Page 11 of 15

Re: A&R guide Speybroeck et al. - review it!

PostPosted: Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:55 pm
by Michal Szkudlarek
on page 90, VARIATION
"previously hinted to consist of more than one species, but now consiered monotypic."
should not there be "subspecies" insted of "species"?

Re: A&R guide Speybroeck et al. - review it!

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:34 am
by Mario Schweiger
Michal Szkudlarek wrote:on page 90, VARIATION
"previously hinted to consist of more than one species, but now consiered monotypic."
should not there be "subspecies" insted of "species"?


species is ok!
Lissotriton boscai and Lissotriton maltzani (Triton maltzani, BOETTGER, 1879)

Re: A&R guide Speybroeck et al. - review it!

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:01 pm
by Michal Szkudlarek
Beforehand i was afraid that the book will be hard to read but it turned out that it reads quite smoothly. :)

Re: A&R guide Speybroeck et al. - review it!

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:44 am
by Jeroen Speybroeck
What is meant is "first, we thought there was more than one species 'hiding' within boscai (like maltzani, like Mario wrote), but now there are even no subspecies within the single species".

Re: A&R guide Speybroeck et al. - review it!

PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:36 am
by Karim Chouchane
In the checklist Hyla meridionalis and Laudakia stellio are marked with an asterisk as introduced species.

Re: A&R guide Speybroeck et al. - review it!

PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:34 am
by Jeroen Speybroeck
Karim Chouchane wrote:In the checklist Hyla meridionalis and Laudakia stellio are marked with an asterisk as introduced species.


For meridionalis, that's correct. No natural occurrence within our area.

For stellio, we indeed forgot to change that after the inclusion of the Dodecanese, thanks.

Re: A&R guide Speybroeck et al. - review it!

PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:34 am
by Thomas Bader
For meridionalis, that's correct. No natural occurrence within our area


Is this based on Recuero et al. 2007 or other sources?

Our results support the idea of a very recent colonization of
south-western Europe and the Canary Islands from Morocco. South-western
Europe has been colonized at least twice: once from northern Morocco probably
to the Mediterranean coast of France and once from the western coast of
Morocco to southern Iberia. Human transport is a likely explanation for at least
one of these events.


Not really a clear statement

Re: A&R guide Speybroeck et al. - review it!

PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:57 pm
by Karim Chouchane
For meridionalis, that's correct. No natural occurrence within our area.

Well most likely, but then you have to be consistent and also considers other species as none native (e.g. D.pictus, M.lebetina) or at least questionably native (e.g.H.hippocrepis, M. monspessulanus).

Re: A&R guide Speybroeck et al. - review it!

PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:31 pm
by Jeroen Speybroeck
Thomas, these authors may be cautious in their conclusions, but any other explanation really seems unlikely to me.

Karim, the genetic data of meridionalis is unlike that of current knowledge on any of the other species you mention. These are not just inferences but based on genetic data providing insight in unnaturally low levels of genetic variability and estimations of an origin after the era of intercontinental land bridges. Your type of reasoning, otherwise, leads to rejection of any ancient introduction, or what else?

Re: A&R guide Speybroeck et al. - review it!

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:50 am
by Karim Chouchane
Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:Thomas, these authors may be cautious in their conclusions, but any other explanation really seems unlikely to me.

Karim, the genetic data of meridionalis is unlike that of current knowledge on any of the other species you mention. These are not just inferences but based on genetic data providing insight in unnaturally low levels of genetic variability and estimations of an origin after the era of intercontinental land bridges. Your type of reasoning, otherwise, leads to rejection of any ancient introduction, or what else?


For Hyla meridionalis, yes the published data point toward two separate ancient introductions: from north Morocco to southern France and from south Morocco to southern Spain. What makes it different from most other species that I mentioned is, assuming a sufficient haplotype sampling, the distance between the introduced populations and their places of origin.
However I do not see why you consider the situation to be different for D. pictus which is clearly introduced from Algeria to SW France and from Tunisia to Sicily with no differentiated lineage and no land bridges ever existing.
European populations of Macroprotodon brevis, Malpolon monspessulanus and Hemorrhois hippocrepis also present very low levels of genetic variability and the same haplotypes occurring on both sides of the strait of Gibraltar. Which only point toward a recent origin (introduction or colonization as snakes are more efficient in colonizing islands).
For M. lebetina the same haplotypes as been reported both in Milos and in eastern Anatolia which can only indicate an introduction.