Leaché and Reeder (2002, Syst. Biol. 51: 44–68) noted that the name S. thayerii Baird and Girard 1852 (type locality: Indianola, Calhoun Co., TX) may turn out to be the correct name of this species. Dixon (2013, Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas, Texas A&M University Press, College Station) included Calhoun County, Texas, which includes the type locality of S. thayerii, within the distribution of S. consobrinus; however, he did not indicate a morphological basis for distinguishing S. consobrinus from S. cowlesi (p. 29), nor did he provide genetic evidence for his distributional inference. An assessment
of the relationships of fence lizards from the type locality of S. thayerii is needed. Leaché and Reeder (2002, op. cit.) also noted that populations east of the Mississippi River along the Gulf Coast may represent a separate species.
Notes on genus:
Taxonomy for Sceloporus follows Schmidt (1953, A Check List of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago) with modifications by Bell (1954, Herpetologica 10: 31–36; resurrection of S. occidentalis bocourtii and S. o. longipes), Shannon and Urbano (1954, Herpetologica 10: 189–191; proposal of S. clarki vallaris), Phelan and Brattstrom (1955, Herpetologica 11: 1–14; proposals of S. magister uniformis, S. m. bimaculosus, and S. m. transversus), Tanner (1955, Great Basin Nat. 15: 32–34; proposal of S. magister cephaloflavus), Lowe and Norris (1956, Herpetologica 12: 125–127; proposal of S. undulatus cowlesi), Maslin (1956, Herpetologica 12: 291–294; proposal of S. undulatus erythrocheilus), Smith and Chrapliwy (1958, Herpetologica 13: 267–271; proposal of subspecies of S. poinsettii), Cole (1963, Copeia 1963: 413–425; treatment of S. virgatus as a species separate from S. undulatus), Degenhardt and Jones (1972, Herpetologica 28: 212–217; proposal of S. graciosus arenicolous), Olson (1973, Herpetologica 29: 116–127; proposal of S. merriami longipunctatus), Sites and Dixon (1981, J. Herpetol. 15: 59–69; treatment of disparilis as a synonym of microlepidotus), Collins (1991, Herpetol. Rev. 22: 42–43; treatment of S. arenicolus as a species separate from S. graciosus; corroborated by Chan et al., 2013, Zootaxa 3664: 312–320), Smith et al. (1992, Bull. Maryland Herpetol. Soc. 28: 123–149; proposal of S. undulatus tedbrowni and correction of the spelling of the name S. arenicolus), Smith et al. (1996, Bull. Maryland Herpetol. Soc. 32: 70–74; treatment of S. slevini as a species separate from S. scalaris; corroborated by Bryson et al., 2012, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 62: 447–457 and Grummer et al., 2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 119–133), Wiens et al. (1999, Evolution 53: 1884–1897; restriction of the name S. jarrovii to one of five inferred species formerly referred to by that name), Leaché and Reeder (2002, Syst. Biol. 51: 44–68; treatment of S. consobrinus, S. cowelsi, and S. tristichus as separate species from S. undulatus), Schulte et al. (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 39: 873–880; treatment of S. bimaculosus and S. uniformis as species separate from S. magister and tranversus as a synonym of uniformis; see Leaché and Mulcahy, 2007, Mol. Ecol. 16: 5216–5233 for clarification of the distributional limits of those species), and those described in additional notes below.
Kevin de Quieroz (Chair), Tod W. Reeder, and Adam D. Leaché, 2018-02-10