DOCSLIB.ORG

Crinia Sloanei Common Name(S): Sloane’S Froglet 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crinia Sloanei Common Name(S): Sloane’S Froglet 2 Threatened Species Nomination Form for amending the list of threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) 2014/15 Assessment Period The purpose of this form is to provide a nomination to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) for assessment of a non EPBC Act listed species/subspecies for inclusion on the list of threatened species or to nominate a species/subspecies for reassessment for consideration for listing in another category of threat. For a non-EPBC Act listed species to be eligible for listing as a threatened species it must be assessed as meeting at least one of the five criteria for listing. For a species already listed as threatened under the EPBC Act to be eligible for listing in a higher or lower category of threat it must be assessed as meeting at least one of the five criteria for a particular indicative threshold. For example, for a species listed as endangered to be found eligible for listing as critically endangered, it must meet the critically endangered indicative thresholds for at least one of the listing criteria. If there is insufficient information to enable details to be provided because of a lack of scientific data or analysis please include any information that is available or provide a statement next to the relevant question identifying that the data or analysis is not available. Please provide references in your nomination to support information provided. If you are nominating a species for removal from the list please complete the nomination form to delist a species. The Committee recognises that completing a nomination form is demanding as a result of the information required by the Committee to undertake an assessment to determine the eligibility for listing. Nominators are encouraged to seek expert advice where appropriate to assist in the completion of the nomination form. Important notes for completing this form Please complete the form as comprehensively as possible – it is important for the Committee to have as much information as possible, and the best case on which to judge a species’ eligibility against the EPBC Act criteria for listing. Certain information in this nomination is required to be provided by Division 7.2 EPBC Regulations 2000 (www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html). Nominations that do not meet the EPBC Regulations can not be provided to the Committee for consideration. All required questions are included in this nominations form. If information to answer any of the questions in this form is NOT available please state this in your answer as this is sufficient to meet the requirements of the EPBC Regulations. Reference all information and facts, both in the text and in a reference list at the end of the form. The opinion of appropriate scientific experts may be cited as personal communication, with their approval, in support of your nomination. Please provide the name of the experts, their qualifications and contact details (including employment in a state agency, if relevant) in the reference list at the end of the form. If the species is considered to be affected by climate change, please refer to the Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species (Attachment B; Part B2). Identify any confidential material and explain the sensitivity. Note that the information in the nomination (but excluding any information specifically requested by you to remain confidential) will be made available to the public and experts for comment. However, your details as nominator will not be released, and will remain confidential. Figures, tables and maps can be included at the end of the form or prepared as separate electronic or hardcopy documents (referred to as appendices or attachments in your nomination). Cross-reference relevant areas of the nomination form where needed. Note – Further detail to help you complete this form is provided at Attachment A. If using this form in Microsoft Word, you can jump to this information by Ctrl+clicking the hyperlinks (in blue text). Details of Nominated Species or Subspecies 1. NAME OF NOMINATED SPECIES (OR SUBSPECIES) Scientific name: Crinia sloanei Common name(s): Sloane’s Froglet 2. CURRENT LISTING CATEGORY What category is the species currently listed in under the EPBC Act? (If you are nominating the species for removal from the list, please complete the nomination form for removal from the list). X Not Listed Extinct Extinct in the wild Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Conservation dependent 3. 2013–2014 CONSERVATION THEME Is the current conservation theme ‘terrestrial and marine flora and fauna that would benefit from national listing’ relevant to this nomination? If so, briefly explain how. Sloane’s Froglet would benefit greatly from national listing. Peri-urban areas on the outskirts of a few NSW and Victorian, Murray Valley towns are the remaining strongholds of this frog. Its remaining habitat largely occurs on rural small holdings. Its survival is dependent on sympathetic management by many people on private property. The recognition and potential funding sources that national listing would entail, would raise the profile of the froglet and enhance efforts to research and produce management guidelines for the species and increase the level of adoption and implementation of these guidelines. Listing would also help co-ordinate conservation efforts across NSW and Victoria. Defence and other Commonwealth land is an important component of the remaining habitat of the species, particularly the Wirlinga Ammunition Depot and Training Area. Much of the habitat in the Thurgoona –Albury stronghold area are former lands of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, and Commonwealth funding has been provided to manage these lands for environmental conservation. Listing will re-enforce the importance of these lands for the froglets’s conservation. Transfer Information (for transferring of a species to another category) Note: If the nomination is to transfer a species between categories please complete questions 4-6. If the nomination is for a new listing please proceed to question 7. If the nomination is to remove a species from the list, please use the delisting form. 4. REASON FOR THE NOMINATION FOR CATEGORY CHANGE Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse. What is the reason for the nomination: Genuine change of status New Knowledge Mistake Other Taxonomic change – ‘split’ newly described ‘lumped’ no longer valid 5. INITIAL LISTING Describe the reasons for the species’ initial listing and if available the criteria under which it was formerly considered eligible 6. CHANGES IN SITUATION With regard to the listing criteria, how have circumstances changed since the species was listed that now makes it eligible for listing in another category? Species Information 7. TAXONOMY Provide any relevant detail on the species' taxonomy (e.g. authors of taxon or naming authority, year and reference; synonyms; Family and Order). Sloane's Froglet (Crinia sloanei Littlejohn 1958) was first identified from other co-occurring species of Crinia on the basis of its call, breeding behaviour and morphological appearance (Littlejohn 1958). Male Sloane's Froglet call while floating in open water of temporary ponds, while closely related sympatric species call out of water (C. parinsignifera) or under cover of overhanging grasses or sitting on submerged vegetation (C. signifera). The difference in call between the species is distinctive, with Sloane’s Froglet producing a short, high pitched chirp (Knight 2013a). Littlejohn (1958) also described morphological differences with an emphasis on the difference in throat and belly colour and markings among the three species. Molecular phylognetic study of Crinia and related taxa concluded that the taxonomic status of C. sloanei is stable (Read et al. 2001). It's closest related species are in Western Australian including C. insignifera and pseudinsignifera rather than the co-occurring C. signifera and C. parinsignifera (Read et al 2001). Hybrids are unknown. 8. CONVENTIONALLY ACCEPTED Is the species conventionally accepted? If the species' taxonomy is NOT conventionally accepted, then please provide the following information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000: a taxonomic description of the species in a form suitable for publication in conventional scientific literature; OR evidence that a scientific institution has a specimen of the species, and a written statement signed by a person who is a taxonomist and has relevant expertise (has worked with, or is a published author on, the class of species nominated), that the species is considered to be a new species. Sloane’s Froglet is conventionally recognised as a species with no subspecies, and was first described in 1958 (Littlejohn 1958). 9. DESCRIPTION Provide a description of the species including where relevant, distinguishing features, size and social structure How distinct is this species in its appearance from other species? How likely is it to be misidentified? Sloane's Froglet (Crinia sloanei) is a small ground-dwelling frog of between 15mm – 20mm, belonging to the family Myobatrichidae. Males average about 15.6 mm in size, with females being slightly bigger at 17.6 mm (Littlejohn 1958). It has a brown or browny-grey back often with darker brown or olive markings and males may also have orange or ochre coloured spots. The belly is white and peppered with small black spots. The throat of females is white, while breeding males have a greyish-green lower jaw and a pale grey throat. There is no webbing on the feet and toe- pads are absent. Eggs are pigmented and laid individually at the bottom of pools attached to blades of grass or other submerged vegetation. Tadpoles grow to 25 mm and are light grey or brown all over with scattered dark flecks (Knight 2013a, Antis 2002). Sloane’s Froglet tadpoles are difficult to distinguish from those of C. signfera and C. parinisignifera (Antis 2002).
Load more

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]
  • Amphibian Neuropeptides: Isolation, Sequence Determination and Bioactivity
    Amphibian Neuropeptides: Isolation, Sequence Determination and Bioactivity A Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Chemistry by Vita Marie Maselli B.Sc. (Hons) July 2006 Preface ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Contents Abstract viii Statement of Originality x Acknowledgements xi List of Figures xii List of Tables xv The 20 Common Amino Acids xvi Chapter 1- Amphibians and their Peptides 1 1.1 Amphibian Peptides 1 1.1a Amphibians 1 1.1b The Role of Anuran Peptides 2 1.2 The Pharmacology of Peptides 4 1.2a Neuropeptides 5 1.2b Hormonal Peptides 7 1.2c Antibacterial Peptides 8 1.2d Anticancer Agents 9 1.2e Antifungal Peptides 9 1.2f Antimalarial Peptides 9 1.2g Pheromones 10 1.2h Miscellaneous Peptides 10 1.3 Peptide Biosynthesis 11 1.4 Methodology 12 1.4a Collection of Frog Secretions 12 1.4b Analysis by High Performance Liquid Chromatography 13 1.4c Mass Spectrometry 14 1.4d Q-TOF 2 Hybrid Quadrupole Time of Flight Mass Spectrometer 15 ii Preface ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.5 Peptide Sequencing 18 1.5a Positive and Negative Ion Mass Spectrometry 18 1.5b Automated Edman Sequencing 21 1.5c Enzyme Digestion 22 1.5d Determination of the C-terminal End Group 23 1.6 Bioactivity Testing 24 Chapter 2- Studies of Skin Secretions from the Crinia genus 2.1 Introduction 25 2.1a General 25 2.1b Cyclic Peptides 29 2.2 Host-Defence Compounds from Crinia riparia 30 2.2a Results 30 2.2.1a Isolation
    [Show full text]
  • ARAZPA Amphibian Action Plan
    Appendix 1 to Murray, K., Skerratt, L., Marantelli, G., Berger, L., Hunter, D., Mahony, M. and Hines, H. 2011. Guidelines for minimising disease risks associated with captive breeding, raising and restocking programs for Australian frogs. A report for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. ARAZPA Amphibian Action Plan Compiled by: Graeme Gillespie, Director Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria; Russel Traher, Amphibian TAG Convenor, Curator Healesville Sanctuary Chris Banks, Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria. February 2007 1 1. Background Amphibian species across the world have declined at an alarming rate in recent decades. According to the IUCN at least 122 species have gone extinct since 1980 and nearly one third of the world’s near 6,000 amphibian species are classified as threatened with extinction, placing the entire class at the core of the current biodiversity crisis (IUCN, 2006). Australasia too has experienced significant declines; several Australian species are considered extinct and nearly 25% of the remainder are threatened with extinction, while all four species native to New Zealand are threatened. Conventional causes of biodiversity loss, habitat destruction and invasive species, are playing a major role in these declines. However, emergent disease and climate change are strongly implicated in many declines and extinctions. These factors are now acting globally, rapidly and, most disturbingly, in protected and near pristine areas. Whilst habitat conservation and mitigation of threats in situ are essential, for many taxa the requirement for some sort of ex situ intervention is mounting. In response to this crisis there have been a series of meetings organised by the IUCN (World Conservation Union), WAZA (World Association of Zoos & Aquariums) and CBSG (Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, of the IUCN Species Survival Commission) around the world to discuss how the zoo community can and should respond.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Welcome to Our Summer Edition
    Issue 34 - December 2015 Newsletter Welcome to our summer edition. It is a time for insects; dragonflies, damselflies and butterflies all appreciate the warmer weather. Insects provide food for the many bird species that migrate to the Wombat Forest to breed. Beautiful mauve fringe lilies are starting to appear. It is also a time to look for sun orchids, and in the swampy areas, the large sickle greenhood orchids. Gayle Osborne (editor) and Angela Halpin (design) Owl Watch - Powerful Owls South of Trentham By Trevor Speirs In December last year, when searching for Rose Robins delight two Powerful Owls Ninox strenua were found and Pink Robins, Gayle and I stopped at a well-treed roosting in a Blackwood Acacia melanoxylon along the gully south of Trentham. No robins, but to our great dry creek bed. They appeared young, being slight in build and lightish in colour, and were a bit nervous, quickly taking off into the forest, but judging by the amount of familiar chalky excreta and small animal bones on the ground, this roost had been in use for some time. The surrounding bush looked like good owl habitat, with a stand of large Mountain Grey Gums Eucalyptus cypellocarpa with spacious hollows, and we made a note to return during next year’s breeding season. We visited on and off over the winter months, and while there was still plenty of evidence of owl presence, it was not until mid-September that we saw our first bird, a female. This was a good day, as shortly after dusk an owlet could be heard trilling from one of the grey gums that we suspected was being used for breeding.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Sloane's Froglet, Crinia Sloanei
    Sloane’s Froglet, Crinia sloanei What is Sloane’s Froglet? Sloane’s Froglet is a very small (around 15 to 20mm), native Australian frog that lives in inland Victoria, New South Wales and possibly southern Queensland. This unique froglet was first discovered in the late 1950s in southern NSW and northern Victoria along the Murray River near Tocumwal by Murray Littlejohn1. Since that time there has been little research into Sloane’s Froglet. In NSW in 2008 it was declared a threatened species under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act2. Photo ©David Hunter Figure 1: Female and male Sloane’s Froglets in amplexus How can I tell if it is a Sloane’s Froglet? Both male and female Sloane’s Froglets have backs that are brown or browny-grey, often with darker brown or olive markings, and males may Photo ©Marion Anstis also have orange or ochre coloured spots. Their bellies are generally white with some darker blotches and a greenish marbling under the chin. Sloane’s Froglets are hard to see and hide quickly so the best way to identify a Sloane’s Froglet is from its call. During the winter months and after heavy rain it makes a short chirp while floating on top of a water body. It calls during the day and at night. Sloane’s Froglet is often mistaken for other species, most commonly for the Plains or Eastern Sign-bearing Froglet, Figure 2: The belly of a male Crinia parinsignifera. This froglet Sloane’s Froglet sounds similar to Sloane’s although its call is usually a longer wail rather Photo ©Dirk Spenneman than a chirp.
    [Show full text]
  • Frog Census 1999 Frog Census 1999
    FROG CENSUS 1999 FROG CENSUS 1999 Cover photographs: Top: Smooth Frog (Geocrinia laevis) Photograph by Steven Walker Middle: Desert Froglet (Crinia deserticola) Photograph from Bayly C, Hunwick J, Hutchinson M, Mahony M. 1990. FrogWatch Resource Materials, South Australian FrogWatch Committee, Adelaide. Bottom: Peron’s Tree Frog (Litoria peroni) Photograph by Steven Walker Document production: Environment Protection Agency Department for Environment and Heritage GPO Box 2607 ADELAIDE SA 5001 Telephone: (08) 8204 2000 Facsimile: (08) 8204 9393 Freecall (country): 1800 623 445 ISSN 1327-8592 OCTOBER 2000 © Environment Protection Agency This document may be reproduced wholly or in part for the purpose of study or training, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source, and to its not being used for commercial purposes or sale. Reproduction for purposes other than those given above requires the prior written permission of the Environment Protection Agency. Printed on recycled paper FROG CENSUS 1999 A report on community monitoring of water quality and habitat conditions in South Australia using frogs as indicators By SJ Walker, BM Hill, PM Goonan EPA Frog Census 1999 Frog Census 1999 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v SUMMARY vii 1. INTRODUCTION 4 2. METHODS 3 3. RESULTS 4 3.1 Observer and Location Details 4 3.2 Frog Species Abundance and Distribution 4 3.3 Distribution and Abundance of each Species 10 3.3.1 Family Hylidae 10 3.3.2 Family Leptodactylidae 15 3.4 No Frogs Recorded 29 3.5 Species Diversity 30 4. DISCUSSION 31 4.1Frogs of
    [Show full text]
  • Woinarski J. C. Z., Legge S. M., Woolley L. A., Palmer R., Dickman C
    Woinarski J. C. Z., Legge S. M., Woolley L. A., Palmer R., Dickman C. R., Augusteyn J., Doherty T. S., Edwards G., Geyle H., McGregor H., Riley J., Turpin J., Murphy B.P. (2020) Predation by introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species records and estimation of numbers killed. Wildlife Research, Vol. 47, Iss. 8, Pp 580-588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/WR19182 1 2 3 Predation by introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species’ 4 records and estimation of numbers killed. 5 6 7 J.C.Z. Woinarskia*, S.M. Leggeb, L.A. Woolleya,k, R. Palmerc, C.R. Dickmand, J. Augusteyne, T.S. Dohertyf, 8 G. Edwardsg, H. Geylea, H. McGregorh, J. Rileyi, J. Turpinj, and B.P. Murphya 9 10 a NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, 11 Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia 12 b NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Research, 13 University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia; AND Fenner School of the Environment and 14 Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2602, Australia 15 c Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Bentley, WA 6983, 16 Australia 17 d NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and 18 Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 19 e Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Red Hill, QLD 4701, Australia 20 f Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences (Burwood campus), Deakin 21 University, Geelong, VIC 3216, Australia 22 g Northern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, PO Box 1120, Alice Springs, NT 0871, 23 Australia 24 h NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, 25 Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia i School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Ave, Bristol BS8 1TQ, United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cartesian Coordinate System of Wnt and BMP Signaling Specifies Bilaterian Body Axes Christof Niehrs*
    HYPOTHESIS 845 Development 137, 845-857 (2010) doi:10.1242/dev.039651 © 2010. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd On growth and form: a Cartesian coordinate system of Wnt and BMP signaling specifies bilaterian body axes Christof Niehrs* Summary the dorsoventral (DV), mediolateral, directive and aboral-oral axis The regulation of body axis specification in the common in echinoderms] extends from the back to the underside or belly and ancestor of bilaterians remains controversial. BMP signaling is perpendicular to the primary axis. Its hallmark in most bilaterians appears to be an ancient program for patterning the secondary, is the unilateral location of the central nervous system (CNS) or dorsoventral, body axis, but any such program for the (Benito-Gutierrez and Arendt, 2009). Although body axis regulation primary, or anteroposterior, body axis is debated. Recent work is mainly considered together with early embryonic development, it in invertebrates indicates that posterior Wnt/b-catenin signaling also occurs in adults: several bilaterians, such as certain annelids, is such a mechanism and that it evolutionarily predates the flatworms, echinoderms and colonial ascidians, reproduce cnidarian-bilaterian split. Here, I argue that a Cartesian agametically (see Glossary, Box 1) and thus establish new body axes coordinate system of positional information set up by gradients in fully grown organisms (Adiyodi et al., 2002). Furthermore, of perpendicular Wnt and BMP signaling is conserved in certain invertebrates, such as Hydra, earthworms, flatworms and sea bilaterians, orchestrates body axis patterning and contributes to squirts, can regenerate an adult body, emphasizing that body axis both the relative invariance and diversity of body forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Peron's Tree Frog
    mallee frogs field guide Mallee CMA Region Mallee CMA RegionMCMA MCMA Wentworth REGION Wentworth REGION Mildura Mildura Merbein Merbein VICTORIA VICTORIA Irymple Irymple Cullulleraine Cullulleraine Red Cliffs Red Cliffs MCMA MCMA Wentworth REGION Wentworth REGION Mildura Mildura Merbein Merbein Robinvale VICTORIA Robinvale VICTORIA Irymple Irymple Cullulleraine Cullulleraine Red Cliffs Red Cliffs Robinvale Robinvale Ouyen Ouyen Manangatang Manangatang Underbool Underbool Nyah Nyah Murrayville Murrayville Ouyen Ouyen Lake Lake Tyrell Manangatang Tyrell Manangatang UnderboolSea Lake UnderbooSea Lakel Nyah Nyah Murrayville Murrayville Woomelang Woomelang Hopetoun Lake Hopetoun Lake Tyrell Tyrell Sea Lake Sea Lake Rainbow Rainbow Beulah Beulah Birchip Birchip Woomelang Woomelang Hopetoun Hopetoun Rainbow Rainbow Beulah Beulah Birchip Birchip Acknowledgements The Mallee Catchment Management Authority would like to acknowledge the support of the Mallee community who assisted in development Acknowledgementsof this field guide. The Mallee Catchment Management Authority would like to acknowledge the Photography support of the Mallee community who Photographs are acknowledgedassisted in development of this field guide. within the guide. Front Cover Photos Photography ISBN: 978-1-920777-20-3 Peter Robertson and Photographs are acknowledged Wildlife Profiles Pty Ltd.within the guide. © Mallee CMA 2009 This publication is not for Litoria ewingii Front Cover Photos sale, copies are availableISBN: 978-1-920777-20-3 (Southern Brown Tree Frog)Peter Robertson
    [Show full text]
  • A BEGINNERS GUIDE to Frog Identification Contents
    A BEGINNERS GUIDE TO Frog Identification Contents 1. About the guide 2. All about frogs 3. Diet 4. Habitats 5. Calls 6. How to identify a frog 7. Icons used in the guide 8. Taxonomy (frog families) 9. Common Froglet 10. Common Spadefoot Toad 11. Eastern Banjo Frog 12. Eastern Dwarf Tree Frog 13. Eastern Sign-bearing Frog 14. Growling Grass Frog 15. Leseur’s Frog 16. Peron’s Tree Frog 17. Red-groined Froglet 18. Southern Brown Tree Frog 19. Southern Toadlet 20. Spotted Marsh Frog 21. Striped Marsh Frog 22. Victorian Smooth Froglet 23. Whistling Tree Frog 24. Get involved in the Frog Census 25. Further information & Acknowledgements About the guide Notes Melbourne Water is owned by the Victorian Government. We are the caretakers of 8,400 kilometres of rivers and creeks across the greater Melbourne region. Our waterways support a huge community of plant and animal species such as native waterbugs, frogs, fish, birds, reptiles and mammals like platypus and rakali. Some of Melbourne’s wetlands are recognised as being of international significance due to the diversity of life they support. We encourage the community to get involved with monitoring projects such as Healthy Waterways Waterwatch and the Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Program. These programs enable us to gauge the health of our waterways by keeping an eye on the animal populations that live there. This guide is intended as a way of identifying some of the more common freshwater animals to aid in surveys and observational data collecting. 1 All about Frogs Notes Frogs are classified as amphibians.
    [Show full text]