Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/325283737
CITATIONS READS
27 3,242
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ricardo Palacios Aguilar on 28 May 2018.
Abstract
We present an updated checklist of the amphibians and reptiles for the state of Guerrero, Mexico. This list is based on
bibliographic records, the revision of scientific collections and the authors’ field notes. The herpetofauna of the state in-
cludes 259 species (78 amphibians, 181 reptiles), of which three are introduced. The conservation status of all native spe-
cies was assessed using three independent systems (NOM-059, IUCN and EVS). Finally, the geographic distribution of
amphibians and reptiles is discussed in the context of both the biogeographic provinces within the state and the influence
of road location on specimen collection patterns.
Introduction
One of the most interesting groups to study in Mexico is the herpetofauna, currently composed of approximately
864 reptiles (Flores-Villela & García-Vázquez, 2014) and 376 amphibians (Parra-Olea et al., 2014). The group is
best represented in the southern regions, which are also the least studied parts of the country.
Owing to its complex topography and climatic variation, the southern Mexican state of Guerrero harbors a rich
flora and fauna and is considered the fourth most diverse state in the country (Flores-Villela & Gerez, 1994). Its
herpetofauna has been studied both partially (e. g.: Davis & Dixon 1959, 1961,1965; Flores-Villela & Hernández-
García, 2006; Flores-Villela & Muñoz-Alonso, 1993; Hall, 1951; Sánchez & López-Forment, 1988) and totally
(Pérez-Ramos, 2005; Pérez-Ramos et al., 2000; Saldaña-de la Riva & Pérez-Ramos, 1987) by many authors.
However, further effort is still required to assess it in a comprehensive way.
Recently, many studies reporting new species, new state records and changes in taxonomy that modify the
previous checklist for the state (Pérez-Ramos et al., 2000) have been published and agree with this study and others
that indicate that many other species will be recorded for Guerrero in the future (Flores-Villela & García-Vázquez,
2014). Here, we present an updated and reviewed checklist of the herpetofauna from Guerrero based on field work,
museum and literature records.
History of the study of the herpetofauna of Guerrero, Mexico.—The oldest reptile species described from
Guerrero is Sceloporus omiltemanus, described by Günther in 1890. Until recently, the earliest species to have been
first discovered in Guerrero was believed to be Bipes canaliculatus, however, Flores-Villela et al. (2004b)
discovered that the type locality of this taxon was originally Tancítaro, Michoacán, instead of Mexcala (sic),
Guerrero to which it had been restricted by Smith & Taylor (1950a).
The presence of the Port of Acapulco in the state and the later construction of the highway from Mexico City to
Acapulco made the first explorations in the state possible, and many of the specimens were collected in localities
near the highway. However, the complex topography of the region in addition to the lack of proper communication
routes have limited further studies (Flores-Villela et al., 2004a).
The first expeditions into Guerrero were those of Francisco Hernández, a well-known naturalist who travelled
Study site. The Mexican state of Guerrero is located in southern Mexico between the coordinates 18°54’-16°18’ N
and 97°57’-102°11’ W. It has an area of 63, 620.67 km2, which represents 3.2% of the national territory and makes
it the 14th largest state in Mexico (INEGI, 2012). There are four biogeographic regions in Guerrero, from north to
south: The Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, the Balsas Depression, the Sierra Madre del Sur, and the Pacific Coast
(CONABIO, 1997; Fig. 1).
Data collection. Records presented herein come mostly from the literature, museum records obtained from the
electronic portals GBIF (www.gbif.org), VertNet (www.vertnet.org), and the scientific collections deposited in the
Colección Nacional de Anfibios y Reptiles (CNAR), Museo de Zoología “Alfonso L. Herrera”, Facultad de
Ciencias (MZFC), the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA), and the Instituto de Investigaciones Científicas,
Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero (UAGRO); as well as independent field work by the authors. Occurrence
information was arranged on the basis of the biogeographic provinces in the state, and elevation ranges were
obtained from the literature, databases and field notes made by us.
Once a preliminary version of the species list was compiled its nomenclature was updated based on the most
recent taxonomic changes proposed since Flores-Villela & Canseco-Márquez (2004), and following the systematic
arrangement of Flores-Villela (1993).
Conservation status follows three classification systems: the Norma Oficial Mexicana (Semarnat, 2010), the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2016) and the Environmental Vulnerability Score
(Wilson et al., 2013a, b).
Results
We obtained a list of 259 herpetofauna species, 78 of which are amphibians (13 families, 29 genera) and 181 of
which are reptiles (32 families, 80 genera; Appendix 1). The majority of these species are native with three
exceptions: Hemidactylus frenatus and Indotyphlops braminus are natural to the Eastern Hemisphere and Apalone
spinifera was introduced to the rivers of the Balsas Depression in the 1950s (Lemos-Espinal et al., 1999).
Most of the amphibians’ diversity is found in the Sierra Madre del Sur (69 species), followed by the Pacific
Coast (28), the Balsas Depression (19) and the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt (14). Reptiles have a similar pattern
with the greatest species richness found in the Sierra Madre del Sur with 124 species, followed by the Pacific Coast
(94), the Balsas Depression (71) and the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt (33). This brings us to a total of 194 species
in the Sierra Madre del Sur, 122 in the Pacific Coast, 90 in the Balsas Depression and 47 in the Trans-Mexican
Discussion
The herpetofauna of Guerrero is surely one of the most diverse in Mexico. However, over the course of this study it
became evident that it is also one of the least studied regions in the country. When comparing the number of species
reported in other states with such a diverse herpetofauna, such as Chiapas, Oaxaca, Puebla and Veracruz (Flores-
Villela & Gerez, 1994), over time it becomes easier to see this tendency.
In Oaxaca, at the time the work of Perez-Ramos et al. (2000) was published, 359 species had been recorded
(Casas-Andreu et al., 1996). This number increased to 378 eight years later (Casas-Andreu et al., 2004) and is
currently at 430 recorded species (Mata-Silva et al., 2015).
In Chiapas, 326 species were recorded by Alvarez Del Toro et al. (1993) and Reynoso et al. (2011), and the
most recent update found 330 species for the state (Johnson et al., 2015); an increase of only four species.
In Veracruz, 293 species were recorded in 1992 (Pelcastre-Villafuerte & Flores-Villela, 1992) and currently its
herpetofauna diversity is 323 species (Guzmán-Guzmán et al., 2011; Morales-Mávil et al., 2011).
One state for which the study of its herpetofauna recently increased in a remarkable way is Puebla. The only
species list for the state until the beginning of the 2000s was that of Webb & Fugler (1957). It was in the early
2000s that many records were added to the state's herpetofauna, but these were always the product of non-
sequential or systematized inventories (Canseco-Márquez et al., 2000; García-Vázquez et al., 2009a), resulting in
the report of 246 species in the last formal update (García-Vázquez et al., 2009b).
However, in the state of Guerrero there have been many periods during which very little information has been
added to the general knowledge of its herpetofauna. As can be seen in Figure 2, there has been a clear tendency to
increase the number of species in recent years. This is understandable considering the number of unexplored
regions that there are within the state. After we analyzed the general distribution patterns of the herpetofauna we
found that they are strongly marked by the main highways and communication routes in the state (Fig. 3), leaving
extensive regions with no formal surveys or with scattered records, as stated by Bojórquez-Tapia et al. (1994,
1995).
The study of the mountainous areas on both sides of Guerrero is essential since they have been recognized as
regions of endemism in this and other states (Pérez-Ramos et al., 2000, Ochoa-Ochoa & Flores-Villela, 2005;
Mata-Silva et al., 2015), and there is a high probability of discovering new species in them. Regions such as the
Pacific Coast and the Balsas Depression are equally important as they function as corridors along their entire length
and at the same time as barriers that allow for the existence of endemisms (Flores-Villela & Goyenechea, 2001;
Wilson & Campbell, 2000; Papenfuss, 1982). Finally, the mountainous areas in the north of the state represent a
biological corridor of one of the most interesting, diverse, and important regions in the country: the Trans-Mexican
Volcanic Belt. Unfortunately, this area has perhaps received the least amount of attention, with very few formal
studies (Flores-Villela & Hernández-García, 2006).
The pattern observed for amphibians and reptiles is not particular to the group, but is shared with other
vertebrates such as mammals (Ávila Nájera, 2006) and birds (Navarro-Sigüenza, 1998). The collection patterns are
similar in four distinct groups of vertebrates, and all are clearly shaped by roads and dirt roads, a phenomenon
defined as "road syndrome" (Bojórquez-Tapia et al., 1994, 1995). This is due, among other factors, to the fact that
FIGURE 2. Cumulative curve of the amphibians and reptiles recorded from Guerrero over the time. Note that a general
tendency to increase is shown, as well as many periods when the species number increase at very low rates or remains static.
The conservation measures intended to protect the different species in Guerrero are still insufficient. In recent
years, this group of organisms has been seriously affected by habitat destruction, climate change and the
occurrence of diseases that have caused the decline and even extirpation of entire populations, especially in
amphibians (Lips et al., 2003; Lips et al., 2004). It has, however, been verified that not all species are disappearing,
as evidenced by work done with non-systematic sampling and short visits to certain localities (Caviedes-Solis et
al., 2015).
Although the three conservation systems used in this study may be complementary, there are no government
bodies or authorities responsible for ensuring they are implemented. NOM-059 has a good approach for
conservation but there are no serious measures to evaluate population status or to control species extraction, and the
IUCN system takes historical ecological factors into account, but does not include real follow-up of populations.
The EVS system considers the biological and ecological characteristics of populations and species and at the same
time assesses the anthropogenic factor that affects them. However, this does not ensure follow-up nor is it endorsed
by any authority to ensure its operation, and the fact that it is subject to constant changes in its structure makes it in
many cases impractical.
The conservation of the herpetofauna in Guerrero is complex and still incomplete. Despite their great diversity
and the fact that Guerrero is a highly biologically rich state, there are very few natural protected areas that ensure
the protection of ecosystems and vulnerable populations in the area (Bezaury-Creel et al., 2012). In addition, recent
reports on habitat destruction have revealed that Guerrero was the state the most affected by forest fires from 2000
to 2014, with an estimated 1,200,921 ha of vegetation and the populations that inhabit them affected (Manzano
Delgado, 2016).
Acknowledgements
We thank E. Pérez Ramos for his invaluable help during the review of specimens and the preparation of the
manuscript, A. Domínguez from MZFC for her valuable help with the databases, E. Beltrán and R. Santos
(UAGRO), J. A. Campbell and C. Franklin (UTA) and V. H. Reynoso (CNAR) for allowing us to access databases
of the collections they curate. M. Wilkinson, P. Campbell (BMNH); K. Martin, S. Rogers (CM); C. M. Dardia, H.
Greene (CUMV); R. Glor, L. Welton, R. Brown (KU); C. C. Austin, S. Parker (LSUMZ); C. Spencer (MVZ); B.
Hollingsworth, L. Kabes (SDNHM); E. Braker (UCM); and G. Watkins (YPM) provided images of specimens
deposited in the collections they curate, and helped corroborate their correct identification. D. Noriega Hidalgo and
A. Jiménez-Martínez prepared the figures. H. Pérez-Mendoza, R. García-Collazo and S. Arias-Balderas provided
very useful corrections and suggestions on the original manuscript of this article that was part of the B.Sc. thesis of
the first author.
Literature cited
Adler, K. (1965) Three new frogs of the genus Hyla from the Sierra Madre del Sur of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the
Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 642, 1–18.
Adler, K. (1996) The salamanders of Guerrero, Mexico, with descriptions of five new species of the genus Pseudoeurycea
(Caudata: Plethodontidae). Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, 177, 1–28.
Adler, K. & Dennis, D.M. (1972) New tree frogs of the genus Hyla from the cloud forest of western Guerrero, Mexico.
Occasional Papers of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, 7, 1–19.
Ahl, E. (1934) Uber eine Sammlung von Reptilien und Amphibien aus Mexiko. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 106, 184–186.
Álvarez del Toro, M., Palacios-Espinoza, E., Cabrera-Cachón, T.G., Guichard Romero, C.A., Ramírez Velázquez, A. & Cartas
Heredia, G. de J. (1993) Chiapas y su biodiversidad. Gobierno del Estado de Chiapas, Tapachula, 152 pp.
Ávila Nájera, D.M. (2006) Patrones de Distribución de la Mastofauna de Guerrero, México. B.Sc. Thesis, Facultad de
709%
120
!"#$3U
7K
%(Q
&(96&' !() * + ,'()* !
'()* -% '() ,8&1 . / %
' * /& +
* 17 % 98 (* (1
&*&5)&(&! 0 *0&! *1 !*,17. 1;
*"/1
Taxa %LRJHRJUDSKLFSURYLQFHV (OHYDWLRQ (QGHPLVP 5LVNFDWHJRU\
UDQJHPDVO
3& 606 %' 709% 120 ,8&1 (96
$03+,%,$RUGHUVIDPLOLHVJHQHUDVSHFLHV
$QXUDIDPLOLHVJHQHUDVSHFLHV
%XIRQLGDHJHQHUDVSHFLHV
Incilius cycladen2+)%3!%*4$556 7 7 8#94""" / 4:
Incilius gemmifer 2) *4$:"6 7 7 49;#" & 4#
Incilius marmoreus2<!*4;886 7 7 "9$;" + 44
13
$33(1',;2 6
Taxa %LRJHRJUDSKLFSURYLQFHV (OHYDWLRQ (QGHPLVP 5LVNFDWHJRU\
UDQJHPDVO
3& 606 %' 709% 120± ,8&1 (96
0LFURK\OLGDHJHQXVVSHFLHV
Hypopachus ustus 2 *4;556 7 7 #"94""" + =
Hypopachus variolosus 2 *4;556 7 7 7 4"945"" + :
3K\OORPHGXVLGDHJHQXVVSHFLHV
Agalychnis dacnicolor2 *4;5:6 7 7 7 "944"" + 48
Agalychnis moreleti 2!D*4;#86 7 7 $8$9>"#" =
6FDSKLRSRGLGDHJHQXVVSHFLHV
Spea multiplicata 2 *4;586 7 7 4"""9>455 5
5DQLGDHJHQXVVSHFLHV
15
$33(1',;2 6
Taxa %LRJHRJUDSKLFSURYLQFHV (OHYDWLRQ (QGHPLVP 5LVNFDWHJRU\
UDQJHPDVO
3& 606 %' 709% 120 ,8&1 (96
&RU\WRSKDQLGDHJHQXVVSHFLHV
Basiliscus vittatus <!*4;>; 7 7 4"945"" =
'DFW\ORLGDHJHQXVVSHFLHV
Anolis dunni !%*4$85 7 7 "94;"" C + 45
Anolis gadovii *4$"# 7 >5"984" & C + 45
Anolis liogaster *4$"# 7 4$$"9>:$8 & + 4:
Anolis megapholidotus !%*4$88 7 $5"94=;" & + 45
Anolis microlepidotus '
*4$#: 7 4>:#94;$$ + 4#
Anolis nebulosus 2<!*4;8:6 7 7 7 7 4"9>>"" + 48
Anolis nietoi JK%*0L!BM DB*
3 7 #;"944;# & 45
17
$33(1',;2 6
Taxa %LRJHRJUDSKLFSURYLQFHV (OHYDWLRQ (QGHPLVP 5LVNFDWHJRU\
UDQJHPDVO
3& 606 %' 709% 120 ,8&1 (96
6FLQFLGDHJHQHUDVSHFLHV
Mesoscincus altamirani 2?
*4;;=4;$"O4;$4P6 7 7 >4#948=4 4:
Plestiodon brevirostris 20@%*4;5"6 7 4#""9>#"" + 44
Plestiodon indubitus 2) *4$886 7 4=""9>8#" 4#
Plestiodon lotus 'LABQB*
7 4"=:94==" 45
* B-AB* CA*
B3R!DBC
*>"4=
Plestiodon nietoi EB30HABQB*>"4> 7 4;849>>#$ & 4=
Plestiodon ochoterenai 2) *4$886 7 =$"948"" + 48
Scincella assatus 2 *4;5:6 7 7 4=94;"" =
19
$33(1',;2 6
Taxa %LRJHRJUDSKLFSURYLQFHV (OHYDWLRQ (QGHPLVP 5LVNFDWHJRU\
UDQJHPDVO
3& 606 %' 709% 120 ,8&1 (96
Tantilla rubra *4;=#24;=56 7 49>54; + #
Tantilla sertula <
3!(*>""" 7 4#"9>>" 45
Trimorphodon biscutatus 2!D*( 3!?* 7 7 7 "94#"" =
4;#:6
Trimorphodon tau2 *4;="6 7 7 7 4""9>5"" + 48
'LSVDGLGDHJHQHUDVSHFLHV
Coniophanes fissidens 20@%*4;#;6 7 7 494"5> =
Coniophanes imperialis 230*4;#$6 7 >$" + ;
Coniophanes lateritius *4;5> 7 4594#$" 48
Coniophanes melanocephalus2
*4;5$O4;="P6 7 44""94#:> 4:
21
$33(1',;2 6
Taxa %LRJHRJUDSKLFSURYLQFHV (OHYDWLRQ (QGHPLVP 5LVNFDWHJRU\
UDQJHPDVO
3& 606 %' 709% 120 ,8&1 (96
7\SKORSLGDHJHQXVVSHFLHV
Indotyphlops braminus 2*4;"86 7 7 7 494#"" .
9LSHULGDHJHQHUDVSHFLHVVXEVSHFLHV
Agkistrodon bilineatus 0@%*4;58 7 7 7 "94#"" 44
Crotalus culminatus J(*4$#> 7 7 7 7 #"945"" 4#
Crotalus ericsmithi!(3E
*>""; 7 4"8= & 4;
Crotalus intermedius omiltemanus0@%*4;$# 7 >"=898""" & C + 4#
Crotalus tlaloci )
* +G!*
* +% * 7 >>""9>#>" + 45
R
*C' HB*0@,3%)*>"4:
Crotalus ravus *4;5# 7 >8#" C + 4:
Squamata
Dactyloidae
Anolis quercorum: Olinalá, Xixila, 1720 m a.s.l. (MZFC 26445).
Colubridae
Leptophis mexicanus: Municipality of Tixtla de Guerrero, Amula (=Almolonga), 1720 m a.s.l. (BMNH 1894.1.17.5).
Tantilla rubra: 11.3 mi (18.1 km) NE Atoyac on the road to Puerto del Gallo, Sierra Madre del Sur (MVZ 17193).
This specimen was previously reported by Wilson and Mata-Silva (2014. Mesoamerican Herpetology 1: 5-95). However, they
state that they did not examined the specimen. The report of this species in their monograph is unclear, as they apparently
include this and an additional record not mentioned in text in the SE of the state on the map (page 56), but exclude both
from their final discussion. In a later study, the same authors (Wilson & Mata-Silva. 2015. Mesoamerican Herpetology 2:
418-498) omit the records and mention that the distribution of the species on the Pacific versant is restricted to Oaxaca.
The specimen was revised by us based on digital photographs made available by the associate curators of the institution where
it was deposited. Since there is no evidence that helps elucidate why the species was omitted from the aforementioned
works, we consider this to be the first verified record of the species in Guerrero.
Dipsadidae
Coniophanes imperialis: Acapulco de Juárez, La Poza, Viveros de Huayacán, 290 m a.s.l. (CNAR 17894).
Coniophanes lateritius: Chilpancingo de los Bravo, Ejido Zoyatepec, Cerro La Imagen (MZFC 31980); Zihuatanejo de
Azueta, near the San Antonio-Ciudad Altamirano highway (MZFC 32626).
Dipsas gaigeae: Zihuatanejo de Azueta, Between Vallecitos and Highway 200, on Hwy 134 (MZFC 26995).
Imantodes cenchoa: Carretera Río Santiago-San Vicente, 711 m a.s.l. (UTA R-58924).