vipera (acridophaga) ursinii in romania: historical and...

North-Western Journal of Zoology Vol. 4, No. 2, 2008, pp.339-359 [Online: Vol.4, 2008: 38]

Vipera (Acridophaga) ursinii in Romania:

historical and present distribution

László KRECSÁK1,* and Ştefan ZAMFIRESCU2

1. Eötvös Loránd University, Department of Systematic Zoology and Ecology, Pázmány Péter s. 1/C, H-1117 Budapest, 1518 Pf. 120, Hungary; E-mail: [email protected]

2. Universitatea “Al. I. Cuza”, Faculty of Biology, Carol I, 20A, 700505, Iaşi, Romania; E-mail: [email protected].

* Corresponding author: L. Krecsák, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. The distribution of the Vipera ursinii complex in Romania is presented, based on records from the scientific literature since the 1800s and results of our own surveys carried out between 1997 and 2007. Altogether, 22 historical and current localities of the Vipera (Acridophaga) group are now known in Romania. Additionally, two erroneous records were found in the literature, one (Pădurea si păşunile Mârzeşti) refers to a habitat of V. u. moldavica from where no direct evidence exists of the presence of the taxon, the other (Bucegi mountains) being an adder (Vipera berus) misidentified as V. u. macrops. Seven surviving populations are known today: one V. u. rakosiensis population at Cicârd village in Transylvania, and six V. u. moldavica populations, three of which are located in Moldova (Valea lui David, Tăuteşti and in the Româneşti–Avântul–Ursoaia area) and three others in the Danube Delta (Perisor-Periteaşca, Letea and Sfântu Gheorghe). The taxon is most probably extinct from nine localities: Fânaţele Clujului, Floreşti, Făget forest, Tomeşti, Vlădiceni, Tecuci, Portiţa, Caraorman and Agigea. Six localities (Bonţida and Sic, Bogata, Valea Florilor, Călăraşi, Horlăceni, and Rarău Mountain) are considered questionable as neither the absence, nor the presence, of the taxon could be confirmed at these sites. We emphasise the necessity for further intensive surveys in all possible viper habitats and the urgent need for strict protection measures of all habitats where they are still present. Key words: Viperidae, meadow viper, Vipera berus, Transylvania, Moldova, Danube Delta, conservation.

Introduction The small sized, primarily insecti-

vorous vipers, of the Vipera (Acridophaga) ursinii complex, are the rarest and most endangered reptile species of the Romanian fauna (e.g. Iftime 2001, 2005), with a similar status all over their distri-butional range (e.g. Corbett 1989, Edgar & Bird 2006).

Recently, Török (2002, 2007) and Ghira (2007) published reviews on the distribution of the complex in Romania.

Although these works are compre-hensive, they require several corrections and clarifications, which is one of the purposes of the present paper.

We have undertaken a review of the records from literature since the 1800’s, augmented with the results of our own surveys carried out between 1997 and 2007. In this review we discuss the present status of each population; and present an updated distribution map of the species in Romania.

North-West J Zool, 4, 2008 Oradea, Romania

Krecsák, L. & Zamfirescu, Ş. 340

Materials and methods As most publications dealing with the

Romanian distribution of the Vipera (Acridophaga) ursinii complex used selected literature, which refer to a particular population or a single region of Romania, we have studied all available works on the complex and listed all reports from Romania published since the 1800’s.

All but one of the historical localities (Caraorman marine levee) were surveyed over the last ten years, and the results have been included in the text.

The distribution map was produced with DMAP for Windows version 7.0a by Dr. Alan Morton.

Distribution of the Vipera (Acridophaga) ursinii complex in Romania

Historically, the complex occurs in

three separated regions of Romania; Transylvania, Moldova and the Danube Delta. Therefore, we list the records se-parately for these three regions. Where available the Hungarian name and/or the English translation of the locality is provided in parantheses.

A) Transylvania The subspecies Vipera ursinii rako-

siensis (Méhely, 1893) was historically recorded from this area. The literature mentions seven localities (Fânaţele Clujului (Szénafüvek), Floreşti, Făget (Bükk) forest, Bonţida and Sic, Bogata, Valea Florilor, Pajiştile lui Suciu–Cicârd village) where the taxon occurred or occurs (see records below).

The snake has been reported from Transylvania, without mentioning an exact locality, by: Otto (1929), Reuss (1930), Mertens & Wermuth (1960), Bruno & Maugeri (1977), Saint-Girons (1978,

1980), Sochurek (1981), Korsós et al. (2001).

A1. Fânaţele Clujului (Szénafüvek,

Hayfields), Cluj County. The first record originated from Bielz

(1856: 157) who mentions the occurrence of Vipera berus on Heuwiesen bei Cluj (=Fânaţele Clujului). Specimen(s) were collected here in 1845 by Herczog (Bielz 1888). Károli (1879) mentioned, citing Bielz (1856), the presence of adders (Vipera berus) in Cluj. The record by Bielz was later adopted by Mojsisovics (1888). In 1888 Géza Entz reported (Entz 1888a, 1888b) an adder, Pelias berus, captured at this locality with “dirty white coloration, on which the dorsal pattern strongly reflects”, and considered it the “long head variation” of the adder. These were almost certainly V. u. rakosiensis spe-cimens.

Méhely (1894) identified a specimen as V. u. rakosiensis that was sent to him by Kálmán Parádi, a teacher of natural sciences at the Calvinist College, Cluj, collected from Szénafüvek (=Fânaţele Clujului). Parádi presented specimens collected in the area of Cluj in 1883 (Anonymous 1883). Méhely’s record was later adopted by Dely & Janisch (1959), and Dely & Stohl (1984).

Later the species was reported by Méhely (1895, 1911, 1912, 1918), Petraskó (1899), Mojsisovics (1897), Werner (1897), Călinescu (1930, 1931), Kiriţescu (1930), Ferenczi (1932, 1933, 1941), Buresh & Zonkow (1934), Schwarz (1936), Fejér-váry–Lángh (1943), Băcescu (1937), Van-cea & Ionescu (1954), Stugren (1955), Burduja (1959), Fuhn (1969), Fuhn & Vancea (1961), Kramer (1961), Vasiliu & Şova (1968), and Beschkow (1973). For a long time this locality was considered the

North-West J Zool, 4, 2008

Vipera (Acridophaga) ursinii in Romania 341

only habitat for the subspecies in Transyl-vania, due to the lack of knowledge about Ferenczi’s works (1932, 1933, 1941).

This population has been considered extinct since the 1950s (Fuhn 1971, Street 1976, Bruno 1967a, 1967b, 1985, Vancea et al. 1980, 1985, Kiss 1985, Dely & Stohl 1989, Nilson et al. 1993, Ion 1996, Kotenko & Oţel 1996, Korsós et al. 1997, Korsós & Újvári 1998, Korsós & Újvári 1999, Török 2000a, 2000b, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, Korsós et al. 2001, Krecsák & Korsós 2001, Krecsák & Zamfirescu 2001, Nilson & Andrén 2001, Iftimie 2001, 2005, Újvári et al. 2002, Halpern & Péchy 2002, Gasc et al. 2004, Dely & Joger 2005, Ujvari et al. 2005, Edgar & Bird 2006, Ghira 2007).

Korsós et al. (1997) and later Korsós & Újvári (1998) mentioned what is probably one of the last specimens collected in the area, a specimen found in 1971 by the botanist István Péterfi (1906-1978). The skin of the animal was prepared as a bookmark and is probably still preserved in the Péterfi family’s library (Korsós et al. 1997).

Török (2000a) considered that the taxon had disappeared from this locality due to collecting activities. A more interesting list of endangering factors was published by Iftimie (2001): “Threatened by illegal collecting (for trade in venom, for captive breeding and other alleged pharmaceutical or scientific purposes), by persecution of local people and road kills”. Of these, only collecting and persecution may be accepted, since antivenom is not produced for any taxon within the V. ursinii group and there are no roads in the former viper habitat at Fânaţele Clujului. As already pointed out by Korsós et al. (1997) and Krecsák & Szabó (2001), the factors that probably caused

the extinction of the species were primarily intensive mowing and grazing. Certainly collecting also decimated the population, but we doubt that it was the most important factor. The size of this population was small, as it had already been mentioned by Ferenczi (1933) that “one needed to walk 4-5 km to find a snake”. Fânaţele Clujului is a botanical reserve of 1.5 ha, protected since 1932 by the resolution of the Council of Ministers nr. 1149/1932. The locality has been intensively surveyed since 1998 (more than 10 surveys per year), but the species was never found. In agreement with the above mentioned authors, we also consider this population extinct.

A2. Floreşti (Fenes), in the vicinity of

Cluj-Napoca, Cluj County. A single specimen is known to have

been collected at this locality. This 42 cm adult male is still preserved in the teaching collection of the Báthory College in Cluj, Romania, labelled Pelias berus, 1889, O. Fenes (the Hungarian name of the locality), A2a, 223., 3948/17 (Krecsák & Korsós 2001). The locality lies in close vicinity to Cluj (3 km). The area was never protected. All hayfields were ploughed at least once and most of them are still being used for agricultural purposes.

We surveyed the areas around Flo-reşti in 1999 and 2000, but were unable either to identify any potential habitats, nor to reconfirm the occurrence of the species there. Therefore we consider this population extinct.

A3. Făget (Bükk) forest, Cluj-Napoca,

Cluj County. A single specimen was reported by

Méhely (1894), which was sent to him by



Kálmán Parádi. The record was later adopted by Méhely (1895, 1911, 1918), Petraskó (1899), Călinescu (1931), Schwarz (1936), Fejérváry–Lángh (1943), Dely & Janisch (1959), and Kramer (1961). Méhely (1895: 97) reports that the species is sympatric with V. berus at this locality. Reuss (1930: 95) reported the sympatric occurrence of V. ursinii and V. berus in Transylvania, without mentioning the exact locality or citing Méhely, but presumably the record was adopted from Méhely’s work (1895) and refers to this population. Stugren (1955) considered this record an error, stating that the specimen was most probably collected at Fânaţele Clujului, as the Făget forest is inhabited by V. berus only. Dely & Janisch (1959) accepted the opinion of Stugren (1955) and Török (2007) considered it a doubtful record. Stugren’s (1955) opinion is plausible; though we still have doubts that Parádi may have incorrectly indicated the collecting locality. As already pointed out by Krecsák & Zamfirescu (2002) and Krecsák et al. (2003), toponyms caused much confusion when researchers tried to identify the location of the exact collecting sites in Romania. Almost all hills in the Făget forest area bear a toponym since this was, and continues to be, a heavily frequented tourist area, due to its location on the edge of Cluj-Napoca. We presume that Parádi indicated the name of the forest as this could have been known by Méhely, and not the toponym of a hill where he collected the specimen, which most probably would not be known to visitors, just to the inhabitants of Cluj. The possibility of the occurrence of V. u. rakosiensis in this area is sustained by the specimen collected at Floreşti, as the Făget forest extends almost up to Floreşti.

The forest was included in the order of the Ministry of Nature Protection on the NATURA 2000 sites in Romania (Anonymous 2007).

The hayfields surrounding the forest were all ploughed at least once and most of them are used for agricultural purposes. We failed to find the species during our surveys in 2001-2004, and consider the population extinct.

A4. Bonţida and Sic (Bonchida és

Szék), Cluj County. Vancea et al. (1980) published the

only record from this area including a photograph taken on the 24th of April 1962 by N. Roman (Vancea et al. 1980: 50 - Fig.1) of a specimen observed between Sic and Bonţida on a meadow with Stipa and Pulsatilla, with no forest nearby. The photograph depicts a meadow viper. This record was adopted by Vancea et al. (1895), Korsós et al. (2001), Török (2002, 2004), Krecsák & Korsós (2001), Kreiner (2006), Edgar & Bird (2006), and Ghira (2007).

The species was never found again, but potential habitats were identified in the area (Korsós & Újvári 1998, Korsós & Újvári 1999, pers.obs.). Török (2002, 2003, 2004) did not consider the photograph as reliable evidence for the existence of the species.

The area was never protected. We have surveyed the area between

Sic and Bonţida, in the 2000-2002 period, but failed to reconfirm the occurrence of the viper there. The population may be considered extinct.

A5. Bogata (Aranyosbogát), Cluj

County. The biology teacher Dr. Sándor

Ferenczi (1894-1945) (Gaal 2002) recorded



the taxon (Ferenczi 1932, 1933, 1941) from the surroundings of Bogata. He pub-lished these records in little known Hun-garian journals and in a city guide, thus they remained unnoticed up to 2001. His records were more recently adopted by Krecsák & Korsós (2001), Ghira (2007) and Török (2007).

The area was never protected. Although surveyed for several years

(1-4 surveys since 2000), the species was never observed in the area. However, the huge suitable habitat (ca. 1000 ha.) may well support vipers.

A6. Valea Florilor (Virágosvölgy,

Valley of Flowers), Cluj County. The taxon was reported from this

locality by Ferenczi (1941). The record was later adopted by Krecsák & Korsós (2001), Török (2007) and Ghira (2007), the latter erroneously citing Ferenczi (1932) and not Ferenczi (1941).

Török (2007: 246) after a long discussion on the locality marked by Ferenczi (1941), argued that this is probably Valea Florilor. Ferenczi’s (1941) work was published in Hungarian and contains the Hungarian names of the localities he surveyed, listing the viper, among others, from “Virágosvölgy”, which is the Hungarian name of Valea Florilor.

The area was never protected. We were unable to reconfirm the occurrence of V. u. rakosiensis in the area, but suitable habitats (hayfields with typical steppe vegetations that were never used for agricultural purposes, and are/were only hand mowed) have been identified in 2000 and 2001. There are slight chances for the survival of vipers at this locality, thus further surveys are required.

A7. Cicârd (Csengerpuszta), Alba County.

The most recent record of V. u. rakosiensis in Transylvania in 2002, was first reported in 2005 (Anonymous 2005). The existence of the population was pre-viously mentioned in the Romanian Red Book by Iftimie (2005). The author re-ferred to a personal communication by Ioan Ghira, and mentioned that recently there were unconfirmed records of V. u. rakosiensis from Transylvania. More re-cently, eight other publications mention this special population: Edgar & Bird (2006), Ghira (2007), Ghira & Kelemen (2007), Halpern et al. (2007a, 2007b, 2007d), Péchy (2007), and Török (2007).

Information given on the discovery is confusing. Kreiner (2006), Edgar & Bird (2006), and Ghira (2007) state that the population was discovered by members of the Romanian Herpetological Society, whereas according to Török (2007), who refers to a newspaper article by Ion (2005), it was discovered by an old villager who took one specimen to the Babeş-Bolyai University in Cluj, thus prompting the survey by the Romanian Herpetological Society.

In addition to conflicting information on the identity of the original finder, the data on the location of the habitat are also controversial. According to the recent order of the Ministry of Nature Pro-tection on the NATURA 2000 sites in Romania (Anonymous 2007) it is located in the vicinity of the locality Blandiana in Alba county, whereas according to Török (2007) it is in the vicinity of the Cicârd village, in the administrative territory of Lopadea Nouă, Alba county, on the meadows named “Pajiştile lui Suciu”. The relatively small area (30-40 ha) inhabited by vipers (Anonymous 2005) is



located in a hilly zone (between 280-500 m a.s.l.), surrounded by clover cultures, pastures, and hayfields (Ghira 2007). The population size was estimated at 300-400 specimens (Anonymous 2005).

In 2005 517,723.00 € were granted from LIFE-Nature sources for the project ”Saving Vipera Ursinii Rakociensis (sic) in Transylvania”, LIFE05 NAT/RO/ 000158 (Anonymous 2005). The main aims of the project are land lease and purchase, increasing the snake’s current range by habitat restoration such as hedge plantation and establishment of a corresponding buffer zone, and to secure management of the newly discovered population (Anonymous 2005).

This new finding has special im-portance, first from a scientific point of view, as the species was already considered to be extinct in Romania (e g. Takács et al. 1987, Újvári et al. 2000, Nilson & Andrén 2001, Korsós 1994, 2002, and references above). Also, V. u. rakosiensis had probably completely disappeared from Austria (e.g. Kammel 1992, Gasc et al. 2004, Edgar & Bird 2006, pers.obs.), and the Hungarian popu-lations, decimated by inbreeding de-pression (e.g. Újvári et al. 2000, 2002, 2005, Tóth et al. 2005), are considered to consist of less than 500 specimens (Korsós pers. comm., Báldi et al. 2001, Halpern & Péchy 2005a, Péchy 2007).

B) Moldova Vipera ursinii moldavica Nilson,

Andrén & Joger, 1993 inhabits (or inhabited) 10 localities in this region of the country: Valea lui David, Pădurea si păşunile Mârzeşti, Tăuteşti, Tomeşti,

Vlădiceni, Româneşti–Avântul–Ursoaia, Tecuci, Călăraşi, Horlăceni, and Rarău Mountain.

The occurrence of meadow vipers in Moldova, without specific locality re-cords, was mentioned by Mertens & Wermuth (1960), Saint-Girons (1980), Bruno (1985), Korsós et al. (2001), Krecsák (2001), Gasc et al. (2004), Dely & Joger (2005), Halpern et al. (2007b).

B1.Valea lui David (David’s Valley),

near Iaşi, Iaşi County. This is the type locality of Vipera

ursinii moldavica Nilson, Andrén & Joger, 1993, and one of the best known habitats of the taxon. It is located in close vicinity (8 km) to Iaşi, in the David’s valley, a secondary stream of the Bahlui river, on the hills of Coşeri, in an area of 46.36 ha (Krecsák et al. 2003).

The snake has been recorded by Vancea & Ionescu (1954), Stugren (1955), Burduja (1959), Fuhn & Vancea (1961), Kramer (1961), Fuhn (1964, 1969), Fuhn (1971), Vancea et al. (1980, 1985), Bruno (1967b, 1985), Mândru (1985), Joger et al. (1992), Nilson et al. (1993), Nilson & Andrén (1994), Ion (1996), Kotenko & Oţel (1996), Korsós et al. (1997, 2001), Korsós & Újvári (1999), Kotenko et al. (1999), Krecsák & Zamfirescu (2001, 2002), Zamfirescu & Krecsák (2002), Török (2002, 2003, 2007), Krecsák et al. (2003), Iftimie (2005), Edgar & Bird (2006), Ghira (2007), Zamfirescu et al. (2007, 2008, submitted), and Strugariu et al. (2008).

Additional records referring to this population were published by Mertens (1964), Saint Girons (1978), Kiss (1985), Gasc et al. (2004), and Dely & Joger (2005), who mentioned the locality as surroundings of Iaşi and Iftimie (2001)



without specifically naming the location, but stating the single locality.

The locality has been protected since 1969, by the decree 389/1969 of the District Council of Iaşi, reconfirmed in 1994 through the resolution 8/1994 of the Iasi County Council and in 2000 through Law 5/2000 (Anonymous 2000).

It is an existing and flourishing popu-lation of the taxon. Numerous specimens have been observed and studied here since 1999.

B2. Pădurea si păşunile (Forest and

Grasslands) Mârzeşti, Iaşi County. Recorded by Török (2007) based on

the order of the Ministry of Nature Protection on the NATURA 2000 sites in Romania (Anonymous 2007). Vipera ursinii moldavica is recorded only as a possibly occuring species at Pădurea si păşunile Mârzeşti in the above mention-ed document (Anonymous 2007). There is no definite evidence (photograph or collected specimen) of the presence of the viper in this area. Nevertheless, the exis-tence of steppic habitats and proximity to the area encompassed by Valea lui David and Dealul lui Dumnezeu, make the meadows of Mârzeşti a potential site for the Moldavian meadow viper (Zamfi-rescu et al. 2008).

B3.Tăuteşti, Iaşi County. The viper population was discovered

in 2006 (Strugariu et al. 2008). At present, just two specimens have been studied from here (Strugariu, pers. comm.). The area is located on the same side of the David’s stream valley as Valea lui David, from which it is separated by a planted forest (black fir and black locust) (Zamfirescu et al. 2008). The habitat is similar to the one of Valea lui David.

Consequently, we consider that there is a strong likelihood that this area supports a different population. However, further studies are needed to confirm this supposition. The habitat should imme-diately receive strict protection.

B4. Tomeşti, Iaşi County. Two specimens were collected at this

locality. Băcescu (1933) reported on the first specimen (mentioned as Vipera berus in the text), a juvenile female collected close to the Prut river by I. Sava on 18.06.1932. The second was an adult male collected on 03.05.1940 by M. Mălăescu in the flood plain of the river Bahlui (Băcesco 1941).

Later works (Fuhn 1969, Fuhn & Vancea 1961, Bruno 1985, Vancea et al. 1980, 1985, Korsós et al. 1997, 2001, Krecsák & Zamfirescu 2001, 2002, Krecsák et al. 2003, Török 2000b, 2002, 2003, 2007, Ghira, 2007, Zamfirescu et al. 2007), with or without reference to Băcesco (1941), mention this habitat of the taxon. Vancea et al. (1980), Török (2002) and Iftimie (2005) considered the V. u. moldavica population of the area extinct.

A major part of these hayfields are now urban areas, and the typical steppic meadows have disappeared (Krecsák et al. 2003), with the present vegetation of the habitats that once supported vipers being dominated by mesophilous asso-ciations (Zamfirescu et al. 2007, 2008). The area is not protected.

Although several surveys have been carried out since 2000, the snake has not been found, and the population is most probably extinct (Krecsák & Zamfirescu 2002, Krecsák et al. 2003, Zamfirescu et al. 2007, 2008, Strugariu et al. 2008).



B5. Vlădiceni, Iaşi County. The single record was recently

published by Török (2007), who men-tions, based on a personal communi-cation from Dr. Nicolae Valenciuc, the former curator of the Natural History Museum in Iaşi, one specimen formerly preserved in the museum, collected in 1971 near Vlădiceni. The specimen was collected on 16.05.1972 and preserved in the Museum catalogued as No. 84. The snake was still present in the collection in 1985 (Mândru 1985) but is now lost (Davideanu, pers.comm.). Vlădiceni lays 3 km north from Tomeşti, and the hayfields that once may have hosted vipers are now dominated by meso-philous associations similar to Tomeşti. The population is most probably extinct.

B6. Româneşti–Avântul–Ursoaia, Iaşi

County. Vancea et al. (1980) recorded the

occurrence of the taxon in this area for the first time. Dely & Stohl (1984) mention the first preserved specimen (an adult female, 49 cm long) from Romo-neşti (sic) collected by Dr. Şt. Vancea on 05.05.1977. The specimen is still preserved in the Herpetological collection of the Hungarian Natural History Museum, catalogued as 2023/1 Româ-neşti, Avântul, Ursoaia, Jud. Iaşi. Leg: Prof. Dr. Ştefan Vancea. 05.05.1977.

Vancea et al. (1985) reported the specimens as collected from Dealul lui Dumnezeu (=God’s Hill). The record was later adopted by Nilson et al. (1993), Korsós et al. (1997, 2001), Nilson & Andrén (2001), Krecsák & Zamfirescu (2001, 2002), Krecsák et al. (2003), Ghira (2007). The population was supposed extinct (Korsós & Újvári 1999, Török 2002, 2003,).

Intensive surveys of this locality started in 2000 (Krecsák & Zamfirescu 2002). The species has been found in 2000 on a hill named by the locals “Dealul lui Dumnezeu” in the vicinity of Ursoaia, which has since been proved to be a hill named “Dealul Mare” (= Big Hill) according to the topographic map (Kre-csák & Zamfirescu 2002, Krecsák et al. 2003). An additional specimen was discovered in the same region on a hill named “Holm” or “Lanu Mare” accord-ing to the topographic maps (Krecsák & Zamfirescu 2002, Krecsák et al. 2003). In 2001 another specimen was found 2 km from “Holm” in a valley called “Ciritei” (Krecsák & Zamfirescu 2002, Krecsák et al. 2003). The above records were adopted by Iftimie (2005), Edgar & Bird (2006) and Török (2007). Zamfirescu et al. (2007, 2008, submitted) and Strugariu et al. (2008) reconfirmed the presence of the snake at all three locations.

The area is not yet protected; it has only been included in the order of the Ministry of Nature Protection on the NATURA 2000 sites in Romania (Anony-mous 2007). Zamfirescu et al. (submitted) pointed out the immediate need for official protection of the site.

B7. Tecuci, Galaţi County. A single juvenile (23 cm long) was

collected on 20.07.1940, in a plain close to the river Bârlad, near Tecuci (Băcesco 1941).

Later works (Stugren 1955, Kramer 1961, Fuhn 1969, Vancea et al. 1985, Korsós et al. 2001, Krecsák & Zamfirescu 2001, 2002, Krecsák et al. 2003, Török 2000b, 2002, 2003, 2007, Iftimie 2005, Ghira 2007, Zamfirescu et al. 2007, 2008), with or without reference to Băcesco (1941), mention the population.



The area is not protected. The snake has not been found since,

and the population is most probably extinct (Krecsák & Zamfirescu 2002, Krecsák et al. 2003).

B8. Călăraşi, Botoşani County. Vancea et al. (1980, 1985) discovered

V. u. moldavica at this locality. A single male specimen collected at Călăraşi on 21.04.1971 remains in the collection of the Natural History Museum of Iaşi labeled Călăraşi (Botoşani) Dorohoi with the catalogue no. CDIII/1 (Krecsák et al. 2003). The specimen has been studied by Nilson & Andrén (2001) who also recorded this occurrence of the taxon. The record of Vancea et al.(1985) was later adopted by Korsós et al. (1997, 2001), Krecsák & Zamfirescu (2001, 2002), Krecsák et al. (2003), Török (2002, 2003, 2007), Iftimie (2005), Ghira (2007), and Zamfirescu et al. (2007, 2008).

The population was considered most probably extinct by Krecsák & Zamfirescu (2002), Krecsák et al. (2003), but as still existing by Iftimie (2005).

The area is not protected. We could not reconfirm the existence

of the population during our surveys in 2006. However, the possible existence of viper populations in the area cannot be excluded.

B9. Horlăceni, Botoşani County. The existence of V. ursinii at Horlăceni

close to Şendriceni–Dorohoi was men-tioned by Vancea et al. (1980), and Vancea et al. (1985). The record was later adopted by Korsós et al. (1997, 2001), Krecsák & Zamfirescu (2001, 2002), Krecsák et al. (2003), Török (2002, 2003, 2007), Iftimie (2005), Ghira (2007), and Zamfirescu et al. (2007, 2008).

Iftimie (2005) considered the popu-lation extant, whereas Krecsák et al. (2003) considered it to be probably ex-tinct.

The area is not protected. We were not able to identify spe-

cimens in museum collections, or to re-confirm the existence of the population during our surveys in 2006. However, vipers may exist at this locality, and further surveys are needed.

B10. Rarău Mountain, Suceava

County. Vancea et al. (1985) recorded one

subadult female (32.3 cm long) in the Teaching Collection of the Biology Faculty of the University in Iaşi, collected in May 1957 on a southeast slope of the Rarău Mountain, between the Rarău hostel (1667 m a.s.l.) and the village Chiril (950 m a.s.l.). The snake was captured in a hayfield with Festuca rubra, Poa and Alopecurus. The record was adopted by Dely & Stohl (1989), Nilson & Andrén (1994), Korsós et al. (1997, 2001), Krecsák & Zamfirescu (2001, 2002), Krecsák et al. (2003), Dely & Joger (2005), Török (2002, 2003, 2007), Iftimie (2005), Edgar & Bird (2006), Ghira (2007), and Zamfirescu et al. (2007, 2008). The specimen is now lost (Nilson et al. 1993, Korsós et al. 1997, pers.obs.).

Nilson et al. (1993) and Nilson & Andrén (2001) mentioned two specimens collected in 1957 by Vancea from this locality. They were deposited in the Natural History Museum of Iaşi and subsequently got lost according to Vancea (pers.comm.). We can confirm that both specimens are lost, but we have been able to study a series of photo-graphs by Prof. Vancea depicting a V. u.



moldavica specimen which is also des-cribed in Vancea et al. (1985) (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Female meadow viper collected by Prof.

Ştefan Vancea at Rarău Mountain (source dr. Göran Nilson).

This specific area of the Mountain is not protected. Only an 887.9 ha area of the peak, named “Pietrele Doamnei” (=The rocks of the Lady) Reserve is protected since 1955, after the Decision no. 1625/1955 of the Council of Ministers, as a geological reserve.

Recent surveys in 2002 and 2003 failed to find the taxon (Strugariu et al. 2006, Zamfirescu et al. 2008). We have surveyed the area in 2006 but did not find vipers. Further surveys are needed to clarify the presence or absence of the taxon at the locality, since the occurrence of meadow vipers at this altitude is unusual. It should be noted that all other populations are found below 200m a.s.l..

The population was considered most probably extinct by Krecsák et al. (2003), though as still existing by Iftimie (2005).

C) Danube Delta Meadow vipers were recorded from 5

localities in the Delta, and one additional locality in Dobrogea: Perişor–Periteaşca area, Portiţa, Letea area, Sfântu Gheorghe area, Caraorman, and Agigea. All are situated within the Danube Delta Natural Reserve, an area protected since 1938 by Decision No 645 of the Council of Ministers. 50,600 hectares (8.7% of the area of the reserve) are strictly protected, 223,300 ha (38.5% of the reserve) are buffer zones, and 306,100 ha (52.8% of the reserve) are economic (e.g. agricultural polders, fish ponds, forestry, built-up areas) areas.

Mertens (1923), Kiriţescu (1930), Vancea & Ionescu (1954), Knoepffler & Sochurek (1955), Mertens & Wermuth (1960), Kramer (1961), Bruno (1967b), Beschkow (1973), Sochurek (1979), Saint-Girons (1978, 1980), Sochurek (1981), Nilson & Andrén (1994), Ion (1996), Korsós et al. (2001), Krecsák (2001), Van der Voort (2004), Dely & Joger (2005), Iftimie (2005) and Halpern et al. (2007b) reported the occurrence of the species in the Delta, without exact locality records.

In earlier herpetological literature (e.g. Antipa 1911, Mertens 1921, Călinescu 1931, Băcescu 1934) the specimens collected in the Dobrodgea region and in the Danube Delta were considered as V. berus. Since Mertens’ 1923 work, they have been known as Vipera renardi.



C1. Perişor–Periteaşca area, Tulcea County.

Localities for this population, found east of the Razim–Sinoe lagoon system, were recorded in literature as Periteaşca, Perişor or Dranov. Thus, Vancea et al. (1980), Kotenko & Oţel (1996), Koteno et al. (1999), Korsós & Újvári (1999), Kotenko (2001), Krecsák et al. (2003), Edgar & Bird (2006), and Török (2003, 2007) mentioned it as Perişor–Periteaşca area; Fuhn & Vancea (1961) (adopted by Vasiliu & Şova 1968, Oţel 1992, Kotenko & Oţel 1996, Vancea et al. 1985, Török 1996, Korsós et al. 1997, 2001, Nilson & Andrén 2001, Ghira 2007), Fuhn (1969, 1971), Bruno (1985), Török (1997), Halpern et al. (2002), Halpern & Péchy (2005b, 2005c, 2007c), Major et al. (2006) as Periteaşca; Nilson et al. (1993), Nilson & Andrén (2001) and Török (1998) as Perişor; Bruno (1985). An area of 4,125 ha between Perişor and Lehova lies within the strictly protected part of the Delta.

The area inhabited by vipers is up to 1,200 ha (Török 2003).

C2. Portiţa, Tulcea County. The snake was first reported by Fuhn

& Vancea (1961), their record being later adopted by Oţel (1992), and Kotenko & Oţel (1996). Additional records were made by Vasiliu & Şova (1968), Fuhn (1969, 1971), Vancea et al. (1980), Bruno (1985), Ion (1996) and Vancea et al. (1985), adopted by Korsós et al. (1997, 2001), Krecsák et al. (2003), and Ghira (2007).

The area is protected. According to Török (1998, 2000a, 2002,

2007) the population had disappeared. Similarly, Iftimie (2001) considered the population extinct by adopting the report of Török (2000b). We also consider this population extinct.

C3. Letea area, Tulcea County. This population was mentioned under

different names, relating to the exact collection locality as follows: Letea, C.A. Rosetti, Cardon, and Periprava. Stugren (1961), Vancea et al. (1985), Nilson & Andrén (2001) list the locality as C.A Rosetti. Kotenko et al. (1993a) (adopted by Kotenko et al. (1993b) as “C.A. Rosetti marine levee”) (1 km NW of the village Cardon). Under the locality name of Letea the following reports were made: Băcesco (1934); Băcescu (1937) (adobted by Fuhn & Vancea 1961, Stugren 1961, Fuhn 1964, Bruno 1985, Vasiliu & Şova 1968, Vancea et al. 1980, Oţel 1992, Kotenko et al. 1993b, Krecsák et al. 2003), Fuhn (1969, 1971), Edberg (1984), Kiss (1985) (adopted by Korsós et al. 2001), Vancea et al. (1985) (adopted by Korsós et al. 2001, Ghira 2007), Kotenko & Oţel (1996), Török (1996), Kotenko et al. (1993b) (adopted by Kiss et al. 1997), Nilson & Andrén (2001), Török (2000a, 2003, 2007) and Edgar & Bird (2006). The populations were first mentioned as Periprava by Băcescu (1937), his record being adopted by Fuhn & Vancea (1961), Vasiliu & Şova (1968), Vancea et al. (1980), Oţel (1992), Kotenko et al. (1993b), Krecsák et al. (2003). Additionally the taxon was mentioned by Fuhn (1971) adopted by Török (1997, 2000a), and Vancea et al. (1985) adopted by Korsós et al. (1997, 2001), and Ghira (2007).

An area of 2,825 ha of the Letea forest is strictly protected.

The southeastern part of the Letea marine levee, named C.A Rosetti, is inhabited by vipers (Török 2003), which have become scarce here in recent decades (Török 2000a, 2007).



C4. Sfântu Gheorghe area, Tulcea County.

This population is mentioned in the literature either as Sfântu Gheorghe or Sărături marine levee. Thus, Călinescu (1931), Băcescu (1937), Vasiliu & Şova (1968), Fuhn (1971), Bruno (1985), Vancea et al. (1985), Oţel (1992), Kotenko et al. (1993a, 1993b) (adopted by Kotenko 2001, Kotenko & Oţel 1996, Korsós & Újvári 1999, Török 1996, 2000a, Korsós et al. 1997, 2001, Nilson & Andrén 2001), Halpern et al. (2002), Krecsák et al. (2003), Halpern & Péchy (2005b, 2005c, 2007c), Major et al. (2006), Ghira (2007) mention it as Sfântu Gheorghe; Băcescu (1937) (adopted by Fuhn & Vancea 1961, Stugren 1961, Vancea et al. 1980, Krecsák et al. 2003), Stugren (1961), Vasiliu & Şova (1968), Fuhn (1969, 1971), Vancea et al. (1980, 1985), Kiss (1985) (adopted by Korsós et al. 2001), Koteno et al. (1999), Nilson & Andrén (2001), Török (2000a, 2003, 2007), Edgar & Bird (2006) as Sărături marine levee.

This is probably the largest and most stable population in the Delta. The vipers inhabit an area of approximately 1,000 ha in the southern part of the Sărături marine levee comprising Câşla Vădaniei, Grindul Lung, Grindul Babelor (Török 2003), which are all protected areas.

C5. Caraorman, Tulcea County. The records from this locality are

confusing. Băcescu (1937) reported on reptiles collected in the Delta, including several vipers, and mentioned Caraorman among the collecting localities for reptiles. This record was later adopted by Krecsák et al. (2003). Stugren (1961) mentioned that the snake had not previously been found at Caraorman. Nilson & Andrén (2001)

stated that the species was found here by Edberg (1984). Edberg had not found the snake at Caraorman, but recorded it based on literature records (Edberg E., pers.comm.). Kiss (1985) mentioned Caraorman as one of the typical habitats of the species in the area, but also remarked that there were no verified records from there. The record by Kiss was adopted by Korsós et al. (2001).

Török (2007) questioned all these previous reports, and concluded that the snake was never present at this locality. An area of 2,250 ha of the Caraorman forest is strictly protected.

We were unable to trace any spe-cimens collected from this locality in museum collections. If it was ever pre-sent, the population is now most pro-bably extinct.

C6. Agigea, Constanţa County. The species has been recorded here by

Nagy (1980). Török (1998, 2002, 2003, 2007) discussed this record in detail and concluded that the specimen(s) observed by Nagy in 1971 were probably introduced to this site by teachers or students of the Al. I. Cuza University in Iaşi, or of the Ovidius University in Constanţa, who carry out several field surveys of this locality each year. Török, referring to Nagy (1980) and personal communications, commented on un-successful introductions of Euscorpius charpaticus, Podarcis muralis, Cavia por-cellus and Vipera ammodytes. The area was intensively surveyed since 1997 and the species could never be found. Thus we share the opinion of Török, that the specimen(s) recorded by Nagy (1980) were introduced and probably either later removed from this site, or have become extinct.



One additional record of Vipera ursinii macrops (Méhely, 1911) should be mentioned. Băcesco (1936) reported the taxon from the Bucegi Mountain (Praho-va County). The specimen was collected by Prof. A. Popovici-Bâznoşanu at Jepii Mari, on 21 June 1933 (Băcesco, 1936). Two years later, Băcesco (1938) provided a more detailed description together with

a series of photographs of the specimen. The record was later adopted by Băcesco (1941), Stugren (1955). Török (2003, 2007) considered it a doubtful record. As previously stated by Fuhn & Vancea (1961), Kramer (1961), Krecsák (2001), Edgar & Bird (2006), and as can be observed in Figure 2, the specimen was a misidentified adder (Vipera berus).

Figure 2. The Vipera ursinii macrops=Vipera berus specimen from Bucegi mountains (source: Băcesco

1938: 8).



Discussion We have recorded a total of 24 his-

torical and present localities (including erroneous records) of the Vipera (Acrido-phaga) ursinii group in Romania (Fig. 3). Seven surviving populations are known today, one located in Transylvania (Cicârd village), three in Moldova (Valea lui David, Tăuteşti and Româneşti–Avântul–Ursoaia), and three in the Danube Delta (Perisor–Periteaşca, Letea and Sfântu Gheorghe). V. ursinii is likely to be extinct from nine localities: Fânaţele Clujului, Floreşti, Făget forest, Tomeşti, Vlădiceni, Tecuci, Portiţa, Caraorman and Agigea. The presence or absence of V. ursinii needs to be clarified for six localities: Bonţida and Sic, Bogata, Valea Florilor, Călăraşi, Horlăceni, and Rarău Mountain. V. ursinii was erroneously re-corded from two localities: Pădurea si păşunile Mârzeşti and the Bucegi mount-ains. The former was reported by Török (2007) as hosting a surviving V. u. moldavica population. Török (2007), on the other hand, recorded Caraorman as a doubtful locality. We also list the Caraorman site as doubtful, as the snake has probably disappeared from there, though we cannot exclude the previous presence of specimens in this area.

Hopefully, further V. u. rakosiensis populations will be discovered in Tran-sylvania. There are still several hayfields in the Transylvanian Basin that were never used for agricultural purposes, and therefore may support viper populations. In 2001, for instance, a suitable habitat has been surveyed (without success of finding the snake) in the vicinity of the locality Fizeşul Gherlei, in Cluj district. The local biology teacher informed us

that he captured one V. ursinii in this area, but did not collect the specimen. Although this may be an erroneous record, the composition of the habitat, together with the close vicinity of former viper localities, namely Sic and Bonţida, suggest it is a locality worthy of future surveys.

The Romanian sites, with the ex-ception of the mountainous areas and those in the Danube Delta, are typically small steppic patches located on re-latively steep slopes, containing sodic areas and therefore unstuiable for agri-cultural utilisation (especially for those that require ploughing). For this reason we consider that the survival of the viper populations in these areas has been just a matter of chance. The human influence on these habitats a restricted mostly to manual mowing and grazing. Although, in the recent past these activities were carried out at a traditional level, they have become more intensified (parti-cularly grazing) with severe impact for the habitats. This is the collateral result of the retro-ceding of former communal land. The owners of these lands (some-times the entire natural reserve such as in Valea lui David) usually try to exploit them (overgrazing, ploughing) with poor benefits or to make a quick and easy profit by selling the lands. Most of the buyers, especially in areas near the cities, intend to build houses (sometimes eluding the law) which would irrever-sibly lead to the locally extinction of the viper populations. Thus, we consider that the most urgent action to take is to assure the persistence of the habitats in their present status, at least. The possible solutions would be: to buy these lands by the state, or to encourage private owners



Figu

re 3

. Rec

ords

of t

he V

iper

a (A

crid

opha

ga) c

ompl

ex fr

om R

oman

ia. L

egen

d: 1

. Fân

aţel

e C

luju

lui,

2. F

loreşt

i, 3.

Făg

et fo

rest

, 4. B

onţid

a an

d Si

c,

5.Bo

gata

, 6. V

alea

Flo

rilo

r, 7.

Cic

ârd,

8.V

alea

lui D

avid

, 9. P

ădur

ea s

i păş

unile

Mâr

zeşt

i, 10

. Tău

teşt

i, 11

. Tom

eşti,

12.

Vlă

dice

ni, 1

3. R

omân

eşti–

Avâ

ntul

–Urs

oaia

, 14.

Tec

uci,

15. C

ălăr

aşi,

16. H

orlă

ceni

, 17.

Rarău

mou

ntai

n, 1

8. P

eriş

or-P

erite

aşca

are

a, 1

9. P

ortiţ

a, 2

0. L

etea

are

a, 2

1. S

fânt

u G

heor

ghe

area

, 22.

Car

aorm

an, 2

3. A

gige

a, 2

4. Je

pii M

ari (

Buce

gi m

ount

ains

).



to use them traditionally through the use of subsidies.

Another important threat for the meadow viper populations is illegal collection. Although the species is strictly protected by the conservation laws, its application is far from effective. We consider that any effective way to fight against these threats would include long term policies as well, such as: education, raising public awareness and campaign-ing by environmental protection institu-tions and nongovernmental organisa-tions.

Conclusions Based on the facts presented above we

conclude: i) The species complex is still present

in a small number of localities (7) in the country, but all populations are threatened and vulnerable.

ii) Further intensive surveys are needed across the whole country to identify remnant populations, and if discovered these should receive immediate strict protection.

iii) All surviving populations should receive urgent special attention together with all necessary protective measures, including the introduction of clearer protective legislation.

Acknowledgements. We are indebted to Dr. Zoltán

Korsós (Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest), Dr. Beáta Újvári (School of Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong, Australia), Anna Szabó (Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj, Romania), and members of the Eco Studia Society (Cluj, Romania) for their help in the field surveys; Dr. Grigore Davideanu

(Natural History Museum, Iaşi), Etienne Edberg (Köpingebro, Sweden), Tamás Péchy (Hungarian Ornithological Society, Budapest) and Alexandru Strugariu (University of Iaşi, Romania) for sharing unpublished information with us. Thanks to the Romanian Academy of Sciences for issuing the permits for the surveys. We thank Dr. Göran Nilson (Götheborg Natural History Museum, Sweden) for the photographs of the Rarău specimen. The comments and criticisms of Dr. Göran Nilson, Dr. Zoltán Korsós and David Buttle (Norfolk, UK) highly improved the manuscript.

References

Anonymous (1883): Parádi Kálmán tanár a kolozsvári határon gyűjtött kígyókról. Orvos-Természettudományi Értesítő 8: 181. [in Hungarian]

Anonymous (2000): Lege nr. 5 din 6 martie 2000 privind aprobarea Planului de amenajare a teritoriului naţional-Secţiunea a III-a - zone protejate. Monitorul Oficial al României, 152. [in Romanian]

Anonymous (2005): LIFE-Nature. Projects. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 55 pp.

Anonymous (2007): Ordin nr. 776 al Ministerului Mediului si Dezvoltării Durabile privind declararea siturilor de importanţă comunitară, ca parte integrantă a reţelei ecologice europene Natura 2000 în România. Monitorul Oficial al României, 1. [in Romanian]

Antipa, Gr. (1911): Die Biologie des Donaudeltas und des Inundationsgebites des unteren Donau. Verhandlungen VIII Internationalen Zoologen-Kongresses Graz, Gustav Fischer, Jenna, 163-208.

Băcescu, M. (1933): Vipera berus în Moldova şi Basarabia. Revista Ştiinţifică “V. Adamachi” 9 (1): 3-13. [in Romanian]

Băcesco, M. (1934): Contributions à la faune des reptiles de Dobrodgea. Analele Ştiinţifice ale Universităţii Iaşi 19(1/4): 317-330.

Băcesco, M. (1936): Une vipère nouvelle pour la faune de la Roumanie: Vipera ursinii Bonap. Sbsp. Macrops, Méhely, dans le massif des monts Bucegi. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Academie des Sciences de Roumanie 1 (1): 30-33.

Băcescu, M. (1937): Cîteva interesante date herpetologice pentru fauna Romîniei şi unele propuneri de rezervaţii naturale în legătură cu ele. Revista Ştiinţifică “V. Adamachi” 23: 122-128. [in Romanian]

Băcesco, M. (1938): Contribution a la connaissance des reptiles et des amphibiens de la Roumanie. Étude de la Collection de Mr le Professeur A. Popovici-Bâznosanu. Annales Scientifique de l’Université de Jassy 24/2 (1): 1-10.

Băcesco, M. (1941): Sur la présence de Vipera ursinii ursinii (Bonap.) en Moldavie et quelques



observations sur la Biologie de Pelobates fuscus (Laur.) en Roumanie. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Academie des Sciences de Roumanie 1-2: 63-69.

Báldi, A., Csorba, G., Korsós, Z. (2001): Setting priorities for the conservation of terrestrial vertebrates in Hungary. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 1283-1296.

Beschkow, W. (1973): Über die subgenerische Zugehörigkeit der bulgarischen Vipera ursinii (Bonaparte, 1835) (Serpentes). Bulletin de l’Institut de Zoologie et Musée, Académie Bulgare des Sciences 37: 103-112. [in Bulgarian]

Bielz, E.A. (1856): Die Fauna der Wierbeltiere Siebenbürgens, eine szstematische Aufzählung und Bechreibung der in Siebenbürgen vorkommenden Säugethiere, Vögel, Amphibien und Fische. Filtsch, Hermannstadt, 200 pp.

Bielz, E.A. (1888): Die Fauna der Wierbeltiere Siebenbürgens nach ihrem jetzigen Bestande. Verhandlungen und Mittheilungen des Siebenbürgischen Vereins für Natur wissenschaften in Hermannstadt 39: 15-120.

Bruno, S. (1967a): La Vipera ursinii (Bonaparte 1835) in Italia. Memorie del Museo Civico si Storia Naturale di Verona 15: 105-125.

Bruno, S. (1967b): I serpenti europei dalla collezione Edoardo de Betta conservta nel Civico Museo di Storia Naturale di Verona. Memorie del Museo Civivo di Storia Naturale-Verona 15: 173-211.

Bruno, S. (1985): Le vipere d’Italia e d’Europa. Edagricole, Bologna, i-xiii+269 pp.

Bruno, S., Maugeri, S. (1977): Rettili d’Italia. Serpenti. Firenze: Martello-Giunti, 207 pp.

Burduja, C. (1959): O rezervaţie ştiinţifică care trebuie înfiinţată „Fânaţele din Valea lui David-Iaşi“. Ocrotirea Naturii şi a Mediului Înconjurător 4: 154-157. [in Romanian]

Buresh, I. W., Zonkow, J. (1934): Untersuchungen über dir Verbreitung des Reptilien und Amphibien in Bulgarien und auf der Balkanhalbinsel. II. Teil: Schlangen (Serpentes) 7: 106-188. [in Bulgarian]

Călinescu, R.I. (1930): Manual pentru determinarea amphibiilor şi reptilelor din Romania. Conţinând şi instrucţiuni asupra strângerei, conservărei materialului şi tratărei muşcăturilor de viperă. Editura „Casa Şcoalelor”, Bucureşti, 92 pp. [in Romanian]

Călinescu, R. (1931): Contribuţiuni sistematice şi zoogeografice la studiul amphibiilor şi reptilelor din Romînia. Memoriile Secţiunii Ştiinţifice, Academia Română Bucureşti 7: 119-291. [in Romanian]

Corbett, K. (1989): Conservation of European Reptiles and Amphibians. Christopher Helm: London, 274 pp.

Dely, O.G., Janisch, M. (1959): La répartition des vipères de champs (Vipera ursinii rákosiensis Méhely) dans le Bassin des Carpathes. Vertebrata Hungarica 1(1): 25-34.

Dely, O.G., Joger, U. (2005): Vipera (Pelias) ursinii BONAPARTE, 1835–Wiesenotter. In: Joger U. & Stümpel N. [eds.]: Handbuch der Reptilien und Amphibien Europas, 3/IIB Schlangen (Serpentes) III Viperidae. Aula Verlag, Wiesbaden, 374-414.

Dely, O.Gy., Stohl, G. (1984): Weitere Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Vipera ursinii - Formenkreises (Viperidae). Vertebrata Hungarica 22: 15-46.

Dely, O.Gy., Stohl, G. (1989): Phylogenetische Probleme in dem Vipera ursinii-Formenkreis (Serpentes, Viperidae). Vertebrata Hungarica 23: 9-20.

Edberg, E. (1984): Donaudeltat och Dobrogea. En naturguide till den rumänska svartahavskusten. Etienne Edberg-Natur Information, Stockholm, 52 pp. [in Swedish]

Edgar, P., Bird, D.R. (2006): Action Plan for the Conservation of the Meadow Viper (Vipera ursinii) in Europe. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats Standing Committee, 26th meeting, Strasbourg, 27-29 November 2006, T-PVS/Inf (2006) 21, 38 pp.

Entz, G. (1888a): Adalékok Erdély herpetológiájához. Orvos-Természettudományi Értesítő 13(1):39-52. [in Hungarian and German]

Entz, G. (1888b): Adalékok Erdély csúszómászóihoz. Természettudományi Közlöny 223: 107-108. [in Hungarian]

Fejérváry-Lángh, A.M. (1943): Beiträge und Berichtigungen zum Reptilien-Teil des ungarischen Faunenkataloges. Fragmenta Faunistica Hungarica 6(3): 81-98.

Ferenczi, S. (1932): Erdély viperáiról. Erdély 29: 82-85. [in Hungarian]

Ferenczi, S. (1933): Erdély viperái különös tekintettel a rákosi viperára (Vipera ursinii Bonap.). Az EME XI. Vándorgyülésének emlékkönyve, Kolozsvár, 71-76. [in Hungarian]

Ferenczi, S. (1941): Kolozsvári útmutató. Földtani, őslénytani, történelmi és természetrajzi vonatkozásokkal. Erdélyi Kárpát Egyesület, Kolozsvár, 158 pp. [in Hungarian]

Fuhn, I.E. (1964): Situatia actuală a faunei noastre de Amfibii şi Reptile şi ocrotirea ei. Ocrotirea Naturii 8(2): 231-248. [In Romanian]

Fuhn I. E. (1969), Broaşte, şerpi, şopîrle, Ed. Natura şi Omul, Bucureşti, 245 pp.+12 Pls. [in Romanian]

Fuhn, I.E. (1971): Amfibii şi Reptile din Delta Dunării. Peuce, Studii şi Comunicări de Ştiinţele Naturii Susţinute la Colocviul Delta Dunării Tulcea 1-4 Iunie 1969, 373-378. [in Romanian]

Fuhn, I.E., Vancea, Şt. (1961): Fauna R.P.R.. Reptilia (Ţestoase, Şopîrle, Şerpi). Vol. XIV, fasc. 2, Ed. Academiei R.P.R., Bucureşti, 338 pp. [in Romanian]

Gaal, Gy. (2002) Amit Ferenczi Sándorról még érdemes feljegyezni. Keresztény Magvető 108(2-3): 241-246. [in Hungarian]

Gasc, J.P., Cabela, A., Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J., Dolmen, D., Grossenbacher, K., Haffner, P., Lescure, J., Martens, H., Martínez Rica, J.P., Maurin, H., Oliveira, M.E., Sofianidou, T.S., Veith, M., Zuiderwijk, A. [eds.]



(2004): Atlas of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. Collection Patrimoines Naturels, 29, Societas Europaea Herpetologica, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle & Service du Petrimone Naturel, Paris, 496 pp.

Ghira, I. (2007): Rediscovery of Vipera ursinii rakosiensis in Transylvania. Herpetologia Romanica 1: 77-81.

Ghira, I.V., Kelemen A. (2007): Rediscovery of Vipera ursinii rakosiensis in Transylvania. Programme and Abstracts, 2nd Biology of the Vipers Conference, 24-27 September 2007, Fundação Dr. António Cupertino de Miranda, Porto- Portugal, 67.

Halpern, B., Péchy, T. (2002): Conservation activities on Hungarian meadow vipers (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis) in the field. In: Kovács, T., Korsós, Z., Rehák, I., Corbett, K. & P. S. Miller [eds.]: Population and Habitat Viability Assessment for the Hungarian Meadow Viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis). Workshop Report, Apple Valley, MN: IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, 68-70.

Halpern, B., Péchy, T. (2005a): Hungarian meadow viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis) conservation program. Societas Europaea Herpetologica, Programme and Abstracts, 13th Ordinary General Meeting, Bonn, Germany, 27 September-2 October, 2005, 53-54.

Halpern, B., Péchy, T. (2005b): Comparison of Vipera ursinii moldavica populations of the Romanian Danube-delta. Societas Europaea Herpetologica, Programme and Abstracts, 13th Ordinary General Meeting, Bonn, Germany, 27 September-2 October, 2005, 54.

Halpern, B., Péchy, T., Kiss, J.B. (2002): Scientific research on two isolated Vipera ursinii moldavica populations of the Romanian Black See coast: preliminary results. Cercatari Marine-Recherches Marines 34: 301-311.

Halpern, B., Major, A., Péchy, T., Kiss, B.J. (2005c): Comparison of two isolated Vipera ursinii moldavica populations of the Romanian Danube-Delta. Programme and Abstracts: Fifth World Congress of Herpetology, 19-24 June 2005, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 51.

Halpern, B., Péchy, T., Katona, K., Szövényi, G., Vidéki, R., Major, Á., Dankovics, R. (2007a): Results of the Hungarian meadow viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis) conservation program. Abstracts, 2nd Biology of the Vipers Conference, 24-27 September 2007, Fundação Dr. António Cupertino de Miranda, Porto-Portugal, 21-22.

Halpern, B., Péchy, T., Dankovics, R., Major, Á., Kiss, J.B., Zamfirescu, S., Zinenko, A., Kukushkin, O., Ghira, I. (2007b): Genetic differentiation of the endangered populations of Meadow vipers (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis, Vipera ursinii moldavica and Vipera renardi) in East Europe. Abstracts, 2nd Biology of the Vipers Conference, 24-27 September 2007, Fundação Dr. António Cupertino de Miranda, Porto-Portugal, 30.

Halpern, B., Major, Á., Péchy, T., Marinov, E.M., Kiss, J.B. (2007c): Genetic comparison of Moldavian Meadow Viper (Vipera ursinii moldavica) populations of the Danube-Delta. Scientific Annals of the Danube Delta Institute for Research and Development, Tulcea-Romania 13: 19-26.

Halpern, B., Schrettné Major, Á., Péchy, T. (2007d): A rákosivipera-védelmi központ működése és első eredményei. Rosalia 3: 39-62. [in Hungarian]

Iftime, A. (2001). Lista roşie comentată a amfibienilor şi reptilelor din România. Ocrotirea Naturii şi a Mediului Înconjurător 44-45: 39-49. [in Romanian]

Iftime, A.( 2005): Reptilia. In: Botnariuc & Tatole [eds.]: Cartea Roşie a Vertebratelor din România. red data book of vertebrates from Romania. Ed. Acad. Române, Bucureşti, 325 pp. [in Romanian]

Ion, I. (1996): Fauna herpetologică (Amfibieni şi reptile) a României. Ed. Proema, Baia Mare, 65 pp. [in Romanian]

Ion, R. (2005): Românii si-au găsit vipera de stepă pierdută acum 40 de ani. Cotidianul 18.06.2005: 1 pp. [in Romanian]

Joger, U., Hermann, H.-W., Nilson, G. (1992): Molecular phylogeny and systematics of viperine snakes II. A revision of the Vipera ursinii complex. In: Korsós, Z., Kiss, I. [eds.]: Proceedings of th 6th Ordinary General Meeting of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica, Budapest, 239-244.

Kammel, W. (1992): Zur Situation der Wiesenotter, Vipera ursinii rakosiensis, in Niederösterreich. Herpetozoa 5 (1/2): 3-11.

Károli J. (1879): Magyarország kígyóinak átnézete. Természetrajzi Füzetek 3 (2/3): 1-17+1 Pl. [in Hungarian]

Kiriţescu, C. (1930): Cercetări asupra faunei herpetologice a României. Ed. Cartea Românească, Bucuresti, 7-131 pp.+i+2 Pls. [in Romanian]

Kiss, J.B., Rékási, J., Sterbetz, I., Török, Zs.Cs. (1997): Herpetofagia pǎsǎrilor din Delta Dunǎrii. Analele Banatului 3: 59-64. [in Romanian]

Knoepffler, P., Sochurek, E. (1955): Neues über die Rassen der Wiesenotter (Vipera ursinii Bonap.). Burgenländische Heimblätter 17(4): 185-188.

Korsós, Z. (1994): A parlagi vipera (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis MÉHELY 1893) száz éve. Állattani Közlemények 78: 31-38. [in Hungarian]

Korsós, Z. (2002): The biology and ecology of Vipera ursinii rakosiensis. In: Kovács, T., Korsós, Z., Rehák, I., Corbett, K. & P. S. Miller [eds.]: Population and Habitat Viability Assessment for the Hungarian Meadow Viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis). Workshop Report, Apple Valley, MN: IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, 61-64.

Korsós, Z., Újvári, B. (1998): A rákosréti vipera Kolozsvár környékén. Állattani Közlemények 83: 123-128. [in Hungarian]

Korsós, Z., Újvári, B. (1999): Situation of Vipera ursinii in Romania and Moldova. 10th Ordinary General Meeting of Socetas Europaea Herpetologica, Irakleio, 85-86.



Korsós Z., Újvári B., Török Zs., (1997): Searching for the meadow viper in Romania. Miscellanea Zoologica Hungarica 11: 77-88.

Korsós Z., Kovács T., Pécshy T. (2001): A rákosi vipera múltja, jelene, jövője. Fővárosi Állat- és Növénykert, 67 pp. [in Hungarian]

Kotenko, T. (2001): Herpetofauna of the Danube Biosphere Reserve (Ukraine) against the background of the lower Danube region herpetofauna Analele Ştiinţifice ale Instutului-Delta Dunării 8: 111-123.

Kotenko, T., Oţel, V. (1996): Perişor-Periteaşca area of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve as reservation for reptiles and amphibians. Analele Ştiinţifice ale Instutului-Delta Dunării 5 (1): 171-187.

Kotenko, T., Fedorchenko, A.A., Kiss, J.B. (1993a): Herpetofauna of the Letea marine levee (Romania). Vestnik zoologii 2: 71. [in Russian]

Kotenko, T., Otel, V., Fedorchenko, A. (1993b): Herpetological investigations in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve in 1992. Analele Ştiinţifice ale Instutului-Delta Dunării 2: 99-107.

Kotenko, T.I., Mazorov-Leonov, S.Y., Mezhzherin, S.V. (1999): Biochemical genetic differentiation of the steppe viper (Vipera ursinii group) in Ukraine and Romania. 10th Ordinary General Meeting of Socetas Europaea Herpetologica, Irakleio, 88-90.

Kramer, E. (1961): Variation, Sexualdimorphismus, Wachstum und Taxionomie von Vipera ursinii (Bonaparte, 1835) und Vipera kaznakovi Nikolskij, 1909. Revue Suisse de Zoologie 68: 627-725.

Krecsák, L. (2001): A romániai parlagi viperák (Vipera ursinii) alfaji hovatartozása. XXV. Országos Tudományos Diákköri Konferencia, előadások kivonatfüzete, Budapest, 102. [in Hungarian]

Krecsák, L., Korsós, Z. (2001): Vipera ursinii rakosiensis in Transylvania. “II. Kolozsvári Biológus Napok” Conference, Abstracts, Cluj, 15-16. [in Hungarian, Romanian and English]

Krecsák, L.,Szabó, A. (2001): There was a viper!-there will be a viper? Extinction of the Hungarian meadow viper from the Fânaţele Clujului. Terrárium 3 (4): 24-25. [in Hungarian]

Krecsák, L., Zamfirescu, Şt. (2001): Ecological situation and morphological characteristics of Vipera ursinii moldavica in the “Valea lui David” Natural Reserve. Russian Journal of Herpetology 8 (1): 69-73.

Krecsák, L., Zamfirescu, Şt. (2002): Situation of Vipera ursinii moldavica in Romania. In: Kovács, T., Korsós, Z., Rehák, I., Corbett, K. & P. S. Miller [eds.]: Population and Habitat Viability Assessment for the Hungarian Meadow Viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis). Workshop Report, Apple Valley, MN: IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, 72-73.

Krecsák L., Zamfirescu, Şt., Korsós Z. (2003): An updated overview of the distribution of the Moldavian Steppe Viper (Vipera ursinii moldavica Nilson, Andrén and Joger, 1993). Russian Journal of Herpetology 10 (3): 199-206.

Kreiner, G. (2006): Vipera ursinii rakosiensis MÉHELY, 1893 in Rumänien Projektinformationen und Unterstützungsaufruf zum Erhalt einer vom Aussterben bedrohten Giftschlangenart in Europa. ÖGH-Aktuell 17: 6-7.

Major, Á, Halpern, B., Péchy, T., Kiss, B. (2006): Genetic comparisons of endangered populations of Vipera ursinii moldavica and Vipera ursinii rakosiensis. Abstracts 1st European Congress of Conservation Biology, 22-26 August 2006, Eger-Hungary, 135.

Mândru, C. (1985): Colecţiile Ştiinşifice ale Muzeului de Istorie Naturală Iaşi. Vertebrate. Universitatea „Al. I. Cuza” Iaşi, Muzeul Istorie Naturală, 96 pp. [in Romanian]

Méhely, L. (1894): Vipera ursinii, eine verkannte Giftschlange Europas. Zoologischer Anzeiger 17 (440): 57-61; 17 (441): 65-71.

Méhely, L. (1895): Magyarország kurta kígyói. Mathematikai és Természettudományi Közle-mények 26 (4): 5-108 + Pl.1-2. [in Hungarian]

Méhely, L. (1911): Systematisch-phylogenetische Studien an Viperiden. Annales historico naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 9: 186-243.

Méhely, L. (1912): A hazai viperákról. Természet-tudományi Közlöny 44 (545): 1-48. [in Hungarian]

Méhely, L. (1918): Reptilia et Amphibia. In: A Magyar birodalom állatvilága. Fauna Regni Hungariae. Királyi Magyar Természettudományi Társulat, Budapest, 6: 1-12. [in Hungarian and Latin]

Mertens, R. (1921): Die Amphibien und Reptilien der Walachei und der Dobrudzsa. II. Die Reptilien. Senckenbergiana 3 (1/2): 20-23.

Mertens, R. (1923): Beiträge zur Herpetologie Rumäniens. Senckenbergiana 5 (5/6): 207-227.

Mertens, R. (1964): Über Reptilienbastarde, III. Senckenbergiana Biologica 45 (1): 33-49.

Mertens, R., Wermuth, H. (1960): Die Amphibien und Reptilien Europas. (Dritte Liste, nach dem Stand vom 1. Januar 1960). Verlag Waldemar Kramer, Frankfurt am Main, 264 pp.

Mojsisovics, A. (1888): Über die geographische Verbreitung einiger westpalearktischer Schlangen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der bisher in Österreich-Ungarn aufgefundenen Formen. Mitteilungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereines für Steiermark 25 [1887]: 223-287.

Mojsisovics, A. (1897): Die Tierleben der österreichisch-ungarischen Tiefebenen. Biologische und tiergeographische Skizzen und Bilder illustriert durch Originalbeiträge von E. Amesfeder, Heinrich Bank und J. Varrone. Alfred-Hölder: Wien, xii+ 344 pp. + 8 Pls.

Nagy, G.C. (1980). Rezervaţia dunelor nisipoase de la Agigea. Pontus Euxinus-Studii si cercetări 1: 273-293. [in Romanian]

Nilson, G., Andrén, C. (1994): Vipera ursinii moldavica Meadow Viper. In: Convention on the Conservation of european Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Threatened Amphibians and Reptiles of Eastern Europe Requiring Special Conservation Measures.



A Contracted Report for the Bern Convention by the Societas Europaea Herpetologica. Strasbourg, 7 January 1994, T-PVS (94) 3: 50-51+Fig. 24.

Nilson, G., Andrén, C. (2001): The Meadow and Steppe Vipers of Europe and Asia–The Vipera (Acridophaga) ursinii complex. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47 (2-3): 87-267.

Nilson, G., Andrén, C., Joger, U. (1993): A re-evaluation of the taxonomic status of the Moldavian steppe viper based on immunological investigations, with a discussion of the hypothesis of secondary intergradation between Vipera ursinii rakosiensis and Vipera (ursinii) renardi. Amphibia-Reptilia 14: 45-57.

Oţel, V. (1992): Investigaţii herpetologice în Rezervaţia Biosferei Delta Dunării (RBDD) în anul 1991. Analele Ştiinţifice ale Instutului-Delta Dunării 1: 159-162. [in Romanian]

Otto, R. (1929): Untersuchungen über die Toxine europäischer Viperinen. Zeitschrift für Hygiene und Infektionskrankheiten 110(1): 82-92.

Petraskó, I. (1899): A kígyómarás okozta mérgezés és a hazai mérges kígyók. Temesvár: Uhrmann Henrik könyvnyomda, 3-36 pp. [in Hungarian]

Péchy, T. (2007): A rákosi vipera (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis Méhely, 1893). Rosalia 3: 13-23. [in Hungarian]

Reuss, T. (1930): Über eine neurotoxische Otterngruppe Europas, Mesocoronis 1927, und über ihre Stellung unter den Solenoglyphen der Welt. Glasnik Zemaljskog Museja Bosne i Hercegovine 42: 57-114 + 3 table + 1 map, Pls. 1-6.

Saint Girons, H. (1978) Morphologie externe comparée et systématique des Vipères d’Europe (Reptilia, Viperidae). Revue Suisse de Zoolgie 85: 565-595.

Saint-Girons, H. (1980): Biogéographie et évolution des Vipères européenes. Compte Rendu des Séances de la Société de Biogéographie 496: 146-172.

Schwarz, E. (1936): Untersuchungen über Systematik und Verbreitung der europäischen und mediterranen Ottern. In: Bieling, R., Demnitz, A., Schaumann, O., Schlossberger, H., v. Schuckman, W. & Schwarz, E. [eds.]: Die europäischen und mediterranen Ottern und ihre Gifte. Grundlagen zur Darstellung eines wirksamen Schlangenserums. Behringwerk-Mitteilungen, Heft 7, Selbstverlag der Behringwerke Marburg-Lahn, 159-355 + 1 map.

Sochurek, E. (1979): Kritische Liste der Giftschlangen Europas mit Beschreibung einer neuen Unterart. Mitteilungen der Zoologischen Gesellschaft Braunau 3 (8/9): 213-218.

Sochurek, E. (1981): Neue Liste der Giftschlangen Europas. Vereinsberichte, Informationen und Programme. Offizielles Organ des Österreischischen Verbandes für Vivaristik und Ökologie 9: 3-5.

Street, D. (1976): Hungary’s pacifist viper. Country Life 04.11.1976: 1304.

Strugariu, A., Sahlean, T.C., Volosciuc-Hutuleac, M.V., Puscasu, C.M. (2006): Preliminary data regarding the distribution of reptilian fauna in Suceava

County (Romania). North-Western Journal of Zoology 2 (1): 39-43.

Strugariu, A., Zamfirescu, Ş., Nicoară, A., Gherghel, I., Sas, I., Puşcaşu, C.M., Bugeac, T. (2008): Preliminary data regarding the distribution and status of the herpetofauna in Iaşi county (Romania). North-Western Journal of Zoology 4 (Suppl.1): S1-S23.

Stugren, B. (1955): Vipera de stepă, Vipera ursinii (Bonap.) de la Fînaţele Clujului. Studii şi Cercetări Ştiinţifice, Seria II, Ştiinţe. Biologice, Agricole şi Medicale 1-2: 59-77. [in Romanian]

Stugren, B. (1961): Reptilele grindurilor fluvio-maritime din Delta Dunării (Notă preliminară). Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai 2: 179-185. [in Romanian]

Takács, Z., Korsós, Z., Janisch, M. (1987): Conservation status of the endangered Vipera ursinii rakosiensis in Hungary. In: Van Gelder, J.J., Strijbosch, H., Berers, P.J.M. [eds.]: Proceedings of th 4th Ordinary General Meeting of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica Nijmegen, 391-394.

Tóth, T., Gál, J., Újvári, B., Madsen, T. (2005): Severe malformation in neonate Vipera ursinii rakosiensis. Amphibia-Reptilia 26 (2005): 388-390.

Török Zs. (1996): Az észak-dobrudzsai herpetofauna jelenlegi állapota. Múzeumi Füzetek 5: 110-117. [in Hungarian]

Török, Zs. (1997): Data on the ecology of amphibians and reptiles from the sandy areas of the Razim-Sinoe Lagoonary System (Romania). Travaux du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle “Grigore Antipa” 37: 297-303.

Török, Zs. (1998): Nişe ecologice spaţiale ale herpetofaunei de pe grindurile fluvio-maritime din complexul lagunar Razim-Sinoie (România). Acta Oecologica 5 (1-2): 59-63.

Török, Zs. (2000a): Şerpii veninoşi din România (Venomous snakes of Romania). Probleme de Ecologie Teoretică şi Aplicată în România-Direcţii Actuale, Tulcea, Suppl. No. 3, 16 pp. [in Romanian]

Török, Zs. (2000b): „In situ“ conservation of the Romanian Meadow Viper (Vipera ursinii). Probleme de Ecologie Teoretică şi Aplicată în România-Direcţii Actuale, Tulcea, No. 7, 16 pp. [in Romanian]

Török, Zs. (2002): Potential management plan for conservations of Vipera ursinii from the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (Romania). Scientific Annals of the Danube Delta Institute for Research and Development 9: 174-184.

Török, Zs. (2003): Management plan for the conservation of the Meadow Vipers (Vipera ursinii) from the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. Probleme de Ecologie Teoretică şi Aplicată în România-Direcţii Actuale, Tulcea, No. 7, 16 pp. [in Romanian]

Török, Zs. (2004): Status of reptiles of the Someş river valley in the year 1992. Acta oecologica 11 (1-2): 195-202.

Török Z. (2007): GIS technique used for managing data on potential Natura 2000 sites. Case study: areas inhabited by Vipera ursiniii. Scientific Annals of the



Danube Delta Institute for Research and Development 13: 241-250.

Újvári, B., Korsós, Z., Péchy, T. (2000): Life history, population characteristics and conservation of the Hungarian meadow viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis). Amphibia-Reptilia 21: 267-278.

Újvári, B., Madsen, T., Kotenko, T., Olsson, M., Shine, R., Wittzell, H. (2002): Low genetic diversity threatens imminent extinction for the Hungarian meadow viper (Vipera ursinii rakosiensis). Biological Conservation 105:127-130.

Ujvári, B., Madsen, T., Olsson, M. (2005): Discrepancy in mitochondrial and nuclear polymorphism in meadow vipers (Vipera ursinii) questions the unambiguous use of mtDNA in conservation studies. Amphibia-Reptilia 26: 287-292.

Van der Voort, J. (2004): Amfibieën en reptielen in de Donaudelta. Lacerta 5: 180-197. [in Dutch]

Vancea, Şt., Ionescu, V. (1954): Contribuţii la studiul viperei de stepă. Revista Universităţii “Al. I. Cuza” şi a Institutului Politehnic din Iaşi 1 (1-2): 241-247. [in Romanian]

Vancea, Şt., Fuhn, I.E., Borcea, M. (1980): Vipera de stepă (Vipera ursinii) şi necesitatea ocrotirii ei. Ocrotirea Naturii şi a Mediului Înconjurător 24 (1): 49-51. [in Romanian]

Vancea, St., Saint-Girons, H., Fuhn, I.E., Stugren, B. (1985): Systématique et répartition de Vipera ursinii (Bonaparte, 1835) (Reptilia, Viperidae), en Roumanie. Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde 55 (2): 233-241.

Vasiliu, G.D., Şova C. (1968): Fauna Vertebratica Romaniae,” Studii şi Communicări, Muzeul

Judeţean Bacău, Secţia Ştiinţele Naturii, 2, 296 pp. [in Romanian]

Werner, F. (1897): Die Reptilien und Amphibien Oesterreichs-Ungarns und der Occupationsländer. A. Pichler’s Witwe & Sohn, Wien, 160 pp.+ii+2 Pls.

Zamfirescu, Şt., Krecsák, L. (2002): Influence of environmental temperature on the body temperature of Vipera ursinii moldavica. In: Tomescu, N. & Popa, V. [eds.]: In Memoriam “Proffessor Dr. Doc. Vasile Gh. Radu” Corresponding Member of Romanian Academy of Scieneces. Cluj University Press, 173-178.

Zamfirescu, Ş.R., Zamfirescu, O., Ion, C., Popescu, I.E. (2007): Research on the habitats of Vipera ursinii moldavica populations from Iaşi County. Analele Ştiinţifice ale Universităţii „Al. I. Cuza” Iaşi, Biologie animală 53: 159-166.

Zamfirescu, Ş.R., Zamfirescu, O., Popescu, E.I., Ion, C., Strugariu, A. (2008). Vipera de stepă (Vipera ursinii moldavica) şi habitatele sale din Moldova (România). Editura Universitatii "Alexandru Ioan Cuza", Iasi, 7-143 pp. [in Romanian]

Zamfirescu, Ş.R., Zamfirescu, O., Popescu, I.E., Ion, C. (submitted): Preliminary data on the population characteristics of Vipera ursinii moldavica from “Dealul lui Dumnezeu” (Iaşi County, Romania) with notes on conservation. North-Western Journal of Zoology.

Submitted: 11 July 2008 / Accepted: 16 August 2008


vipera (acridophaga) ursinii in romania: historical and...

Documents