Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2003, 137, 101–115. With 4 figures © 2003 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2003, 137, 101–115 101 Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKZOJZoological Journal of the Linnean Society0024-4082The Lin- nean Society of London, 2003 137 Original Article TIFFANY M. DOANPHYLOGENETIC CLASSIFICATION OF CERCOSAURA Corresponding author. Tiffany M. Doan, Biology Department, Vassar College, Box 555, 124 Raymond Avenue, Poughkeepsie, NY 12604-0555, USA. E-mail: tiffperu@yahoo.com A new phylogenetic classification for the gymnophthalmid genera Cercosaura, Pantodactylus and Prionodactylus (Reptilia: Squamata) TIFFANY M. DOAN Department of Biology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, USA Because of the poor state of knowledge of many of the gymnophthalmid genera, systematic revision is necessary to render the classification consistent with evolutionary history. To that end, I conducted a review of the species of three genera of the Cercosaurinae which appear to form a monophyletic group: Cercosaura, Pantodactylus, and Priono- dactylus. Phylogenetic analysis of 61 morphological characters was conducted after specimens of all species were examined to evaluate the composition of each taxon. The phylogenetic reconstruction suggested that the genus Pri- onodactylus was paraphyletic. A new phylogenetic classification is proposed that synonymizes Pantodactylus and Prionodactylus with Cercosaura. Cercosaura is redefined to include 11 species and seven subspecies. A key is pro- vided to distinguish among species. © 2003 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Soci- ety, 2003, 137, 101-115. ADDITIONAL KEYWORDS: Cercosaurini – lizards – morphological systematics – phylogenetics – Reptilia – South America – Squamata – taxonomy INTRODUCTION The family Gymnophthalmidae has endured an unsta- ble taxonomic history. Many of the genera are inade- quately characterized and the few published generic revisions usually have resulted in the authors noting that such allocations of species were ‘for convenience’ (e.g. Uzzell, 1973). Many others (Montanucci, 1973; Oftedal, 1974) have lamented the fragmentary state of knowledge of the relationships within the family. This is partly because of the dearth of specimens in collec- tions due to the secretive habits of the species that occur in remote habitats, primarily in tropical America. Phylogenetic relationships of the family have also been inadequately studied. Two morphological phylog- enies have been published (Presch, 1980; Hoyos, 1998), but both were considered preliminary by the authors and clades within these phylogenies were poorly supported. It was not until the publication of the molecular phylogeny by Pellegrino et al. (2001) that a more comprehensive attempt was made to examine the relationships of the genera by incor- porating multiple species per genus. That phylogeny included 50 species (out of 178 total) representing 26 genera (out of 36 total), which allowed the authors to propose a phylogenetic classification of the higher order relationships within the family. They proposed four subfamilies (two novel and two resurrected), with two tribes each for two of the subfamilies. They left the generic and specific taxonomy unmodified. One of the subfamilies resurrected by Pellegrino et al. (2001) was Cercosaurinae Gray. Two tribes were named in this subfamily, Ecpelopini Fitzinger and Cercosaurini Gray. Pellegrino et al. (2001) placed eight genera into the tribe Cercosaurini and men- tioned that eight others that were not examined in their study probably belonged there as well. All of the Cercosaurini except for Bachia had been members of Boulenger’s (1885) Group II of the Teiidae. Group II (Boulenger, 1885) cannot now be considered a natural group because four members of Group II ( Arthro- saura, Ecpleopus, Leposoma, and probably Amapa- saurus) were placed in the tribe Ecpleopini, and Alopoglossus is now assigned to a separate subfamily, Alopoglossinae.