DOCSLIB.ORG

The IUCN Amphibians Initiative: a Record of the 2001-2008 Amphibian Assessment Efforts for the IUCN Red List

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The IUCN Amphibians Initiative: a Record of the 2001-2008 Amphibian Assessment Efforts for the IUCN Red List The IUCN Amphibians Initiative: A record of the 2001-2008 amphibian assessment efforts for the IUCN Red List Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Amphibians on the IUCN Red List - Home Page ................................................................................ 5 Assessment process ......................................................................................................................... 6 Partners ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 The Central Coordinating Team ............................................................................................................................ 6 The IUCN/SSC – CI/CABS Biodiversity Assessment Unit........................................................................................ 6 An Introduction to Amphibians ................................................................................................................................. 7 Assessment methods ................................................................................................................................................ 7 1. Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................. 8 2. Data Review .................................................................................................................................................... 10 3. Data Consolidation .......................................................................................................................................... 16 The 2006 Update ................................................................................................................................................ 16 2008 Update ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Amphibian Conservation and the Amphibian Specialist Group .............................................................................. 18 Publications ............................................................................................................................................................. 18 Publications from the Central Coordinating Team ............................................................................................. 19 Publications using the amphibian data ............................................................................................................... 19 Guidelines for Use and Citation .............................................................................................................................. 22 Comments, Queries and Submissions:................................................................................................................ 22 Analysis of Data .............................................................................................................................. 23 Summary of Key Findings .................................................................................................................................... 23 IUCN Red List Status ................................................................................................................................................ 24 Extinctions ........................................................................................................................................................... 26 Status by Taxonomic Group ................................................................................................................................ 26 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 31 Geographic patterns ................................................................................................................................................ 31 Diversity .............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Geography of Threatened Species ...................................................................................................................... 34 Patterns of Endemism ......................................................................................................................................... 43 Major threats .......................................................................................................................................................... 47 Habitat preferences ................................................................................................................................................ 48 2006 Update ............................................................................................................................................................ 49 New additions in the 2006 update...................................................................................................................... 49 Species that were no longer included ................................................................................................................. 50 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 50 2008 Update ............................................................................................................................................................ 51 New additions in the 2008 update...................................................................................................................... 51 Species that were no longer included ................................................................................................................. 52 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 54 Description of Data ........................................................................................................................ 55 Data Types ............................................................................................................................................................... 55 What data are available from the searchable online database? ........................................................................ 55 Limitations of the Data ............................................................................................................................................ 56 Glossary ................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 62 Donors ..................................................................................................................................................................... 62 Conservation Partners ............................................................................................................................................. 62 Contributing Scientists ............................................................................................................................................ 63 Links ............................................................................................................................................... 68 Institutional Websites ......................................................................................................................................... 68 General Amphibian Websites ............................................................................................................................. 68 Regional Amphibian Websites ............................................................................................................................ 69 Bibliographic websites ........................................................................................................................................ 73 General Biodiversity ............................................................................................................................................ 73 Introduction This document is a record of the Amphibians Initiative pages of the “old” IUCN Red List website, which was replaced in 2018. The content of these pages provided a detailed account of the 2004 Global Amphibian Assessment and its 2006 and 2008 update, and the majority of the text was last updated in 2008. The Amphibian Red List Authority of the IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group has compiled this information as a record of this remarkable body of work. Jennifer Luedtke Global Coordinator, Amphibian RLA 2015-2020 4 Amphibians on the IUCN Red List - Home Page Included in the IUCN Red List is the comprehensive assessment of the conservation status
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The New Age of Extinction
    Wednesday, Apr. 01, 2009 The New Age of Extinction By Bryan Walsh / Madagascar There are at least 8 million unique species of life on the planet, if not far more, and you could be forgiven for believing that all of them can be found in Andasibe. Walking through this rain forest in Madagascar is like stepping into the library of life. Sunlight seeps through the silky fringes of the Ravenea louvelii, an endangered palm found, like so much else on this African island, nowhere else. Leaf-tailed geckos cling to the trees, cloaked in green. A fat Parson's chameleon lies lazily on a branch, beady eyes scanning for dinner. But the animal I most hoped to find, I don't see at first; I hear it, though — a sustained groan that electrifies the forest quiet. My Malagasy guide, Marie Razafindrasolo, finds the source of the sound perched on a branch. It is the black-and-white indri, largest of the lemurs — a type of small primate found only in Madagascar. The cry is known as a spacing call, a warning to other indris to keep their distance, to prevent competition for food. But there's not much risk of interlopers. The species — like many other lemurs, like many other animals in Madagascar, like so much of life on Earth — is endangered and dwindling fast. Madagascar — which separated from India 80 million to 100 million years ago before eventually settling off the southeastern coast of Africa — is in many ways an Earth apart. All that time in geographic isolation made Madagascar a Darwinian playground, its animals and plants evolving into forms utterly original.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibians in Zootaxa: 20 Years Documenting the Global Diversity of Frogs, Salamanders, and Caecilians
    Zootaxa 4979 (1): 057–069 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Review ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2021 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4979.1.9 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:972DCE44-4345-42E8-A3BC-9B8FD7F61E88 Amphibians in Zootaxa: 20 years documenting the global diversity of frogs, salamanders, and caecilians MAURICIO RIVERA-CORREA1*+, DIEGO BALDO2*+, FLORENCIA VERA CANDIOTI3, VICTOR GOYANNES DILL ORRICO4, DAVID C. BLACKBURN5, SANTIAGO CASTROVIEJO-FISHER6, KIN ONN CHAN7, PRISCILLA GAMBALE8, DAVID J. GOWER9, EVAN S.H. QUAH10, JODI J. L. ROWLEY11, EVAN TWOMEY12 & MIGUEL VENCES13 1Grupo Herpetológico de Antioquia - GHA and Semillero de Investigación en Biodiversidad - BIO, Universidad de Antioquia, Antioquia, Colombia [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5033-5480 2Laboratorio de Genética Evolutiva, Instituto de Biología Subtropical (CONICET-UNaM), Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Químicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Misiones, Posadas, Misiones, Argentina [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2382-0872 3Unidad Ejecutora Lillo, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas - Fundación Miguel Lillo, 4000 San Miguel de Tucumán, Argentina [email protected]; http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6133-9951 4Laboratório de Herpetologia Tropical, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, Rodovia Jorge Amado Km 16 45662-900 Ilhéus, Bahia, Brasil [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4560-4006 5Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, 1659 Museum Road, Gainesville, Florida, 32611, USA [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1810-9886 6Laboratório de Sistemática de Vertebrados, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Av.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter V5-N2
    V irg in ia Herpetological Society August 1995 Volume 5, Number 2 NEWSLETTER Catesheiana Co-editors President Paul W. Saltier Ron Southwick R. Terry Spohn Paul Sattler - Pres. Elect Newsletter Editor Sccrctarv/Trcasurcr Mike Finder Bob Hogan microdistribution patterns of Worldwide Amphibian Decline salamanders in terrestrial environments Is There a Virginia Connection? (Wyman and Hawksley-Lescault, 1987). Increased ultraviolet radiation, apparently due to the thinning of the Submitted by Joseph C. Mitchell, Department of Biology, ozone layer, has been shown to k ill University o f Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173 developing eggs of the Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) and western toad (Bufo boreas) (Blaustein et al., 1994a). Amphibians have received Congress of Herpetology held in The widespread fungus (Saprolegnia considerable media and scientific Canterbury, England in 1989. ferax) introduced into ponds and lakes attention over the past half dozen years Pin-pointing the causes of in the Pacific northwest by introduced because of species extinctions and these problems has been elusive. Early fish has caused egg mortality in the population declines worldwide. on, scientists were looking for one western toad (Blaustein et al., 1994b). Observations such as (1) the last global smoking gun, but the results of An unidentified virus carried by individual of the Australian gastric studies that have been published since introduced fish, such as tilapia, brooding frog (Rheobatrachus silus) the alarm surfaced indicate that the guppies, and carp, is suspected as was seen in 1979 (Tyler and Davies, causes are varied and often local. The causing frog decline in Australia 1985); (2) the golden toad (Bufo most common cause of local population (Anderson, 1995).
    [Show full text]
  • Tadpole Consumption Is a Direct Threat to the Endangered Purple Frog, Nasikabatrachus Sahyadrensis
    SALAMANDRA 51(3) 252–258 30 October 2015 CorrespondenceISSN 0036–3375 Correspondence Tadpole consumption is a direct threat to the endangered purple frog, Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis Ashish Thomas & S. D. Biju Systematics Lab, Department of Environmental Studies, University of Delhi, Delhi 110 007, India Corresponding author: S. D. Biju, e-mail: [email protected] Manuscript received: 5 July 2014 Accepted: 30 December 2014 by Alexander Kupfer Amphibians across the world are suffering alarming popu- Southeast Asia have witnessed drastic population declines lation declines with nearly one third of the ca 7,300 species caused by overexploitation over the last couple of decades being threatened worldwide (Stuart et al. 2008, Wake & (Warkentin et al. 2008). Often, natural populations are Vredenburg 2008, IUCN 2014). Major factors attributed harvested without regard of the consequences or implica- to the decline include habitat destruction (Houlahan et tions of this practice on the dynamics or sustainability of al. 2000, Sodhi et al. 2008), chemical pollution (Ber ger the exploited populations (Getz & Haight 1989). When 1998), climate change (Adams 1999, Carpenter & Tur- the extent of exploitation is greater than the sustaining ca- ner 2000), diseases (McCallum 2007, Cushman 2006), pacity or turnover rate of a species, there is every possi- and invasive species (Boone & Bridges 2003). The West- bility that the species may become locally extinct, which ern Ghats of India, a global hotspot for amphibian diver- would subsequently have drastic ecological implications sity and endemism (Biju 2001, Biju & Bossuyt 2003), has in the particular region (Duffy 2002, Wright et al. 2006, more than 40% of its amphibian fauna threatened with ex- Carpenter et al.
    [Show full text]
  • REVISION O F the AFRICAN Caeclllan GENUS
    REVISION OFTHE AFRICAN CAEClLlAN GENUS SCHISTOMETOPUM PARKER (AMPH IBIA: CYMNOPHIONA: CAECILI IDAE) BY RONALD A. NU AND MICHAEL E. PFRENDER MISCELLANEC JS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, NO. 18Fb; ' Ann Arbor, September 2 7, 1 998 ISSN 076-8405 MIS(:ELIANEOUS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, LJNTVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NO. 187 The publicatioils of the M~~sclunof Zoology, The [Jniversity of Michigan, consist PI-irnarilyof two series-the Occasion:~lPapers allti the Miscellaneous Publicatio~ls.Both series were founded by Dc Bryant Walker, Mr. Rradshaw H. Swales, anti Dr. W.W. Newcornb. Occasionally the Museuni publishes contributiorls outside of these series; begirlnirlg in 1990 these are titled Special Publicatio~lsa~ld arc numbered. All submitted ~n;inl~scriptsreceive external review. The Misccllarieous Publications, which include ~l~ollographicstltdies, papers on field and ~II- seuln techniques, and other contributions 11ot within the scope of the Occasio~lalPapers, are pl~b- lishcd separately. It is not intended that they be grouped into volumes. Each 11r11nberhas a title page and, when necessary, a table of co1itelits. Tllc Occasional Papel-s, publication of which was begun in 1913, servc as a medium Sol- original studies based prirlcipally upon the collections in the Museurn. They are issurtl separately. MThen a sufficient number of pages has hcen printed to niakc a volume, a title pagc, table of contenb, and an index are supplied to libraries and individuals on the mailing list for the series. A cornplete list of publications on Birds, Fishes, Insects, Mammals, Moll~~sks,Rcpdles and Amphib- ians, and other topics is available. Address inquiries to the Directt)r, Muse~unof Zoolohy, The lir~ivcr- sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigarl 48109-1079.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Species of the Genus Nasikabatrachus (Anura, Nasikabatrachidae) from the Eastern Slopes of the Western Ghats, India
    Alytes, 2017, 34 (1¢4): 1¢19. A new species of the genus Nasikabatrachus (Anura, Nasikabatrachidae) from the eastern slopes of the Western Ghats, India S. Jegath Janani1,2, Karthikeyan Vasudevan1, Elizabeth Prendini3, Sushil Kumar Dutta4, Ramesh K. Aggarwal1* 1Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CSIR-CCMB), Uppal Road, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, 500007, India. <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>. 2Current Address: 222A, 5th street, Annamalayar Colony, Sivakasi, 626123, India.<[email protected]>. 3Division of Vertebrate Zoology, Department of Herpetology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York NY 10024-5192, USA. <[email protected]>. 4Nature Environment and Wildlife Society (NEWS), Nature House, Gaudasahi, Angul, Odisha. <[email protected]>. * Corresponding Author. We describe a new species of the endemic frog genus Nasikabatrachus,from the eastern slopes of the Western Ghats, in India. The new species is morphologically, acoustically and genetically distinct from N. sahyadrensis. Computed tomography scans of both species revealed diagnostic osteological differences, particularly in the vertebral column. Male advertisement call analysis also showed the two species to be distinct. A phenological difference in breeding season exists between the new species (which breeds during the northeast monsoon season; October to December), and its sister species (which breeds during the southwest monsoon; May to August). The new species shows 6 % genetic divergence (K2P) at mitochondrial 16S rRNA (1330 bp) partial gene from its congener, indicating clear differentiation within Nasikabatra- chus. Speciation within this fossorial lineage is hypothesized to have been caused by phenological shift in breeding during different monsoon seasons—the northeast monsoon in the new species versus southwest monsoon in N.
    [Show full text]
  • Anura: Hemiphractidae: Gastrotheca)
    Accepted Manuscript Short communication Brazilian marsupial frogs are diphyletic (Anura: Hemiphractidae: Gastrotheca) David C. Blackburn, William E. Duellman PII: S1055-7903(13)00179-6 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2013.04.021 Reference: YMPEV 4580 To appear in: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution Received Date: 7 January 2013 Revised Date: 2 April 2013 Accepted Date: 22 April 2013 Please cite this article as: Blackburn, D.C., Duellman, W.E., Brazilian marsupial frogs are diphyletic (Anura: Hemiphractidae: Gastrotheca), Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (2013), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ympev.2013.04.021 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. 1 Short Communication 2 3 Brazilian marsupial frogs are diphyletic (Anura: Hemiphractidae: Gastrotheca) 4 5 David C. Blackburna,*, William E. Duellmanb 6 a Department of Vertebrate Zoology & Anthropology, California Academy of Sciences, 55 7 Music Concourse Drive, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA 8 b Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas, 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, KS 9 66045, USA 10 * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.C. Blackburn) 11 12 Abstract 13 Molecular phylogenetic analyses based on expanded taxonomic and geographic sampling 14 support the monophyly of the marsupial frog genera (family Hemiphractidae), resolve six 15 geographically circumscribed lineages within Gastrotheca, and, for the first time, reveal 16 that two divergent lineages of Gastrotheca inhabit the Atlantic Coastal Forests of Brazil.
    [Show full text]
  • Caecilia Guntheri Dunn, 1942 (Gymnophiona, Caeciliidae) in Central America
    17 2 NOTES ON GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Check List 17 (2): 649–653 https://doi.org/10.15560/17.2.649 First record of Caecilia guntheri Dunn, 1942 (Gymnophiona, Caeciliidae) in Central America Luis C. Elizondo-Lara Programa de Maestría en Ciencias Biológicas, Vicerrectoría de Investigación y Postgrado, Universidad de Panamá, Panama City, Panama • luis. [email protected]; [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8647-6717 Departamento de Fisiología y Comportamiento Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales Exactas y Tecnología, Universidad de Panamá, Panama City, Panama Red Mesoamericana y del Caribe para la Conservación de Anfibios y Reptiles Abstract I report the first encounter in Central America of an individual of Caecilia guntheri Dunn, 1942 (Gymnophiona, Caeciliidae). The individual was observed and collected in a primary evergreen submontane forest in Cerro Pirre, Darien Province, Republic of Panama. It was identified mainly by the low counts of secondary and primary folds. The encounter of this individual of C. guntheri highlights the disjunct populations and apparently the results of dispersion of this species from South to Central America by biotic exchange as result of the closure of the Isthmus of Panama. Keywords Amphibians, biotic exchange, Cerro Pirre, Darien, disjunct distribution, Panama Academic editor: Javier Ernesto Cortés Suárez | Received 28 December 2020 | Accepted 28 March 2021 | Published 13 April 2021 Citation: Elizondo-Lara LC (2021) First record of Caecilia guntheri Dunn, 1942 (Gymnophiona, Caeciliidae) in Central America. Check List 17 (2): 649–653. https://doi.org/10.15560/17.2.649 Introduction The genus Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758 was described from Rica (Köhler 2011; Kubicki and Arias 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Seven New Species of Night Frogs (Anura, Nyctibatrachidae) from the Western Ghats Biodiversity Hotspot of India, with Remarkably High Diversity of Diminutive Forms
    Seven new species of Night Frogs (Anura, Nyctibatrachidae) from the Western Ghats Biodiversity Hotspot of India, with remarkably high diversity of diminutive forms Sonali Garg1, Robin Suyesh1, Sandeep Sukesan2 and SD Biju1 1 Systematics Lab, Department of Environmental Studies, University of Delhi, Delhi, India 2 Kerala Forest Department, Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala, India ABSTRACT The Night Frog genus Nyctibatrachus (Family Nyctibatrachidae) represents an endemic anuran lineage of the Western Ghats Biodiversity Hotspot, India. Until now, it included 28 recognised species, of which more than half were described recently over the last five years. Our amphibian explorations have further revealed the presence of undescribed species of Nights Frogs in the southern Western Ghats. Based on integrated molecular, morphological and bioacoustic evidence, seven new species are formally described here as Nyctibatrachus athirappillyensis sp. nov., Nyctibatrachus manalari sp. nov., Nyctibatrachus pulivijayani sp. nov., Nyctibatrachus radcliffei sp. nov., Nyctibatrachus robinmoorei sp. nov., Nyctibatrachus sabarimalai sp. nov. and Nyctibatrachus webilla sp. nov., thereby bringing the total number of valid Nyctibatrachus species to 35 and increasing the former diversity estimates by a quarter. Detailed morphological descriptions, comparisons with other members of the genus, natural history notes, and genetic relationships inferred from phylogenetic analyses of a mitochondrial dataset are presented for all the new species. Additionally, characteristics of male advertisement calls are described for four new and three previously known species. Among the new species, six are currently known to be geographically restricted to low and mid elevation Submitted 6 October 2016 regions south of Palghat gap in the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, and one is Accepted 20 January 2017 probably endemic to high-elevation mountain streams slightly northward of the gap in Published 21 February 2017 Tamil Nadu.
    [Show full text]
  • ESPÉCIES II OFICINA Site-2
    FAMÍLIA ESPÉCIE Adelophryne glandulata Lourenço-De-Moraes, Ferreira, Eleutherodactylidae Fouquet & Bastos, 2014 Adelophryne meridionalis Santana, Fonseca, Neves & Eleutherodactylidae Carvalho, 2013 "2012" Aromobatidae Allobates capixaba (Bokermann, 1967) Aromobatidae Allobates olfersioides (A. Lutz, 1925) Aparasphenodon pomba Assis, Santana, Da Silva, Quintela Hylidae & Feio, 2013 Hylidae Aplastodiscus flumineus (Cruz & Peixoto, 1985 "1984") Hylidae Aplastodiscus musicus (B. Lutz, 1948) Boana cambui ( Pinheiro, Pezzuti, Leite, Garcia, Haddad & Hylidae Faivovich, 2016) Hylidae Boana cymbalum (Bokerman, 1963) Hylidae Boana secedens (B. Lutz, 1963) Hylidae Bokermannohyla ahenea (Napoli & Caramaschi, 2004) Hylidae Bokermannohyla claresignata (A. Lutz & B. Lutz, 1939) Hylidae Bokermannohyla clepsydra (A. Lutz, 1925) Hylidae Bokermannohyla feioi (Napoli & Caramaschi, 2004) Hylidae Bokermannohyla gouveai (Peixoto & Cruz, 1992) Hylidae Bokermannohyla izecksohni (Jim & Caramaschi, 1979) Bokermannohyla vulcaniae (Vasconcelos & Giaretta, 2004 Hylidae "2003") Brachycephalidae Brachycephalus alipioi Pombal & Gasparini, 2006 Brachycephalidae Brachycephalus atelopoide Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920 Brachycephalidae Brachycephalus bufonoides Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920 Brachycephalus crispus Condez, Clemente-Carvalho & Brachycephalidae Haddad, 2014 Brachycephalidae Brachycephalus didactylus (Izecksohn, 1971) Brachycephalidae Brachycephalus garbeanus Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920 Brachycephalus guarani Clemente-Carvalho, Giaretta, Brachycephalidae Condez, Haddad & dos Reis,
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae) from Myanmar
    Zootaxa 3785 (1): 045–058 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3785.1.4 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7EF35A95-5C75-4D16-8EE4-F84934A80C2A A new species of striped Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826 (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae) from Myanmar MARK WILKINSON1,5, BRONWEN PRESSWELL1,2, EMMA SHERRATT1,3, ANNA PAPADOPOULOU1,4 & DAVID J. GOWER1 1Department of Zoology!, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, UK 2Department of Zoology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin New Zealand 3Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology and Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford St., Cam- bridge, MA 02138, USA 4Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 41809, USA 5Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] ! Currently the Department of Life Sciences Abstract A new species of striped ichthyophiid caecilian, Ichthyophis multicolor sp. nov., is described on the basis of morpholog- ical and molecular data from a sample of 14 specimens from Ayeyarwady Region, Myanmar. The new species resembles superficially the Indian I. tricolor Annandale, 1909 in having both a pale lateral stripe and an adjacent dark ventrolateral stripe contrasting with a paler venter. It differs from I. tricolor in having many more annuli, and in many details of cranial osteology, and molecular data indicate that it is more closely related to other Southeast Asian Ichthyophis than to those of South Asia. The caecilian fauna of Myanmar is exceptionally poorly known but is likely to include chikilids as well as multiple species of Ichthyophis.
    [Show full text]
  • The Puzzling Golden Toad Crack the Puzzle and Reveal the Secret Word Activity Guide
    The Puzzling Golden Toad Crack the puzzle and reveal the secret word Activity Guide Did you know that the specific effects of climate change on animals are still unknown? Meet the golden toad and learn why scientists are still puzzled by his mysterious disappearance. Try This! Step 1: Set up the time line sheet. Step 2: Find the seven puzzle pieces and read the information on each. Step 3: Organize the time line to reveal the secret word. How do you think scientists study the effect of climate change on species such as the Golden Toad? Climate Connection The effect of climate change on species is still unknown and widely debated. Scientists believe that factors such as increased droughts and the spread of a fungus may have led to the demise of the Golden Toad. The number of Golden Toads people saw declined from 1,500 to zero in such a short period of time. Scientists suspect that conditions related to climate change was the reason for their extinction. Turn the page over to learn more! Sciencenter, Ithaca, NY Page 1 www.sciencenter.org The Puzzling Golden Toad Activity Guide What’s Happening? The Golden Toad (Bufo periglenes) was an amphibian only found in areas near the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve in Costa Rica. This species strangely disappeared in the late 1980’s, which led to extensive studies on what caused the extinction of this species. After studying the drastic manner in which this species declined, scientists started to suspect that climate change was the reason for their extinction. Scientists began to study how stress relating to moisture, temperature, diseases and contaminants in combination with climate change could have affected the Golden Toad.
    [Show full text]