swchr bulletin - Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research

SWCHR BULLETIN
Volume 2, Issue 3
Fall 2012
ISSN 2330-6025
Conservation - Preservation - Education - Public Information
Research - Field Studies - Captive Propagation
The SWCHR BULLETIN is published quarterly by the
SOUTHWESTERN CENTER FOR HERPETOLOGICAL RESEARCH
PO Box 624, Seguin TX 78156
www.southwesternherp.com
email: [email protected]
ISSN 2330-6025
OFFICERS 2010-2012
COMMITTEE CHAIRS
PRESIDENT
Tom Lott
COMMITTEE ON COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC
NAMES
Tom Lott
VICE PRESIDENT
Todd Hughes
INTERIM SECRETARY
Sara Lott
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Gerald Keown
BOARD MEMBERS
Toby Brock, Riley Campbell, Hans Koenig
BULLETIN EDITOR
Chris McMartin
ABOUT SWCHR
RANGE MAP COMMITTEE
Tom Lott
AWARDS AND GRANTS COMMITTEE
(vacant)
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITEE
Gerald Keown
ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS COMMITTEE
(vacant)
NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE
Gerald Keown
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Sara Lott
Originally founded by Gerald Keown in 2007, SWCHR is a 501(c)
(3) non-profit association, governed by a board of directors and
dedicated to promoting education of the Association’s members
and the general public relating to the natural history, biology, taxonomy, conservation and preservation needs, field studies, and
captive propagation of the herpetofauna indigenous to the American Southwest.
CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
(vacant)
THE SWCHR LOGO
JOINING SWCHR
There are several versions of the SWCHR logo, all featuring the
Gray-Banded Kingsnake (Lampropeltis alterna), a widely-recognized
reptile native to the Trans-Pecos region of Texas as well as adjacent
Mexico and New Mexico.
For information on becoming a member please visit the membership page of the SWCHR web site at
http://www.southwesternherp.com/join.html.
ON THE COVER: Speckled Kingsnake, Lampropeltis getula holbrooki, Brazoria
County, TX (Matt Hollanders). This photograph was voted the winner of the 2011
SWCHR Award for Excellence in Herpetological Photography.
BACKGROUND IMAGE: Elephant Tusk, Big Bend National Park, TX (Chris
McMartin)
MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE
Toby Brock
©2012 Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research. The SWCHR Bulletin may not be reproduced in whole or in part on any web site or in any other
publication without the prior explicit written consent of the Southwestern Center
for Herpetological Research and of the respective author(s) and photographer(s).
SWCHR Bulletin
1
Fall 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A Message from the President, Tom Lott
2
A Pattern Mutation in Thornscrub Ratsnakes, Pantherophis guttatus (syn. emoryi) meahllmorum
(Serpentes: Colubridae), Toby Brock
3
South Texas Breeding Trials for Arizona Mountain Kingsnakes, Lampropeltis pyromelana pyromelana
(Serpentes: Colubridae), John Lassiter
4
Book Review: Texas Amphibians: A Field Guide, Tom Lott
6
Geographic Distribution Note: Terrapene ornata ornata (Testudines: Emydidae), Tom Lott
8
A CALL FOR PAPERS
Are you a field herpetologist or a herpetoculturist working with species native to the American Southwest? Do you have a paper or an article
you have written for which you would like to find a permanent repository? Want to be assured you will always be able to share it with the
world? Submit it to the SWCHR Bulletin for possible publication. Submitted manuscripts from SWCHR members, as well as non-members,
will be considered.
To be accepted for publication, submissions must deal with herpetological species native to the American Southwest. Such topics as field
notes, county checklists, range extensions, taxonomy, reproduction and breeding, diseases, snake bite and venom research, captive breeding
and maintenance, conservation issues, legal issues, etc. are all acceptable. For assistance with formatting manuscripts, search ‘scientific journal
article format’ on the internet and tailor the resultant guidance to suit.
Previously published articles or papers are acceptable, provided you still hold the copyright to the work and have the right to re-publish it.
If we accept your paper or article for publication, you will still continue to be the copyright holder. If your submission has been previously
published, please provide the name of the publication in which it appeared along with the date of publication. All submissions should be
manually proofed in addition to being spell checked and should be submitted by email as either Microsoft Word or text documents.
Send submissions to [email protected].
SWCHR Bulletin
2
Fall 2012
A Message from the President
Virtually everyone who is involved in herping at any level has at some time likely been constrained by legal regulations emanating from all
levels of governance, from the federal government all the way down to local homeowners’ associations. All too frequently many of these
regulations seem to be ill-informed, unnecessary, prejudiced, and occasionally even downright quixotic. Conspiracy theories aside, there are
actually a number of radical “animal rights” groups (especially PETA and HSUS) that actively lobby local governments even to the extent of
providing them with templates for ordinances that seek to restrict existing privileges enjoyed by pet owners, including herpers.
At last June’s Sanderson Snake Days event there was a palpable sense that prospects for improving the strained relations between herpers
and law enforcement, particularly at the state level, might be at hand. In a continuation of that theme, and in conjunction with the longstanding East Texas Herpetological Society (ETHS) annual Fall Conference and Expo, there will be an inaugural Reptile and Amphibian Law
Symposium and Workshop, sponsored by a partnership among the National Reptile and Amphibian Advisory Council (NRAAC), the Pet
Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), the Association of Reptile and Amphibian Veterinarians (ARAV), and the ETHS. This event will
be held concurrently with and at the same venue as the ETHS Conference (Crowne Plaza Houston Northwest - 12801 Northwest Freeway,
Houston, Texas 77040).
Events associated with the Law Symposium will consist mainly of panel discussions of various topics (listed here: http://nraac.org/index.
html) taking place from 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM each day (Friday, 28 September and Saturday, 29 September). SWCHR’s Executive Director,
Gerald Keown, will be a panelist on the State Laws—Native Species discussion, along with Dr. Andy Gluesenkamp and several others, on
Saturday morning at 8:00 AM. The ETHS Conference will also have a series of speaker presentations occurring simultaneously on Saturday
(list here: http://eths.org/), so attendees of both events will have to pick and choose on that day. Of course the usually excellent ETHS
Expo will take place on Sunday, beginning at 11:00 AM.
Participation in the ETHS event does require a registration and fees (listed on their website above), but for the Herp Law Symposium
registration is free and easily accomplished online (http://nraac.org/register/index.php). When registering, you may also avail yourself of
the opportunity to request more information, volunteer to work at the event, and/or volunteer to serve as a panelist. Hoping to see you there!
Happy herping,
SWCHR Bulletin
3
A Pattern Mutation in Thornscrub Ratsnakes,
Pantherophis guttatus (syn. emoryi) meahllmorum
(Serpentes: Colubridae)
by Toby Brock
A particular pattern mutation which is sometimes seen in the
Thornscrub Rat Snake (Pantherophis guttatus meahllmorum)1 is known
as reverse-striping, which is characterized by a mid-dorsal stripe
of the animal’s ground color cutting through the normal blotched
dorsal pattern. This mutation has been found in wild specimens
at least twice, to my knowledge, in different locales. K. J. Lodrigue
had reverse-striped meahllmorum which originated from Duval
County, Texas, and Todd Hughes found and collected a large
adult male reverse-striped specimen in Robstown, Nueces County,
Texas. Lodrigue states on his website, KJUN Snakehaven, that this
mutation is heritable, but in what way is unknown; and it is not a
simple recessive gene which produces it. The mutation expresses
extremely variably, and all specimens we have seen have had at
least a blotch or two crossing the mid-dorsal stripe; other pattern
aberrancies are often present as well. The ventrum on reversestriped specimens is often devoid, or nearly so, of the normal
pattern of small, dark blotches.
In spring 2009 Todd Hughes, Terry Cox, and I decided to try to
reproduce this mutation in captivity, using Hughes’s wild collected
male; a captive produced reverse-striped female owned by Cox,
which was produced by K. J. Lodrigue; and a normally patterned
wild collected female, from the Bluntzer area of Nueces County,
which was in my collection.
Fall 2012
more reverse-striped, two were quite aberrantly patterned, but not
reverse-striped, and five were more normally patterned. Sexual
ratios for this clutch are: 2.3 normally patterned, 0.2 aberrantly
patterned, and 3.1 reverse-striped.
I plan to raise at least one pair of the reverse-striped offspring and
the aberrant offspring to breed back to each other in the future. We
know very little of this pattern mutation, but we feel we may learn
more in the future, once reverse-striped offspring are bred back to
each other. One theory, held by John Lassiter (pers. comm.), is that
this mutation may be polymorphic in nature and this could be the
reason it expresses to variable degrees.
Also known as the Southwestern Rat Snake (Elaphe emoryi meahllmorum) Dixon and
Werler, 2005; and Elaphe guttata meahllmorum, Werler and Dixon, 2000.
1
References
Dixon, James R. and John E. Werler. 2005. Texas Snakes: A Field
Guide. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, pp. 142-143.
Lodrigue, K.J. and Kasi E. Russell-Lodrigue, DVM, PhD. Reverse
Striped Emory Ratsnake (Elaphe emoryi var. meahllmorum)–South
Texas Line. OTHER CORNSNAKES & RATSNAKES. KJUN
Snakehaven [http://www.kjun.us/index1.htm]. Accessed 14
September 2012.
Werler, John E. and James R. Dixon. 2000. Texas Snakes: Identification,
Distribution, and Natural History. Austin, Texas: University of Texas
Press, pp. 113-116.
All three snakes were housed in a tub rack, and I paired the male
with both females several times each. Both females became heavily
gravid, although the reverse-striped female was not able to pass her
clutch, becoming egg-bound and requiring veterinary treatment to
remove the eggs. None of the eggs were viable at the time they
were removed, and the female suffered extreme damage to one of
her oviducts. The veterinarian who treated her, Tim Tristan, stated
that it would be dangerous for her to become gravid again, so this
ended her breeding career.
The normally patterned long-term captive Nueces County locale
female in my collection laid a clutch of fourteen large, good eggs
on May 25, 2009, all of which hatched in mid-August 2009. She
laid a second clutch of ten good eggs and three infertile eggs on
July 29, 2009. All good eggs went on to hatch out healthy neonates
in late October 2009. None of the offspring were reverse-striped,
but some had minor pattern aberrancies. I kept and raised one pair
of the offspring for future breeding attempts.
In spring 2012 I paired up the 2009 offspring for breeding, and
the 2009 male also with his dam. The older female laid a clutch of
sixteen good eggs on May 31, 2012, and the younger female laid a
clutch of eleven good eggs on June 21, 2012. The older female’s
clutch hatched in mid-August, 2012. None of the offspring of
this clutch were reverse-striped, although several had longer
than usual neck striping. The younger female’s clutch hatched
in early September 2012. Four of these offspring were 50% or
September 2012 Pantherophis guttatus meahllmorum clutch including several reversestriped hatchlings. Photo by Toby Brock.
SWCHR Bulletin
4
South Texas Breeding Trials for Arizona
Mountain Kingsnakes, Lampropeltis pyromelana
pyromelana (Serpentes: Colubridae)
by John Lassiter
After years of successfully breeding numerous colubrids including
the somewhat difficult mexicana complex (L. m. mexicana, L. m.
leonis “thayeri,” L. m. greeri, L. alterna and L. ruthveni) here in hot
and humid South Texas, I thought I should try my hand with other
snakes from higher elevations. So, in 2008 I decided to build an
Arizona mountain kingsnake collection, then move to my favorites,
L. zonata, after I had a few pyromelana clutches under my belt. I
want to prove to myself that these mountain kings can thrive and
reproduce in captivity in South Texas prior to moving onto zonata.
I managed to acquire some great breeding stock prior to the winter
of 2010 for the 2011 breeding season. This article is a discussion
of what I managed to accomplish and learn with my initial breeding
attempts over the past two years.
Fall 2012
thought and still think a double homozygote (hypomelanistic/
hypoerythristic) morph would be a stunning animal. Reduced black
and reduced red should look very interesting on a tricolor in my
opinion. When this pair arrived they were rather small and thin for
their age and for my preference, so I began to get some weight/size
on them for a 2010 winter brumation and 2011 breeding. These
two have always been finicky feeders, especially the female, and it
has been difficult to get them conditioned for successful breeding.
I will refer to these as my multi-heterozygous pair.
“Applegate Special” and Heterozygous Pair
Later in August of 2009 I attended the Daytona Beach, Florida
National Reptile Breeders Expo (NRBE) and found a stunning
adult pair of “Applegate Special” pyromelana. These very reduced
black Patagonia locale pyromelana were first produced by Bob
Applegate. The female is a visual “Special” and the male is a
stunning heterozygote with nice black crossovers. Both of these
are great feeders and were great candidates for a 2010 brumation to
be paired up during the 2011 breeding season.
Future Breeders
Over these past few years I also managed to acquire a few more
pyromelana in hopes of pairing them up with the adult stock I
acquired and their offspring in the future. These include a pair of
“High Black” animals and a heterozygous-for-amelanistic female.
2010/2011 Brumation, Breeding and 2011 Results
Arizona Mountain Kingsnake, Lampropeltis pyromelana pyromelana. Photo by John
Lassiter.
Baubel Line Pair
In early 2008 I purchased my first pair of Arizona mountain
kingsnakes (L. p. pyromelana) for breeding purposes from a breeder/
friend of mine in the Bay Area of California. These kings are
from Chris Baubel’s popular Patagonia line of pyromelana that had
reduced black/high white pattern. The male is stunning reduced
white, while the female has a “classic” look to her. While working
there I raised these two kings rather quickly as they were the only
snakes I was keeping while “on the road.” After their first couple
of months they were taking “crawler” mice every few days. By the
time I got back home to South Texas in late 2009 they were almost
large enough to brumate for a 2010 pairing, but I decided to wait
until 2011 to pair them up.
Possible Double-Heterozygous Pair
In mid 2009 I purchased an interesting pair of pyromelana from
a “pyro guru.” This sexual pair is definitely heterozygous for
Sentz Line Hypomelanism (Reduced black pigment) and possibly
heterozygous for Hypoerythrism (Reduced red pigment). I
To successfully produce captive-bred Arizona mountain kings the
next step was to condition these serpents for future breeding. I
followed a proven “recipe” I developed for all my colubrids,
including my other higher-elevation snakes from West Texas and
south of the border. Many times I hear or read that other Arizona
mountain kingsnake keepers across the nation have pyromelana
that “shut down” for the winter. I have yet to notice any of my
L. p. pyromelana automatically go off feed. I have to force cool
temperatures on them, especially since our South Texas winters are
so mild, and I have to stop feeding them a month prior to brumating
them. I believe it is not possible to ever naturally brumate pyromelana
with the South Texas winter temperatures.
In late October of 2010, as I always have, I offered all of my breeding
colubrids their last meal prior to dropping the ambient temperature.
In mid October I partitioned off my snake room with a Styrofoam
insulation wall and created a “brumation chamber.” This chamber
contained the 24,000 BTU window unit air conditioner. I set the
digital thermostat on the unit to 60o Fahrenheit. This is the lowest
it can be set, but I’ve rigged the digital sensor with a small heat pad
and have adjusted the sensor’s distance from the heat source so
that the unit will over-cool down into the high 40s and low 50s. I
have been doing this for over a decade and have had great success
with my other higher-elevation kingsnakes (mainly Nuevo Leon,
gray-banded, and San Luis Potosi kingsnakes). In mid November I
turned off all supplemental heat and paired up the three pairs in 3
separate enclosures while at room temperatures (72o F). A week later
I placed them in the brumation chamber that was holding around
SWCHR Bulletin
5
55o F. The brumation period started just before Thanksgiving and
they were kept at or around 55o F until mid-February.
In mid February I removed the Styrofoam insulation partition and
let the area where the chamber once stood gradually warm up to
room temperature over a period of a week. After all of my breeder
colubrids acclimated to room temperatures, I turned on their
supplemental heat and provided their normal 85o F hot spot while
keeping the room at or around 72o F. After providing the hot spot
I then started feeding the females at least twice a week, or whenever
they were on the cool side of the enclosure conserving. All of the
males refused to eat normal-sized prey during this time but would,
on rare occasions, take small fuzzy mice. The males seemed to
follow the females where ever they would go in the enclosures.
After the females ate, they would remain under the aspen bedding
on the hot spot for a couple of days, then return to the cool side of
the enclosure. The male would always be with the female as if he
was just waiting for the females to ovulate.
Before the female’s “pre-ovulation shed” two of the females were
receptive to the males’ advances. I witnessed the “Applegate Special”
pair copulate on two occasions prior to the female’s first shed out
of brumation. I also witnessed the possible multi-heterozygous
pair copulate once. I did not see the Baubel line pair copulate at all,
nor even try. After the females all shed, I witnessed them lock with
their mates many times. The Baubel male was not trying to breed
so I paired the Baubel female up with the multi-heterozygous male.
They had successful locks numerous times. I kept that trio (multiheterozygous male, Baubel female and the multi-heterozygous
female) and the “Applegate Special” pair together all the way up
to the females’ “pre-egg-laying” shed. When I saw the females
starting to go into their shed cycle I removed the males, gave each
of the females their own enclosure and provided nest sites for the
noticeably gravid females. Based on many articles I’ve read and
conversations I’ve had with Robert Applegate and Frank Retes, I
offered the “in the blue” females smaller meals throughout their
shed cycle. All took them readily except the multi-heterozygous
female, which rarely ate during her shed cycle.
The Baubel female shed first. With my setup and nesting
provisions, eggs are typically laid less than 10 days after the preegg-laying shed—at day 15 I began to worry. In the meantime the
multi-heterozygous female shed and laid 4 infertile eggs. I palpated
the Baubel female many times and thought I felt eggs, but she
never laid any. She must have reabsorbed her egg follicles because
after a few days I could not feel any follicles or eggs in her. The
Applegate female took the longest to shed, but four days later she
laid a clutch of 5 infertile eggs. In hopes to get a fertile clutch I fed
the females heavily, paired them back up with their previous mates
and witnessed a few more copulations. All this yielded was another
clutch of 4 infertile eggs from the multi-heterozygous female and
nothing from the Baubel female or the Applegate female.
Conclusions for the 2011 Season
I believe the females did their job by producing follicles, then eggs,
but the males must have had unviable sperm. The males were
following the females over to the hot side and they had no prey to
Fall 2012
digest most of the time. I believe that the unnecessary heat killed
the males’ viable sperm. I also think that once the female was
inseminated, they could kill viable sperm while using the hot spot.
The males did not have great caloric intake since they were in with
the females up to the females’ pre-egg-laying shed. This may have
had something to do with infertility as well.
I also think the brumation duration from mid-November to
mid-February may have been too short and/or not cool enough,
especially when comparing the brumation temperatures and
duration I provided to the low temperatures in their natural range
and the duration of those low temperatures. On a side note, most
of my L. m. mexicana and L. m. thayeri laid fertile eggs, but many of
my L. ruthveni did not.
With all of that information, I decided to make a few adjustments
for the next winter’s brumation and the 2012 breeding season. With
my theory that high temperatures killed the male’s viable sperm I
decided to not provide supplemental heat for my breeding pairs.
I also decided to brumate them together again, but I wanted to
drop their temperatures a week or so earlier on the front end of
brumation and keep them cooled for a week or so longer.
Female L. p. pyromelana from Chris Baubel’s Patagonia line. Photo by John Lassiter.
Breeding & Results in 2012
In late February 2012 I warmed up all my colubrids up to room
temperature (72o Fahrenheit) and commenced feeding as I have in
the past. Again, many of the males did not accept prey, including
my L. p. pyromelana males, but they would eat smaller prey items
on occasion. All the females fed on offered prey readily with the
exception of the multi-heterozygous female, who ate intermittently
but kept a good breeding weight and appeared visually healthy. Prior
to the female’s pre-ovulation shed I did not witness any copulation,
but that does not rule out the possibility that it occurred. After the
female’s pre-ovulation shed I noticed my “Applegate Special” pair
“hooked up” but I never witnessed the other two pairs breeding.
Again, this doesn’t mean they did not breed. It seemed like the
males became habituated to the females and were never prompted
SWCHR Bulletin
6
Fall 2012
to copulate. The results for this year were just as dismal as the year
prior. All my Arizona mountain kingsnakes laid infertile eggs, as
did many of my Nuevo Leon and San Luis Potosi kings, since I
made this adjustment globally for my entire breeding collection.
Also, none of my females double-clutched either.
Preparing for 2013
After a second year of reproductive failure I decided to go back
to the “old school” way of breeding colubrids set forth by such
pioneer breeders like Ernie Wagner and others. This is a method
I have used for many years with somewhat good results. All my
adjustments to date were to assist with my L. m. thayeri and L. m.
mexicana reproduction.
Currently, every colubrid in my collection is housed separately. They
will be brumated in this manner as well. The brumation period will
be from mid-November until late February. When spring arrives
and the potential breeders are brought out of brumation I will
provide supplemental heat in hopes that the temperatures will assist
with better egg follicle and egg development.
I have also noticed that the males eat better during the breeding
season when not housed with the females. Caloric intake may
help with viable sperm, but this is only a theory of mine. Housing
and brumating separately, along with supplemental heat, a thermal
gradient, and providing the males an increase in caloric intake
should eliminate all the variables that have hindered my L. p.
pyromelana from successfully reproducing in captivity for me.
Conclusion
Many write about their successful breeding attempts with captive
animals, but I wanted to discuss my failed breeding attempts with
L. p. pyromelana over the past two years. I’d like to believe I have
learned from my mistakes and from the animals themselves. I also
think I have made corrections to my husbandry techniques that will
yield success next year. I hope to write a follow-up article to this
one recording my successes with these incredible colubrids.
“Applegate Spceial” Lampropeltis pyromelana pyromelan.
Photo by John Lassiter.
Book Review: Texas Amphibians: A Field Guide
by Bob L. Tipton, Terry L. Hibbitts, Toby J. Hibbitts,
Troy D. Hibbitts, and Travis J. LaDuc.
Austin: University of Texas Press: Austin, 2012.
Softcover. 325 pp. $24.95.
ISBN 978-0-292-73735-8
Review by Tom Lott
The most basic function of a field guide consists merely of aiding the reader in identifying organisms in question. In general, the
wider the scope of any field guide, the less auxiliary information it
will be able to include in a format intended to actually be carried
into the field; a field guide restricted to only the amphibians of a
single, albeit very large, state, however, should be able to provide
more supplementary information than one encompassing all of the
herps of the United States. The current volume does not disappoint in that respect.
This book is a collaboration between three “amateur” (in the sense
that Lawrence Klauber was an amateur!) and two professional herpetologists, all of whom have vast experience with Texas herps.
The lead author, Bob Tipton, sadly passed away in 2010 due to
cancer, but he doubtless would have been pleased that the collective authors’ efforts have finally reached fruition. It is the seventh
volume in the University of Texas Press’ Texas Natural History
Guides and the third dealing with herpetological subjects (Dixon
and Werler’s 2005 Texas Snakes: A Field Guide and the late Andy
Price’s 2009 Venomous Snakes of Texas: A Field Guide are the others). One can hope that these are followed by similar works on the
turtles and lizards.
SWCHR Bulletin
7
In its physical dimensions, Texas Amphibians measures 7.5” X 4.8”
(19 cm X 12.2 cm), the same as other works in the series, keeping
with the notion that the book might occasionally actually be used in
the field. Its covers are composed of a flexible, plastic-feeling material that appears to be quite durable, and its pages are actually sewn
onto a cloth spine rather than being merely held in place by glue.
The previous work to which this new book will most likely be compared is the out-of-print Gulf Publishing Company’s A Field Guide
to Texas Reptiles and Amphibians, by the indefatigable R.D. and Patricia P. Bartlett (1999). That work covered 73 taxa of amphibians
(including subspecies) to a similar level of textual detail, beyond
mere identification (and also included turtles and lizards). The current work covers 72 species of amphibians (thanks mainly to the
description of several new species of neotenic salamanders); subspecies, where they exist, are listed in the species account, but are
not described, illustrated, nor shown in the range maps.
The most basic function of the field guide—identification—is first
addressed by the inclusion of dichotomous keys that are somewhat
modified versions (updated and with improved illustrations) of
those included in James R. Dixon’s (2000) work, and will generally
take the user to the species level of classification for most specimens (Dixon’s original keys included diagnosis to the subspecies
level). At least nine of the endemic Edwards Plateau neotenic salamanders, however, are diagnosed in the keys by referring to their
geographic origin, rather than to anatomical distinctions, a problem
encountered more frequently in modern field guides due to the increasing tendency of taxonomists to describe new “cryptic” species
based solely on genetic differences impossible to determine in the
field (doubtless even experts on the taxonomy of this group would
be hard-pressed to visually identify some species in the absence of
locality data). Also included is a brief key to the genera of most
Texas amphibians that include a free-living larval stage in their development.
In most cases, however, I suspect the casual user of a field guide
wishes to arrive at an identification primarily by consulting the illustrations. In this respect, Texas Amphibians is quite accommodating,
at least in those situations where this is possible. There are typically
two or three photographs in each of the species accounts, depicting variation in coloration, ontology, and geographic origin of the
specimen (which is provided, by county, for each photo). The photographs are of consistently very high quality (presumably mostly
taken by the authors; there are no photo credits in the book save
for a list of people who provided “additional photos” in the Acknowledgments) and are reproduced in a format that is gratifyingly
larger than one finds in many such guides. There is also a very brief,
but well-done, section in the introduction regarding techniques for
photographing amphibians.
Each species account includes the following topics: size, description, voice (for anurans), similar species, distribution, natural history, reproduction, and comments and conservation. This last section
is where the conservation status of each species is discussed, along
with the authors’ comments on the species within the state. If the
taxon is not on the state Threatened & Endangered (T&E) list, its
standing on either the “white” or “black” Texas Parks and Wildlife
Fall 2012
Department lists is given. Where major environmental threats are
recognized for a particular species, they are mentioned in this section.
Taxonomic arrangements and common names used by the authors
generally follow those endorsed by the combined national herp societies (Crother 2008) with three notable exceptions, which are explained in the introduction: 1) the genus Syrrhophus is conservatively retained for the chirping frogs (rather than lumping them with
Eleutherodactylus) on the contention that they represent a distinct
group more closely related to each other than to other members of
the newly erected family Eleutherodactylidae; 2) citing reservations
about the mitochondrial DNA data used in several recent studies
that variously split up the Western Chorus Frog (Pseudacris triseriata)
complex, Pseudacris feriarum is retained as a more conservative option for the Texas populations of the complex rather than accepting the newly described Cajun Chorus Frog (Pseudacris fouquettei); 3)
considering the taxonomic status of the sirens of the Lower Rio
Grande Valley to be currently unresolved, the authors chose to list
them as merely Siren sp. Also, the recent splitting of several large,
cosmopolitan genera such as Rana and Bufo are accommodated by
placing the older, more familiar name within brackets (e.g., Anaxyrus [Bufo] speciosus for the Texas Toad).
The range maps are of the shaded area type and are rendered more
detailed by their plotting over a county outline base map. In general, the maps tend to be somewhat less conservative than those in
the snake field guide (Dixon and Werler 2005), but are lacking the
surface detail of those in that work. The map for the Rio Grande
Chirping Frog, for example, plots three northwesterly populations
(two of which have not yet been published in the literature) as being isolated from the remainder of this invasive frog’s distribution,
which is depicted as contiguous. The distribution maps in this volume are, however, perhaps the most accurate ones currently available in their size and format, and comprise a vast improvement
over those provided in Bartlett and Bartlett (1999).
Somewhat surprisingly, the general topic of anuran acoustics is
given only a single paragraph in the introduction, although each
species account contains a brief attempt to verbally describe the
species’ call. As with birds and birding, attention to the calls of
frogs and toads adds an entirely new dimension to the experience,
and also allows for the documentation of species that might not
be easily observed and/or those that are in inaccessible areas. Additionally, some museums and databases now accept unequivocal
recordings of anuran calls as vouchers for a species’ presence in a
given locality. Many citizen-science amphibian monitoring projects
will also require at least a passing familiarity with local amphibian
calls before granting full participation in the effort.
Separate indices are provided for common and scientific names
only, but most other general topics must be located within the contents section for the 40-page introduction. There is a six-page glossary at the end of the book and a brief bibliography is provided.
Appendix A lists six hypothetical species (two salamanders and four
frogs) that may potentially be found in Texas. Some may have once
occurred within the state but are now considered extirpated (e.g.,
Lithobates [Rana] pipiens), others are found nearby in adjacent states
SWCHR Bulletin
8
(e.g., Hyla avivoca), some are invasives (e.g., Eleutherodactylus planirostris and Osteopilus septentrionalis) that are easily introduced into semitropical areas via the potted plant trade (the former now appears to
be established in Galveston County).
Appendix B consists of resources recommended to the reader who
desires further information about the amphibians of Texas. Regrettably, SWCHR is not listed among the several herp societies
(some of which appear to be defunct or moribund), nor is it among
the (only) three “helpful” websites recommended. Also remarkably, I could find no mention in the book of the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department’s own citizen-science effort relating specifically to amphibians, Texas Amphibian Watch
[http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/
texas_nature_trackers/amphibian_watch/].
Regardless of these minor criticisms, Texas Amphibians: A Field
Guide is a long-awaited and very welcome addition to the growing
herpetological literature of Texas. Its treatment of the endemic
Edwards Plateau spring salamanders alone is likely the best currently available in a popular resource. I am sure I will be consulting
this volume frequently and, consequently, it occupies a highly accessible space on my bookshelf. Perhaps the only recommendation I
would make would be for the reader who is seriously interested in
amphibians would be to supplement this guide with either TPWD’s
own CD of frog calls (see the Texas Amphibian Watch link above),
proceeds from which benefit the Non-Game Division, or obtain
Elliott et al.’s The Frogs and Toads of North America (2009) picture
book of the anuran species north of the Mexican border, which
contains an excellent CD of virtually all US frog and toad calls (the
CD by itself is worth the purchase price).
Literature Cited
Bartlett, R.D. and Patricia P. Bartlett. 1999. A Field Guide to Texas
Reptiles and Amphibians. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company. xviii
+ 331 pp.
Crother, B. I. (ed.). 2008. Scientific and Standard English Names of
Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, pp. 1–84.
SSAR Herpetological Circular 37.
Elliott, L., Gerhardt, C., and C. Davidson. 2009. The Frogs and Toads
of North America. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 343 pp.
+ CD.
Dixon, J.R. 2000. Amphibians and reptiles of Texas. (2nd edition). College Station: Texas A&M Press, 421 pp.
Dixon, J.R. and J.E. Werler. 2005. Texas Snakes: A Field Guide.
Austin: University of Texas Press. xviii + 364 pp.
Price, A.H. 2009. Venomous Snakes of Texas: A Field Guide. Austin:
University of Texas Press. xii + 116 pp.
Fall 2012
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
TERRAPENE ORNATA ORNATA (Ornate Box Turtle). Texas:
Kleberg County: FM 771, 2.54 Km E US Hwy 77 (N 27.295578, W
97.790362; elev. 8.8 m). 10 November 2006. Tom Lott and Sara
Lott. NAFHA photo voucher 55906. New county record (Dixon
2000. Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas, 2nd Ed. Texas A&M Press.
College Station. 421 pp.). Specimen was found crossing road in
a sandy agricultural field/Tamualipan thornscrub habitat. - Tom
Lott, SWCHR, P.O. Box 624, Seguin, TX 78156 (e-mail: tom.lott@
swchr.org)
SWCHR CODE OF ETHICS
As a member of the Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research, I subscribe to
the Association’s Code of Ethics.
Field activities should limit the impact on natural habitats, replacing all cover objects,
not tearing apart rocks or logs and refraining from the use of gasoline or other toxic
materials.
Catch and release coupled with photography and the limited take of non-protected
species for personal study or breeding use is permitted. The commercial take and sale
of wild-caught animals is not acceptable.
Collecting practices should respect landowner rights, including but not limited to
securing permission for land entry and the packing out of all personal trash.
Captive-breeding efforts are recognized as a valid means of potentially reducing
collection pressures on wild populations and are encouraged.
The release of captive animals including captive-bred animals into the wild is
discouraged except under the supervision of trained professionals and in accordance
with an accepted species preservation or restocking plan.
The disclosure of exact locality information on public internet forums is discouraged
in most circumstances. Locality information posted on public internet forums usually
should be restricted to providing the name of the county where the animal was found.
When specific locality data is provided ot one in confidence, it should be kept in
confidence and should not be abused or shared with others without explicit permission.
Other members of the Association are always to be treated cordially and in a respectful
manner.
SWCHR
PO BOX 624
SEGUIN TX 78156