Sh vol 26 2013 09 reduced

25 Volume 26

January 2012 September 2013

Number 13

THIS MONTH’S PROGRAM

FUTURE SPEAKERS

Charles J. Cole (Jay)

47

15 October 2013: Phil C. Rosen “Collaborative Conservation Successes for Native Leopard Frogs of the Southwestern USA”

7:15 PM; Tuesday, 16 September; University of Arizona, BIO5/Keating Building; 1657 East Helen Street

48

19 November 2013: Karla Moeller; “Dealing with Dehydration and other Gila Tales”

From Two Sexes to One: Evolution of Unisexual Species of Lizards

I

n 1960, Jay was a committed undergraduate herper who spent the summer assisting Richard G. Zweifel at the Southwestern Research Station in the Chiricahuas. Zweifel, a curator in herpetology at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), NY, had just discovered that some species of North American whiptail lizards (Aspidoscelis, formerly Cnemidophorus) are all-female species. Jay was totally hooked.

He earned a Master’s at KU, learning about field work in the tropics from William E. Duellman. He then moved to the U of A for a Ph.D. with Charles H. Lowe, where he learned mostly from Robert L. Bezy. After graduate school he was hired as a curator in herpetology at the AMNH, where he worked for 34 years, focusing on the evolutionary biology of unisexual species in both North and South America. Most of this was in collaboration with his wife, Carol R. Townsend (Scientific Assistant, AMNH), Herbert C. Dessauer (LSU Medical Center, New Orleans), and Laurence M. Hardy (LSU-S, Shreveport, Museum of Life Sciences). More than 100 scientific publications in diverse journals have resulted from this work. Today, Jay and Carol live in the foothills of the Tucson Mountains, continuing their research in “retirement.”

SHORT ARTICLES 49

“Reproduction in the Ornate Tree Lizard, Urosaurus ornatus (Squamata: Phrynosomatidae), from Sonora, Mexico” by Stephen R. Goldberg

52

“Probable causes of chromosome number variation in amphibians”

by Suman Pratihar and Rudra Prasad Nath

N AT U R A L H I S TO RY NOTE 55

“Cannibalism in the Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula)”

by René Clark

100-MILE CIRCLE 56

“Rio Grande Leopard Frog, Lithobates berlandieri” by James C. Rorabaugh

61

“Yaqui Black-headed Snake, Tantilla yaquia” by James C. Rorabaugh

BOOK REVIEWS

Representative of a unisexual species of lizard, Aspidoscelis tesselata, ready to lay eggs. Photo by C. J. Cole.

64

“Where do I Live? (Budding Biologist series)” review by Howard O. Clark, Jr.

65

“Amphibians and Reptiles of Costa Rica” review by Howard O. Clark, Jr.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

46

FUTURE SPEAKERS

15 October 2013: Phil C. Rosen

Collaborative Conservation Successes for Native Leopard Frogs of the Southwestern USA 7:15 PM; University of Arizona, BIO5/Keating Building; 1657 East Helen Street

D r. Phil Rosen has worked actively in

research, monitoring, and the design and implementation of control methods for exotic and restoration of native aquatic species in the southwestern US for 25 years, including intensive research and monitoring at Las Cienegas National Conservation Area.

He has worked closely with involved agencies, especially the Bureau of Land Management, Pima County, The Nature Conservancy, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. His experience in public-private conservation partnerships include work with the Malpai Group, Altar Valley Conservation Alliance, and Tucson neighborhoods, schools, and residences.

Recent advances in native frog conservation are giving biologists hope for native aquatic species. The overwhelmingly critical conservation problems for ranid frogs in the American southwest, which are also important for almost all the other native aquatic vertebrates, involves introduced non-native organisms and loss of aquatic habitat due to water extraction, drought, and habitat modification. The non-native species problem exists in two distinct categories: in-

Local Research News

T

he Sonoran Herpetologist welcomes short reports for our Local Research News, a regular feature in our journal. We are interested in articles that can update our readers on research about amphibians and reptiles in the Sonoran Desert region. These articles need be only a few paragraphs long and do not need to include data, specific localities, or other details. The emphasis should be on how science is being applied to herpetological questions. Please submit your materials to Howard Clark, editor.sonoran.herp@gmail.com.

Submissions should be brief and in electronic form.

Breeding Chiricahua Leopard Frogs (Lithobates chiricahuensis).

Photo by Dennis Caldwell.

troduced predators and/or competitors, and emerging exotic diseases. In combination, these forces present a recipe for leopard frog decline and, if unmitigated, probable extirpation.

Recent large scale, landscape level conservation strategies have proven successful in both the eradication of non-natives and the recovery of native species.

In this presentation we will explore some major successes in large-scale multi-partner collaborative conservation efforts and bring the audience up-to-date on the current status of leopard frog recovery in the southwestern US.

Sonoran Herpetologist Natural History Observations

T

he Tucson Herpetological Society invites your contributions to our Natural History Notes section.

We are particularly interested in photographs and descriptions of amphibians and reptiles involved in noteworthy or unusual behaviors in the field. Notes can feature information such as diet, predation, community structure, interspecific behavior, or unusual locations or habitat use. Please submit your observations to Howard Clark, editor.sonoran.herp@gmail.com.

Submissions should be brief and in electronic form.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

Recent advances in native frog conservation are giving biologist hope for native aquatic species. The overwhelmingly critical conservation problems for ranid frogs in the American Southwest, which are also important for almost all the other native aquatic vertebrates, involves introduced non-native organisms and loss of aquatic habitat due to water extraction, drought, and habitat modification.

47

19 November 2013: Karla Moeller, Ph.D. student, Arizona State University Dealing with Dehydration and other Gila Tales 7:15 PM; University of Arizona, BIO5/Keating Building; 1657 East Helen Street

K

arla grew up in San Diego and spent most summers visiting the Mojave Desert. But it wasn’t until her undergraduate years in the Sinervo lab at UC Santa Cruz that she discovered the joys of desert herping.

During her time at UCSC, she mainly studied coloration of the California Mountain Kingsnake, but she made yearly herping trips to the Mojave and was fascinated with how herps survive in extreme environments. After graduation, Karla focused on general animal care as a veterinary assistant and as a zookeeper, yet she was slowly transforming into a full-fledged desert rat. During 2008, she helped the Great Basin Institute conduct population counts of the Desert Tortoise and, enthralled with desert field work, soon joined Dale DeNardo’s lab at ASU. Karla started her Ph.D. research with a focus on the behavioral and physiological differences of juvenile and adult Gila Monsters in an attempt to figure out how juveniles survive the Sonoran Desert dry season.

More recently, she has shifted her focus to understanding the physiological effects of dehydration. Though her current studies are mainly lab-based, Karla has spent over four seasons following or searching for Gila

Karla with a Long-nosed Leopard Lizard in southern Nevada.

Photo by Sean Sullivan.

Monsters in the wild. She will talk about her current studies of dehydration in reptiles, the pitfalls of working with juvenile Gila Monsters, and the highlights of her field work.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Desert Institute Presents—Desert Snakes: Fangs, Rattle, and More

Y ucca Valley, CA—Feared and respected by many for their potential to inflict harm, snakes have long

captured the fascination of humanity. William Hayes will introduce participants to a remarkable variety of venomous and non-venomous snakes that inhabit southern California’s deserts in this all-day field class.

Starting in the classroom, Dr. Hayes will discuss the many adaptations that are essential for snakes to survive in the desert ecosystem including unique morphological, physiological, behavioral, and ecological traits.

Snake venom will also be discussed in detail providing answers to the following questions. What, exactly, is venom? How is it made and how is it delivered? Can venoms be beneficial? The class will explore the surrounding desert to identify reptile habitat and hopefully see some snakes!

Date/Time:

Sunday, Sept. 29, 9:00 am – 4:00 pm

Meet at:

Black Rock Visitor Center 9800 Black Rock Canyon Road, Yucca Valley, CA

Karla started her Ph.D. research with a focus on the behavioral and physiological differences of juvenile and adult Gila Monsters in an attempt to figure out how juveniles survive the Sonoran desert dry season.

Non-Credit Fee: $60 ($50 for JTNPA/PINE members) Credit Fee:

$85 ($75 for JTNPA/PINE members)

Sign up:

www.joshuatree.org

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

48

SHORT ARTICLE

Reproduction in the Ornate Tree Lizard, Urosaurus ornatus (Squamata: Phrynosomatidae), from Sonora, Mexico Stephen R. Goldberg, Whittier College, Department of Biology, Whittier, CA 90608, sgoldberg@whittier.edu

T

he Ornate Tree Lizard, Urosaurus ornatus (Baird and Girard, 1852) ranges from southeastern California, southern Nevada, southern Utah, western Colorado, throughout Arizona, New Mexico, western and central Texas and northern Mexico (Haase 2009). It occurs throughout Sonora, Mexico except for the highest mountains and Figure 1. Urosaurus ornatus, Ornate Tree Lizard, Cochise County, Arizona. Photo by Jason Ksepka. treeless flats in the Gran Desierto; it typically is found on trees and rocks (Rorabaugh 2008). Urosaurus ornatus ical examination. Gonads were embedded in paraffin, is one of the most well-studied North American sections were cut at 5 µm, and stained with Harris helizards. Information on reproduction of U. ornatus is matoxylin followed by eosin counterstain (Presnell and in many sources. The most detailed information is in Schreibman 1997). Histology slides were deposited in Asplund and Lowe (1964), Fitch (1970, 1985), Martin LACM. Enlarged ovarian follicles (> 5 mm length) or (1973, 1977), Parker (1973), Michel (1976), Ballinger oviductal eggs were counted. An unpaired t-test was (1977), Smith (1977), Dunham (1981, 1982), Tinkle used to test for differences between male and female and Dunham (1983), Van Loben Sels and Vitt (1984), SVLs and the relation between clutch size and female Thompson and Moore (1991), and Haenel (2011). body size (SVL) was examined by linear regression Anecdotal information on U. ornatus reproduction is analysis using Instat 3 (Graphpad, San Diego, CA). in: Stebbins (1954, 2003), Minton (1959), Gehlbach The mean of adult male U. ornatus was significantly (1965), Douglas (1966), Vitt (1977), Behler and King larger than that of adult females (unpaired t-test, t = (1979), Zucker and Boecklen (1990), Williamson et 4.5, df = 81, P < 0.001). Monthly stages in the testicual. (1994), Brennan and Holycross (2005, 2006), and lar cycle are in Table 1. Three stages in the testicular Haase (2009). Due to the difficulty in justifying colleccycle were present: (1) Regressed: seminiferous tubules tions of large monthly samples, utilization of museum are at their smallest sizes and contain spermatogonia collections for obtaining reproductive data has become and interspersed Sertoli cells; (2) Recrudescence: a increasingly important. The purpose of this note is proliferation of germ cells for the next period of to add to the reproductive database of U. ornatus by spermiogenesis is evident as primary and sometimes reporting data on reproduction from Sonora, Mexico. secondary spermatocytes predominate; (3) SpermioComparisons are made between the timing of events genesis: lumina of the seminiferous tubules are lined in the reproductive cycle of U. ornatus from Sonora, by sperm or clusters of metamorphosing spermatids.

Mexico with other populations of this lizard.

The period of sperm formation encompassed May A sample of 90 U. ornatus from Sonora, Mexico, into August (Table 1). No males from September were consisting of 54 adult males (mean snout-vent length, examined so it is not known when spermiogenesis SVL = 49.4 mm ± 4.4 SD, range = 42-62 mm), one Table 1. Monthly stages in the testicular cycle of 54 adult U. juvenile male (SVL = 40 mm), 29 adult females (mean ornatus males from Sonora, Mexico.

SVL = 45.3 mm ± 3.0 SD, range = 42-53 mm) and Month n Regressed Recrudescent Spermiogenesis five juvenile females (mean SVL = 40.6 mm ± 0.54 March 1 1 0 0 SD, range = 40-41 mm) was examined from the herpeApril 3 3 0 0 tology collection of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM), Los Angeles, California, May 3 0 2 1 USA. Urosaurus ornatus were collected from 1957 to June 32 0 1 31 1979.

July 12 0 0 12 A small incision was made in the lower part of the August 3 0 0 3 abdomen and the left gonad was removed for histologSONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

The ornate tree lizard, Urosaurus ornatus (Baird and Girard, 1852) ranges from southeastern California, southern Nevada, southern Utah, western Colorado, throughout Arizona, New Mexico, western and central Texas and northern Mexico.

49

ceased in U. ornatus from Sonora, Mexico. The smallest reproductively active male (spermiogenesis in progress) measured 42 mm SVL (LACM 59907) and was collected in June. One smaller male from May that measured 40 mm exhibited testicular recrudescence and was considered a juvenile.

No U. ornatus females from May were examined so it is not known when female reproductive activity began in Sonora, Mexico. Also, it is not known whether it continued into September as no females were examined from this month. Mean clutch size for 12 females was 8.6 ± 2.1 SD, range = 6-13. Linear regression analysis revealed a significant relationship between female body size (SVL) and clutch size (n = 12). This relation is shown by the regression equation (Y = -11.093 + 0.423X, r = 0.597, P = 0.041). There was no indication U. ornatus females from Sonora, Mexico produced multiple egg clutches as evidenced by oviductal eggs and/or corpora lutea and concurrent yolk deposition

in the same female. The smallest reproductively active female (yolk deposition in progress) measured 42 mm SVL (LACM 98097) and was collected in June. Five smaller females (mean SVL = 40.6 mm) from June had quiescent ovaries and were considered to be juveniles.

Tinkle and Dunham (1983) reported both sexes of U. ornatus attained maturity at about 45 mm SVL in Texas.

There is considerable geographic variation in the timing of events in the reproductive cycle of U. ornatus from different parts of its range (Table 3). Males can commence reproductive activity as early as March in central Texas (Martin 1977) or as late as early June in New Mexico (Michel 1976). Females can commence reproductive activity as early as March in central Texas (Martin 1977) or central Arizona (Parker 1973) or as late as June in southern Arizona (Asplund and Lowe 1964), New Mexico (Michel 1976) or Sonora, Mexico as reported herein. Clutch sizes of U. ornatus may vary from a minimum of 2 (Parker 1973) to a maximum of 16 (Haase 2009). There is a general Table 2. Monthly stages in the ovarian cycle of 29 adult U. ornatus females from consensus that U. ornatus females can Sonora, Mexico. produce more than one clutch in the Early yolk Follicles > 5 Month n Quiescent Oviductal eggs same reproductive season (Table 3). deposition mm My failure to find evidence of mulApril 2 2 0 0 0 tiple clutch production by U. ornatus June 14 10 3 1 0 from Sonora, Mexico likely resulted July 10 1 0 5 4 from my small sample of females.

August 3 0 0 0 3 Haenel (2011) reported differences in U. ornatus clutch sizes depending on Table 3. Geographic variation in reproduction of Urosaurus ornatus. lizard habitat, with those inhabiting trees producing significantly larger Male Female Clutch Clutch Location Citation clutches than those living on rocks. reproduction reproduction sizes number Also, U. ornatus reproduction is correAsplund Southern May-July June-August 6-9 1-2 and Lowe lated with precipitation (Martin 1977) Arizona 1964 and food abundance (Ballinger 1977).

In conclusion, examination of Arizona, New MarchParker previous studies have shown U. ornatus March-July 2-7 1 or more Mexico, August 1973 from different geographic populations Texas exhibited variation in the timing of Southwest events of the the reproductive cycle.

Early June to Early June to Michel New 7.5-10.9 2 late August late August 1976 The timing of reproduction of the Mexico southernmost population of U. ornatus Central MarchMartin March-August 3-9 3-4 studied (Sonora, Mexico) reported Texas August 1977 herein was within the range of other Chiricahua Smith populations of U. ornatus from southMountains May-July May-July — 1-2 1977 ern and central Arizona (Asplund Arizona and Lowe 1964, Tinkle and Dunham Texas, Big Dunham Bend Nat. April-August April-August 5.6 3 1983) and New Mexico (Michel 1976).

1981 Park Flexibility in the timing of the reproTinkle ductive cycle enables lizards to adapt Central Late May to and to different environments within their — 7.1 3 Dunham Arizona mid-August range. This has been shown to occur 1983 in other lizards from western North Van America (McCoy and Hoddenbach Central May-late Loben April-August 6.0 -7.7 1-2 1966; Goldberg 1974, 1976, 1977).

Arizona August Sels and Vitt 1984 Further studies on the same lizard species from different habitats will Sonora, This May-August June-August 6-13 — Mexico paper likely yield additional information on SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

Males can commence reproductive activity as early as March in central Texas or as late as early June in New Mexico.

Females can commence reproductive activity as early as March in central Texas or central Arizona or as late as June in southern Arizona, New Mexico or Sonora, Mexico.

50

the adjustments in timing of their reproductive cycles which help them to survive under varying environmental conditions.

I thank Greg Pauly (LACM) for permission to examine Urosaurus ornatus.

Literature Cited Asplund, K.K, and C.H. Lowe. 1964. Reproductive cycles of the iguanid lizards Urosaurus ornatus and Uta stansburiana in southeastern Arizona. Journal of Morphology 115:27-34.

Ballinger, R.E. 1977. Reproductive strategies: food availability as a source of proximal variation in a lizard. Ecology 58:628-635.

Behler, J.L., and F.W. King. 1979. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Brennan, T.C., and A.T. Holycross. 2005. A Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of Maricopa County. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. Brennan, T.C., and A.T. Holycross. 2006. A Field Guide to Amphibins and Reptiles in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. Douglas, C.L. 1966. Amphibians and reptiles of Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. University of Kansas Publications Museum of Natural History 15:711-744.

Dunham, A.E. 1981. Populations in a fluctuating environment: the comparative population ecology of the iguanid lizards Sceloporus merriami and Urosaurus ornatus. Miscellaneous Publications Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan No. 158, 62 pp.

Dunham. A.E. 1982. Demographic and life-history variation among populations of the iguanid lizard Urosaurus ornatus: implications for the study of life-history phenomena in lizards. Herpetologica 38:208-221.

Fitch, H.S. 1970. Reproductive cycles in lizards and snakes. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous Publication No. 52: 1-247.

Fitch, H.S. 1985. Variation in clutch and litter size in New World reptiles. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous Publication No. 76:1-76.

Gehlbach, F.R. 1965. Herpetology of the Zuni Mountains region, northwestern New Mexico. Proceedings of the U. S. National Museum 116:243-322.

Goldberg, S.R. 1974. Reproduction in mountain and lowland populations of the lizard Sceloporus occidentalis. Copeia 1974:176-182.

Goldberg, S.R. 1976. Reproduction in a mountain population of the coastal whiptail lizard, Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus. Copeia 1976:260-266.

Goldberg, S.R. 1977. Reproduction in a mountain population of the side-blotched lizard, Uta stansburiana (Reptilia, Lacertilia, Iguanidae). Journal of Herpetology 11:31-35.

Haase, R. 2009. Ornate tree lizard Urosaurus ornatus (Bair and Girard, 1852). Pages 290-293 in: L.L.C. Jones and R.E. Lovitch (editors). Lizards of the

American Southwest: A Photographic Field Guide.

Rio Nuevo Publishers, Tucson, AZ. Haenel, G. 2011. Effects of habitat on clutch size of ornate tree lizards, Urosaurus ornatus. Western North American Naturalist 71:247-256.

Martin, R.F. 1973. Reproduction in the tree lizard (Urosaurus ornatus) in central Texas: drought conditions.

Herpetologica 29:27-32.

Martin, R.F. 1977. Variation in reproductive productivity of range margin tree lizards (Urosaurus ornatus).

Copeia 1977:83-92.

McCoy, C.J., and G.A. Hoddenbach. 1966. Geographic variation in ovarian cycles and clutch size in Cnemidophorus tigris (Teiidae). Science 154:1671-1672.

Michel, L. 1976. Reproduction in a southwest New Mexican population of Urosaurus ornatus. Southwestern Naturalist 21:281-299.

Minton, S.A., Jr. 1959. Observations on amphibians and reptiles of the Big Bend region of Texas.

Southwestern Naturalist 3:28-54.

Parker, W.S. 1973. Natural history notes on the iguanid lizard Urosaurus ornatus. Journal of Herpetology 7:21-26.

Presnell, J.K., and M.P. Schreibman. 1997. Humasonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Animal Tissue Techniques, 5th Edit. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD. Rorabaugh, J.C. 2008. An introduction to the herpetofauna of mainland Sonora, MĂŠxico, with comments on conservation and management. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 40:20-65.

Smith, D.C. 1977. Interspecific competition and the demography of two lizards. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 246 pp.

Stebbins, R.C. 1954. Amphibians and Reptiles of Western North America. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY. Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to the Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. Thompson, C.W., and M.C. Moore. 1991. Syntopic occurrence of multiple dewlap color morphs in male tree lizards, Urosaurus ornatus. Copeia 1991:493-503.

Tinkle, D.W., and A.E. Dunham. 1983. Demography of the tree lizard, Urosaurus ornatus, in central Arizona. Copeia 1983:585-598.

Van Loben Sels, R.C., and L.J. Vitt. 1984. Desert lizard reproduction: seasonal and annual variation in Urosaurus ornatus (Iguanidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 62:1779-1787.

Vitt, L.J. 1977. Observations on clutch and egg size and evidence for multiple clutches in some lizards of southwestern United States. Herpetologica 33:333-338.

Williamson, M.A., P.W. Hyder, and J.S. Applegarth.

1994. Snakes, Lizards, Turtles, Frogs, Toads & Salamanders of New Mexico. Sunstone Press, Santa Fe, NM. Zucker, N., and W. Boecklen. 1990. Variation in female throat coloration in the tree lizard (Urosaurus ornatus): relation to reproductive cycle and fecundity.

Herpetologica 46:387-394.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

Appendix: Urosaurus ornatus specimens from Sonora, Mexico, examined from the Natural History Museum (LACM) of Los Angeles County, California, USA. LACM 8903-8905, 9484, 25130, 25131, 59823, 59828, 59832, 59835, 59836, 59838- 59840, 59847, 59849, 59856, 5986059862, 59864, 59866, 59867, 59869, 59873, 59878, 59884, 59890, 59891, 59896, 59898, 59901, 59903, 5990559907, 59909, 59912, 59919, 59920, 5992259927, 59929, 59932, 59933, 59937, 59939, 98041-98044, 98049, 98058, 98061, 98063, 98065, 98072, 98075, 98078-98080, 98085, 98088, 98089, 98091, 98097, 98099, 98100, 98101, 98107, 98108, 98112, 98121, 98123, 98128, 98130, 98131, 98150, 98151, 129813, 129815-129818, 133390, 133391.

51

SHORT ARTICLE

Probable causes of chromosome number variation in amphibians Suman Pratihar and Rudra Prasad Nath Department of Zoology, Vidyasagar University, Midnapore, West Bengal, India; pratihar_vu@rediffmail.com

T here is a significant chromosome number variation in amphibians. In Hynobiidae chromosome number

varies from 40-78, in frogs 24-32, in Bufonidae 22-24, and 24-26 in Ranidae. Almost all salamandrid species belonging to the Salamandridae (Order Caudata) have 2n=24. The differences in genome size variation in amphibians may be due to the expansion of junk DNA (e.g., pseudogenes) or selfish DNA (e.g., transposable elements).

The three living orders of amphibians are Anura (the frogs and toads), Caudata/Urodela (the salamanders), and Gymnophiona/Apoda (the caecilians). The earliest amphibians evolved in the Devonian Period from sarcopterygian fish with lungs and bony-limbed fins, features that were helpful in adapting to dry land.

They spread and became dominant during the Carboniferous and Permian periods, but were later displaced by reptiles and other vertebrates. The total number of known amphibian species is approximately 7,000, of which nearly 90% are frogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Amphibian).

One character needed in the description of every animal is the chromosome number. Generally, each species has a constant number of chromosomes which is maintained through cell division. Chromosomes carry the genes, the unit of life. In many higher eukaryotes, chromosome number repeatedly varies between related organisms. This may occur through chromosome fission or fusion and the duplication of parts of the genome. Diploid chromosome numbers may vary in families of amphibians. In caecilians, diploid numbers of 30 and 42 are known in Indotyphlidae and Ichthyophiidae respectively (Govindappa and Venkatachalaiah 2005). In salamanders, chromosome numbers are relatively constant (2n=24) whereas in Hynobiidae, the number varies from 40 to 78. In frogs chomosome numbers vary from 22 to 26: 22-24 in Hylidae; 22-26 in Bufonidae; and 24-26 in Ranidae (AlShehri and Al-Saleh 2005a, b, 2013; Macgregor et al.

1990; Saba et al. 2012). In the frog genus Eleutherodactylus, chromosomes counts range from 24 to 32 (Bogart and Blair Hedges 1995; Table 1).

The amount of time needed for cell division increases with the content of the genome. The amount of DNA in the genome varies greatly among frogs of the family Myobatrachidae, ranging from 0.95 pg (picogram) in the Ornate Frog (Limnodynastes ornatus) to 19 pg in the Northern Sandhill Frog (Areophryne rotunda). In salamanders, genome size varies from 13 to 120 pg and in caecilians it varies from 3.7 to 14 pg. Using the amount of human DNA as a reference (100%), artiodactyls possess 99.5%, rodents 96%, bats

Diagram of a replicated and condensed metaphase eukaryotic chromosome. (1) Chromatidâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;one of the two identical parts of the chromosome after S phase. (2) Centromereâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the point where the two chromatids touch, and where the microtubules attach. (3) Short arm. (4) Long arm. (from Wikipedia)

56%, birds 50%, reptiles 71%, frogs 139%, salamanders 1,542%, teleosts 33%, jawless fish 60%, and the lungfish Lepidosiren 3540%.

Discussion Due to chromosomal rearrangement during speciation in family Eleutherodactylidae, extensive chromosome number variation has occurred. The karyotypic differentiation of Hynobiidae is complicated. Variations in diploid chromosome number occurred not only at the intergeneric level, but also at the intrageneric level (Bogart and Blair Hedges 1995).

It was characterized by a chromosome rearrangement accompanied by drastic changes in chromosome number and karyotype. For example, The Ezo Salamander (Hynobius retardatus) has 2n=40, salamanders in the genus Salamandrella have 2n=62, salamanders in the genus Batrachuperus have 2n=62-68, both salamander genera Liua and Pachyhynobius have 2n=64, and the Japanese Clawed Salamander (Onychodactylus japonicus) has 2n=78 (Kuro-o et al. 1998). Almost all salamandrid species belonging to the family Salamandridae (Order Caudata) have 2n=24 chromosomes, lack microchromosomes, and possess unimodal and symmetrical macrochromosomes that differ very little even at the intergeneric level (Odierna et al. 2007). The differences SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

There is a significant chromosome number variation in amphibians.

In Hynobiidae chromosome number varies from 40-78, in frogs 24-32, in Bufonidae 22-24, and 24-26 in Ranidae. Almost all salamandrid species belonging to the salamandridae (Order Caudata) have 2n=24.

52

between these karyotypes predominantly concern the absolute size of chromosomes and quantity of DNA. Accordingly, the karyotypic diversity among the species has mainly resulted from pericentric inversions that result in differences between individual chromosomes by changing the telocentric chromosomes into metacentric ones, or changing the metacentric chromosomes into submetacentric, subtelocentric and telocentric chromosomes. The difference occurs not only at the intergeneric level, but also at the intrageneric level. Newts in the genus Tylototriton have karyotypically been considered to be the most primitive in Salamandridae (Yang 1992, 2004).

The differences in genome size in amphibians may be due to expansion of junk DNA (e.g., pseudogenes) or selfish DNA (e.g., transposable elements). Through a feedback with genetic and environmental effects, DNA accumulation would have been strongly correlated with loss of metamorphosis in some urodeles.

These genome expansions were not without effects on the organism phenotype (Yang 2004).

Literature Cited Al-Shehri, A.H., and A.A. Al-Saleh. 2005a. Karyotype of Amphibian in Saudi Arabia. 1. The karyotype of Rana ridibunda. Journal of Biological Science 5:335-338.

Al-Shehri, A.H., and A.A. Al-Saleh. 2005b. Karyotype of amphibians in Saudi Arabia 2: The karyotype of Hyla savignyi. Journal of Biological Science 6:768770.

Al-Shehri, A.H., and A.A. Al-Saleh. 2013. Report of Bufo tihamicus karyotype from Saudi Arabia. African Journal of Biotechnology 12(16):2120-2124.

Bogart, J.P., and S.B. Hedges. 1995. Rapid chromosome evolution in Jamaican frogs of the genus

Eleuiherodactylus (Leptodactylidae). Journal of Zoology 235:9-31.

Govindappa, V., and G. Venkatachalaiah. 2005. Karyology of two species of Caecilians (Caeciliidae: Gymnophiona): Evolution through tandem fusion and sex chromosome dimorphism. Caryologia 58(2):140-151.

Kuro-o, M., C. Ikebe, H. Tamamoto, G. Wu, X. Zeng, and S. Kohnoa. 1998. Cytogenetic studies of Hynobiidae (Urodela). XIV. Analysis of the chromosome of a Chinese salamander, Batrachuperus pinchonii (David). Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 54:152-157.

Macgregor, H.C., S.K. Sessions, and J.W. Amtzen.

1990. An integrative analysis of phylogenetic relationships among newts of the genus Triturus (family Salamandridae), using comparative biochemistry, cytogenetics and reproductive interactions. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 3:329-373.

Odierna, G., G. Aprea, T. Capriglione, S. Castellano and E. Balletto. 2007. Cytological evidence for population-specific sex chromosome heteromorphism in Palaearctic green toads (Amphibia, Anura). Journal of Bioscience 32(4):763-768.

Saba, N., and N.K. Tripathi. 2012. Meiotic Chromosomes and Karyotype of Bufo viridis (Laurenti, 1768) from Jammu and Kashmir. Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences 1(6):21-25.

Yang, Y. 1992. Karyotypic studies of nine species of Chinese salamanders. Asiatic Herpetological Research 4:146-157.

Yang, Y. 2004. Karyological Studies on Amphibians in China. Asiatic Herpetological Research 10:298-305. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibian

Table 1. Chromosome number of different amphibians.

Species

CLASS—AMPHIBIA

Chromosome Number

Ichthyophis glutinosus

Family Ichthyophiidae

2n=42

Gegeneophis ramaswamii

Family Indotyphlidae

2n=30

Proteus anguinus

Family Proteidae

2n=18

Amphiuma means

Family Amphiumidae

2n=24

Cryptobranchus alleganiensis

Family Cryptobranchidae

2n=62

ORDER—GYMNOPHIONA/APODA

ORDER—CAUDATA/URODELA

Megalobatrachus japonicus Hynobius retardatus

2n=64 Family Hynobiidae

2n=40

Hynobius dunni

2n=56

Salamandrella keyserlingii

2n=62

Batrachuperus mustersi

2n=62

Batrachuperus tibetanus

2n=62

Liua shihi

2n=64

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

53

Pachyhynobius shangchengensis

Family Hynobiidae

2n=64

Ranadon sibericus

2n=66

Batrachuperus pinchonii

2n=66

Onychodactylus fischeri

2n=66

Batrachuperus karlschmidti

2n=68

Batrachuperus yenyuanensis

2n=68

Onychodactylus japonicus

2n=78

Tylototriton kweichowensis

Family Salamandridae

2n=24

Tylototriton verrucosus

2n=24

Cynops cyanurus yunnanensis

2n=24

Cynops cyanurus orientalis

2n=24

Paramesotriton chinensis

2n=24

Pachytriton brevips

2n=24

Pachytriton labiatum

2n=24

Triturus italicus

2n=24

Triturus dobrogicus

2n=24

Triturus karelini

2n=24

Triturus Carnifex

2n=24

Triturus Cristatus

2n=24

Triturus helveticus

2n=24

ORDERâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;ANURA Duttaphrynus melanostictus

Family Bufonidae

2n=22

Bufo viridis

2n=22

Bufo americanus

2n=22

Bufo tihamicus

2n=22

Bufo lentiginosus Rana altaica

2n=24 Family Ranidae

2n=24

Rana chensinensis

2n=24

Rana chaochiaoensis

2n=26

Rana tigrina

2n=26

Rana ridibunda

2n=26

Rana amurensis

2n=26

Rana japonica

2n=26

Rhacophorus schlegelii

Family Rhacophoridae

2n=26

Hyla arborea

Family Hylidae

2n=24

Hyla savignyi Eleutherodactylus junori

2n=24 Family Eleutherodactylidae

2n=24

Eleutherodactylus gossei

2n=26

Eleutherodactylus pantoni

2n=26

Eleutherodactylus fuscus

2n=28

Eleutherodactylus johnstonei

2n=28

Eleutherodactylus luteolus

2n=28

Eleutherodactylus pentacyringos

2n=28

Eleutherodactylus glaucoreius

2n=30

Eleutherodactylus cavemicola

2n=30

Eleutherodactylus jamaicensis

2n=30

Eleutherodactylus orcutti

2n=32

Eleutherodactylus nubicola

2n=32

Eleutherodactylus alticola

2n=32

Eleutherodactylus griphus

2n=32

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

54

N AT U R A L H I S TO RY N OT E

Cannibalism in the Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula) René Clark, Secretary, Tucson Herpetological Society, serpentprincess@comcast.net

W

hile walking to work on 3 May 2013, I noticed a black lump about 6 ft (~1.8 m) away from the sidewalk. I went to investigate (hoping it was a snake), and saw two Common Kingsnakes (Lampropeltis getula) intertwined. They were in full sunlight, with minimal dappled shade, in front of a bush that was part of the resort landscaping, and ran the length of the patios leading to the guest rooms. At first I thought they were mating. They were slowly writhing while each was coiled around the other. After about 10 minutes they flipped just enough where I could see that the larger one had the head of the smaller one in its mouth. I could also see blood (as indicated in some of the photos; Figure 1). The intended meal was still alive. I watched the snakes for a total of 20

minutes before I had to leave for work. Both snakes were still alive when I left them. The outcome, unfortunately, is unknown.

The pictures featured here represent a timeline, showing the predation of the larger snake upon the other, and showing the tails of both snakes. If both snakes were male, then perhaps the larger male was eliminating the competition.

Cannibalism in kingsnakes appears to be uncommon, as few incidents have been reported (Daniel 1948).

Literature Cited Daniel, P.M. 1948. Cannibalism of the King Snake, Lampropeltis g. getulus. Herpetologica 4:220.

Fifteen minutes into the struggle.

Five minutes into the struggle.

Ten minutes into the struggle.

Twenty minutes into the struggle.

Figure 1. The Photos above were taken by the author on 3 May 2013, at ~1400. The mean temperature was 73°F (22.8°C), with the max temperature 86°F (30.0°C). At 1400 the temperature was in the lower to mid 80s. The average humidity was 11%. The Dew Point was 14°F. Precipitation was 0.00 in. Wind Speed averaged 14 mph (from the east). Location: Canyon Ranch Resort, 1/2 mile (0.8 km), from Sabino Canyon on the northeast side of Tucson, AZ.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

55

H E R P E TO FAU N A O F T H E 100- M I L E C I R C L E

Rio Grande Leopard Frog, Lithobates berlandieri James C. Rorabaugh, P.O. Box 31, Saint David, Arizona 85630; jrorabaugh@hotmail.com

I

n 1983 I was working as a biologist for the Bureau of Reclamation in Yuma, Arizona. Specifically, I was assisting with a Mule Deer project along and adjacent to the Wellton-Mohawk Canal near Tacna and Wellton in Yuma County. Deer were falling into the canal and drowning, and it was our job to monitor the situation and develop solutions. One of those solutions was the installation of wildlife waters north of the canal, which we hoped would act as alternative watering sites, reducing the need for the deer to come to the canal. In late August of 1983, a huge monsoon storm delivered substantial rainfall Figure 1. Adult Rio Grande Leopard Frog, Yuma County, AZ. Photo by J. C. Rorabaugh. to the southern King Valley of Kofa National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent Yuma Leopard Frog (Lithobates berlandieri), which was probProving Grounds, producing heavy flooding in the ably unintentionally brought to our area during the arroyos leading southward to the Gila River. The canal 1960s or 70s as tadpoles or frogs mixed in with loads we were monitoring was located just north of and of warm water sport fishes from a hatchery in New parallel to the river. On 29 August I accessed a wildlife Mexico or Texas (the Federal hatchery in Uvalde, drinker about 1.6 km north of the canal on the edge Texas is the most likely source). Over several years, we of one of those large arroyos and was amazed to find found leopard frogs to be widespread along wetted at least eight sizeable leopard frogs occupying a 35-gal- reaches of the Gila River and in agricultural ditches lon drinker. I knew from Vitt and Ohmart’s 1978 work and canals in the Gila River Valley from near Buckeye that leopard frogs were presumed extirpated from the south to Yuma, and then along the Colorado River and Colorado River due to competition with or predation in adjacent agriculture south of Laguna Dam to the

by American Bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) or other international boundary (Platz et al. 1990). An interestcauses. But perhaps they had persisted along the Gila ing side note is that Jim Platz needed tissue samples River? This discovery led to a collaboration with Rob from other leopard frog species to identify the Gila Clarkson, who at the time worked for the Arizona River frogs, so Rob Clarkson and I made trips to other Game and Fish Department in Yuma, and, I came to parts of Arizona to collect native frogs from historical learn, in 1981 Rob had observed two leopard frogs on localities. To our surprise, and that of Jim Platz, we the Colorado River at Yuma during a Bullfrog dietary encountered much difficulty in finding leopard frogs, study (Clarkson and deVos 1986). As we discovered, and this led to expanded surveys throughout Arizona leopard frogs were fairly common along the Gila River to determine the status of native leopard frogs. The near the Wellton-Mohawk Canal, and those eight frogs resulting work (Clarkson and Rorabaugh 1989) was the in the wildlife drinker had almost certainly dispersed first to ring the alarm bells that Arizona leopard frogs up the arroyo from the river or the canal during or were declining precipitously, and often for unknown after the storm. reasons.

Rob and I eventually contacted Jim Platz at Taxonomy Creighton University in Nebraska who was sorting out the confused taxonomy of southwestern leopard Most of the diversity within leopard frogs has been frogs, and in time we came to realize that our leopard recognized only within the last four decades. However, frogs represented an introduction of the Rio Grande L. berlandieri is an exception—it was described as a SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

Most of the diversity within leopard frogs has been recognized only within the last four decades.

However, L. berlandieri is an exception—it was described as a species distinct from the broad-ranging Lithobates pipiens in 1859

by Spencer F. Baird.

56

species distinct from the broadranging Lithobates pipiens in 1859

by Spencer F. Baird. Hillis and Wilcox (2005) placed berlandieri in the berlandieri subgroup of the pipiens group, and found that the Mexican species, Rana (Lithobates) tlaloci and neovolcanica, were most closely related to it. Frost et al. (2006) proposed use of the genus Lithobates, rather than Rana, for berlandieri and other leopard frogs, a proposal that was accepted by the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (Crother 2012), but is still controversial (e.g. Pauly et al. 2009). Lithobates forreri and L. brownorum have, at times, been considered conspecific with L. berlandieri.

Figure 2. Rio Grande Leopard Frogs in amplexus, Maricopa County, AZ. Photo by J. C. Rorabaugh.

Description and Similar Species The Rio Grande Leopard Frog is a relatively large leopard frog (<114 mm SVL) with dorsolateral folds that are discontinuous and inset posteriorly. The dorsum typically has dark spots on a background of brown, grayish, bronze, green, olive green, or a combination of these colors, and usually no spots are present on the head anterior to the eyes (Figures 1 and 2). I observed one frog near Gila Bend that lacked dark spots on the dorsum. The pattern on the rear of the thighs is a bold, open dark and light reticulation (Figure 3), sometimes with a bluish or turquoise tint.

The venter is an immaculate cream, sometimes with yellow coloration in the groin.

Of the other leopard frogs in Arizona, the Rio Grande Leopard Frog is most similar to the Lowland Leopard Frog (Lithobates yavapaiensis), the Relict Leopard Frog (Lithobates onca), and the Plains Leopard Frog (Lithobates blairi). In fact, at least some areas now occupied by the Rio Grande Leopard Frog were once inhabited by the Lowland Leopard Frog. The current distributions of L. yavapaiensis and L. berlandieri are nearly adjacent at Lake Pleasant, but are not known to overlap anywhere. The Lowland and Relict Leopard frogs are considerably smaller (<87 mm SVL and < 89 mm SVL, respectively), males lack prominent vocal sacs (large and often floppy in the Rio Grande Leopard Frog, especially in the breeding seasonâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;see Figure 2), and the pattern on the rear of the thigh is typically a tight brown or gray-brown reticulation that is darker than in the Rio Grande Leopard Frog, and never with a bluish or turquoise tint. The Lowland Leopard Frog is usually a brown or brown-gray frog, sometimes with some green on the head; its dorsal coloration is not as variable as that of the Rio Grande Leopard Frog. The Relict Leopard Frog is similar in appearance to the Lowland Leopard Frog, but its hind legs

are proportionally shorter. It is colored and patterned like the Lowland Leopard Frog, but some individuals are a charcoal color dorsally. The Relict Leopard Frog is limited to a few small sites in extreme northwestern Arizona and adjacent portions of Nevada and Utah.

In Arizona, the Plains Leopard Frog only occurs at a few places in eastern Cochise County, well outside the current Arizona range of the Rio Grande Leopard Frog. It is nearly as large (<111 mm SVL) as the Rio Grande Leopard Frog, but has a complete light stripe on the upper lip (incomplete in the Rio Grande Leopard Frog). It is typically a tan or olive frog dorsally, the rear of the thigh is a dark and light reticulation similar to the Rio Grande Leopard Frog, except it usually has a fuzzy or out-of-focus appearance, there are usually one or more spots atop the head anterior to the eyes, and it almost always has a prominent light spot on the tympanum (variable in the Rio Grande Leopard Frog).

Males of the Plains, Relict, and Lowland Leopard frogs lack vestigial oviducts, whereas male Rio Grande Leopard Frogs possess these structures.

The calls of these four species vary as well. The advertisement call of the Rio Grande Leopard Frog is

The Rio Grande Leopard Frog is a relatively large leopard frog (<114 mm SVL) with dorsolateral folds that are discontinuous and inset posteriorly. The dorsum typically has dark spots on a background of brown, grayish, bronze, green, olive green, or a combination of these colors, and usually no spots are present on the head anterior to the eyes.

Figure 3. Pattern on the rear of the thigh, Rio Grande Leopard Frog, Yuma County, AZ. Photo by J. C. Rorabaugh.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

57

a series of loud grating snores with each snore note lasting about 0.5 second and consisting of 6-15 pulses (Platz et al. 1990). The calls of the Lowland and Relict Leopard frogs are much softer and the snore has a stuttering quality to it, often more of a chuckle than a snore. The call of the Plains Leopard Frog is a stuttering chuckle. After a bout of snores or chuckles, all four species may produce sounds resembling someone rubbing an inflated balloon (Davidson 1996, Elliott et al. 2009).

Distribution and Habitat Use The introduced distribution of the Rio Grande Leopard Frog, as currently documented, runs from the wetlands on the Salt River beneath the 101/202 Freeway interchange in Phoenix, downstream to the Gila River, the Agua Fria River and adjacent agriculture from just downstream of Lake Pleasant to the Gila River, a short stretch of the Hassayampa River immediately upstream of the Gila confluence, and downstream in the Gila River Valley to the Colorado River confluence, upstream in the Colorado River Valley to Mittry Lake, and downstream into Sonora and Baja California to at least the Ciénega de Santa Clara (Platz et al. 1990, Rorabaugh et al. 2002, Rorabaugh and Servoss 2006). Two localities near Mobile suggest the species has colonized the Rainbow Valley southwest of Phoenix. The Rio Grande Leopard Frog also extends into the Imperial Valley of California, where it was first reported in 1990 (Jennings and Hayes 1994).

It may have reached that valley via dispersal along the All-American Canal or through agriculture in the Mexicali Valley of Baja California (Rorabaugh et al.

2002). In 2007, the species was found in the southern Coachella Valley, as well (Lovich et al. 2008), and probably arrived there via the Coachella Canal. It almost certainly occupies the Mexicali Valley of Baja California (Figure 4). The spread of this species has not been followed recently in Arizona, and it is possible it may have continued its invasion upstream on the Salt River and potentially to the Verde River. Large dams in a narrow river canyon are likely to stymie its upstream progress on the Salt River, but Horseshoe and Bartlett dams on the Verde are probably much less of a barrier.

Similarly, the Rio Grande Leopard Frog seems poised to colonize the Agua Fria River and its many tributaries above Lake Pleasant.

Within its native range, the Rio Grande Leopard Frog occurs in the lower Pecos River drainage of southeastern New Mexico, portions of Texas, and south through the eastern part of Chihuahua, Coahui-

la, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, and the extreme eastern parts of San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, and Hidalgo. It occurs throughout the lowlands of Veracruz except for the southern portion of the state.

In Arizona, the species is restricted to artificial or natural wetlands within Sonoran desertscrub at elevations of 28-426 m. The species can be abundant in cattail or bulrush marshes, but occurs as well along open banks of rivers, in backwaters and off-channel ponds, in dirt or concrete-lined canals and ditches, agricultural sumps, and, less commonly, cattle tanks.

Where this species occurs along rivers, agriculture often is nearby, and in rivers such as the Gila, many portions of which in southwestern Arizona are intermittent, agricultural ditches and canals may provide a buffer against desiccation in the river bottom. Unlike native leopard frogs, the Rio Grande Leopard Frog usually occurs with non-native fishes, crayfish, turtles, and the American Bullfrog. At least 29 species of non-native fishes have been recorded from the vicinity of Yuma (Minckley and Marsh 2009), two species of crayfish (Procambarus clarki and Orconectes virilis) occur within the Arizona range of the Rio Grande Leopard Frog (Inman et al. 1998), as well as several introduced turtles (Brennan and Holycross 2006). Where the Rio Grande Leopard Frog occurs, the American Bullfrog is almost always nearby. The Rio Grande Leopard Frog occurs naturally with a similar suite of species in the eastern portions of its native range, and presumably evolved mechanisms to avoid predation and/or competition with them to a degree that it can persist (e.g., Feder 1983). That said, the species has apparently failed to move upstream of Imperial Dam on the Colorado River, where the river is much deeper and wider than below the dam, and non-native predators, particularly larger fishes, are common.

In Arizona, the species is restricted to artificial or natural wetlands within Sonoran desertscrub at elevations of 28-426 m. The species can be abundant in cattail or bulrush marshes, but occurs as well along open banks of rivers, in backwaters and off-channel ponds, in dirt or concrete-lined canals and ditches, agricultural sumps, and, less commonly, cattle tanks.

Activity and Reproduction The Rio Grande Leopard Frog has been found active every month of the year in Arizona. It is most SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

58

easily observed at night, but is often active during the day, as well. Although most breeding occurs in the spring and then again in the late summer or fall, the species probably breeds nearly year-round in Arizona.

Calling has been heard as early as 10 February and as late as 29 October in Arizona. A pair was found in amplexus near Yuma on 28 October (Rorabaugh 2005). Eggs masses, 7-9 cm in diameter (Degenhardt et al. 1996), are attached to vegetation within 15 cm of the water’s surface. The tadpole is gray with dark speckling on the back, but is lighter on the ventral surface (Figure 5). The tail fin is heavily mottled and may include golden spots. Tadpoles grow to about 95 mm TL prior to metamorphosis (Scott and Jennings 1985) and overwintering has been documented near Yuma and in Texas (Rorabaugh 2005). Size at maturation is not well studied, but likely occurs at 55-60 mm SVL, based on similarly-sized ranid frogs. The largest males are smaller than the largest females, and males have prominent, paired vocal sacs and enlarged thumbs during the breeding season. Metamorphs resemble adults but measure 27-32 mm SVL. As demonstrated by their rapid colonization of a wildlife drinker about 1.6 km up a normally dry arroyo from the Wellton-Mohawk Canal, the Rio Grande Leopard Frog is surprisingly good at dispersing. It moves through the uplands as well as along drainages.

Platz et al. (1990) estimated the species moved 15-16 km/year along the Gila River from its initial point of introduction, although illegal human transport and release cannot be ruled out as a contributing dispersal mechanism.

Diet Examination of stomach contents of 85 Rio Grande Leopard Frogs from western and southern Texas suggested the species is an opportunistic generalist whose diet strongly matches prey availability (Parker and Goldstein 2005). The most common identifiable prey items in spring were grasshoppers (Acrididae), tiger beetles (Cincindelidae), katydids (Tet-

tigonidae), and spiders (Arachnida). In fall, the most common identifiable items were owlet moths (Noctuidae), grasshoppers, and darkling beetles (Tenebrionidae). In Texas, Platz et al. (1990) noted that small leopard frogs were frequently found in Rio Grande Leopard Frog stomachs.

Disease A die off of Rio Grande Leopard Frogs was noted in a Phoenix area pond in 1992-93 (Sredl et al. 2002).

Frogs were symptomatic for “red leg” and subsequent histology revealed frogs were infected with Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, the pathogen that causes the disease chytridiomycosis. The disease was also documented in two Rio Grande Leopard Frogs collected from near Mecca in the Coachella Valley in 2007 (Lovich et al. 2008). However, no widespread, disease-related declines of the Rio Grande Leopard Frog have been noted anywhere within its range.

Conservation To the best of our knowledge, the Rio Grande Leopard Frog has only colonized aquatic sites unoccupied by other native ranids. Its appearance on the Gila and Colorado rivers almost certainly occurred after the Lowland Leopard Frog had been extirpated (Rorabaugh 2010). The Rio Grande Leopard Frog may feed upon small Checkered Gartersnakes (Thamnophis marcianus) and occasional native anurans, but these species already tolerate predation by a suite of other non-natives and the increment represented by the presence of the Rio Grande Leopard Frog is probably inconsequential. However, the Rio Grande Leopard Frog could move upstream in the Agua Fria drainage or the Verde River and its tributaries and colonize habitats where it could adversely affect native wetland herpetofauna. In particular, the species could fairly easily move into sites currently occupied by the Lowland Leopard Frog. This smaller frog would likely be susceptible to predation and the two species could potentially hybridize. Once into the Agua Fria River

To the best of our knowledge, the Rio Grande Leopard Frog has only colonized aquatic sites unoccupied by other native ranids.

Its appearance on the Gila and Colorado rivers almost certainly occurred after the Lowland Leopard Frog had been extirpated.

Figure 5. Late stage Rio Grande Leopard Frog tadpole, Yuma County, AZ. Photo by J. C. Rorabaugh.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

59

above the dam at Lake Pleasant or into Verde River, few apparent barriers exist to colonization northward perhaps into the Bradshaw Mountains and the Verde Valley. Rio Grande Leopard Frogs could even potentially move into habitat occupied by the Chiricahua Leopard Frog in the Buckskin Hills of the Coconino National Forest, which is in the headwaters of Fossil Creek, a tributary to the Verde River. The Central Arizona Projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Tucson Canal, a potential dispersal corridor, runs from Lake Pleasant through Phoenix to its terminus southwest of Tucson. However, the canal is concrete-lined and portions of it run underground, providing poor habitat for leopard frogs. Thus, the likelihood that the Rio Grande Leopard Frog would colonize the Tucson area via that canal is very low.

However, the species could appear in Tucson or elsewhere in Arizona through illegal human transport and introduction.

Rorabaugh and Sredl (2002) recommended development and implementation of a fully-funded, comprehensive action plan to stem the continued invasion of the Rio Grande Leopard Frog; however, no action has been taken on their proposal. In fact, as of the summer of 2013, monitoring of the spread of this invasive exotic frog has all but halted.

Literature Cited Baird, S.F. 1859. Reptiles of the boundary, with notes by the naturalists of the Survey. U.S.-Mexico Boundary Survey (Emory) 3(2):1-35.

Brennan, T.C., and A.T. Holycross. 2006. Amphibians and Reptiles in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. Frost, D.R., et al. 2006. The amphibian tree of life.

Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297:1-370.

Clarkson, R.W. and J.C. deVos, Jr. 1986. The bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana Shaw, in the Lower Colorado River, Arizona-California. Journal of Herpetology 20:4249.

Clarkson, R.W., and J.C. Rorabaugh. 1989. Status of leopard frogs (Rana pipiens Complex) in Arizona and southeastern California. The Southwestern Naturalist 34(4):531-538.

Crother, B.I. 2012. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding, seventh edition.

Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular (39):1-92.

Davidson, C. 1996. Frog and toad calls of the Rocky Mountains. Library of Natural Sounds, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.

Degenhardt, W.G., C.W. Painter, and A.H. Price. 1996.

Amphibians and reptiles of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. Elliott, L., C. Gerhardt, and C. Davidson. 2009. The Frogs and Toads of North America. Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, MA. Feder, M. 1983. The relation of air breathing and locomotion to predation in tadpoles, Rana berlandieri, by turtles. Physiological Zoology 56(4):522-531.

Hillis, D.M., and T.P. Wilcox. 2005. Phylogeny of New World true frogs (Rana). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34:299-314.

Inman, T.C., P.C. Marsh, B.E. Bagley, and C.A. Pacey.

1998. Survey of crayfishes of the Gila River basin, Arizona and New Mexico, with notes on occurrences in other Arizona drainages and adjoining states. Unpublished report to the Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office, AZ, Order # 5-FG-32-00470.

Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Decline of native ranids frogs in the desert Southwest. Pages 185 213 in: Brown, P.R. and J.W. Wright (editors). Herpetology of the North American Deserts, Proceedings of a Symposium. Southwestern Herpetologists Society, Special Publication Number 5.

Lovich, R., M.J. Ryan, A.P. Pessier, and B. Claypool.

2008. Infection with the fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in a non-native Lithobates berlandieri below sea level in the Coachella Valley, California, USA. Herpetological Review 39(3):315-317.

Minckley, W.L., and P.C. Marsh. 2009. Inland Fishes of the Greater Southwest, Chronicle of a Vanishing Biota. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. Parker, M.L., and M.I. Goldstein. 2004. Diet of the Rio Grande Leopard Frog (Rana berlandieri) in Texas. Journal of Herpetology 38(1):127-130.

Pauly, G.B., D.M. Hillis, and D.C. Cannatella. 2009.

Taxonomic freedom and the role of official lists of species names. Herpetologica 65:115-128.

Platz, J.E., R.W. Clarkson, J.C. Rorabaugh, and D.M. Hillis. 1990. Rana berlandieri: Recently introduced populations in Arizona and southeastern California.

Copeia 1990(2):324-333.

Rorabaugh, J.C. 2005. Rana berlandieri Baird, 1854(a), Rio Grande leopard frog. Pages 530-532 in: M.J. Lannoo (editor), Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Rorabaugh, J.C. 2010. Conservation of amphibians and reptiles in northwestern Sonora and southwestern Arizona. Pages 181-204 in: W. Halvorson, C. Schwalbe, and C. van Riper III (editors). Southwestern Desert Resources. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. Rorabaugh, J.C., and J.M. Servoss. 2006. Rana berlandieri (Rio Grande leopard frog). Mexico: Sonora. Herpetological Review 37(1):102.

Rorabaugh, J.C., and M.J. Sredl. 2002. Continued invasion by the Rio Grande leopard frog in Arizona, California, and Mexico: Implications and opportunities for management. Pages 112-113 in: W.L. Halvorson and B.S. Gebow (editors). Creative Cooperation in Resource Management: Fourth SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

Rorabaugh and Sredl (2002) recommended development and implementation of a fully-funded, comprehensive action plan to stem the continued invasion of the Rio Grande Leopard Frog; however, no action has been taken on their proposal.

60

Conference on Research and Management in the Southwestern Deserts, extended abstracts. USGS Sonoran Desert Field Station, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Rorabaugh, J.C., M.J. Sredl, V. Miera, and C.A. Drost.

2002. Continued invasion by an introduced frog (Rana berlandieri): Southwestern Arizona, southeastern California, and Rio Colorado, Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 47(1):12-20.

Scott, N.J., and R.D. Jennings. 1985. The tadpoles of five species of New Mexican leopard frogs. Occasional Papers for the Museum of Southwestern Biology 3:1-21.

Sredl, M.J., K.J. Field, and A.M. Peterson. 2002. Understanding and mitigating the effects of chytrid fungus to amphibian populations in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical Report 208. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. Vitt, L.J. and R.D. Ohmart. 1978. Herpetofauna of the lower Colorado River: Davis Dam to the Mexican border. Proceedings of the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology 2:35-72.

H E R P E TO FAU N A O F T H E 100- M I L E C I R C L E

Yaqui Black-headed Snake, Tantilla yaquia

James C. Rorabaugh, P.O. Box 31, Saint David, Arizona 85630; jrorabaugh@hotmail.com

T he Yaqui Black-headed Snake (Tantilla yaquia) was described by Hobart M. Smith (1942) based on an

adult female (MCZ 43274) collected at Guasaremos on the Rio Mayo, Chihuahua by Howard Scott Gentry in August 1936. The systematics of this snake has not been investigated with molecular genetics, but Cole and Hardy (1981) provided an excellent and detailed review of this species, its morphology, and how it differs from other related, North American Tantilla.

No subspecies of T. yaquia are currently recognized (Crother 2012).

This is a small, secretive, and infrequently encountered snake (Figure 1). The University of Arizona collection contains 29 specimens, only 15 of which are from Arizona. In comparison, the collection includes 178 specimens of Smithâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Black-headed Snake (T. hobartsmithi) from Arizona. The Yaqui Black-headed Snake was first collected in Arizona in 1907 at Bisbee, but the specimen was misidentified as a Plainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Blackheaded Snake (T. nigriceps) until reexamined and declared the first T. yaquia from Arizona and the United States by C.J. McCoy in 1964.

Description and Similar Species The Yaqui Black-headed Snake is a brown, grayishbrown, or tan snake with a maximum total length (body + tail) of 325 mm. Tail length varies from 17.228.5% of total length, with the higher percentages characteristic of more northerly populations. Dorsal scales are smooth and occur in 15 rows throughout the length of the body. The anal plate is divided, and the mental scale is usually separated from the chinshields. A dark gray, dark brown, or black head cap extends two to slightly more than four scales behind the posterior end of the suture between the parietal scales, and usually extends 0.5-3 scales below the angle of the mouth. The posterior edge of the cap is usually straight. Posterior to the dark cap is a light collar, 1.0-1.5 scales wide, that is not bordered posteriorly by a dark band and does not contact the parietal scales (primarily in specimens from Mexico, the light collar may be bordered posteriorly by a few dark spots). A large, light cheek patch posterior to the eye and a light stripe on the supralabials below and anterior to the eye are notable and distinctive (Figure 2). The snout is

The Yaqui Black-headed Snake (Tantilla yaquia) was described by Hobart M. Smith (1942) based on an adult female (MCZ 43274) collected at Guasaremos on the Rio Mayo, Chihuahua by Howard Scott Gentry in August 1936.

Figure 1. Adult Yaqui Black-headed Snake, Rancho Los Alisos, Sierra Aconchi, Sonora, Mexico. Photo by J. C. Rorabaugh.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

61

often light-colored or has light spots, as well. Ventral coloration in life is cream grading to light pink or orange posteriorly. In preserved specimens, the ventral coloration fades to light tan, light gray, or gray (Smith 1942; McDiarmid 1968, 1977; Cole and Hardy 1981; Degenhardt et al. 1996; Ernst and Ernst 2003).

The Yaqui Black-headed Snake is most similar to other Tantilla in Arizona (T. hobartsmithi, T. nigriceps, and T. wilcoxi). The large, white cheek patch is a distinctive character that is absent or not as well developed in Figure 2. Portrait of the same snake as in Figure 1 showing key characters (condition other Arizona Tantilla. Minute dark of the dark head cap, light neck collar, and light cheek patch and light line on the spots present on the dorsal scales of supralabials anterior to the eye). Photo by J. C. Rorabaugh.

Smith’s Black-headed Snake and the Chihuahuan Black-headed Snake (T. wilcoxi) are absent jacent Canelo Hills. Turner et al. (2003) found Smith’s or very small and very few in the Yaqui Black-headed Black-headed Snake in the Whetstone Mountains, but Snake. In the Chihuahuan Black-headed Snake, the no Yaqui Black-headed Snakes. Given its presence in light-colored neck collar is in contact with the parietals the Mule Mountains, the Dragoon Mountains should and is bordered posteriorly by a dark band or a distinct be searched for Yaqui Black-headed Snakes. row of spots. The dark head cap does not extend Elsewhere, the Yaqui Black-headed Snake occurs below the angle of the mouth in Smith’s Black-headed in the Peloncillo Mountains of Hidalgo County, New Snake, and furthermore, the light collar is commonly Mexico, where it was first reported in 1992 (Painter absent (in ten of 51 specimens from Pima County, et al. 1992), and in Mexico in eastern and southern Cole and Hardy 1981), and when present is thin and Sonora, western Chihuahua, and Sinaloa southward often faint. The Plain’s Black-headed Snake lacks the to the Rio Santiago Valley, Nayarit (McDiarmid 1977, light neck collar and the posterior margin of the dark Ernst and Ernst 2003). In Sonora, the species has been head cap tapers to a point or is convex (sometimes found in the mountains west of Nogales, the Sierras irregularly so) at mid-dorsum. The Ring-necked Snake El Tigre, de la Madera, and Aconchi, near Aribabi, the (Diadophis punctatus) is superficially similar to the Yaqui Río Aros northeast of Sahuaripa, the Sierra El Aguaje Black-headed Snake, but it has loreal scales (may be north of San Carlos, and localities near Álamos, at missing on one side—Tantilla lacks loreal scales) and Mirasol, and south of Navojoa. On the coastal plain dark spots on the ventral scales. A color phase of the from Sonora to Nayarit, this species occurs as low as Western Groundsnake (Sonora semiannulata) frequently 60 m in elevation. Figure 3 illustrates its distribution in found in and near Phoenix and the Verde Valley (well Arizona and Sonora. north of the range of T. yaquia) resembles Tantilla, but In Arizona, the Yaqui Black-headed Snake is that species also has loreal scales. primarily a species of oak woodlands in rolling to rugged terrain. However, the species occurs sparingly Distribution and Habitat Use into semi-desert grasslands, Chihuahuan desertscrub, In Arizona, the Yaqui Black-headed Snake is known and pine-oak woodland in Arizona. In Mexico, it also only from Cochise and Santa Cruz counties at elevaoccurs in foothills and coastal thornscrub, tropitions ranging from about 1,083 to 1,830 m. In Cochise cal deciduous forest, and marginally into Sonoran County, it has been found in the Peloncillo, Dos desertscrub (Sierra El Aguaje, Sonora). Many Arizona Cabezas, Chiricahua, Swisshelm, and Mule mountains, localities are in rocky canyons with intermittent or peras well as sites at the base of the Pedregosa Mountains manent streams, but whether that represents a habitat on Highway 80. In Santa Cruz County, the species is preference or a collector bias is unknown. known from the Pajarito/Atascosa, Patagonia, and Activity and Behavior Santa Rita Mountains, the northern Canelo Hills, “Los Encinos” near Sonoita, and a site just south of the In Arizona, the Yaqui Black-headed Snake has Santa Cruz River near Nogales. A specimen from Kitt been collected from March-October, with the greatest Peak in the Baboquivari Mountain (UAZ 45527) is a number encountered in April and August. Activity is misidentified Smith’s Black-headed Snake, although extended in southern Sonora, where snakes may be it seems likely that T. yaquia occurs in that mountain found year round. This species is mostly found under range. Its apparent absence from the Huachuca Moun- rocks and occasionally other surface litter, often when tains is puzzling, especially given its presence in the ad- the ground is moist from rainfall (McDiarmid 1968).

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

The Yaqui Black-headed Snake is most similar to other Tantilla in Arizona (T. hobartsmithi, T. nigriceps, and T. wilcoxi). The large, white cheek patch is a distinctive character that is absent or not as well developed in other Arizona Tantilla.

62

It is frequently characterized as fossorial, but occasionally encountered surface active at night or at dusk. B.R. Tomberlin (in Degenhardt et al. 1996) reported finding them occasionally on paved roads after dark near Portal, Arizona during the summer months. They are also taken in pitfall traps, indicating surface activity.

The reproductive biology of this species has not been studied; however, Stebbins (2003) suggests 1-4 eggs are probably laid in late spring and summer. Two recently hatched specimens with umbilical scars measured 104 and 140 mm total length (McDiarmid 1968); the smallest of which was found in January near Álamos, Sonora. Size at maturation is unknown. Females typically possess more ventral scales as compared to males from the same population. McDiarmid (1968) found a Yaqui Black-headed Snake in the stomach of a Tarahumara Frog (Lithobates tarahumarae) collected in Alamo Canyon, Santa Cruz County, Arizona.

Diet The diet of the Yaqui Black-headed Snake has not been investigated; however, authors have speculated that it eats invertebrates, particularly elongated forms such as centipedes and millipedes, and soft-bodied spiders, insect larvae, and other arthropods (Degenhardt et al. 1996, Ernst and Ernst 2003). Goldberg and Bursey (2004) present indirect evidence that a Yaqui Black-headed Snake collected in Santa Cruz County consumed an arthropod. Enlarged, grooved teeth in the rear of the upper jaw are presumably capable of delivering toxins from a Duvernoy’s gland to prey items.

Conservation The Yaqui Black-headed Snake is listed as a species of least concern on the IUCN’s 2013 Redlist. Given this species’ fairly broad geographic range over a variety of biotic communities, it is probably fairly safe from most anticipated assaults to it and its habitat. It is vulnerable locally to activities such as hard rock mining (e.g., for copper and gold) that eliminate its habitat, and on a broader scale to the effects of climate change and the spread of non-native plants, which could alter fire regimes and patterns and severity of drought, with potentially adverse effects to Yaqui Black-headed Snake populations.

Literature Cited Cole, C.J., and L.M. Hardy. 1981. Systematics of North American colubrid snakes related to Tantilla planiceps (Blainville). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 171(3):199-284.

Crother, B.I. 2012. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding, seventh edition.

Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular 39:1-92.

Degenhardt, W.G., C.W. Painter, and A.H. Price. 1996.

Amphibians and Reptiles of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. Ernst, C.H., and E.M. Ernst. 2003. Snakes of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C. Goldberg, S.R., and C.R. Bursey. 2004. Oligacanthorhynchid Acanthocephalan Cystacanths in the Yaqui Blackhead Snake, Tantilla yaquia (Serpentes: Colubridae) from Arizona. Journal of the ArizonaNevada Academy of Science 37(2):83-84.

McCoy, C. J., Jr., 1964. The snake Tantilla yaquia in Arizona: an addition to the fauna of the United States.

Copeia 1964:216-217.

McDiarmid, R.W. 1968. Variation, distribution and systematic status of the black-headed snake Tantilla yaquia Smith. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 67(3):159-177.

McDiarmid, R.W. 1977. Tantilla yaquia. Catalog of American Amphibians and Reptiles 198:1-2.

Painter, C.W., P.W. Hyder, and G. Swinford. 1992.

Three species new the herpetofauna of New Mexico. Herpetological Review 23:62.

Smith, H.M. 1942. A resume of Mexican snakes of the genus Tantilla. Zoologica (New York) 27:33-42.

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. Turner, D.S., P.A. Holm, E.B. Wirt, and C.R. Schwalbe.

2003. Amphibians and reptiles of the Whetstone Mountains, Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist 48(3):347-355.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

The diet of the Yaqui Black-headed Snake has not been investigated; however, authors have speculated that it eats invertebrates, particularly elongated forms such as centipedes and millipedes, and soft-bodied spiders, insect larvae, and other arthropods.

63

BOOK REVIEW

Where do I Live? (Budding Biologist series) Review by Howard O. Clark, Jr., Editor, Tuscon Herpetological Society, Tuscon, AZ; editor.sonoran.herp@gmail.com Kristine Duehl (Author) Katy Castronovo (Illustrator) Hardcover: 32 pages Publisher: Self Published, Inc., 2013 Language: English ISBN: 978-0-9855481-1-7 www.buddingbiologist.com

C

hildren’s books are crucial tools in the development of young minds. Books marketed as non-fiction should be accurate in their portrayal of the world as we know it. However, sometimes non-fiction children’s books miss the mark in their goal of providing eager readers a ground-truthed reality.

Author Kristine Duehl reviewed several life science non-fiction books aimed to educate children and found that many did not tell an accurate story. In her book, “Where do I live?”, part of the Budding Biologist series, habitats of various animals are explored and described. Five basic biomes are featured: tundra, grassland, forest, desert, and water. Each biome has a representative animal to further explore a variety of concepts, such as temperature, rainfall, and vegetation. For example, the Fennec Fox is the representative species for hot deserts and cheetahs are the grassland ambassadors. Each chapter ends with questions about adaption that allow the child to think further on ecology and biology.

At the end of the book there is a matching game where the reader is to match the featured animal with

Illustration detail: Striped Skunk.

its habitat. The final section is a vocabulary list that defines various ecology- and biology-related terms found in the text.

I was very pleased with the book overall and enjoyed reading it to my daughter, a budding biologist herself. The illustrations are dynamic and colorful, providing a snapshot into the lives of the various animals mentioned in the book. The only caveat I have is that some animals can live in more than one habitat. For example, the Striped Skunk was chosen to represent the forest habitat. However, depending on where you live in North America, Striped Skunks can occupy grasslands and semi-arid environments. But, overall, the book does an adequate job in introducing the concept of biomes to children.

I recommend the Budding Biologist series to any parent that is interested in teaching ecology and biology to their children; environmentally accurate children’s books are rare in the book market and Kristine Duehl’s books fill a much needed niche.

Children’s books are crucial tools in the development of young minds. Books marketed as non-fiction should be accurate in their portrayal of the world as we know it. However, sometimes non-fiction children’s books miss the mark in their goal of providing eager readers a ground-truthed reality.

Cover of “Where do I Live?”

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

64

BOOK REVIEW

Amphibians and Reptiles of Costa Rica Review by Howard O. Clark, Jr., Editor, Tuscon Herpetological Society, Tuscon, AZ; editor.sonoran.herp@gmail.com Federico Mu帽oz Chac贸n and Richard Dennis Johnston (Authors) Paperback: 186 pages, 414 photos, 419 maps Publisher: Comstock Publishing Associates, 2013 Language and price: English; $14.95 ISBN-13: 978-0-8014-7869-7 www.cornellpress.cornell.edu

C osta Rica is a remarkable place for amphibians and reptiles. Known for its biological diversity, conserva-

tion priorities, and extensive protected lands, this small country contains 418 herpetological species including the dangerous Fer-de-Lance and Black-headed Bushmaster, the beloved sea turtles, and numerous dink, foam, glass, and rain frogs. Additional species are thought to be nearing extinction while others have been introduced only recently.

Amphibians and Reptiles of Costa Rica is the perfect introductory guide to this diverse herpetofauna in a format that makes it easy to carry into the field. The focus is on identification with entries for all species in the country, including scientific and English common names, as well as the older names for the many species that have been recently reclassified. Key ID marks are noted as well as adult sizes. Range maps identify the region(s) where species are known to be present.

Color photographs and drawings are provided for over 80 percent of the species, representing those that are most likely to be encountered. Designed with ease of use in mind, this guide will be a great aid to the observer in identifying the specimen at hand.

After reviewing the guide I was most impressed with the authoritative accounts and photos. The concise writing style adds to the usefulness of the guide, especially when identification in the field is a must.

Cover of Amphibian and Reptiles of Costa Rica.

Amphibians and Reptiles of Costa Rica will serve professionals and tourists adequently in their explorative acitvities within Costa Rica. [a glossary and systematic index are included in the back].

Costa Rica is a remarkable place for amphibians and reptiles. Known for its biological diversity, conservation priorities, and extensive protected lands, this small country contains 418 herpetological species including the dangerous Ferde-Lance and Black-headed Bushmaster, the beloved sea turtles, and numerous dink, foam, glass, and rain frogs.

Example of species accounts, photos, and range maps.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

65

ANNOUNCEMENT

Release of the Special Mexican issue: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Amphibian & Reptile Conservation (ISSN: 1083-446X; EISSN: 1525-9153) is an open-access international journal that publishes original peerreviewed research, reviews, short communications, new species descriptions, country overviews, and more, that focus on a variety of topics relating to the biology, conservation, natural history, and diversity of amphibians and reptiles.

Each issue typically focuses on one country or subject but not exclusively, and all papers are considered for publication pending that they are deemed scientifically sound. Contributed or invited manuscripts may focus on a variety of topics relating to the biology, conservation, natural history, and diversity of amphibians and reptiles.

Table of Contents: Wilson, L.D. 2013. Preface. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1):i-ii.

Johnson, J.D., L.W. Porras, G.W. Schuett, V. Mata-Silva, and L.D. Wilson. 2013. Dedications. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1):iii-vi.

Wilson, L.D., V. Mata-Silva, and J.D. Johnson. 2013. A conservation reassessment of the reptiles of Mexico based on the EVS measure. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1):1-47 (e61).

Porras, L.W., L.W. Wilson, G.W. Schuett, and R.S. Reiserer. 2013.

A taxonomic reevaluation and conservation assessment of the common cantil, Agkistrodon bilineatus (Squamata: Viperidae): a race against time. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1):48-73 (e63).

Reiserer, R.S., G.W. Schuett, and D.D. Beck. 2013. Taxonomic reassessment and conservation status of the beaded lizard, Heloderma horridum (Squamata: Helodermatidae). Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1):74-96 (e67).

Wilson, L.D., J.D. Johnson, and V. Mata-Silva. 2013. A conservation reassessment of the amphibians of Mexico based on the EVS measure. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1):97-127(e69).

Amphibian & Reptile Conservation is an open-access international journal that publishes original peerreviewed research, reviews, short communications, new species descriptions, country overviews, and more, that focus on a variety of topics relating to the biology, conservation, natural history, and diversity of amphibians and reptiles.

Alvarado-Díaz, J., I. Suazo-Ortuño, L.D. Wilson, and O. Medina-Aguilar. 2013. Patterns of physiographic distribution and conservation status of the herpetofauna of Michoacán, Mexico. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7(1):128-170 (e71).

All previous issues of this journal have also been added to ZenScientist.com: http://www.zenscientist.com/index.php/filedrawer/Open-Access-Journals/Amphibian--and--Reptile-Conservation/a

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

66

Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), San Luis Obispo Co., California. Photo by Howard Clark.

MEETING MINUTES BOD minutes can be found here: www.dropbox.com/sh/bxl4xdoyxc1x4bx/s4fCPAHXgS M E M B E R S H I P U P DAT E

Membership Information Individual Family Student

$20 $25 $14

Sustaining Contributing Life

$30 $50 $500

The Tucson Herpetological Society would like to thank existing members and new members for renewing their membership. We appreciate your support and are always looking for members to actively participate in THS activities and volunteer opportunities. It is a great way to be involved with the conservation of amphibians and reptiles in the Sonoran Desert.

Including the THS in your will is an excellent way to support the value of this organization and the conservation of the herpetofauna of the Sonoran Desert. We would like to recognize and thank anyone who has included the THS in their will. Please contact us so we can express our appreciation. For information about designating the THS in your will, please contact Heidi Flugstad, Treasurer, Tucson Herpetological Society, at heidi_flugstad@hotmail.com.

Time to Renew Your THS membership?

Thank you for your membership in the Tucson Herpetological Society.

Renewal reminders for upcoming membership expiration will be emailed at the beginning of the month that your membership expires.

If you have any questions about your membership or would like to be in touch with a THS member you do not know how to reach, please contact our Membership Coordinator, Sarah Ashby by email at halfaussie@gmail. com or by phone at (520) 396-9832.

Tucson Herpetological Society P.O. Box 709, Tucson, Arizona 85702-0709 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FORM NAME: ________________________________________________ Date ______________ Address or Personal Information Changes_______________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ MEMBERSHIP DUES [ ] $20 Individual [ ] $25 Family [ ] $14 Student [ ] $30 Sustaining [ ] $50 Contributing [ ] $500 Life $ _______ Jarchow Conservation Award $ _______ Flat-tailed horned lizard Fund

$ _______ Speakers Bureau $ _______ C.H. Lowe Herp Research Fund

$ _______ Total (MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: TUCSON HERPETOLOGICAL SOCIETY) The THS newsletter, the Sonoran Herpetologist, is delivered online only. Please indicate the email address you would like to receive the newsletter if you are not currently receiving the newsletter at your preferred address. If you are unable to receive the newsletter online, please contact Sarah Ashby at halfaussie@gmail.com. If not already done, please indicate if you want your email added to the THS directory and/or the Monthly meeting announcement (circle one or both). Please return this form with your check to the address above.

Email address ___________________________________________________________

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (3) 2013

67

Sonoran Herpetologist is the newsletter-journal of the Tucson Herpetological Society, and is Copyright 2013. The contents of Sonoran Herpetologist may be reproduced for inclusion in the newsletters of other herpetological societies provided the material is reproduced without change and with appropriate credit, and a copy of the publication is sent to the Tucson Herpetological Society. Occasional exceptions to this policy will be noted. Contents are indexed in Zoological Record. A complete set of back issues are available in the Special Collections area of the University of Arizona library. They are accompanied by a copy of The Collected Papers of the Tucson Herpetological Society, 1988-1991.

Editor-in-Chief Howard Clark, editor.sonoran.herp@gmail.com Associate Editors Roy Averill-Murray, royaverillmurray@charter.net Robert Bezy, robertbezy@gmail.com Dennis Caldwell, dennis@caldwell-design.com Suman Pratihar, pratihar_vu@rediffmail.com Roger Repp, repp@noao.edu Don Swann, donswann@dakotacom.net Art Editor Dennis Caldwell, dennis@caldwell-design.com Book Review Editor Philip Brown, prbrownnaturalist@gmail.com

Information for Contributors Authors should submit original articles, notes, book reviews to the Editor, either via email using an attached word processed manuscript or by mail to the Societyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s address. The manuscript style should follow that of Journal of Herpetology and other publications of the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. For further information, please contact the editor, at editor.sonoran.herp@gmail.com.

Deadline for Sonoran Herpetologist: 15th of every other month

The Tucson Herpetological Society is dedicated to conservation, education, and research concerning the amphibians and reptiles of Arizona and Mexico.

Tucson Herpetological Society is a registered non-profit organization.

Officers President Roger Repp, repp@noao.edu Vice President Krista Schmidt, turtlerad@hotmail.com Secretary RenĂŠ Clark, serpentprincess@comcast.net Treasurer Heidi Flugstad, heidi_flugstad@hotmail.com Directors: Sarah Ashby, halfaussie@gmail.com Dennis Caldwell, dennis@caldwell-design.com Rob Nixon, sapo1047@msn.com Ed Moll, e.o.moll@gmail.com Jim Rorabaugh, jrorabaugh@earthlink.net Warren Savary, wsavary@yahoo.com Past President Robert Villa, cascabel1985@gmail.com

Society Activities

Monthly Members Meeting Roger Repp, Program Chair 3rd Tuesday, 7:15 PM Board of Directors Meeting Last Tuesday of each month (except December), 7:00 PM University of Arizona, BIO5/Keating Building 1657 East Helen Street Speakers Bureau (scheduled presentations) Robert Villa & Ed Moll Conservation Committee Dennis Caldwell Herpetological Information Hotline Bob Brandner, (520) 760-0574 Jarchow Conservation Award Roger Repp Publications: Sonoran Herpetologist, Backyard Ponds brochure, Living with Venomous Reptiles brochure, THS Herp Coloring Book, THS Collected Papers, 1988-1991 THS Internet World Wide Webpage http://tucsonherpsociety.org Marty Tuegel, Webmaster, mtuegel@cox.net

For more information about the THS and the reptiles and amphibians of the Tucson area visit

tucsonherpsociety.org

SONORAN SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST HERPETOLOGIST 25 (1)262012 (3) 2013

68