Danube Delta ursinii are moldavica

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

If "macrops" from Velebit is not macrops at all, then you
get a profoundly wrong tree...

Just a thought - the position of the Croatian subclade of macrops (or whatever) (in relation to ursinii ursinii) has the weakest support in the Ferchaud tree.

Difficult stuff...

I forwarded the Ferchaud paper to Mario, for addition to his DB, so it can become available to all, if that's OK, Bero.

[Rok Grzelj]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a decent study on reproductive isolation and contact zones of these taxa is still missing?

Think so...also think that is nearly impossible to make one...since the snake is nearly(if not completly) extinct from Rep. of Moldova.
And taking samples from pet trade is not the best idea...

[Mario Schweiger]

Have added the Fercaud paper to the DB = PDF-2761.
So I have difficulties with French language, just two comments:
From where she had her V.u.graeca samples Would like to find it (one would be enough) from a locality given on the map
And these graecas are the sisters to all other ursinii/renardi with a bootstrap of 100%.
Nothing to add!

Mario

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

these graecas are the sisters to all other ursinii/renardi

It is exactly that what I find hard to believe. So French, Croatian, Montenegrin ursinii are closer related to Ukrainian renardi than to graeca??? Biogeography? Morphology has no taxonomic significance?

I would rather wait for nuclear data etc., before drawing any conclusions (as does Ferchaud herself). There is an alternative solution - lump ursinii and renardi, but for that we would need to see genetic divergence figures. From what I know, I find renardi not really clear-cut, anyway.

While it is certainly true that the Gvozdik paper could have done with some 'real' macrops and graeca samples, I (still) do not see why Bero would call the entire tree false - the only thing that might have to be altered imho, is the subspecies attribution of that Croatian macrops. If the Ferchaud tree indeed correctly reflects phylogenetic relationships, that is. The attribution of DD populations to moldavica stand, I believe, and that is the main interesting point of this paper for me.

Leaving specimens from pet trade out of the analysis, does not change that much.

[Berislav Horvatic]

From where she had her V.u.graeca samples Would like to find it
(one would be enough) from a locality given on the map

Regarding the geographical distribution of Vipera (ursinii) graeca in Greece you might be surprised:

This is by Yannis Ioannidis, 2011, and I suppose he should know...
His points 6, 7, and 8 are just what you tried to ridicule.

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

Indeed, Bero. However, where did you find that? I hope they don't get too specific on whereabouts, but I'm sure Yiannis is careful about that.

In any case, good discussion.

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

What's lacking, is the Albanian populations attributed to graeca, though.

[Berislav Horvatic]

Indeed, Bero. However, where did you find that?

I scanned this from the publication Technical guide to manage and monitor populations of Orsini's viper,
published within the scope of the LIFE program 06/Nat/F/00143 "Conservation of French populations of Orsini's
viper" by the PACA Regional Environmental Agency, April 2011. Unfortunately I have only a "hard copy", no file
to share.

The reference given there is
Yannis Ioannidis: On the current state of Vipera ursinii graeca populations,
Biosphere internal report, 2010, 25 pp (in Greek).
So, it's an INTERNAL report. I've never seen it. If someone is on close enough
terms with the author, let him/her try.

[Berislav Horvatic]

While it is certainly true that the Gvozdik paper could have done with some 'real' macrops and graeca samples, I (still) do not see why Bero would call the entire tree false - the only thing that might have to be altered imho, is the subspecies attribution of that Croatian macrops. If the Ferchaud tree indeed correctly reflects phylogenetic relationships, that is.

Their "macrops" samples are from Velebit and they lumped them together with the Italian and French V. u. ursinii
just as Ferchaud & al. did. One could rename them to "Cro-ursinii" or something, to avoid confusion with macrops proper. But the ursinii clade of their tree will still lack the real macrops, either as the sister group of the {rakosiensis, moldavica} group (as Ferchaud & al. say), or anywhere at all. And the whole tree also lacks graeca (at any taxonomic level). Without macrops and graeca, the tree is quite incomplete - which I call wrong.
With macrops in the wrong place, also.

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

the tree is quite incomplete - which I call wrong.

... which you are free to do, of course, but as such you render most phylogenetic papers wrong - there is hardly any supraspecific paper published which includes all sublevel taxa. Incomplete - sure, wrong - imho, no.