also known): the Eublepharidae, the Sphaerodactylidae, and the Gekkonidae. He designated Gekkoninae and Diplodactylinae as subfamilies within Gekkonidae. Underwood's Diplodactylinae comprised 22 genera from Australian regions and South Africa, including many of the diplodactylid and carphodactylid species known at the time. Kluge disputed Underwood's classification, instead recognizing a single family, Gekkonidae (later equivalent to Gekkota) with four subfamilies that included the Eublepharinae, Sphaerodactylinae, Gekkoninae and Diplodactylinae. He subdivided Diplodactylinae into two tribes, Diplodactylini with four genera, and Carphodactylini with nine. As Kluge believed pupil shape alone to be too variable a diagnostic character, his classification was based on 18 morphological characters, as well as geologic and geographical origins. This necessitated the reallocation of several Diplodactylinae genera (e.g., those from South Africa, those with “non-parchment-like” shelled eggs) to the Gekkoninae. In subsequent years, Kluge's classifications of genera, which built off Underwood's original groupings, were generally accepted. However, Kluge's subfamilial allocations—including his subdivision of Diplodactylinae—and his apparent assumptions around their respective monophyly proved problematic for some (e.g., Moffatt 1973, Hecht 1976), who suggested alternative or expanded hypotheses. Kluge's 1987 publication continued to build on his earlier work by examining the relationship of the limbless Pygopodidae to the Gekkonidae. He used a simple phylogenetic analysis of synapomorphies to place the pygopods within Gekkonidae as sisters to the Diplodactylinae, and delineated this clade as Pygopodoidea. This grouping also made more sense biogeographically, as Kluge modified his earlier assumptions of gekkotan origins from fixed continents, landbridges, and oceanic dispersal, to lie more in line with the emerging plate-tectonics Gondwanan hypothesis. While these revisions helped advance systematics closer to the contemporary understanding of Diplodactylidae, inconsistencies around how Carphodactylini were then defined and how they fit within the Australia-New Zealand vicariance left questions that required more sophisticated genetic analyses to answer. Many early assumptions of diplodactylid systematics have either been supported or invalidated with the improvement of phylogenetic analyses and more comprehensive sampling. Nuclear loci in particular have been helpful for resolving intergeneric relationships and origin questions. C-mos loci and 12S rRNA gene sequences to construct a molecular phylogeny helped to confirm the pygopods’ placement as a monophyletic sister lineage to the Diplodactylinae. These results also corroborated that both the Diplodactylinae and its Diplodactylini subdivision were monophyletic, although monophyly of the Carphodactylini was not supported. In the first gecko-wide genetic analysis by Han et al. (2004), c-mos loci again helped clarify placement within the Pygopodoidea. Results showed