Sean Cole wrote:Which paper gives a summary of the latter?
I am still rather on top of things, as plans exist to update the 2010 review. If such paper would exist, Mario or I would know about it pretty soon. If Bobby would have clipped a tail and sent it to Gvozdik et al. this might have resolved things, but in the mean time we'll have to wait and see. Nearest ascertained samples are fragilis, yet distance as the crow flies is a too rough assessment of specific affiliation, as the wider area is characterised by multiple known and potential biogeographical barriers, including rivers (Evros, Danube, Struma/Strymonas, ...) and mountain ranges (Rhodopes, Pirin, Carpathians, ...).
Please check the map in Gvozdik et al. if you haven't done so already.
http://vipersgarden.at/PDF_files/PDF-1963.pdfThe description of Anguis veronensis includes a sample east of the Carpathians which is attributed to colchica, yet it's located in Moldova (= not next door to S BG).
http://vipersgarden.at/PDF_files/PDF-5678.pdfThis is all the available evidence to date, as far as I know. It is surely unfortunate that the initial species split did not include contact zone sampling and study of reproductive isolation in such areas, but let's wait and see. I would imagine it is unlikely that the disjunct range of colchica to the east of the Black Sea would be interspersed by fragilis in S Bulgaria and surrounding area, but if you look at the range of the crested newts in that part of Europe, it is likely to assume too much. In the mean time, we are stuck with uncertainty.
BTW, Bobby, while splitting hairs over your lifelist:
* It includes a 50% ambrosii-introgressed Speleomantes "italicus".
* Then there's the confusing and erronous specific attribution of green toads from Sicily in your report.
http://www.herpsafari.nl/tripreports-eu ... ia-sicily/You cannot use both Bufo viridis siculus and Bufo boulengeri. The NE of Sicily is occupied by balearicus, regardless of whether you treat the latter as a full species or a subspecies of viridis. The rest of the islands is occupied by siculus, which can be treated as a subspecies of viridis only if you do the same with boulengeri. If not, you can either treat it as a subspecies of boulengeri or as a species in its own right. Getting back to the animals you photographed, it is most likely that none of them are (pure) siculus, while the ones from Partinico must have been. To be precise (but furthermore of limited relevance to the issue), I think the evidence to attribute all to the genus Bufotes is sufficiently compelling.
