Proteus anguinus Laurenti, 1768

Common Names

Olm (Hellmich, 1962, Rept. Amph. Eur.: 54; Steward, 1969, Tailed Amph. Eur.: 40; Bruno, 1973, Natura, Milano, 64: 235; Arnold and Burton, 1978, Field Guide Rept. Amph. Brit. Eur.: 54; Stumpel-Rienks, 1992, Ergänzungsband Handbuch Rept. Amph. Eur., Trivialnamen der Herpetofauna Eur.: 54; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 34; Arnold, 2002, Rept. Amph. Eur., Ed. 2: 53).

Cave Salamander (Hellmich, 1962, Rept. Amph. Eur.: 54).

Common Proteus (Gray, 1831, in Cuvier, Animal Kingdom (Griffith), 9—Appendix: 108).

White Olm (Proteus anguinus anguinus: Raffaëlli, 2022, Salamanders & Newts of the World: 487). 

Black Olm (Proteus anguinus parkelj: Raffaëlli, 2022, Salamanders & Newts of the World: 491). 

Distribution

Adriatic seaboard as far inland as the headwaters of the Black Sea drainages, as far north as Istrian region (Slovenia) and likely as far south as southeastern Montenegro although not confirmed for there; introduced population in northeastern Italy.

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia

Likely/Controversially Present: Montenegro

Introduced: Italy

Comment

See Mertens and Wermuth, 1960, Amph. Rept. Europas: 35–36, and Thorn, 1968, Salamand. Eur. Asie Afr. Nord: 115–121. Nöllert and Nöllert, 1992, Die Amph. Eur.: 151–153, provided a brief account and polygon map. Grillitsch and Tiedemann, 1994, Herpetozoa, Wien, 7: 139–148, rejected subspecies and discussed Fitzinger's various types. Sket and Arntzen, 1994, Bijdr. Dierkd., 64: 33–53, presented an allozyme tree for populations of Proteus anguinus. Arntzen and Sket, 1996, Herpetozoa, Wien, 8: 165–166, defended the status of Proteus anguinus parkelj. Arntzen and Sket, 1997, J. Zool., London, 241: 699–707, rejected the findings of Grillitsch and Tiedemann. Sket, 1997, J. Biogeograph., 24: 263–280, provided a biogeographic scenario that implies that the different populations may represent several species. Thorn and Raffaëlli, 2000, Salamand. Ancien Monde: 153–160, provided accounts. Parzefall, Durand, and Sket, 1999, in Grossenbacher and Thiesmeier (eds.), Handbuch Rept. Amph. Eur., 4(1): 57–76, provided an in-depth review of biology. Durand, 1997, in Gasc et al. (eds.), Atlas Amph. Rept. Eur.: 50–51, provided an account and detailed map. Arnold, 2002, Rept. Amph. Eur., Ed. 2: 53, provided a brief account, figure, and map, as did Obst in Engelmann, Fritzsche, Günther, and Obst, 1993, Lurche Kriechtiere Eur.: 63–65. Lever, 2003, Naturalized Rept. Amph. World: 228, regarded the Italian population as introduced. Lanza, 2006, Atti Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Trieste, 52: 235–237, suggested that Proteus anguinus parkelj is the surfacial ancestral population from which the troglobitic populations were derived. Gorički and Trontelj, 2006, Gene, 378: 31–41, recovered several mtDNA lineages within the overall range that are incongruent with the currently named subspecies. See detailed account by Lanza, Bruschi, and Bressi, 2007, in Lanza et al. (eds.), Fauna d'Italia, 42 (Amph.): 176–183, for the Italian population. Speybroeck and Crochet, 2007, Podarcis, 8: 10, noted incongruence between the morphology and genetic substructuring among populations. See photograph, map, description of geographic range and habitat, and conservation status in Stuart, Hoffmann, Chanson, Cox, Berridge, Ramani, and Young, 2008, Threatened Amph. World: 598. Trontelj, Douady, Fišer, Gilbert, Gorički, Lefébure, Sket, and Zakšek, 2009, Freshwater Biol., 54: 727–744, examined the mtDNA phylogeographic structure finding 6 well-supported haplotype clades with no overlap in ranges and genetic distances generally associated with species. Raffaëlli, 2013, Urodeles du Monde, 2nd ed.: 221–223, provided brief accounts by subspecies, photographs, and a map, and suggested that multiple species may be involved. Sparreboom, 2014, Salamanders Old World: 166–169, reviewed the biology, characteristics, distribution, reproduction, and conservation of the species. Speybroeck, Beukema, Bok, and Van Der Voort, 2016, Field Guide Amph. Rept. Brit. Eur.: 112–113, provided a brief account and distribution map. Gorički, Stanković, Snoj, Kuntner, Jeffery, Trontelj, Pavićević, Grizelj, Năpăruş-Aljančič, and Aljančič, 2017, Sci. Rep. (Nature, London), 7 (45054): 1–11, also addressed mtDNA phylogeography. See Dufresnes, 2019, Amph. Eur., N. Afr., & Middle East: 188, for brief summary of identifying morphology and biology, a range map, as well as a photograph. Vörös, Ursenbacher, and Jelić, 2019, J. Heredity, 110: 211–218, demonstrated genetic subdivision with the nominal species. Speybroeck, Beukema, Dufresnes, Fritz, Jablonski, Lymberakis, Martínez-Solano, Razzetti, Vamberger, Vences, Vörös, and Crochet, 2020, Amphibia-Reptilia, 41: 145, discussed the taxonomic literature and possibility of cryptic species. Gvozdenović and Iković, 2022, Nat. Montenegrina, Podgorica, 14: 93–105, noted that the presence of this species in Montenegro has not been verified. Raffaëlli, 2022, Salamanders & Newts of the World: 487–491, provided subspecies accounts, summarizing systematics (in disarray), life history, population status, and distribution (including a polygon map).  

External links:

Please note: these links will take you to external websites not affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History. We are not responsible for their content.

• For access to general information see Wikipedia
• For additional sources of general information from other websites search Google
• For access to relevant technical literature search Google Scholar
• For images search CalPhoto Images and Google Images
• To search the NIH genetic sequence database, see GenBank
• For additional information see AmphibiaWeb report
• For information on conservation status and distribution see the IUCN Redlist
• For related information on conservation and images as well as observations see iNaturalist