An updated and annotated list of Indian lizards
(Reptilia: Sauria) based on a review of distribution records and checklists of
Indian reptiles
P. Dilip Venugopal
Department of
Entomology, University of Maryland, 4124 Plant Sciences Building, College Park,
MD 20742-4454, USA
Email: dilip@umd.edu
Date
of publication (online): 26 March 2010
Date
of publication (print): 26 March 2010
ISSN
0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)
Editor: Aaron Bauer
Manuscript details:
Ms
# o2083
Received
21 October 2008
Final
received 31 December 2009
Finally
accepted 14 February 2010
Citation: Venugopal, P.D.
(2010). An updated and annotated list of Indian lizards (Reptilia: Souria)
based on a review of distribution records and checklists of Indian reptiles. Journal of Threatened Taxa2(3): 725-738.
Copyright: © P. Dilip Venugopal
2010. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows
unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes,
reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and
the source of publication.
Author Details: P. Dilip Venugopal is a graduate student
at the Department of Entomology, University of Maryland, College Park. His broad
interests include understanding spatial patterns in species distributions, as
influenced by trophic interactions and environmental variables.
Acknowledgements: I
thank Dr. N.M. Ishwar Narayan for initiating me into this work and for
providing literature and valuable inputs over the past few years. I thank Dr.
Indraneil Das and Dr. Peter Uetz for clearing doubts on taxonomic status and
distribution of many species and also for providing literature. Discussions
with Dr. B. R. Ramesh, Dr. Ranjit Daniels, Shreyas Krishnan, Robin Vijayan and
Sara Lombardi helped improving this manuscript. The library staff including the
librarian of the Wildlife Institute of India provided access and assistance. I
thank Harry Andrews and the staff of Madras Crocodile Bank Trust for access to
the library and logistic support; Kalaiarasan for providing access to the
Chennai Snake Part Trust library. I thank the members of the HISASIA web
discussion forum for help in clarifications and literature collection. V.
Pattabhiraman provided logistical support at different stages of this work.
Many individuals helped in literature collection - Karthik Ram, Vinatha
Viswanathan, Shreyas Krishnan, Bindu Raghavan, S. U. Saravanakumar, Nandini
Rajamani, Robin Vijayan and several individual authors who sent me their
publications. Reviewers comments helped improve the manuscript.
Abstract:Over the past two decades many checklists of reptiles of India and adjacent
countries have been published. These publications have furthered the growth of
knowledge on systematics, distribution and biogeography of Indian reptiles, and
the field of herpetology in India in general. However, the reporting format of
most such checklists of Indian reptiles does not provide a basis for direct
verification of the information presented. As a result, mistakes in the
inclusion and omission of species have been perpetuated and the exact number of
reptile species reported from India still remains unclear. A verification of
the current listings based on distributional records and review of published
checklists revealed that 199 species of lizards (Reptilia: Sauria) are
currently validly reported on the basis of distributional records within the
boundaries of India. Seventeen other lizard species have erroneously been included
in earlier checklists of Indian reptiles.
Omissions of species by these checklists have been even more numerous than
erroneous inclusions. In this paper, I present a plea to report species lists
as annotated checklists which corroborate the inclusion and omission of species
by providing valid source references or notes.
Keywords:
Checklists, distributional records, India, lizards, Reptiles, review
Plant and animal species survey and observational data are vast
resources that provide present day and historical information on geographic
distribution. Primary species-occurrence data have wide and varied uses,
encompassing virtually every aspect of human life - food, shelter and
recreation, art and history, society, science and politics (Chapman
2005a). Species listings or
checklists, which contain such primary and compiled species-occurrence data,
play a vital role in providing information on the number of species occurring
in different regions across different spatial scales (local, regional, national
and global). Such species
occurrence data, in the form of checklists, have been used for taxonomic and
biogeographic studies for hundreds of years (Chapman 2005a). Some of the other uses include
conservation planning, reserve selection, climate change studies, agriculture,
forestry and fishery, and species translocation studies, to name a few (See
Chapman 2005a for a detailed account of the uses of species-occurrence
data). Accuracy and precision (sensu Chapman 2005b)
of the taxonomic and nomenclatural information and the spatial information are
important considerations for determination of data quality and validation of
the species occurrence data (Chapman 2005b). In this context, the importance of the data quality in the
checklist of Indian reptiles - the storehouses of information on the reptilian
species occurrence data- hardly needs emphasis.
Among the publications pertaining to reptilian taxonomy and species
occurrences in India the works of Malcolm Smith (1931, 1935a, 1943), though
more than half a century old, still remains the most important contribution
(Das 2003). Over the past two
decades many checklists of reptiles of India (Murthy 1985; Murthy 1990; Tikader
& Sharma 1992; Das 1997a; Das 2003), sometimes including adjacent countries
(Das 1994; Das1996a; Sharma 2002) have been published. These publications have furthered the
growth of knowledge on systematics, distribution and biogeography of Indian
reptiles, and the field of herpetology in India in general. The primary
objective of these publications, except those providing information of species
distribution (for example - Murthy 1985; Tikader & Sharma 1992) and taxonomic
development in India (Das 2003), included enlisting the reptilian species
occurring in India. However, some of these publications have come under severe
criticism (see review by Das 1996b; Pawar 1998), with reservation over the
quality of the information presented. Especially the publications of the Zoological Survey of India, which
still are followed by many workers in India, have especially been criticized
for their failure to follow the changes in the taxonomic and distributional
information of species.
An apparent inadequacy of the above-mentioned checklists of Indian
reptiles published over the past 20 years is that species with valid
distributional records are not differentiated from those with questionable
records. While a reference to the taxonomic treatise has been provided (e.g.
Das 2003), a valid reference or source for the distribution records
corroborating the inclusion and omission of species have not been cited by any
of these checklists. It is
observed that despite being compilations, neither all of the bibliographic
sources referred nor the details on locality records have been provided in most
of the checklists (regional, state-wise or national) of Indian reptiles. For example, Vyas (2000) has noted and criticized the absence of source literature within
the checklist of Gujarat reptiles provided by Gayen (1999). The failure to
acknowledge all the literary sources used for the compilation of the species
list is a reproachable attribute of these publications that is tantamount to plagiarism.
In addition to this significant limitation, the distribution records
of species pre and post partition of British India have not been distinguished,
resulting in erroneous inclusion of many species into the checklist. Incorrect inclusion of species that
were not recorded within India, doubtful records and omissions of valid species
has also been common. The
inclusion or omission of species has not been corroborated with references or
notes thereby rendering the information presented unverifiable. As a result, mistakes in species
inclusion or omission have been perpetuated, and without any grounds for
further verification. I quote
Bobrov (2005) to illustrate this point with an example – “Phrynocephalus reticulatuswas reported in Ladakh (Smith 1935). Later this single and clearly erroneous
finding was mentioned in every publication on the herpetofauna of India,
Kashmir and Ladakh.” If the
publications listing them had provided the source literature, it would have provided
an opportunity for verification.
Furthermore, the lack of rationale for inclusion and omission of
species has resulted in inconsistencies in the lists contributed by the same
individual workers. For example Murthy (1985) erroneously included Dasia grisea in the
list of Indian reptiles, with Andaman & Nicobar Islands as its
distributional range. However, the
list of reptiles provided by Murthy (1990) rightfully did not include this
species. However, it erroneously
appeared again in the list provided by Murthy (1994). Similarly Das (1994)
& Das (1996a) did not include India in the distributional range of Phyrnocephalus luteoguttatus,
but it was erroneously listed for India by Das (1997a). However this species
was not included in a later list by Das (2003).
A direct consequence of the poor reporting standards of the
checklists of Indian reptiles is that the exact number of reptilian species
with valid distributional records within India still remains unclear. It has also rendered the information
presented unverifiable directly, thereby hindering their further usage. This can be overcome only when
checklists justify the inclusion and omission of each species by providing a
valid reference/source for distribution records and the taxonomic
treatise. The present
communication is part of an effort to verify the validity of Indian reptile
species listings, based on distributional records and a review of the earlier
checklists of the Indian reptiles. In this paper, the species listings have been verified and species have
been categorized based on the distributional records. A review of the checklists of Indian reptiles published over
the past two decades has also been performed. Finally, a comprehensive list of lizards (Reptilia: Sauria)
with valid distribution records in India has been provided along with source
literature.
Recent developments (past 6 years) in the taxonomy and species
occurrence information on Indian reptiles necessitates an update in the
checklists of Indian lizards. Some
of the new developments include records of Hemidactylus persicus from Gujarat (Vyas et al.
2006) and Japalura
kaulbackii in Arunachal Pradesh (from Kunte & Manthey
2009). Recent rediscoveries include that of Japalura sagittifera from Arunachal Pradesh
(from Kunte & Manthey 2009) and Lygosoma
vosmaerii from Andhra Pradesh (Seetharamaraju et al. 2009).
Doubts over the occurrence of H.
karenorum in India (Zug et al. 2007; Mahony & Zug 2008)
and questions on the taxonomic validity of H. mahendrai and H. subtriedrus had been raised (Zug et al. 2007)
and acknowledged by other workers (Giri & Bauer 2008, Giri et al.
2009). The taxonomic revision of
genus Mabuya(Mausfeld 2002), Cnemaspis
anaikattiensis (Manamendra-Arachchi et al. 2007), C. kandiana(Wickramasinghe & Munindradasa 2007), Phrynocephalus alticola (Barabanov &
Ananjeva 2007), Calotes
andamanensis (Krishnan 2008), Teratolepis fasciatus (Bauer et al. 2008) and Dasia halianus(Wickramasinghe, submitted; Wickramasinghe, pers. comm.) from India have
resulted in other changes. Description of new species included those of Cnemaspis australis, C. monticola and C. nilagirica(Manamendra-Arachchi et al. 2007), Hemidactylus
aaronbaueri (Giri 2008), Hemidactylus sataraensis (Giri & Bauer
2008), Calotes aurantolobium(Krishnan 2008), Hemidactylus
treutleri (Mahony 2009a), Japalura otai (Mahony 2009b), and Hemidactylus gujaratensis(Giri et al. 2009). These have led to the revision of the list of lizards as
provided by Das (2003).
The list of lizards (Suborder Sauria) including the
families Agamidae, Gekkonidae, Scincidae, Dibamidae, Anguidae, Eublepharidae,
Lacertidae and Varanidae has been provided here. This list has been compiled primarily from articles
published in scientific journals. I referred ca. 310 publications including technical reports, which
formed the primary source for locality records. However reports in newsletters, unpublished reports,
personal field observations and personal communications in writing (in lit.)
with other herpetologists have also been taken into account. Information on species distribution and
taxonomy has been complied from literature published until Sept 2009.
Taxonomic
Treatise
The list provided, is at the species level and the
taxonomy primarily follows Das (2003). Taxonomy of Hemidactylus albofasciatusfollows Bauer et al. (2008) and the recognition of Mabuya as Eutropis follows Mausfeld et al. (2002). The species listed under the Genus Kaestlea (= Scincella) follows
Eremchenko & Das (2004). Validity of the listings has been reviewed for species as provided by
the checklist of Indian reptiles (Murthy 1985; Murthy 1990a; Tikader &
Sharma 1992; Das 1997a; 2003), including its adjacent countries (Das 1994; Das
1996a; Sharma 2002). The words
locality records and distributional records have been used synonymously.
Based on the distributional records available, the
species have been classified into the following categories and a justification
of the treatise has been provided through source literature and comments,
wherever applicable.
(i) Species with valid distribution records within
India.Distribution/Locality records within Indian limits currently available
and have not been questioned by other workers.
(ii) Species reported from the regions politically
disputed by India and Pakistan. This category includes species that are reported from politically
disputed regions in Kashmir. The category has been created to acknowledge the current political
situation in the areas from which we have valid distributional records.
(iii) Species whose distributional records are
invalid or questioned. This category includes species for which
distribution/locality records within India are available, but have been
questioned. Also contains species
whose inclusion has not been justified by providing source
references/literature or relevant notes.
(iv) Species with unclear locality records. Species for which clear
distribution/locality records within India are not available, but included in
the checklists.
(v) Species known only from type specimen of
unclear origin.
(vi) Species known only from type specimen, the
original locality of which is not clear, but listed in earlier checklists.
(vii) Species valid in earlier lists, but omitted
in this communication. Species that
were earlier valid, but omitted in this communication due to the recent
developments in taxonomic and distributional information.
The valid list of lizards in India, as represented
by category A and B has separately been listed along with references corroborating
their inclusion (Table 1). For the other categories, detailed comments have
been provided along with a justification.
Validity of the species listed in the earlier
checklists of India published in the past two decades has been reviewed. Based
on existing and current information on their distribution, the following
details have been reviewed for each of the publications -
(i) Erroneous inclusion of species without valid
records and species whose distribution records were questioned.
(ii) Erroneous inclusion of species with unclear
locality records.
(ii) Erroneous inclusion of species known only from
type specimen of unknown origin.
(iv) Erroneous omission of valid species.
The species that fall within the various categories
as discussed in the methods section have been provided in the following
paragraphs. The consolidated
result, represented as the number of species classified under each category has
been provided in Table 2. The
number of lizard species with valid distributional records from India,
including those known from politically disputed regions (PDR) between India and
Pakistan (Category A and B respectively), is currently 199. These species have
been listed in Table 1 along with a literature source corroborating each
species’ inclusion. However, in the past two decades, 17 (excluding category F)
other species without any valid distributional records in India have been
included in the various checklists of Indian reptiles. Details of these species
falling under the other categories have been provided below, along with
comments justifying the treatise.
B. Species reported from the regions politically
disputed by India and Pakistan
Agamidae
Laudakia pakistanica Baig, 1989
Comments
– Baig and Böhme (1996) described the subspecies Laudakia pakistanica khanifrom Chilas, an area that falls in a region politically disputed by India and
Pakistan, in Kashmir. Das (1996a)
commented that this species has been reported from politically disputed regions
of India & Pakistan.
Gekkonidae
Alsophylax boehmei Szczerbak, 1991
Comments
– I have not seen the original species description. I follow the locality records (Skardu,
Ladakh) provided by Khan (2002) and Das (1996a). Das (1996a) commented that this species has been reported
from politically disputed regions of India & Pakistan.
Scincidae
Asymblepharus tragbulense (Alcock,
‘1897’ 1898)
Comments
– I have not seen the original species description. The only known collection of the
species was in 1885 from Tragbul Pass, about 50km NW Srinagar, presently in the
politically disputed region between India and Pakistan (fide Das et al. 1998).
C. Species without valid records and species whose
distribution records were questioned, but included in earlier checklist of
Indian reptiles
Agamidae
Calotes bhutanensis Biswas, 1975
Comments
– No known distribution records from India. Tikader & Sharma (1992)
included this species for India.
Laudakia caucasia (Eichwald, 1831)
Comments -
Locality records for this species (Kelat & Bolan Pass) provided by Smith
(1935a: 221) falls in Balochistan Province in Pakistan and there have been no
other reported records within India subsequently. However this species has been included in the list of Indian
reptiles provided by Das (1997a; 2003).
Phrynocephalus luteoguttatus Boulenger,
1887
Comments
– No known locality records for India but included in the list of Indian
reptiles by Das (1997a). I agree
with Barabanov & Ananjeva (2007) in not including India in the
distributional range of this species.
Phrynocephalus euptilopus Alcock & Finn, ‘1896’ 1897
Comments
– Das (1996b) has questioned the report of this species from deserts of
Rajasthan (Daniel 1983; Tikader & Sharma 1992; Daniel 2002; Sharma 2002).
However, this species was included in earlier checklists (Murthy 1990; Tikader
& Sharma 1992; Das 1997a; Sharma 2002) of Indian reptiles. I agree with Bobrov (2005) and
Barabanov & Ananjeva (2007) in not including India in the distributional
range of this species.
Salea kakhienensis (Anderson, ‘1878’ 1879)
Comments
– No known locality records for this species from India, but has
erroneously been included for India in the lists by Das (1994; 1996a; 1997a).
Gekkonidae
Cyropodion fedtschenkoi (Strauch,
1987)
Comments
– Das (1996b) questioned the reports of this species from deserts of
Rajasthan (Tikader & Sharma 1992; Sharma 1992). No known reports of this species from India.
Cyrtopodion chitralense (Smith,
1935)
Comments -
Locality record for this species (Karakal) provided by Smith (1935a: 47) falls
in North West Frontier Province of Pakistan and there have been no subsequent reports
of this species from India. This
species has been listed for India by Das (2003).
Cyrtopodion baturense (Khan
& Baig, 1992)
Comments
– No valid records of this species from India but listed by Das (1997a).
Teratoscincus microlepis Nikolski,
1899
Comments
– No known records of this species from India, but included for India by
Murthy (1994).
Lacertidae
Acanthodactylus blanfordiiBoulenger, 1918
Comments
– No known locality records from India, but included for India by Das
(1994; 1996a; 1997a).
Scincidae
Dasia grisea (Gray, 1845)
Comments
– No known records of this species from India but included for India by
Murthy (1985; 1994).
Scincella reevesii (Gray, 1838)
Comments
– No known locality records from India, but included for India by Das
(1994; 1996a; 1997a).
Eutropis novemcarinata (Anderson,
1871)
Comments
– No known locality records from India, but included for India by Das
(1997a; 2003).
D.
Species with unclear locality records listed in earlier checklists.
Agamidae
Pseudocalotes
microlepis (Boulenger, 1887)
Comments
–Smith (1935a: 187) noted that the specimen recorded from Assam
(Manipur?) by Annandale were lost. I have not verified if Annandale reported this species in his
publications. However, Hallermann
& Bohme (2000) did not include India in the distributional range of this
species. The presence of this species in India needs confirmation as there have
been no other reports and the locality record for the specimen still remains
uncertain. However, many lists of
Indian reptiles have included this species.
Gekkonidae
Cyrtodactylus
pulchellus Hardwicke & Gray, 1827
Comments
– No known locality records for this species from India. Das (2003) included this
species in his list while denoting that it was not recorded from India
specifically, but was cited by Smith (1935a: 38). It has been included in the
lists by Das (1994; 1996a; 1997a; 2003). Given that the locality records are
not available, the inclusion of this species needs confirmation.
E. Species known only from a type specimen, the original locality of
which is not clear, but listed in earlier checklists.
Gekkonidae
Cnemaspis
boei (Gray, 1842)
Comments
– Known only from the type specimen, the locality record for which is not
available (fideSmith 1935a: 75), and there have been no subsequent reports. However, Das
(1994; 1996a; 1997a; 2003) included this species in the list of Indian
reptiles. The presence of this
species in India needs confirmation.
Scincidae
Eumeces
blythianus (Anderson, 1871)
Comments –
The type locality not known, but purchased in Amritsar (fide Smith 1935a:
340) and no subsequent reports, but was included in the lists provided by Das
(1994; 1997a). The presence of
this species in India needs confirmation.
F.
Species valid in earlier lists, but omitted in this communication due to the
recent developments in taxonomic and distributional information.
Phrynocephalus
alticola Peters 1984
Comments
– Following the taxonomy proposed by Barabanov & Ananjeva (2007),
this species has been treated as a subjective junior synonym of P. theobaldi, and not
included in this list as a separate species.
Phrynocephalus
reticulatus (Eichwald, 1831)
Comments
– This species was erroneously reported to occur in Ladakh by Smith
(1935a) and following this was included in subsequent checklists of India
(Bobrov 2005).
Gekkonidae
Cnemaspis
kandiana (Kelaart, 1852)
Comments – Based on
taxonomy suggested by Wickremasinghe & Munindradasa (2007), this species is
confined to Sri Lanka and populations from India have been relegated to other
species.
Cnemaspis
anaikattiensis Mukherjee, Bhupathy & Nixon, 2005
Comments – Based on taxonomy suggested by
Manamendra-Arachchi et al.(2007), this species is considered a subjective synonym of C. sisparensis.
Ptyodactylus
homolepis Blanford, 1876
Comments
– This species was erroneously reported by Sahi & Duda (1985) to
occur in Jammu & Kashmir (Bobrov 2005).
Hemidactylus
karenorum (Theobald, 1868)
Comments
– Following Mahony et al. (2008) who raised doubts over the distribution
of this species from India and awaiting confirmation of the only existing
record from Cachar (Assam) Smith (1935a: 102), it has not been included in the
list of Indian reptiles.
Hemidactylus
mahendrai Shukla, 1983
Comments
– Following the taxonomic changes suggested by Zug et al. (2007), this
species has been treated as a synonym of H. brookii, and not included in the list as a
separate species.
Hemidactylus
subtreidrus Jerdon, 1853
Comments – The taxonomic validity of H. subtriedrus had
been questioned by some (Zug et al. 2007) and acknowledged by other workers
(Giri & Bauer 2008; Giri et al. 2009). As a result, it has not been included in the list of Indian
reptiles, awaiting taxonomic clarity.
Teratolepis
fasciata (Blyth, 1854 (1853))
Comments – Based on recent taxonomic
development, this species has been placed in Genus Hemidactylus and suggested a new name, H. imbricatus due to
homonymy (Bauer et al. 2008). Also, it has been suggested by Bauer et al. (2008) that the reports from
India are likely to be erroneous.
Chalcides
pentadactylus Beddome, 1870
Comments – The type specimen reported
from Beypur, Kerala is lost and its true status needs examination of fresh
material (fideSmith, 1935a: 350). It has not
been reported again since its original description and its presence in India
needs confirmation.
Dasia
halianus (Haly and Nevill in: Nevill, 1887)
Comments – The
Indian Dasia halianus,
has been taxonomically identified as Dasia
subcaeruleum, while the distribution of Dasia halianus has
been reported to be restricted to Sri Lanka (Wickramasinghe, submitted;
Wickramasinghe, pers. comm.)
Ophiomorus
tridactylus (Blyth, 1853)
Comments – There
has been some confusion regarding the taxonomy and distribution, between this
species and O. raithmai.
However, only O. raithmaicurrently occurs in India, while the distribution of this species is limited to
Afghanistan and Pakistan (Indraneil Das, Personal Communication). The locality records
within India available for this species actually pertain to O. raithmai.
In the checklists of Indian reptiles published over the past 20
years, the number of omissions of species has been greater than that of
erroneous inclusions (Table 3). However, it must be noted that over the years there has been
a decrease in the number of such omissions (But see Sharma 2002). Within erroneous inclusions, inclusion
of species whose distribution records were invalid or were questioned has been
high in lists provided by Das (1997a). The list of species erroneously included or omitted by published
checklists is provided in Table 3.
Brown (1992) made a plea for standardizing the
distributional records of Indian reptiles almost two decades ago. However, drawing a standardized format
for publishing species checklists is an important task to be undertaken, in
order to verify and validate the species occurrence data and also to prevent
perpetuation of mistakes. This is
especially true for checklists of regional (different Indian states or
protected area checklists for example) and national levels, which are primarily
compilations. Annotated lists based
on available locality records and justifying the inclusion or omission of
species by providing relevant source literature or notes on specimens, could be
a good way of validating regional and national level checklists. This would facilitate the possibility
of verification of the information presented, thereby ensuring its quality and
also duly pay credit to the deserving workers who generated the vouchered or
otherwise substantiated records.
Quality of species occurrence data, as derived from
species lists, significantly impacts conservation and management
considerations. The Conservation
Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) for Indian reptiles (Molur & Walker
1998) which formed the IUCN red list of Indian reptiles used the checklist list
provided by Das (1997a) as the starting reference point for the number of
reptiles in India. However, Das
(1997a) contained many erroneous inclusions and omissions (See Table 3), and
the standard of reporting does not provide means to directly verify the quality
of information presented. Accurate and precise data on species occurrences are
imperative for the assessment of conservation status and drawing management
considerations. It is also pivotal
for the species occurrence information to be accurate for it to be used for
further research purposes such as predictions on species distributions, habitat
suitability, and threat assessments etc. While there have been global efforts to share and provide free access to
species distribution information (Ex. GBIF 2008), the current reporting
standards of publications on Indian reptiles (regional and national) actually
hinder further usage of the information presented. This could be ameliorated only if individual workers and
publishing houses/journals present annotated checklists that contain source
literature and details substantiating the inclusion and omission of each
species.
Agrawal,
H.P. (1979).
A checklist of reptiles of Himachal Pradesh, India. The Indian Journal of Zootomy 20(2): 115-124.
Annandale,
N. (1904).
Contributions to Oriental Herpetology I – The lizards of the Andamans,
with the description of a new gecko and a note on the reproduced tail in Ptychozoon homalocephalum.Journal of Asiatic Society
of Bengal 73(2) (Suppl): 13-22.
Annandale,
N. (1907).
Reports on a collection of batrachia, reptiles and fish from Nepal and the
western Himalayas – Himalayan Lizards. Records of the Indian Museum 1(10): 151-155.
Annandale,
N. (1908).
Description of a new species of lizard of the genus Salea from Assam. Records of the Indian Museum 2: 37-38.
Annandale,
N (1915). Fauna of the Chilka Lake – Mammals, Reptiles and
Batrachians. Memoirs of the
Indian Museum 5: 165-173.
Annandale,
N. (1917).
A new genus of limbless skinks from an Island in the Chilka Lake. Records of the Indian Museum8: 17-21.
Baig,
K.J. & W. Böhme (1996).
Description of two new subspecies of Laudakia
pakistanica (Sauria: Agamidae). Russian Journal of Herpetology 3(1): 1-10.
Barabanov,
A.V. & N.B. Ananjeva (2007).Catalogue
of the available scientific species-group names for lizards of the genus Phrynocephalus Kaup,
1825 (Reptilia, Sauria, Agamidae). Zootaxa1399: 1-56.
Bauer,
A.M (2002). Two new species of Cnemaspis(Reptilia: Squamata: Geckonidae) from Gund Uttar Kannada India. Mitteilungen Hamburg Zoological Museum & Institution99: 155-167.
Bauer,
A.M., V.B. Giri, E. Greenbaum, T.R. Jackman, M.S. Dharne, & Y.S. Shouche
(2008). On the systematics of the gekkonid genus Teratolepis Günther,
1869: another one bites the dust. Hamadryad32: 13–27.
Beddome,
R.H. (1870). Descriptions of some new lizards from the Madras
Presidency. Madras Monthly
Journal of Medical Science 1: 30-35.
Biswas,
S. (1967).
Occurrence of Draco blanfordiBoulenger (Sauria: Agamidae) in Assam India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 64:
574.
Biswas,
S. (1984).
Some notes on the reptiles of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society 81: 476-481.
Biswas, L.
N. & D.P. Sanyal (1977a). Fauna of Rajasthan, India,
part: Reptilia. Records of
Zoological Survey of India 73: 247-269.
Biswas, S.
& D.P. Sanyal (1977b).
A new species of skink of the genus DasiaGray 1889 [Reptilia: Scincidae] from Car Nicobar Islands India. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society 74(1): 133-136.
Blanford,
W.I. (1871). Note on Hemidactylus marmoratus H. keelarti Theobald andAblabes humerti.Proceedings of the Asiatic
Society 5: 173-174.
Bobrov
V.V. (2005). Independence of the central Asian faunistic
region (according to the distribution of lizards (Reptilia Sauria)). Biology Bulletin 32
(6): 276–289. Translated from Izvestiya
Academeii Nauk Seriya Biologicheskaya 6: 694 – 709.
Boulenger
G.A. (1891). Description of a new species of lizard
obtained by Mr. H. S. Ferguson in Travancore South India. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society 6(4): 449.
Brown,
S.B. (1992). Indian herpetofauna: a plea for standardized
distributional records. Hamadryad17: 52-53.
Chapman,
A.D. (2005a).Uses of Primary
Species-Occurrence Data version 1.0. Report for the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility, Copenhagen. Available at http://www2.gbif.org/UsesPrimaryData.pdf.
Accessed on 10th July 2008.
Chapman,
A.D. (2005b).Principles of Data Qualityversion 1.0. Report for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility,
Copenhagen. Available at http://www2.gbif.org/DataQuality.pdf.
Accessed on 10th July 2008.
Daniel,
J.C. (1983). Book of
Indian Reptiles and Amphibians. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 235pp.
Daniel, J C. (2002). The Book of Indian Reptiles.
Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, 141pp.
Das,
I. (1991). A new Species of Mabuya from Tamil Nadu State southern
India (Squamata:Scincidae). Journal
of Herpetology 25(3): 342-344.
Das,
I. (1994). The reptiles of South Asia: Checklist and distributional
summary. Hamadryad19: 15-40.
Das,
I. (1996a). Biogeography of the Reptiles of south
Asia. Krieger Publishing Company, Florida, 87pp + 36 plates.
Das,
I. (1996b).
Handbook: Indian lizards [Book Review]. Herpetological Review27: 44-46.
Das,
I. (1997a). Checklist of the reptiles of India with English common
names. Hamadryad 22(1):
32-45.
Das,
I. (1997b). A new species of Cyrtodactylusfrom the Nicobar Islands India. Journal
of Herpetology 31(3): 375-382.
Das, I. (2003).
Growth of knowledge on the reptiles of India with an introduction to
systematics taxonomy and nomenclature. Journal
of Bombay Natural History Society100(2&3): 446-501.
Das,
I. & A.M. Bauer (2000). Two new species of Cnemaspis (Sauria: Gekkonidae) from southern
India. Russian Journal of
Herpetology 7(1): 17-28.
Das,
I. & S. Sengupta (2000). A new species of Cnemaspis (Sauria: Gekkonidae) from Assam
north-eastern India. Journal
of South Asian Natural History 5(1): 17-24.
Das,
I., B, Dattagupta & N.C. Gayen (1998). Systematic
status of Lygosoma
himalayanum tragbulensis Alcock “1897” 1898 (Sauria:
Scincidae) collected by the Pamir Boundary Commission 1885. Russian Journal of Herpetology5(2): 147-150.
Duda,
P.L. & D.N. Sahi (1977). An uptodate checklist of herpetiles of Jammu
& Kashmir. Jammu and
Kashmir University Review 6(10): 1-7.
Duda,
P.L. & D.N. Sahi (1978). Cyrtodactylus
himalayanus: A new gekkonid species from Jammu India. Journal of Herpetology12(3): 351-354.
Eremchenko,
V.M. & I. Das (2004). Kaestlea:
A new genus of scincid lizards (Scincidae: Lygosominae) from the Western Ghats
south-western India. Hamadryad28(1&2): 43-50.
Ganapati,
P. N. & K.K. Nayar (1952). Occurrence of the limbless lizard Barkudia Annandale at
Waltair. Current Science21: 105-106.
Gayen,
N.C. (1999). A
synopsis of the reptiles of Gujarat, western India. Hamadrayad 24: 1–22.
Gill,
E.V.S (1997).Cyrtodactylus aravallensisa new Gekkonidae from the Delhi ridge. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 94(1):
122–123 + II plates.
Giri,
V.B. (2008).
A new rock dwelling Hemidactylus(Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Maharashtra India. Hamadryad 32: 25–33.
Giri,
V.B. & M.A. Bauer (2008).
A new ground-dwelling Hemidactylus(Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Maharashtra with a key to the Hemidactylus of
India. Zootaxa1700: 21-34.
Giri, V.,
A.M. Bauer & N. Chaturvedi (2003). Notes on
the distribution, natural history and variation of Hemidactylus giganteus Stoliczka, 1871. Hamadryad 27(2):
217-221.
Gleadow,
F. (1887). Description of a new lizard from the “Dangs.”Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society 2: 49-51.
Giri,
V.B., A.M. Bauer, R. Vyas & S. Patil (2009). New
Species of Rock-Dwelling Hemidactylus(Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Gujarat, India. Journal of Herpetology 43(3): 385–393.
GBIF (2008). Global
Biodiversity Information Facility. www.gbif.org.
Accessed on July 2008.
Grandison A.G.C. & P.W. Soman (1963). Description of a new geckonid lizard from
Maharashtra India. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society 60(2): 322-325 + II plates.
Greer E.A.
& G.D.F. Wilson (2001). Comments on the scincid
lizard genus Ophiomoruswith a cladistic analysis of the species. Hamadryad 26(2): 261-271.
Günther
A.C.L.G. (1864). The
Reptiles of British India. R. Hardwicke, London, 444pp+26
plates.
Günther
A.C.L.G. (1870). Description of a new Indian lizard of the
genus Calotes.Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London 778-779 + 1 plate.
Günther
A.C.L.G. (1875). Second report on collection of Indian Reptiles
obtained by the British Museum. Proceedings
of the Zoological Society of London 224-234+4 plates.
Hallermann,
J. & W. Böhme (2000). A review of the genus Pseudocalotes(Squamata: Agamidae), with description of a new species from West Malaysia. Amphibia-Reptilia 21:
193-210.
Hora S. L
(1926). Part II - On the unnamed collection of
lizards of the family Agamidae. Records
of the Indian Museum 28: 215-220.
Inger
R.F., H.B. Shaffer, M. Koshy & R. Badke (1984). A report
on the collection of Ambhibians and reptiles from the Ponmudi Kerala South
India. Journal of Bombay
Natural History Society 81(3): 551-570.
Khan, M.S
(2002). Key and checklist to the lizards of Pakistan.Herpetozoa15: 179-199.
Krishnan,
S (2008). New Species of Calotes (Reptilia: Squamata: Agamidae) from the
Southern Western Ghats India. Journal
of Herpetology 42(3): 530-535.
Kunte, K.
& U. Manthey (2009). Rediscovery of Japalura sagittifera (Sauria: Agamidae) from the
Eastern Himalayas, Arunachal Pradesh: An addition to the Indian Herpetofauna. Sauria 31: 49-55.
Mahony, S
(2009a). A new species of Gecko of the Genus Hemidactylus(Reptilia: Gekkonidae) from Andhra Pradesh. Russian Journal of Herpetology 16(1): 27-34.
Mahony, S
(2009b). A new species of Japalura (Reptilia:Agamidae) from northeast
India with a discussion of the similar species Japalura sagittifera Smith, 1940 and Japalura planidorsataJerdon, 1870. Zootaxa2212: 41-61.
Mahony, S.
& G.R. Zug (2008). Hemidactylus
karenorum (Squamata, Gekkonidae) in India. Hamadryad 32:
84–86.
Manamendra-Arachchi,
K., S. Batuwita & R. Pethiyagoda (2007). A
taxonomic revision of the Sri Lankan day-geckos (Reptilia: Gekkonidae:
Cnemaspis), with description of new species from Sri Lanka and southern India. Zeylanica 7 (1):
9-122
Mausfeld,
P., A. Schmitz, W. Böhme, B. Misof, D. Vrcibradic & C.F.D. Rocha (2002).
Phylogenetic Affinities of Mabuya
atlantica Schmidt, 1945, Endemic to the Atlantic Ocean
Archipelago of Fernando de Noronha (Brazil): Necessity of Partitioning the
Genus MabuyaFitzinger, 1826 (Scincidae: Lygosominae). Zoologischer Anzeiger 241: 281-293.
Molur, S. & S. Walker (1998) (eds). Report of BCCP CAMP on Reptiles of
India. Zoo Outreach Organisation, Coimbatore, India, 65p.
Murthy,
T.S.N. (1985).
Classification and distribution of the reptiles of India. The Snake 17: 48-71.
Murthy,
T.S.N. (1990).A field book of the lizards of India. Records of the Zoological Survey of India. Occasional paper
115: 1-116.
Murthy,
T.S.N. (1994).
An updated handlist of the reptiles of India. Cobra 17: 17-37.
Pawar, S.S. (1998). Biogeography
of the reptiles of South Asia [Book review]. Current Science 75(8): 857-858.
Pawar, S.S. (1999). Effect of habitat alteration on the
herpetofaunal assemblages of evergreen forests in Mizoram North-east India.
Unpublished Masters Dissertation submitted to Saurashtra University Rajkot,
India, 56pp.
Pawar,
S.S. & S. Biswas (2001). First record of the
Smooth-backed Parachute Gecko Ptychozoon lionotumAnnandale 1905 from the Indian Mainland. Asiatic Herpetological Research 9: 101-106.
Pawar, S.S., G.S. Rawat &
B.C. Choudhury (2004). Recovery of frog and lizard communities following primary habitat
alteration in Mizoram Northeast India. BMC Ecology4(1): 10.
Prakash,
I. (1972). Notes on little known lizards from the
Rajasthan desert. Journal of
Bombay Natural History Society 69(2): 424-428.
Sahi, D.N.
& P.L. Duda (1985). A checklist and keys to the amphibians and
reptiles of Jammu and Kashmir State, India. Bulletion of Chicago Herpetological Society20(3&4): 86-97.
Sahi D.N.
& P.L. Duda (1986). Occurrence of Ablepharus pannonicus Fitzinger (Lacertilia:
Scincidae) in Jammu: An addition to the Indian reptilian fauna. Bulletin of Chicago Herpetological
Society 21(3&4): 92-93.
Schmidt
K.P (1926). Amphibians and reptiles of the James
Simpson-Roosevelt Asiatic expedition. Fieldana Zoology 12(13): 167-173.
Seetharamaraju, M., R. Sreekar, C. Srinivasulu, B.
Srinivasulu, H. Kaur & P. Venkateshwarlu (2009).Rediscovery of Vosmer’s Writhing Skink Lygosoma vosmaerii (Gray, 1839) (Reptilia:
Scincidae) with a note on its taxonomy. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(12): 624-626.
Sharma,
R.C. (1970). A new lizard Eumeces poonaensis (Scincidae) from India. Records of the Zoological Survey of
India 63(3&4): 239-241.
Sharma,
R.C. (1971). The reptilian fauna of the Nagarjuna Dam area
(Andhra Pradesh India). Records
of the Zoological Survey of India 63: 77-93.
Sharma,
R.C. (1976). Records of the reptiles of Goa. Records of the Zoological Survey of
India 71: 151-167.
Sharma
R.C. (1977). A new lizard of the genus Riopa Gray
(Scincidae) from Tamil Nadu, India. Records
of the Zoological Survey of India 73(1-4): 41-44.
Sharma,
R.C. (1978). A new species of Phrynocephalus Kaup (Reptilia: Agamidae) from
the Rajasthan desert India with notes on its ecology. Bulletin of the Zoological Survey of
India 1(3): 291-294.
Sharma,
R.C. (1981). Hemidactylus
porbandarensis a new geckonid lizard from Gujarat India. Bulletin of the Zoological Survey of
India 4(1): 1-2.
Sharma
R.C. (2002). The
fauna of India and the adjacent countries – Reptilia (Sauria).
Vol II. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkatta, 430pp.
Smith M.A. (1931).The Fauna of British India
including Ceylon and Burma. Vol. I. Loricata Testudines.
Taylor and Francis, London, 185pp+2 plates.
Smith M.A. (1935a).The Fauna of British India
including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol. II Sauria.Taylor and Francis, London, 440pp +1 plate.
Smith, M.A. (1935b). Some notes on the monitors. Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society 35: 615-619.
Smith, M.A. (1943).The Fauna of British India
Ceylon and Burma including the whole of the Indo-Chinese region. Vol. III.
Serpentes. Taylor and Francis, London, 583pp+1 map.
Stoliczka, F. (1873). Notes on some Andamanese and Nicobarese reptiles
with the descriptions of three new species of lizards. Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal 42(3): 162-169.
Tikader,
B.K. & A.K. Das (1985). Glimpses of animal life in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
Zoological Society of India, Kolkatta, 170pp.
Tikader
B.K. & R.C. Sharma (1992). Handbook of Indian Reptiles.
Zoological Survey of India, Kolkatta, 250pp+42 plates.
Tiwari, K.
& S. Biswas (1973). Two new reptiles from the Great Nicobar
Island. Journal of Zoological
Society of India 25(1&2): 57-63.
Vyas, R.
(1998). The reptiles of Gujarat state: Updated
distribution. Tiger paper25(1): 8-14.
Vyas, R.
(2000). Comments on ‘A synopsis of the reptiles of
Gujarat India’. Hamadryad25(2): 203-207.
Vyas, R.,
V. Giri & A.M. Bauer (2006). First record of Hemidactylus persicus Anderson
1872 (Squamata: Sauria: Gekkonidae) from the Republic of India with notes on
its distribution. Hamadryad30(1&2): 209-211.
Wall, F.
(1908a). Remarks on Agamid lizard (Ptyctolaemus gularis).Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society 18: 505.
Wall F.
(1908b). Viviparous habit of the common Indian skink (Lygosoma indica). Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society 18: 505.
Wickramasinghe,
L.J.M. & D.A.I. Munindradasa (2007). Review
of the genus Cnemaspis Strauch,
1887 (Sauria: Gekkonidae) in Sri Lanka with the description of five new
species. Zootaxa1490: 1–63.
Wickramasinghe,
L.J.M (submitted). A comparative study of Dasia halianus in
India and Sri Lanka. Journal
of Threatened Taxa.
Zug, G.R.,
Vindum, J.V. & M.S. Koo (2007). Burmese Hemidactylus(Reptilia Squamata Gekkonidae): taxonomic notes on tropical Asian Hemidactylus.Proceedings of the
California Academy of Sciences 58: 387–405.