, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 220–227

Patterns of coexistence in sexual and asexual species of Cnemidophorus lizards

  • Ted J. Case
Original Papers


The lizard genus Cnemidophorus (family Teiidae) contains sexual as well as parthenogenetic species. The theoretical two-fold fitness advantage of asexuality does not translate into any obvious distributional or numerical superiority of the parthenogenic species in the southwestern US and northern Mexico where their ranges overlap. I tested the prediction that the genetically diverse sexual species should have a higher between-individual niche width than a similar sympatric asexual species by studying the prey in stomach contents of sympatric and allopatric populations of C. tigris (sexual) and C. sonorae (asexual) in southern Arizona. The expectation proved true for niche breadths based on both prey length and prey taxa categories. The within-individual component of niche breadth was not different between species. Meaningful comparisons between species in sympatry and allopatry are confounded by the uncontrolled differences in the availability and diversity of food items between sites. Before the generality of these results can be assessed the study should be repeated in other areas where sexual and asexual species are syntopic and of similar body size.

Key words

Cnemidophorus Niche breadth Asexuality Parthenogenetic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bell G (1982) The masterpiece of nature: the evolution and genetics of sexuality. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown WM, Wright JW (1979) Mitochondrial DNA analyses and the origin and relative age of parthenogenetic lizards (Genus Cnemidophorus). Science 203:1247–1249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Case TJ (1975) Species number, density compensation and colonizing ability of lizards on islands in the Gulf of California. Ecology 56:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Case TJ (1979) Character displacement and coevolution in some Cnemidophorus lizards. Fortschr Zool 24:235–282Google Scholar
  5. Case TJ (1983) Size-similarity and sympatry in Cnemidophorus lizards. Ch. 14 In: Huey R, Schoener T, Pianka E (eds) Lizard Ecology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp 297–325Google Scholar
  6. Case TJ, Bender EA (1981) Is recombination advantageous in fluctuating and spatially heterogeneous environments? J Theor Biol 90:181–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Case TJ, Taper ML (1986) On the coexistence of asexual and sexual species. Evolution 40:366–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charlesworth B (1971) Selection in density regulated populations. Ecology 52:469–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cuellar O (1971) Reproduction and mechanism of meiotic restitution in the parthenogenetic lizard, Cnemidophorus uniparens. J Morphol 133:139–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cucllar O (1976) Intraclonal histocompatibility in a parthenogenetic lizard: evidence of genetic homogeneity. Science 193:150–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuellar O (1977) Animal parthenogenesis. Science 197:837–843PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dessauer HC, Cole CJ (1989) Diversity between and within nominal forms of unisexual teiid lizards. In: Dawley RM, Bogard JP (eds) Evolution and ecology of unisexual vertebrates. New York State Museum, Albany, NY, pp 49–71Google Scholar
  13. Densmore LD, Moritz CC, Wright JW, Brown WM (1989) Motochondrial-DNA analyses and the origin and relative age of parthenogenetic lizards (genus Cnemidophorus). IV. Nive sexlineatus-group unisexuals. Evolution 43:969–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Echternacht AC (1967) Ecolocal relationships of two species of the lizard genus Cnemidophorus in the Santa Rita Mountains of Arizona. Am Midl Nat 78:448–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heckel DG, Roughgarden J (1979) A technique for estimating the size of lizard populations Ecology 60:966–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  17. Lowe CH, Wright JW (1964) Species of the Cnemidophorus exsanguis subgroup of whiptail lizards. J Ariz Acad Sci 3:78–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maslin TP (1968) Taxonomic problems in parthenogenetic vertebrates. Zoologica 17:219–231Google Scholar
  19. Maynard-Smith J (1978) The evolution of sex. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  20. Medica PA (1967) Food habits, habitat preference, reproduction, and diurnal activity in four sympatric species of whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus) in South Central New Mexico. Bull S Calif Acad Sci 66:251–276Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell JC (1979) Ecology of southeastern Arizona whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus: Teiidae): population densities, resource partitioning, and niche overlap. Can J Zool 57:1487–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Neaves WB (1969) Adenosine deaminase phenotypes among sexual and parthenogenetic lizards in the Genus Cnemidophorus (Teiidae). J Exp Zool 171:175–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parker ED (1979a) Phenotypic consequences of parthenogenesis in Cnemidophorus lizards. I. Relative variability in parthenogenetic and sexual populations. Evolution 33:1150–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parker ED (1979b) Phenotypic consequences of parthenogenesis in Cnemidophorus lizards. II. Similarity of C. tesselatus to its sexual parental species. Evolution 33:1167–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parker ED, Selander RK (1976) The organization of genetic diversity in the parthenogenetic lizard Cnemidophorus tesselatus. Genetics 84:791–805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Pimm SL (1983) Appendix: Monto Carlo analyses in ecology. In: Huey R, Schoener T, Pianka E (eds) Lizard ecology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp 290–296Google Scholar
  27. Ryti RL, Case TJ (1986) Spatial arrangement and diet overlap between colonies of desert ants. Oecologia 62:401–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schall JJ (1976) Comparative ecology of sympatric parthenogenetic and bisexual species of Cnemidophorus. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Texas, AustinGoogle Scholar
  29. Schenck RA, Vrijenhoek RC (1986) Spatial and temporal factors affecting the coexistence among sexual and clonal forms of Poeciliopsis. Evolution 40:1060–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schoener T (1974) Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185:27–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scudday JF, Dixon JR (1973) Diet and feeding behavior of teiid lizards from Trans-Pecos, Texas. Southwest Nat 18:279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Uzzell TM (1970) Meiotic mechanisms of naturally occurring unisexual vertebrates. Am Nat 104:433–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White MJD (1970) Heterozygosity and genetic polymorphism in parthenogenetic animals. In: Hecht MR, Steere VC (eds) Essays in evolutions and genetics in honor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 237–262Google Scholar
  35. White MJD (1978) Modes of Speciation. WH Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams GC (1975) Sex and evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Wright JW (1968) Variation in three sympatric sibling species of whiptail lizards, genus Cnemidophorus. J Herpetol 1:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wright JW, Lowe CH (1968) Weeds, polyploids, parthenogenesis and the geographical and ecological distribution of all-female species of Cnemidophorus. Copeia 1968:129–138Google Scholar
  39. Zar HH (1984) Biostatistical analysis, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  40. Zweifel RG (1965) Variation in and distribution of the unisexual lizard, Cnemidophorus tesselatus. Am Mus Novit 2235:1–49Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ted J. Case
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology, C-016University of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations