Kermit the Frog
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Return Rates of Male Hylid Frogs Litoria Genimaculata, L. Nannotis, L
Vol. 11: 183–188, 2010 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Published online April 16 doi: 10.3354/esr00253 Endang Species Res OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Return rates of male hylid frogs Litoria genimaculata, L. nannotis, L. rheocola and Nyctimystes dayi after toe-tipping Andrea D. Phillott1, 2,*, Keith R. McDonald1, 3, Lee F. Skerratt1, 2 1Amphibian Disease Ecology Group and 2School of Public Health, Tropical Medicine and Rehabilitation Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia 3Threatened Species Branch, Department of Environment and Resource Management, PO Box 975, Atherton, Queensland 4883, Australia ABSTRACT: Toe-tipping is a commonly used procedure for mark-recapture studies of frogs, although it has been criticised for its potential influence on frog behaviour, site fidelity and mortality. We com- pared 24 h return rates of newly toe-tipped frogs to those previously toe-tipped and found no evi- dence of a stress response reflected by avoidance behaviour for 3 species: Litoria genimaculata, L. rheocola and Nyctimystes dayi. L. nannotis was the only studied species to demonstrate a greater reaction to toe-tipping than handling alone; however, return rates (65%) in the 1 to 3 mo after mark- ing were the highest of any species, showing that the reaction did not endure. The comparatively milder short-term response to toe-tipping in N. dayi (24% return rate) may have been caused by the species’ reduced opportunity for breeding. Intermediate-term return rates were relatively high for 2 species, L. nannotis and L. genimaculata, given their natural history, suggesting there were no major adverse effects of toe-tipping. Longer-term adverse effects could not be ruled out for L. -
Catalogue of the Amphibians of Venezuela: Illustrated and Annotated Species List, Distribution, and Conservation 1,2César L
Mannophryne vulcano, Male carrying tadpoles. El Ávila (Parque Nacional Guairarepano), Distrito Federal. Photo: Jose Vieira. We want to dedicate this work to some outstanding individuals who encouraged us, directly or indirectly, and are no longer with us. They were colleagues and close friends, and their friendship will remain for years to come. César Molina Rodríguez (1960–2015) Erik Arrieta Márquez (1978–2008) Jose Ayarzagüena Sanz (1952–2011) Saúl Gutiérrez Eljuri (1960–2012) Juan Rivero (1923–2014) Luis Scott (1948–2011) Marco Natera Mumaw (1972–2010) Official journal website: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation amphibian-reptile-conservation.org 13(1) [Special Section]: 1–198 (e180). Catalogue of the amphibians of Venezuela: Illustrated and annotated species list, distribution, and conservation 1,2César L. Barrio-Amorós, 3,4Fernando J. M. Rojas-Runjaic, and 5J. Celsa Señaris 1Fundación AndígenA, Apartado Postal 210, Mérida, VENEZUELA 2Current address: Doc Frog Expeditions, Uvita de Osa, COSTA RICA 3Fundación La Salle de Ciencias Naturales, Museo de Historia Natural La Salle, Apartado Postal 1930, Caracas 1010-A, VENEZUELA 4Current address: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Río Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Laboratório de Sistemática de Vertebrados, Av. Ipiranga 6681, Porto Alegre, RS 90619–900, BRAZIL 5Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Altos de Pipe, apartado 20632, Caracas 1020, VENEZUELA Abstract.—Presented is an annotated checklist of the amphibians of Venezuela, current as of December 2018. The last comprehensive list (Barrio-Amorós 2009c) included a total of 333 species, while the current catalogue lists 387 species (370 anurans, 10 caecilians, and seven salamanders), including 28 species not yet described or properly identified. Fifty species and four genera are added to the previous list, 25 species are deleted, and 47 experienced nomenclatural changes. -
DNR Letterhead
ATU F N RA O L T R N E E S M O T U STATE OF MICHIGAN R R C A P DNR E E S D MI N DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CHIG A JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM LANSING REBECCA A. HUMPHRIES GOVERNOR DIRECTOR Michigan Frog and Toad Survey 2009 Data Summary There were 759 unique sites surveyed in Zone 1, 218 in Zone 2, 20 in Zone 3, and 100 in Zone 4, for a total of 1097 sites statewide. This is a slight decrease from the number of sites statewide surveyed last year. Zone 3 (the eastern half of the Upper Peninsula) is significantly declining in routes. Recruiting in that area has become necessary. A few of the species (i.e. Fowler’s toad, Blanchard’s cricket frog, and mink frog) have ranges that include only a portion of the state. As was done in previous years, only data from those sites within the native range of those species were used in analyses. A calling index of abundance of 0, 1, 2, or 3 (less abundant to more abundant) is assigned for each species at each site. Calling indices were averaged for a particular species for each zone (Tables 1-4). This will vary widely and cannot be considered a good estimate of abundance. Calling varies greatly with weather conditions. Calling indices will also vary between observers. Results from the evaluation of methods and data quality showed that volunteers were very reliable in their abilities to identify species by their calls, but there was variability in abundance estimation (Genet and Sargent 2003). -
Amphibiaweb's Illustrated Amphibians of the Earth
AmphibiaWeb's Illustrated Amphibians of the Earth Created and Illustrated by the 2020-2021 AmphibiaWeb URAP Team: Alice Drozd, Arjun Mehta, Ash Reining, Kira Wiesinger, and Ann T. Chang This introduction to amphibians was written by University of California, Berkeley AmphibiaWeb Undergraduate Research Apprentices for people who love amphibians. Thank you to the many AmphibiaWeb apprentices over the last 21 years for their efforts. Edited by members of the AmphibiaWeb Steering Committee CC BY-NC-SA 2 Dedicated in loving memory of David B. Wake Founding Director of AmphibiaWeb (8 June 1936 - 29 April 2021) Dave Wake was a dedicated amphibian biologist who mentored and educated countless people. With the launch of AmphibiaWeb in 2000, Dave sought to bring the conservation science and basic fact-based biology of all amphibians to a single place where everyone could access the information freely. Until his last day, David remained a tirelessly dedicated scientist and ally of the amphibians of the world. 3 Table of Contents What are Amphibians? Their Characteristics ...................................................................................... 7 Orders of Amphibians.................................................................................... 7 Where are Amphibians? Where are Amphibians? ............................................................................... 9 What are Bioregions? ..................................................................................10 Conservation of Amphibians Why Save Amphibians? ............................................................................. -
Species Limits, and Evolutionary History of Glassfrogs
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athematical representation is inevitably simplistic, and occasionally one has to be brutal in forcing it to suit a reality that can only be very complex. And yet, there is a beauty about trees because of the simplicity with which they allow you to describe a series of events […]. But one must ask whether one is justified simplifying reality to the extent necessary to represent it as a tree. Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, People, and Languages (2001) The universe is no narrow thing and the order within it is not constrained by any latitude in is conception to repeat what exists in one part in any other part. Even in this world more things exist -
Care and Breeding of Specialty Taxa
ABM Specialty Taxa Husbandry Centrolenids (Glass Frogs) version 1 April 2008 Robert Hill and Ron Gagliardo Atlanta Botanical Garden The purpose of the Specialty Taxa Monograph is to provide more information on husbandry and breeding of different taxa that may be encountered in amphibian collections. It is intended to be an addendum to the Basic Husbandry Monograph, where basic principles are addressed. Some husbandry specifics are based on experience at the Atlanta Botanical Garden (ABG) and others may experience different results. 1) Basic morphology and natural history Centrolenids (Glass Frogs) are endemic to Central and South America. There are over 140 species described to date contained in 4 genera that range from southern Mexico to Bolivia (Cisneros-Heredia, and McDiarmid, 2007; Savage 2002). As the common name implies, they have particularly thin, transparent skin allowing observation of some internal organs and fragile skeletal structure. They are generally very small in size (2 to 8 cm) and strictly nocturnal. They have large eyes that make up a good portion of the head. One interesting characteristic of the eyes is the 45-degree angle orientation that allows them binocular vision. (Kubicki 2007). Centrolenids typically dwell in vegetation along streams, so they are very much dependent on water. Eggs masses consisting of 10 to 60 individual eggs are deposited on leaves over hanging streams and tadpoles drop in upon hatching. In some species, the male guards these egg masses. Aggression and combat among males has been documented in nature, but little is known about this under captive conditions. Eel-like centrolenid larvae are quite benthic in nature, spending most of the time in submerged leaf litter in small calm pools at the edges of streams. -
Southern Brown Tree Frog
Our Wildlife Fact Sheet Southern Brown Tree Frog Southern Brown Tree Frogs are one of Victoria’s common frog species. Scientific name Litoria ewingi Did you know? The Southern Brown Tree Frog is an agile hunter. It can leap to catch insects in mid flight. Their large sticky toes make them great climbers. Figure 1. Southern Brown Tree Frog metamorphs © A. Houston Female Southern Brown Tree Frogs can lay up to 600 DSE 2008 eggs at a time. Distribution It takes between 12 and 26 weeks for Southern Brown Southern Brown Tree Frogs occur in southern Victoria, tadpoles to turn into frogs. Tasmania and along the south coast of New South Wales. Description They are found across most of southern, central and Southern Brown Tree Frogs grow up to about 50 mm in north-eastern Victoria, but do not occur in the north- length. west corner of the state. In north-central Victoria and in Their colour is true to their name as they are brown on parts of the state’s north-east they are replaced by the their backs. The backs of their thighs are yellowish to closely-related Plains Brown Tree Frog (Litoria bright orange, and they have a white grainy belly. They paraewingi). also have a distinctive white stripe from the eye to their fore-leg. Their skin is smooth with small lumps. They have webbing on their feet that goes half way up their toes while their fingers have no webbing at all. Breeding males have a light brown vocal sac. Diet Southern Brown Tree Frogs feed mainly on flying insects such as mosquitoes, moths and flies. -
Conservation Advice Litoria Dayi Lace-Eyed Tree Frog
THREATENED SPECIES SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The Minister’s delegate approved this Conservation Advice on 13/07/2017. Conservation Advice Litoria dayi lace-eyed tree frog Conservation Status Litoria dayi (lace-eyed tree frog) is listed as Endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act) effective 16 July 2000. The species is eligible for listing under the EPBC Act as on 16 July 2000 it was listed as Endangered under Schedule 1 of the preceding Act, the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (Cwlth). Species can also be listed as threatened under state and territory legislation. For information on the current listing status of this species under relevant state or territory legislation, see http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl . The main factor that was the cause of the species being eligible for listing in the Endangered category was a dramatic range contraction with an observed reduction in population size of greater than 50 percent. Populations are no longer present at altitudes greater than 300 m, likely due to chytridiomycosis (Hero et al. 2004). This species’ status under the EBPC Act is currently being reviewed as part of a species expert assessment plan for frogs. Description The lace-eyed tree frog was recently transferred to the genus Litoria from the genus Nyctimystes after Kraus (2013) showed that it did not meet the morphological characteristics for assignment to that genus (Cogger 2014). This species is a small to medium sized frog growing to 50 mm in snout-to-vent length. -
An Overdue Review and Reclassification of the Australasian
AustralasianAustralasian JournalJournal ofof HerpetologyHerpetology ISSN 1836-5698 (Print) ISSN 1836-5779 (Online) Hoser, R. T. 2020. For the first time ever! An overdue review and reclassification of Australasian Tree Frogs (Amphibia: Anura: Pelodryadidae), including formal descriptions of 12 tribes, 11 subtribes, 34 genera, 26 subgenera, 62 species and 12 subspecies new to science. Australasian Journal of Herpetology 44-46:1-192. ISSUE 46, PUBLISHED 5 JUNE 2020 Hoser, R. T. 2020. For the first time ever! An overdue review and reclassification of Australasian Tree Frogs (Amphibia: Anura: Pelodryadidae), including formal descriptions of 12 tribes, 11 subtribes, 34 genera, 26 130 Australasiansubgenera, 62 species Journal and 12 subspecies of Herpetologynew to science. Australasian Journal of Herpetology 44-46:1-192. ... Continued from AJH Issue 45 ... zone of apparently unsuitable habitat of significant geological antiquity and are therefore reproductively Underside of thighs have irregular darker patches and isolated and therefore evolving in separate directions. hind isde of thigh has irregular fine creamish coloured They are also morphologically divergent, warranting stripes. Skin is leathery and with numerous scattered identification of the unnamed population at least to tubercles which may or not be arranged in well-defined subspecies level as done herein. longitudinal rows, including sometimes some of medium to large size and a prominent one on the eyelid. Belly is The zone dividing known populations of each species is smooth except for some granular skin on the lower belly only about 30 km in a straight line. and thighs. Vomerine teeth present, but weakly P. longirostris tozerensis subsp. nov. is separated from P. -
A Preliminary Risk Assessment of Cane Toads in Kakadu National Park Scientist Report 164, Supervising Scientist, Darwin NT
supervising scientist 164 report A preliminary risk assessment of cane toads in Kakadu National Park RA van Dam, DJ Walden & GW Begg supervising scientist national centre for tropical wetland research This report has been prepared by staff of the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist (eriss) as part of our commitment to the National Centre for Tropical Wetland Research Rick A van Dam Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, Locked Bag 2, Jabiru NT 0886, Australia (Present address: Sinclair Knight Merz, 100 Christie St, St Leonards NSW 2065, Australia) David J Walden Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801, Australia George W Begg Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801, Australia This report should be cited as follows: van Dam RA, Walden DJ & Begg GW 2002 A preliminary risk assessment of cane toads in Kakadu National Park Scientist Report 164, Supervising Scientist, Darwin NT The Supervising Scientist is part of Environment Australia, the environmental program of the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage © Commonwealth of Australia 2002 Supervising Scientist Environment Australia GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801 Australia ISSN 1325-1554 ISBN 0 642 24370 0 This work is copyright Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Supervising Scientist Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction -
Eastern Dwarf Treefrog (Litoria Fallax) 1 Native Range and Status in the United States
Eastern Dwarf Treefrog (Litoria fallax) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, May 2012 Revised, March 2017 Web Version, 2/9/2018 Photo: Michael Jefferies. Licensed under CC BY-NC. Available: http://eol.org/data_objects/25762625. (March 2017). 1 Native Range and Status in the United States Native Range From Hero et al. (2009): “This Australian species occurs along the coast and in adjacent areas from Cairns in northern Queensland south to southern New South Wales, including Fraser Island.” Status in the United States From Hero et al. (2009): “Guam” 1 Means of Introductions in the United Status From Christy et al. (2007): “The initial specimen of the now-established species L. fallax was discovered in the central courtyard of Guam’s International Airport in 1968 (Falanruw, 1976), leading Eldredge (1988) to speculate that the species was brought to Guam on board an aircraft. Aircraft and maritime vessels entered Guam from Australia, the home range of the species (Cogger, 2000) during the late 1960s, although documentation with respect to the frequency of these arrivals and the types of commodities shipped is difficult to obtain. It is therefore unclear whether the Guam population is the result of released pets, stowaways onboard a transport vessel, or stowaways in suitable cargo such as fruit or vegetables.” Remarks From GBIF (2016): “BASIONYM Hylomantis fallax Peters, 1880” 2 Biology and Ecology Taxonomic Hierarchy and Taxonomic Standing From ITIS (2017): “Kingdom Animalia Subkingdom Bilateria Infrakingdom Deuterostomia Phylum Chordata Subphylum Vertebrata Infraphylum Gnathostomata Superclass Tetrapoda Class Amphibia Order Anura Family Hylidae Subfamily Pelodryadinae Genus Litoria Species Litoria fallax (Peters, 1880)” “Current Standing: valid” Size, Weight, and Age Range From Atlas of Living Australia (2017): “Up to less than 30mm” 2 Environment From Hero et al. -
Toadally Frogs Frog Wranglers
Toadally Frogs Frog Wranglers P rogram Theme: • Frogs are toadally awesome! P rogram Messages: • Frogs are remarkable creatures • A frogs ability to adapt to its environment is evident in it physiology • Frogs are extremely sensitive to their surroundings and as a result are considered to be an indicator species P rogram Objectives: • Gallery Participants will observe live frogs face-to-face • Gallery Participants will be able to describe several physical features and unique qualities of the White’s tree frog • Gallery Participants will get excited about frogs Frog Wrangling Procedure 1. Wash and dry your hands. You may use regular tap water and light soap, but insure that you rinse your hands thoroughly. 2. Move frog from the Public Programs suite into carrying case. Whenever you transport your frog from the Public Programs suite to the exhibit, please carefully remove them from the habitat terrarium and place them in the small red carrying case (cooler). This will prevent the animal from becoming stressed as it is moved through the Museum. 3. Prepare your audience. Prior to bring out the live frog, ensure that everyone is seated and that you have asked your audience not to move quickly. Sit on the floor as well; this will ensure that if the frog leaps from your hands, it would not have far to fall. 4. Wet your hands. When you are ready to show the frog as part of your demonstration, please moisten your hands with the spray bottle. This will help minimize your dry skin from sucking the moisture out of the frog.