostris. 

Plestiodon nietoi: Feria-Ortiz and García-Vázquez 

(2012). Zootaxa 3339: 57–68. Elevated to full species 

from P. brevirostris. 

Aspidoscelis stictogramma: Walker and Cordes 

(2011). Herpetological Review 42: 33–39. Elevated 

to full species from A. burti. 

Xenosaurus agrenon: Bhullar (2011). Bulletin of the 

Museum of Comparative Zoology 160: 65–181. Elevated 

to full species from X. grandis. 

Xenosaurus rackhami: Bhullar (2011). Bulletin of the 

Museum of Comparative Zoology 160: 65–181. Elevated 

to full species from X. grandis. 

Lampropeltis californiae: Pyron and Burbrink (2009). 

Zootaxa 2241: 22–32. Elevated to full species from 

L. getula. 

Lampropeltis holbrooki: Pyron and Burbrink (2009). 


L. getula. 

Lampropeltis splendida: Pyron and Burbrink (2009). 


L. getula. 

Sonora aequalis: Cox et al. (2012). Systematics and 

Biodiversity 10: 93–108. Placed in synonymy of S. 

mutabilis. 

Coniophanes taylori: Flores-Villela and Smith (2009). 

Herpetologica 65: 404–412. Resurrected as a distinct 

species from C. piceivittis. 

Leptodeira maculata: Daza et al. (2009). Molecular 

Phylogenetics and Evolution 53: 653–667. Synonymized 

with L. cussiliris. The correct name of the 

taxon, however, contrary to the decision of Daza et 

al. (2009), is L. maculata, inasmuch as this name 

was originated by Hallowell in 1861, and thus has 

priority. Leptodeira cussiliris, conversely, originally 

was named as a subspecies of L. annulata by 

Duellman (1958), and thus becomes a junior synonym 

of L. maculata. 

Crotalus ornatus: Anderson and Greenbaum (2012). 

Herpetological Monographs 26: 19–57. Resurrected 

as a distinct species from the synonymy of 

C. molossus. 

Mixcoatlus browni: Jadin et al. (2011). Zoological 

Journal of the Linnean Society 163: 943–958. Resurrected 

as a distinct species from M. barbouri. 

The following species have undergone status changes, 

including some taxa discussed in the addendum to Wilson 

and Johnson (2010): 

Anolis beckeri: Köhler (2010). Zootaxa 2354: 1–18. 

Resurrected as a distinct species from A. pentaprion, 

which thus no longer occurs in Mexico. 

Marisora brachypoda: Hedges and Conn (2012). Zootaxa 

3288: 1–244. Generic name originated for a 

group of species formerly allocated to Mabuya. 

Sphaerodactylus continentalis: McCranie and Hedges 

(2012). Zootaxa 3492: 65–76. Resurrection from 

synonymy of S. millepunctatus, which thus no longer 

occurs in Mexico. 

Holcosus chaitzami, H. festivus, and H. undulatus: 

Harvey et al. (2012). Zootaxa 3459: 1–156. Generic 

name originated for a group of species formerly 

allocated to Ameiva. 

Lampropeltis knoblochi: Burbrink et al. (2011). Molecular 

and Phylogenetic Evolution. 60: 445–454. 

Elevated to full species from L. pyromelana, which 

thus no longer is considered to occur in Mexico. 

Leptodeira cussiliris: Mulcahy. 2007. Biological 

Journal of the Linnean Society 92: 483–500. Removed 

from synonymy of L. annulata, which thus 

no longer occurs in Mexico. See Leptodeira maculata 

entry above. 

Leptodeira uribei: Reyes-Velasco and Mulcahy 

(2010). Herpetologica 66: 99–110. Removed from 

the genus Pseudoleptodeira. 

Rhadinella godmani: Myers. 2011. American Museum 

Novitates 3715: 1–33. Species placed in new 

genus from Rhadinaea. 

Rhadinella hannsteini: Myers (2011). American Museum 



Rhadinella kanalchutchan: Myers (2011). American 

Museum Novitates 3715: 1–33. Species placed in 

new genus from Rhadinaea. 

Rhadinella kinkelini: Myers (2011). American Museum 




09 



Barisia ciliaris. The widespread Sierra alligator lizard is endemic to Mexico, and is part of a complex that still is undergoing systematic 

study. Its distribution extends along the Sierra Madre Occidental from southern Chihuahua southward through western Durango 

and into central Jalisco, and thence into northern Guanajuato and central Querétaro and northward in the Sierra Madre Oriental to 

central Nuevo León. Its EVS has been calculated as 15, placing it in the lower portion of the high vulnerability category. The IUCN 

does not recognize this taxon at the species level, so it has to be considered as Not Evaluated. This individual is from 10.1 km WNW 

of La Congoja, Aguascalientes. Photo by Louis W. Porras. 

Lampropeltis mexicana. The endemic Mexican gray-banded kingsnake is distributed from the Sierra Madre Occidental in southern 

Durango and the Sierra Madre Oriental in extreme southeastern Coahuila southward to northern Guanajuato. Its EVS has been 

gauged as 15, placing it in the lower portion of the high vulnerability category, but its IUCN status, however, was determined as of 

Least Concern. This individual was found at Banderas de Aguila (N of Coyotes), Durango. Photo by Ed Cassano. 


010 


Wilson et al. 

Rhadinella lachrymans: Myers (2011). American Museum 



Rhadinella posadasi: Myers (2011). American Museum 



Rhadinella schistosa: Myers (2011). American Museum 



Sonora aemula: Cox et al. (2012). Systematics and 

Biodiversity 10: 93–108. Generic name changed 

from Procinura, which thus becomes a synonym 

of Sonora. 

Epictia goudotii: Adalsteinsson et al. (2009). Zootaxa 

2244: 1–50. Species placed in a new genus from 

Leptotyphlops. 

Rena boettgeri: Adalsteinsson et al. (2009). Zootaxa 



Rena bressoni: Adalsteinsson et al. (2009). Zootaxa 



Rena dissecta: Adalsteinsson et al. (2009). Zootaxa 



Rena dulcis: Adalsteinsson et al. (2009). Zootaxa 



Rena humilis: Adalsteinsson et al. (2009). Zootaxa 



Rena maxima: Adalsteinsson et al. (2009). Zootaxa 



Rena myopica: Adalsteinsson et al. (2009). Zootaxa 



Mixcoatlus barbouri: Jadin et al. (2011). Zoological 

Journal of the Linnean Society 163: 943–958. New 

genus for species removed from Cerrophidion. 

Mixcoatlus melanurus: Jadin et al. (2011). Zoological 

Journal of the Linnean Society 163: 943–958. New 

genus for species removed from Ophryacus. 

Results of the 2005 Mexican Reptile 

Assessment 

The 2005 Mexican Reptile Assessment “was carried out 

by zoologists from the non-profit conservation group 

NatureServe, working in partnership with reptile experts 

from universities, the World Conservation Union 

(IUCN), and Conservation International” (NatureServe 

Press Release; available at natureserve.org/aboutUS/ 

PressReleases). This study dealt with “721 species of 

lizards and snakes found in Mexico, the United States, 

and Canada.” Turtles and crocodilians previously were 

assessed. The press release indicated that, “about one 

in eight lizards and snakes (84 species) were found to 

be threatened with extinction [i.e., judged as Critically 

Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable], with another 

23 species labeled Near Threatened. For 121 lizards and 

snakes, the data are insufficient to allow a confident estimate 

of their extinction risk [i.e., judged as Data Deficient], 

while 493 species (about two-thirds of the total) 

are at present relatively secure [i.e., judged as Least Concern].” 

Thus, the percentages of species that fall into the 

standard IUCN assessment categories are as follows: CR, 

EN, and VU (11.7); NT (3.2); DD (16.8); and LC (68.4). 

Inasmuch as the above results include species that 

occur in the United States, Canada, and also those not 

evaluated in the survey, we extracted information from 

the IUCN Red List website on the ratings provided for 

Mexican species alone, and also used the “NE” designation 

for species not included in the 2005 assessment. We 

list these ratings in Appendix 1. 

Critique of the 2005 Results 

Our primary reason for writing this paper is to critique 

the results of the Mexican reptile assessment, as reported 

in the above press release, and to reassess the conservation 

status of these organisms using another conservation 

assessment tool. We begin our critique with the data 

placed in Appendix 1, which we accessed at the IUCN 

Red List website up until 26 May 2012. The taxa listed 

in this appendix are current to the present, based on the 

changes to the Mexican reptile fauna indicated above. 

The data on the IUCN ratings are summarized by family 

in Table 1 and discussed below. 

We based our examination on the understanding that 

the word “critique” does not necessarily imply an unfavorable 

evaluation of the results of the Mexican reptile 

assessment, as conducted using the IUCN categories and 

criteria. “Critique,” in the strict sense, implies neither 

praise nor censure, and is neutral in context. We understand, 

however, that the word sometimes is used in a negative 

sense, as noted in the 3 rd edition of The American 

Heritage Dictionary (1992: 443). Nonetheless, our usage 

simply means to render a careful analysis of the results. 

Presently, we recognize 849 species of reptiles in 

Mexico, including three crocodilians, 48 turtles, 413 lizards 

and amphisbaenians, and 385 snakes, arrayed in 42 

families. This total represents an increase of 19 species 

(14 lizards, five snakes) over the totals listed by Wilson 

and Johnson (2010). The number and percentage of each 

of these 849 species allocated to the IUCN categories, 

or not evaluated, are as follows: CR = 9 (1.1%); EN = 

38 (4.5%); VU = 45 (5.3%); NT = 26 (3.1%); LC = 424 

(49.9%); DD = 118 (13.9%); and NE (not evaluated) = 

189 (22.2%). The number and percentage of species collectively 

allocated to the three threat categories (CR, EN, 

and VU) are 92 and 10.8%, respectively. This number is 

exceeded by the 118 species placed in the DD category, 

and is slightly less than one-half of the 189 species not 


011 



Anolis dollfusianus. The coffee anole is distributed on the Pacific versant from southern Chiapas to western Guatemala. Its EVS has 

been determined as 13, placing it at the upper end of the medium vulnerability category, and its IUCN status is undetermined. This 

individual was found in cloud forest in Reserva de la Biósfera El Triunfo, Chiapas. Photo by Elí García-Padilla. 


012 


Table 1. IUCN Red List categorizations for the Mexican reptile families (including crocodilians, turtles, lizards, and snakes). 

Families 

Number of 

species 

IUCN Red List categorizations 

Critically 

Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Near 

Threatened 

Least 

Concern 

Data 

Deficient 

Not 

Evaluated 

Alligatoridae 1 — — — — 1 — — 

Crocodylidae 2 — — 1 — 1 — — 

Subtotals 3 — — 1 — 2 — — 

Cheloniidae 5 2 2 1 — — — — 

Chelydridae 1 — — 1 — — — — 

Dermatemydidae 1 1 — — — — — — 

Dermochelyidae 1 1 — — — — — — 

Emydidae 15 — 2 4 2 2 1 4 

Geoemydidae 3 — — — 2 — — 1 

Kinosternidae 17 — — — 6 6 3 2 

Testudinidae 3 — — 1 — 1 — 1 

Trionychidae 2 — — — — 1 — 1 

Subtotals 48 4 4 7 10 10 4 9 

Biporidae 3 — — — — 3 — — 

Anguidae 48 — 10 4 1 17 10 6 

Anniellidae 2 — 1 — — 1 — — 

Corytophanidae 6 — — — — 1 — 5 

Crotaphytidae 10 — 1 1 8 

Dactyloidae 50 — 3 2 — 16 12 17 

Dibamidae 1 — — — — 1 — — 

Eublepharidae 7 — — — — 6 — 1 

Gymnophthalmidae 

1 — — — — — — 1 

Helodermatidae 2 — — — 1 1 — — 

Iguanidae 19 1 — 2 2 3 — 11 

Mabuyidae 1 — — — — — — 1 

Phrynosomatidae 135 1 5 8 6 89 6 20 

Phyllodactylidae 15 — — — 1 10 1 3 

Scincidae 23 — — 1 — 12 5 5 

Sphaerodactylidae 4 — — — — — — 4 

Sphenomorphidae 6 — — — — 3 — 3 

Teiidae 46 — — 3 1 35 2 5 

Xantusiidae 25 — 1 2 — 6 8 8 

Xenosauridae 9 — 2 1 — 2 1 3 

Subtotals 413 2 23 24 12 214 45 93 

Boidae 2 — — — — 1 — 1 

Colubridae 136 2 3 1 3 77 18 32 

Dipsadidae 115 — 3 3 — 44 38 27 

Elapidae 19 — — 1 — 13 4 1 

Leptotyphlopidae 8 — — — — 5 1 2 

Loxocemidae 1 — — — — — — 1 

Natricidae 33 — 2 3 — 20 3 5 

Typhlopidae 2 — — — — 2 — — 

Ungaliophiidae 2 — — 1 — — — 1 

Viperidae 59 1 3 4 1 33 4 13 

Xenodontidae 8 — — — — 3 1 4 

Subtotals 385 3 11 13 4 198 69 87 

Totals 849 9 38 45 26 424 118 189 


013 



Mastigodryas cliftoni. The endemic Clifton’s lizard eater is found along the Pacific versant from extreme southeastern Sonora 

southward to Jalisco. Its EVS has been determined as 14, placing it at the lower end of the high vulnerability category, and its IUCN 

status has not been assessed. This individual is from El Carrizo, Sinaloa. Photo by Ed Cassano. 

Geophis dugesi. The endemic Dugès’ earthsnake occurs from extreme southwestern Chihuahua along the length of the Sierra 

Madre Occidental southward to Michoacán. Its EVS has been assessed as 13, placing it at the upper end of the medium vulnerability 

category, and its IUCN status has been determined as of Least Concern. This individual was found at El Carrizo, Sinaloa. 

Photo by Ed Cassano. 


014 


Wilson et al. 

evaluated on the website. Thus, of the total of 849 species, 

307 (36.2%) are categorized either as DD or NE. 

As a consequence, only 542 (63.8%) of the total number 

are allocated to one of the other five categories (CR, EN, 

VU, NT, or LC). 

These results provided us with a substantially incomplete 

picture of the conservation status of reptiles 

in Mexico, which sharply contrasts the picture offered 

for Central American reptiles (the other major portion 

of Mesoamerica), as recorded in Wilson et al. (2010). 

This situation is underscored by the relatively low species 

numbers of Mexican reptiles placed in any of the 

three IUCN threat categories. In addition, a substantial 

proportion (13.9%) of the Mexican species are assessed 

as DD, indicating that insufficient information exists for 

the IUCN rating system to be employed. Finally, 189 

species (22.3%) are not evaluated, largely because they 

also occur in Central America (and in some cases, also 

in South America) and will be assessed presumably in 

future workshops, which was the case for most of these 

species when they were assessed in a Central American 

workshop held on May 6–10, 2012; as yet, the results of 

that assessment are not available. 

Given that only 10.8% of the Mexican species were 

allocated to one of the three IUCN threat categories 

and that about six in 10 species in the country are endemic, 

we examined the IUCN ratings reported for species 

inhabiting five of the countries in Central America 

(see Wilson et al. 2010). For Guatemala, Acevedo et al. 

(2010) reported that 56 reptile species (23.0%) of a total 

of 244 then recognized were assigned to one of the three 

threat categories. Of 237 Honduran reptiles assessed by 

Townsend and Wilson (2010), 74 (31.2%) were placed in 

one of the threat categories. Sunyer and Köhler (2010) 

listed 165 reptile species from Nicaragua, a country with 

only three endemic reptiles known at the time, but judged 

10 of them (6.1%) as threatened. Of 231 reptile species 

assessed by Sasa et al. (2010) for Costa Rica, 36 (15.6%) 

were placed in a threat category. Finally, Jaramillo et 

al. (2010) placed 22 of 248 Panamanian reptile species 

(8.9%) in the threat categories. Collectively, 17% of the 

reptile species in these countries were assessed in one of 

the three threat categories. 

The number of species in Central America placed 

into one of the threat categories apparently is related to 

the number allocated to the DD category. Although the 

DD category is stated explicitly as a non-threat category 

(IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria 2010), its use 

highlights species so poorly known that one of the other 

IUCN categories cannot be applied. The percentage of 

DD species in the reptile faunas of each of the five Central 

American countries discussed above ranges from 0.9 

in Honduras to 40.3 in Panama. Intermediate figures are 

as follows: Nicaragua = 1.2; Guatemala = 5.3; Costa Rica 

= 34.2. These data apparently indicate that the conservation 

status of the Costa Rican and Panamanian reptile 

faunas are by far more poorly understood than those of 

Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. 

The length of time for placing these DD species into 

another category is unknown, but a reassessment must 

await targeted surveys for the species involved. Given 

the uncertainty implied by the use of this category supplemented 

by that of NE species in Mexico, we believe 

there is ample reason to reassess the conservation status 

of the Mexican reptiles using the Environmental Vulnerability 

Score (EVS). 

EVS for Mexican Reptiles 

The EVS provides several advantages for assessing the 

conservation status of amphibians and reptiles. First, this 

measure can be applied as soon as a species is described, 

because the information necessary for its application 

generally is known at that point. Second, the calculation 

of the EVS is an economical undertaking and does not 

require expensive, grant-supported workshops, such as 

those held in connection with the Global Reptile Assessment 

sponsored by the IUCN. Third, the EVS is predictive, 

because it provides a measure of susceptibility to 

anthropogenic pressure, and can pinpoint taxa in need of 

immediate attention and continuing scrutiny. Finally, this 

measure is simple to calculate and does not “penalize” 

species that are poorly known. One disadvantage of the 

EVS, however, is that it was not designed for use with 

marine species. So, the six species of marine turtles and 

two of marine snakes occurring on the shores of Mexico 

could not be assessed. Nevertheless, given the increasing 

rates of human population growth and environmental 

deterioration, an important consideration for a given species 

is to have a conservation assessment measure that 

can be applied simply, quickly, and economically. 

We calculated the EVS for each of the 841 species 

of terrestrial reptiles occurring in Mexico (Wilson and 

Johnson 2010, and updated herein; see Appendix 1). In 

this appendix, we listed the scores alongside the IUCN 

categorizations from the 2005 Mexican Reptile Assessment, 

as available on the IUCN Red List website (www. 

iucnredlist.org) and as otherwise determined by us (i.e., 

as NE species). 

Theoretically, the EVS can range from 3 to 20. A score 

of 3 is indicative of a species that ranges widely both 

within and outside of Mexico, occupies eight or more 

forest formations, and is fossorial and usually escapes 

human notice. Only one such species (the leptotyphlopid 

snake Epictia goudotii) is found in Mexico. At the 

other extreme, a score of 20 relates to a species known 

only from the vicinity of the type locality, occupies a 

single forest formation, and is exploited commercially or 

non-commercially for hides, meat, eggs and/or the pet 

trade. Also, only one such species (the trionychid turtle 

Apalone atra) occurs in Mexico. All of the other scores 

fall within the range of 4–19. We summarized the EVS 

for reptile species in Mexico by family in Table 2. 


015 



Rhadinaea laureata. The endemic crowned graceful brownsnake is distributed along the Sierra Madre Occidental from west-central 

Durango southward into the Tranverse Volcanic Axis as far as central Michoacán, Morelos, and the Distrito Federal. Its EVS has 

been calculated as 12, placing it in the upper portion of the medium vulnerability category, and its IUCN status has been determined 

as Least Concern. This individual is from Rancho Las Canoas, Durango. Photo by Louis W. Porras. 

Thamnophis mendax. The endemic Tamaulipan montane gartersnake is restricted to a small range in the Sierra Madre Oriental in 

southwestern Tamaulipas. Its EVS has been determined as 14, placing it at the lower end of the high vulnerability category, and its 

IUCN status has been assessed as Endangered. This individual came from La Gloria, in the Gómez Farías region of Tamaulipas. 

Photo by Ed Cassano. 


016 


Families 

Number 

of 

species 

Environmental Vulnerability Scores 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 

Alligatoridae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — 

Crocodylidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — 1 1 — — — — — — 

Subtotals 3 — — — — — — — — — — 1 1 — 1 — — — — 

Subtotal % — — — — — — — — — — — 33.3 33.3 — 33.3 — — — — 

Chelydridae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — 

Wilson et al. 

Table 2. Environmental Vulnerability Scores for the Mexican reptile species (including crocodilians, turtles, lizards, and snakes, but excluding the 

marine species), arranged by family. Shaded area to the left encompasses low vulnerability scores, and to the right high vulnerability scores. 

1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — 

Emydidae 15 — — — — — — — — — — 1 1 1 2 1 4 5 — 

Geoemydidae 3 — — — — — 1 — — — — 1 1 — — — — — — 

Kinosternidae 17 — — — — — — — 3 1 1 1 6 3 2 — — — — 

Testudinidae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — 1 1 — 

Trionychidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — 1 

Subtotals 42 — — — — — 1 — 3 1 1 3 8 6 4 3 5 6 1 

Subtotal % — — — — — — 2.4 — 7.1 2.4 2.4 7.1 19.0 14.3 9.5 7.1 11.9 14.3 2.4 

Bipedidae 3 — — — — — — — — — 1 — 2 — — — — — — 

Anguidae 48 — — — 1 — — 1 2 — 1 3 6 11 7 8 8 — — 

Anniellidae 2 — — — — — — — — — 1 1 — — — — — — — 

Dermatemydidae 

Corytophanidae 

6 — — — — 1 1 1 — 2 — 1 — — — — — — — 

Crotaphytidae 

10 — — — — — — 1 — 1 2 2 — — 4 — — — 

Dactyloidae 50 — — — — 1 2 3 3 — 3 8 3 8 15 4 — — — 

Dibamidae 1 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — 

Eublepharidae 

7 — — — — — — 1 — 1 — — 2 1 — 1 1 — — 

Gymnophthalmidae 

1 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 

Helodermatidae 

2 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — 1 — — — — — 

Iguanidae 19 — — — — — 1 — — 1 2 1 1 4 4 2 1 2 — 

Mabuyidae 1 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Phrynosomatidae 

135 — — 1 1 2 1 3 3 11 18 22 16 23 23 11 — — — 

Phyllodactylidae 

15 — — — — — 1 — 2 — — 1 1 4 5 1 — — — 

Scincidae 23 — — — — — — — 1 4 5 2 4 4 2 1 — — — 

Sphaerodactylidae 

4 — — — — — — — 1 1 1 1 — — — — — — — 

Sphenomorphidae 

6 — — — — 1 1 — — 1 1 1 — — — 1 — — — 

Teiidae 46 — — — — 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 14 7 6 7 — — — 

Xantusiidae 25 — — — — — 2 — — 2 1 3 4 3 9 1 — — — 

Xenosauridae 9 — — — — — — 1 — 1 1 — 1 1 3 1 — — — 

Subtotals 413 — — 1 3 6 11 13 14 28 39 49 54 67 78 38 10 2 — 

Subtotal % — — — 0.2 0.7 1.5 2.7 3.1 3.4 6.8 9.4 11.9 13.1 16.2 18.9 9.2 2.4 0.5 — 

Boidae 2 — — — — — — — 2 — — — — — — — — — — 


017 



Table 2. Continued. 

Colubridae 136 — — 4 7 3 6 10 15 8 8 18 22 14 16 5 — — — 

Dipsadidae 115 — 1 3 3 3 8 4 7 6 13 14 13 19 15 6 — — — 

Elapidae 17 — — — — — 2 — — 2 — 2 2 3 — 2 3 1 — 

Leptotyphlopidae 

8 1 — — — — 1 — — 2 — 2 2 — — — — — — 

Loxocemidae 1 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — 

Natricidae 33 — — — — 3 1 — 2 2 2 3 6 7 4 2 1 — — 

Typhlopidae 2 — — — — — — — — 1 1 — — — — — — — — 

Ungaliophiidae 

2 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — 1 — — — — — 

Viperidae 59 — — — — — 1 2 1 3 7 5 6 6 9 8 5 6 — 

Xenodontidae 8 — — — — — — 1 1 1 — 3 1 — — 1 — — — 

Subtotals 383 1 1 7 10 9 19 17 30 25 31 47 52 50 44 24 9 7 — 

Subtotal % — 0.3 0.3 1.8 2.6 2.3 5.0 4.4 7.8 6.5 8.1 12.3 13.6 13.1 11.5 6.3 2.3 1.8 — 

Totals 841 1 1 8 13 15 31 30 47 54 71 100 115 123 127 65 24 15 1 

Total % — 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.5 1.8 3.7 3.6 5.6 6.4 8.4 11.9 13.7 14.6 15.1 7.7 2.9 1.8 0.1 

The range and average EVS for the major reptile 

groups are as follows: crocodilians = 13–16 (14.3); turtles 

= 8–20 (15.3); lizards = 5–19 (13.8); and snakes = 

3–19 (12.8). On average, turtles are most susceptible and 

snakes least susceptible to environmental degradation, 

with lizards and crocodilians falling in between. The average 

scores either are at the upper end of the medium 

category, in the case of snakes and lizards, or at the lower 

end of the high category, in the case of crocodilians and 

turtles. The average EVS for all the reptile species is 

13.4, a value close to the lower end of the high range of 

vulnerability. 

Nineteen percent of the turtle species were assigned 

an EVS of 14, at the lower end of the high vulnerability 

category. For lizards, the respective figures are 18.9% 

and 16, about midway through the range for the high vulnerability 

category; for snakes, the values are 13.6% and 

14. 

The total EVS values generally increase from the low 

end of the scale (3) to about midway through the high end 

(16), with a single exception (a decrease from 31 to 29 

species at scores 8 and 9), then decrease thereafter to the 

highest score (20). The peak number of taxa (127) was 

assigned an EVS of 16, a score that falls well within the 

range of high vulnerability. 

Of the 841 total taxa that could be scored, 99 (11.8%) 

fall into the low vulnerability category, 272 (32.3%) in 

the medium category, and 470 (55.9%) in the high category. 

Thus, more than one-half of the reptile species 

in Mexico were judged as having the highest degree of 

vulnerability to environmental degradation, and slightly 

more than one-tenth of the species the lowest degree. 

This increase in absolute and relative numbers from 

the low portion, through the medium portion, to the high 

portion varies somewhat with the results published for 

both the amphibians and reptiles for some Central American 

countries (see Wilson et al. 2010). Acevedo et al. 

(2010) reported 89 species (23.2%) with low scores, 179 

(46.7%) with medium scores, and 115 (30.0%) with high 

scores for Guatemala. The same trend is seen in Honduras, 

where Townsend and Wilson (2010) indicated the 

following absolute and relative figures in the same order, 

again for both amphibians and reptiles: 71 (19.7%); 169 

(46.8%); and 121 (33.5%). Comparable figures for the 

Panamanian herpetofauna (Jaramillo et al. 2010) are: 143 

(33.3%); 165 (38.4%); and 122 (28.4%). 

The principal reason that EVS values are relatively 

high in Mexico is because of the high level of endemism 

and the relatively narrow range of habitat occurrence. 

Of the 485 endemic species in Mexico (18 turtles, 264 

lizards, 203 snakes), 124 (25.6%) were assigned a geographic 

distribution score of 6, signifying that these creatures 

are known only from the vicinity of their respective 

type localities; the remainder of the endemic species (361 

[74.4%]) are more broadly distributed within the country 

(Appendix 1). Of the 841 terrestrial Mexican reptile species, 

212 (25.2%) are limited in ecological distribution to 

one formation (Appendix 1). These features of geographic 

and ecological distribution are of tremendous significance 

for efforts at conserving the immensely important 

Mexican reptile fauna. 

Comparison of IUCN Categorizations and 

EVS Values 

Since the IUCN categorizations and EVS values both 

measure the degree of environmental threat impinging on 

a given species, a certain degree of correlation between 

the results of these two measures is expected. Townsend 

and Wilson (2010) demonstrated this relationship with 

reference to the Honduran herpetofauna, by comparing 

the IUCN and EVS values for 362 species of amphibians 

and terrestrial reptiles in their table 4. Perusal of the data 

in this table indicates, in a general way, that an increase in 


018 


Wilson et al. 

Crotalus catalinensis. The endemic Catalina Island rattlesnake is restricted in distribution to Santa Catalina Island in the Gulf of 

California. Its EVS has been determined as 19, placing it in the upper portion of the high vulnerability category, and its IUCN status 

as Critically Endangered. Photo by Louis W. Porras. 

Crotalus stejnegeri. The endemic Sinaloan long-tailed rattlesnake is restricted to a relatively small range in western Mexico, where 

it is found in the western portion of the Sierra Madre Occidental in western Durango and southeastern Sinaloa. Its EVS has been 

determined as 17, placing it in the middle of the high vulnerability category, and its IUCN status as Vulnerable. This individual came 

from Plomosas, Sinaloa. Photo by Louis W. Porras. 


019 



Table 3. Comparison of the Environmental Vulnerability Scores (EVS) and IUCN categorizations for terrestrial Mexican reptiles. 

Shaded area on top encompasses the low vulnerability category scores, and at the bottom high vulnerability category scores. 

IUCN categories 

EVS Critically 

Near Least Data Not Totals 

Endangered Vulnerable 

Endangered 

Threatened Concern Deficient Evaluated 

3 — — — — — — 1 1 

4 — — — — 1 — — 1 

5 — — — — 3 — 5 8 

6 — — — — 5 — 8 13 

7 — — — — 5 — 10 15 

8 — — — — 20 — 11 31 

9 — — 1 — 16 — 13 30 

10 — — — — 25 1 21 47 

11 — — 1 1 36 2 14 54 

12 — 1 1 — 49 4 16 71 

13 — 2 5 3 66 5 19 100 

14 — 5 6 8 65 15 16 115 

15 — 13 11 7 54 25 13 123 

16 — 8 3 6 48 38 24 127 

17 4 3 11 1 21 14 11 65 

18 — 2 2 — 4 12 4 24 

19 2 2 3 — 4 2 2 15 

20 — — — — — — 1 1 

Totals 6 36 44 26 422 118 189 841 

EVS values is associated with a corresponding increase 

in the degree of threat, as measured by the IUCN categorizations. 

If average EVS values are determined for the 

IUCN categories in ascending degrees of threat, the following 

figures result: LC (206 spp.) = 10.5; NT (16 spp.) 

= 12.9; VU (18 spp.) = 12.5; EN (64 spp.) = 14.1; CR 

(50 spp.) = 15.1; and EX (2 spp.) = 16.0. The broad correspondence 

between the two measures is evident. Also 

of interest is that the average EVS score for the six DD 

species listed in the table is 13.7, a figure closest to that 

for the EN category (14.1), which suggests that if and 

when these species are better known, they likely will be 

judged as EN or CR. 

In order to assess whether such a correspondence exists 

between these two conservation measures for the 

Mexican reptiles, we constructed a table (Table 3) similar 

to table 4 in Townsend and Wilson (2010). Important 

similarities and differences exist between these tables. 

The most important similarity is in general appearance, 

i.e., an apparent general trend of decreasing EVS values 

with a decrease in the degree of threat, as indicated by the 

IUCN categorizations. This similarity, however, is more 

apparent than real. Our Table 3 deals only with Mexican 

reptiles, excludes the IUCN category EX (because 

presently this category does not apply to any Mexican 

species), and includes a NE category that we appended 

to the standard set of IUCN categories. Apart from these 

obvious differences, however, a closer examination of 

the data distribution in our Table 3 reveals more significant 

differences in the overall picture of the conservation 

status of the Mexican reptiles when using the IUCN 

categorizations, as opposed to the EVS, especially when 

viewed against the backdrop of results in Townsend and 

Wilson (2010: table 4). 

1. Nature of the IUCN categorizations in 

Table 3 

Unlike the Townsend and Wilson (2010) study, we introduced 

another category to encompass the Mexican 

reptile species that were not evaluated in the 2005 IUCN 

study. The category is termed “Not Evaluated” (IUCN 

2010) and a large proportion of the species (189 of 841 

Mexican terrestrial reptiles [22.5%]) are placed in this 

category. Thus, in the 2005 study more than one-fifth of 

the species were not placed in one of the standard IUCN 

categories, leaving their conservation status as undetermined. 

In addition, a sizable proportion of species (118 

[14.0%]) were placed in the DD category, meaning their 

conservation status also remains undetermined. When 

the species falling into these two categories are added, 

evidently 307 (36.5%) of the 841 Mexican terrestrial reptiles 

were not placed in one of the IUCN threat assessment 

categories in the 2005 study. This situation leaves 

less than two-thirds of the species as evaluated. 


020 


Wilson et al. 

Xantusia sanchezi. The endemic Sanchez’s night lizard is known only from extreme southwestern Zacatecas to central Jalisco. This 

lizard’s EVS has been assessed as 16, placing it in the middle of the high vulnerability category, but its IUCN status has been determined 

as Least Concern. This individual was discovered at Huaxtla, Jalisco. Photo by Daniel Cruz-Sáenz. 


021 



2. Pattern of mean EVS vs. IUCN categorizations 

In order to more precisely determine the relationship between 

the IUCN categorizations and the EVS, we calculated 

the mean EVS for each of the IUCN columns in Table 

3, including the NE species and the total species. The 

results are as follows: CR (6 spp.) = 17.7 (range 17–19); 

EN (36 spp.) = 15.4 (12–19); VU (44 spp.) = 15.3 (10– 

19); NT (26 spp.) = 14.6 (11–17); LC (422 spp.) = 13.0 

(4–19); DD (118 spp.) = 15.5 (10–19); and NE (189 spp.) 

= 12.0 (3–20); and Total (841 spp.) = 13.3 (3–20). The 

results of these data show that the mean EVS decreases 

from the CR category (17.7) through the EN category 

(15.4) to the VU category (15.3), but only slightly between 

the EN and VU categories. They also continue to 

decrease from the NT category (14.6) to the LC category 

(13.0). This pattern of decreasing values was expected. 

In addition, as with the Townsend and Wilson (2010) 

Honduran study, the mean value for the DD species 

(15.5) is closest to that for the EN species (15.4). To us, 

this indicates what we generally have suspected about the 

DD category, i.e., that the species placed in this category 

likely will fall either into the EN or the CR categories 

when (and if) their conservation status is better understood. 

Placing species in this category is of little benefit 

to determining their conservation status, however, since 

once sequestered with this designation their significance 

tends to be downplayed. This situation prevailed once the 

results of the 2005 assessment were reported, given that 

the 118 species evaluated as DD were ignored in favor of 

the glowing report that emerged in the NatureServe press 

release (see above). If the data in Table 3 for the DD species 

is conflated with that for the 86 species placed in one 

of the three threat categories, the range of EVS values 

represented remains the same as for the threat categories 

alone, i.e., 10–19, and the mean becomes 15.5; the same 

as that indicated above for the DD species alone and only 

one-tenth of a point from the mean score for EN species 

(15.4). On the basis of this analysis, we predict that if 

a concerted effort to locate and assess the 118 DD species 

were undertaken, that most or all of them would be 

shown to qualify for inclusion in one of the three IUCN 

threat categories. If that result were obtained, then the 

number of Mexican reptile species falling into the IUCN 

threat categories would increase from 86 to 204, which 

would represent 24.3% of the reptile fauna. 

Based on the range and mean of the EVS values, the 

pattern for the LC species appears similar to that of the 

NE species, as the ranges are 4–19 and 3–20 and the 

means are 13.0 and 12.0, respectively. If these score distributions 

are conflated, then the EVS range becomes the 

broadest possible (3–20) and the mean becomes 12.7, 

which lies close to the upper end of the medium vulnerability 

category. While we cannot predict what would 

happen to the NE species once they are evaluated (presumably 

most species were evaluated during the Central 

American reptile assessment of May, 2012), because they 

were evaluated mostly by a different group of herpetologists 

from those present at the 2005 Mexican assessment, 

we suspect that many (if not most) would be judged as 

LC species. A more discerning look at both the LC and 

NE species might demonstrate that many should be partitioned 

into other IUCN categories, rather than the LC. 

Our reasoning is that LC and NE species exhibit a range 

of EVS values that extend broadly across low, medium, 

and high categories of environmental vulnerability. The 

number and percentage of LC species that fall into these 

three EVS categories are as follows: Low (range 3–9) 

= 50 spp. (11.8%); Medium (10–13) = 176 (41.7); and 

High (14–20) = 196 (46.5). For the NE species, the following 

figures were obtained: Low = 48 (25.8); Medium 

= 68 (36.6); and High = 70 (37.6). The percentage values 

are reasonably similar to one another, certainly increasing 

in the same direction from low through medium to 

high. 

Considering the total number of species, 99 (11.8%) 

fall into the low vulnerability category, 272 (32.3%) into 

the medium vulnerability category, and 470 (55.9%) into 

the high vulnerability category. These results differ significantly 

from those from the 2005 study. If the three 

IUCN threat categories can be considered most comparable 

to the high vulnerability EVS category, then 86 species 

fall into these three threat categories, which is 16.1% 

of the total 534 species in the CR, EN, VU, NT, and LC 

categories. If the NT category can be compared with the 

medium vulnerability EVS category, then 26 species fall 

into this IUCN category (4.9% of the 534 species). Finally, 

if the LC category is comparable to the low vulnerability 

EVS category, then 422 species (79.0%) fall 

into this IUCN category. Clearly, the results of the EVS 

analysis are nearly the reverse of those obtained from the 

IUCN categorizations discussed above. 

Discussion 

In the Introduction we indicated that our interest in conducting 

this study began after the publication of Wilson 

et al. (2010), when we compared the data resulting from 

that publication with a summary of the results of a 2005 

Mexican reptile assessment conducted under the auspices 

of the IUCN, and later referenced in a 2007 press 

release by NatureServe, a supporter of the undertaking. 

Our intention was not to critique the IUCN system of 

conservation assessment (i.e., the well-known IUCN categorizations), 

but rather to critique the results of the 2005 

assessment. We based our critique on the use of the Environmental 

Vulnerability Score (EVS), a measure used 

by Wilson and McCranie (2004) and in several Central 

American chapters in Wilson et al. (2010). 

Since the IUCN assessment system uses a different 

set of criteria than the EVS measure, we hypothesized 

that the latter could be used to test the results of the former. 

On this basis, we reassessed the conservation status 


022 


Wilson et al. 

of the reptiles of Mexico, including, by our definition of 

convenience, crocodilians, turtles, lizards, and snakes, 

by determining the EVS value for each terrestrial species 

(since the measure was not designed for use with 

marine species). Based on our updating of the species 

list in Wilson and Johnson (2010), our species list for 

this study consisted of 841 species. We then developed 

an EVS measure applicable to Mexico, and employed it 

to calculate the scores indicated in Appendix 1. 

Our analysis of the EVS values demonstrated that 

when the scores are arranged in low, medium, and high 

vulnerability categories, the number and percentage 

of species increases markedly from the low category, 

through the medium category, to the high category (Table 

2). When these scores (Table 3) are compared to the 

IUCN categorizations documented in Table 1, however, 

an inverse correlation essentially exists between the results 

obtained from using the two methods. Since both 

methods are designed to render conservation status assessments, 

the results would be expected to corroborate 

one another. 

We are not in a position to speculate on the reason(s) 

for this lack of accord, and simply are offering a reassessment 

of the conservation status of Mexico’s reptile species 

based on another measure (EVS) that has been used 

in a series of studies since it was introduced by Wilson 

and McCranie (1992), and later employed by McCranie 

and Wilson (2002), Wilson and McCranie (2004), and 

several chapters in Wilson et al. (2010). Nonetheless, we 

believe our results provide a significantly better assessment 

of the conservation status Mexico’s reptiles than 

those obtained in the 2005 IUCN assessment. We consider 

our results more consonant with the high degree of 

reptile endemism in the country, and the restricted geographic 

and ecological ranges of a sizable proportion of 

these species. We also believe that our measure is more 

predictive, and reflective of impact expected from continued 

habitat fragmentation and destruction in the face 

of continuing and unregulated human population growth. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Our conclusions and conservation recommendations 

draw substantially from those promulgated by Wilson 

and Townsend (2010), which were provided for the entire 

Mesoamerican herpetofauna; thus, we refined them 

specifically for the Mexican reptile fauna, as follows: 

1. In the introduction we noted the human population 

size and density expected for Mexico in half a century, 

and no indication is available to suggest that 

this trend will be ameliorated. Nonetheless, although 

66% of married women in Mexico (ages 15–49) use 

modern methods of contraception, the current fertility 

rate (2.3) remains above the replacement level (2.0) 

and 29% of the population is below the age of 15, 1% 

above the average for Latin America and the Caribbean 

(2011 PRB World Population Data Sheet). 

2. Human population growth is not attuned purposefully 

to resource availability, and the rate of regeneration 

depends on the interaction of such societal factors as 

the level of urbanization; in Mexico, the current level 

is 78%, and much of it centered in the Distrito Federal 

(2011 PRB World Population Data Sheet). This 

statistic is comparable to that of the United States 

(79%) and Canada (80%), and indicates that 22% of 

Mexico’s population lives in rural areas. Given that 

the level of imports and exports are about equal (in 

2011, imports = 350.8 billion US dollars, exports = 

349.7 billion; CIA World Factbook 2012), the urban 

population depends on the basic foodstuffs that the 

rural population produces. An increase in human population 

demands greater agricultural production and/ 

or efficiency, as well as a greater conversion of wild 

lands to farmlands. This scenario leads to habitat loss 

and degradation, and signals an increase in biodiversity 

decline. 

3. Although the rate of conversion of natural habitats to 

agricultural and urban lands varies based on the methods 

and assumptions used for garnering this determination, 

most estimates generally are in agreement. 

The Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales 

(SEMARNAT; Secretariat of Environment and 

Natural Resources; semarnat.gob.mx) has attempted 

to measure the rate of deforestation from 1978 to 

2005, with estimates ranging from about 200,000 to 

1,500,000 ha/yr. Most estimates, however, range from 

about 200,000 to 400,000 ha/yr. A study conducted 

for the years 2000 to 2005 reported an average rate of 

260,000 ha/yr. Another source of information (www. 

rainforests.mongabay.com) reports that from 1990 to 

2010 Mexico lost an average of 274,450 ha (0.39% of 

the total 64,802,000 ha of forest in the country), and 

during that period lost 7.8% of its forest cover (ca. 

5,489,000 ha). No matter the precise figures for forest 

loss, this alarming situation signifies considerable 

endangerment for organismic populations, including 

those of reptiles. About one-third of Mexico is (or 

was) covered by forest, and assuming a constant rate 

of loss all forests would be lost in about 256 years 

(starting from 1990), or in the year 2246. Forest loss 

in Mexico, therefore, contributes significantly to the 

global problem of deforestation. 

4. As a consequence, no permanent solution to the problem 

of biodiversity decline (including herpetofaunal 

decline) will be found in Mexico (or elsewhere in the 

world) until humans recognize overpopulation as the 

major cause of degradation and loss of humankind’s 

fellow organisms. Although this problem is beyond 

the scope of this investigation, solutions will not be 


023 



available until humanity begins to realize the origin, 

nature, and consequences of the mismatch between 

human worldviews and how our planet functions. Wilson 

(1988) labeled this problem “the mismanagement 

of the human mind.” Unfortunately, such realignment 

is only envisioned by a small cadre of humans, so 

crafting provisional solutions to problems like biodiversity 

decline must proceed while realizing the ultimate 

solution is not available, and might never be. 

5. Mexico is the headquarters of herpetofaunal diversity 

and endemism in Mesoamerica, which supports 

the conclusions of Ochoa-Ochoa and Flores-Villela 

(2006), Wilson and Johnson (2010), and the authors 

of four chapters on the Mexican herpetofauna in Wilson 

et al. (2010). Furthermore, field research and systematic 

inquiry in Mexico will continue to augment 

the levels of diversity and endemicity, which are of 

immense conservation significance because reptiles 

are significant contributors to the proper functioning 

of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Gibbons et al. 

2000). From a political and economic perspective, 

diversity and endemism are important components 

of Mexico’s patrimony, as well as a potential source 

of income from ecotourism and related activities. Investing 

in such income sources should appeal to local 

stakeholders, as it provides an incentive for preserving 

natural habitats (Wilson 2011). 

6. Given that the ultimate solutions to biodiversity decline 

are unlikely to be implemented in any pertinent 

time frame, less effective solutions must be found. 

Vitt and Caldwell (2009) discussed a suite of approaches 

for preserving and managing threatened 

species, including the use of reserves and corridors 

to save habitats, undertaking captive management 

initiatives, and intentionally releasing individuals to 

establish or enlarge populations of target species. Unquestionably, 

preserving critical habitat is the most 

effective and least costly means of attempting to rescue 

threatened species. Captive management is less 

effective, and has been described as a last-ditch effort 

to extract a given species from the extinction vortex 

(Campbell et al. 2006). Efforts currently are underway 

in segments of the herpetological community to 

develop programs for ex situ and in situ captive management 

of some of the most seriously threatened herpetofaunal 

species, but such efforts will succeed only 

if these species can be reproduced in captivity and 

reintroduced into their native habitats. In the case of 

Mexico, Ochoa-Ochoa, et al. (2011: 2710) commented 

that, “given the current speed of land use change, 

we cannot expect to save all species from extinction, 

and so must decide how to focus limited resources to 

prevent the greatest number of extinctions,” and for 

amphibians proposed “a simple conservation triage 

method that: evaluates the threat status for 145 microendemic 

Mexican amphibian species; assesses current 

potential threat abatement responses derived from 

existing policy instruments and social initiatives; and 

combines both indicators to provide broad-scale conservation 

strategies that would best suit amphibian 

micro-endemic buffered areas (AMBAs) in Mexico.” 

These authors concluded, however, that a quarter of 

the micro-endemic amphibians “urgently need fieldbased 

verification to confirm their persistence due to 

the small percentage of remnant natural vegetation 

within the AMBAs, before we may sensibly recommend” 

a conservation strategy. Their tool also should 

apply to Mexican reptiles, and likely would produce 

similar results. 

7. The preferred method for preserving threatened species 

is to protect habitats by establishing protected 

areas, both in the public and private sectors. Habitat 

protection allows for a nearly incalculable array of relationships 

among organisms. Like most countries in 

the world, Mexico, has developed a governmentally 

established system of protected areas. Fortunately, 

studies have identified “critical conservation zones” 

(Ceballos et al. 2009), as well as gaps in their coverage 

(Koleff et al. 2009). The five reserves of greatest 

conservation importance for reptiles are the Los 

Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, the islands of the Gulf of 

California in the UNESCO World Heritage Site, the 

Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve, the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán 

Biosphere Reserve, and the Chamela-Cuixmala 

Biosphere Reserve. Significantly, all of these areas 

are part of the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere 

Reserves, but attainment of this status does not guarantee 

that these reserves will remain free from anthropogenic 

damage. Ceballos et al. (2009, citing Dirzo 

and García 1992) indicated that although the Los 

Tuxtlas is the most important reserve in Mexico for 

amphibians and reptiles, a large part of its natural vegetation 

has been lost. This example of deforestation is 

only one of many, but led Ceballos et al. (2009: 597) 

to conclude (our translation of the original Spanish) 

that, “The determination of high risk critical zones has 

diverse implications for conservation in Mexico. The 

distribution of critical zones in the entire country confirms 

the problem of the loss of biological diversity 

is severe at the present time, and everything indicates 

it will become yet more serious in future decades. 

On the other hand, the precise identification of these 

zones is a useful tool to guide political decisions concerning 

development and conservation in the country, 

and to maximize the effects of conservation action. 

Clearly, a fundamental linchpin for the national conservation 

strategy is to direct resources and efforts to 

protect the high-risk critical zones. Finally, it also is 

evident that tools for management of production and 

development, such as the land-use planning and environmental 

impact, should be reinforced in order to 


024 


Wilson et al. 

fully comply with their function to reconcile development 

and conservation.” We fully support this recommendation. 

8. Humans have developed an amazing propensity for 

living in an unsustainable world. Organisms only can 

persist on Earth when they live within their environmental 

limiting factors, and their strategy is sustainability, 

i.e., in human terms, living over the long term 

within one’s means, a process made allowable by organic 

evolution. Homo sapiens is the only extant species 

with the capacity for devising another means for 

securing its place on the planet, i.e., a strategy of unsustainability 

over the short term, which eventually is 

calculated to fail. Conservation biology exists because 

humans have devised this unworkable living strategy. 

What success it will have in curbing biodiversity loss 

remains to be seen. 

Acknowledgments.—We are grateful to the following 

individuals for improving the quality of this contribution: 

Irene Goyenechea, Pablo Lavín-Murcio, Julio 

Lemos-Espinal, and Aurelio Ramírez-Bautista. We are 

especially thankful to Louis W. Porras, who applied his 

remarkable editorial skills to our work. 


Acevedo M, Wilson LD, Cano EB, Vásquez-Almazán C. 

2010. Diversity and conservation status of the Guatemalan 

herpetofauna. Pp. 406–435 In: Conservation 

of Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles. Editors, 

Wilson LD, Townsend JH, Johnson JD. Eagle Mountain 

Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA. 

Adalsteinsson SA, Branch WR, Trapé S, Vitt LJ, Hedges 

SB. 2009. Molecular phylogeny, classification, and 

biogeography of snakes of the family Leptotyphlopidae 

(Reptilia, Squamata). Zootaxa 2244: 1–50. 

American Heritage Dictionary (3 rd edition). 1993. Houghton 

Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 

Anderson CG, Greenbaum E. 2012. Phylogeography of 

northern populations of the black-tailed rattlesnake 

(Crotalus molossus Baird and Girard, 1853), with the 

revalidation of C. ornatus Hallowell, 1854. Herpetological 

Monographs 26: 19–57. 

Beattie A., Ehrlich PR. 2004. Wild Solutions: How Biodiversity 

is Money in the Bank (2 nd edition). Yale University 

Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 

Bhullar, B-AS. 2011. The power and utility of morphological 

characters in systematics: a fully resolved 

phylogeny of Xenosaurus and its fossil relatives 

(Squamata: Anguimorpha). Bulletin of the Museum of 

Comparative Zoology 160: 65–181. 

Blair C, Méndez de la Cruz FR, Ngo A, Lindell J, Lathrop 

A, Robert WM. 2009. Molecular phylogenetics 

and taxonomy of leaf-toed geckos (Phyllodactylidae: 

Phyllodactylus) inhabiting the peninsula of Baja California. 

Zootaxa 2027: 28–42. 

Blaustein AR, Wake DB. 1990. Declining amphibian 

populations: A global phenomenon? Trends in Ecology 

and Evolution 5: 203–204. 

Bryson Jr. RW, Graham MR. 2010. A new alligator lizard 

from northeastern Mexico. Herpetologica 66: 92–98. 

Burbrink FT, Yao H, Ingrasci M, Bryson Jr RW, Guiher 

TJ, Ruane S. 2011. Speciation at the Mogollon Rim 

in the Arizona mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis pyromelana). 

Molecular and Phylogenetic Evolution 60: 

445–454. 

Campbell NA, Reese JB, Taylor MR, Simon EJ. 2006. 

Biology: Concepts and Connections (5 th edition). 

Pearson Benjamin Cummings, New York, New York, 

USA. 

Canseco-Márquez L, Gutiérrez-Mayen G, Mendoza- 

Hernández AA. 2008. A new species of night-lizard 

of the genus Lepidophyma (Squamata: Xantusiidae) 

from the Cuicatlán Valley, Oaxaca, México. Zootaxa 

1750: 59–67. 

Ceballos G, Díaz Pardo E, Espinosa H, Flores-Villela 

O, García A, Martínez L, Martínez Meyer E, Navarro 

A, Ochoa L, Salazar I, Santos Barrera G. 2009. Zonas 

críticas y de alto riesgo para la conservación de 

la biodiversidad de México. Pp. 575–600 In: Capital 

natural de México (Volume II). Estado de conservación 

y tendencias de cambio. CONABIO, México, 

DF, Mexico. 

Central Intelligence Agency. 2012. The World Factbook. 

United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 

DC, USA. 

Chiras DD. 2009. Environmental Science (8 th edition). 

Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Burlington, Massachusetts, 

USA. 

Conservation International. 2004. Amphibians in dramatic 

decline; study finds nearly one-third of species threatened 

with extinction. ScienceDaily. Available: www. 

sciencedaily.com /releases/2004/10/041015103700. 

htm [Accessed: 21 May 2012]. 

Cox CL, Dadis Rabosky AR, Reyes-Velasco J, Ponce- 

Campos P, Smith EN, Flores-Villela O, Campbell 

JA. 2012. Molecular systematics of the genus Sonora 

(Squamata: Colubridae) in central and western Mexico. 

Systematics and Biodiversity 10: 93–108. 

Daza JM, Smith EN, Páez VP, Parkinson CL. 2009. 

Complex evolution in the Neotropics: The origin and 

diversification of the widespread genus Leptodeira 

(Serpentes: Colubridae). Molecular Phylogenetics 


Dirzo R, García MC. 1992. Rates of deforestation in Los 

Tuxtlas, a Neotropical area in southeast Mexico. Conservation 

Biology 6: 84–90. 

Duellman WE. 1958. A monographic study of the colubrid 

snake genus Leptodeira. Bulletin of the American 

Museum of Natural History 114: 1–152. 


025 



Feria-Ortiz MN, Manríques-Morán NL, Nieto-Montes 

de Oca A. 2011. Species limits based on mtDNA and 

morphological data in the polytypic species Pleistodon 

brevirostris (Squamata: Scincidae). Herpetological 

Monographs 25: 25–51. 

Feria-Ortiz M, García-Vázquez. 2012. A new species of 

Plestiodon (Squamata: Scincidae) from Sierra Madre 

del Sur of Guerrero, México. Zootaxa 3339: 57–68. 

Flores-Villela O, Smith EN. 2009. A new species of Coniophanes 

(Squamata: Colubridae), from the coast of 

Michoacán, Mexico. Herpetologica 65: 404–412. 

García-Vásquez UO, Canseco-Márquez L, Aguilar- 

López JL. 2010. A new species of night lizard of the 

genus Lepidophyma (Squamata: Xantusiidae) from 

southern Puebla, México. Zootaxa 2657: 47–54. 

García-Vásquez UO, Canseco-Márquez L, Nieto-Montes 

de Oca A. 2010. A new species of Scincella (Squamata: 

Scincidae) from the Cuatra Ciénegas Basin, 

Coahuila, Mexico. Copeia 2010: 373–381. 

Gibbons, JW, Scott DE, Ryan TJ, Buhlmann KA, Tuberville 

TD, Metts BS, Greene JL, Mills T, Leiden 

Y, Poppy S, Winne CT. 2000. The global decline of 

reptiles, déja vu amphibians. BioScience 50: 653–666. 

Hallowell E. 1861 (1860). Report upon the Reptilia of 

the North Pacific Exploring Expedition, under command 

of Capt. John Rogers [sic], U.S.N. Proceedings 

of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 

12: 480–510. 

Harvey, MB, Ugueto GN, Gutberlet Jr. RL. 2012. Review 

of teiid morphology with a revised taxonomy 

and phylogeny of the Teiidae (Lepidosauria: Squamata). 

Zootaxa 3459: 1–156. 

Hedges SB, Conn CE. 2012. A new skink fauna from Caribbean 

islands (Squamata, Mabuyidae, Mabuyinae). 

Zootaxa 3288: 1–244. 

IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. 2010. Available: 

www.iucnredlist.org [Accessed: 22 July 2011]. 

Jadin R, Smith EN, Campbell JA. 2011. Unravelling a 

tangle of Mexican serpents: A systematic revision of 

highland pitvipers. Zoological Journal of the Linnean 

Society 163: 943–958. 

Jaramillo C, Wilson LD, Ibáñez R, Jaramillo F. 2010. 

The herpetofauna of Panama: Distribution and conservation 

status. Pp. 604–673 In: Conservation of Mesoamerican 




Johnson JD. 2009. Prologue. Pp. xvii–xx In: Herpetofauna 

del Valle de Mexico: Diversidad y conservación. 

Ramírez-Bautista A, Hernández-Salinas U, García- 

Vázquez UO, Leyte-Manrique A, Canseco-Márquez 

L. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, 

CONABIO, Tlalpan, México, DF, Mexico. 

Köhler G. 2010. A revision of the Central American species 

related to Anolis pentaprion with the resurrection 

of A. beckeri and the description of a new species 

(Squamata: Polychrotidae). Zootaxa 2354: 1–18. 

Köhler G, Vesely M. 2010. A revision of the Anolis sericeus 

complex with the resurrection of A. wellbornae 

and the description of a new species (Squamata: Polychrotidae). 

Herpetologica 66: 186–207. 

Koleff P, Tambutti M, March IJ, Esquivel R, Cantú C, 

Lira-Noriega A et al. 2009. Identificación de prioridades 

y análisis de vacíos y omisiones en la conservación 

de la biodiversidad de México. Pp. 651–718 

In: Capital Natural de México (Volume II). Estado 

de conservación y tendencias de cambio. CONABIO, 

México, DF, Mexico. 

Leaché AD, Mulcahy DG. 2007. Phylogeny, divergence 

times and species limits of spiny lizards (Sceloporus 

magister species group) in western North American 

deserts and Baja California. Molecular Ecology 16: 

5216–5233. 

Lemos-Espinal JA, Chiszar D, Smith HM, Woolrich- 

Piña G. 2004. Selected records of 2003 lizards from 

Chihuahua and Sonora, Mexico. Bulletin of the Chicago 

Herpetological Society 39: 164–168. 

McCranie JR, Hedges SB. 2012. Two new species of 

geckos from Honduras and resurrection of Sphaerodactylus 

continentalis Werner from the synonymy of 

Sphaerodactylus millepunctatus Hallowell (Reptilia, 

Squamata, Gekkonoidea, Sphaerodactylidae). Zootaxa 

3492: 65–76. 

McCranie JR, Wilson LD. 2002. The Amphibians of 

Honduras. Society for the Study of Amphibians and 

Reptiles, Contributions in Herpetology, Number 19. 

Ithaca, New York, USA. 

Mulcahy DG. 2007. Molecular systematics of Neotropical 

cat-eyed snakes: A test of the monophyly of Leptodeirini 

(Colubridae: Dipsadinae) with implications 

for character evolution and biogeography. Biological 

Journal of the Linnean Society 92: 483–500. 

Murphy RW, Berry KH, Edwards T, Leviton AE, Lathrop 

A, Riedle JD. 2011. The dazed and confused identity 

of Agassiz’s land tortoise, Gopherus agassizii (Testudines, 

Testudinidae) with the description of a new species, 

and its consequences for conservation. ZooKeys 

113: 39–71. 

Myers CW. 2011. A new genus and new tribe for Enicognathus 

melanauchen Jan, 1863, a neglected South 

American snake (Colubridae, Xenodontinae), with 

taxonomic notes on some Dipsadinae. American Museum 

Novitates 3715: 1–33. 

NatureServe Press Release. 2007. New assessment of 

North American reptiles finds rare good news. Available: 

www.natureserve.org [Accessed: 21 May 2012]. 

Ochoa-Ochoa LM, Bezaury-Creel JE, Vázquez L-B, 

Flores-Villela O. 2011. Choosing the survivors? A 

GIS-based triage support tool for micro-endemics: application 

to data for Mexican amphibians. Biological 

Conservation 144: 2710–2718. 

Ochoa-Ochoa LM, Flores-Villela OA. 2006. Áreas de 


026 


Wilson et al. 

Diversidad y Endemismo de la Herpetofauna Mexicana. 

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México- 

Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la 

Biodiversidad, México, DF, Mexico. 

Pavón-Vázquez CJ, García-Vázquez UO, Blancas- 

Hernández JC, Nieto-Montes A. 2011. A new species 

of the Geophis sieboldi group (Squamata: Colubridae) 

exhibiting color pattern polymorphism from Guerrero, 

Mexico. Herpetologica 67: 332–343. 

Population Reference Bureau. 2011. World Population 

Data Sheet. Available: www.prb.org [Accessed: 27 

January 2012]. 

Pyron RA, Burbrink FT. 2009. Systematics of the common 

kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula; Serpentes: Colubridae) 

and the burden of heritage in taxonomy. Zootaxa 

2241: 22–32. 

Raven PH, Hassenzahl DM, Berg LR. 2009. Environment 

(8 th edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, 

New Jersey, USA. 

Reyes-Velasco J, Mulcahy DG. 2010. Additional taxonomic 

remarks on the genus Pseudoleptodeira (Serpentes: 

Colubridae) and the phylogenetic placement 

of “P. uribei.” Herpetologica 66: 99–110. 

Sasa M, Chaves G, Porras LW. 2010. The Costa Rican 

herpetofauna: conservation status and future perspectives. 

Pp. 510–603 In: Conservation of Mesoamerican 




Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues 

ASL, Fischman DL, Waller RW. 2004. Status and 

trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. 

Science 306(5702): 1783–1786. 


global decline of amphibians: Current trends and future 





Sunyer J, Köhler G. 2010. Conservation status of the 

herpetofauna of Nicaragua. Pp. 488–509 In: Conservation 

of Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles. 

Editors, Wilson LD, Townsend JH, Johnson JD. Eagle 


USA. 

Townsend JH, Wilson LD. 2010. Conservation of the 

Honduran herpetofauna: issues and imperatives. Pp. 

460–487 In: Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians 

and Reptiles. Editors, Wilson LD, Townsend JH, 

Johnson JD. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle 

Mountain, Utah, USA. 

Vitt LJ, Caldwell JP. 2009. Herpetology (3 rd edition). 

Academic Press, Burlington, Maine, USA. 

Wake DB. 1991. Declining amphibian populations. Science 

253(5022): 860. 

Walker JM, Cordes JE. 2011. Taxonomic implications 

of color pattern and meristic variation in Aspidoscelis 

burti burti, a Mexican whiptail lizard. Herpetological 

Review 42: 33–39. 

Wilson EO (Editor). 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy 


Wilson LD. 2011. Imperatives and opportunities: reformation 

of herpetology in the age of amphibian decline. 

Herpetological Review 42: 146–150. 







Wilson LD, McCranie JR. 1992. Status of amphibian 

populations in Honduras. Unpublished Report to the 

Task Force on Declining Amphibian Population, 15 

August 1992. 14 p. 

Wilson LD, McCranie JR. 2004. The conservation status 

of the herpetofauna of Honduras. Amphibian & Reptile 


Wilson LD, Townsend JH. 2010. The herpetofauna of 

Mesoamerica: biodiversity significance, conservation 

status, and future challenges. Pp. 760–812 In: Conservation 




USA. 




USA. 

Woolrich-Piña, GA, Smith GR. 2012. A new species of 

Xenosaurus from the Sierra Madre Oriental, Mexico. 


World Wildlife Fund. 2012. Living Planet Report 2012. 

WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. 

Received: 18 Feb 2013 

Accepted: 24 April 2013 

Published: 09 June 2013 


027 



Larry David Wilson is a herpetologist with lengthy experience in Mesoamerica, totaling six collective years 

(combined over the past 47). Larry is the senior editor of the recently published Conservation of Mesoamerican 

Amphibians and Reptiles and a co-author of seven of its chapters. He retired after 35 years of 

service as Professor of Biology at Miami-Dade College in Miami, Florida. Larry is the author or co-author 

of more than 290 peer-reviewed papers and books on herpetology, including the 2004 Amphibian & Reptile 

Conservation paper entitled “The conservation status of the herpetofauna of Honduras.” His other 

books include The Snakes of Honduras, Middle American Herpetology, The Amphibians of Honduras, 

Amphibians & Reptiles of the Bay Islands and Cayos Cochinos, Honduras, The Amphibians and Reptiles 

of the Honduran Mosquitia, and Guide to the Amphibians & Reptiles of Cusuco National Park, Honduras. 

He also served as the Snake Section Editor for the Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles for 

33 years. Over his career, Larry has authored or co-authored the descriptions of 69 currently recognized 

herpetofaunal species and six species have been named in his honor, including the anuran Craugastor 

lauraster and the snakes Cerrophidion wilsoni, Myriopholis wilsoni, and Oxybelis wilsoni. 

Vicente Mata-Silva is a herpetologist interested in ecology, conservation, and the monitoring of amphibians 

and reptiles in Mexico and the southwestern United States. His bachelor’s thesis compared herpetofaunal 

richness in Puebla, México, in habitats with different degrees of human related disturbance. Vicente’s 

master’s thesis focused primarily on the diet of two syntopic whiptail species of lizards, one unisexual 

and the other bisexual, in the Trans-Pecos region of the Chihuahuan Desert. Currently, he is a postdoctoral 

research fellow at the University of Texas at El Paso, where his work focuses on rattlesnake populations 

in their natural habitat. His dissertation was on the ecology of the rock rattlesnake, Crotalus lepidus, in 

the northern Chihuahuan Desert. To date, Vicente has authored or co-authored 34 peer-reviewed scientific 

publications. 

Jerry D. Johnson is Professor of Biological Sciences at The University of Texas at El Paso, and has extensive 

experience studying the herpetofauna of Mesoamerica. He is the Director of the 40,000 acre “Indio 

Mountains Research Station,” was a co-editor on the recently published Conservation of Mesoamerican 

Amphibians and Reptiles, and is Mesoamerica/Caribbean editor for the Geographic Distribution section 

of Herpetological Review. Johnson has authored or co-authored over 80 peer-reviewed papers, including 

two 2010 articles, “Geographic distribution and conservation of the herpetofauna of southeastern 

Mexico” and “Distributional patterns of the herpetofauna of Mesoamerica, a biodiversity hotspot.” 


028 


Wilson et al. 

Appendix 1. Comparison of the IUCN Ratings from the 2005 Mexican Assessment (updated to the present time) and the Environmental Vulnerability 

Scores for 849 Mexican reptile species (crocodilians, turtles, lizards, and snakes). See text for explanation of the IUCN and EVS rating systems. 

* = species endemic to Mexico. 1 = IUCN status needs updating. 2 = Not rated because not recognized as a distinct species. 3 = not described 

at the time of assessment. 

Species 

IUCN 

Ratings 

Geographic 

Distribution 


Ecological 

Distribution 

Degree of Human 

Persecution 

Order Crocodylia (3 species) 

Family Alligatoridae (1 species) 

Caiman crocodilus LC 1 3 7 6 16 

Family Crocodylidae (2 species) 

Crocodylus acutus VU 3 5 6 14 

Crocodylus moreletii LC 2 5 6 13 

Order Testudines (48 species) 

Family Cheloniidae (5 species) 

Caretta caretta EN — — — — 

Chelonia mydas EN — — — — 

Eretmochelys imbricata CR — — — — 

Lepidochelys kempii CR — — — — 

Lepidochelys olivacea VU — — — — 

Family Chelydridae (1 species) 

Chelydra rossignonii VU 4 7 6 17 

Family Dermatemydidae (1 species) 

Dermatemys mawii CR 4 7 6 17 

Family Dermochelyidae (1 species) 

Dermochelys coriacea CR — — — — 

Family Emydidae (15 species) 

Actinemys marmorata VU 3 8 6 17 

Chrysemys picta LC 3 8 3 14 

Pseudemys gorzugi NT 4 6 6 16 

Terrapene coahuila* EN 5 8 6 19 

Terrapene mexicana* NE 5 8 6 19 

Terrapene nelsoni* DD 5 7 6 18 

Terrapene ornata NT 3 6 6 15 

Terrapene yucatana* NE 5 7 6 18 

Trachemys gaigeae VU 4 8 6 18 

Trachemys nebulosa* NE 5 7 6 18 

Trachemys ornata* VU 5 8 6 19 

Trachemys scripta LC 3 7 6 16 

Trachemys taylori* EN 5 8 6 19 

Trachemys venusta NE 3 4 6 13 

Trachemys yaquia* VU 5 8 6 19 

Family Geoemydidae (3 species) 

Rhinoclemmys areolata NT 4 6 3 13 

Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima NE 1 4 3 8 

Rhinoclemmys rubida* NT 5 6 3 14 

Family Kinosternidae (17 species) 

Claudius angustatus NT 1 4 7 3 14 

Kinosternon acutum NT 1 4 7 3 14 

Total 

Score 


029 



Kinosternon alamosae* DD 5 6 3 14 

Kinosternon arizonense LC 4 8 3 15 

Kinosternon chimalhuaca* LC 5 8 3 16 

Kinosternon creaseri* LC 5 7 3 15 

Kinosternon durangoense* DD 5 8 3 16 

Kinosternon flavescens LC 3 6 3 12 

Kinosternon herrerai* NT 5 6 3 14 

Kinosternon hirtipes LC 2 5 3 10 

Kinosternon integrum* LC 5 3 3 11 

Kinosternon leucostomum NE 3 4 3 10 

Kinosternon oaxacae* DD 5 7 3 15 

Kinosternon scorpioides NE 3 4 3 10 

Kinosternon sonoriense NT 4 7 3 14 

Staurotypus salvinii NT 1 4 6 3 13 

Staurotypus triporcatus NT 1 4 7 3 14 

Family Testudinidae (3 species) 

Gopherus berlandieri LC 1 4 8 6 18 

Gopherus flavomarginatus* VU 5 8 6 19 

Gopherus morafkai NE 3 4 5 6 15 

Family Trionychidae (2 species) 

Apalone atra* NE 6 8 6 20 

Apalone spinifera LC 3 6 6 15 

Order Squamata (798 species) 

Family Bipedidae (3 species) 

Bipes biporus* LC 5 8 1 14 

Bipes canaliculatus* LC 5 6 1 12 

Bipes tridactylus* LC 5 8 1 14 

Family Anguidae (48 species) 

Abronia bogerti* DD 6 8 4 18 

Abronia chiszari* EN 6 7 4 17 

Abronia deppii* EN 6 6 4 16 

Abronia fuscolabialis* EN 6 8 4 18 

Abronia graminea* EN 5 6 4 15 

Abronia leurolepis* DD 6 8 4 18 

Abronia lythrochila* LC 6 7 4 17 

Abronia martindelcampoi* EN 5 6 4 15 

Abronia matudai EN 4 7 4 15 

Abronia mitchelli* DD 6 8 4 18 

Abronia mixteca* VU 6 8 4 18 

Abronia oaxacae* VU 6 7 4 17 

Abronia ochoterenai DD 4 8 4 16 

Abronia ornelasi* DD 6 8 4 18 

Abronia ramirezi* DD 6 8 4 18 

Abronia reidi* DD 6 8 4 18 

Abronia smithi* LC 6 7 4 17 

Abronia taeniata* VU 5 6 4 15 

Anguis ceroni* NE 5 7 2 14 

Anguis incomptus* NE 5 8 2 15 

Barisia ciliaris* NE 5 7 3 15 


030 


Wilson et al. 

Barisia herrerae* EN 5 7 3 15 

Barisia imbricata* LC 5 6 3 14 

Barisia jonesi* NE 2 6 7 3 16 

Barisia levicollis* DD 5 7 3 15 

Barisia planifrons* NE 2 5 7 3 15 

Barisia rudicollis* EN 5 7 3 15 

Celestus enneagrammus* LC 5 6 3 14 

Celestus ingridae* DD 6 8 3 17 

Celestus legnotus* LC 5 6 3 14 

Celestus rozellae NT 4 6 3 13 

Elgaria cedrosensis* LC 5 8 3 16 

Elgaria kingii LC 2 5 3 10 

Elgaria multicarinata LC 3 4 3 10 

Elgaria nana* LC 5 8 3 16 

Elgaria paucicarinata* VU 5 5 3 13 

Elgaria velazquezi* LC 5 6 3 14 

Gerrhonotus farri* NE 3 6 8 3 17 

Gerrhonotus infernalis* LC 5 5 3 13 

Gerrhonotus liocephalus LC 2 1 3 6 

Gerrhonotus lugoi* LC 6 8 3 17 

Gerrhonotus ophiurus* LC 5 4 3 12 

Gerrhonotus parvus* EN 6 8 3 17 

Mesaspis antauges* DD 6 7 3 16 

Mesaspis gadovii* LC 5 6 3 14 

Mesaspis juarezi* EN 5 7 3 15 

Mesaspis moreleti LC 3 3 3 9 

Mesaspis viridiflava* LC 5 8 3 16 

Family Anniellidae (2 species) 

Anniella geronimensis* EN 5 7 1 13 

Anniella pulchra LC 3 8 1 12 

Family Corytophanidae (6 species) 

Basiliscus vittatus NE 1 3 3 7 

Corytophanes cristatus NE 3 5 3 11 

Corytophanes hernandesii NE 4 6 3 13 

Corytophanes percarinatus NE 4 4 3 11 

Laemanctus longipes NE 1 5 3 9 

Laemanctus serratus LC 2 3 3 8 

Family Crotaphytidae (10 species) 

Crotaphytus antiquus* EN 5 8 3 16 

Crotaphytus collaris LC 3 7 3 13 

Crotaphytus dickersonae* LC 5 8 3 16 

Crotaphytus grismeri* LC 5 8 3 16 

Crotaphytus insularis* LC 6 7 3 16 

Crotaphytus nebrius LC 2 7 3 12 

Crotaphytus reticulatus VU 4 5 3 12 

Crotaphytus vestigium LC 3 3 3 9 

Gambelia copeii LC 2 6 3 11 

Gambelia wislizenii LC 3 7 3 13 


031 



Family Dactyloidae (50 species) 

Anolis allisoni NE 3 7 3 13 

Anolis alvarezdeltoroi* DD 6 8 3 17 

Anolis anisolepis* LC 5 7 3 15 

Anolis barkeri* VU 5 7 3 15 

Anolis beckeri NE 3 3 6 3 12 

Anolis biporcatus NE 3 4 3 10 

Anolis breedlovei* EN 6 7 3 16 

Anolis capito NE 3 6 3 13 

Anolis compressicauda* LC 5 7 3 15 

Anolis crassulus NE 3 4 3 10 

Anolis cristifer DD 4 6 3 13 

Anolis cuprinus* LC 6 7 3 16 

Anolis cymbops* DD 6 8 3 17 

Anolis dollfusianus NE 4 6 3 13 

Anolis duellmani* DD 6 8 3 17 

Anolis dunni* LC 5 8 3 16 

Anolis forbesi* DD 6 7 3 16 

Anolis gadovi* LC 5 8 3 16 

Anolis hobartsmithi* EN 6 6 3 15 

Anolis isthmicus* DD 5 8 3 16 

Anolis laeviventris NE 3 3 3 9 

Anolis lemurinus NE 3 2 3 8 

Anolis liogaster* LC 5 6 3 14 

Anolis macrinii* LC 5 8 3 16 

Anolis matudai NE 4 6 3 13 

Anolis megapholidotus* LC 5 8 3 16 

Anolis microlepidotus* LC 5 7 3 15 

Anolis milleri* DD 5 6 3 14 

Anolis naufragus* VU 5 5 3 13 

Anolis nebuloides* LC 5 6 3 14 

Anolis nebulosus* LC 5 5 3 13 

Anolis omiltemanus* LC 5 7 3 15 

Anolis parvicirculatus* LC 6 7 3 16 

Anolis petersii NE 2 4 3 9 

Anolis polyrhachis* DD 5 8 3 16 

Anolis pygmaeus* EN 5 8 3 16 

Anolis quercorum* LC 5 8 3 16 

Anolis rodriguezii NE 4 3 3 10 

Anolis sagrei NE 2 7 3 12 

Anolis schiedii* DD 5 8 3 16 

Anolis schmidti* LC 5 8 3 16 

Anolis sericeus NE 2 3 3 8 

Anolis serranoi NE 4 5 3 12 

Anolis simmonsi* DD 5 7 3 15 

Anolis subocularis* DD 5 7 3 15 

Anolis taylori* LC 5 8 3 16 

Anolis tropidonotus NE 4 2 3 9 

Anolis uniformis NE 4 6 3 13 


032 


Wilson et al. 

Anolis unilobatus NE 3 1 3 3 7 

Anolis utowanae* DD 6 8 3 17 

Family Dibamidae (1 species) 

Anelytropsis papillosus* LC 5 4 1 10 

Family Eublepharidae (7 species) 

Coleonyx brevis LC 4 6 4 14 

Coleonyx elegans NE 2 3 4 9 

Coleonyx fasciatus* LC 5 8 4 17 

Coleonyx gypsicolus* LC 6 8 4 18 

Coleonyx reticulatus LC 4 7 4 15 

Coleonyx switaki LC 4 6 4 14 

Coleonyx variegatus LC 4 3 4 11 

Family Gymnophthalmidae (1 species) 

Gymnophthalmus speciosus NE 3 3 3 9 

Family Helodermatidae (2 species) 

Heloderma horridum LC 2 4 5 11 

Heloderma suspectum NT 4 6 5 15 

Family Iguanidae (19 species) 

Ctenosaura acanthura NE 2 4 6 12 

Ctenosaura alfredschmidti NT 4 8 3 15 

Ctenosaura clarki* VU 5 7 3 15 

Ctenosaura conspicuosa* NE 5 8 3 16 

Ctenosaura defensor* VU 5 7 3 15 

Ctenosaura hemilopha* NE 5 7 6 18 

Ctenosaura macrolopha* NE 5 8 6 19 

Ctenosaura nolascensis* NE 6 8 3 17 

Ctenosaura oaxacana* CR 5 8 6 19 

Ctenosaura pectinata* NE 5 4 6 15 

Ctenosaura similis LC 1 4 3 8 

Dipsosaurus catalinensis* NE 6 8 3 17 

Dipsosaurus dorsalis LC 4 4 3 11 

Iguana iguana NE 3 3 6 12 

Sauromalus ater LC 4 6 3 13 

Sauromalus hispidus* NT 5 6 3 14 

Sauromalus klauberi* NE 6 7 3 16 

Sauromalus slevini* NE 5 8 3 16 

Sauromalus varius* NE 5 8 3 16 

Family Mabuyidae (1 species) 

Marisora brachypoda NE 1 2 3 6 

Family Phrynosomatidae (135 species) 

Callisaurus draconoides LC 4 5 3 12 

Cophosaurus texanus LC 4 7 3 14 

Holbrookia approximans* NE 5 6 3 14 

Holbrookia elegans LC 4 6 3 13 

Holbrookia lacerata NT 4 7 3 14 

Holbrookia maculata LC 1 6 3 10 

Holbrookia propinqua LC 4 8 3 15 

Petrosaurus mearnsi LC 4 5 3 12 

Petrosaurus repens* LC 5 5 3 13 


033 



Petrosaurus slevini* LC 5 8 3 16 

Petrosaurus thalassinus* LC 5 5 3 13 

Phrynosoma asio NE 2 6 3 11 

Phrynosoma blainvillii NE 3 7 3 13 

Phrynosoma braconnieri* LC 5 7 3 15 

Phrynosoma cerroense* NE 6 7 3 16 

Phrynosoma cornutum LC 1 7 3 11 

Phrynosoma coronatum* LC 5 4 3 12 

Phrynosoma ditmarsi* DD 5 8 3 16 

Phrynosoma goodei NE 4 6 3 13 

Phrynosoma hernandesi LC 3 7 3 13 

Phrynosoma mcallii NT 4 8 3 15 

Phrynosoma modestum LC 4 5 3 12 

Phrynosoma orbiculare* LC 5 4 3 12 

Phrynosoma platyrhinos LC 3 7 3 13 

Phrynosoma solare LC 4 7 3 14 

Phrynosoma taurus* LC 5 4 3 12 

Phrynosoma wigginsi* NE 5 8 3 16 

Sceloporus acanthinus NE 3 7 3 13 

Sceloporus adleri* LC 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus aeneus* LC 5 5 3 13 

Sceloporus albiventris* NE 5 8 3 16 

Sceloporus anahuacus* LC 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus angustus* LC 5 8 3 16 

Sceloporus asper* LC 5 6 3 14 

Sceloporus bicanthalis* LC 5 5 3 13 

Sceloporus bulleri* LC 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus carinatus LC 4 5 3 12 

Sceloporus cautus* LC 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus chaneyi* EN 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus chrysostictus LC 4 6 3 13 

Sceloporus clarkii LC 2 5 3 10 

Sceloporus couchii* LC 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus cowlesi NE 4 6 3 13 

Sceloporus cozumelae* LC 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus cryptus* LC 5 6 3 14 

Sceloporus cupreus* NE 5 8 3 16 

Sceloporus cyanogenys* NE 6 7 3 16 

Sceloporus cyanostictus* EN 5 8 3 16 

Sceloporus druckercolini* NE 5 6 3 14 

Sceloporus dugesii* LC 5 5 3 13 

Sceloporus edwardtaylori* LC 5 6 3 14 

Sceloporus exsul* CR 6 8 3 17 

Sceloporus formosus* LC 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus gadoviae* LC 5 3 3 11 

Sceloporus goldmani* EN 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus grammicus LC 2 4 3 9 

Sceloporus grandaevus* LC 6 7 3 16 

Sceloporus halli* DD 6 8 3 17 


034 


Wilson et al. 

Sceloporus heterolepis* LC 5 6 3 14 

Sceloporus horridus* LC 5 3 3 11 

Sceloporus hunsakeri* LC 5 6 3 14 

Sceloporus insignis* LC 5 8 3 16 

Sceloporus internasalis LC 4 4 3 11 

Sceloporus jalapae* LC 5 5 3 13 

Sceloporus jarrovii LC 2 6 3 11 

Sceloporus lemosespinali* DD 5 8 3 16 

Sceloporus licki* LC 5 5 3 13 

Sceloporus lineatulus* LC 6 8 3 17 

Sceloporus lineolateralis* NE 5 8 3 16 

Sceloporus lundelli LC 4 7 3 14 

Sceloporus macdougalli* LC 5 8 3 16 

Sceloporus maculosus* VU 5 8 3 16 

Sceloporus magister LC 1 5 3 9 

Sceloporus marmoratus NE 2 6 3 11 

Sceloporus megalepidurus* VU 5 6 3 14 

Sceloporus melanorhinus LC 2 4 3 9 

Sceloporus merriami LC 4 6 3 13 

Sceloporus minor* LC 5 6 3 14 

Sceloporus mucronatus* LC 5 5 3 13 

Sceloporus nelsoni* LC 5 5 3 13 

Sceloporus oberon* VU 5 6 3 14 

Sceloporus occidentalis LC 3 6 3 12 

Sceloporus ochoterenae* LC 5 4 3 12 

Sceloporus olivaceus LC 4 6 3 13 

Sceloporus orcutti LC 2 2 3 7 

Sceloporus ornatus* NT 5 8 3 16 

Sceloporus palaciosi* LC 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus parvus* LC 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus poinsetti LC 4 5 3 12 

Sceloporus prezygus NE 4 8 3 15 

Sceloporus pyrocephalus* LC 5 4 3 12 

Sceloporus salvini* DD 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus samcolemani* LC 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus scalaris* LC 5 4 3 12 

Sceloporus serrifer LC 2 1 3 6 

Sceloporus shannonorum* NE 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus siniferus LC 2 6 3 11 

Sceloporus slevini LC 2 6 3 11 

Sceloporus smaragdinus LC 4 5 3 12 

Sceloporus smithi* LC 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus spinosus* LC 5 4 3 12 

Sceloporus squamosus NE 3 5 3 11 

Sceloporus stejnegeri* LC 5 5 3 13 

Sceloporus subniger* NE 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus subpictus* DD 6 7 3 16 

Sceloporus sugillatus* LC 5 8 3 16 

Sceloporus taeniocnemis LC 4 5 3 12 


035 



Sceloporus tanneri* DD 6 7 3 16 

Sceloporus teapensis LC 4 6 3 13 

Sceloporus torquatus* LC 5 3 3 11 

Sceloporus uniformis NE 3 7 3 13 

Sceloporus utiformis* LC 5 7 3 15 

Sceloporus vandenburgianus LC 4 7 3 14 

Sceloporus variabilis NE 1 1 3 5 

Sceloporus virgatus LC 4 8 3 15 

Sceloporus zosteromus* LC 5 4 3 12 

Uma exsul* EN 5 8 3 16 

Uma notata NT 4 8 3 15 

Uma paraphygas* NT 6 8 3 17 

Uma rufopunctata* NT 5 8 3 16 

Urosaurus auriculatus* EN 6 7 3 16 

Urosaurus bicarinatus* LC 5 4 3 12 

Urosaurus clarionensis* VU 6 8 3 17 

Urosaurus gadovi* LC 3 6 3 12 

Urosaurus graciosus LC 3 8 3 14 

Urosaurus lahtelai* LC 5 8 3 16 

Urosaurus nigricaudus LC 3 2 3 8 

Urosaurus ornatus LC 2 5 3 10 

Uta encantadae* VU 6 8 3 17 

Uta lowei* VU 6 8 3 17 

Uta nolascensis* LC 6 8 3 17 

Uta palmeri* VU 6 8 3 17 

Uta squamata* LC 6 8 3 17 

Uta stansburiana LC 3 1 3 7 

Uta tumidarostra* VU 6 8 3 17 

Family Phyllodactylidae (15 species) 

Phyllodactylus bordai* LC 5 5 3 13 

Phyllodactylus bugastrolepis* LC 6 8 3 17 

Phyllodactylus davisi* LC 5 8 3 16 

Phyllodactylus delcampoi* LC 5 8 3 16 

Phyllodactylus duellmani* LC 5 8 3 16 

Phyllodactylus homolepidurus* LC 5 7 3 15 

Phyllodactylus lanei* LC 5 7 3 15 

Phyllodactylus muralis* LC 5 6 3 14 

Phyllodactylus nocticolus NE 2 5 3 10 

Phyllodactylus partidus* LC 5 8 3 16 

Phyllodactylus paucituberculatus* DD 6 7 3 16 

Phyllodactylus tuberculosus NE 1 4 3 8 

Phyllodactylus unctus* NT 5 7 3 15 

Phyllodactylus xanti* LC 5 7 3 15 

Thecadactylus rapicauda NE 3 4 3 10 

Family Scincidae (23 species) 

Mesoscincus altamirani* DD 5 6 3 14 

Mesoscincus schwartzei LC 2 6 3 11 

Plestiodon bilineatus* NE 5 5 3 13 

Plestiodon brevirostris* LC 5 3 3 11 


036 


Wilson et al. 

Plestiodon callicephalus LC 2 7 3 12 

Plestiodon colimensis* DD 5 6 3 14 

Plestiodon copei* LC 5 6 3 14 

Plestiodon dicei* NE 5 4 3 12 

Plestiodon dugesi* VU 5 8 3 16 

Plestiodon gilberti LC 3 6 3 12 

Plestiodon indubitus* NE 5 7 3 15 

Plestiodon lagunensis* LC 6 6 3 15 

Plestiodon lynxe* LC 5 2 3 10 

Plestiodon multilineatus* DD 5 8 3 16 

Plestiodon multivirgatus LC 3 8 3 14 

Plestiodon nietoi* NE 6 8 3 17 

Plestiodon obsoletus LC 3 5 3 11 

Plestiodon ochoterenae* LC 5 5 3 13 

Plestiodon parviauriculatus* DD 5 7 3 15 

Plestiodon parvulus* DD 5 7 3 15 

Plestiodon skiltonianus LC 3 5 3 11 

Plestiodon sumichrasti NE 4 5 3 12 

Plestiodon tetragrammus LC 4 5 3 12 

Family Sphaerodactylidae (4 species) 

Aristelliger georgeensis NE 3 7 3 13 

Gonatodes albogularis NE 3 5 3 11 

Sphaerodactylus continentalis NE 4 3 3 10 

Sphaerodactylus glaucus NE 4 5 3 12 

Family Sphenomorphidae (6 species) 

Scincella gemmingeri* LC 5 3 3 11 

Scincella kikaapoda* NE 3 6 8 3 17 

Scincella lateralis LC 3 7 3 13 

Scincella silvicola* LC 5 4 3 12 

Sphenomorphus assatus NE 2 2 3 7 

Sphenomorphus cherriei NE 3 2 3 8 

Family Teiidae (46 species) 

Aspidoscelis angusticeps LC 4 6 3 13 

Aspidoscelis bacata* LC 6 8 3 17 

Aspidoscelis burti LC 4 8 3 15 

Aspidoscelis calidipes* LC 5 6 3 14 

Aspidoscelis cana* LC 5 8 3 16 

Aspidoscelis carmenensis* LC 6 8 3 17 

Aspidoscelis catalinensis* VU 6 8 3 17 

Aspidoscelis celeripes* LC 5 7 3 15 

Aspidoscelis ceralbensis* LC 6 8 3 17 

Aspidoscelis communis* LC 5 6 3 14 

Aspidoscelis costata* LC 5 3 3 11 

Aspidoscelis cozumela* LC 5 8 3 16 

Aspidoscelis danheimae* LC 6 7 3 16 

Aspidoscelis deppii LC 1 4 3 8 

Aspidoscelis espiritensis* LC 5 8 3 16 

Aspidoscelis exanguis LC 4 7 3 14 

Aspidoscelis franciscensis* LC 6 8 3 17 


037 



Aspidoscelis gularis LC 2 4 3 9 

Aspidoscelis guttata* LC 5 4 3 12 

Aspidoscelis hyperythra LC 2 5 3 10 

Aspidoscelis inornata LC 4 7 3 14 

Aspidoscelis labialis* VU 5 7 3 15 

Aspidoscelis laredoensis LC 4 7 3 14 

Aspidoscelis lineattissima* LC 5 6 3 14 

Aspidoscelis marmorata NE 4 7 3 14 

Aspidoscelis martyris* VU 6 8 3 17 

Aspidoscelis maslini LC 4 8 3 15 

Aspidoscelis mexicana* LC 5 6 3 14 

Aspidoscelis motaguae LC 4 5 3 12 

Aspidoscelis neomexicana LC 4 8 3 15 

Aspidoscelis opatae* DD 5 8 3 16 

Aspidoscelis parvisocia* LC 5 7 3 15 

Aspidoscelis picta* LC 6 8 3 17 

Aspidoscelis rodecki* NT 5 8 3 16 

Aspidoscelis sackii* LC 5 6 3 14 

Aspidoscelis semptemvittata LC 3 7 3 13 

Aspidoscelis sexlineata LC 3 8 3 14 

Aspidoscelis sonorae LC 4 6 3 13 

Aspidoscelis stictogramma NE 4 7 3 14 

Aspidoscelis tesselata LC 4 7 3 14 

Aspidoscelis tigris LC 3 2 3 8 

Aspidoscelis uniparens LC 4 8 3 15 

Aspidoscelis xanthonota NE 4 7 3 14 

Holcosus chaitzami DD 4 7 3 14 

Holcosus festiva NE 3 5 3 11 

Holcosus undulatus NE 2 2 3 7 

Family Xantusiidae (25 species) 

Lepidophyma chicoasense* DD 6 8 2 16 

Lepidophyma cuicateca* NE 3 6 8 2 16 

Lepidophyma dontomasi* DD 6 6 2 14 

Lepidophyma flavimaculatum NE 1 5 2 8 

Lepidophyma gaigeae* VU 5 6 2 13 

Lepidophyma lineri* DD 5 8 2 15 

Lepidophyma lipetzi* EN 6 8 2 16 

Lepidophyma lowei* DD 6 8 2 16 

Lepidophyma micropholis* VU 5 8 2 15 

Lepidophyma occulor* LC 5 7 2 14 

Lepidophyma pajapanense* LC 5 6 2 13 

Lepidophyma radula* DD 6 5 2 13 

Lepidophyma smithii NE 2 4 2 8 

Lepidophyma sylvaticum* LC 5 4 2 11 

Lepidophyma tarascae* DD 5 7 2 14 

Lepidophyma tuxtlae* DD 5 4 2 11 

Lepidophyma zongolica* NE 3 6 8 2 16 

Xantusia bolsonae* DD 6 8 3 17 

Xantusia extorris* LC 5 7 3 15 


038 


Wilson et al. 

Xantusia gilberti* NE 5 8 3 16 

Xantusia henshawi LC 4 5 3 12 

Xantusia jaycolei* NE 5 8 3 16 

Xantusia sanchezi* LC 5 8 3 16 

Xantusia sherbrookei* NE 5 8 3 16 

Xantusia wigginsi NE 4 7 3 14 

Family Xenosauridae (9 species) 

Xenosaurus agrenon* NE 5 4 3 12 

Xenosaurus grandis* VU 5 1 3 9 

Xenosaurus newmanorum* EN 5 7 3 15 

Xenosaurus penai* LC 6 7 3 16 

Xenosaurus phalaroanthereon* DD 5 8 3 16 

Xenosaurus platyceps* EN 5 6 3 14 

Xenosaurus rackhami NE 4 4 3 11 

Xenosaurus rectocollaris* LC 5 8 3 16 

Xenosaurus tzacualtipantecus* NE 6 8 3 17 

Family Boidae (2 species) 

Boa constrictor NE 3 1 6 10 

Charina trivirgata LC 4 3 3 10 

Family Colubridae (136 species) 

Arizona elegans LC 1 1 3 5 

Arizona pacata* LC 5 5 4 14 

Bogertophis rosaliae LC 2 5 3 10 

Bogertophis subocularis LC 4 7 3 14 

Chilomeniscus savagei* LC 6 7 2 15 

Chilomeniscus stramineus LC 4 2 2 8 

Chionactus occipitalis LC 4 6 2 12 

Chionactus palarostris LC 4 7 2 13 

Coluber constrictor LC 1 6 3 10 

Conopsis acuta* NE 5 7 2 14 

Conopsis amphisticha* NT 5 8 2 15 

Conopsis biserialis* LC 5 6 2 13 

Conopsis lineata* LC 5 6 2 13 

Conopsis megalodon* LC 5 7 2 14 

Conopsis nasus* LC 5 4 2 11 

Dendrophidion vinitor LC 3 7 3 13 

Drymarchon melanurus LC 1 1 4 6 

Drymobius chloroticus LC 1 3 4 8 

Drymobius margaritiferus NE 1 1 4 6 

Ficimia hardyi* EN 5 6 2 13 

Ficimia olivacea* NE 5 2 2 9 

Ficimia publia NE 4 3 2 9 

Ficimia ramirezi* DD 6 8 2 16 

Ficimia ruspator* DD 6 8 2 16 

Ficimia streckeri LC 3 7 2 12 

Ficimia variegata* DD 5 7 2 14 

Geagras redimitus* DD 5 7 2 14 

Gyalopion canum LC 4 3 2 9 

Gyalopion quadrangulare LC 3 6 2 11 


039 



Lampropeltis alterna LC 4 7 3 14 

Lampropeltis californiae NE 2 3 4 3 10 

Lampropeltis catalinensis* DD 6 8 3 17 

Lampropeltis herrerae* CR 6 8 3 17 

Lampropeltis holbrooki NE 2 3 8 3 14 

Lampropeltis knoblochi NE 2 2 5 3 10 

Lampropeltis mexicana* LC 5 7 3 15 

Lampropeltis ruthveni* NT 5 8 3 16 

Lampropeltis splendida NE 2 4 5 3 12 

Lampropeltis triangulum NE 1 1 5 7 

Lampropeltis webbi* DD 5 8 3 16 

Lampropeltis zonata LC 3 7 5 15 

Leptophis ahaetulla NE 3 3 4 10 

Leptophis diplotropis* LC 5 5 4 14 

Leptophis mexicanus LC 1 1 4 6 

Leptophis modestus VU 3 7 4 14 

Liochlorophis vernalis LC 3 8 3 14 

Masticophis anthonyi* CR 6 8 3 17 

Masticophis aurigulus* LC 5 4 4 13 

Masticophis barbouri* DD 6 8 3 17 

Masticophis bilineatus LC 2 5 4 11 

Masticophis flagellum LC 1 3 4 8 

Masticophis fuliginosus NE 2 3 4 9 

Masticophis lateralis LC 3 3 4 10 

Masticophis mentovarius NE 1 1 4 6 

Masticophis schotti LC 4 5 4 13 

Masticophis slevini* LC 6 8 3 17 

Masticophis taeniatus LC 1 5 4 10 

Mastigodryas cliftoni* NE 5 6 3 14 

Mastigodryas melanolomus LC 1 1 4 6 

Opheodrys aestivus LC 3 7 3 13 

Oxybelis aeneus NE 1 1 3 5 

Oxybelis fulgidus NE 3 2 4 9 

Pantherophis bairdi NE 4 7 4 15 

Pantherophis emoryi LC 3 6 4 13 

Phyllorhynchus browni LC 4 7 2 13 

Phyllorhynchus decurtatus LC 4 5 2 11 

Pituophis catenifer LC 4 1 4 9 

Pituophis deppei* LC 5 5 4 14 

Pituophis insulanus* LC 6 6 4 16 

Pituophis lineaticollis LC 2 2 4 8 

Pituophis vertebralis* LC 5 3 4 12 

Pseudelaphe flavirufa LC 2 4 4 10 

Pseudelaphe phaescens* NE 5 7 4 16 

Pseudoficimia frontalis* LC 5 5 3 13 

Pseustes poecilonotus LC 3 4 3 10 

Rhinocheilus antonii* NE 5 8 3 16 

Rhinocheilus etheridgei* DD 6 7 3 16 

Rhinocheilus lecontei LC 1 3 4 8 


040 


Wilson et al. 

Salvadora bairdi* LC 5 6 4 15 

Salvadora deserticola NE 4 6 4 14 

Salvadora grahamiae LC 4 2 4 10 

Salvadora hexalepis LC 4 2 4 10 

Salvadora intermedia* LC 5 7 4 16 

Salvadora lemniscata* LC 5 6 4 15 

Salvadora mexicana* LC 5 6 4 15 

Scaphiodontophis annulatus NE 1 5 5 11 

Senticolis triaspis NE 2 1 3 6 

Sonora aemula* NT 5 6 5 16 

Sonora michoacanensis* LC 5 6 3 14 

Sonora mutabilis* LC 5 6 3 14 

Sonora semiannulata LC 1 1 3 5 

Spilotes pullatus NE 1 1 4 6 

Stenorrhina degenhardtii NE 3 3 3 9 

Stenorrhina freminvillii NE 1 2 4 7 

Symphimus leucostomus* LC 5 6 3 14 

Symphimus mayae LC 4 7 3 14 

Sympholis lippiens* NE 5 6 3 14 

Tantilla atriceps LC 2 7 2 11 

Tantilla bocourti* LC 5 2 2 9 

Tantilla briggsi* DD 6 8 2 16 

Tantilla calamarina* LC 5 5 2 12 

Tantilla cascadae* DD 6 8 2 16 

Tantilla ceboruca* NE 6 8 2 16 

Tantilla coronadoi* LC 6 7 2 15 

Tantilla cuniculator LC 4 7 2 13 

Tantilla deppei* LC 5 6 2 13 

Tantilla flavilineata* EN 5 7 2 14 

Tantilla gracilis LC 3 8 2 13 

Tantilla hobartsmithi LC 3 6 2 11 

Tantilla impensa LC 3 5 2 10 

Tantilla johnsoni* DD 6 8 2 16 

Tantilla moesta LC 4 7 2 13 

Tantilla nigriceps LC 3 6 2 11 

Tantilla oaxacae* DD 6 7 2 15 

Tantilla planiceps LC 4 3 2 9 

Tantilla robusta* DD 6 8 2 16 

Tantilla rubra LC 2 1 2 5 

Tantilla schistosa NE 3 3 2 8 

Tantilla sertula* DD 6 8 2 16 

Tantilla shawi* EN 5 8 2 15 

Tantilla slavensi* DD 5 7 2 14 

Tantilla striata* DD 5 7 2 14 

Tantilla tayrae* DD 6 7 2 15 

Tantilla triseriata* DD 5 6 2 13 

Tantilla vulcani NE 4 6 2 12 

Tantilla wilcoxi LC 2 6 2 10 

Tantilla yaquia LC 2 6 2 10 


041 



Tantillita brevissima LC 4 3 2 9 

Tantillita canula LC 4 6 2 12 

Tantillita lintoni LC 4 6 2 12 

Trimorphodon biscutatus NE 2 1 4 7 

Trimorphodon lambda NE 4 5 4 13 

Trimorphodon lyrophanes NE 4 2 4 10 

Trimorphodon paucimaculatus* NE 5 6 4 15 

Trimorphodon tau* LC 5 4 4 13 

Trimorphodon vilkinsonii LC 4 7 4 15 

Family Dipsadidae (115 species) 

Adelphicos latifasciatum* DD 6 7 2 15 

Adelphicos newmanorum* NE 5 5 2 12 

Adelphicos nigrilatum* LC 5 7 2 14 

Adelphicos quadrivirgatum DD 4 4 2 10 

Adelphicos sargii LC 4 6 2 12 

Amastridium sapperi NE 4 4 2 10 

Chersodromus liebmanni* LC 5 5 2 12 

Chersodromus rubriventris* EN 5 7 2 14 

Coniophanes alvarezi* DD 6 8 3 17 

Coniophanes bipunctatus NE 1 5 3 10 

Coniophanes fissidens NE 1 3 3 7 

Coniophanes imperialis LC 2 3 3 8 

Coniophanes lateritius* DD 5 5 3 13 

Coniophanes melanocephalus* DD 5 6 3 14 

Coniophanes meridanus* LC 5 7 3 15 

Coniophanes michoacanensis* NE 3 6 8 3 17 

Coniophanes piceivittis LC 1 3 3 7 

Coniophanes quinquevittatus LC 4 6 3 13 

Coniophanes sarae* DD 5 7 3 16 

Coniophanes schmidti LC 4 6 3 13 

Coniophanes taylori* NE 5 7 4 16 

Cryophis hallbergi* DD 5 7 2 14 

Diadophis punctatus LC 1 1 2 4 

Dipsas brevifacies LC 4 7 4 15 

Dipsas gaigeae* LC 5 8 4 17 

Enulius flavitorques NE 1 1 3 5 

Enulius oligostichus* DD 5 7 3 15 

Geophis anocularis* LC 6 8 2 16 

Geophis bicolor* DD 5 8 2 15 

Geophis blanchardi* DD 5 8 2 15 

Geophis cancellatus LC 4 6 2 12 

Geophis carinosus LC 2 4 2 8 

Geophis chalybeus* DD 6 7 2 15 

Geophis dubius* LC 5 6 2 13 

Geophis duellmani* LC 5 8 2 15 

Geophis dugesi* LC 5 6 2 13 

Geophis immaculatus LC 4 8 2 14 

Geophis incomptus* DD 6 8 2 16 

Geophis isthmicus* DD 6 8 2 16 


042 


Wilson et al. 

Geophis juarezi* DD 6 8 2 16 

Geophis juliai* VU 5 6 2 13 

Geophis laticinctus* LC 5 4 2 11 

Geophis laticollaris* DD 6 8 2 16 

Geophis latifrontalis* DD 5 7 2 14 

Geophis maculiferus* DD 6 8 2 16 

Geophis mutitorques* LC 5 6 2 13 

Geophis nasalis LC 4 3 2 9 

Geophis nigrocinctus* DD 5 8 2 15 

Geophis occabus* NE 3 6 8 2 16 

Geophis omiltemanus* LC 5 8 2 15 

Geophis petersi* DD 5 8 2 15 

Geophis pyburni* DD 6 8 2 16 

Geophis rhodogaster LC 3 7 2 12 

Geophis russatus* DD 6 8 2 16 

Geophis sallei* DD 6 7 2 15 

Geophis semidoliatus* LC 5 6 2 13 

Geophis sieboldi* DD 5 6 2 13 

Geophis tarascae* DD 5 8 2 15 

Heterodon kennerlyi NE 3 4 4 11 

Hypsiglena affinis* NE 5 7 2 14 

Hypsiglena chlorophaea NE 1 5 2 8 

Hypsiglena jani NE 1 3 2 6 

Hypsiglena ochrorhyncha NE 2 4 2 8 

Hypsiglena slevini* NE 5 4 2 11 

Hypsiglena tanzeri* DD 5 8 2 15 

Hypsiglena torquata* LC 5 1 2 8 

Imantodes cenchoa NE 1 3 2 6 

Imantodes gemmistratus NE 1 3 2 6 

Imantodes tenuissimus NE 4 7 2 13 

Leptodeira frenata LC 4 4 4 12 

Leptodeira maculata LC 2 1 4 7 

Leptodeira nigrofasciata LC 1 3 4 8 

Leptodeira punctata* LC 5 8 4 17 

Leptodeira septentrionalis NE 2 2 4 8 

Leptodeira splendida* LC 5 5 4 14 

Leptodeira uribei* LC 5 8 4 17 

Ninia diademata LC 4 3 2 9 

Ninia sebae NE 1 1 2 5 

Pliocercus elapoides LC 4 1 5 10 

Pseudoleptodeira latifasciata* LC 5 5 4 14 

Rhadinaea bogertorum* DD 6 8 2 16 

Rhadinaea cuneata* DD 6 7 2 15 

Rhadinaea decorata NE 1 6 2 9 

Rhadinaea forbesi* DD 5 8 2 15 

Rhadinaea fulvivittis* VU 5 4 2 11 

Rhadinaea gaigeae* DD 5 5 2 12 

Rhadinaea hesperia* LC 5 3 2 10 

Rhadinaea laureata* LC 5 5 2 12 


043 



Rhadinaea macdougalli* DD 5 5 2 12 

Rhadinaea marcellae* EN 5 5 2 12 

Rhadinaea montana* EN 5 7 2 14 

Rhadinaea myersi* DD 5 5 2 12 

Rhadinaea omiltemana* DD 5 8 2 15 

Rhadinaea quinquelineata* DD 5 8 2 15 

Rhadinaea taeniata* LC 5 6 2 13 

Rhadinella godmani NE 3 5 2 10 

Rhadinella hannsteini DD 4 5 2 11 

Rhadinella kanalchutchan* DD 6 8 2 16 

Rhadinella kinkelini LC 4 6 2 12 

Rhadinella lachrymans LC 4 2 2 8 

Rhadinella posadasi NE 4 8 2 14 

Rhadinella schistosa* LC 5 6 2 13 

Rhadinophanes monticola* DD 6 7 2 15 

Sibon dimidiatus LC 1 5 4 10 

Sibon linearis* DD 6 8 2 16 

Sibon nebulatus NE 1 2 2 5 

Sibon sanniolus LC 4 6 2 12 

Tantalophis discolor* VU 5 6 3 14 

Tropidodipsas annulifera* LC 5 4 4 13 

Tropidodipsas fasciata* NE 5 4 4 13 

Tropidodipsas fischeri NE 4 3 4 11 

Tropidodipsas philippi* LC 5 5 4 14 

Tropidodipsas repleta* DD 5 8 4 17 

Tropidodipsas sartorii NE 2 2 5 9 

Tropidodipsas zweifeli* NE 5 7 4 16 

Family Elapidae (19 species) 

Laticauda colubrina LC — — — — 

Micruroides euryxanthus LC 4 6 5 15 

Micrurus bernadi* LC 5 5 5 15 

Micrurus bogerti* DD 5 7 5 17 

Micrurus browni LC 2 1 5 8 

Micrurus diastema LC 2 1 5 8 

Micrurus distans* LC 5 4 5 14 

Micrurus elegans LC 4 4 5 13 

Micrurus ephippifer* VU 5 5 5 15 

Micrurus laticollaris* LC 5 4 5 14 

Micrurus latifasciatus LC 4 4 5 13 

Micrurus limbatus* LC 5 7 5 17 

Micrurus nebularis* DD 5 8 5 18 

Micrurus nigrocinctus NE 3 3 5 11 

Micrurus pachecogili* DD 6 7 5 18 

Micrurus proximans* LC 5 8 5 18 

Micrurus tamaulipensis* DD 6 8 5 19 

Micrurus tener LC 1 5 5 11 

Pelamis platura LC — — — — 

Family Leptotyphlopidae (8 species) 

Epictia goudotii NE 1 1 1 3 


044 


Wilson et al. 

Rena boettgeri* NE 5 8 1 14 

Rena bressoni* DD 5 8 1 14 

Rena dissecta LC 4 6 1 11 

Rena dulcis LC 4 8 1 13 

Rena humilis LC 4 3 1 8 

Rena maxima* LC 5 5 1 11 

Rena myopica* LC 5 7 1 13 

Family Loxocemidae (1 species) 

Loxocemus bicolor NE 1 5 4 10 

Family Natricidae (33 species) 

Adelophis copei* VU 5 8 2 15 

Adelophis foxi* DD 6 8 2 16 

Nerodia erythrogaster LC 3 4 4 11 

Nerodia rhombifer LC 1 5 4 10 

Storeria dekayi LC 1 4 2 7 

Storeria hidalgoensis* VU 5 6 2 13 

Storeria storerioides* LC 5 4 2 11 

Thamnophis bogerti* NE 5 7 4 16 

Thamnophis chrysocephalus* LC 5 5 4 14 

Thamnophis conanti* NE 5 8 4 17 

Thamnophis cyrtopsis LC 2 1 4 7 

Thamnophis elegans LC 3 7 4 14 

Thamnophis eques LC 2 2 4 8 

Thamnophis errans* LC 5 7 4 16 

Thamnophis exsul* LC 5 7 4 16 

Thamnophis fulvus LC 4 5 4 13 

Thamnophis godmani* LC 5 5 4 14 

Thamnophis hammondii LC 4 5 4 13 

Thamnophis lineri* NE 5 8 4 17 

Thamnophis marcianus NE 1 5 4 10 

Thamnophis melanogaster* EN 5 6 4 15 

Thamnophis mendax* EN 5 5 4 14 

Thamnophis nigronuchalis* DD 5 3 4 12 

Thamnophis postremus* LC 5 6 4 15 

Thamnophis proximus NE 1 2 4 7 

Thamnophis pulchrilatus* LC 5 6 4 15 

Thamnophis rossmani* DD 6 8 4 18 

Thamnophis rufipunctatus LC 4 7 4 15 

Thamnophis scalaris* LC 5 5 4 14 

Thamnophis scaliger* VU 5 6 4 15 

Thamnophis sirtalis LC 3 7 4 14 

Thamnophis sumichrasti* LC 5 6 4 15 

Thamnophis validus* LC 5 3 4 12 

Family Typhlopidae (2 species) 

Typhlops microstomus LC 4 7 1 12 

Typhlops tenuis LC 4 6 1 11 

Family Ungaliophiidae (2 species) 

Exiliboa placata* VU 5 8 2 15 

Ungaliophis continentalis NE 3 5 2 10 


045 



Family Viperidae (59 species) 

Agkistrodon bilineatus NT 1 5 5 11 

Agkistrodon contortrix LC 3 6 5 14 

Agkistrodon taylori* LC 5 7 5 17 

Atropoides mexicanus NE 3 4 5 12 

Atropoides nummifer* LC 5 3 5 13 

Atropoides occiduus NE 4 6 5 15 

Atropoides olmec LC 4 6 5 15 

Bothriechis aurifer VU 3 6 5 14 

Bothriechis bicolor LC 4 5 5 14 

Bothriechis rowleyi* VU 5 6 5 16 

Bothriechis schlegelii NE 3 4 5 12 

Bothrops asper NE 3 4 5 12 

Cerrophidion godmani NE 3 3 5 11 

Cerrophidion petlalcalensis* DD 5 8 5 18 

Cerrophidion tzotzilorum* LC 6 8 5 19 

Crotalus angelensis* LC 6 7 5 18 

Crotalus aquilus* LC 5 6 5 16 

Crotalus atrox LC 1 3 5 9 

Crotalus basiliscus* LC 5 6 5 16 

Crotalus catalinensis* CR 6 8 5 19 

Crotalus cerastes LC 4 7 5 16 

Crotalus culminatus* NE 5 5 5 15 

Crotalus enyo* LC 5 3 5 13 

Crotalus ericsmithi* NE 5 8 5 18 

Crotalus estebanensis* LC 6 8 5 19 

Crotalus helleri NE 4 3 5 12 

Crotalus intermedius* LC 5 5 5 15 

Crotalus lannomi* DD 6 8 5 19 

Crotalus lepidus LC 2 5 5 12 

Crotalus lorenzoensis* LC 6 8 5 19 

Crotalus mitchellii LC 4 3 5 12 

Crotalus molossus LC 2 1 5 8 

Crotalus muertensis* LC 6 8 5 19 

Crotalus ornatus NE 4 4 5 13 

Crotalus polystictus* LC 5 6 5 16 

Crotalus pricei LC 2 7 5 14 

Crotalus pusillus* EN 5 8 5 18 

Crotalus ravus* LC 5 4 5 14 

Crotalus ruber LC 2 2 5 9 

Crotalus scutulatus LC 2 4 5 11 

Crotalus simus NE 3 2 5 10 

Crotalus stejnegeri* VU 5 7 5 17 

Crotalus tancitarensis* DD 6 8 5 19 

Crotalus tigris LC 4 7 5 16 

Crotalus totonacus* NE 5 7 5 17 

Crotalus transversus* LC 5 7 5 17 

Crotalus triseriatus* LC 5 6 5 16 

Crotalus tzabcan NE 4 7 5 16 


046 


Wilson et al. 

Crotalus viridis LC 1 6 5 12 

Crotalus willardi LC 2 6 5 13 

Mixcoatlus barbouri* EN 5 5 5 15 

Mixcoatlus browni* NE 5 7 5 17 

Mixcoatlus melanurus* EN 5 7 5 17 

Ophryacus undulatus* VU 5 5 5 15 

Porthidium dunni* LC 5 6 5 16 

Porthidium hespere* DD 5 8 5 18 

Porthidium nasutum LC 3 6 5 14 

Porthidium yucatanicum* LC 5 7 5 17 

Sistrurus catenatus LC 3 5 5 13 

Family Xenodontidae (8 species) 

Clelia scytalina NE 4 5 4 13 

Conophis lineatus LC 2 3 4 9 

Conophis morai* DD 6 7 4 17 

Conophis vittatus LC 2 5 4 11 

Manolepis putnami* LC 5 5 3 13 

Oxyrhopus petolarius NE 3 6 5 14 

Tretanorhinus nigroluteus NE 3 5 2 10 

Xenodon rabdocephalus NE 3 5 5 13 


047 


Cantils (genus Agkistrodon) are some of the most feared snakes in Mesoamerica, as their bite and powerful venom have caused 

numerous human fatalities. Equipped with a large and strikingly-marked head, a stout body, and a nervous attitude that often is mistaken 

for aggression, these snakes usually are killed on sight. Cantils primarily are found in tropical forests that undergo a prolonged 

dry season, but occasionally inhabit savannas and areas that flood seasonally after heavy rains. Pictured here is a cantil from Parque 

Nacional Santa Rosa, in northwestern Costa Rica. Photo by Louis W. Porras. 

Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://amphibian-reptile-conservation.org 

048 


Copyright: © 2013 Porras et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons 




A taxonomic reevaluation and conservation assessment of 

the common cantil, Agkistrodon bilineatus (Squamata: 

Viperidae): a race against time 

1 

Louis W. Porras, 2 Larry David Wilson, 3,4 Gordon W. Schuett, 

and 4 Randall S. Reiserer 

1 

7705 Wyatt Earp Avenue, Eagle Mountain, Utah, 84005, USA 2 Centro Zamorano de Biodiversidad, Escuela Agrícola Panamericana Zamorano, Francisco 

Morazán, HONDURAS; 16010 S.W. 207th Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33187, USA 3 Department of Biology and Center for Behavioral Neuroscience, 

Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303, USA 4 The Copperhead Institute, P.O. Box 6755, Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304, USA 

Abstract.—Several lines of evidence suggest that numerous populations of cantils (Agkistrodon bilineatus, 

A. taylori), New World pitvipers with a distribution in Mesoamerica, are in rapid decline. We 

examined the IUCN conservation status for A. bilineatus, assessed for the entire range of the species, 

as well as the Environmental Vulnerability Scores (EVS) provided for certain countries along 

its distribution. Because of pronounced disparities in these conservation assessments and notable 

phenotypic differences that coincide with the geographic distribution of certain cantil populations, 

we conduct a taxonomic reassessment of the common cantil, Agkistrodon bilineatus (Günther 

1863), to determine if the recognized subspecies of A. bilineatus merit specific status. Based on 

our morphological assessment, biogeographical evidence, and the results of previous DNA-based 

studies, we elevate the three previously recognized subspecies of A. bilineatus to full species (A. 

bilineatus, A. russeolus, and A. howardgloydi). Given this taxonomic reassessment, we examine the 

conservation status of the newly elevated taxa, suggest avenues for future studies within this complex 

of pitvipers, and provide conservation recommendations. 

Key words. Character evolution, evolutionary species, Mesoamerica, subspecies concept 

Resumen.—Varias líneas de evidencia sugieren que numerosas poblaciones de cantiles (Agkistrodon 

bilineatus, A. taylori), víboras de foseta del Nuevo Mundo con una distribución en Mesoamérica, están 

en rápido declive. Examinamos los resultados sobre el estado de conservación propuestos por 

la UICN para A. bilineatus, que fueron evaluados para la distribución total de la especie, así como 

los resultados de los Índices de Vulnerabilidad Ambiental (en inglés, Environmental Vulnerability 

Scores [EVS]) que fueron determinados para esta especie en algunos países a lo largo de su distribución. 

Por haber disparidades pronunciadas en estas evaluaciones de conservación y diferencias 

fenotípicas notables que coinciden con la distribución geográfica de ciertas poblaciones de cantiles, 

en este trabajo realizamos una reevaluación taxonómica del cantil común, Agkistrodon bilineatus 

(Günther 1863), para determinar si las subespecies reconocidas de A. bilineatus merecen el 

estatus de especie. Basado en nuestro análisis morfológico, evidencia biogeográfica y los resultados 

de anteriores estudios basados en ADN, elevamos las tres subespecies de A. bilineatus previamente 

reconocidas al nivel de especie (A. bilineatus, A. russeolus y A. howardgloydi). Tomando en 

cuenta esta nueva evaluación taxonómica, examinamos el estado de conservación de los taxones 

aquí elevados, hacemos sugerencias para estudios futuros dentro de este complejo de víboras de 

foseta y ofrecemos recomendaciones para su conservación. 

Palabras claves. Evolución de caracteres, especies evolutivas, Mesoamérica, concepto de subespecies 

Citation: Porras LW, Wilson LD, Schuett GW, Reiserer RS. 2013. A taxonomic reevaluation and conservation assessment of the common cantil, 

Agkistrodon bilineatus (Squamata: Viperidae): a race against time. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1): 48–73 (e63). 

Correspondence. Emails: 1 empub@msn.com (Corresponding author) 2 bufodoc@aol.com 3,4 gwschuett@yahoo.com 

4 

rreiserer@gmail.com 


049 


Porras et al. 

Although the restoration of tropical dry forest is still possible, 

humanity will not give the globe back to its wildland 

denizens, and old-growth tropical dry forest will 

never again cover large areas. 

Introduction 

Janzen 2004: 80. 

The common cantil (Agkistrodon bilineatus) is a polytypic 

species of North American pitviper with a variably 

fragmented distribution extending from extreme southwestern 

Chihuahua and southern Sonora, Mexico, to 

northwestern Costa Rica, on the Pacific versant, and parts 

of the Yucatan Peninsula, northern Belize, Guatemala, 

and extreme western Honduras on the Atlantic versant; 

it also occurs in Las Islas Marías, an archipelago of four 

islands located about 100 km west of the state of Nayarit, 

Mexico (Gloyd and Conant 1990; Campbell and Lamar 

2004; Lemos-Espinal and Smith 2007; Babb and Dugan 

2008; García-Grajales and Buenorostro-Silva 2011; 

McCranie 2011). With few exceptions, the dominant 

vegetation zones occupied by A. bilineatus are dry forest, 

deciduous forest, thorn scrub, and savanna, primarily 

areas of low relief that have been exploited heavily for 

irrigated agriculture and where this species mostly has 

become a rare snake; the elevational range of A. bilineatus 

extends from near sea level to about 1,500 m (Gloyd 

and Conant 1990; Conant 1992). Along the Pacific coast 

of Mesoamerica, tropical dry forests were reported as the 

most endangered of the major tropical ecosystems, with 

only 0.09% of that region afforded official conservation 

status (Janzen 1988). A quarter of a century after Janzen’s 

elucidative paper, aside from protected areas, dry forests 

throughout this region have continued to deteriorate. 

In a monographic study of the Agkistrodon complex, 

Gloyd and Conant (1990) provided an extensive review 

of the cantils, including information on their taxonomy, 

morphology, distribution, and aspects of their natural 

history. Based on multiple lines of evidence, Parkinson 

et al. (2002) conducted a phylogeographic analysis of 

the cantils and elevated A. b. taylori to the rank of full 

species, emphasizing that the loss of forested areas in 

the habitat of this species underscored the need for its 

conservation. More recently, Wilson et al. (2010) compiled 

an extensive conservation assessment for the entire 

Mesoamerican herpetofauna, in which numerous 

authorities provided information on the status of cantils. 

Although the methodological approaches of these 

authors varied, it was clear from the outcome that the 

conservation status of A. bilineatus showed dramatic 

differences when analyzed on a country by country or 

regional basis, since the reported or estimated IUCN 

rankings for this species extended the gamut from Least 

Concern to Critically Endangered (Lavin-Murcio and 

Lazcano 2010; Sasa et al. 2010). Some authors also 

provided Environmental Vulnerability Scores (EVS; a 

conservation measure developed and used by Wilson and 

McCranie 1992, 2004, and McCranie and Wilson 2002) 

for certain countries, and their results were more informative. 

This measure provides a rough gauge of the theoretical 

degree that herptofaunal species are vulnerable to 

environmental degradation; the scores at the upper end 

of the scale (ranging from 14 to 20) indicate a greater degree 

of concern (Wilson et al. 2013), and the EVS for A. 

bilineatus was reported as 15 for Honduras, Nicaragua, 

and Costa Rica, and as 16 for Belize (Sasa et al. 2010; 

Stafford et al. 2010; Sunyer and Köhler 2010; Townsend 

and Wilson 2010). 

Based on our field experiences, recent discussions 

with several colleagues working in regions where cantils 

occur, and information from the published literature, we 

echo the statements of several of the aforementioned authorities 

that in many regions A. bilineatus has declined 

significantly, largely as a result of human activities. 

Our principal goal in this paper is to reexamine the 

conservation status of A. bilineatus, inasmuch as the 

available information suggests that certain populations 

are declining or imperiled. In conservation biology the 

threat status of an organism typically is evaluated at the 

species level, so first we reevaluate the taxonomic status 

of the three subspecies of A. bilineatus (bilineatus, russeolus, 

and howardgloydi) to determine if any (or all) of 

them shows sufficient lineage divergence to warrant full 

species recognition. Accordingly, our conservation assessment 

develops from our taxonomic conclusions. 

Morphological Assessment 

Gloyd and Conant (1990) and Campbell and Lamar 

(2004) provided an extensive amount of biological information 

on cantils, including excellent drawings of the 

scalation and pattern of the relevant taxa discussed in 

this paper, so we relied largely on these sources for our 

morphological assessment. Unlike previous views (see 

Gloyd and Conant 1990), the genus Agkistrodon now is 

restricted to the New World (see Molecular Assessment). 

As in other pitviper genera, Agkistrodon (sensu 

stricto) is characterized by the presence of a deep facial 

pit, a vertically elliptical pupil, a large venom 

gland in the temporal region, and a canaliculated fang 

on the maxilla followed by a series of smaller replacement 

fangs. In Agkistrodon, however, the scales on the 

crown generally are large and plate-like, although often 

they are fragmented or contain partial sutures, and the 

skull is relatively broad and equipped with short fangs. 

Other characters include a pronounced canthus rostralis, 

the presence of a loreal scale in all members except 

A. piscivorus, a robust (or relatively robust) body, and a 

moderate to long tail. Scale characters such as supralabials, 

infralabials, and dorsal scale rows at midbody show 

little variation among the species, although the last of 

these characters is slightly higher in A. piscivorus. The 


050 


Taxonomy and conservation of the common cantil 

number of ventral scales is lower in A. bilineatus and A. 

taylori than in A. contortrix and A. piscivorus, and the 

number of subcaudals is slightly lower in the latter two 

species. In Agkistrodon, some or most of the subcaudal 

scales are divided, and the terminal spine on the tail tip 

is turned downward in all the taxa except A. piscivorus. 

Moderate hemipenial differences have been reported 

among the taxa, but the similarities are more pronounced 

when comparing A. contortrix and A. piscivorus to A. bilineatus 

and A. taylori (Gloyd and Conant 1990; Malnate 

1990). The tail tip of neonates and juveniles of all species 

of Agkistrodon is brightly colored and typically is 

yellow, white, or pink (Gloyd and Conant 1990). The 

coloration of the tail tip changes as animals mature, to a 

faded yellow, green, gray, black, or sometimes to match 

the color of the dorsum. Young individuals often use their 

tail to lure prey (e.g., anurans, lizards) by way of vertical 

undulations and waving, a behavior termed “caudal luring” 

(reviewed by Strimple 1988, 1992; Carpenter and 

Gillingham 1990). 

1. The cantils 

Commonly known as cantils, A. bilineatus and A. taylori 

are thick-bodied pitvipers (Serpentes: Viperidae) with a 

large head and a moderately long and slender tail, and 

their maximum total lengths are similar. As in the other 

species of Agkistrodon, the scale characters of cantils 

only show a moderately low range of variation (Table 1). 

A wide range of color pattern variation is evident in 

Agkistrodon, and these characters were used to diagnose 

the three subspecies of A. bilineatus (Burger and 

Robertson 1951; Gloyd 1972; Conant 1984), as well to 

elevate A. taylori to the rank of full species (Parkinson 

et al. 2000). The coloration of the head is distinctive, as 

cantils are adorned with five conspicuous pale stripes, 

one vertically on the front of the snout and two laterally 

on each side of the head. The dorsal color pattern consists 

of crossbands, at least in juveniles, and this character 

shows a notable degree of geographic and ontogenetic 

variation. The chin color and ventral coloration also 

demonstrate considerable geographic variation. 

2. Color and pattern characteristics of the 

ornate cantil 

Among the cantils, the color pattern of A. taylori is the 

most vivid (Fig.1). The lower facial stripe is broad and 

extends to cover the lower edge of the supralabials, the 

dorsal pattern is composed of pronounced black crossbands 

separated by gray or pale brown areas that often 

contain yellowish brown or orange, the chin is patterned 

with bold markings with wide white or yellow elements, 

and the venter contains dark gray or black markings 

Fig. 1. Adult female Agkistrodon taylori from Aldamas, Tamaulipas, Mexico. The ornate cantil often is vividly marked. 

Photo by Tim Burkhardt. 


051 


Porras et al. 

Table 1. Maximum total length and selected scale characters in the three subspecies of Agkistrodon bilineatus and in A. taylori. 

Min-max values are followed by the mean (in parentheses). Data derived from Gloyd and Conant (1990). 

Character A. b. bilineatus A. b. russeolus A. b. howardgloydi A. taylori 

Total length 1,090 mm 1,050 mm* 960 mm 960 mm 

Ventrals 127–143 (134.5) 131–141 (136.1) 128–135 (131.1) 127–138 (133.7) 

Subcaudals 52–71 (61.6) 46–62 (55.4) 54–61 (58.8) 40–56 (48.3) 

Supralabials 5–9 (8.1) 8–9 (8.0) 7–9 (8.0) 7–9 (8.0) 

Infralabials 9–13 (10.7) 8–12 (10.8) 9–12 (10.9) 9–12 (10.4) 

Dorsal scale rows 

21–25 (22.9) 23–25 (23.1) 23–25 (23.4) 21–23 (22.9) 

(midbody) 

*Specimen with an incomplete tail. 

arranged in a somewhat checkerboard pattern. In contrast 

to juveniles, adults exhibit a subdued pattern that contains 

brighter colors, but older individuals of both sexes 

tend to become melanistic, and sexual color dimorphism 

is present in all age classes (Burchfield 1982). The tail tip 

of young individuals has been reported as sulphur yellow, 

ivory white, or salmon pink (Burchfield 1982; Gloyd and 

Conant 1990); the tail tip of most young individuals, 

however, is sulphur yellow (LWP, GWS, pers. observ.; 

Fig. 2). 

Fig. 2. Neonate female Agkistrodon taylori born in captivity 

from adults collected in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Sexual 

color pattern dimorphism is evident in all age classes, except in 

very old individuals that sometimes darken with age. In young 

males, the rhombs on the dorsum tend to form bands and the 

interstitial pattern is reduced. Photo by Breck Bartholomew. 

3. Color and pattern characteristics of the 

common cantil 

In A. b. bilineatus, both the upper and lower facial stripes 

are relatively broad, and the lower stripe is continuous 

and bordered below by dark pigment along the mouth 

line. From a frontal view, the vertical stripe along the 

rostral and mental and the lateral head stripes often meet 

on the tip of the snout. In adults, the dorsal ground color 

ranges from very dark brown to black, and if crossbands 

are present often they are difficult to distinguish. The 

dorsal pattern consists of small white spots or streaks. 

The chin and throat are dark brown or black with a pattern 

of narrow white lines or markings, and the venter is 

dark brown or black with pale markings. The coloration 

of neonates and juveniles is some shade of brown, and 

consists of brown or chestnut crossbands separated by a 

paler ground color, with the lateral edges of the crossbands 

flecked with white. The crossbands gradually fade 

with maturity, however, as the overall dorsal coloration 

darkens (Fig. 3). The tail tip of neonates and juveniles 

has been reported in numerous publications as bright yellow 

(e.g., Allen 1949; Gloyd and Conant 1990). Sexual 

color dimorphism has not been reported in any age class. 

In A. b. russeolus, the upper facial stripe is narrow 

and sometimes is intermittent posterior to the eye, and 

the lower stripe is broader and continuous and separated 

from the commissure by a band of dark pigment. From a 

frontal view, the vertical stripe along the rostral and mental 

and the two upper lateral head stripes typically meet 

on the tip of the snout. The dorsal ground color of adults 

generally is pale reddish brown, and the pattern consists 

of broad, deep reddish brown to brown crossbands that 

are separated dorsally by areas of paler coloration, and 

often are edged irregularly with white. The crossbands 

remain apparent, even in older adults. Laterally, the centers 

of the crossbands are paler and usually contain one 

or two dark spots. The pattern on the chin and throat often 

is reduced, with small whitish spots or lines present 

on a darker background. Approximately the median third 

of the venter lacks a pattern or contains a few markings. 

The coloration of a neonate (150 to 175 mm TL) collected 

near Mérida, Yucatán, was described from life 

by Howard K. Gloyd (Gloyd and Conant 1990: 83) as 

showing a velvety appearance, and its pattern consisted 

of rich chestnut-brown crossbands with rufous brown 

interspaces, which were edged with blackish brown and 

interrupted lines of white, “and the tip of the tail gray.” 

A neonate from Dzibilchaltún, Yucatán, showed a similar 

coloration except that the banding was edged intermittently 

only with white, and the tail tip was pale gray with 

faint white banding (Fig. 4). This individual was maintained 

in captivity and by the time it had grown to a total 


052 


Fig. 3. Young adult Agkistrodon b. bilineatus from Apatzingán, Michoacan, Mexico, at an elevation of 330 m. Adult individuals 

from much of the west coast of Mexico often lose the dorsal banding (see cover of this issue). Photo by Javier Alvarado. 

Fig. 4. Neonate Agkistrodon bilineatus russeolus from 

Dzibilchaltún,Yucatán, Mexico. Note the pale gray tail tip with 

faint white banding, and the overall dorsal color pattern. 

Photo by Javier Ortiz. 

length of ca. 400 mm, a marked transformation in color 

pattern had taken place (Fig. 5). With growth, the inner 

portion of the crossbands gradually turned the same pale 

color as the interspaces and the individual’s pattern developed 

a more fragmented appearance; the color of the 

tail tip also shifted to include darker gray tones (Fig. 5). 

Henderson (1978) reported the dorsal pattern of a preserved 

young individual (ca. 380 mm) from Orange Walk 

Town, Orange Walk District, Belize, as faintly banded, 

and the tail as grayish-yellow with faint narrow bands. 

Although Gloyd and Conant (1990: 83) reported the tail 

Fig. 5. Juvenile (ca. 400 mm TL) Agkistrodon bilineatus russeolus 

from Dzibilchaltún,Yucatán, Mexico (same individual as in 

Fig. 4). With growth, the inner portion of the crossbands turned 

the same color as the interspaces, and the snake’s pattern developed 

a more fragmented appearance. Photo by Javier Ortiz. 

tip of an individual from the same locality as “bright 

green,” they did not indicate the total length of the snake 

and an ontogenetic color shift might have occurred. The 

fragmentation of the banding in A. b. russeolus is apparent 

in the photograph of an adult collected in the outskirts 

of Consejo, Corozal, Belize (Fig. 6). Sexual color dimorphism 

has not been reported in juveniles or adults of A. 

b. russeolus. 

In A. b. howardgloydi, the upper facial stripe is narrow 

and the posterior part often is absent in adults, and the 

lower facial stripe is broader and usually divided into two 


053 



Fig. 6. Adult Agkistrodon bilineatus russeolus from the outskirts of Consejo, Corozal, Belize. Note the fragmented color pattern. 

Photo by Kevin Zansler, courtesy of Robert A. Thomas. 

Fig. 7. Adult Agkistrodon bilineatus howardgloydi from Volcán Telica, León, 

Nicaragua. The color pattern of individuals from this volcanic region often contains 

black pigment. Photo by Nony Sonati, courtesy of Javier Sunyer. 

components that sometimes meet at the suture between 

the second and third suprlabials, and below is bordered 

by a dark line; the lower edges of the supralabials also are 

pale in color. From a frontal view, of the five facial stripes 

only the top two generally meet on 

the tip of the snout, but in some 

individuals all five stripes are connected. 

The dorsal ground color of 

adults generally is reddish brown or 

brown. Adults with black pigment, 

however, are known from Reserva 

Natural Volcán Telica in northwestern 

Nicaragua, with a pattern consisting 

of darker crossbands that 

contrast moderately with the dorsal 

ground color, and along this volcanic 

area adults sometimes show a dark 

coloration (J. Sunyer, pers. comm.; 

Figs. 7, 8). A cantil also was sighted 

on the eastern shore of Laguna de 

Xiloá, north of Managua (R. Earley, 

pers. comm.). The chin and throat 

are orange yellow, bright orange, or 

brownish orange with a pattern of a 

few small white spots, but this coloration 

terminates abruptly after the 

first few ventrals. The venter usually 

is dark reddish brown. The dorsal coloration of juveniles 

is tan to reddish orange, or reddish, with distinguishable 

reddish brown crossbands that are edged intermittently 

with white and/or black, especially as they approach 


054 


Porras et al. 

Fig. 8. Young Agkistrodon bilineatus howardgloydi from Volcán Masaya, Masaya, 

Nicaragua. The color pattern of adults from this area sometimes darkens with age. 

Photo by Javier Sunyer. 

the venter. The tail tip of juveniles 

is banded with a sequential pattern 

that ranges from very dark gray anteriorly 

to paler gray toward the tip, 

with the interspaces alternating from 

pale gray to white (Fig. 9). Although 

Villa (1984: 19) indicated that in 

Nicaragua “the bright sulphuryellow 

tail of the young becomes 

dark in the adult,” and a photograph 

of a “juvenile individual” of A. b. 

howardgloydi with what is indicated 

as a “yellowish tail” appears on the 

frontispiece, the robust body features 

of the snake clearly show that it is 

not a juvenile and its tail is not yellow. 

We question, therefore, whether 

Villa might not have assumed that 

the tail color of A. b. howardgloydi 

would be yellow, as this information 

long was entrenched in literature regarding 

A. b. bilineatus. With regard 

to sexual color dimorphism, unlike 

the other subspecies of A. bilineatus, 

sub-adults and adults of A. b. howardgloydi 

show a moderate degree 

of sexual color dimorphism; in individuals 

from Costa Rica, females are 

distinctly banded and paler in overall 

coloration, whereas males tend to be 

darker, with their banding obscured 

(Figs. 10, 11). Metachrosis, the ability 

to change color at will or under 

external stimuli (such as light), was 

observed in the holotype of A. b. 

howardgloydi (Conant 1984). The 

coloration of this individual was 

paler at night (LWP, pers. observ.). 

Fig 9. Juvenile (311 mm TL) Agkistrodon bilineatus howardgloydi from Parque 

Nacional Santa Rosa, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Note the color pattern of the tail tip, 

which anteriorly to posteriorly turns from very dark to pale gray with corresponding 

pale gray to white interspaces. Photo by Alejandro Solórzano. 


055 



Fig. 10. Adult female Agkistrodon bilineatus howardgloydi from Colonia Jobo de la Cruz, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. The color pattern 

of subadults and adults is paler in females. Photo by Louis W. Porras. 

Fig. 11. Adult male A. b. howardgloydi (holotype) from 0.8 kilimeters north of Mirador Cañon del Tigre, Parque Nacional Santa 

Rosa, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. The color pattern of subadults and adults is darker in males. Photo by Louis W. Porras. 


056 


Porras et al. 

Molecular Assessment 

Gloyd and Conant (1990) recognized 33 taxa (species 

and subspecies) in Agkistrodon (sensu lato), with a 

distribution in the Old World and the New World, but 

subsequent studies using molecular (mtDNA) methods 

partitioned Agkistrodon and demonstrated that the name 

applies to a monophyletic group of species restricted to 

the New World (Knight et al. 1992; Kraus et al. 1996; 

Parkinson et al. 1997, 2002; Parkinson 1999; Castoe and 

Parkinson 2006; Malhotra et al. 2010). Agkistrodon currently 

is viewed as containing four species, A. bilineatus, 

A. contortrix, A. piscivorus, and A. taylori (Parkinson et 

al. 2000; Campbell and Lamar 2004), although one subspecies 

of A. piscivorus and two of A. contortrix appear 

to constitute distinct species (Guiher and Burbrink 2008; 

Douglas et al. 2009). 

1. Molecular studies of cantils 

Parkinson et al. (2000) provided the first phylogeographic 

(mtDNA) analysis of cantils, and tested all of the 

recognized subspecies (bilineatus, howardgloydi, russeolus, 

and taylori). Using maximum parsimony (MP) 

and maximum likelihood (ML) methods, these authors 

recovered the clades (taylori + (bilineatus (howardgloydi 

+ russeolus))). Furthermore, based on additional lines 

of evidence (e.g., biogeography, morphology) they recommended 

the elevation of taylori to full species status, 

whereas the remaining subspecies were thought to be 

more recently diverged (i.e., having shallower relationships). 

Using other mtDNA regions (ATPase 8 and 6), 

and both ML and Bayesian methods of analyses, Douglas 

et al. (2009) corroborated the results of Knight et al. 

(1992) and Parkinson et al. (2000) with respect to New 

World Agkistrodon, including the relationships of cantils, 

although in their study they lacked DNA samples of A. b. 

russeolus. 

2. Current views of cantil systematics and 

taxonomy 

Despite efforts by the various aforementioned authorities, 

a considerable gap in our understanding of the taxonomy 

and phylogeography of cantils remains. We attribute 

this outcome largely to insufficient sampling, 

based on the number of specimens used in their analyses 

and the number of localities sampled. For example, 

Knight et al. (1992) included only two samples of cantils 

(bilineatus and taylori) and both lacked locality information, 

although their samples of taylori presumably 

were collected in Tamaulipas, Mexico (A. Knight, pers. 

comm.). Similarly, Parkinson et al. (2000) reported on 

only seven samples of cantils, of which two lacked locality 

data, and their respective samples of taylori (n = 

2) and howardgloydi (n = 2) each came from the same 

locality (see Parkinson et al. 2000: table 2). In testing 

phylogeographic hypotheses in Agkistrodon, Guiher and 

Burbrink (2008) and Douglas et al. (2009) used extensive 

sampling of A. contortrix and A. piscivorus, and both 

studies used cantils as an outgroup. No new localities for 

cantils, however, were sampled. 

Presently, only limited mtDNA-based sequence data 

(no nuclear genes have been tested) are available for a 

handful of specimens of cantils. No definitive molecular 

information exists for the nominate form, A. b. bilineatus 

(i.e., no study has provided precise locality information) 

and only one specimen of A. b. russeolus (Yucatán, 

Mexico) has been subjected to a DNA-based inquiry 

(Parkinson et al. 2000). Given the extensive range of cantils, 

the limited number of specimens sampled and tested 

thus far (Mexico: Tamaulipas [no specific locality], 

Yucatán, [no specific locality]; Costa Rica: Guanacaste 

Province, Santa Rosa) is inadequate to provide a robust 

view of their phylogeography. Nonetheless, despite these 

deficiencies, the available molecular (mtDNA) evidence 

suggests that the three subspecies of cantils (A. b. bilineatus, 

A. b. howardgloydi, and A. b. russeolus) can be 

diagnosed as separate evolutionary entities (per Wiley 

1978, 1981). 

Character Mapping 

Character mapping is a powerful analytical procedure 

for producing information and gaining insights into 

character evolution, particularly with respect to origin, 

direction, and frequency (Brooks and McLennan 1991; 

Harvey and Pagel 1991; Martins 1996; Fenwick et al. 

2011; Maddison and Maddison 2011). Ideally, characters 

(traits) should be traced onto trees constructed from an 

explicitly independent data set (Harvey and Pagel 1991; 

Maddison and Maddison 2011), such as morphological 

characters mapped onto trees constructed using molecules 

(e.g., proteins, DNA). 

1. Methods 

We conducted a character mapping analysis (CMA) of 

the cantils by using morphological data derived from the 

literature (Gloyd and Conant 1990; Campbell and Lamar 

2004), new information presented in this paper, and unpublished 

personal data on all species of Agkistrodon 

(sensu stricto) (see Appendix 1). All characters were 

coded as binary (i.e., 0, 1) or multi-state (e.g., 0, 1, 2). 

Non-discrete multi-state characters (e.g., color pattern) 

were ordered from lowest to highest values. Character 

polarity was established by using two congeners (A. contortrix 

and A. piscivorus) as outgroups. The cottonmouth 

(A. piscivorus) is confirmed as the sister group to cantils 

(Douglas et al. 2009). Ten characters were selected as 

potential apomorphies (shared-derived traits) and were 

traced onto a fully resolved tree (six taxa) based on the 

mtDNA-markers used in Parkinson et al. (2000) and 

Douglas et al. (2009). Character tracing was performed 


057 



separately for each of the 10 traits using outgroup analysis 

and parsimony procedures in Mesquite (Madison and 

Madison 2011), and then combining the individual results 

onto a global tree. 

2. Results and discussion 

We found 10 morphological characters (scutellation, 

color pattern traits) selected for the CMA useful in providing 

broad support for the topology of the molecular 

tree, as well as robust evidence for the distinctiveness of 

the taxa, in particular the three subspecies of A. bilineatus 

(Table 2). We thus assign these characters as putative 

synapomorphies and autapomorphies for Agkistrodon 

(Fig. 12). Although we had a priori knowledge of specific 

and unique traits used to originally diagnose each of 

the subspecies, the CMA presents them in a phylogenetic 

and temporal framework. Accordingly, we show trait 

evolution with respect to origin, direction, and frequency. 

For example, we recovered dark dorsal coloration (dark 

brown or black) as the putative ancestral condition of 

Agkistrodon (Outgroup 1), which is retained in the basalmost 

cantils (A. taylori and A. b. bilineatus), but evolved 

to reddish-brown in the sister clade A. b. howardgloydi + 

A. b. russeolus. These types of data can be used in CMA 

to test explicit hypotheses concerning adaptation, such 

as seeking correlations of body color to climate, habitat 

types, and a range of other variables (e.g., Martins 1996). 

Allopatry in A. bilineatus 

In prioritizing a list of vipers for future conservation measures, 

Greene and Campbell (1992: 423) considered A. 

bilineatus (sensu lato) a taxon of special interest because 

of its “highly fragmented and biogeographically interesting 

distribution.” Parkinson et al. (2002) also commented 

on the relictual nature of the distribution of cantils, and 

used allopatry as one of their criteria for elevating A. b. 

taylori to species level. 

As presently understood, the distribution of A. b. 

bilineatus extends along the Pacific coast of Mexico 

(including the offshore Las Islas Marías) and northern 

Central America, from extreme southwestern Chihuahua 

and southern Sonora to central El Salvador; inland in 

Mexico, this species has been recorded in northwestern 

and extreme southeastern Morelos, as well as in the 

Río Grijalva Valley (Central Depression; Johnson et al. 

2010) of Chiapas (Gloyd and Conant 1990; Campbell 

and Lamar 2004; Castro-Franco and Bustos Zagal 2004; 

Herrera et al. 2006; Lemos-Espinal and Smith 2007; 

García-Grajales and Buenorostro-Silva 2011). McCranie 

(2011) included a photograph of a cantil from extreme 

western Honduras (Copán, Copán). Based on that photograph, 

and others provided to us by the collector (R. 

Garrado, pers. comm.) taken after the animal had reached 

maturity, the color pattern characteristics of this individual 

are most similar to those of A. b. bilineatus (Fig. 13). 

Table 2. Morphological characters used in the character mapping 

analysis (Fig. 12). See text for details. 

Character State Designation 

Facial striping absent A0 

present 

A1 

Upper facial stripe absent B0 

variable 

B1 

broad 

narrow 

Adult coloration tan C0 

black/dark brown C1 

Adult dorsal band 

(same as ground color) 

Adult dorsal band 

color (when present) 

reddish-brown 

no 

yes 

brown 

black/dark brown 

multi-colored 

reddish-brown 

Throat color ground-color F0 

cream/white 

F1 

Juvenile to adult 

color ontogeny 

multi-colored 

dark 

brown 

yellow-orange 

slight 

pronounced 

moderate 

Neonate tail-tip color yellow H0 

gray 

H1 

Neonate tail pattern slight I0 

moderate 

I1 

Sexual color 

dimorphism 

pronounced 

absent 

present 

A photograph of what appears to be A. b. bilineatus, with 

a locality of Honduras, also appears in Köhler (2001: fig. 

264). The distribution of A. b. russeolus primarily extends 

along the outer part of the Yucatan Peninsula, from westcentral 

Campeche and the northern portion of Yucatán and 

Quintana Roo on the Gulf side, and in northern Belize on 

the Caribbean side, although isolated records are available 

from extreme southeastern Campeche and central 

Petén, Guatemala (Gloyd and Conant 1990; Campbell 

1998; Campbell and Lamar 2004; Köhler 2008). The 

southernmost population of cantil (A. b. howardgloydi) 

B2 

B3 

C2 

D0 

D1 

E0 

E1 

E2 

E3 

F2 

F3 

F4 

F5 

G0 

G1 

G2 

I2 

J0 

J1 


058 


Porras et al. 

Fig. 12. Character mapping analysis of morphological traits in cantils (A. b. bilineatus, 

A. b. howardgloydi, A. b. russeolus, and A. taylori). Outgroup 1 = A. piscivorus; 

Outgroup 2 = A. contortrix. See Table 2 and Appendix 1. 

Fig. 13. Young adult Agkistrodon b. bilineatus from La Chorcha Lodge, Copán, 

Honduras at an elevation of 610 m (2,000 feet). Two sighting of this species have 

occurred at the lodge, in 2003 and 2008. Photo by Robert Gallardo. 

occurs along the Pacific coast of 

Central America from Isla Zacate 

Grande, in the Golfo de Fonseca, 

and the adjacent mainland of southern 

Honduras to the southern limit 

of Parque Nacional Santa Rosa Park 

in northwestern Costa Rica (Sasa 

and Solórzano 1995). 

The taxonomic assignment of 

certain populations of A. bilineatus, 

however, remains problematical. A 

single individual of cantil was reported 

from north of Palma Sola, 

in central coastal Veracruz, an area 

disjunct from that of all other populations 

(Blair et al. 1997). Smith 

and Chiszar (2001) described the 

specimen as a new subspecies (A. 

b. lemosespinali), but Campbell and 

Lamar (2004: 266) indicated that 

this taxon “was diagnosed by several 

characteristics, all of which are 

within the normal range of variation 

for A. taylori or might be artifacts 

in a specimen preserved for more 

than 30 years.” After examining 

additional specimens of A. taylori 

from Hidalgo and Veracruz, however, 

Bryson and Mendoza-Quijano 

(2007) concluded that the specimen 

was most closely related to, if 

not conspecific with, A. b. bilineatus, 

but that it also differed from all 

of the subspecies of A. bilineatus 

in its tail length to total length ratio. 

Bryson and Mendoza-Quijano 

(2007) further commented that the 

presence of A. bilineatus in coastal 

Veracruz lends corroboration to the 

transcontinental dispersal hypothesis 

presented by Parkinson et al. 

(2002). 

Another isolated population is 

known from the Atlantic versant 

of central Guatemala, from the Río 

Chixoy (Negro) Valley (Campbell 

and Lamar 1989). Gloyd and Conant 

(1990) commented that two specimens 

from this area show similarities 

in color pattern to each of the 

three populations of A. bilineatus 

occurring in Central America. Until 

additional specimens and/or molecular 

data are available, however, the 

taxonomic status of this allopatric 

population is uncertain and remains 

for future investigation. Similarly, 


059 



the population in the Central Depression of Chiapas, 

Mexico, and adjacent western Guatemala merits further 

examination. 

In summary, the distribution of A. bilineatus is disjunct 

or fragmented throughout its extensive range, and thus 

we contend that three identifiable areas of its distribution 

are biogeographically distinct. Except for certain issues 

that remain unresolved (see Discussion), these regions of 

allopatry constitute the ranges of A. b. bilineatus, A. b. 

russeolus, and A. b. howardgloydi (see Distribution Map 

[Fig. 14] below). 

Our Taxonomic Position 

Six decades ago, Wilson and Brown (1953) discussed the 

recognition of subspecies in biology and were among the 

first to advocate, with compelling academic vigor, to halt 

the use of trinomials in taxonomy. Since their provocative 

paper was published, a flurry of literally hundreds of 

papers on the utility of infraspecific categories has appeared, 

of which many applauded the insights of Wilson 

and Brown (1953) and supported abandoning the recognition 

of subspecies (e.g., Edwards 1954; Donoghue 1985; 

Ball and Avise 1992; Douglas et al. 2002; Zink 2004), 

whereas others criticized their views as biologically short 

sighted (e.g., Sibley 1954; Durrant 1955; Crusz 1986; 

Mallet 1995). Even with the application of an integrative 

taxonomic approach (reviewed by Padial and de la Riva 

2010), a unified concept of species and consequences 

for solving the problems of species delimitation (see de 

Queiroz 2007), or a general species concept approach as 

presented by Hausdorf (2011), no perfect solutions are 

available to resolve all of the conflicting viewpoints. 

Nevertheless, Padial and de la Riva (2010: 748) argued 

that on the basis of the evolutionary species concept, “the 

point of separation from [a] sister lineage is what marks 

the origin of a species…and neither subspecies nor ‘subspeciation’ 

are logically needed.” Importantly, this statement 

implies that there are no “stages of speciation,” i.e., 

subspecies are not “on their way” to becoming species. 

We also share the opinion of Johnson et al. (2010: 327), 

who asserted that the species level is “the lowest evolutionary 

lineage segment that should be used in a formal 

phylogenetically based taxonomy…In this modern taxonomic 

hierarchy, all taxa except for subspecies are hypothesized 

to consist of separate evolutionary lineages, 

and thus subspecies should not be recognized as a formal 

taxonomic unit.” Moreover, today new subspecies rarely 

are described in most major zoological journals, although 

many authors retain already-recognized subspecies as a 

provisional measure (e.g., Oatley et al. 2011). Here, we 

adopt the position on subspecies outlined by Wilson and 

Brown (1953) and subsequently supported by hundreds 

of biologists (reviewed by Burbrink et al. 2000; Douglas 

et al. 2002; Johnson et al. 2010). 

Taxonomic Conclusions 

The taxonomic overview and analysis we provide for 

the three putative subspecies of the common cantil (A. 

b. bilineatus, A. b. russeolus, and A. b. howardgloydi) 

substantiates that sufficient morphological (color and 

pattern), molecular (mtDNA), and ecological (biogeographical) 

data are available to consider these taxa as 

separate and diagnosable entities with their own evolutionary 

trajectories (see Wiley 1981; Wiley and Mayden 

2000; Douglas et al. 2002). As we view it necessary to 

adopt and identify a species concept (Padial and de la 

Riva 2010), we used the evolutionary species concept 

(ESC) introduced by Wiley (1978, 1981). We agree with 

others that the ESC is preferred among the species hypotheses, 

since it best accommodates both morphological 

and molecular information (Wiley and Mayden 2000; 

Schwentner et al. 2011). 

Accordingly, we elevate the three subspecies of A. 

bilineatus to full species and suggest the following common 

names: Agkistrodon bilineatus (common cantil), 

A. russeolus (Yucatecan cantil), and A. howardgloydi 

(southern cantil). We indicate the reported localities for 

all the cantils, including A. taylori, in a distribution map 

(Fig. 14). 

Conservation Assessment 

Up to 2006, the conservation status of Agkistrodon bilineatus 

(sensu lato) was judged by the IUCN as Least 

Concern, but in 2007, presumably as a result of the reptile 

assessment undertaken in September 2005, in Jalisco, 

Mexico, the status was changed to Near Threatened 

(IUCN Red List website; accessed 20 February 2013). 

Given that we elevated each of the three subspecies of A. 

bilineatus to full species, we will assess their conservation 

status individually. 

1. Application of the IUCN rankings 

The IUCN categories for assigning conservation status 

are the most widely used scheme for attempting to assess 

the degree of extinction risk for taxa at the species 

level (www.iucnredlist.org). The criteria used for this 

assessment are stipulated in the Guidelines for Using 

the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (Version 

8.1; August 2010). Those with the greatest application 

to Mesoamerican reptile populations involve the extent 

of occurrence (i.e., geographic range), and at least two 

criteria regarding the degree of range fragmentation, the 

degree of decline in one of a number of distributional or 

populational characteristics, or the degree of fluctuations 

in any of these characteristics. The extent of occurrence 

is related to the threat categories as follows: Critically 

Endangered (< 100 km 2 ); Endangered (< 5,000 km 2 ); and 

Vulnerable (< 20,000 km 2 ). 


060 


Porras et al. 

Fig. 14. Distribution map of the reported localities for cantils, including some indicated in this paper. Green is used to designate 

localities from where we regard the systematic status of cantils as undetermined. 

Under our new taxonomic arrangement, the distribution 

of A. bilineatus (sensu stricto) is extended to include 

extreme western Honduras, in the vicinity of the city of 

Copán on the Caribbean versant (McCranie 2011). Thus, 

its extent of distribution well exceeds the 20,000 km 2 

that forms the upper cutoff for a Vulnerable species; it 

also is greater than the 250,000 km 2 indicated by García 

(2006) as the combined extent of the six dry forest ecoregions 

in Pacific coastal Mexico, in addition to its range 

in Central America. Given its approximate geographic 

distribution, it clearly lies outside of the upper size limits 

for any of the IUCN threat categories. In addition, this 

species does not appear to qualify as Near Threatened, 

given that “the taxon should be close to qualifying for 

the Vulnerable category. The estimates of population size 

or habitat should be close to the Vulnerable thresholds, 

especially when there is a high degree of uncertainty” 

(IUCN 2010: 63). If, however, A. bilineatus cannot be 

judged as Near Threatened, only three other categories 

are available, viz., Extinct, Least Concern, and Data 

Deficient. The species is not Extinct, or as we maintain 

in this paper not of Least Concern, and also does not classify 

as Data Deficient because enough information was 


061 

available for it to be judged as Near Threatened (Lee and 

Hammerson 2007). In light of this information, we contend 

that A. bilineatus (sensu stricto) should be judged 

as Near Threatened. A broad-scale assessment of this 

snake’s conservation status throughout its distribution 

is extremely critical, however, since much of its area of 

occurrence has been subjected to considerable human 

population growth. 

In Mexico, A. bilineatus primarily occurs in the 

coastal portion of nine states from Sonora to Chiapas, as 

well as in Morelos. According to information obtained 

from Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), here and elsewhere 

in this section, these 10 states have a combined 

human population of 33,432,935 (29.0% of the 2012 

population of Mexico). With a growth rate of 1.4% for 

the country (Population Reference Bureau 2010) and 

an estimated doubling time of 50 years, if these growth 

rates remain comparable the population of these states 

will reach 66,865,870 by the year 2063. Although these 

figures and projections apply to an area greater than the 

total range of A. bilineatus in Mexico, they signal grave 

concern for the survival of these populations. 



The prospects for the future of A. bilineatus in 

Guatemala and El Salvador are equally as disturbing. 

Guatemala is the most rapidly growing country in Central 

America, with a human population 13,824,463 in 2011, 

a growth rate of 2.8%, and an estimated doubling time of 

25 years, and El Salvador already has become the most 

densely populated region in Mesoamerica. These statistics, 

therefore, portend a gloomy picture for the flora and 

fauna of these countries. 

Consequently, in light of these data, we consider A. 

bilineatus as Near Threatened, while conceding that future 

population analyses might demonstrate a threatened 

status. 

The distribution of A. russeolus is much greater 

than 100 km 2 (the upper cutoff point for a Critically 

Endangered species), but significantly less than 5,000 

km 2 (the upper cutoff point for an Endangered species). 

Thus, based on the extent of occurrence, A. russeolus 

should be judged as an Endangered species. According 

to the maps in Gloyd and Conant (1990), Lee (1996), 

Campbell and Lamar (2004), and Köhler (2008), A. russeolus 

is known from up to twelve localities, depending 

on the level of discrimination. Most of these localities 

are from the state of Yucatán, from the vicinity of 

Mérida, Motul, and Pisté. Given this number of locations 

(n = 12), A. russeolus should be assessed as Vulnerable, 

since the criterion for this category is ≤ 10, as opposed to 

Endangered, which is ≤ 5. These records are historical, 

however, with some dating prior to 1895 (sensu Gloyd 

and Conant 1990), and to our knowledge no modern survey 

has been undertaken to ascertain the viability of cantil 

populations in these regions. 

The human population of the three Mexican states 

occupying the Yucatan Peninsula, Campeche, Yucatán, 

and Quintana Roo, is over 4,000,000 (Population Reference 

Bureau 2010). Most of the historical records for 

A. russeolus are from the state of Yucatán, the most 

populous of the three with a current population of about 

2,000,000. Specimens assigned to A. russeolus have been 

reported from seasonally dry forest in northern Belize, 

from Corozal and northern Belize Districts (Stafford 

and Meyer 2000), and the savanna area of central Petén, 

Guatemala (Campbell 1998). 

Lee and Hammerson (2007) indicated that the major 

factor affecting the long-term viability of populations of 

A. bilineatus (sensu lato) is “the extreme pressure from 

persecution leading to population reductions of close 

to 30% over the last 15 to 30 years…” According to 

J. Lee (pers. comm.), this evaluation cannot be applied 

precisely to A. russeolus, but would point to a Critically 

Endangered status based on criterion C1, i.e., an estimate 

of continuing decline of at least 25% in 3 years or one 

generation (IUCN 2010). Lee (1996: 399) commented 

that, “Agkistrodon bilineatus [sensu lato] is a dangerously 

venomous snake that is widely feared by the native 

people of Yucatán. It is believed to be capable of 

prodigious jumps and to deliver venom both through 

its bite and with its tail, which is thought to act as a 

stinger…” Lee (1996: 416) also discussed the historical 

and the modern attitude toward snakes in general and A. 

russeolus (as A. bilineatus) in particular, in his chapter 

on ethnoherpetology in the Yucatan Peninsula, indicating 

that the cantil or uolpoch (the Mayan name) “is considered 

by many contemporary Maya to be the most dangerous 

of all Yucatecan snakes.” This attitude translates into 

this snake being killed on sight (J. Lee, pers. comm.). 

Consequently, based on the available information on the 

conservation status of A. russeolus, we consider this species 

as Endangered. A conservation assessment needs to 

be undertaken, however, to determine if this categorization 

is appropriate, or whether the category of Critically 

Endangered would be more applicable. 

Agkistrodon howardgloydi is distributed in apparently 

fragmented populations that extend from Isla 

Zacate Grande in the Golfo de Fonseca and the adjacent 

mainland of southern Honduras (McCranie 2011), 

western Nicaragua in the area west of Río Tipitapa and 

the northwestern shore of Lago de Nicaragua (Köhler 

1999, 2001), and in extreme northwestern Costa Rica 

from Bahía Salinas, near the Nicaraguan border, to the 

sectors of Santa Rosa and Guanacaste, both in Área de 

Conservación Guanacaste (Conant 1984; Solórzano 

2004). Gloyd and Conant (1990: 92) discussed additional 

Nicaraguan localities that would extend the distribution 

northeastward into the southwestern tip of Departamento 

Jinotega, but this record is one of several supplied to the 

authors by Jaime Villa. Unfortunately, these specimens 

were in Villa’s “personal collection that was destroyed 

during the earthquake and fire that devastated Managua 

beginning on December 23, 1972.” Like Köhler (1999, 

2001), we discounted these records until museum specimens 

are available from those areas to provide verification. 

The extent of this species’ range, therefore, apparently 

is greater than 100 km 2 but less than 5,000 km 2 , 

so on the basis of its extent of occurrence it would be 

assessed as Endangered. With respect to the number of 

localities, three have been reported for Honduras, including 

one based on a photograph in Köhler et al. (2006), 

five from Nicaragua (Köhler 2001; a sight record in this 

paper), and five from Costa Rica (Conant 1984; Savage 

2002); most of these localities in Costa Rica, however, fall 

within Parque Nacional Santa Rosa, so their total number 

could be considered as few as two. Thus the total number 

of localities would range from 10 to 13, which technically 

would place this species in the Near Threatened category, 

but again historical records (Nicaragua) date back 

to 1871 (Gloyd and Conant 1990). As a consequence, this 

species would appear to fall in the Vulnerable category. 

Furthermore, given the localized distribution of A. howardgloydi 

in Costa Rica, it is noteworthy that this species 

was not reported from the country until 1970 (Bolaños 

and Montero 1970). 


062 


Porras et al. 

Agkistrodon howardgloydi occurs in disjunct populations 

in Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, in lowland 

dry forest––the most endangered of the major forest 

types in Mesoamerica (Janzen 2004). In Honduras, 

nearly all of this forest has been removed from the Pacific 

coastal plain. A telling feature in McCranie (2011: table 

22) is that of the protected areas in Honduras currently 

supporting “some good forest,” not one contains lowland 

dry forest. Based on figures from 2001, the departments 

of Choluteca and Valle each rank among the top five in 

human population density in the country. As noted by 

Solórzano et al. (1999), M. Sasa was unsuccessful in 

finding this species at several localities in the Golfo de 

Fonseca and indicated that most of the locals were unaware 

of its existence. These disturbing reports and observations 

suggest that low population densities (or local 

extirpation) might be the trend. Similarly, McCranie 

(2011) noted that professional collectors in Choluteca 

failed to identify this species from photographs. Also, 

three of us (LWP, LDW, GWS) have been unsuccessful 

in finding this species on Isla Zacate Grande, in the Golfo 

de Fonseca, and on the adjacent mainland. 

According to Sunyer and Köhler (2010: 494), similar 

population trends prevail in Nicaragua, since A. howardgloydi 

(as A. bilineatus) is restricted to lowland dry 

forest in the western part of the country, and “this formation 

has undergone severe human alteration.” Although 

A. howardgloydi apparently occurs in at least three protected 

areas, 75% of the protected areas in Nicaragua 

“contain less than 50% of their original forest cover…” 

(Sunyer and Köhler 2010: 505). The five known localities 

for this species in Nicaragua (Köhler 2001; this paper) 

all are from the most heavily populated region in 

the country, an area that likely harbored more extensive 

populations of this species in the past. 

In Costa Rica, the conservation of A. howardgloydi 

is more promising, as most of the restricted range of 

this species is located within the Área de Conservación 

Guanacaste. In this region, populations have been reported 

as “relatively stable and protected” (Solórzano 

2004: 622). At Parque Nacional Santa Rosa, for example, 

21 individuals were obtained for study from 1993 

to 1996 (Solórzano et al. 1999). Nonetheless, Sasa et al. 

(2010: table 8) indicated that although the distribution of 

this species has been reduced by slightly more than 20% 

from a potential distribution of 6,883 km 2 , only a little 

more than 13% of that reduced distribution (5,465 km 2 ) 

is located within reserves. Like other venomous snakes, 

we can assume that this species is killed on sight in the 

87% of the reduced range outside of protected areas. An 

important factor in this species’ favor is that the human 

population growth rate of Costa Rica (1.2%) is the lowest 

in Central America, and that Guanacaste Province, which 

encompasses the snake’s entire range in Costa Rica, is 

the most sparsely populated of all the provinces. 

Although the population of A. howardgloydi in protected 

areas of Costa Rica apparently remains stable, 


063 

throughout most of the range populations have been extirpated 

(or are nearing extirpation). Thus, in light of the 

conservation prospects for A. howardgloydi, we consider 

this species as Endangered with the understanding that 

a range-wide conservation assessment is required, especially 

in Honduras and Nicaragua. 

2. Application of the EVS 

The conservation status algorithm known as the 

Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS) was developed 

by Wilson and McCranie (1992) for use with amphibians 

in Honduras and subsequently applied to both amphibians 

and reptiles in this country (Wilson and McCranie 

2004). The EVS was utilized in a broader fashion in most 

of the chapters dealing with Central American countries 

in Wilson et al. (2010), and in all cases used at the country 

level. As noted in the Introduction of this paper, the EVS 

for A. bilineatus (sensu lato) in four Central American 

countries fell within the upper end of the vulnerability 

scale (Wilson and McCranie 2004). 

Originally, the EVS algorithm was constructed for 

use strictly within Honduras, and thus had limited utility 

outside of that country. For example, the scale used for 

Honduras was as follows: 

1 = widespread in and outside of Honduras 

2 = distribution peripheral to Honduras, but widespread 

elsewhere 

3 = distribution restricted to Nuclear Middle America 

(exclusive of Honduran endemics) 

4 = distribution restricted to Honduras 

5 = known only from the vicinity of the type locality 

In its original form, four of the five levels of this scale 

could not be used outside of Honduras. For the EVS to 

have a broader application, therefore, it required reconstruction 

and this recently was accomplished for Belize 

(Stafford et al. 2010), Nicaragua (Sunyer and Köhler 

2010), and Costa Rica (Sasa et al. 2010). 

In order to use the EVS measure independent of country 

divisions, it requires additional reconstruction, as 

follows: 

1 = distribution extending from North America (United 

States and Canada) to South America 

2 = distribution extending from North America to 

Mesoamerica or from Mesoamerica to South America 

3 = distribution restricted to Mesoamerica 

4 = distribution restricted to a single physiographic 

region within Mesoamerica 

5 = known only from the vicinity of the type locality 

The other components of the gauge require only minimal 

reconstruction. The ecological distribution component 

can be revised as follows: 




4 = occurs in five formations 







The only modification of this component is that the first 

level was changed from “occurs in eight formations” to 

“occurs in eight or more formations” (see Wilson and 

McCranie 2004). This change appears acceptable, since 

very few species in Mesoamerica occupy more than eight 

formations (see Wilson and Johnson 2010: table 16). 

The component for the degree of human persecution 

in reptiles (a different measure was used for amphibians) 

is the same as used by Wilson and McCranie (2004), as 

follows: 

1 = fossorial, usually escape human notice 

2 = semifossorial, or nocturnal arboreal or aquatic, 

non-venomous and usually non-mimicking, sometimes 

escape human notice 

3 = terrestrial and/or arboreal or aquatic, generally ignored 

by humans 

4 = terrestrial and/or arboreal or aquatic, thought to be 

harmful, might be killed on sight 

5 = venomous species or mimics thereof, killed on 

sight 

6 = commercially or non-commercially exploited for 

hides and/or meat and/or eggs 

Based on these changes to the EVS, the calculated scores 

for the three species of cantils are as follows: 

A. bilineatus: 3 + 5 + 5 = 13 

A. russeolus: 4 + 6 + 5 = 15 

A. howardgloydi: 4 + 8 + 5 = 17 

Consequently, the value for A. bilineatus falls at the upper 

end of the medium vulnerability category, and the 

values for A. russeolus and A. howardgloydi fall into the 

high vulnerability category. 

In summary, the IUCN categorizations and EVS values 

for these three taxa are as follows: A. bilineatus (Near 

Threatened and 13); A. russeolus (Endangered and 15); 

and A. howardgloydi (Endangered and 17). Interestingly, 

the IUCN has assessed A. taylori as a species of Least 

Concern (Lavin et al. 2007), whereas the EVS for this 

taxon is reported as 17 (Wilson et al. 2013). 

Discussion 

We provided a substantive review of the taxonomy and 

conservation status of the common cantil (A. bilineatus, 

sensu lato). Our taxonomic assessment led us to elevate 

the three subspecies of A. bilineatus to full species (A. 

bilineatus, A. howardgloydi, and A. russeolus), based on 

multiple lines of evidence. Nonetheless, we are not confident 

that this arrangement necessarily captures the full 

diversity of this widely distributed group of pitvipers. 


064 

Accordingly, we identified several regions where additional 

sampling must be accomplished, but overall 

we recommend a thorough phylogeographic analysis 

employing morphological analyses and the use of both 

mtDNA and nuclear (e.g., introns, microsatellites) markers. 

Owing largely to the isolation of certain populations, 

we suspect that additional species will be discovered 

within this complex. 

The population of A. bilineatus in southern Sonora 

and adjacent southwestern Chihuahua, Mexico, for example, 

occurs in a distinctive habitat (“Sonoran-Sinaloan 

transition subtropical dry forest” according to the WWF 

[see García 2006]), the color pattern of adults differs 

somewhat from that of typical A. bilineatus (Fig. 15), and 

a moderate hiatus exists from the closest-known population 

to the south (49 miles [78.8 kilometers] south of 

Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico; Hardy and McDiarmid 1969; 

Campbell and Lamar 2004). 

Another example is the insular population on Las Islas 

Marías. On this offshore group of islands, two specimens 

collected in 1881 were reported from the “Tres 

Marías” (without naming a specific island), and one 

specimen from Isla María Grande was collected in 1897 

(Boulenger 1896; Stejneger 1899; see Zweifel 1960). 

Interestingly, Gloyd and Conant (1990) indicated that the 

cantil with the greatest total length is among these specimens, 

as well as the A. b. bilineatus (sensu lato) with 

the lowest number of subcaudals. Gloyd and Conant 

(1990), however, considered this latter specimen as aberrant, 

but commented (p. 69) that “Whether other aberrant 

specimens occurred on the islands probably will never 

be known, inasmuch as the species may now have been 

extirpated from the archipelago.” Casas-Andreu (1992) 

indicated the presence of A. bilineatus on other islands 

of the Las Islas Marías chain (on Isla San Juanito and 

Isla María Magdalena). According to G. Casas-Andreu 

(pers. comm.), however, these records were not based 

on new material, as no cantils were encountered during 

his survey in 1986, but rather they were obtained 

from the literature. Inasmuch as no literature citations or 

museum numbers for these specimens appear in Casas- 

Andreu (1992), our knowledge of the distribution of A. 

bilineatus on Las Islas Marías remains sketchy. Although 

some areas of “good habitat” were present in the archipelago 

in 1986 (G. Casas-Andreu, pers. comm.), habitat 

destruction, a growing human population (including a 

large penal colony), the presence of agricultural camps 

and domestic animals, the outright killing of fauna, and 

the introduction of rats and feral cats all had become a 

significant problem (Casas-Andreu 1992). In 2000, the 

archipelago and its surrounding waters were declared an 

international protected area (Reserva de la Biósfera Islas 

Marías). In spite of the lack of information on A. bilineatus 

from these islands, the only reptiles protected under 

the Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales 

(SEMARNAT) are Crocodylus acutus (special protection), 

Iguana iguana (special protection), Ctenosaura 


pectinata (threatened), and Eretmochelys imbricata (in 

danger of extinction) (Anonymous 2007). A determination 

of the actual distribution and population status of A. 

bilineatus on Las Islas Marías, therefore, is a conservation 

priority. 

The taxonomic status of A. b. lemosespinali, which 

tentatively was assigned to A. b. bilineatus by Bryson 

and Mendoza-Quijano (2007), remains unresolved. 

Known from a single specimen from Palma Sola, in 

coastal central Veracruz, Mexico, this area was noted 

Porras et al. 

Fig. 15. Adult Agkistrodon bilineatus found by Larry Jones and Thomas Skinner in 

August of 2005, ca. 12 km NW of Alamos, Sonora, Mexico. This individual later was 

released. Photo by James C. Rorabaugh. 

Fig. 16. Young cantil from Aldea La Laguna, Nentón, Huehuetenango, Guatemala. 

The specific allocation of this population remains uncertain (see Fig. 14). 

Photo by Manuel Acevedo. 

by Smith and Chizar (2001: 133) as 

highly agricultural and located next 

to a nuclear power plant regarded by 

“many local residents and environmentalists 

in general as having contaminated 

the surrounding area with 

radioactivity.” These authors further 

indicated that if “A. b. lemosespinali 

ever occurred in that area, it is likely 

now to be extinct, or it likely would 

have been found [again] long ago.” 

Other disjunct populations of 

cantils merit a closer examination 

at both morphological and molecular 

levels, such as those from the 

Central Depression of Chiapas and 

the headwaters of the Río Grijalva 

that extend into northwestern 

Guatemala (Fig. 16), the Río Chixoy 

and Motagua valleys of Guatemala, 

as well as isolated populations of 

A. russeolus (Gloyd and Conant 

1990; Campbell and Lamar 2004; 

McCranie 2011). 

Assigning protected areas for the 

conservation of cantil populations is 

not simply a matter of determining 

regions that exist within the range 

of the three species, as these have 

been shown to vary in their level of 

protection. Jaramillo et al. (2010: 

650) presented a model that could 

be used to analyze systems of protected 

areas in Mesoamerica, and 

based on six requisites concluded 

that the system of protected areas 

in Panama is impressive due to the 

number of areas included and their 

collective territory; a detailed examination 

of the features, however, 

demonstrated that all but one of the 

97 areas failed, to some degree, “in 

meeting the necessary requirements 

for the long-term protection of its 

biotic resources.” In Honduras, 

McCranie (2011) indicated that, “at 

first glance, Honduras appears to have in place a robust 

system of protected areas, especially when compared to 

nearby countries. However, most of those areas exist on 

paper only.” Similarly, Acevedo et al. (2010) stated that, 

“the existing system of protected areas in Guatemala is 

insufficient to protect the country’s herpetofauna, because 

most of the legally designated areas must be considered 

as ‘paper parks’.” Essentially the same story can 

be told about systems of protected areas in other countries 

where cantils occur (see various chapters in Wilson 


065 



et al. 2010), an unfortunate aspect of reality in ongoing 

efforts to conserve biodiversity. 

Unfortunately, because of the continuing destruction 

of natural habitats and the potential for the extirpation of 

cantil populations, the answers to some of the aforementioned 

questions are on the brink of being lost forever, if 

not lost already. This problem is critical, and we view it 

as a race against time to generate the necessary information 

that could help set aside protected areas to conserve 

disjunct and relictual populations of cantils for posterity. 

Conservation Recommendations 

Our recommendations for the long-term conservation of 

A. bilineatus, A. howardgloydi, A. russeolus, and A. taylori 

are as follows: 

1. In light of the paucity of information regarding the 

relative health of populations of these species, it will 

be essential to undertake population assessments for 

all the cantils at or near localities where they have 

been recorded, most critically for A. howardgloydi 

and A. russeolus because of their relatively limited 

geographic ranges. 

2. Once these surveys are completed, a conservation 

management plan should be developed to ascertain 

if populations of all four species are located within 

established protected areas, or if new areas should 

be considered. Such a plan is critical to the survival 

of cantils, especially since outside of protected areas 

these snakes generally are killed on sight or otherwise 

threatened by persistent habitat destruction or 

degradation. 

3. Inasmuch as not all protected areas can be expected to 

provide adequate levels of protection to support viable 

populations of cantils, long-term population monitoring 

will be essential. 

4. Given the elevation of these taxa to full species, 

conservation agencies can now use these vipers as 

“flagship species” in efforts to publicize conservation 

efforts in their respective countries at all levels 

of interest and concern, including education and 

ecotourism. 

5. We recommend the establishment of zoo conservation 

(e.g., AZA) and outreach programs, such as those 

currently in progress for the venomous Guatemalan 

beaded lizard (e.g., www.ircf.org; see Domínguez- 

Vega et al. 2012) and a wide variety of highly endangered 

anuran species (e.g., www.zooatlanta.org). 

Captive assurance colonies might help maximize future 

options for the recovery of wild populations. 

6. One major conclusion of this paper is that our knowledge 

of the taxonomy and phylogeography of cantils 

remains at an elementary level. Thus, as conservation 

assessments proceed, it will be important to obtain tissue 

samples from a sufficiently broad array of populations 

to allow for more robust molecular analyses. 

Similarly, we need more detailed morphological assessments 

and more sophisticated levels of analyses, 

such as geometric morphometric approaches (Davis 

2012). 

Acknowledgments.—We thank the following people 

for submitting or helping us obtain photographs 

for this paper: Manuel Acevedo, Javier Alvarado Días, 

Breck Bartholomew, Tim Burkhardt, Eric Dugan, 

Robert Gallardo (La Chorcha Lodge), Javier Ortiz, 

James C. Rorabaugh, Alejandro Solórzano, Ireri Suazo- 

Ortuño, Javier Sunyer, Robert A. Thomas, R. Wayne 

Van Devender, and Kevin Zansler. Additionally, Chris 

Mattison graciously provided a photo of Agkistrodon 

bilinatus for the cover of this issue. We also are grateful 

to the following individuals for providing regional 

biological information on cantils: Gustavo Casas-Andreu 

(Las Islas Marías), Alec Knight (Tamaulipas), Javier 

Ortiz (Yucatán), Julian C. Lee (Yucatan Peninsula), 

Manuel Acevedo (Guatemala), Ryan Earley and Javier 

Sunyer (Nicaragua), and Mahmood Sasa and Alejandro 

Solórzano (Costa Rica). For other courtesies, we appreciate 

the efforts and cooperation provided by Vicente 

Mata-Silva, Robert A. Thomas, and Josiah H. Townsend. 

Fran Platt assisted with image cleanup and the layout of 

this paper. The molecular work we discussed was made 

possible through the courtesy of Michael Douglas and 

Marlis Douglas. Several anonymous reviewers provided 

valuable insights that helped to improve this paper. Over 

the years, numerous people have accompanied one or 

more of the authors into the field in search of cantils, 

and we reminisce about the good times spent with Ed 

Cassano, the late Roger Conant, W. W. Lamar, James R. 

McCranie, John Rindfleish, Alejandro Solórzano, and 

Mahmood Sasa. Of these, we are especially indebted to 

Roger Conant, for without his encouragement and inspiration 

this paper might never have come to fruition. 

Beyond this, we wish to dedicate this paper to this remarkable 

man, whose influence has been so broadly felt 

in our own lives and among herpetologists far and wide.* 

*This paper is part of a special issue of Amphibian & Reptile 

Conservation that deals with the herpetofauna of Mexico. In addition 

to Dr. Conant’s seminal work on Agkistrodon (with Dr. 

Howard K. Gloyd), readers should be reminded that he also produced 

important works on this country’s Nerodia (then Natrix) 

and Thamnophis. 


066 


Porras et al. 


Acevedo M, Wilson LD, Cano EM, Vásquez-Almazán 

C. 2010. Diversity and conservation status of 

the Guatemalan herpetofauna. Pp. 406–435 In: 

Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians and 

Reptiles. Editors, Wilson LD, Townsend JH, Johnson 

JD. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, 

Utah, USA. 

Allen ER. 1949. Observations on the feeding habits of 

the juvenile cantil. Copeia 1949: 225–226. 

Anonymous. 2007. Programa de conservación y manejo 

Reserva de la Biosfera Islas Marías. Comisión 

Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Secretaría 

de Seguridad Pública. Draft, October 2007. 1–150 pp. 

Babb RD, Dugan EA. 2008. Geographic Distribution. 

Agkistrodon bilineatus (cantil). México: Sonora. 

Herpetological Review 39: 110. 

Ball RM, Avise JC. 1992. Mitochondrial DNA 

phylogeographic differentiation among avian 

populations and the evolutionary significance of 

subspecies. The Auk 109: 626–636. 

Blair KB, Killebrew FC, Smith HM, Chiszar D. 1997. 

Mexican amphibians and reptiles in the West Texas 

A & M University Natural History Museum. Bulletin 

of the Chicago Herpetological Society 32: 174–177. 

Bolaños R, Montero JR. 1970. Agkistrodon bilineatus 

Günther from Costa Rica. Revista de Biología 

Tropical 16: 277–279. 

Boulenger GA. 1896. Catalogue of the Snakes in the 

British Museum (Natural History). Volume 3. London, 

United Kingdom. 

Brooks DR, McLennan DA. 1991. Phylogeny, Ecology, 

and Behavior: A Research Program in Comparative 

Biology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 

Illinois, USA. 

Bryson RW Jr., Mendoza-Quijano F. 2007. Cantils of 

Hidalgo and Veracruz, Mexico, with comments on 

the validity of Agkistrodon bilineatus lemosespinali. 

Journal of Herpetology 41: 536–539. 

Burbrink FT, Lawson R, Slowinski JB. 2000. 

Mitochondrial DNA phylogeography of the polytypic 

North American rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta): a critique 

of the subspecies concept. Evolution 54: 2107–2118. 

Burchfield PM. 1982. Additions to the natural history 

of the crotaline snake Agkistrodon bilineatus taylori. 

Journal of Herpetology 16: 376–382. 

Burger WL, Robertson WB. 1951. A new subspecies 

of the Mexican moccasin, Agkistrodon bilineatus. 

University of Kansas Science Bulletin 24: 213–218. 

Campbell JA. 1998. Amphibians and Reptiles of Northern 

Guatemala, the Yucatán, and Belize. University of 

Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. 

Campbell JA, Lamar WW. 1989. The Venomous Reptiles 

of Latin America. Comstock Publishing Associates, 

Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. 

Campbell JA, Lamar WW. 2004. The Venomous Reptiles 

of the Western Hemisphere (2 volumes). Comstock 

Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, 


Carpenter CC, Gillingham JC. 1990. Ritualized behavior 

in Agkistrodon and allied genera. Pp. 523–531 In: 

Snakes of the Agkistrodon Complex: A Monographic 

Review. Editors, Gloyd HK, Conant R. Society for the 

Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca, New York, 

USA. 

Casas-Andreu G. 1992. Anfibios y reptiles de Las 

Islas Marías y otras islas adyacentes a la costa de 

Nayarit, México. Aspectos sobre su biogeografíia y 

conservación. Anales del Instituto de Biología de la 

Universidad Nacional Autónomade México (Serie 

Zoología) 63: 95–112. 

Castoe TA, Parkinson CL. 2006. Bayesian mixed models 

and the phylogeny of pitvipers (Viperidae: Serpentes). 

Molecular Phylogeography 39: 91–110. 

Castro-Franco R, Bustos Zagal MG. 2004. Additional 

records and range extensions of reptiles from Morelos, 

México. Herpetological Review 35: 196–197. 

Conant R. 1984. A new subspecies of the pit viper 

Agkistrodon bilineatus (Reptilia: Viperidae) from 

Central America. Proceedings of the Biological 

Society of Washington 97: 135–141. 

Conant R. 1992. Comments on the survival status of 

members of the Agkistrodon complex. Pp. 29–33 

In: Contributions in Herpetology. Editors, Strimple 

PE, Strimple JL. Greater Cincinnati Herpetological 

Society, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 

Crusz H. 1986. Report of the Society for Researches on 

Native Livestock. Tokyo 11: 65–80. 

Davis MA. 2012. Morphometrics, Molecular Ecology 

and Multivariate Environmental Niche Define the 

Evolutionary History of the Western Rattlesnake 

(Crotalus viridis) complex. Ph.D. Dissertation, 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, 

USA. 

de Queiroz K. 2007. Species concepts and species 

delimitation. Systematic Biology 56: 879–886. 

Domíguez-Vega H, Monroy-Vilchis O, Balderas-Valdivia 

CJ, Geinger CM, Ariano-Sánchez A. 2012. Predicting 

the potential distribution of the beaded lizard and 

identification of priority areas for conservation. 

Journal for Nature Conservation 20: 247–253. 

Donoghue MJ. 1985. A critique of the Biological Species 

Concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic 

alternative. Bryologist 88: 172–181. 

Douglas ME, Douglas MR, Schuett GW, Porras LW, 

Holycross AT. 2002. Phylogeography of the western 

rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) complex, with emphasis 

on the Colorado Plateau. Pp. 11–50 In: Biology of the 

Vipers. Editors, Schuett GW, Höggren M, Douglas 

ME, Greene HW. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, 

Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA. 


067 



Douglas ME, Douglas MR, Schuett GW, Porras. LW. 

2009. Climate change and evolution of the New World 

pitviper genus Agkistrodon (Viperidae). Journal of 

Biogeography 36: 1164–1180. 

Durrant SD. 1955. In defense of subspecies. Systematic 

Zoology 4: 186–190. 

Edwards JG. 1954. A new approach to infraspecific 

categories. Systematic Zoology 3: 1–20. 

Fenwick AM, Greene HW, Parkinson CL. 2011. The 

serpent and the egg: Unidirectional evolution of 

reproductive mode in vipers? Journal of Zoological 

Systematics and Evolutionary Research 50: 59–66. 

García A. 2006. Using ecological niche modeling to 

identify diversity hotspots for the herpetofauna of 

Pacific lowlands and adjacent interior valleys of 

Mexico. Biological Conservation 120: 25–46. 

García-Grajales J, Buenrostro-Silva A. 2011. Ampliación 

del area de distribución geográfica de Oxybelis 

fulgidus (Serpentes: Colubridae) y Agkistrodon 

bilineatus (Serpentes: Viperidae) en la planicie costera 

central de Oaxaca, México. Acta Zoológica Mexicana 

(n.s.) 27: 491–495. 

Gloyd HK. 1972. A subspecies of Agkistrodon bilineatus 

(Serpentes: Crotalidae) on the Yucatan Peninsula, 

Mexico. Proceedings of the Biological Society of 

Washington 84: 327–334. 

Gloyd HK, Conant R. 1990. Snakes of the Agkistrodon 

Complex: A Monographic Review. Society for the 

Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Contributions in 

Herpetology, Number 6, Ithaca, New York, USA. 

Greene HW, Campbell JA. 1992. The future of pitvipers. 

Pp. 421–427 In: Biology of the Pitvipers. Editors, 

Campbell JA, Brodie ED Jr. Selva, Tyler, Texas, USA. 

Guiher TJ, Burbrink FT. 2008. Demographic and 

phylogeographic histories of two venomous North 

American snakes of the genus Agkistrodon. Molecular 

Phylogenetics and Evolution 48: 543–553. 

Günther A. 1863. Third account of new species of snakes 

in the collection of the British Museum. The Annals and 

Magazine of Natural History (3 rd Series) 12: 348–365. 

Hardy LM, McDiarmid RW. 1969. The amphibians and 

reptiles of Sinaloa, México. University of Kansas 

Publications, Museum of Natural History 18: 39–252. 

Harvey PH, Pagel MD. 1991. The Comparative Method 

in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, 

New York, USA. 

Hausdorf B. 2011. Progress toward a general species 

concept. Evolution 64: 923–931. 

Henderson RW. 1978. Notes on Agkistrodon bilineatus 

(Reptilia, Serpentes, Viperidae) in Belize. Journal of 

Herpetology 12: 412¬413. 

Herrera N, Henríquez V, Vaquerano R. 2006. Herpetofauna 

del Bosque Seco de El Salvador: nuevos registros de 

distribución. Mesoamericana 19(4): 37–43. 

IUCN. 2010. Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List 

Categories and Criteria. Version 8.1. Available: www. 

redlist.org [Accessed 22 July 2011]. 

Janzen DH. 1988. Tropical dry forests: the most 

endangered major tropical ecosystem. Pp. 130–137 In: 



Janzen DH. 2004. Ecology of dry-forest wildland insects 

in the Area de Conservación Guanacaste. Pp. 80–96 

In: Biodiversity Conservation in Costa Rica: Learning 

the Lessons in a Seasonal Dry Forest. Editors, Frankie 

GW, Mata A, Vinson SB. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, California, USA. 


The herpetofauna of Panama: distribution and 

conservation status. Pp. 604–673 In: Conservation 


Wilson LD, Townsend JH, Johnson JD. Eagle 


USA. 

Johnson JD, Mata-Silva V, Ramírez-Bautista A. 2010. 

Geographic distribution and conservation of the 

herpetofauna of southeastern Mexico. Pp. 323–360 

In: Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians and 



Utah, USA. 

Knight A, Densmore LD, Rael ED. 1992. Molecular 

systematics of the Agkistrodon complex. Pp. 49–69 

In: Biology of the Pitvipers. Editors, Campbell JA, 

Brodie ED Jr. Selva, Tyler, Texas, USA. 

Köhler G. 1999. The amphibians and reptiles of 

Nicaragua: a distributional checklist with keys. 

Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 213: 1–121. 

Köhler G. 2001. Anfibios y Reptiles de Nicaragua. 

Herpeton, Verlag Elke Köhler, Offenbach, Germany. 

Köhler G. 2008. Reptiles of Central America (2 nd edition). 

Herpeton, Offenbach, Germany. 

Köhler G, Veselý M, Greenbaum E. 2006. The 

Amphibians and Reptiles of El Salvador. Krieger 

Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, USA. 

Kraus F, Mink DG, Brown WB. 1996. Crotaline 

intergeneric relationships based on mitochondrial 

DNA sequence data. Copeia 1996: 763–773. 

Lavin-Murcio PA, Lazcano D. 2010. Geographic 

distribution and conservation of the herpetofauna of 

northern Mexico. Pp. 274–301 In: Conservation of 

Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles. Editors, 



USA. 

Lavin P, Mendoza-Quijano F, Hammerson GA. 2007. 

Agkistrodon taylori. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List 

of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available: 

www.iucnredlist.org [Accessed: 01 March 2013]. 

Lee JC. 1996. The Amphibians and Reptiles of the 

Yucatán Peninsula. Comstock Publishing Associates, 

Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA. 

Lee JC, Hammerson GA. 2007. Agkistrodon bilineatus. 

In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened 


068 


Porras et al. 

Species. Version 2012.2. Available: www.iucnredlist. 

org [Accessed 20 February 2013]. 

Lemos-Espinal JA, Smith HM. 2007. Anfibios y Reptiles 

del Estado de Chihuahua, México / Amphibians 

and Reptiles of the State of Chihuahua, Mexico. 

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 

Tlalnepantla, México, and Comisión Nacional Para el 

Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), 

México, DF, Mexico. 

Maddison WP, Maddison DR. 2011. Mesquite: a 

modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 

2.75. Available: www.mesquiteproject.org [Accessed 

12 March 2013]. 

Malhotra A, Creer S, Pook CE, Thorpe RS. 2010. 

Inclusion of nuclear intron sequence data helps to 

identify the Asian sister group of New World pitvipers. 

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 54: 172–178. 

Mallet J. 1995. A species definition for the Modern 

Synthesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10: 294– 

299. 

Malnate EV. 1990. A review and comparison of 

hemipenial structure in the genus Agkistrodon (sensu 

lato). Pp. 583–588 In: Snakes of the Agkistrodon 

Complex: A Monographic Review. Society for the 

Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Contributions to 

Herpetology, Number 6, Ithaca, New York, USA. 

Martins EP. 1996. Phylogenies and the Comparative 

Method in Animal Behavior. Oxford University Press, 


McCranie JR. 2011. The Snakes of Honduras: Systematics, 

Distribution, and Conservation. Society for the 

Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Contributions to 

Herpetology, Volume 26, Ithaca, New York, USA. 

McCranie JR, Wilson LD. 2002. The Amphibians of 

Honduras. Society for the Study of Amphibians and 

Reptiles, Contributions to Herpetology, Volume 19, 


Oatley G, Bowiel RCK, Crowe TM. 2011. The use of 

subspecies in the systematics of southern African 

white-eyes: historical entities or eco-geographic 

variants. Journal of Zoology 284: 21–30. 

Padial JM, de la Riva I. 2010. A response to recent 

proposals for integrative taxonomy. Biological 


Parkinson CL. 1999. Molecular systematics and 

biogeographical history of pitvipers as determined 

by mitochondrial ribosomal DNA sequences. Copeia 

1999: 576–586. 

Parkinson CL, Moody SM, Ahlquist JE. 1997. 

Phylogenetic relationships of the “Agkistrodon 

complex” based on mitochondrial DNA sequence 

data. Pp. 63–78 In: Venomous Snakes: Ecology, 

Evolution and Snakebite. Editors, Thorpe RS, Wüster 

W, Malhotra A. Clarendon Press, Oxford, United 

Kingdom. 

Parkinson CL, Zamudio KR, Greene HW. 2000. 

Phylogeography of the pitviper clade Agkistrodon: 

historical ecology, species status, and conservation of 

cantils. Molecular Ecology 9: 411–420. 

Parkinson CL, Campbell JA, Chippindale P. 2002. 

Multigene phylogenetic analysis of pitvipers, with 

comments on their biogeography. Pp. 93–110 In: 

Biology of the Vipers. Editors, Schuett GW, Höggren 

M, Douglas ME, Greene HW. Eagle Mountain 


Population Reference Bureau. 2010 World Population 

Data Sheet. Available: www.prb.org [Accessed: 27 

January 2012]. 

Sasa M, Chaves G, Porras LW. 2010. The Costa 

Rican herpetofauna: conservation status and future 

perspectives. Pp. 510–603 In: Conservation of 




USA. 

Sasa M, Solórzano A. 1995. The reptiles and amphibians 

of Santa Rosa National Park, Costa Rica, with 

comments about the herpetofauna of xerophytic areas. 

Herpetological Natural History 3: 113–125. 

Savage JM. 2002. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Costa 

Rica: A Herpetofauna between Two Continents, 

between Two Seas. The University of Chicago Press, 

Chicago, Illinois, USA. 

Schwentner M, Timms BV, Richter S. 2011. An integrative 

approach to species delineation incorporating different 

species concepts: a case study of Limnadopsis 

(Branchiopoda: Spinicaudata). Biological Journal of 

the Linnean Society 104: 575–599. 

Sibley CG. 1954. The contribution of avian taxonomy [to 

a symposium on subspecies and clines]. Systematic 

Zoology 3: 105–110, 125. 

Smith HM, Chiszar D. 2001. A new subspecies of cantil 

(Agkistrodon bilineatus) from central Veracruz, 

Mexico (Reptilia: Serpentes). Bulletin of the Maryland 

Herpetological Society 37: 130–136. 

Solórzano A. 2004. Serpientes de Costa Rica: 

Distribución, Taxonomía, e Historia Natural / Snakes 

of Costa Rica: Distribution, Taxonomy, and Natural 

History. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, Santo 

Domingo de Heredia, Costa Rica. 

Solórzano A, Romero M, Gutierrez JM, Sasa M. 1999. 

Venom composition and diet of the cantil Agkistrodon 

bilineatus howardgloydi (Serpentes: Viperidae). 

Southwestern Naturalist 44: 478–483. 

Stafford PJ, Meyer JR. 2000. A Guide to the Reptiles of 

Belize. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA. 

Stafford PJ, Walker P, Edgar P, Penn MG. 2010. 

Distribution and conservation of the herpetofauna of 

Belize. Pp. 370–405 In: Conservation of Mesoamerican 




Stejneger L. 1899. Reptiles of the Tres Marias and Isabel 

Islands. North American Fauna 14: 63–77. 


069 


Strimple P. 1988. Comments on caudal luring in snakes 

with observations on this behavior in two subspecies of 

cantils, Agkistrodon bilineatus ssp. Notes from Noah, 

The Northern Ohio Association of Herpetologists 

15(6): 6–10. 

Strimple P. 1992. Caudal-luring: a discussion on 

definition and application of the term. Pp. 49–54 

In: Contributions in Herpetology. Editors, Strimple 

PD, Strimple JL. Greater Cincinnati Herpetological 

Society, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. 

Sunyer J, Köhler G. 2010. Conservation status of 

the herpetofauna of Nicaragua. Pp. 488–509 In: 




Utah, USA. 


Honduran herpetofauna: issues and imperatives. 



Townsend JH, Johnson JD. Eagle Mountain 


Villa JD. 1984. The venomous snakes of Nicaragua: a 

synopsis. Contributions in Biology and Geology, 

Milwaukee Public Museum 59: 1–41. 

Wiley EO. 1978. The evolutionary species concept 

reconsidered. Systematic Zoology 27: 17–26. 

Wiley EO. 1981. Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice 

of Phylogenetic Systematics. Wiley-Interscience, New 

York, USA. 

Wiley EO, Mayden RL. 2000. The Evolutionary Species 

Concept. Pp. 70–89 In: Species Concepts and 

Phylogenetic Theory: A Debate. Editors, Wheeler 

QD, Meier R. Columbia University Press, New York, 


Wilson EO, Brown WL. 1953. The subspecies concept 

and its taxonomic application. Systematic Zoology 2: 

97–111. 





Townsend JH, Johnson JD. Eagle Mountain 


Wilson LD, Mata-Silva V, Johnson JD. 2013. A 

conservation reassessment of the reptiles of Mexico 

based on the EVS measure. Amphibian & Reptile 

Conservation 7(1): 1–47 (e61). 

Wilson LD, McCranie JR. 1992. Status of amphibian 

populations in Honduras. Unpublished report to the 

task force on Declining Amphibian Populations. 14 pp. 

Wilson LD, McCranie JR. 2004. The conservation 

status of the herpetofauna of Honduras. Amphibian & 

Reptile Conservation 3: 6–33. 

Wilson LD, Townsend JH, Johnson JD. 2010. 




Utah, USA. 

Zink RM. 2004. The role of subspecies in obscuring avian 

biological diversity and misleading conservation 

policy. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 

271: 561–564. 

Zweifel RG. 1960. Results of the Puritan-American 

Museum of Natural History expedition to western 

Mexico. 9. Herpetology of the Tres Marías Islands. 

Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 

119 (article 2): 77–128. 

Received: 18 March 2013 

Accepted: 24 May 2013 

Published: 20 June 2013 


070 



Louis W. Porras is President of Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, a company that has published Biology of 

the Vipers (2002), Biology of the Boas and Pythons (2007), Amphibians, Reptiles, and Turtles in Kansas 

(2010), Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles (2010), and Amphibians and Reptiles of 

San Luis Potosí (2013). For many years Louis served as Vice-President and President of the International 

Herpetological Symposium, and during his tenure was instrumental (along with Gordon W. Schuett) in 

launching the journal Herpetological Natural History. A native of Costa Rica, Porras has authored or 

co-authored over 50 papers in herpetology. During the course of his studies he has traveled extensively 

throughout the Bahamas and Latin America. Two taxa, Sphaerodactylus nigropunctatus porrasi, from the 

Ragged Islands, and Porthidium porrasi, from Costa Rica, have been named in his honor. 

Larry David Wilson is a herpetologist with lengthy experience in Mesoamerica, totaling six collective 

years (combined over the past 47). Larry is the senior editor of the recently published Conservation of 

Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles and a co-author of seven of its chapters. He retired after 35 years 

of service as Professor of Biology at Miami-Dade College in Miami, Florida. Larry is the author or coauthor 

of more than 290 peer-reviewed papers and books on herpetology, including the 2004 Amphibian & 

Reptile Conservation paper entitled “The conservation status of the herpetofauna of Honduras.” His other 

books include The Snakes of Honduras, Middle American Herpetology, The Amphibians of Honduras, 

Amphibians & Reptiles of the Bay Islands and Cayos Cochinos, Honduras, The Amphibians and Reptiles 

of the Honduran Mosquitia, and Guide to the Amphibians & Reptiles of Cusuco National Park, Honduras. 

He also served as the Snake Section Editor for the Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles for 

33 years. Over his career, Larry has authored or co-authored the descriptions of 69 currently recognized 

herpetofaunal species and six species have been named in his honor, including the anuran Craugastor 

lauraster and the snakes Cerrophidion wilsoni, Myriopholis wilsoni, and Oxybelis wilsoni. 

Gordon W. Schuett is an evolutionary biologist and herpetologist who has conducted extensive research 

on reptiles. His work has focused primarily on venomous snakes, but he has also published on turtles, 

lizards, and amphibians. His most significant contributions to date have been studies of winner-loser effects 

in agonistic encounters, mate competition, mating system theory, hormone cycles and reproduction, 

caudal luring and mimicry, long-term sperm storage, and as co-discoverer of facultative parthenogenesis 

in non-avian reptiles. He served as chief editor of the peer-reviewed book Biology of the Vipers and 

is presently serving as chief editor of an upcoming peer-reviewed book The Rattlesnakes of Arizona 

(rattlesnakesofarizona.org). Gordon is a Director and scientific board member of the newly founded nonprofit 

The Copperhead Institute (copperheadinstitute.org). He was the founding Editor of the journal 

Herpetological Natural History. Dr. Schuett is an adjunct professor in the Department of Biology at 

Georgia State University. 

Randall S. Reiserer is an integrative biologist whose research focuses on understanding the interrelationships 

among ecology, morphology, and behavior. Within the broad framework of evolutionary biology, 

he studies cognition, neuroscience, mimicry, life-history evolution, and the influence of niche dynamics 

on patterns of evolutionary change. His primary research centers on reptiles and amphibians, but his 

academic interests span all major vertebrate groups. His studies of behavior are varied and range from 

caudal luring and thermal behavior in rattlesnakes to learning and memory in transgenic mice. His studies 

of caudal luring in snakes established methods for studying visual perception and stimulus control. He 

commonly employs phylogenetic comparative methods and statistics to investigate and test evolutionary 

patterns and adaptive hypotheses. Dr. Reiserer is an editor of the upcoming peer-reviewed book, The 

Rattlesnakes of Arizona. 


071 


Porras et al. 

Appendix 1. Morphological characters of the subspecies of Agkistrodon bilineatus (ingroup) and two outgroups (A. contortrix and A.piscivorus) 

used for character mapping analysis in this study. Unless otherwise indicated, characters are based on adult stages. *Not used in analysis. 

Ingroup (cantils) 

Agkistrodon bilineatus bilineatus 

Upper facial stripe (lateral view): relatively broad and white. 

Lower facial stripe (lateral view): relatively broad and continuous with dark pigment below; white.* 

Dorsal coloration of adults: very dark brown to black; crossbands usually absent; if present, difficult to distinguish; 

pattern composed of small white spots or streaks. 

Chin and throat: dark brown or black, with narrow white lines or markings. 

Venter: dark brown or black with pale markings.* 

Coloration of neonates/juveniles: some shade of brown with crossbands separated by a paler ground color; lateral 

edges of crossbands flecked with white. 

Tail tip of neonates: bright yellow. 

Sexual color dimorphism: absent. 

Agkistrodon bilineatus howardgloydi 

Upper facial stripe (lateral view): narrow and white; posterior portion often absent in adults. 

Lower facial stripe (lateral view): broader than upper stripe, and divided into two components; stripe bordered 

below by dark line, followed by pale pigment to lower edge of supralabials; white.* 

Dorsal coloration of adults: reddish brown or brown; pattern of dark crossbands contrasts moderately with dorsal 

ground color. 

Chin and throat: orange yellow, bright orange, or brownish orange with few white spots. 

Venter: dark reddish brown.* 

Coloration of neonates/juveniles: tan to reddish orange, or reddish, with reddish brown crossbands edged intermittently 

with white and/or black, especially as they approach venter. 

Tail tip of neonates/juveniles: banded with sequential pattern ranging from very dark gray anteriorly to paler gray 

toward the tip, with interspaces alternating from pale gray to white. 

Sexual color dimorphism: moderate sexual color dimorphism present in sub-adults and adults. 

Agkistrodon bilineatus russeolus 

Upper facial stripe (lateral view): narrow and white; sometimes intermittent posterior to eye. 

Lower facial stripe (lateral view): broader than upper stripe and continuous, with narrow band of dark pigment 

below; white.* 

Dorsal coloration of adults: pale reddish brown; broad deep reddish brown to brown crossbands separated by paler 

areas, and strongly edged irregularly with white; crossbands remain apparent, even in older adults; laterally, centers 

of crossbands paler and usually contain one or two dark spots. 

Chin and throat: pattern often reduced; small whitish spots or lines evident on a darker background. 

Venter: approximately the median third is not patterned.* 

Coloration of neonates/juveniles: pattern of brown crossbands with paler brown interspaces; banding intermittently 

edged with white; with growth, inner portion of crossbands turns same color as interspaces, thereby developing a 

highly fragmented pattern. 

Tail tip of neonates/juveniles: pale gray with faint white banding; darker gray tones evident with growth. 


Agkistrodon taylori 

Upper facial stripe (lateral view): relatively broad and white. 

Lower facial stripe (lateral view): broad and continuous, and extends to lower edge of supralabials. 

Dorsal coloration of adults: pronounced black crossbands separated by gray, pale brown, or lavender areas that 

often contain yellow-brown or orange.* 

Chin and throat: bold markings, with white, yellow and or orange elements. 

Venter: dark gray or black markings arranged in a somewhat checkerboard pattern. 


072 


Coloration of neonates/juveniles: strongly patterned, but with markings like those of adults but less intense. 

Tail tip of neonates/juveniles: yellow (rarely, white). 

Sexual color dimorphism: present in all age classes; sometimes difficult to detect in older adults that darken. 

Outgroups 

Agkistrodon piscivorus (outgroup 1) 

Upper facial stripe (lateral view): variable in size and appearance; pale but not white. 

Lower facial stripe (lateral view): relatively broad and continuous with dark pigment below.* 

Dorsal coloration of adults: very dark brown to black; crossbands present in some populations, difficult to distinguish; 

pattern composed of small white spots or streaks. 

Chin and throat: pale, cream to white. 

Venter: dark brown or black with pale markings.* 

Coloration of neonates/juveniles: pale ground color with pronounced bands; strong ontogenetic change 



Agkistrodon contortrix (outgroup 2) 


Upper facial stripe (lateral view): absent. 

Lower facial stripe (lateral view): absent.* 

Dorsal coloration of adults: light tan ground color; brown crossbands of varying size present. 

Chin and throat: tan; typically same as ground color of face and dorsum. 

Venter: pale tan with dark tan markings.* 

Coloration of neonates/juveniles: ground color pale tan; similar to adults but subdued. 




073 


Dr. Daniel D. Beck (right) with Martin Villa at the Centro Ecologia de Sonora, in Hermosillo, Mexico. Dr. Beck is holding a nearrecord 

length Río Fuerte beaded lizard (Heloderma horridum exasperatum). Photo by Thomas Wiewandt. 


074 

July 2013 | Volume 7 | Number 1 | e67

Copyright: © 2013 Reiserer et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons 




Taxonomic reassessment and conservation status 

of the beaded lizard, Heloderma horridum 

(Squamata: Helodermatidae) 

1 

Randall S. Reiserer, 1,2 Gordon W. Schuett, and 3 Daniel D. Beck 

1 

The Copperhead Institute, P. O. Box 6755, Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304, USA 2 Department of Biology and Center for Behavioral Neuroscience, 

Georgia State University, 33 Gilmer Street, SE, Unit 8, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303-3088, USA 3 Department of Biological Sciences, Central 

Washington University, Ellensburg, Washington 98926, USA 

Abstract.—The beaded lizard (Heloderma horridum) and Gila monster (H. suspectum) are large, 

highly venomous, anguimorph lizards threatened by human persecution, habitat loss and degradation, 

and climate change. A recent DNA-based phylogenetic analysis of helodermatids (Douglas et 

al. 2010. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 55: 153–167) suggests that the current infraspecific 

taxonomy (subspecies) of beaded lizards underestimates their biodiversity, and that species status 

for the various subspecies is warranted. Those authors discussed “conservation phylogenetics,” 

which incorporates historical genetics in conservation decisions. Here, we reassess the taxonomy 

of beaded lizards utilizing the abovementioned molecular analysis, and incorporate morphology by 

performing a character mapping analysis. Furthermore, utilizing fossil-calibrated sequence divergence 

results, we explore beaded lizard diversification against a backdrop of the origin, diversification, 

and expansion of seasonally dry tropical forests (SDTFs) in Mexico and Guatemala. These forests 

are the primary biomes occupied by beaded lizards, and in Mesoamerica most are considered 

threatened, endangered, or extirpated. Pair-wise net sequence divergence (%) values were greatest 

between H. h. charlesbogerti and H. h. exasperatum (9.8%), and least between H. h. alvarezi and H. h. 

charlesbogerti (1%). The former clade represents populations that are widely separated in distribution 

(eastern Guatemala vs. southern Sonora, Mexico), whereas in the latter clade the populations 

are much closer (eastern Guatemala vs. Chiapas, Mexico). The nominate subspecies (Heloderma h. 

horridum) differed from the other subspecies of H. horridum at 5.4% to 7.1%. After diverging from a 

most-recent common ancestor ~35 mya in the Late Eocene, subsequent diversification (cladogenesis) 

of beaded lizards occurred during the late Miocene (9.71 mya), followed by a lengthy stasis of 

up to 5 my, and further cladogenesis extended into the Pliocene and Pleistocene. In both beaded 

lizards and SDTFs, the tempo of evolution and diversification was uneven, and their current distributions 

are fragmented. Based on multiple lines of evidence, including a review of the use of trinomials 

in taxonomy, we elevate the four subspecies of beaded lizards to full species: Heloderma alvarezi 

(Chiapan beaded lizard), H. charlesbogerti (Guatemalan beaded lizard), H. exasperatum Río Fuerte 

beaded lizard), and H. horridum (Mexican beaded lizard), with no changes in their vernacular names. 

Finally, we propose a series of research programs and conservation recommendations. 

Key words. mtDNA, ATPase, nuclear genes, character mapping, genomics, seasonally dry tropical forests, reptiles 

Resumen.—El escorpión (Heloderma horridum) y el monstruo de Gila (H. suspectum) son lagartijas 

grandes, anguimorfas, y muy venenosas que están sufriendo diversas amenazas como resultado de 

la persecución humana, degradación y pérdida del hábitat y el cambio climático global. Un análisis 

filogenético reciente basado en ADN de este grupo (Douglas et al. 2010. Molecular Phylogenetics 

and Evolution 55: 153–167) sugiere que la actual taxonomía intraespecífica (subespecies) del escorpión 

está subestimando la diversidad biológica, y el reconocimiento de especies es justificable. 

Estos autores discuten la utilidad del enfoque denominado “conservación filogenética”, que hace 

hincapié en la incorporación de la genética histórica en las decisiones de conservación. En este 

estudio, reevaluamos la taxonomía del escorpión utilizando el análisis molecular antes mencionado 

e incorporamos la morfología en un análisis de mapeo de caracteres. Así mismo, con los resultados 

de la secuencia de divergencia calibrada con fósiles, se explora la diversificación del escorpión en 

forma yuxtapuesta al origen, la diversificación y la expansión de los bosques tropicales estacionalmente 

secos (SDTFs) en México y Guatemala. Estos bosques son los principales biomas ocupados 

por los escorpiones, y en Mesoamérica la mayoria son considerados amenazados, en peligro o 


075 


Reiserer et al. 

biome in Mesoamerica owing to persistent deforestation 

for agriculture, cattle ranching, and a burgeoning 

human population (Janzen 1988; Myers et al. 2000; Trejo 

and Dirzo 2000; Hoekstra et al. 2005; Miles et al. 2006; 

Stoner and Sánchez-Azofeifa, 2009; Williams-Linera 

and Lorea 2009; Beck 2005; Pennington et al. 2006; 

Wilson et al. 2010, 2013; Dirzo et al. 2011; De-Nova et 

al. 2012; Domínguez-Vega et al. 2012; Golicher et al. 

2012). Furthermore, drought and fires escalate the above 

threats (Beck 2005; Miles et al. 2006), and recent predictive 

models of climate change show that the persistence 

of SDTFs in this region is highly dubious (Trejo and 

Dirzo 2000; Miles et al. 2006; Golicher et al. 2012). 

Despite its large size and charismatic nature, our 

knowledge of the ecology, geographical distribution, 

and status of populations of H. horridum remains limited 

(Beck and Lowe 1991; Beck 2005; Ariano-Sánchez 

2006; Douglas et al. 2010; Domiguez-Vega et al. 2012). 

Furthermore, based on multiple lines of evidence, a taxonomic 

reevaluation of this group of lizards is long overdue 

(Beck 2005; Douglas et al. 2010). 

Here, we continue the dialogue concerning the infraspecifc 

(subspecific) taxonomy and conservation status 

of beaded lizards. We reviewed recent publications by 

Beck (2005) and Domínguez-Vega et al. (2012), and augment 

their conclusions based on personal (DDB) field research 

in Mexico. We reassess the taxonomic status of 

the populations of H. horridum using morphology, biogeography, 

and a recent molecular-based (mtDNA, 

nDNA) analysis conducted by Douglas et al. (2010). 

Although Douglas et al. (2010) commented on the moextirpados. 

Los valores de la secuencia de divergencia neta por pares (%) fueron mayores entre H. 

h. charlesbogerti y H. h. exasperatum (9,8%) y menores entre H. h. alvarezi y H. h. charlesbogerti 

(1%). El primer grupo representa a poblaciones que están muy distantes una de la otra en su distribución 

(este de Guatemala vs. sur de Sonora, México), mientras que las poblaciones en el segundo 

grupo están mucho más relacionadas (este de Guatemala vs. Chiapas, México). La subespecie denominada 

(Heloderma h. horridum) difirió de las otras subespecies de H. horridum entre un 5,4% a 

7,1%. Después de la separación de un ancestro común más reciente, ~35 mda a finales del Eoceno, 

ocurrió una diversificación (cladogénesis) posterior de Heloderma a finales del Mioceno tardío (9,71 

mda), seguida de un estancamiento prolongado de hasta 5 mda, con una cladogénesis posterior 

que se extendió hasta el Plioceno y Pleistoceno. En ambos grupos, escorpiones y bosques tropicales 

estacionalmente secos, los procesos de evolución y diversificación fueron desiguales, y su 

distribución fue fragmentada. Hoy en día, el escorpión está distribuido de manera irregular a lo 

largo de su amplio rango geográfico. Basándonos en varias líneas de evidencia, incluyendo una revisión 

del uso de trinomios taxonómicos, elevamos las cuatro subespecies del escorpión al nivel de 

especie: Heloderma alvarezi (escorpión de Chiapas), H. charlesbogerti (escorpión Guatemalteco), 

H. exasperatum (escorpión del Río Fuerte), y H. horridum (escorpión Mexicano), sin cambios en los 

nombres vernáculos. Por último, proponemos una serie de programas de investigación y recomendaciones 

para su conservación. 

Palabras claves. ADNmt, ATPasas, genes nucleares, mapeo de caracteres, genómica, bosque tropical estacionalmente 

seco, reptiles 

Citation: Reiserer RS, Schuett GW, Beck DD. 2013. Taxonomic reassessment and conservation status of the beaded lizard, Heloderma horridum 

(Squamata: Helodermatidae). Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1): 74–96 (e67). 

The century-long debate over the meaning and utility of 

the subspecies concept has produced spirited print but 

only superficial consensus. I suggest that genuine consensus 

about subspecies is an impossible goal ... the subspecies 

concept itself is simply too heterogeneous to be 

classified as strict science. 

Introduction 

Fitzpatrick 2010: 54. 

The beaded lizard (Heloderma horridum) is a large, highly 

venomous, anguimorph (Helodermatidae) squamate 

with a fragmented distribution in Mesoamerica that extends 

from northwestern Mexico (Sonora, Chihuahua) to 

eastern Guatemala (Bogert and Martín del Campo 1956; 

Campbell and Vannini 1988; Campbell and Lamar 2004; 

Beck 2005; Beaman et al. 2006; Anzueto and Campbell 

2010; Wilson et al. 2010, 2013; Domínguez-Vega et 

al. 2012). Among the reptilian fauna of this region, the 

beaded lizard (in Spanish, known as the “escorpión”) is 

well known to local inhabitants, yet its natural history 

is surrounded by mystery, notoriety and misconception. 

Consequently, it is frequently slaughtered when encountered 

(Beck 2005). 

Adding to this anthropogenic pressure, beaded lizard 

populations, with rare exceptions (Lemos-Espinal et al. 

2003; Monroy-Vilchis et al. 2005), occur primarily in 

seasonally dry tropical forests, SDTFs (Campbell and 

Lamar 2004; Beck 2005; Campbell and Vannini 1988; 

Domínguez-Vega et al. 2012), the most endangered 


076 


Taxonomy and conservation of beaded lizards 

lecular diversity of Heloderma, especially in H. horridum, 

they did not provide explicit taxonomic changes. 

In this paper, therefore, we reevaluate and expand upon 

their conclusions. To gain insights into phenotypic (morphological) 

evolution of extant Heloderma, with emphasis 

on H. horridum, we conduct a character mapping 

analysis (Brooks and McLennan 1991; Harvey and Pagel 

1991; Martins 1996; Maddison and Maddison 2011), utilizing 

the phylogenetic information (trees) recovered by 

Douglas et al. (2010). 

Overview of Morphology and Molecules 

in the genus Heloderma 

1. Morphological assessment 

Published over half a century ago, Bogert and Martín del 

Campo’s (1956) detailed and expansive monograph of 

extant and fossil helodermatid lizards remains the definitive 

morphological reference (reviewed in Campbell and 

Lamar, 2004; Beck, 2005), and it contains the diagnoses 

and descriptions of two new subspecies (Heloderma 

horridum alvarezi and H. h. exasperatum). Thirty-two 

years later, Campbell and Vannini (1988) described a 

new subspecies (H. h. charlesbogerti), from the Río Motagua 

Valley in eastern Guatemala, in honor of Charles 

Bogert’s pioneering work on these lizards. With few exceptions, 

such as Conrad et al. (2010) and Gauthier et al. 

(2012), who examined higher-level relationships of the 

Helodermatidae and other anguimorphs, a modern phylogeographic 

analysis of morphological diversity for extant 

helodermatids is lacking. However, as we illustrate 

in our character mapping analysis, the morphological 

characters used by Bogert and Martín del Campo (1956) 

in diagnosing and describing the subspecies of beaded 

lizards, though somewhat incomplete, remains useful in 

analyzing phenotypic variation. 

2. Diagnosis, description, and distribution 

of Heloderma horridum 

Diagnosis and description. —Bogert and Martín del 

Campo (1956) and Campbell and Vannini (1988) provided 

diagnoses and descriptions of the subspecies of 

Heloderma horridum. Recent information on the biology, 

systematics, and taxonomy of H. horridum and H. 

suspectum is summarized and critiqued by Campbell and 

Lamar (2004) and Beck (2005), and Beaman et al. (2006) 

provided a literature reference summary of the Helodermatidae. 

Presently, four subspecies of H. horridum are 

recognized (Figs. 1–5). 

Mexican beaded lizard: H. h. horridum (Wiegmann 

1829) 

Río Fuerte beaded lizard: H. h. exasperatum Bogert 

and Martín del Campo 1956 

Chiapan beaded lizard: H. h. alvarezi Bogert and Martín 

del Campo 1956 

Guatemalan beaded lizard: H. h. charlesbogerti 

Campbell and Vannini 1988 

The four subspecies of H. horridum were diagnosed 

and described on the basis of scutellation, color pattern, 

and geographical distribution, and we refer the reader to 

the aforementioned works for detailed descriptions and 

taxonomic keys. The characters used by Bogert and Martín 

del Campo (1956) and Campbell and Vannini (1988) 

to diagnose the subspecies have been reevaluated as to 

their stability, albeit informally (Campbell and Lamar 

2004; Beck 2005). Poe and Wiens (2000) and Douglas 

et al. (2007) discussed the problem of character stability 

in phylogenetic analyses. Kraus (1988), for example, 

commented that reasonable evidence for character stability, 

and thus its usefulness as a shared-derived character 

(apomorphy), was the occurrence of a discrete trait in 

adults at a frequency of 80% or greater. In our character 

mapping analysis using published morphological characters 

(discussed below), character stability was a major 

assumption. Consequently, further research is warranted 

for substantiation. 

Geographic distribution. —The geographic distribution 

of Heloderma horridum extends from southern Sonora 

and adjacent western Chihuahua, in Mexico, southward 

to eastern and southern Guatemala (Campbell and 

Lamar 2004; Beck 2005; Anzueto and Campbell 2010; 

Domiguez-Vega et al. 2012). 

The Río Fuerte Beaded Lizard (H. h. exasperatum) inhabits 

the foothills of the Sierra Madre Occidental, within 

the drainage basins of the Río Mayo and Río Fuerte of 

the Sonoran-Sinaloan transition subtropical dry forest in 

southern Sonora, extreme western Chihuahua, and northern 

Sinaloa (Campbell and Lamar 2004; Beck 2005). Its 

distribution closely matches the fingers of SDTFs within 

this region, but it has also been encountered in pine-oak 

forest at 1,400 m near Alamos, Sonora (Schwalbe and 

Lowe 2000). Bogert and Martín del Campo (1956) commented 

that as far as their records indicated, a considerable 

hiatus existed between the distribution of H. h. exasperatum 

(to the north) and H. h. horridum (to the south), 

but owing to the narrow contact between the supranasal 

and postnasal in H. h. horridum from Sinaloa, intergradation 

might be found in populations north of Mazatlán. 

Based on this information, Beck (2005: 24) stated, “…in 

tropical dry forest habitats north of Mazatlan, Sinaloa, H. 

h. exasperatum likely intergrades with H. h. horridum.” 

Definitive data on intergradation remains unreported, 

however, and published distribution maps have incorporated 

that assumption (e.g., Campbell and Lamar 2004; 

Beck 2005). Campbell and Lamar (2004, p. 104) show 

a single example of H. suspectum from El Dorado in 

west-central Sinaloa, Mexico (deposited in the American 

Museum of Natural History [90786]), a locality 280 km 

south from northern records in Río del Fuerte, Sinaloa. 


077 



Fig. 1. A. Adult Río Fuerte beaded lizard (Heloderma horridum exasperatum) in a defensive display (Alamos, Sonora). B. Adult 

Río Fuerte beaded lizard raiding a bird nest (Alamos, Sonora). Photos by Thomas Wiewandt. 

Fig. 2. Adult Mexican beaded lizard (H. h. horridum) observed on 11 July 2011 at Emiliano Zapata, municipality of La Huerta, 

coastal Jalisco, Mexico. Photo by Javier Alvarado. 


078 



Fig. 3. Adult Chiapan beaded lizard (Heloderma horridum alvarezi) from Sumidero Canyon in the Río Grijalva Valley, east of 

Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, Mexico. Photo by Thomas Wiewandt. 

Fig. 4. Adult Guatemalan beaded lizard (Heloderma horridum charlesbogerti) from the Motagua Valley, Guatemala. 

Photo by Daniel Ariano-Sánchez. 


079 



A 

C 

Fig. 5. A. Juvenile Heloderma horridum exasperatum (in situ, 

Álamos, Sonora, Mexico). Photo by Stephanie Meyer. 

B. Neonate Heloderma h. horridum (wild-collected July 2011, 

Chamela, Jalisco). Photo by Kerry Holcomb. 

C. Neonate Heloderma horridum alvarezi (Río Lagartero 

Depression, extreme western Guatemala). 

Photo by Quetzal Dwyer. 

D. Neonate Heloderma horridum charlesbogerti (hatched at 

Zoo Atlanta in late 2012). Photo by David Brothers, courtesy 

of Zoo Atlanta. 

D 

B 

Owing to this unusual location, we suggest a re-examination 

of this museum specimen to verify its identity. Neonates 

and juveniles of H. h. exasperatum resemble adults 

in color pattern (Fig. 5a), but they show greater contrast 

(i.e., a pale yellow to nearly white pattern on a ground 

color of brownish-black). Also, their color pattern can be 

distinguished from that of adults (e.g., no yellow speckling 

between the tail bands), and an ontogenetic increase 

in yellow pigment occurs (Bogert and Martín del Campo 

1956; Beck 2005). 

The Mexican beaded lizard (H. h. horridum), the 

subspecies with the most extensive distribution, occurs 

primarily in dry forest habitats from southern Sinaloa 

southward to Oaxaca, including the states of Jalisco, 

Nayarit, Colima, Michoacán, and Guerrero, and inland 

into the states of México and Morelos (Campbell and 

Lamar 2004; Beck 2005). Monroy-Vilchis et al. (2005) 

recorded an observation of this taxon at mid elevations 

(e.g., 1861 m) in pine-oak woodlands in the state 

of México. Campbell and Vannini (1988), citing Álvarez 

del Toro (1983), indicated the probability of areas 

of intergradation between H. h. horridum and H. h. alvarezi, 

in the area between the Isthmus of Tehuantepec 

and Cintalapa, Chiapas. Nonetheless, Álvarez del Toro 

(1983) stated that individuals of beaded lizards with yellow 

markings (a coloration character present in H. h. 

horridum) are found in the region from Cintalapa to the 

Isthmus of Tehuantepec, as well as in dry areas along the 

coast from Arriaga (near the Isthmus of Tehuantepec) to 

Huixtla (near the Guatemalan border). Literature information 

on intergradation between these two subspecies 

is inconclusive and, therefore, will require further investigation. 

Neonates and juveniles of H. h. horridum, like 

those of H. h. exasperatum, resemble adults in color pattern 

(Fig. 5b), but their color contrast is greater (Bogert 

and Martín del Campo 1956; Beck 2005). 

The Chiapan beaded lizard (H. h. alvarezi) inhabits 

dry forests in the Central Depression (Río Grijalva 


080 



Depression) of central Chiapas and the Río Lagartero 

Depression in extreme western Guatemala (Campbell 

and Lamar 2004; Beck 2005; Johnson et al. 2010; Wilson 

et al. 2010: p. 435). This taxon is unique among the 

subspecies in that it undergoes an ontogenetic increase 

in melanism, whereby it tends to lose the juvenile color 

pattern (Bogert and Martín del Campo 1956; Beck 2005). 

Neonates and juveniles often are distinctly marked with 

yellow spots and bands, including on the tail (Fig. 5c), 

whereas the color pattern of adults gradually transforms 

to an almost uniform dark brown or gray. Black individuals, 

however, are uncommon. Yellow banding on the tail, 

a characteristic typical of the other subspecies of beaded 

lizards, (Fig. 2), is essentially absent in adults (Bogert 

and Martín del Campo 1956; Beck 2005). 

The Guatemalan beaded lizard (H. h. charlesbogerti) 

inhabits the Río Motagua Valley, in the Atlantic versant 

of eastern Guatemala (Campbell and Vannini 1988). Recently, 

however, Anzueto and Campbell (2010) reported 

three specimens from two disjunct populations on the 

Pacific versant of Guatemala, to the southwest of the 

Motagua Valley. Neonates resemble adults in color pattern, 

though they tend to be paler (Fig. 5d). 

In summary, the distribution of H. horridum is fragmented 

throughout its extensive range and corresponds 

closely with the patchy distribution of SDTFs in Mexico 

and Guatemala (Beck 2005; Miles et al. 2006; Domínguez-Vega 

et al. 2012). The distribution of the Guatemalan 

beaded lizard (H. h. charlesbogerti) is distinctly 

allopatric (Campbell and Vannini 1988; Beck 2005; 

Ariano-Sánchez 2006; Anzueto and Campbell 2010). 

3. Molecular assessment 

Douglas et al. (2010) provided the first detailed molecular-based 

(mtDNA, nDNA) analysis of the phylogeographic 

diversity of helodermatid lizards, which is available 

at www.cnah.org/cnah_pdf.asp. Two authors (GWS, 

DDB) of this paper were co-authors. Specifically, Douglas 

et al. (2010) used a “conservation phylogenetics” 

approach (Avise 2005, 2008; Avise et al. 2008), which 

combines and emphasizes the principles and approaches 

of genetics and phylogeography and how they can be applied 

to describe and interpret biodiversity. 

Methods. —Douglas et al. (2010) sampled 135 localityspecific 

individuals of Heloderma (48 H. horridum, 87 H. 

suspectum) from throughout their range (their ingroup). 

The outgroup taxa included multiple lineages of lizards 

and snakes, with an emphasis on anguimorphs. Based on 

both morphological and DNA-based analyses, all authorities 

have recognized the extant helodermatid lizards as 

monotypic (a single genus, Heloderma), and as members 

of a larger monophyletic assemblage of lizards termed 

the Anguimorpha (Pregill et al. 1986; Estes et al. 1988; 

Townsend et al. 2004; Wiens et al. 2010, 2012; Gauthier 

et al. 2012). This lineage includes the well-known varanids 

(Varanus), alligator lizards and their relatives 


081 

(Anguidae), as well as such relatively obscure taxa as the 

Old World Lanthanotidae (Lanthanotus) and Shinisauridae 

(Shinisaurus), and the New World Xenosauridae (Xenosaurus). 

The mtDNA analyses in Douglas et al. (2010) 

were rooted with the tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus), and 

Bayesian and maximum parsimony (MP) analyses were 

conducted using Mr. Bayes (Hulsenbeck and Rohnquist 

2001). 

Douglas et al. (2010) used sequence data from both mitochondrial 

(mt) DNA and nuclear (n) DNA as molecular 

markers in their phylogenetic analyses. Specifically, they 

discussed reasons for selecting mtDNA regions ATPase 

8 and 6, and the nDNA introns alpha-enolase (ENOL) 

and ornithine decarboxylase (OD). The utility of combining 

mt- and nDNAs (supertree) in recovering phylogenetic 

signals has been discussed (Douglas et al. 2007, 

2010), yet each of these markers and the procedure of 

combining sequence data have both benefits and pitfalls 

(Wiens 2008; Castoe et al. 2009). Long-branch attraction 

and convergence, for example, can result in misleading 

relationships (Bergsten 2005; Wiens 2008; Castoe et al. 

2009). The tools for detecting and potentially correcting 

these problems have been discussed (e.g., Castoe et al. 

2009; Assis and Rieppel 2011). 

Results and discussion. —Douglas et al. (2010) recovered 

the genus Heloderma as monophyletic (Helodermatidae), 

with H. horridum and H. suspectum as sister 

taxa. In a partitioned Bayesian analysis of mtDNA, Helodermatidae 

was recovered as sister to the anguimorph 

clade (Shinisaurus (Abronia + Elgaria)), which in turn 

was sister to the clade Lanthanotus + Varanus. Recent 

molecular studies of squamates by Wiens et al. (2012, see 

references therein) recovered a similar topology to that 

of Douglas et al. (2010). However, an extensive morphological 

analysis by Gauthier et al. (2012) supported a traditional 

topology of Heloderma as sister to varanids and 

Lanthanotus borneensis (see Estes et al. 1986; Pregill et 

al. 1988). In Douglas et al. (2010), a partitioned Bayesian 

analysis of the nuclear marker alpha-enolase (intron 8 

and exon 8 and 9), however, recovered Heloderma as sister 

to a monophyletic Varanus. Using a combined analysis 

of morphology (extant and fossil data), mitochondrial, 

and nuclear markers, Lee (2009) recovered Varanidae as 

sister to the clade Helodermatidae + Anguidae. In a combined 

approach, Wiens et al. (2010) recovered results that 

were similar to those of Lee (2009). A recent DNA-based 

analysis of Squamata by Pyron et al. (2013) examined 

4151 species (lizards and snakes), and they recovered 

Helodermatidae as sister to the clade Anniellidae + Anguidae. 

Moreover, they recovered the clade Varanidae + 

Lanthanotidae as sister to Shinisauridae. 

How do systematists deal with this type of incongruity 

(discordance) in studies that use different types 

(e.g., morphology vs. molecular) of phylogenetic markers? 

Recently, Assis and Rieppel (2011) and Losos et al. 

(2012) discussed the common occurrence of discordance 

between molecular and morphological phylogenetic 



analyses. Specifically, with respect to discordance, Assis 

and Rieppel (2011) stated that, “...the issue is not to 

simply let the molecular signal override the morphological 

one. The issue instead is to make empirical evidence 

scientific by trying to find out why such contrastive 

signals are obtained in the first place.” We concur with 

their opinions, and thus further research is warranted to 

resolve such conflicts in the phylogeny of anguimorph 

squamates. 

Relationships among the four subspecies of H. horridum 

recovered in the analysis by Douglas et al. (2010, 

p. 158–159, fig. 3a, b) are depicted in Fig. 6. This topology 

was derived from a partitioned Bayesian analysis of 

the mtDNA regions ATPase 8 and 6. The Gila monster 

(H. suspectum) was the immediate outgroup. Two sets of 

sister pairs of beaded lizards were recovered: H. h. exasperatum 

(HHE) + H. h. horridum (HHH), and H. h. alvarezi 

(HHA) + H. h. charlesbogerti (HHC). The current 

subspecific designations for H. horridum were robustly 

supported (concordant) by these genetic analyses. Unlike 

results obtained for Gila monsters (H. suspectum), 

haplotype and genotype data for H. horridum were both 

diverse and highly concordant with the designated subspecies 

and their respective geographic distributions. 

Douglas et al. (2010) generated pair-wise net sequence 

divergence (%) values based on their recovered relationships 

(Table 1, Fig. 6). The greatest divergence was between 

HHE and HHC (9.8%), and the least between HHA 

and HHC (1%). The former pair represents populations 

widely separated in distribution (southern Sonora, Mexico 

vs. eastern Guatemala), whereas the latter are much 

more closely distributed (Chiapas, Mexico vs. eastern 

Guatemala). The nominate subspecies (Heloderma h. 

horridum) differed from the other three subspecies of 

beaded lizards, from 5.4% to 7.1%. 

Table 1. Pair-wise net sequence divergence (%) values between 

the four subspecies of the beaded lizard (Heloderma horridum) 

derived from a partitioned Bayesian analysis of the mtDNA regions 

ATPase 8 and 6 (modified from Douglas et al. 2010, pp. 

157–159, 163; fig. 3a, b, tables 1 and 3). Values in parentheses 

denote evolutionary divergence times, which represent mean 

age. Mean age is the time in millions of years (mya) since the 

most-recent common ancestor (tree node) and is provided for 

the sister clades HHE-HHH and HHA-HHC (Fig. 6). Beaded 

lizards and Gila monsters (H. suspectum) are hypothesized 

to have diverged from a most-recent common ancestor in the 

late Eocene ~35 mya (Douglas et al. 2010, p. 163). Percent sequence 

divergence was greatest for HHC-HHE, and was lowest 

for HHA-HHC. See text for further details. 

HHA HHC HHE HHH 

HHA — 

HHC 1% (3.02) — 

HHE 9.3% 9.8% — 

HHH 5.4% 6.2% 7.1% (4.42) — 

HHA = H. h. alvarezi; HHC = H. h. charlesbogerti; HHE = H. h. exasperatum; 

HHH = H. h. horridum. 

Fig. 6. Character mapping analysis. Tree topology and node dates based on Douglas et al. (2010). Morphological characters (Table 

2) were mapped via parsimony and outgroup methods using the software program Mesquite (Maddison and Maddison 2011). Node 

1 = Late Eocene (~35 million years ago, mya); Node 2 = 9.71 mya; Node 3 = 4.42 mya; and Node 4 = 3.02 mya (see Table 1). See 

text for details of the analysis. 


082 



Table 2. Morphological characters used for the character mapping analysis (see Table 1, Fig. 6). See text for details. 

Character State Designation 

Tail length 41–55% of snout-to-vent length A0 

≥ 65% of snout-to-vent length 

A1 

Number of caudal vertebrae 25–28 B0 

40 B1 

Number of transverse rows of ventromedial absent C0 

caudal scales (vent to tail tip) greater than 62 present C1 

Usually one pair of enlarged preanal scales present D0 

absent 

D1 

First pair of infralabials usually in contact with present E0 

chin shields absent E1 

Number of maxillary teeth 8–9 F0 

6–7 F1 

Upper posterior process of splenial bone overlaps inner surface of coronoid G0 

does not overlap coronoid 

G1 

Number of black tail bands (including black 4–5 H0 

terminus on tail of juveniles) 6–7 H1 

Adult total length < 570 mm I0 

> 600 mm I1 

Tongue color black or nearly so J0 

pink 

J1 

Supranasal-postnasal association in contact K0 

separated by first canthal 

K1 

Association of second supralabial and in contact L0 

prenasal/nasal plates separated by lorilabial L1 

Shape of mental scute shield-shaped (elongate and triangular) M0 

wedge-shaped (twice as long as wide) 

M1 

Dominant adult dorsal coloration orange, pink N0 

black or dark brown 

N1 

yellow 

N2 

Adult dorsal yellow spotting absent O0 

extremely low 

O1 

low 

O2 

med 

O3 

high 

O4 

Mental scute scalloped edges absent P0 

moderately scalloped edges 

P1 

Enlarged preanal scutes in some females absent Q0 

present 

Q1 

Ontogenetic melanism absent R0 

present 

R1 

Spots on tail in adults absent S0 

present 

S1 

Bands on tail black T0 

yellow 

T1 

absent 

T2 


083 



4. Character mapping analysis 

A character mapping analysis (CMA) is one of several robust 

tools used in comparative biology to comprehend the 

distribution of traits (e.g., morphology), often by explicitly 

utilizing molecular phylogenetic information (Brooks 

and McLennan 1991; Harvey and Pagel 1991; Martins 

1996; Freeman and Herron 2004; Maddison and Maddison 

2011; for a critique, see Assis and Rieppel 2011). 

Specifically, the CMA aims to provide insights to the origin, 

frequency, and distribution of selected traits formally 

expressed onto a tree (e.g., Schuett et al. 2001, 2009; Fenwick 

et al. 2011). These procedures also are potentially 

useful in disentangling homology from homoplasy (Freeman 

and Herron 2004). Furthermore, the CMA provides 

a framework for testing hypotheses of adaptive evolution 

and the identification of species (Harvey and Pagel 1991; 

Futuyma 1998; Freeman and Herron 2004; Schuett et al. 

2001, 2009; Maddison and Maddison 2011). However, 

CMA does not replace a strict phylogenetic analysis of 

morphological traits (Assis and Rieppel 2011). 

Here, we used character mapping to investigate the 

morphological traits of the four subspecies of H. horridum, 

to gain insights on the distribution, divergence, and 

homology (e.g., shared-derived traits, such as possible 

autapomorphies) of these traits. 

Methods. —We used published morphological data on 

Heloderma (Bogert and Martín del Campo 1956; Campbell 

and Vannini 1988; Campbell and Lamar 2004; Beck 

2005) and selected 20 morphological characters for the 

CMA (Table 2). All characters were coded as binary (i.e., 

0, 1) or multi-state (e.g., 0, 1, 2). Non-discrete multi-state 

characters (e.g., color pattern) were ordered from lowest 

to highest values. Character polarity was established 

by using H. suspectum as the outgroup. The CMA traced 

each character independently by using the outgroup analysis 

and parsimony procedures in Mesquite (Maddison 

and Maddison 2011), and we combined the individual 

results onto a global tree. 

Results and discussion. —The CMA results (Fig. 6) 

show that multiple morphological traits are putative apomorphies 

or autapomorphies (traits unique to a single 

taxon) for the various H. horridum clades (subspecies) 

delimited in the molecular tree recovered by Douglas et 

al. (2010). Although we had a priori knowledge of specific 

and unique traits (presumptive autapomorphies) 

used to diagnose each of the subspecies, the CMA presents 

them in a phylogenetic and temporal framework. 

Our results show trends in scutellation (e.g., presenceabsence, 

relative positions), relative tail length, and body 

color pattern, including ontogenetic melanism. Are the 

characters we used in the CMA stable in the subspecies? 

That question remains for future investigation; however, 

we have no evidence to the contrary. Indeed, we anticipate 

that these characters, and others likely to be revealed 

through detailed studies, will exhibit stability. 

Importantly, each of these traits is amenable to further 

investigation and formal tests. For examples, what is 

the evolutionary and ecological significance of tongue 

color differences in beaded lizards (always pink) and 

Gila monsters (always black), the extreme differences in 

adult dorsal color pattern in H. h. exasperatum (yellow 

is predominant) vs. H. h. alvarezi (dark brown and patternless 

predominate), and ontogenetic melanism in H. h. 

alvarezi? As we discussed, beaded lizards occupy similar 

seasonally dry tropical forests, yet each of the subspecies 

exhibits pronounced molecular and morphological 

differentiation. 

Similar types of questions concerning adaptation have 

used a CMA to explore social systems and sexual dimorphisms 

in lizards (Carothers 1984), male fighting and 

prey subjugation in snakes (Schuett et al. 2001), types 

of bipedalism in varanoids (Schuett et al. 2009), and direction 

of mode of parity (oviparous vs. viviparous) in 

viperids (Fenwick et al. 2011). 

Subspecies and the Taxonomy of Beaded 

Lizards 

Introduced in the late 19 th century by ornithologists to describe 

geographic variation in avian species, the concept 

of subspecies and trinomial taxonomy exploded onto the 

scene in the early 20 th century (Bogert et al. 1943), but 

not without controversy. The use of subspecies has been 

both exalted and condemned by biologists (see perspectives 

by Mallet 1995; Douglas et al. 2002; Zink 2004; 

Fitzpatrick 2010). Thousands of papers have been published 

in an attempt to either bolster the utility and promulgation 

of subspecies, or to denounce the concept as 

meaningless and misleading in evolutionary theory (Wilson 

and Brown 1953; Zink 2004). What is the problem? 

One common critical response is that the subspecies concept 

lacks coherence in meaning, and hence is difficult 

to comprehend (Futuyma 1998; Zink 2004). Moreover, 

the use of subspecies often masks real diversity (cryptic 

species, convergence) or depicts diversity that is non-existent 

or only trivial (e.g., lack of support in DNA-based 

analyses; Zink 2004). Indeed, as John Fitzpatrick attests 

(2010, p. 54), “The trinomial system cannot accurately 

represent the kind of information now available about genetic 

and character variation across space. Instead, even 

more accurate tools are being perfected for quantitative, 

standardized descriptions of variation. These analyses— 

not subspecies classifications—will keep providing new 

scientific insights into geographic variation.” 

Even with the identification of a variety of problems, 

many authors recommend that complete abandonment 

of the trinomial category in taxonomy is not necessary 

nor advised (e.g., Mallett 1995, Hawlitschek et al. 2012). 

Unfortunately, a consensus among biologists concerning 

the use of subspecies is not likely to emerge (Fitzpatrick 

2010). In step with Fitzpatrick’s (2010) comments, we 


084 



contend that the plethora of variation detected in organisms 

must be approached in a modern sense that does 

not rely upon a cumbersome and outdated taxonomic 

system. Indeed, we anticipate that the description of 

geographic variation in organisms, once emancipated 

from infraspecific taxonomy, will actually accelerate our 

understanding of variation and its complexities. In our 

view, the confusion in recognizing subspecies can also 

mislead conservation planning, and it has on more than 

one occasion (e.g., the dusky seaside sparrow, see Avise 

and Nelson 1989). We thus agree with Wilson and Brown 

(1953), Douglas et al. (2002), Zink (2004), Fitzpatrick 

(2010) and others in their insightful criticisms leveled at 

the subspecies concept and the use of trinomials in taxonomy. 

Other authors have echoed similar views (Burbrink 

et al., 2000; Burbrink 2001; Douglas et al. 2007; Tobias 

et al. 2010; Braby et al. 2011; Hoisington-Lopez 2012; 

Porras et al. 2013). 

Given our reassessment of molecular (mt- and 

nDNAs), phylogeographic, morphological, and biogeographic 

evidence, we elevate the subspecies of Heloderma 

horridum to the rank of full species (Wiley, 1978; 

Zink 2004; Tobias et al. 2010; Braby et al. 2011; Porras 

et al. 2013). Indeed, Douglas et al. (2010, p. 164) stated 

that, “… unlike H. suspectum, our analyses support the 

subspecific designations within H. horridum. However, 

these particular lineages almost certainly circumscribe 

more than a single species … Thus, one benefit of a conservation 

phylogenetic perspective is that it can properly 

identify biodiversity to its correct (and thus manageable) 

taxonomic level.” Accordingly, based on multiples lines 

of concordant evidence, we recognize four species of 

beaded lizards. They are: 

Mexican beaded lizard: Heloderma horridum (Wiegmann 

1829) 

Río Fuerte beaded lizard: Heloderma exasperatum 

(Bogert and Martín del Campo 1956) 

Chiapan beaded lizard: Heloderma alvarezi (Bogert 

and Martín del Campo 1956) 

Guatemalan beaded lizard: Heloderma charlesbogerti 

(Campbell and Vannini, 1988) 

In the above arrangement, we do not recognize subspecies 

and vernacular names remain unchanged. The geographic 

distribution of the four species of beaded lizards 

is presented in Fig. 7. Locality data for the map were 

derived from Bogert and Martín del Campo (1956), 

Campbell and Vannini (1988), Schwalbe and Lowe 

(2000), Lemos-Espinal et al. (2003), Campbell and Lamar 

(2004), Beck (2005), Monroy-Vilchis et al. (2005), 

Ariano-Sánchez and Salazar (2007), Anzueto and Campbell 

(2010), Domiguez-Vega et al. (2012), and Sánchez- 

De La Vega et al. (2012). The “?” on the map (coastal 

Oaxaca, municipality: San Pedro Tututepec) denotes a 

jet-black adult specimen photographed by Vicente Mata- 

Silva (pers. comm.) in December 2010. The validity of 

this record is questionable owing to its striking coloration 

resemblance to H. alvarezi from the Central Depression 

(Río Grijalva Depression) of Chiapas and extreme western 

Guatemala, rather than to H. horridum. Although the 

individual might represent an isolated population of H. 

alvarezi, further study in this area of Oaxaca is required 

to rule out human activity as an agent (e.g., displacement). 

Beaded Lizards and Seasonally Dry 

Tropical Forests 

The key to understanding the evolution and biogeography 

of beaded lizards and the prospects for implementing 

meaningful conservation measures is through a recognition 

of the biomes they occupy, which we emphasize are 

the widely but patchily distributed low elevation seasonally 

dry tropical forests (SDTFs; see Trejo and Dirzo 

2000; Campbell and Lamar 2004; Beck 2005; Ariano- 

Sánchez 2006; Miles et al. 2006; Pennington et al. 2006; 

Dirzo et al. 2011; Domiguez-Vega et al. 2012). 

The evolution of SDTFs in Mesoamerica is a complex 

evolutionary scenario (Stuart 1954, 1966), and our understanding 

of their origin and temporal diversification 

is in its infancy (Janzen, 1988; Becerra 2005; Pennington 

et al. 2006; Dirzo et al. 2011; De-Nova et al. 2012). One 

approach to grapple with complex issues such as the origin 

and historical construction of SDTFs in Mesoamerica 

has been to examine a single but highly diverse plant taxon 

within a phylogenetic (phylogenomic) backdrop. This 

approach, accomplished by Becerra (2005) and more recently 

by De-Nova et al. (2012), uses the woody plant 

(tree) Bursera (Burseracae, Sapindales), a highly diverse 

genus (> 100 species) with a distribution in the New 

World and emblematic of most dry forest landscapes 

(De-Nova et al. 2012). Owing to this diversity, coupled 

with extensive endemism, this taxon has yielded valuable 

information that serves as a reasonable proxy for diversification 

and expansion of the SDTF biomes (Dick and 

Pennington 2012). Hence, plant (angiosperm) species 

richness and expansion of SDTF biomes in Mesoamerica 

is hypothesized to parallel the diversification of Bursera 

(Dick and Wright 2005). 

Based on both plastid and nuclear genomic markers 

that were analyzed using fossil-calibrated techniques and 

ancestral habitat reconstruction, the origin of Bursera in 

Mesoamerica is hypothesized to be in northwestern Mexico 

in the earliest Eocene (~50 mya), with subsequent extensive 

diversification and southern expansion along the 

Mexican Transvolcanic Belt in the Miocene, especially 

~7–10 mya (De-Nova et al. 2012). Accelerated clade diversification 

of Bursera and its sister genus Commiphora 

occurred during the Miocene, a period of increased aridity 

likely derived from seasonal cooling and rain shadow 

effects (Dick and Wright 2005). Although causal connections 

are complex, they include global tectonic pro- 


085 



Fig. 7. The distribution of beaded lizards in Mexico and Guatemala. Colored dots represent verified sightings (populations) and 

museum records. Note the fragmented populations of all four species, which closely approximates the patchy distribution of seasonal 

dry tropical forests (see map in Brown and Lowe [1980]). See text for explanation of question marks (“?”) and other details. 

cesses, orogenic activities (uplifting of the Sierra Madre 

Occidental and Sierra Made Oriental) and local volcanism 

(Dick and Wright 2005; De-Nova et al. 2012). De- 

Nova et al. (2012) concluded by emphasizing that their 

phylogenomic analysis of Bursera points to high species 

diversity of SDTFs in Mesoamerica that derives from 

within-habitat speciation rates that occurred in the envelope 

of increasing aridity from the early Miocene to the 

present. Furthermore, they stated (p. 285), “This scenario 

agrees with previous suggestions that [angiosperm] lineages 

mostly restricted to dry environments in Mexico 

resulted from long periods of isolated evolution rather 

than rapid species generation....” 

Beaded Lizard Evolution and Diversification 

The phylogenetic analyses of Heloderma horridum 

(sensu lato) by Douglas et al (2010) provided fossilcalibrated 

estimates of divergence times, which allow us 

to draw connections to the origin and diversification of 

SDTFs in Mesoamerica (Table 1, Fig. 6). Based on those 

analyses, H. horridum (sensu lato) and H. suspectum are 

hypothesized to have diverged from a most-recent common 

ancestor in the late Eocene (~35 mya), which corresponds 

to the establishment of Bursera in northwestern 

Mexico. Subsequent diversification (cladogenesis) of the 

beaded lizards occurred during the late Miocene (9.71 

mya), followed by a lengthy period of stasis of up to 5 

my, with subsequent cladogenesis extending into the 

Pliocene and Pleistocene. Of particular interest is that 

this scenario approximately parallels the diversification 

and southern expansion of SDTFs (Dick and Wright 

2005; De-Nova et al. 2012). Accordingly, based on the 

above discussion of SDTFs and phylogenetic analyses, 

we suggest that beaded lizard lineage diversification 

resulted from long periods of isolated (allopatric) evolution 

in SDTFs. Douglas et al. (2010) referred to the 

fragmented tropical dry forests of western Mexico as 

“engines” for diversification. The extralimital distribution 

of H. exasperatum and H. horridum into adjacent 

pine-oak woodland and thorn scrub biomes appears to be 

relatively uncommon (Schwalbe and Lowe 2000; Beck 

2005; Monroy-Vilchis et al. 2005). 


086 



Conservation of Beaded Lizards 

A primary aim of this paper is to provide a useful and 

accurate synthesis of information on the taxonomy of 

beaded lizards that will lead to informed decisions regarding 

their conservation (see Douglas et al., 2010). 

Until recently, H. horridum (sensu lato) was designated 

as Vulnerable on the World Conservation Union (IUCN) 

Red List. In 2007, that designation was changed to Least 

Concern based on more stringent criteria (Canseco- 

Marquez and Muñoz 2007; categories and criteria version 

3.1). The 2007 IUCN Red List also determined that, 

“Additional research is needed into the taxonomic status, 

distribution and threats to this species” (Canseco-Marquez 

and Muñoz 2007). The critically endangered status 

of H. h. charlesbogerti (sensu lato) in Guatemala (Ariano-Sánchez 

2006; Ariano-Sánchez and Salazar 2007) 

has not altered the current IUCN Red List designation 

of this taxon, because population trends of other beaded 

lizards in Mexico remain “unknown” (www.iucnredlist. 

org/search; see International Reptile Conservation Foundation, 

IRCF; www.ircf.org). As more information on the 

population status of the newly elevated beaded lizards 

becomes available, in view of their fragmented distributions 

and threats to their habitats, the IUCN likely will 

designate these taxa as Vulnerable or a higher threat category 

(see our EVS analysis below). For example, H. exasperatum, 

H. alvarezi, and H. charlesbogerti all occupy 

limited areas of SDTF (Beck 2005). 

In Mexico, helodermatid lizards are listed as “threatened” 

(amenazadas) under the Mexican law (NOM- 

059-SEMARNAT-2010), legislation comparable to that 

in the United States Endangered Species Act. The threatened 

category from Mexican law coincides, in part, with 

the “Vulnerable” category of the IUCN Red List. This 

document defines “threatened” as species or populations 

that could become at risk of extinction in a short to medium 

period if negative factors continue to operate that 

reduce population sizes or alter habitats. Heloderma h. 

charlesbogerti (sensu lato) is listed on the Guatemalan 

Lista Roja (Red List) as “endangered,” with approximately 

200–250 adult individuals remaining in under 

26,000 ha of its natural habitat of SDTF and thorn scrub, 

(Ariano-Sánchez 2006). 

Furthermore, H. h. charlesbogerti (sensu lato) is listed 

on CITES Appendix I, a designation that includes species 

threatened with extinction (see CITES document 

appended to Ariano-Sánchez and Salazar 2007). Trade 

in CITES Appendix I species is prohibited except under 

exceptional circumstances, such as for scientific research 

(CITES 2007). The remaining taxa of Heloderma horridum 

(sensu lato) (H. h. alvarezi, H. h. exasperatum, 

and H. h. horridum) are listed on Appendix II of CITES 

(CITES 2007). International trade in Appendix II species 

might be authorized under an export permit, issued by 

the originating country only if conditions are met that 

show trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the 


087 

species in the wild. The United States Fish & Wildlife 

Service issues permits only if documentation is provided 

proving legal origin, including a complete paper trail 

back to legal founder animals. This procedure allows the 

importation of beaded lizards into the United States to 

be tightly regulated (in theory), and also subjects such 

imports to provisions of the Lacey Act that control commerce 

in illegally obtained fish and wildlife (Beck 2005). 

Beaded Lizards: Denizens of Endangered 

SDTFs 

Although occasional sightings of beaded lizards have 

been reported from mid elevation pine-oak woodlands, all 

four species primarily inhabit lowland SDTFs and rarely 

in associated thorn scrub, in both Mexico and Guatemala 

(Schwalbe and Lowe 2000; Lemos-Espinal et al. 2003; 

Campbell and Lamar 2004; Beck 2005; Monroy-Vilchis 

et al. 2005; Ariano and Salazar 2007; Domiguez-Vega et 

al. 2012). Thus, the optimal measure to reduce threats to 

beaded lizards is to maintain the integrity of their tropical 

dry forest habitats. Current threats to beaded lizards 

throughout their range include habitat loss, road mortality, 

poaching, and illegal trade (Beck 2005; Miles et 

al. 2006; Golicher et al. 2012). Habitat loss takes many 

forms, from the conversion of SDTFs to areas of agriculture 

and cattle ranching, to forest fragmentation owing 

to roads and other forms of development (Pennington et 

al. 2006). Degradation from human-introduced invasive 

(exotic) organisms and fire also are contributing factors 

(Beck 2005). 

When the Spaniards arrived in the Western Hemisphere, 

Mesoamerican SDTFs covered a region stretching 

from Sonora (Mexico) to Panama, an area roughly the 

size of France (~550,000 km 2 ). Today, only 0.1% of that 

region (under 500 km 2 ) has official conservation status, 

and less than 2% remains sufficiently intact to attract the 

attention of conservationists (Janzen 1988; Hoekstra et 

al. 2005). Of all 13 terrestrial biomes analyzed by Hoekstra 

et al. (2005), the SDTF biome has the third highest 

conservation risk index (ratio of % land area converted 

per % land area protected), far above tropical wet forest 

and temperate forest biomes (Miles et al. 2006). 

Mexico ranks among the most species rich countries 

in the world (García 2006; Urbina-Cardona and Flores- 

Villela 2010; Wilson and Johnson 2010; Wilson et al. 

2010, 2013). Nearly one-third of all the Mexican herpetofaunal 

species are found in SDTFs (García 2006; De- 

Nova et al. 2012). Neotropical dry forests span over 16 

degrees of latitude in Mexico, giving way to variation 

in climatic and topography that results in a diversity of 

tropical dry forest types, and a concurrent high proportion 

of endemism of flora and fauna (García 2006; De- 

Nova et al. 2012; Wilson et al. 2010; 2013). Mexican 

seasonally tropical dry forest, classified into seven ecoregions 

that encompass about 250,000 km 2 , has enormous 

conservation value and has been identified as a hotspot 



for conservation priorities (Myers et al. 2000; Sánchez- 

Azofeifa et al. 2005; García 2006; Urbina-Cardona and 

Flores-Villela, 2010; Wilson et al. 2010, Mittermeier et 

al. 2011). The vast majority (98%) of this region, however, 

lies outside of federally protected areas (De-Nova 

et al. 2012). With few exceptions, most of the protected 

areas in Mexico occur in the states of Chiapas and Jalisco, 

leaving much of the region (e.g., Nayarit and Sinaloa) 

without government (federal) protection (García 2006). 

In Guatemala, less than 10% of an estimated 200,000 

ha of original suitable habitat have been established as 

protected critical habitat in the Motagua Valley for the 

endangered H. charlesbogerti (Nájera Acevedo 2006). A 

strong effort led by local citizens, conservation workers, 

biologists, government officials, NGOs, and conservation 

organizations (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, International 

Reptile Conservation Association, Zoo Atlanta, 

and Zootropic) negotiated to have H. h. charlesbogerti 

(sensu lato) placed on CITES Appendix I, to purchase 

habitat, conduct research, employ local villagers in monitoring 

the lizards, and promote environmental education 

(Lock 2009). Similar efforts for beaded lizards have been 

underway for many years in Chiapas (Mexico), spearheaded 

at ZooMAT (Ramírez-Velázquez 2009), and in 

Chamela, Jalisco (www.ibiologia.unam.mx/ebchamela/ 

www/reserva.html). Such efforts will need to expand in 

the years ahead and will doubtless play a crucial role if 

we hope to retain the integrity of existing SDTFs inhabited 

by beaded lizards throughout their range. 

Discussion 

In this paper, we reassessed the taxonomy of Heloderma 

horridum (sensu lato) using both published information 

and new analyses (e.g., CMA). We concluded that diversity 

in beaded lizards is greater than explained by infraspecific 

differences and that the recognition of subspecies 

is not warranted, as it obscures diversity. Our decision to 

elevate the four subspecies of H. horridum to full species 

status is not entirely novel (Beck 2005; Douglas et al. 

2010). Furthermore, our taxonomic changes are based on 

integrative information (i.e., morphology, mt- and nDNA 

sequence information, biogeography) and changing perspectives 

on the utility of formally recognizing infraspecific 

diversity using a trinomial taxonomy (Wilson and 

Brown 1953; Douglas et al. 2002; Zink 2004; Porras et 

al. 2013). This decision not only adds to a better understanding 

of the evolution of helodermatids, but also provides 

an important evolutionary framework from which 

to judge conservation decisions with prudence (Douglas 

et al. 2002). 

Below, we delineate and discuss prospective research 

and conservation recommendations for beaded lizards 

based on our present review. Borrowing some of the 

guidelines and recommendations for future research and 

conservation for cantils, also inhabitants of SDTFs, by 

Porras et al. (2013), we outline similar ones for the four 

species of beaded lizards (H. alvarezi, H. charlesbogerti, 

H. exasperatum, and H. horridum). 

Future Research and Conservation 

Recommendations 

1. Throughout this paper we emphasized the importance 

of SDTFs in the distribution of beaded lizards, yet most 

SDTFs within their distribution are not Protected Natural 

Areas (PNAs; Beck 2005; Urbina-Cardona and Flores- 

Villela 2009; Domiguez-Vega et al. 2012). Accordingly, 

emphasis should be placed on those areas of SDTFs for 

prospective research, new conservation projects, and for 

establishing new PNAs. The protection of beaded lizards 

must be placed into a larger context of conservation 

planning. Proper stewardship of SDTFs and other biomes 

must include meaningful (scientific) protective measures 

for all of the flora and fauna, rather than piecemeal (e.g., 

taxon-by-taxon) approaches that lack a cohesive conservation 

plan (Douglas et al. 2010). 

We applaud the efforts of Domíguez-Vega et al. 

(2012) in identifying conservation areas for beaded lizards; 

however, we do not agree with all of their conclusions. 

In particular, based on field experiences by one 

of us (DDB), we contend that the potential (predicted) 

range of H. exasperatum in Sonora (Mexico) based on 

the results of their habitat suitability modeling, appears 

exaggerated and thus may be misleading. In our opinion, 

their distribution maps (figs. 2 and 3) overestimate 

the extent of true SDTFs in Sonora, showing their occurrence 

in a type of biome that is more accurately classified 

as Sinaloan Thorn Scrub (see the excellent maps in 

Brown and Lowe 1980; Robichaux and Yetman 2000). 

In Sonora, beaded lizards (H. exasperatum) are rarely 

found in association with pure thorn scrub, while Gila 

monsters, in contrast, are frequently encountered in that 

type of habitat (Schwalbe and Lowe 2000; Beck 2005). 

2. With few exceptions, the population viability of beaded 

lizards is largely unknown (Beck 2005; Ariano-Sánchez 

2006; Ariano-Sánchez et al. 2007; Domíguez-Vega et al. 

2012). We highly recommend that modern assessments 

of the four species occur at or near localities where they 

have been recorded (e.g., Jiménez-Valverde and Lobo 

2007). Whereas H. charlesbogerti, and to a lesser degree 

H. alvarezi (Ramírez-Velázquez 2009), are receiving international 

conservation attention, we feel that similar 

consideration is necessary for H. exasperatum owing 

to its relatively limited geographic range (Sonora, Chihuahua, 

Sinaloa), the large extent of habitat destruction 

and fragmentation (Fig. 8), and limited areas receiving 

protection (Trejo and Dirzo 2000; Domíguez-Vega et 

al. 2012; see http://www.conanp.gob.mx/regionales/). In 

1996, about 92, 000 hectares in the Sierra de Álamos and 

the upper drainage of the Río Cuchujaqui were declared 

a biosphere reserve by the Secretary of the Environment 

and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT 2010), called the 


088 


Área de Protección de Fauna y Flora Sierra de Álamos 

y Río Cuchujaqui (Martin and Yetman 2000; S. Meyer, 

pers. comm.). Efforts continue in Sonora to set aside additional 

habitat for conservation, but, other than Alamos, 

no other areas with true SDTFs presently exist (Robichaux 

and Yetman 2000; S. Meyer, pers. comm.). 

3. Conservation management plans for each of the species 

of beaded lizards should be developed from an 

integrative perspective based on modern population 

assessments, genetic information, and ecological (e.g., 

soil, precipitation, temperature) and behavioral data 

(e.g., social structure, mating systems, home range size). 


Fig. 8. Destruction of seasonally dry tropical forest near Alamos, Sonora, Mexico. 

Photo by Daniel D. Beck. 

Such a conservation plan is in place for the Guatemalan 

beaded lizard (H. charlesbogerti) by CONAP-Zootropic 

(www.ircf.org/downloads/PCHELODERMA-2Web. 

pdf). Also, aspects of burgeoning human population 

growth must be considered, since outside of PNAs these 

large slow-moving lizards generally are slaughtered on 

sight, killed on roads by vehicles (Fig. 9), and threatened 

by persistent habitat destruction primarily for agriculture 

and cattle ranching (Fig. 10). For discussions on conservation 

measures in helodermatid lizards, see Sullivan et 

al. (2004), Beck (2005), Kwiatkowski et al. (2008), Douglas 

et al. (2010), Domíguez-Vega et al. (2012), and Ariano- 

Sánchez and Salazar (2013). 

In Mexico, the IUCN lists 

Heloderma horridum (sensu 

lato) under the category of Least 

Concern. Recently, Wilson et al. 

(2013) reported the Environmental 

Vulnerability Score (EVS) 

for H. horridum (sensu lato) as 

11. Briefly, an EVS analysis assesses 

the potential threat status 

of a given species based on 

multiple criteria and provides a 

single score or index value (Wilson 

and McCranie 2004; Porras 

et al. 2013; Wilson et al. 2013). 

High EVS scores (e.g., 17), for 

example, signify vulnerability. 

With the taxonomic changes we 

proposed for beaded lizards, an 

EVS assessment is thus required 

for each species. Using the new 

criteria developed by Wilson et 

al. (2013; see Porras et al. 2013), 

we recalculated the EVS for the 

species of beaded lizards, which 

are presented below: 

H. horridum: 5 + 4 + 5 = 14 

H. exasperatum: 5 + 7 + 5 = 17 

H. alvarezi: 4 + 6 + 5 = 15 

H. charlesbogerti: 4 + 8 + 5 = 17 

Fig. 9. A dead-on-the-road (DOR) H. exasperatum (sensu stricto) near Álamos, Sonora, 

Mexico. Vehicles on paved roads are an increasing threat to beaded lizards, Gila monsters, 

and other wildlife. Photo by Thomas Wiewandt. 

These recalculated values fall into 

the high vulnerability category 

(Wilson et al. 2013; Porras et al. 

2013), underscoring the urgency 

for the development of conservation 

management plans and longterm 

population monitoring of all 

species of beaded lizards. These 

values thus need to be reported 

to the appropriate IUCN committees, 

so immediate changes in status 

can be made and conservation 

actions implemented. 


090 



Fig. 10. Agave cultivation in Mexico results in the destruction of seasonally dry tropical 

forests. Photo by Thomas Wiewandt. 

natural habitat, small population 

size (200–250 adults) and endangered 

status, H. charlesbogerti is 

currently listed as CITES Appendix 

I (Ariano-Sánchez and Salazar 

2007). Given the taxonomic 

elevation of these taxa, conservation 

agencies can use these charismatic 

lizards as flagship species 

in efforts to publicize conservation 

efforts in their respective 

countries at all levels of interest 

and concern, including education 

and ecotourism (Beck 2005). 

Eli Lilly Co., Disney Worldwide 

Conservation Fund and The Nature 

Conservancy support the 

conservation of H. charlesbogerti 

(Ariano-Sánchez and Salazar 

2012). Such corporate involvement 

provides funds and positive 

public exposure (e.g., social network 

advertising) that otherwise 

would not be possible. 

Fig. 11. Antonio Ramirez Ramírez-Velázquez, a herpetologist, discusses the beauty and 

importance of beaded lizards (H. alvarezi, sensu stricto) to a group of enthusiastic children 

and their teacher at Zoo Miguel Álvarez del Toro (ZooMAT) in Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, 

Mexico. The zoo was named in honor of its founding director, Señor Miguel Alvarez del 

Toro, who had a keen academic and conservation interest in beaded lizards. He collected 

the type specimen of H. alvarezi (described in Bogert and Martín del Campo, 1956), which 

was named in his honor. ZooMAT offers hands-on environmental education programs to 

schoolchildren and other citizens of southern Mexico. Photo by Thomas Wiewandt. 

4. We recommend the establishment of zoo conservation 

(AZA) educational outreach programs, both ex situ and 

in situ, such as those currently in progress for H. charlesbogerti 

(www.IRCF.org;www.zooatlanta.org) and for 

H. alvarezi in Chiapas (Ramírez-Velázquez, 2009, see 

Fig. 11). Because of its limited range, destruction of its 

5. One of the major conclusions 

of this paper is that our knowledge 

of the taxonomy and phylogeography 

of beaded lizards 

remains at an elementary level. 

As discussed, a robust phylogeographic 

analysis using morphological 

characters is not available. 

Our character mapping 

exercise, for various reasons, is 

not a substitute procedure for 

detailed phylogenetic analyses 

using morphology (Assis 2009; 

Assis and Rieppel 2011). Other 

authors have made similar pleas 

concerning the importance of 

morphology, including fossils, in 

phylogenetic reconstruction (Poe 

and Wiens 2000; Wiens 2004, 

2008; Gauthier et al. 2012). 

Moreover, further studies on the 

historical biogeography of helodermatids 

(e.g., ancestral area 

reconstruction) are needed (e.g., 

Ronquist 1997, 2001; Ree and 

Smith 2008). Detailed morphological 

analyses can be conducted with new tools such as 

computed tomography (CT) scans of osteological characters 

of both extant and fossil specimens (Gauthier et al. 

2012), and geometric morphometric approaches to external 

characters (Davis 2012). Furthermore, in the expanding 

field of “venomics” new venom characters in beaded 


090 



lizards will likely be discovered, which might prove useful 

in phylogenetic analyses (Fry et al. 2009, 2010). 

As we progress into the “Age of Genomics” with 

ever-growing computational advancements (e.g., bioinformatics; 

Horner et al. 2009), new and exciting methods 

to explore organismal diversity are opening, including 

such next-generation approaches as pyrosequencing 

(microsatellite isolation), establishing transcriptome 

databases, and whole-genome sequencing (Wiens 2008; 

Castoe et al. 2011; Culver et al. 2011). Currently, plans 

are underway to apply pyrosequencing methods to helodermatids 

to generate a nearly inexhaustible supply of 

microsatellite markers for a variety of proposed analyses 

(W. Booth and T. Castoe, pers. comm.). Standing on 

the shoulders of The Human Genome Project (Culver et 

al. 2011), and reaping the success of genome projects in 

other reptilian taxa (Castoe et al. 2011), it is now possible 

to establish a “Helodermatid Genome Project.” Beaded 

lizards and the Gila monster are especially good candidates 

for such an investment, especially given the importance 

of their venom components in medical research and 

recent pharmaceutical applications (Beck 2005; Douglas 

et al. 2010; Fry et al. 2009, 2010). 

6. An important take-home message from Douglas et al. 

(2010) is that future conservation efforts will require a 

robust understanding of phylogenetic diversity (e.g., 

conservation phylogenetics) to make sensible (logical) 

and comprehensive conservation plans. For example, the 

range of H. horridum (sensu stricto) is the most expansive 

of the species of beaded lizards and has not been fully 

explored with respect to genetic diversity. Accordingly, 

sampling throughout its range may yield cryptic genetic 

diversity, perhaps even new species. We emphasize that 

viable conservation planning must incorporate all intellectual 

tools available, including those that incorporate 

old methods (e.g., paleoecological data) but viewed 

through a new lens (Douglas et al. 2007, 2009; Willis 

et al. 2010). Wisely, Greene (2005) reminds us that we 

are still grappling with understanding basic and essential 

issues concerning the natural history of most organisms. 

To that end, we must continue in our efforts to educate 

students and the public of the need for and importance of 

this branch of science. 

7. The new taxonomic arrangement of beaded lizards 

we proposed will affect other fields of science, such as 

conservation biology and human medicine (Beck, 2005; 

Douglas et al., 2010). In Fry et al. (2010, p. 396, table 1), 

toxins are matched to the subspecies of beaded lizards 

and Gila monsters. Yet as noted by Beck (2005) and 

Douglas et al. (2010), the banded Gila monster (H. s. 

cinctum) is not a valid subspecies, which is based on 

several levels of analysis (i.e., morphology, geographic 

distribution, and haplotype data). Individuals assigned to 

H. s. cinctum based on color and pattern, for example, 

have been found in southwestern Arizona near the Mexican 

border and in west-central New Mexico (Beck 2005). 

Furthermore, most venom researchers, including those 

who study helodermatids, often obtain samples from captive 

subjects in private collections and zoological institutions. 

Many of these animals have been bred in captivity 

and result from crossing individuals of unknown origin 

or from different populations (D. Boyer, pers. comm). 

Among other negative outcomes, such “mutts” will confound 

results of the true variation of venoms. Geographic 

and ontogenetic variation in venom constituents is well 

established in other squamates (Minton and Weinstein 

1986; Alape-Girón et al. 2008; Gibbs et al. 2009), which 

is apparently the case in helodermatids (Fry et al. 2010). 

Thus, we strongly encourage researchers investigating 

helodermatid venoms for molecular analysis and pharmaceutical 

development to use subjects with detailed locality 

information, as well as age, gender, and size, and 

to provide those data in their publications. 

8. Owing to problems that many scientists, their students, 

and other interested parties from Mesoamerica 

have in gaining access to primary scientific literature, 

we highly recommend that authors seek Open Access 

peer-reviewed journals as venues for their publications 

on beaded lizards, an important factor in our choice for 

selecting the present journal (www.redlist-ARC.org) as a 

venue for our data and conservation message. 

Acknowledgments.—We thank Larry David Wilson 

for inviting us to participate in the Special Mexico Issue. 

A Heritage Grant from the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and a Research Incentive Award/Scholarly 

Research and Creative Activities Award (Arizona State 

University) awarded to GWS funded parts of this research. 

Zoo Atlanta (Dwight Lawson, Joe Mendelson III) 

and Georgia State University (Department of Biology) 

provided various levels of support. Warren Booth, Donal 

Boyer, Dale DeNardo, Andrés García, Stephanie Meyer, 

and Tom Wiewandt were always willing to discuss 

beaded lizard and tropical dry forest biology with us. We 

thank Brad Lock, Louis Porras, and Larry David Wilson 

for their suggestions and valuable insights in improving 

an earlier version of this manuscript. Also, three reviewers, 

including Daniel Ariano-Sánchez, provided key 

information and sharpened our focus, though we bear 

the burden of any blunders. We thank Javier Alvarado, 

Daniel Ariano-Sánchez, David Brothers, Quetzal Dwyer, 

Kerry Holcomb, Vicente Mata-Silva, Stephanie Meyer, 

Adam Thompson, and Tom Wiewandt for graciously 

supplying us with images. Vicente Mata-Silva kindly assisted 

us in preparing the resumen and locating literature 

on Heloderma. 


091 




Alape-Girón A, Sanz L, Escolano J, Flores-Díaz M, 

Madrigal M, Sasa M, et al. 2008. Snake venomics of 

the lancehead pitviper Bothrops asper: geographic, 

individual, and ontogenetic variations. Journal of 

Proteome Research 7: 3556–3571. 

Álvarez del Toro M. 1983 (1982). Los Reptiles de Chiapas 

(3 rd edition). Publicación del Instituto de Historia 

Natural, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, Mexico. 

Anzueto VR, Campbell JA. 2010. Guatemalan beaded 

lizard (Heloderma horridum charlesbogerti) on the 

Pacific versant of Guatemala. The Southwestern Naturalist 

55: 453–454. 

Ariano-Sánchez D. 2006. The Guatemalan beaded lizard: 

endangered inhabitant of a unique ecosystem. Iguana 

13: 179–183. 

Ariano-Sánchez D, Salazar G. 2007. Notes on the distribution 

of the endangered lizard, Heloderma horridum 

charlesbogerti, in the dry forests of eastern Guatemala: 

an application of multi-criteria evaluation to conservation. 

Iguana 14: 152–158. 

Ariano-Sánchez D, Salazar G. 2012. Natural History 

Notes. Heloderma horridum charlesbogerti (Guatemalan 

beaded lizard). Shelter use. Herpetological Review 

43: 645–646. 

Ariano-Sánchez D, Salazar G. 2013. Natural History 

Notes. Heloderma horridum charlesbogerti (Guatemalan 

Beaded Lizard). Wild reproductive ecology. 

Herpetological Review 44: 324. 

Assis LCC. 2009. Coherence, correspondence, and the 

renaissance of morphology in phylogenetic systematics. 

Cladistics 25: 528–544. 

Assis LCC, Rieppel O. 2011. Are monophyly and synapomorphy 

the same or different? Revisiting the role of 

morphology in phylogenetics. Cladistics 27: 94–102. 

Avise JC. 2005. Phylogenetic units and currencies above 

and below the species level. Pp. 76–119 In: Phylogeny 

and Conservation. Editors, Purvis A, Gittleman JL, 

Brooks T. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 


Avise JC. 2008. Three ambitious (and rather unorthodox) 

assignments for the field of biodiversity genetics. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences USA 

105: 11564–11570. 

Avise JC, Nelson WS. 1989. Molecular genetic relationships 

of the extinct dusky seaside sparrow. Science 

243: 646–649. 

Avise JC, Hubbell SP, Ayala FJ. 2008. In the light of evolution 

II: biodiversity and extinction. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 11453– 

11457. 

Beaman KR, Beck DD, McGurty BM. 2006. The beaded 

lizard (Heloderma horridum) and Gila monster (Heloderma 

suspectum): a bibliography of the family Helodermatidae. 

Smithsonian Herpetologica Information 

Service 136: 1–66. 

Becerra JX. 2005. Timing the origin and expansion of the 

Mexican tropical dry forests. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences USA 102: 10919–10923. 

Beck DD. 2005. Biology of Gila Monsters and Beaded 

Lizards. University of California Press, Berkeley, 

California, USA. 

Beck DD, Lowe CH. 1991. Ecology of the beaded lizard, 

Heloderma horridum, in a tropical dry forest in 

Jalisco, México. Journal of Herpetology 25: 395–406. 

Bergsten J. 2005. A review of long-branch attraction. 

Cladistics 21: 163–193. 

Bogert CM, Blair WF, Dunn ER, Hall ER, Hubbs CL, 

Mayr E, Simpson GG. 1943. Criteria for vertebrate 

subspecies, species and genera. Annals of the New 

York Academy of Sciences 34: 105–188. 

Bogert CM, Martín del Campo R. 1956. The Gila monster 

and its allies: the relationships, habits, and behavior of 

the lizards of the family Helodermatidae. Bulletin of 

the America Museum of Natural History 109: 1–238. 

Braby MF, Eastwood R, Murray N. 2012. The subspecies 

concept in butterflies: Has its application in taxonomy 

and conservation biology outlived its usefulness? Biological 


Brooks DR, McLennan DA. 1991. Phylogeny, Ecology, 

and Behavior: A Research Program in Comparative 

Biology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 

Illinois, USA. 

Brown DK, Lowe CH. 1980. Biotic communities of the 

Southwest. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report 

RM-78 (map). 

Burbrink, FT. 2001. Systematics of the eastern ratsnake 

complex (Elaphe obsoleta). Herpetological Monographs 

15: 1–53. 

Burbrink FT, Lawson R, Slowinski JB. 2000. Mitochondrial 

DNA phylogeography of the polytypic North 

American rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta): a critique of 

the subspecies concept. Evolution 54: 2107–2118. 

Campbell, JA, Lamar WW. 2004. The Venomous Reptiles 

of the Western Hemisphere (2 volumes). Comstock 

Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 


Campbell JA, Vannini JP. 1988. A new subspecies of 

beaded lizard, Heloderma horridum, from the Motagua 

Valley of Guatemala. Journal of Herpetology 

22: 457–468. 

Canseco Márquez, L, Muñoz, A. 2007. Heloderma horridum. 

In IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened 

Species, version 2012.2. 

Carothers JH. 1984. Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism 

in some herbivorous lizards. The American 

Naturalist 109: 83–92. 

Castoe TA, de Koning APJ, Kim, HM, Gu W, Noonan 

BP, Naylor G, Jiang ZJ, Parkinson CL, Pollock DD. 

2009. Evidence for an ancient adaptive episode of 

convergent molecular evolution. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 8986–8991. 


092 



Castoe TA, de Koning APJ, Hall KT, Yokoyama KD, Gu 

WJ, Smith EN, Feschotte C, Uetz P, Ray DA, Dobry 

J, Bogden R, Mackessy SP, Bronikowski AM, Warren 

WC, Secor SM, Pollock DD. 2011. Sequencing the 

genome of the Burmese python (Python molurus 

bivittatus) as a model for studying extreme adaptations 

in snakes. Genome Biology 12: 406. 

CONAP-Zootropic. Available: www.ircf.org/downloads/ 

PCHELODERMA-2Web.pdf [Accessed: 17 June 

2013]. 

Conrad JL, Montanari S, Aast JC, Norell MA. 2010. A 

combined evidence phylogenetic analysis of Anguimorpha 

(Reptilia: Squamata). Cladistics 26: 1–48. 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 

(CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora. 2007. Resume 

of the 14 th Convention of the Parts, The Hague, The 

Netherlands. 

Culver M, Fitak R, Herrmann H-W. 2011. Genetic methods 

for biodiversity assessment. Pp. 208–335 In: Biological 

Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment. 

Editors, Magurran AE, McGill BJ. Oxford 

University Press, New York, USA. 

Davis MA. 2012. Morphometrics, molecular ecology and 

multivariate environmental niche modeling define the 

evolutionary history of the western rattlesnake (Cotalus 

viridis) complex. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA. 

De-Nova JA, Medina R, Montero JC, Weeks A, Rosell 

JA, Olson ME, Eguiarte LE, Magallo S. 2012. Insights 

into the historical construction of species-rich 

Mesoamerican seasonally dry tropical forests: the 

diversification of Bursera (Burseraceae, Sapindales). 

New Phytologist 193: 276–287. 

Dick CW, Wright J. 2005. Tropical mountain cradles 

of dry forest diversity. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences USA 102: 10757–10758. 

Dick CH, Pennington RT. 2012. Molecular systematic 

perspective on biome origins and dynamics. New Phytologist 

193: 9–11. 

Dirzo R, Young HS, Mooney HA, Ceballos G. 2011. (Editors). 

Seasonally Dry Tropical Forests. Island Press, 

Washington, DC, USA. 

Domíguez-Vega H, Monroy-Vilchis O, Balderas-Valdivia, 

Gienger CM, and Ariano-Sánchez D. 2012. Predicting 

the potential distribution of the beaded lizard 

and identification of priority areas for conservation. 

Journal for Nature Conservation 20: 247–253. 

Douglas ME, Douglas MR, Schuett GW, Porras LW, and 

Holycross AT. 2002. Phylogeography of the western 

rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) complex, with emphasis 

on the Colorado Plateau. Pp. 11–50 In: Biology of 

the Vipers. Editors, Schuett GW, Höggren H, Douglas 

ME, and Greene HW. Eagle Mountain Publishing, 


Douglas ME, Douglas MR, Schuett GW, Porras LW, 

Thomason BL. 2007. Genealogical concordance 

between mitochondrial and nuclear DNAs supports 

species recognition of the Panamint rattlesnake (Crotalus 

mitchellii stephensi). Copeia 2007: 920–932. 

Douglas ME, Douglas MR, Schuett GW, Porras LW. 

2009. Climate change and evolution of the New 

World pitviper genus Agkistrodon (Viperidae). Journal 

of Biogeography 36: 1164–1180. 

Douglas ME, Douglas MR, Schuett GW, Beck DD, Sullivan 

BK. 2010. Conservation phylogenetics of helodermatid 

lizards using multiple molecular markers 

and a supertree approach. Molecular Phylogenetics 


Estes R, de Queiroz K, Gauthier JA. 1988. Phylogenetic 

relationships within Squamata. Pp. 119–281 In: Phylogenetic 

Relationships of the Lizard Families. Editors, 

Estes R, Pregill GK. Stanford University Press, 

Stanford, California, USA. 

Fenwick AM, Greene HW, Parkinson CL. 2011. The serpent 

and the egg: Unidirectional evolution of reproductive 

mode in vipers? Journal Zoological Systematics 

and Evolutionary Research 50: 59–66. 

Fitzpatrick JW. 2010. Subspecies are for convenience. 

Ornithological Monographs 67: 54–61. 

Freeman S, Herron JC. 2004. Evolutionary Analysis (3 rd 

edition). Prentice Hall, Upper-Saddle River, New Jersey, 

USA. 

Fry BG et al. 2009. Novel venom proteins produced by 

differential domain-expression strategies in beaded 

lizards and Gila monsters (genus Heloderma). Molecular 

Biology and Evolution 27: 395–407. 

Fry BG et al. 2010. Functional and structural diversification 

of the Anguimorpha lizard venom system. Molecular 

and Cellular Proteomics 9: 2369–2390. 

Futuyma DJ. 1998. Evolutionary Biology (3 rd edition). 

Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA. 

García A. 1995. Conserving neotropical biodiversity: the 

role of dry forests in Western Mexico. Conservation 

Biology 9: 1349–1353. 

García A. 2006. Using ecological niche modeling to 

identify hotspots for the herpetofauna of the Pacific 

lowlands and adjacent interior valleys of Mexico. Biological 


Gauthier JA, Kearney M, Maisano JA, Rieppel O, Behlke 

ADB. 2012. Assembling the squamate Tree of Life: 

perspectives from the phenotype and the fossil record. 

Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History 

53: 3–308. 

Gibbs HL, Sanz L, Calvete JJ. 2009. Snake population 

venomics: proteomics-based analyses of individual 

variation reveals significant gene regulation effects on 

venom protein expression in Sistrurus rattlesnakes. 

Journal of Molecular Evolution 68: 113–25. 

Golicher DJ, Cayuela L, Newton, AC. 2012. Effects of 

climate change on the potential species richness of 

Mesoamerican forests. Biotropica 44: 284–293. 

Greene HW. 2005. Organisms in nature as a central focus 

for biology. Trends In Ecology & Evolution 20: 

23–27. 


093 



Harvey PH, Pagel MD. 1991. The Comparative Method 

in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, 

Oxford, United Kingdom. 

Hawlitschek, O, Nagy ZT, and Glaw F. 2012. Island evolution 

and systematic revision of Comoran snakes: 

why and when subspecies still make sense. PLoS 

ONE 7: e42970. 

Hoekstra JM, Boucher TM, Ricketts TH, Roberts C. 

2005. Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of 

habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters 8: 23–29. 

Hoisington-Lopez JL, Waits LP, Sullivan J. 2012. Species 

limits and integrated taxonomy of the Idaho 

ground squirrel (Urocitellus brunneus): genetic and 

ecological differentiation. Journal of Mammalogy 93: 

589–604. 

Horner DS, Pavesi G, Castrignano T, D’Onoriò De Meo 

P, Liuni S, Sammeth M, Picardi E, Pesole G. 2009. 

Bioinformatics approaches for genomics and post genomics 

applications of next-generation sequencing. 

Briefings in Bioinformatics 2: 181–197. 

Huelsenbeck JP, Rohnquist F. 2001. MrBayes: Bayesian 

inference of phylogeny. Bioinformatics 17: 754–755. 

IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 

Version 2012.2. Available: www.iucnredlist.org [Accessed: 

7 June 2013]. 

Janzen DH. 1988. Tropical dry forests: the most endangered 

major tropical ecosystem. Pp. 130–137 In: 


Press, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Jiménez-Valverde A, Lobo JM. 2007. Threshold criteria 

for conversion of probability of species presence 

to either-or presence-absence. Acta Oecologica 31: 

361–369. 

Johnson JD, Mata-Silva V, Ramírez-Bautista A. 2010. 

Geographic distribution and conservation of the 

herpetofauna of southeastern Mexico. Pp. 323–369 

In: Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians and 



Utah, USA. 

Kraus F. 1988. An empirical evaluation of the use of the 

ontogeny polarization criterion in phylogenetic inference. 

Systematic Zoology 37: 106–141. 

Kwiatkowski MA, Schuett GW, Repp RA, Nowak EN, 

Sullivan BK. 2008. Does urbanization influence the 

spatial ecology of Gila monsters in the Sonoran Desert? 

Journal of Zoology 276: 350-357. 

Lee MSY. 2009. Hidden support from unpromising data 

sets strongly unite snakes with anguimorph “lizards.” 

Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22: 1308–1316. 

Lemos-Espinal JA, Chiszar D, Smith HM. 2003. Presence 

of the Río Fuerte beaded lizard (Heloderma horridum 

exasperatum) in western Chihuahua. Bulletin of 

the Maryland Herpetological Society 39: 47–51. 

Lock B. 2009. Project Heloderma: A Conservation Program 

for the Guatemalan Beaded Lizard. CONNECT: 

May 2009: 22–24. International Reptile Conservation 

Foundation, San Jose, California, USA. 

Losos JB, Hillis DM, Greene HW. 2012. Who speaks 

with a forked tongue? Science 338: 1428–1429. 

Maddision WP, Maddison DR. 2011. Mesquite: A Modular 

System for Evolutionary Analysis. Version 2.75. 

Available: www.mesquiteproject.org [Accessed: 15 

March 2013]. 

Mallett J. 1995. A species definition for the Modern Synthesis. 

Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10: 294–299. 

Martin PS, Yetman DA. 2000. Secrets of a tropical deciduous 

forest. Pp. 4–18 In: The Tropical Deciduous 

Forest of Alamos. Editors, Robichaux RH, Yetman 

DA. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona, 

USA. 

Martins EP. 1996. Phylogenies and the Comparative 

Method in Animal Behavior. Oxford University Press, 


Miles L, Newton AC, DeFries DS, Ravilious C, May I, 

Blyth S, Kapos V, Gordon JE. 2006. A global overview 

of the conservation status of tropical dry forests. 

Journal of Biogeography 33: 491–505. 

Minton SA, Weinstein SA. 1986. Geographic and ontogenetic 

variation in venom of the western diamondback 

rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox). Toxicon 71: 71–80. 

Mittermeier TA, Turner WR, Larsen FW, Brooks TM, 

Gascon C. 2011. Global biodiversity conservation: 

the critical role of hotspots. Pp. 3–14 In: Biodiversity 

Hotspots: Distribution and Protection of Conservation 

Priority Areas. Editors, Zachos, FE, Habe 

JC.Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. 

Monroy-Vilchis O, Hernández-Gallegos O, Rodríguez- 

Romero F. 2005. Heloderma horridum horridum 

(Mexican beaded lizard). Unusual habitat. Herpetological 

Review 36: 450. 

Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca 

GAB, Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation 

priorities. Nature 409: 853–858. 

Nájera Acevedo A. 2006. The conservation of thorn scrub 

and dry forest habitat in the Motagua Valley, Guatemala: 

promoting the protection of a unique ecoregion. 

Lyonia 9: 7-19. 

Pennington RT, Lewis GP, Ratter JA. 2006. (Editors). 

Neotropical Savannas and Seasonally Dry Forests: 

Plant Diversity, Biogeography, and Conservation. 

CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. 

Poe S, Wiens JJ. 2000. Character selection and methodology 

of morphological phylogenetics. Pp. 20–36 In: 

Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data. Editor, 

Wiens JJ. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 

DC, USA. 

Porras LW, Wilson LD, Schuett GW, Reiserer RS. 2013. 

A taxonomic reevaluation and conservation assessment 

of the common cantil, Agkistrodon bilineatus 

(Squamata: Viperidae): a race against time. Amphibian 

& Reptile Conservation 7(1): 48–73. 


094 



Pregill GK, Gauthier JA, Greene HW. 1986. The evolution 

of helodermatid squamates, with description of a 

new taxon and an overview of Varanoidea. Transactions 

of the San Diego Society of Natural History 21: 

167–202. 

Pyron RA, Burbrink FT, Wiens JJ. 2013. A phylogeny 

and revised classification of Squamata, including 

4151 species of lizards and snakes. BMC Evolutionary 

Biology 13: 93. [doi:10.1186/1471-2148-13-93]. 

Ramírez-Velázquez, A. 2009. Monstruo horrible y venenoso, 

timido, apaciable ye en peligro de extinction. 

Herpetofilos 1: 13–17. 

Ree RH, Smith SA. 2008. Maximum likelihood inference 

of geographic range evolution by dispersal, local 

extinction, and cladogenesis. Systematic Biology 57: 

4–14. 

Robichaux RH, Yetman DA. 2000. The tropical deciduous 

forest of Alamos: biodiversity of a threatened ecosystem 

in Mexico. The University of Arizona Press, 

Tucson, Arizona, USA. 

Ronquist F. 1997. Dispersal-vicariance analysis: a new 

approach to the quantification of historical biogeography. 

Systematic Biology 46: 195–203. 

Ronquist F. 2001. DIVA version 1.2 computer program 

for MacOS ad Win 32. Available: www.ebc.uu.se/ 

systzoo/research/diva/diva.hyml [Accessed: 25 March 

2013]. Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, 

Sweden. 

Sánchez-Azofeifa, GA, Quesada M, Rodriguez JP, Nassar 

JM, Stoner KE, Castillo A, Garvin T, Zent EL, 

Calvo-Alvarado JC, Kalacska, MER, Fajardo L, 

Gamon JA, Cuevas-Reyes P. 2005. Research priorities 

for Neotropical dry forests. Biotropica 37: 477–485. 

Sánchez-De La Vega G, Buenrostro-Silva A, García- 

Grajales J, Mata-Silva V. 2012. Geographic distribution. 

Heloderma horridum (Mexican beaded lizard). 

Mexico: Oaxaca. Herpetological Review 43: 102. 

Schuett GW, Gergus EWA, Kraus F. 2001. Phylogenetic 

correlation between male-male fighting and mode of 

prey subjugation in snakes. Acta Ethologica 4: 31–49. 

Schuett GW, Reiserer RS, Earley RL. 2009. The evolution 

of bipedal postures in varanoid lizards. Biological 


Schwalbe CR, Lowe CH. 2000. Amphibians and reptiles 

of the Sierra de Alamos. Pp. 172–183 In: The Tropical 

Deciduous Forest of Alamos: Biodiversity of a Threatened 

Ecosystem in Mexico. Editors, Robichaux RH, 

Yetman DA. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 

Arizona, USA. 

SEMARNAT. 2010. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM- 

059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental-Especies 

nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías 

de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, 

exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. Diario 

Oficial de la Federación, 30 de dicembre, 2010. 

Stoner KE, Sánchez-Azofeifa GA. 2009. Ecology and 

regeneration of tropical dry forests in the Americas: 

implications for management. Forest Ecology and 

Management 258: 903–906. 

Stuart LC. 1954. A description of a subhumid corridor 

across northern Central America, with comments 

on its herpetofaunal indicators. Contributions from 

the Laboratory of Vertebrate Biology, University of 

Michigan 65: 1–26. 

Stuart LC. 1966. The environment of the Central American 

cold-blooded vertebrate. Copeia 1966: 684–699. 

Sullivan BK, Kwiatkowski MA, Schuett GW. 2004. 

Translocation of urban Gila monsters: a problematic 

conservation tool. Biological Conservation 117: 235– 

242. 

Tobias JA, Seddon N, CN Spottiswoode, JD Pilgrim, 

LDC Fishpool, and NJ Collar. 2010. Quantitative criteria 

for species delimitation. Ibis 152: 724–746. 

Townsend TM, Larson A, Louis E, Macey RJ. 2004. 

Molecular phylogenetics of Squamata: the position of 

snakes, amphisbaenians, and dibamids, and the root 

of the squamate tree. Systematic Biology 53: 735–757. 

Trejo I, Dirzo R. 2000. Deforestation of seasonally dry 

tropical forest: a national and local analysis in Mexico. 

Biological Conservation 94: 133–142. 

Urbina-Cardona JN, Flores-Villela O. 2010. Ecologicalniche 

modeling and prioritization of conservationarea 

networks for Mexican herpetofauna. Conservation 

Biology 24: 1031–1041. 

Wiegmann AFA. 1829. Üeber das Acaltetepan oder 

Temaculcachua des Hernandez, eine neue Gattung der 

Saurer, Heloderma. Isis von Oken 22: 624–629. 

Wiens JJ. 2004. The role of morphological data in phylogeny 

reconstruction. Systematic Biology 53: 659– 

661. 

Wiens JJ. 2008. Systematics and herpetology in the Age 

of Genomics. BioScience 58: 297–307. 

Wiens JJ, Kuczynski CA, Townsend TM, Reeder TW, 

Mulcahy DG, and Sites JW. 2010. Combining phylogenomics 

and fossils in higher-level squamate reptile 

phylogeny: molecular data change the placement 

of fossile taxa. Systematic Biology 59: 674–688. 

Wiens JJ, Hutter CR, Mulcahy DG, Noonan BP, 

Townsend TM, Sites JW Jr, Reeder TW. 2012. Resolving 

the phylogeny of lizards and snakes (Squamata) 

with extensive sampling of genes and species. 

Biology Letters 8: 1043–1046. 

Wiley, EO. 1978. The evolutionary species concept reconsidered. 

Systematic Zoology 27: 17–26. 

Willis KJ, Bailey RM, Bhagwat SA, and Birks HJB. 

2010. Biodiversity baselines, thresholds and resilience: 

testing predictions and assumptions using palaeoecological 

data. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 

25: 583–591. 

Wilson EO, Brown WL. 1953. The subspecies concept 

and its taxonomic application. Systematic Zoology 2: 

97–111. 




095 



hotspot. Pp.30–255 In: Conservation of Mesoamerican 




Wilson LD, Mata-Silva V, Johnson JD. 2013. A conservation 

reassessment of the reptiles of Mexico based 

on the EVS measure. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 

7(1): 1–47. 




Wilson, LD, Townsend JH, Johnson JD. 2010. Conservation 


Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, 

Utah, USA. 

Williams-Linera G, Lorea F. 2009. Tree species diversity 

driven by environmental and anthropogenic factors 

in tropical dry forest fragments in central Veracruz, 

México. Biodiversity and Conservation 18: 3269– 

3293. 

Zink RM. 2004. The role of subspecies in obscuring avian 

biological diversity and misleading conservation 

policy. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 

271: 561–564. 

Received: 23 May 2013 

Accepted: 12 June 2013 

Published: 29 July 2013 

Randall S. Reiserer is an integrative biologist whose research focuses on understanding the interrelationships 

among ecology, morphology, and behavior. Within the broad framework of evolutionary biology, he studies 

cognition, neuroscience, mimicry, life-history evolution, and the influence of niche dynamics on patterns of 

evolutionary change. His primary research centers on reptiles and amphibians, but his academic interests 

span all major vertebrate groups. His studies of behavior are varied and range from caudal luring and thermal 

behavior in rattlesnakes to learning and memory in transgenic mice. Randall established methods for studying 

visual perception and stimulus control in is studies of caudal luring in snakes. He commonly employs 

phylogenetic comparative methods and statistics to investigate and test evolutionary patterns and adaptive 

hypotheses. Dr. Reiserer is an editor of the upcoming peer-reviewed book, The Rattlesnakes of Arizona. 

Gordon W. Schuett is an evolutionary biologist and herpetologist who has conducted extensive research on reptiles. 

His work has focused primarily on venomous snakes, but he has also published on turtles, lizards, and 

amphibians. Among his most significant contributions are studies of winner-loser effects in agonistic encounters, 

mate competition, mating system theory, hormone cycles and reproduction, caudal luring and mimicry, 

long-term sperm storage, phylogeographic analyses of North American pitvipers, and as a co-discoverer of 

facultative parthenogenesis in non-avian reptiles. He served as chief editor of the peer-reviewed book Biology 

of the Vipers and is presently serving as chief editor of an upcoming peer-reviewed book The Rattlesnakes of 

Arizona (rattlesnakesofarizona.org). Gordon is a Director and scientific board member of the newly founded 

non-profit The Copperhead Institute (copperheadinstitute.org). He was the founding Editor of the journal 

Herpetological Natural History. Dr. Schuett resides in Arizona and is an adjunct professor in the Department 

of Biology at Georgia State University. 

Daniel D. Beck is an ecologist and herpetologist who has conducted research on the ecology, physiology, and behavior 

of rattlesnakes and helodermatid lizards. He has pioneered many of the field studies on helodermatid 

lizards in the past 30 years, including topics ranging from energy metabolism and habitat use to combat and 

foraging behaviors in locations ranging from the deserts of Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, to the tropical 

dry forests of Sonora and Jalisco, Mexico. His book, Biology of Gila Monsters and Beaded Lizards (2005), 

presents a synthesis of much of our knowledge of these charismatic reptiles. Dr. Beck is Professor of Biology 

at Central Washington University, in Ellensburg, Washington, where he lives in a straw bale house with his 

wife, biologist Kris Ernest, and their two teenage children. 


096 


Pseudoeurycea naucampatepetl. The Cofre de Perote salamander is endemic to the Sierra Madre Oriental of eastern Mexico. This 

relatively large salamander (reported to attain a total length of 150 mm) is recorded only from, “a narrow ridge extending east from 

Cofre de Perote and terminating [on] a small peak (Cerro Volcancillo) at the type locality,” in central Veracruz, at elevations from 

2,500 to 3,000 m (Amphibian Species of the World website). Pseudoeurycea naucampatepetl has been assigned to the P. bellii 

complex of the P. bellii group (Raffaëlli 2007) and is considered most closely related to P. gigantea, a species endemic to the La 

 

specimens and has not been seen for 20 years, despite thorough surveys in 2003 and 2004 (EDGE; www.edgeofexistence.org), and 

thus it might be extinct. The habitat at the type locality (pine-oak forest with abundant bunch grass) lies within Lower Montane Wet 

Forest (Wilson and Johnson 2010; IUCN Red List website [accessed 21 April 2013]). The known specimens were “found beneath 

the surface of roadside banks” (www.edgeofexistence.org) along the road to Las Lajas Microwave Station, 15 kilometers (by road) 

south of Highway 140 from Las Vigas, Veracruz (Amphibian Species of the World website). This species is terrestrial and presumed 

to reproduce by direct development. 

Pseudoeurycea naucampatepetl is placed as number 89 in the top 100 Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered amphibians 

(EDGE; www.edgeofexistence.org). We calculated this animal’s EVS as 17, which is in the middle of the high vulnerability 

category (see text for explanation), and its IUCN status has been assessed as Critically Endangered. Of the 52 species in the genus 

Pseudoeurycea, all but four are endemic to Mexico (see Appendix of this paper and Acevedo et al. 2010). Photo by James Hanken. 

Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://redlist-ARC.org 

97 

August 2013 | Volume 7 | Number 1 | e69

Copyright: © 2013 Wilson et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons 




A conservation reassessment of the amphibians of 

Mexico based on the EVS measure 

1 

Larry David Wilson, 2 Jerry D. Johnson, and 3 Vicente Mata-Silva 

1 

Centro Zamorano de Biodiversidad, Escuela Agrícola Panamericana Zamorano, Departamento de Francisco Morazán, HONDURAS 2,3 Department 

of Biological Sciences, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 79968-0500, USA 

Key words. EVS, anurans, salamanders, caecilians, IUCN categorizations, survival prospects 

Abstract.—Global amphibian population decline is one of the better documented symptoms of biodiversity 

loss on our planet, and one of the environmental super-problems humans have created. 

 

we are part of the natural world and depend on it for our survival. As a consequence, humans keep 

unraveling Earth’s life-support systems, and to reverse this trend must begin to develop a sustainable 

existence. Given this reality, we examine the conservation status of the 378 species of amphibians 

in Mexico, by using the Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS) algorithm. We summarize and 

critique the IUCN Red List Assessments for these creatures, calculate their EVS, and compare the 

results of both conservation assessments. We also compare the EVS for Mexican amphibians with 

those recently reported for Mexican reptiles, and conclude that both groups are highly imperiled, 

especially the salamanders, lizards, and turtles. The response of humans to these global imperatives 

has been lackluster, even though biological scientists worldwide have called attention to the 

grave prospects for the survival of life on our planet. As part of the global community, Mexico must 

realize the effects of these developments and the rapid, comprehensive need to conserve the coun- 

mendations. 

Resumenmentados 

sobre la pérdida de biodiversidad en nuestro planeta, que a su vez es uno de los super- 

 

der 

que somos parte y dependemos de ella misma. Como consecuencia de ello, estamos desarticulando 

los sistemas biológicos del planeta, y para revertir esta tendencia debemos desarrollar una 

existencia sostenible. Ante esta realidad, examinamos el estado de conservación de las 378 espe- 

 

 

EVS, y comparamos los resultados con los resultados de la categorización de la UICN. También 

 

- 

 

sido mediocre, a pesar de que la comunidad mundial de biólogos se une al llamado de atención 

sobre las perspectivas graves que amenazan la supervivencia de la vida en nuestro planeta. Como 

 

 

 

Palabras claves. EVS, anuros, salamandras, cecilios, categorización de UICN, perspectivas de supervivencia 

Citation: Wilson LD, Johnson JD, Mata-Silva V. 2013. A conservation reassessment of the amphibians of Mexico based on the EVS measure. Amphibian 

& Reptile Conservation 7(1): 97–127(e69). 

Correspondence. Emails: 1 bufodoc@aol.com (Corresponding author) 2 jjohnson@utep.edu 3 vmata@utep.edu 


98 


Wilson et al. 

How will humans react to an increased awareness that 

Earth’s biodiversity is diminishing? What are these losses 

telling us about our place on the planet, our role in the 

biosphere? What is our role in conserving biodiversity as 

we become custodians of a planet that has clear limitations? 

And how can we pass to future generations the 

wisdom needed to make sound environmental decisions? 

The answers to these questions will tell us much about 

ourselves, and science will take us only part of the way 

along that journey. 

Collins and Crump 2009: 205. 

Introduction 

Global amphibian population decline is a well-known 

environmental issue to conservation biologists and herpetologists 

(Collins and Crump 2009; Stuart et al. 2010). 

This issue, however, often does not make it onto lists 

 

European Union citizens conducted in the fall of 2011 

 

(1) poverty, hunger and lack of drinking water (28% of 

those surveyed); (2) climate change (20%); (3) the economic 

situation (16%); (4) international terrorism (11%); 

(5) the availability of energy (7%); (6) the increasing 

global population (5%); (7) the spread of infectious dis- 

 

nuclear weapons (3%); and (10) don’t know (2%). 

Such surveys expose several underlying concerns. 

One is that amphibian population decline is not on the 

list, but neither is the larger issue of biodiversity decline. 

Another concern is that this “pick the biggest problem” 

approach does not acknowledge that all of these issues 

are intertwined and capable of creating “environmental 

super-problems,” as explained by Bright (2000). Further, 

with respect to the natural world Bright (2000: 37) indicated 

that “we will never understand it completely, it will 

not do our bidding for free, and we cannot put it back the 

way it was.” These features are characteristic of biodiversity 

and biodiversity decline, and indicative of how little 

we know about the current status of biodiversity. Mora 

et al. (2011) provided an estimate of the total amount of 

biodiversity, which they indicated at approximately 8.7 

million (±1.3 million SE), with about 86% of the existing 

land species and 91% of the oceanic species still awaiting 

description. The description of new taxa is only the 

initial step toward understanding how the natural world 

works. The world will not do our bidding for free, since 

we cannot obtain an appreciable quantity of anything 

 

 

we have destroyed the habitats of countless creatures (including 

amphibians) that also have evolved over time. 

We cannot reverse this damage, as evidenced by the fact 

that we have been unable to provide permanent solutions 

 

the case with biodiversity decline, since no retreat from 

species extinction is possible. 

Biodiversity decline is an environmental super-prob- 

 

fragmentation, and loss, pollution and disease, over-harvesting, 

exotic species, and extinction (Vitt and Caldwell 

2009). These problems interact to enmesh species into 

 

spiral in which inbreeding and genetic drift combine to 

cause a small population to shrink and, unless the spiral 

is reversed, to become extinct” (Campbell et al. 2008: 

pact 

species with narrower distributions. 

The extent of biodiversity decline is unknown, although 

most estimates indicate that we know very little 

about this topic. With respect to animals, we know substantially 

more about the diversity of vertebrates than invertebrates. 

Among the vertebrates subjected to a global 

analysis, a greater proportion of amphibians have been 

documented as threatened than birds or mammals (Stuart 

sessed. 

The data presented in Stuart et al. (2010) essentially 

were the same as in Stuart (2004). The number of amphibians 

known globally now exceeds 7,000 (7,139; 

www.amphibiaweb.org [accessed 8 June 2013]), which 

is 24.3% greater than the one cited by Stuart et al. (2010). 

The description of new species of amphibians obviously 

is a “growth industry,” and the rate of discovery does not 

appear to be slowing. Thus, we expect that the number 

of new amphibian taxa from Mexico will continue to increase. 

Another major fault with assessing the “world’s great- 

 

noted by Wilson et al. (2013: 23), “no permanent solution 

to the problem of biodiversity decline (including herpetofaunal 

decline) will be found in Mexico (or elsewhere 

in the world) until humans recognize overpopulation as 

the major cause of degradation and loss of humankind’s 

fellow organisms.” Further, they stated (Pp. 23–24) that, 

“solutions will not be available until humanity begins to 

realize the origin, nature, and consequences of the mismatch 

between human worldviews and how our planet 

 

“planetary management worldview” as maintaining that 

“we are separate from and in charge of nature, that nature 

exists mainly to meet our needs and increasing wants, 

and that we can use our ingenuity and technology to 

manage the earth’s life-support systems, mostly for our 

 

Unfortunately, over the span of about 10,000 years, 

humans have dismantled the planet’s life-support systems, 

and today we are living unsustainably (Miller and 

Spoolman 2012). So, until and unless we develop an environmentally 

sustainable society, no lasting, workable 

solutions to environmental problems will be found, including 

that of biodiversity decline. 


99 


Conservation reassessment of Mexican amphibians 

Incilius pisinnus. The Michoacán toad, a state endemic, is known only from the Tepalcatepec Depression. This toad’s EVS has 

 

individual came from Apatzingán. Photo by Iván Trinidad Ahumada-Carrillo. 

Craugastor hobartsmithi. The distribution of the endemic Smith’s pygmy robber frog is along the southwestern portion of the Mexican 

Plateau, from Nayarit and Jalisco to Michoacán and the state of México. Its EVS has been determined as 15, placing it in the 

lower portion of the high vulnerability category, and its IUCN status as Endangered. This individual is from the Sierra de Manantlán 

in Jalisco. Photo by Iván Trinidad Ahumada-Carrillo. 


100 


Wilson et al. 

Nonetheless, building a sustainable society requires 

steps that only a few people appear willing to take. Thus, 

efforts by conservation biologists to reverse biodiversity 

decline, including amphibian population decline, must 

proceed with the realization that we will only be designing 

short-term solutions that deal with the symptoms of 

the problems rather than their causes. Within this realization, 

we undertake the following reassessment of the 

conservation status of the amphibians of Mexico. 

A Revised Environmental Vulnerability 

Measure 

In conducting a conservation reassessment of Mexican 

reptiles, Wilson et al. (2013) revised the Environmental 

Vulnerability Score (EVS) from that used in various 

 

the EVS measure for use with Mexican amphibians, especially 

by substituting the human persecution scale used 

for reptiles with a reproductive mode scale, as did Wilson 

and McCranie (2004) and other authors who used this 

measure with Central American amphibians (see Wilson 

et al. 2010). 

Wilson et al. (2013) indicated that the EVS measure 

originally was designed for use in cases where the details 

of the population status of a species, upon which many 

of the criteria for IUCN status categorization depend, 

were not available, as well as to provide an estimate of 

the susceptibility of amphibians and reptiles to future environmental 

threats. The advantages for using the EVS 

measure are indicated below (see EVS for Mexican amphibians). 

The EVS algorithm we developed for use with Mexican 

amphibians consists of three scales, for which the 

values are added to produce the Environmental Vulner- 

bution, 

as follows: 

1 = distribution broadly represented both inside and 

outside Mexico (large portions of range are both 

inside and outside Mexico) 

2 = distribution prevalent inside Mexico, but limited 

outside Mexico (most of range is inside Mexico) 

3 = distribution limited inside Mexico, but prevalent 

outside Mexico (most of range is outside Mexico) 

4 = distribution limited both inside and outside Mexico 

(most of range is marginal to areas near border 

of Mexico and the United States or Central 

America) 

5 = distribution within Mexico only, but not restricted 

to vicinity of type locality 

6 = distribution limited to Mexico in the vicinity of 

type locality 

The second scale deals with ecological distribution, as 

follows: 




 





The third scale is concerned with the type of reproductive 

mode, as follows: 

1 = both eggs and tadpoles in large to small bodies of 

lentic or lotic water 

2 = eggs in foam nests, tadpoles in small bodies of 

lentic or lotic water 

3 = tadpoles occur in small bodies of lentic or lotic 

water, eggs outside of water 

4 = eggs laid in moist situation on land or moist arboreal 

situations, direct development, or viviparous 

5 = eggs and tadpoles in water-retaining arboreal bro- 

 

Once these three components are added, their EVS can 

range from 3 to 19. Wilson and McCranie (2004) allocated 

the range of scores for Honduran amphibians into 

three categories of vulnerability to environmental degradation, 

as follows: low (3–9); medium (10–13); and high 

(14–19). We use the same categorization. 

Recent Changes to the Mexican Amphibian 

Fauna 

Our knowledge of the composition of the Mexican amphibian 

fauna keeps changing due to discovery of new 

species and the systematic adjustment of certain known 

species, which adds or subtracts from the list of taxa that 

appeared in Wilson et al. (2010). Since that time, the following 

seven species have been described or resurrected: 

Incilius aurarius: Mendelson et al. 2012. Journal of 

Herpetology 46: 473–479. New species. 

Incilius mccoyi: Santos-Barrera and Flores Villela. 

2011. Journal of Herpetology 45: 211–215. New species. 

Craugastor saltator: Hedges et al. 2008. Zootaxa 

1737: 1–182. Resurrected from synonymy of C. mexicanus. 


101 



Eleutherodactylus modestus. The endemic blunt-toed chirping frog is known from Colima and southwestern Jalisco. Its EVS has 

been calculated at 16, placing it in the middle portion of the high vulnerability category, and its IUCN status as Vulnerable. This 

individual is from the Sierra de Manantlán in Jalisco. Photo by Iván Trinidad Ahumada-Carrillo. 

Dendropsophus sartori. 

EVS has been determined as 14, at the lower end of the high vulnerability category, and its IUCN status as of Least Concern. This 

individual came from the Municipality of Minatitlán, Colima. Photo by Jacobo Reyes-Velasco. 


102 


Wilson et al. 

Charadrahyla tecuani: Campbell et al. 2009. Copeia 

2009: 287–295. New species. 

Gastrophryne mazatlanensis: Streicher et al. 2012. 


Resurrected from synonymy of G. olivacea. 

Bolitoglossa chinanteca: Rovito et al. 2012. ZooKeys 

185: 55–71. New species. 

Pseudoeurycea cafetalera: Parra-Olea et al. 2010. 

Zootaxa 2725: 57–68. New species. 

This represents an increase of 2.0% over the 373 species 

listed by Wilson and Johnson (2010). 

The following species have undergone status changes, 

and include some taxa discussed in the addendum to Wilson 

and Johnson (2010): 

Diaglena spatulata: Smith et al. 2007. Evolution 61: 

2075–2085. Transfer from genus Triprion. 

Hypopachus ustus: Streicher et al. 2012. Molecular 

Phylogenetics and Evolution 64: 645–653. Transfer 

from genus Gastrophryne 

corrected by Frost (2013). 

Trachycephalus typhonius: Lavilla et al. 2010. Zootaxa 

2671: 17–30. New name for T. venulosus. 

Ixalotriton niger: Wake. 2012. Zootaxa 3484: 75–82. 

Resurrection of genus. 

Ixalotriton parva: Wake. 2012. Zootaxa 3484: 75–82. 

Resurrection of genus. 

IUCN Red List Assessment of Mexican 

Amphibians 

The IUCN assessment of Mexican amphibians was conducted 

as part of a Mesoamerican Workshop held in 2002 

at the La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica (see foreword 

in Köhler 2011). The results of this workshop were 

incorporated into a general worldwide overview called 

the Global Amphibian Assessment (Stuart et al. 2004; 

Stuart et al. 2008; Stuart et al. 2010). This overview uncovered 

startling conclusions, of which the most important 

was that nearly one-third (32.3%) of the world’s amphibian 

species are threatened with extinction, i.e., were 

assessed as Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable. 

This proportion did not include 35 species considered 

as Extinct or Extinct in the Wild, and by adding 

them 1,891 of 5,743 species (32.9%) were considered as 

Table 1. IUCN Red List categorizations for Mexican amphibian families. 

Families 

Number of 

species 

Critically 

Endangered 

Endangered 


Vulnerable 

Near 

Threatened 

Least 

Concern 

Data 

 

Not 

Evaluated 

35 1 7 2 3 19 1 2 

Centrolenidae 1 — — — — 1 — — 

Craugastoridae 39 7 8 7 3 6 6 2 

Eleutherodactylidae 23 2 4 7 — 4 5 1 

Hylidae 97 29 18 10 4 25 8 3 

Leiuperidae 1 — — — — 1 — — 

Leptodactylidae 2 — — — — 2 — — 

Microhylidae 6 — — 1 — 4 — 1 

Ranidae 28 4 2 5 2 12 2 1 

Rhinophrynidae 1 — — — — 1 — — 

Scaphiopodidae 4 — — — — 2 — 2 

Subtotals 237 43 39 31 12 77 22 12 

Ambystomatidae 18 9 2 — — 2 3 2 

Plethodontidae 118 36 37 11 9 10 12 3 

Salamandridae 1 — 1 — — — — — 

Sirenidae 2 — — — — 2 — — 

Subtotals 139 45 40 11 9 14 15 5 

Dermophiidae 2 — — 1 — — 1 — 

Subtotals 2 — — 1 — — 1 — 

Totals 378 88 79 44 21 91 38 17 


103 



Smilisca dentata. The endemic upland burrowing treefrog occurs only in southwestern Aguascalientes and adjacent northern Jalisco. 

Its EVS has been assessed as 14, placing it at the lower end of the high vulnerability category, and its IUCN status as Endangered. 

This individual was found in the Municipality of Ixtlahuacán del Río, Jalisco. Photo by Jacobo Reyes-Velasco. 

Lithobates johni. Moore’s frog is an endemic anuran whose distribution is limited to southeastern San Luis Potosí, eastern Hidalgo, 

and northern Puebla. Its EVS has been assessed as 14, placing it at the lower end of the high vulnerability category, and its IUCN 

status as Endangered. This individual came from Río Claro, Municipality of Molango, Hidalgo. Photo by Uriel Hernández-Salinas. 


104 


Wilson et al. 

threatened, near extinction, or extinct. Notably, another 

 

i.e., too poorly known to allocate to any of the other 

IUCN categories. By adding these species to the previous 

cies 

(3,181 [55.4%]) known at that time were considered 

threatened, near extinction, extinct, or too poorly known 

 

worldwide cottage industry that continues to evaluate the 

state of amphibian population decline, as registered in 

a number of websites, most prominently AmphibiaWeb 

and the Global Amphibian Assessment. 

The IUCN Red List website lists the current categorizations 

for the world’s amphibians using the standard 

IUCN system. We accessed this website in order to summarize 

the current situation for Mexican amphibians 

(Table 1). The data in this table are more complete than 

those for reptiles, as reported by Wilson et al. (2013). All 

but 17 of the current 378 known Mexican amphibian species 

have been assigned to an IUCN category, and as for 

the reptiles (see Wilson et al. 2013) we placed these 17 

amphibian taxa (4.5%) in a Not Evaluated (NE) category. 

The remaining categorizations are: Critically Endangered 

(CR; 88; 23.2%); Endangered (EN; 79; 20.8%); Vulnerable 

(VU; 44; 11.6%); Near Threatened (NT; 21; 5.5%); 

 

38; 10.0%). Thus, 211 species (55.7%) are placed in one 

of the three threat categories (CR, EN, or VU), a propor- 

egories 

on a global scale (CR+EN+VU = 1,856 species, 

32.3%; Stuart et al., 2010). If the DD species are added to 

those in the threat categories, then 249 (65.7%) are either 

threatened with extinction or too poorly known to allow 

 

the global situation (CR+EN+VU+DD = 3,146 species; 

54.8%; Stuart et al. 2010). 

The largest proportion of threatened species are in 

the anuran families Craugastoridae (22 of 39 species; 

56.4%), Eleutherodactylidae (13 of 24 species; 54.2%), 

and Hylidae (57 of 97 species; 58.8%), and the salamander 

families Ambystomatidae (11 of 19 species; 57.9%) 

and Plethodontidae (84 of 118 species; 71.2%). Collec- 

 

78.4% of the amphibian taxa in Mexico, and the 187 

threatened species in these families comprise 88.6% of 

the 211 total. 

Table 2. Environmental Vulnerability Scores for Mexican amphibian species, arranged by family. Shaded area to left encompasses low vulnerability 

scores, and to the right high vulnerability scores. 

Families 

Number 

of species 


3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 

35 1 — 1 2 2 2 3 2 6 4 5 5 2 — — — — 

Centrolenidae 1 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — 

Craugastoridae 39 — — — — — 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 10 3 5 8 — 

Eleutherodactylidae 23 — — — — — — — — 2 3 — — 3 4 8 3 — 

Hylidae 97 1 2 — — 4 4 7 5 9 11 16 22 12 1 1 1 1 

Leiuperidae 1 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Leptodactylidae 2 — — 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Microhylidae 6 — 1 — — 1 2 1 1 — — — — — — — — — 

Ranidae 28 1 — 1 — 1 2 2 2 2 5 4 5 3 — — — — 

Rhinophrynidae 1 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 

Scaphiopodidae 4 1 — — 1 — — — 1 — 1 — — — — — — — 

Subtotals 237 4 3 3 4 9 12 14 13 20 25 29 36 30 8 14 12 1 

Subtotals % — 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.7 3.8 5.1 5.9 5.4 8.4 10.5 12.2 15.2 12.7 3.4 5.9 5.1 0.4 

Ambystomatidae 18 — — — — — — — 2 — — 4 5 7 — — — — 

Plethodontidae 118 — — — — — — 1 — 2 3 3 8 16 13 36 36 — 

Salamandridae 1 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — 

Sirenidae 2 — — — — — — — — — 2 — — — — — — — 

Subtotals 139 — — — — — — 1 2 2 6 7 13 23 13 36 36 — 

Subtotals % — — — — — — — 0.7 1.4 1.4 4.3 5.0 9.4 16.6 9.4 25.9 25.9 — 

Dermophiidae 2 — — — — — — — — 1 1 — — — — — — — 

Subtotals 2 — — — — — — — — 1 1 — — — — — — — 

Subtotals % — — — — — — — — — 50.0 50.0 — — — — — — — 

Totals 378 4 3 3 4 9 12 15 15 23 32 36 49 53 21 50 48 1 

Totals % — 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.1 2.3 3.2 4.0 4.0 6.1 8.4 9.5 12.9 14.0 5.6 13.2 12.7 0.3 


105 



Triprion petasatus. The Yucatecan casque-headed treefrog is restricted primarily to the Yucatan Peninsula, occurring in the Mexican 

states of Yucatán, Campeche, and Quintana Roo, as well as in northern Guatemala and northern Belize. A disjunct population also 

has been recorded from Santa Elena, Departamento de Cortés, Honduras. Its EVS has been calculated as 10, placing it at the lower 

end of the medium vulnerability category, and its IUCN status is of Least Concern. Although this treefrog is broadly distributed in 

the Yucatan Peninsula, it usually is found only during the rainy season when males and females congregate around restricted bodies 

 

tree holes and rock crevices, and sometimes use their head to plug the opening. This individual is from the state of Yucatán. Photo 

by Ed Cassano. 


106 


Wilson et al. 

These data from the IUCN Red List show a frightening 

picture for the amphibian fauna of Mexico, acknowledged 

as a major herpetodiversity hotspot in the world 

on the basis of its diversity and endemism (Wilson and 

Johnson 2010). Mexico’s level of amphibian endemism 

(66.8%) also has been reported as greater than that for 

the country’s reptiles (57.2%; Wilson and Johnson 2010). 

Even more frightening is the fact that Mexican salamanders 

are more threatened than anurans (Table 1). Of the 

139 recognized species of salamanders, 96 (69.1%) were 

assessed into one of the threat categories, as compared 

to anurans (114 of 236 [48.3%]). In addition, a much 

smaller proportion of salamander species were judged as 

Least Concern (14 [10.1%]), as compared to anurans (78 

[33.1%]). 

Critique of the IUCN Assessment 

Although the conservation status of amphibians in Mexico 

is better understood than that for reptiles (see Wilson 

et al. 2013), a need for reassessment still is required 

for several reasons. About 10% of Mexico’s amphib- 

 

conservation status remains undetermined. In addition, 

because certain species have been described recently 

(see above), 4.5% have not been evaluated (see www. 

iucnredlist.org; accessed 08 May 2013). Also, by adding 

the DD and NE species, 55 (14.5%) of Mexico’s amphibians 

presently are not assigned to any of the other IUCN 

categories. Thus, we consider it worthwhile to subject the 

Mexican amphibians to the same assessment measure applied 

by Wilson et al. (2013) for reptiles, to allow for a 

comparison between these two groups. For these reasons, 

we will reassess the Mexican amphibian fauna using the 

Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS). 

EVS for Mexican Amphibians 

The EVS provides several advantages for assessing the 

conservation status of amphibians and reptiles. First, this 

measure can be applied as soon as a species is named, 

because the information necessary for its application 

generally is known at that point. Second, calculating the 

EVS is economical because it does not require expensive, 

grant-supported workshops, such as those undertaken 

for the Global Amphibian Assessment (sponsored by 

the IUCN). Third, the EVS is predictive, as it measures 

susceptibility to anthropogenic pressure and can pinpoint 

taxa with the greatest need of immediate attention and 

continued scrutiny. Finally, it is simple to calculate and 

does not “penalize” poorly known species. Thus, given 

the geometric pace at which environmental threats worsen, 

since they are commensurate with the rate of human 

population growth, it is important to use a conservation 

assessment measure that can be applied simply, quickly, 

and economically. 

We calculated the EVS using the above-mentioned 

methodology. This step allowed us to determine the conservation 

status of all the currently recognized Mexican 

amphibian species (378), including the 55 species placed 

in the DD category or not evaluated by the IUCN (www. 

iucnredlist.org; see Appendix 1, Table 2). 

Theoretically, the EVS can range from 3 to 20 (in 

Mexico, from 3 to 19). A score of 3 is indicative of a species 

that ranges widely both within and outside of Mexico, 

occupies eight or more forest formations, and lays its 

eggs in small to large lentic or lotic bodies of water. Four 

such species (one each in the families Bufonidae, Hylidae, 

Ranidae, and Scaphiopodidae) are found in Mexico. 

At the other extreme, a score of 20 relates to a species 

that is known only from the vicinity of the type locality, 

occupies a single forest formation, and its eggs and tadpoles 

are found in water-retaining arboreal bromeliads or 

ico). 

Thus, all the scores fall within the range of 4–19. 

In the Introduction, we expressed an interest in attempting 

to determine the impact of small populations 

on amphibian species survival in Mexico. The data in 

Appendix 1 allow us to approximate an answer to this 

question, inasmuch as one of the components of the EVS 

assesses the extent of geographic distribution on a sliding 

scale (1–6), on which higher numbers signify increasingly 

smaller geographic ranges. Using this range, the 

distribution of the 378 Mexican species is as follows: 1 = 

13 species (3.4%); 2 = 20 (5.3%); 3 = 28 (7.4%); 4 = 64 

(16.9%); 5 = 126 (33.3%); and 6 = 127 (33.6%). Obviously, 

the higher the value of the geographic range, the 

higher the number and percentage of the taxa involved. 

ian 

species in Mexico are known only from the vicinity 

of their respective type localities. The range of another 

one-third is somewhat broader, but still limited to the 

pects 

of about two-thirds of Mexico’s amphibians are 

tied to changes in their natural environment, as well as to 

the conservation atmosphere in this nation. 

We summarized the EVS for Mexican amphibians by 

family in Table 2. The EVS range falls into the following 

three portions: low (3–9), medium (10–13), and high 

(14–19). 

The range and average EVS for the major amphibian 

groups are as follows: anurans = 3–19 (12.4); salamanders 

= 9–18 (15.9); and caecilians = 11–12 (11.5). 

 

than anurans to environmental degradation and caecilians 

somewhat less susceptible than anurans (although 

only two caecilian species are involved). The average 

scores either fall in the medium category, in the case of 

anurans and caecilians, or in the middle portion of the 

high category, in the case of salamanders. The average 

EVS for all amphibian species is 13.7, a value near the 

lower end of the high range of vulnerability. 


107 



Ambystoma velasci. The endemic Plateau tiger salamander, as currently recognized, is distributed widely from northwestern Chihuahua 

southward along the eastern slopes of the Sierra Madre Oriental, and from southern Nuevo León in the Sierra Madre Oriental, 

westward to Zacatecas and southward onto the Transverse Volcanic Axis of central Mexico. Its EVS has been determined 

as 10, placing it at the lower end of the medium vulnerability category, and its IUCN status is of Least Concern. Even though this 

species does not appear threatened, this is likely an artifact of the composite nature of this taxon. This individual was found at Santa 

Cantarina, Hidalgo. Photo by Raciel Cruz-Elizalde. 

Bolitoglossa franklini. 

south-central Guatemala. Its EVS has been determined as 14, placing it at the lower end of the high vulnerability category, and its 

IUCN status as Endangered. This individual came from Cerro Mototal, in the Municipality of Motozintla, Chiapas. Photo by Sean 

M. Rovito. 


108 


Wilson et al. 

An EVS of 14, at the lower end of the high vulnerability 

category, was found in the highest percentage (15.2) 

of anuran species. For salamanders, the respective values 

are 25.9% for an EVS of both 17 and 18, near the upper 

end of the range for the high vulnerability category, and 

for caecilians 50.0% for an EVS of both 11 and 12. 

The total EVS scores generally increased from the 

low end of the scale (3) through most of the high end 

(14–18), with a single exception (a decrease from 53 to 

21 species at scores 15 and 16). An EVS of 15 was found 

in the peak number of taxa (53), a score that falls within 

the high range of vulnerability. 

Of the 378 total taxa, 50 (13.2%) fall into the low 

vulnerability category, 106 (28.0%) into the medium 

category, and 222 (58.7%) into the high category. Thus, 

six of every 10 Mexican amphibian species were judged 

as having the highest degree of vulnerability to environmental 

degradation, and slightly more than one-seventh 

the lowest degree. 

This considerable increase in the absolute and relative 

numbers from the low portion, through the medium 

portion, to the high portion differs somewhat from the 

results published for amphibians and reptiles for several 

Central American countries in Wilson et al. (2010). 

Acevedo et al. (2010) reported 89 species (23.2%) with 

low scores, 179 (46.7%) with medium scores, and 115 

(30.0%) with high scores for Guatemala. The same trend 

was reported for Honduras, where Townsend and Wilson 

(2010) indicated the corresponding values for amphibians 

and reptiles as 71 (19.7%), 169 (46.8%), and 121 

(33.5%). The comparable data for the Panamanian herpetofauna 

in Jaramillo et al. (2010) are 143 (33.3%), 165 

(38.4%), and 122 (28.4%). 

The principal reason that EVS scores are relatively 

high in Mexico is because of the high level of endemism 

and the concomitantly narrow range of geographical and 

ecological occurrence (Appendix 1). Of the 253 endemic 

amphibian species (139 anurans, 113 salamanders, and 

one caecilian), 125 (49.4%) were allocated a geographic 

distribution score of 6, signifying that these creatures 

are known only from the vicinity of their respective type 

localities; the remainder of the endemic species (128 

[50.6%]) are more broadly distributed within the country 

(Appendix 1). 

Of the 378 Mexican amphibian species, 128 (33.9%) 

are limited in ecological distribution to one formation 

(Appendix 1). Therefore, we emphasize that close to onehalf 

of the country’s endemic amphibian species are not 

known to occur outside of the vicinity of their type localities. 

In addition, essentially one-third are not known to 

occur outside of a single forest formation. This situation 

imposes serious challenges in our attempt to conserve the 

endemic component of the strikingly important Mexican 

amphibian fauna. 

Comparison of IUCN Categorizations and 

EVS Values 

Table 3. Comparison of Environmental Vulnerability Scores (EVS) and IUCN categorizations for Mexican amphibians. Shaded 

area at the top encompasses low vulnerability category scores, and that at the bottom high vulnerability category scores. 

EVS 

Critically 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Vulnerable 

IUCN categories 

Near 

Threatened 

Least 

Concern 

Data 

 

Not 

Evaluated 

3 — — — — 4 — — 4 

4 — — — — 3 — — 3 

5 — — — — 3 — — 3 

6 — — — — 3 — 1 4 

7 1 — — — 8 — — 9 

8 — — 2 2 6 — 2 12 

9 1 1 1 1 10 — 1 15 

10 1 2 1 — 9 — 2 15 

11 1 2 7 — 13 — — 23 

12 5 4 3 4 13 2 1 32 

13 4 12 5 5 6 3 1 36 

14 12 11 7 2 8 6 3 49 

15 22 8 5 2 3 10 3 53 

16 4 9 4 2 1 1 — 21 

17 15 17 6 2 1 7 2 50 

18 21 13 3 1 — 9 1 48 

19 1 — — — — — — 1 

Totals 88 79 44 21 91 38 17 378 

Totals 


109 



Ixalotriton niger. The black jumping salamander is known only from the immediate vicinity of the type locality in northwestern 

Chiapas. Its EVS has been calculated as 18, placing it in the upper portion of the high vulnerability category, and its IUCN status 

as Critically Endangered. This individual came from the type locality and was used as part of the type series in the description of 

the species by Wake and Johnson (1989). The genus Ixalotriton is endemic to Mexico, and contains one other species (I. parvus). 

Photo by David B. Wake. 

Pseudoeurycea longicauda. The endemic long-tailed false brook salamander is distributed in the Transverse Volcanic Axis of eastern 

Michoacán and adjacent areas in the state of México. Its EVS has been determined as 17, placing it in the middle of the high 

vulnerability category, and its IUCN status as Endangered. This individual came from Zitácuaro, Michoacán, near the border with 

the state of México. Photo by Iván Trinidad Ahumada-Carrillo. 


110 


Wilson et al. 

We noted in Wilson et al. (2013: 18) that, “Since the 

IUCN categorizations and EVS values both measure the 

degree of environmental threat impinging on a given species, 

a certain degree of correlation between the results, 

using the two measures, is expected.” They further indicated 

that Townsend and Wilson (2010) demonstrated 

this to be the case with the Honduran herpetofauna. Wilson 

et al. (2013: 22) concluded, however, that, “the results 

of the EVS analysis are nearly the reverse of those 

obtained from the IUCN categorizations.” 

We compared the results of these two conservation 

measures in Table 3, expecting that our results for the 

Mexican amphibians would be more consistent with those 

obtained for the Honduran herpetofauna (Townsend and 

Wilson 2010) than those garnered for the Mexican reptiles 

(Wilson et al. 2013). 

1. Nature of the IUCN categorizations in 

Table 3 

Like Wilson et al. (2013), we used the “Not Evaluated” 

category (IUCN 2010), since 17 species (4.5%) have 

not been evaluated at the IUCN Red List website, and 

 

iucnredlist.org; accessed 08 May 2013). Thus, the IUCN 

conservation status of 55 (14.6%) of the total amphibian 

species remained undetermined. A greater proportion of 

the Mexican amphibians, however, were assessed based 

on the IUCN categorizations (323 species [85.4%]) than 

the Mexican reptiles (Wilson et al. 2013). 

2. Pattern of mean EVS vs. IUCN 

categorizations 

In order to more precisely determine the relationship between 

the IUCN categorizations and the EVS, we calculated 

the mean EVS for each of the IUCN columns 

in Table 3, including for the NE species and the total 

species. The results are as follows: CR (88 spp.) = 15.5 

(range 7–19); EN (79 spp.) = 15.1 (9–18); VU (44 spp.) 

= 13.8 (8–18); NT (21 spp.) = 13.3 (8–18); LC (91 spp.) 

= 10.0 (3–17); DD (38 spp.) = 15.6 (12–18); NE (17 spp.) 

= 12.6 (6–18); and total (378 spp.) = 13.7 (3–19). The 

results of these data show that the mean EVS decreases 

steadily from the CR category (15.5) through the EN 

(15.1), VU (13.8), and NT (13.3) categories to the LC 

category (10.0). This pattern of decreasing values was 

expected. In addition, the mean value for the DD species 

(15.6) is closest to that for the CR species. As we stated 

with regard to Mexican reptiles (Wilson et al. 2013: 22), 

“this indicates what we generally have suspected about 

the DD category, i.e., that the species placed in this category 

likely will fall into the EN or CR categories when 

(and if) their conservation status is better understood. 

termining 

their conservation status, however, since once 

 

to be downplayed.” Wilson et al. (2013) demonstrated 

 

reptiles, given that 118 species were evaluated as DD, 

which provided the impetus to work on the 38 amphibian 

Table 4. Comparison of Environmental Vulnerability Scores for Mexican amphibian and reptile species, arranged by major groups. Shaded area to the 

left encompasses low vulnerability scores, and to the right high vulnerability scores. 

 

Number of 


species 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 

Anurans 237 4 3 3 4 9 12 14 13 20 25 29 36 30 8 14 12 1 — 

Percentages — 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.7 3.8 5.1 5.9 5.4 8.4 10.5 12.2 15.2 12.7 3.4 5.9 5.1 0.4 — 

Salamanders 139 — — — — — — 1 2 2 6 7 13 23 13 36 36 — — 

Percentages — — — — — — — 0.7 1.4 1.4 4.3 5.0 9.4 16.6 9.4 25.9 25.9 — — 

Caecilians 2 — — — — — — — — 1 1 — — — — — — — — 

Percentages — — — — — — — — — 50.0 50.0 — — — — — — — — 

Amphibian Totals 378 4 3 3 4 9 12 15 15 23 32 36 49 53 21 50 48 1 — 

Percentages — 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.0 6.1 8.5 9.5 13.0 14.0 5.5 13.2 12.7 0.3 — 

Crocodilians 3 — — — — — — — — — — 1 1 — 1 — — — — 

Percentages — — — — — — — — — — — 33.3 33.3 — 33.3 — — — — 

Turtles 42 — — — — — 1 — 3 1 1 3 8 6 4 3 5 6 1 

Percentages — — — — — — 2.4 — 7.1 2.4 2.4 7.1 19.0 14.3 9.5 7.1 11.9 14.3 2.4 

Lizards 409 — — 1 3 6 11 12 15 26 39 49 54 67 77 37 10 2 — 

Percentages — — — 0.2 0.7 1.5 2.7 2.9 3.7 7.1 9.5 12.0 13.2 16.4 18.8 9.0 2.4 0.5 — 

Snakes 382 1 1 7 10 9 19 17 30 25 31 46 52 50 44 24 9 7 — 

Percentages — 0.3 0.3 1.8 2.6 2.4 5.0 4.5 7.9 6.5 8.1 12.0 13.6 13.1 11.5 6.3 2.4 1.8 — 

Reptile Totals 836 1 1 8 13 15 31 30 46 53 71 99 115 123 126 64 24 15 1 

Percentages — 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.6 1.8 3.7 3.6 5.5 6.3 8.5 11.8 13.8 14.7 15.1 7.8 2.9 1.8 0.1 


111 



Dermophis oaxacae. The endemic Oaxacan caecilian is distributed in Colima, Jalisco, Michoacán, Guerrero, Oaxaca, and Chiapas. 

Its EVS has been calculated as 12, placing it in the middle portion of the medium vulnerability category, and its IUCN status as Data 

Photo by Jacobo Reyes-Velasco. 

species assessed as DD with those occupying the threat 

categories (CR, EN, and VU) to arrive at a total of 249 

species (65.9% of the total amphibian fauna). The EVS 

range for these DD species (12–18) falls within that for 

the threat species as a whole (7–19) and the mean for all 

the four categories becomes 15.1, the same as that for the 

EN species alone. So, if the DD species can be considered 

“threat species in disguise,” then close to two-thirds 

of the Mexican amphibian species would be considered 

under the threat of extinction. 

The EVS for the 17 Mexican amphibian species that 

have not been evaluated by the IUCN range from 6 to 18 

tion 

interest, inasmuch as the EVS of nine of them falls 

into the range of high vulnerability. 

Based on the pattern of relationships between the LC 

species and their corresponding EVS, this IUCN category 

apparently has become a “dumping ground” for a 

sizable number of Mexican amphibians (91; 24.1% of the 

amphibian fauna) and like Wilson et al. (2013: 22) concluded 

for Mexican reptiles, we concur that “A more discerning 

look at both the LC and NE species might demonstrate 

that many should be partitioned into other IUCN 

categories, rather than the LC.” The range of EVS values 

for this category (3–17) is almost as broad as the range 

of EVS (3–19) for amphibians as a whole; 37 (40.7%) 

of these 91 species are relegated to the low vulnerability 

range (3–9), 41 (45.0%) to the medium vulnerability 

range, and 13 (14.3%) to the high vulnerability range. 

Again, these results indicate that the LC category likely 

has been used rather indiscriminately and that the EVS 

algorithm provides a more useful conservation measure 

than the IUCN system of categories. 

Comparison of EVS Values for Mexican 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

One of our major reasons for writing this paper was to 

determine the EVS values for Mexican amphibians, so 

they could be compared to those calculated for Mexican 

reptiles in Wilson et al. (2013). Thus, we summarized 

the data in Table 2, and reduced them to the major group 

level in Table 4. We also reduced the data in Wilson et al. 

(2013: table 2) and placed them in our Table 4. 

The data in this table indicate that the range of EVS 

values are comparable for amphibians (3–19) and reptiles 

(3–20). The EVS for the number of amphibian species 

essentially increases until a score of 15 is reached 

(53 species), and at 16 drops considerably (21 species) 

only to spike back up at 17 and 18 (50 and 48 species, 

respectively). The highest EVS value (19) was assigned 

to a single species (the fringe-limbed hylid Ecnomiohyla 

echinata). For the reptiles, the numbers and percentages 

also increase, with the peak (126 [15.1%]) reached at an 


112 


Wilson et al. 

EVS of 16, and decreasing rapidly thereafter. As with 

amphibians, only a single species (the soft-shelled turtle 

Apalone atra) was assigned the highest EVS (20). 

When the EVS values are arranged into low, medium, 

and high categories, the numbers and percentages of species 

are as follows (amphibians, followed by reptiles): 

low = 50 (13.2%), 99 (11.8%); medium = 106 (28.0%), 

269, (32.2%); and high = 222 (58.8%), 468, (56.0%). 

The percentages for these two groups are comparable and 

arranged in the same order. The greatest concern is that 

in both amphibians and reptiles more than one-half of the 

species fall into the upper portion of the high vulnerability 

category, indicating that the Mexican herpetofauna is 

seriously imperiled. 

Of the major groups of amphibians and reptiles, Mexican 

salamanders were judged the most imperiled. Of the 

139 species known from the country, 121 (87.1%) were 

assessed in the high vulnerability category. The compa- 

 

half of that for salamanders. Among the reptiles, lizards 

were judged more threatened than snakes. Of the lizards, 

247 (60.4%) fall within the high vulnerability category; 

 

Turtles, although fewer in numbers, are more threatened 

than other reptiles, with 33 species (78.6%) in the high 

vulnerability category. 

knowledged 

widely as threatened on a global basis, a fair 

accounting of the worldwide conservation status of most 

reptiles remains unavailable. Our use of the EVS measure 

for Mexican amphibians and reptiles demonstrates 

that both groups are in grave peril, and we expect that 

this situation will worsen exponentially in the coming 

decades. 

Discussion 

Global amphibian population decline has occupied the 

attention of herpetologists since the late 1980s (Gascon 

et al. 2007). In the years that followed, the Global 

Amphibian Assessment (GAA) was undertaken (Stuart 

et al. 2004), which uncovered the startling conclusions 

discussed in the Introduction. As noted in the foreword 

 

the breadth of amphibian losses worldwide and made it 

clear that business as usual—the customary conservation 

approaches and practices—were not working.” As 

a result, an Amphibian Conservation Summit was convened 

in September 2005, which resulted in a putatively 

comprehensive Amphibian Conservation Action Plan 

(ACAP; Gascon et al. 2007). The ACAP declaration proposed 

(p. 59) that, “Four kinds of intervention are needed 

to conserve amphibians, all of which need to be started 

immediately: 

1. Expanded understanding of the causes of declines 

and extinctions 

2. Ongoing documentation of amphibian diversity, 

and how it is changing 

3. Development and implementation of long-term 

conservation programmes 

4. Emergency responses to immediate crises.” 

We maintain that the ACAP does an admirable job of examining 

many of the issues directly related to amphibian 

decline, but this examination essentially stops after considering 

the proximate symptoms of the problem. Nonetheless, 

as noted by Wilson and Townsend (2010: 774), 

“problems created by humans, i.e., overpopulation and 

its sequelae, are not solved by treating only their symptoms, 

e.g., organismic endangerment.” Consequently, 

trying to deal with a symptom of overpopulation and 

resource overuse and abuse, such as amphibian decline, 

will create only limited short-term responses, instead of 

lasting solutions to the fundamental problems tied to the 

impact of humans. Thus, ultimately, amphibian decline 

will not be successfully addressed. 

The fundamental problem is that humans have not 

created a sustainable existence for themselves. Understanding 

why not is simple through examination of the 

principles of sustainability elaborated by Miller and 

Spoolman (2012: 6), as follows: 

 

relying on solar energy, biodiversity, and nutrient cycling. 

 

the sun and on natural resources and natural services 

(natural capital) provided by the earth. 

 

and degrading more of the earth’s natural capital. 

tion 

growth, wasteful and unsustainable resource use, 

poverty, and not including the harmful environmental 

costs of resource use in the market prices of goods 

and services. 

 

determining whether we live unsustainably or more 

sustainably. 

ral 

income without depleting or degrading the natural 

capital that supplies it.” 

Living unsustainably is a consequence of unregulated 

human population growth that generates the overuse and 

abuse of renewable and non-renewable resources, and 

dependence on a cost-accounting system that ignores 

factoring in clean up expenses in determining how goods 

and services are priced. Life-sustaining resources are not 

distributed equitably among people, but along a scale 

ranging from very high to very low. Poverty is the consequence 

of existing at the low end of the scale, where people 

are unable to meet their basic needs for adequate food 

and water, clothing, or shelter (Raven and Berg 2004). 


113 



Environmental scientists use the concept of ecological 

footprint to express “the average amount of land and 

ocean needed to supply an individual with food, energy, 

water, housing, transportation, and waste disposal” (Raven 

and Berg 2004: G-5). The global ecological footprint 

has increased over the years to the point that the Global 

Footprint Network calculated it would take “1.5 years to 

generate the renewable resources used in 2008” (WWF 

Living Planet Report 2012: 40). “Humanity’s annual demand 

on the natural world has exceeded what the Earth 

can renew in a year since the 1970s,” which has created 

a so-called “ecological overshoot” (WWF Living Planet 

Report 2012: 40). Thus, Earth’s capital (its biocapacity) 

is being depleted on a continually growing basis, and the 

planet is becoming less capable of supporting life in general, 

and human life in particular. Estimates indicate that 

by the year 2050, under a “business as usual” scenario, it 

would require an equivalent of 2.9 planets to support the 

amount of humanity expected to exist at that time (WWF 

Living Planet Report 2012: 101). 

The World Wildlife Fund promulgated its “One Planet 

perspective,” which “explicitly proposes to manage, govern 

and share natural capital within the Earth’s ecological 

boundaries. In addition to safeguarding and restoring 

this natural capital, WWF seeks better choices along the 

entire system of production and consumption, supported 

 

governance. All of this, and more, is required to decouple 

human development from unsustainable consumption 

(moving away from material and energy-intensive 

commodities), to avoid greenhouse gas emissions, to 

maintain ecosystem integrity, and to promote pro-poor 

growth and development” (WWF Living Planet Report 

2012: 106). 

Only within this context will the provisions of ACAP 

have the desired effects, i.e., to preserve the portion of 

natural capital represented by amphibians. Thus, in writing 

about the conservation status of the amphibians of 

Mexico, we are constructing our conclusions and recommendations 

in light of these global imperatives. 


We structured our conclusions and recommendations after 

those of Wilson and Townsend (2010) for the entire 

 

for the Mexican amphibian fauna, as follows: 

1. Given that Mexico contains the highest level of 

amphibian diversity and endemicity in the Mesoamerican 

biodiversity hotspot, our most fundamental 

recommendation is that protection of this 

aspect of the Mexican patrimony should be made 

a major component of the management strategy of 

the Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales 

(SEMARNAT). In turn, that strategy needs 

to be incorporated into an overall plan for a sustainable 

future for Mexico, of which the most critical 

component is to “explicitly integrate population 

dynamics (size, growth rate, composition, location 

and migration) and per capita consumption trends 

into national planning policies to support a better 

balance between population and available resources” 

(WWF Living Planet Report 2012: 121). 

2. All organisms have intrinsic and extrinsic value, 

especially as components of healthily functioning 

ecosystems, but we believe that although conservation 

efforts should extend to all species in a given 

area, most interest should be focused on species 

with a limited distribution (i.e., endemic species). 

The rationale for this position is that funds to support 

conservation initiatives have remained scarce, 

although this situation will have to change in the 

near future. The principal regions of Mexican amphibian 

endemism are the Sierra Madre Oriental, 

the Sierra Madre del Sur, and the Mesa Central, 

in the order listed. Unfortunately, about 39% of 

Mexico’s population occupies the Mesa Central 

(Flores-Villela et al. 2010). Inasmuch as this concentrated 

population will continue to grow into the 

foreseeable future, not only as a consequence of 

the rate of natural increase (1.4% in Mexico), but 

also because of the increase in the percentage of 

the population attracted to the large cities of the 

Mesa Central (Guadalajara, León, México, Morelia, 

Salamanca, and others; Flores-Villela et al. 

2010), it is critically important to make the amphibian 

fauna of the Mesa Central a fundamental 

component of the national plan for biodiversity 

protection by SEMARNAT. 

3. Oscar Flores-Villela and his colleagues produced 

 

Villela 1993; Flores-Villela and Gerez 1994; 

Ochoa-Ochoa and Flores-Villela 2006; Flores-Villela 

et al. 2010) that have documented the centers 

of diversity and endemism of the Mexican herpetofauna. 

Given the large disparity between these 

centers and the placement of protected areas in 

the country, we can only echo the conclusions of 

Flores-Villela et al. (2010: 313) that, “Given the 

great importance of the herpetofauna of the Central 

Highlands of Mexico, both in terms of its diversity 

and endemicity, appropriate steps need to be taken 

quickly to establish protected areas around the center 

of herpetofaunal endemism in the Sierra Madre 

del Sur, and to reassess the ability of the protected 

areas already established in the Mesa Central to 

encompass their centers of endemism.” A similar 

recommendation can be made with respect to 

the other centers, e.g., the Sierra Madre Oriental, 

which has been even more ignored than areas in the 

Central Highlands (Lavín et al. 2010). 


114 


Wilson et al. 

4. Finding ways to use biodiversity sustainably must 

become a fundamental goal for all humanity. The 

 

to envision; the problem lies in marshaling the paradigm 

shift necessary to make the transition. The 

major steps involve: (a) creating a reality-based 

educational system that will prepare people for the 

world as it is and will come to be, instead of the 

way people wish it were; (b) integrating educational 

reform into a broad-based plan for governmental 

and economic reform founded on principles of 

equality, shared responsibility, and commitment to 

a sustainable future for humanity and the natural 

world; (c) using governmental and economic reform 

to design a global society structured to exist 

within the limits of nature; and (d) basing a society 

on the notion that everyone must work toward 

this end. Within such overarching goals, the task 

of learning the best way to catalogue, protect, and 

make sustainable use of the world’s organisms is a 

huge undertaking. New molecular-based technology, 

however, is allowing for a better understanding 

of biological diversity, which is much greater 

than we previously envisioned. Because of the accelerating 

rate at which we are losing biological diversity, 

biologists are faced with helping humanity 

adopt a worldview in which all species matter, and 

that the sustainability of humans will depend on 

reforming our society based on the framework for 

survival tested by the process of natural selection 

over the last 3.5 billion years life has occupied our 

planet (Beattie and Ehrlich 2004). 

5. In 2012, the United Nations Secretary-General’s 

High-level Panel on Global Sustainability produced 

a seminal report entitled “Resilient People, 

Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing.” In a 

vision statement (p. 13), the panel introduced the 

concept of “tipping points,” as follows: “The current 

global development model is unsustainable. 

We can no longer assume that our collective actions 

will not trigger tipping points as environmental 

thresholds are breached, risking irreversible 

damage to both ecosystems and human communities. 

At the same time, such thresholds should not 

be used to impose arbitrary growth ceilings on developing 

countries seeking to lift their people out 

of poverty. Indeed, if we fail to resolve the sustainable 

development dilemma, we run the risk of 

condemning up to 3 billion members of our human 

family to a life of endemic poverty. Neither of 

 

new way forward.” The panel also pointed out (p. 

14) that “it is time for bold global efforts, includ- 

 

to strengthen the interface between science and 

entists 

refer to as ‘planetary boundaries,’ ‘environmental 

thresholds,’ and ‘tipping points.” On p. 23, 

they emphasize that, “awareness is growing of the 

potential for passing ‘tipping points’ beyond which 

environmental change accelerates, has the potential 

to become self-perpetuating, and may be dif- 

tal 

scientists have warned of this eventuality for 

decades; most of the world’s people just have not 

listened. The Stockholm Resilience Centre (www. 

stockholmresilience.org), however, has exposed 

 

certain thresholds or tipping points beyond which 

there is the “risk of irreversible and abrupt environmental 

change” (Box 2 on p. 24 of the UN panel report). 

The Stockholm Resilience Centre sponsored 

a group of scientists (Rockström et al. 2009) that 

 

“climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, biogeo- 

 

 

global freshwater use, change in land use, atmospheric 

aerosol loading and chemical pollution.” 

The scientists estimated that “human activity appears 

to have already transgressed the [planetary] 

boundaries associated with climate change, rate of 

biodiversity loss and changes to the global nitrogen 

cycle.” Furthermore, “humanity may soon be approaching 

the boundaries for interference with the 

global phosphorous cycle, global freshwater use, 

 

Finally, they concluded that, “the boundaries are 

strongly interlinked, so that crossing one may shift 

others and even cause them to be overstepped.” 

As a consequence of these realities, governments 

across the globe are faced with the choice of continuing 

to do “business as usual,” ultimately spilling 

over all the planetary boundaries and ending up 

in a world in which all of our options have been exhausted 

except for the last one…the option to fail, 

or to pull together to develop a human existence 

 

a “safe operating space for humanity.” Our chances 

to avoid the one and succeed with the other will 

depend on how well humanity is able to embrace 

new ways of thinking about our problems and enlist 

the help of groups of people who traditionally 

have been marginalized—especially women and 

the young. These words apply to Mexico, as they 

do to all other countries in the world. 

The three authors of this work are herpetologists who 

specialize in research on amphibians and reptiles in Mesoamerica. 

This paper focuses on the conservation status 

of the amphibians of Mexico, and follows a similar effort 

on the reptiles (Wilson et al. 2013). We demonstrated by 

using both the IUCN categorizations and EVS measure 


115 



that the Mexican amphibian fauna is one of the most seriously 

threatened of any existing in the world. All indications 

suggest that humans have transgressed the planetary 

boundaries associated with biodiversity loss, and 

there is no time to lose to reverse this dismantling trend 

or our descendants will be left to conclude that our generation 

condemned them to an environmentally impover- 

 

manity’s 

job now is to survive the one of its own making. 

Acknowledgments.—We are thankful to the following 

individuals for improving the quality of this contribution: 

Javier Alvarado-Díaz, Irene Goyenechea, and Louis 

W. Porras. We are most grateful to Louis, who applied 

his amazing editing skills to the job of making our work 

better than what we initially produced. 








Beattie A, Ehrlich PR. 2004. Wild Solutions: How Biodiversity 

is Money in the Bank. Yale University Press, 

New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 

Bright C. 2000. Anticipating environmental “surprise.” 

Pp. 22–38 In: State of the World 2000. Editors, Brown 

LR, Flavin C. W. W. Norton and Company, New York, 


Campbell JA, Blancas-Hernández JC, Smith EN. 2009. 

A new species of stream-breeding treefrog of the genus 

Charadrahyla (Hylidae) from the Sierra Madre 

del Sur of Guerrero, Mexico. Copeia 2009: 287–295. 

Campbell NA, Reese JB, Taylor MR, Simon EJ. 2008. 

Biology: Concepts and Connections (8 th edition). 

Pearson Benjamin Cummings, New York, New York, 

USA. 

Collins JP, Crump ML. 2009. Extinction in our Times: 

Global Amphibian Decline. Oxford University Press, 

New York, New York, USA. 

Flores-Villela O. 1993. Herpetofauna of Mexico: distribution 

and endemism. Pp. 253–280 In: Biological Diversity 

of Mexico: Origins and Distributions. Editors, 

Ramamoorthy TP, Bye R, Lot A, Fa J. Oxford University 

Press, New York, New York, USA. 

Flores-Villela O, Canseco-Márquez L, Ochoa-Ochoa 

LM. 2010. Geographic distribution and conservation 

of the Mexican Central Highlands herpetofauna. Pp. 





Flores-Villela O, Gerez P. 1994. Biodiversidad y Conservación 

en México: Vertebrados, Vegetación y Uso de 

Suelo (2 nd edition). CONABIO/UNAM, México, DF, 

Mexico. 

Frost DR. 2013. Amphibian Species of the World: An Online 

Reference. Versions 5.6 (9 January 2013). Electronic 

Database available at www. research.amnh.org/ 

herpetology/amphibia/index.html [Accessed: 15 June 

2013]. American Museum of Natural History, New 

York, New York, USA. 

Gascon C, Collins JP, Moore RD, Church DR, McKay 

JE, Mendelson III JR (Editors). 2007. Amphibian 

Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Amphibian 

Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, 


Hedges SB, Duellman WE, Heinicke MP. 2008. New 

World direct-developing frogs (Anura: Terrarana): 

 

and conservation. Zootaxa 1737: 1–182. 


The herpetofauna of Panama: distribution and conservation 





Köhler G. 2011. Amphibians of Central America. Herpeton, 

Verlag Elke Köhler, Offenbach, Germany. 

Lavilla EO, Langone JA, Padial JM, de Sá RO. 2010. 

The identity of the crackling, luminescent frog of Suriname 

(Rana typhonia Linnaeus, 1758) (Amphibia, 

Anura). Zootaxa 2671: 17–30. 

Lavín-Murcio PA, Lazcano D. 2010. Geographic distribution 

and conservation of the herpetofauna of northern 

Mexico. Pp. 274–301 In: Conservation of Mesoamerican 




Mendelson III JR, Mulcahy DG, Snell S, Acevedo ME, 

Campbell JA. 2012. A new golden toad (Bufonidae: 

Incilius) from northwestern Guatemala and Chiapas, 

Mexico. Journal of Herpetology 46: 473–479. 

Miller GT, Spoolman S. 2012. Environmental Science 

(14 th edition). Brooks Cole, Belmont, California, 

USA. 

Mora C, Tittensor DP, Adi S, Simpson AGB, Worm B. 

2011. How many species are there on Earth and in the 

ocean? PLoS Biology 9(8): e1001127. doi:10.1371/ 

journal.pbio.1001127 

Ochoa-Ochoa LM, Flores-Villela O. 2006. Áreas de Diversidad 

y Endemismo de la Herpetofauna Mexicana. 

UNAM-CONABIO, México, DF, Mexico. 

Parra-Olea G, Papenfuss TJ, Wake DB. 2001. New species 

of lungless salamanders of the genus Pseudoeurycea 

(Amphibia: Caudata: Plethodontidae) from Veracruz, 

Mexico. 


116 


Wilson et al. 

Museum, University of Kansas 20: 1–9. 

Parra-Olea G, Rovito SM, Márquez-Valdelamar L, Cruz 

G, Murrieta-Galindo R, Wake DB. 2010. A new species 

of Pseudoeurycea from the cloud forest in Veracruz, 

México. Zootaxa 2725: 57–68. 

Raffaëlli J. 2007. Les Urodèles du Monde. Penclen Édition, 

Plumelec, France. 

Raven PH, Berg LR. 2004. Environment (4 th edition). 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. 

Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin 

FS III, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, 

Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, 

van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, 

Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, 

Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman 

D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley J. 2009. Planetary 

boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. 

Ecology and Society 14(2): 1–32. 

Rovito SM, Parra-Olea G, Lee D, Wake DB. 2012. A new 

species of Bolitoglossa (Amphibia, Caudata) from 

the Sierra de Juárez, Oaxaca, Mexico. ZooKeys 185: 

55–71. 

Santos-Barrera G, Flores-Villela O. 2011. A new species 

of toad of the genus Incilius from the Sierra Madre 

Occidental of Chihuahua, Mexico. Journal of Herpetology 

45: 211–215. 

Smith SA, Arif S, Nieto-Montes de Oca A, Wiens JJ. 

2007. A phylogenetic hot spot for evolutionary novelty 

in Middle American treefrogs. Evolution 61: 

2075–2085. 

Streicher JW, Cox CL, Campbell JA, Smith EN, de Sá 

RO. 2012. Rapid range expansion in the Great Plains 

narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne olivacea) and a 

revised taxonomy for North American microhylids. 


Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE, Rodrigues 

ASL, Fischman DL, Waller RW. 2004. Status and 

trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. 

Science 306(5702): 1783–1786. 

Stuart SN, Hoffman M, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Berridge 

RJ, Ramani P, Young BE. 2008. Threatened Amphibians 

of the World. Lynx Ediciones, Barcelona, Spain. 


global decline of amphibians: current trends and future 






Honduran herpetofauna: Issues and imperatives. Pp. 

460–435. In: Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians 




United Nations Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on 

Global Sustainability. 2012. Resilient People, Resilient 

Planet: A Future Worth Choosing. United Nations, 


Vitt LJ, Caldwell JP. 2009. Herpetology (3 rd edition). 

Academic Press, Burlington, Maine, USA. 

Wake DB. 2012. Taxonomy of salamanders of the family 

Plethodontidae (Amphibia: Caudata). Zootaxa 3484: 

75–82. 

Wake DB, Johnson JD. 1989. A new genus and species of 

plethodontid salamander from Chiapas, Mexico. Contributions 

in Science Natural History Museum of Los 

Angeles County 411: 1–10. 






LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah. 

Wilson LD, Mata-Silva V, Johnson JD. 2013. A conservation 



7: 1–47. 




Wilson LD, Townsend JH. 2010. The herpetofauna of 

 

status, and future challenges. Pp. 76–812 In: Conservation 




USA. 




USA. 

World Wildlife Fund. 2012. Living Planet Report 2012. 

WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. 


Accepted: 26 April 2013 

Published: 02 August 2013 


117 



Larry David Wilson is a herpetologist with lengthy experience in Mesoamerica, totaling six collective years 

(combined over the past 47). Larry is the senior editor of the recently published Conservation of Mesoamerican 

Amphibians and Reptiles and a co-author of seven of its chapters. He retired after 35 years of service as 

Professor of Biology at Miami-Dade College in Miami, Florida. Larry is the author or co-author of more than 

290 peer-reviewed papers and books on herpetology, including the 2004 Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 

paper entitled “The conservation status of the herpetofauna of Honduras.” His other books include The 

Snakes of Honduras, Middle American Herpetology, The Amphibians of Honduras, Amphibians & Reptiles 

of the Bay Islands and Cayos Cochinos, Honduras, The Amphibians and Reptiles of the Honduran Mosquitia, 

and Guide to the Amphibians & Reptiles of Cusuco National Park, Honduras. He also served as the Snake 

Section Editor for the Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles for 33 years. Over his career, Larry 

has authored or co-authored the descriptions of 69 currently recognized herpetofaunal species and six species 

have been named in his honor, including the anuran Craugastor lauraster and the snakes Cerrophidion 

wilsoni, Myriopholis wilsoni, and Oxybelis wilsoni. 

Jerry D. Johnson is Professor of Biological Sciences at The University of Texas at El Paso, and has extensive 

experience studying the herpetofauna of Mesoamerica. He is the Director of the 40,000 acre “Indio 

Mountains Research Station,” was a co-editor on the recently published Conservation of Mesoamerican 

Amphibians and Reptiles, and is Mesoamerica/Caribbean editor for the Geographic Distribution section of 

Herpetological Review. Johnson has authored or co-authored over 80 peer-reviewed papers, including two 

2010 articles, “Geographic distribution and conservation of the herpetofauna of southeastern Mexico” and 

“Distributional patterns of the herpetofauna of Mesoamerica, a biodiversity hotspot.” 

Vicente Mata-Silva is a herpetologist interested in ecology, conservation, and the monitoring of amphibians and 

reptiles in Mexico and the southwestern United States. His bachelor’s thesis compared herpetofaunal richness 

in Puebla, México, in habitats with different degrees of human related disturbance. Vicente’s master’s thesis 

focused primarily on the diet of two syntopic whiptail species of lizards, one unisexual and the other bisexual, 

in the Trans-Pecos region of the Chihuahuan Desert. Currently, he is a postdoctoral research fellow at the 

University of Texas at El Paso, where his work focuses on rattlesnake populations in their natural habitat. His 

dissertation was on the ecology of the rock rattlesnake, Crotalus lepidus, in the northern Chihuahuan Desert. 

 


118 


Species 

Wilson et al. 

Appendix 1. Comparison of the IUCN Ratings from the Red List Website (updated to 08 May 2013) and Environmental 

Vulnerability Scores for 378 Mexican Amphibians. See text for explanations of the IUCN and EVS rating systems. * = 

species endemic to Mexico. 

IUCN 

rating 

Geographic 

Distribution 

Environmental Vulnerability Score 

Ecological 

Distribution 

Reproductive 

Mode 

Total Score 

Order Anura (237 species) 

 

Anaxyrus boreus NT 3 4 1 8 

Anaxyrus californicus EN 4 7 1 12 

Anaxyrus cognatus LC 3 5 1 9 

Anaxyrus compactilis* LC 5 8 1 14 

Anaxyrus debilis LC 1 5 1 7 

Anaxyrus kelloggi* LC 5 8 1 14 

Anaxyrus mexicanus* NT 5 7 1 13 

Anaxyrus punctatus LC 1 3 1 5 

Anaxyrus retiformis LC 4 7 1 12 

Anaxyrus speciosus LC 4 7 1 12 

Anaxyrus woodhousii LC 3 6 1 10 

Incilius alvarius LC 4 6 1 11 

Incilius aurarius NE 4 8 1 13 

Incilius bocourti LC 4 6 1 11 

Incilius campbelli NT 4 8 1 13 

Incilius canaliferus LC 4 3 1 8 

Incilius cavifrons* EN 5 7 1 13 

Incilius coccifer LC 3 5 1 9 

Incilius cristatus* CR 5 8 1 14 

Incilius cycladen* VU 5 8 1 14 

Incilius gemmifer* EN 6 8 1 15 

Incilius luetkenii LC 3 3 1 7 

Incilius macrocristatus VU 4 6 1 11 

Incilius marmoreus* LC 5 5 1 11 

Incilius mazatlanensis* LC 5 6 1 12 

Incilius mccoyi* NE 5 8 1 14 

Incilius nebulifer LC 1 4 1 6 

Incilius occidentalis* LC 5 5 1 11 

Incilius perplexus* EN 5 5 1 11 

Incilius pisinnus* DD 6 8 1 15 

Incilius spiculatus* EN 5 7 1 13 

Incilius tacanensis EN 4 4 1 9 

Incilius tutelarius EN 4 5 1 10 

Incilius valliceps LC 3 2 1 6 

Rhinella marina LC 1 1 1 3 

Family Centrolenidae (1 species) 

LC 3 4 3 10 

Family Craugastoridae (39 species) 

Craugastor alfredi VU 2 5 4 11 

Craugastor amniscola DD 4 6 4 14 

Craugastor augusti LC 2 2 4 8 

Craugastor batrachylus* DD 6 8 4 18 


119 



Craugastor berkenbuschii* NT 5 5 4 14 

Craugastor brocchi VU 4 6 4 14 

Craugastor decoratus* VU 5 6 4 15 

Craugastor galacticorhinis* NE 6 8 4 15 

Craugastor glaucus* CR 6 8 4 18 

Craugastor greggi CR 4 7 4 15 

Craugastor guerreroensis* CR 6 8 4 18 

Craugastor hobartsmithi* EN 5 6 4 15 

Craugastor laticeps NT 4 4 4 12 

Craugastor lineatus CR 4 7 4 15 

Craugastor loki LC 2 4 4 10 

Craugastor matudai VU 4 7 4 15 

Craugastor megalotympanum* CR 6 8 4 18 

Craugastor mexicanus* LC 5 7 4 16 

Craugastor montanus* EN 6 8 4 18 

Craugastor occidentalis* DD 5 4 4 13 

Craugastor omiltemanus* EN 5 7 4 16 

Craugastor palenque DD 4 7 4 15 

Craugastor pelorus* DD 5 6 4 15 

Craugastor polymniae* CR 6 8 4 18 

Craugastor pozo* CR 6 7 4 17 

Craugastor pygmaeus VU 2 3 4 9 

Craugastor rhodopis* VU 5 5 4 14 

Craugastor rugulosus* LC 5 4 4 13 

Craugastor rupinius LC 4 5 4 13 

Craugastor saltator* NE 5 6 4 15 

Craugastor silvicola* EN 6 8 4 18 

Craugastor spatulatus* EN 5 7 4 16 

Craugastor stuarti EN 4 7 4 15 

Craugastor tarahumaraensis* VU 5 8 4 17 

Craugastor taylori* DD 6 8 4 18 

Craugastor uno* EN 5 8 4 17 

Craugastor vocalis* LC 5 4 4 13 

Craugastor vulcani* EN 6 7 4 17 

Craugastor yucatanensis* NT 5 8 4 17 

Family Eleutherodactylidae (23 species) 

Eleutherodactylus albolabris* NE 6 7 4 17 

Eleutherodactylus angustidigitorum* VU 5 8 4 17 

Eleutherodactylus cystignathoides LC 2 6 4 12 

Eleutherodactylus dennisi* EN 6 8 4 18 

Eleutherodactylus dilatus* EN 5 8 4 17 

Eleutherodactylus grandis* CR 6 8 4 18 

Eleutherodactylus guttilatus LC 2 5 4 11 

Eleutherodactylus interorbitalis* DD 5 6 4 15 

Eleutherodactylus leprus VU 2 6 4 12 

Eleutherodactylus longipes* VU 5 6 4 15 

Eleutherodactylus maurus* DD 5 8 4 17 

Eleutherodactylus modestus* VU 5 7 4 16 

Eleutherodactylus nitidus* LC 5 3 4 12 


120 


Wilson et al. 

Eleutherodactylus nivicolimae* VU 6 7 4 17 

Eleutherodactylus pallidus* DD 5 8 4 17 

Eleutherodactylus pipilans LC 2 5 4 11 

Eleutherodactylus rubrimaculatus VU 4 7 4 15 

Eleutherodactylus rufescens* CR 6 7 4 17 

Eleutherodactylus saxatilis* EN 5 8 4 17 

Eleutherodactylus syristes* EN 5 7 4 16 

Eleutherodactylus teretistes* DD 5 7 4 16 

Eleutherodactylus verrucipes* VU 5 7 4 16 

Eleutherodactylus verruculatus* DD 6 8 4 18 

Family Hylidae (97 species) 

Acris blanchardi NE 3 8 1 12 

Agalychnis callidryas LC 3 5 3 11 

Agalychnis dacnicolor* LC 5 5 3 13 

Agalychnis moreletii CR 1 3 3 7 

Anotheca spinosa LC 3 6 5 14 

Bromeliohyla bromeliacia EN 4 7 5 16 

Bromeliohyla dendroscarta* CR 5 7 5 17 

Charadrahyla altipotens* CR 5 6 1 12 

Charadrahyla chaneque* EN 5 7 1 13 

Charadrahyla nephila* VU 5 7 1 13 

Charadrahyla taeniopus* VU 5 7 1 13 

Charadrahyla tecuani* NE 6 8 1 15 

Charadrahyla trux* CR 6 7 1 14 

Dendropsophus ebraccatus LC 3 6 3 10 

Dendropsophus microcephalus LC 3 3 1 7 

Dendropsophus robertmertensi LC 4 4 1 9 

Dendropsophus sartori* LC 5 8 1 14 

Diaglena spatulata* LC 5 7 1 13 

Duellmanohyla chamulae* EN 6 7 1 13 

Duellmanohyla ignicolor* EN 6 7 1 14 

Duellmanohyla schmidtorum VU 4 3 1 8 

Ecnomiohyla echinata* CR 6 8 5 19 

Ecnomiohyla miotympanum* NT 5 3 1 9 

Ecnomiohyla valancifer* CR 6 7 5 18 

Exerodonta abdivita* DD 6 8 1 15 

Exerodonta bivocata* DD 6 8 1 15 

Exerodonta chimalapa* EN 6 5 1 12 

Exerodonta juanitae* VU 5 8 1 14 

Exerodonta melanomma* VU 5 5 1 11 

Exerodonta pinorum* VU 5 7 1 13 

Exerodonta smaragdina* LC 5 6 1 12 

Exerodonta sumichrasti* LC 5 3 1 9 

Exerodonta xera* VU 5 8 1 14 

Hyla arboricola* DD 5 6 1 12 

Hyla arenicolor LC 2 4 1 7 

Hyla euphorbiacea* NT 5 7 1 13 

Hyla eximia* LC 5 4 1 10 

Hyla plicata* LC 5 5 1 11 


121 



Hyla walkeri VU 4 6 1 11 

Hyla wrightorum LC 2 6 1 9 

Megastomatohyla mixe* CR 6 8 1 15 

Megastomatohyla mixomaculata* EN 5 8 1 14 

Megastomatohyla nubicola* EN 5 8 1 14 

Megastomatohyla pellita* CR 6 7 1 14 

Plectrohyla acanthodes CR 4 7 1 12 

Plectrohyla ameibothalame* DD 6 8 1 15 

Plectrohyla arborescandens* EN 5 5 1 11 

Plectrohyla avia CR 4 8 1 13 

Plectrohyla bistincta* LC 5 3 1 9 

Plectrohyla calthula* CR 5 8 1 14 

Plectrohyla calvicollina* CR 6 7 1 14 

Plectrohyla celata* CR 6 7 1 14 

Plectrohyla cembra* CR 5 8 1 14 

Plectrohyla charadricola* EN 5 8 1 14 

Plectrohyla chryses* CR 6 7 1 14 

Plectrohyla crassa* CR 5 8 1 14 

Plectrohyla cyanomma* CR 5 8 1 14 

Plectrohyla cyclada* EN 5 8 1 14 

Plectrohyla ephemera* CR 6 8 1 15 

Plectrohyla guatemalensis CR 4 4 1 9 

Plectrohyla hartwegi CR 4 5 1 10 

Plectrohyla hazelae* CR 5 6 1 12 

Plectrohyla ixil CR 4 7 1 12 

Plectrohyla labedactyla* DD 6 8 1 15 

Plectrohyla lacertosa* EN 5 8 1 14 

Plectrohyla matudai VU 4 6 1 11 

Plectrohyla miahuatlanensis* DD 6 8 1 15 

Plectrohyla mykter* EN 5 7 1 13 

Plectrohyla pachyderma* CR 6 8 1 15 

Plectrohyla pentheter* EN 5 7 1 13 

Plectrohyla psarosema* CR 6 8 1 15 

Plectrohyla pychnochila* CR 6 8 1 15 

Plectrohyla robertsorum* EN 5 7 1 13 

Plectrohyla sabrina* CR 5 8 1 14 

Plectrohyla sagorum EN 4 5 1 10 

Plectrohyla siopela* CR 6 8 1 15 

Plectrohyla thorectes* CR 5 7 1 13 

Pseudacris cadaverina LC 4 6 1 11 

Pseudacris clarki LC 3 8 1 12 

Pseudacris hypochondriaca NE 4 4 1 9 

Ptychohyla acrochorda* DD 6 7 1 14 

Ptychohyla erythromma* EN 5 7 1 13 

Ptychohyla euthysanota NT 4 3 1 8 

Ptychohyla leonhardschultzei* EN 5 6 1 12 

Ptychohyla macrotympanum CR 4 6 1 11 

Ptychohyla zophodes* DD 5 7 1 13 

Scinax staufferi LC 2 1 1 4 


122 


Wilson et al. 

Smilisca baudinii LC 1 1 1 3 

Smilisca cyanosticta NT 4 7 1 12 

Smilisca dentata* EN 5 8 1 14 

Smilisca fodiens LC 2 5 1 8 

Tlalocohyla godmani* VU 5 7 1 13 

Tlalocohyla loquax LC 3 3 1 7 

Tlalocohyla picta LC 2 5 1 8 

Tlalocohyla smithii* LC 5 5 1 11 

Trachycephalus typhonius LC 1 2 1 4 

Triprion petasatus LC 4 5 1 10 

Family Leiuperidae (1 species) 

Engystomops pustulosus LC 3 2 2 7 

Family Leptodactylidae (2 species) 

Leptodactylus fragilis LC 1 2 2 5 

Leptodactylus melanonotus LC 1 3 2 6 

Family Microhylidae (6 species) 

Gastrophryne elegans LC 2 5 1 8 

Gastrophryne mazatlanensis NE 2 5 1 8 

Gastrophryne olivacea LC 3 5 1 9 

Hypopachus barberi VU 4 5 1 10 

Hypopachus ustus LC 2 4 1 7 

Hypopachus variolosus LC 2 1 1 4 

Family Ranidae (28 species) 

Lithobates berlandieri LC 4 2 1 7 

Lithobates brownorum NE 4 3 1 8 

Lithobates catesbeianus LC 3 6 1 10 

Lithobates chichicuahutla* CR 6 8 1 15 

Lithobates chiricahuensis VU 4 6 1 11 

Lithobates dunni* EN 5 8 1 14 

Lithobates forreri LC 1 1 1 3 

Lithobates johni* EN 5 8 1 14 

Lithobates lemosespinali* DD 5 8 1 14 

Lithobates macroglossa VU 4 7 1 12 

Lithobates maculatus LC 3 1 1 5 

Lithobates magnaocularis* LC 5 6 1 12 

Lithobates megapoda* VU 5 8 1 14 

Lithobates montezumae* LC 5 7 1 13 

Lithobates neovolcanicus* NT 5 7 1 13 

Lithobates omiltemanus* CR 5 7 1 13 

Lithobates psilonota* DD 5 8 1 14 

Lithobates pueblae* CR 6 8 1 15 

Lithobates pustulosus* LC 5 3 1 9 

Lithobates sierramadrensis* VU 5 7 1 13 

Lithobates spectabilis* LC 5 6 1 12 

Lithobates tarahumarae VU 2 5 1 8 

Lithobates tlaloci* CR 6 8 1 15 

Lithobates vaillanti LC 3 5 1 9 

Lithobates yavapaiensis LC 4 7 1 12 

Lithobates zweifeli* LC 5 5 1 11 


123 



Rana boylii NT 3 8 1 12 

Rana draytonii LC 3 6 1 10 

Family Rhinophrynidae (1 species) 

Rhinophrynus dorsalis LC 2 5 1 8 

Family Scaphiopodidae (4 species) 

Scaphiopus couchii LC 1 1 1 3 

Spea bombifrons NE 3 6 1 10 

Spea hammondii LC 3 8 1 12 

Spea multiplicata NE 1 4 1 6 

Order Caudata (139 species) 

Family Ambystomatidae (18 species) 

Ambystoma altamirani* EN 5 7 1 13 

Ambystoma amblycephalum* CR 6 6 1 13 

Ambystoma andersoni* CR 6 8 1 15 

Ambystoma bombypellum* CR 6 8 1 15 

Ambystoma dumerilii* CR 6 8 1 15 

DD 6 7 1 14 

Ambystoma granulosum* CR 6 7 1 14 

Ambystoma leorae* CR 6 8 1 15 

Ambystoma lermaense* CR 6 8 1 15 

Ambystoma mavortium NE 3 6 1 10 

Ambystoma mexicanum* CR 6 8 1 15 

Ambystoma ordinarium* EN 5 7 1 13 

Ambystoma rivulare* DD 5 7 1 13 

Ambystoma rosaceum* LC 5 8 1 14 

Ambystoma silvense* DD 5 8 1 14 

Ambystoma subsalsum* NE 5 8 1 14 

Ambystoma taylori* CR 6 8 1 15 

Ambystoma velasci* LC 5 4 1 10 

Family Plethodontidae (118 species) 

Aneides lugubris LC 3 7 4 14 

Batrachoseps major LC 4 6 4 14 

Bolitoglossa alberchi* LC 6 5 4 15 

Bolitoglossa chinanteca NE 6 8 4 18 

Bolitoglossa engelhardti EN 4 7 4 15 

EN 4 7 4 15 

EN 4 5 4 13 

Bolitoglossa franklini EN 4 6 4 14 

Bolitoglossa hartwegi NT 4 4 4 12 

Bolitoglossa hermosa* NT 5 7 4 16 

Bolitoglossa lincolni NT 4 5 4 13 

Bolitoglossa macrinii* NT 5 6 4 15 

Bolitoglossa mexicana LC 4 3 4 11 

Bolitoglossa mulleri VU 4 7 4 15 

Bolitoglossa oaxacensis* DD 5 8 4 17 

Bolitoglossa occidentalis LC 4 3 4 11 

Bolitoglossa platydactyla* NT 5 6 4 15 

Bolitoglossa riletti* EN 6 6 4 16 

Bolitoglossa rostrata VU 4 6 4 14 


124 


Wilson et al. 

Bolitoglossa rufescens LC 1 4 4 9 

Bolitoglossa stuarti DD 4 7 4 15 

Bolitoglossa veracrucis* EN 6 7 4 17 

Bolitoglossa yucatana LC 4 7 4 15 

Bolitoglossa zapoteca* DD 6 8 4 18 

Chiropterotriton arboreus* CR 6 8 4 18 

Chiropterotriton chiropterus* CR 6 6 4 16 

Chiropterotriton chondrostega* EN 5 8 4 17 

Chiropterotriton cracens* EN 6 7 4 17 

Chiropterotriton dimidiatus* EN 6 7 4 17 

Chiropterotriton lavae* CR 6 8 4 18 

Chiropterotriton magnipes* CR 6 6 4 16 

Chiropterotriton mosaueri* DD 6 8 4 18 

Chiropterotriton multidentatus* EN 5 6 4 15 

Chiropterotriton orculus* VU 6 8 4 18 

Chiropterotriton priscus* NT 6 6 4 16 

Chiropterotriton terrestris* CR 6 8 4 18 

Cryptotriton alvarezdeltoroi* EN 6 8 4 18 

Dendrotriton megarhinus* VU 6 7 4 17 

Dendrotriton xolocalcae* VU 6 8 4 18 

Ensatina eschscholtzii LC 3 7 4 14 

Ensatina klauberi NE 4 6 4 14 

Ixalotriton niger* CR 6 8 4 18 

Ixalotriton parvus* CR 6 8 4 18 

Nyctanolis pernix EN 4 7 4 15 

Oedipina elongata LC 4 7 4 15 

Parvimolge townsendi* CR 5 7 4 16 

Pseudoeurycea ahuitzotl* CR 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea altamontana* EN 5 8 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea amuzga* DD 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea anitae* CR 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea aquatica* CR 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea aurantia* VU 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea bellii* VU 5 3 4 12 

Pseudoeurycea boneti* VU 6 7 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea brunnata CR 4 7 4 15 

Pseudoeurycea cafetalera NE 6 7 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea cephalica* NT 5 5 4 14 

Pseudoeurycea cochranae* EN 6 7 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea conanti* EN 5 7 4 16 

EN 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea gadovii* EN 5 4 4 13 

Pseudoeurycea galaenae* NT 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea gigantea* CR 5 7 4 16 

Pseudoeurycea goebeli CR 4 7 4 15 

Pseudoeurycea juarezi* CR 6 7 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea leprosa* VU 5 7 4 16 

Pseudoeurycea lineola* EN 5 5 4 14 

Pseudoeurycea longicauda* EN 5 8 4 17 


125 



Pseudoeurycea lynchi* CR 5 8 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea maxima* DD 5 8 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea melanomolga* EN 6 6 4 16 

Pseudoeurycea mixcoatl* DD 6 8 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea mixteca* LC 5 8 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea mystax* EN 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea naucampatepetl* CR 6 7 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea nigromaculata* CR 5 8 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea obesa* DD 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea orchileucos* EN 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea orchimelas* EN 6 7 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea papenfussi* NT 6 7 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea praecellens* CR 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea quetzalanensis* DD 6 7 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea rex CR 4 4 4 12 

Pseudoeurycea robertsi* CR 6 8 4 18 

DD 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea saltator* CR 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea scandens* VU 6 7 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea smithi* CR 5 6 4 15 

Pseudoeurycea tenchalli* EN 6 7 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea teotepec* EN 6 8 4 18 

Pseudoeurycea tlahcuiloh* CR 6 7 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea tlilicxitl* DD 5 8 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea unguidentis* CR 6 7 4 17 

Pseudoeurycea werleri* EN 6 7 4 17 

Thorius adelos* EN 6 8 4 18 

Thorius arboreus* EN 6 8 4 18 

Thorius aureus* CR 6 7 4 17 

Thorius boreas* EN 6 8 4 18 

Thorius dubitus* EN 5 7 4 16 

Thorius grandis* EN 6 5 4 15 

Thorius infernalis* CR 6 8 4 18 

Thorius insperatus* DD 6 8 4 18 

Thorius lunaris* EN 6 8 4 18 

Thorius macdougalli* VU 6 6 4 16 

Thorius magnipes* CR 6 7 4 17 

Thorius minutissimus* CR 6 7 4 17 

Thorius minydemus* CR 6 8 4 18 

CR 6 8 4 18 

Thorius narismagnus* CR 6 8 4 18 

Thorius narisovalis* CR 6 7 4 17 

Thorius omiltemi* EN 6 8 4 18 

Thorius papaloae* EN 6 7 4 17 

Thorius pennatulus* CR 5 6 4 15 

Thorius pulmonaris* EN 6 7 4 17 

Thorius schmidti* EN 6 7 4 17 

Thorius smithi* CR 6 7 4 17 

Thorius spilogaster* CR 6 7 4 17 


126 


Wilson et al. 

Thorius troglodytes* EN 6 6 4 16 

Family Salamandridae (1 species) 

Notophthalmus meridionalis EN 2 8 1 12 

Family Sirenidae (2 species) 

Siren intermedia LC 3 8 1 12 

Siren lacertina LC 3 8 1 12 

Order Gymnophiona (2 species) 

Family Dermophiidae (2 species) 

Dermophis mexicanus VU 4 3 4 11 

Dermophis oaxacae* DD 5 3 4 12 


127 


Crotalus tancitarensis. The Tancítaro cross-banded mountain rattlesnake is a small species (maximum recorded total length = 434 

mm) known only from the upper elevations (3,220–3,225 m) of Cerro Tancítaro, the highest mountain in Michoacán, Mexico, 

where it inhabits pine-fir forest (Alvarado and Campbell 2004; Alvarado et al. 2007). Cerro Tancítaro lies in the western portion of 

the Transverse Volcanic Axis, which extends across Mexico from Jalisco to central Veracruz near the 20°N latitude. Its entire range 

is located within Parque Nacional Pico de Tancítaro (Campbell 2007), an area under threat from manmade fires, logging, avocado 

culture, and cattle raising. This attractive rattlesnake was described in 2004 by the senior author and Jonathan A. Campbell, and 

placed in the Crotalus intermedius group of Mexican montane rattlesnakes by Bryson et al. (2011). We calculated its EVS as 19, 

which is near the upper end of the high vulnerability category (see text for explanation), its IUCN status has been reported as Data 

Deficient (Campbell 2007), and this species is not listed by SEMARNAT. More information on the natural history and distribution 

of this species is available, however, which affects its conservation status (especially its IUCN status; Alvarado-Díaz et al. 2007). 

We consider C. tancitarensis one of the pre-eminent flagship reptile species for the state of Michoacán, and for Mexico in general. 



128 

September 2013 | Volume 7 | Number 1 | e71

Copyright: © 2013 Alvarado-Díaz et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative 

Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License, which permits unrestricted use for 

non-commercial and education purposes only provided the original author and source are credited. 


Patterns of physiographic distribution and conservation 

status of the herpetofauna of Michoacán, Mexico 

1 

Javier Alvarado-Díaz, 2 Ireri Suazo-Ortuño, 

3 

Larry David Wilson, and 4 Oscar Medina-Aguilar 

1,2,4 

Instituto de Investigaciones sobre los Recursos Naturales, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Av. San Juanito Itzícuaro s/n 

Col. Nva. Esperanza, Morelia, Michoacán, MÉXICO, 58337 3 Centro Zamorano de Biodiversidad, Escuela Agrícola Panamericana Zamorano, 

Departamento de Francisco Morazán, HONDURAS 

Abstract.—At their respective levels, the country of Mexico and the state of Michoacán are major centers 

of herpetofaunal diversity and endemicity. Three of us (JAD, ISO, OMA) conducted extensive 

fieldwork in Michoacán from 1998 to 2011, and recorded 169 herpetofaunal species. With additional 

species reported in the literature and specimens available in scientific collections, the number of 

species in Michoacán has grown to 215. We examined the distribution of these species within the 

framework of the five physiographic provinces within the state, i.e., the Coastal Plain, the Sierra 

Madre del Sur, the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression, the Transverse Volcanic Axis, and the Central 

Plateau, which briefly are characterized geomorphologically and climatically. The herpetofauna 

consists of 54 amphibians and 161 reptiles (17.5% of the total for Mexico), classified in 38 families 

and 96 genera. Almost one-half of Michoacán’s herpetofaunal species occur in a single physiographic 

province, and the percentage of species decreases with an increase in the number of provinces. 

The province with the most species is the Sierra Madre del Sur, with slightly fewer numbers 

in the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression and the Transverse Volcanic Axis. An intermediate number 

is found in the Coastal Plain, and the lowest in the Central Plateau province. We constructed a Coefficient 

of Biogeographic Resemblance matrix and found the greatest degree of herpetofaunal resemblance 

between the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression and the Sierra Madre del Sur. The greatest 

resemblance of the Coastal Plain herpetofauna is to that of Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression, that 

of the Transverse Volcanic Axis to that of the Central Plateau, and vice versa. Of the species limited 

to one physiographic province, 47 occur only in the Transverse Volcanic Axis, 23 in the Coastal 

Plain, 15 in the Balsas-Tepalcatepec, 14 in the Sierra Madre del Sur, and one in the Central Plateau. 

We employed three systems for determining the conservation status of the herpetofauna of Michoacán: 

SEMARNAT, IUCN, and EVS. Almost one-half of the species in the state are not assessed by 

the SEMARNAT system, with the remainder allocated to the Endangered (four species), Threatened 

(31), and Special Protection (79) categories. The IUCN system provides an assessment for 184 of 

the 212 native species, allocating them to the Critically Endangered (five species), Endangered (10), 

Vulnerable (12), Near Threatened (four), Least Concern (127), and Data Deficient (26) categories. 

The EVS system provides a numerical assessment for all of the native non-marine species (four marine 

species occur in the state), with the values ranging from three to 19. The resulting 208 species 

were placed in low, medium, and high categories of vulnerability, as follows: low (17 amphibians, 

39 reptiles); medium (23 amphibians, 45 reptiles); and high (13 amphibians, 71 reptiles). The EVS 

system is the only one that provides an assessment for all the species (except for the four marine 

taxa), as well as the only one that considers the distributional status of Michoacán’s herpetofauna 

(state-level endemic, country-level endemic, and non-endemic). Furthermore, the values indicate 

that ca. 40% of the state’s herpetofauna is categorized at the highest level of environmental vulnerability. 

Based on these conclusions, we provide recommendations for protecting Michoacán’s 

herpetofauna in perpetuity. 

Key words. Amphibians, reptiles, physiographic provinces, conservation status, recommendations 

Correspondence. Emails: 1 jvr.alvarado@gmail.com (Corresponding author) 2 ireri.suazo@gmail.com 

3 

bufodoc@aol.com 4 mineo_osc@hotmail.com 


129 


Physiographic distribution and conservation of Michoacán herpetofauna 

Resumen.—México es un importante centro de diversidad y endemismo herpetofaunistico y el estado 

de Michoacán también presenta estas características. Durante el período de 1998–2011, tres 

de nosotros (JAD, ISO, OMA) conducimos un extenso trabajo de campo en Michoacán, registrando 

169 especies de anfibios y reptiles. Con la adición de especies reportadas en la literatura y los 

registros disponibles en colecciones científicas, el número total de especies de la herpetofauna 

michoacana es de 215. Examinamos la distribución de estas especies en Michoacán, considerando 

las cinco provincias fisiográficas representadas en el Estado: la Llanura Costera, la Sierra Madre 

del Sur, la Depresión del Balsas-Tepalcatepec, el Eje Volcánico Transversal, y la Meseta Central, 

las que de manera resumida son caracterizadas en base a su geomorfología y clima. La herpetofauna 

consiste de 54 anfibios y 161 reptiles (17.5% del total de México), clasificadas en 38 familias 

y 96 géneros. Casi la mitad de las especies de la herpetofauna de Michoacán ocurre en una sola 

provincia fisiográfica, con un cada vez menor porcentaje de especies a medida que el número de 

provincias se incrementa. El mayor número de especies se encuentra en la Sierra Madre del Sur, 

con cifras ligeramente menores en la Depresión del Balsas-Tepalcatepec y el Eje Volcánico Transversal. 

Un número intermedio de especies se encuentra en la provincia Planicie Costera y el menor 

número se encuentra en la provincia Meseta Central. Implementamos una matriz del Coeficiente de 

Semejanza Biogeográfica, la que muestra que el mayor grado de semejanza herpetofaunistica se 

encuentra entre la Depresión del Balsas-Tepalcatepec y la Sierra Madre del Sur. La mayor similitud 

de la herpetofauna de la Planicie Costera es con la herpetofauna de la Depresión Balsas-Tepalcatepec, 

la del Eje Volcánico Transversal con la de la Meseta Central y viceversa. De las especies 

restringidas a una sola provincia fisiográfica, 47 ocurren solamente en el Eje Volcánico Transversal, 

23 en la Planicie Costera, 15 en la Depresión del Balsas-Tepalcatepec, 14 en la Sierra Madre del 

Sur, y una en la Meseta Central. Usamos tres sistemas para determinar el estado de conservación: 

SEMARNAT, UICN, y EVS. Casi la mitad de las especies de Michoacán no han sido evaluadas por 

el sistema de SEMARNAT, y las evaluadas han sido asignadas a las categorías de Peligro (cuatro 

especies), Amenazadas (31), y Protección Especial (79). El sistema de la UICN ha evaluado 184 de 

las 212 especies nativas de Michoacán, asignadas a las siguientes categorías: Peligro Crítico (cinco 

especies), En Peligro (10), Vulnerable (12), Casi Amenazado (cuatro), Preocupación Menor (127), y 

Datos Insuficientes (26). El sistema EVS proporciona una evaluación numérica para todas las especies 

nativas que no son marinas (cuatro especies marinas ocurren en el estado), con valores de tres 

a 18. Las 209 especies evaluadas mediante el EVS fueron asignadas a las categorías de baja, media 

y alta vulnerabilidad de la siguiente manera: baja (17 anfibios, 39 reptiles); media (23 anfibios, 45 

reptiles); y alta (13 anfibios, 71 reptiles). El sistema EVS es el único de los tres que proporciona una 

evaluación de todas las especies (excepto para los cuatro taxa marinos) y el único que considera 

el estado distribucional de los componentes de la herpetofauna de Michoacán (endémico a nivel 

estatal, endémico a nivel de país, y no endémico). Además, los valores muestran que cerca del 40% 

de la herpetofauna del estado se encuentra en la categoría más alta de vulnerabilidad ambiental. 

En base a estas conclusiones, proponemos recomendaciones para la protección a perpetuidad de 

la herpetofauna de Michoacán. 

Palabras claves. Anfibios, reptiles, provincias fisiográficas, estatus de conservación, recomendaciones 

Citation: Alvarado-Díaz J, Suazo-Ortuño I, Wilson LD, Medina-Aguilar O. 2013. Patterns of physiographic distribution and conservation status of the 

herpetofauna of Michoacán, Mexico. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1): 128–170(e71). 

The publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859 is 

a recognized watershed in biological science. Perhaps 

the greatest threat to Western ideology was not the common 

origin of all beings, as is assumed, but rather the 

possibility of a common ending: that all beings, humans 

among them were subjected to the same forces and vulnerabilities. 

Chernela 2012: 22. 

Introduction 

Mesoamerica is one of the principal biodiversity hotspots 

in the world (Wilson and Johnson 2010), and the country 

of Mexico comprises about 79% of the land surface 

of Mesoamerica (CIA World Factbook). The documented 

amphibian fauna of Mexico currently consists of 

379 species, including 237 anurans, 140 salamanders, 

and two caecilians (Wilson et al. 2013b). Based on this 


130 


Alvarado-Díaz et al. 

Incilius pisinnus. The Michoacán toad is a state endemic, with a distribution in the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression and the Sierra 

Madre del Sur. Its EVS was estimated as 15, which is unusually high for a bufonid anuran, its IUCN ranking has been judged as 

Data Deficient, and a SEMARNAT status has not been provided. This individual is from Apatzingán, Michoacán. 

Photo by Oscar Medina-Aguilar. 

Eleutherodactylus rufescens. The blunt-toed chirping frog is endemic to the Sierra de Coalcomán region of the Sierra Madre del 

Sur. Its EVS has been assessed as 17, placing this species in the middle of the high vulnerability category, this frog is considered as 

Critically Endangered by IUCN, and as a Special Protection species by SEMARNAT. This individual was found at Dos Aguas in 

the Sierra de Coalcomán (Sierra Madre del Sur) in Michoacán. Photo by Oscar Medina-Aguilar. 


131 



figure, Mexico is the country with the 5 th largest number 

of amphibian species in the world (Llorente-Bousquets 

and Ocegueda 2008; Stuart et al. 2010a), after Brazil, 

Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. The country also is inhabited 

by 849 species of reptiles, including 798 squamates, 

48 turtles, and three crocodylians (Wilson et 

al. 2013a), which globally is the second largest reptile 

fauna (Llorente-Bousquets and Ocegueda 2008), after 

Australia. The total number of 1,227 species makes the 

Mexican herpetofauna the second largest in the world 

(Llorente-Bousquets and Ocegueda 2008), comprising 

7.3% of the global herpetofauna (7,044 amphibian species, 

according to the Amphibian Species of the World 

website, accessed 21 February 2013, and 9,766 reptile 

species, according to the Reptile Database website, also 

accessed 21 February 2013, for a total of 16,810). 

Beyond its highly significant herpetofaunal diversity, 

Mexico also contains an amazing amount of endemicity. 

Currently, 254 of 379 (67.0%) of the known amphibian 

species and 480 of 849 (56.5%) of the known reptile 

species are endemic (Wilson et al. 2013a,b). The combined 

figure for both groups is 734 species (59.8%), a 

percentage 2.4 times as high as the next highest rate of 

endemicity for the Central American countries (24.8% 

for Honduras; Townsend and Wilson 2010). 

Michoacán (the formal name is Michoacán de Ocampo) 

is the 16 th largest state in Mexico, with an area of 

58,599 km 2 (www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mexican_states_by_area), 

which comprises about 3.0% of the 

country’s land surface. The state is located in southwestern 

Mexico between latitudes 20°23'44" and 18°09'49" 

N and longitudes 100°04'48" and 103°44'20" W, and 

is bounded to the northwest by Colima and Jalisco, to 

the north by Guanajuato and Querétaro, to the east by 

México, and to the southeast by Guerrero. Michoacán is 

physiographically and vegetationally diverse, inasmuch 

as elevations range from sea level to 3,840 m (at the top 

of Volcán Tancítaro). The state encompasses a portion of 

the Pacific coastal plain, a long stretch of the Balsas-Tepalcatepec 

Depression, a segment of the Sierra Madre 

del Sur called the Sierra de Coalcomán, and a significant 

portion of the Transverse Volcanic Axis. 

Mexico is known for its high level of herpetofaunal 

endemism, but compared with the country the herpetofauna 

of Michoacán is several percentage points higher, 

with a number of the country endemics limited in distribution 

to the state (see below). Any attempt to assess the 

conservation status of a herpetofaunal group depends on 

an accurate accounting of the distribution and composition 

of the species involved. Thus, our objectives with 

this study are to update the list of amphibians and reptiles 

in Michoacán, to discuss their distribution among 

the physiographic provinces, and to use these data to 

gauge the conservation status of the entire herpetofauna 

using various measures. Finally, based on our conservation 

assessment, we provide recommendations to 

enhance current efforts to protect the state’s amphibians 

and reptiles. 

Diaglena spatulata. The shovel-headed treefrog is distributed along the Pacific coastal lowlands from Sinaloa to Oaxaca, and thus 

is a Mexican endemic hylid anuran. In Michoacán, it occurs in the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression and along the Coastal Plain. Its 

EVS was gauged as 13, placing it at the upper end of the medium vulnerability category, IUCN has assessed this anuran as Least 

Concern, and it is not listed by SEMARNAT. This individual was photographed at the Reserva de la Biosfera Chamela-Cuixmala 

on the coast of Jalisco. Photo by Oscar Medina-Aguilar. 


132 



Materials and Methods 

1. Sampling procedures 

From 1998 to 2011, three of us (JAD, ISO, OMA) conducted 

fieldwork in 280 localities (58 municipalities) of 

Michoacán, representing all of the state’s physiographic 

provinces, with significant attention paid to poorly sampled 

areas, as part of the “Diversidad Herpetofaunística 

del Estado de Michoacán” project undertaken by personnel 

from the Laboratorio de Herpetología of the Instituto 

de Investigaciones sobre los Recursos Naturales (INI- 

RENA) of the Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás 

de Hidalgo (UMSNH). Importantly, due to unsafe 

conditions in certain parts of the state in recent years, 

large areas have not been explored. During each visit 

to the sampling sites, we used visual encounter surveys 

(Crump and Scott 1994) to locate amphibians and reptiles 

during the day and at night. This work was conducted 

under scientific collecting permits (DGVS/FAUT- 

0113), and used the collection techniques described by 

Casas et al. (1991). In cases where we could not identify 

individuals in the field, they were sacrificed and subsequently 

deposited in the herpetological collections of 

INIRENA-UMSNH. We identified specimens by using 

taxonomic keys and other information in Smith and Taylor 

(1945, 1948, 1950), Duellman (1961, 1965, 2001), 

Casas-Andréu and McCoy (1979), Ramírez-Bautista 

(1994), Flores-Villela et al. (1995), and Huacuz (1995), 

and updated scientific names by using Flores-Villela and 

Canseco-Márquez (2004), Faivovich et al. (2005), Wilson 

and Johnson (2010), and Wilson et al. (2013a,b). 

2. Updating the herpetofaunal list 

In addition to the specimens recorded during the fieldwork, 

the list of species was augmented using material 

donated by others. We also used records from the Colección 

Nacional de Anfibios y Reptiles-UNAM (CNAR), 

the California Academy of Sciences (CAS), the University 

of Colorado Museum of Natural History, Herpetology 

Collection (CUMNH), the Museum of Natural Sciences, 

Louisiana State University (LSUMZ), the Field Museum 

of Natural History (FMNH), and the Royal Ontario 

Museum (ROM). Additionally, we included records for 

Michoacán from the Catálogo de la Biodiversidad en 

Michoacán (SEDUE [Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y 

Ecología], UMSNH 2000), la Biodiversidad en Michoacán 

Estudio de Estado (Villaseñor 2005), various distribution 

notes published in Herpetological Review and 

otherwise posted at the IUCN Red List website, as well 

as data presented by Flores-Villela and Canseco-Márquez 

(2004), Vargas-Santamaría and Flores-Villela (2006), 

González-Hernández and Garza-Castro (2006), Medina-Aguilar 

et al. (2011), and Torres (2011). We follow the 

taxonomy used in Wilson (2013a, b), with the exception 

of the deletion of the nominal species Anolis schmidti, 

which recently was synonymized by Nieto et al. (2013). 

3. Systems for determining 

conservation status 

We used the following three systems to determine the 

conservation status of the 212 native species of amphibians 

and reptiles in Michoacán: SEMARNAT, IUCN, and 

EVS. The SEMARNAT system, established by the Secretaría 

de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, employs 

three categories––Endangered (P), Threatened (A), 

and Subject to Special Protection (Pr). The results of the 

application of this system are reported in the NORMA 

Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 (www. 

semarnat.gob.mx). For species not assessed by this system, 

we use the designation “No Status.” 

The IUCN system is utilized widely to assess the conservation 

status of species on a global basis. The categories 

used are explained in the document IUCN Red List 

of Categories and Criteria (2010), and include Extinct 

(EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW), Critically Endangered 

(CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened 

(NT), Least Concern (LC), Data Deficient (DD), 

and Not Evaluated (NE). The categories Critically Endangered, 

Endangered, and Vulnerable collectively are 

termed “threat categories,” to distinguish them from the 

other six. 

The EVS system was developed initially for use in 

Honduras by Wilson and McCranie (2004), and subsequently 

was used in several chapters on Central American 

countries in Wilson et al. (2010). Wilson et al. (2013a,b) 

modified this system and explained its use for the amphibians 

and reptiles of Mexico, and we follow their prescriptions. 

The EVS measure is not designed for use with 

marine species (e.g., marine turtles and sea snakes), and 

generally is not applied to non-native species. 

Physiography and Climate 

1. Physiographic provinces 

Based on geological history, morphology, structure, hydrography, 

and soils, five physiographic provinces can 

be recognized within the state of Michoacán, including 

the Pacific Coastal Plain, the Sierra Madre del Sur, the 

Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression, the Transverse Volcanic 

Axis, and the Central Plateau (Fig. 1). The Coastal Plain 

province comprises a narrow strip of land between the Pacific 

Ocean and the Sierra Madre del Sur, and consists of 

small alluvial plains extending from the mouth of the Río 

Balsas to the east and the Río Coahuayana to the west. 

The Sierra Madre del Sur (Sierra de Coalcomán) lies 

between the Coastal Plain and the Balsas-Tepalcatepec 

Depression, extends for over 100 km in a northwest-southeast 

direction, and contains elevations reaching 

about 2,200 m. The Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression 


133 



Fig. 1. Physiographic provinces in Michoacán. 

is located between the Sierra Madre del Sur to the southwest 

and the Transverse Volcanic Axis to the northeast. 

This intermontane area is a broad structural basin that 

lies at elevations ranging from 200 to 700 m. As noted 

by Duellman (1961:10), “the western part of this basin… 

is the valley of the Río Tepalcatepec, a major tributary 

of the Río Balsas. The eastern part of the basin is the 

valley of the Río Balsas.” The Transverse Volcanic Axis 

is located to the south of the Central Plateau and crosses 

Mexico at about the 20 th parallel. The region is composed 

of volcanic ejecta and is volcanically active. This area is 

home to Mexico’s highest mountains, such as Pico de 

Orizaba (5,636 m) and Popocatépetl (5,426 m), which 

in Michoacán is represented by Pico de Tancítaro, with 

an elevation of 3,850 m. In addition, several endorheic 

lakes are located in this province, including Pátzcuaro, 

Zirahuén, and Cuitzeo. The Central Plateau is a vast tableland 

bordered on the south by the Transverse Volcanic 

Axis, on the west by the Sierra Madre Occidental, on 

the east by the Sierra Madre Oriental, and on the north 

by the Río Bravo (Rio Grande). Elevations in this province 

range from 1,100 m in the northern portion of the 

country to 2,000 m. In Michoacán, this province is represented 

by a relatively small area (3,905 km 2 ) along the 

northern border of the state; the Río Lerma flows from 

it, and empties into the Pacific Ocean (Duellman 1961). 

2. Climate 

Given its location in the tropical region of Mexico, south 

of the Tropic of Cancer, temperatures in Michoacán vary 

as a consequence of differences in elevation and the effects 

of prevailing winds. To illustrate variation in ambient 

temperatures in the state, we extracted data for one 

locality from each of the five physiographic provinces 

from the Servicio Meteorológico Nacional, Michoacán, 

and placed them in Table 1. These data are organized in 

the table from top to bottom based on the elevation of the 

localities (from low to high). As expected, a decrease in 

the mean annual temperature occurs from lower to higher 

elevations. The same pattern is seen for annual minimum 

and maximum temperatures, except for the Coastal 

Plain compared to the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression 

(33.0 vs. 34.4 °C). 

As expected in the tropics, relatively little temperature 

variation occurs throughout the year. The differences 

between the low and high mean monthly temperatures 

(in °C) for the localities in the five physiographic provinces 

are as follows: Coastal Plain (Lázaro Cárdenas, 

50 m) = 1.9; Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression (Apatzingán, 

320 m) = 5.5; Sierra Madre del Sur (Coalcomán, 1,100 m) 

= 5.2; Central Plateau (Morelia, 1,915 m) = 5.9; and 

Transverse Volcanic Axis (Pátzcuaro, 2,035 m) = 6.6. 


134 



The lowest mean monthly temperatures are for January, 

and the highest for May or June. Essentially the same 

pattern occurs with minimum and maximum monthly 

temperatures, except for minor departures in a few areas 

(Table 1). 

The highest mean monthly temperature (34.4 °C) is 

at Apatzingán in the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression. 

Duellman (1961) stated that the highest mean annual 

temperatures (29.3 °C) in this depression have been 

recorded at Churumuco (251 m), as reported by Contreras 

(1942). More recent data at the Servicio Meteorológico 

Nacional website for Michoacán indicates that 

the highest daily temperature of 46 °C was recorded at 

this locality on 9 April 1982. At the other extreme are 

temperatures on the peak of Volcán Tancítaro, where the 

mean annual temperature is less than 10 °C and it snows 

during the winter. 

In tropical locales, heavy or light precipitation typically 

occurs during the rainy and dry seasons, respectively. 

In Michoacán, the rainy season extends from June 

to October, when 80% or more of the annual precipitation 

is deposited. As with temperature data, we extracted 

information on mean annual precipitation and variation 

in monthly precipitation recorded at one locality 

for each of the five physiographic provinces, and placed 

the data in Table 2. The results demonstrate that at each 

locality the highest amount of precipitation occurs from 

June to October. The percentage of annual precipitation 

Table 1. Monthly minimum, mean (in parentheses), maximum, and annual temperature data (in °C) for the physiographic provinces 

of Michoacán, Mexico. Localities and their elevation for each of the provinces are as follows: Coastal Plain (Lázaro Cárdenas, 50 

m); Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression (Apatzingán, 320 m); Sierra Madre del Sur (Coalcomán de Vázquez Pallares, 1,100 m); Central 

Plateau (Morelia, 1,915 m); Transverse Volcanic Axis (Pátzcuaro, 2,035 m). Data (1971–2000) from the Sistema Meteorológico Nacional, 

Michoacán (smn.cna.gob.mx/index). 

Physiographic 

Province 

Coastal Plain 

Balsas- 

Tepalcatepec 

Depression 

Sierra Madre 

del Sur 

Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual 

20.6 

(26.6) 

32.6 

16.7 

(24.6) 

32.5 

10.2 

(19.9) 

29.7 

Central Plateau 6.8 

(15.8) 

24.7 

Transverse 

Volcanic Axis 

3.3 

(12.9) 

22.5 

20.6 

(26.8) 

33.1 

17.6 

(25.9) 

34.1 

10.7 

(20.8) 

30.9 

7.6 

(17.0) 

26.4 

4.0 

(14.1) 

24.1 

20.8 

(27.0) 

33.2 

19.1 

(27.7) 

36.3 

11.6 

(22.1) 

32.7 

9.6 

(19.0) 

28.4 

5.4 

(16.0) 

26.6 

21.2 

(27.3) 

33.5 

20.7 

(29.2) 

37.6 

12.3 

(23.5) 

34.6 

11.1 

(20.4) 

29.7 

7.3 

(17.8) 

28.2 

22.8 

(28.3) 

33.8 

22.3 

(30.3) 

38.3 

14.3 

(24.8) 

35.3 

12.6 

(21.7) 

30.9 

9.4 

(19.1) 

28.7 

23.9 

(28.5) 

33.1 

22.7 

(29.1) 

35.6 

17.9 

(25.1) 

32.4 

13.3 

(21.2) 

29.1 

12.5 

(19.5) 

26.4 

23.4 

(28.0) 

32.7 

21.6 

(27.3) 

33.1 

18.2 

(24.1) 

30.1 

12.8 

(19.6) 

26.5 

12.0 

(18.0) 

23.9 

23.7 

(28.1) 

32.6 

21.6 

(27.3) 

33.1 

17.4 

(23.8) 

30.2 

13.1 

(19.8) 

26.4 

11.9 

(18.0) 

24.1 

23.3 

(27.7) 

32.0 

21.7 

(27.3) 

33.0 

17.7 

(23.8) 

30.0 

12.9 

(19.4) 

26.0 

11.5 

(17.7) 

23.9 

23.5 

(28.1) 

32.6 

21.5 

(27.7) 

33.8 

16.7 

(23.7) 

30.8 

11.3 

(18.7) 

26.1 

9.2 

(16.7) 

24.1 

22.7 

(27.9) 

33.2 

19.5 

(26.4) 

33.3 

13.9 

(22.2) 

30.4 

9.3 

(17.7) 

26.2 

5.9 

(14.8) 

23.7 

21.1 

(27.1) 

33.2 

17.7 

(25.1) 

32.5 

11.9 

(21.0) 

30.0 

7.3 

(16.4) 

25.5 

4.3 

(13.4) 

22.6 

22.3 

(27.6) 

33.0 

20.2 

(27.3) 

34.4 

14.4 

(22.9) 

31.4 

10.6 

(18.9) 

27.2 

8.1 

(16.5) 

24.9 

Table 2. Monthly and annual precipitation data (in mm.) for the physiographic provinces of Michoacán, Mexico. Localities and 

their elevation for each of the provinces are as follows: Coastal Plain (Lázaro Cárdenas, 50 m); Sierra Madre del Sur (Coalcomán 

de Vázquez Pallares, 1,100 m); Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression (Apatzingán, 320 m); Transverse Volcanic Axis (Pátzcuaro, 2,035 

m); Central Plateau (Morelia, 1,915 m). The shaded area indicates the months of the rainy season. Data taken from Servicio 

Meteorológico Nacional, Michoacán (smn.cna.gob.mx/index). 

Physiographic Jan. Feb. March Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual 

Province 

Coastal Plain 7.5 0.4 1.0 0.0 17.0 240.4 269.0 257.0 374.2 150.1 23.7 34.0 1,374.3 

Balsas- 

Tepalcatepec 19.8 22.0 9.0 2.5 24.1 138.0 167.9 160.8 133.6 78.8 36.9 15.3 808.7 

Depression 

Sierra Madre del 33.7 42.8 24.8 7.8 37.2 272.2 284.1 258.0 225.7 166.8 93.0 42.1 1,488.2 

Sur 

Central Plateau 15.8 5.6 7.5 9.9 37.9 146.5 166.1 167.8 131.6 51.6 10.4 4.2 754.9 

Transverse 

Volcanic Axis 27.1 5.0 5.1 9.7 37.8 150.3 219.6 204.1 157.9 71.2 17.6 13.4 918.8 


135 



during this period ranges from 81.1% at Coalcomán in 

the Sierra Madre del Sur to 93.9% at Lázaro Cárdenas 

on the Coastal Plain (mean 86.9%). Generally, the driest 

month is April (except on the Central Plateau, where it 

is December) and the wettest month is July (except on 

the Central Plateau, where it is August). Annual precipitation 

is lowest on the Central Plateau, with 754.9 mm 

for the capital city of Morelia, and highest at Coalcomán 

in the Sierra Madre del Sur, with 1,488.2 mm (Table 2). 

Composition of the Herpetofauna 

Field surveys and a review of the published literature and 

databases yielded a total of 215 species of amphibians 

and reptiles for the state of Michoacán (54 amphibians, 

161 reptiles). Of the amphibians, 44 are anurans (81.1%, 

including the non-native Lithobates catesbeianus), nine 

are salamanders (17.0%), and one is a caecilian (1.9%). 

Of the 161 reptiles, 153 are squamates (95.0%, including 

the non-native Hemidactylus frenatus and Ramphotyphlops 

braminus), seven are turtles (4.4%), and one is a 

crocodylian (0.6%). The number of species occurring in 

Michoacán is 17.5% of the total for the Mexican herpetofauna 

(1,227 species; Wilson et al. 2013a,b; Table 3). 

Table 3. Composition of the amphibians and reptiles of Mexico 

and the state of Michoacán. In each column, the number to the 

left is that indicated in Wilson et al. (2013a,b) for the country 

of Mexico; the number to the right is that recorded in this study 

for the state of Michoacán. These numbers include the marine 

and non-native taxa. 

Taxa Families Genera Species 

Anura 11/9 35/19 237/44 

Caudata 4/2 15/2 139/9 

Gymnophiona 1/1 1/1 2/1 

Subtotals 16/12 51/22 378/54 

Squamata 31/21 139/68 798/153 

Testudines 9/4 18/5 48/7 

Crocodylia 2/1 2/1 3/1 

Subtotals 42/26 159/74 849/161 

Totals 58/38 210/96 1,227/215 

1. Families 

The herpetofauna of Michoacán (215 species) is classified 

in 38 families (65.5% of the number in Mexico), 

with the 54 species of amphibians in 12 of the 16 families 

known from the country (75.0%; Wilson et al. 2013a, 

b; Table 3). About one-half of the amphibian species are 

classified in one of three families (Hylidae, Ranidae, and 

Ambystomatidae). The 161 species of reptiles are classified 

in 26 families (including the family Gekkonidae, 

occupied by a single non-native species, H. frenatus, and 

the family Typhlopidae, occupied by a single non-native 

species, R. braminus), 61.9% of the 42 families found in 

Mexico (Wilson et al. 2013a; Table 3). One-half of the 

species of reptiles in the state are classified in one of three 

families (Phrynosomatidae, Colubridae, and Dipsadidae). 

2. Genera 

The herpetofauna of Michoacán is represented by 96 

genera (45.7% of the 210 known from Mexico; Wilson et 

al. 2013a,b), with the amphibians composed of 22 genera 

(43.1% of the 51 known from the country). The reptiles 

consist of 74 genera (46.5% of the country total of 159). 

The largest amphibian genera are Incilius (four species), 

Craugastor (five), Eleutherodactylus (five), Lithobates 

(11), and Ambystoma (seven). Together, these 32 species 

comprise 59.3% of the amphibians known from the state 

(Table 3). The most sizable reptilian genera are Sceloporus 

(16), Geophis (nine), Thamnophis (nine), Crotalus 

(eight), Aspidoscelis (seven), Phyllodactylus (five), 

Plestiodon (five), Coniophanes (five), and Leptodeira 

(five). These 69 species constitute 42.9% of the reptiles 

known from the state (Table 3). 

3. Species 

Mexico is home to 378 amphibian species, of which 

54 (14.3%) occur in Michoacán (Table 3). Anurans are 

better represented in the state (18.6% of 237 Mexican 

species) than salamanders (6.5% of 139). Only two caecilian 

species are known from Mexico, and one occurs 

in Michoacán (50.0%). Mexico also is inhabited by 849 

reptile species, of which 161 (19.0%) are found in Michoacán. 

Squamates are somewhat better represented in 

the state (19.2% of 798) than turtles (14.6% of 48). Only 

three crocodylian species occur in Mexico, and one is 

found in Michoacán (Table 3). 

Patterns of Physiographic Distribution 

We recognize five physiographic provinces in Michoacán 

(Fig. 1), and their herpetofaunal distribution is indicated 

in Table 4 and summarized by family in Table 5. 

Of the 215 species recorded from the state, 100 

(46.5%, 24 amphibians, 76 reptiles) are limited in distribution 

to a single physiographic province. In addition, 

64 (29.8%, 15 amphibians, 49 reptiles) are known 

from two provinces, 37 (17.2%, eight amphibians, 29 

reptiles) from three, 11 (5.1%, seven amphibians, four 

reptiles) from four, and only three (1.4%, 0 amphibians, 

three reptiles) from all five provinces (Table 4). In both 

amphibians and reptiles, the number of species steadily 

drops from the lowest to the highest occupancy figures. 

This distributional feature is significant to conservation 


136 



efforts, inasmuch as the more restricted their distribution 

the more difficult it will be to provide species with 

effective protective measures. This feature is obvious 

when examining the mean occupancy figure, which is 

2.0 for amphibians and 1.8 for reptiles, indicating that 

on average both groups occupy two or slightly fewer 

physiographic provinces. The three most broadly distributed 

species (i.e., occurring in all five provinces) all 

are reptiles and include the anole Anolis nebulosus, the 

whipsnake Masticophis mentovarius, and the mud turtle 

Kinosternon integrum (Table 4). The most broadly 

distributed amphibians all are anurans and include the 

following seven species: the toad Rhinella marina, the 

chirping frog Eleutherodactylus nitidus, the treefrogs 

Exerodonta smaragdina and Hyla arenicolor, the whitelipped 

frog Leptodactylus fragilis, the sheep frog Hypopachus 

variolosus, and the leopard frog Lithobates neovolcanicus 

(Table 4). 

Similar numbers of species have been recorded from 

the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression, the Sierra Madre 

del Sur, and the Transverse Volcanic Axis. A smaller 

number occupies the Coastal Plain and the smallest 

number is found on the Central Plateau. The distinction 

between the species numbers in the higher-species areas 

(Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression, Sierra Madre del Sur, 

and the Transvese Volcanic Axis) and the lower-species 

areas (Coastal Plain and Central Plateau) is more marked 

for amphibians than for reptiles (Table 5). 

Table 4. Distribution of the native and non-native amphibian and reptiles of Michoacán, Mexico, by physiographic province. 

Taxa 

Coastal 

Plain 

(COP) 

Balsas- 

Tepalcatepec 

Depression 

(BTD) 

Physiographic Provinces 

SierraMadre 

del Sur 

(SMS) 

Transverse 

Volcanic Axis 

(TVA) 

Central 

Plateau 

(CEP) 

Amphibia (54 species) 

Anura (44 species) 

Bufonidae (6 species) 

Anaxyrus compactilis + + 

Incilius marmoreus + + + 

Incilius occidentalis + + 

Incilius perplexus + + 

Incilius pisinnus + + 

Rhinella marina + + + + 

Craugastoridae (5 species) 

Craugastor augusti + + 

Craugastor hobartsmithi + 

Craugastor occidentalis + 

Craugastor pygmaeus + + + 

Craugastor vocalis + + + 

Eleutherodactylidae (5 species) 

Eleutherodactylus angustidigitorum + 

Eleutherodactylus maurus + 

Eleutherodactylus modestus + 

Eleutherodactylus nitidus + + + + 

Eleutherodactylus rufescens + 

Hylidae (11 species) 

Agalychnis dacnicolor + + + 

Diaglena spatulata + + 

Exerodonta smaragdina + + + + 

Hyla arenicolor + + + + 

Hyla eximia + + 


137 



Hyla plicata + 

Plectrohyla bistincta + + 

Smilisca baudinii + + + 

Smilisca fodiens + + 

Tlalocohyla smithii + + + 

Trachycephalus typhonius + 

Leptodactylidae (2 species) 

Leptodactylus fragilis + + + + 

Leptodactylus melanonotus + + + 

Microhylidae (2 species) 

Hypopachus ustus + 

Hypopachus variolosus + + + + 

Ranidae (11 species) 

Lithobates berlandieri + 

Lithobates catesbeianus + 

Lithobates dunni + 

Lithobates forreri + + 

Lithobates magnaocularis + 

Lithobates megapoda + + 

Lithobates montezumae + + 

Lithobates neovolcanicus + + + + 

Lithobates pustulosus + + + 

Lithobates spectabilis + 

Lithobates zweifeli + + 

Rhinophrynidae (1 species) 

Rhinophrynus dorsalis + 

Scaphiopodidae (1 species) 

Spea multiplicata + + 

Caudata (9 species) 

Ambystomatidae (6 species) 

Ambystoma amblycephalum + 

Ambystoma andersoni + 

Ambystoma dumerilii + 

Ambystoma ordinarium + 

Ambystoma rivulare + 

Ambystoma velasci + 

Plethodontidae (3 species) 

Pseudoeurycea bellii + 

Pseudoeurycea leprosa + 

Pseudoeurycea longicauda + 

Gymnophiona (1 species) 

Caeciliidae (1 species) 

Dermophis oaxacae + + 

Reptilia (161 species) 

Crocodylia (1 species) 

Crocodylidae (1 species) 

Crocodylus acutus + 


138 



Squamata (153 species) 

Bipedidae (1 species) 

Bipes canaliculatus + 

Anguidae (6 species) 

Abronia deppii + 

Barisia imbricata + 

Barisia jonesi + 

Barisia rudicollis + 

Elgaria kingii + 

Gerrhonotus liocephalus + 

Corytophanidae (1 species) 

Basiliscus vittatus + + + 

Dactyloidae (2 species) 

Anolis dunni + + 

Anolis nebulosus + + + + + 

Eublepharidae (1 species) 

Coleonyx elegans + + 

Gekkonidae (1 species) 

Hemidactylus frenatus + + + 

Helodermatidae (1 species) 

Heloderma horridum + + + 

Iguanidae (3 species) 

Ctenosaura clarki + 

Ctenosaura pectinata + + + 

Iguana iguana + + + 

Mabuyidae (1 species) 

Marisora brachypoda + + 

Phrynosomatidae (20 species) 

Phrynosoma asio + + 

Phrynosoma orbiculare + 

Sceloporus aeneus + 

Sceloporus asper + + + 

Sceloporus bulleri + 

Sceloporus dugesii + + 

Sceloporus gadoviae + + 

Sceloporus grammicus + 

Sceloporus heterolepis + + 

Sceloporus horridus + + + + 

Sceloporus insignis + 

Sceloporus melanorhinus + + + 

Sceloporus pyrocephalus + + + 

Sceloporus scalaris + + 

Sceloporus siniferus + + 

Sceloporus spinosus + + 

Sceloporus torquatus + + 

Sceloporus utiformis + + + + 

Urosaurus bicarinatus + + + + 


139 



Urosaurus gadovi + + 

Phyllodactylidae (5 species) 

Phyllodactylus davisi + 

Phyllodactylus duellmani + + 

Phyllodactylus homolepidurus + 

Phyllodactylus lanei + + + + 

Phyllodactylus paucituberculatus + 

Scincidae (6 species) 

Mesoscincus altamirani + + 

Plestiodon colimensis + + 

Plestiodon copei + 

Plestiodon dugesii + 

Plestiodon indubitus + + 

Plestiodon parvulus + 

Sphenomorphidae (1 species) 

Scincella assata + + + 

Teiidae (8 species) 

Aspidoscelis calidipes + + 

Aspidoscelis communis + + + 

Aspidoscelis costata + + 

Aspidoscelis deppei + + + 

Aspidoscelis gularis + + 

Aspidoscelis lineatissima + + + 

Aspidoscelis sacki + 

Holcosus undulatus + + + 

Xantusiidae (1 species) 

Lepidophyma tarascae + + 

Boidae (1 species) 

Boa constrictor + + + 

Colubridae (28 species) 

Conopsis biserialis + 

Conopsis lineatus + + 

Conopsis nasus + 

Drymarchon melanurus + + + 

Drymobius margaritiferus + + + 

Geagras redimitus + 

Gyalopion canum + 

Lampropeltis ruthveni + 

Lampropeltis triangulum + 

Leptophis diplotropis + + + 

Masticophis flagellum + + 

Masticophis mentovarius + + + + + 

Masticophis taeniatus + + 

Mastigodryas melanolomus + + 

Oxybelis aeneus + + + 

Pituophis deppei + + 


140 



Pituophis lineaticollis + + 

Pseudoficimia frontalis + + + 

Salvadora bairdi + + 

Salvadora mexicana + + 

Senticolis triaspis + + 

Sonora michoacanensis + + 

Symphimus leucostomus + 

Tantilla bocourti + 

Tantilla calamarina + + + 

Tantilla cascadae + 

Trimorphodon biscutatus + + + 

Trimorphodon tau + + + 

Dipsadidae (33 species) 

Coniophanes fissidens + + 

Coniophanes lateritius + + 

Coniophanes michoacanensis + 

Coniophanes piceivittis + 

Coniophanes sarae + 

Diadophis punctatus + 

Dipsas gaigeae + 

Enulius flavitorques + + 

Enulius oligostichus + 

Geophis bicolor + 

Geophis dugesii + 

Geophis incomptus + 

Geophis maculiferus + 

Geophis nigrocinctus + 

Geophis petersii + + 

Geophis pyburni + 

Geophis sieboldi + 

Geophis tarascae + 

Hypsiglena torquata + + 

Imantodes gemmistratus + 

Leptodeira maculata + + + 

Leptodeira nigrofasciata + 

Leptodeira septentrionalis + 

Leptodeira splendida + + + 

Leptodeira uribei + 

Pseudoleptodeira latifasciata + + 

Rhadinaea hesperia + + 

Rhadinaea laureata + 

Rhadinaea taeniata + 

Sibon nebulata + + 

Tropidodipsas annulifera + 

Tropidodipsas fasciata + 

Tropidodipsas philippii + + 


141 



Elapidae (4 species) 

Micrurus distans + + 

Micrurus laticollaris + 

Micrurus tener + 

Pelamis platura + 

Leptotyphlopidae (4 species) 

Epictia goudotii + + 

Rena bressoni + 

Rena humilis + 

Rena maxima + 

Loxocemidae (1 species) 

Loxocemus bicolor + + 

Natricidae (11 species) 

Adelophis copei + 

Storeria storerioides + + 

Thamnophis cyrtopsis + + 

Thamnophis eques + + 

Thamnophis melanogaster + 

Thamnophis postremus + 

Thamnophis proximus + 

Thamnophis pulchrilatus + 

Thamnophis scalaris + 

Thamnophis scaliger + + 

Thamnophis validus + 

Typhlopidae (1 species) 

Ramphotyphlops braminus + + + 

Viperidae (10 species) 

Agkistrodon bilineatus + + + 

Crotalus aquilus + 

Crotalus basiliscus + + + 

Crotalus culminatus + 

Crotalus molossus + 

Crotalus polystictus + 

Crotalus pusillus + + 

Crotalus tancitarensis + 

Crotalus triseriatus + 

Porthidium hespere + 

Xenodontidae (2 species) 

Conophis vittatus + + + 

Manolepis putnami + + 

Testudines (7 species) 

Cheloniidae (2 species) 

Chelonia mydas + 

Lepidochelys olivacea + 

Dermochelyidae (1 species) 

Dermochelys coriacea + 


142 



Geoemydidae (2 species) 

Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima + 

Rhinoclemmys rubida + + + 

Kinosternidae (2 species) 

Kinosternon hirtipes + + 

Kinosternon integrum + + + + + 

Table 5. Summary of the distributional occurrence of families of amphibians and reptiles in Michoacán by physiographic province. 

Families 

Number 

of 

Species 

Coastal 

Plain 

(COP) 

Balsas- 

Tepalcatepec 

Depression 

(BTD) 

Distributional Occurrence 

Sierra Madre 

del Sur 

(SMS) 

Transverse 

Volcanic Axis 

(TVA) 

Central 

Plateau 

(CEP) 

Bufonidae 6 2 4 5 2 2 

Craugastoridae 5 — 2 3 5 — 

Eleutherodactylidae 5 — 2 3 2 1 

Hylidae 11 5 7 6 5 4 

Leptodactylidae 2 2 2 2 1 — 

Microhylidae 2 1 1 1 1 1 

Ranidae 11 — 6 4 7 3 

Rhinophrynidae 1 — 1 — — — 

Scaphiopodidae 1 — — — 1 1 

Subtotals 44 10 25 24 24 12 

Ambystomatidae 6 — — — 6 — 

Plethodontidae 3 — — — 3 — 

Subtotals 9 — — — 9 — 

Caeciliidae 1 1 — — 1 — 

Subtotals 1 1 — — 1 — 

Totals 54 11 25 24 34 12 

Crocodylidae 1 1 — — — — 

Subtotals 1 1 — — — — 

Cheloniidae 2 2 — — — — 

Dermochelyidae 1 1 — — — — 

Geoemydidae 2 2 1 1 — — 

Kinosternidae 2 1 1 1 2 2 

Subtotals 7 6 2 2 2 2 

Bipedidae 1 — 1 — — — 

Anguidae 6 — — 2 4 — 

Corytophanidae 1 1 1 1 — — 

Dactyloidae 2 1 2 2 1 1 

Eublepharidae 1 1 1 — — — 

Gekkonidae 1 1 1 1 — — 

Helodermatidae 1 1 1 1 — — 

Iguanidae 3 2 3 2 — — 

Mabuyidae 1 1 1 — — — 

Phrynosomatidae 20 6 9 13 12 4 


143 



Phyllodactylidae 5 3 3 2 1 — 

Scincidae 6 2 1 3 3 — 

Sphenomorphidae 1 1 1 1 — — 

Teiidae 8 4 7 6 1 1 

Xantusiidae 1 1 1 — — — 

Subtotals 58 25 33 34 22 6 

Boidae 1 1 1 1 — — 

Colubridae 28 11 13 13 15 6 

Dipsadidae 33 8 10 19 9 — 

Elapidae 4 1 2 1 1 — 

Leptotyphlopidae 4 — 4 1 — — 

Loxocemidae 1 — 1 1 — — 

Natricidae 11 2 1 2 7 3 

Typhlopidae 1 — 1 1 1 — 

Viperidae 10 3 3 3 6 — 

Xenodontidae 2 2 2 1 — — 

Subtotals 95 28 38 43 39 9 

Totals 161 60 73 79 63 17 

Sum Totals 215 71 98 103 97 29 

Anurans are more broadly represented in the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression, where 25 species classified in all but 

one of the nine families occurring in the state are found. These anurans are represented most narrowly on the Coastal 

Plectrohyla bistincta. The Mexican fringe-limbed treefrog is 

distributed from Durango and Veracruz southward to México 

and Oaxaca. Its EVS has been assessed as 9, placing at the 

upper end of the low vulnerability category, this species 

is considered as Least Concern by IUCN, and as a Special 

Protection species by SEMARNAT. This individual came from 

San José de las Torres, near Morelia, in Michoacán. 


Plain, where only 10 species assigned to four families 

occur. One or more species in the families Bufonidae, 

Hylidae, and Microhylidae are distributed in each of the 

five provinces (Table 5). As expected, the family Hylidae 

is best represented in each of the provinces except for 

the Transverse Volcanic Axis, where more ranids (seven 

species) than hylids (five) occur. All nine species of 

salamanders are limited in occurrence to the Transverse 

Volcanic Axis and the single caecilian to the Transverse 

Volcanic Axis and the Coastal Plain (Table 5). 

Lizards are best represented in the Sierra Madre del 

Sur, with 34 species, but the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression 

falls only one behind, with 33 (Table 5). Both 

of these figures comprise more than one-half of the 58 

species of lizards known from the state. Fewer than onehalf 

of this number occurs on the Coastal Plain (25) and 

the Transverse Volcanic Axis (22). Only a few species 

(six) occur on the Central Plateau. In the families Dactyloidae, 

Phrynosomatidae, and Teiidae, one or more species 

is distributed in each of the five provinces (Table 5). 

Due to the size of the Phrynosomatidae in Michoacán 

(20 species), this family is the best represented in each 

of the provinces. Several lizard families are represented 

by a single species in each of the provinces, but only 

one with a single species (the Bipedidae) is limited to a 

single province (Table 5). 

The largest number of snake species is known from 

the Sierra Madre del Sur, with 43 species. Fewer numbers 

are found in the Transverse Volcanic Axis (39), Balsas-Tepalcatepec 

Depression (38), Coastal Plain (28), 

and the Central Plateau (nine). One or more representatives 

of only two snake families, the Colubridae and 

Natricidae, are found in each of the five provinces (Table 

5). Interestingly, although the Colubridae in Michoacán 

is represented by five fewer species than the Dipsadidae, 

it is the best-represented family in all of the provinces 

except for the Sierra Madre del Sur, in which the Dip- 


144 



Ambystoma velasci. The plateau tiger salamander is found along the Transverse Volcanic Axis in Michoacán and elsewhere, thence 

northward into both the Sierra Madre Occidental to northwestern Chihuahua and the Sierra Madre Oriental to southern Nuevo 

León. Its EVS has been assigned a value of 10, placing it at the lower end of the medium vulnerability category, its status has been 

judged as Least Concern by IUCN, and it is considered a Special Protection species by SEMARNAT. This individual came from 

Los Azufres, in the Tranverse Volcanic Axis. Photo by Javier Alvarado-Díaz. 

sadidae is the best represented. Only three snake families 

are represented by a single species (including the 

Typhlopidae, containing the non-native blindsnake Ramphotyphlops 

braminus), but in all three cases they occur 

in two or three provinces (Table 5). 

Relatively few species of turtles have been recorded 

in Michoacán, and given that three of the seven are sea 

turtles, most of them (six) are known from the Coastal 

Plain (obviously, sea turtles come on land for egg deposition). 

Only two species of the families Geoemydidae 

and/or Kinosternidae are found in the remaining four 

provinces (Table 5). The single crocodylian species is 

found only in the Coastal Plain (Table 5). 

We constructed a Coefficient of Biogeographic Resemblance 

(CBR) matrix to examine the herpetofaunal 

relationships among the five physiographic provinces 

(Table 6). The data in this table demonstrate that the 

greatest degree of resemblance (74 species shared, CBR 

value of 0.74) occurs between the Balsas-Tepalcatepec 

Depression and the Sierra Madre del Sur (Table 6). 

Whereas this fact might be considered counterintuitive, 

given the elevational distinction between the two areas, 

these two provinces broadly contact one another along 

the northern and eastern face of the mountain mass (Fig. 

1). A greater degree of resemblance might be expected 

between the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression and the 

Coastal Plain, inasmuch as these are relatively low-elevation 

areas, but they only contact one another where 

the Río Balsas flows onto the coastal plain prior to entering 

the Pacific Ocean. As a consequence, these two 

provinces share only 44 species and their CBR value is 

0.52 (Table 6). Nonetheless, these values are the highest 

that the Coastal Plain shares with any of the other four 

provinces, with the exception of the Sierra Madre del Sur 

(44 species and 0.51). For a similar reason, it might be 

expected that the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression would 

share a relatively large number of species with the Transverse 

Volcanic Axis to the north, but this is not the case. 

Only 21 species are shared and the CBR value is only 

0.22 (Table 6). 

One might also presume that the Transverse Volcanic 

Axis and the Sierra Madre del Sur would share a sizable 

number of montane-distributed species, but the two 

provinces only share 29 species and their CBR value is 

0.29. The Central Plateau is adjacent to the Transverse 

Volcanic Axis and the data in Table 6 demonstrate that 


145 



Table 6. CBR matrix of herpetofaunal relationships for the five physiographic provinces in Michoacán. N = species in each 

province; N = species in common between two provinces; N = Coefficients of Biogeographic Resemblance. The formula for this 

algorithm is CBR = 2C/N1 + N2, where C is the number of species in common to both provinces, N1 is the number of species in 

the first province, and N2 is the number of species in the second province. 

COP BTD SMS TVA CEP 

COP 71 44 44 9 4 

BTD 0.52 98 74 21 11 

SMS 0.51 0.74 103 29 9 

TVA 0.11 0.22 0.29 97 26 

CEP 0.08 0.17 0.14 0.41 29 

26 of the 29 species found in the Central Plateau also are 

recorded from the Transverse Volcanic Axis, but because 

of the disparity in the size of their respective herpetofaunas 

their CBR value is only 0.41. Nonetheless, this 

is the Central Plateau’s greatest degree of resemblance 

with any of the other four provinces. 

As opposed to species shared between or among 

physiographic provinces, the distribution of some species 

is confined to a single province (Table 4), although 

sometimes these are more broadly distributed outside the 

state. In the Coastal Plain, the following 22 species are 

involved: 

Trachycephalus typhonius 

Hypopachus ustus 

Crocodylus acutus 

Phyllodactylus davisi 

Phyllodactylus homolepidurus 

Plestiodon parvulus 

Geagras redimitus 

Symphimus leucostomus 

Coniophanes michoacanensis 

Coniophanes piceivittis 

Enulius oligostichus 

Leptodeira nigrofasciata 

Leptodeira uribei 

Pelamis platura 

Thamnophis proximus 

Thamnophis validus 

Porthidium hespere 

Plestiodon parvulus 

Chelonia mydas 

Lepidochelys olivacea 

Dermochelys coriacea 

Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima 

In the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression, the following 

16 species are confined to this province: 

Eleutherodactylus maurus 

Lithobates berlandieri 

Lithobates magnaocularis 

Rhinophrynus dorsalis 

Bipes canaliculatus 

Ctenosaura clarki 

Phyllodactylus paucituberculatus 

Aspidoscelis sacki 

Imantodes gemmistratus 

Leptodeira septentrionalis 

Micrurus laticollaris 

Rena bressoni 

Rena humilis 

Rena maxima 

Thamnophis postremus 

Crotalus culminatus 

The following 14 species are limited to the Sierra 

Madre del Sur, within the state: 

Eleutherodactylus modestus 

Eleutherodactylus rufescens 

Barisia jonesi 

Elgaria kingii 

Sceloporus bulleri 

Sceloporus insignis 

Coniophanes sarae 

Dipsas gaigeae 

Geophis incomptus 

Geophis nigrocinctus 

Geophis pyburni 

Geophis sieboldi 

Tropidodipsas annulifera 

Tropidodipsas fasciata 

The herpetofauna of the Transverse Volcanic Axis in 

Michoacán contains the following 47 single-province 

species (Lithobates catesbeianus, a non-native species, 

is not listed): 

Craugastor hobartsmithi 

Craugastor occidentalis 

Eleutherodactylus angustidigitorum 

Hyla plicata 

Lithobates dunni 

Lithobates spectabilis 

Ambystoma amblycephalum 

Ambystoma andersoni 


146 



Ambystoma dumerilii 

Ambystoma ordinarium 

Ambystoma rivulare 

Ambystoma velasci 

Pseudoeurycea bellii 

Pseudoeurycea leprosa 

Pseudoeurycea longicauda 

Abronia deppii 

Barisia imbricata 

Barisia rudicollis 

Gerrhonotus liocephalus 

Phrynosoma orbiculare 

Sceloporus aeneus 

Sceloporus grammicus 

Plestiodon copei 

Plestiodon dugesii 

Conopsis biserialis 

Conopsis nasus 

Gyalopion canum 

Lampropeltis ruthveni 

Lampropeltis triangulum 

Tantilla bocourti 

Tantilla cascadae 

Diadophis punctatus 

Geophis bicolor 

Geophis dugesii 

Geophis maculiferus 

Geophis tarascae 

Rhadinaea laureata 

Rhadinaea taeniata 

Micrurus tener 

Thamnophis melanogaster 

Thamnophis pulchrilatus 

Thamnophis scalaris 

Crotalus aquilus 

Crotalus molossus 

Crotalus polystictus 

Crotalus tancitarensis 

Crotalus triseriatus 

Finally, the Central Plateau herpetofauna includes 

only one species limited to this province, as follows: 

Adelophis copei 

In total, of the 212 native species, 100 (47.2%) are 

confined to a single physiographic province within the 

state. Organizing these single-province species by their 

distributional status (Table 7) indicates the following 

(listed in order of state endemics, country endemics, and 

non-endemic species): Coastal plain (22 total species) 

= 1 (4.5%), 10 (45.5%), 11 (50.0%); Balsas-Tepalcate- 

Pseudoeurycea bellii. Bell’s false brook salamander occurs from southern Tamaulipas and southern Nayarit southward to Tlaxcala 

and Guerrero, Mexico, with a disjunct population found in east-central Sonora and adjacent Chihuahua. Its EVS has been gauged 

as 12, placing it in the upper portion of the medium vulnerability category, its status has been judged as Vulnerable by IUCN, and it 

is regarded as Threatened by SEMARNAT. This individual was found and photographed on Cerro Tancítaro, Michoacán. 



147 



pec Depression (16 species) = 3 (18.8%), 7 (43.8%), 6 

(37.4%); Sierra Madre del Sur (14 species) = 5 (35.7%), 8 

(57.2%), 1 (7.1%); Transverse Volcanic Axis = 8 (17.0%), 

32 (68.1%), 7 (14.9%); Central Plateau = 0 (0.0%), 1 

(100%), 0 (0.0%). Most of these single-province species 

are country-level endemics (58 [58.0%]); and the remaining 

are non-endemics (25 [25.0%]) or state-level endemics 

(17 [17.0%]). 

Conservation Status 

system), another developed for use in Central America 

(the EVS system, Wilson and Johnson 2010) and later 

applied to Mexico (Wilson et al. 2013a,b), and a third 

developed for use on a global basis (the IUCN system). 

We discuss the application of these systems to the herpetofauna 

of Michoacán below. 

We employed three systems in creating a comprehensive 

view of the conservation status of the amphibians and reptiles 

of Michoacán (see Materials and Methods), of which 

one was developed for use in Mexico (the SEMARNAT 

Table 7. Distributional and conservation status measures for members of the herpetofauna of Michoacán, Mexico. Distributional 

Status: SE = endemic to state of Michoacán; CE = endemic to country of Mexico; NE = not endemic to state or country; NN 

= non-native. Environmental Vulnerability Score (taken from Wilson et al. 2013a,b): low vulnerability species (EVS of 3–9); 

medium vulnerability species (EVS of 10–13); high vulnerability species (EVS of 14–20). IUCN Categorization: CR = Critically 

Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern; DD = Data Deficient; NE = 

Not Evaluated. SEMARNAT Status: A = Threatened; P = Endangered; Pr = Special Protection; NS = No Status. See text for 

explanations of the EVS, IUCN, and SEMARNAT rating systems. 

Taxa 

Distributional 

Status 

Environmental 

Vulnerability 

Score 

IUCN 

Categorization 

SEMARNAT 

Status 

Amphibia (54 species) 

Anura (44 species) 

Bufonidae (6 species) 

Anaxyrus compactilis CE 14 LC NS 

Incilius marmoreus CE 11 LC NS 

Incilius occidentalis CE 11 LC NS 

Incilius perplexus CE 11 EN NS 

Incilius pisinnus SE 15 DD NS 

Rhinella marina NE 3 LC NS 

Craugastoridae (5 species) 

Craugastor augusti NE 8 LC NS 

Craugastor hobartsmithi CE 15 EN NS 

Craugastor occidentalis CE 13 DD NS 

Craugastor pygmaeus NE 9 VU NS 

Craugastor vocalis CE 13 LC NS 

Eleutherodactylidae (5 species) 

Eleutherodactylus angustidigitorum SE 17 VU Pr 

Eleutherodactylus maurus CE 17 DD Pr 

Eleutherodactylus modestus CE 16 VU Pr 

Eleutherodactylus nitidus CE 12 LC NS 

Eleutherodactylus rufescens SE 17 CR Pr 

Hylidae (11 species) 

Agalychnis dacnicolor CE 13 LC NS 

Diaglena spatulata CE 13 LC NS 


148 



Exerodonta smaragdina CE 12 LC Pr 

Hyla arenicolor NE 7 LC NS 

Hyla eximia NE 10 LC NS 

Hyla plicata CE 11 LC A 

Plectrohyla bistincta CE 9 LC Pr 

Smilisca baudinii NE 3 LC NS 

Smilisca fodiens NE 8 LC NS 

Tlalocohyla smithii CE 11 LC NS 

Trachycephalus typhonius NE 4 LC NS 

Leptodactylidae (2 species) 

Leptodactylus fragilis NE 5 LC NS 

Leptodactylus melanonotus NE 6 LC NS 

Microhylidae (2 species) 

Hypopachus ustus NE 7 LC Pr 

Hypopachus variolosus NE 4 LC NS 

Ranidae (11 species) 

Lithobates berlandieri NE 7 LC Pr 

Lithobates catesbeianus NN — — — 

Lithobates dunni SE 14 EN Pr 

Lithobates forreri NE 3 LC Pr 

Lithobates magnaocularis CE 12 LC NS 

Lithobates megapoda CE 14 VU Pr 

Lithobates montezumae CE 13 LC Pr 

Lithobates neovolcanicus CE 13 NT A 

Lithobates pustulosus CE 9 LC Pr 

Lithobates spectabilis CE 12 LC NS 

Lithobates zweifeli CE 11 LC NS 

Rhinophrynidae (1 species) 

Rhinophrynus dorsalis NE 8 LC Pr 

Scaphiopodidae (1 species) 

Spea multiplicata NE 6 LC NS 

Caudata (9 species) 

Ambystomatidae (6 species) 

Ambystoma amblycephalum SE 13 CR Pr 

Ambystoma andersoni SE 15 CR Pr 

Ambystoma dumerilii SE 15 CR Pr 

Ambystoma ordinarium CE 13 EN Pr 

Ambystoma rivulare CE 13 DD A 

Ambystoma velasci CE 10 LC Pr 

Plethodontidae (3 species) 

Pseudoeurycea bellii CE 12 VU A 

Pseudoeurycea leprosa CE 16 VU A 

Pseudoeurycea longicauda CE 17 EN Pr 

Gymnophiona (1 species) 

Caeciliidae (1 species) 

Dermophis oaxacae CE 12 DD Pr 

Reptilia (161 species) 


149 



Crocodylia (1 species) 

Crocodylidae (1 species) 

Crocodylus acutus NE 14 VU Pr 

Squamata (153 species) 

Bipedidae (1 species) 

Bipes canaliculatus CE 12 LC Pr 

Anguidae (6 species) 

Abronia deppii CE 16 EN A 

Barisia imbricata CE 14 LC Pr 

Barisia jonesi SE 16 NE NS 

Barisia rudicollis CE 15 EN P 

Elgaria kingii NE 10 LC Pr 

Gerrhonotus liocephalus NE 6 LC Pr 

Corytophanidae (1 species) 

Basiliscus vittatus NE 7 NE NS 

Dactyloidae (2 species) 

Anolis dunni CE 16 LC A 

Anolis nebulosus CE 13 LC NS 

Eublepharidae (1 species) 

Coleonyx elegans NE 9 NE A 

Gekkonidae (1 species) 

Hemidactylus frenatus NN — — — 

Helodermatidae (1 species) 

Heloderma horridum NE 11 LC A 

Iguanidae (3 species) 

Ctenosaura clarki CE 15 VU A 

Ctenosaura pectinata CE 15 NE A 

Iguana iguana NE 12 NE Pr 

Mabuyidae (1 species) 

Marisora brachypoda NE 6 NE NS 

Phrynosomatidae (20 species) 

Phrynosoma asio NE 11 NE Pr 

Phrynosoma orbiculare CE 12 LC A 

Sceloporus aeneus CE 13 LC NS 

Sceloporus asper CE 14 LC Pr 

Sceloporus bulleri CE 15 LC NS 

Sceloporus dugesii CE 13 LC NS 

Sceloporus gadoviae CE 11 LC NS 

Sceloporus grammicus NE 9 LC Pr 

Sceloporus heterolepis CE 14 LC NS 

Sceloporus horridus CE 11 LC NS 

Sceloporus insignis CE 16 LC Pr 

Sceloporus melanorhinus NE 9 LC NS 

Sceloporus pyrocephalus CE 12 LC NS 

Sceloporus scalaris NE 12 LC NS 

Sceloporus siniferus NE 11 LC NS 

Sceloporus spinosus CE 12 LC NS 


150 



Sceloporus torquatus CE 11 LC NS 

Sceloporus utiformis CE 15 LC NS 

Urosaurus bicarinatus CE 12 LC NS 

Urosaurus gadovi CE 12 LC NS 

Phyllodactylidae (5 species) 

Phyllodactylus davisi CE 16 LC A 

Phyllodactylus duellmani SE 16 LC Pr 

Phyllodactylus homolepidurus CE 15 LC Pr 

Phyllodactylus lanei CE 15 LC NS 

Phyllodactylus paucituberculatus SE 16 DD A 

Scincidae (6 species) 

Mesoscincus altamirani CE 14 DD Pr 

Plestiodon colimensis CE 14 DD Pr 

Plestiodon copei CE 14 LC Pr 

Plestiodon dugesii CE 16 VU Pr 

Plestiodon indubitus CE 15 LC NS 

Plestiodon parvulus CE 15 DD NS 

Sphenomorphidae (1 species) 

Sphenomorphus assatus NE 7 NE NS 

Teiidae (8 species) 

Aspidoscelis calidipes SE 14 LC Pr 

Aspidoscelis communis CE 14 LC Pr 

Aspidoscelis costata CE 11 LC Pr 

Aspidoscelis deppei NE 8 LC NS 

Aspidoscelis gularis NE 9 LC NS 

Aspidoscelis lineatissima CE 14 LC Pr 

Aspidoscelis sacki CE 14 LC NS 

Holcosus undulatus NE 7 NE NS 

Xantusiidae (1 species) 

Lepidophyma tarascae CE 14 DD A 

Boidae (1 species) 

Boa constrictor NE 10 NE A 

Colubridae (28 species) 

Conopsis biserialis CE 13 LC A 

Conopsis lineata CE 13 LC NS 

Conopsis nasus CE 11 LC NS 

Drymarchon melanurus NE 6 LC NS 

Drymobius margaritiferus NE 6 NE NS 

Geagras redimitus CE 14 DD Pr 

Gyalopion canum NE 9 LC NS 

Lampropeltis ruthveni CE 16 NT A 

Lampropeltis triangulum NE 7 NE A 

Leptophis diplotropis CE 14 LC A 

Masticophis flagellum NE 8 LC A 

Masticophis mentovarius NE 6 NE A 

Masticophis taeniatus NE 10 LC NS 

Mastigodryas melanolomus NE 6 LC NS 


151 



Oxybelis aeneus NE 5 NE NS 

Pituophis deppei CE 14 LC A 

Pituophis lineaticollis NE 8 LC NS 

Pseudoficimia frontalis CE 13 LC Pr 

Salvadora bairdi CE 15 LC Pr 

Salvadora mexicana CE 15 LC Pr 

Senticolis triaspis NE 6 NE NS 

Sonora michoacanensis CE 14 LC NS 

Symphimus leucostomus CE 14 LC Pr 

Tantilla bocourti CE 9 LC NS 

Tantilla calamarina CE 12 LC Pr 

Tantilla cascadae SE 16 DD A 

Trimorphodon biscutatus NE 7 NE NS 

Trimorphodon tau CE 13 LC NS 

Dipsadidae (33 species) 

Coniophanes fissidens NE 7 NE NS 

Coniophanes lateritius CE 13 DD NS 

Coniophanes michoacanensis SE 17 NE NS 

Coniophanes piceivittis NE 7 LC NS 

Coniophanes sarae SE 16 DD NS 

Diadophis punctatus NE 4 LC NS 

Dipsas gaigeae CE 17 LC Pr 

Enulius flavitorques NE 5 NE NS 

Enulius oligostichus CE 15 DD Pr 

Geophis bicolor CE 15 DD Pr 

Geophis dugesii CE 13 LC NS 

Geophis incomptus SE 16 DD Pr 

Geophis maculiferus SE 16 DD Pr 

Geophis nigrocinctus CE 15 DD Pr 

Geophis petersii CE 15 DD Pr 

Geophis pyburni SE 16 DD Pr 

Geophis sieboldi CE 13 DD Pr 

Geophis tarascae CE 15 DD Pr 

Hypsiglena torquata NE 8 LC Pr 

Imantodes gemmistratus NE 6 NE Pr 

Leptodeira maculata CE 7 LC Pr 

Leptodeira nigrofasciata NE 8 LC NS 

Leptodeira septentrionalis NE 8 NE NS 

Leptodeira splendida CE 14 LC NS 

Leptodeira uribei CE 17 LC Pr 

Pseudoleptodeira latifasciata CE 14 LC Pr 

Rhadinaea hesperia CE 10 LC Pr 

Rhadinaea laureata CE 12 LC NS 

Rhadinaea taeniata CE 13 LC NS 

Sibon nebulatus NE 5 NE NS 

Tropidodipsas annulifera CE 13 LC Pr 

Tropidodipsas fasciata CE 13 NE NS 


152 



Tropidodipsas philippii CE 14 LC Pr 

Elapidae (4 species) 

Micrurus distans CE 14 LC Pr 

Micrurus laticollaris CE 14 LC Pr 

Micrurus tener NE 11 LC NS 

Pelamis platura NE — LC NS 

Leptotyphlopidae (4 species) 

Epictia goudotii NE 3 NE NS 

Rena bressoni SE 14 DD Pr 

Rena humilis NE 8 LC NS 

Rena maxima CE 11 LC NS 

Loxocemidae (1 species) 

Loxocemus bicolor NE 10 NE Pr 

Natricidae (11 species) 

Adelophis copei CE 15 VU Pr 

Storeria storerioides CE 11 LC NS 

Thamnophis cyrtopsis NE 7 LC A 

Thamnophis eques NE 8 LC A 

Thamnophis melanogaster CE 15 EN A 

Thamnophis postremus SE 15 LC NS 

Thamnophis proximus NE 7 NE NS 

Thamnophis pulchrilatus CE 15 LC NS 

Thamnophis scalaris CE 14 LC A 

Thamnophis scaliger CE 15 VU A 

Thamnophis validus CE 12 LC NS 

Typhlopidae (1 species) 

Ramphotyphlops braminus NN — — — 

Viperidae (10 species) 

Agkistrodon bilineatus NE 11 NT Pr 

Crotalus aquilus CE 16 LC Pr 

Crotalus basiliscus CE 16 LC Pr 

Crotalus culminatus CE 15 NE NS 

Crotalus molossus NE 8 LC Pr 

Crotalus polystictus CE 16 LC Pr 

Crotalus pusillus CE 18 EN A 

Crotalus tancitarensis SE 19 DD NS 

Crotalus triseriatus CE 16 LC NS 

Porthidium hespere CE 18 DD Pr 

Xenodontidae (2 species) 

Conophis vittatus CE 11 LC NS 

Manolepis putnami CE 13 LC NS 

Testudines (7 species) 

Cheloniidae (2 species) 

Chelonia mydas NE — EN P 

Lepidochelys olivacea NE — VU P 

Dermochelyidae (1 species) 

Dermochelys coriacea NE — CR P 


153 



Geoemydidae (2 species) 

Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima NE 8 NE A 

Rhinoclemmys rubida CE 14 NT Pr 

Kinosternidae (2 species) 

Kinosternon hirtipes NE 10 LC Pr 

Kinosternon integrum CE 11 LC Pr 

Pseudoeurycea leprosa. The leprous false brook salamander occurs in Veracruz, Puebla, Distrito Federal, México, Morelos, 

Guerrero, and Oaxaca. Its EVS has been judged as 16, placing it in the middle of the high vulnerability category, IUCN has assessed 

this species as Vulnerable, and it is considered as Threatened by SEMARNAT. This individual was encountered on Cerro Cacique, 

near Zitacuaro, in Michoacán. Photo by Oscar Medina-Aguilar. 

Abronia deppii. Deppe’s arboreal alligator lizard is found in the mountains of the Transverse Volcanic Axis in Michoacán, México, 

and Jalisco. Its EVS has been judged as 16, placing it in the middle of the high vulnerability category, IUCN considers this species 

as Endangered, and it has been provided a Threatened status by SEMARNAT. This individual came from San José de las Torres, 

near Morelia, in Michoacán. Photo by Javier Alvarado-Díaz. 


154 



Barisia imbricata. In Michoacán, the imbricate alligator lizard occurs in the Transverse Volcanic Axis. The systematics of this 

species, however, is currently in flux, and based on indications in recent molecular work this taxon likely will be divided into a 

number of species. Its EVS has been estimated as 14, placing it at the lower end of the high vulnerability category, this species has 

been judged as Least Concern by IUCN, and given a Special Protected status by SEMARNAT. This individual is from Tacámbaro, 

in the Transverse Volcanic Axis of Michoacán. Photo by Oscar Medina-Aguilar. 

1. The SEMARNAT system 

The application of the SEMARNAT system appears in 

NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 (available at www.semarnat.gob.mx), 

and uses three categories: Endangered (P), 

Threatened (A), and Special Protection (Pr). In addition 

to these categories, we considered the species left untreated 

in the SEMARNAT system as having “No status.” We 

listed the SEMARNAT categorizations in Table 7 and 

summarized the results of the partitioning of the 212 native 

species in Table 8. 

Perusal of the tabular data reveals one important conclusion––almost 

one-half of the species in Michoacán (98 

[46.2%]) are not considered in the SEMARNAT system 

(Table 8). The missing species include 27 anurans, 27 lizards, 

and 44 snakes, and include the following: all six of 

the bufonids, of which five are Mexican endemic species 

(one is endemic to Michoacán); all five of the craugastorids, 

of which three are Mexican endemics; eight of 

11 hylids, of which three are Mexican endemics; one of 

two dactyloids, which one is a Mexican endemic; 15 of 

20 phrynosomatids, of which 12 are Mexican endemics; 

one-half of the 28 colubrids, of which five are Mexican 

endemics; 15 of 33 dipsadids, of which eight are Mexican 

endemics (two also are state endemics); four of 11 natricids, 

of which four are Mexican endemics (one also is a 

state endemic); and two of 10 viperids, of which two are 

Mexican endemics (one also is a state endemic). 

Of the 212 total species, only four (1.9%) are judged 

as Endangered (three are sea turtles from the coastal waters 

of the state and one is the anguid Abronia deppii). 

Thirty-one species (14.6%) are considered as Threatened 

and 79 (37.1%) as needing Special Protection (Table 8). 

In the end, any system purporting to at least identify 

species in need of conservation attention is better than no 

system at all. The SEMARNAT system, however, is seriously 

deficient because a high percentage of species are 

not provided with a conservation status, and a significant 

portion of these taxa are state or country level endemics. 

We address our concerns in the Conclusions and Recommendations 

section. 


155 



Table 8. SEMARNAT categorizations for amphibians and reptiles in Michoacán arranged by families. Non-native species are 

excluded. 

Families 

Number 

of 

Species 

SEMARNAT Categorizations 

Endangered (P) Threatened (A) Special 

Protection (Pr) 

No Status 

Bufonidae 6 — — — 6 

Craugastoridae 5 — — — 5 

Eleutherodactylidae 5 — — 4 1 

Hylidae 11 — 1 2 8 

Leptodactylidae 2 — — — 2 

Microhylidae 2 — — 1 1 

Ranidae 10 — 1 6 3 

Rhinophrynidae 1 — — 1 — 

Scaphiopodidae 1 — — — 1 

Subtotals 43 — 2 14 27 

Ambystomatidae 6 — 1 5 — 

Plethodontidae 3 — 2 1 — 

Subtotals 9 — 3 6 — 

Caeciliidae 1 — — 1 — 

Subtotals 1 — — 1 — 

Totals 53 — 5 21 27 

Crocodylidae 1 — — 1 — 

Subtotals 1 — — 1 — 

Cheloniidae 2 2 — — — 

Dermochelyidae 1 1 — — — 

Geoemydidae 2 — 1 1 — 

Kinosternidae 2 — — 2 — 

Subtotals 7 3 1 3 — 

Bipedidae 1 — — 1 — 

Anguidae 6 1 1 3 1 

Corytophanidae 1 — — — 1 

Dactyloidae 2 — 1 — 1 

Eublepharidae 1 — 1 — — 

Helodermatidae 1 — 1 — — 

Iguanidae 3 — 2 1 — 

Mabuyidae 1 — — — 1 

Phrynosomatidae 20 — 1 4 15 

Phyllodactylidae 5 — 2 2 1 

Scincidae 6 — — 4 2 

Sphenomorphidae 1 — — — 1 

Teiidae 8 — — 4 4 

Xantusiidae 1 — 1 — — 

Subtotals 57 1 10 19 27 

Boidae 1 — 1 — — 

Colubridae 28 — 8 6 14 

Dipsadidae 33 — — 18 15 

Elapidae 4 — — 2 2 


156 



Leptotyphlopidae 4 — — 1 3 

Loxocemidae 1 — — 1 — 

Natricidae 11 — 5 1 5 

Viperidae 10 — 1 6 3 

Xenodontidae 2 — — — 2 

Subtotals 94 — 15 35 44 

Totals 159 4 26 58 71 

Sum Totals 212 4 31 79 98 

2. The IUCN system 

Coleonyx elegans. The elegant banded gecko is broadly distributed on both versants, from southern Nayarit and Veracruz in Mexico 

southward to Guatemala and Belize. In Michoacán, it inhabits the Coastal Plain and Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression physiographic 

provinces. Its EVS has been indicated as 9, placing it at the upper end of the low vulnerability category, its IUCN status has not 

been assessed, and this gecko is regarded as Threatened by SEMARNAT. This individual came from Colola, on the coast of 

Michoacán. Photo by Javier Alvarado-Díaz. 

Ctenosaura clarki. The Balsas armed lizard is endemic to the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression. Its EVS has been gauged as 

15, placing it in the lower portion of the high vulnerability category, this species has been judged as Vulnerable by IUCN, and 

considered as Threatened by SEMARNAT. This individual is from Nuevo Centro, Reserva de la Biósfera Infiernillo-Zicuirán, near 

the Presa Infiernillo on the Río Balsas in southeastern Michoacán. Photo by Javier Alvarado-Díaz. 


157 



The IUCN system is the most widely used system for categorizing 

the conservation status of the world’s organisms, 

although it is skewed heavily toward chordate animals, 

as assessed by Stuart et al. (2010b). Of the 64,788 

described chordate species, 27,882 (43.0%) had been assessed 

on the IUCN Red List by the year 2009; comparatively, 

only 7,615 of 1,359,365 species of other described 

animals had been assessed, a miniscule 0.56%. In fact, 

if all of the 1,424,153 animal species treated in Stuart 

et al. (2010b) are considered, only 2.5% have been assessed 

on the IUCN Red List. This extant situation is not 

so much of a criticism of the effectiveness of the IUCN 

system, but rather a criticism of the lack of attention given 

to conservation of the world’s organisms by humanity 

at large (Wilson 2002). As a case in point, Stuart et al. 

(2010b) reported that if a provisional target number of 

106,979 animal species (only 7.5% of the total number 

of described species) were established in attempting to 

develop a broader taxonomic base of threatened animal 

species, the estimated cost to complete would be about 

$36,000,000. Completion of a threatened species assessment, 

however, is only the first step toward providing a 

given species adequate protection for perpetuity. 

We listed the current IUCN Red List categorizations 

for the Michoacán herpetofauna in Table 7 and summarized 

the results in Table 9. The allocations of the 212 

species assessed to the seven IUCN categories are as follows: 

Critically Endangered (CR) = 5 species (2.3%); Endangered 

(E) = 10 (4.7%); Vulnerable (VU) = 12 (5.6%); 

Near Threatened (NT) = 4 (1.9%); Least Concern (LC) 

= 127 (60.0%); Data Deficient (DD) = 26 (12.3%); and 

Not Evaluated (NE) = 28 (13.2%). These results are typical 

of those allocated for all Mexican amphibians and 

reptiles (see Wilson et al. 2013a,b). As a consequence, 

only 27 of the 213 species (12.7%) occupy the threatened 

categories (CR, EN, or VU). Six of every 10 species are 

judged at the lowest level of concern (LC). Finally, 54 

species (25.5%) have been assessed either as DD or have 

not been assessed (NE). 

Table 9. IUCN Red List categorizations for amphibian and reptile families in Michoacán. Non-native species are excluded. 

Families 

Number 

of 

Species 

Critically 

Endangered 


Endangered Vulnerable Near 

Threatened 

Least 

Concern 

Data 

Deficient 

Not 

Evaluated 

Bufonidae 6 — 1 — — 4 1 — 

Craugastoridae 5 — 1 1 — 2 1 — 

Eleutherodactylidae 5 1 — 2 — 1 1 — 

Hylidae 11 — — — — 11 — — 

Leptodactylidae 2 — — — — 2 — — 

Microhylidae 2 — — — — 2 — — 

Ranidae 10 — 1 1 1 7 — — 

Rhinophrynidae 1 — — — — 1 — — 

Scaphiopodidae 1 — — — — 1 — — 

Subtotals 43 1 3 4 1 31 3 — 

Ambystomatidae 6 3 1 — — 1 1 — 

Plethodontidae 3 — 1 2 — — — — 

Subtotals 9 3 2 2 — 1 1 

Caeciliidae 1 — — — — — 1 — 

Subtotals 1 — — — — — 1 — 

Totals 53 4 5 6 1 32 5 — 

Crocodylidae 1 — — 1 — — — — 

Subtotals 1 — — 1 — — — — 

Cheloniidae 2 — 1 1 — — — — 

Dermochelyidae 1 1 — — — — — — 

Geoemydidae 2 — — — 1 — — 1 

Kinosternidae 2 — — — — 2 — — 

Subtotals 7 1 1 1 1 2 — 1 

Bipedidae 1 — — — — 1 — — 

Anguidae 6 — 2 — — 3 — 1 

Corytophanidae 1 1 


158 



Corytophanidae 1 1 

Dactyloidae 2 — — — — 2 — — 

Eublepharidae 1 — — — — — — 1 

Helodermatidae 1 — — — — 1 — — 

Iguanidae 3 — — 1 — — — 2 

Mabuyidae 1 — — — — — — 1 

Phrynosomatidae 20 — — — — 19 — 1 

Phyllodactylidae 5 — — — — 4 1 — 

Scincidae 6 — — 1 — 2 3 — 

Sphenomorphidae 1 — — — — — — 1 

Teiidae 8 — — — — 7 — 1 

Xantusiidae 1 — — — — — 1 — 

Subtotals 57 — 2 2 — 39 5 9 

Boidae 1 — — — — — — 1 

Colubridae 28 — — — 1 19 2 6 

Dipsadidae 33 — — — — 15 11 7 

Elapidae 4 — — — — 4 — — 

Leptotyphlopidae 4 — — — — 2 1 1 

Loxocemidae 1 — — — — — — 1 

Natricidae 11 — 1 2 — 7 — 1 

Viperidae 10 — 1 — 1 5 2 1 

Xenodontidae 2 — — — — 2 — — 

Subtotals 94 — 2 2 2 54 16 19 

Totals 151 1 5 6 3 96 21 28 

Sum Totals 212 5 10 12 4 127 26 28 

Phyllodactylus duellmani. Duellman’s pigmy leaf-toed gecko is endemic to Michoacán, where it is found in the Balsas-Tepalcatepec 

Depression and the Sierra Madre del Sur. Its EVS has been assigned a value of 16, placing it in the middle of the high vulnerability 

category, this species has been judged as Least Concern by IUCN, and accorded a Special Protection status by SEMARNAT. This 

individual was photographed at Nuevo Centro, Reserva de la Biósfera Infiernillo-Zicuirán, near the Presa Infiernillo on the Río 

Balsas in southeastern Michoacán. Photo by Oscar Medina-Aguilar. 


159 



Leptodeira uribei. Uribe’s cat-eyed snake is distributed along the coastal plain in 

Michoacán, and northward through the lowlands to Jalisco and southward to Oaxaca. Its 

EVS has been gauged as 17, placing it in the middle of the high vulnerability category, its 

IUCN status has been assessed as Least Concern, and it is considered a Special Protection 

species by SEMARNAT. This individual was found at San Mateo, near the Reserva de la 

Biosfera Chamela-Cuixmala on the coast of Jalisco. Photo by Javier Alvarado-Díaz. 

Thamnophis postremus. The Michoacán gartersnake is a state endemic. Its EVS has been 

allocated as 15, placing it in the lower portion of the high vulnerability category, it has 

been judged as Least Concern by IUCN, and this species has not been provided a status by 

SEMARNAT. This individual came from San Lucas in the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression 

in Michoacán. Photo by Javier Alvarado-Díaz. 

Based on the application of 

this system, only a small percentage 

of the species in the 

state would be scheduled to 

receive the greatest amount of 

attention. These 27 species include 

eight anurans, seven salamanders, 

one crocodylian, three 

turtles, four lizards, and four 

snakes. Whereas most of these 

species appear to merit a threatened 

status, inasmuch as 16 of 

the 27 species are country-level 

endemics and six are state-level 

endemics (22 species, 81.5% 

of the 27), the herpetofauna of 

Michoacán is characterized by 

a higher level of endemism than 

for the entire country of Mexico 

(140 of 212 species [66.0%] vs. 

736 of 1,227 species [60.0%]). 

If endemism can be considered 

an important criterion for listing 

a species as threatened under the 

IUCN system (which it is not, as 

this system exists), then a substantial 

number of other candidates 

are available for choosing 

(Table 10), a significant issue 

that needs to be addressed. 

A similar issue is the number 

of species judged as Data 

Deficient (Table 9). Of these 26 

species, 17 are country and nine 

are state level endemics. Assignment 

of the DD status leaves 

these species in limbo, and requires 

additional fieldwork before 

applying for a change in a 

species’ status. Other papers in 

this special Mexico issue have 

criticized the use of the DD category, 

with Wilson et al. (2013b) 

labeling these species as “threat 

species in disguise.” The significance 

of such species can be ignored 

in the “rush to judgment” 

that sometimes accompanies 

assessments conducted using 

the IUCN system (NatureServe 

Press Release 2007). 

Another problem with the 

use of the IUCN system is discussed 

in the lead-in paragraph 

to this section, i.e., that some 

species have not been evaluated 


160 



(the NE species). Given the average cost of producing an 

IUCN threat assessment for a single species ($534.12, 

according to the figures in Stuart et al. 2010b), it takes a 

considerable investment to assign a species to a category 

other than NE. Nonetheless, one is left with relegating 

such species to a “wastebasket of neglect.” In the case 

of the Michoacán herpetofauna, 28 species fall into this 

category, including nine lizards and 19 snakes (Table 

9). To be fair, the distributions of most of these species 

(21) extends outside of Mexico and thus were assessed 

in a Central American Workshop held in May of 2012 in 

Costa Rica (Rodríguez et al. 2013). At that workshop, 

most of these species were assigned an LC status. 

Adding more species to the LC category is not necessarily 

a beneficial step, inasmuch as this category 

was described as a “dumping ground” by Wilson et 

al. (2013b), who opined that “a more discerning look 

would demonstrate that many of these species should be 

partitioned into IUCN categories other than LC,” e.g., 

the threat categories and NT. Currently, 127 of the 212 

native species of amphibians and reptiles (59.9%) are 

placed in the LC category (Table 9), which includes 31 

anurans, one salamander, two turtles, 39 lizards, and 54 

snakes. We question these assignments on the basis that 

83 of these species are country-level endemics, and three 

(Phyllodactylus duellmani, Aspidoscelis calidipes, and 

Thamnophis postremus) also are state-level endemics 

(Table 7). 

Table 10. Summary of the distributional status of amphibian and reptile families in Michoacán. 

Families 

Number 

of 

Species 

Non-endemic 

(NE) 

Distributional Status 

Country 

Endemic (CE) 

State Endemic 

(SE) 

Non-native 

(NN) 

Bufonidae 6 1 4 1 — 

Craugastoridae 5 2 3 — — 

Eleutherodactylidae 5 — 3 2 — 

Hylidae 11 5 6 — — 

Leptodactylidae 2 2 — — — 

Microhylidae 2 2 — — — 

Ranidae 11 2 7 1 1 

Rhinophrynidae 1 1 — — — 

Scaphiopodidae 1 1 — — — 

Subtotals 44 16 23 4 1 

Ambystomatidae 6 — 3 3 — 

Plethodontidae 3 — 3 — — 

Subtotals 9 — 6 3 

Caeciliidae 1 — 1 — — 

Subtotals 1 — 1 — — 

Totals 54 16 30 7 1 

Crocodylidae 1 1 — — — 

Subtotals 1 1 — — — 

Cheloniidae 2 2 — — — 

Dermochelyidae 1 1 — — — 

Geoemydidae 2 1 1 — — 

Kinosternidae 2 1 1 — — 

Subtotals 7 5 2 — 

Bipedidae 1 — 1 — — 

Anguidae 6 2 3 1 — 

Corytophanidae 1 1 — — — 

Dactyloidae 2 — 2 — — 

Eublepharidae 1 1 — — — 


161 



Gekkonidae 1 — — — 1 

Helodermatidae 1 1 — — — 

Iguanidae 3 1 2 — — 

Mabuyidae 1 1 — — — 

Phrynosomatidae 20 5 15 — — 

Phyllodactylidae 5 — 3 2 — 

Scincidae 6 — 6 — — 

Sphenomorphidae 1 1 — — — 

Teiidae 8 3 4 1 — 

Xantusiidae 1 — 1 — — 

Subtotals 58 16 37 4 1 

Boidae 1 1 — — — 

Colubridae 28 12 15 1 — 

Dipsadidae 33 9 19 5 — 

Elapidae 4 2 2 — — 

Leptotyphlopidae 4 2 1 1 — 

Loxocemidae 1 1 — — — 

Natricidae 11 3 7 1 — 

Typhlopidae 1 — — — 1 

Viperidae 10 2 7 1 — 

Xenodontidae 2 — 2 — — 

Subtotals 95 32 53 9 1 

Totals 161 54 92 13 2 

Sum Totals 215 70 122 20 3 

3. The EVS system 

Rena bressoni. The Michoacán slender blindsnake is a state endemic, and its distribution is limited to the Balsas-Tepalcatepec 

Depression. Its EVS has been estimated as 14, placing it at the lower end of the high vulnerability category, it has been judged as 

Data Deficient by IUCN, and SEMARNAT considers it a Special Protection species. This individual was found in the municipality 

of Tacámbaro in Michoacán. Photo by Oscar Medina-Aguilar. 


162 



Crotalus basiliscus. The west coast Mexican rattlesnake is distributed from southern 

Sonora to northwestern Michoacán. In Michoacán, it is found in the Coastal Plain, Sierra 

Madre del Sur, and the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression physiographic provinces. Its EVS 

has been reported as 16, placing it in the middle of the high vulnerability category, it has 

been assessed as Least Concern by IUCN, and it is regarded as a Special Protection species 

by SEMARNAT. This individual is from San Mateo, on the coast of Jalisco. 

Photo by Oscar Medina-Aguilar. 

Crotalus pusillus. The Tancitaran dusky rattlesnake is found in the Sierra de Coalcomán 

region of the Sierra Madre del Sur and the western portion of the Transverse Volcanic Axis. 

Its EVS has been estimated as 18, placing it in the upper portion of the high vulnerability 

category, it has been assessed as Endangered by IUCN, and it is considered as Threatened 

by SEMARNAT. This individual came from Cerro Tancítaro, the highest mountain in 

Michoacán, located in the west-central portion of the state. Photo by Javier Alvarado-Díaz. 

The EVS (Environmental Vulnerability 

Score) system of conservation 

assessment first was 

applied to the herpetofauna of 

Honduras by Wilson and Mc- 

Cranie (2004). Since that time, 

this system has been applied 

to the herpetofaunas of Belize 

(Stafford et al. 2010), Guatemala 

(Acevedo et al. 2010), 

Nicaragua (Sunyer and Köhler 

2010), Costa Rica (Sasa et al. 

2010), and Panama (Jaramillo et 

al. 2010). In this special Mexico 

issue, the EVS measure also 

has been applied to the herpetofauna 

of Mexico (Wilson et al. 

2013a,b). 

In this paper, we utilized the 

scores computed by Wilson et al 

(2013a,b), which are indicated 

in Table 7 and summarized in 

Table 11 for the 208 species for 

which the scores are calculable. 

We arranged the resultant scores 

into three categories (low, medium, 

and high vulnerability), 

which were established by Wilson 

and McCranie (2004). 

The EVS for members of the 

Michoacán herpetofauna range 

from 3 to 19 (Table 11). The 

lowest score of 3 was calculated 

for three anurans (the bufonid 

Rhinella marina, the hylid 

Smilisca baudinii, and the ranid 

Lithobates forreri) and one 

snake (the leptotyphlopid Epictia 

goudotii). The highest value 

of 19 was assigned to the viperid 

Crotalus tancitarensis. 

The summed scores for the 

entire herpetofauna vascillate 

over the range, but still generally 

rise from the lower scores 

of 3 through 5 to peak at 14 and 

decline thereafter (Table 11). 

Similar patterns are seen for amphibians 

and reptiles separately, 

although the species numbers 

for amphibians peak at an EVS 

of 13 instead of 14, as is the case 

for reptiles. 


163 



Table 11. Environmental Vulnerability Scores (EVS) for amphibian and reptile species in Michoacán, arranged by family. Shaded area to 

the left encompasses low vulnerability scores, and to the right high vulnerability scores. 

Families 

Number 

of 


Species 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 

Bufonidae 6 1 — — — — — — — 3 — — 1 1 — — — — 

Craugastoridae 5 — — — — — 1 1 — — — 2 — 1 — — — — 

Eleutherodactylidae 5 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — 1 3 — — 

Hylidae 11 1 1 — — 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 — — — — — — 

Leptodactylidae 2 — — 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Microhylidae 2 — 1 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Ranidae 10 1 — — — 1 — 1 — 1 2 2 2 — — — — — 

Rhinophrynidae 1 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 

Scaphiopodidae 1 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Subtotals 43 3 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 6 4 6 3 2 1 3 — — 

Subtotals % — 7.0 4.6 2.3 4.6 7.0 7.0 7.0 2.3 14.0 9.3 14.0 7.0 4.6 2.3 7.0 — — 

Ambystomatidae 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — 3 — 2 — — — — 

Plethodontidae 3 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — 1 1 — — 

Subtotals 9 — — — — — — — 1 — 1 3 — 2 1 1 — — 

Subtotals % — — — — — — — — 11.1 — 11.1 33.3 — 22.2 11.1 11.1 — — 

Caeciliidae 1 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — 

Subtotals 1 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — 

Subtotals % — — — — — — — — — — 100 — — — — — — — 

Totals 53 3 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 6 6 9 3 4 2 4 — — 

Totals % — 5.7 3.8 1.9 3.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 3.8 11.3 11.3 16.8 5.7 7.5 3.8 7.5 — — 

Crocodylidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — 

Subtotals — — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — 

Subtotal % — — — — — — — — — — — — 100 — — — — — 

Geoemydidae 2 — — — — — 1 — — — — — 1 — — — — — 

Kinosternidae 2 — — — — — — — 1 1 — — — — — — — — 

Subtotals 4 — — — — — 1 — 1 1 — — 1 — — — — — 

Subtotal % — — — — — — 25.0 — 25.0 25.0 — — 25.0 — — — — — 

Bipedidae 1 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — 

Anguidae 6 — — — 1 — — — 1 — — — 1 1 2 — — — 

Corytophanidae 1 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Dactyloidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — 1 — — — 

Eublepharidae 1 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — 

Helodermatidae 1 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — 

Iguanidae 3 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — 2 — — — — 

Mabuyidae 1 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Phrynosomatidae 20 — — — — — — 2 — 5 6 2 2 2 1 — — — 

Phyllodactylidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 2 3 — — — 

Scincidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 3 2 1 — — — 

Sphenomorphidae 1 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — 

Teiidae 8 — — — — 1 1 1 — 1 — — 4 — — — — — 

Xantusiidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — 

Subtotals 57 — — — 2 3 1 4 1 7 8 3 11 9 8 — — — 

Subtotal % — — — — 3.5 5.3 1.8 7.0 1.8 12.3 14.0 5.3 19.3 15.7 14.0 — — — 

Boidae 1 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — 

Colubridae 28 — — 1 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 5 2 2 — — — 

Dipsadidae 33 — 1 2 1 3 3 — 1 — 1 6 3 5 4 3 — — 

Elapidae 3 — — — — — — — — 1 — — 2 — — — — — 

Leptotyphlopidae 4 1 — — — — 1 — — 1 — — 1 — — — — — 

Loxocemidae 1 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — 

Natricidae 11 — — — — 2 1 — — 1 1 — 1 5 — — — — 

Viperidae 10 — — — — — 1 — — 1 — — — 1 4 — 2 1 


164 



Xenodontidae 2 — — — — — — — — 1 — 1 — — — — — — 

Subtotals 93 1 1 3 6 7 8 2 4 6 3 11 12 13 10 3 2 1 

Subtotal % — 1.1 1.1 3.2 6.4 7.5 8.6 2.2 4.3 6.4 3.2 11.8 12.9 14.0 10.8 3.2 2.2 1.1 

Totals 155 1 1 3 8 10 10 6 6 14 11 14 25 22 18 3 2 1 

Total % — 0.6 0.6 1.9 5.2 6.5 6.5 3.9 3.9 9.0 7.1 9.0 16.1 14.2 11.6 1.9 1.3 0.6 

Sum Totals 208 4 3 4 10 13 13 9 8 20 17 23 28 26 20 7 2 1 

Sum Totals % — 1.9 1.4 1.9 4.8 6.3 6.3 4.3 3.8 9.6 8.2 11.1 13.5 12.5 9.6 3.3 1.0 0.5 

After organizing the EVS into low, medium, and high categories, a number of conclusions of conservation significance 

are apparent. The absolute and relative numbers for each of these categories, from low to high arranged 

by major herpetofaunal group, are as follows: anurans 

= 17 (39.5%), 17 (39.5%), 9 (21.0%); salamanders = 0 

(0.0%), 5 (55.6%), 4 (44.4%); caecilians = 0 (0.0%), 1 

(100%), 0 (0.0%); crocodylians = 0 (0.0%), 0 (0.0%), 1 

(100%); turtles = 1 (25.0%), 2 (50.0%), 1 (25.0%); lizards 

= 10 (17.6%), 19 (33.3%), 28 (49.1%); and snakes 

= 28 (30.1%), 25 (26.9%), 40 (43.0%). The highest absolute 

and relative numbers for each of the amphibian 

groups fall into the medium range, evident when these 

numbers are added, as follows: 17 (32.1); 23 (43.4); and 

13 (24.5). For the reptile groups, the pattern is different 

in that the largest absolute and relative numbers for all 

groups, except for turtles, fall into the high range. Summing 

these numbers illustrates the general trend for reptiles, 

in which numbers increase from low to high: 39 

(25.2); 46 (29.7); and 70 (45.1). 

The trend seen for reptiles also applies to the herpetofauna 

as a whole. Of the 208 total species, 56 (26.9%) 

are assigned to the low category, 69 (33.2%) to the medium 

category, and 83 (39.9%) to the high category. 

In summary, application of the EVS measure to the 

members of the herpetofauna of Michoacán demonstrates 

starkly that the absolute and relative numbers 

increase dramatically from the low category of scores 

through the medium category to the high category. 

4. Comparing the results of the three 

systems 

When we compared the results of the three conservation 

assessment systems, it was obvious that the EVS is the 

only one for which the entire land herpetofauna of Michoacán 

can be assessed. The EVS also is the only system 

that provides a fair accounting of the distributional 

status of species (state-level endemic, country-level 

endemic, and non-endemic). Furthermore, this system 

is cost-effective, as the authors of this paper and those 

of the two on the Mexican herpetofauna in this special 

Mexico issue assembled these contributions from their 

homes, simply by using the communicative ability of 

the Internet. The only disadvantage of the EVS is that 

it does not apply to marine species; today, however, a 

sizable number of conservation champions at least are 

working with marine turtles. Thus, as noted by Wilson 

et al. (2013b), “given the geometric pace at which environmental 

threats worsen, since they are commensurate 

with the rate of human population growth, it is important 

to have a conservation assessment measure that can be 

applied simply, quickly, and economically to the species 

under consideration.” The EVS is the only one of the 

three systems we examined with this capacity. 


1. Conclusions 

A broad array of habitat types are found in Michoacán, 

ranging from those at relatively lower elevations along 

the Pacific coastal plain and in the Balsas-Tepalcatepec 

Depression to those at higher elevations in the Sierra 

Madre del Sur, the Transverse Volcanic Axis, and 

the Central Plateau. In total, 215 species of amphibians 

and reptiles are recorded from the state, including 212 

native and three non-native species (Lithobates catesbeianus, 

Hemidactylus frenatus, and Ramphotyphlops 

braminus). The native amphibians comprise 43 anurans, 

nine salamanders, and one caecilian. The native reptiles 

constitute 151 squamates (including the marine Pelamis 

platura), seven turtles (including the marine Chelonia 

mydas, Dermochelys coriacea, and Lepidochelys olivacea), 

and one crocodylian. 

With respect to the number of physiographic provinces 

inhabited, the numbers drop consistently from the 

lowest to the highest occupancy figures (i.e., one through 

five). The number of taxa in each of the provinces, in 

decreasing order, is as follows: Sierra Madre del Sur (103 

species); Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression (98); Transverse 

Volcanic Axis (97); Coastal Plain (71); and Central 

Plateau (29). Among the five provinces, the representation 

of the major herpetofaunal groups is as follows: 

anurans = Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression; salamanders 

= Transverse Volcanic Axis (all species limited here); 

caecilians = Sierra Madre del Sur and Transverse Volcanic 

Axis (single species limited to these two provinces); 

lizards = Sierra Madre del Sur; snakes = Sierra Madre del 

Sur; turtles = Coastal Plain; and crocodylians = Coastal 

Plain (single species limited here). The degree of herpetofaunal 

resemblance is greatest between the Balsas-Te- 


165 



palcatepec Depression and the Sierra Madre del Sur. The 

greatest resemblance of the Coastal Plain herpetofauna 

also is to that of the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression. 

Finally, the greatest resemblance of the herpetofauna 

of the Transverse Volcanic Axis is to that of the Central 

Plateau, and vice versa. Within Michoacán, close to onehalf 

of the native herpetofauna is limited in distribution 

to a single physiographic province, in the following decreasing 

order: Transverse Volcanic Axis, Coastal Plain, 

Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression, Sierra Madre del Sur, 

and Central Plateau. Most of these single-province species 

also are country-level endemics. 

We employed three systems for assessing the conservation 

status of members of the Michoacán herpetofauna 

(SEMARNAT, IUCN, and EVS). The SEMARNAT system 

was developed for use in Mexico by the Secretaría 

de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. Although 

widely used in Mexico, when this system is applied to 

the herpetofauna of Michoacán it leaves almost onehalf 

of the species unassessed (i.e., having “no status”). 

Nevertheless, we documented and analyzed the results 

applying this system to the herpetofauna of Michoacán. 

Given the significantly incomplete coverage of the 

SEMARNAT system, we found it insufficiently useful 

for our purposes. 

The IUCN system is applied and used globally. Its 

categories are broadly recognized (e.g., Critically Endangered, 

Endangered, and Vulnerable, the three socalled 

threat categories). Although this system presently 

has been applied to a greater proportion of the herpetofauna 

of Michoacán (compared to the SEMARNAT 

system), it has not been applied to about 13% of the 

species. Furthermore, we question the applicability of 

some aspects of this system, especially with regard to 

the significant use of the Data Deficient category and 

the overuse of the Least Concern category. In addition, 

the expense of creating IUCN threat assessments and the 

manner in which they are created (e.g., workshops that 

bring together workers from far-flung areas of the world 

to a single location within the area of evaluation for several 

days) often is cost-prohibitive. We also found this 

system deficient in presenting a useful appraisal of the 

conservation status of Michoacán’s herpetofauna. 

The EVS system originally was developed for use 

with amphibians and reptiles in Honduras, but later was 

expanded for use elsewhere in Central America. In this 

Special Mexico Issue of Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, 

it was applied to all of the native amphibians and 

non-marine reptiles of Mexico (Wilson et al. 2013a,b). 

We adopted the scores developed in these two papers for 

use with the Michoacán herpetofauna, and analyzed the 

results. We discovered that once all of the species were 

evaluated using the EVS system and allocated to low, 

medium, and high score categories, the number of species 

increases strikingly from the low through the medium 

to the high category. 

2. Recommendations 

Porthidium hespere. The western hog-nosed viper inhabits the coastal plain of western 

Mexico, from southeastern Colima to central Michoacán. Its EVS has been reported as 

18, placing it in the upper portion of the high vulnerability category, it has been judged as 

Data Deficient by IUCN, and assigned a Special Protection status by SEMARNAT. This 

individual is from Coahuayana on the coast of Michoacán. Photo by Oscar Medina-Aguilar. 

Based on our conclusions, a 

number of recommendations 

follow: 

1. Given that the degree of herpetofaunal 

endemism in Michoacán 

is greater than that for the 

country of Mexico, and that a 

substantial number of those endemic 

species are known only 

from the state, the level of protection 

afforded to the state’s 

herpetofauna is of major conservation 

interest. One hundred and 

twenty-one species are endemic 

at the country level and an additional 

20 are endemic at the state 

level. Thus, the total for these 

two groups is 141 (66.5% of the 

total native herpetofauna), a figure 

6.5% higher than that for the 

country (Wilson et al. 2013a,b). 

The species with the most conservation 

significance are the 20 

state endemics, and we recommend 

a conservation assessment 


166 



of the state’s herpetofauna that focuses on the 

state- and country-level endemic species. 

2. Michoacán contains a sizable number of protected 

areas at the global, national, state, and local levels. 

Because the distribution of the herpetofauna 

in these areas only is being determined, we recommend 

that this work be accelerated to form a database 

for creating a state-level conservation plan. 

3. An evaluation of the level of protection afforded 

to the state’s herpetofauna in protected areas 

is critical for determining areas with high species 

richness, a high number of endemic species, or 

species at risk, as well as the degree of overlap 

within the various protected areas. 

4. We recommend an evaluation of all the protected 

areas in the state, based on their ability to support 

viable populations of the resident herpetofauna. 

5. Once a distributional database is assembled for 

the state’s herpetofauna in protected areas, and a 

capacity analysis completed, a robust conservation 

plan needs to be developed and implemented. 

6. Considering that agriculture, logging, and cattle 

ranching are the leading factors in the local extirpation 

and extinction of ecosystems and their 

resident species, and that human-modified environments 

now are the dominant landscapes in 

the state, the potential for the conservation of the 

herpetofauna in these environments needs to be 

evaluated. Management strategies that allow for 

the maximal numbers of herpetofaunal species to 

survive and thrive in these altered landscapes also 

need to be defined. 

7. Ultimately, humans protect only what they appreciate, 

and thus a conservation management 

plan must encompass environmental education 

programs for all groups of people, especially the 

young, as well as the involvement of local people 

in implementing these programs. 

Acknowledgments.—We are indebted to our colleagues 

Jerry D. Johnson and Vicente Mata-Silva for 

generously sharing the data accumulated for their papers 

on Mexican amphibians and reptiles in this Special Mexico 

Issue. We extend our gratitude to Louis W. Porras for 

kindly offering his counsel and assistance on a number 

of issues that arose while preparing this paper, and to 

he and Donald E. Hahn for providing needed literature. 

Louis was especially helpful in providing us a remarkable 

job of copy-editing our work. We also are grateful 

to Craig Hassapakis, the editor of this journal, for his 

unflagging encouragement, enthusiasm, and support of 

our work on this paper. In addition, we thank Jonatan 

Torres for his help in updating the list of amphibians and 

reptiles of Michoacán. Finally, we are grateful to Uri 

García-Vazquez and Aurelio Ramírez-Bautista for their 

helpful reviews of our work. Funding for fieldwork was 

provided by the Consejo de Investigación Cientifica, 

UMSNH. 








Alvarado-Díaz J, Campbell JA. 2004. A new montane 

rattlesnake (Viperidae) from Michoacán, México. 


Alvarado-Díaz J, Estrada-Virgen A, Suazo-Ortuño I. 

2007. Natural history notes on Crotalus tancitarensis 

(Serpentes: Viperidae). Herpetological Review 38: 

155–157. 

Bryson Jr. RW, Murphy RW, Graham MR, Lathrop A, 

Lazcano D. 2011. Ephemeral Pleistocene woodlands 

connect the dots for highland rattlesnakes of the Crotalus 

intermedius group. Journal of Biogeography 

2011: 1–12. 

Campbell JA. 2007. Crotalus tancitarensis. In: IUCN 

2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 

2012.2. Available: www.iucnredlist.org [Accessed: 

15 March 2013]. 

Casas-Andréu G, McCoy CJ. 1979. Anfibios y Reptiles 

de México. Limusa, México DF, Mexico. 

Casas-Andréu G, Valenzuela-López G, Ramírez-Bautista 

A. 1991. Como hacer una colección de anfibios y 

reptiles. Cuadernos del Instituto de Biología 10. Universidad 

Nacional Autónoma de México, México DF, 

Mexico. 

Chernela J. 2012. A species apart: ideology, science and 

the end of life. Pp. 18–38 In: The Anthropology of 

Extinction, Essays on Culture and Species Death. Editor, 

Sodikoff GM. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 

Indiana, USA. 

CIA World Factbook. Available: www.cia.gov [Accessed: 

21 February 2013]. 

Contreras AA. 1942. Mapa de las Provincias Climatológicas 

de la República Mexicana. Secretaría de 

Agricultura y Fomento, Dirección de Geografía, Meteorología 

e Hidrología, Instituto Geográfico, Mexico. 

Crump ML, Scott NJ. 1994. Visual encounter surveys. 

Pp. 84–92 In: Measuring and Monitoring Biological 

Diversity, Standard Methods for Amphibians. Editors, 

Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Hayek 

LAC, Foster MS. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington DC, USA. 

Duellman WE. 1961. The amphibians and reptiles of Michoacán, 

México. University of Kansas Publications, 

Museum of Natural History 15: 1–148. 


167 



Duellman WE. 1965. A biogeographic account of herpetofauna 

of Michoacán, México. University of Kansas 

Publications, Museum of Natural History 15: 627–709. 

Duellman WE. 2001. The Hylid Frogs of Middle America 

(2 volumes). Society for the Study of Amphibians 

and Reptiles, Contributions in Herpetology, Volume 

18, Ithaca, New York, USA. 

Faivovich J, Haddad CFB, Garcia PCA, Frost DR, 

Campbell JA, Wheeler WC. 2005. Systematic review 

of the frog family Hylidae, with special reference to 

Hylinae: phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision. 

Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural 

History 294: 1–240. 

Flores-Villela O, Canseco-Márquez L. 2004. Nuevas especies 

y cambios taxonómicos para la herpetofauna 

de México. Acta Zoologica Mexicana 20: 115–144. 

Flores-Villela O, Canseco-Márquez L, Ochoa-Ochoa 

LM. 2010. Geographic distribution and conservation 

of the Mexican Central Highlands herpetofauna. Pp. 





Flores-Villela OA, Mendoza-Quijano F, González-Porter 

G. 1995. Recopilación de las Claves para la Determinación 

de Anfibios y Reptiles de México. Publicaciones 

Especiales del Museo de Zoología, No. 10, 

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad 

de Ciencias, Departamento de Biología, México 

DF, Mexico. 

González-Hernández AJ, Garza-Castro JM. 2006. Herpetofauna 

del municipio de Nuevo Urecho, Michoacán, 

México. Pp. 140–152 In: Inventarios Herpetofaunísticos 

de México: Avances en el Conocimiento de 

su Biodiversidad. Editors, Ramírez-Bautista A, Canseco-Márquez 

L, Mendoza-Quijano F. Publicaciones 

de la Sociedad Herpetológica Mexicana 3: 140–151. 

Huacuz ED. 1995. Serpientes del Estado de Michoacán. 

M.S. Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de 

México, México DF, Mexico. 

IUCN. 2010. Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List 

categories and criteria. Available: www.iucnredlist. 

org [Accessed: 18 March 2013]. 


The herpetofauna of Panama: distribution and conservation 





Llorente-Bousquets J, Ocegueda S. 2008. Estado del conocimiento 

de la biota. Pp. 283–322 In: Capital Natural 

de México. Compilers, Soberón J, Halffter G, Llorente- 

Bousquets J. CONABIO, México DF, Mexico. 

Medina-Aguilar O, Alvarado-Díaz J, Suazo-Ortuño I. 

2011. Herpetofauna de Tacámbaro, Michoacán, México. 

Revista Mexicana de la Biodiversidad 82: 1194– 

1202. 

NatureServe Press Release. 2007. New Assessment of 

North American reptiles finds rare good news. Available: 

www.natureserve.org/aboutUs/PressReleases/ 

NatureServe%20reptile%20assessmentRed%20 

List%20news%20release%209-12-07 [Accessed: 21 

May 2012]. 

Nieto Montes de Oca A, Poe S, Scarpetta S, Gray L, 

Lieb CS. 2013. Synonyms for some species of Mexican 

anoles (Squamata: Dactyloidae). Zootaxa 3637: 

484–492. 

Ramírez-Bautista A. 1994. Manual y Claves Ilustradas 

de los Anfibios y Reptiles de la Región de Chamela, 

Jalisco, México. Cuaderno No. 23, Instituto de Biología, 

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 

México DF, Mexico. 

Rodríguez JE, Bolaños F, Matamoros Y (Editors). 2013. 

Taller para evaluar el estado de conservación de los 

reptiles de Centroamérica. Utilizando los lineamientos 

de las Listas Rojas de la UICN. 6–10 de mayo, 

2012. Estación Biológica Palo Verde, Bagaces, Guanacaste, 

Costa Rica. UICN/SSC Conservation Breeding 

Specialist Group-Mesoamerica (CBSG Mesoamérica), 

Costa Rica. 

Sasa M, Chaves G, Porras LW. 2010. The Costa Rican 

herpetofauna: conservation status and future perspectives. 





SEDUE and UMSNH. 2000. Catálogo de la Biodiversidad 

en Michoacán. Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano 

y Ecología, Universidad Michoacana San Nicolás de 

Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico. 

Smith HM, Taylor EH. 1945. An annotated checklist and 

keys to the snakes of Mexico. Bulletin of the United 

States National Museum 187: 1–239. 


keys to the amphibia of Mexico. Bulletin of the United 

States National Museum 194: 1–118. 


keys to the reptiles of Mexico exclusive of the snakes. 

Bulletin of the United States National Museum 199: 

1–253. 

Stafford PJ, Walker P, Edgar P, Penn MG. 2010. Distribution 

and conservation of the herpetofauna of Belize. 

Pp. 370–405 In: Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians 

and Reptiles. Editors, Wilson LD, Townsend 

JH, Johnson JD. Eagle Mountain Publishing, LC, 

Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA. 

Stuart SN, Chanson JS, Cox NA, Young BE. 2010a. 

The global decline of amphibians: current trends 

and future prospects. Pp. 2–15 In: Conservation of 





168 



Stuart SN, Wilson EO, McNeely JA, Mittermeier RA, 

Rodríguez JP. 2010b. The barometer of life. Science 

328: 177. 

Sunyer J, Köhler G. 2010. Conservation status of the 

herpetofauna of Nicaragua. Pp. 488–509 In: Conservation 




USA. 

Torres MY. 2011. Herpetofauna del Municipio de Ario 

de Rosales, Michoacán, México. MS Thesis, Universidad 

Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Morelia, 

Michoacán, Mexico. 


Honduran herpetofauna: issues and imperatives. Pp. 





Vargas-Santamaría F, Flores-Villela O. 2006. Estudio 

herpetofaunistico en el Playón de Mexiquillo y áreas 

adjacentes en la costa sur del estado de Michoacán, 

México. Pp. 110–136 In: Inventarios Herpetofaunísticos 

de México: Avances en el Conocimiento de su 

Biodiversidad. Editors, Ramírez-Bautista A, Canseco-Márquez 

L, Mendoza-Quijano F. Publicaciones de 

la Sociedad Herpetológica Mexicana 3, México, DF, 

Mexico. 

Villaseñor GLE (Editor). 2005. La Biodiversidad en 

Michoacán: Estudio de Estado. Comisión Nacional 

para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Secretaría 

de Urbanismo y Medio Ambiente, UMSNH, 

México DF, Mexico. 

Wilson EO. 2002. The Future of Life. Alfred A. Knopf, 





Amphibians and Reptiles. Editors: Wilson LD, 



Wilson LD, Mata-Silva V, Johnson JD. 2013a. A conservation 



7(1): 1–47. 

Wilson LD, Johnson JD, Mata-Silva V. 2013b. A conservation 

reassessment of the amphibians of Mexico 

based on the EVS measure. Amphibian & Reptile 

Conservation 7(1): 97–127. 



Conservation 3(1): 6–33. 




USA. 

Addendum 

After this paper was placed in proof, we discovered a 

report of a new Michoacán record for Coniophanes melanocephalus 

(Carbajal-Márquez RA, Quintero-Díaz 

GE, and Domínguez-De La Riva MA. 2011. Geographic 

distribution. Coniophanes melanocephalus [Black-headed 

Stripeless Snake] Herpetological Review 42: 242). 

The specimen was found in “subtropical dry forest” at 

Hoyo del Aire, Municipality of Taretan, at an elevation 

of 887 m. This locality lies within the northernmost finger 

of the Balsas-Tepalcatepec Depression in central Michoacán. 

The EVS of Coniophanes melanocephalus has 

been assessed as 14, placing it in the high vulnerability 

category, its IUCN status reported as DD (Wilson et al. 

2013), and no status is available in the SEMARNAT system 

(www.semarnat.gob.mx). 


Accepted: 04 June 2013 

Published: 03 September 2013 


169 



Javier Alvarado-Díaz is a herpetologist and professor of vertebrate zoology and herpetology 

at the Universidad de Michoacán, México. His main interest in herpetology 

is the conservation of Mexican amphibians and reptiles, from sea turtles to montane 

snakes. He is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores and has published 

a number of peer-reviewed papers and books on conservation and ecology of 

the Mexican herpetofauna. 

Ireri Suazo Ortuño is a herpetologist and professor of zoology and herpetology at 

the Universidad de Michoacán, México. Her principal interest in herpetology is 

the conservation of amphibians and reptiles in human modified landscapes. She 

is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, and has published peerreviewed 

papers on the ecology of tropical herpetofaunal assemblages. She is also 

the director of the Instituto de Investigaciones sobre los Recursos Naturales de la 

Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo. 

Larry David Wilson is a herpetologist with lengthy experience in Mesoamerica, totaling 

six collective years (combined over the past 47). Larry is the senior editor 

of the recently published Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles 

and a co-author of seven of its chapters. He retired after 35 years of service as 

Professor of Biology at Miami-Dade College in Miami, Florida. Larry is the author 

or co-author of more than 290 peer-reviewed papers and books primarily on herpetology, 

including the 2004 Amphibian & Reptile Conservation paper entitled “The 

conservation status of the herpetofauna of Honduras.” His other books include The 

Snakes of Honduras, Middle American Herpetology, The Amphibians of Honduras, 

Amphibians & Reptiles of the Bay Islands and Cayos Cochinos, Honduras, The 

Amphibians and Reptiles of the Honduran Mosquitia, and Guide to the Amphibians 

& Reptiles of Cusuco National Park, Honduras. He also served as the Snake Section 

Editor for the Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles for 33 years. 

Over his career, Larry has authored or co-authored the description of 69 currently 

recognized herpetofaunal species and six species have been named in his honor, 

including the anuran Craugastor lauraster and the snakes Cerrophidion wilsoni, 

Myriopholis wilsoni, and Oxybelis wilsoni. 

Oscar Medina-Aguilar graduated from the Facultad de Biología of the Universidad 

Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo in 2011. He studied the herpetofauna of 

Tacámbaro, Michoacán, as part of his degree requirements. His interests include the 

systematics and distribution of the amphibians and reptiles of México. In 2011, the 

results of his study of the herpetofauna of Tacámbaro were published in the Revista 

Mexicana de Biodiversidad. 


170 


CONTENTS 

Administration, journal information (Instructions to Authors), and copyright notice. ……….…...… Inside front cover 

Larry David Wilson—Preface (Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Special Mexico Issue). ..…….………………. i 

Jerry D. Johnson, Louis W. Porras, Gordon W. Schuett, Vincente Mata-Silva, and Larry David Wilson.— 

Dedications (Amphibian& Reptile Conservation Special Mexico Issue). ………………………………………… iii 

Larry David Wilson, Vicente Mata-Silva, and Jerry D. Johnson—A conservation reassessment of the reptiles 

of Mexico based on the EVS measure. ……..………………………………………………………..……….. 1 

Louis W. Porras, Larry David Wilson, Gordon W. Schuett, and Randall S. Reiserer—A taxonomic reevaluation 

and conservation assessment of the common cantil, Agkistrodon bilineatus (Squamata: Viperidae): 

a race against time. ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 

SUPPORTING THE SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT 

48 

Randall S. Reiserer, Gordon W. Schuett, and Daniel D. Beck—Taxonomic reassessment and conservation 

OF status AMPHIBIAN of the beaded lizard, Heloderma AND horridum REPTILE (Squamata: Helodermatidae). BIODIVERSITY 

……………………………… 74 

Larry David Wilson, Jerry D. Johnson, and Vicente Mata-Silva—A conservation reassessment of the amphibians 

of Mexico based on the EVS measure. ………………………………………………………………… 

Javier Alvarado Díaz, Ireri Suazao-Ortuño, Larry David Wilson, and Oscar Medina-Aguilar—Patterns 

of physiographic distribution and conservation status of the herpetofauna of Michoacán, Mexico. ………… 128 

Table ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

of Contents. .…………………………………………………………………………………………….….. Back cover 

97 

VOLUME 7 2013 

NUMBER 1

CONSERVATION

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?