Notes on Chameleons I. Comparative cytology: aid and new complications in Chameleon-taxonomy
1. Comparison is made between the subdivision of the genus Chamaeleo in groups of species based on cytological considerations (MATTHEY & VAN BRINK) and the subdivision of this genus in groups based on taxonomical considerations (HILLENIUS). Both subdivisions were developed independently from each other and show relatively few discordances (see Table 2). 2. Detailed discussion is given of the case of two specimens (Ch. voeltzkowi and Ch. monoceras), taxonomically to be regarded as belonging to Ch. rhinoceratus. Their chromosome-patterns, however, differ so greatly as most probably not to be able to yield fertile offspring. They should then be regarded as belonging to different species. As the chromosomepatterns of the types of Ch. rhinoceratus c.s. are unknown (only accessible in fresh specimens), it is advised for the moment to let the taxonomic considerations prevail. 3. In the Conclusion an attempt is made to explain the discordances between the subdivision of MATTHEY & VAN BRINK and of HILLENIUS.
|Rights||Released under the CC-BY 4.0 ("Attribution") License|
Hillenius, D. (1963). Notes on Chameleons I. Comparative cytology: aid and new complications in Chameleon-taxonomy. Beaufortia, 9(108), 201–218.