FIG. 1. Medicine dropper (60 ml) with rubber bulb, over plastic tube.Note: that only the squeeze bulb with plastic tube is used with this technique.Reichert 1883; Russell and Bogert 1981). In addition, Stuart et al.(1998) demonstrated the toxic effects that anesthesia and parasympatheticstimulation can have on Heloderma while collectingvenom. These techniques were found to be impractical, or injuriousto the lizards, and/or ineffective. However, modifying the techniqueof offering a rubber-covered object to bite (Russell andBogert 1981) worked extremely well.Materials and Methods.—After the lizard was safely restrained(Poulin and Ivanyi 2003), had opened its mouth and the mouthcavity had been rinsed with water or saline, we presented it with aplastic-reinforced rubber squeeze bulb (14.5 mm diameter) froma Nalgene® 60 ml medicine dropper (Fig. 1). As soon as the bulbcontacted the lizard’s mouth, the lizard would voluntarily bite downon the bulb. Care was taken to ensure that the posterior teeth (towardthe angle of the jaw) engaged the bulb. The lizard was thenheld with its head at a 30–45° angle (below horizontal) and itsmouth was suspended above a glass or plastic vessel (Fig. 2).Results and Discussion.—After a lizard bites the squeeze bulb,released and compressed its jaws several times, drops of venomwould be produced and the venom would drop into the vessel fromalong the gums of the lower jaw (Fig. 2). Initially, 40 drops (~ 2ml) of venom were obtained from a several adult specimens. Subsequenttrials suggest that this volume of venom can frequently beobtained using this technique but the quantity of venom varieswith animal size and vigor (range of 1–4 ml), and it is important tonote that the venom may be mixed with saliva and blood. Thoughthe amount of venom per bite diminished after several jaw compressions,generally enough venom was collected in two minutes,allowing us to stop the trial. After each trial, the animal was placedback in its enclosure. In every case, as soon as the lizard was released,it would release the medicine dropper, making it easy toretrieve.This method was used on six each of H. horridum and H.suspectum during late morning to early afternoon hours in spring,summer, and autumn. The lizards ranged from subadults (2–3 yrs.old) to large adults (up to 21+ yrs. old), and in both species, malesand females were used for venom collection. All of the animalshad been in captivity for a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of21 years. Each lizard would bite and release (but not let go of) thebulb in a rhythmic pattern (i.e., bite and hold down for 4 seconds,bite and hold for 6 seconds, etc.). Though the defensive attitude ofanimals varied, only the oldest animal (an adult male Gila Monster),displayed less vigor in biting frequency (quantity of bitecompressions).Collected venoms (pooled by species/collection event) werestored at 4°C and immediately transported to a facility for lyophilizationand then kept at -80°C. After CITES permits were obtained,lyophilized venoms were shipped to the research laboratoryfor genomic and proteomic analysis. The lyophilized venomsfrom H. suspectum and H. horridum were separately analyzed bygel permeation chromatography, reverse-phase HPLC, and massspectrometry for the isolation and structural characterization ofbioactive peptides. The typical and novel helodermatid venom peptides,exendins and helokinestatin respectively, were both isolatedand characterized from the lyophilized venoms collected by thismethod (Chen et al. 2006; Kwok et al. 2008). The precursor cDNAsof exendin-4 and exendin-3 were also cloned where the lyophilizedvenoms used as the material for reverse transcriptase PCR (Chenet al. 2006).Data published by Chen et al. (2006) and Kwok et al. (2008)showed that this technique for helodermatid venom collectionworked extremely well. The advantages of this method are that 1)generally it is non-injurious to the lizard; 2) reduces animal stressand the amount of blood from breaking teeth that might be inadvertentlycollected using other methods (Mitchell and Reichert1883); and 3) maximizes the quantity of venom that can be safelycollected.FIG. 2. Restrained Gila monster biting down on rubber bulb. The animal’shead is held at a 30-45° angle (below horizontal). Note drop of venomhanging from lower jaw of lizard.180 <strong>Herpetological</strong> <strong>Review</strong> 39(2), 2008
Acknowledgments.—We thank the Herpetology staff of the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum for assistance with venom acquisition. We thankthe University of Arizona for venom lyophilization, the University of Ulsterfor venom analysis, and Phil Alegranti for assistance with acquiring CITESimport and export permits. We also thank Peter Siminski and Rick Bruscafor review of this manuscript. HFK thanks the University of Ulster for itssupport of his research under the Vice Chancellor’s Research Studentship.<strong>Herpetological</strong> <strong>Review</strong>, 2008, 39(2), 181–186.© 2008 by Society for the Study of Amphibians and ReptilesAnalysis and Comparison of Three CaptureMethods for the Eastern Hellbender(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis)LITERATURE CITEDARRINGTON, O. N. 1930. Notes on the two poisonous lizards with specialreference to Heloderma suspectum. Bull. Antiven. Inst. Am. 4:29.BECK, D. D. 2005. Biology of Gila Monsters and Beaded Lizards. Universityof California Press, California.BOU-ABBOUD C. F., AND D. G. KARDASSAKIS. 1988. Acute myocardial infarctionfollowing a Gila monster [Heloderma suspectum cinctum] bite.West. J. Med. 148(5):577–579.BROWN, D. E., AND N. B. CARMONY. 1999. Gila Monster: Facts and Folkloreabout America’s Aztec Lizard. University of Utah Press.BURNETT, J. W., G. J. CALTON, AND R. J. MORGAN. 1985. Gila monster bites.Cutis 35(4):323.CANTRELL, F. L. 2003. Envenomation by the Mexican beaded lizard: acase report. J. Toxicol.-Clin. Toxicol. 41(3):241–244.CHEN, T., A. J. BJOURSON, D. F. ORR, H. F. KWOK, P. RAO, C. IVANYI, AND C.SHAW. 2002. Unmasking venom gland transcriptomes in reptile venoms.Analyt. Biochem. 311:152–156.––––––, H. F. KWOK, C. IVANYI, AND C. SHAW. 2006. Isolation and cloningof exendin precursor cDNAs from single samples of venom from theMexican beaded lizard (Heloderma horridum) and the Gila monster(Heloderma suspectum). Toxicon 47(3):288–295.CHEN, Y. E., AND D. J. DRUCKER. 1997. Tissue-specific expression of uniquemRNAs that encode proglucagon-derived peptides or exendin-4 in thelizard. J. Biol. Chem. 272(7):4108–4115.LEVELL, J. 1997. A Field Guide to Reptiles and the Law. Sang Froid Press,Inc., Canada.KWOK, H. F., T. CHEN, M. O’ROURKE, C. IVANYI, D. HIRST, AND C. SHAW.2008. Helokinestatin: a novel bradykinin B2 receptor antagonistdecapeptide from lizard venom. Peptides 29(1):65–72.MITCHELL, M. K., AND E. I. REICHERT. 1883. A partial study of the poisonof Heloderma suspectum (Cope). Med. News 42:209.PIACENTINE, J., S. C. CURRY, AND P. J. RYAN. 1986. Life-threatening anaphylaxisfollowing Gila monster bite. Ann. Emerg. Med. 15(8):959–961PRESTON, C. A. 1989. Hypotension, myocardial infarction, andcoagulopathy following Gila monster bite. J. Emerg. Med. 7(1):37–40.POHL, M., AND S. A. WANK. 1998. Molecular cloning of the heloderminand exendin-4 cDNAs in the lizard. Relationship to vasoactive intestinalpolypeptide/pituitary adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide andglucagons-like peptide 1 and evidence against the existence of mammalianhomologues. J. Biol. Chem. 273(16):9778–9784.POULIN, S., AND C. S. IVANYI. 2003. A technique for manual restraint ofhelodermatid lizards. Herpetol. Rev. 34:43.RAUFMAN, J. 1996. Bioactive peptides from lizard venoms. RegulatoryPeptides 61(1):1–18.RUSSELL, F. E., AND C. M. BOGERT. 1981. Gila monster: its biology, venomand bite—a review. Toxicon 19(3):341–359.STRIMPLE, P. D., A. J. TOMASSONI, E. J. OTTEN, AND D. BAHNER. 1997. Reporton envenomation by a Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum) witha discussion of venom apparatus, clinical findings, and treatment. WildernessEnviron. Med. 8(2):111–116.STUART, B., J. CROOM, JR., AND H. HEATWOLE. 1998. Hypersensitivity ofsome lizards to pilocarpine. Herpetol. Rev. 29(4):223–224.ROBIN L. FOSTER 1AMY M. MCMILLAN 1*ALVIN R. BREISCH 2KENNETH J. ROBLEE 3andDAWN SCHRANZ 11Department of Biology, Buffalo State CollegeBuffalo, New York, 14222, USA2Endangered Species UnitNew York State Department of Environmental ConservationAlbany, New York 12233, USA3Region 9, New York State Department of Environmental ConservationBuffalo, New York 14203, USA*Corresponding author; e-mail: mcmillam@buffalostate.eduThe Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Daudin) is NorthAmerica’s only member of the Cryptobranchidae, and one of theworld’s largest salamanders. Hellbenders are elusive animals; theyare nocturnal, cryptically-colored, and spend most of their timebeneath large rocks on the bottoms of swift-flowing streams. Thesecharacteristics make them difficult to locate and capture. A varietyof capture methods have been tested and evaluated, but eventhe most widely accepted of these are still questionable in termsof their impact on breeding habitat and reproductive behavior. Inaddition, no effective technique has been reported to consistentlylocate and capture larvae or juveniles.A common method of searching for Hellbenders involves liftingthe upstream ends of rocks greater than 30 cm diameter, andcapturing any Hellbender below it by hand or net with or withoutthe aid of a mask and snorkel. Whereas this method is inexpensiveand relatively quick (Nickerson and Krysko 2003), turning rocksduring the breeding season may disrupt nest sites and result inmortality of eggs or larvae (Williams et al. 1981). Although appropriatefor locating large adults, it may be ineffective for locatingsmaller size classes, especially larvae and juveniles less than20 cm total length (Peterson et al. 1983). Nickerson and Krysko(2003) speculated that turning small rocks and other objects inshallow water might yield more larval Hellbenders. Additionaldisadvantages to rock turning include injury to the researcher dueto heavy lifting, difficulty seeing Hellbenders because of streamsurface glare, possibility of Hellbenders escaping unnoticed byresearchers, inability to locate Hellbenders in deep water, and timerequired for silt to clear after a rock is lifted (Nickerson and Krysko2003; Pauley et al. 2003).Electroshocking has been used extensively with high capturesuccess reported (Williams et al. 1981). Bothner and Gottlieb(1991) reported that Hellbenders were completely unaffected bythe electrode unless directly touched with it, and even then appearedonly mildly disturbed. Regardless of capture success,electroshocking equipment is heavy and expensive, and risk to<strong>Herpetological</strong> <strong>Review</strong> 39(2), 2008 181
- 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 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