identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03A97A72FFA4FFF2F6D2FF37FBEEFE23.text	03A97A72FFA4FFF2F6D2FF37FBEEFE23.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Caudata	<div><p>Caudata or Urodela</p><p>Different opinions exist on whether Caudata (e.g. Frost et al. 2006) or Urodela (e.g. Dubois 2004) should be used to refer to the the order of salamanders and newts.</p><p>A recent paper on the Salamandridae family taxonomy (Dubois and Raffaëlli 2009) proposed a number of systematic changes, many of which above and below the species level. Concerning species of European newts and salamanders, the proposed changes include treating six taxa as new species: Lissotriton graecus, L. meridionalis, L. maltzani, Salamandra aurorae, S. almanzoris and S. longirostris .</p><p>Dubois and Raffaëlli (2009) elevated L. v. graecus and L. v. meridionalis to species level, based on the results of Babik et al. (2005). They interpret these results as suggesting that if L. montandoni (Carpathian Newt) is recognised as a distinct species, Lissotriton vulgaris (Smooth Newt) as traditionally understood is paraphyletic. In fact, this seems to be a misinterpretation of Babik et al. ’s (2005) results - the latter authors convincingly argue that the paraphyly of the mitochondrial haplotypes of vulgaris is caused by repeated introgression of vulgaris mitochondrial lineages into montandoni, resulting in the replacement of the original montandoni mtDNA by vulgaris mtDNA. Conclusively, L. vulgaris mtDNA is paraphyletic in relation to L. montandoni mtDNA, but this is probably not true for the species themselves.</p><p>Indeed, even while both graecus and meridionalis (in addition to several other Anatolian and Caucasian subspecies) are distinct in molecular (mtDNA: Babik et al. 2005, nuclear DNA: Kalezić 1983; Kalezić and Tucić 1984) and morphological (Schmidtler and Franzen 2004) features (however, mainly based on male secondary sexual characters - Raxworthy 1990, but see Pellarini and Lapini 2000), Babik et al. (2005) revealed high levels of mtDNA introgression in contact zones between several subspecies/lineages, including both graecus and meridionalis, and a general lack of concordance between subspecies limits, defined on the basis of mtDNA and morphological data. Although L. v. meridionalis is represented by a single clade in peninsular Italy (albeit represented by only two samples), Istrian and Slovenian populations which have been attributed to this taxon based on morphology and allozymes (Schmidtler and Franzen 2004), seem to belong to L. v. vulgaris according to mtDNA data (Babik et al. 2005). Concerning L. v. graecus, the current northern parts of its distributional range seems to be introgressed by populations related to L. v. vulgaris, while Corfu represents a relictual lineage and sampling is lacking from central parts of southern Greece. Thus, despite a high level of mtDNA divergence and evidence of ancient diversification events between some subspecies in L. vulgaris (Babik et al. 2005), the available data do not allow drawing definite conclusions on these taxa. We therefore refrain from accepting graecus and meridionalis as full species until additional data on contact zones and wider geographical sampling of these taxa are presented.</p><p>The Algarve clade of Bosca’s Newt ( Lissotriton boscai) found by Martínez-Solano et al. (2006) might deserve species rank, the name maltzani apparently being available for it (Montori et al. 2005), as already mentioned by Speybroeck and Crochet (2007). However, more sampling in (possible) transition zones and the study of nuclear genes and morphology seems required, prior to any new arrangement. The distinct clade found by Herrero (1991) also deserves further attention. Quoting Martínez-Solano et al. (2006): “(…) new data from independent sources are needed to clarify the taxonomic status of these two divergent lineages, and morphological and molecular studies including data on variation in nuclear markers will be particularly helpful in this respect. Variation in populations within L. boscai has been already studied from morphological and genetic perspectives, but previous studies have failed to include representatives of all the clades identified in our study (…).”. As no additional evidence seems to have been presented in the mean time, we agree with this. As such, we consider Dubois and Raffaëlli’s (2009) proposal to accept Lissotriton maltzani to be premature.</p><p>Elevating Salamandra atra aurorae to species rank, as the same authors do, seems quite clearly unwarranted, as —with little or no doubt— their acceptance renders the Alpine Salamander ( S. atra) paraphyletic. Indeed, papers stating aurorae to be a sister group to all other atra populations (Steinfartz et al. 2000; Bonato and Steinfartz, 2005) have been contradicted by those including samples from northern Dinaric populations from Slovenia and Croatia (Ribéron et al. 2001, 2004). Dubois and Raffaëlli (2009) also accepted the subspecies S. a. prenjensis, restricting it to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Albania, “because it is isolated from the other populations in the non-Dinaric Alps and shows morphological differences from them, being smaller and slightly different in coloration”. Klewen (1988) and Guex and Grossenbacher (2003), however, consider these differences to fall within the intraspecific variation of S. atra and do not accept prenjensis as a separate taxon.</p><p>Dubois and Raffaëlli (2009) also consider Salamandra salamandra almanzoris to deserve species rank, rather than its conventional treatment as a subspecies of the Fire Salamander ( S. salamandra). However, García-París et al. (2003) and Iraola and García-París (2004) suggest that almanzoris belongs to a main clade with S. s. morenica and S. s. crespoi, making it impossible to treat the former as a species without consequences for the status of the other taxa. Martínez-Solano et al. (2005) showed that almanzoris is more widespread than traditionally considered, being distributed over most of the mountains of the Spanish Sistema Central. They found that the genetic divergence in allozymes between almanzoris and bejarae is typical for intraspecific levels in amphibians and that allozymes, morphology and mtDNA provide contrasting results on the delimitation of those taxa, evidencing introgression in contact zones. Thus, we do not follow the proposal to elevate this taxon to species rank, which is clearly not the most divergent among the Iberian Salamandra lineages.</p><p>The more difficult case of Salamandra ( salamandra) longirostris seems primarily to depend on where to draw the line based on mtDNA sequence divergence between allopatric taxa. Steinfartz et al. (2000) note 6,3% mtDNA divergence (control region sequences) between this taxon, S. s. morenica and S. s. crespoi versus all other subspecies of S. salamandra, but group longirostris together with morenica and crespoi. Corresponding divergence times were tentatively estimated at approximately 2–4 mya. Using a different mitochondrial gene (cytochrome b), García-París et al. (1998) found a basal position of longirostris in relation to all other Iberian lineages (including morenica and crespoi) and a 5.1%–5.7% sequence divergence between longirostris and the main clade. According to these authors, S. (s.) longirostris became isolated from other Salamandra taxa either by the Betic Strait in the Miocene, or during the Pliocene formation of the Guadalquivir river valley. Under this second (favoured) hypothesis, longirostris would have split 2.5–5.3 mya. In yet another study, Escoriza et al. (2006) place longirostris close to S. inframaculata orientalis, but admit that this sister taxon relationship may very well be an artefact. Additionally, we note that Dubois and Raffaëlli (2009) claim a close relationship between longirostris and S. algira, whereas this is in clear contrast to the findings of other authors (e.g. Steinfartz et al. 2000; Donaire Barroso and Bogaerts 2003). Donaire Barroso et al. (2009) provided some additional data on the distinctiveness of the longirostris colour pattern. Although longirostris may well deserve full species rank, conflicting phylogenetic trees prompt us to maintain it as a subspecies until conclusive evidence is provided.</p><p>Following Schmidtler (2004), Speybroeck and Crochet (2007) and the online database “Amphibian Species of the World 5.3” have accepted that Triturus Rafinesque 1815 is a nomen nudum and thus nomenclaturally unavailable. However, this was clearly a mistake: as demonstrated by Dubois and Raffaëlli (2009), Triturus Rafinesque 1815 was a neonym (nomen novum) for Triton Laurenti 1768 and thus an available nomen. This means that authorship for this taxon remains 1815 and not 1820.</p><p>We note that the rejection of the works of de la Cepède (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2005) lead to attribution of some names to Bonnaterre, 1789. This was already adopted by Speybroeck and Crochet (2007) for e.g. the Southern Spectacled Salamander ( Salamandrina terdigitata). As pointed out by Dubois and Raffaëlli (2009), this also holds true for Salamandra salamandra terrestris . Referral to the latter taxon by means of junior synonyms like europaea Bedriaga, 1883 seems therefore unwarranted.</p><p>Finally, we are reluctant to accept Dubois and Raffaëlli’s (2009) new subspecific arrangement of the Alpine Newt ( Ichthyosaura alpestris), because we believe that mtDNA data alone are not sufficient for revising intraspecific systematics, and any proposal for changes seems currently premature. The same applies to Sotiropoulos et al. (2007): we are not (yet) convinced that the subspecies inexpectata should be abandoned. As a side comment, both Sotiropoulos et al. (2007 - mtDNA) and Canestrelli et al. (2006a - allozymes and mtDNA) uncovered a level of genetic divergence between peninsular Italian and continental European Ichthyosaura which is more typical of interspecific divergence than intraspecific variation in Caudata . Lack of clear concordance between mtDNA clades and morphology, and absence of supporting evidence for the most basal lineages in Sotiropoulos et al. (2007) prevent us from adopting any systematic changes here, but we anticipate future splits when additional data will become available.</p><p>Two species in the genus Salamandrina -the Southern Spectacled Salamander S. terdigitata and the Northern Spectacled Salamander S. perspicillata - have been recognised in recent years, based on both mtDNA and nuclear markers (Mattoccia et al. 2005; Canestrelli et al. 2006b), apparently separated by the Volturno river. However, only a restricted number of samples was used and morphological data was lacking. Romano et al. (2009) presented evidence of morphological divergence between the species, based on body size and dorsal colouration differences. New localities and additional samples revealed a contact zone south of the Volturno River in northern Campania, where both species occur syntopically in several locations, but they remain distinct in terms of (at least) mtDNA.</p><p>Arntzen et al. (2007) found a high level of allozyme differentiation between Triturus carnifex carnifex (Italian Crested Newt) and T. c. macedonicus (Macedonian Crested Newt) (Nei’s genetic distance = 0.19, similar to the divergence between T. marmoratus and T. pygmaeus) suggesting a long (&gt; 5 million years) separate evolution. As a consequence, they elevated the latter to species rank as Triturus macedonicus . Even more recently, Espregueira Themudo et al. (2009) elevated the European Southern Crested Newt to species rank as Triturus arntzeni (Arntzen’s Crested Newt). Forthcoming papers will have to delimit the geographical range of arntzeni and karelinii, as different sources of information give contrasting results (Olgun et al. in prep.; Wielstra et al. in prep.). As a consequence, it is unclear at present whether karelinii s.s. occurs in the area considered in our paper.</p><p>Carretero et al. (2009) issued an updated ‘lista patrón’ of the Spanish herpetofauna, as first released by Montori et al. (2005). In conflict with the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, they reject Ichthyosaura (containing the species alpestris) on grounds of confusion with the prehistorical taxon Ichthyosaurus . As stated in the introduction, we firmly believe that the Code should be followed consistently, thus we advocate the use of this name over e.g. Mesotriton .</p><p>Frost (2009) attributes the name Ichthyosaura to Latreille in Sonnini de Manoncourt and Latreille, 1801. Dubois (2008) advocated attribution of nomina to the author name(s) as cited in the original publication. In this case, the book is authored by C.S. Sonnini and P.A. Latreille. As pointed out by Dubois and Raffaëlli (2009), the relevant part of this 4-volume work contains no specification on whether it was written by either author or both. In this part, singular (‘je’ = I) and plural (‘nous’ = we) are mixed up, while the part dealing with Proteus tritonius is written in plural. As Ichthyosaura was based on the latter taxon, we attribute this name to Sonnini and Latreille, 1801, as does Schmidtler (2009). The latter also pointed out that the name is of female gender, therefore requiring accordingly inflected subspecies names (e.g. apuana, inexpectata, serdara, …), regardless of their validity.</p><p>As discussed in Speybroeck and Crochet (2007) and in contrast to a number of recent papers (e.g. Carranza et al. 2008a; van der Meijden et al. 2009), we extend the use of the genus name Speleomantes for the European cave salamanders. Nascetti et al. (1996) found a huge genetic distance between the Californian Hydromantes shastae and the Sardinian Speleomantes genei (Gené’s Cave Salamander; D Nei 3.38) and S. imperialis (Scented Cave Salamander; D Nei 3.92), and all available studies resolve the European species as a monophyletic clade. Wake et al. (2005) proposed the genus name Atylodes for Speleomantes genei, which can be used at genus or subgenus level (Crochet 2007). Vieites et al. (2007) proposed to use Atylodes, Speleomantes and Hydromantes at the genus level. However, van der Meijden et al. (2009) could not find a strongly supported (basal) position for genei . Consequently, using Atylodes as a valid taxon may render Speleomantes paraphyletic. We thus refrain from using this name at any level.</p><p>Carranza et al. (2008) elevated the Sette Fratelli Cave Salamander from southeastern Sardinia to species rank as Speleomantes sarrabusensis . The still unnamed “subspecies B” of Speleomantes genei was shown to be more widespread (van der Meijden et al. 2009) than previously assumed (Lanza et al. 2005). Van der Meijden et al. (2009) confirmed that the genetic distance between the A and B genei taxa is of a magnitude that could warrant treatment of both taxa as separate species. Furthermore, their easternmost sample of Speleomantes imperialis (Lago Omodeo area) appeared quite distinct from their other imperialis samples.</p><p>Taxonomic consequences, however, remain premature, pending more range-wide sampling, including samples of the central parts of the species’ range. On the other hand, the results of van der Meijden et al. (2009) confirmed that the current systematics of the italicus - ambrosii group (Italian and Ambrosi’s Cave Salamander) is probably inadequate: in their phylogenetic tree, specimens of S. ambrosii ambrosii are more closely related to specimens of S. italicus than to specimens of S. ambrosii bianchii . Based on extensive introgression in contact zones (Lanza et al. 2005), it might be better to treat ambrosii as a subspecies of italicus . However, we refrain from proposing any formal change for the time being.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A97A72FFA4FFF2F6D2FF37FBEEFE23	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Speybroeck, Jeroen;Beukema, Wouter;Crochet, Pierre-André	Speybroeck, Jeroen, Beukema, Wouter, Crochet, Pierre-André (2010): A tentative species list of the European herpetofauna (Amphibia and Reptilia) — an update. Zootaxa 2492: 1-27, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.195659
03A97A72FFA3FFF0F6D2FE47FCFFF866.text	03A97A72FFA3FFF0F6D2FE47FCFFF866.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anura	<div><p>Anura</p><p>Hofman et al. (2007) and Zheng et al. (2009) investigated the phylogeography of fire-bellied toad species ( Bombina). Their mtDNA data showed Bombina pachypus (Italian Yellow-bellied Toad) to be nested within B. variegata (Yellow-bellied Toad) lineages, with Carpathian populations occupying the most basal position within the phylogeny of variegata s.l. Pending more detailed studies of genetic variation and level of introgression in contact zones in this complex, we prefer to consider this Italian taxon at subspecies rank as Bombina variegata pachypus, rather than treating it as a full species.</p><p>Gonçalves et al. (2009) established high levels of genetic divergence within the Iberian Midwife Toad ( Alytes cisternasii), but considered these to be within the range of typical intraspecific variation in amphibians.</p><p>Carretero et al. (2009) disagreed with Zangari et al. ’s (2006) decision to treat the Eastern Iberian Painted Frog as a subspecies, Discoglossus galganoi jeanneae . They found additional support for the species rank of these two taxa in Velo-Antón et al. (2008) and stated that, given the lack of more detailed studies allowing assessment of gene flow between both taxa in secondary contact areas, there is no reason to treat them as conspecific. This is in conflict with our fundamental appraisal that splitting a species can only be valid if the split is substantiated by scientific evidence, rather than considering taxa as species because of lack of reason to treat them as conspecific. As long as this is not the case, we promote conspecificity to be the rule. In fact, Velo-Antón et al. ’s (2008) results are in agreement with Zangari et al. ’s (2006) work. The fact that both studies found the same low level of nuclear differentiation with independent markers certainly calls for a reassessment of the validity of the specific status of jeanneae and reinforces our reluctance to treat is as a valid species.</p><p>The comprehensive work of Frost et al. (2006) on amphibian systematics has provoked contrasting responses, including (among quite some others) a rather strong critique by Wiens (2007), which saw a subsequent rebuttal by Frost et al. (2008). Indirectly, Pauly et al. (2009) also criticised Frost et al. (2006), and also received a response (Frost et al. 2009). Overall, Speybroeck and Crochet’s (2007) treatment of the proposed changes seems to have been largely in correspondence to what other authors have concluded. An exception deserves, however, our renewed attention. While Speybroeck and Crochet (2007) proposed to attribute the European ‘true toad’ species to 2 genera ( Bufo and Epidalea), general consent in this case seems to be towards conserving Bufo as the genus for all, at least for the time being (Vences 2007; Bour et al. 2008; Lescure 2008). These authors argue that cases of natural hybridisation (e.g. a very recent record of hybridisation Bufo bufo x viridis by Duda 2008) should encourage rejection of a genus level split, as proposed by Dubois (1988) and applied to the case of Bufo for the first time by Dubois and Dinesh (2007). Concerning European species, Van Bocxlaer et al. (2009) provide some support for the generic arrangement proposed by Frost et al. (2006), which might very well make attribution of Green Toad ( Bufo viridis (s.l. - see below)) to the genus Pseudepidalea and the Natterjack ( Bufo calamita) to Epidalea a valid arrangement. Yet, with different relationships turning up from different studies (cf. also Pramuk et al. 2008) and many taxa still in need of investigation, it seems cautious not to draw any taxonomical conclusions just yet. Pending additional research, we therefore place all European species back in the single genus Bufo . Additionally, we note that according to Dubois and Bour (in press), the use of the name Pseudepidalea should be abandoned for that of the junior synonym Bufotes Rafinesque, 1815, while the name Epidalea Cope, 1864 remains available.</p><p>We have previously been reluctant to accept Stöck et al. ’s (2006) Bufo viridis (Green Toad) splits (Speybroeck and Crochet 2007). Stöck et al. (2008a) described yet another new species from Sicily, Bufo siculus (Sicilian Green Toad) . Despite Carretero et al. ’s (2009) adoption of these new species, we still believe that mtDNA lineages alone cannot be used to substantiate new species, and that the level of divergence of the taxa, which are also supported by other characters (e.g. siculus which is also supported by nuclear and morphological data, albeit without comparing the taxon morphologically with its closest African relatives), is not high enough to be in itself evidence of specific status. To a certain degree at least, this seems to be corroborated by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2009): divergence between the Green Toad splits viridis and ‘ cf. variabilis ’ appears to be smaller than between the Common Toad (sub)species bufo and spinosus. We also treat the latter two taxa as conspecific. While we do not claim that the green toads of the Western Palearctic definitely belong to a single species, we maintain that the available information cannot (yet) support any species level split.</p><p>As noted by Razzetti (2008), the correct name for the green toads of peninsular Italy, Corsica, Sardinia and northeastern Sicily is still controversial. Balletto et al. (2007), based on specimens from Venice, used Bufo lineatus Ninni, 1879 (type locality: surroundings of Venice - Frost, 2009) as the valid nomen for the clade of peninsular Italy, while Stöck et al. (2006, 2008a) considered Bufo lineatus as a junior synonym of Bufo viridis, because they found specimens from Padua and Trieste that belong to the nominotypical lineage.</p><p>Stöck et al. (2008b) studied the phylogeography of the genus Hyla (tree frogs) around the Mediterranean. They identified three deeply divergent mitochondrial lineages in populations currently classified as Hyla arborea, each of them being supported by variation in one nuclear intron. In their mitochondrial tree (but not in their nuclear tree), treating H. sarda and H. intermedia as valid species could render H. arborea paraphyletic, because the three mitochondrial lineages identified within arborea are not necessarily each other's closest relatives. Since the specific status of intermedia is well supported by reproductive isolation in contact zones (Verardi et al. 2009), and since sarda displays distinct and well-known morphological and acoustic characters (Schneider 1974; Lanza 1983; Rosso et al. 2001, 2004; Castellano et al. 2002), we maintain them as valid species. As a consequence, the mitochondrial data provide strong evidence for recognising the Iberian taxon molleri and the eastern taxon orientalis (currently only known in Europe from the Black Sea Coast of Romania and European Turkey) as valid species as well. Nevertheless, the distributional limits of these two taxa remain unknown. There is no evidence of reproductive isolation in the continuous range of tree frogs in the Balkans, no known obvious morphological characters to separate them, and no obvious acoustic difference between molleri and arborea, nor orientalis and arborea (Schneider 1974, 2002). Accepting these two new European species would thus rest entirely on mtDNA data from a very small number of specimens (seven orientalis and only two molleri). Therefore, while a species level split is likely to be required, we prefer to wait for additional data, as specified, before recognising molleri and/or orientalis as valid species.</p><p>Detailed study by Gvoždík et al. (2008) uncovered a complex pattern of geographical variation in morphology among populations of Hyla arborea and Hyla savignyi . The similarity among populations is not necessarily greater within species that between species. On the contrary, populations of different species inhabiting neighbouring regions are often more similar than populations of the same species inhabiting distant regions. Groups of populations defined by morphology do not correspond to the mitochondrial lineages defined by Stöck et al. (2008) either. In fact, Gvoždík et al. (2008) suggest that morphological variation of Hyla is more linked to climate variation than to evolutionary history.</p><p>Stöck et al. ’s (2008b) unnamed clade of Hyla cf. intermedia from Switzerland corresponds with the northern clade of Canestrelli et al. (2007a). Allozyme divergence between this northern clade and the southcentral clade of H. intermedia s.l. is typical of intraspecific level of divergence: Nei’s distance value of 0.07 according to Canestrelli et al. (2007b), to be compared with Nei’s distance of 0.55 between arborea and intermedia (Verardi et al. 2009) . Thus, in our opinion, the various clades within Hyla intermedia s.l. might well prove to constitute valid subspecies, but are unlikely to represent distinct species. In any case, we strongly advocate detailed analyses of contact zones prior to any formal proposal.</p><p>A detailed phylogeographic analysis of the Pool Frog in Italy (Canestrelli and Nascetti 2008) supported the subspecific status of Pelophylax lessonae bergeri suggested by Crochet and Dubois (2004) and followed by Speybroeck and Crochet (2007). The same study confirmed that Sicilian pool frogs should also be recognised as a distinct subspecies (see also Santucci et al. 1996).</p><p>Lymberakis et al. (2007) investigated Eastern Mediterranean water frog phylogeny by means of mitochondrial DNA. Their results reinforce the idea that Pelophylax kurtmuelleri (Greek Marsh Frog) should be treated as conspecific with central European populations of the P. ridibundus complex (Marsh Frog), as previously established with allozyme data (Beerli 1994). The precise status of these populations should be investigated in a range-wide analysis of the P. ridibundus complex. As long as mating call differences are the only support for specific treatment (Schneider et al. 1993), we suggest to no longer recognise kurtmuelleri as a valid species.</p><p>Alleged contact zones between ridibundus and kurtmuelleri in Thrace (Schneider et al. 1993) seem to be in fact contact zones with Pelophylax bedriagae (Bedriaga’s Water Frog) rather than ridibundus, as Beerli (1994) identified Thracian water frogs unambiguously as Pelophylax bedriagae . This seems to have been confirmed by Lymberakis et al. ’s (2007) results, which included a sample from Thrace (Dadia) attributed to P. bedriagae and closely related to Lesbos and Chios populations. However, their results also attributed a sample from a very nearby location, as well as other Thracian samples, to Pelophylax ridibundus . All these results suggest that bedriagae and “European ridibundus ” form a contact zone in Thrace, where these two taxa are reproductively isolated (Schneider et al. 1993). This indicates that the two subclades B5 and B6 of Lymberakis et al. (2007) are valid biological species and thus supports the widely accepted species status of P. bedriagae and P. ridibundus (sensu lato). However, Lymberakis et al. (2007) did not include samples from the type locality of ridibundus (northern Caspian Sea area), so it remains to be determined if European populations of Marsh Frogs are conspecific with sensu stricto P. ridibundus or not. If not, the names Pelophylax ranaeformis (Laurenti, 1768) and Pelophylax fortis (Boulenger, 1884) might apply to the European Marsh Frog (Dubois &amp; Ohler 1995a, b). The former name relates (at least) to the populations of the Greek island Limnos (Dubois &amp; Ohler 1995b).</p><p>Lymberakis et al. (2007) found Pelophylax cerigensis (Karpathos Water Frog) to be nested within their subclade B5, corresponding to P. bedriagae . We note that these authors also attributed Rhodes populations to P. cerigensis, whereas the original description only considered this to be a possibility (Beerli et al. 1994). Indeed, based on biochemical data, Plötner (2005) placed Rhodes and Karpathos water frogs together, different from both bedriagae and ridibundus, and attributed populations from “Karpathos and probably Rhodes” to cerigensis . However, to our knowledge, no subsequent papers have provided definite evidence ascertaining the specific status of Rhodes water frogs. The results of Lymberakis et al. (2007) invalidate a P. cerigensis limited to Karpathos and Rhodes. Apart from the authors’ suggestion that P. c e r i g e n s i s could be treated as a junior synonym for P. bedriagae, alternative arrangements seem compatible with the available evidence: to restrict the name P. bedriagae to (at least some of) the more eastern populations (Syria and some surrounding areas, also Cyprus), whereas populations from Turkey, the eastern Aegean islands, including Karpathos and Rhodes could be attributed to P. caralitanus (Arıkan 1988), for which cerigensis (Beerli, Hotz, Tunner, Heppich and Uzzell 1994) would be a junior synonym. A second alternative could include splitting of the latter group, with the Karpathos populations being attributed to P. cerigensis and treating the Turkish, eastern Aegean and Rhodes populations as a different species. Under either of these alternative hypotheses, several other species would need to be recognised for Anatolian and Middle Eastern water frog populations. Our second alternative might result in retaining the validity of P. cerigensis (for Karpathos populations only). However, for the time being, we believe material from geographically intermediate populations is required to warrant these alternative arrangements, and therefore preliminarily consider P. cerigensis to represent a part of P. bedriagae rather than a separate species. The most recent available results about the contact zones between the western and central Anatolian lineages of water frogs (Akın et al. 2010) support the view that at least part of the genetic diversity within the bedriagae complex represents intraspecific variation. We thus suggest to recognise, for the time being, a single species of Middle East water frog, whose name should be either bedriagae or ranaeformis, depending on the identity of the water frogs of Limnos. The nomen cerigensis thus currently becomes a synonym of bedriagae at the species rank.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A97A72FFA3FFF0F6D2FE47FCFFF866	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Speybroeck, Jeroen;Beukema, Wouter;Crochet, Pierre-André	Speybroeck, Jeroen, Beukema, Wouter, Crochet, Pierre-André (2010): A tentative species list of the European herpetofauna (Amphibia and Reptilia) — an update. Zootaxa 2492: 1-27, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.195659
03A97A72FFAEFFFFF6D2FF37FC13FDFB.text	03A97A72FFAEFFFFF6D2FF37FC13FDFB.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Testudines	<div><p>Testudines or Chelonii</p><p>Different opinions exist on whether Testudines (e.g. Fritz and Havas 2007; Rhodin et al. 2008) or Chelonii (e.g. Bour and Dubois 1985) should be used to refer to the the order of turtles, tortoises and terrapins.</p><p>Spinks and Shaffer (2009) performed a phylogenetic study of the genus Emys based on multiple genes, both mtDNA and nuclear. There is generally no reciprocal monophyly between Emys orbicularis (European Pond Terrapin) and E. trinacris (Sicilian Pond Terrapin) in their trees based on nuclear genes, providing additional substantiation for rejection of the latter taxon at species level (Speybroeck and Crochet 2007).</p><p>Fritz et al. (2009) investigated the mitochondrial phylogeography of the Spur-thighed Tortoise ( Testudo graeca) from the western parts of the Mediterranean, and recognised T. g. nabeulensis as a valid subspecies for the Tunisian populations, with Sardinian and Sicilian animals belonging to this taxon. In this arrangement, Majorcan and Spanish populations remain treated as T. g. graeca .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A97A72FFAEFFFFF6D2FF37FC13FDFB	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Speybroeck, Jeroen;Beukema, Wouter;Crochet, Pierre-André	Speybroeck, Jeroen, Beukema, Wouter, Crochet, Pierre-André (2010): A tentative species list of the European herpetofauna (Amphibia and Reptilia) — an update. Zootaxa 2492: 1-27, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.195659
03A97A72FFAAFFE5F6D2FDADFC84FC56.text	03A97A72FFAAFFE5F6D2FDADFC84FC56.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Anura;caudata;gymnophiona	<div><p>Class Amphibia (amphibians)</p><p>Order Caudata or Urodela (salamanders and newts)</p><p>Family Salamandridae Goldfuss, 1820 (true salamanders and newts)</p><p>Calotriton Gray, 1858</p><p>arnoldi Carranza and Amat, 2005 — Montseny Brook Newt asper (Dugès, 1852) — Pyrenean Brook Newt</p><p>Chioglossa Bocage, 1864</p><p>lusitanica Bocage, 1864 — Golden-striped Salamander</p><p>Euproctus Gené, 1839</p><p>montanus (Savi, 1838) — Corsican Brook Newt platycephalus (Gravenhorst, 1829) — Sardinian Brook Newt</p><p>Ichthyosaura Sonnini and Latreille, 1801</p><p>alpestris (Laurenti, 1768) — Alpine Newt</p><p>Lissotriton Bell, 1839</p><p>boscai (Lataste in Blanchard, 1879) — Bosca’s Newt helveticus (Razoumowsky, 1789) — Palmate Newt italicus (Peracca, 1898) — Italian Newt</p><p>montandoni (Boulenger, 1880) — Montandon’s Newt vulgaris (Linnaeus, 1758) — Smooth Newt</p><p>Lyciasalamandra Veith and Steinfartz, 2004</p><p>helverseni (Pieper, 1963) — Karpathos Salamander</p><p>Pleurodeles Michahelles, 1830</p><p>waltl Michahelles, 1830 — Sharp—ribbed Newt</p><p>Salamandra Garsault, 1764</p><p>atra (Laurenti, 1768) — Alpine Salamander</p><p>corsica (Savi, 1838) — Corsican Fire Salamander lanzai (Nascetti, Andreone, Capula and Bullini, 1988) — Lanza’s (Alpine) Salamander salamandra (Linnaeus, 1758) — Fire Salamander</p><p>Salamandrina Fitzinger, 1826</p><p>perspicillata (Savi, 1821) — Northern Spectacled Salamander terdigitata (Bonnaterre, 1789) — Southern Spectacled Salamander</p><p>Triturus Rafinesque, 1815</p><p>arntzeni Litvinchuk, Borkin, Dzukić and Kalezić, 1999 — Arntzen’s Crested Newt carnifex (Laurenti, 1768) — Italian Crested Newt cristatus (Laurenti, 1768) — (Great or Northern) Crested Newt dobrogicus (Kiritzescu, 1903) — Danube Crested Newt? karelinii (Strauch, 1870) — Southern Crested Newt — presence in Europe depends on location of</p><p>boundary with arntzeni</p><p>macedonicus (Karaman, 1922) — Macedonian Crested Newt</p><p>marmoratus (Latreille, 1800) — Marbled Newt pygmaeus (Wolterstorff, 1905) — Southern Marbled Newt</p><p>Family Plethodontidae Gray, 1850 (lungless salamanders)</p><p>Speleomantes Dubois, 1984</p><p>ambrosii (Lanza, 1955) — Ambrosi’s Cave Salamander flavus (Stefani, 1969) — Monte Albo Cave Salamander genei (Temminck and Schlegel, 1838) — Gené’s Cave Salamander imperialis (Stefani, 1969) — Scented Cave Salamander italicus (Dunn, 1923) — Italian Cave Salamander sarrabusensis Lanza, Leo, Forti, Cimmaruta, Caputo and Nascetti 2001 — Sette Fratelli Cave</p><p>Salamander</p><p>strinatii (Aellen, 1958) — Strinati’s Cave Salamander supramontis (Lanza, Nascetti and Bullini, 1986) — Sopramonte Cave Salamander</p><p>Family Proteidae Gray, 1825 (olms)</p><p>Proteus Laurenti, 1768</p><p>anguinus Laurenti, 1768 — Olm</p><p>Order Anura (frogs and toads)</p><p>Family Alytidae Fitzinger, 1843 (painted frogs and midwife toads)</p><p>Alytes Wagler, 1829</p><p>cisternasii Boscá, 1879 — Iberian Midwife Toad dickhilleni Arntzen and García-París, 1995 — Southern Midwife Toad muletensis (Sanchíz and Adrover, 1977) — Majorca Midwife Toad obstetricans (Laurenti, 1768) — Common Midwife Toad</p><p>Discoglossus Otth, 1837</p><p>galganoi Capula, Nascetti, Lanza, Bullini and Crespo, 1985 — Iberian Painted Frog montalentii Lanza, Nascetti, Capula and Bullini, 1984 — Corsican Painted Frog pictus Otth, 1837 — Painted Frog</p><p>sardus Tschudi in: Otth, 1837 — Tyrrhenian Painted Frog</p><p>Family Bombinatoridae Gray, 1825 (fire-bellied toads)</p><p>Bombina Oken, 1816</p><p>bombina (Linnaeus, 1761) — Fire-bellied Toad variegata (Linnaeus, 1758) — Yellow-bellied Toad</p><p>Family Pelobatidae Bonaparte, 1850 (spadefoot toads)</p><p>Pelobates Wagler, 1830</p><p>cultripes (Cuvier, 1829) — Western Spadefoot fuscus (Laurenti, 1768) — Common Spadefoot syriacus Boettger, 1889 — Eastern Spadefoot</p><p>Family Pelodytidae Bonaparte, 1850 (parsley frogs)</p><p>Pelodytes Bonaparte, 1838</p><p>ibericus Sánchez-Herráiz, Barbadillo, Machordom and Sanchiz, 2000 — Iberian Parsley Frog punctatus (Daudin, 1802) — Parsley Frog</p><p>Family Bufonidae Gray, 1825 (true toads)</p><p>Bufo Laurenti, 1768</p><p>bufo (Linnaeus, 1758) — Common Toad</p><p>calamita (Laurenti, 1768) — Natterjack</p><p>viridis (Laurenti, 1768) — Green Toad</p><p>Family Hylidae Rafinesque, 1815 (tree frogs)</p><p>Hyla Laurenti, 1768</p><p>arborea (Linnaeus, 1758) — Common Tree Frog intermedia Boulenger, 1882 — Italian Tree Frog</p><p>meridionalis Boettger, 1874 — Stripeless Tree Frog sarda (de Betta, 1857) — Tyrrhenian Tree Frog</p><p>Family Ranidae Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 (true frogs)</p><p>Pelophylax Fitzinger, 1843</p><p>bedriagae (Camerano, 1882) — Bedriaga’s Water Frog cretensis (Beerli, Hotz, Tunner, Heppich and Uzzell, 1994) — Cretan Water Frog epeiroticus (Schneider, Sofianidou and Kyriakopoulou-Sklavounou, 1984) — Epirus Water Frog</p><p>kl. esculentus (Linnaeus, 1758) — Edible Frog</p><p>kl. grafi (Crochet, Dubois, Ohler and Tunner, 1995) — Graf’s Hybrid Frog lessonae (Camerano, 1882) — Pool Frog</p><p>perezi (Seoane, 1885) — Iberian Water Frog</p><p>ridibundus (Pallas, 1771) — Marsh Frog</p><p>shqipericus (Hotz, Uzzell, Günther, Tunner and Heppich, 1987) — Albanian Pool Frog</p><p>Rana Linnaeus, 1758</p><p>arvalis Nilsson, 1842 — Moor Frog</p><p>dalmatina Fitzinger in Bonaparte, 1838 — Agile Frog graeca Boulenger, 1891 — Greek Stream Frog</p><p>iberica Boulenger, 1879 — Iberian Stream Frog</p><p>italica Dubois, 1987 — Italian Stream Frog</p><p>latastei Boulenger, 1879 — Italian Agile Frog</p><p>pyrenaica Serra—Cobo, 1993 — Pyrenean Stream Frog temporaria Linnaeus, 1758 — Grass Frog</p><p>Class Reptilia (reptiles)</p><p>Order Testudines or Chelonii (turtles, tortoises and terrapins) Family Cheloniidae Oppel, 1811 (sea turtles)</p><p>Caretta Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814</p><p>caretta (Linnaeus, 1758) — Loggerhead ((Sea) Turtle)</p><p>Family Dermochelyidae Fitzinger, 1843 (1825) (leatherbacks) Dermochelys de Blainville, 1816</p><p>coriacea (Vandelli, 1761) — Leatherback Family Testudinidae Batsch, 1788 (tortoises)</p><p>Testudo Linnaeus, 1758</p><p>graeca Linnaeus, 1758 — Spur-thighed Tortoise</p><p>hermanni Gmelin, 1789 — Hermann’s Tortoise</p><p>marginata Schoepff, 1792 — Marginated Tortoise Family Geoemydidae Theobald, 1868 (Old World terrapins) Mauremys Gray, 1869</p><p>leprosa (Schweigger, 1812) — Spanish Terrapin</p><p>rivulata (Valenciennes, 1833) — Balkan Terrapin Family Emydidae Rafinesque, 1815 (New World terrapins) Emys Duméril, 1805</p><p>orbicularis (Linnaeus, 1758) — European Pond Terrapin</p><p>Order Squamata</p><p>Suborder Sauria (lizards)</p><p>Family Agamidae Spix, 1825 or Fitzinger, 1826 (agamas) Laudakia Gray, 1845</p><p>stellio (Linnaeus, 1758) — Starred Agama</p><p>Family Chamaeleonidae Gray, 1825 or Rafinesque, 1815 ( Chamaeleontidae) (chameleons) Chamaeleo Laurenti, 1768</p><p>africanus Laurenti, 1768 — African Chameleon</p><p>chamaeleon (Linnaeus, 1758) — Mediterranean Chameleon Family Sphaerodactylidae Underwood, 1954 (least geckos) Euleptes Fitzinger, 1843</p><p>europaea (Gené, 1839) — European Leaf-toed Gecko Family Gekkonidae Oppel, 1811 or Gray, 1825 (true geckos) Hemidactylus Oken, 1817</p><p>turcicus (Linnaeus, 1758) — Turkish Gecko</p><p>Mediodactylus Szczerbak and Golubev, 1977</p><p>kotschyi (Steindachner, 1870) — Kotschy’s Gecko Family Phyllodactylidae Gamble, Bauer, Greenbaum and Jackman, 2008 (leaf-toed geckos) Tarentola Gray, 1825</p><p>mauritanica (Linnaeus, 1758) — Moorish Gecko Family Lacertidae Batsch, 1788 (true lizards)</p><p>Acanthodactylus Wiegmann, 1834</p><p>erythrurus (Schinz, 1833) — Spiny-footed Lizard Algyroides Bibron and Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1833</p><p>fitzingeri (Wiegmann, 1834) — Tyrrhenian Algyroides</p><p>marchi Valverde, 1958 — Spanish Algyroides</p><p>moreoticus Bibron and Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1833 — Greek Algyroides</p><p>nigropunctatus (Duméril and Bibron, 1839) — Dalmatian Algyroides Archaeolacerta Mertens, 1921</p><p>bedriagae (Camerano, 1885) — Tyrrhenian Rock Lizard Dalmatolacerta Arnold, Arribas and Carranza, 2007</p><p>oxycephala Duméril and Bibron, 1839 — Sharp-snouted Rock Lizard Darevskia Arribas, 1997</p><p>praticola (Eversmann, 1834) — Meadow Lizard Dinarolacerta Arnold, Arribas and Carranza, 2007</p><p>montenegrina Ljubisavljević, Arribas, Džukić and Carranza, 2007 — Prokletije Rock Lizard</p><p>mosorensis Kolombatović, 1886 — Mosor Rock Lizard Eremias Fitzinger in Wiegmann, 1834</p><p>arguta (Pallas, 1773) — Steppe Runner</p><p>Hellenolacerta Arnold, Arribas and Carranza, 2007</p><p>graeca Bedriaga, 1886 — Greek Rock Lizard</p><p>Iberolacerta Arribas, 1997</p><p>aranica (Arribas, 1993) — Aran Rock Lizard</p><p>aurelioi (Arribas, 1994) — Aurelio’s Rock Lizard</p><p>bonnali (Lantz, 1927) — Pyrenean Rock Lizard</p><p>cyreni (Müller and Hellmich, 1937) — Cyren’s Rock Lizard</p><p>galani Arribas, Carranza and Odierna, 2006 — Galan’s Rock Lizard</p><p>horvathi (Méhely, 1904) — Horvath’s Rock Lizard</p><p>martinezricai (Arribas, 1996) — Martinez-Rica’s or Peña de Francia Rock Lizard</p><p>monticola (Boulenger, 1905) — (West-)Iberian Rock Lizard Lacerta Linnaeus, 1758</p><p>agilis Linnaeus, 1758 — Sand Lizard</p><p>bilineata Daudin, 1802 — Western Green Lizard</p><p>schreiberi Bedriaga, 1878 — Schreiber’s Green Lizard</p><p>trilineata Bedriaga, 1886 — Balkan Green Lizard</p><p>viridis (Laurenti, 1768) — Eastern Green Lizard</p><p>Ophisops Ménétries, 1832</p><p>elegans Ménétries, 1832 — Snake-eyed Lacertid</p><p>Parvilacerta Arnold, Arribas and Carranza, 2007</p><p>? parva (Boulenger, 1887) — Dwarf Lizard — single record from Turkish Thrace (Venchi and</p><p>Bologna 1996), actual presence within considered area requires confirmation Podarcis Wagler, 1830</p><p>bocagei (Seoane, 1884) — Bocage’s Wall Lizard</p><p>carbonelli Pérez-Mellado, 1981 — Carbonell’s Wall Lizard</p><p>cretensis (Wettstein, 1952) — Cretan Wall Lizard</p><p>erhardii (Bedriaga, 1876) — Erhard’s Wall Lizard</p><p>filfolensis (Bedriaga, 1876) — Maltese Wall Lizard</p><p>gaigeae (Werner, 1930) — Skyros Wall Lizard</p><p>hispanicus (Steindachner, 1870) including s.s. morphotype, morphotype 1, and morphotype 2 —</p><p>Iberian Wall Lizard</p><p>levendis Lymberakis, Poulakakis, Kaliontzopoulou, Valakos and Mylonas, 2008 — Pori Wall Lizard</p><p>lilfordi (Günther, 1874) — Lilford’s Wall Lizard</p><p>liolepis (Boulenger, 1905) — Catalonian Wall Lizard</p><p>melisellensis (Braun, 1877) — Dalmatian Wall Lizard</p><p>milensis (Bedriaga, 1882) — Milos Wall Lizard</p><p>muralis (Laurenti, 1768) — Common Wall Lizard</p><p>peloponnesiacus (Bibron and Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1833) — Peloponnese Wall Lizard</p><p>pityusensis (Boscá, 1883) — Ibiza Wall Lizard</p><p>raffonei (Mertens, 1952) — Aeolian Wall Lizard</p><p>siculus (Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1810) — Italian Wall Lizard</p><p>tauricus (Pallas, 1814) — Balkan Wall Lizard</p><p>tiliguerta (Gmelin, 1789) — Tyrrhenian Wall Lizard</p><p>vaucheri (Boulenger, 1905) — Vaucher’s Wall Lizard</p><p>waglerianus Gistel, 1868 — Sicilian Wall Lizard Psammodromus Fitzinger, 1826</p><p>algirus (Linnaeus, 1758) — Large Psammodromus</p><p>hispanicus Fitzinger, 1826 — Spanish Psammodromus Scelarcis Fitzinger, 1843</p><p>perspicillata (Duméril and Bibron, 1839) — Moroccan Rock Lizard Timon Tschudi, 1836</p><p>lepidus (Daudin, 1802) — Ocellated Lizard</p><p>Zootoca Wagler, 1830</p><p>vivipara (Jacquin, 1787) or (Lichtenstein, 1823) — Viviparous Lizard Family Scincidae Oppel, 1811 or Gray, 1825 (skinks)</p><p>Ablepharus Fitzinger in Eversmann, 1823</p><p>kitaibelii Bibron and Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1833 — Snake-eyed Skink Chalcides Laurenti, 1768</p><p>bedriagai (Boscá, 1880) — Bedriaga’s Skink</p><p>chalcides (Linnaeus, 1758) — Italian Three-toed Skink</p><p>ocellatus (Forskål, 1775) — Ocellated Skink</p><p>striatus (Cuvier, 1829) — Iberian Three-toed Skink Ophiomorus Duméril and Bibron, 1839</p><p>punctatissimus (Bibron and Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1833) — Limbless Skink Family Anguidae Gray, 1825 (slow worms)</p><p>Anguis Linnaeus, 1758</p><p>cephallonica Werner, 1894 — Peloponnese Slow Worm colchica (Nordmann, 1840) — Eastern Slow Worm fragilis Linnaeus, 1758 — Slow Worm</p><p>graeca Bedriaga, 1881 — Greek Slow Worm Pseudopus Merrem, 1820</p><p>apodus (Pallas, 1775) — Glass Lizard</p><p>Suborder Amphisbaenia (worm lizards)</p><p>Family Blanidae Kearney, 2003 (Mediterranean worm lizards) Blanus Wagler, 1830</p><p>cinereus (Vandelli, 1797) — Iberian Worm Lizard mariae Albert and Fernández (2009) — Maria’s Worm Lizard Suborder Serpentes (snakes)</p><p>Family Typhlopidae Merrem, 1820 or Jan, 1863 (worm snakes) Typhlops Schneider in Oppel, 1811</p><p>vermicularis Merrem, 1820 — Worm Snake Family Erycidae Bonaparte, 1840 (sand boas)</p><p>Eryx Daudin, 1803</p><p>jaculus (Linnaeus, 1758) — Sand Boa</p><p>Family Psammophiidae Boie, 1827 (African sand snakes and Montpellier snakes) Malpolon Fitzinger, 1826</p><p>insignitus (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1827) — Eastern Montpellier Snake monspessulanus (Hermann, 1804) — Western Montpellier Snake Family Natricidae Bonaparte, 1840 (Eurasian water snakes) Natrix Laurenti, 1768</p><p>maura (Linnaeus, 1758) — Viperine Snake natrix (Linnaeus, 1758) — Grass Snake</p><p>tessellata (Laurenti, 1768) — Dice Snake</p><p>Family Colubridae Oppel, 1811 (colubrids)</p><p>Coronella Laurenti, 1768</p><p>austriaca Laurenti, 1768 — Smooth Snake</p><p>girondica (Daudin, 1803) — Southern Smooth Snake Dolichophis Gistel, 1868</p><p>caspius (Gmelin, 1789) — Caspian Whip Snake Eirenis Jan, 1863</p><p>? modestus (Martin, 1838) — (Masked) Dwarf Snake — actual presence within the considered area</p><p>requires confirmation</p><p>Elaphe Fitzinger, 1833</p><p>quatuorlineata (Bonnaterre, 1790) — (Western) Four-lined Snake sauromates (Pallas, 1814) — Blotched Snake or Eastern Four-lined Snake Hemorrhois Boie, 1826</p><p>algirus (Jan, 1863) — Algerian Whip Snake hippocrepis (Linnaeus, 1758) — Horseshoe Whip Snake? nummifer (Reuss, 1834) — Coin-marked Snake — actual presence within considered area requires</p><p>confirmation</p><p>Hierophis Fitzinger in Bonaparte, 1834</p><p>gemonensis (Laurenti, 1768) — Balkan Whip Snake viridiflavus (Lacépède, 1789) — Western Whip Snake Macroprotodon Guichenot, 1850</p><p>brevis (Günther, 1862) — Western or Iberian False Smooth Snake cucullatus (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1809) — Eastern or African False Smooth Snake</p><p>Platyceps Blyth, 1860</p><p>collaris (Müller, 1878) — Reddish Whip Snake</p><p>najadum (Eichwald, 1831) — Dahl’s Whip Snake Rhinechis Michahelles in Wagler, 1833</p><p>scalaris (Schinz, 1822) — Ladder Snake Telescopus Wagler, 1830</p><p>fallax (Fleischmann, 1831) — Cat Snake Zamenis Wagler, 1830</p><p>lineatus (Camerano, 1891) — Italian Aesculapian Snake</p><p>longissimus (Laurenti, 1768) — Aesculapian Snake</p><p>situla (Linnaeus, 1758) — Leopard Snake Family Viperidae Oppel, 1811 (true vipers)</p><p>Macrovipera Reuss, 1927</p><p>schweizeri (Werner, 1935) — Milos Viper</p><p>Montivipera Nilson, Tuniyev, Andrén, Orlov, Joger and Herrmann, 1999</p><p>xanthina (Gray, 1849) — Ottoman Viper Vipera Garsault, 1764</p><p>ammodytes (Linnaeus, 1758) — Nose-horned Viper</p><p>aspis (Linnaeus, 1758) — Asp Viper</p><p>berus (Linnaeus, 1758) — Adder</p><p>latastei (Boscá, 1878) — Lataste’s Viper</p><p>seoanei (Lataste, 1879) — Seoane’s Viper</p><p>ursinii (Bonaparte, 1835) — Meadow Viper</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A97A72FFAAFFE5F6D2FDADFC84FC56	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Speybroeck, Jeroen;Beukema, Wouter;Crochet, Pierre-André	Speybroeck, Jeroen, Beukema, Wouter, Crochet, Pierre-André (2010): A tentative species list of the European herpetofauna (Amphibia and Reptilia) — an update. Zootaxa 2492: 1-27, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.195659
