Editorial Type:
Article Category: Research Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Dec 2014

Conservation and Management of Polytypic Species: The Little Striped Whiptail Complex (Aspidoscelis inornata) as a Case Study

,
,
,
,
,
,
, and
Page Range: 519 – 529
DOI: 10.1643/CG-13-140
Save
Download PDF

Subspecies have most often been described qualitatively with small sample sizes as excerpted from geographic continua. They present a long-standing conflict with evolutionary and statistical principles as well as conservation planning that often relies upon a phylogenetic perspective. Herpetological subspecies have been recognized in the literature as exceeding numerical expectations and subsequent reevaluations during the last decade have decreased their numbers ∼50%, the exception being whiptail lizards (Aspidoscelis, family Teiidae). Here we used 842 base pairs of mitochondrial (mt) DNA to examine potential taxonomic and conservation boundaries among two putative species and four subspecies of the abundantly polytypic Aspidoscelis inornata (Little Striped Whiptail Complex, LSWC) of southwestern North America. Body coloration, but not mtDNA, distinguished two putative species inhabiting alkali deposits, whereas neither dataset could diagnose three paraphyletic subspecies. A trend to elevate putative subspecies following a more contemporary evaluation is premature for the LSWC: we suggest that two species (arizonae, pai) and three subspecies (gypsi, junipera, llanuras) lack molecular and morphological differentiation and thus should be rescinded in taxonomic rank. These uncertainties concerning the LSWC with regard to its distributions and relationships impinge upon conservation proposals that, for example, seek to list A. arizonae as ‘threatened’ under the Endangered Species Act.

Frecuentemente las subespecies han sido descritas cualitativamente y con tamaños de muestra pequeños extraídos de un continum geográfico. Ellas representan un viejo conflicto con los principios evolutivos y estadísticos así como para desarrollar planes de conservación que frecuentemente dependen de una perspectiva filogenética. Las subespecies herpetológicas han sido reconocidas en la literatura como excediendo las expectativas numéricas y una reevaluación subsecuente durante la década pasada ha disminuido sus números en ∼50%, siendo la excepción los Huicos (Aspidoscelis, familia Teiidae). Aquí utilizamos 842 pares de ADN mitocondrial (mt) para examinar el potencial taxonómico y límites de conservación entre dos supuestas especies y cuatro subespecies de la abundante y politípica Aspidoscelis inornata (complejo del Huico Liso, CDHL) del suroeste de Norteamérica. El patrón de coloración, pero no el ADN mitocondrial, distingue a dos supuestas especies que habitan en los depósitos de álcali mientras que ningún conjunto de datos pudo diferenciar las tres subespecies parafiléticas. Elevar a estas supuestas subespecies siguiendo una evaluación más contemporánea es prematuro para CDHL: sugerimos que las dos especies (arizonae y pai) y las tres subespecies (gypsi, junipera, llanuras) carecen de diferenciación morfológica y molecular por lo que deben ser consideradas sin rango taxonómico. Esta incertidumbre con respecto a las CDHL en cuanto a sus relaciones y distribuciones impacta propuestas de conservación que, por ejemplo, buscan enlistar a A. arizonae como “amenazada” bajo la ley de especies en peligro de extinción.

Copyright: 2014 by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Georaphical distribution of Aspidoscelis inornata Baird showing approximate ranges of its ten component OTUs (operational taxonomic units) (following Wright and Lowe, 1993:fig. 1, and with nomenclatural adjustments as indicated by Walker et al., 2009).


Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Map depicting sample sites for the six operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of Aspidoscelis inornata Baird found within southwestern United States. Two of the OTUs (arizonae and pai) are recognized as species within the Little Striped Whiptail Complex (LSWC), whereas the remaining four (i.e., gypsi, junipera, llanuras, and heptagramma) are subspecies (taxonomic details provided in Table 1). Areas in the map delineated via letters (i.e., A–E, and numbers 1–5) refer to phylogenetic clades similarly demarcated in Figure 3.


Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Maximum likelihood tree depicting relationships among the six operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of Aspidoscelis inornata Baird found within southwestern United States. The tree is rooted at Aspidoscelis tigris with support values at nodes representing percentages based on 1000 bootstrap pseudo-replications. Letters and numbers that identify clades are depicted cartographically in Figure 2.


Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Mismatch distribution plots indicating population growth for four (of six) operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of Aspidoscelis inornata Baird found within southwestern United States, as determined from 842 base pairs of mtDNA ATPase 8 and ATPase 6 sequences. F  =  frequency; Pairwise difference  =  number of nucleotide differences between all pairs of individuals in the clade. Clade 4A shows an observed distribution that is significantly different from the expected pattern of population expansion, as reflected by R2-value in Table 4.


Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

A haplotype network based upon a minimum spanning tree depicts clades of Aspidoscelis inornata Baird within southwestern United States. Haplotypes are represented by open or colored circles, closed circles indicate hypothetical haplotypes not detected, whereas a line connecting circles reflects one base difference. Numbers of base differences contained within longer branches are indicated at midpoint of the branch. Boxes next to appropriate groups of haplotypes contain clade identities (as numbers/letters; A–E and 1–5). Haplotypes assigned to subspecific names are identified by color. Clades are depicted geographically in Figure 2 and phylogenetically in Figure 3.


Contributor Notes

Associate Editor: D. S. Siegel.

Received: 09 Nov 2013
Accepted: 12 Apr 2014
  • Download PDF