dc.creatorTroncoso Palacios, Jaime
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-24T02:15:19Z
dc.date.available2016-03-24T02:15:19Z
dc.date.created2016-03-24T02:15:19Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifierActa Herpetologica 10(2): 125-127, 2015
dc.identifierhttps://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/137379
dc.description.abstractI discuss the arguments put forth recently by Pincheira-Donoso, in which the author attempts to revalidate Liolaemus filiorum Pincheira-Donoso & Ramirez, 2005, a species which I had previously considered a junior synonym of L. puritamensis. The author of this revalidation omitted important information including: 1) the description was published without peer review, 2) one of the two types was deposited in a personal collection, 3) the diagnosis is weak and unclear, 4) the holotype was not explicitly described or illustrated. Additionally, the author did not discuss key aspects of my paper, most particularly, the incorrect designation of the holotype of L. filiorum.
dc.languageen
dc.publisherFirenze Univ. Press
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/cl/
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Chile
dc.subjectHolotype
dc.subjectSpecies description
dc.subjectSynonymy
dc.subjectLiolaemus
dc.subjectICZN
dc.titleOn the taxonomic status of Liolaemus filiorum Pincheira-Donoso & Ramirez, 2005 (Iguania: Liolaemidae): A response to Pincheira-Donoso
dc.typeArtículo de revista


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución