Introduced Chameleons in Sub‑Saharan Africa: Scope, Findings, and Critical Gaps

A recent scholarly article has addressed this subject:

Herping the African Continent: Alien Amphibians and Reptiles in Sub‑Saharan Africa

Grzegorz Kopij, Biology 2026, 15:639. DOI: 10.3390/biology15080639.

Scope of the Article

The study surveys alien amphibians and reptiles across Sub‑Saharan Africa, tracing introductions from the 17th century to the present. It documents:

• 21 amphibian species introduced, of which 10 established populations.

• 57 reptile species introduced, of which 33 established populations.

• Most introductions originated from Madagascar, Afrotropical regions, and the Orient.

• Pathways include the pet trade, accidental transport (stowaways in cargo, fruit shipments, tourist luggage), and occasional deliberate releases.

• Ecological impacts are poorly studied, but risks are considered higher on islands than on the mainland.

Chameleons Reported in the Article

• Panther Chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) – La Réunion, before 1830; populations persist.

• Cape Dwarf Chameleon (Bradypodion pumilum) – Namibia, 1990s; temporary populations in Swakopmund, Walvis Bay, Lüderitz, and Windhoek — all now extinct.

• Parson's Chameleon (Calumma parsonii parsonii) – Mauritius, 1960s; no viable population.

• Flap‑necked Chameleon (Chamaeleo dilepis) – Free State, South Africa, before 1978; no lasting population.

• Various Bradypodion species – Free State, South Africa, 1939; none persisted.
   

Critical Commentary

While the article is academically rigorous and acceptable in scope, its limitation lies in relying exclusively on scholarly sources. This narrow approach ignores a wealth of gathered knowledge from reputable amateur and community platforms, as well as authoritative reference works. Wolfgang Böhme pioneered integration between amateur hobbyists, reptile breeders, and professional herpetologists, demonstrating that collaboration enriches science. Today, however, increasing isolation between rigorous science and amateur contributions is observed. This elitist scholarly approach is dangerous: it can lead to totally false conclusions, which in turn may misguide organizations or even governments in making conservation decisions — precisely the purpose for which such studies are intended.

Even widely recognized and authoritative sources are ignored, including:

Nečas, P. (1999). Chameleons: Nature's Hidden Jewels. Krieger Publishing Company.

Spawls, S., Howell, K., Drewes, R., Ashe, J. (2002). A Field Guide to the Reptiles of East Africa. Academic Press.

Tolley, K.A., Herrel, A. (2013). The Biology of Chameleons. University of California Press.

Tilbury, C. (2018). Chameleons of Africa: An Atlas. Edition Chimaira.

In addition, reputable online sources such as the Reptile Database, iNaturalist, and the IUCN Red List assessments (as compiled in the IUCN Red Data Book) are ignored. This exclusion significantly lowers the value of the study and raises questions about its methodological approach.

Additional Introductions Documented by Field Sources

Platforms such as the East African Snakes and Other Reptiles Facebook group and www.chameleons.info provide evidence of further introductions not covered in the article:

• Furcifer oustaleti – 1970s, Ngong Forest near Nairobi, Kenya (now extinct).

• Bradypodion ventrale – Western Cape, Bloemfontein, Welkom, Johannesburg, Standerton, Secunda (South Africa).

• Furcifer pardalis – Anjouan and Mauritius.

• Furcifer polleni – Anjouan.

• Kinyongia multituberculata and Kinyongia tavetana – Nairobi, Kenya.

• Trioceros hoehnelii – Mabira Forest, Uganda.

Conclusion

The article provides a valuable overview of alien herpetofauna in Sub‑Saharan Africa, but by ignoring community‑based records, authoritative atlases, databases, and IUCN assessments, it risks presenting an incomplete and potentially misleading picture. For conservation — the very purpose of such work — integration of all reliable sources is essential. Only by bridging scholarly rigor with verified amateur and community data can science avoid false conclusions and ensure sound decisions for biodiversity management.