Anniella pulchra

A proposed change in the specific name from pulchra to nigra (Hunt 1983) was rejected by most herpetologists (see Murphy and Smith 1985, 1991; Ballinger et al. 1992; Jennings et al. 1992); 1993 rulings by the ICZN conserved the name Anniella pulchra for this species and placed the name argentea (as published in the trinomen Anniella nigra argentea, on the list of rejected and invalid names (Bull. Zool. Nomen. 50(2):186-187).

Phylogenetic analysis of mtDNA data clearly separates Anniella pulchra into distinct northern and southern clades, but these clades do not correspond with the black and silver nominal subspecies nigra and pulchra (Pearse and Pogson 2000). The analyses strongly indicate that the two disjunct populations of A. p. nigra are not monophyletic; they "may have arisen independently from different ancestral populations in a parallel evolutionary repsonse to selection in cool, coastal habitats" (Pearse and Pogson 2000). Accordingly, de Queiroz and Reeder (in Crother 2008, 2012) did not recognize subspecies in A. pulchra.

Genetic data (Parham and Pappenfuss 2009) indicate the existence of 5 lineages in the traditionally defined A. pulchra. Pappenfuss and Parham (2013) showed that three of these genetic lineages can be readily diagnosed from topotypic A. pulchra through a combination of coloration, scalation, and skeletal characters (trunk vertebra number). A fourth lineage is cryptic, but can be diagnosed from A. pulchra by its karyotype. Accordingly, Pappenfuss and Parham (2013) recognized these lineages as 5 distinct species, 4 of which were described as new (A. alexanderae, A. campi, A. grinnelli, A. stebbinsi).

Some of the standard English names proposed by Papenfuss and Parham (2013) have been changed in the interest of brevity and descriptive accuracy (Crother 2017).

Range extends from central to southern California; dozens of extant occurrences, but much habitat has been lost/degraded by urbanization, agriculture, non-native invasive plants, and recreation; locally common in remaining habitat; continuing decline in extent and quality of habitat.

This lizard has a spotty distribution in California, extending from near Antioch, California, south to the vicinity of Santa Barbara and the Antelope Valley at the western margin of the Mohave Desert (Parham and Papenfuss 2009, Papenfuss and Parham 2013). There are old records from Marin County and Palo Alto in the San Francisco Bay Area, California (Stebbins 2003). Elevational range extends from sea level to about 5,100 feet (1,550 meters) (Stebbins 2003).

Range extent appears to be roughly 45,000-50,000 square kilometers.

Number of distinct occurrences has not been determined using standardized criteria, but apparently there are at least a few dozen. Jennings and Hayes (1994) mapped several dozen localities in California that were believed to have extant populations at that time.

The species has been extirpated from some areas as a result of urbanization and agricultural development (Jennings and Hayes 1994). These factors have fragmented the habitat. Excessive human recreational use and invasive exotic plants (e.g., "ice plant") may degrade the habitat of coastal dune populations. However, most localities for this species are not along the coast (e.g., see map in Jennings and Hayes 1994). Other potentially significant threats include degradation of habitat by sand mining and off-road vehicle use (Stebbins 2003).