Help - Correct Species Order

Damn nice going, bagging all of those.....especially the Aesculapian. Did you establish that Dice snake was not present ?

Not sure what you mean by correct order ?

How about posting some of the pics ??

Hi Dave

I'm afraid I'm not even going to tackle the "right order" question! I have no idea that such a thing has ever been agreed by anyone - and as you say - all sorts of orders are used! All I can really say is that they should certainly be grouped. e.g. Smooth,Grass Aesculapian Snakes are Colubrids; Green, Sand, Wall, Common are Lacertids but the latter is very distinct from the first two (arguably different genus) and the next to last definitely is. Lizards as a whole are regarded as marginally more primitive that Lizards and the vipers as the most advanced of snakes. I think the anguidae are the more primitive of the Lizards!

Re Latin names, taxonomists have been playing with them. Below are the current names with the prior ones in brackets. (please note that there seems to be continuing debate about the grammatical formation of some species/sub-spp names)

Grass Snake - Natrix natrix helvetica

Adder - Vipera berus berus

Smooth Snake - Coronella austriaca (not aware of any sub-species)

Common Lizard - Zootoca (Lacerta) vivipara (not aware of any sub-species)

Slow-worm - Anguis fragilis fragilis

Sand Lizard - Lacerta agilis agilis

Aesculapean Snake - Zamenis longissimus (Elaphe longissima) (not aware of any sub-species)

Wall Lizard - Podarcis muralis (there are numerous sub-species but they are difficult to differentiate without knowing their origin - and we don't know this for most UK colonies)

Green Lizard - Lacerta bilineata (Lacerta viridis bilineata). Very recent change in species status (which I don't agree with, genetics or not) but the Bournemouth animals exhibit features which identify them as a western form - thus NOT Lacerta viridis viridis.

Hope this helps rather than hinders/confuses!

Hi Steve

You may be more up to date than me - it seems to have gone back and forth like a yo-yo.

If anyone has the absolute cast iron dead cert guaranteed up to date permanent genetic status I would love to know!

Hi Lee

Yeap - you are right about genus Lacerta. I well remember many, many years ago looking at what are now Podarcis and Lacerta and wondering why on earth they were in the same genus! As years went by and I had the opportunity to compare Lv with other small lacertids such as L. praticola I tended towards the same view regarding these. As a consequence I agree totally re Common Lizards in their own monotypic genus. Re lacerta origins I think this rests with Linnaeus - it is, after all, latin for "Lizard". I have no idea what the type species was but at that time even the newts were placed in genus Lacerta - e.g. Smooth Newt - Lacerta vulgaris.

EMBL is certainly one of the definitive reptile taxonomy sites - they regard Zootoca as a sub-genus of lacerta. Unfortunately this seems to have left them with a problem of how/where to link it in their own site.

Another excellent site is that which has been worked on for some time by Jeroen Speybroeck, a member of this group. He has entered into voluminous correspondence and investigation into taxonomy and distribution of European herps. He shows Lacerta v as an invalid synonym for Zootoca vivipara.

This useful site can be found at http://intramar.ugent.be/nemys/start.asp?group=16&c=1