Siren lacertina Österdam, 1766

Class: Amphibia > Order: Caudata > Family: Sirenidae > Genus: Siren > Species: Siren lacertina

Siren lacertina Österdam, 1766, Siren Lacertina Diss. Acad.: 15. Types: Not stated or known to exist. Type locality: "australi habitat Carolina Americes [sic]". Given by Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat., Ed. 12, 1(2) Addenda: sign. Rrrr 5 (not paged), as "Habitat in Carolinae paludosis"; restricted to "vicinity of Charleston, South Carolina", USA, by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 14. This restriction regarded as invalid by Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 58. 

Muraena siren Gmelin, 1789, Syst. Nat., Ed. 13, 1(3): 1136. Substitute name for Siren lacertina Linnaeus, 1767. 

Syren lacertina —Custis In Freeman and Custis, 1807, Account Red River Louisiana: 23. Incorrect subsequent spelling of generic name. 

Sirene lacertinaOken, 1816, Lehrb. Naturgesch., 3(2): 187. Incorrect subsequent spelling of generic name. 

Phanerobranchus dipus Leuckart, 1821, Isis von Oken, 9: 260. Substitute name for Siren lacertina Linnaeus, 1767.

Siren lacertinaBoulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Grad. Batr. Apoda Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 87.

English Names

Common Siren (Gray, 1831, in Cuvier, Animal Kingdom (Griffith), 9—Appendix: 108).

Mud Iguana (Gray, 1831, in Cuvier, Animal Kingdom (Griffith), 9—Appendix: 108).

Mud Eel (Yarrow, 1876, List Skeletons and Crania: 40; Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 20; Strecker, 1915, Baylor Univ. Bull., 18: 57; Carr, 1940, Univ. Florida Biol. Sci. Ser., 3: 51).

Siren (Yarrow, 1876, List Skeletons and Crania: 40; Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 20; Rhoads, 1895, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 47: 406).

Great Siren (Jordan, 1878, Man. Vert. North. U.S., Ed. 2: 198; Davis and Rice, 1883, Bull. Chicago Acad. Sci., 1: 26; Brimley, 1907, J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc., 23: 150; Strecker, 1915, Baylor Univ. Bull., 18: 57; Strecker, 1928, Contr. Baylor Univ. Mus., 16: 8; Bishop, 1943, Handb. Salamanders: 464; Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 14).

Greater Siren (Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 175; Conant, 1975, Field Guide Rept. Amph. E. Cent. N. Am., Ed. 2: 247; Collins, Huheey, Knight, and Smith, 1978, Herpetol. Circ., 7: 9; Liner, 1994, Herpetol. Circ., 23: 15; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 36; Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 10; Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 30; Tilley, Highton, and Wake, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 22; Liner and Casas-Andreu, 2008, Herpetol. Circ., 38: 35; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 16; Tilley, Highton, and Wake, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 31; Highton, Bonett, and Jockusch, 2017, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 43: 34).

Distribution

The coastal plain from the vicinity of Washington, D.C., south to southern Alabama and peninsular Florida, USA; isolated population in the Rio Grande drainage of South Texas, USA, and adjacent Tamaulipas, Mexico. See comment. 

Comment

Reviewed by Martof, 1973, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept., 128: 1–2. See comment under SirenHarris, 1975, Bull. Maryland Herpetol. Soc., 11: 98, provided records for Washington, D.C. The report from from South Texas and adjacent Mexico is of Flores-Villela and Brandon, 1992, Ann. Carnegie Mus., 61: 289–291; the relative status of the widely disjunct South Texas and Florida populations is unclear and deserves careful scrutiny. Dixon, 2000, Amph. Rept. Texas, Ed. 2: 51–52, has applied the name Siren texana to this taxon is South Texas, although the rationale for this is unclear as the type of Siren texana is a Siren intermedia-type animal and not a Siren lacertina-type animal. See discussion regarding this issue under Siren intermedia. See Frost and Lannoo, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 914, for more detailed discussion. Hendricks, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 912–914, provided a detailed account that summarized the biology and conservation literature (in the sense of only applying to the Florida population). Frost and Lannoo, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 914, discussed the misapplication of the name texana to the Rio Grande population (see also comment under the Siren intermedia record). Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 58, suggested that in the absence of any specimen examination by them or evidence, that the Lower Rio Grande, Texas and Mexico component of the range was doubtful or the result of an introduction. Raffaëlli, 2013, Urodeles du Monde, 2nd ed.: 43, provided a brief account and considered the existence of a population in the Lower Rio Grande to be confusing and the evidence for it uncertain. I (DRF) retain the Lower Valley component of the range pending discussion or proposal of evidence other than Brandon and Flores' evidence might be wrong. Altig and McDiarmid, 2015, Handb. Larval Amph. US and Canada: 140–141, provided an account of larval morphology and biology. See account of biology and life history in southern Florida by Meshaka and Lane, 2015, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol., 10 (Monogr. 5): 18–20. 

External links:

Please note: these links will take you to external websites not affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History. We are not responsible for their content.