Abstract

The remarkable taxonomic, ecological and geographic diversity achieved by the South American lizard genus Liolaemus has inspired persistent debate about species boundaries and the reliability of phenotypic predictors/ indicators of reproductive isolation between species (i.e., signatures of speciation). Many aspects of these debates remain unsettled and part of the diversity of the genus remains under controversy. Factors such as small samples, or lack of molecular data to quantify genetic differences between species can be regarded as legitimate limitations on the ability to draw definite taxonomic conclusions. However, conclusions drawn from careless and negligent observations should be taken with high degree of caution. A recent paper offers a clear example of this latter scenario, in which it is suggested that Liolaemus filiorum Pincheira-Donoso and Ramirez, 2005 is a synonym of Liolaemus puritamensis Nunez and Fox, 1989 based on qualitative analyses of the "holotype" of the former which is, in fact, not the holotype of this taxon, but rather one of the paratypes of the latter species. Editors and referees should play a central role in preventing publication of studies of this nature.