Acta Herpetologica 12(2): 181-186, 2017 ISSN 1827-9635 (print) © Firenze University Press ISSN 1827-9643 (online) www.fupress.com/ah DOI: 10.13128/Acta_Herpetol-20339 Predation of common wall lizards: experiences from a study using scentless plasticine lizards Jenő J. Purger*, Zsófia Lanszki, Dávid Szép, Renáta Bocz Department of Ecology, Institute of Biology, University of Pécs, Ifjúság útja 6, 7624 Pécs, Hungary *Corresponding author. E-mail:purger@gamma.ttk.pte.hu Submitted on: 2017, 19th February; revised on: 2017, 18th August; accepted on: 2017, 22nd August Editor: Paolo Casale Abstract. The potential influence of predators on lacertid lizards has been studied by using models made of plasticine which shows the attack marks of predators and as such allows their identification and estimation of predation pres- sure. The general aim was to study predation on plasticine models of lizards and to improve methods, since the results depend on the number of plasticine models used, their spatial pattern and the duration of experiments. We estimated the density of the common wall lizard Podarcis muralis population on stone walls of a vineyard in the city of Pécs (Hungary) in August 2015 in order to imitate the real density in our experiment with plasticine models. The density of common wall lizards was 8.2 ind. /100 m2 and accordingly we placed 25 scentless plasticine lizards on the stone walls on the first transect with 10 m distance between them, which imitates the real pattern. In the second transect 25 lizard models were placed more sparsely, the distance between them being 20 m. During four weeks the predation rate was 24% in densely spaced plasticine lizards and 40% in sparsely spaced plasticine lizards, but the difference was not significant. The daily survival rate of densely spaced lizards was 0.99 (=99.1%) and that of sparsely spaced lizard mod- els was 0.98 (=98.25%), but this difference was not significant either. On the basis of marks left on plasticine lizards, mammal predators (e.g. beech marten) dominated, while the impact of bird predators was smaller than expected. Predators attacked the head of plasticine lizards more frequently than their trunk, tail or limbs, but a significant pref- erence of body parts was not detected. From our experience it is important to study the distribution and density of real animals, to imitate their real pattern, instead of an arbitrarily designed experiment with models. The typical scent of plasticine also could influence the results, which can be avoided by using scentless plasticine models coated with liquid rubber. We suggest the calculation of daily survival rates in order to produce results that allow the comparison of different studies. Keywords. Abundance, density dependence, Hungary, Podarcis muralis, survival rates. INTRODUCTION Predator-prey interactions have been in the focus of ecological and evolutionary research (e.g., Cooper and Blumstein, 2015). There are many difficulties in study- ing predation events directly in the wild, especially on small vertebrates; therefore during the last decades mod- els made of soft materials (e.g., plasticine) have been used (Bateman et al., 2016). The potential influence of preda- tors on lacertid lizards has been also studied by using plasticine models which show the attack marks of preda- tors and as such allow their identification and estimation of predation pressures (e.g., Castilla and Labra, 1998; Cas- tilla et al., 1999; Diego-Rasilla, 2003a,b; Shepard, 2007; Vervust et al., 2007, 2011; Pérez-Mellado, 2014; Sato et al., 2014; Fresnillo et al., 2015; Stellatelli et al., 2015). The results of these studies mainly depend on the quality of materials and the number of plasticine models used, on 182 Jenő J. Purger et alii the duration of experiment and also on how often they were checked for evidences of attack (Bateman et al., 2016). A further problem is that the unnatural smell of plasticine can influence the results, through modifying the behaviour of mammal predators which rely on olfac- tory cues (Bayne and Hobbson, 1999; Purger et al., 2012; Fresnillo et al., 2015). These models are immobile, while bird predators relying on visual cues mostly react to a moving prey (Rangen et al., 2000). The many lizard spe- cies are diurnal animals and their main predators are birds (e.g., Vervust et al., 2007; Pérez-Mellado, 2014; Fresnillo et al., 2015), therefore the unnatural attractiveness of mod- els for nocturnal mammal predators should be avoided by using scentless models (Purger et al., 2012). The duration of experiments performed with plasticine lizards was mostly arbitrarily decided (e.g., Diego-Rasil- la, 2003a,b) in dependence of the abundance of potential predators and their ability to discover and predate the models (e.g., Castilla and Labra, 1998). Since predation events depend on the density of prey, it is important to study the pattern (e.g., distribution, density) of real ani- mals in the particular area before starting an experiment with models, to imitate real pattern, instead of an arbi- trarily designed experiment. In some studies the distance between models was only 2 m (Vervust et al., 2007, 2011) or 5 m (e.g., Castilla et al., 1999; Diego-Rasilla, 2003a,b; Pérez-Mellado, 2014), which suggest a high density, while in other studies the distance was at least 100 m apart from one to another (Fresnillo et al., 2015) or the models were placed scattered (Pérez-Mellado, 2014). Predation rates are influenced by different circumstances therefore the results of different studies are difficult to compare. Our study was performed as an attempt to standard- ise predation experiments with lizard models. Our specif- ic goals were: a) to find out whether predation is depend- ent on lizard density; b) to estimate predation rates and the daily survival rates of scentless plasticine lizards; c) to identify the predators; d) to find out if predators prefer any parts of the prey’s body. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study was carried out at the St. Nicholas Hill Research Station (46°04'N, 18°09'E) of the Institute of Viticulture and Oenology, University of Pécs, on the southern slopes of Mec- sek Mts., 180-240 m a.s.l., 5 km to the west from the centre of the city of Pécs, Hungary. This area (14 ha) has been used as a vineyard since the 1750’s. Its surface is slightly undulat- ing with stone walls between fields. The soil is Ramann-type brown forest soil formed on Pannonian red sandstone (Teszlák et al., 2013). From the north the area is bordered by manna ash- downy oak (Fraxino-Quercetum) dry forest. The common wall lizard Podarcis muralis (Laurenti, 1768) is the most common lizard species in Europe (Guillaume, 1997), occurring everywhere in Hungary with the exception of the Great Hungarian Plain (Puky et al., 2005). In suitable habitats such as open rocky hillsides, quarries and stone walls in urban environments with warm microclimate it can reach consider- able densities (Trócsányi and Korsós, 2004). Active individu- als of the species are observable even on warmer days of win- ter months in the southern region of the country (Trócsányi et al., 2007). It is an opportunistic species so habitat requirements are variable, it often lives in vineyards (Vogrin, 1998), but their densities could be influenced by shelter, food and the effects of predators (Gruschwitz and Böhme, 1986). Natural predators of this species are among mammals, birds and snakes which occur in their habitats (Gruschwitz and Böhme, 1986). We estimated the density of the wall lizard population on stone walls in the summer of 2015 (before the study) in order to imitate the real density in our experiment with plasticine models. The density was not estimated by capturing the animals. But instead lizards were counted by walking on the top of all six stonewalls (0.5-2.5 m high and ca. 0.4 m width) which divided vineyard terraces. The average length of stonewalls was 310 m (SD = 149.93) and the average of top surface area was 124 m2 (SD = 59.97). Counting was performed by the same person, dur- ing six days from 24 August 2015, always beginning at 16:00 h, on one stonewall randomly selected each day. During counting the lizards escaped due to human appearance, and hid on the side of the walls, therefore they were counted only once. Before the experiment the workers in the vineyards were informed about our study and they tried to not cause disturbance. For our study lizard replicas were created using non-toxic natural colour plasticine (produced by KOH-I-NOOR Hardt- muth, Czech Republic). The lizard models were made of plas- ticine with a wire axis which was used also for hanging them on the stone wall. We used plasticine lizard models whose body size cca. 15 cm (±1 cm) and shape were similar to those of adult wall lizards (Diego-Rasilla, 2003a,b). The basic colour of male and female is similar (Arnold and Ovenden, 2002), therefore the sculpted plasticine lizards were painted uniformly in taupe colour (tempera, produced by Pannoncolor, Hungary) based on the colour of observed and photographed lizards in the study area. Then models were coated with uncoloured liquid rubber spray (PlastiDip®, USA) and were aired for two weeks in order to eliminate the scent of plasticine and thus allow equal chances for avian and mammal predators in their visual search (Purger et al., 2012). In the morning of 7 September 2015 we placed 25 scent- less plasticine lizards on the top of a stone wall in the first transect with 10 m spacing, imitating real density pattern. In the second transect 25 lizard models were sparsely spaced; the distance between them was 20 m. They were placed in an open area and were fully visible to avian predators (Pérez-Mellado, 2015). The study sites were homogeneous, very similar linear habitats, 50-70 m apart from each other; therefore we assume that there were no differences in predator communities. On the south facing side of stone walls 50 plasticine lizards were placed (25 densely and 25 sparsely spaced). Unfortunately the majority of models placed on the vertical side of walls melted due high 183Survival of plasticine lizards solar radiation during the experiment, and these two transects were not included in the analysis. We checked the condition of lizard models after their placement, on the afternoon of days 1, 3, 7, 14, 17, 21 and 28 between 16:00 h and 18:00 h. Attacked models were removed during regular checking to avoid pseudoreplication. On the last checking day we gathered the remaining models. A lizard model was considered as being attacked by a predator when bill marks of birds, tooth marks of mammals were found, or if it had disappeared (e.g., Castilla and Labra, 1998; Castilla et al., 1999; Diego-Rasilla, 2003a,b). We recorded which body part of the lizards (head, trunk, tail or limbs) had been damaged by predators (Vervust et al., 2011). Based on the marks on plasti- cine models, mammal predators were identified by the help of our collection of mammal skulls (Fig. 1.). Predation rates on lizard models arranged in the two tran- sect were calculated as percentage of damaged (predated) mod- els. Daily survival rate is the probability that a lizard survives a single day. We used Mayfield’s (1975) method (common in ornithological studies) for estimating the daily survival rate of a sample of plasticine wall lizards using exposure days (the cumulative number of days that the lizards in the sample were monitored) and the number of known losses. According to the Mayfield method, the estimated daily survival was calculated as 1 - [(number of lizard losses) / (total exposure days)]. In our study, for the comparison of daily survival rates the test pro- posed by Johnson (1979) was applied, calculating with the free software „J-test” developed by K. Halupka (2009). For compar- ing the proportions of predation causes and number of attacks on different body parts, chi-square goodness of fit for two and four categories was used (Zar, 1999). A minimum tail probabil- ity level of P < 0.05 was accepted for all the statistical tests, and all P-values were two-tailed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION On the top of stone walls (total length 1860 m, sur- face area cca. 744 m2) 61 common wall lizards (8.2 indi- viduals/100 m2) and five eastern green lizards Lacerta vir- idis (0.7 ind. /100 m2) were counted, which means there was at least one lizard in every cca. 10 m2. Our estimation of common wall lizard population density showed simi- larity to the results quoted by Puky et al. (2005). These authors summarised data from literature and concluded that the territory of common wall lizard ranges between 3 and 50 m2. Such great variation in lizard density is affect- ed by a complex variety of factors; e.g., habitat diversity, availability of resources, presence of predators, competi- tors and human disturbances (Pérez-Mellado et al., 2008). Trócsányi and Korsós (2004, 2007) suggest that in Mecsek Mts. near the city of Pécs the density of wall lizards on a brick wall was 36 individuals/100 m2 while there was only 6.5 individuals/100 m2 in a quarry. In comparison with these values the density of wall lizards estimated in the vineyard was low. Applying of some sampling methods often resulted in underestimation of lizard density (e.g., Smolensky and Fitzgerald, 2010; Ruiz de Infante Anton et al., 2013), however, these values may be useful in experi- ments with artificial models. During our study 24% of the densely spaced lizards and 40% of sparsely spaced lizards were damaged by predators, but based on the number of predation events the difference was not significant (χ2 with Yates correc- tions = 0.56; df = 1; P = 0.546). Density-dependent pre- dation was not detected by using plasticine lizards. With a view to the fact that a high variability in the density of common wall lizards in different habitats is shown (Tróc- sányi and Korsós, 2004, 2007), we can say that in our experiment the imitated density of the same habitat was low in both transects, and therefore we could not detect significant differences between predation rates. Despite this, we suggest taking into consideration the density of the studied species and placing the replicas accordingly in order to achieve more realistic results. The daily survival rate of densely spaced lizard mod- els (total exposure days = 662, number of lizard losses = 6) was 0.99 (99.1%, 95% Confidence Intervals: 98.37- 99.83) and that of scarcely spaced lizards (total expo- sure days = 560.5, number of lizard losses = 10) was 0.98 (98.25%, 95% CI: 97.15-99.35), but this difference was not significant (Z = 1.296, two tailed P = 0.195). The duration of our study (four weeks) was quite long because we had to wait for the first predation event to occur; scarce predation resulted in high daily survival rates. Similar studies took few days or a week since they used high density (2-5 m) of prey models (e.g., Cas- tilla and Labra, 1998; Castilla et al., 1999; Diego-Rasilla, 2003a,b; Sato et al., 2014, Stellatelli et al., 2015) or even 20 days in the study with models 100 m apart from each other (Fresnillo et al., 2015). Our experience showed that in the case of few predators in the study area the studies should last longer, until the predation rate reach at least 30-40%, or the study should be repeated. We identified one mark of a bird, two marks of small mammals, two marks of weasel Mustela nivalis, three of red fox Vulpes vulpes (Fig. 1.) and six bites of beech marten Martes foina on the plasticine models. Two of the lizard models disappeared; we suppose that they were taken by large mammals. Predators did not damage two lizard models placed next to each other at the same occasion, which means that the liquid rubber obscured the plasticine smell, or maybe because the attacked liz- ard model was unpalatable and then the predator did not attack the other nearest. It is known that mammal preda- tors use mainly olfactory cues during hunting (Rangen et al., 2000), but in our study it seems that the smell of plasticine did not attract the mammal predators. Noc- 184 Jenő J. Purger et alii turnal mammals did not identify lizard models as prey; we found droppings of beech marten three times on the same lizard model, which means that it marked its revi- er (Seiler et al., 1994). Red foxes, beech martens, wea- sels and cats Felis catus were seen regularly in the study area and we found their traces and droppings. Most of them are known for preying upon lizards (e.g., Castilla et al., 1999; Diego-Rasilla, 2003a). We presume that in habitats with a lot of hiding places, preying upon small bodied fast moving lizards require big energy invest- ment. According to ecological studies of mammal feed- ing, red fox, weasel and beech marten are reported to consume lizards periodically (occasionally) or rarely (e.g., Lanszki et al., 1999; Lanszki, 2003, 2012; Lan- szki and Heltai, 2007). In our study the predation role of small mammals was not considerable, but it was not negligible either. Among small mammals shrew (Sorici- dae) species are often mentioned as wall lizard predators (Gruschwitz and Böhme, 1986), however in some preda- tion studies replicas showing marks of rodents were con- sidered as non-attacked (e.g., Castilla et al., 1999). In our study avian predation rate was also very low. Common kestrel Falco tinnunculus and common buzzard Buteo buteo, both being potential lizard predators (e.g., Castilla et al., 1999; Diego-Rasilla, 2003a; Vervust et al., 2011), were frequent in the study area. Also, there were hooded crows Corvus cornix and Eurasian jays Garrulus glandar- ius which, too, were identified as egg predators in our earlier study (Purger et al., 2004). There is evidence that birds are able to visually recognize lizards as prey, based on their shape and colour pattern, even if the animals remain immobile (e.g., Stuart-Fox et al., 2003; Shepard, 2007; Stellatelli et al., 2015). The possible reason for less attack by avian predators in our experiment may be that models did not resemble wall lizard coloration and pat- tern with sufficient precision, similarly to the study of Marshall et al. (2015). During our study we observed a smooth snake Coronella austriaca just when preying on a wall lizard, but tooth marks of this well-known lizard predator (Diego-Rasilla, 2003a; Amo et al., 2004) were not found on any of the lizard models. Based on the low number of predation events record- ed (n = 30) the only fact we could determine was that tooth marks of large mammals were found on the head of plasticine lizards more frequently than on their trunk, tail or limbs (Fig. 2.), but significant preference of body parts was not detected (χ2 = 1.2; df = 3; P = 0.753). Predators could grab different parts of the body with equal chance, since plasticine lizards were immobile. According to the results of experiments with lizard replicas (Castilla et al., 1999; Vervust et al., 2011) mammals tend to attack the head of a prey more often. From our experience in studies of daily active ani- mals we suggest using scentless plasticine animal repli- cas coated with liquid rubber which eliminate unnatu- ral plasticine smell and reduce the impact of nocturnal predators. It is important to study the recent distribution and density of real animals in the particular area, to imi- tate their real pattern, instead of an arbitrarily designed experiment with models. Since predation rate depends mainly on the pattern of prey, the activity of members of predator community, as well as on the duration of experi- ments, we suggest the calculation of daily survival rates in order to produce results that allow the comparison of different studies. Fig. 2. Number of attacks by different predators on various body parts of plasticine wall lizard models (black bars – head, grey bars – trunk, white bars – limbs, hatched bars – tail). Fig. 1. Tooth prints left on plasticine models were compared with skulls and in this case red fox was identified as predator. 185Survival of plasticine lizards ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank for two anonymous review- ers, Dragica Purger and Balázs Trócsányi for useful com- ments on the previous draft of the manuscript, Csaba Fekete for technical help. REFERENCES Amo, L., López, P., Martín, J. (2004): Multiple predators and conflicting refuge use in the wall lizard, Podarcis muralis. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 41: 671-679. Arnold, N., Ovenden, D. (2002): Collins Field Guide – Reptiles and Amphibians of Britain and Europe. HarperCollins Publishers, London. Bateman, P.W., Fleming P.A., Wolfe, A.K. (2016): A differ- ent kind of ecological modelling: the use of clay mod- el organisms to explore predator–prey interactions in vertebrates. Journal of Zoology, doi: 10.1111/jzo.12415 Bayne, E.M., Hobbson, K.A. (1999): Do clay eggs attract predators to artificial nest? J. Field Ornithol. 70: 1-7. Castilla, A.M., Gosá, A., Galán, P., Pérez-Mellado, V. (1999): Green tails in lizards of the genus Podarcis: Do they influence the intensity of predation? Herpe- tologica 55: 530-537. Castilla, A.M., Labra, A. (1998): Predation and spatial distribution of the lizard Podarcis hispanica atrata: an experimental approach. Acta Oecol. 19: 107-114. Cooper, W.E.J., Blumstein, D.T. (2015): Escaping from predators: an integrative view of escape decisions and refuge use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Diego-Rasilla, F.J. (2003a): Influence of predation pres- sure on the escape behaviour of Podarcis muralis liz- ards. Behav. Process. 63: 1-7. Diego-Rasilla, F.J. (2003b): Human influence on the tameness of wall lizard, Podarcis muralis. Ital. J. Zool. 70: 225-228. Fresnillo, B., Belliure, J., Cuervo, J.J. (2015): Red tails are effective decoys for avian predators. Evol. Ecol. 29: 123-135. Gruschwitz, M., Böhme, W. (1986): Podarcis muralis (Laurenti, 1768) - Mauereidechse. In: Handbuch der Reptilien und Amphibien Europas, Bd, 2/2, Echsen (Sauria) III, pp: 155-208. Böhme, W., Ed., Aula-Ver- lag, Wiesbaden. Guillaume, C.P. (1997): Podarcis muralis (Laurenti, 1768). In: Atlas of amphibians and reptiles in Europe, Collec- tion Patrimoines Naturels, 29, pp. 286-287. Gasc, J.P., Cabela, A., Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J., Dolmen, D., Gros- senbacher, K., Haffner, P., Lescure, J., Martens, H., Martínez Rica, J.P., Maurin, H., Oliveira, M.E., Sofia- nidou, T.S., Veith, M., Zuiderwijk, A. Eds., Societas Europaea Herpetologica, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle & Service du Patrimoine Naturel, Paris. Halupka, K. (2009): J-test. http://www.biol.uni.wroc.pl/ halupka/#software Johnson, D.H. (1979): Estimating nest success: the May- field method and an alternative. Auk 96: 651-661. Lanszki, J. (2003): Feeding habits of stone martens in a Hungarian village and its surroundings. Folia Zool. 52: 367-377. Lanszki, J. (2012): Trophic relations of carnivores living in Hungary. Nat. Somogy. 21: 1-310. Lanszki, J., Heltai, M. (2007): Diet  of the weasel in Hun- gary. Folia Zool. 56: 109-112. Lanszki, J., Körmendi, S., Hancz, Cs., Zalewski, A. (1999): Feeding habits and trophic niche overlap in a carnivo- ra community of Hungary. Acta Theriol. 44: 429-442.  Marshall, K.L.A., Philpot, K.E., Stevens, M. (2015): Con- spicuous male coloration impairs survival against avi- an predators in Aegean wall lizards, Podarcis erhardii. Ecol. Evol. 5: 4115-4131. Mayfield, H.F. (1975): Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bull. 87: 456-466. Pérez-Mellado, V., Hernández-Estévez, J.Á., García-Díez, T., Terrassa, B., Ramón, M.M., Castro, J., Picornell, A., Martín-Vallejo, J., Brown, R. (2008):  Population density in Podarcis lilfordi (Squamata, Lacertidae), a lizard  species endemic to small islets in the Balearic Islands (Spain). Amphibia-Reptilia 29: 49-60. Pérez-Mellado, V., Garrido, M., Ortega, Z., Pérez-Cem- branos, A., Mencía, A. (2014): The yellow-legged gull as a predator of lizards in Balearic Islands. Amphibia- Reptilia 35: 207-213. Puky, M., Schád, P., Szövényi, G. (2005): Herpetological atlas of Hungary. Varangy Akciócsoport Egyesület, Budapest. Purger, J.J., Kurucz, K., Tóth, A., & Batary, P. (2012): Coating plasticine eggs can eliminate the overesti- mation of predation on artificial ground nests. Bird Study 59: 350-352. Purger, J.J., Mészáros, L.A., Purger, D. (2004): Ground nesting in recultivated forest habitats - a study with artificial nests. Acta Ornithol. 39: 141-145. Rangen, S.A., Clark, R.G., Hobson, K.A. (2000): Visual and olfactory attributes of artificial nests. Auk 117: 136-146. Ruiz de Infante Anton, J., Rotger, A., Igual, J. M., Tavec- chia, G. (2013): Estimating lizard population density: an empirical comparison between  line-transect and capture- recapture methods. Wildlife Res. 40: 552-560.  Sato, C.F., Wood, J.T., Schroder, M., Green, K., Osborne, W.S., Michael, D.R., Lindenmayer, D.B. (2014): An 186 Jenő J. Purger et alii experiment to test key hypotheses of the drivers of reptile distribution in subalpine ski resorts. J. Appl. Ecol. 51: 13-22. Seiler, A., Krüger, H.H., Festetics, A. (1994): Reaction of a male Stone marten (Martes foina Erxleben, 1777) to foreign faeces within its territory: a field experiment. Z. Saugetierkd. 59: 58-60. Smolensky, N.L., Fitzgerald, L.A. (2010): Distance sam- pling  underestimates population densities of dune- dwelling lizards. J. Herpetol. 44: 372-381.  Shepard, D.B. (2007): Habitat but not body shape affects predator attack frequency on lizard models in the Brazilian Cerrado. Herpetologica 63: 193-202. Stellatelli, O.A., Block, C., Vega, L.E., Cruz, F.B. (2015): Nonnative Vegetation Induces Changes in Predation Pressure and Escape Behavior of Two Sand Lizards (Liolaemidae: Liolaemus). Herpetologica 71: 136-142. Stuart-Fox, D.M., Moussallia, A., Marshall, N.J., Owens, P.F. (2003): Conspicuous males suffer higher preda- tion risk: Visual modelling and experimental evidence from lizards. Anim. Behav. 66: 541-550. Teszlák, P., Kocsis, M., Gaál, K., Nikfardjam, M.P. (2013): Regulatory effects of exogenous gibberellic acid (GA3) on water relations and CO2 assimilation among grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 159: 41-51. Trócsányi, B., Korsós, Z. (2004): Recurring melanism in a population of the common wall lizard: numbers and phenotypes. Salamandra 40: 81-90. Trócsányi, B., Schäffer, D., Korsós, Z. (2007): A review of the amphibian and reptile fauna of Mecsek Moun- tains, with new herpetofaunistic data (SW Hungary). Acta Nat. Pannon. 2: 189-206. Vervust, B., Grbac, I., Van Damme, R. (2007): Differences in morphology, performance and behaviour between recently diverged populations of Podarcis sicula mir- ror differences in predation pressure. Oikos 116: 1343-1352. Vervust, B., Van Loy, H., Van Damme, R. (2011): Seeing through the lizard’s trick: do avian predators avoid autotomous tails? Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 6: 293-299. Vogrin, N. (1998): Demography of a Slovenian popula- tion of the Wall Lizard Podarcis muralis muralis (Lau- renti, 1768) (Squamata: Sauria: Lacertidae). Herpeto- zoa 11: 13-17. Zar, J.H. (1999): Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, London. Acta Herpetologica Vol. 12, n. 2 - December 2017 Firenze University Press Meristic and morphometric characters of Leptopelis natalensis tadpoles (Amphibia: Anura: Arthroleptidae) from Entumeni Forest reveal variation and inconsistencies with previous descriptions Susan Schweiger1, James Harvey2, Theresa S. Otremba1, Janina Weber1, Hendrik Müller1,* Brown anole (Anolis sagrei) adhesive forces remain unaffected by partial claw clipping Austin M. Garner*, Stephanie M. Lopez, Peter H. Niewiarowski Species and sex comparisons of karyotype and genome size in two Kurixalus tree frogs (Anura, Rhacophoridae) Shun-Ping Chang1,2, Gwo-Chin Ma2,3,4, Ming Chen2,5,6,7,8,*, Sheng-Hai Wu1,* Non-native turtles in a peri-urban park in northern Milan (Lombardy, Italy): species diversity and population structure Claudio Foglini1, Roberta Salvi2,* Species composition and richness of anurans in Cerrado urban forests from central Brazil Cláudia Márcia Marily Ferreira1,*, Augusto Cesar de Aquino Ribas2, Franco Leandro de Souza3 The life-history traits in a breeding population of Darevskia valentini from Turkey Muammer Kurnaz, Alı İhsan Eroğlu, Ufuk Bülbül*, Halıme Koç, Bılal Kutrup Influence of desiccation threat on the metamorphic traits of the Asian common toad, Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Anura) Santosh Mogali*, Srinivas Saidapur, Bhagyashri Shanbhag Predation of common wall lizards: experiences from a study using scentless plasticine lizards Jenő J. Purger*, Zsófia Lanszki, Dávid Szép, Renáta Bocz Reproductive timing and fecundity in the Neotropical lizard Enyalius perditus (Squamata: Leiosauridae) Serena Najara Migliore1,2,*, Henrique Bartolomeu Braz2,3, André Felipe Barreto-Lima4, Selma Maria Almeida-Santos1,2 Observations on the intraspecific variation in tadpole morphology in natural ponds Eudald Pujol-Buxó1,2,*, Albert Montori1, Roser Campeny3 and Gustavo A. Llorente1,2 Reliable proxies for glandular secretion production in lacertid lizards Simon Baeckens Diet of juveniles of the venomous frog Aparasphenodon brunoi (Amphibia: Hylidae) in southeastern Brazil Rogério L. Teixeira1, Ricardo Lourenço-de-Moraes2, Débora C. Medeiros3, Charles Duca3, Rogério C. Britto4, Luiz C. P. Bissoli5, Rodrigo B. Ferreira3,* Who are you? The genetic identity of some insular populations of Hierophis viridiflavus s.l. from the Tyrrhenian Sea Ignazio Avella, Riccardo Castiglia, Gabriele Senczuk*