My comment on distribution was INCORRECT! Apologies.
@longirostris, sorry for the effort put into correcting me. Working from memory I was only thinking of the lower portions of the Victoria River. I should have checked how far it actually stretches inland. So Tropicbreeze’s use of the term “region” covers a lot of territory.
Aside from that, there was a typo - the comment should have read “outside the...” and not “well out the…” My use of “known distribution” was to indicate that distributions can change as we discover more.
I do understand the common shortcomings of distribution maps. The distribution data I primarily referred to is in the article: “Diversity in Australia’s tropical savannas: An integrative taxonomic revision of agamid lizards from the genera Amphibolurus and Lophognathus (Lacertilia: Agamidae)”.
Tropicbreeze seemed very adamant that the two animals are one in the same. So I looked for reasons as to why they appear different.
· In the photo1 one can see folds of loose skin and flesh either side of its abdomen. As the lizard is lying along a furrow in the net, the remainder of the abdomen would occupy the furrow. In photo2 the water would be supporting the loose skin and flesh, spreading it out to give the impression of a much more robust animal.
· I am wondering if it is possibly a female that was interrupted during egg laying. That might also help explain why it did not run off, as one would normally have expected.
· In the photo1 the hind legs are held horizontal and in the same plane as the body. In photo2 the hind legs are angled upwards, with the feet underwater on the bottom of the pond while the knees are in the air and exposed to sunlight.