yond current practices (Clarke 1972, Humphries 1979,Lemckert 1996, Williamson and Bull 1996, Lüddecke andAmézquita 1999).2. The reasons for reduced return rates after toe-clipping.Mortality after an invasive marking procedure is a real andrecognized concern. However, failure to encounter an individualafter marking can also be due to behavioral changesthat may or may not affect the fitness of the study animals.3. Current hygiene practices minimise the risk of exposure topathogens. These are less likely to have been or were notconsidered in the studies which Parris and McCarthy (2001)and McCarthy and Parris (2004) used as data sources.4. Ethical concerns raised by May (2004) are unsubstantiated,yet have strongly influenced ethics committees, with somerecommending the use of anesthetics that are at times inappropriateor have unknown dosage requirements that arelikely to pose a greater threat to the well-being of the animalsthan toe-clipping.5. Ethics committees have also favoured the use of other markingtechniques, such as pit-tagging, over toe-clipping. Themajority of these are still invasive, pit-tagging arguably morethan toe-clipping, and their effects are at best no furtherunderstood than those of toe-clipping. They have certainlynot been shown to pose less of a physiological or physicalrisk to animals.6. Some field studies require the recognition of individuals,which for many species requires marking techniques suchas toe-clipping. We believe such focused studies with measurableoutcomes contributing to understanding and managementof a species have value that outweighs the potentialimpacts on the species.Parris and McCarthy (2008) responded to points 2, 3, 5, and 6.They are largely in agreement with these points although they donot distinguish between the importance of the effects of toe-clippingon mortality versus behavior. They argue that both are equallyimportant because of the potential effect of changes in behavioron population fitness and study bias. Unfortunately there are nodata to test whose opinion is correct. Parris and McCarthy (2008)point out that a minimum number of toes should be removed fromall anurans; in general we agree but we stand by the intent of ourcomment that the function and importance of toes should equallybe taken into account when toe-clipping. Parris and McCarthy(2008) also suggest that there is evidence that the effect of toeclippingis no different from that of toe-tipping although the studythey cite is confounded by species. In addition, they argue thattoe-clipping may be unacceptable even if it is no worse than otherinvasive methods of marking animals. The point of our commentwas that it is always best to use the most practical, least harmfulmethod of marking, and that toe-clipping should be evaluated onthat basis, along with other marking methods.We believe that mark-recapture studies can contribute to thedevelopment of conservation management plans for many anuransin a variety of ways. McCarthy and Parris (2008) argue that therisk of toe-clipping is justifiable only if one is answering questionsof direct relevance to management applications. Unfortunately,too little is known about many amphibian populations toknow in advance what these questions might be. Correctly conductedpopulation studies can be the only means of identifyingrisk factors. Potential increases in mortality or emigration ratesare generally quite small, but can be accounted for in a study andthe need for information must be balanced against those risks.Parris and McCarthy (2008) are surprised that the scientific validityof potentially biased data from studies using toe-clippinghas received little attention. We acknowledge that any field researchinvolving the capture and marking of animals may potentiallyaffect return rates through altered survival and/or behavior,so all techniques violate assumptions related to population estimationmodels, and bias needs to be considered (Phillott et al.2007). However, in the absence of evidence-based results that provea lesser effect on return rates of alternative marking techniques,field researchers will continue with toe-clipping as it is known tohave small effects that have been quantified for some species. Wehope this discussion has shown that toe-clipping and toe-tippingare acceptable techniques if carried out appropriately, that theiruse needs to be justified, that their effects on a study need to consideredwhen analysing results, and that they will remain in useuntil alternative techniques are shown to be superior. We reiteratethat controlled studies to evaluate the physical, physiological andbehavioural effects of invasive marking techniques on a range offrog species are urgently needed.Phillott et al. (2007) did not primarily aim to address Parris andMcCarthy (2001) and McCarthy and Parris (2004) as we believethe weakness of their arguments was adequately discussed in Funket al. (2003). Our concern is that animal ethics committees andgovernment agencies have banned the use of toe-clipping as a resultof these papers, but have done so without evidence that theprocedure has a greater effect than the alternative marking methods.Our paper specifically demonstrated the problems with dismissingtoe-clipping in favour of other, less understood invasivemarking techniques.LITERATURE CITEDCLARKE, R. D. 1972. The effect of toe clipping on survival of Fowler'stoad (Bufo woodhousei fowleri). Copeia 1972:182–185.FUNK, W. C., M. A. DONNELLY, AND K. R. LIPS. 2005. Alternative views ofamphibian toe-clipping. Nature 433:193.HUMPHRIES, R. B. 1979. Dynamics of a breeding frog community. Ph.D.thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.LEMCKERT, F. L. 1996. Effects of toe-clipping on the survival and behaviourof the Australian frog Crinia signifera. Amphibia-Reptilia 17:287–290.LÜDDECKE, H., AND A. AMÉZUITA. 1999. Assessment of disc clipping on thesurvival and behaviour of the Andean frog Hyla labialis. Copeia1999:824–830.MAY, R. M. 2004. Ethics and amphibians. Nature 431:403.MCCARTHY, M. A., AND K. M. PARRIS. 2004. Clarifying the effect of toeclipping on frogs with Bayesian statistics. J. Appl. Ecol. 41:780–786.PARRIS, K. M., AND M. A. MCCARTHY. 2001. Identifying effects of toeclipping on anuran return rates: the importance of statistical power.Amphibia-Reptilia 22:275–289.PHILLOTT, A. D., L. F. SKERRATT, K. R. MCDONALD, F. L. LEMCKERT, H. B.HINES, J. M. CLARKE, R. A. ALFORD, AND R. SPEARE. 2007. Toe-clippingas an acceptable method of identifying individual anurans in mark recapturestudies. Herpetol. Rev. 38: 305–308.WILLIAMSON, I., AND C. M. BULL. 1996. Population ecology of the Australianfrog Crinia signifera: adults and juveniles. Wildl. Res. 23:249–266.150 <strong>Herpetological</strong> <strong>Review</strong> 39(2), 2008
ARTICLES<strong>Herpetological</strong> <strong>Review</strong>, 2008, 39(2), 151–154.© 2008 by Society for the Study of Amphibians and ReptilesOophagy and Larval Cannibalism withoutPolyphenism in Tadpoles of the Great BasinSpadefoot (Spea intermontana)SUE FOXP.O. Box 68, Cedarville, California 96104, USAe-mail: suefox@hughes.netPolyphenism associated with cannibalism has been reliably documentedin two species of North American spadefoot toads (familyPelobatidae: Spea bombifrons and S. multiplicata) (Bragg 1956,1964; Bragg and Bragg 1959; Pfennig 1989; Pomeroy 1981). Spealarvae occur as two morphologically distinct phenotypes: 1) carnivoresare cannibalistic, have beak-shaped, keratinized mouthparts,and hypertrophied jaw musculature; and 2) omnivores haveflat, keratinized mouthparts, and feed primarily on detritus (Bragg1965; Pfennig 1992; Pomeroy 1981). Pomeroy (1981) noted polymorphismin pools containing S. multiplicata 2–4 days after feedingcommenced. In S. multiplicata, consumption of anostracanshrimps or other tadpoles induces the carnivore morphology andmorph determination is reversible based on diet (Pfennig 1990;Pomeroy 1981).Reports of polyphenism in Spea intermontana have been limitedto mouthpart characteristics (Acker and Larsen 1979; Black1973; Orton 1954; Turner 1952). The description provided by Tanner(1939) of the mouthparts of S. intermontana collected in Utahhas been interpreted as indicative of a carnivore morph (Hall et al.2002; Pfennig 1992). Subsequent workers have assumed that larvaeof S. intermontana are potentially morphologically variable(Hall 1993; Hall et al. 1997; Hall et al. 2002). Hall (1998) includestwo photographs of the carnivorous and herbivorous morphologicaltypes. However, the two types have not been describedin detail and there are no reports whether the carnivorous morphis cannibalistic. I report field observations of cannibalism andoophagy by larvae of S. intermontana and the lack of polyphenismassociated with cannibalism.Methods.—I conducted this study at permanent, semi-permanentand temporary ponds in Mono County, California, USA(118.965°N, 38.086°W), during the breeding seasons April throughJune of 1984–1989. Permanent and semi-permanent pools are createdby artesian wells. Semi-permanent pools are present yearround,except in drought years. Temporary pools formed fromground water and surface run-off, and were present only duringwet years. Study pools varied in size from less than one metersquare to several hectares. Additional observations and collectionswere made from three small pools formed from springs near thesouth shore of Mono Lake, Mono County, California (119.053°W,37.940°N).Tadpoles were observed in the field for 1380 h on 260 daysbetween April 1984 and May 1989. The duration of observationsranged from 3–7 h per day. I identified a tadpole as a cannibal if itwas observed eating all or part of a conspecific, while a non-cannibaldid not eat a conspecific. For cannibalistic encounters forwhich an entire sequence was observed I recorded: the length oftime it took a cannibal to consume its prey; the number of cannibalsfeeding on a single tadpole; and the snout–vent length (SVL;tip of the snout to the junction of the posterior body wall and cloaca)and developmental stage (DS, Gosner 1960) of the cannibal(s)and prey.Tadpoles were collected for morphometric analyses mid-Aprilto mid-June in 1984 through 1987 and during May in 1988 and1989. Tadpoles were randomly collected with a dip net once aweek from the main study pool and less frequently from otherpools that contained fewer tadpoles. While phenotypic differencesbetween morphs of S. bombifrons and S. multiplicata are readilydetermined by visual inspection (Bragg 1965; Pfennig 1990;Pomeroy 1981; Storz 2004), there were no obvious morphologicaldifferences among tadpoles of S. intermontana in my studypools. For more detailed morphometric comparisons, cannibalsand noncannibals were identified by offering field-collected tadpoles(stages 25–36) at least one pre-feeding stage conspecific for24 h. Tadpoles were housed individually in 2.4-liter round plasticcontainers (16.8 cm x 12.5 cm) filled with approximately 1680 mlwater to a depth of 8.75 cm. Cannibalism was inferred if a tadpolewas missing or its partially consumed remains were present. Tadpolesthat did not eat conspecifics were labeled non-cannibals.Cannibals (N = 34) and non-cannibals (N = 36) were preservedfor morphometric analysis.All tadpoles were cold-killed and preserved in 10% formalin. Iexamined the external morphology of 1089 tadpoles of differentsizes and developmental stages. Using dial calipers and a dissectingmicroscope, three characteristics were measured: SVL, totallength (TL; tip of the snout to the tip of the tail), DS, and numberof posterior and anterior labial teeth rows (PLT and ALT) usingAltig and McDiarmid’s (1999) terminology. The criterion for labialtooth row presence was at least three teeth on a tooth ridge. Aqualitative description of the keratinized jaw sheaths also was recorded(e.g., serrations on jaw sheaths, thick, thin; see Altig andMcDiarmid 1999).Gut length (GL) and musculus orbitohyoideus length (OH) weremeasured for the 70 experimental tadpoles identified as cannibalsand non-cannibals and for 157 tadpoles collected from a singlepopulation over the course of their development. These two traitsare diagnostic of the carnivore morphotype for S. multiplicata(Pfennig 1989; Pomeroy 1981). A dissecting microscope with ocularmicrometer was used to measure OH to the nearest 0.1 mm.The relationships of GL and OH to body size were analyzed usinganalysis of covariance.I tested whether metamorphs were cannibalized by conspecificlarvae by placing metamorphs in the water of ponds 1–2 m fromshore. This forced the individual to swim to shore above feedingaggregations of tadpoles. I conducted 35 trials with individualmetamorphs in 1984 and 45 metamorphs in 1986.Results.—Cannibalism was observed on 8 of 260 days of fieldobservations: 6 days in 1984 (April 15–18, 21, 22) and 2 days in1987 (May 8, 15). A total of 41 occurrences of cannibalism wereobserved in the 8 days over a period of 27.5 h, in three differentponds. Based on the number of egg clutches recorded in the threeponds and the average number of eggs per clutch (mean = 812,SD = 297), the number of tadpoles present on each day the cannibalismwas recorded ranged from 4872 to more than 10,000 tad-<strong>Herpetological</strong> <strong>Review</strong> 39(2), 2008 151
- 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 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 124 and 125:
the knowledge of the group. The aut
- 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