{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01842664776754075, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.567441860465117, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
HISTORICAL PATTERNS IN LIZARD ECOLOGY: WHAT TEIIDS CAN TELL US ABOUT LACERTIDS

Lacertid, teiid, and gymnophthalmid lizards share much of their evolutionary history. We explore ecological traits of these lizards in an attempt to identify similarities that may have a historical origin as well as differences that may reflect the effects of differing ecological settings on the portion of their histories that is independent. Within Teioidea, major divergence in body size occurred producing Gymnophthalmidae (small size) and Teiidae (larger size). Small body size in gymnophthalmids affected their ecology differently than larger body size did in teiids, particularly in respect to thermal ecology. Teiids maintain higher body temperatures and are more successful in open, hot habitats than are gymnophthhalmids. Body size varies from small to relatively large in lacertids. A striking difference between lacertids and their sister clade, Teioidea, is the inclusion of many ants in the diets of some species. Differences in data collection make direct comparisons between lacertids, gymnophthalmids, and teiids difficult. We demonstrate, with data on three lizard species, how interpretations based on numerical versus volumetric dietary data varies depending on how specialized a particular lizard species is. We recommend standardization of data collection such that future comparisons can be more meaningful.