Oligosoma aeneum

Patterson, Geoff B., Hitchmough, Rod A. & Chapple, David G., 2013, Taxonomic revision of the ornate skink (Oligosoma ornatum; Reptilia: Scincidae) species complex from northern New Zealand, Zootaxa 3736 (1) : -

Synonymy of O. aeneum

Tiliqua ornata: Gray 1843:202 .

Hinulia ornata: Gray 1845a:77 .

Hinulia ornate: Gray 1845b:7 .

Mocoa smithi: Gray, 1845a:82 (in part). Gray, 1867:4 (in part). Buller, 1871:6 (in part). Hutton, 1872:168 (in part). McCann, 1955:97 (in part). Fawcett & Smith, 1971:135 (in part).

Cyclodina aenea: Girard, 1857:196 . Girard, 1858:236–237, 239, pl. xxvi, fig. 9–16 (in part).

Troschel, 1859:61. Gunther, 1875:13. Robb, 1973:297.

Hombronia undosa: Girard, 1857:196 . Girard, 1858:240–242. Gunther, 1875:13. Boulenger, 1887:209.

Eulamprus ornatus: Fitzinger 1861: 403 .

Lampropholis smithii: (Gray) : Fitzinger, 1861:403. Jouan, 1869:294 (in part).

Lampropholis (Mocoa) smithi (Gray) : Hochstetter, 1863:429 (in part). Hochstetter, 1867:163 (in part).

Euprepes smithii (Gray) : Steindachner, 1869:47 (in part).

Euprepes ornatus: Steindachner 1869: 49 .

Mocoa zealandica (Gray) : Gunther, 1875:13, pl. 7, fig. 4 (in part).

Lygosoma smithii (Gray) : Boulenger, 1887:274 (in part). Werner, 1895:21 (in part). Hutton, 1904:39 (in part). Hutton & Drummond, 1904:351, 354, 381 (in part). Boulenger, 1906:370 (in part). McCann, 1955:75–76, 97 (in part).

Lygosoma aeneum (Girard) : Boulenger, 1887:275. Werner, 1895:21. Werner, 1901:387. Hutton, 1904:39 (in part). Hutton & Drummond, 1904:351, 354, 381. Boulenger, 1906:371.

Martin, 1929:164.

Lygosoma ornatum: Boulenger 1887: 317 .

Lygosoma (Liolepisma) micans: Werner, 1895:21 .

Liolepisma aeneum (Girard) : Lucas & Frost, 1897:265, 278–280.

Liolepisma smithii (Gray) : Lucas & Frost, 1897:265, 277 (in part).

Liolepisma micans (Werner) : Lucas & Frost, 1897:279.

Homolepida ornatum: Lucas & Frost 1897:265 , 279.

Homolepida ornata: Burt & Burt 1932:536 .

Lygosoma (Leiolopisma) aeneum (Girard) : Smith, 1937:223.

Lygosoma (Leiolopisma) smithi (Gray) : Smith, 1937:223 (in part).

Leiolopisma aenea (Girard) : Mittleman, 1952:21.

Leiolopisma smithii (Gray) : Mittleman, 1952:30 (in part).

Sphenomorphus ornatus: Mittleman, 1952:27 .

Lygosoma moco Dume ´ril & Bibron: Hard, 1954:145–146.

Leiolopisma aeneum (Girard) : McCann, 1955:76–77, 79, 102, pl. xiv, figs. 6–9. McCann, 1956:50. Barwick, 1959:331–332, 340, 346–348, 365–348, 346–348, 365–367, 376, 378. Sharell, 1966:77. Fitch, 1970:83. Porter, 1972:403. Schipper, 1972:57. Towns, 1972:95–99, 102–103. Robb, 1973:297. Greer, 1974:16. Morrison et al., 1974:22. Rawlinson, 1974:94. Robb, 1974:687. Bull & Whitaker, 1975:241. Hicks et al., 1975:211. Gill, 1976:143–144. Whitaker, 1976:9.

Leiolopisma ornatum: McCann 1955 (in part):76-7, 80. Robb, 1977:304–306 (in part).

Sphenomorphus pseudornatus: McCann, 1955:76 –77, 110–111, 125, fig. 14 (in part). Natusch, 1967:246 (in part). Whitaker, 1968:623, 628–631, 634–635, 644–646, 648–650 (in part). Whitaker, 1970:99. Forster and Forster, 1971:132 (in part). Towns, 1971:62, fig. 2. Towns, 1972:95–99, 102–104, figs. 2, 3a–c (in part). Towns and Hayward, 1973:94–95, 97. Whitaker, 1973:122–130 (in part). Robb, 1974:683, 689 (in part). Towns, 1974b:156 (in part). Towns, 1974a:217, 219, 223 (in part). Robb, 1975:447 (in part). Hicks et al., 1975:210– 212.

Sphenomorphus pseudornatum: McCann, 1955 (in part):79. McCann, 1956:50 (in part). Schipper, 1972:58 (in part).

Sphenomorphus pseudornata: McCann, 1955:97 (in part).

Leiolopisma ornata: McCann 1955 (in part):109, 127.

Leiolopisma pseudornatum: Greer 1974: 4 , 14, 16-17, 35.

Leiolopisma pseudornatus (McCann) : Robb, 1975:483 (in part).

Cyclodina aenea: Hardy, 1977:264 –266, fig. 2b, c, 18, 19, 39 (in part).

Cyclodina aenea: Wells and Wellington, 1985:63.

Oligosoma aeneum Chapple et al. 2009:485 .

Several previous authors have suggested that Oligosoma ornatum might represent a species complex. Although Hardy (1977) noted that O. ornatum exhibited little morphological variation throughout most of its range, he highlighted that individuals from the Three Kings Islands had very high midbody scale counts, and that animals from the Poor Knights Islands had unusually high lamellae counts compared to individuals from the remainder of the distribution. Jewell (2008) considered these morphological differences to be sufficient to warrant the recognition of both the Three Kings Islands populations and the Poor Knights Islands populations as being taxonomically distinct from O. ornatum . A molecular study, using mitochondrial DNA sequence data, provided support for the taxonomic distinctiveness of the Poor Knights Islands populations, but the Three Kings Islands populations were found to group within one of the three subclades identified within O. ornatum (Chapple et al. 2008c). In this study we use morphological analyses to conduct a taxonomic revision of the O. ornatum species complex, and describe only the Poor Knights Islands population as a new species.