Cnemidophorus nativo Rocha et al., 1997

Myers, Charles W., Rodrigues, Miguel Trefaut & Vanzolini, Paulo E., 2011, Status of Early 19 th-Century Names Authored in Parallel by Wied and Schinz for South American Reptiles and Amphibians, with Designations of Three Nomina Protecta, American Museum Novitates 2011 (3714), pp. 1-24 : 13

Cnemidophorus nativo Rocha et al., 1997

As noted above, Lacerta cyanomelas Schinz, 1822 , and Teius cyanomelas Wied, 1824 (1822– 1831) are senior names. To our knowledge, neither has “been used as a valid name after 1899” ( ICZN, 1999: art. 23.9.1.1). The junior name Cnemidophorus nativo Rocha et al., 1997 , has been used as a “presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years” ( ICZN, 1999: art. 23.9.1.2).

The following 25 references meet the criteria quoted above: Adeoye and Ogunbanwo, 2007; Cabrera, 2004; Colli et al., 2003a, 2003b, 2009; Dias and Rocha, 2004; Dias et al., 2002; Feltrim and Lema, 2000; Giugliano et al., 2006; Menezes et al., 2000, 2004 a, 2004b; Mesquita and Colli, 2003; Peccinini-Seale et al., 2004; Peloso et al., 2008; Reeder et al., 2002; Ribeiro et al., 2007; Rocha et al. 1997, 1999, 2000, 2005, 2008, 2009; Rodrigues, 2005; Vrcibradic et al., 2002.

Cnemidophorus nativo Rocha et al., 1997 , the younger but valid name for the species is here designated as a nomen protectum. It has precedence over the senior names Lacerta cyanomelas Schinz, 1822 , and Teius cyanomelas Wied, 1824 (1822–1831), which are here qualified as nomina oblita.