2004

Asiatic Herpetological Research

Vol.10, pp. 202-207

A Morphological and Taxonomic Study on Lacerta parva Boulenger, 1887
(Sauria: Lacertidae) from West Taurus, Turkey
Y. KUMLUTAş1,*, S. H. DURMUş1, Y. KASKA2 , M. ÖZ3 AND M. R. TUNÇ3
1

Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Buca E ğitim Fakültesi, Biyoloji A.B.D. Buca- İ zmir,Turkey.
2Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, Biyoloji Bölümü Denizli-Turkey.
3

Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi, Biyoloji Bölümü Antalya-Turkey.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed E-mail: yusuf.kumlutas@deu.edu.tr

Abstract. - The morphometric measurements of taxonomically important characters, coloration, and pholidosis features of 74 Lacerta parva specimens collected from West Taurus, Turkey were investigated. Statistical analyses weredone and these results were compared with those from relevant literature. Some of the characters were found to bedifferent on the specimens from different localities. New localities from southwest Turkey were also discovered during this study.
Key words. - Lacerta parva, West Taurus, Turkey.

Introduction

Material and Methods

Lacerta parva was first identified as a new species
based on a female specimen collected from Kayseri,Turkey (Boulenger, 1887). In later studies, the distribution of this species was extended to include all of Anatolia and the Caucasian region (Werner, 1902; Nesterow,1912; Nikolsky, 1915; Bird, 1936; Bodenheimer, 1944;
Mertens, 1952; Başoğlu and Baran, 1977; Baran et al.,
1992; Baran and Atatür, 1998). The distribution of thisspecies was extended to Europe by giving the locality
from Tekirdağ , Turkey (Venchi-Bologna, 1996).
Peters (1962) compared the variations and similarities between Caucasian and Anatolian populations byexamining the 131 and 74 specimens, respectively.
Atagün (1984) also did a comparative study on the 208specimens collected from six different sub-populations(Fethiye, Denizli, Konya, Ankara, Kayseri, Erzurum)from Anatolia. Recently, Mülayim et al. (2001) studied
46 specimens collected from Gölka ş1 Village, Bey şehirKonya and found much more similarities between
Konya and Fethiye populations as previously mentioned
by Atagün (1984).
This work investigates the distribution of this species in the west of Turkey and also provides morphometrical comparison of these specimens with previously
collected specimens and relevant literature. We try toresolve the taxonomical situation of the sub-populationsof Lacerta parva in Anatolia.

Most of the specimens were obtained from Taurus,
southwest of Anatolia. A sum of 22 male, 38 female and
14 juvenile specimens were collected. These specimens,collected during the years of 1995-1997, were kept at
ZDEU (Zoology Department of Ege University). The
locations where the samples were collected are given inFigure 1. The list of material is given below as theDepartmental Identification Code, sex, number of specimens, locality, date, initials, and surname of the collectors respectively.

© 2004 by Asiatic Herpetological Research

List of Material
1) 140 / 1995, 1 male, Beyşehir, 19.09.1995, Leg. M.
Öz.
2) 238 / 1996 1-9 males, 10-22 females, Bozhöyük
Ovac1k-Elmal1, 18.06.1996, Leg. Y. Kumluta ş , R.
Tunç, S. H. Durmuş .
3) 239 / 1996, 1-5, 6-13, 14-27 Juv., Çayryakas Gazipa şa, 23.08.1996, Leg. Y. Kumluta ş, M. Öz, R.
Tunç.
4) 163 / 1997, 1-7, 8-24 , Beyobas1, 25.06.1997, Leg. Y.
Kumlutaş , M. Öz, R. Tunç.
Coloration of living specimens was determined byeye, slides were taken, and then the specimens fixedwith the traditional processes and kept in 70% alcohol.
The morphometric measurements were done with a digital calliper with an accuracy of 0.02 mm. The body
Measurements taken and their descriptions and indexesof the characters are as follows. Pileus Width (PW):Vol.10, p. 203

Asiatic Herpetological Research

2004

Figure 1. The distribution of Lacerta parva in Turkey.
?: Collection localities in this study. Refer to the materials list for details.
? : Collection localities from literature (Peters, 1962; Atagün, 1984; Başoğlu-Baran, 1977;
Baran et al., 1992; Venchi-Bologna, 1996; and Mülayim et al., 2001).
1- Beyşehir-Konya (30 km)
2- Bozhöyük-Ovacık
3- Çayıryakası-Gazipaşa
4- Beyobası
5- Gökkaşıköyü-Beyşehir
6- Antalya
7- Fethiye
8- Akdağ-Çivril
9- Isparta
10- Afyon
11- Kütahya
12- Eskişehir-Alayurt arası
13- Gerede
14- Kastomonu

15- Çubuk-Ankara
16- Ankara
17- Kulu-Konya
18- İnevi-Konya
19- Konya
20- Karaman
21- Dümbelek Mount-Mersin
22- Akgöl
23- Ulukışla24- Niğde
25- Niğde-Kayseri arası
26- Erciyes Dağı27- Kayseri
28- Bünyan-Kayseri

The widest distance between the parietal plates. PileusLength (PL): The distance from the posterior point ofparietal plates to the tip of rostrum. Head and BodyLength (HBL): The distance between the front tip ofrostrum and front edge of anus. Body Length (BL): The
total length of body from tip of rostrum to the end oftail. Tail Length (TL): The length of tail from anus tothe tip of tail. Forelimb Length (FL): The length offorelimb from the body connection to the tip of longestfinger. Hind-limb Length(HL): The length of hindlimb from the body connection to the tip of fourth fin-29- Yozgat
30- Sorgun-Yozgat
31- Between Mecitözü and Çorum
32- Suluova-Amasya
33- Tekneli Village-Tokat
34- Akdağ-Sivas
35- Erzurum
36- Akdağ (Northeast Anatolia)
37- Horosan-Erzurum
38- Sarıkamış
39- Kağızman
40- Between Culfa and Lake Van
41- Tekirdağger. Pileus Index (PI)=PW/PLx100, Tail Index(TI)=TL/BLx100 and Forelimb Index (FI)=FL/BLx100 were also calculated. The ANOVA statistical
test were used in comparison of the measurements andthe ratios (Minitab, 1991). The values of “Coefficient ofdifference (CD)’’ were used in comparison of somecharacteristics among the population (Mayr, 1969).

Results
Pholidosis and Morphometric Measurements

2004

Asiatic Herpetological Research

Vol.10, p. 204

Table 1: The results of descriptive statistics on some of the characteristics of L. parva specimens (These measurements
are given as milimeter).
Parameter

N

Mean (Min –Max)

SDSE

Pileus Width (PW)60

5.28 (4.38-6.90)

0.48

0.06

Pileus Length (PL)60

10.31 (8.72-11.76)

0.74

0.09

Head and Body Length (HBL)60

49.84 (42.12-58.81)

3.41

0.44

Tail Length (TL)32

74.34 (53-96)

10.50

1.87

Pileus Index (PI)60

51.17 (44.78-60)

2.17

0.28

Tail Index (TI)29

60.32 (51.36-65.14)

3.25

0.60

Forelimb Index (FI)59

29.70 (24.81-34.58)

2.34

0.30

Supra-cilliar Granule74

6.24 (1-10)

2.03

0.24

Supra-cilliar Plate

74

5.36 (4-9)

0.76

0.08

Median Gularia

74

17.61 (15-19)

1.16

0.13male22

28.27 (27-30)

0.940.20

female38

31.90 (28-34)

1.13

0.18

male+female+Juv 74

30.47 (27-34)

2.08

0.24

74

37.13 (33-43)

1.94

0.22

male

22

17.23 (14-26)

2.47

0.53

female38

15.95 (14-18)

1.31

0.21

male+female+Juv 74

16.16 (14-20)

1.36

0.16

74

20.52 (17-23)

1.11

0.13

No. of Lateral Lines in Ventralia

Dorsalia
Femoral Opening

No. of 4. Sub-digital Lamellae

Rostrale were connected to the nostril and the numbersof postnasal plate were occasionally two (96%), only
one (3%) in two specimens and one specimen had oneon the left and two on the right. The number of occipital
plates were also commonly one (97%) but divided into
two in two (3%) specimens. The numbers of superciliary plates was five in 44 specimens (59.4%), six in 23specimens (31.1%), four in four specimens (5.4%),
seven in two specimens (2.7%) and nine in one specimen (1.4%). The numbers of supralabial plates, in frontof the subocular plate, was usually four (74.3%); three
in two specimens (2.7%); four (one small and three big)in three specimens (4.05%); five in two specimens as
two small and three big ones; four big and one small insix (8.1%) other specimens; six (four big and two small)in two specimens, seven (four big and three small) in

two specimens. The distal end of the collaria was jaggedin shape and the numbers varied between five and eightwith a mean of 6.7. The results from statistical analysesof the above mentioned measurements are presented inTable 1; comparative results with other literature arepresented in Table 2. There were no statistical differences (F-test, P>0.05) between the specimens collectedfrom different locations in this study.
Although the T-test does not show any statisticaldifferences (P>0.05) between males and females, males
have relatively higher values than females. For example,
the mean length of the pileus was 11.15 (Min.= 9.64 Max.=16.60) in males and 9.99 (8.72 - 11.50) infemales. The coefficient of differences (CD) was 0.59.
The width of the pileus was 5.53 (4.74 - 6.23) in malesand 5.14 (4.38 - 6.90) in females and the CD was 0.44.

Parameter

37,13
16,16
20,52
6,24
17,61
30,47
49,84
74
74
74
74
74
74
60
36,70
15,63
20,52
6,76
16,67
29,98
48,04
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
35,86
16,13
19,73
8,93
15
15
15
15
38,45
16,64
21,38
74
74
74
37,85
15,80
21,06
7,25
24

19,13

55
55
54
55
39,04
16,79
21,21
24
24
24
37,96
15,79
21,93
17,50
12

28
28
28
36,58
15,54
20,75
12
11
12

Dorsalia
Femoral Opening
4. Subdigital Lamellae
Supracilliar GranuleMedian Gularia
Ventralia No. of lateral plate
HBL

Mean
N

Denizli
specimens(Atagün,1984)
N
Mean

Konya
specimens(Atagün,1984)
NMeanAnkaraspecimens(Atagün,1984)
N MeanKayseri
specimens(Atagün,1984)
NMeanErzurumspecimens(Atagün,1984)
NMeanBeyehirspecimens(Mülayim etal, 2001)
NMeanTaurusspecimens(In this study.)

Asiatic Herpetological ResearchFethiyespecimens(Atagün,1984)
N
Mean

Table 2: The comparison of some of characters between the populations of L. parva from Fethiye, Denizli, Konya, Ankara, Kayseri, Erzurum and Beyehir withsamples collected from Taurus.

Vol.10, p. 205

2004

The tail was longer in males (76.59) than females(70.62) and the CD of this measurements was 0.28.
Color and Pattern. - Dorsal coloration is more ground,grayish-brown in the Elmal1 population and lighter
brown in the other three populations studied. A slim
dark line was present from posterior of occipital scutetowards the posterior. This line does not stretch to thebase of forelimbs in juveniles. There were few dark
spots on the vertebrals of some specimens (11%). Dark
blotches extending dorsoventrally from vertebal line
formed bands, particularly on Beyobas1 specimens. The
supra-temporal line was usually continuous until themiddle part of body; broken lines continued posteriorly
to the base of the tail or sometimes until the tip of tail insome specimens. Small spots are present, their central
parts are greenish-blue and surrounding areas are dark
starting at the base of the forelimb and usually continuing posteriorly. The subocular line is dirty white in colorand continues to the hindlimbs. Dark spots were present
under this line in some specimens.
Ventral scales are yellow in males, especially during the breeding season (which change to white later inthe season), and lighter in females. However, the color
under the hind limb was sometimes yellowish; the otherparts were pinkish-white for females. Dark stains on
ventralia were absent on the samples, except for the lastventral plate.
Ecological Observations. - The three specimen collection localities were new localities for L. parva, except
for the Bey ş ehir population. These habitats were nearly
2000 m in altitude (i.e., Bozhöyük-Ovac1k 1800 m.,
Çay1ryakas1-Gazipa ş a 1850 m.,
Beyobas1 1900 m.). The 22 specimens, from
Bozhöyük-Ovac1k population, were caught between
bushes and small vegetation. The weather was a bit
cloudy and the temperature was approximately 24°C.
Laudakia stellio and Ablepharus kitaibelii species werealso observed in the same habitat. The specimens fromÇay1ryakas1 and Beyobas1 were caught while active orunder stones at the temperature around 29°C. The collection habitats of the specimens were covered mainly
small bushy vegetation not big trees. Lacerta danfordi,
Mabuya vittata, Cyrtopodion kotschyi and Natrix natrix
species were also observed in the same area.

Evaluation and Discussion
There were no statistical differences between the different populations in this study, but tail length, pileus
length, fore-limb and hind-limb lengths, and the numberof femoral openings were higher in males than females.

2004

Asiatic Herpetological Research

The head and body length and the number of lateralplate lines were higher in females than males. Atagün(1984) reported that only one plate is present behind thepostnasal plate in 26% of the specimens from the Erzurum population, but not present in the remaining fivepopulations in his work. We did not record any suchcharacter from our specimens. Atagün (1984) also
reported that the division of the occipital plate was also
different in the Erzurum population by having a higher
number of divisions. This population was also studied
by Peters (1962), but he did not mention such differences. Only a small percent (3%) of our specimens
showed a division in the occipital plate.
Peters (1962), in his study comparing L. parva populations between Caucasia and Anatolia, found that themean number of dorsalia were different (males = 35.97;females = 34.76) in Caucasian population than Anatolian population (males= 38.52; females= 37.53). Ourvalues from West Taurus (males= 37.68; females=36.42) were very similar to Peters (1962) values fromAnatolia. This value, along with other parameters, arepresented in Table 2. As it can be seen from this table,
the results of this work are very close to the results of
the Bey ş ehir population reported by Mülayim et al.
(2001).
Peters (1962) also reported the mean number oflamellae under the fourth finger to be very similar
between the Caucasian (males= 21.6; females= 21.2)
and Anatolian (males= 22.6; females= 22.1) specimens.
Our results for this character were slightly lower thanPeters’ results but very close to the results of Mülayim
et al. (2001) (Table 2). The number of femoral openings
reported by Peters (1962) were slightly higher (males=17.56; females= 16.46) for Caucasian than for Anatolian(males= 17; females= 15.91) specimens. The number offemoral openings in this study were found to be very
close to the most eastern Anatolian population of Erzurum (Table 2). The HBL, the mean numbers of supracilliar plate, lateral plates in ventralia were very similar
with the results of Mülayim et al. (2001), but the mean
number of median gularia in this study was very close to
the Fethiye population reported by Atagün (1984).
There were no remarkable differences in color and pattern reported by others (Peters, 1962; Atagün, 1984;
Baran et al., 1992; Mülayim et al., 2001) and ourresults.
As it can be seen from our present and other previous studies, phenotypic variation among the reptile populations from Turkey have been quantified extensively
using morphological characters. Comparison of morphometric measurements may yield a new subspecies,
but the different populations of L. parva from Turkey
may vary even genetically. Unfortunately, genetic diversity at the intra-specific level is not available for any
species in Turkey. Sequencing DNA, in particular
mtDNA, may help to solve the taxonomic problems

Vol.10, p. 206

present in the herpetofauna of Turkey, as it was done forother amphibian species (i.e. Garcia-Paris et al., 1998)
and for sea turtles (i.e., Bowen et al., 1994; Kaska,2000).

Acknowledgments
This work is some part of the project [Project No:TBAG-1475 (196T021)] supported by TÜB İTAK (TheScientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey).

Literature Cited
Atagun, F. 1984. Türkiye’de Lacerta parva (Reptilia,Lacertidae)’n1n Taksonomik Arast1r1lmas1. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi) Bornova- İZM İ R, 1-18.
Baran, İ., İ.Y1lmaz, R. Kete, Y. Kumlutaş and S. H.
Durmuş . 1992. Bat1 ve Orta Karadeniz Bölgesi’nin
Herpetofaunas1. Do ğ a Tropical Journal of Zoology
16(3):275-288.
Baran, İ. and M. K. Atatür. 1998. Türkiye Herpetofaunas(Kurba ğ a ve Sürüngenler). Çevre Bakanl1 ğ 1Ankara: 1-214.
Başoğlu, M. and İ . Baran. 1977. Türkiye Sürüngenleri.
K1s1m I. Kaplumba ğ a ve Kertenkeleler. Ege Üniv.
Fen Fak. Kitaplar Serisi, İzmir, No. 76: 1-272.
Bird, C. G. 1936. The Distribution of Reptiles andAmphibians in Asiatic Turkey, with notes on a Collection from Vilayets of Adana, Gaziantep andMalatya. The Annual Magazine of Natural History,London 10(18):257-281.
Bodenheimer, F. S. 1944. Introduction into the Knowledge of the Amphibia and Reptilia of Turkey.
Revue de la Faculté des sciences de l’Universitéd’Istanbul 9 (1):1-78.
Boulenger, G. A. 1887. Catalogue of The Lizards In The
British Museum (Natural History). Second Edition,
Vol. III (Lacertidae, Gerrhosauridae, Scincidae,
Anelytropidae, Dibamidae, Chamaeleontidae),London, 1-575.
Bowen, B. W., N. Kamezaki, C. L. Limpus, G. H.
Hughes, A. B. Meylan and J. C. Avise. 1994. Global phylogeography of the loggerhead turtle(Caretta caretta) as indicated by mitochondrial
DNA haplotypes. Evolution 48:1820-1828.
Garcia-Paris, M., M. Alcobendos, and P. Alberch. 1998.
Influence of the Guadalquvir river basin on mito-Vol.10, p. 207

Asiatic Herpetological Researchchondrial DNA evolution of Salamandra salamandra (Caudata: salamandridae) from southern Spain.
Copeia 1998:173-176.
Kaska, Y. 2000. Genetic structure of Mediterranean Sea
Turtle Populations. Turkish Journal of Zoology
24:191-197.
Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of Systematics Zoology. MacGraw Hill Book Co., Inc. New York, 428 pp.
Mertens, R. 1952. Amphibien und Reptilien aus derTürkei. İstanbul Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi mecmuasi. ser. B 17:41-75.
Minitab Reference Manual PC Version. 1991. Release
8.2 Qickest Inc., Rosemont, Pennsylvania.
Mülayim, A., C. V. Tok and D. Ayaz. 2001. Beyşehir(Konya) Civar1ndan Toplanan Lacerta parva Boulenger, 1887 (Sauria: Lacertidae) Örnekleri Üzerinde Morfolojik Bir Çal1 ş ma. Anadolu University
Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 2, No.
2:345-349.
Nesterow, P. W. 1912. K gerpetologii judo-sapadnowo
sakawkasja I pogranitschnoj tschasti Maloi Asii
(Zur Herpetologi des Südwestlichen Transkaukasiens und der Agrenzenden Teile von Kleinasien). Annuaire du Musee Zoologique del’Academie des Sciences, St. Petersbourg 17:74-75.
Nikolsky, A. M. 1915. Fauna Rossii i Sopredelnych
stran.I. Presmykajuschtschijesja. Fauna of Russia
and adjacent Countries. Reptiles. Vol. I. Cheloniaand Sauria. 352pp., Petrograd (English Edition bythe Israel Program for Scientific Translations,Jerusalem 1963).
Peters, G. 1962. Die Zwergeidechse (Lacerta parvaBoulenger) und ihre Verwandtschafts-beziehungenzu anderen Lacertiden, insbesondere zur LibanonEeidechse (L. fraasii Lehrs). Zoologisches Jahrbuch 89: 407-478.
Venchi, A. and M. A. Bologna. 1996. Lacerta parva
Boulenger, a new lizard species for the Europeanfauna. Amphibia-Reptilia 17:89-90.
Werner, F. 1902. Die Reptilien-und Amphibienfauna
von Kleinasien. Sitz. –ber. Adademie der Wissenschaften Mathematische - Naturwisssenschaften.
Abt. I, 111:1057-1121.

2004