MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATIONS IN THE COMMON LIZARD, Lacerta (Zootoca) vivipara

MORPHOLOGICAL VARIATIONS IN THE COMMON LIZARD, Lacerta (Zootoca) vivipara
复制标题

DOI:
--
复制
发表时间:
2004-10
影响因子:
0.7
通讯作者:
C. Guillaume;B. Heulin;I. Pavlinov;D. Semenov;A. Bea;N. Vogrin;Y. Surget-Groba
C. Guillaume;B. Heulin;I. Pavlinov;D. Semenov;A. Bea;N. Vogrin;Y. Surget-Groba
中科院分区:
生物学4区
文献类型:
--
作者:
C. Guillaume;B. Heulin;I. Pavlinov;D. Semenov;A. Bea;N. Vogrin;Y. Surget-Groba

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

关于胎生蝎虎的生殖模式、核型和 mtDNA 序列变化的知识取得了进展,但任何形式或种群之间的形态差异仍不清楚。这就是为什么我们使用 242 种常见蜥蜴的 9 种生物特征和 10 种分枝变量来研究形态变异的不同模式:119 种卵生蜥蜴(法国、西班牙和斯洛文尼亚蜥蜴)、114 种胎生蜥蜴(法国、保加利亚和俄罗斯蜥蜴)和 9 种杂交蜥蜴。我们的分析证实,对于每个种群来说,都存在明显的性别二态性。观察到的生殖品系(卵生与胎生)之间的差异不能立即与生殖模式联系起来。区域之间的比较结果对应于样本的地理起源。我们观察到三个集群:西部(比利牛斯山脉和法国)、斯洛文尼亚和东部(保加利亚、俄罗斯和西伯利亚)。由核型定义的样本的比较非常相似。 L. ( Z .) v. carniolica 亚种的大多数研究变量都是不同的。我们的结果显示了俄罗斯样本的特殊意义,但不支持 sachalinensis 亚种的有效性。该物种的形态和遗传结构之间缺乏明确的关系,这表明普通蜥蜴“复合体”的样本之间关系非常密切,并且可能最近才出现分歧。
Knowledge on variations in the reproductive modes, karyotypes, and mtDNA sequences of Lacerta ( Zootoca ) vivipara made headway but the morphological differences between any forms or populations remain unclear. That is why we studied different patterns of morphological variability using nine biometrics and 10 meristic variables on 242 common lizards: 119 oviparous (French, Spanish, and Slovenian), 114 viviparous (French, Bulgarian, and Russian), and nine hybrids. Our analyses confirm, for each population, the existence of a clear sexual dimorphism. Observed differences between reproductive strains (oviparous vs. viviparous) could not be connected immediately with the reproductive mode. Results of comparison between regions correspond to the geographical origin of the samples. We observe three clusters: western (Pyrenees and France), Slovenian, and eastern (Bulgaria, Russia, and Siberia). Comparisons of samples defined by their karyotypes are very similar. L. ( Z .) v. carniolica subspecies is different for a majority of the studied variables. Our results show the special interest of the Russian samples but do not support the validity of the sachalinensis subspecies. The absence of clear relation between morphological and genetic structure of the species reveals that samples of the «complex» of common lizards are very closely related and have likely relatively recently diverged.