A List of Frog Species for the Wet Tropics Bioregion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

A List of Frog Species for the Wet Tropics Bioregion

Wet Tropics Bioregion Amphibians Species List NCA Key C - Common, V – Vulnerable, NT – Near threatened, E – Endangered, Introduced - Scientific Name Common Name NCA Austrochaperina fryi peeping whistlefrog C Austrochaperina pluvialis white browed whistlefrog C Austrochaperina robusta robust whistlefrog C Cophixalus aenigma tapping nurseryfrog NT Cophixalus australis southern ornate nursery-frog C Cophixalus bombiens buzzing nurseryfrog C Cophixalus concinnus beautiful nurseryfrog V Cophixalus exiguus dainty nurseryfrog V Cophixalus hinchinbrookensis Hinchinbrook Island nursery-frog C Cophixalus hosmeri rattling nurseryfrog NT Cophixalus infacetus creaking nurseryfrog C Cophixalus monticola mountain nurseryfrog V Cophixalus neglectus Bellenden Ker nurseryfrog V Cophixalus ornatus northern ornate nursery-frog C Cophixalus saxatilis Black Mountain boulderfrog V Crinia deserticola chirping froglet C Crinia remota northern froglet C Cyclorana alboguttata greenstripe frog C Cyclorana brevipes superb collared frog C Cyclorana novaehollandiae eastern snapping frog C Hylarana daemeli Australian woodfrog C Limnodynastes convexiusculus marbled frog C Limnodynastes peronii striped marshfrog C Limnodynastes tasmaniensis spotted grassfrog C Limnodynastes terraereginae scarlet sided pobblebonk C Litoria bicolor northern sedgefrog C Litoria caerulea common green treefrog C Litoria fallax eastern sedgefrog C Litoria gracilenta graceful treefrog C Litoria inermis bumpy rocketfrog C Litoria infrafrenata white lipped treefrog C Litoria jungguy northern stony creek frog C Litoria latopalmata broad palmed rocketfrog C Litoria lorica little waterfall frog E Litoria microbelos javelin frog C Litoria myola Kuranda treefrog NT Litoria nannotis waterfall frog E Litoria nasuta striped rocketfrog C Litoria nigrofrenata tawny rocketfrog C Litoria nyakalensis mountain mistfrog E Litoria revelata whirring treefrog NT Litoria rheocola common mistfrog E Litoria rothii northern laughing treefrog C Litoria rubella ruddy treefrog C Litoria serrata tapping green eyed frog NT Litoria wilcoxii eastern stony creek frog C Litoria xanthomera orange thighed treefrog C Mixophyes carbinensis Carbine barred frog C Mixophyes coggeri mottled barred frog C Mixophyes schevilli northern barred frog C Nyctimystes dayi Australian lacelid E Platyplectrum ornatum ornate burrowing frog C Pseudophryne covacevichae magnificent broodfrog V Rhinella marina cane toad Taudactylus acutirostris sharp snouted dayfrog E Taudactylus rheophilus northern tinkerfrog E Uperoleia altissima tableland gungan C Uperoleia lithomoda stonemason gungan C Uperoleia littlejohni Einasleigh gungan C Uperoleia mimula mimicking gungan C Photos L to R - Orange -thighed tree frog, Common nursery frog, Yellow giant tree frog Wet Tropics/Mike Trenerry www.wettropics.gov.au.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Amphibian Abundance and Detection Trends During a Large Flood in a Semi-Arid Floodplain Wetland
Herpetological Conservation and Biology 11:408–425. Submitted: 26 January 2016; Accepted: 2 September 2016; Published: 16 December 2016. Amphibian Abundance and Detection Trends During a Large Flood in a Semi-Arid Floodplain Wetland Joanne F. Ocock1,4, Richard T. Kingsford1, Trent D. Penman2, and Jodi J.L. Rowley1,3 1Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia 2Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires, Institute of Conservation Biology and Environmental Management, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia 3Australian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, 6 College St, Sydney, New South Wales 2010, Australia 4Corresponding author, email: [email protected] Abstract.—Amphibian abundance and occupancy are often reduced in regulated river systems near dams, but com- paratively little is known about how they are affected on floodplain wetlands downstream or the effects of actively managed flows. We assessed frog diversity in the Macquarie Marshes, a semi-arid floodplain wetland of conserva- tion significance, identifying environmental variables that might explain abundances and detection of species. We collected relative abundance data of 15 amphibian species at 30 sites over four months, coinciding with a large natural flood. We observed an average of 39.9 ± (SE) 4.3 (range, 0-246) individuals per site survey, over 47 survey nights. Three non-burrowing, ground-dwelling species were most abundant at temporarily flooded sites with low- growing aquatic vegetation (e.g., Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, Limnodynastes fletcheri, Crinia parinsignifera). Most arboreal species (e.g., Litoria caerulea) were more abundant in wooded habitat, regardless of water permanency.
[Show full text]
Managing Diversity in the Riverina Rice Fields—
Reconciling Farming with Wildlife —Managing diversity in the Riverina rice fields— RIRDC Publication No. 10/0007 RIRDCInnovation for rural Australia Reconciling Farming with Wildlife: Managing Biodiversity in the Riverina Rice Fields by J. Sean Doody, Christina M. Castellano, Will Osborne, Ben Corey and Sarah Ross April 2010 RIRDC Publication No 10/007 RIRDC Project No. PRJ-000687 © 2010 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 1 74151 983 7 ISSN 1440-6845 Reconciling Farming with Wildlife: Managing Biodiversity in the Riverina Rice Fields Publication No. 10/007 Project No. PRJ-000687 The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances. While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication. The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors. The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.
[Show full text]
North Central Waterwatch Frogs Field Guide
North Central Waterwatch Frogs Field Guide “This guide is an excellent publication. It strikes just the right balance, providing enough information in a format that is easy to use for identifying our locally occurring frogs, while still being attractive and interesting to read by people of all ages.” Rodney Orr, Bendigo Field Naturalists Club Inc. 1 The North Central CMA Region Swan Hill River Murray Kerang Cohuna Quambatook Loddon River Pyramid Hill Wycheproof Boort Loddon/Campaspe Echuca Watchem Irrigation Area Charlton Mitiamo Donald Rochester Avoca River Serpentine Avoca/Avon-Richardson Wedderburn Elmore Catchment Area Richardson River Bridgewater Campaspe River St Arnaud Marnoo Huntly Bendigo Avon River Bealiba Dunolly Loddon/Campaspe Dryland Area Heathcote Maryborough Castlemaine Avoca Loddon River Kyneton Lexton Clunes Daylesford Woodend Creswick Acknowledgement Of Country The North Central Catchment Management Authority (CMA) acknowledges Aboriginal Traditional Owners within the North Central CMA region, their rich culture and their spiritual connection to Country. We also recognise and acknowledge the contribution and interests of Aboriginal people and organisations in the management of land and natural resources. Acknowledgements North Central Waterwatch would like to acknowledge the contribution and support from the following organisations and individuals during the development of this publication: Britt Gregory from North Central CMA for her invaluable efforts in the production of this document, Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority for allowing use of their draft field guide, Lydia Fucsko, Adrian Martins, David Kleinert, Leigh Mitchell, Peter Robertson and Nick Layne for use of their wonderful photos and Mallee Catchment Management Authority for their design support and a special thanks to Ray Draper for his support and guidance in the development of the Frogs Field Guide 2012.
[Show full text]
Hindmarsh Island Monitoring
Hindmarsh Island Monitoring Spring 2015 and Summer 2016 Frog Monitoring Frog surveys are performed by recording the distinctive male frog calls on a digital voice recorder at night. As each species of frog has a unique call, it is possible to estimate the number of calling males for a given species. Two frog survey events took place in spring 2015, the first on 22 September 2015 and the latter on 12 November 2015. On each survey event a total of five sites with varying habitat characteristics were surveyed. The September survey recorded four species: brown tree frog (Litoria ewingii), common froglet (Crinia parinsignifera), eastern banjo frog (Limnodynastes dumerilii), and spotted Figure 1. Long-thumbed frog grass frog (Limnodynastes tasmaniensis), whilst the long- thumbed frog (Limnodynastes fletcheri); also known as the barking marsh frog, was also recorded on the November survey. The long-thumbed frog starts calling in late September around the Lower Lakes but becomes most vocal in late spring and early summer. As its name suggests, the common froglet was the most common species recorded, present at every site surveyed in both September and November, often in high abundances. Following the common froglet, the most to least common species were the brown tree frog (recorded at seven of 10 sites), banjo frog and spotted grass frog (five sites each), and lastly the long-thumbed frog (two sites). Figure 2. Brown tree frog Frogs were most abundant and diverse at sites that offered complex habitat. An ideal habitat for frogs consists of significant cover by submerged aquatic plants and emergent vegetation; such as typha and phragmties, while also offering areas of open water.
[Show full text]
Origin of the Parasites of an Invading Species, the Australian Cane Toad (Bufo Marinus): Are the Lungworms Australian Or American?
Molecular Ecology (2008) 17, 4418–4424 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03922.x FASTBlackwell Publishing Ltd TRACK Origin of the parasites of an invading species, the Australian cane toad (Bufo marinus): are the lungworms Australian or American? SYLVAIN DUBEY and RICHARD SHINE School of Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia Abstract Phylogeographical analyses that identify the geographical origin of parasites in invading species can clarify the parasites’ potential for biological control of the invader and the risks posed by the parasite to native species. Our data on nuclear and mitochondrial genetic sequences show that the nematode lungworms (Rhabdias spp.) in invasive Australian populations of cane toads (Bufo marinus) are Rhabdias pseudosphaerocephala, a South American species. We did not find this lungworm species in any Australian frogs sympatric with cane toads, suggesting that the parasite does not attack Australian frogs and hence may offer potential as a biocontrol agent of the toad. Keywords: amphibians, invasive species, mitochondrial gene, nuclear gene, parasite Received 14 July 2008; revision received 31 July 2008; accepted 7 August 2008 arises if the invader’s parasites are taxa from the introduced Introduction range, because in such cases the lack of host-specificity The process of biological invasion often modifies host- rules out use of the parasite as a biological control, and the parasite relationships. Invasive species may leave some or prior distribution of the parasite means that the invaders’ all of their ancestral (native-range) pathogens behind in the spread will not expose the native fauna to novel pathogens. process of translocation and may be infected by novel Unfortunately, distinguishing whether the parasite of an parasites from the introduced range (Mitchell & Power invading species is itself translocated vs.
[Show full text]
Predation by Introduced Cats Felis Catus on Australian Frogs: Compilation of Species Records and Estimation of Numbers Killed
Predation by introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species records and estimation of numbers killed J. C. Z. WoinarskiA,M, S. M. LeggeB,C, L. A. WoolleyA,L, R. PalmerD, C. R. DickmanE, J. AugusteynF, T. S. DohertyG, G. EdwardsH, H. GeyleA, H. McGregorI, J. RileyJ, J. TurpinK and B. P. MurphyA ANESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. BNESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Research, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia. CFenner School of the Environment and Society, Linnaeus Way, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2602, Australia. DWestern Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Bentley, WA 6983, Australia. ENESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. FQueensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Red Hill, Qld 4701, Australia. GCentre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences (Burwood campus), Deakin University, Geelong, Vic. 3216, Australia. HNorthern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, PO Box 1120, Alice Springs, NT 0871, Australia. INESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia. JSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, United Kingdom. KDepartment of Terrestrial Zoology, Western Australian Museum, 49 Kew Street, Welshpool, WA 6106, Australia. LPresent address: WWF-Australia, 3 Broome Lotteries House, Cable Beach Road, Broome, WA 6276, Australia. MCorresponding author. Email: [email protected] Table S1. Data sources used in compilation of cat predation on frogs.
[Show full text]
Cane Toads in Western Australia
Safety checklist Cane toads in Keep kids and pets away Pick up the toad by its back legs, from the cane toad pointing its head away from you Western Australia Wear a glove or put a Wash your hands with soap plastic bag over the toad afterwards Poisons Information Line 13 11 26 Euthanasing cane toads – cooling and freezing Cooling and freezing is the widely-used and preferred method for members of the public to kill cane toads. The following five steps are recommended: 1.1 Check the ID (see over the page for ID checklist) to ensure it is a cane toad, take a picture and text or email it to Parks and Wildlife to confirm the ID (see details below) 1.2 Place cane toads in a container, such as a plastic bag or container with a secure lid. 2.3 Put the container in a refrigerator for a minimum of four hours (this will anaesthetise the toads). 3.4 Put the container in a freezer until the toads are frozen solid (at least 24 hours). 5 Dispose of the container in your big green bin on bin day. If plastic bags are used, toads should be wrapped first in paper to prevent their skin from freezing to cold surfaces. 1 24 hrs 2 4 5 Confirmed 4 hrs 3 For more information and assistance visit DOWNLOAD THE www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/canetoads. CANE TOAD APP If you think you have found a cane toad, take a clear photo and from the iTunes app store text it to 0400 693 807 or email [email protected] 20160107-0816-1M Is it a cane toad? Biodiversity facts As many native frogs can easily be mistaken for cane toads, it’s important to • Native species can be poisoned when they try to eat cane toads.
[Show full text]
ARAZPA YOTF Infopack.Pdf
ARAZPA 2008 Year of the Frog Campaign Information pack ARAZPA 2008 Year of the Frog Campaign Printing: The ARAZPA 2008 Year of the Frog Campaign pack was generously supported by Madman Printing Phone: +61 3 9244 0100 Email: [email protected] Front cover design: Patrick Crawley, www.creepycrawleycartoons.com Mobile: 0401 316 827 Email: [email protected] Front cover photo: Pseudophryne pengilleyi, Northern Corroboree Frog. Photo courtesy of Lydia Fucsko. Printed on 100% recycled stock 2 ARAZPA 2008 Year of the Frog Campaign Contents Foreword.........................................................................................................................................5 Foreword part II ………………………………………………………………………………………… ...6 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................9 Section 1: Why A Campaign?....................................................................................................11 The Connection Between Man and Nature........................................................................11 Man’s Effect on Nature ......................................................................................................11 Frogs Matter ......................................................................................................................11 The Problem ......................................................................................................................12 The Reason
[Show full text]
Amphibia: Anura: Limnodynastidae, Myobatrachidae, Pelodryadidae) in the Collection of the Western Australian Museum Ryan J
RECORDS OF THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM 32 001–028 (2017) DOI: 10.18195/issn.0312-3162.32(1).2017.001-028 An annotated type catalogue of the frogs (Amphibia: Anura: Limnodynastidae, Myobatrachidae, Pelodryadidae) in the collection of the Western Australian Museum Ryan J. Ellis1*, Paul Doughty1 and J. Dale Roberts2 1 Department of Terrestrial Zoology, Western Australian Museum, 49 Kew Street, Welshpool, Western Australia 6106, Australia. 2 Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management, University of Western Australia, PO Box 5771, Albany, Western Australia 6332, Australia. * Corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT – An annotated catalogue is provided for all primary and secondary type specimens of frogs (Amphibia: Anura) currently and previously held in the herpetological collection of the Western Australian Museum (WAM). The collection includes a total of 613 type specimens (excluding specimens maintained as possible paratypes) representing 55 species or subspecies of which four are currently considered junior synonyms of other species. The collection includes 44 holotypes, 3 lectotypes, 36 syntypes, 462 paratypes and 68 paralectotypes. In addition, the collection includes 392 specimens considered possible paratypes where paratype specimens could not be confrmed against specimens held in the WAM for fve species (Heleioporus barycragus, H. inornatus, H. psammophilus, Crinia pseudinsignifera and C. subinsignifera). There are 23 type specimens and seven possible paratypes that have not been located, some of which were part of historic disposal of specimens, and others with no records of disposal, loan or gifting and are therefore considered lost. Type specimens supposedly deposited in the WAM by Harrison of the Macleay Museum, University of Sydney, for Crinia rosea and Pseudophryne nichollsi were not located during the audit of types and are considered lost.
[Show full text]
Exotic Frog Incursion Limnodynastes Dumerilii Is an Australian Frog Exotic to New Zealand
Exotic frog incursion Limnodynastes dumerilii is an Australian frog exotic to New Zealand. It is an Notification of incursion aggressive coloniser and a In mid-October 1999 a member of the public took some unusual potential threat to New Zealand tadpoles to the Auckland Museum for identification, saying they had invertebrates and small been reared from a foamy egg-mass found in mid-August in a small vertebrates. A delimiting survey forested stream in the southern Waitakere Ranges. Once occurred in response to an metamorphosed, the tadpoles were identified as belonging to the incursion of the frog in Australian family Myobatrachidae – probably a species of Limnodynastes. Limnodynastes are exotic to New Zealand and their November 1999. presence was regarded as a biosecurity threat due to their predatory Tony Whitaker, co-author nature and their ability to rapidly colonise a variety of habitats. In during the day for egg-masses, tadpoles and frogs, and at night for the Waitakere Ranges they swere considered a particular threat to frogs and the sound of their highly distinctive ‘bonk’ call. Playback native Hochstetter’s Frogs (Leiopelma hochstetteri). tapes of calls were used to try to elicit a response. The survey covered The investigation, and identification all five catchments of the Waitakere Ranges (Fig. 1) During this period a consultant specialist(b) on Myobatrachid frogs arrived from At the home of the informant, were 15 outdoor aquaria containing Australia to advise on the ecology and reproductive cycles of several thousand tadpoles at various stages of development. These L. dumerilii and to comment on the suitability of the habitat in the appeared to be all of the same species and were said to have been Waitakere Ranges and west Auckland for establishment of this raised from the single egg-mass collected in August.
[Show full text]
A Draft Genome Assembly of the Eastern Banjo Frog Limnodynastes
DATARELEASE A draft genome assembly of the eastern banjo frog Limnodynastes dumerilii dumerilii (Anura: Limnodynastidae) Qiye Li1, Qunfei Guo1,2, Yang Zhou1, Huishuang Tan1,3, Terry Bertozzi4,5, Yuanzhen Zhu1,6, Ji Li1,7, Stephen Donnellan4 and Guojie Zhang1,7,8,9,* 1 BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518083, China 2 College of Life Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China 3 Center for Informational Biology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China 4 South Australian Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide 5000, Australia 5 School of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide 5005, Australia 6 School of Basic Medicine, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China 7 State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650223, China 8 Center for Excellence in Animal Evolution and Genetics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 650223 Kunming, China 9 Section for Ecology and Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark ABSTRACT Amphibian genomes are usually challenging to assemble due to their large genome size and high repeat content. The Limnodynastidae is a family of frogs native to Australia, Tasmania and New Guinea. As an anuran lineage that successfully diversiﬁed on the Australian continent, it represents an important lineage in the amphibian tree of life but lacks reference genomes. Here we sequenced and annotated the genome of the eastern banjo frog Limnodynastes dumerilii dumerilii to ﬁll this gap. The total length of the genome assembly is 2.38 Gb with a scaffold N50 of 285.9 kb.
[Show full text]
Frogs As an Indicator of Urban Wetland Health
One pond fits all? Frogs as an indicator of urban wetland health Final report to Upper Murrumbidgee Waterwatch Supported by: Upper Murrumbidgee Waterwatch Environment and Planning Directorate ACT Government Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 2 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Material and Methods ............................................................................................................................ 9 Study area and species........................................................................................................................ 9 Field sites ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Frog surveys ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Habitat assessments - RARC ............................................................................................................. 11 Habitat assessments - FRARC ............................................................................................................ 11 Fish surveys ......................................................................................................................................
[Show full text]