the knowledge of the group. The author moreover stresses a numberof gaps in the current knowledge of homalopsids and highlightsinteresting variation among populations (see for example p.75 for Cerberus rynchops), and thus provides useful directionsfor future research. The inclusion of species accounts for theincertae sedis species is also an excellent feature and underscoresthe need of additional taxonomic studies on these taxa.The literature cited section (pp. 213–229) is not exhaustive, butprovides all of the most important references. The most recentreference dates from 2007 (only one for that year). A number ofreferences cited in the main text are not in the literature section,some perhaps due to a lapsus calami with respect to publicationdate. Among those referred to in the text and which were certainlyomitted from the literature section (since the authors do not evenappear in the literature section) are the following: Biswas andAcharyo (1977) (p. 121), Duvernoy (1832) (p. 24), Frith andBoswell (1978) (p. 63), Hundley (1964) (p. 95), Iskandar and Nio(1996) (p. 116, etc.), Kaup (1858) (p. 56), Mattison (1995) (p. 63),Mocquard (1907) (p. 139, 166, etc.), Obst (1977) (p. 155), Phisalix(1922) (p. 139), Reitinger (1978) (p. 148, etc.), Seba (1735, etc.)(p. 233), Shaw (1802) (p. 72, etc.), Sing et al. (1970) (p. 76, etc.)and Thu (2001) (p. 94, etc.). I will not list here the presumed associatedreferences, since this would be too speculative given thepossibility of erroneous dates.Appendix 1 gives a list of species names and their current status,information on the type material and type locality. Appendix2 is a summary of species distribution by country. This latter informationmust be used with caution, since I detected not less than19 discrepancies between this table and the maps and/or text providedin the species accounts. Appendix 3 gives the maximal knownsizes for each species. One regrets that the errata on p. 244 couldnot have been included within the main text.The most disturbing weakness of the book is the huge numberof misspellings. Indeed, I counted more than 450 misspelled words,and this figure is certainly not exhaustive. Most such mistakes arefound in the scientific names, authors’ names, and in the Frenchand English citations (chreso-synonymy and literature cited). Asan example, the binomen Homalopsis buccata was spelled fivedifferent ways. So many easy-to-detect mistakes and the existenceof an errata section seems to indicate that the book was publishedin a hurry. It would have greatly benefitted from a carefulreading, particularly by French- and German-speaking herpetologists,since so many important literature references were writtenin these languages.Discrepancies between character variations are not limited tothe above mentioned contradictions between the keys and the speciesaccounts. These discrepancies are also found within the textand between the text and tables. A striking example is found in theEnhydris jagorii species account (p. 133), where the type specimenis described twice, once in the left column, once in the rightone. For the same specimen and on the same page, two differenttotal lengths are given (463 vs. 471 mm), as well as two dorsalscale row numbers before vent (21 vs. 20) and two numbers ofsubcaudal scales (86 vs. 68). Another example is found in theEnhydris punctata species account, where one reads “Thesubcaudal scales are divided and number 27–46 (32–44 in females,46–48 in males).” The diagnosis for Myron richardsonii (p. 205)mentions that the species has a white belly, while a picture on thesame page shows a yellowish-pinkish belly with transverse lineson each ventral and a black mid-line; and so on. Often these discrepancieshave an influence on the diagnosis and species identification.For instance, on p. 168 Enhydris subtaeniata is comparedwith E. enhydris. Their respective ventral scale numbers aregiven as 136–153 vs. 153–174, thus with nearly no overlap. However,on p. 170, the minimum ventral scale number for E.subtaeniata is given as 134, and on p. 118 (Table 9) the minimumnumber for E. enhydris is given as 148; their ventral numbers arethus to be corrected to 134–153 and 148–174, respectively, thistime with a wide overlap. In addition to the discrepancies in morphologicalvariation between the keys and the main text, I noted106 problems within and between the main text and the tables, orsometimes between the text and the figures; this number does notinclude the discrepancies between the main text and Appendix 2.Tables 5, 6, and 11 exhibit an especially large number of discrepancieswith the associated species accounts and information availableon figures.The preface explains that the main goal of the book is threefold:to “provide a means of identification for the species of homalopsidsnakes, clear up some taxonomic confusion, and provide the readerwith a summary of what is known about their natural history.”With the caveat indicated above, i.e., always carefully compare akey-based identification with the associated species account, thebook indeed does provide a means for identification. The secondand third goals are achieved more successfully, and this makes ofthe present book an important reference to have not only for allherpetologists, but also for readers interested in general naturalhistory and Southeast Asia. The price indicated on KriegerPublishing’s website for the book is US $68.50. Given the verygood binding and glossy paper quality, the well-illustrated hardcover, the high number of color pictures and the important contentof the book, this is a very reasonable price. I thank Patrick David(Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) for useful commentson this review.LITERATURE CITEDGYI, K. K. 1970. A revision of colubrid snakes of the subfamilyHomalopsinae. Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. 20:47–223.LUISELLI, L. 2008. Murphy, J.C. (2007): Homalopsid Snakes: Evolutionin the Mud [Book review]. Amphibia-Reptilia 29:142.PAUWELS, O.S.G., V. WALLACH, AND P. DAVID. 2008. Global diversity ofsnakes (Serpentes; Reptilia) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595:599–605.250 <strong>Herpetological</strong> <strong>Review</strong> 39(2), 2008
<strong>Herpetological</strong> <strong>Review</strong>, 2008, 39(2), 251–252.© 2008 by Society for the Study of Amphibians and ReptilesTurtles of the World, by Franck Bonin, Bernard Devaux, andAlain Dupré (translated by Peter C.H. Pritchard). 2006. JohnHopkins University Press, Baltimore Maryland(www.press.jhu.edu). 416 pp. Hardcover. US $50.00. ISBN 0-8018-8496-9.WILLIAM H. ESPENSHADE IIIDepartment of Biology, Villanova UniversityPO Box 26018, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19128, USAe-mail: william.espenshadeiii@gmail.comThis book is the English translationof the third edition of theoriginal French language work.It is difficult to know what thethree authors set out to accomplishwith this book, as there isneither a foreword nor a preface.Peter Pritchard, however, in his“translator’s notes,” suggeststhat their intent is to distinguishthe book from other works witha chelonian world view by beingtaxonomically up-to-dateand by including discussions ofsurvival status.This book is divided into twomajor sections, General Biology(9 pp.), and Identification (401 pp.), followed by a short list ofreferences and index of scientific names. The volume is illustratedby 403 photos, two diagrams, and numerous maps. The bindingand paper are of high quality, and there are handy colored pagemargins organized by family or section description throughout.General Biology begins with a description of the placement ofchelonians among living things. Proganochelys, considered by theauthors the ancestor [sic] of all turtles, is the basis for further taxonomicdiscussion. The unique chelonian skeleton and other organsystems are treated in about one page, as are senses, sexual dimorphism,metabolism, ethology, and threats and protection. Caveatsabout taxonomy being a dynamic science always find their wayinto turtle books; there is a single highlighted paragraph at the endof the General Biology section which states that the nomenclaturalconcepts in the book incorporate many recent changes byRoger Bour, and that only minor disagreements are to be expectedfrom turtle systematists around the world.The Identification section is organized alphabetically by family,genus and species, first within Pleurodira, then withinCryptodira. There are 311 species accounts, 280 of which have atleast one accompanying photo (of those lacking photos, over halfhave been described since 1950). Each species account begins withthe scientific name, author, and year of description. Common namesare also provided, but appear in the page margin adjacent to thereference maps (see below). Most accounts are divided into thesubsections Distribution, Description, Natural History, and Protection,each of which may be followed by just one sentence orseveral detailed paragraphs for the chelonian of interest. A fewaccounts also include extra sections, such as ‘Ethnozoology’ forCarettochelys insculpta and Centrochelys (Geochelone) sulcata.Some short sections of text were inadvertently left untranslatedand appear in the original French, as in the introduction to thePlatysternidae (p. 116).All accounts have a shaded range map indicating the approximatedistribution of each species. In the page margin of each accountis a continental scale reference map with a square box indicatingthe location of the more detailed distribution map featuredin the main part of the account. Several of the range descriptionsfrom the text are not in agreement with the distribution maps. Associatedspecimen photos are placed at various places within theirrespective accounts, but most figure legends do not mention thespecies name. As a consequence, the identity of photos immediatelyfollowing the text for one species and preceding that for thenext may be unclear to readers. Most of the photos are acceptable,but several have severe shadows, show animals posed in people’shands, or have poor depth-of-field. Interestingly, there is a shortbiographical appreciation of John Cann on page 30, lauding hisskills as a photographer. Indeed, Cann’s photos are as near perfectas they can be—no shadows, excellent focus, and alert subjectslooking at the camera, always in a natural setting and pose. It isunfortunate that only six of his photos were included in the book!The Distribution subsection uses both geographic features (riversor mountains) and political boundaries for a general idea ofthe range. While usually straight forward, there are some confusingmix ups in this section, e.g., in the range description forManouria impressa, it seems there was an intended comparisonwith M. emys, but the text reads as if to compare M. impressa withitself. ‘Description’ includes a general color and size scheme forthe species as well as any other noteworthy shell, skin, or colorationfeature. The Natural History subsection lists habitat type withinthe occupied range; some diet and reproductive information maybe included too. The Protection text includes an incomplete listingof national and international laws or treaties that offer somelevel of legal protection. Appendix III listings under CITES arenot included, and some species covered under Appendices I or IIare not listed as such. Status, as listed by the IUCN and/ot theTurtle Conservation Fund, is sporadically noted and localizedthreats or conservation practices known to the authors are alsomentioned. Protective status is always in flux, but the simple consistentreference to CITES, IUCN, and Turtle Conservation Fundstatus for each species would have increased the utility of the book.Most references included in species accounts cannot be foundin the book’s reference section. For example, the account for thePantanal swamp turtle, Acanthochelys macrocephala, cites“Buskirk (1988)” for documentation of Paraguay within the rangeof the species. Neither this paper, published in <strong>Herpetological</strong><strong>Review</strong>, or any other senior authored works by Buskirk appear inthe reference list. This systematic oversight severely hampers theuse of the book by anyone wishing to obtain further information.Additionally there are errors for the works that are listed. Turtleand Tortoise Newsletter (TTN) is listed under “Kalb, J.H. 1992.”Heather Kalb was one of two editors for the premier issue of thisnewsletter that was first published in January 2000, with a publicationcity and state of Lunenburg, Massachusetts, not Evansville,Indiana as the citation reads. The parent publication for TTN, isthe peer reviewed journal Chelonian Conservation and Biology<strong>Herpetological</strong> <strong>Review</strong> 39(2), 2008 251
- Page 1 and 2:
HerpetologicalReviewVolume 39, Numb
- Page 3 and 4:
About Our Cover: Zonosaurus maramai
- Page 5 and 6:
Prey-specific Predatory Behavior in
- Page 7 and 8:
acid water treatment than in the co
- Page 10 and 11:
TABLE 1. Time-line history of croco
- Page 12 and 13:
The Reptile House at the Bronx Zoo
- Page 14 and 15:
FIG. 6. A 3.9 m (12' 11 1 / 2") Ame
- Page 16 and 17:
One of the earliest studies of croc
- Page 18 and 19:
TABLE 2. Dimensions and water depth
- Page 20 and 21:
we call it, is in flux.Forty years
- Page 22 and 23:
Feb. 20-25. abstract.------. 1979.
- Page 24 and 25:
yond current practices (Clarke 1972
- Page 26 and 27:
poles (Pond 1 > 10,000, Pond 2 4,87
- Page 28 and 29:
------, R. MATHEWS, AND R. KINGSING
- Page 30 and 31:
Herpetological Review, 2008, 39(2),
- Page 32 and 33:
TABLE 2. Summary of running (includ
- Page 34 and 35:
FIG. 2. Responses of adult Regal Ho
- Page 36 and 37:
PIANKA, E. R., AND W. S. PARKER. 19
- Page 38 and 39:
BUSTAMANTE, M. R. 2005. La cecilia
- Page 40 and 41:
Fig. 3. Mean clutch size (number of
- Page 42 and 43:
facilitated work in Thailand. I tha
- Page 44 and 45:
preocular are not fused. The specim
- Page 46 and 47:
FIG. 2A) Side view photo of Aechmea
- Page 48 and 49:
364.DUELLMAN, W. E. 1978. The biolo
- Page 50 and 51:
incision, and placed one drop of Ba
- Page 52 and 53:
13 cm deep (e.g., Spea hammondii; M
- Page 54 and 55:
FIG. 1. Medicine dropper (60 ml) wi
- Page 56 and 57:
esearchers and Hellbenders, especia
- Page 58 and 59:
FIG. 3. Relative success of traps p
- Page 60 and 61:
data on Hellbender population struc
- Page 62 and 63:
aits sometimes resulted in differen
- Page 64 and 65:
trapping system seems to be a relat
- Page 66 and 67:
AMPHIBIAN CHYTRIDIOMYCOSISGEOGRAPHI
- Page 68 and 69:
TABLE 1. Prevalence of B. dendrobat
- Page 70 and 71:
Conservation Status of United State
- Page 72 and 73:
TABLE 1. Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica)
- Page 74 and 75: TABLE 1. Anurans that tested positi
- Page 76 and 77: is, on average, exposed to slightly
- Page 78 and 79: (10%) were dead but not obviously m
- Page 80 and 81: Submitted by CHRIS T. McALLISTER, D
- Page 82 and 83: FIG. 1. Oscillogram, spectrogram, a
- Page 84 and 85: FIG. 1. Adult Physalaemus cuvieri r
- Page 86 and 87: Répteis, Instituto Nacional de Pes
- Page 88 and 89: discovered 145 live hatchlings and
- Page 90 and 91: GRAPTEMYS GIBBONSI (Pascagoula Map
- Page 92 and 93: College, and the Joseph Moore Museu
- Page 94 and 95: FIG. 1. Common Ground Lizard (Ameiv
- Page 96 and 97: havior unavailable elsewhere. Here
- Page 98 and 99: 15% of predator mass, is typical fo
- Page 100 and 101: side the third burrow and began a f
- Page 102 and 103: We thank Arlington James and the st
- Page 104 and 105: mm) S. viridicornis in its mouth in
- Page 106 and 107: NECTURUS MACULOSUS (Common Mudpuppy
- Page 108 and 109: LITHOBATES CATESBEIANUS (American B
- Page 110 and 111: Research and Collections Center, 13
- Page 112 and 113: BRONCHOCELA VIETNAMENSIS (Vietnam L
- Page 114 and 115: Oficina Regional Guaymas, Guaymas,
- Page 116 and 117: MICRURUS TENER (Texas Coralsnake).
- Page 118 and 119: declining in this recently discover
- Page 120 and 121: 80.7372°W). 02 November 2005. Stev
- Page 122 and 123: this effort, 7% of the 10 × 10 km
- Page 126 and 127: which is listed under “Rhodin, A.
- Page 128 and 129: noting that Sphenomorphus bignelli
- Page 130 and 131: 256 Herpetological Review 39(2), 20
- Page 132: ISSN 0018-084XThe Official News-Jou