University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies Nebraska Academy of Sciences 2000 A Checklist and Distribution Maps of the Amphibians and Reptiles of South Dakota Royce E. Ballinger University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Justin W. Meeker University of Nebraska-Lincoln Marcus Thies University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas Part of the Life Sciences Commons Ballinger, Royce E.; Meeker, Justin W.; and Thies, Marcus, "A Checklist and Distribution Maps of the Amphibians and Reptiles of South Dakota" (2000). Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. 49. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/49 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Nebraska Academy of Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societiesy b an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 2000. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, 26: 29-46 A CHECKLIST AND DISTRIBUTION MAPS OF THE AMPmBIANS AND REPTILES OF SOUTH DAKOTA Royce E. Ballinger, Justin W. Meeker, and Marcus Thies School of Biological Sciences University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0118 rballinger1 @ unl.edu lent treatise on the distribution and ecology of the ABSTRACT turtles of the state in an unpublished dissertation. Fourteen species of amphibians and 30 species of reptiles Several other authors (Dunlap 1963, 1967, O'Roke 1926, are documented from South Dakota, based on the examina­ Peterson 1974, Smith 1963a, 1963b, 1966, Underhill tion of 7,361 museum specimen records. No species of the 1958) provided additional information on selected spe­ herpetofauna is endemic to the state, which contains a mix­ cies or regions, and several notes on distributions have ture of species from especially the southern and western appeared over the years. Various field guides (e.g. regions of the United States. Four amphibians (Ambystoma Conant and Collins 1998) report distributions of am­ tigrinum, Bufo cognatus, Pseudacris triseriata, and Rana phibians and reptiles at a very general level and with­ pipiens) and three reptiles (Chrysemys picta, Heterodon out documentation. For a state in the central region of nasicus, and Thamnophis radix) occur statewide in appropri­ ate habitats. Three amphibians and 11 reptiles reach their the country, field guides focusing either to the east or northern distributional limits in the state, and two amphib­ west are not always careful with the details of distribu­ ians reach their southern limits. Two amphibians and five tions in the plains. This is in part due to a paucity of reptiles reach their eastern range boundary, and two amphib­ technical literature, and this paper is intended to fill ians attain their western distributional limits. Based on an that gap. analysis of county records compared to potential species oc­ currences within the 66 counties in the state, only 55.5% of Occurring within South Dakota are two species of the species-by -county records exist in the museum-specimen salamanders, 12 species offrogs or toads, seven species voucher records. One species of salamander, Necturus of turtles, seven species of lizards, and 16 species of maculosus, lacks specific voucher specimens from the state, although it has been recorded on the Minnesota side of the snakes. No species is restricted to South Dakota, and Minnesota River in northeastern South Dakota. This paper most are typical of the Great Plains region. Many provides information that is intended to aid in the discovery species have at least one of their distributional limits of additional distributional data of South Dakota's within the state. Seven species occur throughout the herpetofauna. state (Ambystoma tigrinum, Bufo cognatus, Pseudacris triseriata, Rana pipiens, Heterodon nasicus, Thamno­ t t t phis radix, and Chrysemys picta). Distributional records are still minimal for several regions of the state, espe­ A recent comprehensive checklist of the amphib­ cially the north-central area. One purpose of this re­ ians and reptiles of South Dakota is not available, and port is to generate interest in documenting herpetiles this is the first attempt to map distributions ofherpetiles in counties where they are almost certainly present but in the state, based on museum specimens. The South for which no scientific documentation is currentlyavail­ Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks has pub­ able. Records in this report are based on museum lished recent semi-technical pamphlets on the snakes collections of actual specimens, rather than simply on (Thompson and Backlund 1998) and amphibians sight records, which are occasionally erroneous and not (Fischer et al. 1999) of South Dakota. Over (1923, subject to definitive verification. 1943) and Fishbeck and Underhill (1959) are the only papers that considered all herpetiles of the entire state. In the accounts below, species are arranged in al­ These papers are out of date and did not present map phabetical order (by scientific name) within popularly data of distributions. Timken (1968) provided an excel- recognized taxonomic groups or orders. Common names 29 30 R. E. Ballinger et al. conform to those recognized by Collins (1997). Infor­ verify identifications. Some errors may still exist, but mation given is generally limited to descriptions neces­ it is unlikely that we included data outside the prob­ sary for identification, as well as size, habitat, and able range of a particular species. We are confident notes on behavior or ecology that might assist future that the documented distributions provided here are collectors in obtaining new distributional records. We reasonably accurate. Locality records are noted with encourage such records to include the deposition of dots on the maps, except that in cases where the only specimens in museum research collections. record for the county had no specific locality data, a square was placed in the center of the county. MATERIALS AND METHODS Museums and associated personnel that provided We obtained records of herpetiles from 32 muse­ data included: Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadel­ ums in the U.S. that represent national collections or phia (Ted Daeschler and Tom Uzzell); American Mu­ from those likely to contain specimens from South Da­ seum of Natural History, New York City (Darrel Frost); kota. Most museums had fewer than a hundred speci­ Strecker Museum, Baylor University, Waco (Hobart mens from South Dakota, and the largest collection, Smith); Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pitts­ containing 4549 specimens, came from the collections burgh (John Wiens); California Academy of Sciences, made by researchers at the University of South Da­ San Francisco (Joe Slowinski and Barbara Stein); Field kota, especially through the efforts of the late Professor Museum of Natural History, Chicago (Harold Voris, Don Dunlap. That collection, which was in need of Alan Resetar, and Peter Lowther); Florida Museum of curation, has now been transferred to the University of Natural History, Gainesville (David Auth); Illinois Natu­ Nebraska State Museum, in Lincoln. All museum data ral History Survey, Champaign (Chris Phillips); Iowa combined provided records of 7,361 specimens. We State University, Ames (Bruce Menzel); James Ford plotted localities based on documentation provided in Bell Museum of Natural History, University of Minne­ the museum records. We also checked specimens with sota, Minneapolis (John Moriarty and Andrew Simons); suspected errors, in particular examining those of two Louisiana Museum of Natural History at Louisiana species-pairs that are easily confused (Rana pipiens State University, Baton Rouge (Doug Rossman); Natu­ and R. blairi; Thamnophis sirtalis and T. radix) to ral History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Ange- MCPHERSON EDMUNDS .~-«,.",--... ~ •....•...._----_ ••...• f'AlIl..K"\.t., .~ ,.. SPINK !)fUEL MELLE:rn:: / BENNET TODD Figure 1. Map of South Dakota showing names of counties. South Dakota amphibians and reptiles 31 les (David Kizirian); Milwaukee Public Museum (Rob­ of the tiger salamander are occasionally incorrectly ert Henderson); Museum of Comparative Zoology, referred to as mudpuppies but are considerably differ­ Harvard University, Cambridge (Jose Rosado); The ent in most of their biology as well as appearance. University of Kansas Natural History Museum, Lawrence (John Simmons); Museum of Southwestern 1. Ambystoma tigrinum (Tiger Salamander) Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque (Howard Snell and Tom Giermakowski); Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley (David Wake); Smithsonian National Museum ofNatu­ h;~f~}L=:~"~"~~"}'~-;I~i ral History, Washington, DC (Ron Heyer and Ron Crombie); The Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natu­ , I ..' 1 )"11- ",.], ral History, Norman (Laurie Vitt); Royal Ontario Mu­ seum, Toronto (Robert Murphy and Ross MacCulloch); San Diego Natural History Museum (Paisley Cato); Sternberg Museum of Natural History, Ft. Hays State University, Hays (Jerry Choate and Korrie Chapman); Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection, Texas A&M Uni­ 1.. ...•...•1..._. i • versity, College Station (Lee Fitzgerald and Kathryn ,v··,···P<... < Vaughan); Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock '.t (Richard Monk); University of Colorado Museum,