DOCSLIB.ORG

Species Assessment for Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana Luteiventris)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Species Assessment for Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana Luteiventris) SPECIES ASSESSMENT FOR COLUMBIA SPOTTED FROG (RANA LUTEIVENTRIS ) IN WYOMING prepared by 1 2 DEBRA A. PATLA AND DOUGLAS A. KEINATH with support from Mathew McGee 2 and David S. Pilliod 3 1 Herpetology Laboratory, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 2 Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave., Dept. 3381, Laramie, WY 3Dept. of Biological Sciences, College of Science and Math, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA prepared for United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office Cheyenne, Wyoming January 2005 Patla and Keinath – Rana luteiventris January 2005 Table of Contents SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 5 NATURAL HISTORY ..................................................................................................................... 6 MORPHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 6 Juveniles and Adults.................................................................................................................. 6 Tadpoles .................................................................................................................................... 7 Eggs........................................................................................................................................... 8 TAXONOMY AND DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................................ 8 Taxonomy.................................................................................................................................. 8 Distribution and Abundance.................................................................................................... 10 Population Trends.................................................................................................................... 13 HABITAT REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................................15 General .................................................................................................................................... 15 Breeding and larval habitat...................................................................................................... 17 Foraging habitat....................................................................................................................... 19 Winter habitat.......................................................................................................................... 20 Area Requirements.................................................................................................................. 21 Landscape Context .................................................................................................................. 22 MOVEMENT AND ACTIVITY PATTERNS ..................................................................................24 Emergence and early-season movements................................................................................ 25 Summer ................................................................................................................................... 26 Late summer and movements to winter habitats ..................................................................... 28 Winter...................................................................................................................................... 29 Site Fidelity ............................................................................................................................. 30 Inferred Connectivity .............................................................................................................. 30 REPRODUCTION AND SURVIVORSHIP ...................................................................................31 POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS .............................................................................................34 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 34 Fecundity and Larval Survivorship ......................................................................................... 34 Age at First Reproduction ....................................................................................................... 36 Proportion of the Population Breeding.................................................................................... 36 Post-metamorphic Survivorship and Longevity...................................................................... 37 Spatial Characteristics and Metapopulations........................................................................... 38 Genetic Concerns .................................................................................................................... 41 FOOD HABITS ....................................................................................................................43 COMMUNITY ECOLOGY .......................................................................................................45 Predators.................................................................................................................................. 45 Competitors ............................................................................................................................. 47 Parasites................................................................................................................................... 49 Disease .................................................................................................................................... 50 Interactions.............................................................................................................................. 52 CONSERVATION ......................................................................................................................... 53 CONSERVATION STATUS .....................................................................................................53 Federal Endangered Species Act............................................................................................. 53 Federal Land Management Agencies ...................................................................................... 54 Page 1 of 123 Patla and Keinath – Rana luteiventris January 2005 State Wildlife Agencies........................................................................................................... 54 Natural Heritage Programs...................................................................................................... 54 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION ISSUES ...................................................................................55 Extrinsic Threats and Reasons for Decline ............................................................................. 55 Livestock Grazing............................................................................................................. 57 Water manipulation........................................................................................................... 58 Roads ................................................................................................................................ 59 Introduced fish.................................................................................................................. 60 Disease.............................................................................................................................. 62 Drought and climate change ............................................................................................. 63 Fire.................................................................................................................................... 66 Timber Harvest and Fuel Reduction................................................................................. 68 Beaver reduction or eradication........................................................................................ 69 Pesticides, Herbicides, and Environmental Contaminants................................................ 70 Oil/Gas Development and Mining.................................................................................... 73 Recreation......................................................................................................................... 75 Other potential threats....................................................................................................... 75 Trend Information ................................................................................................................... 77 Intrinsic Vulnerability ............................................................................................................. 78 CONSERVATION ACTION ........................................................................................................... 80 EXISTING OR FUTURE CONSERVATION PLANS ......................................................................80 CONSERVATION ELEMENTS ................................................................................................81 Management Approaches.......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana Pretiosa) Movement and Demography at Dilman Meadow: Implications for Future Monitoring
    Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) Movement and Demography at Dilman Meadow: Implications for Future Monitoring By Nathan D. Chelgren, Christopher A. Pearl, Jay Bowerman, and Michael J. Adams Prepared in cooperation with the Sunriver Nature Center Open-File Report 2007-1016 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Meyers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2006 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This analysis was made possible by a grant from the Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program. We thank C. Korson and L. Zakrejsek at the US Bureau of Reclamation for their work in all aspects of the translocation. Reviews by L. Bailey and two anonymous reviewers improved the manuscript. We thank R. B. Bury for suggestions on field techniques and assistance throughout the early years of the study. We thank S. Ackley, R. Diehl, B. McCreary, and C. Rombough for assistance with field work. We also thank Deschutes National Forest, US Fish and Wildlife Service, North Unit Irrigation District, and Sunriver Nature Center for the logistical and personnel support they dedicated.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Assessment for the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana Pipiens)
    SPECIES ASSESSMENT FOR THE NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG (RANA PIPIENS ) IN WYOMING prepared by 1 2 BRIAN E. SMITH AND DOUG KEINATH 1Department of Biology Black Hills State University1200 University Street Unit 9044, Spearfish, SD 5779 2 Zoology Program Manager, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave, Dept. 3381, Laramie, Wyoming 82071; 307-766-3013; [email protected] prepared for United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office Cheyenne, Wyoming January 2004 Smith and Keinath – Rana pipiens January 2004 Table of Contents SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 3 NATURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................................................... 5 Morphological Description ...................................................................................................... 5 Taxonomy and Distribution ..................................................................................................... 6 Taxonomy .......................................................................................................................................6 Distribution and Abundance............................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana Luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) Great Basin Distinct Population Segment Photo by Jim Harvey Photo: Jim Harvey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 8 Reno Fish and Wildlife Office Reno, Nevada Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Species status assessment report for the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), Great Basin Distinct Population Segment. Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, Reno, Nevada. vii + 86 pp. ii Executive Summary In this Species Status Assessment (SSA), we evaluate the biological status of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) in the Great Basin both currently and into the future through the lens of the species’ resiliency, redundancy, and representation. This SSA Report provides a comprehensive assessment of biology and natural history of Columbia spotted frogs and assesses demographic risks, stressors, and limiting factors. Herein, we compile biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future stressors (causes and effects) facing Columbia spotted frogs in the Great Basin. Columbia spotted frogs are highly aquatic frogs endemic to the Great Basin, northern Rocky Mountains, British Columbia, and southeast Alaska. Columbia spotted frogs in southeastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, and northeastern and central Nevada make up the Great Basin Distinct Population Segment (DPS; Service 2015, pp. 1–10). Columbia spotted frogs are closely associated with clear, slow-moving streams or ponded surface waters with permanent hydroperiods and relatively cool constant water temperatures (Arkle and Pilliod 2015, pp. 9–11). In addition to permanently wet habitat, streams with beaver ponds, deep maximum depth, abundant shoreline vegetation, and non-salmonid fish species have the greatest probability of being occupied by Columbia spotted frogs within the Great Basin (Arkle and Pilliod 2015, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • V77 P349 Bull.PDF
    EvelynL. Bull,rUSDA Forest Service, Pac f c NorthwestResearch Station, 1401 Geke er Lane,La crande Oreqon 97850 Dietand PreyAvailability of ColumbiaSpotted Frogs in Northeastern Oregon Abstract Baseline infoflnation on the die! and prcv a\ajlabilirl of Columbia \potted fiogs i\ hcking fron nrort of lhc spccicsrrnge. Diet $as detemined nom Jurrethrough Octobcr 2002 lbr 296 hogs in nonheastemOregon. Number of pre,vi!ems. diet compositioD. and biomass indices $crc comparcd by scx. sire classes.$ater type (ponds versusrivers). montl. and nudy site. Alailable invertebrateswere dctcrmincd iiom slickr' trupsand dip netiing in ponds amddvers. A total of 1.199prc,"- ilcns were identified $ith an averageof,l.:1 prcr ilcn\ in each sanple lrange = 0 - 28). A wide vadety of prey were idcntiilcd including 33 laDrilie\ l-rom20 ordersof invcrtebrales$,ilh only i ofder! represenring>107. of the composirion:beetles (l l%). ants/wasps(:1fZ ). and flies(10ti).Onl) l,l9Zoftheprev\lcrcinthclarlals|ages.Femaleiiogsaieabou{60%morebiomassthanalcsoflhc same size. presumablybecause oftheir needto produceeggs. Bionrassof male iiog diet samplesrvere greater in rivers than in ponds with a higher percenlageofstoneflies. *,ater striders.and beetles.Frog! aclilcly fonged all sulnner with the highestbiomass in Scptcmb.r and lhe lowest in July. Ovef the sumnrer.composition of spiders.bcctlcs. and llies decrersed while true bugsand anrs/ \rasps incrcasedir tbe diet. Among studt sites.ants/r'asps were mos! abundanrar |he higher elevations.A higher proportion of inlertebratesoccurred in the larger sizesin the dier comparedwi!h samplcsof availttbleinvetebrates. lntroduction EndangeredSpecies Act. Declincsin thisspecies havcbccn repoftedinYellowstone National Palk Amphibiansmake up an inlponant componentof (Patlaand Peterson 1999). Utah (Hovingh 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Lithobates [Rana] Chiricahuensis)
    CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Lithobates [Rana] chiricahuensis) Chiricahua Leopard Frog from Sycamore Canyon, Coronado National Forest, Arizona Photograph by Jim Rorabaugh, USFWS CONSIDERATIONS FOR MAKING EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING AND AVOIDING ADVERSE EFFECTS Developed by the Southwest Endangered Species Act Team, an affiliate of the Southwest Strategy Funded by U.S. Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program December 2008 (Updated August 31, 2009) ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document was developed by members of the Southwest Endangered Species Act (SWESA) Team comprised of representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BoR), Department of Defense (DoD), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Dr. Terry L. Myers gathered and synthesized much of the information for this document. The SWESA Team would especially like to thank Mr. Steve Sekscienski, U.S. Army Environmental Center, DoD, for obtaining the funds needed for this project, and Dr. Patricia Zenone, USFWS, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, for serving as the Contracting Officer’s Representative for this grant. Overall guidance, review, and editing of the document was provided by the CMED Subgroup of the SWESA Team, consisting of: Art Coykendall (BoR), John Nystedt (USFWS), Patricia Zenone (USFWS), Robert L. Palmer (DoD, U.S. Navy), Vicki Herren (BLM), Wade Eakle (USACE), and Ronnie Maes (USFS). The cooperation of many individuals facilitated this effort, including: USFWS: Jim Rorabaugh, Jennifer Graves, Debra Bills, Shaula Hedwall, Melissa Kreutzian, Marilyn Myers, Michelle Christman, Joel Lusk, Harold Namminga; USFS: Mike Rotonda, Susan Lee, Bryce Rickel, Linda WhiteTrifaro; USACE: Ron Fowler, Robert Dummer; BLM: Ted Cordery, Marikay Ramsey; BoR: Robert Clarkson; DoD, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Rana Luteiventris</I>
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey 2005 Population Structure of Columbia Spotted Frogs (Rana luteiventris) is Strongly Affected by the Landscape W. Chris Funk University of Texas at Austin, [email protected] Michael S. Blouin U.S. Geological Survey Paul Stephen Corn U.S. Geological Survey Bryce A. Maxell University of Montana - Missoula David S. Pilliod USDA Forest Service, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Part of the Geology Commons, Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons, Other Earth Sciences Commons, and the Other Environmental Sciences Commons Funk, W. Chris; Blouin, Michael S.; Corn, Paul Stephen; Maxell, Bryce A.; Pilliod, David S.; Amish, Stephen; and Allendorf, Fred W., "Population Structure of Columbia Spotted Frogs (Rana luteiventris) is Strongly Affected by the Landscape" (2005). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 659. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/659 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors W. Chris Funk, Michael S. Blouin, Paul Stephen Corn, Bryce A. Maxell, David S. Pilliod, Stephen Amish, and Fred W. Allendorf This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ usgsstaffpub/659 Molecular Ecology (2005) 14, 483–496 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02426.x BlackwellPopulation Publishing, Ltd. structure of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) is strongly affected by the landscape W.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Red-Legged Frog,Rana Aurora
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Northern Red-legged Frog Rana aurora in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2015 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2015. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Northern Red-legged Frog Rana aurora in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 69 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Previous report(s): COSEWIC. 2004. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Red-legged Frog Rana aurora in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 46 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Waye, H. 1999. COSEWIC status report on the red-legged frog Rana aurora in Canada in COSEWIC assessment and status report on the red-legged frog Rana aurora in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-31 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Barbara Beasley for writing the status report on the Northern Red- legged Frog (Rana aurora) in Canada. This report was prepared under contract with Environment Canada and was overseen by Kristiina Ovaska, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Amphibian and Reptile Species Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-938-4125 Fax: 819-938-3984 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la Grenouille à pattes rouges du Nord (Rana aurora ) au Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Leopard Frog Reintroduction
    Northern Leopard Frog Reintroduction Year 3 (2001) Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 42 Northern Leopard Frog Reintroduction Year 3 (2001) Kris Kendell Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 42 February 2002 Project Partners: Publication No.: I/059 ISBN: 0-7785-2014-5 (Printed Edition) ISBN: 0-7785-2015-3 (On-line Edition) ISSN: 1496-7146 (Printed Edition) ISSN: 1496-7146 (On-line Edition) Illustration: Brian Huffman For copies of this report, contact: Information Centre – Publications Alberta Environment/Alberta Sustainable Resource Development Main Floor, Great West Life Building 9920 108 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5K 2M4 Telephone: (780) 422-2079 OR Information Service Alberta Environment/Alberta Sustainable Resource Development #100, 3115 12 Street NE Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2E 7J2 Telephone: (403) 297-3362 OR Visit our web site at: http://www3.gov.ab.ca/srd/fw/riskspecies/ This publication may be cited as: Kendell, K. 2002. Northern leopard frog reintroduction: Year 3 (2001). Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 42, Edmonton, AB. 45 pp. ii DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the policies or positions of the Department or the Alberta Government. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................... vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................viii
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Forests for Fish and Wildlife
    Wildlife Habitat Management Institute Managing Forests for Fish and Wildlife December 2002 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 18 Forested areas can be managed with a wide variety of objectives, ranging from allowing natural processes to dictate long-term condition without active management of any kind, to maximizing production of wood products on the shortest rotations possible. The primary purpose of this document is to show how fish and wildlife habitat management can be effectively integrated into the management of forestlands that are subject to periodic timber harvest activities. For forestlands that are not managed for production of timber or other forest products, many of the principles U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station in this leaflet also apply. Introduction Succession of Forest Vegetation Forests in North America provide a wide variety of In order to meet both timber production and wildlife important natural resource functions. Although management goals, landowners and managers need commercial forests may be best known for production to understand how forest vegetation responds following of pulp, lumber, and other wood products, they also timber management, or silvicultural prescriptions, or supply valuable fish and wildlife habitat, recreational other disturbances. Forest vegetation typically opportunities, water quality protection, and other progresses from one plant community to another over natural resource benefits. In approximately two-thirds time. This forest succession can be described in four of the forest land (land that is at least 10% tree- stages: covered) in the United States, harvest of wood products plays an integral role in how these lands are managed. Sustainable forest management applies Fish and Wildlife Air and Water biological, economic, and social principles to forest Wood Products Habitat Quality regeneration, management, and conservation to meet the specific goals of landowners or managers.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Leopard Frogs Range from the Northern United States and Canada to the More Northern Parts of the Southwestern United States
    COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE Leopard Frogs ASSESSING HABITAT QUALITY FOR PRIORITY WILDLIFE SPECIES IN COLORADO WETLANDS Species Distribution Range Northern leopard frogs range from the northern United States and Canada to the more northern parts of the southwestern United States. With the exception of a few counties, they occur throughout Colorado. Plains leopard frogs have a much smaller distribution than northern leopard frogs, occurring through the Great Plains into southeastern Arizona and eastern Colorado. NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG © KEITH PENNER / PLAINS LEOPARD FROG © RENEE RONDEAU, CNHP RONDEAU, FROGRENEE © LEOPARD PLAINS / PENNER FROGKEITH © LEOPARD NORTHERN Two species of leopard frogs occur in Colorado. Northern leopard frogs (Lithobates pipiens; primary photo, brighter green) are more widespread than plains leopard frogs (L. blairi; inset). eral, plains leopard frogs breed in more Species Description ephemeral ponds, while northern leopard Identification frogs use semi-permanent ponds. Two leopard frogs are included in this Diet guild: northern leopard frog (Lithobates Adult leopard frogs eat primarily insects pipiens) and plains leopard frog (L. blairi). and other invertebrates, including They are roughly the same size (3–4 inches crustaceans, mollusks, and worms, as as adults). Northern leopard frogs can be well as small vertebrates, such as other green or brown and plains leopard frogs amphibians and snakes. Leopard frog are typically brown. Both species have two tadpoles are herbivorous, eating mostly light dorsolateral ridges along the back; in free-floating algae, but also consuming plains leopard frog there is a break in this some animal material. ridge near the rear legs. Conservation Status Preferred Habitats Northern leopard frog populations have Due to their complicated life history traits, declined throughout their range; they are leopard frogs occupy many habitats during listed in all western states and Canada different seasons and stages of develop- as sensitive, threatened, or endangered.
    [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]
  • Checklist of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of New York
    CHECKLIST OF AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, BIRDS AND MAMMALS OF NEW YORK STATE Including Their Legal Status Eastern Milk Snake Moose Blue-spotted Salamander Common Loon New York State Artwork by Jean Gawalt Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish and Wildlife Page 1 of 30 February 2019 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Diversity Group 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233-4754 This web version is based upon an original hard copy version of Checklist of the Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of New York, Including Their Protective Status which was first published in 1985 and revised and reprinted in 1987. This version has had substantial revision in content and form. First printing - 1985 Second printing (rev.) - 1987 Third revision - 2001 Fourth revision - 2003 Fifth revision - 2005 Sixth revision - December 2005 Seventh revision - November 2006 Eighth revision - September 2007 Ninth revision - April 2010 Tenth revision – February 2019 Page 2 of 30 Introduction The following list of amphibians (34 species), reptiles (38), birds (474) and mammals (93) indicates those vertebrate species believed to be part of the fauna of New York and the present legal status of these species in New York State. Common and scientific nomenclature is as according to: Crother (2008) for amphibians and reptiles; the American Ornithologists' Union (1983 and 2009) for birds; and Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals. Expected occurrence in New York State is based on: Conant and Collins (1991) for amphibians and reptiles; Levine (1998) and the New York State Ornithological Association (2009) for birds; and New York State Museum records for terrestrial mammals.
    [Show full text]