Species list of the European herpetofauna – a tentative update Jeroen Speybroeck Research Institute for Nature and Forest Kliniekstraat 26 B–1070 Brussel Belgium [email protected] & Pierre–André Crochet CNRS–UMR 5175 Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive 1919, Route de Mende F–34293 Montpellier cedex 5 France pierre–[email protected] All pictures by the first author explanations. Only species or higher level changes concerning European taxa are listed. Subspecific changes and intraspeci- INTRODUCTION fic variability are noted only when contra- The naming of species and of all systematic dicting long–established monotypy of a entities of living things are dynamic con- species, or when subspecies are being cepts. Through scientific research, changes rejected. Vernacular names are mostly in the systematics and names of amphibi- adopted from ARNOLD (2002). Some exo- ans and reptiles are constantly being pro- genous species that are well–established posed, much to the chagrin of many profes- and are reproducing on European soil, are sional and amateur herpetologists. Yet most included and are listed separately. Species changes are necessary if taxonomy and believed to have been introduced to Europe systematics are to reflect evolutionary his- over 100 years ago and persisting until tory and phylogeny, rather than letting today, have been included in the list of user–friendliness and conservatism prevail. endogenous species. Many other non– The European herpetofauna and its taxo- native species have, however, been en- nomy have received increasing attention countered in the wild in Europe. through molecular (e.g. DNA) studies. Once Final content changes were made on De- most animal groups have been studied in cember 1, 2007. This type of update and this way, stability may be established. the proposed species list will most likely be In the following pages, a concise overview outdated at its date of publication. Further of changes in the taxonomy of European updating by means of a consecutive series amphibians and reptiles is presented. We of similar papers seems desirable. have restricted ourselves to the geographi- cal boundaries of Europe, albeit excluding CAUDATA – NEWTS AND SALA- former Soviet states. Thus, politically Euro- MANDERS pean areas in Asia (e.g. Cyprus and Greek islands in front of the Aegean Turkish coast) Newts of the genus Triturus Rafinesque, and Africa (e.g. Canary Islands and Ma- 1820 (note that the usual citation of ‘Rafi- deira) have not been included. For a time nesque, 1815’ refers to a nomen nudum frame we have used the species and names according to SCHMIDTLER (2004)), as tradi- as presented in the well–known European tionally understood, constitute a non– field guide by ARNOLD (2002), although monophyletic group; several lineages cur- numerous changes were proposed and rently classified as distinct genera are em- published prior to 2002. We refer to the bedded among them (e.g. STEINFARTZ et cited literature for more comprehensive al., 2002, 2007; WEISROCK et al., 2006). 8 ●2007● POD@RCIS 8(1/2) www.podarcis.nl Therefore, GARCÍA–PARÍS et al. (2004) not on Fire Salamander larvae as often proposed to split up Triturus, using (for the understood (e.g. FROST, 2007). If this is area considered in this paper) Lissotriton indeed the case, then Ichthyosaura Sonnini Bell, 1839 for the small–bodied species & Latreille, 1801, based on Proteus trito- (Smooth Newt Lissotriton vulgaris, Palmate nius, is a senior synonym of Mesotriton Newt Lissotriton helveticus, Bosca’s Newt Bolkay, 1927 and would be the valid genus Lissotriton boscai, Italian Newt Lissotriton name for the Alpine Newt. While we did not italicus and Montandon’s Newt Lissotriton have the opportunity to look into this matter montandoni), Mesotriton Bolkay, 1927 for in detail ourselves, Schmidtler (Sept. 2007, the Alpine Newt (Mesotriton alpestris) and pers. comm.) informed the authors that the restricting Triturus to the large–bodied case is clearly in favour of the use of Ich- species (Triturus cristatus and T. marmora- thyosaura. tus groups). Despite the fact that these SOTIROPOULOS et al. (2007) found unex- changes were not formally proposed by pectedly deep divergence in the mitochon- GARCÍA–PARÍS et al. (2004), they are clearly drial DNA of different populations of the valuable and therefore deserve implementa- Alpine Newt, including a relict lineage from tion, as confirmed by STEINFARTZ et al. southeastern Serbia, which certainly de- (2007) and WEISROCK et al. (2006). LIT- serves further attention. VINCHUK et al. (2005) proposed Lophinus Bosca’s Newt, Lissotriton boscai, may instead of Lissotriton and Ommatotriton comprise two species (HERRERO, 1991; Gray, 1850 for the Triturus vittatus (Gray in: MONTORI & LLORENTE, 2005; MARTÍNEZ– Jenyns, 1835) group. However, Lophinus SOLANO et al., 2006). For a possible spe- Rafinesque, 1815 is a nomen nudum cies from the south of Portugal, the name (SCHMIDTLER, 2004) and therefore not an Lissotriton maltzani (Boettger, 1879) has available name, while Lophinus Gray, 1850 already been suggested (MONTORI & LLOR- is younger than Lissotriton Bell, 1839, at- ENTE, 2005). tributing priority to the latter (SCHMIDTLER, As with Triturus, comparable changes need 2004; FROST, 2007). SCHMIDTLER (2007) to be applied to the genus Euproctus Gené, argued that Proteus tritonius Laurenti, 1768 1839 s.l. (brook newts), since the Pyrenean is based on larvae of the Alpine Newt and Brook Newt is more closely related to the Calotriton arnoldi. ●2007● POD@RCIS 8(1/2) 9 www.podarcis.nl Triturus s.s. newts than to the brook newts represents a divergent lineage which could of Corsica and Sardinia (CARRANZA & AMAT, possibly be ranked as a separate species 2005). Thus, this species was relocated to although this has not yet been formally the resurrected genus Calotriton Gray, 1858 proposed (STEINFARTZ et al., 2000, GARCÍA– as Calotriton asper. In the same paper, a PARÍS et al., 2003a; TEJEDO et al., 2003). second species was described from the Chioglossa lusitanica, the Golden–striped Montseny Mountains near Barcelona, Salamander, long treated as monotypic, Calotriton arnoldi. Corsican and Sardinian consists of two evolutionary units (ALEXAN- Brook Newts remain named Euproctus DRINO et al., 2000). Morphological differ- montanus and E. platycephalus. ences between the northern and southern The spectacled salamander was split into group have been published (ALEXANDRINO two species based on work by two separate et al., 2005) and a new, northern subspe- research teams (NASCETTI et al., 2005; cies, C. l. longipes, has been described MATTOCCIA et al., 2005; CANESTRELLI et al., (ARNTZEN et al., 2007). 2006). While the southern half of the Italian The European cave salamanders, if in- peninsula is still inhabited by animals called cluded in a single endemic genus, should Salamandrina terdigitata, populations of be maintained as Speleomantes Dubois, northern and central Italy are now attributed 1984, despite the proposal of Atylodes to Salamandrina perspicillata (Savi, 1821), Gistel, 1868 (WAKE et al., 2005). The no- with the Volturno river valley as the tenta- menclatural issue of priority of Speleoman- tive border between the taxa. Morphological tes over Atylodes (reversal of precedence) studies are in preparation (Bogaerts, pers. was settled by CROCHET (2007). There still comm.). remains an unsolved taxonomic issue within Luschan’s Salamander was first shown to this grouping, relating to the plausibility of be more closely related to Salamandra the same genus of salamander inhabiting species than to Mertensiella caucasica both Europe and North America. Three (Waga, 1876) (TITUS & LARSON, 1995; possible evolutionary scenarios have been VEITH et al., 1998) and, after a proposal to identified: (1) one genus Hydromantes include it in the genus Salamandra (WEIS- Gistel, 1848 with three subgenera: Hydro- ROCK et al., 2001), the separate genus mantes for North–American species, Spe- Lyciasalamandra was put forward for the leomantes for all but one European species species (VEITH & STEINFARTZ, 2004). In and Atylodes for Speleomantes genei; (2) addition, Luschan’s Salamander was shown two genera with Hydromantes for North– to be a species complex, rather than a American species and Speleomantes for all polytypic species (WEISROCK et al., 2001). European species, the latter including two Hence, European populations now belong subgenera: Atylodes for Speleomantes to the endemic Karpathos Salamander genei and Speleomantes for all other Euro- (Lyciasalamandra helverseni) (VEITH & pean species; (3) three genera with Hydro- STEINFARTZ, 2004). mantes for North–American species, Spe- The isolated Fire Salamander subspecies leomantes for all but one European species Salamandra salamandra longirostris Joger and Atylodes genei. The choice seems a & Steinfartz, 1994 from southern Spain somewhat subjective ‘transatlantic dispute’, yet within Europe the second option seems to be favoured, while WAKE et al. (2005) proposed the first option because diver- gence between the three lineages is of similar degree as that observed among species within certain North–American plethodontid genera. Acceptance of the dark subspecies parkelj Sket & Arntzen, 1994 of the Olm (Proteus anguinus) seems to be incongruent with the genetic substructuring of the species (GORICKI & TRONTELJ, 2006). Speleomantes strinatii. 10 ●2007● POD@RCIS 8(1/2) www.podarcis.nl Bombina pachypus. ANURA – FROGS AND TOADS syriacus and P. fuscus compared to the other species of