Danube Delta ursinii are moldavica

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

Ooops...
Good of you to drop by and set us (read: me) straight

But...

Would you consider the morphological study of Nilson & Andrén to be sufficient (sample size...), or did I miss something? I have to admit I saw only 1 graeca, but I was a little disappointed - not as distinct as what the text wanted us to believe. What would be most diagnostic - n° & size of supralabials? I thought I saw similar in macrops...
How many graeca have ever been included in a morphological study (~ intra variability)?

Why did Ferchaud et al. draw a conservative conclusion, hidden away in the addendum? In other words, how does there reasoning differ from yours (concluding to preliminarily/proactively accept it at species level)?

In general, I do not oppose swift adoption of taxonomical changes, but I'd rather be certain that we don't have to turn the clock back, because that's chaos (cf. Bombina pachypus, Discoglossus jeanneae, ...).

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

Tell me this - is there no way that nuclear data might show graeca to be close(r) to macrops?

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

(b) Would novel species inherit the protection status of ursinii or would this require further approvement/applications?

Related - I think attributing species level could attract more herpetological tourists and/or poachers...

To specify the "imbalance" like I called it (if still necessary or desirable...) - some of the taxa in the renardi group would have to go from species to subspecies level, in order to match the way taxonomy is dealt with within the ursinii group and achieve "balance". If not, like Mario said, I guess you should raise at least ursinii + Croatian macrops, rakosiensis + moldavica and "real" macrops to species level. The choice between both options comes with your concept of what a species is or should be

[Mario Schweiger]

What would be most diagnostic - n° & size of supralabials? I thought I saw similar in macrops...
How many graeca have ever been included in a morphological study (~ intra variability)?

Total sample size by Nilson & Andren (2001): 9,5 = 14
I think you mixed something:
Supralabials (pages 118 + 119 in Nilson & Andren):
males: graeca 12-14, macrops 10-18
females: graeca 12-14, macrops 12-17

The only realy morphological difference is the tail length or number of subcaudals:
graeca: males: 20-27, females: 18-21
macrops: males: 29-35, females: 20-30
what means, graeca is much more short tailed.

Vipera (ursinii) graeca, male; Lakmos 2006 (Photo: Patrik Blomsten)

Vipera (ursinii) graeca, female; Lakmos 2006 (Photo: Patrik Blomsten)

And, but as it looks for me, the head in graeca looks much shorter than in macrops.

Mario

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

Thanks!!!

I checked N&A too now

It seems unclear whether these 14 specimens come from the same (meta)population. Hence, my "intra variability" concern, although the features mentioned seem to stand for the Albanian...
http://vipersgarden.at/PDF_files/PDF-1692.pdf

[Wolfgang Wüster]

Ooops...
Good of you to drop by and set us (read: me) straight

But...

Would you consider the morphological study of Nilson & Andrén to be sufficient (sample size...), or did I miss something? I have to admit I saw only 1 graeca, but I was a little disappointed - not as distinct as what the text wanted us to believe. What would be most diagnostic - n° & size of supralabials? I thought I saw similar in macrops...
How many graeca have ever been included in a morphological study (~ intra variability)?

Why did Ferchaud et al. draw a conservative conclusion, hidden away in the addendum? In other words, how does there reasoning differ from yours (concluding to preliminarily/proactively accept it at species level)?

In general, I do not oppose swift adoption of taxonomical changes, but I'd rather be certain that we don't have to turn the clock back, because that's chaos (cf. Bombina pachypus, Discoglossus jeanneae, ...).

All good Qs. I did not plough through Nilson & Andrén 2001 to see what characters were used, although Mario's quotes suggest that the subcaudal counts are pretty diagnostic.

Why Ferchaud et al. hid the conclusions in an addendum I cannot say. It does seem odd, but I guess their main point was the biogeography. However, the systematic conclusions were articulated more strongly and in the main body of the paper in previous versions that I saw (and I was thinking of this in my previous post....). They have clearly gone out of their way to be cautious on this in the final published version.

Tell me this - is there no way that nuclear data might show graeca to be close(r) to macrops?

Of course they could. There is certainly no biological reason why they could not. Whole genome analyses, which will happen sooner than we may think, might tell us something different yet again. But that is all speculative. At the end of the day, any taxonomic arrangement is nothing more than a hypothesis that can (and should) be challenged with further evidence. As a general rule, the best approach should be to go with the most recent paper, assuming it makes a good case and the data support the conclusions. I fully appreciate that this causes problems in groups "popular" with taxonomists that get revisited on a regular basis, and where the best estimate of systematic relationships will change regularly and may even reverse. Striking a balance between maintaining a stable nomenclature that facilitates information retrieval and reflecting the latest advances in our knowledge is never easy, and I don't think there is a "right" solution.

In this case, the Ferchaud et al. paper does represent a very clear and categorical step forward in our knowledge of the V. ursinii group, and in combination with Nilson & Andrén's work, I would say that the current best hypothesis on the systematics of the group is the three-species scenario proposed by Ferchaud et al., albeit tentatively. But vipers are of course a popular group, so a nuclear analysis cannot be too many years away. How long to we wait?

[Mario Schweiger]

Having a closer look now to the Albanian ursinii paper, I´m woundering about these 60 cms

Remark on my previous post:
Supralabial counts by N&A are the sum of left and right side

All examined specimens by N&A have been from Peristi, Pindos mountains from 1986 (also used for description) N&A 2001: 99 and 186

Mario

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

Thanks again, Wolfgang, I appreciate, value and understand your reasoning!

Probably some referee or editor asked them to move the systematics to the background?

I don’t care that much about the user-friendly stability of systematics, provided that they offer better representation of evolutionary history, reproductive isolation, etc. This discussion strengthens your statement that this is indeed not black-or-white...

My basic state of mind (which I violate all the time…) is not to change taxonomy, unless enough evidence is available.

But that is all speculative.

? To me, it is exactly speculative to accept a partially substantiated split, not maintaining the established arrangement.

I acknowledge that we have to accept working hypotheses and the Ultimate Truth is always still out there. Yet, is it not speculative to assume that mtDNA and incomplete morphological sampling (because only 1 population sampled and especially in this not unthinkable to differ between isolated populations) will eventually be confirmed? Geographical coverage for intra-taxon morphological study is poor, especially for graeca, and nuclear molecular data is missing.

Now let’s evaluate if “the data supports the conclusions”. They do not yet propose graeca as a species, so that’s a “yes” for me. As you seem to take it one step further, I would say you think the data supports, or rather allows, different conclusions .

Despite all that, the (albeit never enough...) available morphological data & your reasoning makes me start to doubt now . Don't get me wrong, I expect that this will stand in the end and Vipera graeca will be embraced, even by me .

I could of course go on and on like this and (once more) bore everyone to death, but I’d rather ask you about a different aspect of this decision-making process.

=>

As a little intro to my actual question - didn’t we already once discuss the fact that the renardi acceptance was poorly substantiated? Mario? Is this the first time (together with Gvozdik et al. 2012) renardi obtains some molecular substatiation against ursinii?

Wolfgang, how do you interpret divergence levels? I’m always having a hard time to understand when a certain divergence warrants a certain systematic conclusion. In this case, what makes you ultimately choose between (1) having a single species for all of it (renardi + ursinii + graeca), (2) 3 species or (3) more? All three seem possible without violating monophyly.

[Mario Schweiger]

I agree with all written by Wolfgang!
But my "problem" is, how Ferchaud et al. showed the migration of ursinii s.l. from Greece in Figure 1b.

Figure 1b out of Ferchaud et al. 2012

Why?
Because "graeca" must have developed in Greece?
It sounds like:
Zeus had a lot of anger with Hera on Olympus mountain, took a branch and darted it westwards. At the moment, it hits the ground at the Pindos mountain ridge, it changed to a snake and Acridophaga has been born.

The tree only shows when, but not where the splits have been.
So here another scenario:

The LCA lived somewhere in the "Colchis". During the lower Pliocene, first the "kaznakovi-group" (the next relatives to the graeca-ursinii-renardi-group) split of. The rest (the "Acridophaga") went westward to todays Ukraine. Here (during the middle Pliocene) the first split within Acridophaga took place, and "graeca" went to the southwest. Sometimes later, still in the Ukraine, a second split has been (ursinii - renardi). One tribe, the "ursinii´s" went to the west and colonized the Balkans (without Greece?), Italy and SE France. The eastern tribe, the "renardi´s" expanded from the Ukraine a bit westward to the Danube, but mainly eastwards up to China. Therefore, the renardi´s never reached the Balkan.
This all would fit in the timetable given by Ferchaud et al.

So, now its up to you, to choose which scenario is the real one

Mario

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

I am a twitcher, Mario, I don't care about the causes of the species list

Seriously though, I hadn't really considered the biogeographical scenarios and I have to agree with you! Makes much(!) more sense to me.

You, Mario, and everyone else, are of course also kindly invited to answer my last question - why treat all of this as 3 (or more) and not 1 species?