Although Guicking et al. have done quite a bit of molecular work on the genus, no formal appraisal of subspecies has been put forward, if I am not mistaken. Therefore, two viewpoints remain: Thorpe's suggested minimal arrangement with only natrix, helvetica, cetti and corsa, or the longer list, adding astreptophora, persa, sicula, lanzai, gotlandica, schweizeri, cypriaca, fusca. Not sure if megalocephala has any taxonomical value, after having been rejected as full species. 

Hello Jeroen,

thank you again. I found additonally Natrix n. calabra, Natrix n. scutata and Natrix n. algirus. Or did they already been disproved? It is hard to find something about it. 

I seem to remember that at least calabra was rejected in the Italian atlas, while scutata is used for sure (includes megalocephala now, in fact). The name algirus is proposed by the illustrous Sochurek; don't know about that one.

My advice, don't put too much value into subspecies; there's enough trouble with species ;). 

I completely agree with Jeroen. Please don't bother too much about the Natrix ssp. Hecht described among many others N. n. algericus, but some of his descriptions were based on a single species. The work by Guicking et al. forms a nice basis but actually contains sevaral flaws and speculations.
I am currently involved in a phylogenetics project of Natrix natrix (Natrix genus) and expect that we will have paper finished middle 2011. It all depends on Jeroen because the N. n. cetti sample he is about to collect in Sardinia is the last missing piece in the puzzle ;-)
Cheers
 

Hello Jeroen, hello Philip,

thank you very much for your comments. Then I'am really excited about your results ;-).

Best regards
Stefan

 

> It all depends on Jeroen because the N. n. cetti
> sample he is about to collect in Sardinia is the
> last missing piece in the puzzle ;-)
Well, well, well... I didn't know about that. I'll see what I can do ;-).