(10%) were dead but not obviously malformed. The mechanismof malformation or death is unknown and could not be determinedfrom the x-rays. In addition, one adult frog recovered from a sitemore than 4 km NNW of the metamorph malformation site wasmissing a hind limb.Discussion.—The lack of Bd detection does not demonstrateabsence from DNP. The low sample size at each site, between 1and 7 animals, greatly reduces the probability and confidence levelof Bd detection at each site. Bd prevalence varies with a numberof abiotic (Berger et al. 2004; Drew et al. 2006) and biotic (Careyet al. 2003) factors. The effect of season (Berger et al. 2004), altitude(Young et al. 2001; Collins et al. 2003), rainfall (Collins et al.2003), and temperature (Collins et al. 2003) are implicated in Bdoutbreaks. Amphibians also exhibit differential sensitivity to Bdinfection depending on life stage (Blaustein et al. 2005; Garcia etal. 2006). Bd may be less detectable in newly metamorphosed frogs(J. E. Johnson, unpublished), and may not be reliably detected insome species until two to three weeks after metamorphosis (C.Carey, pers. comm.). Pearl et al. (2007) reported a comparablesample size of juvenile frogs (N = 29) and detected Bd in 34.5%of their samples. However, they report fewer Bd detections in thesummer months (6.15%) compared to the winter months (38.6%)which suggests sampling during the breeding season may improvethe likelihood of Bd detection. An assay of a greater sample sizeof Wood Frogs across all life stages in DNP will better assess Bdprevalence.Acknowledgments.—Funding was provided by the Denali Foundationand Denali Education Center. National Park Service staff at Denali NationalPark provided support including L.Tyrell, T. Meier, B. Burnell, B.Napier, C. Lane, M. Nickley, J. Caufield, H.and P. Hassinger, D. Tomeo,Cotton, and Steve. We thank J. and S. Hamm, L. and L. Cole, W. and J.Cole of Camp Denali and North Face Lodge for logistical support andallowing surveys of their property, H. Anderson, M. Reeves, M. Purdue,D. Metcalf, A. Ambros, A. Schwaub, D. Saffir, Z. Huff, and P. Hassingerfor field assistance, C. Crisafulli, G. Hokit, D. Olson, H. Shuford, C.Shuford, C. Apodaca, J. O’Donnell, and E. Lund for logistical supportand equipment, and S. Kim Martin, DVM, for x-rays. The manuscriptwas improved by comments from M. Reeves, D. Olson, H. Purdom, V.Vredenburg, and one anonymous reviewer. K. Christiansen assisted withFig. 1. All animals in this study were treated in compliance with institutionalanimal care guidelines. We obtained appropriate research permitsto do this work.LITERATURE CITEDADAMS, M. J., S. GALVAN, D. REINITZ, R. A. COLE, AND S. PYARE. 2008.Incidence of the fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, in amphibianpopulations along the Northwest Coast of North America. Herpetol.Rev. 39:430–431.ANNIS, S. L., F. DASTOOR, H. ZIEL, P. DASZAK, AND J. E. LONGCORE. 2004. ADNA-based assay identifies Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in amphibians.J. Wildl. Dis. 40:420–428.BERGER, L., R. SPEARE, H. HINES, G. MARANTELLI, A. D. HYATT, K. R.MCDONALD, L. F. SKERRATT, V. OLSEN, J. M. CLARKE, G. GILLESPIE, M.MAHONEY, N. SHEPPARD, C. WILLIAMS, AND M. TYLER. 2004. Effect ofseason and temperature on mortality in amphibians due tochytridiomycosis. Aust. Vet. J. 82:31–36.BLAUSTEIN, A. R., J. M. ROMANSIC, E. A. SCHEESSELE, B. A. HAN, A. P.PESSIER, AND J. E. LONGCORE. 2005. Interspecific variation in susceptibilityof frog tadpoles to the pathogenic fungus Batrachochytriumdendrobatidis. Conserv. Biol. 19:1460–1468.BOYLE, D. G., D. B. BOYLE, V. OLSEN, J. A. T. MORGAN, AND A. D. HYATT.2004. Rapid quantitative detection of chytridiomycosis(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in amphibian samples using realtimeTaqman PCR assay. Dis. Aquat. Org. 60:141–148.CAREY, C., D. F. BRADFORD, J. L. BRUNNER, J. P. COLLINS, E. W. DAVIDSON,J. E. LONGCORE, M. OUELLET, A. P. PESSIER, AND D. M. SCHROCK. 2003.Biotic factors in amphibian population declines. In G. Linder, S. K.Krest, and D. W. Sparling (eds.), Amphibian decline: an integratedanalysis of multiple stressor events. Soc. Environ. Toxicol. Chem2003:153–208.COLLINS, J. P., J. L. BRUNNER, V. MIERA, M. J. PARRIS, D. M. SCHOCK, ANDA. STORFER. 2003. Ecology and evolution of infectious disease. In R.D. Semlitsch (ed.), Amphibian Conservation, pp 137–151. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, D.C.DREW, A., E. J. ALLEN, AND L. J. ALLEN. 2006. Analysis of climatic andgeographic factors affecting the presence of chytridiomycosis in Australia.Dis. Aq. Org. 68:245–250.GARCIA, T. S., J. M. ROMANSIC, AND A. R. BLAUSTEIN. 2006. Survival ofthree species of anuran metamorphs exposed to UV-B radiation andthe pathogenic fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Dis. Aq. Org.72:163–169.HOKIT, D. G., AND A. BROWN. 2006. Distribution patterns of wood frogs(Rana sylvatica) in Denali National Park. Northwest. Nat. 87:128–137.OLSON, D. H., W. P. LEONARD, AND R. B. BURY (EDS.). 1997. SamplingAmphibians in Lentic Habitats: Methods and Approaches for the PacificNorthwest. Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology, NorthwestFauna Series Number 4:1–134.OUELLET, M., I. MIKAELIAN, B. D. PAULI, J. RODRIGUE, AND D. M. GREEN.2005. Historical evidence of widespread chytrid infection in NorthAmerican amphibian populations. Conserv. Biol. 19:1431–1440.PEARL, C. A., E. L. BULL, D. E. GREEN, J. BOWERMAN, M. J. ADAMS, A.HYATT, AND W. H. WENTE. 2007. Occurrence of the amphibian pathogenBatrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the Pacific Northwest. J. Herpetol.41:145–149.REEVES, M. K. 2008. Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in wood frogs (Ranasylvatica) from three national wildlife refuges in Alaska, USA. Herpetol.Rev. 39:68–70.––––––, AND D. E. GREEN. 2006. Rana sylvatica (wood frog). Chytridiomycosis.Herpetol. Rev. 37:450.RETALLICK, R. W. R., V. MIERA, K. L. RICHARDS, K. J. FIELD, AND J. P.COLLINS. 2006. A non-lethal technique for detecting the chytrid fungusBatrachochytrium dendrobatidis on tadpoles. Dis. Aq. Org. 72:77–85.WRIGHT, A. H. AND A. A. WRIGHT. 1995. Handbook of Frogs and Toads ofthe United States and Canada. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NewYork.YOUNG, B. E., K. R. LIPS, J. K. REASER, R. IBANEZ, A. W. SALAS, J. R.CEDENO, L. A. COLOMA, S. R. RON, E. L. MARCA, J. L. MEYER, A. MUNOZ,F. BOLANOS, G. CHAVES, AND D. ROMO. 2001. Population declines andpriorities for amphibian conservation in Latin America. Conserv. Biol.15:1213–1223.ZOLAN, M. E. AND P. J. PUKKILA. 1986. Inheritance of DNA methylation inCoprinus cinereus. Mol. Cell. Biol. 6:195–200.204 <strong>Herpetological</strong> <strong>Review</strong> 39(2), 2008
NATURAL HISTORY NOTESInstructions for contributors to Natural History Notes appear in Volume39, Number 1 (March 2008).CAUDATA — SALAMANDERSLISSOTRITON VULGARIS (Smooth Newt). PREY. Lissotritonvulgaris is a widespread species in Europe and western Asia.Because of their nectonic lifestyle (Dolmen 1983. J. Herpetol.17:23–31), adult L. vulgaris feed primarily on planktonic Crustacea(Dolmen and Koksvik 1983. Amph.-Rept. 6:133–136). Thefollowing observations were made on 5 May 2007 between 1500and 1545 h at an artificial pond in northern Hesse, Germany(51.2069444°N, 9.0722222°E; elev. 330 m). An adult female L.vulgaris (ca. 95 mm TL) was observed to capture a large dragonflynymph (total length about 50 mm, family Aeshnidae). The nymph,which was sitting on a floating leaf, had recently moulted and thechitin armor appeared to be soft. The newt approached the leaffrom beneath and captured the insect with a quick bite into itsanterior portion. Another female L. vulgaris appeared and snappedseveral times at the legs of the nymph. The intruder took the preyfrom the other female and disappeared into deeper water, holdingthe nymph between its jaws. Whether the newt succeeded inswallowing its prey remains unknown. Because of their size andusually protective exoskeleton such large dragonfly nymphs maynot form a regular part of the diet of L. vulgaris (Avery 1986.Oikos 19:408–412).Submitted by ANDREAS HERTZ, ForschungsinstitutSenckenberg, Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt am Main,Germany; e-mail: ahertz@senckenberg.de.NECTURUS MACULOSUS (Red River Mudpuppy). HOST.Several species of leeches have been known to prey upon amphibianspecies (Briggler et al. 2001. J. Freshwater Ecol. 16:105–111;Moser et al. 2005. J. North Carolina Acad. Sci. 121:36–40; Sawyer1972. Illinois Biol. Monogr. 46:1–46). The leech, Placobdellacryptobranchii (Ozark Hellbender Leech) was described in 1977(Johnson and Klemm 1977. Trans. Amer. Micros. Soc. 96:327–331). To date, the only known host for P. cryptobranchii is theOzark Hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi (Moseret al. 2006. J. Arkansas Acad. Sci. 60:84–95). Herein, we provideinformation on the first report of P. cryptobranchii on Necturusmaculosus.On 1 Sept 2005, four juvenile P. cryptobranchii were found attachedto a N. maculosus captured on the Eleven Point River, OregonCounty, Missouri, USA. The N. maculosus appeared healthy(mass 105 g; SVL 16.5 cm; TL 25.5 cm). While attached to the N.maculosus, all four leeches exhibited a reddish colored crop areathat indicated blood feeding upon the host. Two leeches were collectedand deposited at the National Museum of Natural History,Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC (USNM 1100749) whereblood-feeding was further confirmed by full crops in each leech(WEM, pers. obs.). This account is the first report of P.cryptobranchii feeding on N. maculosus, and the second knownhost for P. cryptobranchii. More information should be collectedon P. cryptobranchii to determine if its presence on N. maculosusis a common occurrence or an isolated event. Since 2005, surveyorshave captured 6 N. maculosus from the Eleven Point River inMissouri and this is the only instance when P. cryptobranchii wasobserved. With the continued decline of the main host, C. a. bishopi,this leech may need to rely increasingly upon N. maculosus.We extend our thanks to M. Allen, G. Cravens, G. Smith, R.Rimer, and P. Veatch for assistance in the field.Submitted by JEFFREY T. BRIGGLER, Missouri Departmentof Conservation, 2901 W. Truman Blvd, Jefferson City, Missouri65109, USA (e-mail: jeff.briggler@mdc.mo.gov); and WILLIAME. MOSER, Department Invertebrate Zoology, National Museumof Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC20013-7012, USA (e-mail: moserw@si.edu).NOTOPHTHALMUS VIRIDESCENS LOUISIANENSIS (CentralNewt). LEECH INFESTATION. Glossiphoniid leeches(Placobdella picta) have previously been reported to infest RedspottedNewts, Notophthalmus v. viridescens in Maryland (Mock1987. J. Parasitol. 73:730–737), New York (Barrow 1953. Trans.Amer. Microsc. Soc. 72:197–216; Pough 1971. Science 174:1144–1146), Pennsylvania (Raffel et al. 2006. J. Parasitol. 92:1256–1264), and Virginia (Gill 1978. Ecol. Monogr. 48:145–166). Toour knowledge, P. picta has not been reported from N. v.louisianensis.On 22 March 2007, D.J. visited a fishless pond with rootedaquatic vegetation situated in an oak-hickory forest of mountainousterrain, 1 km W St. Hwy. 23, Carroll County, Arkansas. SixtythreeN. v. louisianensis were collected and examined for leeches;18 (29%) had P. picta firmly attached to their integument, themajority under their lip, while others had leeches attached to thetail and lower abdomen. On several occasions, newts were observedtrying to physically remove leeches by biting at their tailsand shaking their heads vigorously, unusual behavior previouslyreported in N. v. viridescens by Gill (op. cit.). The same site wasrevisited about 2 months later on 19 May 2007 and 49 N. v.louisianensis were examined; only three (6%) possessed leeches.This observation further supports the understanding that P. pictais a temporary ectoparasite on amphibians and may be an importantregulator of certain populations (Brockleman 1969. Ecology50:632–644; Berven and Boltz 2001. Copeia 2001:907–915).We document herein the first report of P. picta infesting N. v.louisianensis. Interestingly, this leech has previously been reportedon other amphibians in northern Arkansas (McAllister et al. 1995.J. Helminthol. Soc. Washington 62:143–149; Briggler et al. 2001.J. Freshwater Ecol. 16:105–111; Turbeville and Briggler. 2003. J.Freshwater Ecol. 18:155–159; Moser et al. 2006. J. Arkansas Acad.Sci. 60:84–95).Voucher specimens of P. picta are deposited in the AmericanMuseum of Natural History (AMNH 5427); a voucher of N. v.louisianensis is deposited in the Arkansas State University Museumof Zoology, <strong>Herpetological</strong> Collection (ASUMZ 30705).We thank the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission for ScientificCollecting Permits 032920062 and 042320071 issued to C.T.McAllister. We also thank S.E. Trauth (ASUMZ) and S.C. Watson(AMNH) for curatorial assistance.<strong>Herpetological</strong> <strong>Review</strong> 39(2), 2008 205
- 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 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