Dipsas viguieri (Bocourt, 1884)
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.11391571 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11391587 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/F95287B2-FFC2-B617-FCE4-FC62FAC5FB7B |
|
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
|
scientific name |
Dipsas viguieri |
| status |
|
The Distributional Status of Dipsas viguieri View in CoL
Peters (1960) reviewed the taxonomic status of members of the subfamily Dipsadinae , and placed nine species in the Dipsas articulata group, collectively distributed from western and southeastern Mexico to northwestern Ecuador. Peters’ view of the species-level relationships among the members of the articulata group was impacted by the paucity of specimens of each taxon known at that time, and he noted that only minimal scale and color differences separated certain species. Peters (1960) indicated the range of D. viguieri as the Pacific coast of Panama.
Pérez Santos and Moreno (1988) reported on a specimen of D. gracilis from the Pacific coast of Colombia (see discussion below), and Pérez Santos (1999) noted the occurrence of D. viguieri from both versants of Panama, including a specimen from the province of Bocas del Toro in the western part of the country. Subsequently, Köhler (2001; 2003; 2008) noted the range of Dipsas viguieri as eastern Panama and western Colombia but did not provide additional information. Cadle (2005), in a paper on the systematics of the Dipsas oreas complex, tentatively referred to a specimen ( FMNH 74376) from northwestern Colombia near the Panama border as D. viguieri , which previously had been identified as D. gracilis . Nonetheless, Cadle (2005) stated that these two taxa were not distinguishable by any reported characteristics, and on p. 128 noted that, “Without additional study, I am unable to adequately differentiate Dipsas viguieri (eastern Panama and northern Chocó, Colombia) and D. gracilis (western Ecuador and extreme northern Peru).” Further, based on an examination of morphological characters, Cadle indicated geography as the only currently reliable means of assigning names to these species. Similarly, in discussing a number of poorly-known Dipsas from South America, Harvey (2008) commented that he was unable to distinguish D. viguieri from D. gracilis , and thus did not include D. viguieri in his key but noted that the D. articulata complex requires further study.
Jaramillo et al. (2010) and Johnson et al. (2015) regarded Dipsas viguieri as endemic to Panama. Wallach et al. (2014: 235), however, considered D. viguieri as occupying “Eastern Panama (Canal Zone, Darién, Panamá) and Colombia (? Chocó, Piura), NSL– 60 m. ” In their D. gracilis account, however, these authors noted, “Colombian record doubtful fide Cadle (2005: 123): possibly D. viguieri . Dipsas gracilis and D. viguieri possibly conspecific fide Harvey (2008: 429).” Wallach et al. (2014: 232), however, apparently confused the information provided by Cadle (2005), as the FMNH specimen tentatively was referred to D. viguieri and not D. gracilis . Finally, Ray (2017) indicated the range of D. viguieri as eastern Panama to northwestern Colombia.
The historical timeline for information on the distribution and taxonomic status of Dipsas viguieri has been unclear, as different workers have maintained that this species is endemic to Panama or occurs in both Panama and Colombia. In the absence of a definitive analysis involving morphological and molecular approaches, for the purpose of this paper we are considering D. viguieri as not endemic to Panama.
Global Status of the Central American Herpetofauna
As with the Mexican herpetofauna ( Johnson et al. 2017), the Central American herpetofauna also is highly diverse, consisting of 60 families, 214 genera, and 1,095 species ( Table 1 View Table 1 ), organized into six orders ( Anura , Caudata , Gymnophiona , Crocodylia, Squamata, and Testudines). The level of herpetofaunal diversity in Central America is intermediate between that found in Mexico and North America ( United States – Canada). The number of species in the United States – Canada is the same as Johnson et al. (2017) reported, i.e., 650 (Center for North American Herpetology website; accessed 9 December 2017). Johnson et al. (2017) reported the number of species in Mexico as 1,292.
Even though the number of herpetofaunal species occurring in Central America is intermediate between that found in the United States – Canada and Mexico, Central America contains about 8.5 times the number of taxa by area as found in Mexico, and 155.6 times the number found in the United States – Canada. Thus, the relative degree of biodiversity is significantly higher in Central America when compared to that in Mexico and the United States – Canada.
If we consider Central America as a single region in our analysis (i.e., not one divided into seven countries), then its herpetofauna also is significant when compared to that of other areas in Latin America. With respect to amphibians, the 509 species occurring in Central America is the fifth largest in Latin America (amphibiaweb.com; 15 April 2018), and is closest to that for the country of Ecuador, at 562. The area /species ratio for Ecuador however, is 504.6, compared to 998.0 for Central America.
Considering the numbers of crocodylian, squamate, and turtle species, the 586 species in Central America is comparable to that recorded for the neighboring country of Colombia, which is 611 (reptile-database.org; accessed 29 December 2017). Colombia, however, with an area of 1,141,748 km 2, is 2.25 times the size of Central America , which contains an area of 507,966 km 2 (www. Oei.es/ historico/cultura2/ Colombia /03.htm; accessed 29 December 2017). Thus , the area/species ratio for Colombia is 1,868.7, compared to 868.0 for that of Central America. Only Brazil (799) and Colombia in South America contain more species than Central America (reptile-database.org; accessed 29 December 2017).
Endemism within the Central American Herpetofauna
The proportion of herpetofaunal endemism in Central America is slightly less than in Mexico, the other major segment of Mesoamerica. The percentage in Central America is 56.9 ( Table 2 View Table 2 ) compared to 61.1 in Mexico ( Johnson et al. 2017). This percentage in Central America is based on an endemic herpetofauna of 623 species and a total herpetofauna of 1,095 species ( Table 2 View Table 2 ). Both of the comparable figures for the Mexican herpetofauna are higher, i.e., 789 and 1,292 ( Johnson et al. 2017). As noted by Johnson et al. (2015: 26), “Mesoamerica is one of the world’s most important biodiversity reservoirs, and Central America contains a substantial component of that region’s herpetofauna.” We illustrate the breakdown of the total and endemic components of the Central American herpetofauna in Fig. 1 View Fig . This graph shows the close correspondence between the endemic and total number of salamander species, the relatively distant correspondence between the endemic and total number of squamate species, and the intermediate correspondence between the two figures for anurans ( Fig. 1 View Fig ).
Of the 60 families represented in Central America, 38 (63.3%) contain endemic species ( Table 2 View Table 2 ). This leaves 22 families with no endemic representation, including the anuran families Aromobatidae , Hemiphractidae , and Rhinophrynidae , the crocodylian families Alligatoridae and Crocodylidae , the squamate families Amphisbaenidae , Hoplocercidae , Polychrotidae , Xenosauridae , Boidae , Charinidae , Loxocemidae , Natricidae , Sibynophiidae , and Tropidophiidae , and the turtle families Cheloniidae , Chelydridae , Dermatemydidae , Dermochelyidae , Emydidae , Staurotypidae, and Testudinidae . In Central America these are small-content families, with species numbers ranging from one to five ( Table 2 View Table 2 ). The families with endemic representation have total numbers ranging from one to 166; the endemic numbers vary from one to 143 ( Table 2 View Table 2 ).
Of the 14 anuran families with representatives in Central America, 11 contain endemic species, which include 192 (58.5%) of the total of 328 species ( Table 2 View Table 2 ). Of these 11 families, the largest numbers of endemics are 77 in the Craugastoridae and 52 in the Hylidae . Other than in the Pipidae , with one total and one endemic species (100%), as might be expected, the percentage of endemism is next highest in the Craugastoridae (75.5%), but the third highest is in the Dendrobatidae (66.7%), and not the Hylidae (60.9%). The value for the Eleutherodactylidae (62.5%) also is higher than that for the Hylidae . The remaining families contain from one to 24 endemic species ( Table 2 View Table 2 ).
A single family of salamanders, the Plethodontidae , occurs in Central America. The percentage of endemism (86.1%) is amazingly high and is the highest in all the 38 families represented ( Table 2 View Table 2 ).
The endemic species of caecilians (seven) make up less than one-half (46.7%) of the total number of 15 in Central America. Three of the endemics are caeciliids and four are dermophiids.
None of the three species of crocodylians in Central America is endemic. Crocodylus acutus and Caiman crocodilus rather are among the naturally most broadly distributed herpetofaunal species in the Western Hemisphere.
The squamates are the most speciose group of herpetofaunal organisms in Central America, with 560 species distributed among 32 families ( Table 2 View Table 2 ). Only the endemic proportions of turtles (8.7%) and crocodylians (0.0%) are lower than those of squamates (49.8%). The endemic squamates are more or less evenly divided between the lizards (143) and snakes (136). Of the 19 families of lizards with representatives in Central America, 15 contain endemic species (78.9%). The largest numbers of endemic squamate species are found within the families Dactyloidae (74) and Dipsadidae (77). The next largest number of endemic lizards (25) is allocated to the family Anguidae . The remaining 12 lizard families contain only one to 13 endemic species. The percentage of endemism among the lizard families ranges from 11.1% in the Corytophanidae to 80.0% in the Mabuyidae ( Table 2 View Table 2 ). Thirteen families of snakes are represented in Central America, of which seven contain endemic species (53.8%). The greatest numbers of endemic species are in the families Dipsadidae (77) and Colubridae (30). The next largest number (16) lies within the family Viperidae ; the remaining four snake families contain from one to six endemic species ( Table 2 View Table 2 ). The percentage of endemism among the snake families ranges from 31.6% in the Elapidae to 60.0% in the Typhlopidae ( Table 2 View Table 2 ).
The percentage of endemism among turtles is very low, with only two such species among a total of 23 (8.7%), one each in the families Geoemydidae and Kinosternidae ( Table 2 View Table 2 ).
At the ordinal level, the percentage of endemism is highest among the salamanders at 86.1%, the same figure as for the family Plethodontidae , since it is the only family of salamanders found in Central America ( Table 2 View Table 2 ). The percentage is lowest among the crocodylians at 0.0%. Intermediate values are evident for the anurans (58.5%), squamates (49.8%), and caecilians (46.7%).
The level of herpetofaunal endemism in Central America is comparable to that found in the other portions of the North American continent, i.e., Mexico, as well as the United States – Canada ( Table 3 View Table 3 ). The overall level for Central America, however, is slightly lower (56.9%) than for either Mexico (61.5%) or the United States – Canada (61.2%).
Although, as expected, the total number of herpetofaunal species is lower in the United States – Canada than to the south in Mesoamerica ( Table 3 View Table 3 ); even with the greater area of the two northern nations, the level of endemism still is impressive. Of the total of 650 species in the United States – Canada, 398 are endemic, for a percentage of endemism of 61.2%. Notably, this level of endemism is based heavily on the amphibians, especially the salamanders. The proportion of amphibian endemism is more than 10 points higher in the United States – Canada (78.6%) than in Mexico (68.3%) or Central America (67.2%). The percentage of endemism is higher for both anurans and salamanders in the United States – Canada (64.4% and 86.4%, respectively) than for these two groups in either Mexico (60.0% and 82.8%, respectively) or Central America (58.5% and 86.1%, respectively). Significantly, the level of amphibian endemism in all three regions heavily depends on the salamanders, i.e., over 80%. Curiously enough, such high incidences of salamander species-level endemism are not correlated with the incidence of family-level endemism, which decreases markedly from the United States – Canada through Mexico to Central America. The 191 salamander species in the United States – Canada are organized within eight families, but with the majority allocated to the family Plethodontidae (Center for North American Herpetology website; accessed 2 January 2018). Four of these eight families, the Amphiumidae , Cryptobranchidae , Proteidae , and Rhyacotritonidae occur no farther south than the United States. Four families, the Ambystomatidae , Plethodontidae , Salamandridae , and Sirenidae are represented in Mexico, but with the greatest number of species in the Plethodontidae , as in the United States – Canada. Only a single family, the Plethodontidae , is found in Central America. In the United States – Canada, 145 of the 191 species of salamanders are in the family Plethodontidae (75.9%). Of the 151 species found in Mexico 130 (86.1%) are in the Plethodontidae ( Wilson et al., 2017) ; the remaining 21 species are allocated to three families (see above). Finally, of the 166 species of salamanders found in Central America, all are in the Plethodontidae ; obviously the percentage of occupancy is 100%.
Unlike the situation among the amphibians, the level of endemism among the crocodylians, squamates, and turtles is significantly lower in all three regions dealt with in Table 3 View Table 3 . The level of endemism among these taxa is lowest in the United States – Canada (46.8%), next lowest in Central America (48.0%), and highest in Mexico (58.6%). Given that squamates constitute the largest group, compared to the other two, the same pattern would be expected for them as for the entire group. Thus, the level of squamate endemism is lowest in the United States – Canada (40.8%), intermediate in Central America (49.8%), and highest in Mexico (60.0%).
The differential between the percentages of endemism for amphibians versus the remainder of the herpetofauna ( Table 3 View Table 3 ) increases from that seen in Mexico (9.7%), through Central America (19.2%), to the United States – Canada (31.8%). Thus, in all three regions amphibians contribute more to the degree of endemicity than the remainder of the herpetofauna ( Table 3 View Table 3 ).
Physiographic Distribution of the Endemic Central American Herpetofauna
Given the considerable global significance of the diversity and endemicity of the Central American herpetofauna, as documented above, it is of paramount importance to protect its elements.As an initial step to determine the distributional patterns of these organisms in Central America, we collated the available information on the occurrence of the members of the herpetofauna among the 10 physiographic regions traditionally recognized in this portion of Mesoamerica ( Campbell, 1999; Wilson and Johnson, 2010; Fig. 2 View Fig ). Six of these regions occupy the lowlands of Central America, including the Yucatan Platform, the Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras, the Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama, the Pacific lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala, the Pacific lowlands from southeastern Guatemala to northwestern Costa Rica, and the Pacific lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama ( Table 4 View Table 4 ). Four regions are found in the highlands of Central America, including the western nuclear Central American highlands, the eastern nuclear Central American highlands, the Isthmian Central American highlands, and the highlands of eastern Panama ( Table 4 View Table 4 ). We document the distribution of the 623 endemic members of the Central American herpetofauna among the 10 physiographic regions in Table 4 View Table 4 , and summarize these data in Table 5 View Table 5 and Fig. 3 View Fig .
Thetotalnumberoftheendemicspeciesdistributedwithin the 10 physiographic regions ranges from a low of six in the Yucatan Platform to 254 in the Isthmian Central American highlands ( Table 5 View Table 5 ). The mean regional occupancy figure is 94.3. Four of the regional values lie above or close to the mean figure, as follows: western nuclear Central American highlands ( CG; 117), eastern nuclear Central American highlands (HN; 178), Isthmian Central American highlands ( CRP; 254), Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (GH; 94), and Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama ( NP; 123). Given these species numbers, the five regions with values above or close to the mean are the most significant for conservation remediation.
The other five of the regional values lie below the mean figure, as follows: highlands of eastern Panama ( EP; 37), Yucatan Platform ( YP; 6), Pacific lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala ( CGU; 9), Pacific lowlands from southeastern Guatemala to northwestern Costa Rica ( GCR; 39), and Pacific lowlands from Central Costa Rica through Panama (CP; 86). Even though these values are relatively low, collectively they amount to 177 species, 28.4% of the total of 623 endemic species; thus, they also are of considerable importance.
The five regions containing the highest numbers of endemic species include three in highland and two in lowland areas. The five regions with the lowest numbers include one in highland and four in lowland areas. The numbers in the four highland regions range from 37 to 254, and in the six lowland regions from six to 86.
Obviously, the 623 Central American endemic species are distributed unevenly throughout the 10 physiographic regions we recognize. In order to examine their distribution, we constructed a table indicating the total number of regions inhabited by the component species ( Table 6 View Table 6 ). The regions, listed in order of their total number of constituent species, range from six in the Yucatan Platform to 254 in the Isthmian Central American highlands. The number of physiographic regions occupied by these species ranges from one to eight, and their corresponding number of species also decreases markedly ( Table 6 View Table 6 ). Thus, 450 species occupy a single region, with the numbers ranging from one in the Yucatan Platform to 154 in the Isthmian Central American highlands; no single-region species are present in the Pacific lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala. At the opposite extreme, a single species ( Leptodeira rhombifera ) occupies eight regions, and one species ( Hydromorphus concolor ) inhabits seven regions. The single-region species comprise the most speciose categories for seven of the 10 physiographic regions ( Table 6 View Table 6 ). The three exceptions are subhumid regions on the Atlantic (Yucatan Platform) and Pacific versants (Pacific lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala and Pacific lowlands from southeastern Guatemala to northwestern Costa Rica).
The 450 single-region species comprise 72.2% of the 623 Central American endemic species. The 95 two-region species contribute 15.2% of the total number. Together, the single-region and two-region species constitute 545 taxa, 87.5% of the total. Thus, only 78 of the remaining species occupy from three to eight regions. This feature is of tremendous conservation significance for Central America, and we review this matter in greater detail below.
Conservation Status of the Endemic Central American Herpetofauna
In a previous paper on the Mexican endemic herpetofauna ( Johnson et al. 2017), we utilized the Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS) system of conservation assessment. Along with various other authors, we have been involved with a series of papers published on the Mesoamerican herpetofauna since 2013 (see Johnson et al. 2017, for a listing) including a recent paper on the herpetofauna of the Mexican state of Puebla ( Woolrich-Piña et al. 2017). Herein, we use the same system to evaluate the conservation status of the 623 species comprising the Central American herpetofauna. In calculating the EVS for these species, we used the scores included in Johnson et al. (2015), supplemented by the scores we determined for the 43 species described since this paper was published. We placed these scores in Table 7 View Table 7 , incorporated them into those for the entire Central American endemic herpetofauna in Table 8 View Table 8 , and provide a graph of the data in Fig. 4 View Fig .
To illustrate the pattern of distribution of the EVS, we organized these scores by family in Table 9 View Table 9 . The data in this table indicate that the scores range from 10 to 20, out of a total theoretical range of 3 to 20. Thus, the scores occupy the entire range of medium vulnerability (10–13) and high vulnerability (14–20) in the EVS scale. None of the scores for these endemic species extend into the low vulnerability range (3–9).
The highest score of 20 is found only among the anurans and, in particular, within the family Hylidae . This score is shared by six hylid species, including four species of Ecnomiohyla , one of Bromeliohyla , and one of Ptychohyla ( Table 8 View Table 8 ). The lowest score of 10 is seen in a broader range of herpetofaunal families ( Table 9 View Table 9 ), including the Hylidae (one species), Ranidae (one), Dactyloidae (one), Phrynosomatidae (one), and Leptotyphlopidae (one). The greatest number of species, i.e., 146, were assessed an EVS of 16, with species numbers decreasing more or less gradually on either side of this apex to both extremes, i.e., 10 and 20.
Of the 623 total scores, 63 (10.1%) lie within the medium range and the remaining 560 (89.9%) in the high range ( Table 9 View Table 9 ). This large representation of high vulnerability species among the endemic species is of tremendous conservation significance, and figures prominently in the system of prioritization we present below.
Priority Listing for Central American Endemic Herpetofaunal Species
In prioritizing the conservation significance of the endemic herpetofaunal species in Central America, we used the same simple system developed by Johnson et al. (2017). This system involves combining the data on physiographic distribution ( Table 4 View Table 4 ) and the Environmental Vulnerability Scores ( Table 8 View Table 8 ) for the 623 endemic species.This procedure resulted in the recognition of 14 priority levels, of which six are high vulnerability and eight are medium vulnerability groupings ( Table 10 View Table 10 ).
We organized the high vulnerability species into six groups based on the number of physiographic regions they occupy, ranging from one to six ( Table 10 View Table 10 , Fig. 5 View Fig ). The numbers of species in these seven groups decrease markedly and consistently, as follows: Priority Level One (429 species); Priority Level Two (73); Priority Level Three (27); Priority Level Four (21); Priority Level Five (nine); and Priority Level Six (three). The most significant conclusion of this study is that 562 (90.2%) of the endemic species in Central America are allocated to the six high vulnerability groups. This proportion is 10 percentage points higher than the comparable figure (80.2%) for the Mexican endemic species ( Johnson et al., 2017). Furthermore, we believe that the difficulty of protecting these high vulnerability species increases with the fewer physiographic regions they occupy. Thus, the most critically vulnerable species are in the Priority One grouping, the 429 species that constitute 68.9% of the total number of Central American endemics. The challenge of protecting the high vulnerability species increases commensurately with the decrease in the priority level number.
We arranged the medium vulnerability species into eight groups, also on the basis of the number of physiographic regions inhabited ( Table 10 View Table 10 , Fig. 5 View Fig ). Fewer species are included in these eight groups compared to the high vulnerability ones, as follows: Priority Level Seven (23); Priority Level Eight (21 species); Priority Level Nine (5); Priority Level Ten (four); Priority Level Eleven (four); Priority Level Twelve (two); Priority Level Thirteen (one); and Priority Level Fourteen (one). Even so, the next most important conclusion of this study is that these 61 species make up 9.8% of the total compendium of endemic species in Central America. The number of species in these eight groups also decreases sharply, as 69.8% of the 61 species fall into the first two priority levels, i.e., Seven and Eight.
When we examined the 623 endemic species relative to the number of physiographic regions inhabited, the results are as follows: one region (429+23 = 452); two regions (73+21 = 94); three regions (27+5 = 32); four regions (21+4 = 25); five regions (9+4 = 13); six regions (3+2 = 5); seven regions (1); and eight regions (1). Perusal of these data supports another conclusion, i.e., that 72.6% of the total number of species occupy a single physiographic region. Based on the assumptions of this study, these 452 species can be expected to offer the major challenge in efforts to protect the endemic component of the Central American herpetofauna. The next most challenging group contains the 94 species occupying two regions. Together, the singlegroup and double-group species comprise 546 (87.6%) of the total of 623 Central American endemic species.
Our analysis in this paper indicates that most of the 623 endemic CentralAmerican herpetofaunal species are judged as high vulnerability based on the EVS methodology, and are demonstrated to occupy relatively few physiographic regions (one or two). The endemic component of the Central American herpetofauna, just as with the Mexican endemic component ( Johnson et al. 2017), is of global significance and constitutes the most significant challenge to conservation professionals working within this segment of the Mesoamerican herpetofauna. Johnson et al. (2017) arrived at the same conclusion in their work on the Mexican endemic herpetofauna. Considered as a whole, the Mesoamerican endemic herpetofauna comprises the 789 Mexican endemic species dealt with by Johnson et al. (2017) and the 623 Central American endemic species dealt with here, as well as the 225 species restricted in distribution to Mexico and Central America (i.e., Mesoamerica; Wilson et al., 2017) for a total of 1,637 species. This figure represents more than three quarters of the entire Mesoamerican herpetofauna ( Wilson et al., 2017). We examine the parameters of the challenge facing conservation biologists working in Central America in the following section.
Prognosis for the Endemic Central American Herpetofauna
The same environmental issues impacting the Mexican endemic herpetofauna, as discussed by Johnson et al. (2017), also impinge upon the Central American endemic herpetofauna. In light of this situation, we emphasize that the survival of the 623 endemic species inhabiting Central America ultimately depends on addressing the underlying issues that lead to all environmental problems, including biodiversity decline, that in turn stand in the way of designing a sustainable existence for humanity’s tenure on Earth. Johnson et al. (2017: 609) explained what we face as follows: “Fundamentally, humans have created and maintain these environmental problems because of their capacity for rational thought, i.e., their ability to connect cause to effect through the passing of time, and adopting an anthropocentric worldview that stresses the exploitation of the world’s resources to support the burgeoning human population. Such a worldview contrasts markedly with that of environmentalists, who have adopted ‘a worldview that helps us make sense of how the environment works, our place in the environment, and right and wrong environmental behaviors’ ( Raven and Berg 2004: G-6). Obviously, the present anthropocentric worldview held by most people represents the fundamental reason why these environmental problems exist, and continued human population growth allows them to worsen over time.”
The anthropocentric worldview, also known as the Western worldview, “includes human superiority and dominance over nature, the unrestricted use of natural resources, increased economic growth to manage an expanding industrial base, the inherent rights of individuals, and accumulation of wealth and unlimited consumption of goods and services to provide material comforts” ( Raven and Berg 2004: 17). This worldview not only creates the entire spectrum of environmental problems, but also the entire panoply of human societal issues we see played out every day in various media outlets. Ultimately, they arise from a commitment to discriminate among groups of people, i.e., on the basis of racial background, gender, religion, economic wealth, political persuasion, and so forth. Thus, not only is humanity poised against the rest of the living world, but also varying groups of humans are in conflict with one another. As the focus of humanity decreases from larger to increasingly smaller realms of interest, it can be argued that mental stability gives way to instability, and eventually gives rise to the increased incidence of the narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). This disorder is highly variable in presentation and can manifest across a broad spectrum of severity, but is generally characterized by pervasive grandiosity, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy ( Caligor et al. 2015). Envisioning NPD as an extreme end-point of the intensification of anthropocentrism might explain why the potential causes of this disorder remain unknown and that clinical guidelines have yet to emerge ( Caligor et al. 2015). Given that none of the authors of this paper possesses credentials in psychology or psychiatry, our idea about the connection between the anthropocentric worldview and the narcissistic personality disorder can be best understood as a hypothesis remaining to be tested, hopefully by a crossdiscipline team of environmental scientists, deep ecology philosophers, and biocentric psychologists/psychiatrists. Studying such a connection could lie within the realm of environmental psychology, defined as an interdisciplinary field that focuses on the interplay between environments and human cognition and behavior; considering the term “environment” broadly, including both natural and humanmade environments ( De Young 2013). Since its conception, research in environmental psychology has often targeted human attitudes towards the natural environment, and current trends are now shifting to a focus on sustainable living in the context of environmental issues ( De Young 2013).
Finding lasting solutions to environmental problems must be based on a realistic, fact-based approach that evaluates the symptoms of these problems until their causes are identified ( Wilson and McCranie 2004). Often, the search for an ultimate cause stops when exposed to the anthropocentric worldview. A worldview, however, is a collection of basic values that “help us to make sense of the world, understand our place in it, and determine right and wrong behaviors” ( Raven and Berg 2004: G-17). How the values that characterize the anthropocentric worldview have arisen through the evolution of human behavior to become predominant, however, generally has not been explored. Our working assumption, i.e., our hypothesis, is that the ultimate causes are deeply engrained in the origins of human behavior and have become so pervasive as to underlie our efforts to understand our world, and our place in it. Even a discipline called environmental psychology might not expose the steps in behavioral evolution that would allow present-day humans to address the malady known as the anthropocentric worldview. In particular, this viewpoint is evident when considering that environmental psychology adopts a broad array of theories, methods, and interpretations from other disciplines as needed, and this mosaic approach can make it difficult to understand the field as a whole and the role it might play in these societal issues moving forward. An encouraging sign is the recent emergence of even more specific sub-fields, such as conservation psychology and ecopsychology, which aim to provide solutions or interventions for problems specifically related to conservation of the natural world ( Steg and Vlek 2009; De Young 2013).
There is clearly a critical need to develop novel approaches for studying animal behavior and human psychology that emphasize reasons why the anthropocentric worldview has become so predominant, and what needs to be done to replace it with the environmental worldview. If, as we hypothesized, there is a psychological connection among centrist forms of thinking at larger scales (i.e., the anthropocentric worldview) and those at smaller scales (i.e., narcissism), then we are faced with an even greater challenge than commonly is envisioned.
Searching for Ultimate Solutions
Johnson et al. (2017:613) offered some ideas about searching for ultimate solutions to the problem of biodiversity decline, based on opinions promulgated by Wilson and Townsend (2010), Wilson (2016), and Kopnina (2016), and concluded as follows: “Our opinion is that humans have the rational capacity to design a sustainable world through cooperative action, but our species’ attitudes and actions will have to change. Our preparedness will have to improve as well. Such change will have to be based on realistic, fact-based appraisals of where we are now and where we want to be in the future. Biologists will have to commit to helping the rest of us understand why the protection of biodiversity is critical to enjoying a sustainable world. Cultural anthropologists also will have to assist humanity at large to understand why the maintenance of cultural diversity also is essential to living sustainably. Educational reform will have to be central to such efforts, to help people learn how to think and act critically and base decisions on the way things really are, and not how we might wish them to be by denying reality. The devotion humans have for structuring beliefs on the basis of little or no evidence, essentially reversing the benefit of rationality, will have to surrender to critical-thinking education established by top-to-bottom educational reform.”
Critical-thinking educational reform, however, is much easier to conceive than to bring into reality. A fundamental question is why such reform has not been undertaken. This question is not easy to answer, but perhaps the most fundamental reason is that the educational systems currently in existence are products of the anthropocentric worldview and reflect its mindsets.These educational systems also have developed within the current economic systems responsible for the huge disparities between the rich and poor, and act to reinforce these disparities.
Ultimate solutions will emerge only from a clear understanding of the evolution of human psychology, as confronted with the problems we face. If not, then the endemic herpetofauna of Central America, as well as the remainder of life on Earth, will become casualties of the biodiversity crisis that eventually will envelop all humanity.
Table 1. Diversity of the Central American herpetofauna at the familial, generic, and specific levels.
| Orders | Families | Genera | Species |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anura | 14 | 58 | 328 |
| Caudata | 1 | 7 | 166 |
| Gymnophiona | 2 | 4 | 15 |
| Crocodylia | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Squamata | 32 | 130 | 560 |
| Testudines | 9 | 13 | 23 |
| Totals | 60 | 214 | 1,095 |
Table 3. Total number of species, endemic species, and relative endemism within the herpetofaunal groups in Central America, North America (United States–Canada), and Mexico. Data for Central America from this paper, for North America from CNAH (www.cnah.org; accessed 9 January 2018), and for Mexico from updated figures in Johnson et al. (2017).
| Herpetofaunal Groups | Total Species in Central America | Endemic Species in Central America | Relative Endemism in Central America (%) | Total Species in North America | Endemic Species in North America | Relative Endemism in North America (%) | Total Species in Mexico | Endemic Species in Mexico | Relative Endemism in Mexico (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anurans | 328 | 192 | 58.5 | 104 | 67 | 64.4 | 247 | 148 | 60.0 |
| Salamanders | 166 | 143 | 86.1 | 191 | 165 | 86.4 | 151 | 125 | 82.8 |
| Caecilians | 15 | 7 | 46.7 | — | — | — | 3 | 1 | 33.3 |
| Subtotals | 509 | 342 | 67.2 | 295 | 232 | 78.6 | 401 | 274 | 68.3 |
| Crocodylians | 3 | — | — | 2 | 1 | 50.0 | 3 | — | — |
| Squamates | 560 | 279 | 49.8 | 287 | 117 | 40.8 | 863 | 517 | 60.0 |
| Turtles | 23 | 2 | 8.3 | 66 | 48 | 72.7 | 51 | 20 | 39.2 |
| Subtotals | 586 | 281 | 48.0 | 355 | 166 | 46.8 | 917 | 537 | 58.6 |
| Totals | 1,095 | 623 | 56.9 | 650 | 398 | 61.2 | 1,318 | 811 | 61.5 |
Table 4.Distribution ofthe 623endemic herpetofaunalspecies inCentralAmericaamong the 10physiographicregions.Abbreviations for the regions are as follows: CG = western nuclear Central American highlands; CGU = Pacific lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala; CP = Pacific lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacific islands); CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacific lowlands from southeastern Guatemala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area includes associated Caribbean islands); and YP = Yucatan Platform.? = species known from indeterminate locality (see text).
| Physiographic Regions of Central America | Totals | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CG | HN | CRP | EP | YP | GH | NP | CGU | GCR | CP | ||
| Anura (192 species) | |||||||||||
| Bufonidae (24 species) | |||||||||||
| Atelopus certus | + | + | 2 | ||||||||
| Atelopus chiriquiensis | + | 1 | |||||||||
| Atelopus chirripoensis | + | 1 | |||||||||
| Atelopus limosus | + | 1 | |||||||||
| Atelopus senex | + | 1 | |||||||||
| Atelopus varius | + | + | + | 3 | |||||||
| Atelopus zeteki | + | + | 2 | ||||||||
| FMNH |
Field Museum of Natural History |
| CG |
Embrapa Collection of Fungi of Invertebrates |
| CRP |
I.N.T.A., E.E.A. Bariloche |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.