Conserving the Mesoamerican Herpetofauna: The most critical case of the priority level one endemic species

Full text

72
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Abronia fuscolabialis (Tihen 1944). The Mount Zempoaltepec Arboreal Alligator Lizard has an EVS of 18 (Johnson et al. 2017) and
its distribution is restricted to the Sierra Madre de Oaxaca of Oaxaca, Mexico (Mata-Silva et al. 2015). This species is poorly known
since it is represented by only ve museum specimens from two different localities in the Sierra Madre de Oaxaca (Cerro Pelón
and Cerro Zempoaltepetl). This individual was observed and photographed in a third (new) locality in the Sierra Juárez of Oaxaca,
Mexico. Photo by César Mayoral Halla.

73
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Amphibian & Reptile Conservation
14(2) [General Section]: 73–132 (e240).
Perspective
Conserving the Mesoamerican herpetofauna: the most critical
case of the priority level one endemic species
1Eli García-Padilla, 2Dominic L. DeSantis, 3Arturo Rocha, 2Vicente Mata-Silva,
2Jerry D. Johnson, and 4,5,*Larry David Wilson
1Oaxaca de Juárez, Oaxaca 68023, MEXICO 2Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 79968-0500,
USA 3Department of Biological Sciences, El Paso Community College, El Paso, Texas 79927, USA 4Centro Zamorano de Biodiversidad, Escuela
Agrícola Panamericana Zamorano, Departamento de Francisco Morazán, HONDURAS 51350 Pelican Court, Homestead, Florida 33035, USA
Abstract.—Of signicant biodiversity importance, the Mesoamerican herpetofauna now increases at a rate of
approximately 35 species annually. As its size increases, however, the global problem of biodiversity decline
continues to worsen with time. Recently, a set of conservation priority levels was established for individual
species based on a combination of physiographic distribution and Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS).
The 18 such levels identied range from level one, encompassing species that occupy a single physiographic
region and with a high EVS, to level 18, including species that inhabit six physiographic regions and have a low
EVS. For the Mesoamerican herpetofauna, the greatest number of species is placed in level one, amounting to
970 taxa with documentable distributions. From one to 149 priority level one species are found in 20 of the 21
physiographic regions recognized in Mesoamerica. Slightly more than three-quarters of the priority level one
species of anurans, salamanders, and squamates are found in the Baja California Peninsula and six montane
regions in Mexico and Central America. Conservation biology, thus far, has not been successful at reversing
the steady loss of biodiversity nor at placing biodiversity decline on the global agenda. In addition, humans are
becoming increasingly divorced from contact with the natural world and, thus, less aware of the life-threatening
impact they are having on the planet’s life-support systems. Given this situation, the authors of this paper have
become increasingly devoted to trying to understand why humans in general exhibit the highly dangerous
anthropocentric worldview. As have other biologists, the authors ascribe this behavior to what is known as
“the mismanagement of the human mind.” This mismanagement of the human mind is believed to result from
a cascade of psychological ailments giving rise to increasingly restrictive forms of centristic thinking. In the
nal analysis, these types of thinking appear likely to doom to failure any efforts to establish for perpetuity
protected areas that can harbor the priority level one species identied in this and earlier papers. Until and
unless the anthropocentric worldview can be transformed into a worldview consonant with the realities of how
life operates on planet Earth, we humans are not only endangering ourselves but also all other life. This article
discusses the implications of this worldview for the potential conservation of the priority level one endemic
species of the Mesoamerica herpetofauna.
Keywords. Amphibia, biodiversity decline, Central America, conservation priority levels, Mexico, Reptilia
Resumen.—De gran signicancia en materia de biodiversidad, la herpetofauna Mesoamericana aumenta a una
tasa aproximada de 35 especies anualmente. Sin embargo, así como aumenta su importancia, el problema de la
disminución global de la biodiversidad continúa empeorando con el tiempo. El trabajo reciente por algunos de
nosotros estableció un número de niveles de conservación prioritarios que están basados en la combinación
de la distribución geográca y el Índice de Vulnerabilidad Ambiental (Environmental Vulnerability Score = EVS,
por sus siglas en inglés). Dieciocho niveles han sido identicados, que van desde el nivel uno, que incluye las
especies que se encuentran en una sola región siográca y con un EVS alto, al nivel 18, que incluye especies
que habitan en seis regiones siográcas y con un EVS bajo. El mayor número de especies se encuentra
en el nivel uno, con 970 taxones. De una a 149 especies en el nivel de prioridad uno, se encuentran en 20 de
las 21 regiones siográcas reconocidas en Mesoamérica. Ligeramente más de tres cuartos de los anuros,
salamandras, y escamosos en el nivel de prioridad uno, se encuentran en la Península de Baja California y
en seis regiones montañosas de México y Centroamérica. A la fecha, la conservación biológica no ha sido
exitosa en revertir la pérdida consistente de biodiversidad, ni en establecer la disminución de la biodiversidad
en la agenda global. Adicionalmente, los humanos cada vez están más divorciados del contacto con el mundo
natural, y así, menos conscientes del impacto mortal que estamos ejerciendo en los sistemas que sostienen
Ofcial journal website:
amphibian-reptile-conservation.org
Correspondence. eligarciapadilla86@gmail.com (GPD); dldesantis@miners.utep.edu (DLS); turyrocha@gmail.com (AR);
vmata@utep.edu (VMS); jjohnson@utep.edu (JDJ); *bufodoc@aol.com (LDW)

74
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
this decline, we must rapidly accumulate the baseline
data needed to document its nature and extent in order
to transform the search for ultimate solutions from its
current position on “herpetological wish lists” to rapid
enactment over the long term.
Johnson et al. (2017) and Mata-Silva et al. (2019)
examined the endemic herpetofaunas of Mexico and
Central America, respectively, in an attempt to establish a
set of conservation priority levels based on physiographic
distribution and Environmental Vulnerability Score
(EVS; Wilson et al. 2013a,b; Johnson et al. 2015).
Calculations in Johnson et al. (2017) and Mata-Silva et
al. (2019) led to the recognition of a series of 18 priority
levels ranging from level one (species occupying a single
physiographic region and having a high category EVS) to
level 18 (species occurring in six physiographic regions
and having a low category EVS).
Johnson et al. (2017) and Mata-Silva et al. (2019)
considered the priority level one species to be the most
in need of conservation attention, due to their limited
distribution and high environmental vulnerability.
Johnson et al. (2017) listed 490 such species in Mexico,
and Mata-Silva et al. (2019) listed 429 species in Central
America, for a total of 919 species. In the interim
beyond the appearance of these two papers, a number of
additional species have been described that also qualify
as conservation priority level one species, and we have
incorporated them into our analysis below. In addition,
several corrections to the categorizations that were
assigned in these two papers have been necessitated by
new information, and these re-classications are reected
as necessary in the tables accompanying the text of this
paper.
The purpose of this paper is to examine in detail the
future prospects for the preservation of the conservation
priority level one species identied by Johnson et al.
(2017) and Mata-Silva et al. (2019) in Mexico and Central
“Oxymorons, such as “sustainable development,” are
strung together by politicians and developers in any
attempt to make all this destruction and homogenization
seem less offensive.”
Eric R. Pianka (1994)
Introduction
The Mesoamerican herpetofauna is of tremendous
biodiversity signicance (Wilson and Johnson 2010;
Wilson et al. 2013a,b; Johnson et al. 2015; Johnson et
al. 2017; Mata-Silva et al. 2019), and that signicance
only increases with time due to the continuing discovery
of new taxa within the region (see below). Wilson
and Johnson (2010) comprehensively documented a
herpetofauna for the region of 1,879 species. The current
gure for Mesoamerica is 2,156 species, or an increase
of 277 species over approximately eight years, i.e., 34.6
species per year (http://mesoamericanherpetology.com;
accessed 9 November 2019). If this rate of discovery
were to hold until mid-century, then the total gure
for Mesoamerica could be expected to rise to ~3,229
species. While this increase in our knowledge of the
Mesoamerican herpetofauna is occurring, the factors that
exacerbate the overall global problem of biodiversity
decline are worsening at an exponential rate, in concert
with the rise in human population numbers (Johnson
et al. 2017; Jarvis 2018). Unfortunately, we know
much more about the growth of our knowledge of the
Mesoamerican herpetofauna than we do about its decline.
The rate at which our knowledge of this herpetofauna
increases (as indicated above), undoubtedly pales into
virtual insignicance when compared to the probable
(but essentially unknown) rate of herpetofaunal species
decline over time. What data we do have, however, points
to a decline in herpetofaunal diversity that is increasing
ever more rapidly with time. If we have any hope to limit
la vida del planeta. Dada la situación actual, los autores de este artículo se han dedicado seriamente a intentar
entender por qué los humanos en general demuestran una visión antropocéntrica del mundo muy peligrosa.
En concordancia con otros biólogos, estos autores atribuyen esta conducta a lo que se conoce como “la
mala conducta de la mente humana”. Esta conducta mental es el resultado de una cascada de problemas
psicológicos que dan origen a una creciente variedad de pensamientos centristas. En el análisis nal, son los
tipos de pensamientos centristas los que probablemente aseguran el fallo de los esfuerzos para establecer
áreas naturales protegidas perpetuas que pueden albergar a las especies en el nivel uno de prioridad que hemos
identicado en este y otros artículos anteriores. Mientras no sea posible transformar la visión antropocéntrica
del mundo en una que vaya acorde con la realidad de cómo funciona la vida en el planeta Tierra, hasta entonces
los humanos no solo estaremos poniendo en riesgo nuestras propias vidas, si no la de todos los seres vivos.
Este artículo discute las implicaciones de esta cosmovisión para la conservación potencial de las especies
endémicas de primer nivel de la herpetofauna de Mesoamérica.
Palabras Claves. Anbia, América Central, disminución de la biodiversidad, México, niveles prioritarios de
conservación, Reptilia
Citation: García-Padilla E, DeSantis DL, Rocha A, Mata-Silva V, Johnson JD, Wilson LD. 2020. Conserving the Mesoamerican herpetofauna: the
most critical case of the priority level one endemic species. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 14(2) [General Section]: 73–132 (e240).
Copyright: © 2020 García-Padilla et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License [At-
tribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/], which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The ofcial and authorized publication credit sources, which will be duly enforced,
are as follows: ofcial journal title Amphibian & Reptile Conservation; ofcial journal website: amphibian-reptile-conservation.org.
Received: 12 June 2019; Accepted: 11 March 2020; Published: 23 June 2020

75
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
America, respectively. The approach we have taken is to
examine the distribution of these species in greater detail
than was undertaken in these two previous papers, with
a view to focusing on the relative signicance of the
various Mesoamerican physiographic areas.
The “Conservation Priority Level” Concept
The concept of conservation priority levels was developed
for application to the Mesoamerican herpetofauna
by Johnson et al. (2017) and Mata-Silva et al. (2019).
These priority levels are based on a combination of
environmental vulnerability scores (EVS) and occurrence
in physiographic regions. Since these two papers were
published, additional herpetofaunal taxa have been
described, primarily in Mexico. These new taxa are
discussed immediately below.
Recent Changes to the Mesoamerican Herpetofauna
In the relatively short time since the publication of Johnson
et al. (2017) and Mata-Silva et al. (2019), a number of
signicant additions to the herpetofauna of Mexico and
Central America have appeared. These additional taxa
are listed in Table 1, along with citations of their place of
publication, distribution among physiographic regions,
EVS calculations, and conservation priority levels.
Those that occupy priority level one are incorporated into
the sections below.
The 71 species included in Table 1 comprise 19
anurans, three salamanders, 20 lizards, 27 snakes, and
two turtles. Forty-eight of the 71 species were described
as new and the remainder involved elevations from
subspecies to species level or reports as new for the
herpetofauna of Mesoamerica. Thirty-ve of the 48 new
species were described in 2018, one in 2016, four in 2017,
and eight in 2019. Twenty-nine of the 48 species were
described from Mexico, and the other 15 from Central
America; and only nine of the 71 species are known to
occupy more than a single physiographic region (see
Table 1). The physiographic regions (as recognized by
Wilson and Johnson [2010]) involved for all 71 species
are as follows: BC (9 species), CG (1), CP (1), CRP (6),
EP (2), GCR (5), GH (5), HN (8), MC (6), NB (2), NP
(2), OC (4), OR (7), SC (13), SD (1), SU (11), TT (4),
and YP (1). All but six species are placed in the high EVS
category of vulnerability, with scores ranging from 14 to
19; with six exceptions having EVS of 13 (4), 12 (1), and
9 (1). As a consequence, 59 of the 71 species in Table 1
qualify as priority level one taxa and, thus, need to be
included in the following tables.
Priority Levels among the Members of the
Mesoamerican Herpetofauna
As noted in the introduction, Johnson et al. (2017) and
Mata-Silva et al. (2019) developed and utilized a scheme
for assigning conservation priority levels to the members
of the Mexican and Central American herpetofauna.
Given that the herpetofauna of these two regions has
increased considerably in size since these papers were
published, it is necessary to comprehensively summarize
the current data on the diversity and endemicity of this
herpetofauna for all of Mesoamerica.
Thus, Table 2 indicates the diversity of all the
Mesoamerican herpetofauna to the present day, amounting
to a total of 70 families (21 amphibian and 49 reptile),
294 genera (92 amphibian and 202 reptile), and 2,156
species (834 amphibians and 1,322 reptiles). The number
of families was recently augmented by Goicoechea et al.
(2016), which accomplished the erection of the family
Alopoglossidae to include the genera Alopoglossus and
Ptychoglossus, the latter of which contains, among others
in South America, three species that occupy Lower Central
America. The greatest numbers of these taxa at all levels
belong to the Order Anura among the amphibians and the
Order Squamata among the reptiles.
The level of endemicity of the Mesoamerican
herpetofauna is startling and strongly indicative of a
global stature for this group of animals in this region.
The species-level endemicity is documented in Table 3.
The total level of herpetofaunal endemism is at 79.0%,
meaning that more than three of every four species in the
region are found nowhere else in the world. Amphibian
endemicity in Mesoamerica is higher, at 84.2%, than that
for reptiles, at 75.8%. The amphibian level indicates more
than eight of every 10 species are endemic to the region;
while slightly more than three of every four reptile species
are endemic. Finally, at the ordinal level, the gure for
salamanders is simply incredible, at 96.0%, indicating
that for every 100 salamander species, only four are not
endemic. In addition, the levels of endemicity for both
anurans and squamates include more than three out of
every four species (77.9% and 76.8%, respectively).
As noted above, Johnson et al. (2017) and Mata-Silva
et al. (2019) constructed a set of conservation priority
levels for the herpetofaunas of Mexico and Central
America, respectively. The results of the categorizations
of these authors, updated to the present time (Table 4),
indicate that of the 18 recognized priority levels, six are
allocated to the high EVS priority levels, eight to the
medium EVS priority levels, and four to the low EVS
priority levels. In general, the total numbers of species
allocated to each level decrease precipitously from levels
one to six among the high EVS levels, and from seven
to 14 among the medium EVS levels, but this pattern is
not seen with the few species (eight in total) placed in
the low EVS levels. This same general pattern is seen
for both Mexico and Central America, when considered
individually (although there is but one low EVS species
in Central America). The total counts for the three EVS
levels decrease markedly from high (1,253) to medium
(216) to low (eight). Thus, the high EVS level species
make up 84.8% (1,253 of 1,477) of the total number

76
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Craugastor daryi (Ford and Savage 1984). Ford’s Robber Frog
has an EVS of 17 (Mata-Silva et al. 2019) and inhabits cloud
forest at elevations of 1,500–2,290 m in the Sierra Xucaneb
and Sierra de las Minas in central Guatemala (Frost 2019). This
individual was found at Purulhá, Baja Verapaz, Guatemala.
Photo by Andres Novales.
Eleutherodactylus syristes Hoyt 1965. The Piping Peeping Frog
has an EVS of 16 (Johnson et al. 2017) and occupies the “pine-
oak woodland on the Pacic slopes of the Sierra de Miahuatlán
and Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca, east into the Sierra Madre del Sur of
Guerrero, Mexico” (Frost 2019). This individual was located in
the Municipality of San Juan Lachao, Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo
by Vicente Mata-Silva.
Bromeliohyla melacaena (McCranie and Castañeda 2006).
The Omoa Bromeliad Frog has an EVS of 20 (Mata-Silva et
al. 2019), which lies at the upper limit of the range of values
for this conservation measure. It was described from the
visitors’ center in Parque Nacional El Cusuco in northwestern
Honduras, one of the most signicant areas of herpetofaunal
endemicity in the country (Townsend and Wilson 2008). This
individual came from Parque Nacional Cusuco, Honduras.
Photo by Andres Novales.
Charadrahyla sakbah Jiménez-Arcos, Calzada-Arciniega,
Alfaro-Juantorena, Vázquez-Reyes, Blair, and Parra-Olea
2019. This recently-described hylid frog has an EVS of 15
(Table 1) and is restricted to cloud forest in the western portion
of the Sierra Madre del Sur of Oaxaca, Mexico, an area of
high herpetofaunal endemicity (Mata-Silva et al. 2015b). This
individual is from Río Chite ku’e (Río de las Mil Cascadas),
San Isidro Paz y Progreso, Santa Maria Yucuhiti, Oaxaca.
Photo by Víctor H. Jiménez-Arcos.
Plectrohyla dasypus McCranie and Wilson 1981. The Cusuco
Spotted Treefrog has an EVS of 14 (Mata-Silva et al. 2019)
and occurs in cloud forest at elevations of 1,300–1,990 m in
the Sierra de Omoa of northwestern Honduras (Townsend
and Wilson 2008). This individual was encountered at Parque
Nacional Cusuco, Honduras. Photo by Andres Novales.
Dendropsophus sartori (Smith 1951). Taylor’s Yellow Treefrog
has an EVS of 14 (Johnson et al. 2017) and a distribution
encompassing the “Pacic slopes of southwestern Mexico
(Jalisco to Oaxaca)” (Frost 2019). These individuals were
found in the Municipality of San Juan Lachao, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Photo by Vicente Mata-Silva.

77
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Species References Physiographic
region(s)
EVS
calculations
Conservation
priority level
Craugastor aenigmaticus Arias et al. 2018 CRP 5+8+4=17 One
Craugastor blairi Arias et al. 2019 CRP 5+8+4=17 One
Craugastor castanedai McCranie 2018 HN 6+8+4=18 One
Craugastor gutschei McCranie 2018 HN 5+7+4=17 One
Craugastor sagui Arias et al. 2019 CRP 5+8+4=17 One
Craugastor zunigai Arias et al. 2019 CRP 5+8+4=17 One
Eleutherodactylus colimotl Grünwald et al. 2018 SC 5+8+4=17 One
Eleutherodactylus erendirae Grünwald et al. 2018 MC 5+8+4=17 One
Eleutherodactylus oresvillelai Grünwald et al. 2018 MC 6+8+4=18 One
Eleutherodactylus jaliscoensis Grünwald et al. 2018 MC 5+8+4=17 One
Eleutherodactylus manantlanensis Grünwald et al. 2018 MC 6+8+4=18 One
Eleutherodactylus nietoi Grünwald et al. 2018 SU 5+7+4=16 One
Hemiphractus elioti Hill et al. 2018 CRP 5+7+5=17 One
Hemiphractus kaylockae Hill et al. 2018 EP 6+8+5=19 One
Hemiphractus panamensis Hill et al. 2018 EP 5+8+5=18 One
Charadrahyla esperancensis Canseco-Márquez et al. 2017a OR 6+8+1=15 One
Charadrahyla sakbah Jiménez-Arcos et al. 2019 SU 6+8+1=15 One
Quilticohyla zoque Canseco-Márquez et al. 2017b TT 5+8+1=14 One
Sarcohyla hapsa Campbell et al. 2018a OC, MC 5+8+1=14 Tw o
Chiropterotriton aureus García-Castillo et al. 2018 OR 6+8+4=18 One
Chiropterotriton chico García-Castillo et al. 2017 MC 6+8+4=18 One
Chiropterotriton nubilus García-Castillo et al. 2018 OR 5+8+4=17 One
Gerrhonotus mccoyi García-Vázquez et al. 2018 NB 6+8+3=17 One
Laemanctus julioi McCranie 2018 GCR 6+8+3=17 One
Laemanctus waltersi McCranie 2018 GH 5+8+3=16 One
Norops arenal Köhler and Vargas 2019 CRP 6+8+3=17 One
Norops brianjuliani Köhler et al. 2019 SU 6+8+3=17 One
Norops caceresae Hofmann and Townsend 2018 HN 5+7+3=15 One
Ctenosaura brachylopha Zarza et al. 2019 SC, OC 5+6+6=17 Two
Sceloporus esperanzae McCranie 2018 HN 5+8+3=16 One
Sceloporus hondurensis McCranie 2018 HN, GCR 5+5+3=13 Ten
Sceloporus olloporus Solis-Zurita et al. 2019 CG, HN, GH,
GCR, NP 5+1+3=9 Occupies level be-
tween 17 and 18
Sceloporus schmidti McCranie 2018 HN 5+7+3=15 One
Table 1. Mesoamerican herpetofaunal species described or elevated to species level since Johnson et al. (2017) and Mata-Silva et
al. (2019), along with their places of publication, physiographic region(s), EVS calculations, and conservation priority levels. The
abbreviations for regions involved are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; NB = Northern Plateau Basin and
Ranges; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas,
including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC = Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT =
Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; YP = Yucatan Platform; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; GCR = Pacic lowlands from
southeastern Guatemala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras; CRP
= Isthmian Central American highlands; CG = western nuclear Central American highlands; HN = eastern nuclear Central American
highlands; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama;
and EP = eastern Panamanian highlands.

78
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Species References Physiographic
region(s)
EVS
calculations
Conservation
priority level
Phyllodactylus benedetti Ramírez-Reyes and Flores-
Villela 2018 SC 6+8+3=17 One
Phyllodactylus isabelae Ramírez-Reyes and Flores-
Villela 2018 SC 6+8+3=17 One
Phyllodactylus kropotkini Ramírez-Reyes and Flores-
Villela 2018 SC 6+8+3=17 One
Phyllodactylus lupitae Ramírez-Reyes and Flores-
Villela 2018 SC 6+8+3=17 One
Phyllodactylus rupinus Ramírez-Reyes and Flores-
Villela 2018 SC 6+8+3=17 One
Plestiodon lotus Pavon-Vazquez et al. 2017 SC 5+7+3=15 One
Aristelliger nelsoni McCranie 2018 GH 6+8+3=17 One
Lepidophyma inagoi Palacios-Aguilar et al. 2018 SC 6+8+2=16 One
Xenosaurus fractus Nieto-Montes de Oca et al.
2018 OR 5+8+3=16 One
Lampropeltis greeri Hansen and Salmon 2017 OC 5+8+3=16 One
Lampropeltis leonis Hansen and Salmon 2017 OR 5+6+3=14 One
Masticophis lineatus Oconnell and Smith 2018 SC, OC, SU 5+5+4=14 Three
Masticophis piceus Oconnell and Smith 2018 SC 3+6+4=13 Seven
Salvadora gymnorhachis Hernández-Jiménez et al. 2019 SU 5+8+4=17 One
Sonora annulata Cox et al. 2018 BC, SD 3+7+5=15 Two
Sonora cincta Cox et al. 2018 BC, SC 2+7+5=14 Two
Sonora episcopa Cox et al. 2018 NB 3+7+3=13 Seven
Sonora fasciata Cox et al. 2018 BC 5+8+5=18 One
Sonora mosaueri Cox et al. 2018 BC 5+8+3=16 One
Sonora palarostris Cox et al. 2018 SC 2+8+5=15 One
Sonora punctatisima Cox et al. 2018 BC 2+8+3=13 Seven
Sonora savagei Cox et al. 2018 BC 6+8+3=17 One
Sonora straminea Cox et al. 2018 BC 5+8+3=16 One
Sonora taylori Cox et al. 2018 TT 3+8+3=14 One
Cenaspis aenigma Campbell et al. 2018b TT 6+8+2=16 One
Chersodromus australis Canseco-Márquez et al. 2018 TT 6+8+2=16 One
Chersodromus nigrum Canseco-Márquez et al. 2018 OR 6+8+2=16 One
Rhadinaea eduardoi Mata-Silva et al. 2018 SU 6+8+2=16 One
Rhadinaea nuchalis García-Vázquez et al. 2018 SU 6+8+2=16 One
Rhadinella dysmica Campillo et al. 2016 SU 6+8+2=16 One
Table 1 (continued). Mesoamerican herpetofaunal species described or elevated to species level since Johnson et al. (2017) and
Mata-Silva et al. (2019), along with their places of publication, physiographic region(s), EVS calculations, and conservation priority
levels. The abbreviations for regions involved are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; NB = Northern Plateau
Basin and Ranges; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chi-
apas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC = Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental;
TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; YP = Yucatan Platform; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; GCR = Pacic lowlands
from southeastern Guatemala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras;
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; CG = western nuclear Central American highlands; HN = eastern nuclear Central
American highlands; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to
Panama; and EP = eastern Panamanian highlands.

79
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Plectrohyla exquisita McCranie and Wilson 1998. The Cusuco
Giant Treefrog has an EVS of 15 (Mata-Silva et al. 2019) and
is distributed from 1,430–1,780 m in cloud forest in the Sierra
de Omoa in northwestern Honduras (Townsend and Wilson
2008). This individual was found at Parque Nacional Cusuco,
Honduras. Photo by Andres Novales.
Quilticohyla acrochorda (Campbell and Duellman 2000). The
Warty Mountain Stream Frog has an EVS of 14 (Johnson et al.
2017) and ranges “at elevations from 594–900 m on the Atlantic
slopes of the Sierra Juárez [sic], Oaxaca, Mexico” (Frost 2019).
This individual was found in the Municipality of San Felipe
Usila, Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo by Vicente Mata-Silva.
Bolitoglossa chinanteca Rovito, Parra-Olea, Lee, and Wake
2012. The Chinanteca Salamander has an EVS of 18 (Johnson
et al. 2017) and a distribution within the Sierra Juárez of
Oaxaca, Mexico (Frost 2019). This individual was encountered
in the Municipality of San Felipe Usila, Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo
by Vicente Mata-Silva.
Bolitoglossa conanti McCranie and Wilson 1993. Conant’s
Mushroomtongue Salamander has an EVS of 16 (Mata-Silva et
al. 2019) and is found at moderate and intermediate elevations
of 1,370–2,000 m in cloud forest on both versants from
northwestern Honduras to extreme northwestern El Salvador,
as well as adjacent eastern Guatemala (Townsend and Wilson
2008; Frost 2019). This individual was encountered at La
Unión, Zacapa, Guatemala. Photo by Andres Novales.
Bolitoglossa oaxacensis Parra-Olea, García-París, and Wake
2004. The Atoyac Salamander has an EVS of 17 (Johnson et al.
2017) and is distributed in “humid oak-pine forest in the Sierra
Madre del Sur, specically from the mountains south of Sola de
Vega, to immediately south of the Atoyac River Basin, in the
vicinity of Puerto Portillo, Oaxaca, Mexico” (Frost 2019). This
individual was encountered in the Municipality of Santa Catarina
Juquila, Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo by Vicente Mata-Silva.
Bolitoglossa helmrichi (Schmidt 1936). The Coban
Mushroomtongue Salamander has an EVS of 16 (Mata-Silva
et al. 2019) and ranges in southwestern Alta Verapaz and Baja
Verapaz, Guatemala, at elevations of 1,000–2,000 m (Frost
2019). This individual was found at Purulhá, Baja Verapaz,
Guatemala. Photo by Andres Novales.

80
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
of Mesoamerican endemic species, the medium EVS
species comprise 14.6%, and the low EVS species 0.5%.
Therefore, it is abundantly clear that an impressive
proportion of the Mesoamerican endemic species are
allocated to the high EVS category of conservation
priority levels. Beyond this simple observation, it is
additionally evident that the conservation priority level
one species, amounting to 971 species, constitute by far
the most numerous and most sizable proportion (65.7%)
category of all the 18 levels recognized by Johnson et
al. (2017) and Mata-Silva et al. (2019). This trend is
continuing with the species described since these two
papers were published (Table 1), and is expected to
continue into the foreseeable future.
Priority Level One Species: the Most Challenging
to Protect
In our opinion, the priority level one species identied
by Johnson et al. (2017), Mata-Silva et al. (2019), and
in Table 1 of this paper, as discussed above, will prove
the most challenging to protect in perpetuity, especially
as they make up 65.7% of the Mesoamerican endemic
species. This challenge will become increasingly
daunting, inasmuch as most species described as new
to science will require placement in the priority level
one category due to their limited distribution as initially
understood, as well as perhaps thereafter, and their
expectedly high EVS levels. The data in Table 1 support
this contention.
As an initial step in the analysis in this paper, lists
of the priority level one species for Mexico (Table 5)
and for Central America (Table 6) were compiled. Slight
corrections in the data provided by Johnson et al. (2017)
and Mata-Silva et al. (2019) were necessary, due to some
initial errors and information resulting from new taxa
descriptions and resurrections (as documented in Table
1). The resulting lists include 526 priority level one
species known from Mexico and 445 known from Central
America (with one species in the latter group having an
Species References Physiographic
region(s)
EVS
calculations
Conservation
priority level
Rhadinella xerola Ariano-Sánchez and Campbell
2018 GH 6+8+2=16 One
Epictia rioignis Koch et al. 2019 GCR 6+8+1=15 One
Crotalus brunneus Blair et al. 2018 SU, OR 5+7+5=17 Two
Crotalus exiguus Blair et al. 2018 SU 6+8+5=19 One
Crotalus polisi Meik et al. 2018 BC 6+8+5=19 One
Crotalus thalassoporus Meik et al. 2018 BC 6+8+5=19 One
Kinosternon albogulare McCranie 2018 GCR, GH, HN,
CP, YP, NP 5+4+3=12 Twelve
Kinosternon vogti López-Luna et al. 2018 SC 6+8+3=17 One
Table 1 (continued). Mesoamerican herpetofaunal species described or elevated to species level since Johnson et al. (2017) and
Mata-Silva et al. (2019), along with their places of publication, physiographic region(s), EVS calculations, and conservation priority
levels. The abbreviations for regions involved are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; NB = Northern Plateau
Basin and Ranges; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chi-
apas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC = Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental;
TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; YP = Yucatan Platform; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; GCR = Pacic lowlands
from southeastern Guatemala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras;
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; CG = western nuclear Central American highlands; HN = eastern nuclear Central
American highlands; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to
Panama; and EP = eastern Panamanian highlands.
Orders Families Genera Species
Anura 15 68 517
Caudata 4 20 301
Gymnophiona 2 4 16
Amphibian totals 21 92 834
Crocodylia 2 2 3
Squamata 37 181 1,261
Testudines 10 19 58
Reptile totals 49 202 1,322
Sum totals 70 294 2,156
Table 2. Diversity of the Mesoamerican herpetofauna at familial, generic, and specic levels (based on Taxonomic List at http://
mesoamericanherpetology.com; accessed 15 November 2019).

81
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Bolitoglossa subpalmata (Boulenger 1896). The La Palma
Salamander has an EVS of 15 (Mata-Silva et al. 2019) and
occurs at elevations of 1,245–2,900 m in “humid lower montane
and montane zones and marginally into the premontane belt
on both slopes of the Cordillera de Guanacaste, Cordillera
de Tilarán, Cordillera Central, and their outliers in central
to northern Costa Rica” (Frost 2019). This individual was
observed at Cerro de la Muerte, Provincia de Cartago, Costa
Rica. Photo by Louis W. Porras.
Cryptotriton veraepacis Lynch and Wake 1978. The Baja
Verapaz Salamander has an EVS of 17 (Mata-Silva et al. 2019)
and is found at elevations of 1,610–2,290 m in the Sierra de
las Minas and nearby mountains of eastern Guatemala (Frost
2019). This individual was encountered at Purulhá, Baja
Verapaz, Guatemala. Photo by Andres Novales.
Pseudoeurycea cochranae (Taylor 1943). Cochran’s False
Brook Salamander has an EVS of 17 (Johnson et al. 2017)
and is distributed in pine and pine-oak forest at elevations of
2,200–2,700 m in the mountains of central and western Oaxaca,
Mexico (Frost 2019). This individual was found at Santiago
Tenango, Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo by César Mayoral Halla.
Pseudoeurycea conanti Bogert 1967. Conant’s Salamander has
an EVS of 16 (Johnson et al. 2017) and is known only from
a few localities in southern Oaxaca, Mexico (Bogert 1967;
Parra-Olea et al. 1999; Mata-Silva et al. 2015a, 2017). This
individual was observed in the Municipality of Villa Sola de
Vega, Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo by Vicente Mata-Silva.
Pseudoeurycea mixteca Canseco-Márquez and Gutiérrez-
Mayén 2005. This salamander has an EVS of 17 (Johnson
et al. 2017) and is distributed in “the Mixteca Alta region
of northwestern Oaxaca”…and at an “isolated relict cave
locality in the arid Tehuancan Valley, Puebla” (Frost 2019).
This individual was photographed at Teposcoulula, in the
municipality of the same name, Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo by
Bruno Téllez Baños.
Thorius boreas Hanken and Wake 1994. The Boreal Thorius
has an EVS of 18 (Johnson et al. 2017) and is known only from
the vicinity of the type locality at elevations of 2,800–3,000 m
in pine-oak forest both north and south of the summit of Cerro
Pelón in the Sierra Juárez of Oaxaca, Mexico (Frost 2019). This
individual was located at Llano de las Flores, municipality of
San Juan Atepec (Sierra de Juárez), Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo by
Vicente Mata-Silva.

82
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
imprecisely known distribution). Thus, the total number
of such species for Mesoamerica is 971.
The 971 priority level one species represent 45.0% of
the 2,156 species currently reported from Mesoamerica
(http://mesoamericanherpetology.com; accessed 9
November 2019). Of the 835 endemic species in Mexico
(Johnson et al. 2017; http://mesoamericanherpetology.
com; Table 4), the 526 priority level one species for this
country is 63.0% of the total; and for Central America,
the comparable gures are 642, 445, and 69.3% (Mata-
Silva et al. 2019; http://mesoamericanherpetology.com;
Table 4). The total of the species endemic to Mexico and
Central America is 1,477, so the 971 priority level one
species constitute 65.7% of that total (Table 4).
The data in Tables 5 and 6 are summarized by
physiographic region in Table 7. Three regions (WGN,
CGU, and YP) that overlap Mexico and Central America
represent the combined data for these regions from
Tables 5 and 6. There are priority level one species
present in 20 of the 21 physiographic regions recognized
in Mesoamerica (see Tables 5–7), with none occurring in
the EL region (i.e., the subhumid extratropical lowlands
of northeastern Mexico). The number of such species in
each of the 20 regions ranges from one to 149 (mean =
48.5). The number of species in seven of these 20 regions
lies above this mean gure, i.e., the BC (70), MC (60),
OR (141), SU (107), WN (105), HN (107), and CRP
(149) regions; while they lie below the mean value
range, from one to 41, in the remaining 13 regions (Table
7). The seven high-value regions comprise the peninsula
of Baja California (BC) and six montane regions in
the major portion of Mexico (i.e., the Sierra Madre
Oriental, Mesa Central, and Sierra Madre del Sur) and in
Central America (the western nuclear Central American
highlands, eastern nuclear Central American highlands,
and the Isthmian Central American highlands).
Ordinal levels
and above Total number of species Number of endemic species Percentage of endemism
Anura 517 403 77.9
Caudata 301 289 96.0
Gymnophiona 16 10 62.5
Amphibian totals 834 702 84.2
Crocodylia 3 1 33.3
Squamata 1,261 968 76.8
Testudines 58 33 56.9
Reptile totals 1,322 1,002 75.8
Sum totals 2,156 1,704 79.0
Table 3. Degree of endemism of the Mesoamerican herpetofauna at the ordinal level and above. The gures represent the combination
of those for distributional categories 1, 2, and 4 of Wilson et al. (2017), as updated with data from the Mesoamerican Herpetology
Taxonomic List (http://mesoamericanherpetology.com; accessed 15 November 2019).
Priority levels Mexico Central America Totals
One (High EVS in One Region) 526 445 971
Two (High EVS in Two Regions) 105 73 178
Three (High EVS in Three Regions) 32 27 59
Four (High EVS in Four Regions) 9 21 30
Five (High EVS in Five Regions) 1 9 10
Six (High EVS in Six Regions) 2 3 5
High EVS species totals 675 578 1,253
Seven (Medium EVS in One Region) 57 23 80
Eight (Medium EVS in Two Regions) 38 21 59
Nine (Medium EVS in Three Regions) 28 5 33
Ten (Medium EVS in Four Regions) 18 5 23
Eleven (Medium EVS in Five Regions) 5 4 9
Twelve (Medium EVS in Six Regions) 5 3 8
Thirteen (Medium EVS in Seven Regions) 1 1 2
Fourteen (Medium EVS in Eight Regions) 1 1 2
Medium EVS species totals 153 63 216
Fifteen (Low EVS in One Region) 1 — 1
Sixteen (Low EVS in Three Regions) 2 — 2
Seventeen (Low EVS in Four Regions) 3 — 3
Eighteen (Low EVS in Six Regions) 1 1 2
Low EVS species totals 7 1 8
Sum totals 835 642 1,477
Table 4. Conservation priortiy list of endemic herpetofaunal species in Mesoamerica based on the EVS categorization and the
range of physiographic occurrence (data from Johnson et al. 2017 and Mata-Silva et al. 2019, as updated with data from http://
mesoamericanherpetology.com; accessed 11 June 2019).

83
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Anura (92 species)
Bufonidae (6 species)
Anaxyrus kelloggi +
Incilius cristatus +
Incilius cycladen +
Incilius gemmifer +
Incilius mccoyi +
Incilius pisinnus +
Craugastoridae (20 species)
Craugastor batrachylus +
Craugastor decoratus +
Craugastor galacticorhinus +
Craugastor glaucus +
Craugastor guerreroensis +
Craugastor megalotympanum +
Craugastor montanus +
Craugastor omiltemanus +
Craugastor pelorus +
Craugastor polymniae +
Craugastor pozo +
Craugastor rhodopis +
Craugastor saltator +
Craugastor silvicola +
Craugastor spatulatus +
Craugastor tarahumaraensis +
Craugastor taylori +
Craugastor uno +
Craugastor vulcani +
Craugastor yucatanensis +
Eleutherodactylidae (22 species)
Eleutherodactylus albolabris +
Eleutherodactylus angustidigitorum +
Eleutherodactylus colimotl +
Eleutherodactylus dennisi +
Eleutherodactylus dilatus +
Eleutherodactylus erendirae +
Eleutherodactylus oresvillelai +
Eleutherodactylus grandis +
Table 5. Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions. The
abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges; NB
= Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico; SC
= Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC = Sierra
Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los Tuxtlas;
SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

84
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Eleutherodactylus grunwaldi +
Eleutherodactylus jaliscoensis +
Eleutherodactylus longipes +
Eleutherodactylus manantlanensis +
Eleutherodactylus maurus +
Eleutherodactylus modestus +
Eleutherodactylus nietoi +
Eleutherodactylus pallidus +
Eleutherodactylus rufescens +
Eleutherodactylus saxatilis +
Eleutherodactylus syristes +
Eleutherodactylus teretistes +
Eleutherodactylus verruculatus +
Eleutherodactylus wixarika +
Hylidae (38 species)
Charadrahyla esperancensis +
Charadrahyla sakbah +
Charadrahyla tecuani +
Charadrahyla trux +
Dendropsophus sartori +
Duellmanohyla ignicolor +
Ecnomiohyla echinata +
Ecnomiohyla valancifer +
Exerodonta abdivita +
Exerodonta bivocata +
Exerodonta juanitae +
Exerodonta xera +
Megastomatohyla mixe +
Megastomatohyla mixomaculata +
Megastomatohyla nubicola +
Megastomatohyla pellita +
Plectrohyla lacertosa +
Plectrohyla pycnochila +
Ptychohyla acrochorda +
Ptychohyla erythromma +
Quilticohyla zoque +
Sarcohyla ameibothalame +
Sarcohyla calthula +
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

85
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Sarcohyla calvicollina +
Sarcohyla celata +
Sarcohyla cembra +
Sarcohyla charadricola +
Sarcohyla chryses +
Sarcohyla cyanomma +
Sarcohyla cyclada +
Sarcohyla ephemera +
Sarcohyla labedactyla +
Sarcohyla miahuatlanensis +
Sarcohyla pachyderma +
Sarcohyla psarosema +
Sarcohyla sabrina +
Sarcohyla siopela +
Smilisca dentata +
Ranidae (6 species)
Lithobates chichicuahutla +
Lithobates dunni +
Lithobates lemosespinali +
Lithobates megapoda +
Lithobates pueblae +
Lithobates tlaloci +
Anuran totals — — — 15 — 7 631 1 3 19 1 9 —
Caudata (111 species)
Ambystomatidae (10 species)
Ambystoma andersoni +
Ambystoma bombypellum +
Ambystoma dumerilii +
Ambystoma avipiperatum +
Ambystoma granulosum +
Ambystoma leorae +
Ambystoma lermaense +
Ambystoma mexicanum +
Ambystoma silvense +
Ambystoma taylori +
Plethodontidae (101 species)
Aquiloeurycea cafetalera +
Aquiloeurycea galaenae +
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

86
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Aquiloeurycea praecellens +
Aquiloeurycea quetzalanensis +
Aquiloeurycea scandens +
Bolitoglossa chinanteca +
Bolitoglossa hermosa +
Bolitoglossa macrinii +
Bolitoglossa oaxacensis +
Bolitoglossa riletti +
Bolitoglossa zapoteca +
Chiropterotriton arboreus +
Chiropterotriton aureus +
Chiropterotriton chico +
Chiropterotriton chiropterus +
Chiropterotriton chondrostega +
Chiropterotriton cieloensis +
Chiropterotriton cracens +
Chiropterotriton dimidiatus +
Chiropterotriton infernalis +
Chiropterotriton lavae +
Chiropterotriton magnipes +
Chiropterotriton miquihuanus +
Chiropterotriton mosaueri +
Chiropterotriton multidentatus +
Chiropterotriton nubilus +
Chiropterotriton orculus +
Chiropterotriton priscus +
Chiropterotriton terrestris +
Cryptotriton alvarezdeltoroi +
Dendrotriton megarhinus +
Dendrotriton xolocalcae +
Isthmura corrugata +
Isthmura gigantea +
Isthmura maxima +
Isthmura sierraoccidentalis +
Ixalotriton niger +
Ixalotriton parvus +
Parvimolge townsendi +
Pseudoeurycea ahuitzotl +
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

87
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Pseudoeurycea altamontana +
Pseudoeurycea amuzga +
Pseudoeurycea anitae +
Pseudoeurycea aquatica +
Pseudoeurycea aurantia +
Pseudoeurycea cochranae +
Pseudoeurycea conanti +
Pseudoeurycea rscheini +
Pseudoeurycea juarezi +
Pseudoeurycea kuautli +
Pseudoeurycea lineola +
Pseudoeurycea longicauda +
Pseudoeurycea lynchi +
Pseudoeurycea melanomolga +
Pseudoeurycea mixcoatl +
Pseudoeurycea mixteca +
Pseudoeurycea mystax +
Pseudoeurycea naucampatepetl +
Pseudoeurycea nigromaculata +
Pseudoeurycea obesa +
Pseudoeurycea orchileucos +
Pseudoeurycea orchimelas +
Pseudoeurycea papenfussi +
Pseudoeurycea robertsi +
Pseudoeurycea rucauda +
Pseudoeurycea saltator +
Pseudoeurycea tenchalli +
Pseudoeurycea teotepec +
Pseudoeurycea tlahcuiloh +
Pseudoeurycea tlilicxitl +
Pseudoeurycea unguidentis +
Pseudoeurycea werleri +
Thorius adelos +
Thorius arboreus +
Thorius aureus +
Thorius boreas +
Thorius dubitus +
Thorius grandis +
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

88
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Thorius hankeni +
Thorius infernalis +
Thorius insperatus +
Thorius longicaudus +
Thorius lunaris +
Thorius macdougalli +
Thorius magnipes +
Thorius maxillabrochus +
Thorius minutissimus +
Thorius minydemus +
Thorius municus +
Thorius narismagnus +
Thorius narisovalis +
Thorius omiltemi +
Thorius papaloae +
Thorius pennatulus +
Thorius pinicola +
Thorius pulmonaris +
Thorius schmidti +
Thorius smithi +
Thorius spilogaster +
Thorius tlaxiacus +
Thorius troglodytes +
Salamander totals — — — 14 — — 2 59 — 3 28 — 5—
Amphibian totals — — — 29 — 7 8 90 1 647 1 14 —
Squamata (315 species)
Bipedidae (2 species)
Bipes biporus +
Bipes tridactylus +
Anguidae (30 species)
Abronia bogerti +
Abronia chiszari +
Abronia cuetzpali +
Abronia deppii +
Abronia graminea +
Abronia leurolepis +
Abronia martindelcampoi +
Abronia mitchelli +
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

89
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Abronia mixteca +
Abronia ornelasi +
Abronia ramirezi +
Abronia reidi +
Abronia smithi +
Barisia herrerae +
Barisia levicollis +
Barisia rudicollis +
Celestus ingridae +
Celestus legnotus +
Elgaria cedrosensis +
Elgaria nana +
Elgaria velazquezi +
Gerrhonotus farri +
Gerrhonotus lazcanoi +
Gerrhonotus lugoi +
Gerrhonotus mccoyi +
Gerrhonotus parvus +
Mesaspis antauges +
Mesaspis gadovii +
Mesaspis juarezi +
Mesaspis viridiava +
Crotaphytidae (3 species)
Crotaphytus antiquus +
Crotaphytus grismeri +
Crotaphytus insularis +
Dactyloidae (25 species)
Norops anisolepis +
Norops boulengerianus +
Norops brianjuliani +
Norops compressicauda +
Norops cuprinus +
Norops cymbops +
Norops duellmani +
Norops dunni +
Norops gadovi +
Norops hobartsmithi +
Norops immaculogularis +
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

90
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Norops liogaster +
Norops megapholidotus +
Norops milleri +
Norops nietoi +
Norops omiltemanus +
Norops parvicirculatus +
Norops peucephilus +
Norops pygmaeus +
Norops rubiginosus +
Norops sacamecatensis +
Norops schiedii +
Norops stevepoei +
Norops taylori +
Norops zapotecorum +
Eublepharidae (1 species)
Coleonyx gypsicolus +
Iguanidae (9 species)
Ctenosaura clarki +
Ctenosaura conspicuosa +
Ctenosaura hemilopha +
Ctenosaura nolascensis +
Ctenosaura oaxacana +
Dipsosaurus catalinensis +
Sauromalus klauberi +
Sauromalus slevini +
Sauromalus varius +
Phrynosomatidae (50 species)
Petrosaurus slevini +
Phrynosoma cerroense +
Phrynosoma ditmarsi +
Phrynosoma sherbrookei +
Phrynosoma wigginsi +
Sceloporus adleri +
Sceloporus anahuacus +
Sceloporus angustus +
Sceloporus aurantius +
Sceloporus aureolus +
Sceloporus caeruleus +
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

91
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Sceloporus chaneyi +
Sceloporus cozumelae +
Sceloporus cryptus +
Sceloporus cupreus +
Sceloporus cyanostictus +
Sceloporus druckercolini +
Sceloporus exsul +
Sceloporus gadsdeni +
Sceloporus goldmani +
Sceloporus grandaevus +
Sceloporus halli +
Sceloporus hunsakeri +
Sceloporus insignis +
Sceloporus lemosespinali +
Sceloporus lineatulus +
Sceloporus macdougalli +
Sceloporus maculosus +
Sceloporus omiltemanus +
Sceloporus ornatus +
Sceloporus palaciosi +
Sceloporus samcolemani +
Sceloporus shannonorum +
Sceloporus subniger +
Sceloporus subpictus +
Sceloporus sugillatus +
Sceloporus tanneri +
Sceloporus unicanthalis +
Uma exsul +
Uma paraphygas +
Uma rufopunctata +
Urosaurus auriculatus +
Urosaurus clarionensis +
Urosaurus lahtelai +
Uta encantadae +
Uta lowei +
Uta nolascensis +
Uta palmeri +
Uta squamata +
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

92
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Uta tumidarostra +
Phyllodactylidae (14 species)
Phyllodactylus benedetti +
Phyllodactylus bugastrolepis +
Phyllodactylus davisi +
Phyllodactylus delcampoi +
Phyllodactylus duellmani +
Phyllodactylus isabelae +
Phyllodactylus kropotkini +
Phyllodactylus lupitae +
Phyllodactylus papenfussi +
Phyllodactylus partidus +
Phyllodactylus paucituberculatus +
Phyllodactylus rupinus +
Phyllodactylus unctus +
Phyllodactylus xanti +
Scincidae (6 species)
Plestiodon indubitus +
Plestiodon lagunensis +
Plestiodon lotus +
Plestiodon multilineatus +
Plestiodon nietoi +
Plestiodon parviauriculatus +
Sphenomorphidae (1 species)
Scincella kikaapoa +
Teiidae (18 species)
Aspidoscelis bacata +
Aspidoscelis calidipes +
Aspidoscelis cana +
Aspidoscelis carmenensis +
Aspidoscelis catalinensis +
Aspidoscelis celeripes +
Aspidoscelis ceralbensis +
Aspidoscelis cozumela +
Aspidoscelis danheimae +
Aspidoscelis espiritensis +
Aspidoscelis franciscensis +
Aspidoscelis labialis +
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

93
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Aspidoscelis martyris +
Aspidoscelis mexicana +
Aspidoscelis opatae +
Aspidoscelis picta +
Aspidoscelis rodecki +
Holcosus gaigeae +
Xantusiidae (15 species)
Lepidophyma chicoasense +
Lepidophyma cuicateca +
Lepidophyma dontomasi +
Lepidophyma inagoi +
Lepidophyma lipetzi +
Lepidophyma lowei +
Lepidophyma micropholis +
Lepidophyma occulor +
Lepidophyma zongolica +
Xantusia bolsonae +
Xantusia extorris +
Xantusia gilberti +
Xantusia jaycolei +
Xantusia sanchezi +
Xantusia sherbrookei +
Xenosauridae (9 species)
Xenosaurus arboreus +
Xenosaurus fractus +
Xenosaurus mendozai +
Xenosaurus newmanorum +
Xenosaurus penai +
Xenosaurus phalaroanthereon +
Xenosaurus platyceps +
Xenosaurus sanmartinensis +
Xenosaurus tzacualtipantecus +
Charinidae (1 species)
Exiliboa placata +
Colubridae (38 species)
Arizona pacata +
Conopsis megalodon +
Ficimia ramirezi +
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

94
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Ficimia ruspator +
Geagras redimitus +
Lampropeltis catalinensis +
Lampropeltis greeri +
Lampropeltis herrerae +
Lampropeltis leonis +
Lampropeltis ruthveni +
Lampropeltis webbi +
Masticophis anthonyi +
Masticophis barbouri +
Masticophis slevini +
Mastigodryas cliftoni +
Pituophis insulanus +
Pseudelaphe phaescens +
Rhinocheilus etheridgei +
Salvadora gymnorhachis +
Salvadora intermedia +
Sonora fasciata +
Sonora mosaueri +
Sonora palarostris +
Sonora savagei +
Sonora straminea +
Sonora taylori +
Tantilla briggsi +
Tantilla cascadae +
Tantilla ceboruca +
Tantilla coronadoi +
Tantilla avilineata +
Tantilla johnsoni +
Tantilla oaxacae +
Tantilla robusta +
Tantilla sertula +
Tantilla shawi +
Tantilla slavensi +
Tantilla tayrae +
Dipsadidae (52 species)
Adelphicos latifasciatum +
Adelphicos nigrilatum +
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

95
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Cenaspis aenigma +
Chersodromus australis +
Chersodromus nigrum +
Coniophanes alvarezi +
Coniophanes melanocephalus +
Coniophanes meridanus +
Coniophanes michoacanensis +
Coniophanes sarae +
Conophis morai +
Cryophis hallbergi +
Dipsas gaigeae +
Geophis anocularis +
Geophis bicolor +
Geophis blanchardi +
Geophis chalybeus +
Geophis duellmani +
Geophis incomptus +
Geophis isthmicus +
Geophis juarezi +
Geophis laticollaris +
Geophis latifrontalis +
Geophis lorancai +
Geophis maculiferus +
Geophis nigrocinctus +
Geophis occabus +
Geophis omiltemanus +
Geophis pyburni +
Geophis russatus +
Geophis sallei +
Geophis tarascae +
Geophis turbidus +
Hypsiglena afnis +
Hypsiglena catalinae +
Hypsiglena tanzeri +
Hypsiglena unalocularis +
Leptodeira uribei +
Rhadinaea bogertorum +
Rhadinaea cuneata +
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

96
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Rhadinaea eduardoi +
Rhadinaea forbesi +
Rhadinaea nuchalis +
Rhadinaea omiltemana +
Rhadinaea quinquelineata +
Rhadinella donaji +
Rhadinella dysmica +
Rhadinella kanalchutchan +
Rhadinophanes monticola +
Sibon linearis +
Tantalophis discolor +
Tropidodipsas repleta +
Elapidae (3 species)
Micrurus nebularis +
Micrurus pachecogili +
Micrurus proximans +
Leptotyphlopidae (3 species)
Epictia vindumi +
Rena boettgeri +
Rena bressoni +
Natricidae (10 species)
Adelophis copei +
Adelophis foxi +
Thamnophis bogerti +
Thamnophis exsul +
Thamnophis godmani +
Thamnophis lineri +
Thamnophis mendax +
Thamnophis postremus +
Thamnophis rossmani +
Thamnophis sumichrasti +
Viperidae (25 species)
Bothriechis rowleyi +
Cerrophidion petlalcalensis +
Cerrophidion tzotzilorum +
Crotalus angelensis +
Crotalus brunneus +
Crotalus campbelli +
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

97
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Mexico
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU
Crotalus catalinensis +
Crotalus ericsmithi +
Crotalus estebanensis +
Crotalus exiguus +
Crotalus lannomi +
Crotalus lorenzoensis +
Crotalus morulus +
Crotalus polisi +
Crotalus stejnegeri +
Crotalus tancitarensis +
Crotalus thalassoporus +
Crotalus tlaloci +
Crotalus transversus +
Mixcoatlus barbouri +
Mixcoatlus browni +
Ophryacus smaragdinus +
Ophryacus sphenophrys +
Porthidium hespere +
Porthidium yucatanicum +
Squamate totals 70 2 12 31 — 30 16 51 4 8 60 8 22 1
Testudines (11 species)
Emydidae (4 species)
Terrapene coahuila +
Terrapene yucatana +
Trachemys ornata +
Trachemys taylori +
Kinosternidae (5 species)
Kinosternon chimalhuaca +
Kinosternon creaseri +
Kinosternon durangoense +
Kinosternon oaxacae +
Kinosternon vogti +
Testudinidae (1 species)
Gopherus avomarginatus +
Trionychidae (1 species)
Apalone atra +
Turtle totals — — 5— — 4 — — — — — 2 — —
Reptile totals 70 2 17 31 — 34 16 51 4 8 60 10 22 1
Herpetofaunal totals 70 2 17 60 — 41 24 141 514 107 11 36 1
Table 5 (continued). Distribution of the 529 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Mexico, among 14 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: BC = Baja California and adjacent islands; SD = Sonoran Desert basins and ranges;
NB = Northern Plateau basins and ranges; MC = Mesa Central; EL = subhumid extratropical Lowlands of northeastern Mexico;
SC = Pacic lowlands from Sonora to western Chiapas, including the Balsas Basin and Central Depression of Chiapas; OC =
Sierra Madre Occidental; OR = Sierra Madre Oriental; TT = Atlantic lowlands from Tamaulipas to Tabasco; LT = Sierra de Los
Tuxtlas; SU = Sierra Madre del Sur; YP = Mexican portion of Yucatan Platform; WN = Mexican portion of western Nuclear Central
American highlands; and CGU = Mexican portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-central Guatemala.

98
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Evidently, the majority of the priority level one
species in Mesoamerica are distributed in the montane
regions. Although the entire peninsula of Baja California
is included in our analysis, this long, thin extension of the
North American continent encompasses a “dramatically
sculpted topography [consisting of] a series of mountain
ranges, known collectively as the Peninsular Ranges, that
run nearly uninterrupted from its northern border to the
Isthmus of La Paz” (Grismer 2002). In total, of the 970
priority level one species in Mesoamerica (excluding
Amereega maculata, known from an imprecise type
locality, located somewhere in Panama; Köhler 2011),
739 or 76.2% occur in seven of the 20 total regions.
The other 13 regions are occupied by the remaining
231 (23.8%) priority level one species. Based on these
gures, the protection of the priority level one species
in Mesoamerica obviously has to be centered in the
montane regions, as opposed to lowland regions on
either the Atlantic or Pacic versants. This conclusion,
however, does not discount the importance of protecting
lowland priority level one species, especially as these are
the areas in which the majority of the human population
lives, and one of the seven high-value regions comprises
the Baja California Peninsula and its associated islands.
Physiographic Distribution of the Priority Level
One Species: a Closer Look
The data summarized in Table 7 can be examined in
more detail at the familial and ordinal levels. Most
priority level one Mesoamerican anurans (194 of 221
total species, or 87.8%) are in families Bufonidae (18
species), Craugastoridae (76), Eleutherodactylidae (31),
and Hylidae (69). One-half of the bufonid species (nine
of 18) and both of the two centrolenid species are found
in the CRP region. The craugastorid priority level one
species are most often (63 of 76 species, or 82.9%)
distributed in montane regions in Mesoamerica, including
the OR, SU, WN, HN, and CRP. The dendrobatid
species are limited to the four Lower Central American
regions (CRP, EP, NP, and CP) and more or less evenly
distributed between the highland and lowland regions
therein (four in the CRP and EP regions vs. ve in the
NP and CP regions; as noted elsewhere the dendrobatid
Amereega maculata is unknown from any specic
locality). The eleutherodactylid anurans are almost all
(30 of 31 species, 96.8%) distributed in highland regions,
with one exception in the NP region. Most of the hylid
taxa (60 of 69 species, 87.0%) are found in highland
regions in Mesoamerica. Three families with single
species represented are found in one highland (HN) and
two lowland (NP and CP) regions. Finally, all but one of
the ranid frogs are distributed in montane physiographic
regions. Of the 221 priority level one anurans, 188
(85.1%) are distributed in the nine montane regions in
Mesoamerica. Most of the salamanders in Mesoamerica
(228 of 238 species, 95.8%) belong to family
Plethodontidae. Nonetheless, considered as a whole,
this group of amphibians has the greatest representation
in the nine Mesoamerican montane regions, i.e., 224 of
238 species (94.1%). Interestingly, the few priority level
one caecilians are represented in both highland (two in
CRP) and lowland regions (three in CP). Considering
amphibians as a whole, of the 464 priority level one
species, 414 (89.2%) are restricted to the nine montane
regions; in contrast, 50 priority level one species (10.8%)
are found in the 11 lowland regions.
Among the Mesoamerican priority level one
squamates, most taxa are in the families Anguidae (53
species), Dactyloidae (73), Phrynosomatidae (52),
Teiidae (20), Colubridae (53), Dipsadidae (101), and
Viperidae (36), or 388 of 494 total species (78.5%). The
two species of priority level one bipedid amphisbaenians
occupy one in each of the BC and SC regions in western
Mexico (note, the entire family Bipedidae comprises
only three species, all of which are endemic to Mexico).
Of the 53 priority level one species in family Anguidae,
most (46 or 86.8%) are distributed among all nine of
the Mesoamerican highland regions, with the highest
number (14) occupying the WN region; in addition to
three species in the BC region, two in the NB region,
and one each in the NP and CP regions. Three priority
level one species belong to the family Crotaphytidae, all
of which are conned to non-montane regions in Mexico.
Of 73 species of priority level one in family Dactyloidae,
62 (84.9%) are found in six of the nine Mesoamerican
highland regions. The single priority level one eublepharid
gecko is in the BC region. The single priority level one
gymnophthalmid lizard is in the lowland CP region. The
priority level one lizards of family Iguanidae almost all
depart from the typical pattern of majority representation
in highland regions, in that 11 of 12 (91.7%) species are
found in the lowland regions of Mesoamerica (BC, SC,
and GH); only one species is found in the WN region;
however, it is within the interior dry Motagua Valley.
Similarly, the three species of mabuyid skinks are found
in two lowland regions (GH and NP). The 52 priority
level one phrynosomatid species are limited primarily
in their distributions to Mexico (with two exceptions in
the HN region) with broad distribution in both lowland
(25 species in BC, SD, NB, SC, and YP) and highland
regions (27 in MC, OC, OR, SU, and HN). The geckos
of family Phyllodactylidae also depart from the usual
pattern of high representation in the Mesoamerican
highlands, in that 16 of the 17 priority level one species
(94.1%) are located in the BC, SC, and GH lowland
regions. Most (four) of the six species of priority level
one scincid lizards are distributed in three highland
regions (MC, OC, and SU). The sphaerodactylid geckos
are also poorly represented in highland regions, with
nine of 11 species (81.8%) found in the GH, NP, and CP
regions in Central America. The sphenomorphid skinks
are poorly represented among the priority level one
species, with one species found in each of the NB and

99
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Thorius narisovalis Taylor 1940. The Upper Cerro Pigmy
Salamander has an EVS of 17 (Johnson et al. 2017) and is
known only from three areas in Oaxaca, Mexico, including the
vicinity of the type locality on Cerro San Felipe, the vicinity of
Zaachila in central Oaxaca, and the vicinity of Tlaxiaco (Frost
2019). This individual was observed at La Cumbre de Ixtepeji,
Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo by César Mayoral Halla.
Abronia mixteca Bogert and Porter 1967. The Mixtecan
Arboreal Alligator Lizard has an EVS of 18 (Johnson et al.
2017) and is limited in distribution to the Montañas y Valles
del Occidente region of western Oaxaca, as well as in central
Guerrero, Mexico. This individual was observed at the type
locality (El Tejocote, Etla) in the Mixteca region of Oaxaca,
México. Photo by Elí García Padilla.
Abronia montecristoi Hidalgo 1983. The Cerro Montecristo
Arboreal Alligator Lizard has an EVS of 17 (Mata-Silva et al.
2019) and is found at moderate and intermediate elevations
of the Pacic versant of northwestern El Salvador and on the
Atlantic versant of western Honduras (McCranie 2018). This
individual was encountered at Zacate Blanco, Departamento de
Intibucá, Honduras. Photo by Louis Porras.
Celestus bivittatus (Boulenger 1895). This terrestrial anguid
lizard has an EVS of 15 (Mata-Silva et al. 2019) and is found
at moderate and intermediate elevations on the Atlantic versant
of eastern Guatemala and on both versants from southwestern
Honduras to northwestern Nicaragua (McCranie 2018). This
individual was located at 13.3 km WNW of La Esperanza,
Departamento de Intibucá, Honduras. Photo by Louis Porras.
Celestus montanus Schmidt 1933. The Mountain Lesser
Galliwasp has an EVS of 15 (Mata-Silva et al. 2019) and occurs
at moderate and intermediate elevations of the Atlantic versant
in northwestern Honduras and in adjacent eastern Guatemala
(McCranie 2018). This individual was observed at Santa Elena,
Departamento de Cortés, Honduras. Photo by Louis Porras.
Gerrhonotus mccoyi García-Vázquez, Contreras-Arquieta,
Trujano-Ortega, and Nieto-Montes de Oca 2018. This
alligator lizard has an EVS of 17 (Table 1) and is limited in
distribution to the Cuatrociénegas Basin in Coahuila, México
(Reptile Database, http://reptile-database.org; accessed 26 May
2019). This individual was photographed at Poza Churince,
municipality of Cuatrocienegas, Coahuila, Mexico. Photo by
Uri Omar García-Vázquez.

100
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Central America
WN HN CRP EP YP GH NP CGU GCR CP
Anura (130 species)
Bufonidae (12 species)
Atelopus chiriquiensis +
Atelopus chirripoensis +
Atelopus limosus +
Incilius aucoinae +
Incilius epioticus +
Incilius guanacaste +
Incilius holdridgei +
Incilius karenlipsae +
Incilius majordomus +
Incilius periglenes +
Incilius peripatetes +
Incilius porteri +
Centrolenidae (2 species)
Hyalinobatrachium talamancae +
Hyalinobatrachium vireovittatum +
Craugastoridae (56 species)
Craugastor adamastus +
Craugastor aenigmaticus +
Craugastor anciano +
Craugastor andi +
Craugastor angelicus +
Craugastor aphanus +
Craugastor azueroensis +
Craugastor blairi +
Craugastor bocourti +
Craugastor castanedai +
Craugastor catalinae +
Craugastor chingopetaca +
Craugastor chrysozetetes +
Craugastor coffeus +
Craugastor cruzi +
Craugastor cuaquero +
Craugastor cyanochthebius +
Craugastor daryi +
Craugastor emcelae +
Craugastor emleni +
Craugastor escoces +
Table 6. Distribution of the 444 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Central America among 10 physiographic regions.
The abbreviations for regions are as follows: CGU = Central American portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to south-
central Guatemala; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacic islands); CRP
= Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacic lowlands from southeastern Guatemala
to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated
Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area
includes associated Caribbean islands); WN = Central American portion of western nuclear Central American highlands; and YP =
Central American portion of Yucatan Platform. ? = species known only from indeterminate type locality.

101
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Central America
WN HN CRP EP YP GH NP CGU GCR CP
Craugastor eischmanni +
Craugastor gabbi +
Craugastor gulosus +
Craugastor gutschei +
Craugastor inachus +
Craugastor jota +
Craugastor melanostictus +
Craugastor merendonensis +
Craugastor milesi +
Craugastor monnichorum +
Craugastor myllomyllon +
Craugastor nefrens +
Craugastor olanchano +
Craugastor omoaensis +
Craugastor phasma +
Craugastor podiciferus +
Craugastor polyptychus +
Craugastor punctariolus +
Craugastor rayo +
Craugastor rhyacobatrachus +
Craugastor rivulus +
Craugastor sagui +
Craugastor saltuarius +
Craugastor stadelmani +
Craugastor tabasarae +
Craugastor talamancae +
Craugastor taurus +
Craugastor trachydermus +
Craugastor underwoodi +
Craugastor xucanebi +
Craugastor zunigai +
Pristimantis adnus +
Pristimantis museosus +
Pristimantis pirrensis +
Strabomantis laticorpus +
Dendrobatidae (11 species)
Ameerega maculata?
Andinobates claudiae +
Andinobates geminisae +
Table 6 (continued). Distribution of the 444 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Central America among 10 physiographic
regions. The abbreviations for regions are as follows: CGU = Central American portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to
south-central Guatemala; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacic islands);
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacic lowlands from southeastern Guate-
mala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated
Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area
includes associated Caribbean islands); WN = Central American portion of western nuclear Central American highlands; and YP =
Central American portion of Yucatan Platform. ? = species known only from indeterminate type locality.

102
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Central America
WN HN CRP EP YP GH NP CGU GCR CP
Colostethus latinasus +
Ectopoglossus astralogaster +
Ectopoglossus isthminus +
Oophaga arborea +
Oophaga pumilio +
Oophaga speciosa +
Phyllobates lugubris +
Phyllobates vittatus +
Eleutherodactylidae (9 species)
Diasporus citrinobapheus +
Diasporus darienensis +
Diasporus hylaeformis +
Diasporus igneus +
Diasporus majeensis +
Diasporus pequeno +
Diasporus sapo +
Diasporus tigrillo +
Diasporus ventrimaculatus +
Hemiphractidae (3 species)
Hemiphractus elioti +
Hemiphractus kaylochae +
Hemiphractus panamensis +
Hylidae (31 species)
Bromeliohyla melacaena +
Dryophytes bocourti +
Duellmanohyla legleri +
Duellmanohyla lythrodes +
Duellmanohyla ruoculis +
Ecnomiohyla minera +
Ecnomiohyla rabborum +
Ecnomiohyla salvaje +
Ecnomiohyla thysanota +
Ecnomiohyla veraguensis +
Exerodonta catracha +
Exerodonta perkinsi +
Isthmohyla calypso +
Isthmohyla debilis +
Isthmohyla infucata +
Isthmohyla insolita +
Table 6 (continued). Distribution of the 444 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Central America among 10 physiographic
regions. The abbreviations for regions are as follows: CGU = Central American portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to
south-central Guatemala; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacic islands);
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacic lowlands from southeastern Guate-
mala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated
Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area
includes associated Caribbean islands); WN = Central American portion of western nuclear Central American highlands; and YP =
Central American portion of Yucatan Platform. ? = species known only from indeterminate type locality.

103
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Central America
WN HN CRP EP YP GH NP CGU GCR CP
Isthmohyla picadoi +
Isthmohyla pictipes +
Isthmohyla xanthosticta +
Isthmohyla zeteki +
Plectrohyla calvata +
Plectrohyla dasypus +
Plectrohyla exquisite +
Plectrohyla psiloderma +
Plectrohyla tecunumani +
Plectrohyla teuchestes +
Ptychohyla dendrophasma +
Quilticohyla sanctaecrucis +
Scinax altae +
Smilisca manisorum +
Smilisca puma +
Leptodactylidae (1 species)
Leptodactylus silvanimbus +
Microhylidae (1 species)
Hypopachus pictiventris +
Pipidae (1 species)
Pipa myersi +
Ranidae (3 species)
Lithobates lenca +
Lithobates miadis +
Lithobates vibicarius +
Anuran totals 16 25 54 13 — 1 14 — — 6
Caudata (127 species)
Plethodontidae (127 species)
Bolitoglossa anthracina +
Bolitoglossa aurae +
Bolitoglossa aureogularis +
Bolitoglossa bramei +
Bolitoglossa carri +
Bolitoglossa cataguana +
Bolitoglossa celaque +
Bolitoglossa centenorum +
Bolitoglossa cerroensis +
Bolitoglossa chucantiensis +
Bolitoglossa compacta +
Table 6 (continued). Distribution of the 444 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Central America among 10 physiographic
regions. The abbreviations for regions are as follows: CGU = Central American portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to
south-central Guatemala; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacic islands);
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacic lowlands from southeastern Guate-
mala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated
Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area
includes associated Caribbean islands); WN = Central American portion of western nuclear Central American highlands; and YP =
Central American portion of Yucatan Platform. ? = species known only from indeterminate type locality.

104
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Central America
WN HN CRP EP YP GH NP CGU GCR CP
Bolitoglossa conanti +
Bolitoglossa copia +
Bolitoglossa cuchumatana +
Bolitoglossa cuna +
Bolitoglossa daryorum +
Bolitoglossa decora +
Bolitoglossa diaphora +
Bolitoglossa diminuta +
Bolitoglossa dunni +
Bolitoglossa epimela +
Bolitoglossa eremia +
Bolitoglossa gomezi +
Bolitoglossa gracilis +
Bolitoglossa heiroreias +
Bolitoglossa helmrichi +
Bolitoglossa huehuetenanguensis +
Bolitoglossa indio +
Bolitoglossa insularis +
Bolitoglossa jacksoni +
Bolitoglossa jugivagans +
Bolitoglossa kamuk +
Bolitoglossa kaqchikelorum +
Bolitoglossa la +
Bolitoglossa longissima +
Bolitoglossa magnica +
Bolitoglossa marmorea +
Bolitoglossa meliana +
Bolitoglossa minutula +
Bolitoglossa mombachoensis +
Bolitoglossa nigrescens +
Bolitoglossa ninadormida +
Bolitoglossa nussbaumi +
Bolitoglossa obscura +
Bolitoglossa omniumsanctorum +
Bolitoglossa oresbia +
Bolitoglossa pacaya +
Bolitoglossa pesrubra +
Bolitoglossa porrasorum +
Bolitoglossa psephena +
Table 6 (continued). Distribution of the 444 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Central America among 10 physiographic
regions. The abbreviations for regions are as follows: CGU = Central American portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to
south-central Guatemala; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacic islands);
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacic lowlands from southeastern Guate-
mala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated
Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area
includes associated Caribbean islands); WN = Central American portion of western nuclear Central American highlands; and YP =
Central American portion of Yucatan Platform. ? = species known only from indeterminate type locality.

105
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Central America
WN HN CRP EP YP GH NP CGU GCR CP
Bolitoglossa pygmaea +
Bolitoglossa robinsoni +
Bolitoglossa robusta +
Bolitoglossa sombra +
Bolitoglossa sooyorum +
Bolitoglossa splendida +
Bolitoglossa subpalmata +
Bolitoglossa suchitanensis +
Bolitoglossa synoria +
Bolitoglossa taylori +
Bolitoglossa tenebrosa +
Bolitoglossa tica +
Bolitoglossa tzultacaj +
Bolitoglossa xibalba +
Bolitoglossa zacapensis +
Cryptotriton monzoni +
Cryptotriton necopinus +
Cryptotriton sierraminensis +
Cryptotriton veraepacis +
Cryptotriton xucaneborum +
Dendrotriton bromeliacius +
Dendrotriton chujorum +
Dendrotriton cuchumatanus +
Dendrotriton kekchiorum +
Dendrotriton rabbi +
Dendrotriton sanctibarbarus +
Nototriton abscondens +
Nototriton barbouri +
Nototriton brodiei +
Nototriton costaricense +
Nototriton gamezi +
Nototriton guanacaste +
Nototriton lignicola +
Nototriton limnospectator +
Nototriton major +
Nototriton matama +
Nototriton mime +
Nototriton nelsoni +
Nototriton oreadorum +
Table 6 (continued). Distribution of the 444 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Central America among 10 physiographic
regions. The abbreviations for regions are as follows: CGU = Central American portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to
south-central Guatemala; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacic islands);
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacic lowlands from southeastern Guate-
mala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated
Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area
includes associated Caribbean islands); WN = Central American portion of western nuclear Central American highlands; and YP =
Central American portion of Yucatan Platform. ? = species known only from indeterminate type locality.

106
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Central America
WN HN CRP EP YP GH NP CGU GCR CP
Nototriton picadoi +
Nototriton picucha +
Nototriton richardi +
Nototriton saslaya +
Nototriton stuarti +
Nototriton tapanti +
Nototriton tomamorum +
Oedipina altura +
Oedipina berlini +
Oedipina capitalina +
Oedipina carablanca +
Oedipina chortiorum +
Oedipina collaris +
Oedipina cyclocauda +
Oedipina fortunensis +
Oedipina gephyra +
Oedipina gracilis +
Oedipina grandis +
Oedipina kasios +
Oedipina koehleri +
Oedipina leptopoda +
Oedipina maritima +
Oedipina motaguae +
Oedipina nica +
Oedipina nimaso +
Oedipina pacicensis +
Oedipina paucidentata +
Oedipina petiola +
Oedipina poelzi +
Oedipina quadra +
Oedipina salvadorensis +
Oedipina savagei +
Oedipina stenopodia +
Oedipina taylori +
Oedipina tomasi +
Oedipina tzutujilorum +
Oedipina uniformis +
Pseudoeurycea exspectata +
Salamander totals 34 35 45 2—2 7—1 1
Table 6 (continued). Distribution of the 444 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Central America among 10 physiographic
regions. The abbreviations for regions are as follows: CGU = Central American portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to
south-central Guatemala; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacic islands);
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacic lowlands from southeastern Guate-
mala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated
Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area
includes associated Caribbean islands); WN = Central American portion of western nuclear Central American highlands; and YP =
Central American portion of Yucatan Platform. ? = species known only from indeterminate type locality.

107
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Central America
WN HN CRP EP YP GH NP CGU GCR CP
Gymnophiona (5 species)
Caecilidae (3 species)
Caecilia volcani +
Oscaecilia elongata +
Oscaecilia osae +
Dermophiidae (2 species)
Dermophis costaricensis +
Dermophis gracilior +
Caecilian totals — — 2 — — — — — — 3
Amphibian totals 50 58 100 13 — 3 21 — 1 10
Squamata (181 Species)
Anguidae (23 species)
Abronia anzuetoi +
Abronia aurita +
Abronia campbelli +
Abronia mbriata +
Abronia frosti +
Abronia gaiophantasma +
Abronia meledona +
Abronia montecristoi +
Abronia salvadorensis +
Abronia vasconcelosii +
Celestus adercus +
Celestus bivittatus +
Celestus cyanochloris +
Celestus hylaius +
Celestus laf +
Celestus montanus +
Celestus orobius +
Celestus scansorius +
Coloptychon rhombifer +
Diploglossus montisilvestris +
Mesaspis cuchumatanus +
Mesaspis monticola +
Mesaspis salvadorensis +
Corytophanidae (2 species)
Laemanctus julioi +
Laemanctus waltersi +
Dactyloidae (48 species)
Table 6 (continued). Distribution of the 444 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Central America among 10 physiographic
regions. The abbreviations for regions are as follows: CGU = Central American portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to
south-central Guatemala; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacic islands);
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacic lowlands from southeastern Guate-
mala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated
Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area
includes associated Caribbean islands); WN = Central American portion of western nuclear Central American highlands; and YP =
Central American portion of Yucatan Platform. ? = species known only from indeterminate type locality.

108
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Central America
WN HN CRP EP YP GH NP CGU GCR CP
Dactyloa casildae +
Dactyloa kathydayae +
Dactyloa microtus +
Norops alocomyos +
Norops altae +
Norops amplisquamosus +
Norops arenal +
Norops benedikti +
Norops bicaorum +
Norops caceresae +
Norops campbelli +
Norops cusuco +
Norops datzorum +
Norops fortunensis +
Norops fungosus +
Norops gruuo +
Norops haguei +
Norops heteropholidotus +
Norops intermedius +
Norops johnmeyeri +
Norops kemptoni +
Norops kreutzi +
Norops leditzigorum +
Norops magnaphallus +
Norops monteverde +
Norops morazani +
Norops muralla +
Norops ocelloscapularis +
Norops osa +
Norops pachypus +
Norops pijolensis +
Norops pseudokemptoni +
Norops pseudopachypus +
Norops purpurgularis +
Norops roatanensis +
Norops rubribarbaris +
Norops salvini +
Norops sminthus +
Norops tenorioensis +
Table 6 (continued). Distribution of the 444 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Central America among 10 physiographic
regions. The abbreviations for regions are as follows: CGU = Central American portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to
south-central Guatemala; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacic islands);
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacic lowlands from southeastern Guate-
mala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated
Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area
includes associated Caribbean islands); WN = Central American portion of western nuclear Central American highlands; and YP =
Central American portion of Yucatan Platform. ? = species known only from indeterminate type locality.

109
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Central America
WN HN CRP EP YP GH NP CGU GCR CP
Norops townsendi +
Norops triumphalis +
Norops tropidolepis +
Norops utilensis +
Norops villai +
Norops wampuensis +
Norops wermuthi +
Norops woodi +
Norops yoroensis +
Gymnophthalmidae (1 species)
Bachia blairi +
Iguanidae (3 species)
Ctenosaura bakeri +
Ctenosaura oedirhina +
Ctenosaura palearis +
Mabuyidae (3 species)
Marisora alliacea +
Marisora magnacornae +
Marisora roatanae +
Phrynosomatidae (2 species)
Sceloporus esperanzae +
Sceloporus schmidti +
Phyllodactylidae (3 species)
Phyllodactylus insularis +
Phyllodactylus palmeus +
Phyllodactylus paralepis +
Sphaerodactylidae (11 species)
Lepidoblepharis emberawoundule +
Lepidoblepharis rugularis +
Sphaerodactylus alphus +
Sphaerodactylus dunni +
Sphaerodactylus graptolaemus +
Sphaerodactylus guanaje +
Sphaerodactylus homolepis +
Sphaerodactylus leonardovaldesi +
Sphaerodactylus pacicus +
Sphaerodactylus poindexteri +
Sphaerodactylus rosaurae +
Sphenomorphidae (1 species)
Table 6 (continued). Distribution of the 444 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Central America among 10 physiographic
regions. The abbreviations for regions are as follows: CGU = Central American portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to
south-central Guatemala; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacic islands);
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacic lowlands from southeastern Guate-
mala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated
Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area
includes associated Caribbean islands); WN = Central American portion of western nuclear Central American highlands; and YP =
Central American portion of Yucatan Platform. ? = species known only from indeterminate type locality.

110
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Central America
WN HN CRP EP YP GH NP CGU GCR CP
Scincella rara +
Teiidae (2 species)
Cnemidophorus duellmani +
Holcosus miadis +
Colubridae (15 species)
Dendrophidion crybelum +
Dendrophidion paucicarinatum +
Oxybelis wilsoni +
Tantilla albiceps +
Tantilla bairdi +
Tantilla berguidoi +
Tantilla gottei +
Tantilla hendersoni +
Tantilla lempira +
Tantilla olympia +
Tantilla psittaca +
Tantilla stenigrammi +
Tantilla tecta +
Tantilla tritaeniata +
Tantilla vermiformis +
Dipsadidae (49 species)
Adelphicos daryi +
Adelphicos ibarrorum +
Adelphicos veraepacis +
Atractus darienensis +
Atractus depressiocellus +
Atractus hostilitractus +
Atractus imperfectus +
Chapinophis xanthocheilus +
Coniophanes joanae +
Cubophis brooksi +
Dipsas nicholsi +
Dipsas tenuissima +
Enulius bifoveatus +
Enulius roatanensis +
Geophis bellus +
Geophis championi +
Geophis damiani +
Geophis downsi +
Table 6 (continued). Distribution of the 444 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Central America among 10 physiographic
regions. The abbreviations for regions are as follows: CGU = Central American portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to
south-central Guatemala; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacic islands);
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacic lowlands from southeastern Guate-
mala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated
Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area
includes associated Caribbean islands); WN = Central American portion of western nuclear Central American highlands; and YP =
Central American portion of Yucatan Platform. ? = species known only from indeterminate type locality.

111
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Taxa Physiographic regions of Central America
WN HN CRP EP YP GH NP CGU GCR CP
Geophis dunni +
Geophis fulvoguttatus +
Geophis godmani +
Geophis nephodrymus +
Geophis talamancae +
Geophis zeledoni +
Hydromorphus dunni +
Imantodes phantasma +
Leptodeira rubricata +
Ninia celata +
Ninia espinali +
Omoadiphas aurula +
Omoadiphas cannula +
Omoadiphas texiguatensis +
Rhadinaea calligaster +
Rhadinaea pulveriventris +
Rhadinella lisyae +
Rhadinella pegosalyta +
Rhadinella rogerromani +
Rhadinella tolpanorum +
Rhadinella xerola +
Sibon lamari +
Sibon manzanaresi +
Sibon merendonensis +
Sibon miskitus +
Sibon noalamina +
Sibon perissostichon +
Trimetopon gracile +
Trimetopon slevini +
Trimetopon viquezi +
Urotheca myersi +
Elapidae (3 species)
Micrurus mosquitensis +
Micrurus ruatanus +
Micrurus stuarti +
Leptotyphlopidae (3 species)
Epictia martinezi +
Epictia pauldwyeri +
Epictia rioignis +
Table 6 (continued). Distribution of the 444 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Central America among 10 physiographic
regions. The abbreviations for regions are as follows: CGU = Central American portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to
south-central Guatemala; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacic islands);
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacic lowlands from southeastern Guate-
mala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated
Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area
includes associated Caribbean islands); WN = Central American portion of western nuclear Central American highlands; and YP =
Central American portion of Yucatan Platform. ? = species known only from indeterminate type locality.

112
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Taxa Physiographic regions of Central America
WN HN CRP EP YP GH NP CGU GCR CP
Typhlopidae (1 species)
Typhlops tycherus +
Viperidae (11 species)
Atropoides indomitus +
Bothriechis guifarroi +
Bothriechis lateralis +
Bothriechis marchi +
Bothriechis nigroviridis +
Bothriechis nubestris +
Bothriechis thalassinus +
Cerrophidion sasai +
Cerrophidion wilsoni +
Porthidium porrasi +
Porthidium volcanicum +
Squamate totals 19 47 48 8 1 27 12 — 4 15
Testudines (1 species)
Kinosternidae (1 species)
Kinosternon angustipons +
Turtle totals — — — — — — 1 — — —
Reptile totals 19 45 48 8 1 25 13 — 2 15
Herpetofaunal totals 69 103 148 21 1 28 34 — 3 25
lowland (three species in SC, GH, and NP) and highland
regions (three species in MC, SU, and WN). A similar
pattern is seen among the leptotyphlopids; with four of
the six priority level one species in lowland regions (BC,
YP, GCR, and CP) and two in highland regions (MC and
HN). The 10 priority level one natricid snake species are
limited to Mexico, where nine are distributed in highland
regions (MC, OC, OR, and SU). The single priority level
one typhlopid snake is found in the HN region. The
36 priority level one viperid snake species are largely
represented in highland regions (25 species or 69.4%
in MC, OC, OR, SU, WN, HN, and CRP), but are also
fairly well represented in lowland regions (11 species or
30.6% in BC, SC, YP, CGU, GCR, and CP). Considering
the squamates as a whole, of the 506 priority level one
species, 310 (61.3%) are conned to the nine montane
regions (Table 7).
Relatively few turtles are included among the priority
level one species in Mesoamerica. Twelve species are
represented among four families, the Emydidae (four
species), Kinosternidae (six), Testudinidae (one), and
NP regions in Mexico and Central America, respectively.
The priority level one teiid lizards are another group of
largely lowland-occurring species, with 18 of 20 species
(90.0%) occupying the BC, SC, YP, NP, and CP regions.
The xantusiid lizards are distributed in both lowland (six
species in BC, SD, NB, and SC) and highland regions
(nine species in MC, OR, SU, and WN). The priority
level one xenosaurid lizards are found only in highland
regions (OR, LT, SU, and WN), primarily in Mexico. The
single charinid boa is found in OR, a highland region in
Mexico. The 53 priority level one colubrid snakes have
signicant representation in both highland (29 species
or 54.7% in MC, OC, OR, LT, SU, WN, HN, CRP, and
EP) and lowland regions (24 species or 45.3% in BC,
SC, TT, YP, GH, NP, and GCR). The squamate family
with the largest representation is the Dipsadidae, with
101 species; 77 of which (76.2%) are found in the nine
highland regions (MC, OC, OR, LT, SU, WN, HN, CRP,
and EP); the remaining 24 species (23.8%) occur in
lowland regions (BC, SC, TT, YP, GH, NP, and CP). The
six priority level one elapid species are distributed in both
Table 6 (continued). Distribution of the 444 priority level one herpetofaunal species in Central America among 10 physiographic
regions. The abbreviations for regions are as follows: CGU = Central American portion of Pacic lowlands from eastern Chiapas to
south-central Guatemala; CP = Pacic lowlands from central Costa Rica through Panama (area includes associated Pacic islands);
CRP = Isthmian Central American highlands; EP = highlands of eastern Panama; GCR = Pacic lowlands from southeastern Guate-
mala to northwestern Costa Rica; GH = Caribbean lowlands of eastern Guatemala and northern Honduras (area includes associated
Caribbean islands); HN = eastern nuclear Central American highlands; NP = Caribbean lowlands from Nicaragua to Panama (area
includes associated Caribbean islands); WN = Central American portion of western nuclear Central American highlands; and YP =
Central American portion of Yucatan Platform. ? = species known only from indeterminate type locality.

113
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Mesaspis monticola (Cope 1877). This anguid lizard has an
EVS of 14 (Mata-Silva et al. 2019) and occurs in “humid areas
of the upper portions of the lower montane and montane and
subalpine belits of the cordilleras of Costa Rica and western
Panama” (Savage 2002: 534). This individual was seen on
Cerro de la Muerte, Provincia de Cartago, Costa Rica. Photo
by Louis Porras.
Mesaspis viridiava (Bocourt 1873). The Dwarf Alligator
Lizard has an EVS of 16 (Johnson et al. 2017) and is distributed
Sierra de Juárez. This individual was encountered at La Cumbre
de Ixtepeji, Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo by César Mayoral Halla.
Norops compressicauda (Smith and Kerster 1955). The
Malposo Scaly Anole has an EVS of 15 (Johnson et al. 2017)
and is found in “disjunct populations in eastern Oaxaca and
western Chiapas, Mexico” (Köhler 2008). This individual was
photographed in the Zona Sujeta a Conservación Ecológica
La Pera, in the municipality of Berriozabal, Chiapas, Mexico.
Photo by Bruno Téllez Baños.
Ctenosaura hemilopha (Cope 1863). The Baja California
Spiny-tailed Iguana has an EVS of 18 (Johnson et al. 2017)
and “ranges from near Loreto south along the Sierra la Giganta
to the west coast near Arroyo Seco and throughout the Cape
Region. In the Gulf of California, C. hemilopha is known only
from Isla Cerralvo” (Grismer 2002: 117). This individual was
found in the Municipality of Los Cabos, Baja California Sur,
Mexico. Photo by Vicente Mata-Silva.
Ctenosaura oaxacana Köhler and Hasbun 2001. The Oaxaca
Spiny-tailed Iguana has an EVS of 19 (Johnson et al. 2017)
and is restricted in distribution to the Pacic slopes of the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Oaxaca, Mexico (Köhler and Hasbun
2001). This individual was located at Guiengola, Tehuantepec,
Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo by César Mayoral Halla.
Ctenosaura palearis Stejneger 1899. The Motagua Spiny-
tailed Iguana has an EVS of 19 (Mata-Silva et al. 2019) and
is restricted in distribution to the Motagua Valley of eastern
Guatemala (Köhler 2003). This individual was encountered at
El Arenal, Zacapa, Guatemala. Photo by Andres Novales.

114
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
al. 2019). Most of these turtles are endemic to Mexico
(11 of 12; 91.7%), and most belong to families Emydidae
and Kinosternidae (10 of 12; 83.3%). The other families
represented by one species each are the Testudinidae and
Trionychidae.
The other priority level one species of reptiles
are all squamates, which comprise 506 of 970 total
herpetofaunal species (52.2%). These species are
allocated to 24 of the 36 families with endemic
representatives in Mesoamerica (66.7%). Of these 24
families, 16 comprise the amphisbaenians and lizards
and eight encompass snakes. Of the 16 amphisbaenian/
lizard families, the largest numbers of priority level one
species in Mesoamerica are in Anguidae (53 species),
Dactyloidae (73), Phrynosomatidae (52), Teiidae (20),
and Xantusiidae (15), for a total of 213 out of 280
species (76.1%). Of the eight snake families, the greatest
numbers of such species belong to the Colubridae (53
species), Dipsadidae (101), and Viperidae (36), for a total
of 190 out of 214 species (88.8%).
Can Well-designed Systems of Protected Areas
Be the Salvation of the Mesoamerican Priority
Level One Species?
As noted by Vitt and Caldwell (2009: 379) in their
superb textbook on herpetology, “conservation biology
is no longer a edgling subject.” They pointed out that
the premier journal in the eld, Conservation Biology,
issued its 101st issue in June 2006. After 33 volumes (as
of December 2019) this journal’s publication history now
consists of 182 issues, with six new issues published per
year by the Society for Conservation Biology. ConBio,
as it is affectionately known, is a successful journal
with a relatively high impact factor (the 2019 gure
is 6.194). Vitt and Caldwell (2009) also noted that a
number of other conservation journals are specic to
the eld of herpetology. They highlighted Amphibian &
Reptile Conservation, a journal that originated in 1996,
which now has an Impact Factor of 1.160 (2017 value;
http://amphibian-reptile-conservation.org; accessed
19 February 2019). This journal publishes both single
papers and special issues which focus specically on
conservation issues, such as the rst paper published in
2019 on the endemic herpetofauna of Central America
(Mata-Silva et al. 2019) and a special issue on the
amphibians of Venezuela. Vitt and Caldwell (2009) also
discussed a number of other sources of information on the
conservation of amphibians and reptiles. Herpetological
Conservation and Biology, now in its 15th year of
existence, is another prominent conservation journal.
So, with the plethora of journals focused specically on
conservation (and even on herpetological conservation),
it would appear that there is no shortage of interest in
addressing the conservation needs of these organisms.
Nonetheless, Vitt and Caldwell (2009: 379) stated:
Trionychidae (one). Unlike the typical pattern among
most of the other members of the herpetofauna, these 12
species are all found in lowland regions (NB, SC, YP,
and NP).
The overall pattern for the Mesoamerican herpetofauna
(970 species total) is one of major representation in
the nine highland regions (730 species, 75.3%) versus
lesser representation in the lowland regions (240
species, 24.7%). As expected, our closer look at the
physiographic regional distribution of the priority level
one herpetofaunal species shows that slightly more than
three-quarters of them are limited to the highland regions
in Mesoamerica, whereas slightly less than one-quarter
are found in lowland regions.
Taxonomic Representation of the Priority Level
One Species: a Closer Look
The numbers of priority level one species per family
in Mexico and Central America, as well as all of
Mesoamerica (from Table 7) are summarized in Table 8,
in order to demonstrate the taxonomic representation at
this level in these regions. The priority level one species
in Mesoamerica are allocated to 42 of the 69 families
(60.9%) represented in the endemic Mesoamerican
herpetofauna as a whole (Tables 2 and 8). Interestingly,
more than twice as many anuran families are represented
in Central America than in Mexico (11 vs. ve) among
the 11 families of priority one species occurring in
Mesoamerica. Nonetheless, the ve families occurring
in Central America that have no priority level one
representatives in Mexico include only relatively small
numbers (one to 10, usually only one or two). They
comprise families with only a few species occurring
in Mexico (Centrolenidae, Leptodactylidae, and
Microhylidae) or none at all (Dendrobatidae and Pipidae).
Two families of salamanders with priority level one
representatives in Mexico compare to only one in Central
America; the family Ambystomatidae is distributed no
farther south than the Mesa Central, where the majority
of the Mexican diversity in this family is centered
(Table 5). The other salamander family distributed in
Mesoamerica is the Plethodontidae, the priority level
one portion of which is tremendously diverse in both
Mexico and Central America, although more so in the
latter region (Table 8).
No priority level one caecilian species occur in
Mexico, and this group has only a single endemic species
(Johnson et al. 2017). In Central America, there are ve
such species representing two families, Caeciliidae and
Dermophidae (Table 8).
Among Mesoamerican amphibians, a total of 464
species is allocated to conservation priority level one,
including 203 from Mexico (43.8%) and 261 from
Central America (56.3%).
Relatively few Mesoamerican turtles qualify as
priority one species (Johnson et al. 2017; Mata-Silva et

115
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Families Numbers
of species
Physiographic regions
BC SD NB MC EL SC OC OR TT LT SU YP WN CGU HN CRP EP GH NP GCR CP
Bufonidae 18 — — — — — 3 1 1 — — 1 — — — 1 9 — — 1 — 1
Centrolenidae 2 ————————————— — — 2 ——— — —
Craugastoridae 76 —————— 1 6— 2 4 1 15 — 14 24 3 1 3 — 2
Dendrobatidae 10 ————————————— — — 2 3 — 4 — 1
Eleutherodactylidae 31 — — — 10 — 3 3 3 — — 3 — — — — 4 4 — 1 — —
Hemiphractidae 3 ————————————— — — 1 2 —— — —
Hylidae 69 — — — 1 — 1 — 20 1 1 11 — 10 — 8 11 1 — 3 — 1
Leptodactylidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — —
Microhylidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 — —
Pipidae 1 ————————————— — — — ——— — 1
Ranidae 9 — — — 4 — — 1 1 — — — — — — 1 1 — — 1 — —
Anuran totals 221 — — — 15 — 7 6311 319125 —25 54 13 1 14 —6
Ambystomatidae 10 — — — 9 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Plethodontidae 228 — — — 5 — — 1 59 — 3 28 — 39 — 35 45 2 2 7 1 1
Salamander totals 238 — — — 14 — — 2 59 — 3 28 — 39 — 35 45 2 2 7 1 1
Caeciliidae 3 ————————————— — — — ——— — 3
Dermophidae 2 ————————————— — — 2 ——— — —
Caecilian totals 5————————————— — — 2 — — — —3
Amphibian totals 464 — — — 29 — 7 8 90 1 647164 —60 101 15 3 21 1 10
Bipedidae 2 1 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Anguidae 53 3 — 2 4 — — 1 8 — 3 4 — 14 — 65 1 — 1 — 1
Crotaphytidae 3 2 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dactyloidae 73 — — — — — 3 — 4 — 1 11 — 8 — 15 23 — 4 1 — 3
Eublepharidae 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Gymnophthalmidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1
Iguanidae 12 7 — — — — 2 — — — — — — 1 — — — — 2 — — —
Mabuyidae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 2 — —
Phrynosomatidae 52 16 16 6 —156— — 8 1 — — 2 — — — — — —
Phyllodactylidae 17 4 — — — — 9 — — — — 1 — — — — — — 3 — — —
Scincidae 61 — — 1 — 1 2 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — —
Sphaerodactylidae 11 ————————————— — — — 2 61—2
Sphenomorphidae 2 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 — —
Teiidae 20 12 — — — — 1 1 — — — 1 3 — — — — — — 1 — 1
Xantusiidae 15 2 1 2 1 — 1 — 3 — — 3 — 2 — — — — — — — —
Tables 7. Distributional summary of herpetofaunal families containing conservation priority level one species in Mesoamerica, among 21 physiographic regions. The rst 14 regions are in
Mexico, with the remainder in Central America, and WN, CGU, and YP are represented in both regions. One dendrobatid species has an uncertain type locality (see Table 6). See Tables 5 and
6 for explanations of abbreviations.

116
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Xenosauridae 9 — — — — — — — 5 — 1 2 — 1 — — — — — — — —
Charinidae 1 ——————— 1 ————— — — — ——— — —
Colubridae 53 12 — — 2 — 3 4 3 2 1 7 1 5 — 4 2 1 3 2 1 —
Dipsadidae 101 2 — — 8 — 5 1 14 2 2 13 1 8 — 13 14 4 63—5
Elapidae 6— — — 1 — 1 — — — — 1 — 1 — — — — 1 1 — —
Leptotyphlopidae 61 — — 1 — — — — — — — 1 — — 1 — — — — 1 1
Natricidae 10 — — — 2 — 1 1 4 — — 2 — — — — — — — — — —
Typhlopidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — —
Viperidae 36 6 ——5—1 1 3——61 1 1 5 4 — — — 1 1
Squamate totals 494 70 2 12 31 — 30 16 51 4 8 60 8 41 1 47 48 8 26 13315
Emydidae 4 — — 2 — — 1 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — —
Kinosternidae 6— — 1 — — 3 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — 1 — —
Testudinidae 1 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Trionychidae 1 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Turtle totals 12 — — 5— — 4 — — — — — 2 — — — — — — 1 ——
Reptile totals 506 70 2 17 31 — 34 16 51 4 8 60 10 41 1 47 48 8 26 14315
Herpetofaunal totals 970 70 2 17 60 — 41 24 141 514 107 11 105 1 107 149 23 29 35 425
Tables 7 (continued). Distributional summary of herpetofaunal families containing conservation priority level one species in Mesoamerica, among 21 physiographic regions. The rst 14
regions are in Mexico, with the remainder in Central America, and WN, CGU, and YP are represented in both regions. One dendrobatid species has an uncertain type locality (see Table 6). See
Tables 5 and 6 for explanations of abbreviations.
“Yet, in spite of all the successes, conservation
biology has not achieved what its practitioners hold
most dearly: the reversal of the tremendous loss of
biodiversity, natural habitats, and even ecosystems that
is occurring unabated throughout the world. Although
we can nd local success stories, and these should
be applauded, the overall picture for most groups of
plants and animals is a steady decline in number of
individuals and populations and, ultimately, species.
Thus, the future of conservation biology, and whether
we are to succeed in reversing the depressing trends
we see every day, lies in coming to terms with why the
excellent scientic framework has not translated into
real-world change and how new paths can be forged
that will make a real difference.”
Vitt and Caldwell (2009) followed these straightforward
statements with an excellent discussion and summary
of the principles of conservation biology, the human
impact on amphibian and reptile communities, and the
ideals and problems associated with preservation and
management of amphibian and reptile populations. In the
afterword attached to that chapter in their textbook, these
authors (p. 408) indicated that “evidence is mounting
that humans are spending less and less time engaged
in nature-based recreation” and that this “disconnect
between humans and nature may well be the world’s
greatest environmental threat.”
Commonly considered fundamental to the
conservation of biodiversity is the erection and
maintenance of protected areas, presumably in a state as
close to pristine as is possible at any given point in time.
A recent paper by García-Bañuelos et al. (2019) explored
the extent to which existing protected areas in Mexico
provide for protection of the plethodontid salamanders
in the country. As noted above, Mexico is the second
most important region in the world for salamanders,
being surpassed only by the United States. In the nal
section of their paper, García-Bañuelos et al. (2019: 11)
concluded that
“In a highly biodiverse and environmentally
heterogeneous country like Mexico, the number,
extent, and current location of protected areas are not
sufcient for harboring all threatened plethodontid
salamander species [emphasis ours]. Despite
[that] the proportion of protected space is close to
international suggestions, almost 40% of threatened
species do not occur in protected areas. The design of
a reserve system should consider as a priority criterion
to include the occurrence of all those species that need
immediate attention for their protection, specically
those species threatened by habitat transformation.
Areas that contain threatened gap species [those
species not known to occur within any protected area],
not only of salamander species but of other threatened
species, could serve as a guide for the creation of new

117
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Sceloporus tanneri Smith and Larsen 1975. Tanner’s Spiny
Lizard has an EVS of 16 (Johnson et al. 2017) and is restricted
in distribution to the southern slopes of the Sierra de Miahuatlán
in Oaxaca, Mexico (Köhler and Heimes 2002). This individual
was located near the type locality in the vicinity of San Juan
Lachao, in the municipality of the same name, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Photo by Elí García Padilla.
Phyllodactylus delcampoi Mosauer 1936. Del Campo’s
Leaf-toed Gecko has an EVS of 16 and is distributed in the
Pacic coastal region of Guerrero, Mexico (Palacios-Aguilar
and Flores-Villela 2018). This individual was photographed
at Tierra Colorada, in the municipality of the same name,
Guerrero, Mexico. Photo by Bruno Téllez Baños.
Salvadora intermedia Hartweg 1940. The Oaxacan Patch-nosed
Snake has an EVS of 16 (Johnson et al. 2017) and “occurs
south of the Transverse Volcanic Cordillera, ranging at 500 to
2,700 m elevation from the Sierra Madre del Sur of Guerrero
through the highlands of Oaxaca and adjacent southern Puebla”
(Heimes 2016: 150). This individual was located at Santiago
Tenango, Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo by César Mayoral Halla.
Tantilla sertula Wilson and Campbell 2000. The Garland
Centipede Snake has an EVS of 16 (Johnson et al. 2017) and
occupies the Pacic coastal plain of southwestern Mexico
from northern Guerrero to southwestern Oaxaca (Heimes
2016; Rocha et al. 2016). This individual was found in the
Municipality of Santa Catarina Juquila, Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo
by Vicente Mata-Silva.
Thamnophis lineri Rossman and Burbrink 2005. Liner’s
Gartersnake has an EVS of 17 (Johnson et al. 2017) and “is
known only from high elevations (2,670–3,048 m) in the Sierra
Juárez in north-central Oaxaca” (Heimes 2016: 369) in Mexico.
This individual was photographed in the Municipality of San
Juan Atepec, Oaxaca, Mexico. Photo by Vicente Mata-Silva.

118
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
protected areas and strengthen the existing reserve
system. The set of new areas that would help to
protect threatened species can be a combination of
different types of governance, where federal, state,
and municipal governments, as well as community
and private sectors can be involved in the protection
of threatened biodiversity.”
The current study shows a good example of the problems
that arise when protected areas are established before
the necessary biotic surveys are completed. Thus, the
authors noted that 40% (actually 38%) of the threatened
species (i.e., those placed in the IUCN CR, EN, and VU
categories) are not found in any of the currently-existing
protected areas.
An additional problem related to the formal
conservation model of Natural Protected Areas in
Mexico is that a recent tally of 1,609 mining concessions
have been documented inside their mapping polygons
(Armendariz-Villegas and Ortíz-Rubio 2015). Thus,
the credibility or efciency of this system is highly
questionable, and they are very possibly ineffective
in protecting the threatened species of amphibians and
reptiles and their natural habitats. The current authors
have been observing and documenting the herpetofauna
of the most biodiverse Mexican state (Oaxaca), where the
social tenure of the land consists of ca. 80% of the state’s
territory, in which the local communities (especially the
native indigenous ones) have shown resistance to the
imposition of the formal model of conservation of the
biodiversity based on NPAs. They see the NPA system
as a loss of their autonomy over their legal and ancestral
territories (which are recognized constitutionally) that
they have been occupying, in some cases, for more than
3,000 years (e.g., in the Los Chimalapas region). The
“Chima” (Zoque) people, whose ancestors are the ancient
Olmecs, have legally defeated the decree of NPAs inside
their communal territory. So, they were pioneers in the
rst attempts at developing an alternative community
conservation program known as “Reserva Ecológica
Campesina de los Chimalapas” back in 1990 (García-
Aguirre 2013). In a more recent introspective look at the
community conservation areas in the mega-diverse state
of Oaxaca, Galindo-Leal (2010) documented a total of
more than 192 (2,512 km2) of these initiatives within the
Mexican territory and 74 (931.2 km2) inside the Oaxacan
Families Mexico Central
America Mesoamerica Families Mexico Central
America Mesoamerica
Bufonidae 612 18 Mabuyidae — 3 3
Centrolenidae — 2 2 Phrynosomatidae 50 2 52
Craugastoridae 20 56 76 Phyllodactylidae 14 3 17
Dendrobatidae — 10 10 Scincidae 6— 5
Eleutherodactylidae 22 9 31 Sphaerodactylidae — 11 11
Hemiphractidae — 3 3 Sphenomorphidae 1 1 2
Hylidae 38 31 69 Teiidae 18 2 20
Leptodactylidae — 1 1 Xantusiidae 15 — 15
Microhylidae — 1 1 Xenosauridae 9 — 9
Pipidae — 1 1 Charinidae 1 — 1
Ranidae 6 3 9 Colubridae 38 15 53
Anuran totals 92 129 221 Dipsadidae 52 49 101
Ambystomatidae 10 — 10 Elapidae 3 3 6
Plethodontidae 101 127 228 Leptotyphlopidae 3 3 6
Salamander totals 111 127 238 Natricidae 10 — 10
Caeciliidae — 3 3 Typhlopidae — 1 1
Dermophiidae — 2 2 Viperidae 25 11 36
Caecilian totals — 5 5 Squamate totals 315 179 494
Amphibian totals 203 261 464 Emydidae 4 — 4
Anguidae 30 23 53 Kinosternidae 5 1 6
Bipedidae 2 — 2 Testudinidae 1 — 1
Crotaphytidae 3 — 3 Trionychidae 1 — 1
Dactyloidae 25 48 73 Turtle totals 11 1 12
Eublepharidae 1 — 1 Reptile totals 326 180 506
Gymnophthalmidae — 1 1 Herpetofaunal totals 529 441 970
Iguanidae 9 3 12
Table 8. Summary of numbers of priority level one species in Mexico, Central America, and Mesoamerica, arranged by families.

119
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
territory.
In a more recent study, Ochoa-Ochoa et al. (2009)
found that most of the amphibian species of Mexico
have some portion of their potential ecological niche
distribution protected, but 20% are not protected at all
within governmental Natural Protected Areas. Seventy-
three percent of endemic and 26% of micro-endemic
amphibians are represented within Social Conservation
Initiatives (e.g., Community Conservation Areas and
others); however, 30 micro-endemic species are not
represented within either governmental NPAs or Social
Conservation Initiatives. Therefore, this study shows how
the role of land conservation through social initiatives is
becoming a crucial element for an important number of
species that are not protected by governmental NPAs.
Based on our experiences in the eld, we also highly
support the Community Conservation Areas as a real
and effective ally for the conservation of amphibian and
reptile biodiversity. The communities (especially the
indigenous ones) are doing effective work in protecting
their territories and natural resources. These social
initiatives and practices date back many centuries and
have as their sole purpose the conservation of their
ecosystems and the protection of biodiversity. The
statutes of all these communities include conservation
of the plant cover and their aquiferous mantles, and
the prohibition of hunting the great majority of animal
species which inhabit their territory. For these reasons,
we suspect that the indigenous or native communities
represent the most effective protectors and guardians of
the biodiversity, including threatened amphibians and
reptiles. The members of these communities also have a
major responsibility to maintain the irreplaceable cultural
diversity they encompass.
In addition, we have examined these questions in
various ways in a number of publications authored
by one or more of us, beginning with the paper that
introduced the EVS measure and rst used it to assess
the conservation status of the herpetofauna of Honduras
(Wilson and McCranie 2004). These authors developed
this measure to categorize species in the highly diverse
Honduran herpetofauna (Townsend and Wilson 2010)
as to their vulnerability to environmental pressures
based on information available at that time. Basically,
this measure recognized that the rate of exacerbation of
environmental damage in Honduras, especially due to
habitat modication and destruction, far outpaced the
efforts being undertaken to preserve the herpetofauna of
the country. Moreover, in that paper the authors stressed
an easily understood, but seldom implemented, maxim
of problem solving that “a problem cannot be solved
by simply treating its symptoms” and further opined
that “biodiversity decline is a symptom of habitat loss
and degradation, in turn a symptom of runaway human
population growth. Uncontrolled population growth is,
in turn, a symptom of the mismanaged human mind.”
(Wilson and McCranie 2004: 31).
If the goal is to curb biodiversity decline, the
above paragraph thus indicates that this can only be
accomplished by treating the problems that give rise to the
decline, which means ultimately that humans will have to
confront the fundamental problem of the mismanagement
of the human mind. What this term signies, and how it
came to exist as a problem for humanity, is not likely
to be understood in even its most basic parameters,
since most humans operate on the assumption that our
species occupies the pinnacle of existence, believing
that it is our mind that places us in this position. So, a
term like “mismanagement of the human mind” would
be counterintuitive to the understanding of most humans.
Over the years since the publication of Wilson
and McCranie (2004), one or more of us (along with
additional co-authors) have returned to the concept
of the “mismanagement of the human mind” in an
attempt to expose its underpinnings. We have excavated
these underpinnings in an initial fashion in a pair of
recent papers on the endemic herpetofaunas of Mexico
(Johnson et al. 2017) and Central America (Mata-Silva
et al. 2019). The title of the former paper encapsulated
our opinion that the endemic herpetofauna of Mexico is
composed of “organisms of global signicance in severe
peril.” Johnson et al. (2017: 608) opined that:
“…efforts to conserve the endemic elements of the
Mexican herpetofauna have to be pursued within
the framework of a set of cascading environmental
problems of global extent and anthropogenic origin,
if they are to have a long-lasting impact…What
makes these problems so intransigent and difcult to
approach is their widespread connectivity in the natural
world (i.e., all of its components are interrelated by
energy ow and the cycling of materials), and [that]
the linear approach often taken by humans to resolve
these issues can be relatively ineffective, if not
counterproductive.”
Johnson et al. (2017: 609) further indicated that:
“Fundamentally, humans have created and maintain
these environmental problems because of their
capacity for rational thought, i.e., their ability to
connect cause to effect through the passing of time, and
adopting an anthropocentric worldview that stresses
the exploitation of the world’s resources to support
the burgeoning human population. Such a worldview
contrasts markedly with that of environmentalists,
who have adopted ‘a worldview that helps us make
sense of how the environment works, our place in
the environment, and right and wrong environmental
behaviors’ (Raven and Berg, 2004: G-6). Obviously,
the present anthropocentric worldview held by most
people represents the fundamental reason why these
environmental problems exist, and continued human
population growth allows them to worsen over time.”

120
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
In the last section of the Johnson et al. (2017: 612) paper,
these authors conclude that:
“...[their] opinion is that humans have the rational
capacity to design a sustainable world through
cooperative action, but our species’ attitudes and
actions will have to change. Our preparedness will
have to improve as well. Such change will have to
be based on realistic, fact-based appraisals of where
we are now and where we want to be in the future.
Biologists will have to commit to helping the rest
of us understand why the protection of biodiversity
is critical to enjoying a sustainable world. Cultural
anthropologists also will have to assist humanity at
large understand why the maintenance of cultural
diversity also is essential to living sustainably.
Educational reform will have to be central to such
efforts, to help people learn how to think and act
critically and base decisions on the way things really
are, and not how we might wish them to be by denying
reality. The devotion humans have for structuring
beliefs on little or no evidence, essentially reversing
the benet of rationality, will have to surrender to
critical-thinking education established by top-to-
bottom educational reform.”
Mata-Silva et al. (2019) offered a subsequent installment
of their view of why biodiversity decline is continuing
to be exacerbated, specically while considering the
endemic herpetofauna of Central America. In the title
of their paper, Mata-Silva et al. (2019: 3) indicated
that this herpetofauna will become “a casualty of
anthropocentrism.” These authors picked up on the
conclusions of Johnson et al. (2017: 613), who stated
that “the devotion humans have for structuring beliefs on
the basis of little or no evidence will have to surrender to
critical-thinking education established by top-to-bottom
educational reform.” Mata-Silva et al. (2019: 47) went
on to note that “critical-thinking educational reform,
however, is much easier to conceive than to bring into
reality. A fundamental question is why such reform has
not been undertaken. This question is not easy to answer,
but perhaps the most fundamental reason is that the
educational systems currently in existence are products
of the anthropocentric worldview and reect its mindsets.
These educational systems also have developed within
the current economic systems responsible for the huge
disparities between the rich and poor, and act to reinforce
these disparities.”
These authors concluded that:
“…ultimate solutions will emerge only from a clear
understanding of the evolution of human psychology,
as confronted with the problems we face. If not, then
the endemic herpetofauna of Central America, as
well as the remainder of life on Earth, will become
casualties of the biodiversity crisis that eventually
will envelop all humanity.”
Moreover, Mata-Silva et al. (2019: 58) posited that:
“If there is any merit to [their] hypothesis that
anthropocentrism is part of a cascade of psychological
ailments, which extend through ethnocentrism and
culminate in the narcissistic personality disorder, it
might predict that the critical-thinking educational
reform called for by Johnson et al. (2017) will
have to be recognized as requiring species-wide
psychotherapy to treat a species-wide mental disease.
If so, addressing this disease will be the largest
problem undertaken by humanity during its existence
on planet Earth.”
If humanity as a whole is beset with a plethora of
psychological ailments that are manifested as a cascade
of centristic forms of thinking, the treatment of which
will require the creation of an educational system
essentially constituting species-wide psychotherapy,
then that therapy will have to be based on a clear
understanding of why such centristic types of thinking
have come into existence in the rst place and why they
characterize, in a variety of ways, our entire species. The
truth of this statement is obvious. Just as the therapy for
physical ailments has to be based on an understanding
of the cause(s) of these type of ailments, and the same is
true of mental ailments, then it is clear that therapy for a
species-wide psychological ailment will have to depend
on a full understanding of the parameters of this ailment
and their origin(s) throughout the chapters of the entire
evolutionary history of our species on the planet.
Wilson and Lazcano (2019) recently published an
essay that attempted to lay out the steps in the historical
development of the prevailing worldview that is
responsible for positioning us on the threshold of the
extinction of our species and much of the rest of life on
Earth by conscious design. This essay consists essentially
of a lengthy argument that attempts to outline the steps
that have led to the evolution of anthropocentrism and
the other more restricted forms of centristic thinking
which exist in a cascade extending from ethnocentrism
to egocentrism. Given the lengthiness of this argument,
we have to limit our discussion of it to the exposition
of a series of steps that Wilson and Lazcano (2019)
posited as a set of hypotheses which require testing
by psychobiological methods. These authors exposed
these interconnected steps as follows: (a) the evolution
of rationality; (b) the origin of self-awareness and the
awareness of space-time positioning; (c) the creation of
a fear of the inevitable; (d) the development of a vicious
cycle of addiction and denial; (e) the manifestation of
violence of all types and at all levels; and (f) the spread of
destructive worldviews reinforcing the violence. Wilson

121
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Geophis sallei Boulenger 1894. Salle’s Earthsnake has an EVS
of 15 (Johnson et al. 2017) and “is known only from a few
localities in the Sierra Madre del Sur of southern Oaxaca”
(Heimes 2016: 250) in Mexico. This individual was found in
the vicinity of San Juan Lachao, in the municipality of the same
name, Oaxaca, México. Photo by Vicente Mata-Silva.
Bothriechis guifarroi Townsend, Medina-Flores, Wilson, Jadin,
and Austin 2013. Guifarro’s Palm-Pitviper has an EVS of 19
(Mata-Silva et al. 2019) and is restricted in distribution to the
Refugio de Vida Silvestre of northern Honduras (Townsend
et al. 2013). This individual was photographed in Refugio de
Vida Silvestre Texíguat, Departamento de Atlántida, Honduras.
Photo by Josiah H. Towsend.
Bothriechis lateralis Peters 1863. The Side-striped Palm-
piviper has an EVS of 16 (Mata-Silva et al. 2019) and is found
at elevations from 700–1,950 m in premontane and lower
montane zones of the cordilleras of Costa Rica and western
Panama (Savage 2002). This individual was located at Caragral
de Acosta, Provincia de San José, Costa Rica. Photo by Louis
Porras.
Bothriechis nigroviridis Peters 1859. The Black-speckled Palm-
pitviper has an EVS of 17 (Mata-Silva et al. 2019) and is found
in “premontane and lower montane zones of the cordilleras of
Costa Rica and western Panama” (Savage 2002: 725). This
individual was seen at San Gerardo de Dota, Provincia de San
José, Costa Rica. Photo by Louis Porras.
Bothriechis thalassinus Campbell and Smith 2000. The Blue-
green Palm-pitviper has an EVS of 17 (Mata-Silva et al.
2019) and “occurs in disjunct populations at moderate and
intermediate elevations on the Atlantic versant from extreme
eastern Guatemala to western Honduras” (McCranie 2011:
495). This individual was located at Sierra del Merendon,
Guatemala. Photo by Andres Novales.
Crotalus brunneus Harris and Simmons 1978. The Oaxacan
Pygmy Rattlesnake has an EVS of 17 and it is endemic to the
Mexican state of Oaxaca, occurring in Montañas y Valles de
Occidente, Montañas y Valles del Centro, Sierra Madre de
Oaxaca, and Sierra Madre del Sur physiographic regions (Mata-
Silva et al. 2015b). This individual was found in the vicinity of
Capulálpam de Méndez, in the municipality of the same name,
Oaxaca, México. Photo by Elí García-Padilla.

122
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
and Lazcano (2019), thus, maintain that ultimately it
was the evolution of rationality as it is manifested in
the human species (i.e., the ability to connect cause to
effect through the passage of time) that has allowed the
development and virtually universal acceptance of the
anthropocentric worldview that has given rise to the
species-wide violence directed toward all components
of the life-support systems of planet Earth. Addressing
this monumental paradox will require the redesign of the
paradigm underlying human existence, a task the likes of
which humanity has never faced in its history on Earth.
So, to return to the question that forms this section’s
title: Can protected areas be a salvation for the
Mesoamerican priority level one species? The short
answer is no, they cannot. The next question to be asked,
of course, is: Why not? The answer to that question is
that the establishment and maintenance of such protected
areas requires them to be set aside for perpetuity from
the destructive actions of a species dedicated to two
overarching guidelines. One is the continual unregulated
growth of its own global population, in ignorance of
the basic principle of population biology which states
that no species can enjoy unlimited population growth
in the face of dependence on a limited resource base.
The other guideline is that the planetary resource base
is to be used and abused by humans to whatever extent
is necessary to support to whatever extent is possible
an unregulated global population of its own species.
Ultimately, the efforts some humans undertake to “do the
right thing” (e.g., devise a means to respond effectively
to the problem of biodiversity decline) will ultimately
fail in the face of the devotion of the larger population of
humans to “do the wrong thing” (i.e., continue to practice
unlimited population growth and thus steadily increase
the impact on the limited planetary resource base).
Biodiversity decline is an environmental problem of
global dimensions, equivalent in that sense to other global
environmental problems impacting the atmosphere (e.g.,
climate change), the hydrosphere (e.g., ocean pollution),
and the lithosphere (e.g., land pollution and soil loss).
So, Is There a Future for the Mesoamerican
Priority Level One Species?
In attempting to answer this question, we must
understand that the answer has to be sought within the
context of addressing the psychological problems posed
by the maintenance of the anthropocentric worldview
and the cascade of other forms of centristic thinking that
ow from it (Wilson and Lazcano 2019). In our view,
centristic thinking in all of its forms constitutes a chain of
psychological ailments that lead to violence in all of its
manifestations—ranging from the violence of all humans
toward the environment that supports all populations of
all organisms that now exist, as well as those that have
ever existed or will ever exist, to the violence that single
individuals can visit upon others and themselves.
In our opinion, the fate of the Mesoamerican priority
level one species will only become of concern to the
humans now occupying the Earth if such concern emerges
as a consequence of the transition of present-day humans
to a new paradigm that replaces the counterproductive
anthropocentric worldview based on a misunderstanding
of the provisions of the “biological contract” discussed
by Wilson and Lazcano (2019). Since everything else
with which humans are faced will only become workable
in the context of a sustainable society, the necessary
paradigm shift will need to occur in the shortest time
possible. The short time-line that now remains is
a consequence of the two most destructive actions
promulgated by humans which were mentioned in the
previous section, i.e., unregulated population growth and
unlimited exploitation of the limited planetary resource
base. There is nothing particularly original about our
conclusions, inasmuch as far more extended discussions
of these symptoms of anthropocentrism can be found in
any college and university level environmental science
textbook.
A number of metrics have been developed to attempt
to measure the amount and degree of the human impact
on the environment. One metric is the so-called IPAT
equation (expressed as I = PAT), where:
I is the environmental impact
P is the population growth
A is the level of afuence
T is the level of technology
This metric was developed originally by P.R. Ehrlich
and J.P. Holdren (1971) in order to demonstrate “the
mathematical relationship between environmental
impacts and the forces that drive them” (Raven and Berg
2004: 6–7). As noted by Raven and Berg (2004: 7) “the
Kinosternon oaxacae Berry and Iverson 1980. The Oaxaca Mud
Turtle has an EVS of 15 (Johnson et al. 2017) and is distributed
at low elevations on the Pacic slope of Guerrero and Oaxaca,
Mexico (Mata-Silva et al. 2015b; Palacios-Aguilar and Flores-
Villela 2018). This individual was found in the Municipality
of Villa de Tututepec de Melchor Ocampo, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Photo by Vicente Mata-Silva.

123
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
three factors in the IPAT equation are always changing
in relation to each other. For example, consumption of
a particular resource may increase, but technological
advance may decrease the environmental impact of the
increased consumption.” Thus, these authors noted (p. 7)
that “the IPAT equation, while useful, must be interpreted
with care, in part because we often do not understand all
of the environmental impacts of a particular technology.”
Nonetheless, in a broad sense, this formula informs us
that the amount of environmental impact registered by
humans on the planetary resources that support them is
dependent upon the interplay of the number of people
multiplied by the level of afuence per person (i.e., “a
measure of the consumption or amount of resources used
per person;” Raven and Berg 2004: 6) multiplied by the
level of technology (i.e., the resources needed and wastes
produced by the technologies used to obtain and consume
the resources; Raven and Berg 2004).
Another metric of value is that of the “ecological
footprint.” The ecological footprint measures human
demand on nature, i.e., the quantity of nature it takes
to support people or an economy. It tracks this demand
through an ecological accounting system. The accounts
contrast the biologically productive area people use for
their consumption to the biologically productive area
available within a region of the world (biocapacity,
the productive areas that can regenerate what people
demand from nature). In short, it is a measure of
human impact on Earth’s ecosystem and reveals the
dependence of the human economy on natural capital.
The organization Global Footprint Network estimates
that, as of 2014, humanity has been using natural capital
1.7 times as fast as the Earth can renew it. This means
humanity’s ecological footprint corresponds to 1.7
planet Earths (http://data.footprintnetwork.org; accessed
10 June 2019). The implications of this calculation are
that “the average world citizen has an eco-footprint of
about 2.7 global average hectares while there are only
2.1 global hectare of bioproductive land and water per
capita on earth. This means that humanity has already
overshot global biocapacity by 30% and now lives
unsustainability by depleting stocks of ‘natural capital’”
(http://wikipedia.org; accessed 17 March 2019). If we
underwrite a goal of sustainability for all humanity,
then it is necessary to have a footprint that is smaller
than the planet’s biocapacity. Sustainability is dened
as “the ability to meet humanity’s current needs without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their needs; sustainability implies that the environment
can function indenitely without going into a decline
from the stresses imposed by human society on natural
systems such as fertile soil, water, and air” (Raven and
Berg 2004: G-15). Thus, a lack of sustainability, the
current state of humanity, implies that the current human
population is attempting to meet its needs by sacricing
the ability of future generations to meet their needs. In
other words, we who are here now will be handing to our
offspring a world in which it will be increasingly more
difcult for them to meet their needs than it is for us now.
A third metric of interest is termed Earth Overshoot
Day (EOD), which is the calculated calendar date when
humanity’s resource consumption for the year exceeds
the Earth’s capacity to regenerate those resources during
that year. EOD is calculated by dividing the year’s global
biocapacity (the amount of natural resources generated), by
the global ecological footprint (humanity’s consumption
of Earth’s natural resources), and multiplying by 365.
According to data presented in the Wikipedia article
on Earth Overshoot Day, the EOD has been occurring
consistently earlier each year since 1987, when it was
23 October. At the beginning of the new millennium, it
had shifted to 23 September, by 2010 it was 8 August,
and by 2015 it was down to 6 August. The current EOD
(i.e., that for 2018) is 1 August. Therefore, the question
arises, naturally, as to whether this metric will recede
into July by the current year (2020). Interestingly, the
EOD graph for the period of 1969–2018 in the Wikipedia
article indicates that the EOD in 1969 was 1 January,
the point at which the world human population was
dependent on one Earth’s worth of natural capital. Over
the intervening half a century, the EOD has uctuated
somewhat but in general has steadily receded to earlier in
the year until reaching its current day of 1 August, which
requires the expenditure of 1.7 Earths of natural capital
per year. Obviously, this approach to human subsistence
on Earth is the equivalent of the well-known economic
concept of decit spending, which is “the amount by
which spending exceeds revenue over a particular period
of time” (http://wikipedia.org; accessed 17 March 2019).
Such spending results in a budget decit, which can be
applied to the budget of a government, private company,
or individual. The practice of decit spending, especially
at the governmental level is controversial, but in light
of the reality that human economies are all based on the
availability of earth capital, it would appear to be risky
business to practice decit spending over the long term.
Certainly, such practices would have to be abandoned
if humanity were ever able to achieve a sustainable
economy.
Given the understanding, as indicated by the
ecological footprint and Earth Overshoot Day metrics,
that humanity is living an increasingly unsustainable
existence, we can return to the question framed by the
title of this section of our paper, i.e., Is there a future for
the Mesoamerican priority level one species? The short
answer is that no, there is not; not any more than there is
a future for the remainder of the biodiversity currently
inhabiting our planet. In fact, humanity is responsible for
the creation and maintenance of the worldwide problem
called “biodiversity decline” or “the biodiversity crisis.”
This problem is the major environmental problem facing
the biosphere, the entire compendium of life on Earth.
Biodiversity decline can be viewed as a tripartite problem,
inasmuch as biodiversity encompasses three levels,

124
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
i.e., genetic diversity, species diversity, and ecosystem
diversity (Campbell et al. 2008). Losses, therefore, can
and do occur at all three levels of organismic diversity.
Generally speaking, biodiversity loss is usually measured
in the number of species lost to extinction. We are at a
loss, however, to provide a precise measure of the loss
of species across the planet. As noted by Campbell et al.
(2008), “Because we can only estimate the number of
species currently existing, we cannot determine the exact
rate of species loss. However, we do know for certain
that the extinction rate is high and that human activities
threaten Earth’s biodiversity at all levels.” The most
important point made in this statement is that “we can
only estimate the number of species currently existing,”
meaning that we have nothing more available to us than
rough guesses as to what might exist out there in the
world that remains to be discovered. Wilson (2014: 47)
noted that:
“…at the time of this writing (in 2013) there are
273,000 known species of plants in the living ora of
Earth, a number expected to rise to 300,000 as more
expeditions take to the eld. The number of all known
species of organisms on Earth, plants, animals, fungi,
and microbes, is about 2 million. The actual number,
combining known and unknown, is estimated to be
at least three times that number, or more. The roster
of newly described species is about 20,000 a year.
The rate will certainly grow, as a multitude of still
poorly explored tropical forest fragments, coral reefs,
seamounts, and uncharted ridges and canyons of the
deep ocean oor become better known. The number
of described species will accelerate even faster with
exploration of the largely unknown microbial world,
now that the technology needed for the study of
extremely small organisms has become routine. There
will come to light strange new bacteria, archaeans,
viruses, and picozoans that still swarm unseen
everywhere on the surface of the planet.”
To draw from what Wilson (2014) wrote above, we
have only a vague guess about what we have yet to
discover in the living world. Even more vague is our
understanding of how biodiversity loss is proceeding.
At best, we might have a somewhat less vague idea of
how much of what we do know about is being lost, but
we otherwise have no idea of how rapidly what we don’t
know about is disappearing. What we don’t know about
the life that remains to be discovered is an indeterminate
quantity, simply as measured in terms of how many taxa
remain to be described. The formal description, however,
is simply the rst step in opening up the biology of that
particular organism. If our own work in herpetology is
any indication, we can say that we still know relatively
little about the totality of the “biology” of any of these
creatures. To use just one example from our own eld,
we can mention the work done by the last author, Larry
David Wilson, over the previous 50± years. In that
period of time, he has described 12 of the 66 currently
recognized species of the genus Tantilla. Tantilla is the
third most speciose snake genus in the world (Reptile
Database; accessed 26 November 2019), after Atractus
in Lower Central America and South America (with 147
species) and Oligodon in southern and eastern Asia (with
79 species). To date, most of the Tantilla species are still
not known beyond what was presented in their respective
original descriptions (Wilson and Mata-Silva 2015). That
information has been summarized by Wilson (1999), and
Wilson and Mata-Silva (2014, 2015). This case of the
work Wilson and colleagues have accomplished over
the many years of working with this interesting genus
of snakes is exemplary of what we biologists are faced
with as we continue with our efforts to understand the
diversity of life we enjoy on planet Earth. Numerous
similar examples could be mentioned to demonstrate how
little we know at this time about even relatively easy-to-
encounter organisms such as snakes and other members
of the herpetofauna. After all, most of these organisms
are terrestrial just as we humans are.
Another major point needs to be made at this point
in the discussion. Since the world’s biologists still
have discovered and named but a fraction of the life
that exists today on our planet, and we have only a
vague idea of how much of what the biologists have
catalogued to date has disappeared already, then a
major two-part question facing humanity is what
remains of the life on Earth to be discovered, and
how much of that life will disappear before we have
a chance to discover it. Inasmuch as we still know so
little about how the majority of the world’s known
species of organisms contribute to the maintenance
of the life support systems on the planet, how are
we to judge the true extent of the damage we are
wreaking on those systems that allow life to occur
on Earth? What is the likelihood that, at some point,
we will render extinct that one species of organism
whose disappearance will represent the tipping point
beyond which life will cascade into the ultimate mass
extinction episode? Is any person or group of people
now alive in a position to answer this question? Does
anyone have any idea of what sort of organism such a
keystone creature might be? Would it be a macroscopic
creature, i.e., large enough to be seen with the unaided
eye? Or, on the contrary, would it be microscopic and
visible only with the most sophisticated and modern
equipment? Would it perhaps only be recognizable
by the application of modern molecular biological
technology? In fact, might such a creature be beyond
our ability to visualize it by any means we currently
possess? The sad answer to all of these questions is
that we simply do not know any of their answers and
are likely to never know them.
To return to the question that forms the title of
this section of our paper, “Is there a future for the

125
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Mesoamerican priority level one herpetofaunal species?”
Our answer is that until and unless humanity manages
to transition to a new paradigm for our existence, to
move from anthropocentrism as the guiding, overarching
worldview to one that lies within the provisions of the
“biological contract” discussed by Wilson and Lazcano
(2019), then this component of the hugely important
Mesoamerican herpetofauna will become just another
casualty of the actions of a centristically-oriented
species devoted to itself without regard for the illogical
application of such an approach to living on planet Earth.
Ultimately, we will be forced to conclude that “now you
see them … and now you don’t.”
Conclusions, Realities, Recommendations, and
Predictions
Conclusions
A. The Mesoamerican herpetofauna is of tremendous
biodiversity signicance, and its signicance increases
markedly with time, due to the continuing discovery of
new taxa at the approximate rate of 35 species per year.
B. At the same time that our knowledge of the composition
of the Mesoamerican herpetofauna is increasing, the
global problem of biodiversity decline continues apace.
C. In order to identify the Mesoamerican herpetofaunal
species in most critical need of conservation attention,
Johnson et al. (2017) and Mata-Silva et al. (2019)
established a set of conservation priority levels based
on a combination of physiographic distribution
and Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS), and
applied those levels to the endemic component of the
Mesoamerican herpetofauna.
D. Eighteen priority levels were identied, ranging
from level one, comprising those species limited to a
single physiographic region and assessed to have a high
category EVS, to level 18, which includes those species
occurring in six physiographic regions and judged to
have a low category EVS.
E. The greatest number of species, by far, is allocated to
conservation priority level one (971 of 1,477 species, or
65.7%). This is the group of species considered to be the
most challenging to protect for perpetuity.
F. From one to 149 priority level one species are
distributed in 20 of the 21 physiographic regions
recognized in Mesoamerica.
G. The greatest proportion of the priority level one
species (739 of 970, or 76.2%) are distributed in the Baja
California Peninsula and six montane regions in Mexico
(Sierra Madre Oriental, Mesa Central, and Sierra Madre
del Sur) and Central America (western nuclear Central
American highlands, eastern nuclear Central American
highlands, and Isthmian Central American highlands).
H. The preponderance of priority level species in montane
regions in Mesoamerica is evident among anurans (194
of 221 species, or 87.8%), salamanders (228 of 238
species, or 95.8%), and squamates (310 of 506 species,
or 61.3%), but not among caecilians (the few species
represented in both highland and lowland regions) nor
turtles (all found in lowland regions).
I. The priority level one Mesoamerican endemic species
are allocated to 43 of the 50 families (84.0%) represented
in the endemic Mesoamerican herpetofauna as a whole,
including 11 of 11 anuran families, two of two salamander
families, two of two caecilian families, 24 of 30 squamate
families, and four of ve turtle families.
J. The science of conservation biology has not been
successful in reversing the steady loss of biodiversity.
This science has not even been successful in placing
biodiversity decline on the global agenda to be recognized
as a threat to life on Earth as serious as climate change.
K. Humans are becoming increasingly disconnected
from the natural world as they become more and more
urbanized and technologized. As such, they are growing
less and less attuned to the life-threatening impact they
are having on the life-support systems of the planet. They
are increasingly losing sight of the larger picture and
their own role in that larger picture.
L. The most fundamental approach conservation
biologists have taken to the problem of the perpetual
protection of biodiversity is to support the recognition
of natural protected areas. Two major approaches to
the creation of such areas have involved government-
supported systems and those erected by local
communities, especially indigenous ones. Neither of
these approaches is sufciently effective to address the
problem of biodiversity decline, but the governmental
approach is usually only partially successful, especially
as it is inherently susceptible to the vagaries of the
political climate and economic pressure. Thus, the local
community approach has denite advantages and is the
one we think holds the most promise for the future.
M. Much of the work the authors of this paper have
undertaken in the last decade has been directed toward
attempting to answer the immensely important question
of how humans have come to embrace highly destructive
worldviews that support a cascade of increasingly
limited and centristic forms of thinking. These forms of
thinking have been characterized as exemplary of the
“mismanagement of the human mind.”
N. The “mismanagement of the human mind” has been
manifested as a misuse of human rational capacity that
has given rise to the anthropocentric worldview and other
forms of centristic thinking connected to and owing
from it, ranging from ethnocentrism to egocentrism.
These centristic forms of human thought can be viewed
as a cascading series of psychological ailments that have
their origin in the very feature that is most denitive in
humans, i.e., their rational capacity.
O. No feature evolved by any creature guarantees the
success of that creature over the long term. Contrariwise,
every creature is guaranteed eventual extinction.
Rationality, the ability to link cause to effect through the

126
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
passage of time, is no exception to this general rule. This
feature became derailed as it led to the development of
self-awareness and the positioning of the self within a
space-time continuum, which gave rise to a fear of the
inevitable (e.g., the eventual death of every human) that
embroiled the members of our species in a vicious cycle
of addiction and denial giving rise to violence of all
types and at all levels, which led to the development of
destructive worldviews reinforcing that violence.
P. In the nal analysis, we do not expect that systems
of protected areas will act as a salvation for the
Mesoamerican priority one species for several reasons.
The most important one of these is that the majority of
humanity harbors worldviews that stress an unrelenting
ravaging of the planetary resource base in order to fuel
a global population dedicated to continual unregulated
growth and continual unabated “improvement” of
human lifestyles based on maximizing the rate at which
resources are turned into garbage.
Q. Finally, we ask whether there is a future for the
Mesoamerican priority level one species. Given that
measures such as the “ecological footprint” and “Earth
Overshoot Day” indicate that the human impact on the
life support systems of our planet continues to increase
apace leading to an increasingly unsustainable existence
for our species, then our realistic appraisal is that, if
measured over the long term, this highly signicant
component of the Mesoamerican herpetofauna does
not have a future; at least not until and unless humanity
transitions away from the anthropocentric worldview
that increasingly worsens the impact our species has on
the rest of life on the planet to adopt a new paradigm
that stresses operating within the limits imposed by the
provisions of the “biological contract.”
Realities, Recommendations, and Predictions
A. Several anthropogenic environmental problems
have achieved global dimensions as they have become
increasingly ignored or simply been given lip service
by people throughout the world. These problems have
impacted all of the great spheres of the planet, including
the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and, of most
direct importance to this paper, the biosphere. These
problems have had their impacts by utilizing the same
pathways in reverse as those used by the ow of energy
and the cycling of resources through planetary systems.
B. Humans have misused their rational capacity so as to
adopt worldviews or ideas about the workings of the real
world that depart from that reality and reinforce mindsets
that operate counter to the provision of the “biological
contract.” In so doing, humans are not only endangering
their own sustainable existence but that of the remainder
of life on Earth.
C. Humans have reached a point in their history as
a species on planet Earth at which the misuse of their
rational capacity has given rise to problems that are being
exacerbated at a rate commensurate with the exponential
increase of this species’ global population, so as to rise
to the level of consciousness of even the most inattentive
among them. The time with which to respond effectively
to these problems is rapidly shortening, so that it threatens
to escape the grasp of the members of our species, the
one responsible for the emergence of these problems on
the world stage.
D. We support the conclusions of the recently-
published paper (Wilson and Lazcano 2019) entitled
“Biology and society: exposing the vital linkages,”
that the anthropocentric worldview and its cascade of
descendent forms of centristic thinking have proven
to be countermandatory to the continued survival of
life on Earth and have to be viewed as a set of nested
psychological ailments that culminate in narcissistic
personality disorder, as characterized in the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DMS-5).
We recommend that several initiatives be undertaken
as rapidly as possible to accomplish several ends, as
outlined below.
E. Given our hypothesis that humanity has progressively
reversed the survival value of rationality over the
course of its history as a species of organism on planet
Earth, so as to create and enmesh itself in a cascade of
nested psychological disorders of increasing scope, all
contributing to the advancing endangerment of all life,
then the world community of environmental psychologists
has to undertake a study of global dimensions in order
to identify the stages of what might be identied as the
centristic personality disorder, encompassing all levels
from the species-wide anthropocentric disorder to the
individualistic narcissistic personality disorder and the
linkages that exist among them. Such a study would
have to be underwritten and supported by a global-level
consortium, such as the United Nations or the Sustainable
Development Solutions Network (http://unsdsn.org), and
the results presented as rapidly as conceivable at the
most proximate dedicated World Government Summit.
Such a study might be entitled something like: Report
of the Global Summit on the Causes and Consequences
of the Anthropocentric Worldview and its Descendent
Psychological Ailments on the Survival of Life on Planet
Earth.
F. Such a global level response to the psycho-ailment
cascade also must be intrinsically linked to a collateral
effort to reform the global systems of education with
the ultimate goal of transforming the paradigm of the
prevailing anthropocentric worldview to one that is based
on the provisions of the “biological contract” outlined
in Wilson and Lazcano (2019), that is, to a biocentric
worldview that acknowledges that human life has to be
restructured to exist within the limits of the parameters
that allow for the continued existence of life in its totality
on our planet.
G. We predict that if these initiatives are not undertaken
with all dispatch that humankind will ofciate over the

127
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
headlong race toward the tipping points of the interlaced
global environmental problems beyond which no retreat
from the mass extinction abyss will be possible.
“We must move quickly to preserve as much as possible
and to read the disappearing pages before they are gone
forever.”
Eric R. Pianka (1994)
Acknowledgments.—We wish to acknowledge the
assistance of the reviewers of our work on this paper,
including Louis W. Porras and two anonymous reviewers.
We also would like to thank the following individuals for
the outstanding animal images they provided to illustrate
our paper, including Uri García-Vázquez, César Mayoral
Halla, Victor H. Jiménez-Arcos, Andres Novales, Louis
W. Porras, Bruno Enrique Tellez Baños, and Josiah H.
Townsend. We are also indebted to Haydée Morales
Flores for providing images of some of the coauthors of
this paper. EGP would like to thank his paternal family
(García-Padilla) and his nuclear family (García-Morales)
for the many expressions of support, patience, and
affection. He is also indebted and committed to the many
communities in Oaxaca and Chiapas where he has been
able to learn about the real and most effective hope for
conservation of the biodiversity, i.e., the social tenure of
the land and the communal conservation areas. LDW is
hugely indebted to his many friends and colleagues across
the world for the many years they helped him shape his
thinking about the ideas and concepts presented in this
paper. Without their help, he still would be lost in the
cornelds of Illinois. He is also thankful for the assistance
provided by his daughter, Tayra Barbara Wilson, in
revising this paper. Finally, special acknowledgment
and gratitude is afforded to Lydia Allison Fucsko for her
invaluable feedback and editing of this paper.
Literature Cited
Arias E, Chaves G, Parra-Olea G. 2018. A new species
of Craugastor (Anura: Craugastoridae) from the
montane rainforest of the Cordillera de Talamanca,
Costa Rica. Phyllomedusa 17: 211–232.
Arias E, Hertz A, Parra-Olea G. 2019. Taxonomic
assessment of Craugastor podiciferus (Anura:
Craugastoridae) in lower Central America with the
description of two new species. Amphibian & Reptile
Conservation 13(1) [General Section]: 173–197
(e176).
Armendáriz-Villegas EJ, Ortega-Rubio A. 2015.
Concesiones mineras en Áreas Naturales Protegidas
de México. La Jornada Ecológica Special Number
200: 11–13.
Blair C, Bryson R Jr, Linkem CW, Lazcano D, Klicka J,
McCormack J. 2018. Cryptic diversity in the Mexican
highlands: thousands of UCE loci help illuminate
phylogenetic relationships, species limits, and
divergence times of montane rattlesnakes (Viperidae:
Crotalus). Molecular Ecology Resources 19: 349–
365.
Bogert CM. 1967. New salamanders of the plethodontid
genus Pseudoeurycea from the Sierra Madre del Sur
of Mexico. American Museum Novitates 2314: 1–27.
Campbell JA, Brodie E, Caviedes-Solis I, Nieto-Montes
de Oca A, Luja VH, Flores-Villela O, García-Vazquez
U, Chandra-Sarker G, Wostl E, Smith EN. 2018a.
Systematics of the frogs allocated to Sarcohyla
bistincta sensu lato (Cope, 1877), with description of
a new species from western Mexico. Zootaxa 4422:
366–384.
Campbell JA, Smith EN, Hall AS. 2018b. Caudals and
calyces: the curious case of a consumed Chiapan
colubroid. Journal of Herpetology 52: 459–472.
Campbell NA, Reece JB, Urry LA, Cain ML, Wasserman
SA, Minorsky PV, Jackson RB. 2008. Biology.
8th Edition. Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco,
California, USA. 1,267 p.
Campillo G, Dávila-Galavíz LF, Flores-Villela O,
Campbell JA. 2016. A new species of Rhadinella
(Serpentes: Colubridae) from the Sierra Madre del Sur
of Guerrero, Mexico. Zootaxa 4103: 165–173.
Canseco-Márquez L, Ramírez-González CG, González-
Bernal E. 2017a. Discovery of another new species
of Charadrahyla (Anura, Hylidae) from the cloud
forest of northern Oaxaca, México. Zootaxa 4329: 64–
72.
Canseco-Márquez L, Aguilar-López JL, Luria-Manzano
R, Pineda E, Caviedes-Solís IW. 2017b. A new species
of treefrog of the genus Ptychohyla (Anura: Hylidae)
from southern Mexico. Zootaxa 4317: 279–290.
Canseco-Márquez L, Ramírez-González CG, Campbell
JA. 2018. Taxonomic review of the rare Mexican
snake genus Chersodromus (Serpentes: Dipsadidae),
with the description of two new species. Zootaxa
4399: 151–169.
Carbajal-Márquez RA, Cedeño-Vázquez JR, Martínez-
Arce A, Neri-Castro E, Machkour-M’Rabet SC. 2020.
Accessing cryptic diversity in Neotropical rattlesnakes
(Serpentes: Viperidae: Crotalus) with the description
of two new species. Zootaxa 4729: 451–481.
Cox CL, Davis Rabosky AR, Holmes IA, Reyes-Velasco
J, Roelke CE, Smith EN, Flores-Villela O, McGuire
JA, Campbell JA. 2018. Synopsis and taxonomic
revision of three genera in the snake tribe Sonorini.
Journal of Natural History 52: 945–988.
Ehrlich PR, Holdren JP. 1971. Impact of population
growth. Science 171: 1,212–1,217.
Frost DR. 2019. Amphibian Species of the World: an
online reference. Version 6.0. Available: http://www.
research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html
[Accessed: 12 March 2019].
Galindo-Leal C. 2010. Áreas Comunitarias Protegidas
en Oaxaca. Pp. 20–21 In: Patrimonio Natural
de México, Cien Casos de Éxito. Coordinators,

128
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Carabias J, Sarukhán J, De la Maza J, Galindo-Leal
C. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de
la Biodiversidad, México City, México. 240 p.
García-Aguirre MA. 2013. La tenaz lucha del pueblo
zoque chimalapa en defensa de sus invaluables bienes
naturales. La Jornada Ecológica Número Especial 2
de Diciembre de 2013: 1–8.
García-Bañuelos P, Rovito S, Pineda E. 2019.
Representation of threatened biodiversity in protected
areas and identication of complementary areas
for their conservation: plethodontid salamanders in
Mexico. Tropical Conservation Science 12: 1–15.
García-Castillo MG, Rovito SM, Wake DB, Parra-Olea
G. 2017. A new terrestrial species of Chiropterotriton
(Caudata: Plethodontidae) from central Mexico.
Zootaxa 4363: 489–505.
García-Castillo MG, Soto-Pozos AF, Aguilar-López JL,
Pineda E, Parra-Olea G. 2018. Two new species of
Chiropterotriton (Caudata: Plethodontidae) from
central Veracruz, Mexico. Amphibian & Reptile
Conservation 12(2) [Special Section]: 37–54 (e167).
Goicoechea N, Frost DR, De la Riva I, Pellegrino
KCM, Sites J Jr, Rodrigues MT, Padial JM. 2016.
Molecular systematics of teioid lizards (Teioidea/
Gymnophthalmoidea: Squamata) based on the
analysis of 48 loci under tree-alignment and similarity-
alignment. Cladistics 32: 624–671.
Grismer LL. 2002. Amphibians and Reptiles of Baja
California, including its Pacic Islands and the
Islands in the Sea of Cortés. University of California
Press, Berkeley, California, USA. 399 p.
Grünwald CI, Franz-Chávez H, Morales-Flores KI,
Ahumada-Carrillo IT, Jones JM. 2019. A rare new
treefrog of the genus Sarcohyla (Anura: Hylidae)
from Guerrero, Mexico. Zootaxa 4712: 345–364.
Grünwald CI, Reyes-Velasco J, Franz-Chávez H, Morales-
Flores KI, Ahumada-Carrillo IT, Jones JM, Boissinot
S. 2018. Six new species of Eleutherodactylus
(Anura: Eleutherodactylidae: subgenus Syrrhophus)
from Mexico, with a discussion of their systematic
relationships and the validity of related species.
Mesoamerican Herpetology 5: 7–83.
Hansen RW, Salmon GT. 2017. Distribution analysis,
taxonomic updates, and conservation status of
the Lampropeltis mexicana group (Serpentes:
Colubridae). Mesoamerican Herpetology 4: 700–758.
Heimes P. 2016. Herpetofauna Mexicana Volume 1.
Snakes of Mexico. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am
Main, Germany. 572 p.
Hernández-Jiménez CA, Flores-Villela O, Campbell
JA. 2019. A new species of Patch-nosed Snake
(Colubridae: Salvadora Baird and Girard, 1853) from
Oaxaca, Mexico. Zootaxa 4564: 2–14.
Hill RL, Martin KG, Stanley E, Mendelson JRI. 2018. A
taxonomic review of the genus Hemiphractus (Anura:
Hemiphractidae) in Panama: description of two new
species, resurrection of Hemiphractus panamensis
(Stejneger, 1917), and discussion of Hemiphractus
fasciatus Peters, 1862. Zootaxa 4429: 495–512.
Hofmann E, Townsend JH. 2018. A cryptic new species
of anole (Squamata: Dactyloidae) from the Lenca
Highlands of Honduras, previously referred to as
Norops crassulus (Cope, 1864). Annals of Carnegie
Museum 85: 91–111.
Jarvis B. 2018. The insect apocalypse is here. New York
Times Sunday Magazine 27 November 2018: 1–16.
Jiménez-Arcos VH, Calzada-Arciniega RA, Alfaro-
Juantorena LA, Vázquez-Reyes LD, Blair C, Parra-
Olea G. 2019. A new species of Charadrahyla (Anura:
Hylidae) from the cloud forest of western Oaxaca,
Mexico. Zootaxa 4554: 371–385.
Johnson JD, Mata-Silva V, Wilson LD. 2015. A
conservation reassessment of the Central American
herpetofauna based on the EVS measure. Amphibian
& Reptile Conservation 9 [General Section]: 1–94
(e100).
Johnson JD, Wilson LD, Mata-Silva V, García-Padilla
E, DeSantis DL. 2017. The endemic herpetofauna of
Mexico: organisms of global signicance in severe
peril. Mesoamerican Herpetology 4: 543–620.
Kaplan M, Heimes P, Aguilar R. 2020. A new species of
Sarcohyla (Anura: Hylidae: Hylini) from the Sierra
Madre de Sur of Guerrero and Estado de México,
México. Zootaxa 4743: 382–390.
Köhler G. 2003. Reptiles of Central America. Herpeton,
Offenbach, Germany. 367 p.
Köhler G. 2011. Amphibians of Central America.
Herpeton, Offenbach, Germany. 378 p.
Köhler G, Hasbun CR. 2001. A new species of Spiny-
tailed Iguana from Mexico formerly referred
to Ctenosaura quinquecarinata (Gray, 1842).
Senckenbergiana Biologica 81: 257–267.
Köhler G, Heimes P. 2002. Stachelleguane: Lebensweise,
Pege, Zucht. Herpeton, Offenbach, Germany. 174 p.
Köhler G, Petersen CBP, de la Cruz FRM. 2019. A new
species of anole from the Sierra Madre del Sur in
Guerrero, Mexico (Reptilia, Squamata, Dactyloidae:
Norops). Vertebrate Zoology 69: 145–160.
Köhler G, Vargas J. 2019. A new species of anole from
Parque Nacional Volcán Arenal, Costa Rica (Reptilia,
Squamata, Dactyloidae: Norops). Zootaxa 4608: 261–
278.
López-Luna MA, Cupul-Magaña F, Escobedo-Galván
AH, González-Hernández A, Centenero-Alcalá E,
Rangel-Mendoza J, Ramírez-Ramírez M, Cásarez-
Hernández E. 2018. A distinctive new species of Mud
Turtle from western Mexico. Chelonian Conservation
and Biology 17: 2–13.
Mata-Silva V, DeSantis DL, García-Padilla E, Wilson
LD. 2015a. Comments on the natural history of the
rare salamander, Pseudoeurycea conanti (Caudata:
Pletodontidae), and the snake, Thamnophis
chrysocephalus (Squamata: Natricidae), from Oaxaca,
Mexico. Mesoamerican Herpetology 2: 533‒535.

129
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Mata-Silva V, Johnson JD, Wilson LD, García-Padilla
E. 2015b. The herpetofauna of Oaxaca, Mexico:
composition, physiographic distribution, and
conservation. Mesoamerican Herpetology 2: 5–62.
Mata-Silva V, García-Padilla E, DeSantis DL, Ramírez-
Bautista A, Wilson LD. 2017. Pseudoeurycea conanti
Bogert, 1967. Distribution notes. Mesoamerican
Herpetology 4: 445.
Mata-Silva V, DeSantis DL, García-Padilla E, Johnson
JD, Wilson LD. 2019. The endemic herpetofauna of
Central America: a casualty of anthropocentrism.
Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 13(1) [General
Section]: 1–64 (e168).
Mata-Silva V, Rocha A, Ramírez-Bautista A, Berriozabal-
Islas C, Wilson LD. 2018. A new species of forest
snake of the genus Rhadinaea from tropical montane
rainforest in the Sierra Madre del Sur of Oaxaca,
Mexico (Squamata, Dipsadidae). ZooKeys 813: 55–
65.
McCranie JR. 2011. The Snakes of Honduras:
Systematics, Distribution, and Conservation. Society
for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca,
New York, USA. 714 p.
McCranie JR. 2018. The lizards, crocodiles, and
turtles of Honduras: systematics, distribution, and
conservation. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Special Publications Series 2: 1–665.
Meik JM, Schaack S, Flores-Villela O, Striecher J. 2018.
Integrative taxonomy at the nexus of population
divergence and speciation in insular speckled
rattlesnakes. Journal of Natural History 52: 989–
1,016.
Nieto-Montes de Oca A, Sánchez-Vega H, Durán-
Fuentes I. 2018. A new species of Knob-scaled Lizard
(Xenosauridae, Xenosaurus) from the Sierra Madre
Oriental of Puebla, Mexico. ZooKeys 737: 141–160.
Ochoa-Ochoa L, Urbina-Cardona NJ, Bernardo-Vázquez
L, Flores-Villela O, Bezaury-Creel J. 2009. The effects
of governmental protected areas and social initiatives
for land protection on the conservation of Mexican
amphibians. PLoS One 4: e6878.
O’Connell KA, Smith EN. 2018. The effect of missing
data on coalescent species delimitation and a
taxonomic revision of Whipsnakes (Colubridae:
Masticophis). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
127: 356–366.
Palacios-Aguilar R, Flores-Villela O. 2018. An updated
checklist of the herpetofauna from Guerrero, Mexico.
Zootaxa 4422: 1–24.
Palacios-Aguilar R, Santos-Bibiano R. 2020. A new
species of direct-developing frog of the genus
Eleutherodactylus (Anura: Eleutherodactylidae) from
the Pacic lowlands of Guerrero, Mexico. Zootaxa
4750: 250–260.
Palacios-Aguilar R, Santos-Bibiano R, Flores-Villela
O. 2018. A new species of Lepidophyma (Squamata-
Xantusiidae) from the Pacic Lowlands of Guerrero,
Mexico. Journal of Herpetology 52: 327–331.
Palacios-Aguilar R, Cisneros-Bernal AY, Arias-
Montiel JD, Parra-Olea G. 2020. A new species of
Bolitoglossa (Amphibia: Plethodontidae) from the
central highlands of Guerrero, Mexico. Canadian
Journal of Zoology 98: 359 –365.
Parra-Olea G, García-Castillo MG, Rovito SM, Maisano
JA, Hanken J, Wake DB. 2020. Descriptions of ve
new species of the salamander genus Chiropterotriton
(Caudata: Plethodontidae) from eastern Mexico and
the status of three currently-recognized taxa. PeerJ 8:
e8800.
Parra-Olea G, García-Paris M, Wake DB. 1999. Status
of some populations of Mexican salamanders
(Amphibia: Plethodontidae). Revista de Biología
Tropical 47: 217–223.
Pavon-Vazquez CJ, De Oca ANM, Mendoza-Hernandez
AA, Centenero-Alcala E, Santa Cruz-Padilla SA,
Jimenez-Arcos VH. 2017. A new species of Plestiodon
(Squamata: Scincidae) from the Balsas Basin, Mexico.
Zootaxa 4365: 149–172.
Pérez-Ramos E, Saldaña-de La Riva L. 2008.
Morphological revision of lizards of the formosus
group, genus Sceloporus (Squamata: Sauria) of
southern Mexico, with description of a new species.
Bulletin of the Maryland Herpetological Society 44:
77–98.
Pianka ER. 1994. Evolutionary Ecology. 5th Edition.
HarperCollins College Publishers, New York, New
York, USA. 486 p.
Ramírez-Reyes T, Flores-Villela O. 2018. Taxonomic
changes and description of two new species for
the Phyllodactylus lanei complex (Gekkota:
Phyllodactylidae) in Mexico. Zootaxa 4407: 151–190.
Raven PH, Berg LR. 2004. Environment. 4th Edition.
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. 688
p.
Rocha A, Mata-Silva V, García-Padilla E, DeSantis DL,
Wilson LD. 2016. Third known specimen and rst
locality record in Oaxaca, Mexico, for Tantilla sertula
Wilson and Campbell, 2000 (Squamata: Colubridae).
Mesoamerican Herpetology 3: 771–774.
Savage JM. 2002. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Costa
Rica: a Herpetofauna between Two Continents,
between Two Seas. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, Illinois, USA. 934 p.
Smith HM. 1942. Mexican herpetological miscellany.
Proceeding of the United States National Museum 92:
349–395.
Solis-Zurita C, De Luna E, González D. 2019. Phylogenetic
relationships in the Sceloporus variabilis (Squamata:
Phrynosomatidae) complex based on three molecular
markers, continuous characters, and geometric
morphometric data. Zoologica Scripta 48: 419–439.
Townsend JH, Wilson LD. 2008. Guide to the Amphibians
and Reptiles of Cusuco National Park, Honduras /
Guía de los Anbios y Reptiles del Parque Nacional

130
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
El Cusuco, Honduras. Bibliomania!, Salt Lake City,
Utah, USA. 322 p.
Townsend JH, Wilson LD. 2010. Conservation of the
Honduran herpetofauna: issues and imperatives.
Pp. 460–487 In: Conservation of Mesoamerican
Amphibians and Reptiles. Editors, Wilson LD,
Townsend JH, Johnson JD. Eagle Mountain
Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA. 812 p.
Townsend JH, Medina-Flores M, Wilson LD, Jadin RC,
Austin JD. 2013. A relict lineage and new species
of Green Palm Pitviper (Squamata, Viperidae,
Bothriechis) from the Chortís Highlands of
Mesoamerica. ZooKeys 298: 77–105.
Vitt LJ, Caldwell JP. 2009. Herpetology. 3rd Edition.
Academic Press, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA.
697 p.
Wilson EO. 2014. The Meaning of Human Existence.
Liveright Publishing Corporation, New York, New
York, USA. 207 p.
Wilson LD. 1999. Checklist and key to the species of
the genus Tantilla (Serpentes: Colubridae), with
some distributional commentary. Smithsonian
Herpetological Information Service 122: 1–34.
Wilson LD, Mata-Silva V, Johnson JD. 2013a. A
conservation reassessment of the reptiles of Mexico
based on the EVS measure. Amphibian & Reptile
Conservation 7(1): 1–47 (e61).
Wilson LD, Johnson JD, Mata-Silva V. 2013b. A
conservation reassessment of the amphibians of
Mexico based on the EVS measure. Amphibian &
Reptile Conservation 7: 97–127 (e69).
Wilson LD, Johnson JD. 2010. Distributional
patterns of the herpetofauna of Mesoamerica, a
biodiversity hotspot. Pp. 30–235 In: Conservation
of Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles. Editors,
Wilson LD, Townsend JH, Johnson JD. Eagle
Mountain Publishing, LC, Eagle Mountain, Utah,
USA. 812 p.
Wilson LD, Johnson JD, Porras LW, Mata-Silva V,
García-Padilla E. 2017. A system for categorizing
the distribution of the Mesoamerican herpetofauna.
Mesoamerican Herpetology 4: 901–913.
Wilson LD, Lazcano D. 2019. Biology and society:
exposing the vital linkages. Biología y Sociedad 2(3):
29–54.
Wilson LD, Mata-Silva V. 2014. Snakes of the genus
Tantilla (Squamata: Colubridae) of Mexico: tax-
onomy, distribution, and conservation. Mesoamerican
Herpetology 1: 4–95.
Wilson LD, Mata-Silva V. 2015. A checklist and key to the
snakes of the Tantilla clade (Squamata: Colubridae),
with comments on taxonomy, distribution, and
conservation. Mesoamerican Herpetology 2: 417–
498.
Wilson LD, McCranie JR. 2004. The conservation
status of the herpetofauna of Honduras. Amphibian &
Reptile Conservation 3(1): 6–33 (e12).
Zarza E, Reynoso VH, Faria CM, Emerson BC. 2019.
Introgressive hybridization in a Spiny-Tailed Iguana,
Ctenosaura pectinata, and its implications for
taxonomy and conservation. PeerJ 7: e6744.
Addendum
We chose a cut-off date of 10 December 2019 for revising
the many calculations involved in this paper. However,
in the interest of completeness, we continued to include
additions to the list of Mesoamerican herpetofaunal
species described or elevated to the species level since
Johnson et al. (2017) and Mata-Silva et al. (2019). These
additions are placed below:
1. Eleutherodactylus erythrochomus Palacios-Aguilar
and Santos-Bibiano, 2020. This frog species was
described by Palacios-Aguilar and Santos-Bibiano
(2020). This anuran is limited to the Pacic
lowlands from Sinaloa to western Chiapas and has
an EVS of 18; therefore, it qualies as a priority
level one species.
2. Sarcohyla oresi Kaplan, Heimes, and Aguilar,
2020. This treefrog species was described by
Kaplan et al. (2020). This species is limited to the
Sierra Madre del Sur and has an EVS of 13, thus
placing it in priority level seven.
3. Sarcohyla toyota Grünwald, Franz-Chávez,
Morales-Flores, Ahumada-Carrillo, and Jones,
2019. This frog species was described by Grünwald
et al. (2019). This species is limited to the Sierra
Madre del Sur and has an EVS of 15, therefore
qualifying as a priority level one species.
4. Bolitoglossa coaxtlahuacana Palacios-Aguilar,
Cisneros-Bernal, Arias-Montiel, and Parra-Olea,
2020. This salamander species was described
by Palacios-Aguilar et al. (2020). This species is
restricted to the Sierra Madre del Sur and has an
EVS of 18; therefore, it qualies as a priority level
one species.
5. Chiropterotriton casasi Parra-Olea, García-Castillo,
Rovito, Maisano, Hanken, and Wake, 2020. This
salamander species was described by Parra-Olea
et al. (2020). This species occurs on the southern
slopes of Pico Orizaba in the Sierra Madre Oriental
and has an EVS of 18; therefore, it qualies as a
priority level one species.
6. Chiropterotriton ceonorum Parra-Olea, García-
Castillo, Rovito, Maisano, Hanken, and Wake,
2020. This salamander species was described by
Parra-Olea et al. (2020). This species occurs on
the southern slopes of Pico Orizaba in the Trans-
Mexican Volcanic Belt and has an EVS of 18;
therefore, it qualies as a priority level one species.
7. Chiropterotriton melipona Parra-Olea, García-
Castillo, Rovito, Maisano, Hanken, and Wake,

131
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
Perspective: Conserving priority level one endemic species
Elí García-Padilla is a herpetologist with a primary focus on the ecology and natural history of
the Mexican herpetofauna, particularly the Mexican states of Baja California, Tamaulipas, Chiapas,
and Oaxaca. His rst experience in the eld was researching the ecology of the insular endemic
populations of the rattlesnakes in the Gulf of California, and his Bachelor’s degree thesis was on the
ecology of Crotalus muertensis (C. pyrrhus) on Isla El Muerto, Baja California, Mexico. To date,
he has authored or co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed scientic publications. Elí is currently the
formal Curator of Amphibians and Reptiles from Mexico in the electronic platform “Naturalista”
of the Comisión Nacional para el Uso y Conocimiento de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO; http://
www.naturalista.mx). One of his main passions is environmental education, and for several years
he has been using audiovisual media to reach large audiences in promoting the importance of the
knowledge, protection, and conservation of Mexican biodiversity. Elí’s interests include wildlife and
conservation photography, and his art has been published in several recognized scientic, artistic,
and educational books, magazines, and websites. His present research project involves an evaluation
of the Jaguar (Panthera onca) as an umbrella species for the conservation of the herpetofauna of
Nuclear Central America.
2020. This salamander species was described by
Parra-Olea et al. (2020). This species occurs in
the Sierra Madre Oriental and has an EVS of 17;
therefore, it qualies as a priority level one species
8. Chiropterotriton perotensis Parra-Olea, García-
Castillo, Rovito, Maisano, Hanken, and Wake,
2020. This salamander species was described by
Parra-Olea et al. (2020). This species occurs on
Cofre de Perote in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic
Belt and has an EVS of 18; therefore, it qualies as
a priority level one species.
9. Chiropterotriton totonacus Parra-Olea, García-
Castillo, Rovito, Maisano, Hanken, and Wake,
2020. This salamander species was described by
Parra-Olea et al. (2020). This species occurs on
the southern slopes of Pico Orizaba in the Trans-
Mexican Volcanic Belt and has an EVS of 18;
therefore, it qualies as a priority level one species
10. Sceloporus scitulus Smith, 1942. This taxon was
described originally as a subspecies of Sceloporus
formosus by Smith (1942), but was elevated to
species level by Pérez-Ramos and Saldaña de
La Riva (2008), a position accepted by Palacios-
Aguilar and Flores-Villela (2018). This taxon is
limited to the Sierra Madre del Sur and has an EVS
of 15 (Palacios-Aguilar and Flores-Villela 2018),
thus it qualies as as a priority level one species.
11. Crotalus ehecatl Carbajal-Márquez, Cedeño-
Vázquez, Martínez-Arce, Neri-Castro, and
Machkour-M’Rabet, 2020. This rattlesnake species
was described by Carbajal-Márquez et al. (2020).
This snake is resident in the Pacic lowlands from
Sinaloa to western Chiapas, the Sierra Madre del
Sur, and the western Nuclear Central American
highlands and has an EVS of 15; therefore, it
qualies as a priority level three species.
Dominic L. DeSantis is an Assistant Professor of Biology at Georgia College and State University,
Milledgeville, Georgia, USA, in the Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences.
Dominic’s research interests broadly include the behavioral ecology, conservation biology, and
natural history of herpetofauna. Much of his current research focuses on integrating multiple
longitudinal monitoring technologies to study the proximate and ultimate drivers of spatial strategies
and activity patterns in snakes. Dominic accompanied Vicente Mata-Silva, Elí García-Padilla, and
Larry David Wilson on survey and collecting expeditions to Oaxaca in 2015, 2016, and 2017, and
is a co-author on numerous natural history publications produced from those visits, along with an
invited book chapter on the conservation outlook for herpetofauna in the Sierra Madre del Sur of
Oaxaca. Overall, Dominic has authored or co-authored over 50 peer-reviewed scientic publications.
Arturo Rocha is a herpetologist from El Paso, Texas, USA, whose interests include the biogeography
and ecology of amphibians and reptiles in the southwestern United States and Mexico. A graduate of
the University of Texas at El Paso, Arturo’s thesis focused on the spatial ecology of the Trans-Pecos
Rat Snake (Bogertophis subocularis) in the northern Chihuahuan Desert. To date, he has authored
or co-authored over 10 peer-reviewed scientic publications.

132
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. June 2020 | Volume 14 | Number 2 | e240
García-Padilla et al.
Vicente Mata-Silva is a herpetologist originally from Río Grande, Oaxaca, Mexico, whose interests
include ecology, conservation, natural history, and biogeography of the herpetofaunas of Mexico,
Central America, and the southwestern United States. Vicente received his B.S. degree from the
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the
University of Texas at El Paso, USA (UTEP). Vicente is an Assistant Professor of Biological
Sciences at UTEP in the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Program, and Co-Director of UTEP’s
40,000-acre Indio Mountains Research Station, located in the Chihuahuan Desert of Trans-Pecos,
Texas. To date, Vicente has authored or co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed scientic publications.
He also was the Distribution Notes Section Editor for the journal Mesoamerican Herpetology.
Jerry D. Johnson is Professor of Biological Sciences at The University of Texas at El Paso, USA,
and he has extensive experience studying the herpetofauna of Mesoamerica, especially southern
Mexico. Jerry is the Director of the 40,000-acre Indio Mountains Research Station, and was a co-
editor of Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles and co-author of four of its
chapters. Jerry has authored or co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed papers and is the Mesoamerica/
Caribbean editor for the Geographic Distribution section of Herpetological Review. One species,
Tantilla johnsoni, has been named in his honor. Presently, he is an Associate Editor and Co-chair of
the Taxonomic Board for the journal Mesoamerican Herpetology.
Larry David Wilson is a herpetologist with extensive experience in Mesoamerica. He was born
in Taylorville, Illinois, USA, and received his university education at the University of Illinois
at Champaign-Urbana (B.S. degree) and at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge (M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees). Larry has authored or co-authored more than 425 peer-reviewed papers and
books on herpetology, including 18 papers from 2013–2019 on the EVS measure and the Mexican
Conservation Series surveys of the composition, distribution, and conservation status of the
herpetofauna of different states in Mexico and other regions in Central America. Larry is the senior
editor of Conservation of Mesoamerican Amphibians and Reptiles and a co-author of seven of its
chapters. His other major books include The Snakes of Honduras, Middle American Herpetology,
The Amphibians of Honduras, Amphibians & Reptiles of the Bay Islands and Cayos Cochinos,
Honduras, The Amphibians and Reptiles of the Honduran Mosquitia, and Guide to the Amphibians
& Reptiles of Cusuco National Park, Honduras. To date, he has authored or co-authored the
descriptions of 74 currently recognized herpetofaunal species, and seven species have been named
in his honor, including the anuran Craugastor lauraster, the lizard Norops wilsoni, and the snakes
Oxybelis wilsoni, Myriopholis wilsoni, and Cerrophidion wilsoni. In 2005, he was designated a
Distinguished Scholar in the Field of Herpetology at the Kendall Campus of Miami-Dade College.
Currently, Larry is a Co-chair of the Taxonomic Board for the journal Mesoamerican Herpetology.