Sh vol 27 2014 0611

25 Volume 27

January 2012 June 2014

THIS MONTH’S PROGRAM

FUTURE SPEAKERS

Brandon La Forest Narcos, Armas y Viboras. Tales of herping Old Mexico

34

15 July 2014: Melissa Amarello

35

19 Aug 2014: Robert Villa

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

7:15 PM; Tuesday, 17 June “Recital Hall” of Pima Community College West Campus, 2202 W. Anklam Road, Tucson, AZ 85709

36

A native of Arizona, Brandon La Forest has been into herps,

particularly rattlesnakes, as far back as he can remember. He is a life long enthusiast who enjoys traveling abroad seeking amphibians and reptiles. Mexico has always been a special place to him. It’s tales of danger and treasure have always enticed him to visit. This presentation will focus on some of his adventures—from the far south tropical regions of Oaxaca to the thorn forests of Sonora. There is no short-

Number 12

ISSN 2333-8075

“Reproduction of the Sagebrush Lizard, Sceloporus graciosus (Squamata: Phrynosomatidae) from New Mexico” by Stephen R. Goldberg

100-MILE CIRCLE 38

Brandon La Forest (left); photo by R. Villa. On right, a Cantil (Agkistrodon bilineatus), photo by B. La Forest.

“Western Shovel-nosed Snake (Chionactis occipitalis)” by James C. Rorabaugh

SHORT ARTICLE 38

age of amazing herpetofauna to be found in these regions.

“Illegal turtle trading in West Bengal, India” by Suman Pratihar et al.

I N T E R N AT I O N A L FUTURE SPEAKER

47

Melissa Amarello Co-founder of Advocates for Snake Preservation

RESEARCH

Social networking by and for rattlesnakes

49

7:15 PM; Tuesday, 15 July “Recital Hall” of Pima Community College West Campus, 2202 W. Anklam Road, Tucson, AZ 85709

M elissa’s lifelong fascination with snakes led her to work on a variety of projects on

natural history and conservation of reptiles in Arizona, California, and Mexico. The need for positive messaging about snakes became apparent as she saw firsthand how negative attitudes can stifle conservation efforts. She incorporated education and outreach into her research, and started blogging at SocialSnakes. org to foster appreciation for snakes by shar-

“Dehydration in Sea Snakes”

By D. Bertelsen

BOOK REVIEW

ing stories and videos of their behavior in the field. In the spring of 2014 she co-founded Advocates for Snake Preservation (ASP), which uses science, education, and advocacy to promote compassionate conservation and coexistence with snakes. Melissa received her B.S. in wildlife, watershed, and rangeland resources at the University of Arizona and her M.S. in biology at Arizona State University, where she studied rattlesnake social behavior.

“Diversity and Conservation of Amphibians in South and Southeast Asia” by S. Pratihar and H. O. Clark, Jr.

49

“Turtles of Mexico” reviewed by Robert Villa

ANNOUNCEMENT 54

THS Members Receive Prestigious Conservation Awards

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

34

FUTURE SPEAKERS

Melissa photographing Alice (female Arizona Black Rattlesnake; Crotalus cerberus) and her new family. Photo

by Jeffrey J. Smith.

19 August 2014: Robert Anthony Villa The Spotted Box Turtle, and Herping Sonora and Chihuahua

Robert has been in love with amphibians and reptiles from an early age, and joined THS in 2000 as a high school freshman.

7:15 PM; Location to be Determined

R obert has been in love with amphibians and reptiles from an early age, and joined THS in 2000 as

a high school freshman. In the last couple of years, he has documented herp diversity in Sonora independently, and with the Madrean Archipelago Biodiversity Assessment (MABA)—which is a Sky Island Alliance Project that accessions photo vouchers into the public online MABA database and thus documenting the biodiversity of Madrean Archipelago or sky island region.

A general overview of the Spotted Box Turtle (Terrapene nelsoni), and herps found in the Mexican states of Sonora and Chihuahua will be presented.

Sonoran Herpetologist Natural History Observations

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

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

Submissions should be brief and in electronic form.

Robert Villa with an unexpected friend, Carnegiea gigantea.

Photo by Nikki Burns.

Local Research News

T he Sonoran Herpetologist welcomes short reports for our Local Research News, a regular feature in our

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

Submissions should be brief and in electronic form.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

35

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Reproduction of the Sagebrush Lizard, Sceloporus graciosus (Squamata: Phrynosomatidae) from New Mexico Stephen R. Goldberg, Whittier College, Department of Biology, Whittier, CA 90608; sgoldberg@whittier.edu

T he Sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus (Baird and Girard, 1852;

Figure 1) has a broad distribution ranging from Washington, Idaho, Montana and North Dakota, south to northern Baja California, northern Arizona, and northwestern New Mexico and as far east as western Nebraska (Ryan 2009).

There are a number of detailed studies on S. graciosus reproduction: Woodbury and Woodbury (1945), Burkholder (1973), Burkholder and Tanner (1974), Tinkle (1973), Jameson (1974), Goldberg (1975), Figure 1. Sagebrush Lizard (Sceloporus graciosus). This photo is licensed under the Ruth (1977), Nussbaum et al. (1983), Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license and is free to reproduce here.

Degenhardt et al. (1996), Stebbins and McGinnis (2012). Derickson (1974) discussed the Harris hematoxylin followed by eosin counterstain. relation between fat storage and reproduction in S. Histology slides were deposited in LACM or MSB. graciosus. Information on reproduction of S. graciosus Enlarged ovarian follicles (>4 mm length) or oviductal in California, Utah and Wyoming is summarized in eggs were counted. An unpaired t-test was used to test Tinkle et al. (1993). Anecdotal information on S. grafor differences between male and females SVLs using ciosus reproduction is in: Smith (1946), Stebbins (1954, Instat 3 (Graphpad, San Diego, CA).

2003), Gehlbach (1965), Algard (1968), Mueller and There was no significant difference between male Moore (1969), Fitch (1970), Behler and King (1979), and female mean SVLs (unpaired t-test, t = 1.72, P = Williamson et al. (1994), Brown et al. (1995), Koch and 0.091, df = 48). Monthly changes in the testicular cycle Peterson (1995), St. John (2002), Brennan and Holyare in Table 1. Three stages in the testicular cycle were cross (2009), Hammerson (1999), Werner et al (2004), present: (1) regression: seminiferous tubules are at Lemm (2006), Lewis (2011). Sceloporus graciosus occurs their smallest sizes and contain 2-3 layers of spermatoin northwestern New Mexico (Stebbins 2003). There gonia and Sertoli cells; (2) recrudescent: a proliferation are to my knowledge, no published accounts on S. of germ cells has commenced and is evidenced by graciosus reproduction from New Mexico. The purpose primary or secondary spermatocytes predominating; of this paper is to present information on S. graciosus (3) spermiogenesis: lumina of the seminiferous tubules reproduction from New Mexico as part of an ongoing are lined by sperm or clusters of metamorphosing survey of reproduction of lizards from southwestern spermatids (Table 1). The period of sperm production North America. A sample of 58 S. graciosus consisting encompassed May into August (Table 1). Recrudesof 29 adult males (mean snout-vent length [SVL] = cence commenced in August. The smallest reproduc49.3 mm ± 3.3 SD, range = 43-55 mm), 20 adult fetively active males (spermiogenesis in progress) both males (mean SVL = 51.2 mm ± 4.5 SD, range = 44-58 measured 43 mm SVL (MSB 3092) from July and mm), one subadult female (SVL = 43 mm), and 8 neo- (MSB 10539) from June. nates (mean SVL = 30.8 mm ± 2.4 SD, range = 28-35 Four stages were present in the monthly ovarian mm), were examined from the herpetology collections cycle of Sceloporus graciosus from New Mexico (Table 2): of the Museum of Southwestern Biology (MSB), (1) quiescent, no yolk deposition; (2) early yolk deposiUniversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA, and tion (basophilic vitellogenic granules in ooplasm); (3) the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County enlarged ovarian follicles > 4 mm; (4) oviductal eggs.

(LACM), Los Angeles, California, USA (Appendix).

Mean clutch size for eight gravid females (enlarged Sceloporus graciosus were collected 1960 to 1992. follicles >4 mm or oviductal eggs) was 3.8 ± 1.2 A small incision was made in the lower part of SD, range = 2-6. The smallest reproductively active the abdomen and the left gonad was removed for females (both from June) measured 44 mm SVL (MSB histological examination. Gonads were embedded in 39908) (oviductal eggs), and (MSB 55085) with early paraffin, sections were cut at 5 µm and stained with yolk deposition. One female from August (MSB 3072)

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

The Sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus (Baird and Girard, 1852; Figure 1) has a broad distribution ranging from Washington, Idaho, Montana and North Dakota, south to northern Baja California, northern Arizona, and northwestern New Mexico and as far east as western Nebraska.

36

measured 43 mm SVL and was considered to be a subadult. Female reproduction occurred from May to July (Table 2). There was no evidence that S. graciosus females produce a second clutch in the same year. This may reflect my sample of only nine gravid (enlarged ovarian follicles or oviductal eggs) females. In contrast (Goldberg 1975) reported 60% of S. graciosus females from California produced a second egg clutch.

Neonates were collected from September. One with a SVL of 35 mm (LACM 4425) had presumably been born at least one month earlier. Goldberg (1975) reported neonates were observed from early August into late September in the San Gabriel Mountains, Los Angeles County, California.

Fitch (1985) reported mean clutch sizes were smallest in four populations combined from the northwestern part of the S. graciosus range (3.3 Âą 0.51 SD, range = 2.7-3.9) and largest in the Wasatch Mountains of central Utah (6.03) and Greenhorn Mountains of the Sierra Nevada of California (6.30).

In conclusion the timing of events in the reproductive cycle of S. graciosus in New Mexico is similar to other populations of this species. It follows the reproductive strategy adhered to by 91% of western North American lizards (Goldberg 2014) in which breeding occurs in spring, eggs are produced in late spring to summer. Young emerge in late summer and have time to feed and accumulate fat reserves before entering hibernation.

Aknowledgements—I thank Howard Snell, J.T. Giemakowski (MSB), and Greg Pauly (LACM) for permission to examine S. graciosus.

Literature Cited Algard, G.A. 1968. Distribution, temperature and population studies of Sceloporus graciosus graciosus in Yellowstone National Park. M.S. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman. 34 pp.

Behler, J.L., and F.W. King. 1979. National Audubon Society Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians.

Alfred A, Knopf, New York, N.Y. Brennan, T.C., and A.T. Holycross. 2009. A Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. Brown, H.A., R.B. Bury, D.M. Darda, L.V. Diller, C.R. Peterson, R.M. Storm (Coordinating Editors), R.A. Storm, and W.L. Leonard. 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. Burkholder, G.L. 1973. Life history and ecology of the Great Basin sagebrush swift, Sceloporus graciosus graciosus (Baird and Girard, 1852). Ph.D. thesis, Brigham University, Provo, UT. Burkholder, G.L., and W.W. Tanner. 1974. Life history and ecology of the Great Basin sagebrush swift, Sceloporus graciosus graciosus Baird and Girard, 1852.

Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series 19:1-44.

Table 1. Monthly stages in the testicular cycle of 29 adult male Sceloporus graciosus from New Mexico, from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM), and the Museum of Southwestern Biology (MSB).

Month

n

Regression

Recrudescence

Spermiogenesis

May

3

0

0

3

June

7

0

0

7

July

5

4

0

1

Aug

10

5

4

1

Sept

4

1

3

0

Table 2. Monthly stages in the ovarian cycle of 20 adult Sceloporus graciosus females from New Mexico, from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM), and the Museum of Southwestern Biology (MSB); * = damaged oviductal eggs, could not count clutch.

Month

n

Quiescent

Early yolk deposition

Follicles > 4 mm

Oviductal eggs

May

2

0

0

1

1

June

8

0

2

0

6

July

3

2

0

0

1*

Aug

5

5

0

0

0

Sept

2

2

0

0

0

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

Amphibians and Reptiles of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. Derickson, W.K. 1974. Lipid deposition and utilization in the sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus: its significance for reproduction and maintenance. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 49A:265-272.

Fitch, H.S. 1970. Reproductive cycles in lizards and snakes. The University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Miscellaneous Publication 52:1-347.

Fitch, H.S. 1985. Variation in clutch and litter size in New World reptiles. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History 76:1-76.

Gehlbach, F.R. 1965. Herpetology of the Zuni Mountains region, northwestern New Mexico. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 116:243-332.

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

Goldberg, S.R. 2014. Reproductive cycles of lizards from western North America. Sonoran Herpetologist 27:20-29.

Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO. Jameson E.W., Jr. 1974. Fat and breeding cycles in a montane population of Sceloporus graciosus. Journal of Herpetology 8:311-322.

Koch, E.D., and C.R. Peterson. 1995. Amphibians & Reptiles of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT. Lemm, J.M. 2006. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of the San Diego Region. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Lewis, D. 2011. A Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Wyoming. The Wyoming Naturalist,

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

In conclusion the timing of events in the reproductive cycle of S. graciosus in New Mexico is similar to other populations of this species.

It follows the reproductive strategy adhered to 91% of western North American lizards (Goldberg 2014) in which breeding occurs in spring, eggs are produced in late spring to summer.

37

Douglas, WY. Mueller, C.F., and R.E. Moore. 1969. Growth of the sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus Yellowstone National Park. Herpetologica 25:35-38.

Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, Jr., and R.M. Storm.

1983, Amphibians & Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID. Ruth, S.B. 1977. A comparison of the demography and female reproduction in sympatric western fence lizatds (Sceloporus occidentalis) and sagebrush lizards (Sceloporus graciosus) on Mount Diablo, California.

Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Ryan, M. J. 2009. Common Sagebrush Lizard Sceloporus graciosus Baird and Girard, 1852. Pp. 218-221 in Jones, L.L.C. and R.E. Lovich, eds. Lizards of the American Southwest A Photographic Field Guide.

Rio Nuevo Publishers, Tucson, AZ. Smith, H.M. 1946. Handbook of Lizards, Lizards of the United States and Canada. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. St. John, A. 2002. Reptiles of the Northwest. Lone Pine Publishing, Renton, Washington.

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

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 3rd 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, CA. Tinkle, D.W. 1973. A population analysis of the sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus in southern Utah.

Copeia 1973:284-296.

Tinkle, D.W., A.E. Dunham, and J. D. Congdon. 1993.

Life history and demographic variation in the lizard Sceloporus graciosus: a long-term study. Ecology 4:2413-2429.

Werner, J.K., B.A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D.L. Flath.

2004. Amphibians and Reptiles of Montana. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, MT. Williamson, M.A., P.W. Hyder, and J.S. Applegarth.

1994. Snakes, Lizards, Turtles, Frogs, Toads & Salamanders of New Mexico, A Field Guide. Sunstone Press, Santa Fe, NM. Woodbury, M., and A.M. Woodbury. 1945. Life-history studies of the sagebrush lizard Sceloporus g. graciosus with special reference to cycles in reproduction.

Herpetologica 2:175-196.

Appendix: Sceloporus graciosus from New Mexico examined from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) and Museum of Southwestern Biology (MSB). McKinley County: MSB 3164, 3199, 3204, 55083, 55085, 58713; Rio Arriba County: LACM 4426, 4427; San Juan County: LACM 4424, 4425, 150814-150817; MSB 3050, 3053, 3067, 3071, 3072, 3078-3080, 3087, 3091, 3092, 3096, 3182, 3383, 5953, 5957, 5959, 5960, 10517, 10539, 10541, 26672, 26678, 26681, 26683, 26687, 39903, 39908, 50378, 50386, 54074, 59686; Sandoval County: LACM 4428-4431; MSB 2818, 2819, 7077, 7082, 54819, 55089, 59687, 71966.

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

Western Shovel-nosed Snake (Chionactis occipitalis) James C. Rorabaugh, P.O. Box 31, Saint David, Arizona 85630; jrorabaugh@hotmail.com

T he Western Shovel-nosed Snake (Chionactis occipitalis) was described by Edward Hallowell as Rhinostoma

occipitale in 1854. The type specimen, which is lost, was collected in 1853 by A. L. Heerman, a surgeon and naturalist, during the Pacific Railroad Expedition in the Mojave Desert of California, probably from the vicinity of the Mojave River in western San Bernardino County (Klauber 1951, Mahrdt et al. 2001). Cope (1860) was the first to use the genus name Chionactis for this species, although in subsequent publications it was at times assigned to Contia (Garman 1884) or Sonora (Slevin 1913, Stickel 1941). The Sonoran Shovelnosed Snake (Chionactis palarostris) was recognized as a species distinct from the Western Shovel-nosed Snake

by Klauber (1937). Funk (1967) described C. saxatilis from the vicinity of Fortuna Mine in the Gila Mountains, Yuma County, Arizona, but the description was not widely accepted (Cross 1979, Mahrdt et al. 2001) and that taxon is considered synonymous with C. occipitalis by Crother (2012).

Four subspecies of the Western Shovel-nosed Snake are currently recognized (Crother 2012), including C. o. occipitalis, the Mohave Shovel-nosed Snake; C. o. annulata, the Colorado Desert Shovel-nosed Snake; C. o. talpina, the Nevada Shovel-nosed Snake; and C. o. klauberi, the Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake (Klauber 1951, Cross 1979). However, Marhdt et al. (2001) and other authors (e.g.,Wright and Wright 1957) have noted that these forms intergrade widely throughout the range of the species, and some populations are not diagnosable. Based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA and 14 morphological characters, Wood et al.

(2008) found no evidence for four divisions within C. occipitalis. Rather, they identified two clades, one in the northwest and the other in the southeast portion of the species’ range. The former includes specimens typically referred to C. o. talpina, C. o. occipitalis, and C. o. annulata. The southeastern clade includes C. o. klauberi and most of the range of C. o. annulata. The division between the two clades is roughly along the boundary between the Mojave and Sonoran deserts.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

The Western Shovel-nosed Snake (Chionactis occipitalis) was described

by Edward Hallowell as Rhinostoma occipitale in 1854. The type specimen, which is lost, was collected in 1853 by A. L. Heerman, a surgeon and naturalist, during the Pacific Railroad Expedition in the Mojave Desert of California.

38

Figure 1. Chionactis occipitalis annulata from the Yuma Desert showing strong orange saddles. Photo by Jim Rorabaugh.

Description and Similar Species The Western Shovel-nosed Snake is small (< 432 mm total length (TL), the tail is 16-21% of TL) and strongly banded dorsally on the body and tail (Figs.

1, 2, and 3). The snout is yellow or cream-colored, sometimes mixed with red-orange or orange. Atop the head between and posterior to the eyes is a black crescent, the anterior edge of which is concave. Posterior to the black crescent are 17-40 black to brown bands on the body and 5-13 on the tail on a cream or yellow background. Between these dark bands are often red-orange to brown or black saddles. These saddles do not cross the venter, but at least some of the dark bands do. The color and the degree to which these saddles manifest vary by subspecies. The Mohave Shovel-nosed Snake has little or no evidence of saddles. Saddles are variably expressed in the Colorado Desert Shovel-nosed Snake (Figs. 1 and 2), but usually some orange or red-orange is present between the dark bands, and some specimens are strikingly tricolored.

The Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake has red to orange-red saddles that are nearly always infused with dark markings. In the Nevada Shovel-nosed Snake, the primary bands are brown, and the saddles are orange-red, orange-brown, brown, or black (Stickel 1941, Klauber 1951, Mahrdt et al. 2001, Ernst and Ernst 2003).

The snout is relatively long and the jaw is countersunk (Fig. 4). The rostral scale is broad and pointed posteriorly where it meets the suture between the two internasals, which are broadly in contact with each other. One loreal scale is usually present on each side.

The smooth dorsal scales are arranged in 15 (rarely 14 or 16) rows at mid-body, and the anal plate and subcaudals are divided (Klauber 1951, Ernst and Ernst 2003).

In our region, the Western Shovel-nosed Snake most closely resembles the Sonoran Shovel-nosed

Figure 2. Chionactis occipitalis annulata, Pinta Sands, Yuma County, showing virtually no red or orange in the dorsal pattern.

Photo by Jim Rorabaugh.

The Western Shovel-nosed Snake is small (< 432 mm total length (TL), the tail is 1621% of TL) and strongly banded dorsally on the body and tail. The snout is yellow or cream-colored, sometimes mixed with red-orange or orange.

Figure 3. Chionactis occipitalis klauberi, Maricopa County. Photo

by Tom Brennan.

Snake, the Variable Sandsnake (Chilomeniscus stramineus), banded forms of the Western Groundsnake (Sonora semiannulata), and the Sonoran Coralsnake (Micruroides euryxanthus). The Sonoran Shovel-nosed Snake has a relatively wide black band or hood atop the head that is straight or nearly so anteriorly, rather than concave, it usually has fewer than 21 black dorsal bands on the body, 4-5 black dorsal bands on the tail, and has a relatively blunt snout. The Variable Sandsnake is comparatively stout, the rostral scale separates the internasals,

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

39

and in the banded form that occurs in Arizona, the yellow, orange, or red-orange bands are in contact with the black bands. All bands on the Sonoran Coralsnake encircle the body, the snout is black, and the tail lacks red bands. In banded forms of the Western Groundsnake, the red or orange bands contact the black bands and a dark blotch is present on each scale in the lateral portions of the lighter bands.

Distribution and Habitat Use The Western Shovel-nosed Snake occurs in the deserts of southeastern California, southern Nevada, and western Arizona in the U.S., and northeastern Baja California and northwestern Sonora in Mexico (Ernst and Ernst 2003). Of the four subspecies, Chionactis o. talpina is the northern-most, occurring in Inyo County, California and adjacent portions of Nevada. Chionactis o. occipitalis occurs south of talpina in the Mojave Desert of California, adjacent Nevada, and Arizona north of the Bill Williams River. Chionactis o. annulata occurs in the Sonoran Desert of southeastern California, southwestern Arizona, and south into northeastern Baja California probably to Puertocitos and in northwestern Sonora to the vicinity of Puerto Lobos.

Chionactis o. klauberi occurs in the Sonoran Desert of central Pima, eastern Maricopa, and western Pinal counties (Mahrdt et al. 2001, Grismer 2002, Ernst and Ernst 2003). The range of the subspecies in Arizona and Sonora is illustrated in Fig. 5. Of Wood et al.’s (2008) two clades, only the southeastern clade occurs in Arizona and Sonora.

At Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Rosen and Lowe (1996) found that Chionactis occipitalis was primarily a species of the valley bottoms and lower-most bajadas, whereas C. palarostris was more associated with the middle and upper bajadas. On the Sun Valley Parkway west of Phoenix, and Highway 238 through Mobile to the south of Phoenix, both of which traverse flats and lower bajadas, the Western Shovelnosed Snake accounted for 3.4 and 7.8%, respectively, of all snakes encountered during nighttime road riding (Jones et al. 2011).

The Western Shovel-nosed Snake’s countersunk jaw, valves that close the nostrils to sand entry, and smooth scales lend themselves well to a life in sandy substrates (Mosauer 1935, Klauber 1951). The snake’s concave ventral surface may be an adaptation to facilitate efficient respiration while burrowing (Pough 1969). This species is commonly encountered in valleys with abundant windblown sand. In an area of sandy hummocks in the Coachella Valley, California, Cowles (1941) noted that of 96 reptiles excavated by land grading operations, 41 were Western Shovel-nosed Snakes.

Rorabaugh (2002) observed 36 Western Shovel-nosed Snakes during 50.2 hours of walking surveys in sandy flats of the Yuma Desert, and based on an ad hoc mark and recapture effort suggested densities of this snake may approach that of some common desert lizards.

Figure 4. Chionactis occipitalis annulata, Imperial County, California, illustrating the relatively long snout and countersunk jaw. Photo by Jim Rorabaugh.

Although the Western Shovel-nosed Snake is common on low dunes and vegetated larger dunes, such as the Mohawk Dunes in Yuma County, it is likely scarce or absent in the interior of large, unvegetated dunes, like those found in the Gran Desierto de Altar, Sonora, and the Algodones Dunes in southeastern California.

Although most commonly encountered in valleys, this species also occurs on dissected bajadas, and even penetrates into desert mountains along sandy arroyos where soils may be quite gravelly and coarse (pers. observations). A Western Shovel-nosed Snake was found crawling about on a rocky slope about 10 m above a sandy wash near Morongo Valley, California (Miller and Stebbins 1964). Funk (1967) found them in rocky areas with little sand in the Gila Mountains.

Throughout its range, the Western Shovel-nosed Snake is a desert dweller, occurring from below sea level in portions of California to nearly 1500 m (Mahrdt et al. 2001). In the 100-Mile Circle, it occurs primarily in the Colorado Desert Subdivision of Sonoran desertscrub, but also sparingly into the Arizona Upland Subdivision. Elevational range in the Circle is about 325 m near the Gila River south of Phoenix to 700 m in the Waterman Mountains.

Activity and Behavior

The Western Shovel-nosed Snake occurs in the deserts of southeastern California, southern Nevada, and western Arizona in the U.S., and northeastern Baja California and northwestern Sonora in Mexico.

Throughout its range, the Western Shovel-nosed Snake has been collected every month of the year; however, in the 100-Mile Circle, it has been found from March to early August, but most are encountered during April into early June. October, November, December, and February records exist for Yuma County and I have observed the distinctive tracks of this species (Fig. 6) near Puerto Peñasco and in the Gran Desierto de Altar, Sonora in mid-February. In Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa counties, the greatest number of collections has occurred in May (Rosen 2003). During the winter they have been found dormant in burrows or buried in loose sand at depths of 7.7-60 cm (Cowles 1941, Shaw 1953, Wright and Wright 1957).

The Western Shovel-nosed Snake is primarily a nocturnal snake. Klauber (1951) found they are most

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

40

commonly encountered on roads from 1900 to 2200 h and when temperatures are 21 and 32°C. However, they are occasionally found on the surface in the morning and late afternoon (Klauber 1951, Brattstrom 1952, Warren 1953, Miller and Stebbins 1964). The 36 Western Shovel-nosed Snakes observed by Rorabaugh (2002) were all during daylight hours, from 0635 to 1215 and 1500 to 1930 h. Surface temperatures in the sun ranged from 24-46°C. Cowles and Bogert (1944) listed the minimum and maximum voluntary temperatures for this species as 20 and 31°C, respectively.

These snakes are most commonly found on roads at night, but as mentioned, one can encounter them by walking through their habitat. During walking surveys on the eastern edge of the Algodones Dunes, Imperial County, California, I have observed up to seven of these snakes during a three hour period after sunset.

Twelve were found at night during two hours while walking with a Coleman lantern in the Coachella Valley (Warren 1953). Following their distinctive serpentine tracks (Fig. 5) across loose sand sometimes results in a capture (Warren 1953, pers. observations). They also are readily captured in pitfall traps (pers. observations), and are occasionally found under boards or other surface debris during the day (Cunningham 1966). Funk (1967) found Western Shovel-nosed Snakes in the Gila Mountains by turning rocks.

Through undulatory movements, this species can quickly “swim” into loose sand, almost as easily and rapidly as it moves about on the surface (Klauber 1951). It spends most of the daylight hours underground in rodent or scorpion burrows, under surface debris, or simply buried in loose sand (Klauber 1951, Miller and Stebbins 1964). The end of the tail of buried snakes may be exposed on the surface (Warren 1953, Norris and Kavanau 1966). Surface active snakes can move quite rapidly, and as with other tricolored banded snakes, the banding pattern appears to blur during rapid movement. If confronted by a human or predator, this snake typically flees from the threat at high speed. However, if cornered, it may coil and strike repeatedly, usually with the mouth closed. Warren (1953) found that some Western Shovel-nosed Snakes pursued in the field climbed short distances up into creosote bushes (Larrea tridentata). Captured Western Shovel-nosed Snakes will usually smear their captors with musk and feces (Ernst and Ernst 2003).

During a photo shoot that required repeated repositioning of the snake, Mitchell (1978) observed a captive that rolled into a tight ball with its head hidden amidst its coils.

Klauber (1951) reported that Western Shovel-nosed Snakes were preyed upon by a domestic cat and a Coachwhip (Coluber flagellum). Mahrdt and Banta (1996) found two Western Shovel-nosed Snakes impaled on an ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), apparently by a Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), in the Yuha Desert of Imperial County, California. In 1978, I also ob-

Figure 5. Range of the Western Shovel-nosed Snake in Arizona and Sonora. The darkest shaded area is Chionactis occipitalis occipitalis, the intermediate shading is C. o. annulata, and C. o. klauberi is shown in the lightest shading. Zones of intergradation occur between the subspecies. Adapted from Mahrdt et al.

(2001) and Wood et al. (2008).

served a Western Shovel-nosed Snake impaled, almost certainly by a Loggerhead Shrike, on a desert willow (Chilopsis linearis) in Bow Willow Canyon, eastern San Diego County, California. C. H. Lowe found remnants of a Western Shovel-nosed Snake in a Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) pellet at the Mohawk Dunes (Mahrdt et al. 2001).

The smallest mature male reported was 194 mm SVL (Goldberg 1997). Ernst and Ernst (2003) surmised that most individuals mature at 250-260 mm TL. Mating behavior has been observed in the wild in late May (Klauber 1951). Clutches of usually 2-4 eggs (6 was noted by Funk [1967], and Cowles [1941] noted 6 and 9 ova in two females) are laid primarily from May into July (Mattison 1989, Golberg 1997, Goldberg and Rosen 1999); however, Funk (1967) reported three captive females from the Gila Mountains that laid eggs in late March. Those eggs hatched 94-99 days later.

Hatching probably occurs from June into September.

Hatchlings resemble adults but are 112-124 mm TL (Klauber 1951, Wright and Wright 1957, Funk 1967).

On 10 May, Goode and Schuett (1994) observed combat between two adult, captive males captured the previous month at the Mohawk Dunes. The snakes intertwined and writhed under the sand for less than a minute. In a subsequent encounter, short bouts (less than 30 seconds) of biting and entwining occurred.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

Through undulatory movements, this species can quickly “swim” into loose sand, almost as easily and rapidly as it moves about on the surface.

41

One male was also observed to vibrate its tail when the other approached.

Diet This small snake is almost certainly an active forager, seeking prey on the surface and perhaps below ground, as well. Scorpions, centipedes, an egg from a Common Side-blotched Lizard (Uta stansburiana), spiders, moth or butterfly pupa, beetles and their larvae, various insect parts, and unidentified pupa have been found in the stomachs of Western Shovel-nosed Snakes (Klauber 1951, Rosen et al. 1996, see review in Ernst and Ernst 2003). I observed a Western Shovelnosed Snake eating a small scorpion (probably Paruroctonus or Smeringurus) at night in an area of windblown sand in the Mohawk Dunes. Captives have consumed moths, crickets, grasshoppers, silverfish, earwigs, cockroaches, termites, spiders—including black widows, mealworm larvae and pupa, waxworm larvae, various other insects, scorpions, centipedes, solpugids, a hatchling Common Side-blotched Lizard, and the tail from a hatchling Tiger Whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris; Klauber 1951, Stebbins 1954, Cunningham 1959, Norris and Kavanau 1966, Funk 1967, Glass 1972, Mattison 1989, Rosen et al. 1996). These snakes are adept at capturing and eating scorpions. They are sometimes stung in the process, but do not show any apparent ill effects (Norris and Kavanau 1966, Glass 1972). Western Shovel-nosed Snakes will often hold larger prey down with a loop of the body, although captive snakes did not employ this strategy with scorpions (Glass 1972).

Three moderately enlarged, grooved teeth are present on each side in the rear of the upper jaw (Wright and Wright 1957) that may be used to deliver salivary toxins to prey.

Conservation

the species, habitat loss is relatively small and localized.

The Western Shovel-nosed Snake is listed as a species of least concern on the IUCN’s 2013 Red List. With a valid Arizona hunting license, four may be collected per year or held in possession alive or dead, except that take of these snakes is prohibited without special authorization in protected areas, such as National Wildlife Refuges and National Park Service lands.

On 15 December 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity (2004) petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to list the Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake as endangered with critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. In a Federal Register notice dated 31 March 2010, USFWS found that the Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake (excluding intergrade populations) warranted listing but was precluded by higher priority listing actions (USFWS 2010). Nonetheless, the warranted finding adds the Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake to the list of candidate species and commits USFWS to publishing a rule proposing the subspecies as threatened or endangered, possibly with critical habitat, barring new information that such a rule is unnecessary. The primary basis for the warranted finding is that as of 2001, over one-third of the area within the range of the Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake had been converted to urban or agricultural development, and that anticipated future development and habitat degradation is likely to increase that percentage substantially unless protective measures are taken (USFWS 2010). The last Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake seen in Pima County was in the Avra Valley in 1979 (Rosen 2003). Recent surveys indicate populations persist in areas dominated by creosote flats along State Route 79 between Florence and Highway 60, along the Maricopa Road between Maricopa and Gila Bend, east of the San Tan Mountains, along State Route 349 between Maricopa and Casa Grande, south of Interstate 8 near the northern boundary of the Tohono O’odham Na-

Most of the urban and agricultural development in the desert Southwest occurs in valleys, and as the Western Shovelnosed Snake is primarily a denizen of valleys, it is not surprising that habitat loss has occurred in many areas, particularly in the Coachella, Imperial, and Borrego valleys of California; the Mexicali and Río Colorado valleys in Mexico; the Yuma Valley and Mesa; the Gila River Valley; and in the Phoenix metropolitan area and Interstate 10 Tucson-Phoenix corridor in Arizona. Nonetheless, over the entire range of Figure 6. Serpentine tracks of the Western Shovel-nosed Snake, Pinta Sands, Yuma County.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

Scorpions, centipedes, an egg from a Common Sideblotched Lizard, spiders, moth or butterfly pupa, beetles and their larvae, various insect parts, and unidentified pupa have been found in the stomachs of Western Shovel-nosed Snakes.

42

tion, in the vicinity of the Santa Cruz Flats near Eloy and Picacho, and potentially in the Rainbow Valley and portions of Vekol Wash (Rosen 2003, 2007; Mixen and Lowery 2008; USFWS 2010).

USFWS’s 2010 finding downplays Wood et al.’s (2008) work by saying that the “study’s inference was based on a single genetic marker of mitochondrial DNA and did not include examination of nuclear markers, which would more fully elucidate our understanding of the taxonomic standing of this subspecies.” In the latest version of the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR) list of amphibians and reptiles of North America (Crother 2012), the four subspecies of Chionactis, including the Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake, are still recognized.

However, if the conclusions of Wood et al. (2008) are subsequently accepted, and the Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake is no longer recognized as a valid taxon, USFWS may be hard-pressed to identify a listable entity within Chionactis that meets the definition of a threatened or endangered “species” under sections 3 and 4 of the Endangered Species Act, even though the 2010 finding and the 2004 petition make a strong case that Western Shovel-nosed Snakes in the Tucson to Phoenix area are substantially threatened with habitat loss and degradation.

Literature Cited Brattstrom, B.H. 1952. Diurnal activities of a nocturnal animal. Herpetologica 8:61-63.

Center for Biological Diversity. 2004. Petition to list the Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as an endangered species. Center for Biological Diversity, Portland, OR. Cope, E.D. 1860. Catalogue of the Colubridae in the museum of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, with notes and descriptions of new species. Part 2. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 12:241-266.

Cowles, R.B. 1941. Observations on the winter activities of desert reptiles. Ecology 22:125-140 Cowles, R.B., and C.M. Bogert. 1944. A preliminary study of the thermal requirements of desert reptiles. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 83:265-296.

Cross, J.K. 1979. Multivariate and univariate character geography in Chionactis (Reptilia; Serpentes). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Crother, B.I. (ed.) 2012. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians, turtles, reptiles, and crocodilians, seventh edition.

SSAR Herpetological Circular 39:1-92.

Cunningham, J.D. 1959. Reproduction and food of some California snakes. Herpetologica 15:17-19.

Cunningham, J.D. 1966. Additional observations on the body temperatures of reptiles. Herpetologica 22:184-189.

Ernst, C.H., and E.M. Ernst. 2003. Snakes of the

United States and Canada. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C. Funk, R.S. 1967. A new Colubrid snake of the genus Chionactis from Arizona. The Southwestern Naturalist 12(2):180-188.

Garman, S.W. 1884 (dated 1883). The reptiles and batrachians of North America, Part 1: Ophidia-Serpents. Memoires of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 8(3): 1-185 Glass, J.K. 1972. Feeding behavior of the Western Shovel-nosed Snake, Chionactis occipitalis klauberi, with special reference to scorpions. The Southwestern Naturalist 16:445-447.

Goode, M.J., and G.W. Schuett. 1994. Male combat in the western shovelnose snake (Chionactis occipitalis).

Herpetological Natural History 2:115-117.

Golberg, S.R. 1997. Reproduction in the western shovel-nosed snake, Chionactis occipitalis (Colubridae), from California. Great Basin Naturalist 57:85-87.

Goldberg, S.R., and P.C. Rosen. 1999. Reproduction in the Sonoran shovelnosed snake (Chionactis palarostris) and the western shovelnosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis) (Serpentes: Colubridae). Texas Journal of Science 51:153-158.

Grismer, L. 2002. Amphibians and Reptiles of Baja California Including its Pacific Islands and the Islands in the Sea of Cortes. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hallowell, E. 1854. Description of new reptiles from California. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia 7(1854):91-97.

Jones, T.R., R.D. Babb, F.R. Hensley, C. LiWanPo, and B.K. Sullivan. 2011. Sonoran Desert snake communities at two sites: Concordance and effects of increased road traffic. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6:61-71.

Klauber, L.M. 1937. A new snake of the genus Sonora from Mexico. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 8(27):363-366.

Klauber, L.M. 1951. The shovel-nosed snake, Chionactis with descriptions of two new subspecies. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 11:141-204.

Mahrdt, C.R., and B.H. Banta. 1996. Chionactis occipitalis annulata. Predation and diurnal activity. Herpetological Review 27:81.

Mahrdt, C.R., K.R. Beaman, P.C. Rosen, and P.A. Holm. 2001. Chionactis occipitalis (Hallowell) Western Shovel-nosed Snake. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles 731:1-12.

Mattison, C. 1989. Notes on shovel-nosed snakes and sand snakes, Chionactis and Chilomeniscus. British Herpetological Society Bulletin 28:25-30.

Miller, A.H., and R.C. Stebbins. 1964. The Lives of Desert Animals in Joshua Tree National Monument. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Mitchell, J.C. 1978. Balling behavior in Chionactis occipitalis (Reptilia, Serpentes, Colubridae). Journal of

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

USFWS’s 2010 finding downplays Wood et al.’s (2008) work by saying that the “study’s inference was based on a single genetic marker of mitochondrial DNA and did not include examination of nuclear markers, which would more fully elucidate our understanding of the taxonomic standing of this subspecies.”

43

Herpetology 12:435-436.

Mixen, R., and S. Lowery. 2008. Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake surveys on the Florence Military Reservation. http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/research_TSNS.shtml.

Mosauer, W. 1935. The reptiles of a sand dune area and its surroundings in the Colorado Desert, California: A study in habitat preferences. Ecology 16:13-27.

Norris, K.S., and K.L. Kavanau. 1966. The burrowing of the Western Shovel-nosed Snake, Chionactis occipitalis Hallowell, and the undersand environment.

Copeia 1966:650-664.

Pough, F.H. 1969. The morphology of undersand respiration in reptiles. Herpetologica 25:216-233.

Rorabaugh, J.C. 2002. Diurnal activity and a minimum population density estimate of the Colorado Desert shovel-nosed snake, Chionactis occipitalis annulata.

Sonoran Herpetologist 15(4):42-43.

Rosen, P.C. 2003. Avra Valley snakes: Marana survey report for Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi). Prepared for the Town of Marana, University of Arizona.

Rosen, P.C. 2007. 2007 survey results for the Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi), with evidence for ecological change in south-central Arizona. University of Arizona.

Rosen, P.C., P.A. Holm, and C.H. Lowe. 1996. Ecology and status of shovelnose snakes (Chionactis) and leafnose snakes (Phylloryhnchus) at and near Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Heritage Program, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.

Rosen, P.C., and C.H. Lowe. 1996. Ecology of the amphibians and reptiles at Organ Pipe Cactus National

Monument, Arizona. USDI, National Biological Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Arizona and the National Park Service, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Technical Report No. 53.

Shaw, C.E. 1953. A hibernating Chionactis occipitalis annulata. Herpetologica 9:72 Slevin, J.R. 1913. A handbook of reptiles and amphibians of the Pacific states including certain eastern species. California Academy of Sciences Special Publication, 1-73.

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

Stickel, W.H. 1941. The subspecies of the spade-nosed snake, Sonora occipitalis. Bulletin of the Chicago Academy of Science 6:135-140.

USFWS. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-Month finding on a petition to list the Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as threatened or endangered with critical habitat. Federal Register 75(61):16050-16065.

Warren, J.W. 1953. Notes on the behavior of Chionactis occipitalis. Herpetologica 9:121-124.

Wood, D.A., J.M. Meik, A.T. Holycross, R.N. Fisher, and A.G. Vandergast. 2008. Molecular and phenotypic diversity in Chionactis occipitalis (Western Shovel-nosed Snake), with emphasis on the status of C. o. klauberi (Tucson Shovel-nosed Snake). Conservation Genetics 9:1489-1515.

Wright, A.H., and A.A. Wright. 1957. Handbook of Snakes of the United States and Canada. Volume 1.

Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, NY.

SHORT RESEARCH ARTICLE

Illegal turtle trading in West Bengal, India

Suman Pratihar1*, Bidhan C. Patra2, Nirupam Acharyya3, Jayanta Bishnu Nath4, Manojit Bhattacharya5 1 Fast Track Young Scientist, Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, India, Vidyasagar University; pratihar_vu@rediffmail.com 2 Aquaculture Research Unit, Department of Zoology, Vidyasagar University, Midnapore -721102, West Bengal, India; bcpatra@yahoo.com 3 Department of Remote Sensing & G.I.S., Vidyasagar University, Midnapore -721102, West Bengal, India; rsgis.nirupam@gmail.com 4 Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, India; jbnath2003@yahoo.co.in 5 Department of Life Sciences, Dibrugarh University, Dibrugarh, Assam; mbhattacharya09@gmail.com * cooresponding author The turtle is an incarnation of the God â&#x20AC;&#x153;Vishnuâ&#x20AC;? to the Hindus (Figure 1). Presence of turtles in the est Bengal, with its huge biodiversity, has been household is considered a bad omen in south India one of the targets of wildlife trade in India. Existing whereas it is considered a good omen in north and turtle protection laws are weak, under-regulated, or northeastern India. Use of turtles in India includes more importantly, not well enforced. The illegal trade food, the pet trade, and biological science research. of mostly domestic freshwater turtles has risen to Turtles and tortoises play an important role in their meet international demands, moving through Bihar ecosystems, where they are serve as scavengers. There and Kolkata to Bangladesh and from there to Southhave been several international alerts issued on the east Asia. Training in-country students and local fishdevastating impact of the illegal turtle trade in recent ermen is essential to protect local turtle biodiversity. times.

See the flow chart illustration in the Appendix.

West Bengal, with its huge biodiversity, has been one of the targets of wildlife trade in India. Existing turtle protection laws are weak, underregulated, or more importantly, not well enforced.

W

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

44

Village ponds are good reservoirs for fresh water turtles. Twenty-seven turtle species occur in India.

Each state in the country holds at least one species of turtle with a maximum number of 17 turtle species occuring in the state of West Bengal (77.3%). West Bengal, with its huge biodiversity, has been one of the targets of wildlife trade in India. It is a major hub for turtle and bird trade. Bordering three countries— Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal—it acts as a central transport point for wildlife smuggling from India.

From West Bengal turtles are often smuggled to countries like Thailand and Malaysia through a sea route. Four species of marine turtles—Olive Ridley Sea Turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea), Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas), Hawksbill Sea Turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata), and Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta)— have been reported from the West Bengal coast. Present records indicate that the Olive Ridley Sea Turtle is the most widespread and abundant marine turtle along this coast and is reported to visit Junput sand bar, Digha, Nayachar, Shankarpur, and the sea-facing islands of the Sunderbans. River turtles and their eggs are an important commercial product in many regions throughout the globe. Turtles are collected from Punjab, Jammu, Orissa, and Andhra Pradesh and transport along with fish for trade in different parts of West Bengal. Turtle meat is particularly popular among the people in West Bengal. The findings in Hanfee (1995) show that tribes and castes from riversides are known to exploit turtles for meat and carapaces. The original trade value is very tricky to assume because of the lack of adequate data in West Bengal. The illegal trade of freshwater domestic turtles has escalated to meet international demands, moving through Bihar and Kolkata to Bangladesh, and from there to southeast Asia. Besides their involvement in the pet trade, turtles and tortoises are traded for meat, medicines, and their carapaces.

Turtle meat varies depending on the type of turtle and the part of the turtle being consumed, tasting similar to turkey or fish. Turtle soup is made from the flesh of the turtle. The soup is prevalent in some cultures and is viewed as a luxury (turtle soup is recommended by alternative medicinal practitioners like Sheng-Nong (Shen-Nong.com, an online Chinese Medicine guide) for menopausal symptoms such as night sweats, hot flashes, and irritability). The Green Sea Turtle was commonly used for turtle soup in the United States. Turtle soup was U.S . President William Howard Taft’s favorite food.

A cup of cooked soft shell turtle meat has about 220 calories and 9 gm of fat. In addition to being a good source of protein, soft-shelled turtles are high in calcium, with vitamins A (2%), B1, B2, and B6 and phosphorous and zinc. There are 89 calories in a turtle leg serving of turtle meat (Total fat 0.5 g, cholesterol 50 mg, potassium 230 mg, sodium 68 mg, total carbo-

hydrate 0 mg, protein 20 mg).

Although turtle protection laws exist, they are sometimes weak, under-regulated, or more significantly, not well enforced. As members of CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), many countries have agreed to safeguard wild species from international trade. In spite of laws of shielding sea turtles in most countries, the illegal trade of eggs, meat, and shells of turtles continues to be a threat. In different parts of the world, these animals are collected for their meat and eggs which are used for human consumption. In many countries, the trade in turtle eggs is so large that it provides a significant income to many people. In September 2013 the Border Security Force of India (BSF) seized 952 Indian Star Tortoises (Geochelone elegans; 7 days to 7 years old) packed in burlap bags and worth 31.9 million rupees (Rs) that were being smuggled to Bangladesh from near the Tentulberia Border Outpost in West Bengal. In November 2013 again BSF seized 40 million Rs worth of star tortoises; and the Bidhanagar police arrested three people and seized 70 sacks of turtles and star tortoises. Flapshell Turtles (Lissemys punctata) are also smuggled from Uttar Pradesh to West Bengal and out of India. Women from South and North 24 Parganas are involved in smuggling the turtles bought for 2,000 Rs per kg from Etawah, Oriah, Manpura, Sikurabad, Farukabad and Jaunpur districts of Uttar Pradesh and sold for 10,000 Rs per kg. The first such arrest of seven women was made at Kanpur Central station when on a tip-off the Railway Protection Force found 400 live turtles.

The current rate of totally unsustainable consumption of turtles and tortoises in India could lead to

From West Bengal turtles are often smuggled to countries like Thailand and Malaysia through a sea route. Four species of marine turtles have been reported from the West Bengal coast.

Figure 1. Turtle incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Public domain image. All rights reserved.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

45

rapid extinction of several species. Conservation and protection of turtle from anthropogenic pressure is the toughest task. Training in-country students and supporting personnel is essential to encourage younger generations all over the world to become passionate about biodiversity, mostly their local biodiversity.

Workshops should be organized for students and young researchers. Publication of field guides in local languages for local people and students is needed.

The sign boards displayed by the West Bengal Forest Department prohibiting trade of turtles and turtle

products mention the protection of marine species only. There is a serious need for a critical assessment of the population structure and habitat of the species of freshwater turtles to see whether any species needing protection have been left out.

Literature Cited Hanfee, F. 1995. Notes on freshwater turtle exploitation, Uttar Pradesh, India. Traffic Bulletin 15(3):120-121.

Appendix. Flow chart showing the illegal turtle trade in India.

There is a serious need for a critical assessment of the population structure and habitat of the species of freshwater turtles to see whether any species needing protection have been left out.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

46

I N T E R N AT I O N A L R E S E A R C H

Key paper published on the Diversity and Conservation of Amphibians in South and Southeast Asia Suman Pratihar, Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, India, Vidyasagar University; pratihar_vu@rediffmail.com Howard O. Clark, Jr., Editor, Tucson Herpetological Society; editor.sonoran.herp@gmail.com

A total of 19,232 species were discovered as new to science in the year 2009. The majority these were

plants and insects, but amongst the remaining species, 148 were amphibians (Hance 2012). Despite a global decline in the number of amphibians over the past 25 years, the number of species has skyrocketed. David Wake, a biology professor at the University of California, described the 7,000th amphibian taxon in July of 2012 according to the catalogue maintained by Frost (2013), a project which since 2000 has been striving to document every extant amphibian taxon on earth. The ‘new’ species total of about 3000 means that scientists have defined a previously unknown amphibian every two and a half days since 1987. Nevertheless, about 41 percent of amphibian species are at risk of extinction, according to an assessment by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) in June of 2012. Some of them are already extinct. Over the past few years, 50 new species of amphibians were discovered in Sri Lanka alone (Pethiyagoda and Manamendra-Arachchi 1998). In recent times, Brazil, Peru, India, and China have taken the lead in claiming the most new species. Three new species were being discovered per week, and a total of about 100 new species were described in 2012. Most of the new species, however, have yet to be carefully evaluated. They are poorly known, often only from a single population, and many are from areas with limited habitats that are under intense pressure due to land conversion and other factors. 2013 was a dynamic year for amphibians and Frost (2013) added 146 new taxa, 944 new photos, 30 new call recordings, and 62 new species accounts. The current number of amphibian species is 7,215 as of 22 December 2013 (Frost 2013). Pratihar et al. (2014) discuss the diversity and conservation of amphibians in South and Southeast Asia. They have documented the updated and available information (also included is a checklist with the red list statuses of amphibians in this region) on the diversity of amphibians in South and Southeast Asia and China.

For a PDF the paper please contact the lead author, Suman Pratihar, at pratihar_vu@rediffmail.com.

Front page of the publication: Pratihar et al. 2014. Diversity and Conservation of Amphibians in South and Southeast Asia.

Sauria 36(1):9-59.

Literature Cited Frost, D.R. 2013. Amphibian Species of the World: An Online Reference. Version 6.0. http://research.amnh. org/vz/herpetology/amphibia/ (22 Sep. 2013). American Museum of Natural History.

Hance, J. 2012. Vampire and bird frogs: discovering new amphibians in Southeast Asia’s threatened forests. http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0206hance_rowley_interview.html#Fx8WXK21iJOBJ5UK.99.

Kaiser, H., et al. 2011. The herpetofauna of TimorLeste: a first report. Zookeys 109:19-86.

Pethiyagoda, R., and K. Manamendra-Arachchi. 1998.

Evaluating Sri Lanka’s amphibian diversity. Occasional Papers of the Wildlife Heritage Trust, Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka. Colombo.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

David Wake, a biology professor at the University of California, described the 7,000th amphibian taxon in July of 2012 according to the catalogue maintained by Frost (2013), a project which since 2000 has been striving to document every extant amphibian taxon on earth.

47

I N T E R N AT I O N A L R E S E A R C H ( CO N T I N U E D )

Female Raorchestes johnceei. These frogs are in the subfamily Rhacophorinae and can be found in South and Southeast Asia, from southern India to Nepal, Myanmar, Thailand, and Laos to southern China and Vietnam and West Malaysia. Photo by Sandeep Das.

Male Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis calling. Earlier thought to be restricted to the south of the Palghat Gap in the Western Ghats, additional records have extended its known range further north of the gap. The species is now known to be quite widely distributed in the Western Ghats, ranging from the Camel’s Hump Hill Range in the north, all the way to the northernmost portions of the Agasthyamalai Hill Range in the south. Photo by Sandeep Das. Table 1. Species summary of special status amphibians in south and southeast Asia. The authors followed IUCN (Red list data for Threatened Species 2013.2; Table 8) for total endemic species for each country. The authors also used amphibiaweb.org (Accessed: Dec 22, 2013) for Red list Category and Criteria and total number of species. Some species are yet not evaluated under IUCN Category and Criteria. For India, the authors followed “A checklist of Amphibia of India with IUCN Red list status,” dated April 2013. Kaiser et al.

(2011) documented 8 amphibians in Timor. Nunber of endemic species are shown in first row.

India No. of endemics

Iran

Afghanistan

Sri Lanka

Indonesia

China

Pakistan

Malaysia

Nepal

Bhutan

Timor

Brunei

Singapore

Philippines

Cambodia

Laos

Myanmar

Bangladesh

167

4

1

103

175

169

1

46

3

1

0

0

1

79

3

13

8

0

Extinct

1

—

—

21

—

1

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

0

—

Critically Endangered

17

3

1

35

3

11

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

0

—

Endangered

32

—

—

26

10

49

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

13

—

—

—

—

Vulnerable

24

1

—

10

26

118

—

2

3

1

—

—

—

31

2

—

4

—

Near Threatened

09

2

—

3

—

69

—

9

3

—

—

1

5

—

3

6

—

1

Least Concern

103

13

8

15

—

—

18

—

33

5

—

9

21

27

35

52

57

25

Data Deficient

81

1

1

10

110

—

—

16

3

1

—

1

2

13

5

17

—

3

342

22

11

119

336

417

22

103

60

44

8

75

30

112

75

150

152

50

Total

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

48

CURRENT RESEARCH

Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink: Dehydration in Sea Snakes Summary By Dave Bertelsen, member, Tucson Herpetological Society

C onventional wisdom tells us that creatures living in the ocean derive the water they need from the sea

with the help of organs such as salt glands or through processes such as osmosis. Convention wisdom is often wrong, as shown by several species of sea snakes, including Hydrophis platurus, yellow-belly (pelagic) sea snake, widely distributed in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

Lillywhite et al. (2014) studied 500 Hydrophis platurus individuals captured off the coast of Costa Rica and found they require fresh water, most likely obtained from freshwater lenses forming on the ocean surface during heavy precipitation. Since precipitation usually falls over land, however, the ocean can be a veritable desert in the dry season. As a result Hydrophis dehydrates during such periods and may remain in a dehydrated state for over six months. Total body water content in hydrated snakes was about 80% and in dehydrated individuals, about 74%. (This compares to approximately 68-77% in freshwater snakes.) Snakes captured at the end of the dry season had significantly lower total body water. Those drinking freshwater after capture had a significantly lower body condition index (BCI); the amount of water they drank varied inversely with BCI. The authors suggest the snakes have a dehydration threshold above which fresh water is needed to maintain body condition.

In a recent article for Natural History, Lillywhite (no date) describes his long interest in sea snakes and their need for fresh water. He notes that four of five distinct lineages of sea snakes are known to require fresh water (the fifth lineage is not well-studied), including such species as Marine File Snakes (Acrochordus granulatus), Yellow-lipped Sea Kraits (Laticauda colubrina), and Blue-banded Sea Kraits (L. laticaudata).

Perhaps we need to reconsider, as Lillywhite suggests, the conventional wisdom that sea turtles need only sea water since they can excrete excess salt from their salt glands.

Conventional wisdom tells us that creatures living in the ocean derive the water they need from the sea with the help of organs such as salt glands or through processes such as osmosis. Convention wisdom is often wrong, as shown by several species of sea snakes, including Hydrophis platurus.

Literature Cited and Additional Reading Lillywhite, H.B., C.M. Sheehy III, F. Brischoux, and A. Grech. 2014. Pelagic sea snakes dehydrate at sea.

Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281:2014-0119.

Lillywhite, H.B. (no date). A long drink of water.

Natural History. Published on-line at www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/081302/a-long-drink-of-water For a description of Hydrophis platurus, see http:// reptile-database.reptarium.cz/species?genus=Hydrophis&s pecies=platurus For more about freshwater lenses, click on the “Extended Abstract” link at https://ams.confex.com/ams/ annual2003/techprogram/paper_58439.htm

BOOK REVIEW

Turtles of Mexico: Land and Freshwater Forms, with Notes on the Native Turtles of Sonora Review By Robert Villa, Past President, Tucson Herpetological Society; cascabel1985@gmail.com John Legler and Richard C. Vogt University of California Press Hardcover, xi + 402 pp.

ISBN: 978-0520268609 $125 (publisher)

T he Turtles of Mexico: Land and Freshwater Forms (Legler and Voght 2013) is another herpetological treatise published by the University of California Press, and authored by two of the authorities of Latin American “cheloniology.”

Following the acknowledgements in which a few local Tucson herpetologists and natural historians are listed, the book is split into two major sections each with several subsections (followed by the bibliography and index). Information is cited from the work being reviewed (op. cit.) unless noted otherwise. Use of the

Book cover of The Turtles of Mexico: Land and Freshwater Forms by John M. Legler and Richard C. Vogt.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

49

term “author(s)” is in reference to the authors of the work being reviewed (op. cit.).

The paragraphs preceding the section “Turtles in Sonora,” represent reviews of the respective chapters in the first major (introductory) section of the book, and a general review of the second major section of the book (the descriptions of families, genera, and species). The sections are headed in bold, while the paragraphs open with the titles of their representative chapters in italics.

The section “Turtles in Sonora” reviews the eleven native turtle species occurring in Sonora related to specific points in the book, or those not mentioned.

It follows the taxonomic order of the descriptive accounts.

Turtles: A Paradigm of Variability, Venerability, and Vulnerability

Introduction includes the objective: to be a reference (vade mecum) rather than a cover-to-cover read and intended “for those who will study and learn new things about Mexican turtles and turtles in general.” The authors hope “the book will also foster communication among persons who study turtles as a hobby and those who consider it a profession.”

The general defining feature of the book is the morphologic identification keys intended for whole specimens, and a collection of natural history and distributional information. With regard to recent taxonomic work, taxonomy and nomenclature is conservative. Also included here is: a history of turtle study in México; previous books on turtles including the only other treatment of Mexican turtles by Smith and Smith [1979]; definition, origin, and phylogeny of turtles, although it does not include the recent discovery of Eunotosaurus which pre-dates Proganochelys by 40 to 50 million years as the possible earliest ancestor to chelonians; classification used in the book; biogeography, climate, and topography; and Cenozoic paleogeography (the most recent 65 million years, involving various connections and disconnections between North and South America, which was integral in the formation of the biota of the New World tropics).

Materials and Methods Used for This Book defines the their terminology, acronyms, abbreviations, and description of species geographic ranges/maps.

Structure and Function describes the skeleton, vital organs and systems, senses, locomotion. One learns about the many things that make turtles physiologically unique beyond the well known shell-as-fortified external ribcage. Here are some highlights. Integument covers barbels (pimple-like elements) on the skin of aquatic turtles sensitive to external stimulus like water flow changes potentially indicative of prey, predators, mates, etc; and musk glands that produce predator repellants, and territorial and mating pheromones. Periodic Plastral Kinesis and Large Eggs documents the dilation of the posterior shell and pelvic opening for passage of large eggs, including fibrous connective tissue but-

tressing the plastron that allows for this. In Circulatory System one learns of the cardiopulmonary benefits to turtles via an “imperfectly” four-chambered heart that are not possible in birds and mammals: during a dive when the lungs are not in use, turtles are able to economize the use of oxygenated blood (from their last breath) by partially bypassing the pulmonary circuit. In Respiration one learns of other adaptations that augment aquatic life: by pumping water over highly vascularized regions in the cloaca, gut, and the mouth cavity, turtles can capture the dissolved oxygen in water. Most impressive is The Chelonian Ear and Vocalization. The first author has pioneered new research in this area. Until recently turtles were thought to have “poor” hearing and that only males vocalized during mating. Other sounds were thought to be involuntary via exhalations. It is now known that turtles have a wide repertoire of vocalizations. The authors present anecdotal and documented super- and subsonic communication in North American freshwater turtles, Australasian snake-necked turtles, and South American river turtles. Most compelling is the documentation of sounds made by Podocnemis expansa, seemingly to maintain groups (alerting each other, synchronized nesting/nest emergence). Emerging/surfacing hatchlings increase vocalization during migration to the water from their nest to expectant mothers (also vocalizing).

Mothers and hatchlings are observed surfacing and vocalizing together.

Natural History covers reproduction, eggs, temperature-dependent sex determination, hatchlings, ontogeny, sexual dimorphism, ecology, shell algae and iron deposits, growth rings, and longevity. Most fascinating would be plasticity of growth reflected in growth rings and lack thereof in old specimens; the ability of females to store sperm up to at least 4 years from mating with a male (Terrapene sp.) and produce fertile eggs, and the algae Basicladia which almost exclusively grows on the carapace of turtles and is able to survive long periods of desiccation.

Turtles, Humans, and Research describes the exploitation of turtles in industrialized Mexico, including turtle farms intended to mitigate the harvest of wild turtles; Mexican laws and the general permitting process needed to work with turtles; and the Comparative Quality of Turtle Flesh describing the preparation and taste of freshwater turtle meat in Mexico. A short review or commentary of turtles in the pre-Columbian world with iconography would have been nice since they played some part in the food and culture of the first American peoples and ergo some species were/likely were distributed in this manner (Mills 1970).

Field and Laboratory Techniques is a “how to” on standard measurements, terms, and nomenclature; capture methods (including the aid of dogs); stomach flushing for dietary analysis; egg incubation; dissection; and museum preparation of turtles. Radio-telemetry is not discussed, however the authors must assume the read

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

“For those who will study and learn new things about Mexican turtles and turtles in general.” The authors hope “the book will also foster communication among persons who study turtles as a hobby and those who consider it a profession.”

50

er/researcher can defer to other specific works.

Modern Taxonomic Studies and Techniques lists the attributes of morphological and phylogenetic taxonomies of turtles, and advocates for the use of both techniques using carefully chosen traits to support each method. Ergo the gross taxonomy of turtles used is the authors’ interpretation and at odds with a recent turtle phylogeny (Spinks and Schaffer 2013).

Accounts of Taxonomic Groups

This is the bulk of the book. Minor breaks/inconsistencies in font size and bolding made it difficult to find taxa by paging through the taxonomic sectioning without consulting the pagination at the head of each family/chapter. One of the surprising observations, however is that the monotypic Central American River Turtle, American Mud Turtles and Musk Turtles, and North American Softshell Turtles are placed under the superfamily Trionychoidea (Softshell Turtles).

Taxonomic historical prologues where applicable, etymologies, and common names make reading especially enjoyable. Common names generally follow the ones encountered by the authors’ work, and other authors where applicable. With the exception of the monotypic Dermatemys mawi, species keys are composed by their respective family and found in the introduction to each family/chapter. Species accounts are divided by their respective species groups where applicable, and usually listed alphabetically.

Turtles in Sonora Superfamily Trionychoidea: Family Kinosernidae: Subfamily Kinoserninae (Mud and Musk Turtles)

Some interesting traits occur in this group. A clawlike scale tipping the tail is present and generally pronounced in males, aiding insertion during coitus.

Kinosternids also produce sounds in three ways. The first is perhaps an artifact of the “clasping organs”: patches of rough, keratinized skin on the posterior of the thigh and calf, highly developed in males, that facilitate grasping the female and sometimes results in sound production during mating. These clasping organs are absent in the Kinosternon scorpioides species group. The last two sounds are produced when the turtle is frightened or upset, either by an exhalation (grunt or squeak), or by the grating of the mandible against the maxilla.

While some species are more adapted to permanent water than others, all have the ability to withstand periods of dryness by burying themselves until a suitable body of water is found or replenished (aestivation).

Sonoran Kinosternon are largely diurnal, however many species can be crepuscular with the onset of rain.

Kinosternon flavescens Species Group (Yellow Mud Turtle)

The authors treat K. arizonense, K. flavescens, K. durangoense, K. bauri, and K. subrubrum as a group based on

Iverson (1998; the former two occur in Sonora, the latter two don’t occur in Mexico). Thyrosternon is a generic name previously used by Agassiz (1857), available for the group should someone propose it, further supporting the monophyly of the group. Recently Iverson et al. (2013) further supports it, albeit referred to as the “subrubrum group”.

Of the four Sonoran Kinosternon, the most distinct are K. arizonense and K. flavescens. They have a generally round, broad carapace, lighter dorsal coloration, unmottled face, and yellow or cream colored lateral and ventral region of the face and neck. They are closely allopatric, being separated by the San Pedro where distributions come closest to meeting on the US-México border. K. arizonense is found in much of Sonora, while K. flavescens enters extreme northeastern Sonora in the Sierra San Luis (Minkcley, field notes 2012) from Chihuahuan desert/grassland corridors.

K. flavescens is known to brumate with other species of turtles (Carpenter 1957 in work reviewed). While chiefly restricted to permanent water, terrestrial mating has been observed in K. flavescens (the authors).

K. hirtipes Species Group (Rough-footed Mud Turtle)

Comprised of K. hirtipes, and K. sonoriense, only the latter (including both of its described subspecies) is found in Sonora. The authors postulate K. sonoriense speciated from hirtipes during the formation of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts with which they are respectively associated (the authors), however both may be found in oak woodland which could mean the possibility of K. hirtipes in extreme northeastern Sonora via oak woodland corridors. Their genetic relatedness is supported recently by Iverson et al. (2013). K. sonoriense can be sympatric with the rest of its congeners in Sonora, albeit tenuously with K. alamosae and K. integrum. Its distinguishing features are the weakly formed lateral lines within the mottling of the head, and the presence of clasping organs.

Much research has been conducted on K. sonoriense, and the subspecies K. s. longifemorale is restricted to a small area on the Arizona-Sonora border. While chiefly restricted to permanent water, Stone (2006) notes “terrestrial flight” behavior occurring ~30 minutes after hand capture wherein the turtle crawls up the nearest, steepest slope. The authors cite the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s 2006 rating of “Vulnerable” for K. sonoriense due to the consumption of limited water resources. However, K. sonoriense is now listed in the preceding, less sensitive category “Near Threatened” (van Dijk 2011).

Accounts of taxonomic groups: this is the bulk of the book. Taxonomic historical prologues where applicable, etymologies, and common names make reading especially enjoyable.

K. scorpioides Species Group (Scorpion or Redcheeked Mud Turtle)

This group is found in most of tropical Mexico and comprises K. acutum, K. alamosae, K. chimalhuaca, K. creaseri, K. integrum, and K. oaxacae. K. integrum is found from central Sonora down the Pacific coast of Mexico

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

51

and eastward across the southern Central Mexican Plateau and Valley of Mexico to the Atlantic versant (not reaching the coast). It ranks with K. hirtipes as the largest Kinosternon in Mexico and the most widespread endemic of the genus.

The authors subscribe to previous work inferring the speciation of K. alamosae and K. chimalhuaca into their respective restricted ranges during a northward migration of K. integrum, however Iverson et al.

(2013) finds their relationship within the group, and historic biogeography, unresolved. K. alamosae and K. integrum are found sympatrically in Sonora and are the northernmost members of their group. They are distinguished from Sonoran Kinosternon by the lack of clasping organs (see above), otherwise looking alike.

K. alamosae has a bell-shaped head shield, and a single pair of barbels on the chin. K. integrum has two pairs of chin barbels, as well as two or more on the throat.

A specimen of K. alamosae 200 km north of the main range of the species was likely released by humans. The distribution of K. integrum generally follows thornscrub in Sonora, and is found ca. 116 miles further north than stated (Río Mátape) at 27 km east of Baviácora in a transition zone with oak woodland (Enderson et al. 2007). Not mentioned in the book is the recent documentation of K. integrum as an introduced species to Baja California Sur (Luja et al. 2007).

Both K. alamosae and K. integrum are chiefly found in temporary water, and the authors state K. alamosae has the lowest evaporative water loss of any xeric-adapted Kinosternon.

Superfamily Testudinoidea: Family Emydidae: Genus Terrapene (North American Box Turtles): Terrapene ornata Species Group

In Sonora both of the species in the T. ornata group occur (as subspecies: T. nelsoni klauberi and T. ornata luteola). The two taxa represent what is generally accepted as a western or T. ornata species complex (including extinct T. longifemorale) distinct from the rest of the the genus in eastern North America. The authors present this scenario for the evolution of the T. ornata complex: populations of T. longifemorale or similar taxon expanded and contracted with the grasslands as tropical forests infringed and receded during the Pliocene and Pleistocene. Eventually T. ornata was derived, and further T. nelsoni derived from T. ornata, migrating into the tropics making it sister to T. ornata. While Minx (1996) contends that T. nelsoni sports enough primitive traits to be considered evolutionarily older, Martin et al. (2013; based on two genes) supports the sister status of T. nelsoni. Additionally they do not support of the subspecific status of a luteola subspecies, contradicting Herrmann and Rosen (2009). Specimens of T. ornata extend the southernmost distribution in Sonora stated by the authors from the Nogales-Imuris area to the vicinity of Arizpe and Nacozari (Charles H. Lowe:

UAZ1397-9, and Barry M. Campbell: UMMZ 78467).

While the authors discount the presence of T. nelsoni in Chihuahua, its presence is now verified (LemosEspinal, Smith, and Chizar 2001). A first record from the Río Moctezuma is known (Lavin-Murcio et al. In prep.). Near Soyopa, a person told Buskirk (personal communication) that T. nelsoni is a hybrid between a Heloderma (Gila Monster or Beaded Lizard) and another turtle (Gopherus or Kinosternon). In Jalisco, this turtle is eaten as traditional medicine for asthma, stomach inflammation, suppression of “ética”, a “hunger not leading to obesity.” (Jimenez, pers. comm.).

Genus Trachemys (Sliders)

Inferred on historical biogeography of northwestern Mexican fish, the authors treat the two native sliders of Sonora as subspecies of T. scripta despite a molecular phylogeny that recognizes the Yaqui Slider as a species (T. yaquia), and the Fuerte Slider (T. n. hiltoni) as a subspecies of the Baja California Slider (T. nebulosa) (Seidel 2002). The theories of the origin of slider turtles on the Baja California Peninsula remains conflicted between human-introduced or not (the authors, and Grismer [2002] respectively). However, their monophyly with the Fuerte Slider on the mainland is generally agreed upon. Grismer (2002) recognizes the Baja California Slider as a species (T. nebulosa), citing the accounts of 18th century missionaries who mention freshwater and land turtles, possibly precluding their initial transport from the mainland by humans. However, the authors support pre-missionary transplantation of turtles to the BCP. More genetic work determining the establishment of sliders on the BCP will dictate the appropriate taxonomy/nomenclature of the two populations. Modern transplanting of turtles from to the BCP is now well known and further complicates genetic studies.

Family Geoemydidae: Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima rogerbarbouri (Western Mexican Wood Turtle)

Little is known about this species (much less about this subspecies) in the wild. The northern limit of this species is that of this subspecies in southern Sonora. Rosen (Fig. 1) observed a captive eating earth, presumably for lack of minerals in its diet (Esque and Peters 1994). Peculiar courting and mating behaviors described in the book are taken from observations of wild and captive R. p. incisa (Hidalgo 1982). This included the female biting the male after his vertical head and neck vibrations; and profuse salivation and regurgitation of food by the male apart from vocalizations typical during coitus. In the state of Jalisco, people believe R. p. rogerbarbouri to be venomous and kill them (Jimenez, personal communication).

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

The theories of the origin of slider turtles on the Baja California Peninsula remains conflicted between human-introduced or not (the authors, and Grismer [2002] respectively). However, their monophyly with the Fuerte Slider on the mainland is generally agreed upon.

52

Figure 1. A specimen of Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima observed eating earth. Photo

by Philip C. Rosen.

important modus operandi, we can now thankfully avoid euthanasia with the advent of strict legal protection, photo vouchers, and less destructive techniques now possible because of museum specimens. While no large treatise is perfect, the omission of pertinent historical, taxonomic, and natural history references was surprising (e.g. Gadow 1905; Bour 2007; Lovich et al. 2010; and others [Buskirk, pers. comm.]).

While the publisher’s price may be challenging, online retailers are offering it at lower prices. The electronic version is reduced in price at a well-known online book retailer and further may facilitate its use in the field with the aid of laptop computers/electronic tablets.

Acknowledgements

Family: Testudinidae: Genus Gopherus (Gopher Tortoises): Sonoran Desert Tortoise (Gopherus morafkai)

While not using the new name for Sonoran Desert forms of Desert Tortoise (G. morafkai; Murphy et al.

2011), the authors recognize the unique status of those forms, as well as those in the thornscrub and tropical deciduous forest. This is likely due to the timing of manuscript production and publication. They predict that eventually three to five taxa may ultimately be described within extant Desert Tortoise populations.

Interestingly the jaguar (Panthera onca) is omitted from the varied list of predators (reported by Brown and Lopez Gonzalez 2001). Indeed chelonians comprise part of the jaguar diet throughout its range. Desert Tortoises encountered on the Baja California peninsula were once thought to be a distinct species (Xerobates lepidocephalus; Ottley and Velásquez-Solis 1989) but now considered human introductions. Grismer (2002) suggests a dwindling human-established population of the Desert Tortoise on the southern BCP, and that they may have been relictual in the northern peninsula based on the proximity of extant populations, and 18th century accounts. While the authors discount this taxon’s presence in Chihuahua, its presence is now verified (Smith et al. 2004).

Conclusion

This book includes morphometric and natural history data collected over decades of field studies and correspondence by the authors, much of it previously unpublished (albeit somewhat dated). It presents a collection of photographs that may act as series displaying the variation in Mexican turtles, albeit with some of poor quality, and erroneously acknowledged or omitted photographers (Buskirk, pers. comm.). Somewhat disturbing are the written and photographic references to large series of turtles killed for museum collections. While historically being the scientifically

Philip C. Rosen provided important review of the first drafts of this work. James R. Buskirk provided help writing this review, and specific details regarding the content of the book based on his knowledge from extensive pursuit and study of Mexican turtles, and his involvement of the production of the book reviewed.

Juan Carlos Jimenez, a turtle enthusiast and independent researcher in Jalisco provided ethno-cheloniological notes.

Literature Cited

Bour, R. 2007. The Type Specimens of Rhinoclemmys areolata (Duméril & Bibron, 1851), R. pulcherrima incisa (Bocourt, 1868), and R. punctularia (Daudin, 1801). Emys 14(2):28-34.

Brown, D.E., and C.A. Lopez Gonzalez. 2001. Borderland Jaguars/Tigres de la Frontera. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT. Carpenter, C.C. 1957. Hibernation, Hibernacula, and Associated Behavior of the Three-toed Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina triunguis). Copeia 1957:278-282.

Enderson, E.F., R.L. Bezy, S.F. Hale. 2007. Kinosternon integrum (Mexican Mud Turtle). Geographic Distribution. Herpetological Review 38:217.

Esque, T.C., and E.L. Peters. 1994. Ingestion of Bones, Stones, and Soil by Desert Tortoises. Pages 105-111 in Bury, R.B., and D. J. Germano (Eds.).

Biology of North American Tortoises. Fish and Wildlife Research #13. National Biological Survey, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Gadow, H. 1905. The Distribution of Mexican Amphibians and Reptiles. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 75(3):191-233.

Grismer, L.L. 2002. Amphibians and Reptiles of Baja California Including Its Pacific Islands and the Islands in the Sea of Cortez. University of California Press, Berkely, California.

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

While not using the new name for Sonoran Desert forms of Desert Tortoise (G. morafkai; Murphy et al.

2011), the authors recognize the unique status of those forms, as well as those in the thornscrub and tropical deciduous forest.

53

Herrmann, H.-W., and P.C. Rosen. 2009. Conservation of Aridlands Turtles III: Preliminary Genetic Studies of the Desert Box Turtle and Yaqui Slider. Sonoran Herpetologist 22(4):38-43.

Hidalgo, H. 1982. Courtship and Mating Behavior in Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima incisa (Testudines: Emydidae: Batagurinae). Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Sciences 85:82-95.

Iverson, J.B. 1998. Molecules, Morphology, and Mud Turtle Phlyogenetics (Family Kinosternidae). Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:113-117.

Iverson, J.B., M. Le, and C. Ingram. 2013. Molecular Phylogenetics of the Mud and Musk Turtle Family Kinosternidae. Molecular Phlyogenetics and Evolution 69:929-939.

Lemos-Espinal, J.A., H.M. Smith, and D. Chizar. 2001.

Terrapene nelsoni klauberi (Northern Spotted Box Turtle). Geographic Distribution. Herpetological Review 32:274 Lovich, J., C. Drost, A.J. Monatesti, D. Casper, D. A. Wood, and M. Girard. 2010. Reptilian Prey of the Sonora Mud Turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense) with Comments on Saurophagy and Ophiophagy in North American Turtles. Southwestern Naturalist 55(1):135-138.

Luja, V. H., M. C. Blázquez, and R. Rodríguez-Estrella. 2007. Tortuga Introducida: Reporte de Kinosternon integrum (Leconte, 1854) en Baja California Sur. Boletín de la Sociedad Herpetológica Mexicana 15:40-41.

Martin, B.T., N.P. Bernstein, R.D. Birkhead, J.F. Koukl, S.M. Mussmann, and J.S. Placyk, Jr. 2013. Sequencebased molecular phylogenetics and phylogeography of the American box turtles (Terrapene spp.) with support from DNA barcoding. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 68:119-134.

Mills, L. 1970. House of turtles. International Turtle & Tortoise Society Journal 4(4):20-25.

Minx, P. 1996. Phylogenetic Relationships Among the Box Turtles, Genus Terrapene. Herpetologica

52(4):584-597.

Murphy R.W., K.H. Berry, T. Edwards, A.E. Leviton, A. Lathrop, and J.D. Riedle. 2011. The dazed and confused identity of Agassiz’s Land Tortoise, Gopherus agassizii (Testudines, Testudinidae) with the description of a new species, and its consequences for conservation. ZooKeys 113:39-71.

Ottley, J.R., and V.M. Velásquez-Solis. 1989. An extant, indigenous tortoise population in Baja California Sur, Mexico, with the description of a new species of Xerobates (Testudines: Testudinidae). Great Basin Naturalist 49:496-502.

Seidel, M.E. 2002. Taxonomic Observations on Extant Species and Subspecies of Slider Turtles, Genus Trachemys. Journal of Herpetology 36:285-292.

Smith, H.M., D. Chizar, J.A. Lemos-Espinal, and G. Woolrich-Piña. 2004. Gopherus agassizii (Desert Tortoise). Geographic Distribution. Herpetological Review 35:284.

Smith, H.M. and R.B. Smith. 1979. Synopsis of the Herpetofauna of Mexico. Volume VI. Guide to Mexican Turtles and Bibliographic Addendum III. John Johnson, North Bennington, VT. Spinx, P.Q., and H.B. Schaffer. 2013. Turtles of the World: Global Systematics for and Imperiled Clade.

Page 51 in Walde, A.D., J.D. Riedle, E.M. Walton, and A. Currylow (editors). Program and Abstracts of the Eleventh Annual Symposium on the Conservation and Biology of Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles. Turtle Survival Alliance. August 2013, Saint Louis, MO. Stone, P.A. 2006. Terrestrial Activity in Sonoran Mud Turtles, Kinosternon sonoriense. Abstract, Powdermill Freshwater Turtle Symposium, Portal, Arizona, August 2006. van Dijk, P.P. 2011. Kinosternon sonoriense in: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 03 January 2014.

ANNOUNCEMENT

THS Members Receive Prestigious Conservation Awards

D on Swann was recognized by the Western National Parks Association at the “Sandra Day O’Connor and the National Park Experience” March 15th, 2014 Don Swann Emil W. Haury Award

The Western National Parks Association hosted its second annual dinner and reception on Saturday, March 15th, 2014, at the Hilton El Conquistador Hotel in Oro Valley. This year’s event honored Retired Su-

preme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Dr. Milton Chen, and Tucson Herpetological Society former President, Mr. Don Swann for their conservation work and philanthropic efforts on behalf of America’s national parks. All honorees will be in attendance at the event.

Recipient of the Emil W. Haury Award, Don Swann is currently on staff as a wildlife biologist at Saguaro National Park and has worked unceasingly to support research in the National Park System. Don has also served at Tonto National Monument, Coronado National Memorial, Fort Bowie National Historic

SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST 27 (2) 2014

54

Site, and Chiricahua National Monument. The Haury Award was named for the noted anthropologist and archaeologist who was instrumental in the founding in 1938 of Southwest Monuments Association, which was renamed Western National Parks Association in 2002. This award recognizes outstanding contributions to scientific research in the national parks.

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014, Sky Island honored 6 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Conservation Championsâ&#x20AC;? for their outstanding contributions including THS members James C. Rorabaugh and Don Swann.

Modified from WESTERN NATIONAL PARKS ASSOCIATION Press Release:

Don Swann, Saguaro National Park Agency Leadership Award

http://www.wnpa.org/pressroom/PR/PressReleaseBasic.pdf

More info:

James C. Rorabaugh Mike Seidman Memorial Award

http://skyislandalliance.givezooks.com/events/2014-awardsnight-fundraiser Congratulations Don and Jim!

MEETING MINUTES BOD minutes can be found here: http://bit.ly/1qcYyGg

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.

MEMBERSHIP

Membership Information Individual Family Student

$20 $25 $14

Sustaining Contributing Life

$30 $50 $500

Time to Renew Your THS membership?

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.

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 27 (2) 2014

55

Sonoran Herpetologist (ISSN 2333-8075) is the newsletter-journal of the Tucson Herpetological Society, and is Copyright © 1988-2014. 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, Jr., 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

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.

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 Society’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.

President Roger Repp, repp@noao.edu Vice President Krista Schmidt, turtlerad@hotmail.com Secretary René 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 Robert Villa, cascabel1985@gmail.com Past President Robert Villa, cascabel1985@gmail.com Editor Howard O. Clark, Jr., editor.sonoran.herp@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

LCCN permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/2013273781

Deadline for Sonoran Herpetologist: 15th of Feb, May, Aug, and Nov (based on the quarterly schedule)

Officers

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

tucsonherpsociety.org

SONORAN SONORAN HERPETOLOGIST HERPETOLOGIST 25 (1)272012 (2) 2014

56