# lizard id



## Whitey560 (Apr 27, 2011)

deleted


----------



## K3nny (Apr 27, 2011)

looks like a dragon of some sort
maybe a bearded? but the neck area n some other stuff doesnt look quite right
i'm sure some of the experts could give a more deffinitive answer


----------



## python_boy (Apr 27, 2011)

angle headed dragon?


----------



## Tassie97 (Apr 27, 2011)

mountain Dragon


----------



## -Peter (Apr 27, 2011)

Looks like a Tympanocryptus which it couldn't be, maybe a baby Rankinia? Basically I dont know. PM Eipper. He is a gun for ID.


----------



## lizardloco (Apr 27, 2011)

Tassie97 is probably right.


----------



## dihsmaj (Apr 27, 2011)

What?? They're from Melb., but we can't keep 'em?


----------



## Tassie97 (Apr 27, 2011)

yep stupid i know lol

and off course i am right lol


----------



## dihsmaj (Apr 27, 2011)

I'm not really sure it IS a mountain dragon (the head and colour is a bit wrong) but it is, for sure, an agamid.


----------



## W.T.BUY (Apr 27, 2011)

Mountain dragon.


----------



## longirostris (Apr 27, 2011)

What you have there is a very young and appears to be quite cool Mountain Heath Dragon (Rankinia diemensis). At the base of the tail there are quite obvious spines which are characteristic of this species. I have several in my collection including young ones and they look pretty much the same. They are quite common in the high country of Victoria. They are also found in NSW where they are even more common in their range and the East Coast of Tasmania. They are the only dragon found in Tassie.

Hopes this helps

Cheers


----------



## dihsmaj (Apr 27, 2011)

Whoops, sorry


----------



## Whitey560 (Apr 27, 2011)

are you sure because it looks a fair bit different to these
http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/australian-lizards-5383/new-mountain-heath-dragons-102653/


----------



## Erebos (Apr 27, 2011)

Looks like a montain dragon same body shape but coloring is a bit odd maybe different colour because of location


----------



## Whitey560 (Apr 27, 2011)

it was fairly high up in the mountain ranges. seems to have alot of excess skin around its neck.


----------



## lizardloco (Apr 27, 2011)

Remember, some agamids vary in colour drastically, like the two lined dragon.


----------



## Tassie97 (Apr 27, 2011)

mountain dragon colouration varies ALOT


----------



## longirostris (Apr 27, 2011)

Whitey560 said:


> are you sure because it looks a fair bit different to these
> http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/australian-lizards-5383/new-mountain-heath-dragons-102653/



The animals in Kirby's post are fully grown and are from the mountains west of Sydney. The animal you are holding is no more then a couple of weeks old and from an area nearly 700 kilometers further South. I agree the skin folds around the neck are unusual and the colouring is also different but that does not mean it is not a Mountain Heath dragon. Does it have quite obvious enlarged spikes around the base of its tail?, it certainly looks like it has in the picture. 

You asked for an ID, it has been identified as a Mountain Heath dragon by several people. I have a hatchling L. temporalis that is 3 days old right now that has a tail that is completely wound up like a spring or a pigs tail, highly unusual for this species in fact I have never seen it before. Still, at the end of the day it is still a Swamplands dragon albeit one that is not necessarily true to type and indeed different to the others in the clutch. Sometimes you see oddities even in the wild.


----------



## eipper (Apr 28, 2011)

It is definately a young Mountain Dragon

Matt
It was either sink Chlamydosaurus and put them in with Amphibolurus or re validate Lophognathus, unfortunantly they really only did half the job by showing at least 1 undescribed species is presently lumped into gilberti but did not provide any diagnosis.

cheers,
Scott


----------



## Whitey560 (Apr 28, 2011)

ok thanks guys


----------



## longirostris (Apr 28, 2011)

-Matt- said:


> Sorry this is completely off topic, but I noticed that you refered to the Swamplands Dragon as _L. temporalis_ as apposed to _A. temporalis. _Has there been a recent change? I have heard that the Amphibolurus genus was being changed around a bit, are these changes recognised now?



When was the status of temporalis (and indeed longirostris, gilberti and burnsi) as a species within the Amphibolurus complex ever considered to be indisputably correct? 

Without going into a drawn out discussion on the chronological sequence of events relating to the placement of species within the different genera, I will simply say that it depends on whose books you read. Cogger uses Lophognathus, Wilson and Swan use Amphibolurus. Some would say that because Coggers last revised edition is now 11 years it is not current. Wilson and Swan released their third edition late last year so is more relevant. I do not have that opinion. In my view (and others like me) it comes down to the quality of the taxonomic work done and published which has lead to the divergence of views. Some authors accept the work is substantive enough to justify the taxon changes, others do not.

Also, there are several recently published papers reporting DNA analysis that according to the authors could change the status of several taxa including those in Amphibolurus and Lophognathus. Until the morphological work is done (which the papers authors themselves acknowledge needs to be done) and better sampling techniques/sampling irregularities addressed, these papers should not be the catalyst for any species swapping between genera.

Myself personally, I have never thought that any Lophognathus species should be rolled into Amphibolurus until the last couple of years where I have changed my view on Burns dragon. I now believe that Burns dragon is rightly placed in Amphibolurus. I have also been of the opinion and expressed my view several times over the years that the Nobbi dragon should be in the Diporiphora complex. It is definately not Amphibolurus. As far as I am concerned Amphibolurus has 3 species, norrisi, muricatus and burnsi. I also believe that longirostris, temporalis and gilberti for the moment abd until now are/have been rightly placed in Lophognathus. 

That does not mean that this cannot or will not change, in fact the papers I referred to earlier are proposing several changes pending, as I said earlier, full taxonomic studies to be undertaken. What is clear is that even the authors of these papers acknowledge Lophognathus as a currently valid genus, albeit subject to in their view some shifting of species into or out of it.

Unfortunately there is no real definitive right or wrong answer at this stage regarding your question because the work required to put the matter beyond dispute has not been done. There are those who have done bits and pieces including the "gel jocks" (to borrow the recently coined term from Scott Eipper) with their DNA analysis. The problem is that even this work is not conclusive or beyond criticism, which to their credit the authors recognise and suggest more work be undertaken before any taxon changes take place. 

I continue to use Lophognathus because I believe it is more correct then Amphibolurus certainly for temporalis, gilberti and longirostris. As I have said before, I think on this forum in another thread some several months or more ago, I will continue to use Lophognathus for these species until someone conclusively and irrefuteably places them elsewhere. You put them where ever you like. It really is a bit like that at the present time.


----------

