Sh vol 26 2013 12 reduced

25 Volume 26

January 2012 December 2013

THIS MONTH’S PROGRAM

Number 14 FUTURE SPEAKERS

Brian Powell

Program Manager, Pima County Office of Sustainability and Conservation

David H. Hall

70

21 January 2014: Bill Love

70

18 February 2014: Mickey Parker

F E AT U R E A R T I C L E

Senior Wildlife Biologist, University of Arizona

Status and Conservation of Lowland Leopard Frogs in the Catalina/Rincon Mountain Complex 7:15 PM; Tuesday, 17 December; University of Arizona, BIO5/Keating Building; 1657 East Helen Street

T

he Lowland Leopard Frog was once a common species in southern Arizona where it occupied perennial rivers and streams including the Santa Cruz and Rillito rivers. Today, the species is found in increasingly isolated locations, primarily mountain streams. Though naturalists have known about and monitored some key populations (e.g., Cienega Creek and Romero Canyon), surprisingly little was known about the current distribution of the species in more isolated locales on the north and east sides of the Rincon/Catalina Mountain Complex. Based on interviews with experts and inspection of historical, aerial images, we identified and visited 59 sites and found large populations of Lowland Leopard Frogs in a number of sites including Edgar, Alder, Youtcy, and Buehman canyons.

The presentation will provide a summary of this survey effort, but will also highlight some geographic areas that need further investigation. Also, we will discuss a monitoring and management framework for the species, which will involve an annual meeting involving managers and researchers. We hope that this inventory effort and sustained attention to the species will provide opportunities to contribute conservation actions to this important aquatic species.

71

Patronyms of the Pioneer West (Part XVIII) “Mr. Say’s Bullsnake, Pituophis catenifer sayi Schlegel”

by Edward O. Moll

RESEARCH 74

“Reproduction of the Zebra-tailed Lizard, Callisaurus draconoides (Squamata: Phrynosomatidae) from California” by S. R. Goldberg

100-MILE CIRCLE 77

“Chihuahuan Black-headed Snake (Tantilla wilcoxi)” by James C. Rorabaugh

80

“Tarahumara Frog (Lithobates tarahumarae)” by James C. Rorabaugh

E D U C AT I O N 85

“Desert Tortoises in the Classroom” by Taylor Edwards

N AT U R A L H I S TO RY NOTE 90

“Reptiles and Amphibians on US Coins” by Howard Clark

BOOK REVIEWS

Brian Powell (left; photo by Leza Carter) is a Program Manager for the Pima County Office of Sustainability and Conservation where he works to advance conservation efforts in the County’s extensive land holdings and by contributing to regional conservation initiatives and environmental reviews. David H. Hall (right; photo by Bronwen Heilman) is the co-presenter.

91

“Amphibians and Reptiles of San Luis Potosí” by Richard Gates

92

“Venomous Snakes of the World: A Manual for Use by U.S. Amphibious Forces” by Philip Brown

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

69

FUTURE SPEAKERS

21 January 2014: Bill Love Splendid Isolation - Madagascar

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

B ill Love has been fascinated by herps since his childhood in New Jersey, and then for nearly 40 years

living in Florida. He frequently gives live educational presentations, writes freelance articles on various herp subjects, and authors the monthly Herpetological Queries column in REPTILES Magazine since it started 21+ years ago. In the past, Bill has lectured at schools and in public, displayed live herps at several exhibits across the USA, with his wife Kathy selectively bred numerous species in captivity (creating many prominent morphs still popular today), propagated snakes on a commercial scale, imported / exported them worldwide as co-owner of Glades Herp, Inc. (from formation in 1989-1996), and traveled globally observing and recording their natural histories on film and pixels in nature. His imagery has graced books, magazines, calendars, business promotions, TV, and

websites for four decades. For nearly 2.5 years, Bill has called the Phoenix, Arizona region his 2nd home. His special passion continues to be seeking and photographing herps in the wild.

Tonight he will present the highlights of a dozen visits, ten of them leading eco-tours via his company Blue Chameleon Ventures, exploring all corners of the world’s 4th largest island, Madagascar. Bill Love may, or may not, appear in native Malagasy

Bill Love has been fascinated by herps since his childhood in New Jersey, and then for nearly 40 years living in Florida.

garb for the presentation. Photo by a local villager.

18 February 2014: Mickey R. Parker Wildlife Biologist, University of Arizona

Evaluation of Potential Impacts of the Joint Strike Fighter Program on the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii) on the Barry M. Goldwater Range 7:15 PM; University of Arizona, BIO5/Keating Building; 1657 East Helen Street

M ickey Parker grew up in Gary, Indiana, where he spent summers catching toads and preventing garter

snakes from being run over by lawnmowers. While studying Animal Science at Purdue University with the hopes of attending veterinary school, he had the opportunity to study abroad at James Cook University in Australia. After getting his first taste of field herpetology in Moorinya National Park, he found that vet school no longer held any appeal to him. After completing his undergraduate degree, Mickey moved to Tucson and was soon volunteering in Matt Goode’s lab at the University of Arizona. For the past six years, Mickey has been working as a wildlife biologist in Matt’s lab, participating in a variety of projects throughout the Southwest that examine the effects of anthropogenic activities on herpetofauna.

Mickey will present results from a study evaluating the potential effects of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program on the state-protected Flat-tailed Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii) on the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) near Yuma, Arizona. A significant portion of the range of P. mcallii in Arizona is located within the BMGR. Military activity on BMGR is confined to localized areas, leaving the vast majority of

land undisturbed Sonoran Desert habitat. However, in 2012, construction of an airfield and infrastructure to accommodate the F-35 JSF Program commenced on the BMGR in an area of high-quality P. mcallii habitat.

The goal of this study is to evaluate the effects of the construction of this airfield and the operations of the JSF Program on P. mcallii. Mickey will present pre- and during-construction data collected over the first three years of this four-year study, including results from mark-recapture surveys, radio-telemetry, and road mortality surveys. He will also discuss the potential of translocation as a mitigation strategy.

Mickey Parker grew up in Gary, IN, where he spent summers catching toads and preventing garter snakes from being run over by lawnmowers.

A radio-telemetered Flat-tailed Horned Lizard climbing the exclusion fence that surrounds the newly constructed airfield for Joint Strike Fighter jets. Photograph

by Rachelle Maki.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

70

PAT R O N Y M S O F T H E P I O N E E R W E S T ( PA R T X V I I I )

Mr. Say’s Bullsnake, Pituophis catenifer sayi Schlegel Edward O. Moll, Tucson Herpetological Society, Tucson, AZ, e.o.moll@gmail.com

T he genus Pituophis, a group of large, handsome and powerful constrictors, ranges from Canada to

Central America and is widespread over much of the United States. The generic name, derived from Greek words for “pine” and “snake” was first used for the Northern Pine Snake, a species with a spotty distribution from northeastern to southeastern U. S. (Smith 2010). Three additional races of pine snakes range along the Gulf coast from Texas to Florida.

At least for the moment, in an age when scientific names change faster than common names, most of the snakes in the group fall into one of two species: melanoleucus or catenifer. The former represents most of the pine snakes of eastern U. S. while the latter contains Bullsnakes and Gophersnakes. The Louisiana Pine Snake, P. ruthveni, is the only exception to this scheme.

The featured subject, the Bull Snake, Pituophis catenifer sayi, inhabits plains and prairies throughout central North America. Sand prairies appear to provide optimum habitat. The Bull Snake ranges from southwestern Canada through central U. S. into Texas and northern Mexico. Certainly, this blotched, yellow and brown serpent is one of the largest in the U. S., but reported lengths of 10-12 feet (3-3.6 m; Wright and Wright 1957, Shaw and Campbell 1974) require substantiation. Recent field guides, such as Conant and Collins (1998) and Stebbins (2003), list maximum lengths of 8-9 feet (~2.4-2.7 m). As for diet, the Bullsnake is a voracious rodentophile (that consumes an occasional rabbit for variety), making it popular with farmers and ranchers. It also climbs well, allowing exploitation of bird nests. Mating occurs in April and May, and eggs, typically around 10, are laid in burrows during the month of June (Phillips et. al.

1999). Clutches of up to 22 eggs have been reported (Werler and Dixon 2000), but, as communal nesting is common, such large clutches may be from more than one female. The eggs, which average 30 × 90 mm, are exceptionally large among North American snakes.

The Bullsnake is probably best known for its elaborate defensive display, which includes tail vibrating, filling its body with air, raising its head and anterior body off the ground, and lunging repeatedly with its mouth agape. Perhaps the most startling feature of the display is the loud rattling, hissing noise that emanates from the seemingly enraged creature. Cartoon depictions aside, few snakes actually hiss. Members of the genus Pituophis are among the exceptions. According to some this loud expulsion of air may be the source of its common name. One early account of this behavior comes from the journals of Lewis and Clark. In Blair, Nebraska, Lewis killed a Bullsnake and related that he

Figure 1. Thomas Say (1787-1834) circa 1819 in the uniform of the Long expedition. The uniform was used to impress the native American tribes which they encountered on this expedition.

had been told that the name comes from the bellowing noise emitted by the snake which sounds like an enraged bull. Lewis remarked, however, that he never heard this snake make any sound.

According to Raymond Ditmars (1936), the sound results from an arrangement of the glottis which is attached to the lower jaw of the snake. Anterior to the glottis is an appendage known as the epiglottis. The latter vibrates when air is forcibly expelled from the lungs, helping to create the loud, rattling hiss.

Pituophis catenifer sayi was named for Thomas Say, one of America’s leading naturalists in the early nineteenth century. Say was born in Philadelphia on 27 June 1787 to a prominent Quaker family. It might seem that he was destined to be a naturalist. Not only was his great uncle William Bartram one of the bestknown naturalists of this new country, his birth place of Philadelphia was the center of culture and intellectual pursuits in the new world. Early on, Bartram interested Say in insects. Only one formidable obstacle stood in his way of a career as a naturalist. His father wanted him to do something more traditional, more useful, i.e., get a job, earn money, etc. Thus Daddy arranged a commercial partnership for Say with John Speakman, a pharmacist. However, this did not prove to be the best strategy to cure his son of his natural history ambitions. The pharmacy business soon turned SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

As for diet, the Bullsnake is a voracious rodentophile (that consumes an occasional rabbit for variety), making it popular with farmers and ranchers.

It also climbs well, allowing exploitation of bird nests.

71

belly-up and worse, Speakman turned out to be a closet scientist. He introduced Say to other biologists who banded together in 1812 to establish the prestigious Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences.

Say began a career of natural history and taxonomy with groups as diverse as insects, mollusks, and vertebrates. His work, which impressed European and U. S. scholars alike, was largely the result of self-education. For example, he learned how to read French, German, and Latin in order to read existing literature on his subjects. However, the greatest contribution to Say’s education was merely his association and discussions with the best scientists in the country, who made up the membership of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences. Say soon became one of the most valuable and productive members of the Society. Until his departure from Philadelphia in 1825, Say was the bastion of the Academy. During his tenure at the Academy, he served the Society as avid collector, curator of the collections, and editor of the Journal.

Due largely to his efforts, the Academy’s reputation as a scientific organization grew to become the most prestigious in the U. S. A continuing problem for Say was financial; although he had received a tidy inheritance upon his father’s death, most of this money went to pay off his brother’s failed business schemes. Thomas was so poor that it is said he lived on 75 cents a week and slept

Figure 2. Bullsnake, Pituophis catenifer sayi, from Whiteside Co., Illinois. Photo by Steve Barten.

beneath a horse skeleton in the museum (Adler 1989).

Fortunately for Say, he attracted the attention of the Society’s first president, a geologist named William Maclure. The wealthy Scotsman took him under his wing, purchasing research books needed for his studies, financing field work (e.g., field trip to the Georgia coast and to Spanish Florida in 1817), and generally seeing that he was adequately housed and fed. Insects were Say’s favored area of study during this period.

While in Philadelphia, he began publishing his seminal work, a three volume set entitled American Entomology which essentially initiated the study of entomology.

Perhaps Say was best known for his participation as zoologist on the Long-Bell expedition, the first government-sponsored expedition to the West since that of Lewis and Clark. Led by Major Stephen H. Long of the U. S. Topographical Engineers with Captain John R. Bell as second in command, the expedition took place during the years 1819 and 1820. The party travelled up the Missouri River to Council Bluffs,

Table 1. Amphibians and reptiles first described by T. Say. Latin names used by Say precede present day use in parentheses.

Great Plains Toad

Bufo cognatus

(Anaxyrus cognatus)

Eastern Collared Lizard

Agama collaris

(Crotaphytus collaris)

Common Checkered Whiptail

Ameiva tesselata

(Aspidoscelis tessalata)

Ground Skink

Scincus lateralis

(Scincella lateralis)

Western Ribbon Snake

Coluber proximus

(Thamnophis proximus)

Glossy Crayfish Snake

Coluber rigida

(Regina rigida)

Queen Snake

Coluber septemvittatus

(Regina septemvittata)

Red-sided Garter Snake

Coluber parietalis

(Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis)

Worm Snake

Coluber amoenus

(Carphophis amoenus)

Eastern Yellowbelly Racer

Coluber flaviventris

(Coluber constrictor flaviventris)

Western Coachwhip

Coluber testaceus

(Masticophis flagellum testaceus)

Black Rat Snake

Coluber obsoletus

(Elaphe obsoleta)

Western Massasauga

Crotalus tergeminus

(Sistrurus catenatus tergeminus)

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

A continuing problem for Say was financial; although he had received a tidy inheritance upon his father’s death, most of this money went to pay off his brother’s failed business schemes.

Thomas was so poor that it is said he lived on 75 cents a week and slept beneath a horse skeleton in the museum.

72

Iowa, on an unusual steamship, the Western Engineer, which had a figurehead /steam ejection pipe shaped like a huge serpent. They then travelled across the Great Plains to Colorado and the Rocky Mountains.

Besides collecting animals, Say was given the responsibility to collect information on Indian behavior and language. Among the collections made by Say were several common herps: Bufo cognatus, Crotophytus collaris, Scinella lateralus, and Elpahe obsoleta (see Table 1). Adler (1989) pointed out that Say, as the describer of these species, has often been overlooked, as the descriptions were published as scattered footnotes within the report of the expedition by Edwin James.

Federal funding of the Expedition petered out due to the Panic of 1818 and the subsequent financial crash. They reached Colorado but, due to this lack of funding, food and supplies became scarce. Long decided to split up the group and return along two different routes. Both parties had problems. Long and his group were to head south and return along the Red River. Long’s party rode across the far western tip of the Oklahoma panhandle into Texas. They mistook the Canadian River for the Red and returned along that route. Their experience in the treeless/waterless land convinced Long that it lacked potential for agriculture and on a map that he drew for the final report the area was labeled the “Great Desert.”

Captain John Bell took Say and the rest of the party along the Arkansas River. During their return three of the soldier escorts jumped ship, taking the horse containing Say’s field notes with them. Fortunately, due to Say’s outstanding memory, much of this information was salvaged. Both groups survived the ordeal of the return.

Between field trips, Say took on additional responsibilities as Curator of the American Philosophical Society collections (1821-1827). He also became Professor of Natural History at the University of Pennsylvania (1822-1828). In 1823 Say accompanied Long on another expedition to the headwaters of the Mississippi River in 1823, via what is now Chicago.

A huge turning point in Say’s life took place in 1826. His mentor/benefactor Maclure decided to move to New Harmony, Indiana, a communistic community established by Robert Owen, a Welsh social reformer. Maclure saw an opportunity to experiment with new techniques in education that he had devised.

He convinced Say to accompany him along with other pilgrims to this community. The only benefit of this move for Say was he met and married Lucy Way Sistare, who became both a loving wife and his chief illustrator. On the negative side, he was isolated from the centers of scientific activity in which he had grown up. It took weeks or months to exchange correspondence and receive books and other scientific literature.

Nevertheless he still managed to publish major works, including an additional volume of American Entomol-

ogy and three volumes of American Conchology while publishing a scientific journal. Maclure made this all possible by supplying him with a printing press.

Say stayed in New Harmony, except for brief field trip to Mexico with Maclure (1827-1828). He died in 1834 apparently from typhoid fever. His herpetological accomplishments included a catalogue of American turtles (Say 1825) and a number of descriptions of new species (Table 1).

The Bullsnake, the focus species of this article, was described by the German naturalist, Hermann Schlegel as Coluber sayi in 1837 from a specimen collected by Say in Missouri. Presumably, it was collected during the Long Expedition, but I have not been able to resolve several mysteries. The Long Expedition returned in 1820 but Schlegel did not describe this species until 1837. Was it stored at the Academy of Natural Sciences until this date? Say was very much against sending U.S. specimens to Europe to be described; hence it may have been kept at the Academy until after Say’s death and then sent to Schlegel. If any of our readers know the complete story, I would appreciate being enlightened.

Author’s note: Those wanting more information on the life and times of Thomas Say, Patricia Stroud (1992) has written an excellent biography of Say. Reading this book provided me with much of the background for this article.

Literature Cited Adler, K. 1989. Contributions to the history of herpetology. Contributions to Herpetology, Number 5, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1998. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central North America. Houghton and Mifflin, Boston, MA. Ditmars, R.L. 1936. Reptiles of North America.

Doubleday, New York, NY. Phillips, C.A., R.A. Brandon, E.O. Moll. 1999. Field guide to amphibians and reptiles of Illinois. Manual 8, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.

Say, T. 1825. On the freshwater and land tortoises of the United States. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 4:203-219.

Shaw, C.E., and S. Campbell. 1974. Snakes of the American west. A. E. Knopf. Inc., New York, NY. Smith, M. 2010. Bullsnake, Pituophis catenifer sayi. Texas Field Notes. Pp. 1-4. www.texasherp.org/TXFieldNotes-Bullsnake.pdf Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Stroud, P.T. 1992. Thomas Say, new world naturalist.

University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA. Werler, J.E., and J.R. Dixon. 2000. Texas snakes: Identification, distribution, and natural history. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. Wright, A.H., and A.A. Wright. 1957. Handbook of snakes of the United States and Canada. Volume 2.

Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY. SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

Those wanting more information on the life and times of Thomas Say, Patricia Stroud (1992) has written an excellent biography of Say. Reading this book provided me with much of the background for this article.

73

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Reproduction of the Zebra-tailed Lizard, Callisaurus draconoides (Squamata: Phrynosomatidae) from California Stephen R. Goldberg, Whittier College, Department of Biology, Whittier, CA 90608, sgoldberg@whittier.edu

T he Zebra-tailed lizard, Callisaurus draco-

noides Blainville 1835 (Figure 1), ranges from northwest Nevada, south to southern Sinaloa, Mexico and the tip of Baja California and southwestern New Mexico to desert slopes of mountains in southern California (Stebbins 2003). The most detailed studies on C. draconoides reproduction are by Kay Figure 1. The Zebra-tailed Lizard (Callisaurus draconoides) from et al. (1970), Pianka and Parker (1972), Tanner and the Mojave Desert, Kern County, CA. Photo by Howard Clark.

Krogh (1975), and Vitt and Ohmart (1977). Anecdotal eggs were counted. No histology was performed on information on C. draconoides reproduction is in Smith them. Histology slides were deposited at LACM. An (1946), Stebbins (1954, 2003), Gates (1957), Miller unpaired t-test was used to compare C. draconoides male and Stebbins (1964), Fitch (1970, 1985), Vitt (1977), Behler and King (1979), Andre and MacMahon (1980), and female mean body sizes (SVL) and the relationship between female body size and clutch size was investiSmith et al. (1987), Degenhardt et al. (1996), Brennan gated by linear regression analysis using Instat (vers. and Holycross (2005, 2006), Williamson et al. (1994), 3.0b, Graphpad Software, San Diego, CA).

Lemm (2006), Brennan (2009), and Stebbins and The male mean body size was significantly larger McGinnis (2012). In this paper I provide additional than the mean female body size (t = 6.8, df = 174, P information on the reproductive cycle of C. draconoides = < 0.0001). Three stages were noted in the testicular from California by a histological examination of museum specimens. My findings are compared with other cycle of C. draconoides from California (Table 1): (1) regression, germinal epithelium of the seminiferous studies on C. draconoides reproduction. tubules is reduced to a few layers of spermatogonia A sample of 188 C. draconoides consisting of 102 with interspersed Sertoli cells; (2) recrudescence, a proadult males (mean SVL = 74.2 mm ± 6.9 SD, range = liferation of germ cells for the next period of sperm 58-89 mm), 74 adult females (mean SVL = 67.9 mm formation (spermiogenesis) is underway, primary sper± 4.6 SD, range = 59-79 mm), and 12 juveniles (mean matocytes predominate; (3) spermiogenesis, lumina SVL = 55.0 mm ± 2.8 SD, range = 50-58 mm) from California was examined from the Table 1. Stages in the monthly testicular cycle of 102 Callisaurus draconoides adults from herpetology collection of the Natu- Southern California. ral History Museum of Los AngeMonth n Regressed Recrudescence Spermiogenesis les County (LACM), Los Angeles, 1 0 1 0 California. Callisaurus draconoides were February March 9 1 7 1 collected from 1930 to 1973.

The snout-vent length (SVL) April 34 4 5 25 of each specimen was measured in May 18 0 3 15 mm from the tip of the snout to June 8 0 1 7 the posterior margin of the vent.

July 9 2 0 7 The left gonad was removed and August 14 8 0 6 embedded in paraffin. HistologiSeptember 4 2 2 0 cal sections were cut at 5 µm and stained with hematoxylin followed October 1 1 0 0 by eosin counterstain (Presnell and November 3 1 2 0 Schreibman 1977). Enlarged folDecember 1 0 1 0 licles > 4 mm length and oviductal SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

The Zebratailed lizard, Callisaurus draconoides Blainville (Figure 1), 1835 ranges from northwest Nevada, south to southern Sinaloa, Mexico and the tip of Baja California and southwestern New Mexico to desert slopes of mountains in southern California.

74

Table 2. Stages in the monthly ovarian cycle of 74 Callisaurus draconoides adult females from California; one * indicates one female, ** indicates both females contained oviductal eggs and concurrent yolk deposition for a subsequent clutch.

Month

n

Quiescent

Yolk deposition

Enlarged follicles > 5 mm

Oviductal eggs

January

1

1

0

0

0

March

6

5

1

0

0

April

24

12

3

8

1*

May

26

10

6

6

4

June

4

0

1

1

2**

July

1

0

1

0

0

August

6

1

1

1

3*

September

3

2

0

0

1*

October

3

2

0

1

0

of the seminiferous tubules are lined by clusters of sperm or metamorphosing spermatids. Spermiogenesis commenced in March and continued into August.

The smallest reproductively active male measured 58 mm SVL (LACM 14106) and was collected in Imperial County, California, during April.

Four stages were noted in the ovarian cycle of C. draconoides (Table 2): (1) quiescent. No yolk deposition was observed; (2) early yolk deposition, basophilic granules in ooplasm; (3) enlarged oocytes > 5 mm; (4) oviductal eggs. Mean clutch size (n = 28) was 4.5 Âą 1.1 SD, range = 3-8. This is close to the value (4.42, n = 73) of Pianka and Parker (1972). Linear regression analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between female body size (SVL) and clutch size (n = 28).

This relation is shown by the regression equation: (Y = -3.4 + 0.114X, r = 0.42, P = 0.03). The presence of females with oviductal eggs that were undergoing yolk deposition for a subsequent clutch (Table 2) indicates C. draconoides from California can produce multiple clutches in the same year. The smallest reproductively active female (yolk deposition) measured 59 mm SVL (LACM 94290) and was collected in Riverside County during May. It is not known when the 12 subadults would have reached adult size. As they were all collected early during the spring, it is possible some would have reached maturity later during the same reproductive season.

One female from June with quiescent ovaries measured 58 mm SVL (LACM 115523) and was considered to be a juvenile.

The reproductive cycle of C. draconoides in California is similar to that in Arizona (Vitt and Ohmart 1977) where April, May and June are the peak months of reproduction. However, Tanner and Krogh (1975) reported large yolking and oviductal eggs were present in C. draconoides females from late May through June at Mercury, Nye County, Nevada suggesting a geographic difference in timing of events in the reproductive cycle of C. draconoides in northern versus southern populations.

My finding of minimum sizes for reproductive activity (58 mm SVL in males, 59 mm SVL in females)

are smaller than those reported by Kay et al. (1970) (males 70 mm, females 65 mm) and Pianka and Parker (1972) (females 63 mm). The occurrence of one April female with oviductal eggs and concurrent yolk deposition for a subsequent egg clutch (Table 2) is earlier than the dates reported for oviductal eggs (June, July, August) by Pianka and Parker (1972) and Vitt and Ohmart (1977) (May through August). In contrast to my findings (Table 2) neither Pianka and Parker (1972), nor Vitt and Ohmart (1977) found females with both oviductal eggs and enlarged follicles for a subsequent clutch, although Vitt (1977) reported 9/18 C. draconoides females double clutched. It is unknown if the two C. draconoides females (one each in August and September) in Table 2 with oviductal eggs and concurrent yolk deposition and the one October female with enlarged follicles (> 5 mm) would have produced another clutch in the same year. Incidences of follicular atresia (spontaneous degeneration of vitellogenic oocytes) increases late in the reproductive season (Goldberg 1973, 1975). The lack of reproductive activity in C. draconoides from Death Valley, California, in 1967 reported by (Kay et al. 1970) which may have been correlated with low rainfall and reduced insect food merits further investigation. It has been reported in other lizards (Zweifel and Lowe 1966, Martin 1977).

The reproductive cycle of C. draconoides in California is similar to that in Arizona (Vitt and Ohmart 1977) where April, May and June are the peak months of reproduction.

Acknowledgment â&#x20AC;&#x201D; I thank G. Pauly (LACM) for permission to examine C. draconoides.

Literature Cited Andre, J.E., and J.A. MacMahon. 1980. Reproduction in three sympatric lizard species from west Central Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 40:68-72.

Behler, J.L., and F.W. King. 1979. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. Brennan, T.C. 2009. Zebra-tailed lizard Callisaurus draconoides Blainville, 1835 Pages 142-145 in: L.L. C. Jones and R.E. Lovich (editors). Lizards of the American Southwest: A Photographic Field Guide.

Rio Nuevo Publishers, Tucson, AZ. Brennan, T.C., and A.T. Holycross. 2005. A Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of Maricopa SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

75

County. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. Brennan, T.C., and A.T. Holycross. 2006. A Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. Degenhardt, W.G., C.W. Painter, and A.H. Price. 1996.

Amphibians and Reptiles of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. Fitch, H.S. 1970. Reproductive cycles in lizards and snakes. University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous Publications 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 76:176.

Gates, G.O. 1957. A study of the herpetofauna in the vicinity of Wickenberg, Maricopa County, Arizona.

Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 60:403-418.

Goldberg, S.R. 1973. Ovarian cycle of the western fence lizard, Sceloporus occidentalis. Herpetologica 29:284-289.

Goldberg, S.R. 1975. Reproduction in the sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus. American Midland Naturalist 93:177-187.

Kay, F.R., B.W. Miller and C.L. Miller. 1970. Food habits and reproduction of Callisaurus draconoiodes in Death Valley, California. Herpetologica 26:431-435.

Lemm, J.M. 2006. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of the San Diego Region. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Martin, R.F. 1977. Variation in reproductive productivity of range margin tree lizards (Urosaurus ornatus).

Copeia 1977:83-92.

Miller, A.H., and R.C. Stebbins. 1964. The Lives of Desert Animals in Joshua Tree National Monument. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Pianka, E.R., and W.S. Parker. 1972. Ecology of the iguanid lizard Callisaurus draconoides. Copeia 1972:493-508.

Presnell, J.K., and M.P. Schreibman. 1997. Humasonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Animal Tissue Techniques, 5th edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Smith, H.M. 1946. Handbook of Lizards, Lizards of the United States and Canada. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY. Smith, D.D., P.A. Medica, and S.R. Sanborn. 1987.

Ecological comparisons of sympatric populations of sand lizards (Cophosaurus texanus and Callisaurus draconoides). Great Basin Naturalist 47:175-185.

Stebbins, R.C. 1954. Amphibians and Reptiles of Western North America. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, NY.

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. Stebbins, R.C., and S.M. McGinnis. 2012. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California, revised edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Tanner, W.W., and J.E. Krogh. 1975. Ecology of the zebra-tailed lizard Callisaurus draconoides at the Nevada test site. Herpetologica 31:302-316.

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.

Vitt, L.J., and R.D. Ohmart. 1977. Ecology and reproduction of lower Colorado River lizards: I. Callisaurus draconoides (Iguanidae). Herpetologica 33:214-222.

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. Zweifel, R.G., and C.H. Lowe. 1966. The ecology of a population of Xantusia vigilis, the desert night lizard.

American Museum Novitates 2247:1-57.

Appendix: Callisaurus draconoides examined from California, by county, from the herpetology collection of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM).

Imperial: 3827, 8794, 14103, 14104, 14106, 14108, 14109, 14111-14114, 14116, 14119-14123, 14134, 14136, 14137, 14156, 26883, 26884, 37800-37803, 62202, 75265, 94066, 94070, 94071, 94077, 94088, 14115, 14249, 14250, 14299, 132850; Inyo: 75265, 75266, 94079, 94081-94084, 94088, 115522, 115523; Los Angeles: 14239, 14240, 14242, 14243, 14336, 14337, 14339, 52823, 61464-61466, 62198, 94095, 94097, 115081; Riverside: 14298, 14303, 14351, 14353, 14358, 22583, 22585, 22587-22589, 22592, 22593, 22596, 22598, 22603-22605, 22607, 28780, 28781, 52832, 52835, 62458, 73557, 94106, 94108, 94111, 94112, 94114, 94117, 94120, 94123, 9412694128, 94131-94133, 94135-94138, 94143-94145, 94150-94157, 94160, 94162, 94166, 94172, 94173, 94175, 94178, 94179, 94182, 94184, 94185, 94188, 94190, 94193, 94199, 94200, 94204, 94205, 94208, 94212, 94215, 94219, 94220, 94222-94224, 94226, 94227, 94232, 94233, 94236, 94238, 94242, 94250, 94251, 94253-94256, 94263, 94265, 94269-94271, 94273-94275, 94282, 94284, 94287, 94289-94291, 94294, 94295, 94297, 94298, 94302, 94303, 94306, 94392, 132164, 132165, 132422, 132425; San Bernardino: 122417, 122419, 123318, 125970, 125971, 137886.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

76

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

Chihuahuan Black-headed Snake (Tantilla wilcoxi) James C. Rorabaugh, P.O. Box 31, Saint David, Arizona 85630; jrorabaugh@hotmail.com

T he Chihuahuan Black-headed Snake

(Tantilla wilcoxi) was described by Leonhard Stejneger (1903) of the Smithsonian Institution from a juvenile male collected by Timothy E. Wilcox, M.D. at Fort Huachuca in 1892 (USNM 19674).

Based primarily on variation in numbers of ventral and subcaudal scales, Smith (1942) described two subspecies, but that classification is not accepted by Figure 1. Adult Tantilla wilcoxi from the Huachuca Mountains. Photo by J. C. Rorabaugh. recent authors (Cole and Hardy 1981, Ernst and Ernst tion is based on the following sources: Cole and Hardy (1981), Wilson (1982), Liner (1983), Ernst and Ernst 2003, Crother 2012).

(2003), Brennan and Holycross (2006), and LemosBlack-headed Snakes in our area, of which there Espinal and Smith (2007a, b). are four species, are not commonly encountered, but In our area, the Chihuahuan Black-headed Snake fewer Chihuahuan Black-headed Snakes have been is most easily confused with other species of Tantilla, collected from Arizona (22 museum specimens) than particularly the Yaqui Black-headed Snake (T. yaquia). the other three species by far. Only four records exist However, in that species the light collar does not touch for Sonora. In the 100-Mile Circle, this is a small and the parietal scales and there is no dark line or row of secretive species of the sky islands with an apparently spots immediately posterior to the light collar. Both limited and patchy distribution. the Yaqui and Chihuahuan Black-headed Snakes have Description and Similar Species light cheek patches, but in the former, all of the sixth supralabial is white, whereas in the latter the dark The Chihuahuan Black-headed Snake is a slender and small (<356 mm total length, tail length is 24-26% head cap usually intrudes onto the sixth supralabial. In Smithâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Black-headed Snake (T. hobartsmithi) the light of total length), light tan, brown, or yellowish-brown collar is often absent, or if present it is often faint or snake dorsally with a dark gray-brown cap on the top thin. Furthermore, that light collar does not touch the of the head that extends to or below the corner of parietal scales and a dark band or row of dots is not the mouth (Figs. 1 and 2). A distinct off-white or pale present posterior to it. The Plains Black-headed Snake cream collar, two scale rows wide, is always pres(T. nigriceps) does not have a light collar. The minute ent immediately posterior to the dark head cap. The dark spots on the dorsal scales present in the Chihuaanterior portion of the light collar crosses the tips of huan Black-headed Snake are also present in Smithâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the parietal scales. That collar is bordered posteriorly Black-headed Snake, but are absent in the Yaqui and and often anteriorly by a thin gray-brown band or Plains Black-headed Snakes. The Ring-necked Snake dotted lines that are typically darker than the head (Diadophis punctatus) is superficially similar to the Blackcap and 0.5-1.5 scale rows wide. The supralabials are headed Snakes, but it has loreal scales (may be missing mostly white, and that color expands posterior to the on one side) and dark spots on the ventral surface. eye so that all of the fifth and usually part of the sixth supralabials are white, forming a light cheek patch (Fig. Distribution and Habitat Use 2). Minute dark spots or maculations are present on In Arizona, the Chihuahuan Black-headed Snake the dorsal scales. The venter lacks spots, and is cream is known primarily from the Huachuca Mountains, or white anteriorly, grading to light pink or orange where it has been collected at Fort Huachuca and in posteriorly. All Tantilla lack loreal scales. This descripSONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

The Chihuahuan Blackheaded Snake (Tantilla wilcoxi) was described

by Leonhard Stejneger (1903) of the Smithsonian Institution from a juvenile male collected

by Timothy E. Wilcox M.D. at Fort Huachuca in 1892.

77

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

Figure 2. Same snake as in Figure 1, illustrating distinctive scalation and coloration characters on the head. Photo by J. C. Rorabaugh.

Carr, Miller, Ramsey, Copper, Scotia, and Sunnyside canyons, near “Igo Ranch”, and at several unspecified localities. It is known from Gardner and Madera canyons in the Santa Rita Mountains, and the ghost town of Mowry in the Patagonia Mountains. Two specimens from the Sierra San Luis, Mexico, suggest the species could occur in Peloncillo the Mountains of Arizona and New Mexico, although woodland habitats preferred by the species are scarce in that range and have been degraded by prescribed fires set by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management in recent decades. Elevations of Chihuahuan Blackheaded Snake localities in Arizona range from 1545 to 1875 m. In Sonora, the species is known only from the Sierras San Luis and Bacadéhuachi, and the mountains west of Yécora, although it has likely been overlooked in several other areas (Fig. 3).

Elsewhere, the species is known from western Chihuahua south and east to northern Sinaloa, central Durango, southeastern Coahuila, southern Zacatecas, Nuevo Leon, and San Luis Potosí at elevations of 9002436 m (Ernst and Ernst 2003, Lemos-Espinal and Smith 2007a,b, Rorabaugh 2008).

Of the four species of Tantilla found in Arizona, the Chihuahuan Black-headed Snake is the most specialized in terms of habitat use. Throughout its range, it is primarily a species of montane canyons and slopes in oak or pine-oak woodland. Although Stebbins (2003) and Lowe (1964) report that its distribution extends into desert or semi-desert grasslands, all Arizona and Sonora localities are within montane woodlands.

Most specimens are found under rocks, dead yuccas, agaves, sotols, or other surface debris.

Activity and Behavior Arizona and Sonora collections and observations have occurred from early March to late September, although most are found in July and August. The behavior of this species is little known, but as a group, North American Tantilla are generally considered primarily nocturnal, fossorial species that spend much time foraging for prey in leaf litter and under debris. It presumably is dormant during the winter months.

Behler and King (1979) reported that females lay clutches of 1-3 eggs. Goldberg (2004) found a single egg in the oviduct of a female collected in Arizona on 22 September. Eight males (four from Arizona, four from Mexico) collected July-September were undergoing spermiogenesis, the smallest male of which was 168 mm SVL (Goldberg 2004). Wright and Wright (1957) reported that the smallest mature males and females were 214 mm and 175 mm (presumably total length), respectively.

The behavior of this species is little known, but as a group, North American Tantilla are generally considered primarily nocturnal, fossorial species that spend much time foraging for prey in leaf litter and under debris.

Diet The diet of this species has not been specifically studied, but as with other Tantilla in our area, it probably feeds upon spiders, insect larvae, millipedes, centipedes, and scorpions (Fowlie 1965, Behler and King 1979, Stebbins 2003, Lemos-Espinal and Smith 2007a).

Although not investigated in this species, Tantilla have enlarged, grooved teeth in the rear of the upper jaw capable of delivering toxic secretions from the Duvernoy’s gland to prey items. This species is harmless to humans and does not attempt to bite.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

78

Conservation The Chihuahuan Black-headed Snake is listed as a species of least concern on the IUCN’s Red List.

However, its montane woodland habitats are at risk in Arizona from wildfire and climate change.

Major stand-replacing fires in the Huachuca and Santa Rita mountains over the last 40 years have degraded the habitat of this species, while in some areas of Mexico forested habitats of the Chihuahuan Black-headed Snake have been heavily logged. Mining can eliminate habitat of this species locally.

Literature Cited Behler, J.L., and F.W. King. 1979.

The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY. Brennan, T.C., and A.T. Holycross. 2006. Amphibians and Reptiles in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 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 171:199-284.

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.

Ernst, C.H., and E.M. Ernst. 2003. Snakes of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C. Fowlie, J.A. 1965. The Snakes of Arizona. Azul Quinta Press, Fallbrook, CA. Goldberg, S.R. 2004. Tantilla wilcoxi (Chihuahuan Black-Headed Snake). Reproduction. Herpetological Review 35:73.

Lemos-Espinal, J.A., and H.M. Smith. 2007a. Anfibios y Reptiles del Estado de Coahuila, México/ Amphibians and Reptiles of the State of Coahuila, Mexico. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México y Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. Mexico.

Lemos-Espinal, J.A., and H.M. Smith. 2007b. Anfibios y Reptiles del Estado de Chihuahua, México/ Amphibians and Reptiles of the State of Chihua-

hua, Mexico. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México y Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. Mexico.

Liner, E.A. 1983. Tantilla wilcoxi. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles 345:1-2.

Lowe, C.H (editor). 1964. The Vertebrates of Arizona.

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. Rorabaugh, J.C. 2008. An introduction to the herpetofauna of mainland Sonora, México, with comments on conservation and management. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 40:20-65.

Smith, H.M. 1942. A resume of the 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. Stejneger, L. 1903. The reptiles of the Huachuca Mountains, Arizona. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum 25:149-158.

Wilson, L.D. 1982. Tantilla. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles 307:1-4.

Wright, A.H., and A.A. Wright. 1957. Handbook of Snakes of the United States and Canada. Volumes I and II. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, New York, NY. SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

The Chihuahuan Blackheaded Snake is listed as a species of least concern on the IUCN’s Red List. However, its montane woodland habitats are at risk in Arizona from wildfire and climate change.

79

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

Tarahumara Frog (Lithobates tarahumarae)

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

T he Tarahumara Frog was described in 1917

as Rana tarahumarae by George Albert Boulenger from specimens collected at Ioquiri (=Yoquivo) and Barranca del Cobre in the Sierra Tarahumara of southwestern Chihuahua, Mexico. That name remained unchanged until Frost et al. (2006) proposed the genus name Lithobates for this species and most other North American ranid frogs. The proposal was adopted by the Society for the Study of American Amphibians and Reptiles (Crother 2008, 2012), but remains controversial (e.g., Pauly et Figure 1. Adult Tarahumara Frog reared from a portion of an egg mass collected in the Sierra de la Madera, Sonora. Photo by J. C. Rorabaugh. al. 2009). No subspecies of the Tarahumara Frog are recognized. Hillis and Wilcox that are dark overall. The front limbs and sides may (2005) placed the Tarahumara Frog into the Tarahuexhibit dark spots or blotches as well, and less distinct mara group of New World ranids, which also includes dark markings may be found on the back. The dorsum L. johni, L. pueblae, L. psilonota, L. pustulosa, L. sierramad- is relatively rough and pustulose for a Southwestern rensis, and L. zweifeli. All frogs of this group lack vocal ranid frog. The venter is white or cream, sometimes sacs and slits, have reduced or no external tympana, with a dark or gray wash on the chin, throat, and chest. and they tend to be highly aquatic and typically ocDorsolateral folds are absent or weak, tending to be cupy montane streams and plunge pools. The group more prominent in southern populations (S. Hale, is largely restricted to the Sierras Madre Occidental, pers. comm.). A fold of skin runs from the eye back Madre Oriental, and del Sur of Mexico (Hillis and Wil- and around the small tympanum. The usually indistinct cox 2005). The Tarahumara Frog is the only member and minutely pustulose tympanum is about one-half of the group that is known to vocalize, and is the only the diameter of the eye. The Tarahumara Frog lacks one whose range extends into the United States. vocal sacs or slits. The tips of the digits are slightly In southeastern Arizona, the Tarahumara Frog is expanded, more so on the hind feet, and the digits of akin to the Jaguar of the amphibian world, in that it is the hind feet are webbed to the tips. Webbing is absent a species of remote places, often rugged barrancas and on the front feet. The eyes are large and the pupils are sierras with poor access, whose range barely extends round. The iris is a gold-brown and flecked with black. into the United States. Also like the Jaguar, this species Males are not as large (< 96 mm SVL) as the females has declined, particularly in the northern portions of and in adult males the thumbs are swollen and black. its distribution.

Tadpoles grow as large as 106 mm total length prior to metamorphosis. Larger tadpoles are brown, brownishDescription and Similar Species olive, or tan with numerous dark spots and blotches This is a moderate-sized (<114 mm SVL) robust (Fig. 3). The spots may coalesce to form mottling frog with a rounded snout. Dorsally it is dark brown, on the tail. This description was compiled from the gray, or olive-gray with few or no well-defined spots following sources: Zweifel (1968), Wright and Wright (Figs. 1, 2, 5). Usually across the dorsal surface of the (1949), Hale and May (1983), and personal observahinds limbs are dark bars, which may be somewhat tions. diffuse, or broken into spots and dark blotches. These The only frog in the 100-Mile Circle with which the markings may be absent or indistinct in individuals Tarahumara Frog might be confused is the AmeriSONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

The Tarahumara Frog was described in 1917 as Rana tarahumarae by George Albert Boulenger from specimens collected at Ioquiri (=Yoquivo) and Barranca del Cobre in the Sierra Tarahumara of southwestern Chihuahua, Mexico.

80

can Bullfrog (L. catesbeiana).

It grows to a much larger size (< 203 mm SVL), has smoother skin, a distinct tympanum that is 1-2 times as large as the eye, and mottling on the chin. Leopard frogs have distinct spots on the dorsum and prominent dorsolateral folds.

Distribution and Habitat Use The Tarahumara Frog is known from about 70 localities in the Sierra Madre Occidental and adjoining sky island mountain ranges west of the continental divide Figure 2. Juvenile Tarahumara Frog from the Sierra de la Madera stock showing dorsolateral folds at elevations of 460-1860 (typically weak or absent in this species). Photo by J. C. Rorabaugh. m from south-central AriWildlife Refuge, Yuma County, Arizona, as part of a zona south through eastern Sonora and southwestern conservation program (see “Conservation” below).

Chihuahua to Los Ornos, Sinaloa, near the common The Tarahumara Frog is an inhabitant of rocky borders of Sinaloa, Chihuahua, and Durango (Smith streams and plunge pools in canyons and arroyos and Taylor 1948, Zweifel 1968, Rorabaugh and Hale located within tropical deciduous forest, foothills 2005, Lemos-Espinal and Smith 2007, personal obserthornscrub, semi-desert grassland, oak woodland, and vations). It is unknown from Durango, but given the pine oak woodland. Within Arizona and the 100proximity of the Los Ornos locality to the Durango Mile Circle, localities are characterized by semi-desert border and apparent suitable habitat, it may occur in grassland, oak woodland and savanna, and pine-oak the western mountains of that state. Reports of the woodland. Plunge pools in stream reaches with low species from New Mexico (Linsdale 1933, Little and mean flows (< 6 liters per second) and relatively steep Keller 1937, Wright and Wright 1949) and at Rose gradients (> 60 m per km of stream) provide the best Creek near Roosevelt Reservoir, Arizona (Little 1940) breeding sites. Perennial reaches and pools are needed were based on misidentified specimens of American for breeding.

Bullfrogs (Stebbins 1951, Zweifel 1968). Fig. 4 shows the distribution in Arizona and Sonora.

Activity and Reproduction The species was first reported from Arizona by In southern and lowland sites, Tarahumara Frogs Berry Campbell (1931), who found them on 18 June may be active nearly year round. In Arizona, they are 1931 “near Pena Blanca Springs, Santa Cruz County” most active from April into October and are active by at a series of pot holes as well as at an “old tumbledday and at night. In Big Casa Blanca Canyon, Hale and in mine”. Whether this is the Peña Blanca Spring that May (1983) found that emergence of frogs begun in is currently along Ruby Road at the crossing of Peña early April when water temperatures rose above 10° Blanca Canyon, or whether it refers to Alamo Spring C. During the dry season, frogs congregate in areas of or the spring that is now inundated by Peña Blanca perennial flow and at drought-resistant plunge-pools Lake is unknown. Wright and Wright (1949) were the and tinajas. When the rains come in June or July, frogs first to definitively report Tarahumara Frogs from nearby Alamo Canyon. In 1949, Stebbins (1951) found migrate up- and downstream to take advantage of increased available habitat. In the fall they tend to return them in Sycamore Canyon about 10 km west of Peña Blanca Spring. In 1948 they were found in Tinaja Can- to areas of permanent water. Breeding occurs primaryon in the Tumacacori Mountains (Williams 1960); and ily towards the end of the dry season (April-May) in perennial plunge pools and tinajas, but reproduction during 1970-1974 Tarahumara Frogs were discovered has also been documented in late summer. Clutches in Big Casa Blanca, Gardner, and Adobe canyons in of 2,200 or more eggs (Stebbins 1951) are laid in the Santa Rita Mountains (Hale et al. 1977, Hale and spherical masses, typically deposited on bedrock in May 1983). Arizona localities are described by Hale quiet pools (Fig. 5). Tadpoles take up to two years to and May (1983). Refugia populations of this frog have metamorphose, but in captivity metamorphosis occurs been established outside of its native range in ponds in as little as three months. Despite lacking vocal sacs at the International Wildlife Museum in Tucson and a or slits, males and females, and juveniles and adults, canyon in the Castle Dome Mountains, Kofa National SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

The Tarahumara Frog is an inhabitant of rocky streams and plunge pools in canyons and arroyos located within tropical deciduous forest, foothills thornscrub, semi-desert grassland, oak woodland, and pine oak woodland.

81

Figure 3. Late stage Tarahumara Frog tadpole, Sierra de la Madera stock. Photo by J. C. Rorabaugh.

manage to emit a variety of soft snores, whines, and squawks any time water temperatures are 15° C or above (Rorabaugh and Elliott 2006). These calls are not always associated with breeding activity.

The Tarahumara Frog is typically found in water or on the water’s edge, but they are certainly capable of dispersal overland and along drainages. A female marked and released in Big Casa Blanca Canyon in 2004 as part of a reestablishment program was found at an impoundment in a tributary of Adobe Canyon in 2008. The shortest route possible between the two sites is 1.6 km, and the most likely routes all involve at least some overland (not along drainages) travel. This same frog was found in Gardner Canyon in 2013 at a straight line distance of about 3.4 km across rugged terrain from the Adobe Canyon site (King et al. 2013).

Again, the frog likely travelled overland considerable distances to make this trek. Within Big Casa Blanca Canyon, Hale and May (1983) documented movements up to 1885 m.

Diet Tarahumara Frogs are likely opportunistic carnivores. Items reported in the diet are diverse, including various invertebrates (e.g., beetles, moths, water bugs, scorpions, centipedes, grasshoppers, spiders, and caddisflies), as well as a juvenile Sonoran Mud Turtles, snakes, including a Yaqui Black-headed Snake, and Sonora Chub (Gila ditaenia) (Zweifel 1955, McDiarmid 1968, Hale and May 1983). Cannibalism occurs in captive colonies and is suspected in the wild. In the Castle Dome Mountains, Arizona, Tarahumara Frogs occasionally eat European honey bees (Apis mellifera), but do so only rarely, despite the fact that these insects are often in abundance at the water’s edge. I watched a Tarahumara Frog at an outdoor captive facility eat a large orange hornet (Vespidae). Tadpoles are likely omnivorous with a strong tendency towards algivory.

In captivity, tadpoles ate spinach, sliced vegetables, fish food, algae, and boiled egg whites.

Conservation The Tarahumara Frog is listed as vulnerable on the IUCN’s Red List, but is neither found on Mexico’s list of special status species nor on the U.S. list of threatened and endangered species. Under Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) regulations, it is illegal to collect or possess a Tarahumara Frog without specific permits.

On 7 April 1974, Clay May and Darrell Frost observed 19 dead Tarahumara Frogs in Sycamore Canyon below Yanks Spring, Pajarito-Atascosa Mountains, Arizona. Several live but lethargic Tarahumara Frogs were also observed, and the skin on top of the head of some individuals was dry. Two live leopard frogs showed no escape movements. However, when Steve Hale visited the canyon in August, frogs were abundant and appeared healthy. But, that was the last time Tarahumara Frogs were observed in Sycamore Canyon (Hale and May 1983). In 1950 at Peña Blanca Spring, Richard Zweifel found the area had been developed into a campground; no Tarahumara Frogs were observed, but Zweifel found them at Alamo Spring (R.G. Zweifel field notes reported in Hale and May 1983).

The species was last observed at Alamo Spring in 1970

by Clay May. The construction of Peña Blanca Lake in 1957 and introduction of American Bullfrogs were probably further stressors that made that area poor habitat for the Tarahumara Frog (Hale and May 1983).

American Bullfrogs were stocked in Peña Blanca Lake from 1968-1971; however, UAZ museum specimens from the lake collected in 1968 before the stocking began and 1967 from nearby Summit Tank prove that American Bullfrogs were already in the area. Frogs were absent from Tinaja Canyon in the Tumacacori Mountains and the area provided only limited habitat when Steve Hale visited that site in 1980 (Hale and May 1983).

Decline and ultimately extirpation of Tarahumara Frog populations in the Santa Rita Mountains occurred during 1977-1983. In October 1977 a very SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

The Tarahumara Frog is listed as vulnerable on the IUCN’s Red List, but is neither found on Mexico’s list of special status species nor on the U.S. list of threatened and endangered species.

Under Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) regulations, it is illegal to collect or possess a Tarahumara Frog without specific permits.

82

strong tropical storm drenched the area, dropping 194 mm of rainfall on Patagonia from 6-9 October. Big Casa Blanca and adjacent canyons were scoured and littered with debris. When Steve Hale surveyed Big Casa Blanca Canyon in the spring of 1978, no juvenile frogs from the 1977 cohort were found. However, many tadpoles survived the flood and metamorphosed frogs were observed in 1978 and 1979. Yet in July 1980 no tadpoles or metamorphosed frogs were found. Only a few frogs persisted in the canyon until 28 May 1983 when Steve Hale and Jim Jarchow found a large, dead female frog at the String of Pools reach (Hale and May 1983). That was the last Tarahumara Frog observed in Arizona until recent reestablishment efforts. Similar die offs and population loss were documented at several sites in Sonora beginning in the early 1980s (Hale et al. 2005).

Possible causes of population decline and loss include chytridiomycosis, cadmium or other heavy metal poisoning, winter cold, flooding or severe drought, habitat alteration, and predation by non-native predators (Hale and Jarchow 1988, Hale et al. 1995, Hale 2001). Six of eight frogs examined from those collected during the die off at Sycamore Canyon in 1974 tested positive for Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), the organism that causes the fungal skin disease chytridiomycosis (T. Jones, pers. comm.). In retrospect, Hale et al. (2005) found that the condition of frogs found during the die off in Big Casa Blanca Canyon was consistent with symptoms of chytridiomycosis. They also found that frogs from several declining or extirpated populations in Sonora tested positive for Bd, although some populations there were apparently persisting with the disease.

The Tarahumara Frog Conservation Team first met in 1992 to discuss reestablishing the Tarahumara Frog back into Arizona. After much planning and coordination, including navigating the rather tedious 12-step reestablishment process required by the AGFD, and obtaining the proper Mexican and U.S. permits, a portion of a Tarahumara Frog egg mass was collected by Steve Hale in May 2000 from the Sierra de la Madera near Magdalena, Sonora (approximately 72 km south of the border), and imported to the U.S. where it was propagated at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum and other localities (Rorabaugh et al. 2005). Refugia populations from this stock were established at the International Wildlife Museum, Tucson, and a canyon in the Castle Dome Mountains, Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona.

On 26 June 2004, 47 adult, 138 juvenile, and 229 tadpole Tarahumara Frogs were released at four sites in Big Casa Blanca Canyon (Rorabaugh 2005). Additional releases occurred in 2005 and 2006. The frogs reproduced and thrived in the canyon through 2006.

However, in the summer of 2006, heavy flooding following the 2005 Florida Fire deposited huge amounts of sediment and cobble in the canyon, filling in many of the breeding pools. This habitat degradation was followed by a major die off in March of 2007. Dead and dying frogs tested positive for Bd (King et al.

2013). In 2008 only three small frogs and 20 tadpoles were found. None was found in 2009, although a single frog was reported in 2010. The only known wild frog still alive from the 2004-2006 releases is the large female that was found at the Adobe Canyon tributary in 2008 and then again in Gardner Canyon in 2013.

Tarahumara Frogs from the collection site in the Sierra de la Madera tested negative for Bd, suggesting that perhaps the population is naĂŻve to chytridiomycosis. In 2008, additional stock was collected from Rancho El Trigo southeast of YĂŠcora, Sonora, a site where Tarahumara Frogs have persisted with chytridiomycosis since at least 1982. It is hoped these frogs might show some resistance to the disease. In 2012 and 2013 frogs and tadpoles from this stock were released into Big Casa Blanca Canyon. The habitat is still much degraded from post-Florida Fire sedimentation, but considerable habitat for tadpole development still exists. Tarahumara Frogs were also released at Adobe Canyon. In early October 2013, a die off of Tarahumara Frogs was underway in Big Casa Blanca Canyon.

Tissue samples are awaiting testing, but the frogs were symptomatic for chytridiomycosis (A. King, pers.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

Possible causes of population decline and loss include chytridiomycosis, cadmium or other heavy metal poisoning, winter cold, flooding or severe drought, habitat alteration, and predation by non-native predators.

83

comm). Whether enough frogs survive the die off to establish a self-sustaining population will be determined by future monitoring. In spite of uncertainties in the Santa Rita Mountains, planning is underway to reestablish the species at other historical localities in southern Arizona.

Literature Cited

Eskew, and C.B. Edminster (compilers), Connecting Mountain Islands and Desert Seas: Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago II. Proceedings RMRS-P-36: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Hale, S.F., C.R. Schwalbe, J.L. Jarchow, C.J. May, C.H. Lowe, and T.B. Johnson. 1995. Disappearance of the Tarahumara frog. Pages 138-140 in: E.T. LaRoe, G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran, and M.J. Mac (editors). Our Living Resources: A Report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C. King, A.D., M.J. Sredl, H. Hicks, J.C. Rorabaugh, C.M. Akins, K. Smith, C. Crawford, S. Poulin, and J.A. Lemos Espinal. 2013. Evolving expectations: A decade of repatriating Tarahumara Frogs (Lithobates tarahumarae) to Arizona, USA. Poster, Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Albuquerque, NM, 10-15 July 2013.

Lemos-Espinal, J.A., and H.M. Smith. 2007b. Anfibios y Reptiles del Estado de Chihuahua, México/ Amphibians and Reptiles of the State of Chihuahua, Mexico. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México y Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. Mexico.

Linsdale, J.M. 1933. A specimen of Rana tarahumarae from New Mexico. Copeia 1933:222.

Little, E.L. 1940. Amphibians and reptiles of the Roosevelt Reservoir area, Arizona. Copeia 1940:260265.

Little, E.L., and J.G. Keller. 1937. Amphibians and reptiles of the Jornada Experimental Range, New Mexico. Copeia 1937:216-222.

Boulenger, G.A. 1917. Descriptions of new frogs of the genus Rana. Annual Magazine Natural History (ser. 8) 20(120):413-418.

Campbell, B. 1931. Rana tarahumarae, a frog new to the United States. Copeia 1931:164.

Crother, B.I. (editor). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular No. 37:1-84.

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.

Frost, D.R., et al. 2006. The amphibian tree of life.

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

Hale, S.F., and J.L. Jarchow. 1988. The status of the Tarahumara frog (Rana tarahumarae) in the United States and Mexico: part II. Report to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona, and the Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. Hale, S.F., and C.J. May. 1983. Status report for Rana tarahumarae Boulenger. Report to the Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. Hale, S.F., F. Retes, and T.R. Van Devender.

1977. New populations of Rana tarahumarae (Tarahumara frog) in Arizona. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science 11:134-135.

Hale, S.F., P.C. Rosen, J.L. Jarchow, and G.A. Bradley. 2005. Effects of the chytrid fungus on the Tarahumara frog (Rana tarahumarae) in Arizona and Sonora, México. Pp. 407-411 in G.J. GottFigure 5. Tarahumara Frog and egg mass, Big Casa Blanca Canyon, Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona. fried, B.S. Gebow, L.G.

Whether enough frogs survive the die off to establish a self-sustaining population will be determined by future monitoring. In spite of uncertainties in the Santa Rita Mountains, planning is underway to reestablish the species at other historical localities in southern Arizona.

Photo by J. C. Rorabaugh.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

84

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 67:159-177.

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.

Rorabaugh, J.C. 2005. Re-establishment of the Tarahumara frog into Arizona, USA. IUCN Re-introduction News 24:43-44.

Rorabaugh, J.C., and L. Elliott. 2006. Calls of the Tarahumara frog. Sonoran Herpetologist 19(12):134136.

Rorabaugh, J.C., and S.F. Hale. 2005. Rana tarahumarae Boulenger, 1917, Tarahumara frog. Pages 593-595 in: M.J. Lannoo (editor). Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Rorabaugh, J.C., S.F. Hale, M.J. Sredl, and C. Ivanyi.

2005. Return of the Tarahumara frog to Arizona.

Pages 345-348 in: G.J. Gottfried, B.S. Gebow, L.G. Eskew, and C.B. Edminster (compilers). Connect-

ing mountain islands and desert seas: biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago II. Proceedings RMRS-P-36, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Smith, H.M., and E.H. Taylor. 1948. An annotated checklist and key to the Amphibia of Mexico. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 194:iv + 118 p.

Stebbins, R.C. 1951. Amphibians of Western North America. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Williams, K.L. 1960. Taxonomic notes on Arizona herpetozoa. The Southwestern Naturalist 5:25-36.

Wright, A.H., and A.A. Wright. 1949. Handbook of frogs and toads of the United States and Canada.

Third edition, Comstock Publishing Association, Ithaca, NY. Zweifel, R.G. 1955. Ecology, distribution, and systematics of frogs of the Rana boylii group. University of California Publications in Zoology 54:207-292.

Zweifel, R.G. 1968. Rana tarahumarae. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles 66:1-2.

E D U C AT I O N

Desert Tortoises in the Classroom Prepared by Taylor Edwards, Tucson Herpetological Society ,Tuscon, AZ; taylore@email.arizona.edu

M y daughter just started Kindergarten this year, and like many

schools in Tucson, they have adopted a Desert Tortoise. While I plan to utilize this wonderful resource in my own daughter’s classroom, other teachers or parents my not feel they have the expertise to use a live animal in their lessons. As a result, I put together the following information to give some suggestions to other parents and teachers. It is not necessary to be a biologist or tortoise expert to take advantage of this unique opportunity to teach children about desert wildlife and promote good stewardship of Nature.

Most of the information was directly lifted from other sources (cited herein) and these are also excellent sources to find more information. Please disseminate this information to your local school and expand on it with your own ideas!

Look for the tortoise icon for classroom activities A school tortoise is an excellent classroom resource and can be used as a teaching tool to: 1. Teach about the Sonoran Desert and its wildlife

It is not necessary to be a biologist or tortoise expert to take advantage of this unique opportunity to teach children about desert wildlife and promote good stewardship of Nature.

The type of Desert Tortoise native to the Sonoran Desert in Arizona is Gopherus morafkai. Photo by T. Edwards.

2. Teach about science through the tortoise’s physical attributes 3. Teach appreciation and stewardship of nature 4. Inspire creativity through art and writing Natural History What’s in a name?

A tortoise is a special type of turtle that has evolved to live on land. Even though there are other land turtles (e.g., box turtles) all tortoises share a common ancestor with each other and thus share similar adaptations. You can say that, ‘All tortoises are turtles, but not all turtles are tortoises.”

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

85

The type of Desert Tortoise native to the Sonoran Desert in Arizona is Gopherus morafkai. In the Mojave Desert is a different species called Gopherus agassizii.

The word Gopherus is derived from the word gopher, which in English is used to describe burrowing animals. All five species of tortoise in the genus Gopherus dig burrows. The other part of the scientific name (the epithet) is named after a person: Dr. David Morafka.

Does the school tortoise use a burrow? How often?

What time of day/year? What can you find out about David Morafka? How about Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz (1807-1873)? Note: Agassiz stated, “Study nature, not books” and revolutionized natural science education in the United States (See www.tortoise.org/ archives/gophname.html).

Morphology Once mature, male and female tortoises can be distinguished from each other by their physical appearance; called sexual dimorphism. Males have a strong depression in the plastron that fits neatly onto the convex carapace of the female. Males also have a longer tail than females, and their gular horn is longer and more curved. Males may also have prominent chin glands that produce a secretion which aids in sex recognition and often evokes combative behavior.

The mature female differs in having a flat plastron, a shorter tail, and an outward curve at the rear of the carapace which probably provides a wider space for egg laying.

Images from http://scienceray.com/biology/marinebiology/turtle-anatomy/ and http://www.color2learn.com/ desert-tortoise-free-print-coloring-pages.html Name the parts of the tortoises’ shell. Is the school tortoise a male or female? How can you tell? Make or draw a tortoise in the classroom that models their anatomy; See http://blog.gummylump.com/2011/04/ericcarle-inspired-foolish-tortoise.html Behavior Social behavior consists of a series of head bobs for species and gender recognition, courtship, and threat. Head bobbing normally precedes agonistic (combative) behavior between males, although females may also be aggressive. Male-to-male combat is most intensive in spring and late summer in the Sonoran Desert. During these encounters, each male stands as high as possible, making short rushes toward his adversary while attempting to use the gular horn at the front of the plastron (undershell) to overturn the other or drive him away. An overturned tortoise can usually right itself using its head and a forelimb; if not, the tortoise may overheat and die under the desert sun. The Desert Tortoise produces a variety of sounds (hisses, grunts, pops, whoops, huhs, echs, bips, etc.)

Carapace

which seem to be the most important when vocalized to an unfamiliar tortoise.

Mating has been observed from early spring to fall with the highest frequency in late summer in the Sonoran Desert. Desert Tortoises normally construct nests and lay eggs in May or June. The clutch size varies from two to fourteen eggs with an average of three to five, although some eggs may not be fertile.

The eggs are hard-shelled, moisture proof, white, and nearly spherical, about the size of a ping pong ball.

Ectothermy Tortoises and other reptiles are ectothermic animals which means that they control their temperature behaviorally. This is also referred to as ‘cold-blooded’, but this term has many negative connotations associated with it. In fact, ectothermy is a very efficient way to regulate limited resources—tortoises are conservationists! This is one reason why reptiles are numerous in the harsh and unpredictable desert environment.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

86

Use a temperature gun to take the temperature of the tortoise (shell) and compare to the temperature of its surroundings (den, shade, sun). How is the temperature affecting the tortoise’s behavior? Note: Lasers can be dangerous. Do NOT point the laser in the eyes of the animal or people.

Brumation and Estivation In the winter, Desert Tortoises brumate which is a similar to hibernating except they can wake up to drink water and return to “sleep”. They typically enter their dens in October and emerge again in the spring. Estivation is the counterpart to brumation but in warm and dry conditions. Tortoises estivate by lowering their metabolic rate to conserve energy during the hot, dry season (May and June).

Have a school contest to see who can guess the date that the tortoise emerges from its den after brumation—like a groundhog day prediction of spring.

Lean sticks over the entrance that will fall down when the tortoise exits. Note: In the Sonoran Desert, some tortoises may not emerge until the monsoons (particularly males). Tortoises may be ‘encouraged’ to emerge earlier if there is available water and food. See http:// mojavemax.com/MojaveContest.html In Arizona, tortoises are most active at the beginning of the school year, August and September. By about mid-October, their bodies are getting ready for brumation, and they should not be disturbed. However, a tortoise can still be viewed in their burrow and monitored by classes during brumation; use a handheld mirror to reflect sunlight into the den to check on a tortoise’s position, if it is awake, etc.). Activity is less predictable in the spring, depending on temperature and rain. Once the tortoise exits its burrow in the spring, it can be used in the classroom.

Age Maturity in the wild is estimated to take 12-20 years.

Accurately determining the age of a wild or captive tortoise is not possible because the size of the animal depends upon growth rate and diet. However, age can be estimated by counting the growth rings on the tortoise’s scutes (or shields). Both wild and domesticated tortoises develop roughly one growth ring on each plate of the shell per year like the rings on a tree

stump (although in a given year they may add none to several growth rings depending upon the quality and quantity of food eaten). Eventually, rings wear and weather. A tortoise with a smooth shell is considered old. Tortoises live about as long as human beings.

Count the growth rings on the tortoises shell and estimate the tortoise’s age. Students can make an imprint with clay of the different scutes and compare them. Does each scute have the same number? Does each student count the same number or rings?

Diet Desert Tortoises are herbivores and eat primarily grasses; however, when available they will eat other edible plants including spring and summer annual wildflowers, forbs, and cactus fruit. Desert Tortoises derive some of their water intake from the plants they eat. A large urinary bladder can store over 40% of the tortoise’s body weight in water. During periods of sufficient rainfall tortoises drink copiously from temporary rain pools.

What does the school tortoise like to eat? What plant species in the tortoises enclosure does the tortoise like or not like? Experiment with different desert vegetation. Try globe mallow, cactus fruit, mesquite pods, wildflowers, native vs. exotic grasses, etc. Do tortoises respond to different colored food? Note: this should be a supervised activity, some common species like oleander may be poisonous to tortoises.

Tortoise scat (or feces) can easily be found where tortoises live. Breaking a dry scat open to see what the tortoise eats is an excellent way to talk about tortoises even if the animal is not active.

Predators Although hatchling tortoises are preyed upon by numerous predators, adult tortoises have few natural predators (occasionally a desperate puma or coyote) and have very low mortality rates. Their populations are maintained by the fact that adults live a long time and have many opportunities to reproduce over their lifetimes. Unfortunately, increased mortality of adults by human causes (hit by cars, etc.) can make it difficult for natural populations to recover from a decline.

Desert Tortoises are herbivores and eat primarily grasses; however, when available they will eat other edible plants including spring and summer annual wildflowers, forbs, and cactus fruit. Desert Tortoises derive almost all their water intake from the plants they eat.

What about the shape of a tortoise’s shell makes it a good defense against predators? The tortoise shell is an excellent example of Nature’s architecture; arches, buttresses, geodesic domes, keystones (See: http:// biocreativity.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/turtles-architecture).

Design a classroom experiment to test the strength of arches using an egg shell. See: www.sciencebuddies. org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/MatlSci_p021. shtml#summary

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

87

Conservation Gopherus morafkai is currently a “candidate for listing” under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. While some remote populations appear to be stable, those near urban or recreational centers have declined significantly. The Desert Tortoise is fully protected in Arizona, and collection from the wild is strictly prohibited without a permit issued by the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Threats to tortoises include loss and degradation of the species’ habitat, through residential development, drought, wildfire, habitat destruction, fragmentation, and invasion of exotic plant and wildlife species. Other impacts on the species include removal of individuals from the wild, vandalism, mortality from vehicles, irresponsible off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, release of captive tortoises into the wild, and disease.

A common defensive behavior when molested or handled is to empty the bladder, leaving the tortoise at a considerable disadvantage in drier conditions. For this reason, Desert Tortoises should not be handled when encountered in the wild (unless moving out of harm’s way, like on a road).

After learning about tortoises, have students take the Tortoise Patrol Pledge: As a proud member of the Tortoise Patrol, I promise to do these things to protect Desert Tortoises: I will not take tortoises from the desert or hurt their desert homes.

I will do my part to keep our deserts clean.

I will stay on the roads and trails when traveling through the desert.

I will respect, protect, and enjoy our desert!

(See http://mojavemax.com/kids.html) Tortoises as Pets Thousands of tortoises are held in captivity in Arizona. The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum’s Tortoise Adoption Program is sanctioned by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. It was initiated to provide appropriate care and custody for tortoises already in captivity while vigorously discouraging the taking of tortoises from the wild. Unfortunately, release of captive tortoises is considered a high risk to existing populations because of the potential to introduce disease, disrupt population structure, and mix genetic stock from different regions.

The Tortoise Adoption Program was established to aid the welfare of tortoises already in captivity and insure the preservation of wild tortoises. The program serves Tucson and its surrounding suburbs but is dedicated to the well-being and survival of the Desert Tortoise throughout its range. In general, tortoises can be adopted from April 1 through September 30 of each year, subject to availability. In Arizona, no one

“owns” a Desert Tortoise, but people may become “custodians” to insure the welfare and longevity of those already in captivity. Under Arizona law, one tortoise per family member may be possessed if the tortoises are obtained from a captive source and properly documented. See: http://www.desertmuseum.org/ programs/tap.php Inspiration Appreciation of Nature is achieved through positive experiences. The school Desert Tortoise is an excellent way to create an atmosphere for the students where Nature, and particularly the act of discovery in Nature, is fun. Facts can help foster appreciation but you do not have to be an expert on tortoises to share the wonderment of seeing a tortoise with students.

Begin by just letting the animal move around so the students can watch. Only after the students have focused on the animal instead of me do I begin sharing information about it. Another way to convey factual information is through asking questions. Instead of telling students that “this type of turtle lives in a burrow”, ask them, “where do you think this tortoise makes its home?” Encourage them to ask questions about what interests them. As an interpreter, your role is to develop curiosity and help them find the answer.

Myths, stories, music, art, and literature are also valuable ways in which people relate to the world around them and can be extremely efficient in affecting people’s perceptions. Once the class has returned to the classroom, make an art project, read a book, or sing a song about tortoises. Have students interpret their experience however they see fit; some may draw a picture, while others may write a poem or reflect on the experience in a journal entry. Have the students express their experience with the animals not by being tested on the material, but by using their creativity to express what they have learned in some imaginative way. The students now have a personal experience that they have manifested without outside influence.

The experience will surely be positive and hopefully unforgettable.

After handling any animal, children should wash their hands. A hand sanitizer should be provided if soap and water are not easily accessible.

Use the coloring sheet (next page) to send kids home with a conservation message about tortoises.

Other Sources of information: Arizona Game and Fish Department website: http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/deserttortoisemanagement.shtml Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum website: www.desertmuseum.org/programs/tap_tortnathistory.php Tucson Herpetological Society Website: http://tucsonherpsociety.org/clrbk.html The Sonoran Desert Tortoise: Natural History, Biology, and Conservation edited by Thomas R. Van Devender.

Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Studies in Natural History; University of Arizona Press, 2006.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

88

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

89

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

Reptiles and Amphibians on US Coins Howard O. Clark, Jr., Editor, Tucson Herpetological Society, Tuscon, AZ; editor.sonoran.herp@gmail.com

I

have been collecting coins, both foreign and domistic, since 1979. Coins bring a wealth of knowledge with them, including culture, geography, and history. Over the past decade or so, the U. S. mint has issued a variety of coin designs, such as as the state series featured on quarters, and the one dollar presidental coins.

Recently, a new quarter series has been released featuring “America the Beautiful” and a new Native American dollar coin series. As I was studying these coins I noticed that some had reptiles and amphibians on them. Mammals and birds have been common representations on American currancy, and it is refreshing to see other taxa being featured on our money. Keep an eye out for these beautiful coins, and hopefully in future issues more herpetofauna will grace our currency.

(Above) The 2013 release in the annual Native American dollar series from the United States Mint, “The Delaware Treaty (1778)”.

The Delaware Treaty was the first formal treaty signed in the name of the United States. The treaty was made with the Delaware Indian Tribe at Fort Pitt (now the city of Pittsburgh).

The design features a turkey, a howling wolf, and a turtle—all symbols of the clans of the Delaware Tribe. Thirteen stars, representing the original thirteen colonies, are shown around the three animals.

(Left) 2012 El Yunque National Forest Quarter featuring El Yunque National Forest in Puerto Rico—The first coin in 2012 to appear as part of the United States Mint America the Beautiful Quarters® Program. Featured are a parrot and a frog.

Over the past decade or so, the U. S. mint has issued a variety of coin designs, such as as the state series featured on quarters, and the one dollar presidental coins.

Images from the U.S. Mint.

From the Editor Howard O. Clark, Jr., Editor, Tucson Herpetological Society ,Tuscon, AZ; editor.sonoran.herp@gmail.com

T he December 2013 issue marked the 4-year anniversary of my editorship of the Sonoran Herpetologist.

This year the Sonoran Herpetologist was published as a quarterly issue. I have not received much feedback on the new format from the membership which I hope is a signal that the quarterly model is working. I hope to continue as editor for the foreseeable future and I look forward to receiving articles, notes, research summaries, and book reviews from our readership.

Howard in the field searching for San Joaquin kit foxes.

Photo by Graham Biddy.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

90

BOOK REVIEW

Amphibians and Reptiles of San Luis Potosí Review by Richard Gates, Member, Tuscon Herpetological Society, Tuscon, AZ; greentreepython44@gmail.com Lemos-Espinal, Julio A., and James R. Dixon, 2013.

Eagle Mountain Publishing, Eagle Mountain, Utah. ISBN 9780972015479 . Hardcover, 8.5” x 11”, full color, 312 pages, 201 color photos, 101 b & w figures, 5 identification keys, 101 maps, 3 appendices. $85.00 USD.

T

he authors of this book are both well-respected authorities in the field. Julio A. Lemos-Espinal was born in San Luis Potosí (SLP), Mexico. He received a Bachelor’s degree in Biology from FES Iztacala UNAM in 1984, and three years later a Master’s degree, also in Biology, from the Facultad de Ciencias UNAM. In 1992 he was awarded a Doctorate degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, under the guidance of Dr. Royce E. Ballinger. Over the years Lemos-Espinal has authored or co-authored numerous publications, including several books, of which most have focused on the ecology and distribution of the herpetofauna of northern Mexico. Along with the late Hobart M. Smith, he authored Amphibians and Reptiles of the State of Chihuahua, Mexico and Amphibians and Reptiles of the State of Coahuila, Mexico, and with James R. Dixon wrote Amphibians and Reptiles of the State of Querétaro, Mexico. Currently Lemos-Espinal is a Research Professor in the Laboratorio de Ecología of the Unidad de Biología, Tecnología y Prototipos, FES-Iztacala UNAM. During Julio’s career three taxa of amphibians and reptiles have been named in his honor, the ranid frog Lithobates lemosespinali, the spiny lizard Sceloporus lemosespinali, and the pitviper Agkistrodon bilineatus lemosespinali.

James R. Dixon was born in Houston, Texas, in 1928. He received a Bachelor of Science degree from Howard Payne College in 1950, but soon left to serve in the Korean War. Upon his return, he became the Curator of Reptiles at Ross Allen’s Reptile Institute, in Silver Springs, Florida, but then continued with his studies and in 1957 received a Master’s degree from Texas A & M University. At this institution he became an Associate Professor of Veterinary Medicine, and in 1961 was awarded a Doctor’s degree in Zoology. Soon after, Dixon became an Associate Professor of Wildlife Management at New Mexico State University, and from 1965 to 1967 was the Curator of Herpetology at the Los Angeles County Museum. In 1971 Dixon returned to Texas A & M University, as a Professor, and today is Professor Emeritus and Curator Emeritus of Amphibians and Reptiles at the Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection at this institution. During his storied career, Dixon has authored numerous scientific publications, of which most have dealt with snake and lizard systematics. He also has authored or co-authored

Cover of Amphibians and Reptiles of San Luis Potosí.

several books, including Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas, now in its 3rd edition. Two lizards have been named in his honor, the teiid Aspidoscelis dixoni and the phyllodactylid Phyllodactylus dixoni.

The authors’ stated purpose of this book is to bring from their personal field experience and scientific literature an up to date book on the current status of the amphibians and reptiles of the state of San Luis Potosí, Mexico. The authors encourage further study and exploration of the various habitats that encompass this state in Mexico. They expect that there will be new species to be found using the latest technologies including molecular studies. Interestingly, San Luis Potosí covers only 3.1% of Mexico; however it ranges from sea level to over 9,000 feet so you can imagine the various habitats and niches available for its herpetofauna. The habitats range from the Chihuahan Desert to tropical rainforest and cloud forest with many intriguing habitats and ecotones in between.

The authors cover all the known species of amphibians and reptiles within the state. This comprises 5 Salamanders, 36 frogs, 1 crocodilian, 7 turtles, 48 lizards, and 83 snakes. Each species is covered in about one full page including a color photograph. For each species the following information is included: detailed identification, morphology, coloration, distribution, habitat, behavior, diet, taxonomy, etymology, protective status, and common name (if any).

One bit of information I found quite fascinating and had not known (and I suspect many other people are unaware of) I discovered on pages pages 209 and 210 in the section on the Variegated False Coral Snake SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

Considering the authors’ intent to cover all 181 species of amphibians and reptiles in San Luis Potosí, I feel that they have exceeded their goals with a lot of very detailed information. Their writing style is interesting and holds your attention, which I find to not always be the case in books of this type.

91

(Pliocercus elapoides). Under the habitat subheading the authors state “Given that the tail is easily detached, a predator can be easily detracted by the twitching tail, which allows the snake an opportunity to slip away.” I as a snake lover for over 55 years had no idea that any snake could detach its tail.

Considering the authors’ intent to cover all 181 species of amphibians and reptiles in San Luis Potosí, I feel that they have exceeded their goals with a lot

of very detailed information. Their writing style is interesting and holds your attention, which I find to not always be the case in books of this type. I found the book hard to put down as I read about one species after another. I read it from cover to cover in two sittings. The book itself is of the highest quality from the cloth-covered hard cover to the full color thick dust jacket. If you have any interest at all in the herpetology of this part of Mexico, I highly recommend this book.

BOOK REVIEW

Venomous Snakes of the World: A Manual for Use by U.S. Amphibious Forces Review by Philip Brown, Book Review Editor, Tuscon Herpetological Society, Tuscon, AZ; prbrownnaturalist@gmail.com Department of the Navy; Bureau of Medicine and Surgery Revised and Updated by Scott Shupe, September 2013 Paperback, 8.5 x 11 inches, 336 pages, 450 color photographs ISBN 9781620876237; $19.95

T

he original document on which this book is based was published in June, 1962, under the auspices of the Office of Naval Intelligence of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. The interest generated by this document led to the desire for a larger manual for all amphibious forces (navy and marines), and the office coordinated with the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (ASIH) to produce a more comprehensive manual. The ASIH chose the eminent herpetologists Dr. Herndon G. Dowling, Dr. Sherman A. Minton, Jr., and the leading snakebite expert of the time, Dr. Findlay E. Russell, to create Poisonous Snakes of the World: A Manual for use by U.S. Amphibious Forces, in November, 1965. It was printed by the US Government printing office in hardback, and sold for $3.25!

The original book contained some 212 pages and was illustrated largely with black and white photos.

There was a section of colored photos at the back, most of these of pretty poor quality by modern standards and representing just a few of the species. The book covered nearly 360 species of venomous land snakes, as well as the 47 known sea snakes. The book was titled Poisonous Snakes of the World, for in the 1960s the terms “poisonous” and “venomous” were pretty much interchangeable, not only generally but among herpetologists as well.

The present work takes up the cause nearly 50 years later. During that time, of course, we have learned a lot more about venomous snakes, many more have been described, taxonomy has changed (and continues to do so), and high-quality color pictures of most species have become available. The new volume discusses nearly 600 taxa.

The first book divided the world into 10 sections for the discussions of venomous land snakes: North

Covers of both manuals.

America, Mexico and Central America, South America and the West Indies, Europe, North Africa, Central and Southern Africa, the Near and Middle East, Southeast Asia, the Far East, and Australia and the Pacific Islands. Some of this terminology is outdated, and in the new book the regions are redefined as the six United States military regions of command. Thus we have USNORTHCOM (Canada, the United States, and Mexico); USSOUTHCOM (Central and South America); USEUCOM (Europe and Russia, northern Asian continent); USCENCOM (Egypt, Arabia, Central Asian Continent); USAFRICOM (Most of Africa and Madagascar); and USPACOM (Australia, the Pacific Islands, India, Southeast Asia, China).

Under each of these geographic areas there are generic and species descriptions that include identification, distribution, habitat, and biology. Usually there is a range map and a color photograph. There are line drawings in the introductory chapter on identification of venomous snakes to illustrate features being described. The original book had keys to the genera under each geographic subsection, but these have been omitted in the newer book. The new book lists current references and original references for each chapter.

Chapters on General Information, Precautions to Avoid Snakebite, How to Recognize Snake Envenomation, First Aid, Medical Treatment, and Recognition of Venomous Snakes have been updated, particularly SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 26 (4) 2013

The original document on which this book is based was published in June, 1962 under the auspices of the Office of Naval Intelligence of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.

92

the first aid section, which in the older book is quite detailed in methods that pretty much are obsolete now!

Scott Shupe is, by his own admission, not in the same league as the original herpetological giants, but he has done a very good job of keeping this book well within its scope and intention. He has reused a lot of the material from the older book that is still relevant, and has thoroughly researched newer content. He began his own career in 1971 at the famed Ross Allen Reptile Institute in Silver Springs, Florida, and has also worked at the St. Augustine Alligator Farm and the Black Hills Reptile Institute in Rapid City, South Dakota. Today he serves as the director of education for the Kentucky Zoo and Venom Laboratory and is the author of U.S. Guide to Venomous Snakes and Their Mimics.

This is a book “written mostly for the layperson,” he says. “Its goal is to help lay military personnel deal with the small threat that venomous snakes pose to them and to their mission. That said, it is hoped that the photos and information contained herein will also find acceptance and use by many others, especially by those who appreciate nature in general and snakes in particular.”

It is my opinion that he has met that goal. This is a great reference for general information about any venomous snake, the pictures are excellent and the range maps informative. It is inexpensive and I think has a place on the bookshelf of every person with any interest in the subject.

MEETING MINUTES BOD minutes can be found here: www.dropbox.com/sh/bxl4xdoyxc1x4bx/s4fCPAHXgS MEMBERSHIP

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 Kent Jacobs, Treasurer, Tucson Herpetological Society, at jacobskent@gmail.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 (4) 2013

93

Sonoran Herpetologist is the newsletter-journal of the Tucson Herpetological Society, and is Copyright 2014. 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 Feb, May, Aug, and Nov (based on the quarterly schedule)

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 Kent Jacobs, jacobskent@gmail.com Directors: Dennis Caldwell, dennis@caldwell-design.com Margaret Fusari, maggiefusari@gmail.com Rob Nixon, sapo1047@msn.com Don Moll, donandjanice@q.com Ed Moll, e.o.moll@gmail.com Jim Rorabaugh, jrorabaugh@hotmail.com Membership Sarah Ashby, halfaussie@gmail.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 (4) 2013

94