Proteus anguinus Laurenti, 1768

Class: Amphibia > Order: Caudata > Family: Proteidae > Genus: Proteus > Species: Proteus anguinus

Proteus anguinus Laurenti, 1768, Spec. Med. Exhib. Synops. Rept.: 37. Type(s): By indication including animal figured in Laurenti, 1768, Spec. Med. Exhib. Synops. Rept.: 37, Pl. 4, fig. 3. Type locality: "in lacu Tschirnicensi, Carnioliae"; rendered as "Zirknitz [lake], Krain". Slovenia, by Mertens and Müller, 1928, Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 41: 9; restricted by Fejérváry, 1926, Ann. Hist. Nat. Mus. Natl. Hungarici, 24: 231, to Magdalene Cave, near Adelsberg Cave, Slovenia.

Siren anguina — Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 608.

Protaeus anguinus — Oppel, 1811, Ordn. Fam. Gatt. Rept.: 80.

Hypochthon Laurentii Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 188. Sustitute name for Proteus anguinus. Brame, 1972, Checklist Living & Fossil Salamand. World (Unpubl. MS): 40, regarded this as a new name with a holotype of BMNH 1847.10.19.1 (formerly from NHMW) and a type locality of Kärnthen, Austria.

Caledon anguinus — Goldfuss, 1820, Handb. Zool., 2: 127, by implication.

Phanerobranchus platyrhynchus Leuckart, 1821, Isis von Oken, 9: 260. Substitute name for Proteus anguinus Laurenti, 1768.

Apneumona anguina — Fleming, 1822, Philos. Zool., 2: 303.

Hypochthon anguinus — Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 210; Bonaparte, 1840, Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, Ser. 2, 2: 456.

Hemitriton (Hypochthon) laurentii — Van der Hoeven, 1833, Handb. Dierkd., 2: 305, by implication.

Hemitriton (Proteus) anguineus — Van der Hoeven, 1833, Handb. Dierkd., 2: 305, by implication.

Hypochthon anguinus — Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 97.

Hypochthon Laurentii Freyer, 1846, Arch. Naturgesch., 12: 290. Types: Not designated, through presumably the same as Hypochthon laurentii Fitzinger, 1850. Type locality: "Rup bei Sittich im Neustedler Kreise", Slovenia. Name attributed to Fitzinger, but Freyer was clearly responsible for publication. Preoccupied by Hypochthon laurentii Merrem 1820 (not mentioned by Freyer).

Hypochthon zoisii Fitzinger, 1850, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Phys. Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 5: 298. Type(s): Not stated other than clearly NHMW; including BMNH 1946.9.6.74, originally from NHMW, and NHMW 19959.2–5, according to Häupl, Tiedemann, and Grillitsch, 1994, Kat. Wiss. Samml. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, 9: 14, and Gemel, Gassner, and Schweiger, 2019, Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, Ser. B, 121: 40. Type locality: "Rupa" near Schweinsdorf, Krain, Slovenia. Synonymy by Gray, 1850, Cat. Spec. Amph. Coll. Brit. Mus., Batr. Grad.: 65; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Grad. Batr. Apoda Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 85. Validity doubted by implication of Schreiber, 1875, Herpetol. Eur.: 13–14.

Hypochthon Schreibersii Fitzinger, 1850, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Phys. Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 5: 299. Syntypes: Not stated other than clearly NHMW; including BMNH 1946.9.6.72–73 (originally 1846.6.15.86–87, on exchange from NHMW) and NHMW 19962, 19966 (9 specimens), according to Häupl, Tiedemann, and Grillitsch, 1994, Kat. Wiss. Samml. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, 9: 14. Type locality: "Vir", Slovenia. Synonymy by Gray, 1850, Cat. Spec. Amph. Coll. Brit. Mus., Batr. Grad.: 65; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Grad. Batr. Apoda Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 85. Validity doubted by implication of Schreiber, 1875, Herpetol. Eur.: 13–14.

Hypochthon freyeri Fitzinger, 1850, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Phys. Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 5: 299. Syntypes: Not stated although clearly NHMW; including BMNH 1946.9.6.75 (originally NHMW), NHMW 19969 (12 specimens), according to Häupl, Tiedemann, and Grillitsch, 1994, Kat. Wiss. Samml. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, 9: 13; given as   Gemel, Gassner, and Schweiger, 2019, Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, Ser. B, 121: 40, and Gemel, Gassner, and Schweiger, 2019, Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, Ser. B, 121: 40. Type locality: "Kumpole [= Kumpolje] und Potiskavz", Slovenia. Synonymy by Gray, 1850, Cat. Spec. Amph. Coll. Brit. Mus., Batr. Grad.: 65; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Grad. Batr. Apoda Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 85. Validity doubted by implication of Schreiber, 1875, Herpetol. Eur.: 13–14.

Hypochthon Carrarae Fitzinger, 1850, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Phys. Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 5: 300. Syntypes: Not stated, although clearly NHMW; including NHMW 19980, according to Häupl, Tiedemann, and Grillitsch, 1994, Kat. Wiss. Samml. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, 9: 13, and  Gemel, Gassner, and Schweiger, 2019, Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, Ser. B, 121: 40. Type locality: "Sign [= Sinj ] und der Narenta", Slovenia. Validity doubted by implication of Schreiber, 1875, Herpetol. Eur.: 13–14. Synonymy by Gray, 1850, Cat. Spec. Amph. Coll. Brit. Mus., Batr. Grad.: 65; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Grad. Batr. Apoda Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 85. Validity doubted by implication of Schreiber, 1875, Herpetol. Eur.: 13–14.

Hypochthon Haidingeri Fitzinger, 1850, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Phys. Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 5: 300. Syntypes: Not stated although clearly NHMW; NHMW 19963 (7 specimens), according to Häupl, Tiedemann, and Grillitsch, 1994, Kat. Wiss. Samml. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, 9: 13, and Gemel, Gassner, and Schweiger, 2019, Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, Ser. B, 121: 40. Type locality: "Kleinhäusler-Grotte", Slovenia. Validity doubted by implication of  Schreiber, 1875, Herpetol. Eur.: 13–14. Synonymy by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Grad. Batr. Apoda Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 85. Validity doubted by implication of  Schreiber, 1875, Herpetol. Eur.: 13–14.

Hypochthon Laurentii Fitzinger, 1850, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Phys. Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 5: 301. Syntypes: Not stated although clearly NHMW; NHMW 19957 (15 specimens), according to Häupl, Tiedemann, and Grillitsch, 1994, Kat. Wiss. Samml. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, 9: 14, and Gemel, Gassner, and Schweiger, 2019, Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, Ser. B, 121: 40, including BMNH 1946.9.6.76 (formerly 1847.10.19.1) according to museum records. Type locality: "Magdalena-Grotte", Slovenia. Validity doubted by implication of Schreiber, 1875, Herpetol. Eur.: 13–14. Synonymy by Mertens and Wermuth, 1960, Amph. Rept. Europas: 35–36. Preoccupied by Hypochthon laurentii Merrem 1820 (not mentioned by Fitzinger).

Hypochthon xanthostictus Fitzinger, 1850, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Phys. Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 5: 301. Syntypes: Not stated although clearly NHMW; including NHMW 19959, according to Häupl, Tiedemann, and Grillitsch, 1994, Kat. Wiss. Samml. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, 9: 14, and Gemel, Gassner, and Schweiger, 2019, Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, Ser. B, 121: 40. Type locality: "Bedén", Slovenia. Synonymy by Gray, 1850, Cat. Spec. Amph. Coll. Brit. Mus., Batr. Grad.: 65; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Grad. Batr. Apoda Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 85. Validity doubted by implication of Schreiber, 1875, Herpetol. Eur.: 13–14.

Proteus zoisii — Cope, 1866, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 103.

Proteus carrarae — Cope, 1866, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 103.

Proteus xanthostictus — Cope, 1866, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 103.

Proteus schreibersii — Cope, 1866, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 104.

Proteus anguinus — Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Grad. Batr. Apoda Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 85.

Proteus anguinus var. carrarae — Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Grad. Batr. Apoda Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 86.

Proteus anguinus var. zoisii — Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Grad. Batr. Apoda Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 86.

Proteus anguinus freyeri — Anonymous, 1922, Allatt. Kozl., Budapest, 22: 86, 101; Fejérváry, 1926, Ann. Hist. Nat. Mus. Natl. Hungarici, 24: 234.

Proteus anguinus anguinus — Mertens and Müller, 1940, Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 451: 14.

Proteus anguinus zoisii — Mertens and Müller, 1940, Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 451: 14.

Proteus zoisii — McCrady, 1954, Copeia, 1954: 200–206. (In context considered "probably a subspecies of anguinus").

Proteus anguinus parkelj Sket and Arntzen, 1994, Bijdr. Dierkd., 64: 37. Holotype: ULBF J8. Type locality: "Na Trati, Jelsevnik near Crnomelj, Slovenia". Status rejected by Grillitsch and Tiedemann, 1994, Herpetozoa, Wien, 7G: 139–148, but see Arntzen and Sket, 1996, Herpetozoa, Wien, 8: 165–166, and comments below.

English 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).

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; isolated population in northeastern Italy (possibly introduced).

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  

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.