2019
Osteological criteria for the specific identification of Monitor lizards (Varanus Merrem, 1820) remains in subfossil deposits of Sundaland and continental Southeast Asia
BOCHATON, Corentin, Martin IVANOV a Julien CLAUDEZákladní údaje
Originální název
Osteological criteria for the specific identification of Monitor lizards (Varanus Merrem, 1820) remains in subfossil deposits of Sundaland and continental Southeast Asia
Autoři
BOCHATON, Corentin (250 Francie, garant), Martin IVANOV (203 Česká republika, domácí) a Julien CLAUDE (250 Francie)
Vydání
Amphibia-Reptilia, Leiden, BRILL ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS, 2019, 0173-5373
Další údaje
Jazyk
angličtina
Typ výsledku
Článek v odborném periodiku
Obor
10506 Paleontology
Stát vydavatele
Nizozemské království
Utajení
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
Odkazy
Impakt faktor
Impact factor: 1.408
Kód RIV
RIV/00216224:14310/19:00111164
Organizační jednotka
Přírodovědecká fakulta
UT WoS
000475797200007
Klíčová slova anglicky
morphology; osteology; paleontology; squamate; zooarchaeology
Štítky
Příznaky
Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno
Změněno: 12. 2. 2020 11:29, Mgr. Marie Šípková, DiS.
Anotace
V originále
The identification at species level of subfossil remains of lizards from tropical regions currently suffers from strong limitation linked to the lack of comprehensive work conducted on the osteology of modern taxa. The aim of this study is to provide osteological criteria allowing for the specific identification of the subfossil remains of Sundaland and continental Southeast Asian monitor lizards (Varanus sp.), which are often well-represented in the deposits of this geographic area. To do so we performed an osteological study of the four species occurring in this region (V. bengalensis sensu lato, V. salvator, V. dumerilii, and V. rudicollis) using a large set of 88 skeletons of modern specimens. The observation of the full set of specimens allows us to define 41 osteological criteria distributed on 20 different anatomical parts which enable the specific identification of isolated bones of the studied species. The results highlight the importance of taking account of the morphological intraspecific variability by the use of large samples of specimens to avoid identification errors. They also show that the distinction of closely related taxa remains complex even when detailed morphological analyses are performed.