With contributions by Bernadette N. Graham, Adam P. Potter, and Mariana M. Upmeyer
Reference for:
Lama glama
Author(s)/Editor(s):
Wilson, Don E., and DeeAnn M. Reeder, eds.
Publication Date (Listed/Actual):
1992-01-01 / 1993-01-01
Article/Chapter Title:
Journal/Book Name, Vol. No.:
Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 2nd ed., 3rd printing
Page(s):
xviii + 1207
Publisher:
Smithsonian Institution Press
Publication Place:
Washington, DC, USA
ISBN/ISSN:
1-56098-217-9/
Notes:
Corrections were made to text at 3rd printing
Reference for:
Lama glama
Author(s)/Editor(s):
Wilson, Don E., and DeeAnn M. Reeder, eds.
Publication Date (Listed/Actual):
2005-10-01 / 2005-10-01
Article/Chapter Title:
Journal/Book Name, Vol. No.:
Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd ed., vols. 1 & 2
Page(s):
2142
Publisher:
Johns Hopkins University Press
Publication Place:
Baltimore, Maryland, USA
ISBN/ISSN:
0-8018-8221-4/
Notes:
Reference for:
Lama glama
Lama glama: Geographic Information
Geographic Division:
South America
Jurisdiction/Origin:
Lama glama: Comments
Comment:
Status: CITES - Appendix II as Lama guanicoe; IUCN - Endangered as L. guanicoe huanacus, Vulnerable as L. g. voglii and L. g. cacsilensis, otherwise Lower Risk (lc)
Comment:
Comments: Haltenorth (1963) recognized four subspecies (cacsilensis, guanicoe, huanacus, voglii) but Wheeler (1995) regarded them as poorly defined and did not diagnose them; subspecies are those recognised by Cabrera (1961). The Guanaco has previously been included with the Llama, L. glama, of which it is understood to be the wild ancestor (Hemmer, 1990; Kadwell et al., 2001; Lydekker, 1915). Gentry et al. (1996) proposed that majority usage be confirmed by adoption of Lama guanicoe as the name for ...
Comment:
ITIS defers to Wilson & Reeder (eds., 2005) on the correct name for a species when the choice is between an older name based on a domestic form and a younger name based on a wild form. ICZN Opinion 2027 (3/2003) sought to resolve this, but by itself the Ruling contained in that Opinion effectively says that it cannot be based on priority. More explicit guidance is found in the "History of Case 3010" section of the Opinion, but ITIS has been advised that only the Ruling section is binding. Thus, there is apparently no basis upon which to select the correct (valid) name