on page 90, VARIATION
"previously hinted to consist of more than one species, but now consiered monotypic."
should not there be "subspecies" insted of "species"?
Michal Szkudlarek wrote:on page 90, VARIATION
"previously hinted to consist of more than one species, but now consiered monotypic."
should not there be "subspecies" insted of "species"?
Karim Chouchane wrote:In the checklist Hyla meridionalis and Laudakia stellio are marked with an asterisk as introduced species.
For meridionalis, that's correct. No natural occurrence within our area
Our results support the idea of a very recent colonization of
south-western Europe and the Canary Islands from Morocco. South-western
Europe has been colonized at least twice: once from northern Morocco probably
to the Mediterranean coast of France and once from the western coast of
Morocco to southern Iberia. Human transport is a likely explanation for at least
one of these events.
For meridionalis, that's correct. No natural occurrence within our area.
Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:Thomas, these authors may be cautious in their conclusions, but any other explanation really seems unlikely to me.
Karim, the genetic data of meridionalis is unlike that of current knowledge on any of the other species you mention. These are not just inferences but based on genetic data providing insight in unnaturally low levels of genetic variability and estimations of an origin after the era of intercontinental land bridges. Your type of reasoning, otherwise, leads to rejection of any ancient introduction, or what else?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests