Comment on Anolis chlorocyanus Dumeril & Bibron, 1837 and Anolis coelestinus Cope, 1862 (Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the specific names and designation of a neotype for A. chlorocyanus (Case 3672; see BZN 72: 45–49)
, “Comment on Anolis chlorocyanus Dumeril & Bibron, 1837 and Anolis coelestinus Cope, 1862 (Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the specific names and designation of a neotype for A. chlorocyanus (Case 3672; see BZN 72: 45–49)”, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 155-156, 2015.
Paragraph 4 of Case 3672 provides a list of ‘the diagnostic traits of the taxonomic species [Anolis] coelestinus of current usage’, but the authors cite no original source. Is this perhaps a newly compiled list abstracted from the authors’ upcoming monograph? Conversely, Paragraph 8 says that the proposed neotype ‘represents the taxonomic species A. chlorocyamus of current usage.’ This is an unsupported assertion inasmuch as no similar list of diagnostic traits for this latter species is provided or referenced; only the vague comparative diagnosis of Barbour (1935) is quoted.
