Corresponding author: Julio A. Lemos-Espinal (
Academic editor: Johannes Penner
The State of Mexico has a unique combination of geographic characteristics and topography that promotes a high biodiversity. Unfortunately, continued human population growth of the metropolitan areas of Mexico City and
Lemos-Espinal JA, Smith GR (2020) A conservation checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of the State of Mexico, Mexico with comparisons with adjoining states. ZooKeys 953: 137–159.
Although relatively small, the State of Mexico bears unique geographic characteristics that combined with its topography create conditions that promote a high level of biodiversity. Unfortunately, these same conditions along with the continued human population growth of the metropolitan area of Mexico City and the city of
Here, we provide an updated checklist of the amphibians and reptiles documented in the State of Mexico. We also summarize the conservation status of these species with the goal of determining if there are particular taxa of conservative concern in the State of Mexico. In addition, we consider the overlap in species between the State of Mexico and its neighboring states.
The State of Mexico is the most populous, as well as the most densely populated state in Mexico. It is located in south-central Mexico, in the highest part of the Mexican Altiplano, between 18°22'0.84"N and 20°17'9.24"N, and 100°36'46.8"W and 98°35'48.84"W (Fig.
Map of Mexico with the State of Mexico shown in red (modified from INEGI, 2018a).
The topography of the state is highly variable, with the highest mountains in the extreme eastern part of the state along the border with Puebla (Popocatépetl 5,380 m altitude, Iztaccíhuatl 5,203 m, Monte Tláloc 4,120 m), and in the central part of the state (Nevado de
Topographical map of the State of Mexico, Mexico (CONABIO, 1997).
Physiographic provinces of the State of Mexico, Mexico (modified from
The State of Mexico has a variety of vegetation types (Fig.
Vegetation map of the State of Mexico, Mexico (modified from Dirección General de Geografía –
Given the geographical location and diversity of the natural regions in the state, there are several climates in the State of Mexico (Fig.
Climate map of the State of Mexico, Mexico (modified from García – Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad 1998).
We compiled our list of amphibians and reptiles of the State of Mexico from our field work over several years, especially within the past 5–10 years, a thorough examination of available literature on amphibians and reptiles in the state, amphibian and reptile records for the State of Mexico in
We made species accumulation curves for the total herpetofauna, and amphibians and reptiles separately using the year of the first recorded observation for each species. These curves can estimate the potential species richness of amphibians and reptiles (see
The State of Mexico is home to 150 species of amphibians and reptiles representing 31 families (two introduced:
The species accumulation curves for the total herpetofauna, reptiles, and amphibians all show a steep increase in the number of species documented in the State of Mexico in the second half of the 20th century, and that trend appears to be continuing, albeit at a somewhat slower rate in the 21st century (Fig.
Species accumulation curves for total herpetofauna, amphibians, and reptiles of the State of Mexico, Mexico.
Thirty-six of the 49 species of amphibians found in the State of Mexico are endemic to Mexico, four of them to the State of Mexico (
Amphibians and reptiles of the State of Mexico with distributional and conservation status. Vegetation Type: (1 = Oak Forest; 2 = Pine-oak Forest; 3 = Pine Forest; 4 = Tropical Deciduous Forest; 5 = Grassland; 6 = Scrubland); IUCN Status: (
Vegetation type | IUCN status | SEMARNAT |
|
Global distribution | Year of first record | Source | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
1,2,5,6 |
|
NL | H (14) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
4 |
|
NL | M (13) | 1 | 1930 | ||
1,2,3,6 |
|
NL | M (11) | 1 | 1941 | ||
4 |
|
NL | M (11) | 1 | 1983 |
|
|
4 |
|
NL | L (3) | 4 | 1941 | ||
|
|||||||
2,6 |
|
NL | L (8) | 2 | 1942 | Taylor 1942 | |
2 |
|
NL | H (15) | 1 | 1936 | ||
1,2,3 |
|
NL | L (9) | 3 | 1992 |
|
|
3 |
|
NL | M (13) | 3 | 1968 | ||
|
|||||||
1,2,3,6 |
|
Pr | H (17) | 1 | 1954 | ||
1,2,3 |
|
Pr | H (17) | 1 | 1954 | ||
1,2,3 |
|
NL | M(12) | 1 | 1951 | ||
4 |
|
NL | M (11) | 3 | 1979 | ||
|
|||||||
1,2,3,4,5,6 |
|
NL | L (7) | 2 | 1921 | ||
1,2,3,6 |
|
NL | M (10) | 1 | 1919 | ||
1,2,3,6 |
|
A | M (11) | 1 | 1912 | ||
4 |
|
Pr | M (12) | 1 | 1992 |
|
|
1,2,3 |
|
Pr | L (9) | 1 | 1938 | ||
4 |
|
NL | M (13) | 1 | 2009 |
|
|
1,2,4,6 |
|
NL | L (3) | 4 | 1982 | ||
4 |
|
NL | L (8) | 2 | 1968 | ||
4 |
|
NL | M (11) | 1 | 1968 | ||
|
|||||||
4 |
|
NL | L (6) | 3 | 1965 | ||
|
|||||||
4 |
|
NL | L (4) | 4 | 1941 | ||
|
|||||||
4 |
|
NL | M (13) | 1 | 1983 |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
1982 | ||
4 |
|
Pr | L (3) | 3 | 1940 | ||
1,2,3,5,6 |
|
Pr | M (13) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
1,2,3 |
|
A | M (13) | 1 | 2009 | ||
1,2,3,5,6 |
|
NL | M (12) | 1 | 1936 | ||
1,2,5,6 |
|
P | H (15) | 1 | 1979 | ||
1,2,3,4,5 |
|
NL | M (11) | 1 | 1982 | ||
|
|||||||
1,5 |
|
NL | L (3) | 2 | 1940 | ||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
1,2,3,5 |
|
A | M (13) | 1 | 1895 |
|
|
2,5 |
|
Pr | H (15) | 0 | 1940 |
|
|
1,2,3,5 |
|
Pr | H (14) | 0 | 1944 |
|
|
2,3,5 |
|
A | H (15) | 1 | 1943 |
|
|
5 |
|
Pr | H (15) | 0 | 1940 |
|
|
? |
|
Pr | M (13) | 1 | 22004 |
|
|
1,2,3,5 |
|
A | M (13) | 1 | 1940 |
|
|
1,2,3,5,6 |
|
Pr | M (10) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
|
|||||||
1,2,3,5 |
|
A | H (14) | 1 | 1938 | ||
1,2,3,5 |
|
NL | H (18) | 1 | 1951 | ||
1,2,3,5 |
|
A | M (12) | 1 | 1938 | ||
1,2,3,5 |
|
Pr | H (17) | 1 | 1956 | ||
1,2,3,5 |
|
A | H (16) | 1 | 1921 | ||
1,2,3,5 |
|
Pr | H (17) | 1 | 1983 |
|
|
1,2,3,5 |
|
A | H (18) | 1 | 1939 |
|
|
1,2,3,5 |
|
NL | H (17) | 1 | 2003 |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
2 |
|
A | H (16) | 1 | 1979 | ||
2,3 |
|
NL | H (15) | 0 | 2002 | Zaldivar-Riverón and Nieto Montes de Oca 2002 | |
1,2,3,5,6 |
|
Pr | H (14) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
1,2,3,5 |
|
P | H (15) | 1 | 1828 |
|
|
1,2,3,5 |
|
Pr | L (6) | 1 | 1938 | ||
|
|||||||
1,2,4 |
|
NL | M (13) | 1 | 1940 | ||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
1998 |
|
|
|
|||||||
4 |
|
A | M (11) | 3 | 1933 | ||
|
|||||||
4 |
|
A | H (15) | 1 | 1982 | ||
|
|||||||
1,2,5,6 |
|
A | M (12) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
5,6 |
|
NL | M (13) | 1 | 1921 | ||
1,2,3 |
|
NL | H (15) | 1 | 1979 | ||
5 |
|
NL | M (13) | 1 | 1937 | ||
2,5 |
|
NL | M (13) | 1 | 1983 | ||
4 |
|
NL | M (11) | 1 | 1996 | ||
1,2,3,6 |
|
Pr | L (9) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
4 |
|
NL | M (11) | 1 | 1951 | ||
4 |
|
Pr | H (14) | 1 | 1971 | ||
4 |
|
NL | L (9) | 3 | 1977 | ||
2,3,5 |
|
NL | M (13) | 1 | 1939 | ||
4 |
|
NL | M (12) | 1 | 1992 |
|
|
1,2,3 |
|
NL | H (15) | 1 | 1976 | ||
4 |
|
NL | M (12) | 1 | 1982 | ||
5,6 |
|
NL | M (12) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
1,2,5,6 |
|
NL | M (12) | 1 | 1922 | ||
1,2,3 |
|
NL | H (16) | 1 | 1939 | ||
1,2,3,5,6 |
|
NL | M (11) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
4 |
|
NL | M (12) | 1 | 1930 | ||
|
|||||||
4 |
|
NL | H (15) | 1 | 1981 | ||
|
|||||||
4 |
|
NL | L (6) | 3 | 1882 | ||
1,2,3 |
|
NL | M (11) | 1 | 1942 | KU |
|
1,2,3 |
|
Pr | H (14) | 1 | 1932 | ||
1,2,3 |
|
Pr | H (16) | 1 | 1954 | KU |
|
1,2,3 |
|
NL | H (15) | 1 | 1932 | ||
1,2,3 |
|
Pr | M (10) | 1 | 1974 | UTA 4182 | |
|
|||||||
4 |
|
Pr | H (14) | 1 | 2009 |
|
|
4 |
|
Pr | M (11) | 1 | 1941 | ||
4 |
|
NL | L (8) | 3 | 1977 | ||
4 |
|
NL | L (9) | 4 | 1930 | ||
4 |
|
NL | H (14) | 1 | 1966 | ||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
4 |
|
NL | H (15) | 1 | 1985 |
|
|
|
|||||||
1,2,3,6 |
|
A | M (13) | 1 | 1932 |
|
|
1,2,3,6 |
|
NL | M (13) | 1 | 1859 |
|
|
1,2,3 ,6 |
|
NL | M (11) | 1 | 1921 | ||
4 |
|
NL | L (6) | 3 | 1975 | ||
4 |
|
NL | L (6) | 3 | 1939 | ||
1,2,3,4,5 |
|
NL | L (7) | 1 | 1943 | ||
4 |
|
A | H (14) | 1 | 1978 | ||
4 |
|
A | L (6) | 3 | 1960 | KU |
|
4 |
|
NL | L (5) | 4 | 1985 |
|
|
1,2,3,4,6 |
|
A | H (14) | 1 | 1853 | Dumeril 1853 | |
1,2,3,4,5 |
|
NL | L (8) | 3 | 1940 | ||
4 |
|
NL | M (13) | 1 | 1951 | ||
1,2,3,4,5,6 |
|
Pr | H (15) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
4 |
|
Pr | H (15) | 1 | 1982 | ||
1,2,4,5 |
|
NL | L (6) | 3 | 1943 | ||
1,2,5 |
|
NL | L (9) | 1 | 1960 | KU |
|
4 |
|
Pr | M (12) | 1 | 1981 | ||
4 |
|
A | M (13) | 1 | 1977 | ||
1,2,3,5 |
|
Pr | L (5) | 3 | 2009 |
|
|
4 |
|
NL | L (7) | 3 | 1983 |
|
|
4 |
|
NL | M (13) | 1 | 1943 | ||
|
|||||||
4 |
|
NL | M (11) | 3 | 2004 |
|
|
1,2,3,6 |
|
NL | L (4) | 2 | 1937 | ||
4 |
|
NL | L (5) | 3 | 1951 | ||
4 |
|
Pr | H (15) | 1 | 1992 |
|
|
4 |
|
Pr | M (13) | 1 | 1991 | ||
4 |
|
Pr | L (6) | 3 | 1951 | ||
4,6 |
|
Pr | L (7) | 1 | 1965 | ||
4 |
|
NL | L (8) | 4 | 1992 |
|
|
4 |
|
NL | H (14) | 1 | 1976 | ||
4 |
|
Pr | M (10) | 1 | 1973 | ||
1,2,3 |
|
NL | M (12) | 1 | 1952 | KU |
|
1,2 |
|
NL | M (13) | 1 | 1979 | ||
|
|||||||
1,2 |
|
Pr | L (8) | 3 | 1954 | KU |
|
4 |
|
Pr | H (14) | 1 | 1986 | ||
1,4 |
|
NL | M (11) | 2 | 1943 | ||
|
|||||||
4 |
|
NL |
|
1 | 1985 |
|
|
4 |
|
NL | M (11) | 1 | 1960 | KU |
|
|
|||||||
1,2,3 |
|
NL | M (11) | 1 | 1938 | ||
1,2,3,4,6 |
|
A | L (7) | 4 | 1892 | ||
1,2,3,4,6 |
|
A | L (8) | 2 | 1904 | ||
1,2,3,6 |
|
A | H (15) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
1,2,3,4 |
|
NL | H (15) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
1,2,3,5 |
|
A | H (14) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
1,2,3,5,6 |
|
A | H (15) | 1 | 1939 | ||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
1997 | ||
|
|||||||
1,2,3,4,6 |
|
Pr | H (16) | 1 | 1982 | ||
5 |
|
Pr | L (9) | 2 | 2004 |
|
|
4 |
|
NL | H (15) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
1,2,3,6 |
|
Pr | L (8) | 2 | 1888 |
|
|
1,2,3,4 |
|
Pr | H (16) | 1 | 1888 |
|
|
1,2,3,4,6 |
|
A | H (14) | 1 | 1938 | ||
5 |
|
Pr | M (11) | 2 | 1967 | ||
1,2,3,4 |
|
NL | H (16) | 1 | 2014 |
|
|
2,3 |
|
P | H (17) | 1 | 1973 | KU |
|
1,2,3,4,6 |
|
NL | H (16) | 1 | 1940 | ||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
4 |
|
NL | M (13) | 3 | 1939 | ||
|
|||||||
4 |
|
Pr | H (14) | 1 | 1983 |
|
|
|
|||||||
1,4,5,6 |
|
Pr | M (10) | 2 | 1888 |
|
|
4 |
|
Pr | M (11) | 1 | 1888 |
|
In the State of Mexico, the percentage of herpetofaunal species found in the Oak (51.7%), Pine-oak (55.8%), Pine (44.9%), and Tropical Deciduous Forest (51.7%) vegetation types are relatively equal (Table
List of amphibian and reptile species that potentially occur in the State of Mexico.
Region in the State of Mexico where it likely occurs | |
---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
southern | |
|
|
southern | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
extreme southwestern | |
|
|
|
|
eastern and southern | |
|
|
extreme southwestern | |
|
|
extreme southwestern | |
northern | |
extreme southwestern | |
extreme southwestern | |
|
|
extreme southwestern | |
extreme southwestern | |
|
|
extreme southwestern | |
|
|
|
|
extreme southwestern | |
northern | |
extreme southwestern | |
western and southwestern | |
|
|
extreme southwestern | |
extreme southwestern | |
|
|
extreme southwestern | |
|
|
extreme southwestern | |
|
|
|
|
western and southwestern |
Of the amphibian and reptile species in the State of Mexico, 20.1% are IUCN listed (i.e., Vulnerable, Near Threatened, or Endangered), 18.4% are placed in a protected category by SEMARNAT (excluding NL and Pr, this last category is equivalent to the
Proportion of
Summary of native species present in the State of Mexico by family, order or suborder, and class. Status summary indicates the number of species found in each IUCN conservation status in the order
Scientific name | Genera | Species | IUCN | x̅ |
SEMARNAT |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NL, Pr, A, P | |||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 | 5 | 0,4,0,0,1,0 | 10.4 | 5,0,0,0 |
|
1 | 4 | 0,2,1,0,1,0 | 11.25 | 4,0,0,0 |
|
1 | 4 | 1,2,1,0,0,0 | 14.3 | 2,2,0,0 |
|
5 | 9 | 0,8,0,0,1,0 | 9.3 | 6,2,1,0 |
|
1 | 1 | 0,1,0,0,0,0 | 6 | 0,1,0,0 |
|
1 | 1 | 0,1,0,0,0,0 | 4 | 0,1,0,0 |
|
1 | 1 | 0,1,0,0,0,0 | 13 | 0,1,0,0 |
|
1 | 6 | 0,4,0,1,0,1 | 11.2 | 2,2,1,1 |
|
1 | 1 | 0,1,0,0,0,0 | 3 | 1,0,0,0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 | 8 | 1,1,0,0,2,4 | 13.5 | 0,5,3,0 |
|
4 | 8 | 0,1,2,1,3,1 | 16.1 | 2,2,4,0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 | 5 | 0,2,0,0,3,0 | 13.2 | 1,2,1,1 |
|
1 | 1 | 0,1,0,0,0,0 | 13 | 1,0,0,0 |
|
1 | 1 | 0,1,0,0,0,0 | 11 | 0,0,1,0 |
|
1 | 1 | 0,0,0,0,0,0 | 15 | 0,0,1,0 |
|
3 | 19 | 0,18,1,0,0,0 | 12.4 | 16,2,1,0 |
|
1 | 1 | 0,1,0,0,0,0 | 15 | 1,0,0,0 |
|
2 | 6 | 0,4,1,0,0,0 | 12 | 3,3,0,0 |
|
1 | 5 | 0,5,0,0,0,0 | 11.2 | 3,2,0,0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 | 1 | 0,0,0,0,0,0 | 15 | 1,0,0,0 |
|
13 | 21 | 0,20,0,0,0,0 | 10 | 12,4,5,0 |
|
7 | 12 | 2,10,0,0,0,0 | 9.8 | 7,5,0,0 |
|
1 | 3 | 0,3,0,0,0,0 | 11 | 1,2,0,0 |
|
2 | 2 | 0,1,0,0,0,0 | 11 | 2,0,0,0 |
|
2 | 7 | 0,5,1,0,1,0 | 11.5 | 2,0,5,0 |
|
1 | 10 | 0,8,0,0,0,0 | 13.8 | 3,5,1,1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 | 1 | 0,0,0,0,0,0 | 13 | 1,0,0,0 |
|
1 | 1 | 0,0,0,1,0,0 | 14 | 0,1,0,0 |
|
1 | 2 | 0,2,0,0,0,0 | 10.5 | 0,2,0,0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We summarized the conservation status of amphibian and reptile taxa in each vegetation type found in the State of Mexico to determine the vegetation types that support species of particular conservation concern (Table
Overall, the State of Mexico shares the most species (76.9%) with Michoacán (Table
Summary of the numbers of species shared between the State of Mexico and neighboring Mexican states (not including introduced species). The percent of the State of Mexico species shared by a neighboring state are given in parentheses. – indicates either the State of Mexico or the neighboring state has no species in the taxonomic group, or none of that specific taxon is shared between the states, thus no value for shared species is provided.
Taxon | State of Mexico | Michoacán | Morelos | Puebla | Guerrero | Hidalgo | Querétaro | Mexico City |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | 4 (80.0) | 3 (60.0) | 3 (60.0) | 1 (20.0) |
|
4 | 3 (75.0) | 4 (100) | 3 (75.0) | 4 (100) | 1 (25.0) | 1 (25.0) | 1 (25.0) |
|
4 | 3 (75.0) | 3 (75.0) | 1 (25.0) | 2 (50.0) | 1 (25.0) | 1 (25.0) | – |
|
9 | 8 (88.9) | 7 (77.8) | 7 (77.8) | 7 (77.8) | 5 (55.6) | 3 (33.3) | 3 (33.3) |
|
1 | 1 (100) | 0 | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | – | – |
|
1 | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | – |
|
1 | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | – | – | – |
|
6 | 5 (83.3) | 4 (66.7) | 3 (50.0) | 2 (33.3) | 3 (50.0) | 3 (50.0) | 2 (33.3) |
|
1 | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 | 4 (50.0) | 1 (12.5) | 1 (12.5) | 1 (12.5) | 1 (12.5) | 1 (12.5) | 2 (25.0) |
|
8 | 3 (37.5) | 6 (75.0) | 3 (37.5) | 2 (25.0) | 3 (37.5) | 2 (25.0) | 6 (75.0) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 | 3 (60.0) | 4 (80.0) | 2 (40.0) | 3 (60.0) | 1 (20.0) | 1 (20.0) | 1 (20.0) |
|
1 | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | – | 1 (100) | – | – | – |
|
1 | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | – | – | – |
|
1 | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | – | – | – |
|
19 | 12 (63.2) | 14 (73.7) | 15 (78.9) | 12 (63.2) | 9 (47.4) | 7 (36.8) | 10 (52.6) |
|
1 | 1 (100) | – | – | 1 (100) | – | – | – |
|
6 | 4 (66.7) | 4 (66.7) | 4 (66.7) | 3 (50.0) | 1 (16.7) | 1 (16.7) | 2 (33.3) |
|
5 | 5 (100) | 4 (80.0) | 3 (60.0) | 4 (80.0) | 1 (20.0) | 1 (20.0) | 1 (20.0) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | 1 (100) | – | – | – |
|
21 | 19 (90.5) | 19 (90.5) | 20 (95.2) | 18 (85.7) | 13 (61.9) | 14 (66.7) | 9 (42.9) |
|
12 | 11 (91.7) | 8 (66.7) | 7 (58.3) | 8 (66.6) | 5 (41.7) | 4 (33.3) | 4 (33.3) |
|
3 | 2 (66.7) | 2 (66.7) | 2 (66.7) | 2 (66.6) | 1 (33.3) | 1 (33.3) | 1 (33.3) |
|
2 | 2 (100) | 1 (50.0) | 1 (50.0) | 2 (100) | 1 (50.0) | 1 (50.0) | – |
|
7 | 7 (100) | 4 (57.1) | 6 (85.7) | 3 (42.9) | 6 (85.7) | 6 (85.7) | 7 (100) |
|
10 | 5 (50.0) | 7 (70.0) | 6 (60.0) | 3 (30.0) | 6 (60.0) | 7 (70.0) | 6 (60.0) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 | – | – | 1 (100) | – | 1 (100) | – | – |
|
1 | 1 (100) | – | – | 1 (100) | – | – | – |
|
2 | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 1 (50.0) | 1 (50.0) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We thank Jesús Sigala and John Murphy for very helpful comments that greatly improved the manuscript. Support for this study was provided by Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica (DGAPA-PAPIIT) through the Project IN215418. We are grateful to Alejandra Núñez Merchand from the National Commission for the Understanding and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO) for kindly creating and providing the municipality, topographic, physiographic, climate, and vegetation maps used in this publication and for generating the state border lengths of the State of Mexico’s neighboring states, and to Isabel Cruz, also from CONABIO, for providing the satellite images of the State of Mexico. We are grateful to Alan Resetar and Joshua Mata from the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois; Emily M. Braker from the University of Colorado Museum, University of Colorado at Boulder; Jimmy McGuire, Carol Spencer, and David Wake from the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at Berkeley, University of California at Berkeley; and D. Dickey and D.A. Kizirian from the American Museum of Natural History, New York. Eric Centenero-Alcalá kindly allowed us to use his photographs in Figure
Museum collections included in the
KU