Stenodactylus petrii Anderson 1896:96

Bauer, Aaron M., DeBoer, Jonathan C. & Taylor, Dylan J., 2017, Atlas of the Reptiles of Libya, Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 64 (8), pp. 155-318 : 194-195

Stenodactylus petrii Anderson 1896:96

1896 Stenodactylus petrii Anderson, A Contribution to the Herpetology of Arabia, with a preliminary list of the reptiles and batrachians of Egypt. R.H. Porter, London, 124 pp.

SYNTYPES.— BMNH 1946.8.23. 27–29 (formerly BMNH 97 .10.28.23–25), “Tel el Amarna” [ Egypt] .

Stenodactylus petrii [part], Le Berre 1989:164.

Stenodactylus petrii [part], Schleich, Kästle, and Kabisch 1996:259.

Stenodactylus petrii, Sindaco and Jeremčenko 2008:130 .

Stenodactylus petrii [part], Trape, Trape, and Chirio 2012:186.

DISTRIBUTION.— Across northern Africa from Mauritania and Western Sahara to Egypt and northern Sudan (although absent from most of Mediterranean Morocco and Algeria as well as much of southern Algeria), with scattered records from the northern Sahel of Mali and Niger. Also in Sinai and southern Israel. Sindaco and Jeremčenko (2008) considered Senegalese records erroneous, although several were plotted by Trape et al. (2012). Sindaco and Jeremčenko (2008) appear to plot this species in southern Jordan, but this is not noted in their text, nor is a Jordanian occurrence supported by Disi et al. (2001), Disi (2002) or Werner (2016).

In Libya they are primarily found in Tripolitania and south into the regions of Ghat and Sabha (Sindaco and Jeremčenko 2008) .

Libyan Records (Map 15): TRIPOLITA-

NIA: ZAWIYAH: 21: MZUT R3240 . TRIPOLI : 38:

USNM 33877. 39: MCZ R 21910; USNM

59000. 45: MZUT R2525; NHMW 17282;

NMBA-REPT 5248, 5445; ZMB 15301–02;

ZSM 236/0; Werner 1909; Ghigi 1913; Zavattari 1934; Loveridge 1947. 51: NMBA-REPT

15394. 53: NMBA-REPT 15292–95. MURQUB:

64: ZMB 17979. MISRATAH: 72: ZSM

26/1968/1–2. NALUT: 105: AIC (4 specimens)

no number provided; MNHN 2003.2962;

Ibrahim and Ineich 2005. JABAL AL GHARBI:

154: MCZ R 170078. SIRTE: 182: BMNH

1965.1175. 189: Arnold 1980b; Sindaco and

Jeremčenko 2008. “ Tripolitania settentrionale ”: Zavattari 1937. “ Jebel Erdcul ” [unlocated]: BMNH 1901.10.28. 2. FEZZAN: GHAT: MAP 15. Distribution of Stenodactylus petrii in Libya. 245: Scortecci 1937b. 249: MCSN 1979; ZCT Some records may be attributable to S. stenurus . Reexamina- 2006.74; Scortecci 1937a; Ibrahim 2008a. 251: tion of northwestern Tripolitanian specimens is required.

CUP R 084; Frynta et al. 2000. 253: MCSN 1978; Scortecci 1937a. WADI AL HAYAA: 274: CUP R 085, 138; Frynta et al. 2000. SABHA: 287: CUP R 015, 017–19, 056, 082–83, 086–87, 100, 115– 119, 124; Frynta et al. 2000. MURZUQ: 298: MCSN 2010. 304: ZCT 2006.54; Ibrahim 2008a. CYRENAICA: DARNAH: 470: ZSM 118/1983/1–2. 475: CAS 12717. AL WAHAT: 529: NMBA-REPT 15296. 543: Arnold 1980b; Sindaco and Jeremčenko 2008. 544: BMNH 1965.1176–80. 564: BMNH 1932.3.6. 4; Vinciguerra 1931; Zavattari 1934, 1937; Loveridge 1947. KUFRAH: 566: Scortecci 1935b; Zavattari 1937; Loveridge 1947.

COMMENTS:.— The nomen Stenodactylus guttatus Cuvier, 1829 has generally been placed in the synonymy of S. sthenodactylus , but Metallinou and Crochet (2013) discovered that the type series is compound, with one syntype referable to S. petrii and the other to Ptyodactylus hasselquistii (Dondorff, 1798) . To maintain the prevailing use of S. petrii , they selected as a lectotype the latter specimen. Metallinou et al. (2012) demonstrated that S. petrii was paraphyletic with respect to S. stenurus , with the latter more closely allied to western populations of S. petrii (represented by material from Mauritania, Western Sahara, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia in their sampling) than to true S. petrii from Egypt and Israel. In the absence of sampling in critical intervening areas, most notably Libya, they left open the question of whether S. stenurus should be considered conspecific with S. petrii , a broad ranging species across most of North Africa, or a restricted form distinct from both clades of S. petrii . Additional sampling in Egypt and Libya is critical to properly delimiting the two species.

IUCN THREAT STATUS.— Not evaluated, but anticipated to be Least Concern.