The now extinct aboriginal population of red deer from the Prut-Dniester interfluve area remains poorly known and its systematic position was discussed in literature quite superficially. The extinction of Cervus elaphus took place in the early years of 19th century due to an excessive anthropogenic pressure. Uspenskii (1979) considers that red deer population disappeared in the area between Dniester and Prut by the 1840s, however, apparently, red deer disappeared in the area under discussion much earlier. In his description of Bessarabia, Svinyin (1817) already does not mention red deer in the composition of local fauna and reports a massive deforestation of the region that could be one of the reasons of the local red deer population extinction. The attempts to reintroduce red deer in the forests of Codrii Hills were repeatedly undertaken starting from 1954. The first introduced individuals come from the biosphere reserve Askania Nova and represented hybrids that resulted from multiple random interbreeding between two subspecies of red deer (C. elaphus elaphus and C. elaphus maral) and Siberian wapiti (C. canadensis sibiricus) (Sokolov, 1959; Uspenskii, 1979). Uspenskii (1979) applies a controversial term “reacclimatization” for wapiti/red deer hybrids introduction in the Moldavian forests. The literal meaning of this term is inappropriate, since it supposes a repeated acclimatization of an untypical for Moldavian fauna species. The introduced later in the Codrii forests sika deer (apparently, subspecies Cervus nippon hortulorum) also was involved in the intraspecific hybridization (personal communication of A. Munteanu). From the zoological point of view, the created population of hybrid deer has no scientific value and represents a sad example of species genetic pollution and destruction (Geist, 1998; Hartl et al., 2003). The discussions on taxonomy of red deer from South-Eastern Europe have a long story. Lydekker (1898) included the red deer from Eastern Carpathians in the Caspian subspecies Cervus elaphus maral Ogilby 1840, taking in account its large massive antlers with low number of tines and poor development of distal antler crown. Botezat (1903) proposed two subspecies names C. vulgaris montanus and C. vulgaris campestris for the red deer forms of Eastern Carpathian Area. The applied by Botezat (1903) species name C. vulgaris is a junior synonym of C. elaphus (Grubb, 2000). Lydekker  (1915) presumed that C. vulgaris montanus could be a junior synonym of C. elaphus maral and assumed that both Carpathian red deer forms described by Botezat may represent recently immigrated dwarfed forms of C. elaphus maral. Botezat’s (1903) subspecies campestris and montanus were regarded by the subsequent authors as synonyms (Heptner & Zalkin, 1947; Grubb, 2000). Heptner & Zalkin (1947) and Grubb (2000) rejected the subspecies name campestris as nomen nudum and nomen preoccupatum by Cervus campestris Cuvier 1817 (junior synonym of Odocoileus virginianus). Grubb (2000) also rejected the subspecies name montanus Botezat 1903 as nomen nudum preoccupated by Cervus macrotus montanus Caton 1881 (junior synonym of Odocoileus hemionus). However, Heptner & Zalkin (1947) regarded C. elaphus montanus as a valid subspecies that represents a transitional form between European C. elaphus elaphus and Caucasian C. elaphus maral: it is characterized by an underdeveloped neck mane, a missing black stripe bordering rump patch, a generally grayish color of pelage, poorly developed distal crown in antlers, and comparatively larger body size. Tatarinov (1956) created a new subspecies C. elaphus carpathicus for the red deer from Ukrainian Carpathians. Heptner et al. (1988) regarded Tatarinov’s subspecies as a junior synonym of campestris and montanus and nomen nudum. Flerov (1952) and Sokolov (1959) placed the Carpathian red deer in the subspecies C. elaphus elaphus Linnaeus 1758 since, according to the cited authors, the antler morphology, pelage color, and body size are individually variable characters. Almaşan et al. (1977) referred the Carpathian red deer to the Central European subspecies C. elaphus hippelaphus Erxleben 1777. Banwell (1997) proposed another new subspecies name C. elaphus pannoniensis for red deer from Hungary, Romania and the Balkan Peninsula. Banwell (1997, 1998) described a set of specific morphological characters that distinguish the so-called “maraloid” Pannonian red deer from Western European red deer; however, he failed to provide diagnostic characters distinguishing C. elaphus pannoniensis from C. elaphus maral. In our opinion, C. elaphus pannoniensis is a junior synonym of C. elaphus maral (Croitor & Cojocaru, 2016). Subfossil and Late Pleistocene red deer remains from Bulgaria (Spassov et al., 2015) and Eastern Romania (Saraiman & Ţarălungă, 1978; Croitor & Cojocaru, 2016) are characterized by comparatively larger body size and large heavy antlers with poor development of the second basal tine (bez tine) and of the distal antler crown, showing a great morphological affinity with C. elaphus maral. Therefore, the available archaeozoological and paleontological data support the old viewpoint of Lydekker (1898) who included Carpathian red deer in the subspecies C. elaphus maral. The origin of the indigenous Carpathian red deer is linked to the Balkan-Anatolian-Caucasian glacial refugium and Moldova is regarded as a part of this glacial refugium (Sommer et al., 2008; Skog et al., 2009; Meiri et al., 2013).