## 1 Introduction  
As observed in many species from the Genus _Microtus_ ([PERSON] 1798), the systematics of the _Microtus savii_ group have long raised controversies to the extent that some authors ascribe it to the Genus _Terricola_[1]. Therefore, even its geographical distribution has been differently reported by different authors throughout the years. In this study, the term _Microtus savii_ group is used to regroup three species: _Microtus brachycerus_ ([PERSON] 1961), _Microtus nephdensis_ ([PERSON] 1868) and _Microtus savii_ ([PERSON] 1838). _M. savii_ is distributed throughout continental Italy, whereas _M. nebrodensis_ is reported from Sicily. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [2] include _M. nebrodensis_ in the list of Italian endemic species, considering it a separate species, distributed throughout Sicily, with the exclusion of the Etna's slope [3]. _M. s. brachycerus_, from Calabria (Southern Italy) was at first described as a new subspecies of _M. savii_ and lately considered a valid species based at first on karyological differences and later with an integrative taxonomy approach [4; 5; 6]. Several studies based on mtDNA haplotype characterizations showed that the northernmost limit of _M. brachycercus_ reaches Central Italy [3; 6]. The taxonomical situation was further complicated when the _M. savii_ group was found throughout the Iberian Peninsula where [PERSON] and [PERSON] [7] reported a series of subspecies, the possible presence of the group in Greece and reported _M. s. savii_ in continental Italy and _M. s. nebrodensis_ in Sicily. [PERSON] [8] reported _M. savii savii_ in continental Italy (except Calabria), _M. s. pyrenaicus_ in France and Northern Spain, _M. s. nebrodensis_ in Sicily, _M. s. brachycercus_ in Calabria and _M. s. fleteni_ in Macedonia and former Yugoslavia. However, he stated that: \"The allocation of all these to _Pitymys savii_ [= _M. savii_] is very tentative\" and he highlighted the French subspecies, considered as a valid species by [PERSON] [9], and the Balkan subspecies, according to [PERSON] et al. [10] \"may be specifically distinct\". [PERSON] et al. [11] consider _M. savii_ and _M. brachycercus_ as valid species but do not report the distribution map of the two species because haplotypes of _M. brachycercus_ were also found in other Italian regions [3]. On the other hand, accounting for the presence, at least in Calabria, of _M. brachycercus_, and accounting for the significant genetic divergence given by geographical isolation of Sicilian populations, the affinity of the latter with _M. savii_ does not seem very plausible. Shortly after, other authors [3; 6] also considered _M. savii_, _M. brachycercus_ and _M. nebrodensis_ as valid species. According to these authors, _M. savii_ is distributed in Central (mainly in the Western part) and Northern Italy, _M. brachycercus_, in Central (mainly in the Eastern part) and Southern Italy, and _M. nebrodensis_ is a Sicilian endemic species with distributions confirmed by other literature [2; 12; 13]. According to the above-reported data, specimens collected throughout the Umbria region (Central Italy) may assume particular importance as Central Italy represents an interesting field of research to better delineate the northern limit of _M. brachycercus_. To better understand this phenomenon, large samples from several geographical regions are required but, being both nocturnal and hypgean animals, collecting samples of _Microtus_ requires significant and invasive trapping efforts. On the other hand, several nocturnal raptor species rely on the daily consumptions of rodents, voles in particular [14; 15; 16]. Collecting ow pellets represents therefore an opportunistic, cost effective and non-invasive way to retrieve rodent samples to better study vole populations also because skulls retrieved from pellets allow for both morphological and genetic analysis without the need to purposely trap and sacrifice wild rodents, allowing researchers to reduce their impacts on wild populations [17; 18].