Disculpa, pero esta entrada está disponible sólo en Inglés Estadounidense.
Disculpa, pero esta entrada está disponible sólo en Inglés Estadounidense.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Very interesting blog. I believe there is a lot of confusion around relationships about all species within the Hemorrhois. I’ve beed dealing with Hemorrhois nummifer and ravergieri for a while, and I though I found a good way to distinguish between those forms in Armenia. There we also have a lot of variation in morphlogy. But, now I feel like it makes sense to revise this group in a greater detail, simultaneously using morphometry and molecular methods.
Dear Tigran, I have only a few experience with the eastern Hemorrhois species (one H. nummifer individual), and I can´t talk about them well. In north Africa there are a lot of variation in morphology (pholidosis, dorsal designs, etc…) and maybe they will be an species complex! (we are waiting for results, but in Morocco there are a lot of reptile species complex: Tarentola mauritanica, Agama impaleris, Podarcis vaucheri, Acanthodactylus erythrurus, Ptyodactylus oudrii, Acanthodactylus pardalis…) The most rare thing is to group snakes with horseshoe mark in the head (the typical characteristic of H. «hippocrepis») within H. algirus («intermediate» specimens have been grouped in H. algirus intermedius by many authors). All is very confused although really interesting!! Cheers and thanks for comment