1. Corfu (L.trilineata.mayor), on Kefalonia and Zakynthos it is still regarded as L.t.trilneata with the blue throats unlike ones on Corfu. On Kos I think it is diplochondrodes, because they seemed identical to me to those on Rhodos.

2.M.kotschyi bibroni at Thessaloniki, and Samothrace. Beutleri also occurs on Lesbos, Agios Evstratios, Limnos (???) Kalimnos, Kos, and Fourni. Probably also Halki, Tilos, and Nissiros.

3. No

4. Telescopus fallax rhodicus, also now for Symi aswell. 

Hello Ilias,

Lacerta trilineata:
Although there is no definition between L.t.major and L.t.trilineata at the time, giant green lizards from Corfu and Lefkada are ssp. major, same haplotype like at the Montenegro and Albanian coast. No idea for southern ionian islands (Kefalonia and Zakynthos, no DNA samples).
On Kos island spp. diplochondrodes.

All European and west Turkey Ophisops elegans are ssp. macrodactylus. See:
http://fieldherping.eu/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=304

Telescopus fallax on Rhodes is nominate form.
rhodicus is no valid ssp. See: >>Grillitsch & Grillitsch (1999): Telescopus fallax. In: Handbuch der Reptilien und Amphibien Euriopas 3/IIa. Schlangen II:757 - 788

Sorry, no idea on Mediodactylus.

Mario 

Mario, rhodicus is not recognised by some authors, but it is by others, i.e Valakos et al. I do not know on what grounds it is not recognised but it is still worth mentioning, as there are believed to be differences from the nominate form.
Matt 

Many thanks to both!
Matt I think that on Halki, Tilos, and Nissiros the ssp of kotschyi is "bileki".
For Lemnos we will find out :-) I think I know where to search ;-) 

Matt, the diagnosis by Wettstein, 1952 for his ssp. rhodicus says: 19 rows of Dorsalia, but there are snakes with 19 - 21 rows on the island. Temporale extends through the 6th and 7th Supralabiale, but this is seen also in fallax fallax from W-and S-Turkey. Pale and obscure markings. So the last character seems to be the only, differing rhodicus from the nominate form, but also this character occurs in many Aergean island populations (ssp.).

Mario 

Thanks for that, Mario.

> Mario, rhodicus is not recognised by some authors,
> but it is by others, i.e Valakos et al.
Matt, I am quite sure Valakos et al. just copied some list and did not really make a critical review. Other examples can be found in the book. The Handbuch contribution, in any case, should be regarded as more authorative. 

About kotschyi, I personally don't think it's very useful to accept and use all those subspecies. I wouldn't trust any subspecific arrangement at this time. The Kasapidis et al. paper at least hints the basal position of the Cretan population (bartoni) and I seem to remember that some subspecies were already genetically refuted, but I should check the paper again... 

I just saw at http://jcvi.org/reptiles/species.php?genus=Cyrtopodion&species=kotschyi
that the ssp bileki is not valid. Also a ssp "maculatus" is treated as a valid one from Greece. Is there a paper where I can find which ssp occurs where (a valid one)? 

> Is there a paper where I can find
> which ssp occurs where (a valid one)?

Let me elaborate my previous post: most of these subspecies have described long ago without molecular evidence to support superficial morphological observations. So, naturally, "a valid one" is non-existing. This would require a lot more sampling and research. If you, however, insist on using a multitude of weakly established and ancient taxa ;-), I believe there's such a list in Valakos et al., no? Also note that JCVI Reptile Database also contains errors/imperfections. 

I see...
I thought maybe I could use an at-least-at-the-moment "acceptable" list of ssp found in Greece for my website, but I guess I can only use unspecified data and mention that or no data of that kind at all. I'll see what I'll do :-)
Thanks to all! 

About Telescopus fallax, those from Rhodos and Symi (probably also Tilos as well) do show paler and more faded markings than those from north Aegean islands. For example I have seen photos of animals from Lesbos, and they appear like the nominate form, with dark markings, like those from elsewhere. I do believe there are at least some differences in the T.fallax from the south Dodecanese to those found in the rest of Greece. I believe this is worth mentioning on Ilias's website, that they are the only 'Turkish-like' examples found in Greece.
Matt 

Ilias, you could phrase it like "the following subspecies have been described" and then specify if any are debated? That way, you don't make any personal judgement, but just provide an overview of names, without rejecting nor acknowledging their validity. Indeed, Matt, has a point that it can be useful to note geographic within-species variation.

Please note that there is even no stable species list, let alone that we can expect a "fixed" subspecies list anywhere soon. Taxonomy tends to be as dynamic as evolution, albeit at a much higher rate... Also, note that some species concepts, different from the traditional biological species concept, reject the use of subspecies. It is under one of those, btw, that the green toad has been split into variabilis, balearicus, siculus, boulengeri, etc. 

From Kasapidis et al. 2005:

"The placement of the taxonomic classification of the populations on the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 2) shows that taxonomic classification at the subspecies level is not in very good agreement with the molecular phylogeny. Some taxa show a polyphyletic origin (C. k. saronicus, C. k. bibroni) and other appear as paraphyletic (e.g., C. k. bartoni paraphyletic to C. k. wettsteini). In some cases there is concordance between molecular phylogeny and taxonomy, when subspecies show a monophyletic origin (C. k. fitzinferi (sic!) of Cyprus, C. k. kalypsae of Gavdos). This is also the case for the Anatolian subspecies, but the inadequate sampling of the respective populations does not allow us to conclusively decide whether these subspecies are indeed monophyletic.

The inclusion, by Beutler (1981) of C. kotschyi subspecies into groups, seems to be phylogenetically more robust. Clade I (Crete and surrounding islets) corresponds to bartoni-group and clade IX (mainland Greece and Cyclades) corresponds to kotschyi-group, Clade II (Karpathos-Kasos and surrounding islets) corresponds partially to oertzeni-group, since Gavdos subspecies, which represents a completely different clade, has been included in this group. All the Anatolian clades (III, IV, VI, VII, and VIII) and that of Cyprus (V) correspond to danilewskii-group but the current phylogenetic analysis cannot support a monophyletic origin of all of those clades. It is obvious that the taxonomic status of C. kotschyi subspecies needs revision and the current phylogenetic analysis can provide a robust base. Such a revision should also consider the possibility of designating some of the major phylogenetic clades that have been separated million of years ago as distinct species."

Thanks guys!
I'll soon change the texts to something "safer" while easy for the visitors to understand. 

BTW, Ilias, from my previous post, you might understand why I wanted to make special effort to find kotschyi when we were on Crete - the suggested 10 million years of separation between Clade I and all other populations hints that it could represent a separate species, as more or less indicated in the final sentence of the text I quoted. 

Yes I remember, and I feel so stupid I didn't pay attention on some "common" species on Samos and Crete and now I have to go back there sometime :-)