Small Quiz for you: which snake is this?

[Guillaume Gomard]

Indeed, but then if you read the paper and the paragraph I am quoting it gives some clues to your question:

"The question remains what the "Tropidonotus tessellatus var. flavencens" Werner 1891 really is... just
a widespread colour morph, a very local colour morph, or what?"

If the morph was found in Italy, it should not be a very local colour morph (I guess that Mebert is referring to specimens which look similar as the one found near Zadar, so typical var. flavescens=no "borderline" case. Only an assumption), and therefore, not restricted to this Croatian region.

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

Let me share a thought on morphs in general: As can be seen in the pet market, the "same" morph may appear several times in very different habitats. Albinism, Leucism, Melanism (let's not start on this again) - in many species, these morphs have been found several times.
I think with breeding tests, one could find out whether this flavencens is basically some inheritable trait. If so, it could very well be that it can be observed almost anywhere in any population, but just in that specific region, it kind of became a significant and stable part of the population.

Possible but not certain. Subspecies are also morphs.

[Mario Schweiger]

let's have now a nice look to a panorama of Natrix tessellata var. flavescens paradise (better than endless discussions )

Vrana lake, N Dalmatia

and here it goes to the full panorama`
scroll/move the picture with the arrows below

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

Very nice lake, Mario!

not every morph is a subspecies (melanistic berus...).

Agreed.

Subspecies are geographic 'races'.

What if two subspecies have the same morphotype but are - non the less - genetically different? Is that still different morphs? Or is that contradicting?

In that case, the old school way would be to keep them as 1, rendering 1 morph equal to 1 subspecies. In the new era, some adhere species concepts which reject the use of subspecies as a valid taxonomic level. Others may use subspecies to deal with clades which others might call incipient species. In such cases, you might indeed see that subspecies are not morphologically distinguishable and are not different morphs, like you said. You could even push it as far as saying that cryptic species belong to the same morph

[Berislav Horvatic]

Very nice lake, Mario! (plus what follows...)

Congrats. If this is not (a "tactfully concealed") sarcasm, what is? Now I've really had
the lesson regarding the social know-how acceptable around here... I'll keep to it.

[Michael Wilms]

Well, pull it's tongue out after nine years...

Yeah, let's go and find it..

[Michael Wilms]

Nice lake panorama, Mario!

The day, Alex and me found the Natrix tessellata var. flavescens I also tried a panorama of Lake Vrana.
I climbed on a small hill between Lake Vrana and the sea and tried a 360° Panorama shot with the sea on the left and Lake Vrana on the right!

It's my first try of such a panorama, so don't be too critical..

[Berislav Horvatic]

It's my first try of such a panorama, so don't be too critical..

Not bad at all, relax. And do finally go to sleep, if you really intend to visit "Mt. X" (for the
fourth time!) as terribly early in the morning, as you said you would. Hals- und Beinbruch!

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

Very nice lake, Mario! (plus what follows...)

Congrats. If this is not (a "tactfully concealed") sarcasm, what is?

[Aleksandar Simovic]

what about this one?