According to Ze Frank, this screen capture shows the cover of the children’s book “Lizard Has A ****** Day.”
If you’re not already familiar with Comedian Ze Frank’s True Facts Series, you need to check them out. Frank interweaves interesting facts about wildlife with hilariously (off)color commentary. He’s done videos on everything from star-nosed moles to dung beetles (I was first alerted of the series by a comment made by Tracy Heath over at the new Treethinkers blog). I was recently viewing True Facts About The Tarsier, and was shocked to see this puny little Southeast Asian quasi-monkey feeding on one of my favorite lizards. At around 1:26 into this video, Frank notes that the Tarsier is “the only entirely carnivorous primate, eating insects, rodents, reptiles and small birds. This incidentally is the cover of the children’s book “Lizard Has A ****** DAY.” Very funny. Of course, its practically impossible that a tarsier in nature would be feeding on what appears to be a green anole (Anolis carolinensis). As far as I’m aware A. carolinensis is not been reported from any of the Southeast Asian islands occupied by the tarsier. Thus, if there’s we’ve learned from this video, it is that this lizard is having a ****** day because somebody just thrust it into the waiting arms of a captive tarsier.
Two days ago, Hobart Smith died at the age of 100. Hobart was among the most prolific herpetologists of all time, with more than 1,500 publications to his name. Included among his publications are several classic monographs such as the Handbook of Lizards (1946) and the Checklist and Key to Amphibians of Mexico (1948). Hobart is the namesake for numerous species of reptiles and amphibians, including Anolis hobartsmithi, an endangered species endemic to the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico. May he rest in peace.
Fig. 1 from Liner and Cole (2003), where it is also noted that Dessauer’s appearance earned him the nickname “Dr. Sexauer” and invited comparison to “a Greek God.”
Herbert C. Dessauer, whose 1981 report with Dan Shochat on “Comparative immunological study of albumins of Anolis lizards of the Caribbean islands” was among the very first attempts to reconstruct molecular phylogenetic relationships across Anolis, died earlier this month after a brief illnes. For most of his career, Dessauer was professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at LSU’s Medical Center, where he frequently collaborated with scientists at LSU’s Museum of Natural History. In addition to his 1981 classic, Dessauer was an author on numerous reports on molecular genetics of Anolis during the 1970s, often in collaboration with Dan Shochat and George Gorman. These three scientists, together with a handful of others, provided the foundation for modern molecular genetic studies of anoles. The significance of Dessauer’s contributions to anole biology are particularly noteworthy because he built his distinguished career working primarily with other systems. Indeed, Dessauer’s work with anoles doesn’t even warrant mention in a list of his accomplishments that appears in a historical perspective on his career by fellow herpetologists Ernest Liner and Charles Cole.
Nevertheless, Shochat and Dessauer’s results had a range of important implications for anole systematists; for example, they were among the first to convincingly reject reciprocal monophyly of the alpha and beta series diagnosed previously by Etheridge on the basis of morphological variation (and later diagnosed as distinct genera by Savage). Shochat and Dessauer’s results were a topic of debate in the anole phylogenetics community since before they were even published, and featured prominently in the Third Anolis Newsletter from 1977, where Shochat discussed preliminary results and Ernest Williams critiqued this work. Although Willams appreciated Shochat and Dessauer’s efforts, and understood the potential vale of the data they were obtaining, he ultimately concluded by asking”What does the new evidence [from Shochat and Dessauer] explain that the old Etheridgean scheme did not?” and answering “very little” (emphasis in original). In hindsight, I think his critique was unfair. The molecular genetic evidence they provided proved very convincing to many anole biologists of the day and many of the relationships they recovered remain well-supported, including some groups that conflicted with those recovered by previous morphological analyses and favored by Williams in the 1970s.
As I’ve mentioned previously, some biographers believe that Dessauer’s contributions to anole biology barely deserve mention among all of his other accomplishments. In searching the Google Books database for more information on Dessauer’s contributions, you can get sense for the extent of his pioneering influence. In a remembrance of the famous bird systematist Charles Sibley, Alan Brush places Dessauer alongside Sibley and the primate systematist Morris Goodman as the founders of molecular systematics. In his book Parasites and Infectious Disease: Discovery by Serendipity and Otherwise, Gerald Desch relates stories of Dessauer’s early days implementing molecular genetic analyses and teaching to others to do similar work. I didn’t know Herb Dessauer, but given such anecdotes and the remarkable list of collaborative studies he published, it seems clear that he was not only a pioneer, but also a leader, who inspired others and drove them to advance science in new and interesting ways.
In spite of his many accomplishments, I hope that, given how much Dessauer’s work on anoles influenced myself and other anole biologists, that we see it mentioned in the scientific obituaries that are sure to appear in the coming months.
In the era of Big Data, we can ask questions that would have been inconceivable just a few years ago. Consider the types of questions we can ask using Google’s Ngram Viewer, which uses full-text searches of >4% of all books ever printed to characterize relative word or phrase usage over time (this approach was initially described in a 2011 Science paper about “Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books“).
Among the most important questions one might ask with the Ngram Viewer is “What is the most written-about lizard genus?” I did some preliminary scouting to assess the relative usage of some of the lizard genera that I guessed would be the most popular. I quickly narrowed my queries to the five taxa – Anolis, Sceloporus, Varanus, Lacerta, and Gekko – that I think give the most interesting graphs for discussion. I excluded other potentially popular genera from my queries for for a few reasons. Iguana is very popular, but I eliminated it because it is often used colloquially to refer to lizards that don’t necessarily belong to the genus Iguana. Eumeces never appears as frequently as the other genera in my searches. Pogona is immensely popular as a pet, but usage of this genus name is still far below the others in my list.
Lacerta jumps out to a big early lead and maintains a strong lead throughout the 19th century, thanks to its widespread use in Latin-language literature from the 19th century and countless books about the European fauna (Ngrams Viewer even provides links to the books or articles containing the phrase of interest!).
In the early 20th century, Anolis joins the competition as one of the most popular lizard genera, and opens up a sizeable lead by the 1980s that it maintains until the turn of the 20th century. Although Anolis is briefly surpassed by Varanus in the 2000s, it nudges back into the lead by the end of 2008!
There you have it folks, quantitative proof of the popularity of Anolis! Have I failed to consider some genera that might be competing with Anolis in the lizard genus popularity contest?
Uta stansburiana mating. Image from http://cabezaprieta.org/
The side-blotched lizard, Uta stansburiana, is one of the most widely-studied lizard species, thanks largely to work by Barry Sinervo and colleagues on the evolution of alternative mating strategies (a.k.a. the rock-paper-scissors game in lizards). The most recent report on the evolution of this interesting species investigates reproductive isolation between two populations of Uta that diverged within the last 22,500 years. One of these populations is found on lava flows and the others if found off the lava flows. This report by Corl et al. (2012) is noteworthy because recent work on a range of other organisms suggests that some “rules” for the evolution of reproductive isolation are shared across the tree of life. Do these rules also apply to lizards?
To my knowledge, patterns of reproductive isolation have only been investigated experimentally in one other genus of lizards: Lacerta (Rykena 1991, 1996; Olsson et al. 2004). This work with Lacerta suggest substantial intrinsic reproductive isolation between species resulting from low fertility and high rates of developmental defects in hybrid crosses. Studies of Lacerta also support Haldane’s Rule because females hybrids (ZW) suffer more fitness consequences than male hybrids (ZZ).
By conducting experimental hybridization studies between these two populations of Uta, Corl et al. (2012) were able to show that significant reproductive isolation has evolved between populations, largely in the form of pre-zygotic post-mating isolation; inter-population crosses produce significantly more unfertilized than fertilized eggs relative to intra-population crosses. Corl et al.’s results are also consistent with at least one general rule for the evolution of reproductive isolation that has been reported in other organisms; asymmetric reproductive of isolation between the two Uta populations is consistent with Darwin’s Corollary to Haldane’s Rule.
How does all this relate to anoles? My lab is interested in this work because we’re in the midst of a major project designed to answer questions about intrinsic reproductive isolation in Anolis. Anthony Geneva reported on some preliminary results of this work earlier this year and we hope to have more to report sometime in the near future.
Rykena, S. 1991. Hybridization experiments as tests for species boundaries in the genus Lacerta sensu stricto. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum Berlin 67:55–68.
Rykena, S. 1996. Experimental interspecific hybridization in the genus Lacerta. Israel Journal of Zoology 42:171–184.
This past summer, two groups of authors published reports on the phylogeography of the only anole native to the continental United States: Anolis carolinensis. Each report sought to characterize genetic diversity across this species’ range by identifying genetically distinct populations, inferring historical demographic events, estimating the absolute timing of diversification events, and testing the hypothesized impact of riverine barriers and Pleistocene glaciation on geographic differentiation.
Because these two reports effectively appeared simultaneously (Tollis et al.’s report appeared on June 7th in PLoS ONE and Campbell-Staton et al.’s report was accepted for publication on June 18th at Ecology and Evolution), and do not cite or discuss one another’s work, I thought it would be worth writing a post that compares and contrasts their results and conclusions. I’m going to focus in particular on three specific results reported by both groups of authors: (1) diagnosis of geographically and genetically distinct populations, (2) inference of historical demographic processes within populations, and (3) estimates for the timing of A. carolinensis diversification. While the two studies largely agree on the first two results, they appear to disagree somewhat on third.
1. Diagnosis of geographically and genetically distinct populations
Here at the Glor Lab we’re in the second year of a major anole breeding experiment. Specifically, PhD student Anthony Geneva is completing the second generation of an experimental study of reproductive isolation that was the subject of his poster at the Evolution meetings this past summer (see this previous post on Anole Annals for more on this poster). I’m happy to report that egg production thus far has been steady and that the we’ve had hatchling emerging for a few weeks now. In the photo above, you can see a baby just emerging from an egg in the foreground and other eggs individually incubating in vermiculite in the background. We’ll have more to report on this experiment in the coming weeks. We’re particularly interested in sharing information on how we’ve encouraged breeding this year by manipulating light and humidity, and in learning how others might have tried to do the same.
Albert Schwartz, longtime professor of biology at Miami Dade Community College, was one of the most important figures in anole biology. Schwartz co-authored the authoritative account of West Indian reptiles and amphibians with Robert Henderson, described at least 8 anole species (in addition to many other reptile and amphibian species), authored dozens of reports on anole taxonomy and biogeography (see previous reviews on Anole Annals of his reports on Hispaniolan giant anoles and Hispaniolan trunk anoles for examples of this work), and amassed a collection that would ultimately include over 15,000 anole specimens. Most of Schwartz’s West Indian collection can now be found in the collections of the University of Kansas, including 15,511 anoles. When Schwartz completed his work on the vast collections he had accumulated over decades of intense field sampling, he reached an agreement with KU that would, in 1987, have Bill Duellman and Linda Trueb driving a 38′ U-Haul truck full of over 60,000 reptile and amphibian specimens of from Florida to Kansas. In addition to acquiring Schwartz’s preserved material, KU also acquired Schwartz’s original notebooks.
These notebooks are housed in KU Herpetology’s library and I had a chance to check them out during a recent visit. There are more than 40 notebooks in total, and they extend across Schwartz’s career in the West Indies. He kept his fieldnotes primarily in student composition books (some of which actually bear the title “SCHOOLTIME Compositions”). For the most part, Schwartz’s notebooks are simple catalogues of specimens that include a field series number, the species name, and the date and location of the collection. Although he provides color notes on most specimens, he rarely comments on natural history or other aspects of a particular specimen’s biology.
I’d like to get all of these notebooks digitized and transcribed so that the information they contain can be made available to anyone who’s interested. I’ve been thinking that it might be fun to crowd source the transcription of these notebooks once they’re scanned. For those who aren’t familiar with crowd-sourced transcription, this process permits large numbers of internet users to transcribe old texts that cannot easily be digitized via optical character recognition. Today, this approach is widely used by folks interested in transcribing handwritten documents and numerous software applications have been developed to facilitate the process. It’s already being used to transcribe some historical field notes, including an effort by The San Diego Natural History Museum to transcribe the field notebooks of the herpetologist Lawrence Klauber.
What do you think? Are there readers of Anole Annals who would be interested in helping transcribe Schwartz’s notebooks? Does anybody have past experience coordinating such efforts that they’d be willing to share?
[Editor’s Note: the person who took this photograph is Steven De Decker; see comments after the first paragraph for corrected information]
As one of the seven or eight folks who judged the photos in this year’s AA photo contest I want to give some recognition to an image that didn’t even make the list of finalists determined by popular vote. My judge’s choice award winner is a striking photograph of a juvenile of the Cuban endemic Anolis bartschi that was taken by Joe Burgess at Cueva del Indio, Vinales, Cuba. Although observed most frequently on rocks in karstic regions, individuals like this one are also commonly seen on trunks and other broad perches emerging from the karst beneath. The quality and clarity of this image are superb. The subtle colors along the animals spine and the steely blue of the eye and surrounding region are beautiful under natural light (perhaps complemented with a tactfully subtle fill flash?). A catch-light in the black eye gives the lizard some personality, and makes me wonder what it might be thinking. The right front forelimb is lifted off the trunk and possibility somewhat blurred by motion, impressing me with the animals agility and suggesting that its ready to make a move. This photo that makes me want to get out and find some anoles.
[Note from Jonathan Losos: I screwed up! There were two photos of A. bartschi entered into the photo contest, and when Rich asked for information on the A. bartschi photo, I gave him the info for the wrong one. The photo above was taken by Steven De Decker (who also took the grand prize winning photograph of A. allisoni). Steven had this to say about the photograph of the juvenile: “It was in the proximity of the prehistoric wall at Vinales, Pinar Del Rio. We were there with 2 local biologists who told us A. bartschi was pretty common to be found at the wall 10 years ago. Great was our disappointment when we saw that [the curly tailed lizard] Leiocephalus carinatus had taken over habitat near the wall. When we went back we decided to investigate some semi caves at the border of the park, and that’s where we found A. bartschi sitting on a trunk near the caves. And to answer your question, no I didn’t use a flash for this particular photo. Using the flash here would have given me a black background.
Meanwhile, below I’ve pasted the photo of A. bartschi by Joe Burgess (whose photo of an A. gorgonae took second place in the contest); this is the photo for which Rich gave info in his post above.
Two days ago, 
