SWCHR BULLETIN Volume 6, Issue 4 Winter 2016

SWCHR BULLETIN Volume 6, Issue 4 Winter 2016

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 3600 FM 1488 Rd Ste 120-115, Conroe TX 77384 www.southwesternherp.com email: [email protected] ISSN 2330-6025

OFFICERS 2015-2016 COMMITTEE CHAIRS

PRESIDENT AWARDS AND GRANTS COMMITTEE Tim Cole Gerald Keown

VICE PRESIDENT COMMUNICATIONS COMMITEE Gerry Salmon Gerald Keown

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS COMMITTEE Gerald Keown [Vacant]

BOARD MEMBERS AT LARGE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE Toby Brock D. Craig McIntyre Gerald Keown Benjamin Stupavsky Robert Twombley Bill White MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE [Vacant] BULLETIN EDITOR Chris McMartin CONSERVATION COMMITTEE ASSOCIATE EDITOR Robert Twombley Tom Lott

ABOUT SWCHR 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.

THE SWCHR LOGO JOINING SWCHR There are several versions of the SWCHR logo, all featuring the For information on becoming a member please visit the Gray-Banded Kingsnake (Lampropeltis alterna), a widely-recognized membership page of the SWCHR web site at reptile native to the Trans-Pecos region of Texas as well as http://www.southwesternherp.com/join.html. adjacent Mexico and New Mexico.

ON THE COVER: Balcones Barking Frog (Craugastor augusti latrans), Val Verde County, Texas (Kyle Elmore). With this photograph, Kyle won the SWCHR 2015 ©2016 Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research. The SWCHR Award for Excellence in Herpetological Photography. 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 BACKGROUND IMAGE: Gates’ Pass, Tucson Mountains, AZ (Bill White) for Herpetological Research and of the respective author(s) and photographer(s).

SWCHR Bulletin 63 Winter 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A Message from the President, Tim Cole 64

Synopsis of SWCHR Region Notes from 2016 Herpetological Review Issues, Robert Twombley 65

A Brown Anole (Anolis sagrei) County Record: the Story behind the Story (Lacertilia: Polychrotidae), Chris McMartin 67

Synopsis of Snakebite Cases in the Houston, Texas Area in 2016, Dr. Spencer Greene 74

Herping Regulations for States in the Southwestern Region, Part 2: California, Jim Bass 77

Book Review: Peterson Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, Fourth Edition by Robert Powell, Roger Conant, and Joseph T. Collins, Review by Tom Lott 82

A CALL FOR PAPERS

Are you a field herpetologist or a herpetoculturist (amateur or professional in either of those capacities) 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. There are no page charges to have your articles appear in the SWCHR Bulletin, as some other publications now require.

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, contact us at the email address below.

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 64 Winter 2016

A Message from the President

Greetings! As 2016 closes out, I’m sure we are all thinking about what reptile-and-amphibian-related adventures lie ahead in the coming year. Looking back on the past twelve months, I hope you all have fond memories of being in the field and/or working with your animals.

This issue of the SWCHR Bulletin features some familiar authors as well as new ones gracing our pages. We start off with Robert Twombley’s second annual recap of distribution records, natural history notes, and papers presented in this year’s issues of the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles’ Herpetological Review which pertain to our six-state region of interest. Next, Bulletin editor Chris McMartin tells the “rest of the story” behind his own county-record submission to Herp Review. Reading Chris’s account and then referring back to Robert’s listings, it looks like our citizen-scientists in Nevada need to roll up their sleeves and start collecting more data! Being in the field, you never know what interesting and heretofore unreported species occurrences and behavior may be discovered.

Dr. Spencer Greene then provides a synopsis of venomous snakebite in 2016 from southeastern Texas—bites seem to happen more often than you’d think, but fatalities nationwide are low, and thankfully nonexistent in Dr. Greene’s account. Continuing our state-by-state review of herp-related regulations for the SWCHR region of interest, Jim Bass provides our second installment addressing California. We round out this issue with another excellent book review by Tom Lott, this time examining the latest edition of the popular Peterson Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America.

SWCHR is always looking for people willing to author an article or two (or more!) for the Bulletin. Don’t worry if you think you lack the ability—your observations are important to share with our worldwide audience, and we can help polish up any rough edges in your submission. For details on the type of material we seek, see “A Call for Papers” on the Table of Contents page.

The end of this year also marks the end of my term as President. I would like to thank the members and fellow board members for making it an enjoyable one, and I wish the incoming slate of officers well. Though I won’t have a leadership role I plan on remaining active in the organization as well as with all my other herp-related events and activities. I look forward to seeing you all at a show, festival, or in the field next year!

SWCHR Bulletin 65 Winter 2016

Synopsis of SWCHR Region Notes from Saruomalus ater, Common Chuckwalla, Mono County (county record). (2) 2016 Herpetological Review Issues Xantusia vigilis, Desert Night Lizard, Mono County (county record). (3) Compiled by Robert Twombley Rena humilis humilis, Southwestern Threadsnake, Mono County (county record and northernmost localities for the species). (2) SWCHR publishes these abbreviated accounts of Geographical Rhinocheilus lecontei, Long-nosed Snake, Mono County (county Distribution, Natural History Notes, and Peer Reviewed record). (2) Publications, so our readers may be aware of these items pertaining to the herpetofauna of the American Southwest (Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and NEVADA Utah). Accounts are listed by state, then by class/order/suborder as follows: salamanders and newts, frogs (No distribution records published). and toads, turtles, lizards, and snakes.

Only natural history notes observed in the SWCHR region of NEW MEXICO interest are included, though other observations may have been recorded from elsewhere in a given species’ range. Furthermore, Pseudemys gorzugi, Rio Grande Cooter, Chaves County (county this synopsis should not be considered authoritative—for the record). (4) full, original accounts, please see the four 2016 issues of Lampropeltis alterna, Gray-banded Kingsnake, Otero County Herpetological Review, published by the Society for the Study of (county record). (3) Amphibians and Reptiles (2016 was Volume 47 of Herpetological Review; issue number is appended to each listing below). TEXAS

Geographic Distribution Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope’s Gray Treefrog, Medina County (county record). (1) ARIZONA Hyla squirella, Squirrel Tree Frog, Willacy County (county record). (3) Crotalus tigris, Tiger Rattlesnake, Pinal County (first record from Leptodactylus fragilis, Mexican White-lipped Frog, Zapata County San Tan Mountains). (2) (county record). (3) Micruroides euryxanthus, Sonoran Coralsnake, Yuma County Rhinella marina, Cane Toad, Willacy County (county record). (1) (county record). (4) Apalone spinifera, Spiny Softshell, Zavala County (county record). Phyllorynchus browni, Saddled Leaf-nosed Snake), Gila County (2) (county record). (2) Pseudemys nelsoni, Florida Red-bellied Cooter, Harris County Thamnophis eques, Mexican Gartersnake, Mohave County (first (county record; introduced). (2) records from the Big Sandy River and upper Bill Williams River Trachemys scripta elegans, Red-eared Slider, Aransas County (county drainage). (1) record). (2) Anolis carolinensis, Green Anole, Bell County (county record). (1) Anolis sagrei, Brown Anole, Lavaca County (county record; CALIFORNIA introduced). (4) Anolis sagrei, Brown Anole, Montgomery County (county record; Aspidoscelis flagellicauda/sonorae complex, Spotted Whiptail, Orange introduced). (4) County (county and state record). (2) Hemidactylus turcicus, Mediterranean Gecko, Bastrop County Coleonyx variegatus variegatus, Desert Banded Gecko, Inyo County (county record). (1) (northernmost Inyo County record west of the White Hemidactylus turcicus, Mediterranean Gecko, Eastland County Mountains). (2) (county record). (3) Coleonyx variegatus variegatus, Desert Banded Gecko, Mono County Hemidactylus turcicus, Mediterranean Gecko, Hill County (county (county record and northernmost localities for the species and record). (4) genus). (2) Hemidactylus turcicus, Mediterranean House Gecko, Jim Hogg Podarcis sicula, Italian Wall Lizard, San Diego County (county County (county record). (3) record; introduced). (3)

SWCHR Bulletin 66 Winter 2016

Hemidactylus turcicus, Mediterranean Gecko, Zavala County Gopherus agassizii, Mojave Desert Tortoise, nest depredation by (county record). (4) an unknown predator. (3) Ophisaurus attenuatus, Slender Glass Lizard, Willacy County Gopherus agassizii, Mojave Desert Tortoise, probable rattlesnake (county record). (3) envonomation. (4) Plestiodon tetragrammus, Four-lined Skink, Jim Hogg County Gopherus agassizii, Mojave Desert Tortoise, and Coluber flagellum (county record). (3) piceus, Red Racer, burrow associates. (1) Sceloporus grammicus, Graphic Spiny Lizard, Jim Hogg County Crotaphytus bicinctores, Great Basin Collared Lizard, maximum (county record). (3) elevation. (2) Cemophora coccinea, Scarletsnake, Willacy County (county record). Phrynosoma mcallii, Flat-tailed Horned Lizard, ultraviolet (UVB) (3) exposure measurement. (4) Ficimia streckeri, Tamaulipan Hook-nosed Snake, Jim Hogg Crotalus oreganus helleri, Southern Pacific Rattlesnake, loss of rattle County (county record). (3) style and matrix. (4) Lampropeltis calligaster, Yellow-bellied Kingsnake, Lee County Lampropeltis californiae, California Kingsnake, predation on the (county record). (3) eggs of the Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura). (4) Micrurus tener, Texas Coralsnake, Jim Hogg County (county record). (3) Pantherophis obsoletus, Western Ratsnake, Dimmit County (county NEVADA record). (2) Rena dulcis, Plains Threadsnake, Midland County (county record). (No natural history notes published). (2) Rena dulcis, Texas Threadsnake, Willacy County (county record). (3) NEW MEXICO Tantilla nigriceps, Plains Black-headed Snake, Willacy County (county record). (3) Anaxyrus microscaphus, Arizona Toad, predation on a whiptail (Aspidoscelis sp.) and a conspecific. (1) Anaxyrus microscaphus, Arizona Toad, first known record of this UTAH species as a host, as well as a new distribution record, for the chigger Hannemania bufonis. (1) (No distribution records published). Aspidoscelis exsanguis, Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail, individual diet consisting of unusually high proportion of beetle (Coleoptera) and moth (Lepidoptera) larvae. (3) Natural History Notes Aspidoscelis exsanguis, Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail, maximum body size. (2) ARIZONA Aspidoscelis gularis, Texas Spotted Whiptail/Common Spotted Whiptail, scavenging of the ant Atta mexicana. (4) Gopherus morafkai, Sonoran Desert Tortoise, drinking behavior Aspidoscelis neomexicana, New Mexico Whiptail, aquatic using nares as well as mouth. (1) behavior. (2) Phrynosoma mcallii, Flat-tailed Horned Lizard, necrophilia in which Crotalis lepidus klauberi, Banded Rock Rattlesnake, predation on male attempted mating with a roadkill female. (1) Mogollon Vole (Microtus mogollonensis) and subsequent mortality Crotalus atrox, Western Diamondback Rattlesnake, and due to prey size. (3) Lampropeltis californiae, California Kingsnake, direct competition Rena dissectus, New Mexico Threadsnake, predation by over a nest of Desert Cottontails (Sylvilagus auduboni). (1) Woodhouse’s Toad, Anaxyrus woodhousii. (4) Crotalus atrox, Western Diamond-backed Rattlesnake, reproduction/courtship tracks. (3) Diadophis punctatus, Ring-necked Snake, predation on lizard eggs. TEXAS (1) Eurycea sosorum, Barton Springs Salamander, predation on, and by, the invasive Red Swamp Crayfish (Procambrus clarkia). (2) CALIFORNIA Eurycea waterlooensis, Austin Blind Salamander, predation by a Green Sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus). (2) Gopherus agassizii, Mojave Desert Tortoise, with Black-throated Malaclemys terrapin littoralis, Texas Diamond-backed Terrapin, Sparrow, Amphispiza bilineata, as a burrow associate. (1) basking behavior atop Spartina alterniflora grass. (2)

SWCHR Bulletin 67 Winter 2016

Trachemys scripta elegans, Red-eared Slider, Jefea brevifolia seed A Brown Anole (Anolis sagrei) County Record: dispersal in plastral algae. (3) Trachemys scripta elegans, Red-eared Slide, use of feral hog (Sus the Story behind the Story (Lacertilia: scrofa) carcasses as a basking location. (3) Polychrotidae) Anolis carolinensis, Green Anole, predation on Horned Assassin Bug (Repipta taurus) and use of Yellow Trumpet carnivorous by Chris McMartin plant (Sarracenia alata) as a perch site. (4) Aspidoscelis inornata, Trans-Pecos Striped Whiptail, predation It all began with a chance encounter during a leisurely bicycle (impalement) by Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). (1) ride. I moved to The Woodlands, Montgomery County, Texas Holbrookia maculata, Lesser Earless Lizard, predation (impalement at the end of May 2015 to begin a new career. I began biking the on fence) by Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). (1) streets in the local area, partly for exercise, partly to assist in Sceloporus olivaceus, Texas Spiny Lizard, predation by the centipede orienting myself in my new hometown. The Woodlands is a Scolopendra heros. (3) master-planned community of approximately 110,000 residents, Bogertophis subocularis, Trans-Pecos Ratsnake, predation on the founded in 1974 and designed with plenty of green space, so the Yuma Myotis bat (Myotis yumanensis) through foraging by various neighborhoods and surrounding environs provide dangling its body through a drain hole in a bridge to the bats’ habitat for a variety of small reptile and amphibian species. roosting area. (3) Hypsiglena jani, Texas Nightsnake, reproduction/timing of mating. (3) Salvadora grahamiae, Mountain Patch-nosed Snake, winter foraging behavior. (3)

UTAH

Sceloporus uniformis, Yellow-backed Spiny Lizard, bifurcated tail. (4)

Peer Reviewed Publications

Weber, David J., Gordon W. Schuett, and Melanie Tluczek. 2016. “A Citizen Science Survey of the Herpetofauna of Scottsdale’s McDowell Sonoran Preserve, Arizona, USA .” Herpetological Review 47(1), 5-10.

Blomsten, Patrick, Gordon W. Schuett, Mats Hoggren, and Randall S. Reiserer. “Fifteen Consecutive Years of Successful Reproduction in a Captive Female Sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes).” Herpetological Review 47(1), 69-72.

Marlow, Karla R., Kevin D. Wiseman, Clara A. Wheeler, Joseph On the rock in the lower right corner of the photograph, a male Brown Anole (Anolis sagrei), an introduced and invasive species, can be seen posing somewhat E. Drennan, and Ronald E. Jackman. 2016. “Identification of ironically under a homeowner’s banner. All individuals in photographs Individual Foothill Yellow-Legged Frogs (Rana boylii) using Chin accompanying this article are from Montgomery County, Texas. Photo by the Pattern Photographs: a Non-Invasive and Effective Method for author. Small Population Studies.” Herpetological Review 47(2), 193-198.

Parker, William S., and William S. Brown. 2016. “The Utah I had enjoyed seeing numerous Green Anoles (Anolis carolinensis) Snake Dens 75 Years Later: A Historical Review.” Herpetological both in my own yard and during my bike rides, but on a bike Review 47(3), 365-373. ride 02 July 2015 in a neighborhood 2.8 air miles south- southwest of my own, I noticed a slightly different-looking lizard. I observed it for a minute, and after seeing a telltale

SWCHR Bulletin 68 Winter 2016 yellow-bordered orange throat fan (dewlap) displayed, confirmed otherwise preoccupied, I went searching in earnest for brown it was a male Brown Anole (Anolis sagrei). The Brown Anole is a anoles. My efforts were rewarded with over 150 observations species native to Caribbean islands which has been inadvertently (over 140 documented photographically) by the time I submitted introduced to various locales in the southeastern United States. my distribution note to the Society for the Study of Amphibians Though several sources primarily blame the pet trade, others and Reptiles’ (SSAR) quarterly Herpetological Review. I have a assert their spread in the U.S. is primarily (and more likely, in my current total of 225 records from the county as of this writing, opinion) a result of the exotic plant trade (as I discuss below). with my last observation of the year occurring 26 November 2016. Having seen “browns” (as I’ll often refer to them throughout this article) in other locations in the past, and knowing they had been documented in the Houston area, I didn’t think too much Natural History of this sighting. I did take a poor-quality photograph with my cell phone—the only camera I had available at the time—and The brown anole is a small lizard, roughly the same size as the submitted the sighting to the Herpetological Education and native green anole—approximately 3 inches snout-vent length, 8 Research Project online database (naherp.com). A few months inches total length. In contrast to the green anole, though it may later, on 06 November 2015, I had a chance encounter with change its coloration to various shades of brown or gray, it is another brown, this time on a sidewalk in a wooded area closer never green. Also, while the green’s tail is more or less circular to my home—approximately 1.5 air miles southwest. in cross-section, the brown’s tail is noticeably dorsolaterally compressed. The species is sexually dimorphic, with males Over the winter, on a lark I checked my reference books. To my having a more robust head (and when basking, they hold it at an surprise, I discovered no documentation of this species in angle relative to their neck suggestive of the Velociraptor in the Montgomery County. I also checked the VertNet biodiversity movie Jurassic Park) as well as an extensible throat fan (dewlap), portal (vertnet.org) and the Texas Parks and Wildlife and females having a proportionately smaller head, only a Department’s “Herps of Texas” project on iNaturalist vestigial throat fan, and a pale vertebral stripe. While green (inaturalist.org/projects/herps-of-texas) and also found no anoles’ throat fans are pink with a thin white border, browns (at records from the county. I then decided to get better least in southeast Texas) have bright orange to red-orange throat photographs, and ideally a specimen in hand as a voucher, to fans with a substantial yellow border. I have not noticed male properly submit a county-record distribution note to the Society greens with the same “Velociraptor” posture exhibited by male for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles’ quarterly Herpetological browns. Review. But to accomplish that goal, I’d have to wait for two things: warmer weather and time to devote to the task.

Once I had both prerequisites (favorable weather and sufficient time), I started biking the local area where I saw the first brown anole. However, I initially came up empty-handed. After returning from Snake Days 2016 in Sanderson, Texas, I started looking in additional neighborhoods, including the one nearest my November 2015 sighting. I was ultimately successful, photographing several specimens on 09 June. For a time, I was content with merely having photographed a few brown anoles for the sake of documenting their existence in my new home county.

However, curiosity as to the anoles’ overall distribution in the area got the best of me. In addition to biking to look for brown Male brown anole holding its head in typical “Velociraptor” fashion (see text). Photo by the author. anoles, I was also interested in biking through every neighborhood in The Woodlands, as a fun way to get exercise as well as to continue familiarizing myself with the area. Since I Typically, browns occupy lower perching sites than greens, had now found browns in an additional neighborhood, I decided preferring more open terrain than the greens with elevated to bring my camera along every time I went biking, just in case I positions from which to display for mates and look for food. found additional specimens. This soon grew into an obsession, For example, I have watched numerous browns in Florida using and every day over the summer when I wasn’t out of town or a simple curb at the edge of a street as a perch, periodically

SWCHR Bulletin 69 Winter 2016 dashing into the roadway to capture insect prey (and, inches (obviously, there is significant natural variation between subsequently, getting hit by cars at a high rate). individual rocks). The rocks are often stacked to form a landscape border a foot high. Most homes in The Woodlands feature a front yard with half or less consisting of Saint Augustine Grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), The local homeowners’ collective landscaping effort results in a and the other half (or more) consisting of a landscaped area fantastic perching and foraging site for brown anoles. The rock featuring Loblolly Pine Trees (Pinus taeda) and/or a combination borders afford the anoles a fairly open spot at the species’ of native and exotic trees, shrubs, and flowers. The preferred height for basking, displaying for mates, and watching combination of favorable climate for growing and the monetary for prey, while the exotic plants and crevices between the rocks resources to purchase them (The Woodlands has a offer quick retreat from the midday sun and potential predators proportionately higher per-capita income than many surrounding (or overly inquisitive humans). areas) contributes to a high proportion of exotic flora in most front yards. Consequently, there are numerous nurseries in the city catering to this demand through the importation of a wide variety of plants, many coming from facilities in southern Florida where the brown anole has long been established. Anecdotal accounts mention a high number of observations in the vicinity of these nurseries. I have yet to confirm this personally, but it does lend credence to the assertion that browns were introduced largely through the exotic plant trade, as substantiated by Dixon (2013), Mahrdt et al (2014), Hibbitts and Hibbitts (2015), and Glorioso (2016).

A male brown anole hunting in the Saint Augustine-grass lawn of a local residence. The grass impedes their locomotion sufficiently to give a would-be captor a good chance, but without homeowner permission it’s just trespassing! Photo by the author.

Brown anoles are native to Cuba, the Bahamas, and other islands in the Caribbean Sea. However, they are quite adept at rapidly colonizing new areas where they are introduced (often inadvertently). Powell (2016) reports their presence in the United States in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Hawai’i, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. Mahrdt A front-yard landscaping layout common to neighborhoods in The Woodlands, et al (2014) documented apparently established populations in Montgomery County, Texas. The curb lining the street is visible in the extreme California (Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties) as well. lower left corner of the photo for a sense of scale/setback from the road. Brown anoles can easily be observed on the “moss rocks” by bicycling down the I’ve personally seen them in Florida, Hawai’i, Texas, and most street. See text for details. Photo by the author. recently on the island of Roatan in Honduras, where they have also become established.

Perhaps even more important than homeowners’ choice of In Texas, Dixon (2013) lists this species’ occurrence in 11 plants is that their landscaped areas are almost invariably ringed counties: Cameron and Hidalgo in the lower Rio Grande Valley; by a low border of natural rock. The rock of choice is known Bexar and Guadalupe in the San Antonio area; Kleberg and locally as “moss rock” and is sold at several area landscaping Nueces in the Corpus Christi area; Brazos in the College Station stores. It appears to be a sandstone covered in various species Area; and Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, and Harris in the of lichen and is sourced from well outside the local area, often Houston area. The Hibbitts brothers (2015) do not list Kleberg out of state (the rock in my own yard came from Oklahoma). County, but indicate records from four additional counties: The preferred size for the rocks is approximately one foot long Aransas near Corpus Christi; and Angelina, Nacogdoches, and and perhaps half as wide, with a height of approximately six Polk in eastern Texas. The nearest documented parish (county)

SWCHR Bulletin 70 Winter 2016 in Louisiana is Calcasieu (Lake Charles area), sharing Texas’ (as well as native herpetofauna) stand out visually against the southeastern border, as reported by Glorioso (2016). Though rock landscaping borders. Because of this and the uniformity Dixon reports the species “. . . has not been found in parts of between most yards encountered, I was able to use a search Texas other than the sites of its initial introduction,” I highly pattern of simply biking at 10mph or less down each street and suspect in the coming years county records will show brown scanning along the rocks in each yard, stopping to photograph anoles established in the counties ‘connecting the dots’ between anoles encountered and log their coordinates. The browns make Houston and College Station, as well as along the coast between an excellent subject for this sort of census as if they are present, Houston and Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi and the lower Rio they are generally very conspicuous in this setting. Grande Valley, and Houston/eastern Texas and Louisiana. As much as practical, I made an effort to limit my daily observation periods to the 9 to 10 a.m. (Central Daylight Time) window to maintain consistency in my observations. I figured it may be harder to consistently find the anoles in the midday heat and direct sunlight. I also wanted to personally avoid midday ultraviolet radiation. Of course, comfort was a significant consideration, as it’s typically very humid in this part of Texas, and the rapidly-escalating heat index on summer days makes for unpleasant bike riding!

After observing browns in the same general neighborhood a few times, I decided to target my expanded search with help from local residents. I posted in several area Facebook groups and sent an infographic to a community website, explaining the difference between green anoles and browns, and a request to contact me if any were seen in a particular yard or neighborhood. I received a few leads, which I explored with limited success, but it did help me focus my efforts to certain areas within The Woodlands. Some of the sightings turned out to be Green Anoles, but a couple did produce browns. Map of Texas showing counties in red where brown anoles have been documented, after Dixon (2013) and Hibbitts and Hibbitts (2015). Montgomery County, the newest county record, is highlighted in turquoise. Illustration by the author.

Methodology

My primary means of searching for brown anoles consisted of riding my bicycle through neighborhoods within reasonable distance of my home, while scanning the yards of the homes for the lizards. This form of “road cruising” had several benefits. Riding is better than walking because the lizards don’t seem to “spook” as easily by an approaching vehicle—even one with only two wheels and an exposed human—as they do by a person on foot. More ground can be covered on bike than on foot. Bicycling is better than driving or riding in a car because visibility is greatly increased. An added benefit is the ability to stop more Hatchling brown anole observed 02 August 2016. Photo by the author. readily without arousing suspicion from residents. Of course, bicycling is also much more environmentally friendly, especially Once I’d tried the “serendipitous find” and the “local input” given the lower speed, shorter distance covered, and numerous approaches to get a feel for habitat usage and develop my “sight stops and starts. picture” for observations, I switched to a more methodical approach—I simply surveyed a different set of neighborhoods The nature of the majority of residents’ yards as previously each day. Again, this served the dual purposes of documenting described also lent itself to this style of observation. The anoles brown anoles in additional localities as well as traveling

SWCHR Bulletin 71 Winter 2016 additional streets in The Woodlands for the sake of my bicycling goals. As of this writing, I have not yet surveyed several neighborhoods in the city—I ran out of time this year. It gives me something to look forward to next summer (and perhaps the summer after that). Some neighborhoods had apparently much higher densities of browns than others. In those cases, I did not document every single observation, but tried to gather a representative set of observations from houses at the “corners” of each neighborhood to indicate they were conspicuous throughout said neighborhood.

In addition to photographic records, I wanted to capture a voucher specimen. This proved quite challenging, as the browns are typically more wary than the greens, not allowing as close an approach. Furthermore, they seem much quicker. I attempted noosing several specimens on public property without success— partly due to not being able to approach closely enough, and partly due to problems keeping the noose’s loop properly aligned in windy conditions the day of my attempt. Most of my Distribution note as it appeared in the December 2016 issue of Herpetological sightings were on private property, meaning more difficulty in Review. being granted access to attempt capture (most of the time the homeowners were at work during my survey windows). From 09 June to 17 December, I spent approximately 44 hours My luck changed on 02 August, as I was exploring a over 37 days searching for brown anoles. Preparation of the neighborhood where I noted several large and slightly more observation data for upload to naherp.com took an additional approachable individuals. One of the homeowners came out to estimated 15 hours. I used weather data from Conroe-North ask what I was doing, so I struck up a conversation. He took an Houston Regional Airport (approximately 13 air miles to the interest in my quest and let me into one of his absent neighbors’ northeast) to log temperature, relative humidity, sky conditions, back yards to search for additional lizards. I learned the three moon phase, and barometric pressure for each observation. houses at the end of their cul-de-sac had turned their front yards into a community “lizard-friendly” habitat, complete with stacked-rock “homes” for the various species, including a Broad- Results headed Skink (Plestiodon laticeps) that, based on later communication with one of the homeowners, was observed In my 37 days of searching this year, and including the two (but, unfortunately, not photographed) dashing from its perch to individuals observed in 2015, I documented 163 adults (74 catch and eat a brown anole! I received permission to attempt to females, 75 males, and 14 undetermined), and 52 juveniles, capture an anole as a voucher specimen and was able to including four I estimated to be young-of-year (including one complete the mission with a large male, who now resides within very recent hatchling on 02 August). I did not record estimated the University of Texas’ Biodiversity Collections—Integrative age for the remaining ten observations. Biology (formerly called the Texas Natural History Collections). Of individuals I classified by age, I documented 17 adults in I had much less time to devote to the cause after mid-August, at June, 76 adults (including a 2015 observation) and 20 juveniles in which time I submitted my draft Distribution Note to SSAR. July, 50 adults and 18 juveniles/young-of-year in August, two However, time off during Thanksgiving week coupled with adults and one juvenile in September, one adult and two temperatures slightly above normal prompted me to venture into juveniles in October, and 18 adults (including a 2015 two additional neighborhoods, just to see if anything was observation) and ten juveniles in November. The first individual moving. I was rewarded with a few additional observations. I classified as “juvenile” was observed on 06 July and the last Although December was similarly warmer than normal, I was was 26 November. Note that this raw data is not necessarily unable to locate any active individuals at a known location on indicative of seasonal population demographic variation in itself, the 17th of the month when I had a morning free to check on as the days I had available for surveying neighborhoods varied. them. A perhaps more useful portrayal can be found below, in which I

SWCHR Bulletin 72 Winter 2016 have calculated proportions of each age/gender category per day surveyed during the first and last halves of each month. Besides merely observing and photographing the browns to confirm presence, I was able to witness a few interesting natural history events. On 22 August, I photographed a mating pair. On 25 November, I watched as two males engaged in displays and physical combat against each other in Saint Augustine Grass, over a female approximately two feet away under the shade of ornamental shrubbery. These observations suggested an extended breeding period in this area, despite historical mean temperatures of 66 degrees Fahrenheit in November, 57 degrees F in December, and 49 degrees F in January. This stands in contrast to what has been documented in other states where they have been introduced—in Florida, with warmer mean temperatures in the winter months, Meshaka et al (2004) Number of individuals seen per survey day. “1/2” and “2/2” denote first and reported peak reproductive activity from April to June. second halves of each month. “Unknown” indicates unknown gender; these individuals could have been juveniles or subadults with dimorphic characters insufficiently pronounced to determine gender. The spike in these “unknowns” Other natural history observations included a female in the the second half of October may represent juveniles hatched out earlier in the process of ecdysis apparently eating piece of her shed skin, season. Illustration by the author. consistent with the habits of many lizard species including anoles. Observed perching heights overall were consistent with other published accounts. Most individuals were seen at heights Temperatures in which individuals were observed ranged from of two feet or less, and the highest perch noted was a male 69 degrees Fahrenheit (in November) to 98 degrees Fahrenheit approximately ten feet up a tree. When observed together on an in August. The median (and mode) temperature at which elevated perch (e.g. light pole, tree trunk), females perched lower individuals were observed was 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Note: the than males, as reported in Meshaka et al (2004). One individual low November temperatures were encountered during was observed perching on a manmade rock wall less than two opportune surveys in the afternoon on the day in question. feet from the water’s edge of a local lake. Relative humidity ranged from 41 to 94 percent, with a median of 70 percent and mode of 67 percent. Barometric pressure Previous research by Stuart et al (2014) indicates where browns varied from 764 to 770 mm Hg, with a median of 764 and mode are found with native greens, competition between the two of 762. Skies were clear or held only few clouds for 103 of the species results in a shift for the greens toward more acutely observations, partly cloudy or cloudy for 114, and overcast for arboreal habits, so much so that within 20 generations the greens only eight observations. This makes sense intuitively for a exhibit proportionately larger toepads to facilitate these greater diurnal, sun-loving species. arboreal tendencies. Anecdotally, in the Houston area some residents report seeing fewer greens once browns are noted. It is unclear whether the greens have been driven out or merely driven higher into the trees and therefore are less frequently observed. However, this phenomenon has not yet apparently taken hold in The Woodlands. Eight of my brown anole observations were in proximity to green anole observations, ranging from two houses down to as close as three feet apart.

Another intriguing discovery was the apparent wide variation in local densities. For example, there was a presence of brown anoles in abundance in one neighborhood, yet none observed in an adjacent neighborhood, with only a wooden fence separating the two. I would not consider the fence to be a significant barrier to dispersal, and will need to explore this area further in the spring. Within neighborhoods, one residence would have numerous individuals in evidence, yet the adjacent yards would Two male brown anoles in combat 25 November 2016 over a female out of not. I suspect lawn pesticide use by some households may have frame to the upper right. Note the raised nuchal and dorsal crests. Photo by the author. a role in this discrepancy. One on occasion I witnessed a local

SWCHR Bulletin 73 Winter 2016 pest control service spraying a lawn with, according to the able to document their spreading distribution in the coming technician, “two kinds of fertilizer and an insecticide for chinch years. bugs” (Hemiptera; e.g. Blissus leucopterus). While he was spraying, I observed several anoles (apparently green anoles) running In addition to simple documentation of presence, I may have the ahead of the spray pattern to escape the toxins. chance to explore some as-yet anecdotal observations and questions in the coming years. For example, at least two sources reporting seeing unusual individuals suggesting the browns may be hybridizing with the native greens. I have also heard of browns predating on greens. At the least, the browns likely outcompete the greens, due to their faster speed, on two levels—they can capture available insects more quickly, and they can outrun predators (my family has witnessed a housecat removing a green anole from our yard; a home with both greens and browns and nearby cats may experience a shift in the relative populations over time). On the other hand, the homeowner anecdote about the broad-headed skink eating a brown anole is intriguing and warrants further study (and photographic confirmation). I would be interesting to compare neighborhoods with confirmed populations of the skinks with brown anole densities.

A juvenile brown anole (lower right, with detail) perched approximately three feet from an adult female green anole (upper left, with detail). Browns and greens were found on or near ground level in close proximity to each other on Conclusion several occasions. Photo by the author.

I hope this has shed some light on the “story behind the story” on the process of submitting my county record. Of course, it Future Plans would not necessarily take this level of effort to document a

species’ occurrence in a given county, but I wanted to ensure it The coordinates I submitted with my Distribution Note were for was clear this introduced and invasive species is well established the farthest-north occurrence I documented. However, since in my new home county. Again, this all started with a chance submission, a coworker provided a photograph of one on his encounter—had I not taken the time to research further, I would home exterior, pushing the northernmost known location in the have assumed someone else had already documented the brown county 2.8 air miles further northeast. There are likely many anole’s presence here. more locales to discover. I have received unconfirmed “leads” on possible localities in Cleveland (28 air miles northeast, in as- Anyone reading Herpetological Review’s Distribution Notes each yet-undocumented San Jacinto County) and Huntsville (34 air quarter should be (pleasantly) surprised there are still quite a few miles north, in as-yet-undocumented Walker County) which, opportunities to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of various upon receipt of more specific addresses, I hope to check in the species’ distributions, even those we all assume to be common spring or summer. The confirmation of San Jacinto County and well-known. I encourage everyone to get out in the field would link the greater Houston area with the three counties in and document, document, document! eastern Texas, suggesting a more successful colonization than localized around plant nurseries or specific neighborhoods.

Similarly, I plan to submit an article about this project to a local References lifestyle magazine in the hopes of getting more residents to provide information on new neighborhoods to explore, or ones Dixon, James R. 2013. Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas, with Keys, to revisit if I missed observations there. Brown anoles haven’t Taxonomic Synopses, Bibliography, and Distribution Maps. College yet made it to my own neighborhood (as previously mentioned, Station: Texas A&M University Press. the closest I’ve found them is approximately 1.5 air miles to the southwest), but it is likely only a matter of time. With routine, Glorioso, Brad. 2016. Amphibians and Reptiles of Louisiana, systematic bicycle canvassing of nearby neighborhoods, I may be http://www.louisianaherps.com/brown-anole-anolis-sagrei.html

SWCHR Bulletin 74 Winter 2016

Hibbitts, Troy D. and Toby Hibbitts. 2015. Texas Lizards: A Field Guide. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Mahrdt, Clark R., Edward L. Ervin, and Gary Nafis. 2014. “Geographic Distribution: Anolis sagrei.” Herpetological Review 45(4).

McMartin, David C. 2016. “Geographic Distribution: Anolis sagrei.” Herpetological Review 47(4).

Meshaka, Walter E. Jr., Brian P. Butterfield, and J. Brian Hague. 2004. Exotic Amphibians and Reptiles of Florida. Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.

Powell, Robert, Roger Conant, and Joseph T. Collins. 2016. Peterson Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, 4th ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

Stuart, Y.E., T.S. Campbell, P.A. Hohenlohe, R.G. Reynolds, L.J. Counties of origin for snakebite cases discussed. Illustration by Chris McMartin. Revell, and J.B. Losos. 2014. “Rapid Evolution of a Native Species Following Invasion by a Congener.” Science 346(6208), pp. 463-466. As the only board-certified medical toxicologist in Houston, herein I report on bites which occurred throughout the Houston metropolitan area. Slightly more than half of the bites were sustained in towns north of Houston, including Spring, Magnolia, Tomball, The Woodlands, and Conroe. Approximately 30% occurred to the west, in towns such as Sugarland, Katy, Belleville, East Bernard, and Sealy. The remainder originated in the south and east, from towns as far away as Beaumont, Angleton, El Campo, Bay City, and Lake Jackson.

Bites affected children and adults of all ages. Patient ages ranged from 12 months to 69 years old, with a median age of 7 years. Synopsis of Snakebite Cases in the Houston, Among children, 36 boys sustained, compared with 15 girls. In Texas Area in 2016 the adult population, males sustaining bites outnumbered females 9:2. by Spencer Greene, MD, MS, FACEP, FACMT Director of Medical Toxicology More often than not, the interaction with the snake was Assistant Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics unintentional. Exceptions include two incidents of teenaged Section of Emergency Medicine boys choosing to pet venomous snakes, a 28-year-old male who Baylor College of Medicine was envenomated while feeding a captive pet snake, and an inebriated 43-year-old male who chose to play with a native Snakes were active in 2016, and their pervasiveness led to a high Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) he found along the side of the incidence of human-snake encounters, some of which resulted in road. A 69-year-old male sustained multiple bites when he snakebites to humans. The medical toxicology consultation attempted to remove a Texas Coral Snake (Micrurus tener) he service at Baylor College of Medicine had treated 62 snake bites found in his home in the vicinity of his preschool-aged in 2016 as of December 10, up from 33 in 2015. granddaughter.

SWCHR Bulletin 75 Winter 2016

Bites were limited to the fingers, toes, hands, feet, ankles, and calves. More than 70% of bites were to the foot or ankle, often in patients who were barefoot or wearing sandals.

Most patients were symptomatic after their bites. Eight had apparent dry bites, or were bitten by non-venomous species. These patients were followed in the emergency department and/or by telephone to ensure that signs and symptoms did not develop later. Of the obvious envenomations, all but one were due to crotalids. Clinical findings were largely confined to local tissue damage, though this ranged from uncomplicated swelling to severe tissue damage. Nearly 30% of patients did have laboratory evidence of hematotoxicity (blood poisoning),

“Canebrake” (Timber) Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) bite to the calf in a 28-year- including coagulopathy (impaired clotting; defined as a old male. Photo by the author. prothrombin time > 15 sec), hypofibrinogenemia (fibrinogen level < 220 mg/dL) and/or thrombocytopenia (low platelet count < 150,000/µL). Because so many of the victims were children, definitive identification of the snake was not always possible. In 32 of the Systemic toxicity was observed in 16 (26%) patients, and ranged 62 bites, the species was unknown. Of the 30 bites in which the from vomiting to clinically significant hypotension (low blood species was confirmed, Copperheads (Agkistrodon contortrix) pressure). accounted for 20 (67%). Cottonmouths, also known as Water Moccasins (Agkistrodon piscivorus) were responsible for five bites The coral snake bite presented with significant pain and (17%). There were two bites from Western Diamondback paresthesias (abnormal sensations such as tingling, prickling, or Rattlesnakes (Crotalus atrox) and one bite from a “Canebrake” numbness), but did not progress to any objective weakness or (Timber) Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus). One patient experienced other neurological deficits. Mild erythema (redness) and swelling a Texas Coral Snake (Micrurus tener) envenomation, and one were noted locally, and laboratory results were unremarkable. envenomation was due to a captive White-lipped Green Tree Viper (Cryptelytrops albolabris).

Bites occurred throughout most of the year. The first bite was on 12 March 2016, and the most recent envenomation was treated on 30 November. July was the busiest month for snakebites (see chart below).

Snakebites 2016 10 8 6 4 2 0 Unknown pit viper bite to 7-year-old boy, 12 hours post- envenomation. Photo by the author.

A majority of patients with native crotalid envenomations were treated with CroFab, the only commercially-available and FDA- copperhead cottonmouth rattlesnake approved antivenom for bites from U.S. pit vipers. Doses ranged from six to 18 vials, with a median of 10 vials. In coral snake exotic snake unknown approximately 40% of the cases, antivenom was initiated at an outside hospital prior to transfer to the toxicology service. The Bite distribution by month, 2016. Illustration by the author.

SWCHR Bulletin 76 Winter 2016 non-native C. albolabris bite was treated with a total of 10 vials of Thai Red Cross Green Pit Viper antivenom. The coral snake bite did not require antivenom.

The same bite, three days post-envenomation. Photo by the author. Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) bite to 4-year-old boy, 24 hours post-envenomation. Photo by the author. Two patients had acute adverse reactions to antivenom. In the first, an 11-year-old boy envenomated by a cottonmouth, the infusion was stopped and the patient was treated with diphenhydramine. The infusion was restarted but then discontinued when the patient developed urticaria (hives) and facial swelling. He was then treated with corticosteroids and additional antihistamines. Intubation and epinephrine were not needed. The other patient with an acute reaction was an 8-year- old female, also bitten by a cottonmouth. The infusion was paused and the patient was treated with diphenhydramine. Antivenom was then restarted at a lower rate without incident. There were no cases of serum sickness or other late complications following antivenom administration.

Antibiotics were only required in one patient, a 4-year-old boy who developed erythema, swelling, and purulent (thick, opaque) drainage several weeks after discharge, after he had spent considerable time chewing on the affected finger. Antibiotics were initiated prophylactically by several referring facilities, but were promptly discontinued by the toxicology service upon The same bite, 21 days post-envenomation. Photo by the arrival at the receiving hospital. None of these patients author. developed any infections.

No patient required surgical intervention, and all regained full use of the affected body part.

SWCHR Bulletin 77 Winter 2016

Herping Regulations for States in the from academia, as a means to procure more comprehensive data sets towards making better herp management decisions. Southwestern Region, Part 2: California I compiled the Herpetological Education and Research Project’s By Jim Bass (HERP) data on California herps for the Reptile and Amphibians Species of Special Concern (RASSC) update, administered by the University of California—Davis. More recently, HERP entries and North American Field Herping Association (NAFHA) members assisted the State with their Herp Range Map(s) update. Members of the CDFW also joined NAFHA at our national meet in Southern California last year to help gather data and provide expertise.

Overall, I would characterize the CDFW as progressive and committed to improvement, but as in most bureaucracies, actual changes lag behind ideals. The ‘grapevine’ has it that

The first thing I will mention in regard to the California . . . the CDFW is developing changes to the existing Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is that its title regulations pertaining to herps in order to update probably should read ‘Wildlife and Fish,’ as 75% of California’s common and scientific names, add or subtract species budget is dedicated to deer hunting, with the remaining 25% from the list, determine closure zones, and “increase the ability of citizen scientists and recreationists to divided between large game, small game, birds, and assist CDFW in amphibian and reptile conservation.” fishing. Reptiles and amphibians do not rate their own category (www.californiaherps.com) and are lumped together on four pages within 78 pages of fishing regulations, which is why you need a fishing license to This last part looks really interesting and could indicate some field herp in California. It is my hope here to provide an great new changes. Maybe we will be given approval to overview of California’s herping regulations, as well as to temporarily handle threatened animals which may be difficult to provide a practical guide to what one needs to know to herp identify without capture. While awaiting these changes to come California legally. to fruition, the extant regulations have some ‘flaws’ that need to be recognized. Little wonder then, that many (if not most) California game wardens know little to nothing about reptile and amphibian In order to simplify enforcement, wardens (ostensibly) have a list regulations, much less how to tell one species from of herps that can be taken, with the understanding that anything another. Compounding this problem is the fact that in most not on the list is prohibited. This, however, can be problematic, cases, wardens in the field can interpret the regulations as they given the defunct taxonomy the regulations sometimes see fit. Also, given the small amount of resources dedicated to employ. Take, for example, the Wandering Salamander (Aneides herpetofauna, by necessity only large-scale poaching rings and vagrans), which used to be classified as the “Clouded gross violators are targeted, leaving private hobbyists, for the Salamander:” the “Clouded Salamander” can be taken, but the most part, little to no worry. Wandering Salamander is not on the list. Does this mean the Wandering Salamander cannot be taken or is it still classified as This is pretty much how it’s been since 1978 when California the “Clouded Salamander?” reptiles and amphibians were first regulated, making it illegal (with a few permitted exceptions) to sell any native California Another problem is the genus Batrachoseps, which has reptile or amphibian. So, depending upon your point of view, recently been split into many new species which are California is either a herper’s paradise or a State woefully remiss probably not yet recognized by the CDFW, and that is in its management of herp resources. why they are not on the list of animals which can be taken. For example, many of the Sierra Batrachoseps which were formerly classified That, however, has been changing over the last decade or so, as Batrachoseps nigriventris and Batrachoseps pacificus, have with the CDFW becoming more and more proactive regarding been re-classified as full species—B. kawia, B. regius, B. herp management, and rather than basing their findings on the gregarius, B. diabolicus. This taxonomy and these names efforts of a few researchers, they have been (more and more) are in common use now, but the changes are not actively utilizing ‘Citizen Science,’ along with germane research reflected in the CDFW list. The CDFW appears to be conservative, reacting slowly to changes in

SWCHR Bulletin 78 Winter 2016

nomenclature. This is not necessarily a bad thing at all, with you, depending on your interaction with law enforcement but it can make it confusing to those trying to (and how they interpret the regulations) chances are you will be understand the regulations. okay. As California herper Gary Nafis explains so well: (www.californiaherps.com/)

. . . herpers need a license if they plan to pick up or handle a herp for any reason, including photography, Another thing one needs to research before herping California is even though they don’t plan to collect it. The reason they give makes sense: if you have an animal in your the list of ‘special closures’ (which I’ll cover in detail later), possession, even if it’s only temporarily, and a law making some subspecies of herps, within a species that can be taken, enforcement officer sees you with the animal in your prohibited in certain defined areas. For instance: of the three possession, it can appear to the officer that you are subspecies of Western Patch-nosed Snake (Salvadora hexalepis), collecting the animal. If you don’t have a license, it will only Coastal Patch-nosed Snakes (S. h. virgultea) are listed as be up to you to convince the officer that your intention Species of Special Concern (SSC) and their collection (take) is was to release the animal where it was found. Most people who are collecting an animal illegally will always prohibited in the counties in which they occur. Problem is, in lie and tell an officer that they were not going to keep my home county of San Bernardino, they did not specify ‘S. h. it, that they are just taking pictures of it, and this makes virgultea’ but rather prohibited ‘S. hexalepis,’ making it technically it difficult for the officer to determine if you are also illegal to touch any patch-nosed snake in San Bernardino lying. (www.californiaherps.com/) County. I suspect this is for the sake of the game wardens, who may not be able to tell one subspecies from another, although it This, of course, applies to all California herps but even if you may just be an oversight in the writing of the regulations that have a valid California fishing license, (which now, by the way, needs to be corrected. doesn’t have to be visually displayed—as before—but which you must have with you) there are actually more ‘no touch’ (SSC or otherwise protected) herps in California than ones you can handle and/or collect! For some of these ‘otherwise protected’ herps (like the federally endangered Arroyo Toad, Anaxyrus californicus) you (technically) need a Scientific Collecting Permit to even look for them, even for ‘in situ’ photography. Given this reality, I survey a certain stretch of riparian stream several times a year for invasive Bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), which I gig/kill whenever possible, and take photos of any Arroyo Toads I also happen to see.

Coastal Patch-nosed Snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea), found dead-on-road and repositioned, San Bernardino County. Photo by the author.

While ostensibly the regulations are written with ‘take’ in mind, it is a fact that a good portion of ‘herpers’ have only data collection, photography, and ‘life-lists’ in mind. If this is the case, we will now look at what is needed for that. It all starts with the definition of ‘take’ which (according to California Fish and Game Code Section 86) means to hunt, pursue, catch, Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus), a Federal endangered species, San Bernardino capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill County. Photo by the author. (emphasis added). Technically, you need a license to even look for herps, whether you see any or not. Many of course argue that a license should not be required to photograph herps As the state having the second-highest number of rattlesnake and/or collect data on them and if you are strictly an ‘in situ’ species (behind Arizona) and some that only occur here (which photographer (no touching or handling), with no collecting gear many herpers really want to see), discussing regulations regarding

SWCHR Bulletin 79 Winter 2016 them is warranted. First of all, it should be noted that the laws could lead to declines that would qualify it for state regarding rattlesnakes in California were not written by the threatened or endangered status. CDFW, but rather by the California legislature and signed by the While some may assert that the SSC program is an unnecessary governor, making it the law that a license is not needed to ‘take’ utilization of the Precautionary Principle, I think it is not only rattlesnakes. This law exists to allow someone to remove or kill necessary but prudent. a rattlesnake on private property in order to protect themselves, their family, or their animals, without having to obtain a license As a boy growing up in Highland, San Bernardino County, first. Some people interpret the no-license-required regulation California, I could go into almost any open field and see half a dozen Coast Horned Lizards (Phrynosoma coronatum) in as many to mean that they can collect, kill, or possess as many minutes. Who would have guessed that in just a few decades rattlesnakes as they want, but this is not true. For all species of they would be hard to find in almost 90% of their range, due to rattlesnakes except the Red Diamond-backed Rattlesnake urban development and introduction of invasive ants? A (Crotalus ruber), the CDFW regulations show a daily bag and designation of SSC not only protects ‘at risk’ species but also possession limit of two. C. ruber is now an SSC with a zero bag initiates research on them, toward preventing future losses. limit.

A young-of-year Coast Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum), San Bernardino County. Photo by the author. A male Red Diamond-backed Rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) exhibiting den defense behavior, advancing from behind to allow his gravid mate to retreat, San Bernardino County. Photo by the author. While SSC does not change the status of a species, it changes the bag limit to zero, thereby making them a ‘no touch’ species, which you are still free to photograph as long as you don’t Many folks might wonder exactly what SSC is, and what it handle them or have them in your possession. As many herpers means. A Species of Special Concern (SSC) is a species, (and possibly law enforcement officers [LE]) may not know subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to which species are SSC and which are not, it is possible to get a ticket for just posing an SSC for a photograph, although this is California that currently satisfies one or more of the following not something that happens often. Having one of these species (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria: in your possession would be a different story, so I would advise knowing what species are ‘zero take.’  is extirpated from the state or, in the case of birds, is extirpated in its primary season or breeding role; As a large state with a variety of habitats, California has roughly 175 herp species ranging from exceedingly easy to exceedingly  is listed as federally—but not state—threatened or difficult to find, so rather than try to list all which can or cannot endangered; meets the state definition of threatened or be handled, I will just give a general breakdown: endangered but has not formally been listed;  Of the 51 snake species occurring in California, 17 are  is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious ‘zero take/no touch.’ (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could  Of 48 lizard species that can be found, 24 of them are qualify it for state threatened or endangered status; ‘zero take/no touch.’

 has naturally small populations exhibiting high  While three genera of invasive turtles can be taken susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, (Red-eared Sliders, Trachemys scripta elegans; Painted

SWCHR Bulletin 80 Winter 2016

Turtles, Chrysemys picta; and softshells, Apalone spp.) limit. For example, if you have two wild-caught Rosy Boas with no limit, our three native turtle species and Desert (Lichanura trivirgata) in a hotel room, the ‘daily’ bag limit no Tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) are ‘zero take/no touch,’ as longer applies. For amphibians, bag and possession limits (for are (for some reason) invasive Common Snapping those approved for take) is four unless otherwise specified, and Turtles (Chelydra serpentina). can be found on page 20 of the current California Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations (paragraph 5.05).  Of 27 frog and toad species occurring in California, 17 are ‘zero take/no touch.’ For snakes and lizards, the standard limit is two except where  Of the 46 salamander species that can be found in the otherwise specified, and is subject to Special Closures listed on state, 36 (half of which are Batrachoseps) are ‘zero pages 22 and 23 (paragraph 5.60). There are no limits on the take/no touch.’ three invasive turtle species which can be taken—take all you One last class of herps remains: non-native invasives, which are want; fill up your trunk and take them home with you. not yet listed as ‘no bag limit’ or as a restricted species, such as Mediterranean Geckos (Hemidactylus turcicus), Italian Wall Lizards Before giving ‘Special Closures’ the special attention they (Podarcis siculus), or any new invasive which may be deserve, I’d like to mention the four species of lizards that have found. Technically, if not on the list of species that can be significantly higher bag limits (25 each in the aggregate, which is taken, they should be considered ‘zero take.’ However, the to say a total of 25 of any combination of these four species), CDFW has an invasive species program that encourages which consist of Western Fence Lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis), collecting and reporting invasive species—Laws and Regulations Sagebrush Lizards (Sceloporus graciosus), Side-blotched Lizards Regarding Invasive Species in California (Uta stansburiana), Western Skinks (Eumeces skiltonianus), and (www.dfg.ca.gov/invasives/laws-regs.html)—under which you Desert Night Lizards (Xantusia vigilis), except the subspecies are allowed to collect non-native species in order to send them Xantusia vigilis sierrae—see Special Closure (f)(2). Uta and to a to the CDFW. lesser extent these other lizards are short-lived, reproduce in enormous numbers, and are basically feeder lizards for a variety As for a practical guide for herping California, if you’re over 16 of animals, quite possibly even captive-bred kingsnakes it would be best to have a license, which costs $48 a year, or you (Lampropeltis spp.). I can think of no other reason to collect so can buy a 3-day license for less. There are no real problems with many. road cruising or using lights, either day or night, except in State Parks like Anza-Borrego, or National Preserves like Joshua Tree, where any collecting of anything (even a rock) is prohibited. Places like these are actually where you could have the most problems, with state and federal LE, who may enforce ‘gray areas’ (such as moving a snake off the road to safety) more strictly than on public land, and even just taking photos could be considered ‘take.’ Often, it is LE who interprets regulations as they understand them, which is why I personally rarely herp these places; besides, everything in those places can be seen other places as well.

Personally, I’ve had very little interaction with wardens in the field and while I’ve heard of a few stories of ‘bad encounters,’ the majority of stories I’ve heard have been positive. In the few interactions I have had, I’ve found being friendly and forthright A ‘desert phase’ California Kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae), San Bernardino (here’s my license; this is such and such a species, therefore I am County. Photo by the author. legal; etc.) has always worked well. Throwing in the phrase ‘As I’m sure you know’ (even when certain they don’t) gives them the chance to ‘save face’ and confirm that everything you’re This brings us to the SSC ‘special closures,’ which do deserve doing is legal. some special attention, as you can literally cross a road or county line (such as County Line Road dividing Riverside and San If you do plan on any legal collecting, there are a few extra issues Bernardino Counties) and move from legal possession to to consider, such as bag and possession limits. You cannot illegal. To be clear, what may be legal to collect in most of their exceed the ‘possession’ limit, which is the same as the daily bag range may be illegal in certain designated areas, wherein all

SWCHR Bulletin 81 Winter 2016 subspecies of a species are prohibited from collecting, SSC or exportation, transportation, purchase, or sale of captive-bred or not. Here are the Special Closures from page 23 (f): wild-caught native albino reptiles or amphibians.

(1) No geckos (Coleonyx variegatus) may be taken in San Diego County south and west of Highway 79 to its junction with County Road S-2, and south and west of County Road S-2 to the eastern San Diego County border.

(2) No rubber boas (Charina bottae or Charina umbratica) may be taken in Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

(3) No night lizards (Xantusia vigilis) may be taken in Kern County.

(4) No ringneck snakes (Diadophis punctatus) may be taken in San Bernardino or Inyo counties.

(5) No coachwhips (Masticophis [Coluber] flagellum) may be taken Normally-colored and hypomelanistic Rosy Boas (Lichanura trivirgata) as flipped, San Bernardino County. Photo by the author. in the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Stanislaus, Tulare. Now for the topic that everyone seems to want to know about, yet is not covered anywhere in the regulations (as far as I can (6) No California Whipsnakes (striped racer) (Masticophis [Coluber] tell)—the exportation of native herps for commercial lateralis) may be taken in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. breeding. California has three native species of snake that can be bred, sold, and exported within and outside of California with (7) No Western (Desert) Patch-nosed Snakes (Salvadora hexalepis) the appropriate permits, which are: may be taken in the following counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa (A) California Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae) Barbara and Ventura. (B) California subspecies of the Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer) (8) No glossy snakes (Arizona elegans) may be taken in the following counties: Alameda, Fresno, Imperial (west of Hwy (C) California subspecies of the Rosy (3-lined Northern) Boa 111), Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside (southwest of Hwy 111 and (Lichanura trivirgata). I-10), San Benito, San Bernardino (West of I-215 and Hwy 138), San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa It seems that if you legally collect a native California herp, or Clara and Tulare. have it gifted to you—once outside the state—there are no California regulations preventing breeding them, as in some (9) No California mountain kingsnakes (Lampropeltis zonata) may states, like Arizona. be taken in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties. Finally, I will close with what I think would help ‘herp management’ here in California, and something that very well Here’s the catch: each of these special closures was for an SSC may be under consideration: a herp stamp or a herping license subspecies, but the closures are for the species as a whole, again (I so that the state can know how many licenses are purchased for believe) as a nod towards LE’s lack of ability to tell one the collection (or photographing) of herps. Until such a system subspecies from another. is established, the CDFW has no way of knowing how many licenses they are selling to herpers so they can allocate some I should also mention that there is one other exception to funding to herp-related issues, as herpers are currently counted California herping regulations: albino native reptiles. Albino under ‘fishing.’ A stamp or special license would also allow reptiles are defined as individual native reptiles lacking normal some reporting of how many herps are collected. As it is now, body pigment and having red or pink eyes. No permit is the CDFW has no way of knowing how many animals are taken. required for the possession, propagation, importation,

SWCHR Bulletin 82 Winter 2016

Knowing that could help to change how they manage their Book Review: Peterson Field Guide to Reptiles ‘allowable take’ list. and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, Fourth Edition by Robert Powell, Roger Conant, and Joseph T. Collins Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: New York, 2016. Softcover. 512 pp. List: $21.00, Amazon: $14.41, Ebook: Currently unavailable. ISBN 978-0544129979

Review by Tom Lott

Great Basin Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola), San Bernardino County. Photo by the author.

Here in California we are lucky enough to have a very comprehensive, up-to-date herping resource called Californiaherps.com maintainted by Gary Nafis, which I relied heavily upon (paraphrasing liberally and directly quoting) in this article. I suggest anyone considering herping in California should absolutely avail themselves of this resource for a productive and stress-free (legal) trip.

In the 58 years since its first appearance, the Peterson Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America has undergone three major revisions (1975, 1991, and 2016) and one minor one (1998). This new edition covers 501 species, an increase of 32% over the 379 included in the 1991 edition (the previous major revision). Unfortunately, most of that increase is due to exotic species that have been recognized as established

SWCHR Bulletin 83 Winter 2016 and the promotion of taxa previously regarded as subspecies to Continued also is the representation of ranges with various full species status. colors rather than black and white patterns. Also new and helpful is the inclusion of color-coded page margins to rapidly The number of pages in this latest edition, however, has identify the major sections of the book dealing with the various increased only to 494 from the previous 450, an enlargement of major groups of herps (i.e., salamanders, frogs, turtles, etc.). only about 10%. Obviously, then, a considerable amount of material has been cut from the previous edition. Most of the Most of the range maps, however, have been revised from the deletions appear to have come from introductory sections 1998 edition by Dr. Travis Taggart, of the Center for North regarding captive care and from natural history comments within American Herpetology (CNAH), some apparently for the better, the individual taxon accounts, which have been reduced to terse others not so much. Stanley Trauth has listed a number of listings of habitats in which the animals are typically found. inaccuracies for his home state of Arkansas (Trauth 2016) and it may be reasonably assumed that a similar number of problems Established, newly-added non-native species carry a distinctive exist for other states covered by this guide. In Texas, for red “non-native” notation following their species name in the example, the range of the Cat-eyed Snake (Leptodeira text. Regrettably, however, their photos have not been added to septentrionalis) is seriously under-represented (see Keown and Isabelle Conant’s classic identification plates, which remain Salmon 2014). largely intact. Instead, photos of non-native species appear almost randomly in the appropriate section of the text. Another good example consists of the treatment of the

milksnake complex (Lampropeltis triangulum, sensu lato) in Texas. Similarly, photos of legitimately new taxa (rather than promoted In the 1998 edition, the milksnakes were still considered to former subspecies or “cryptic” species) have not been added to consist of a single species comprised of four subspecies the traditional plates, but are included in the text, some at a distributed more or less contiguously, at least in the southern considerable distance from their account entries. Nor, in some and eastern portions of the state. This latest edition, however, cases, have such taxa been included in the “similar species” follows the proposal of Ruane et al (2014) that only two full sections of accounts where it would have been appropriate. species of the milksnake complex, the “Tamaulipan Milksnake,

Lampropeltis annulata” and the Western Milksnake, Lampropeltis In a major layout alteration of no particular practical gentilis,” inhabit Texas. The new map suggests that an extensive consequence, amphibians now precede reptiles. Likewise, hiatus in distribution exists between “L annulata” and “L. diagrams illustrating the proper techniques for measuring herps gentilis,” running from the south-central Texas coast to the north- are now placed in the introductory section rather than on the central Texas border, with a vast area of central Texas endplates, and the limited tadpole identification section has been uninhabited by either “species.” eliminated, presumably on the assumption that more thorough resources are available elsewhere, especially on the internet. While this paradigm is somewhat suggested by the most recent

compilation of Texas snake distributions (Dixon 2013), and is in Gone also is Roger Conant’s practice of providing separate keeping with the Ruane et al. (op. cit.) proposal, it ignores the fact accounts for each major subspecies, lumping together only those well known to Texas herpers that milksnakes phenotypically that were most similar in appearance and/or habits to the major intermediate between “L. annulata” and “L. gentilis”(i.e., L. t. one. The new lead author, clearly belonging to the subspecies amaura) remain common on the offshore barrier islands of the denial school, lumps all currently recognized subspecies into entire Texas coast, despite the fact that virtually all of the abbreviated descriptions appended at the end of each species adjacent mainland coastal prairie habitat has been converted into account. In the introduction, Dr. Powell seems almost annoyed extensive areas of monoculture unfavorable for the species. at having to deal with subspecies at all, stating that “the entire concept has fallen into disfavor in recent years” and “may not be recognized in the future.” He further implies that subspecies are Traditionally, the incorporation of a new taxonomic arrangement worthy of recognition only to the extent that they might be into a field guide format has been highly influential to its indicators of populations to be elevated to full species in the acceptance. The average person, or even the average hobbyist, future. So much for recognizing diversity! typically will never read the technical literature nor even consult the so-called standardized lists. They will, however, generally The range maps continue the trend established in the accept whatever taxonomy their field guide uses as being “expanded” third edition (1998) of being located throughout the authoritative. Thus it is unfortunate that most of the recent species accounts, near the relevant taxon being discussed, rather controversial proposals that desperately require either refutation than lumped together as a group at the end of the text accounts. or confirmation from other workers using different methods

SWCHR Bulletin 84 Winter 2016 have been incorporated into this new edition of a previously Ruane, S.; R.W. Bryson, Jr., R.A. Pyron, and F.T. Burbrink. venerable field guide. 2014. “Coalescent Species Delimitation in Milksnakes (genus Lampropeltis) and Impacts on Phylogenetic Comparative Lastly, and of no particular import, I found it peculiar that Dr. Analyses.” Systematic Biology 63(2): 231-250. Conant has been demoted to a junior author in this new revision of his and Isabelle’s great work. This despite the fact that the Trauth, Stanley E. 2016. “Book Review: Peterson Field Guide to book retains much of their easily recognizable style. Truly great Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America.” field guides, even when revised by others after their initial Herpetological Review 47(3): 497-498. author’s passing, are almost always remembered and referenced as so-and-so’s guide. This particular field guide will always be referred to by me as “Conant’s guide.”

Perhaps, though, given his less than sanguine view of the behavior and results of modern phylogeneticists, Roger would have been content to assume a less involved role in presenting the fruits of their labors in a field guide:

I have heard it said that some of the persons who conduct such research [molecular taxonomy] would not recognize the reptile or amphibian from which their samples were derived if they saw it in life. . . . Imagine trying to write a field guide based on such techniques. —Roger Conant in A Field Guide to the Life and Times of Roger Conant. 1997. Provo, UT: Selva, Canyonlands Publishing Group, L.C.

Literature Cited

Conant, R. 1958. A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of the United States and Canada East of the 100th Meridian. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

______. 1975. A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians: Eastern and Central North America. 2nd edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

______. and J.T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern-Central North America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

______. 1998. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern-Central North America. 3rd edition (expanded). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Dixon, J.R. 2013. Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas. 3rd edition. W. L. Moody, Jr., Natural History Series 25. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Keown, G. and G.T. Salmon. 2014. “Geographic Distribution. Leptodeira septentrionalis.” Herpetological Review 45(3): 466.

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 to 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 3600 FM 1488 RD, STE 120-115 CONROE TX 77384