DOCSLIB.ORG

Animal Inventory Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Animal Inventory Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust 1st January 2010 Births Received Deaths including DNS Exported 31st December 2010 Scientific name Common name Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Mollusca Gastropoda Partulidae Partula taeniata nucleola Partula Snail 0 0 231 ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 258 Achatinidae Achatina fulica Giant African Snail 002??? ??? 002 Archachatina marginata Snail 007??? ??? 007 Arthropoda Atyidae Caridina japonica Japanese Algae-eating Shrimp 007 002 Insecta Blattellidae Gromphadorhina portentosa Madagascar Hissing Cockroach 0 0 12 ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 16 Bacteriidae Extatosoma tiaratum Giant Prickly Walkingstick 0 0 34 ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 14 Diplopoda Spirostreptidae Archispirostreptus Giant African Millipede 002??? ??? 002 Characidae Hasemania nana False Silvertipped Tetra 0010 0010 Hyphessobrycon flammeus Flame Tetra 009001 008 Paracheirodon axelrodi Cardinal Tetra 0010 0010 Atheriniformes Bedotiidae Bedotia geayi Madagascar Rainbowfish 0 0 38 0 0 1 0 0 37 Cyprinodontiformes Aplochillinae Pachypanchax sakaramyi Panchax 0015 0015 Perciformes Cichlidae Paretroplus kieneri Kieneri Cichlid 0 0 30 0 0 21 0 0 9 Amphibia Typhlonectidae Typhlonectes natans Aquatic Caecilian 0 0 12 0 0 14 0 0 2 0 0 12 0 0 12 Salamandridae Euproctus platycephalus Sardinian Brook Salamander 0 0 12 001004007 Bufonidae Bufo galeatus Toad 0 0 30 0021200025 Bufo marinus Giant Marine Toad 4 6 0 460 Nectophrynoides viviparus Toad 5 6 6 031 535 Pedostibes hosii Climbing Toad 6 3 0 110 520 Dendrobatidae Dendrobates azureus Blue Poison Dart Frog 2 2 11 008011 2118 Dendrobates mysteriosus Poison Dart Frog 008002 006 Dendrobates pumilio Strawberry Poison Dart Frog 541001 110 432 Phyllobates terribilis Golden Poison Dart Frog 0 0 6 006 Phyllobates vittatus Golfodulcean Poison Dart Frog 0 0 6 006 Discoglossidae Alytes muletensis Mallorcan Midwife Toad 29 28 18 0 1 6 292712 Hylidae Hylinae Trachycephalus resinifictrix Mission Golden-eyed Tree Frog 4 2 4 0 0 12 3 1 1 1 1 15 Leptodactylidae Eleutherodactylus johnstonei Monserrat Whistling Frog 0 0 200 ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 20 Leptodactylus fallax Mountain Chicken Frog 8 16 28 53 0 67 0 1 2 78 25 66 Mantellidae Mantella aurantiaca Golden Mantella 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 12 Microhylidae Scaphiophryne marmorata Marbled Rain Frog 0 0 18 0018 Pelobatidae Megophrys nasuta Malayan Horned Frog 1 1 4 111003 Rhacophoridae Theloderma corticale Tonkin Bug-eyed Frog 0 0 17 0 0 65 0 0 7 5 0 60 0 0 10 1 Animal Inventory Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust 1st January 2010 Births Received Deaths including DNS Exported 31st December 2010 Scientific name Common name Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Reptilia Testudines Emydidae Deirochelyinae Trachemys decorata Hispaniolan Slider 3 2 13 0013 320 Trachemys scripta elegans Red-eared Slider 0 0 9 009 Geoemydidae Cuora galbinifrons Indochinese Box Turtle 2 2 0 220 Heosemys spinosa Spiny Hill Turtle 2 5 12 0 0 6 0062512 Testudinidae Land Tortoises Astrochelys radiata Radiated Tortoise 3 2 2 010002310 Chelonoidis nigra Galapagos Tortoise 220 220 Pyxis planicauda Madagascar Flat-tailed Tortoise 442005 447 Testudo marginata Marginated Tortoise 5 5 0 550 Sauria Chamaeleonidae Furcifer pardalis Reunion Chameleon 320 320 Iguanidae Anolis roquet summus Anole 0010 0010 Ctenosaura bakeri Baker's Spiny-tailed Iguana 1 2 0 120 Cyclura cornuta cornuta Rhinoceros Iguana 0 1 0 010 Cyclura nubila nubila Cuban Iguana 110 110 Iguana delicatissima West Indian Iguana 3 3 0 330 Sceloporus serrifer cyanogenys Blue Spiny Lizard 2400052 0052 240 Gekkonidae Nactus coindermirensis Lesser Night Gecko 0 0 53 0 0 63 0 0 7 0 0 109 Lacertidae Lacerta viridis Emerald Lacerta 0 0 15 ? ? ? ? ? ? 0 0 10 Scincidae Leiolopisma telfairii Telfair's Skink 5 5 0 550 Tiliqua gigas New Guinea Blue-tongued Skink 1 0 0 100 Anguidae Abronia vasconcelosii Guatemalan Arboreal Lizard 2 0 0 200 Diploglossus warreni Haitian Giant Galliwasp 4300017 0017110320 Helodermatidae Heloderma horridum exasperatum Rio Fuerte Beaded Lizard 1 1 2 002110 Varanidae Varanus komodoensis Komodo Dragon/ora 002 002 Varanus prasinus Emerald Monitor 1 0 0 100 Serpentes Bolyeridae Casarea dussumieri Round Island Ground Boa 0 7 8 002001075 Boidae Boinae Epicrates cenchria cenchria Brazilian Rainbow Boa 0 1 0 010 Epicrates maurus Brown Rainbow Boa 0 2 0 020 Epicrates subflavus Jamaican Boa 1 1 0 010 100 Pythoninae Python molurus bivittatus Burmese Rock Python 1 1 0 010 100 Colubridae Elaphe guttata Cornsnake/red Ratsnake 2 0 0 100 100 Gonyosoma oxycephala Red-tailed Ratsnake 112 112 Lampropeltis triangulum sinaloae Sinaloan Milksnake 1 0 0 100 Viperidae Crotalinae Bothriechis schlegelii Eyelash Palm Pitviper 2 3 0 0 1 5 0 0 3 2 4 2 Viperinae Vipera berus Common Adder 220100 120 Crocodylia Crocodylidae Alligatorinae Paleosuchus palpebrosus Dwarf Caiman 1 1 7 117 Aves 2 Animal Inventory Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust 1st January 2010 Births Received Deaths including DNS Exported 31st December 2010 Scientific name Common name Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Galliformes Phasianidae Lophura edwardsi Edward's Pheasant 3 0 0 100 200 Lophura hatinhensis Vietnamese Pheasant 4 0 0 100300 Polyplectron emphanum Palawan Peacock Pheasant 140001 141 Afropavo congensis Congo Peacock 2 3 0 100 130 Anseriformes Anatidae Anser cygnoides Swan Goose 420006 005 421 Branta ruficollis Red-breasted Goose 13 15 1 300 10151 Dendrocygna viduata White-faced Whistling Duck 645008 001 6412 Anas bernieri Madagascar Teal 390113 010493 Anas gibberifrons Sunda Teal 1 1 0 110 Anas melleri Meller's Duck 690111 030771 Anas punctata Hottentot Teal 5 9 0 220370 Aythya nyroca Common White-eye 15 14 0 30010011140 Marmaronetta angustirostris Marbled Teal 7 5 4 001 753 Nettapus auritus African Pygmy Goose 1 2 0 120 Tadorna tadorna Common Shelduck 0 2 0 020 Thalassornis leuconotus leuconotus African White-backed Duck 660500 010 1150 Phoenicopteriformes Phoenicopteridae Phoenicopterus chilensis Chilean Flamingo 24 30 0 010 24290 Phoenicopterus roseus Greater Flamingo 15 14 0 15 14 0 Ciconiiformes Ciconiidae Ciconia nigra Black Stork 100 100 Threskiornithidae Geronticus eremita Waldrapp Ibis 867002 101 768 Lophotibis cristata Madagascar Ibis 0 1 0 010 Lophotibis cristata urschi Madagascar Ibis 1 0 0 100 Scopidae Scopus umbretta Hamerkop 2 0 0 100 100 Gruiformes Gruidae Balearica regulorum Grey-crowned Crane 130101 101020110 Grus vipio White-naped Crane 3 2 0 210110 Anthropoides paradiseus Stanley Crane 140011 001010140 Charadriiformes Recurvirostridae Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt 2 2 0 100 120 Himantopus himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt 2 2 0 220 Columbiformes Columbidae Caloenas nicobarica nicobarica Nicobar Pigeon 340002 011 331 Chalcophaps indica Green-winged Dove 12 10 1 5 0 10 0 0 5 4 3 0 13 7 6 Columba mayeri Mauritius Pink Pigeon 220001100001 320 Gallicolumba criniger Bleeding-heart Dove 11 50010 200520440 Oena capensis Namaqua Dove 400 400 Streptopelia picturata Madagascar Turtle Dove 531202 002200531 Streptopelia risoria Ringed Turtle Dove 10 16 1 51105 5 1 Psittaciformes Psittacidae Psittacinae Psittacula eques Mauritius Parakeet 1 0 0 100 Amazona versicolor St Lucia Amazon 5 3 0 200010320400 Cuculiformes Musophagidae Tauraco erythrolophus Red-crested Turaco 330021010001120240 Bucerotiformes Bucerotidae Aceros corrugatus Sunda Wrinkled Hornbill 2 1 0 210 Passeriformes 3 Animal Inventory Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust 1st January 2010 Births Received Deaths including DNS Exported 31st December 2010 Scientific name Common name Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Male Female Unknown Pittidae Pitta sordida Hooded Pitta 0 1 0 010 Pitta sordida mulleri Hooded Pitta 3301414 2013110161 Corvidae Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax Chough 0 0 2 220002 220 Pycnonotidae Hypsipetes leucocephalus White-headed Bulbul 14 12 0112 0125501070 Zosteropidae Zosterops palpebrosa Oriental White-eye 1 2 0 010 110 Irenidae Irena puella Fairy Bluebird 340005100015100330 Mimidae Mimus gilvus Tropical Mockingbird 3 3 0 110 220 Sturnidae Leucopsar rothschildi Bali Mynah 11 90006 202440554 Muscicapidae Copsychus malabaricus Common Shama Thrush 880453 133350850 Cossypha albicapilla White-crowned Robin Chat 290110 3100 Zoothera dohertyi Chestnut-backed Thrush 630024 004300350 Dryonastes courtoisi Blue-crowned Laughing Thrush 15 10 02121101223101490 Leiothrix lutea Pekin Robin 12 640013 006 12611 Liocichla omeiensis Mount Omei Babbler 3 1 0 310 Trochalopteron milnei Red-tailed Laughing Thrush 3 4 1 001 340 Niltava sundara Rufous-bellied Niltava 3 3 0 100010220 Ploceidae Foudia madagascariensis Red Fody 5500014 1021003512 Estrildidae Padda oryzivora Javan Sparrow 2 5 0 010010230 Icteridae Icterus oberi Montserrat Oriole 10 70121 221320650 Emberizidae Paroaria dominicana Red-cowled Cardinal 2 0 0 200 Euphonia laniirostris Thick-billed Euphonia 3 2 0 320 Ramphocelus bresilius Brazilian Tanager 630215 005100740 Tangara icterocephala Silver-throated Tanager 320102 012 410 Mammalia Primates Lemuridae Eulemur rufus Red-fronted Lemur 210100 100210 Hapalemur alaotrensis Alaotran Gentle Lemur 6 3 0 630 Lemur catta Ring-tailed Lemur 420120200 740 Varecia rubra Red Ruffed Lemur 110100 100 110 Varecia variegata variegata Black-and-white Ruffed Lemur 1 0 0 0 1 0 110 Daubentoniidae Daubentonia madagascariensis
Recommended publications
  • Article Look but Don't Lick! Find out How These Brightly Colored Frogs

    Article Look but Don't Lick! Find out How These Brightly Colored Frogs

    The Power of Poison Look But Don’t Lick! GRADES K-2 NOTES FOR EDUCATORS Common Core State Standards: W.K-2.2, W.K-2.8 Have students read the article “Look but Don’t Lick!” Have them write notes RI.K-2.1, RI.K-2.2, RI.K-2.4, RI.K-2.7, RI.K-2.10 in the large right-hand margin. For example, they could underline key passages, paraphrase important information, or write down questions that New York State Science Core Curriculum: they have. LE 3.1a Next Generation Science Standards: If it is not possible to create color handouts, use a computer projector to PE 1-LS1-2 display the reading so that students can see the colorful frog photos. You DCI LS1.A: Structure and Function may also have them color their black and white copies to match the actual All organisms have external parts. Different colors. animals use their body parts in different ways to see, hear, grasp objects, protect Ask: themselves, move from place to place, and • What does it mean for an animal to be poisonous? (A: An animal is seek, find, and take in food, water and air. poisonous if its body contains a substance that is harmful or fatal to other Plants also have different parts (roots, animals.) stems, leaves, flowers, fruits) that help • How does being poisonous help the frogs in this article survive? (A: them survive and grow. Predators will not eat an animal that is poisonous to them. The frogs signal that they are poisonous by their bright colors, which warn predators not to eat them.
  • Visual Signaling in Anuran Amphibians

    Visual Signaling in Anuran Amphibians

    .. Hödl, W. and Amezquita, A. (2001). Visual signaling in anuran amphibians. In: Anuran communication, (M.J. Ryan, ed.). .. Smithsonian lust. Press, Washington. Pp. 121-141. 10 WALTER HÖDL AND ADOLFO AMEZQUITA Visual Signaling in Anuran Amphibians lntroduction cation. social behavior, or natural history. visual signaling was either not considered or was treated as a minor subject Acoustic communication plays a fundamental role in an- (Wells 1977a, 1977b; Arak 1983; Duellman and Trueb 1986; uran reproduction and thus is involved in evolutionary Rand 1988; Halliday and Tejedo 1995; Stebbins and Cohen processes such as mate recognition. reproductive isolation. 1995; Sullivan et al. 1995). The most detailed review ofthe speciation. and character displacement (Wells 1977a. 1977b. subject is now more than 20 years old (Wells 1977b). Never- 1988;Rand 1988;Gerhardt and Schwartz 1995;Halliday and theless some authors have discussed the possible evolution- Tejedo 1995;Sullivan et al. 1995).Visual cues. however. have ary link between visual signaling and the reproductive ecol- been thought to function only during dose-range inter- ogy of species, such as reproduction associated with streams actions (Wells 1977c; Duellman and Trueb 1986). Visual sig- (Heyer et aI. 1990; Lindquist and Hetherington 1996. 1998; naling is predicted to be predominantly employed by diur- Hödl et al. 1997;Haddad and Giaretta 1999) or reproduction nal species at sites with an unobstructed view (Endler 1992). within feeding territories (Wells 1977c). Diurnality. however. is not common for the majority offrog Our aim in this review is (1) to propose a dassmcation of species. Thus vocalizations. which are highly efficient for reported behavioral patterns of visual signaling in frags; (2) communicating at night or in dense vegetation, are by far to describe the diversity of visual signals among living an- the best studied anuran signals (Duellman and Trueb 1986; uran taxa; and (3) to apply a comparative approach to explor- Fritzsch et aI.
  • A Review of Chemical Defense in Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidae): Ecology, Pharmacokinetics, and Autoresistance

    A Review of Chemical Defense in Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidae): Ecology, Pharmacokinetics, and Autoresistance

    Chapter 21 A Review of Chemical Defense in Poison Frogs (Dendrobatidae): Ecology, Pharmacokinetics, and Autoresistance Juan C. Santos , Rebecca D. Tarvin , and Lauren A. O’Connell 21.1 Introduction Chemical defense has evolved multiple times in nearly every major group of life, from snakes and insects to bacteria and plants (Mebs 2002 ). However, among land vertebrates, chemical defenses are restricted to a few monophyletic groups (i.e., clades). Most of these are amphibians and snakes, but a few rare origins (e.g., Pitohui birds) have stimulated research on acquired chemical defenses (Dumbacher et al. 1992 ). Selective pressures that lead to defense are usually associated with an organ- ism’s limited ability to escape predation or conspicuous behaviors and phenotypes that increase detectability by predators (e.g., diurnality or mating calls) (Speed and Ruxton 2005 ). Defended organisms frequently evolve warning signals to advertise their defense, a phenomenon known as aposematism (Mappes et al. 2005 ). Warning signals such as conspicuous coloration unambiguously inform predators that there will be a substantial cost if they proceed with attack or consumption of the defended prey (Mappes et al. 2005 ). However, aposematism is likely more complex than the simple pairing of signal and defense, encompassing a series of traits (i.e., the apose- matic syndrome) that alter morphology, physiology, and behavior (Mappes and J. C. Santos (*) Department of Zoology, Biodiversity Research Centre , University of British Columbia , #4200-6270 University Blvd , Vancouver , BC , Canada , V6T 1Z4 e-mail: [email protected] R. D. Tarvin University of Texas at Austin , 2415 Speedway Stop C0990 , Austin , TX 78712 , USA e-mail: [email protected] L.
  • Taxonomic Checklist of Amphibian Species Listed in the CITES

    Taxonomic Checklist of Amphibian Species Listed in the CITES

    CoP17 Doc. 81.1 Annex 5 (English only / Únicamente en inglés / Seulement en anglais) Taxonomic Checklist of Amphibian Species listed in the CITES Appendices and the Annexes of EC Regulation 338/97 Species information extracted from FROST, D. R. (2015) "Amphibian Species of the World, an online Reference" V. 6.0 (as of May 2015) Copyright © 1998-2015, Darrel Frost and TheAmericanMuseum of Natural History. All Rights Reserved. Additional comments included by the Nomenclature Specialist of the CITES Animals Committee (indicated by "NC comment") Reproduction for commercial purposes prohibited. CoP17 Doc. 81.1 Annex 5 - p. 1 Amphibian Species covered by this Checklist listed by listed by CITES EC- as well as Family Species Regulation EC 338/97 Regulation only 338/97 ANURA Aromobatidae Allobates femoralis X Aromobatidae Allobates hodli X Aromobatidae Allobates myersi X Aromobatidae Allobates zaparo X Aromobatidae Anomaloglossus rufulus X Bufonidae Altiphrynoides malcolmi X Bufonidae Altiphrynoides osgoodi X Bufonidae Amietophrynus channingi X Bufonidae Amietophrynus superciliaris X Bufonidae Atelopus zeteki X Bufonidae Incilius periglenes X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides asperginis X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides cryptus X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides frontierei X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides laevis X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides laticeps X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides minutus X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides paulae X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides poyntoni X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides pseudotornieri X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides tornieri X Bufonidae Nectophrynoides vestergaardi
  • Silverstone, 1976

    Silverstone, 1976

    A REVISION OF THE POISON-ARROW FROGS OF THE GENUS PHYLLOBATES BIBRON IN SAGRA (FAMILY DENDROBATIDAE) By PHILIP A. SILVERSTOi'E NATURAL HISTORY M US EU ~ l OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY SCIEl'CE BULLETI!" ~ 7 • :-,:ovEMBER 25. 197b A REVISIO:\, OF THE POISO:\'-ARRO\\' FROGS OF THE GE:\'US PHYUOBATES BIBRO:-': IS SAGRA ( FA ~ lI lY DE:-':DROBATIDAE) A REVISION OF THE POISON-ARROW FROGS OF THE GENUS PHYLLOBATES BIBRON IN SAGRA (FAMILY DENDROBATIDAE) By PHILIP A. SILVERSTONE :-<ATU RAL HISTORY :\1U SElJ~ l OF LOS AV iELES COUI\TY SCIE!\CE BULLETl I\ 17 • :-;OVBlB ER ~5. 1976 T AB LE OF CON TE NTS AC,,"OWLEDGMESTS ~h T U I " LS ""D ~l ET HOOS ~ u-e um abbrevialion$ 3 PNlUJJA< 1a BIB_ ,.,S..u...1841 J Ddinilion J D i a ~ nos i s J Descripelon J Conten t , Tad poles , Specie, group' 7 Life history 7 Food , Summary of distribution 9 Key 10 the genera of Dendrobatidac 9 Key 10 the species of Ph.l'lIoh/ll'-f 9 8 K."OW ~ (ilt 0\Jl' 20 Phylloha tt!_, ,pec ies 20 PhylloM tt!s aurorut!nio 21 Phyllooott!Sbiro /or 2J Phylloha lt!S lugubris 24 Phy/foha tt!s ,';IlOlll.S zs F EMoifAUS (iltOliP 27 PhylJoM u s a'llltwly'; 27 Ph)·fJobou s bol'lt!ngt!ri •• aa Phy/Jobatu t!spino so; 29 Phy/Jobatt!Sjt!mo ralis 50 Phyllobau s tricohv J2 Ph,.llobau s zapar o JJ P O f!S (; 10l/P' as Phyllobatt!s bolMu lllU Phyllooolt!S ingt!r; " Phyllohult' J pan'ulus "J6 Phyllobalt!S peters! J7 Phyllohules plctu s aa Phvltobates pulrhripeclu .f 4J PhyIJob/lles ,marulld;nus 44 T~ lVm A I /JS (; IO\; P Phyllobalt!s bault! ri " Ph.l'lIobalt!s triviuOl,.s " " U TElt U l,IRE CnED 50 FRONTI,PII:n: II.
  • Poison Dart Frogs

    Poison Dart Frogs

    POISON DART FROGS Anura Dendrobates tinctorius Family: Dendrobatidae Genus: multiple Range: Southern Central America and north and central South America Habitat: tropical rainforests Niche: Diurnal, terrestrial; breed in trees, carnivorous Wild diet: small invertebrates, particularly ants, which give them their poisonous properties in most cases Zoo diet: pinhead crickets, fruitflies Life Span: (Wild) 3-15 years (Captivity) up to 20 years Sexual dimorphism: Males slightly smaller Location in SF Zoo: South American Tropical Rainforest and Aviary APPEARANCE & PHYSICAL ADAPTATIONS: There are 40 species of Dendrobates poison dart frogs. All have bright coloration (aposematic coloration), which warns predators of their toxic skin secretions (alkaloids obtained from insects they eat). They are small frogs (most are no bigger than a paper clip). They have a good vision used to help capture prey. Their long, sticky tongue darts out and captures their prey once spoted. Each foot contains four toes which each have a flattened tip with a suction cup pad which is used for gripping and clinging to vegetation in its habitat. They lack webbing and are poor swimmers and are found near water but not in it. Weight: < 1 oz (< 28 g) Poison Dart Frogs have no webbing between the toes on their feet, so Length: 1 - 6 cm they are poor swimmers and are not often found in the water. STATUS & CONSERVATION: Many species are threatened by habitat loss and over-collection for the pet trade. COMMUNICATION AND OTHER BEHAVIOR The males are territorial, calling to advertise to females and to defend their area. Calls are species dependent and can be anything from a buzz to trilling whistles.
  • Reptile Diversity in an Amazing Tropical Environment: the West Indies - L

    Reptile Diversity in an Amazing Tropical Environment: the West Indies - L

    TROPICAL BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT - Vol. VIII - Reptile Diversity In An Amazing Tropical Environment: The West Indies - L. Rodriguez Schettino REPTILE DIVERSITY IN AN AMAZING TROPICAL ENVIRONMENT: THE WEST INDIES L. Rodriguez Schettino Department of Zoology, Institute of Ecology and Systematics, Cuba To the memory of Ernest E. Williams and Austin Stanley Rand Keywords: Reptiles, West Indies, geographic distribution, morphological and ecological diversity, ecomorphology, threatens, conservation, Cuba Contents 1. Introduction 2. Reptile diversity 2.1. Morphology 2.2.Habitat 3. West Indian reptiles 3.1. Greater Antilles 3.2. Lesser Antilles 3.3. Bahamas 3.4. Cuba (as a study case) 3.4.1. The Species 3.4.2. Geographic and Ecological Distribution 3.4.3. Ecomorphology 3.4.4. Threats and Conservation 4. Conclusions Acknowledgments Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary The main features that differentiate “reptiles” from amphibians are their dry scaled tegument andUNESCO their shelled amniotic eggs. In– modern EOLSS studies, birds are classified under the higher category named “Reptilia”, but the term “reptiles” used here does not include birds. One can externally identify at least, three groups of reptiles: turtles, crocodiles, and lizards and snakes. However, all of these three groups are made up by many species that are differentSAMPLE in some morphological characters CHAPTERS like number of scales, color, size, presence or absence of limbs. Also, the habitat use is quite variable; there are reptiles living in almost all the habitats of the Earth, but the majority of the species are only found in the tropical regions of the world. The West Indies is a region of special interest because of its tropical climate, the high number of species living on the islands, the high level of endemism, the high population densities of many species, and the recognized adaptive radiation that has occurred there in some genera, such as Anolis, Sphaerodactylus, and Tropidophis.
  • Poison Dart Frogs and South American Indians

    Poison Dart Frogs and South American Indians

    Copyrighted Material 118 F r o G s A N d t o A d s In medieval Europe, frogs and toads were synonymous with evil and witchcraft and toads are depicted as the familiars and alter-egos of witches. Almost all writings of the time portray the toad in a negative fashion (frogs are hardly mentioned) and Shakespeare refers to them as ‘ugly and venomous’. Even today, toads are not welcome in some places and are thought to cause warts, while superstitions concerning toads were commonplace in parts of England and North America until recently. Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows, published in 1908, characterizes Toad as pompous and unreliable, but he redresses the balance by also describing him as intelligent and witty. In other children’s tales from Europe, frogs are princes in disguise waiting only for a maiden’s kiss. Poison dart frogs and South American Indians south American Indians of the Emberá Chocó group of frog was enough to kill at least 20,000 mice when tribes from the Pacific slopes of the Andes in Colombia injected under the skin. Extrapolating to humans this is use at least three species of poison dart frogs to tip their equivalent to six or seven average-sized people though blowgun darts: Phyllobates aurotaenia, P. bicolor and comparing toxicity between mice and humans is not P. terribilis. the poison consists of steroidal alkaloids in always completely accurate. the frogs’ skin secretions, of which the most powerful the Indians make their blowguns from a length of is produced by the golden poison dart frog, P.
  • Restoring Island Biodiversity

    Restoring Island Biodiversity

    Contents Mauritian reptiles Restoring island biodiversity: Mauritian reptiles Restoration and research the reintroduction of endemic Mauritian reptiles Skinks and geckos The Darwin Initiative project Dr Nicholas Cole University of Bristol Project protocol and timetable Dr Carl Jones Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust Mauritian Wildlife Foundation Mauritian reptiles Mauritian reptiles Once one of the richest reptile diversities in the World This adaptive radiation caused the formation of a unique ecosystem In the absence of terrestrial mammals the reptiles evolved to occupy all available niches dependent upon reptiles Allowed adaptive radiation of: Tortoises Nocturnal and diurnal geckos Skinks Reptiles occupied all main functional Snakes groups: Mauritian reptiles Mauritian reptiles Predators: Prey: 1 Mauritian reptiles Mauritian reptiles Grazers and browsers: Seed dispersers: Mauritian reptiles Mauritian reptiles Pollinators: Human related disturbances over the past 400 years: Extensive habitat destruction Introduction of non-native predators and competitors More than 60% of reptile species lost from the main island through extinction or extirpation The majority of the extant species are now confined to offshore islands Mauritian reptiles Restoration and research Remaining island populations: Round Island Most intact reptile fauna of the Mascarenes Restricted and/or fragmented distributions Never invaded by predatory mammals or reptiles The loss of ecological links and food webs Habitat destruction caused
  • Batrachotoxin Alkaloids from Passerine Birds: a Second Toxic Bird Genus (Ifrita Kowaldi) from New Guinea

    Batrachotoxin Alkaloids from Passerine Birds: a Second Toxic Bird Genus (Ifrita Kowaldi) from New Guinea

    Batrachotoxin alkaloids from passerine birds: A second toxic bird genus (Ifrita kowaldi) from New Guinea J. P. Dumbacher*†, T. F. Spande‡, and J. W. Daly‡ *Molecular Genetics Laboratory, National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution, 3001 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20008; and ‡Laboratory of Bioorganic Chemistry, Room 1A-15, Building 8, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-0820 Contributed by J. W. Daly, July 24, 2000 Batrachotoxins, including many congeners not previously de- scribed, were detected, and relative amounts were measured by using HPLC-mass spectrometry, in five species of New Guinean birds of the genus Pitohui as well as a species of a second toxic bird genus, Ifrita kowaldi. The alkaloids, identified in feathers and skin, were batrachotoxinin-A cis-crotonate (1), an allylically rearranged 16-acetate (2), which can form from 1 by sigmatropic rearrange- ment under basic conditions, batrachotoxinin-A and an isomer (3 -and 3a, respectively), batrachotoxin (4), batrachotoxinin-A 3؅ hydroxypentanoate (5), homobatrachotoxin (6), and mono- and dihydroxylated derivatives of homobatrachotoxin. The highest levels of batrachotoxins were generally present in the contour feathers of belly, breast, or legs in Pitohui dichrous, Pitohui kirho- cephalus, and Ifrita kowaldi. Lesser amounts are found in head, back, tail, and wing feathers. Batrachotoxin (4) and homobatra- chotoxin (6) were found only in feathers and not in skin. The levels of batrachotoxins varied widely for different populations of Pito- hui and Ifrita, a result compatible with the hypothesis that these birds are sequestering toxins from a dietary source. omobatrachotoxin (6) was reported in 1992 to occur in the Hskins and feathers of three passerine bird species in the genus Pitohui (family Pachycephalidae) endemic to New Guinea and considered toxic by New Guineans (1).
  • Does Batrachotoxin Autoresistance Co-Evolve with Toxicity in Phyllobates Poison-Dart Frogs?

    Does Batrachotoxin Autoresistance Co-Evolve with Toxicity in Phyllobates Poison-Dart Frogs?

    Does batrachotoxin autoresistance co-evolve with toxicity in Phyllobates poison-dart frogs? Supplementary material Supplementary Tables Table S1. Specimen information and accession numbers of the sequences used in ancestral sequence reconstructions. For sequences obtained from publicly available genomes or transcriptomes where sequences do not have individual accession numbers (i.e. Nanorana parkeri, Rhinella marina, Rana pipiens) we provide the name of the contig or gene annotation. Species Voucher Locality DI DII DIII DIV Source Observations Allobates femoralis- Lumbaquí, Ecuador KT989177 - - KT989148 Tarvin et al. 2016 Allobates talamancae - Tundaloma, Ecuador KT989178 - - KT989149 Tarvin et al. 2016 Allobates zaparo- Río Pastaza, Ecuador KT989179 - - KT989150 Tarvin et al. 2016 Ameerega bilinguis- Venecia, Ecuador KT989180 KT989205 KT989220 KT989151 Tarvin et al. 2016 Ameerega hahneli- Canelos, Ecuador KT989181 - - KT989152 Tarvin et al. 2016 Ameerega parvula- Gualaquiza, Ecuador KT989182 KT989206 - KT989153 Tarvin et al. 2016 Panguana Biological Ameerega petersi GECOH1407 Station, Puerto Inca, Perú TBA - - TBA This Study Panguana Biological Ameerega picta GECOH1406 Station, Puerto Inca, Perú TBA - - TBA This Study Leticia, Amazonas, Ameerega trivittata TNHC-FS466 Colombia TBA - - TBA This Study La Celia, Risaralda, Andinobates bombetes GECOH1495 Colombia TBA - - TBA This Study Yotoco, Valle del Cauca, Andinobates bombetes GECOH297 Colombia TBA - - TBA This Study Andinobates fulguritus GECOH1314 Lloró, Chocó, Colombia TBA - - TBA This
  • Aggressive Behaviour, Courtship and Mating Call Description of the Neotropical Poison Frog Phyllobates Aurotaenia (Anura: Dendrobatidae)

    Aggressive Behaviour, Courtship and Mating Call Description of the Neotropical Poison Frog Phyllobates Aurotaenia (Anura: Dendrobatidae)

    Herpetology Notes, volume 14: 1145-1149 (2021) (published online on 01 September 2021) Aggressive behaviour, courtship and mating call description of the neotropical poison frog Phyllobates aurotaenia (Anura: Dendrobatidae) Marco González-Santoro1,*, Jack Hernández-Restrepo1, and Pablo Palacios-Rodríguez1 Frogs of the Dendrobatidae family have been and agonistic behaviours in the defence of a territory documented as notably territorial (Summers, 2000; and subsequent reproductive success. Here, we report Pröhl, 2005; Méndez-Narváez and Amézquita, 2014). the aggressive behaviour, courtship, and the description For many species, a good territory can be characterized of a mating call for P. aurotaenia. by a high density of potential mates, suitable oviposition Phyllobates aurotaenia (Boulenger, 1913) is a sites, access to trophic resources and/or land extension dendrobatid frog native to Colombia, South America, (Crump, 1972; Silverstone, 1973; Summers, 1992; restricted to the pacific lowland rainforests of the Meuche et al., 2013). Moreover, successful territorial western versant of the West Andes (Silverstone, 1976; defence has been associated to mating success in males Kahn et al., 2016) (Fig. 1A). Males actively defend their (Roithmair, 1992, 1994; Pröhl, 1997; Ringler et al., territory with advertisement calls (Fig. 1B, 2A) and 2012; Yang and Richards-Zawacki, 2021). Therefore, are responsible for transporting the larvae to breeding although female territoriality has been documented sites. Females of this species are known to roam around (Weygoldt, 1987; Pröhl et al., 2019), typically males without actively defending a territory and approach show a series of behaviours related to the defence of calling males when ready to reproduce (Kahn et al., a territory (reviewed in Pröhl, 2005).