Danube Delta ursinii are moldavica

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

And when the time will come - and you have your first really renardi (not this pseudo-maybe-hybrids from the northern banks of the Danube delta) in your hands, you will share my opinion, these two (groups) are complete different vipers.

I don't mind but ...

not this pseudo-maybe-hybrids

Well, those smell like lack of reproductive isolation to me and that's why I always doubted renardi a little bit. If a transition zone exists, you're basically talking about subspecies. Salamandra salamandra bernardezi and S.s. gigliolii differ also in many ways morphologically (more than S.s. salamandra and S. corsica, if you ask me...). Or to stick with vipers - think about V.a. hugyi vs. other aspis. But maybe I forget something and my comparisons don't stick...

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

BTW, although E European stuff needs to be settled still, Vipera renardi is so far not accepted by SEH TC. Same for Bufo verucossimus.

[Mario Schweiger]

Well, those smell like lack of reproductive isolation to me and that's why I always doubted renardi a little bit. If a transition zone exists, you're basically talking about subspecies. Salamandra salamandra bernardezi and S.s. gigliolii differ also in many ways morphologically (more than S.s. salamandra and S. corsica, if you ask me...). Or to stick with vipers - think about V.a. hugyi vs. other aspis. But maybe I forget something and my comparisons don't stick...

Dubois & Bour (2010): The nomenclatural status of the nomina of amphibians and reptiles created by Garsault (1764), with a parsimonious solution to an old nomenclatural problem regarding the genus Bufo (Amphibia, Anura), comments on the taxonomy of this genus, and comments on some nomina created by Laurenti (1768).- Zootaxa 2447: 14

...... This proposal is simple: whenever two species are liable to produce, either in natural or in artificial conditions, viable adult hybrids (either fertile or sterile), these should never be included in different genera, although they can be placed in different subgenera of the same genus.

I know of hybrids between Vipera ammodytes (male) and Montivipera xanthina (female). This year two of these hybrids mated successfully (at least, the female is gravid now).
Two different species , two different genera

Mario

[Mario Schweiger]

While mtDNA contains a lot of useful information on aspects of population history, it does not tell the whole story about patterns of phylogenetic distinctness. In particular, mitochondrial DNA is transmitted as a single piece from mother to daughter (like the reverse of the family name (surname) in many western countries, where it is transmitted from father to son, whereas daughters are a "blind alley") - that means that it can't tell you anything about patterns of hybridisation etc., which makes it of little use in determining systematic boundaries on its own

Another - although off topic for the threat here - example, why mtDNA will not show you, what you would expect.
In spring 2004, together with W. Mayer, we colleted DNA samples of Podarcis muralis in northern Italy.
Just at the southern town border of Modena we found bright green, typical P. m. nigriventris males.
But the mtDNA showed us, these have been pure P.m. maculiventris.
Why?
Males migrate much more than females. From the Tuscany (Lucca area), they crossed the Passo Abetone and come down to Modena, bringing the nDNA into these P.m. maculiventris populations.
So the females stay much more within their territories (and only the females give the mtDNA to their offspring [and not, as Wolfgang wrote to the daughters only ], but in sons the mtDNA is at its dead end ), the muralis have only mtDNA of the native maculiventris, although they look like pure nigriventris.

Mario

[Jürgen Gebhart]

Off topic

a pair muralis I found west of Genua, the male looks like a typical nigriventris the female like a typical maculiventris. I talked to Werner Mayer and he told me the DNA said they are maculiventris but visual they are nigriventris. So they belong to nigriventris

[Jürgen Gebhart]

Its in human nature to make things complicated....

V.berus is still considered 1 specie from Britain to Sakhalin....a lot of work for splitters

When I met Wolfgang Völkl for the Berus conversation in my area, he told me that we in Bavaria have two different DNA lines at Berus.

[Wolfgang Wüster]

Its in human nature to make things complicated....

V.berus is still considered 1 specie from Britain to Sakhalin....a lot of work for splitters

When I met Wolfgang Völkl for the Berus conversation in my area, he told me that we in Bavaria have two different DNA lines at Berus.

Interestingly, according to Ursenbacher et al. (2006), much of the mtDNA variation in Vipera berus is in the alpine and Balkans region. There is little differentiation from eastern Europe all the way to the Pacific coast and Sakhalin, presumably due to a very rapid dispersal from Europe eastward in the late Pleistocene. The endemic alpine mtDNA clade may well also occur in Bavaria.

[Wolfgang Wüster]

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.

At what point do we accept the the evidence we actually do have to make taxonomic decisions, rather than waiting for more? That's always a key question. I agree with all the points about sampling you raise for both morphology and the molecular data, but how much more are we likely to get, when, and how long are we going to wait before deciding to implement our current state of knowledge in taxonomy? At the end of the day, it's a matter of personal opinon

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.

There is no universal threshold divergence level that says "species". In Lake Victoria cichlids, sister species may be indistinguishable in their mtDNA due to the ridiculously rapid rate of speciation in that group. On the other hand, in some Lesser Antillean Anolis, clearly conspecific populations on single islands may differ by well over 10% in their cytochrome b sequence (one of the most widely used mitochondrial genes). All one can do is use divergences in related taxa (e.g., the Vipera berus - seoanei divergence) to inform the interpretation of divergence levels in the taxon at hand. That, plus additional info such as morphological divergence. Put it all together and see what emerges as the most practical working hypothesis.

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

Well, those smell like lack of reproductive isolation to me and that's why I always doubted renardi a little bit. If a transition zone exists, you're basically talking about subspecies. Salamandra salamandra bernardezi and S.s. gigliolii differ also in many ways morphologically (more than S.s. salamandra and S. corsica, if you ask me...). Or to stick with vipers - think about V.a. hugyi vs. other aspis. But maybe I forget something and my comparisons don't stick...

Dubois & Bour (2010): The nomenclatural status of the nomina of amphibians and reptiles created by Garsault (1764), with a parsimonious solution to an old nomenclatural problem regarding the genus Bufo (Amphibia, Anura), comments on the taxonomy of this genus, and comments on some nomina created by Laurenti (1768).- Zootaxa 2447: 14

...... This proposal is simple: whenever two species are liable to produce, either in natural or in artificial conditions, viable adult hybrids (either fertile or sterile), these should never be included in different genera, although they can be placed in different subgenera of the same genus.

I know of hybrids between Vipera ammodytes (male) and Montivipera xanthina (female). This year two of these hybrids mated successfully (at least, the female is gravid now).
Two different species , two different genera

Mario

I don't see what that has to do with my anti-renardi comparisons

Dubois has been trying to sell the hybrid criterion for genera for a while. It has been questioned by many. In other words, it is NOT accepted by all. Nevertheless, fertile hybrids of ammodytes & xanthina ???

[Jeroen Speybroeck]

If two species do not share the same habitats, speciation may have never required different mating behavior or other differences that disable fertile hybrids. Not?

Behaviour doesn't matter that much as genetic compatibility. I would say that not sharing the same habitats induces speciation in general - just a matter of time for genes to diverge into 2 units which can not interbreed.

Will we see wild xanthinaXammodytes?

That's a good one... They might, as they live very close together in N Greece...

Also, are some Spanish hybrids enough to merge aspis & latastei?

If they are true hybrids, they should be infertile, so no. Yet, that's not 100% the case. Speciation and divergence don't go from 1 to 2 species overnight. Hence, a certain level (yes, vague...) of restricted gene flow is required.

why shouldn't we have distinct species that COULD interbreed, but typically will not in nature?

You could, if restricted gene flow is proven, but not all of them, please, because then all ursinii subspecies are species, because they occupy different habitats (e.g. mountains vs. plains) and are isolated from each other.

Or that's at least what I'd make of it...