Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas: With Keys, Taxonomic Synopses, Bibliography, and Distribution Maps (W.L. Moody, Jr., Natural History Series, No. 8.)

Copyright 02000 by James R. Dixon Manufact~redin the United States of America All rights reserved Second Edition The paper used in this book meets the minimum r e q u ~ e ~ e n t s of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, 239.48-1984. Binding materials have been chosen for durability.

@

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-~ublicationData Dixon, James Ray. Amphibians and reptiles of Texas :with keys, taxonomic synopses, bibliography,and distribution maps / James R. Dixon. 2nd ed. p. cm. (Moody natural history series :no, 25) Includes bibliographical references(p. ). ISBN 0-89096-919-1 (c).-ISBN 0-89096-920-5 (p) 1. Amp~lbians-Texas. 2, Reptiles-Texas, I. Title. 11. Series: W L. Moody, Jr., natural history series :no. 25. QL653.T4D59 2000 597.9’09764-d~21 99-40452 CIP

List of Illustrations I vi Ac~no~ledgments I vii Introduction / 3 Keys to the ~ m p h i ~ i aand n s Reptiles of Texas / 9 Salamanders I 9 Frogs andToads I

11

Generic Key to theAmphi~ianLarvae of Texas / 17 Turtles / 18 Lizards / 23 Snakes / 31 Species Accounts / 50 Class Amphi~ia/ 51 Order Caudata / 51 ~ r d eAnura r / 60 Class Reptilia / 80 Order Crocodilia / 80 Order Testudinata / 80 Order Squamata / 94 Maps I 167 Glossary I 261 i~liography/ 267 Index of C o ~ o Names n /

411

Index of Scientific Names / 416

I. Some keyfeatures of salamanders 2.

Some keyfeatures of frogs and toads 3. Cranial crestson a bufonid toad 4. Turtle carapace: snapping turtle; sea turtle head 5- Turtle plastron; nasal septum ridge 6. Lizard head scales, dorsalview 7 - Lizard head scales,lateral view 8. Lizard head scales, ventral view 9- Reptile scales, dorsal view; lizard femoral pores IO. Snalce head scales, ventral view If. Snake head scales, dorsalview 12. Loreal piton copperhead, lateral view I3* Snake anal plate and tail, ventral view lateral view 14. Snake head scales, ~~o~ograp~s

~ e153 g~~~i~gpage

Mole Salaman~er Texas BlindSalamander Black-spotted Newt Mexican Burrowing Toad Spotted Chirping Frog Mexican Tree Frog Houston Toad Pig Frog Big Bend MudTurtle Cagle’s MapTurtle ~eticulatedGecko Mountain ~hort-hornedLizard M ~ s ~ u iLizard te Gray-checkered Whiptail Desert Grasslandhipt tail ~orthern Scarlet Snake ~estern ~ Snake orm lack-striped Snake Speckled Racer ird’s Rat Snake dland Water Snake mooth Green Snake T r a ~ s - ~ e c olack-heade~ s Snake Plains Garter Snake Texas LyreSnake

S

This work would never have been possible without the aid of colleagues, friends, and students. I am particularly pleased to acknowledge the aid of two formerstudents, Ken Kingand David Kizirian,who suffered the hardships of surveying northwest Texascounties that possessed fewerthan IO recorded speciesof amphibians and reptiles; theydid an admirable job. John Malone madethe amphibian identi~cationkey more user-friendlyand added the larval key to amphibian genera; for this I am profoundly grateful. My thanks to thosecurators who respondedto my plea formuseum records: P. Alberch, W. Auffenberg, R. L. Bezy, B. C. Brown, S. D. Busak, J. Campbell, C. C. Carpenter,A. H. Chaney, C. J. Cole, W.W. Dalquest, W. G. Degenhardt, W. E. Duellman, N. Ford, J. Fouquette, T. Fritts, D. A. Gallagher,J. Green, H. W, Greene, S. Hammack, L, M. Hardy, W. R. Heyer, R. F. Inger, J. Karges, S. Kerr, A. G. Kluge, J. M. Legler, D. Lentz, A.E.Leviton, C. S. Lieb, E. A.Liner, the late C. J. McCoy, R. W McDiarmid, E. V. Malnate, the late R. E. Martin, H. Marx, T, Maxwell,J. S. Mecham, W. Montgomery, E. Morgan, R. H. Mount, C. W. Myers, M. A.Nickerson, R. A. Nussbaum, W. J. Pyburn, F. Rainwater, J. Rosado, W, Seifert, N. J. Scott, J. F. Scudday, C. B. Smith, H. M. Smith, the late P. W. Smith, F. B. Stangl, T. Uzzell,J. V. Vindum, W. J. Voss, D, B. Wake, R. G. Webb, J. W. Wright, G. Zug, and R. G. Zweifel. Special thanks go to those colleagues and students who furnished specimen records, literature, and other courtesies: R. W. Axtell, the late R. J. Baldauf, D. Barker, P. M. Burchfield, C. T. Goody, R. H. Dean, C. H. Ernst, the late E, Farmer, G. W. Ferguson,T. Gallucci, M. Haiduk, C. Harrison, F. S. Hendricks,T. Hibbitts, J. B. Iverson, J. D. Johnson, J. Karges, B. Keeley, W.W, Lamar, W. L. McClure, H. D. McCrystal,J. H. Malone, E. J. Michaud, E. 0. Moll, W. S. Parker, the late F. E. Potter, A. H.Price, H. Quinn, F. L. Rose, M. E.Seidel,J. W. Sites, F. B. Stangl, D. Stine, S. Stone, R. A.Thomas, T. Vance, T. Vermersch,J. Ward, and J. E. Werler. I am especially appreciative of Elinor Auffenberg, whodonated her time to compile a listof Texas snake records fromthe Florida State Museum. Specialthanks also to Carl Lieband William Lamar, who have never failed to respond to requests for information and other amenities. I am forever in debt to Jerry Raun and Fred Gehlbach, who compiled the literature prior to 1967. They mademy jobmuch easier. I owe much to David Kizirian who scanned 95 percent of the 1967-82 literature and provided subject categories. R. W. Axtell, R. Conant, R. W. McDiarmid, E.V. Malnate, and the late F. E.Potter aided this project by solving problemsof distribution and ident~cationfor various amphibian and reptile species.

Photographs and/or slides weredonat~dby D, Barker, R. Bezy, J.T. Collins, the late I. H. Conant, W. G. Degenhardt, W. ~,Lamar, C. M, J. P. Scudday,J.W, Sites,R. A, Thomas, L.J.Vitt, J. E.Werler, inal manuscript was typedby Sally Kim,long before our office purd processing equipment. She devotedmuch of her time to correcting my errors, and I appreciate her patience and understanding. During the period betweenthe first and second edition, several colleagu~scontrib~tednew distribution^ records for the amphibians and reptiles of Texas. I am pleased to a c ~ o w l e d gtheir e help: C. M. Eckerman, D. H, Poley,M. J.and Jenna .Greene, T,D. Hibbitts,T. LaDuc, W*W. Lamar,J.V, R. E.Nelson, A. H. Price, J R. K. Vau~han,and M. J. Whiting. I am forever thankful to my wife Mary.She spent many lonely evenings while I worked on thefirst and second e~itions.Without her ~ n d n e s and s understanding, this project wouldhave never reached completion, Sheis ac~owledgedgratefully for someof the line ~ a w i n g utilized s in the keys, I sincerely thank Alan Chaney,who gave me permission to use and modify as necess~y,his keys found in ~ eto ~the~s e ~ t e ~ ~ of u~ tee ~s (214.900). u s

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

The first edition began as an updating of the Texas herpetologicalliterature following the pattern set by Raun and Gehlbach’s1972treatise, ~ ~ p ~ iand ~ Rep~i~es ~ a n s in ~ e ~ uIslater , decided to revise Raun and Gehlbach’s workand received their approval. I felt itnecessary to add keysto species and subspecies to make the work more usable as a laboratory guide. A change in the style of literature citation used by Raun and Gehlbach wouldhave made their book and the present work incompatible. Therefore,Idecided to insert all new literature citations directly into their system by using decimal points. The second edition follows the style of the first, but I have renumbered mostof the 1970-98 individual literature citations by utilizing three decimal placesto accommodate the insertion of the literature into an alphabetized space. Texas contains 219 native and exotic speciesand 284 taxa of amphibians and reptiles. To some extent, these taxa are restricted to particular vegetation communities, soil types, orwater sources. Although the various environments of the state appear to havetheir own particular herpetofauna, a number of “generalists”tend to mask the uniqueness of some of these environments. Texas issituated at the junction of four major physiographic divisions of North America:the Rocky Mountains, Great Plains, Eastern Forests,and the Southwestern Deserts. Eachof the latter divisions isfurther divided into biotic provinces. Fora summary of these provinces and their attendant herpetofauna, see Blair(74). The exotic species that maintain breeding populationsin Texas are the edite erranean gecko, rough-scaled gecko, Endo-Pacific gecko,house gecko, brownanole, Florida water snake, and Brahminy blindsnake. The accidental and/or released nonbreeding petsthat have been foundswimmin~,walking, or crawling around the byways of Texas are: African clawed frog, boa constrictor, Burmese python, reticulated python, brown tree snake, m a n ~ o v esnake, wandering garter snake, Florida tortoise, California tortoise, and the Burmese brown tortoise. An analysis of species densities by counties (politicalunits of unequal size) reveals moreabout resident herpetologistsand intensive herpetofauna inventories than about the distribution of the amphibians and reptiles in Texas. The highest numbers of recorded species occur in such counties as Bexar, Brazos, Dallas, Harris, Hays, Mc~ennan,Tarrant, and Travis. Eachof these counties contains a major state university and one or more resident herpetologists. Other species-rich counties maybe the result of incidental collection of species whilein pursuit of more desirable “target”species, orcan be attributed to their diverse environ~ents.For example, Bexar Countycontains 97 amphibian and reptile species,the highest species density in the state and 48 percent of the total herpetofauna of Texas: this county also has one of the most diverseenvironments in the state, and several activeherpetologists residethere.

All major museums in the United States and smaller museums in Texas were asked to supply Texas records of their holdings of a m p ~ b i a nand s reptiles. About go percent respondedwith more than 13,000county records and more than 110,ooo individual localities. Questionable identifications and isolated distributional records wereverified whenever possible,either by visiting the museum or by borrowing the material for examination. The morethan 13,000 species records for 254 Texas counties reveal that 49 spe1.5 percies occur in 60 percent of all Texas counties, and 50 species occur in only cent of all counties, The distribution of species suggeststhat 25 percent of the taxa are abundant,25 percent are rare,and 50 percent are of average distribution. Salamanderscomprise 4.2 percent of the total number of records, frogsand toads 22.9 percent, turtles 11.6percent, lizards 20.3percent, and snakes 41.0 percent. About 34 percent (4488)of the 13,284records have been accumulated during the past 36 years. ~ o u n t ydistribution maps are provided for all native Texas speciesof amphibians and reptiles, Those species with limited ~stributionmay be combined with other species belonging to the same family on a singlemap with separate county segments (see, for example, Map I).Questionable recordsare mentioned under Com~ e ~ tMost s . of the questionable localitieshave correct ident~cations; however, those individuals may have escaped from captivity, were improperly labeled as to locality, or were transported accidentally. I would be remiss not to discuss the excessive m o u n t of t ~ o n o m i cchange that has taken place since1987.The new“tools,”such as karyology, ~ u n o l o g y , electrophoresis, and mtDNA, change one’s perspectiveof t r a ~ t i o n a l t ~ o n o m y . These new tools, in conjunction with computer programs that canview the “whole evidence”in a matter of seconds,create a taxonomic delusion for “old school”taxonomists. DNA biologists can develop thousands of scenarios for the evolutionist, cladist, and pheneticist to analyze with each segment of the gene. Whois correct? What happens to any technique if misapplied? For interesting a discussion of these problems the reader should study James Lazell’s 199.2article “TaxonomicTyranny and the Exoteric” (Laze111gg2,14). His comments mirror my thoughts perfectly.

For the first timein the history of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the c o ~ i s s i o n e r have s taken a stand for the regulation and control of nongame wildlife in the state. In 1998,the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department issued new regulations concerning the collection, possession limits, take, and bartering of nongame wildlife, which includes amphibians and reptiles. Texas is far behind other states in taking action to ensure protection of nongame wildlife. One issue iscomercia1 collecting,which if left unchecked, could easily wipe out entire populations of turtles, lizards, and salamanders in certain areas of the state. Because of increased demand for certain species of turtles, tortoises, and other reptiles and amphibians in Europe and Asia for petsand food, many of our native species haveundergone a sharp decrease innumbers.

I am reasonably happyto say that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is making an effort to stem the tide. We also can help to accomplishthis goal. In 1983, the Texas Parks and ~ i l d l i f Department e createdthe Special Nongameand Endangered SpeciesConse~ationFund. This fund may be used fornongame wildlife and endangered species research and conse~ation,habitat acquisition and development, and dissemination of information pertaining to these species. Money for the fund is obtained through private donations and sale of nongame wildlife art prints, decals, and stamps. For more informationon the fund orendangered specieis, contact the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Another issue isthe lack of public concern for the protection of habitat for certain species. The Houston toad is an excellent example.~ploitationof Houston toad habitat for golfcourses, housing, and agricultural developmentsslowly has undermined the ability of the toad to sustain itself. This issue applies to other Texas species as well:the horned lizard, reticulate collared lizard,Rio Grande chirping frog, black-spottednewt, indigo snake, Cagle’s map turtle, and the Texas tortoise. Am increase in the number of motor vehicleshas resulted in multiple deaths of slow-moving reptilesand amphibians, Another result of increased trafficis more and wider highways, all at theexpense of habitat once usedby various species of wildlife. Slowlyand predictably, there is lessand less green space, fewer animals, and few that mourn their passing. This applies to sea turtles as well. An increased demand for seafoodhas brought a d ~ t i o n aboats l and nets and an increase in drowned seaturtles, Philosophically, onemust ask where it will all end. Are we doing too little too late? Is Rachel Carson’s Silent S~ringc o ~ n into g view?

About IIOO scholarly publicationsconcerning Texas amphibians and reptiles were itt ten between 1852 and 1970.By the end of 1985,more than 2000 additional publications had appeared. Over 3140articles on various aspects of the Texas herpetofaurra had been publishedby early 1998.These included onlyfew a popular articles, newspaperaccounts, and reports to federal and state agencies. TheTexas herpetolo~icalliterature has increased 38 percent followingthe publication of Raun and Gehlbach’s1972treatise. The first115years of Texas her~etolo~ical literature averaged onlyIO articles per year, while the subsequent 15 years averaged 48 articles per year. By 1987,approximately 717 primary authors had utilized 292 publication resources. Sevenof these, Copeia (239),~ e r p e ~ o ~ o g(208), i c a the ~ e ~ a s ~ oof~~ rc i~e a~ lc e (149)~ ~ e r p e ~ o ~ ~R~view g i c a l (133)~ S o ~ ~ ~ w e s t e r ~ ( I I~~aCa~alog~e )t, ~ r a ~of~As~~e r i can ~ ~and Re~tiles ~(87), and ~ ~ ~ ~of ~r~e ~r pa e l~(63), ~~ l c~ ogn~ti ~ e about d a 50 percent of all published articles on Texas amphibians and reptiles. About541 coauthored, with the bulk of coauthor(27percent) of all published articles were ship occurring after 1945.The coauthorship rate hasdoubled since194.5,and of the 573 coauthors, 259 (45 percent) never appearedas senior authors. There were about 719 primary authors, of which 439 appeared onlyonce, and 614 (85 percent) appeared as authors fewer than five times. Of the 719primary authors, 105have

~

published 1070(53 percent) of the total number of articles. Sixteenauthors have published 20 or more articles on Texas herpetology. They made up only 2 percent of all authors, and 22 percent of all publications.Eight of the 16 authors aredeceased, and eight continue to publishon Texas herpetology. Thenames of those deceased, their Texas publications record, and their active periodare J.Streclcer (58) 1902-35; W, F. Blair (39) 1949-76; D. W, Tinkle (26) 1951-79; E.D. Cope (25) 1859-1900; W. W. Milstead (25) 1951-78; C. E.Burt (20) 1928-38; and E.H. Taylor (20) 1931-50. Streclcer,a resident of Texas, achieveda publication recordof 58 articles in 22 years, while Cope,a nonresident, published 25 articles over41 years. Resident herpetologistshave a distinct advantage concerning knowledge of their local herpetofauna. The authors active through 1987 and their publication recordsare H. M. Smith (Ss),J.R. Dixon (25), F. H. Gehlbach (24),B. C. Brown (23),R. W. Axtell (21), R. Conant (21), F. L. Rose (20), and C. T. Mc~llister(20). Of active herpetologists,H. M. Smith’s85 published articles overa 65-year span (1933-97) is a monument to his excellence as a herpetologist and his desireto create herpetological activityamong his colleagues.Only the young herpetologists of today willhave the opportunity to be as productiveas H. M. Smith. One of these has achieved this goal. The most prolific writer of Texas herpetofauna during the 1980-95 era was Chris McAllister. He and his colleagues published nearly 100articles ina 12-year period,surpassing H. M. Smith’s recordof 85 Texas articles overa 65-year period.

i ~ ~ oofr yTexas Some of the early writerson Texas herpetology neither resided innor visited Texas. Most of their material came fromearly collectors of natural history loresuch as Spanish explorers,botanists, and military survey engineers. Spanish explorersduring the period 1650-1700 recorded encounters with rattlesnalces in Texas. TheFrench botanist, Jean Louis Berlandier, was probably the earliest sciencewriter on amphibians and reptiles of Texas. Although Berlandier wasFrench, he resided in Mexicoand was oneof the &st scientists to mite on extensively on his Texas travels. Berlandier(59.650)made several expeditions horseback and on foot across the southern half of Texas between 1828 and 1834. His major expeditions were from Laredo to Bexar (February 20,1828-March I, 1828),from Bexar-SanFelipe-Trinity and back to Bexar (April 13-June18,1828), Aransas-Goliad several times (May 182g),Bexar to Laredo (July 14-28,1829), Bexar to Goliad (February 2-5,1830)~Matamoros to Goliad (April1834),BexarEagle ass-Laredo-~atamoros (June Io-July 28,1834.). On his firsttrip, Berlandier encountered the Texas tortoise and bullfrogs along the route. As he crossed the Nueces River,he encountered alligators and softshelled turtles, and remarked how common T ~ ~ u and n ~ ~x awere ~ around a Throughout Berlandier’strip to San Felipe, Trinity, and return trip to Bexar,he encountered box turtles, salamanders, western diamondbackand timber rattlesnakes, ~ a ~and a alligators. , Berlandier’strips between CopanoBay and Goliad were fre-

6 A ~ p ~ i ~ andi ~ a e~ pst ~of~Texas es

quently dangerous because of his contact with timber rattlesndres. On one of his trips during 1829,he encountered the Texas horned lizard forthe first time. Occasionally, Berlandier mentioned encounters with tree frogs, but failed to give the scientificnames, Because of his general observations and collecting, hisname is associated in the literature with the Texas tortoise, Rio Grande leopard frog, and many plant species. John Bartlett and William Emery’s1850-54 boundary surveys, and their subsequent collections of amphibians and reptiles, resultedin a partial list of Texas specimens through the publications of Baird and Girard (34-39) and Girard (402-404). Baird and Girard recordeda total of 86 species in the area between Indianola and El Paso. Several noted herpetologists began describing Texas species following the field collections of Berlandier, Emery, Bartlett, and others. Among these wereE. D. Cope, G. A. Boulenger, Louis Agassiz, AlbertGunther, Robert Kennicott,and Spencer F. Baird. By 1900,John Streclrer had begun collecting in Teiras, and by 1915,he had published the first definitive list (163species)of reptiles and amphibians for the state of Texas. By 1933,Strecker had accumulated the largest collectionof Texas reptiles and amphibians, and he housed the collection at Baylor University.By the time of his death, Strecker had written 58 papers on the herpetofauna of Texas. Brown (162)produced the next major checklistof Texas amphibians and reptiles, recognizing 182species, followed byRaun and Gehlbach (770.300) who determined 199species. The most recent state list by Robert Thomas(1003.310)records 203 species. This edition includes 219 species, plusabout IO accidentals foundin the state. The major herpetologists working with Texas species between Streclrer’s era and World War I1were Frank Blanchard, Bryce Brown, CharlesBurt, Roger Conant, Howard Gloyd, Laurence Klauber, Stanley Mulaik, P. Karl Schmidt, HobartSmith, Edward Taylor, and Alan H. Wright, Only Brownand Smith actually resided in Texas.

The dichotomous identification keys are arranged by major taxonomic groups: e.g., salamanders, frogs and toads, turtles, lizards, and snakes. Variousterms used in the keys are for the benefit of the less serious student of herpetology: however,the majority of the terms are standard terminology usedby herpetologists. The amphibian larval key was contributed by John H. Malone, a student of amphibian biology and behavior. He also has made the general key to adult amphibian more user-friendly, The snake key isalmost identicalto the key developed for Texas ~ ~ ~bykJohn e sE. Werler and J.R. Dixon (IO~I.OIO), and is usedwith Werler’s permission. The key does not include ~ ~ e t~ e~r ro anor ~~ ~o~s ~e rs io~ ~ e ~both ~o ~ extremely , rare or extirpated from the state. The glossaryis provided forthose personswho may have dificulty in understanding the figures and terminology.

S

The maps generally are arranged alphabetically by specieswithin phylo es; however, some species with restricted distributionsare maps. These mapsare arranged in a phylo~eneticse~uencehen possible. For example, spe S with restricted Trans-~ecos distributions are foun ;those with east Texas distributions are on maps 2,5, tles are on map 64; the Balconies Escarp~en

estionable county records are indicate^ by a dot with a ~uestionmarl^ placed ~uestionablerecords mayre~resenterrors in ident~cation, erroneous a, and/or an escaped petthat found itsway into a museum or collection.

Texas turtle book in prep~ationby Price and Dixon. Terry~ibbittsand sons (pers, also is preparing a Texas amphibian book with maps contain in^ indivi~ual records, In a d ~ t i o nAxtell’s , ( 1 9 ~ 6 - ~excellent 8) ~nterpre~ive Atlas of T e ~ a s

8

A ~ p ~ i ~ iand u n ~eptiles s of Texas

Each c o ~ o name n followed byan asterisk contains a key to the subspecies described for that particular species.

Hind limbs present........................................................... .3 Hind limbs absent ............................................................ Costal grooves (Fig, I)between legsand anus34-36; olive gray abovewith scattered black spots; bellywith numerous light spots ..................WESTERN LESSER SIREN Siren i ~ t e r ~~e e~t ut i ~ ~ i Costal grooves between legs and anus 36-38; gray or brownish gray abovewith tiny black spots: bellygray ................................. .RIOGRANDE LESSER SIREN S ~ r tee~~ u ~ u Hind toes fouror five; bodynot eel-like ......................................... .4 Hind toesthree; body eel-like ............................. .THREE”TOED A ~ P H I U N I A A ~ p ~ i t ur ~i ~a c t ~ ~ u ~

Hind toes four............................................................... .S Hind toes five ............................................................... .6 Aquatic salamanders with three pairs of external gills (Fig.I).,.GULF COAST WATER DOG Necturus ~ ~ ~ e r i Very small terrestrial brown salamander without external gills and with four toeson each limb ................................................. ,DWARF S A L A M A N D ~ R E ~ r ~ c~e uu u ~ r i ~ g ~ t u t u Costal groovesabsent or indistinct;top of head rough with numerous low ridges, including canthus rostralis ................................................... *7 Costal grooves well developed; top of head smooth, without ridges ................. .8 Black bellyspots large, about size of eye; dorsum never reddishor with red spots ....... ............,,..................,................,.....,,.BLACK-SPOTTEDNEWT

Notop~t~ul~us ~er~~o~ Black belly spots small, smaller than eye; dorsum reddish, often with red spots .. , . . I

...,.,...,......,..,.,....,..........~~..,........,.........,,~,CENTRALNE~T

N o t o p ~ t ~ u lv~iur is~ s c e louisiu~e~sis ~s Nasolabial groove (Fig, I) present if external gills absent; if external gills present, then with three gill slits ........................................................... .9 ~asolabial~groove absent; if external gills present, then with four gill slits ..........,18 Venter u n i f o ~ light; y tail laterally compressed ................................ .IO ‘Venter solid black or black with light flecks; tail round in cross section ................ .,,,,...................................................,..SLIMYSALANIANDER

P l e t ~ ou~l o~~u ~ ~ l u

~

e 9~

s

\

NASOLABIAL GROOVE

~

EXTERNAL GILL

Fig. r. Some ~ e ~ f e a t u rof e ssala~arzdersand their larvae.

no nasolabial groove IO. External gills and three gill slits;

11.

12.

...........................

.II

External gills absent; nasolabial groove present........SOUTHERN DUSKY SALAMANDER ~ e s ~ o g n a t ha~riculatus us Costal grooves13 ormore: eye diameter6 or fewer times smallerthan interorbital distance ................................................................... .14 Costal grooves12 or fewer; eye diameterIO or more times smallerthan interorbital distance ................................................................... .r2 Premaxillary teeth40 or more; 13 trunk vertebrae ............................... 13 Premaxillary teeth 33 or fewer; 14 trunk vertebrae.

.......COMAL BLIND

SALAMANDER

E ~ r ~ ctrident~fera ea

13. Adpressed limbs overlap one costal groove..............BLANCO BLIND S A L A M A ~ D E R ~phlomolge ro~usta Adpressed limbsoverlap five or more costal grooves........TEXAS BLIND S A L A M ~ N D E R ~ p h l o m o rath~uni ~~e 14. Eye lacking dark lensring; body brownish yellow to white ....................... .IS Eye with dark lensring; body brown .................... .SAN MARCOS SAI'AMANDER 15.

Eur~cea nana Four or more costal grooves between adpressed limbs; premaxillary 2teeth 0 or fewer ..................................................................... .16 Three or fewer costal grooves between adpressed limbs; premaxillary teeth 25 or more ..

.................................................

.VALDINA F A R M S SALAMANDER

E u r ~ ~~ reu g~~ u d ~ t e s 16. Eye diameter four to five times smaller than interorbital distance; costal grooves 14-15,

about 4 between adpressed limbs

...................CASCADE CAVERNS

SALAMANDER

Eur~i~ea latitans Eye diameter two times smaller than interorbital distance; costal grooves 15-17, about 5-7 between adpressed limbs ................................................. 17

17. Snout shovel-like;average eye diameter to standard length ratio 0.024;blotched salt

and pepper dorsalpattern of brown and yellow: average forelimb length to standard length 0.236 ..................................... .BARTON SPRINGS SALAMANDER ~ u r ~ cseous o r u ~ Snout not shovel-like;average eye diameter to standard length ratio 0.034; mottled brown and yellowish tan dorsal pattern: average forelimb length to standard length ratio 0,176 ................................................ .TEXAS SALAMANDER ~ u r ~ cneotenes eu 18. External gills presentor absent: if external gills present, then gill rakers also present ..19

External gills present, but without gill rakers . SOUTHERN

DUSKY SALAMANDER

(larva)

~ e s ~ o g n u t hauricul~tus us 19. Body with small light flecks (at least laterally) or lichenlike markings or totally dark

Body with clearly definedspots, bars, or blotches ...............................

20.

.'20

-21

Costal groovesIO;head broad and flat, considerably widerthan neckbody short and stout; tail also short ......................................... .MOLE SALAMANDER A~b~sto~u

tulpoide~~

Costal grooves14; head not broad, little widerthan neck; body moderately slender.....

...................................................

.SMAI~I~MOUTH SALAMANDER

A ~ b ~ s t o ~ u

21.

Body with pale yellowto orange markings ..................................... .22 Body with pde metallic white markings .................... .MARBLED SALAMANDER

22.

Yellowish to orange round spots arranged in two rows dorsally

t e ~ ~ n

A ~ b ~ so ptu oc u~~ ~ .SPOTTED SALAMANDER

A~b~sto~u

Yellow blotches orbars extending onto sides and often onto belly ..TIGER

~ucu~utu

SALAMANDE~*

A~b~sto~u

t~grinu~

Tiger Salamander Pale spotsor blotches on body 15-58 (avg. 30)......EASTERN TIGER SAI~AMANDER A ~ b ~ s t tigrinu~ o~a trigrinu~ Pale spotsor blotches on body large, numbering 6-36 (avg. 17) .................

..............................................

.BARRED TIGER SALAMANDER

S

I.

2. *

Pupil of eye vertical: skinsmooth; hind legs obviously modified forburrowing ........2 Pupil of eye round or horizontal; hind limbs mayor may not be modified forburrowing: if modified forburrowing, then skin warty ...................................... .6 Tongue attached in front of mouth ............................................. .3 Tongue attached in rear of mouth. ...................... ,MEXICAN B U R R O ~ I N GTOAD R h i n o ~ ~ rdorsulis ~n~s

3.

Pectoralglands absent ........................................................ 4 Pectoral glandspresent ..................................... .HURTER'S SPADEFOOT Scup~iopush~rteri

Interorbital boss absent. ...................................................... *5 Interorbital boss present ...................................... .PLAINS SPADEFOOT Spea ~ o ~ ~ ~ r o n s Pigmented edge of metatarsal tubercle (Fig. 2) rounded, about as wide as long .........

.......................................................

.NEW MEXICO SPADEFOOT

Spea ~ultiplicata

Pigmented edgeof metatarsal tubercle elongate, about twice as long as wide ..........

...........................................................

.COUCH'S SPADEFOOT

Scuphiopus couchi Tympanum (Fig. 2)present ................................................... .g

Tympanum absent .......................................................... -7 One metatarsal tubercle;light middorsal line absent: no smooth dermal ridges across palate in front of pharynx .................................................... .8 Two metatarsal tubercles;light middorsal line present; two smooth dermal ridges across palate in front of pharynx ........................................... SHEEP FROG ~ ~ p o p a c h variolos~s us

Belly immaculate cream (white) ................GREAT PLAINS NARROWMOUTH TOAD Belly darkly mottled...............................

Gastro~hr~ne ol~vacea .EASTERN NARROWMOUTH TOAD

Gus~rophr~ne carol~nensis Tongue bicornuate posteriorly ............................................... .IO Tongue not bicornuate posteriorly ............................................ .18 Dorsolateral folds (Fig.2) absent .............................................. .XI Dorsolateral folds present .................................................... .12 Distance from heel to knee about equal to distance from heelto first toe; corner of mouth to tip of snout equal to width of head at anterior edge of tympanum, .........PIG FROG Rana g r ~ l i o

Distance from heel to knee about equal to distance from heelto second toe; corner of mouth to tip of snout about 25 percent greater than width of head at anterior edge of tympanum ........................................................... BULLFROG Rana ~utes~eiana

Dorsolate~alfold extends entire length of body (may be broken posteriorly): dorsal pattern of spots .............................................................. I3 Dorsolateral fold extends two-thirds of body; general color brown ........BRONZE FROG

Rana cla~ituns cla~itans

Spots betweendorsolateralfolds rounded; folds consistent in width throughout their length ..................................................................... 14 Spots betweendorsolateralfolds in two rectangular rows; folds much broader anteriorly than posteriorly ................................................. .PICKEREL FROG Rana pulustr~s

Dorsal spotswithout encircling white rings .................................... .IS Dorsal spots enclosed by white rings ..................... .SOUTHERN CRAWFISH FROG

Rana areolata areoluta

ors so lateral folds continuous to hind limb insertion ............................. '16 ors so lateral folds interrupted posteriorly ...................................... -17

MOUTH FIRST ANTERIOR TOOTH ROW SECOND ANTERIOR TOOTHROW NON EMARGINATE PAPILLAE

EMARGINATE PAPPILAE

RlOR TOOTH ROW

/

PAPILLAE

R TOOTH ROW THIRD POSTERIORTOOTHROW

IL MUSCULATURE

PAROTOID G1

TOE WEB

DORSOLATERAL FOLD

Fig. 2. Some keg features of frogs and toads andtheir larvae.

16. Dorsal dark spots, usually with light border: posteriorthigh pattern of discrete dark spots; tympanal light spot absent: dark snout spot usually present; vocal sacs not external .............................................. .NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG Rana pipiens

Dorsal dark spots without light borders; posteriorthigh pattern of darlc reticulating lines; tympanal light spot present; dark snout spot usually absent; external vocal sacs ..

......................................................

.SOUTHERN LEOPARD FROG

Runa sp~enocep~ulu 17. Well-defined whitish supralabial stripe from rear angle of jaw to near tip of snout: white

tympanal and dark snout spots usually present; posterior thigh pattern of indistinct brownish, reticulating lines ................................ .PLAINS LEOPARD FROG Rana blairi

Supralabialwhite stripe, when present, not well definedanterior to eye; white tympanal and dark snout spots usually absent; posterior thigh pattern of heavy blackreticulating lines ................................................ .RIO GRANDE LEOPARD FROG Runa ~ e r l a n ~ e r i

18. Parotoid glands (Pig.3) and warty skin present .................................. 19 Parotoid glandsand warty skin absent ........................................ .28 19. Parotoid glandstriangular in shape, as long as head ............................ .20 Parotoid glandsnot triangular in shape, and not as long as head ...................21 20. Color brown to yellowish brown; adults greater than 84mm snout-vent length ........

................................................................... GIANTTOAD

Bufo ~ u r i n u s

Color green to olive green; adults less than 60mm snout-vent length ,. ..GREEN TOAD" e

Bufo debilis

Green Toad Toes half webbed (Fig.2); nostrils at tip of snout ...........WESTERN GREEN TOAD Sufo debilis insidior Toes one-third webbed; nostrilsnot at tip of snout ..........EASTERN GREEN TOAD Bufo debilis d e ~ ~ l ~ s

21.

22.

Parotoid glandscircular or tear-shaped ....................................... ,22 Parotoid glandselongate, from nearly two to more than three times longerthan wide ....................................................................... 23 Parotoid gland tear-shaped: cranial crests prominent (Fig. 3) .........GULF COAST TOAD

Bufo vulliceps val~ceps

Parotoid gland circular: cranial crests absent or poorly defined......RED-SPOTTEDTOAD

B~fopunctutus

23. Supraorbitalcrests parallel, not united into boss at the level of anterior margin of eyes ....................................................................... 24 Supraorbitalcrests united into boss at the level of anterior margin of eyes .............

........................................................... GREATPLAINSTOAD

Bufo cognatus

24. Cranial crests prominent ..................................................... 25 Cranial crests absent or poorly defined................................ .TEXAS TOAD Bufo speciosus Parotoid glands closest together at their midpoint ............................... ,26 25

14 A ~ p ~ i ~ iand a nReptiles s of Texas

R0

Fig. 3. Cranial crests on a bufon~atoad.

Parotoid glands closest together anteriorly ...................................... 27 26. Dark spots presenton chest and sometimesbelly ...................EAST TEXAS TOAD Bufo velatus

27.

28. 29. 30.

A single dark spot on chest or dark spots absent, a few dark spots may be present on throat of males ............................................ .WOODHOUSE'S TOAD" Bufo w~oa~ousii Woodhouse's Toad Supraorbital crests thickened, often reducing the size of the frontal trough: frontal area elevated .......................................... .WOODHOUSE'STOAD Bufo wooa~ous~i wooa~ousii Supraorbitalcrests narrow, separated by a normal frontal trough: frontal area not elevated ................................ .SOUTHWESTERN WOODHOUSE'S TOAD Bufo wooa~ousiiaustralis Femoral warts small and tibial warts large: postorbitaland supraorbital crests about equal in size ............................................ ,DWARF AMERICAN TOAD Bufo a ~ e r i c a ~ u s c ~ a r l e s ~ i t ~ i Femoral and tibial warts about equal in size: postorbital crests conspicuouslylarger than supraorbital crests .......................................... .HOUSTON TOAD Bufo oust on ens is Toes with intercalary cartilage or bone present ................................. .29 Toes without intercalary cartilage or bone ..................................... *39 Toe pads greatly reduced in size, little widerthan digits ........................... 30 Toe pads large, distinctly widerthan digits ..................................... *33 Webs between toes poorly developedor reduced in size .......................... *3I Webs between toes well developed, extending nearly to toe tips .........CRICKET FROG" Acris crepitans Cricket Frog Throat pink in males; no well-defined dark bar on rear of thigh ..................

...................................................

.COASTAL CRICKET FROG

Acris crepitans p ~ l u ~ c o l a

Throat dark gray to blackish in males: well-defined dark: bar on rear of thigh .. .A

A. Dark bar with ragged edgeson rear of thigh

......ELANCHARD’S CRICKET FROG Acris crepita~s~ l a ~ c ~ a r ~

Dark bar with smooth edges on rear of thigh ...........NORTHERN CRICKET

FROG

Acris crepita~s c~epitans

Dorsal pattern of spots or blotches ............................................. 32 Dorsal pattern of three dark lines ............................ .UPLAND CHORUS FROG

Pse~dacr~s triseriata~eriar~~

A distinct uninte~upteddark line from eyeto midbody on each side; broken lines or

rows of spots dorsally......................................

SPOTTED CHORUS FROG

Pse~dacrisclarki

No uninterrupted dark line from eye to midbody; body may be spotted, unicolored, or blotched .............................................. STRECKER’S CHORUS FROG Pse~dacrisstrecker~

33. Tympanum much smaller than eye ............................................34 T~mpanum about equal in size to eye ......................... . ~ E X I C ATREE ~ FROG

S~ilisca~ a ~ d i ~ i

eye 35 34. A black-bordered pale spot below ........................................... No blac~~bordered pale spot below eye ........................................ .36 by a low trill, about 25 pulses per second.........GRAY TREE FROG 35. The call represented Hula vers~color The callrepresentedby a fasttrill, about 50pulses per second..COPE’S GRAY TREE FROG (I

Hula c~rusoscelis

Dorsum u n i f o in ~ color or with small darker spots or markings ................... 37 Dorsum with a X-shaped pattern ........................ .NORTHERN SPRING PEEPER

Pse~dacrisc r ~ c i ~cerr ~ c ~ e r

Dorsum unicolor, or with only a few dark spots .................................. 38 Dorsum with many dmlc spots ................................ .CANYON TREE FROG Hula are~icolor DiEuse white stripe from insertion of forelimb to hind limb; adults usually less than 35 mm snout-vent length ................................... SQUIRREL TREE FROG

Hula s ~ ~ i r e l l a

Promin~ntwhite stripe from lipsto midbody or slightly beyond, seldom reaching hind limb insertion; adults bright green, usually more than. 40 mm snout-vent length .......

..............................................................

GREENTBEEFROG

Hula ci~erea

Tips of digits expanded,frequently T-shaped ................................... .40 Tips of digits not expanded ................................... . ~ H I T E - L I P P E DFROG

~ e p t o ~ c t ula~ialis l~s

Vo~erineteeth absent ...................................................... .41 Vomerine teeth present .................................. .EASTERN BARKING FROG

~ l e ~ t ~ e r o d a c t ~ llatra~s ~s a~~~sti

Dorsal markings of numerous irregular lines, spots,or blotches; length of forelimb usually greater than foot with tarsus .......................................... .42 Dorsal markings of a few poorly defined spots: length of forelimb usually less than foot with tarsus ......................................... .RIO GRANDE CHIRPING FROG S u r r ~ o pc~~~s tsi ~ n a t ~ o i d e s c a ~ p i

42. Dark bar present between eyes ............................

.SPOTTED CHIRPING FROG

Dark bar absent between eyes ...............................

S ~ r r ~ o p~uttilutus ~us .CLIFF CHIRPING FROG

S ~ r r ~ o p~~ u~s r ~ o c ~ i

Amphibian larvae can be found during any outdoor activity by examining most aquatic situations, Streams, ponds, roadside pools, swamps, and even small,ephemeral puddles may yield observations of either the gilled, elongate salamander larvae or the rotund tadpoles of frogs and toads without gills. In many cases, the larval stage of an amphibian may be the only indication of a particular species. Therefore,the following key will provide a starting point for the identification of amphibian genera in their larval state. The ident~cationof amphibian larvae is frequently a difficult task:due to the similarity that most larvae possess; however, with the aid of a dissecting microscopeor a powerful hand lens, larvae can be identified. Keycharacters to look forare the number of gill silts foundin salamander larvae and the mouth parts of tadpoles (Figs.I and 2).Nonetheless, the best way to identify amphibian larvae is to rear them to metamorphosisin a captive situation, Not only is this method effective forident~yinglarvae, it can be quite fascinating to watch as the various metamorphic stages are reached. Tadpoles and salamander larvae can be reared easily byusing a plastic shoe box or aquarium. Fill the container approximately twoinches (ca. 5 cm) with dechlor~ated water. Then a rock or similar material should be placedin a corner of the cage, so that as the larvae develop air breathing capabilities,they can have a spot on which to sit. For food, algae, spinach, fish food, or turtle pellets are suitable. When m e t ~ o r p h o s iis s completed,in~vidualsthen can be identified by using the adult amphibian keys in this book. If specimensare required, amphibian larvae should be preserved immediatelyin the field using IO percent formalin. After 24 hours, specimensshould be transferred to fresh IO percent fomalin. The terminologyof Altig (5.100)and Altig and Ireland (5.110)is usedin the followingkey. Readers interested in i d e n ~ ~ c a to ~ othe n species levelshould refer to the Altig, Altig and Ireland keys as they remain the principal vvorls. This key isdesignated for specimenswith fully developed limbs for salamander larvae and tadpoles with hind limb buds.

External,feathery gills present ................................................ ,2 No gills, anterio~body rotund with tail .......................................... 9 2, H i d limbs absent ........................................................ re^ Hindl~bspresent............................................................ 3 3. Three toespresent ................................................... . A ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ Four orfive toes on hind limbs ................................................. 4 4. Four toes on hind limbs ........................................................ 5 Five toes on hind limbs ....................................................... .6 5. Dorsal fin ends approximatelyperpendicularto vent ....................... , ~ ~ c t u r u s Dorsal finextends well past vent onto body ................................ . ~ u r ~ c e u

I.

Three gill slits present ........................................................ -7 Fo~gillslitspresent.......................................................... 8 7. Soles of feet keratinized............................................ . ~ e s ~ o ~ n u t ~ ~ s Soles of feet not keratinized ........................................ . ~ o t o p ~ t ~ u l ~ ~ s 8. Dorsal fin endsperpendicularto vent ..................................... .Euryceu Dorsal fin extends well pastvent ...................................... . A ~ ~ y s t o ~ u 9. Hard, horny mouth absent, no anterior and posterior teeth rows ...................IO Hard, horny mouth with anterior and posterior teeth rows ....................... .12 IO. Barbel projectionson anterior region of body; two spiracles positioned midlaterally; found onlyin Starr and Zavala Counties ............................. . R ~ i n o p ~ r y n ~ s No barbel projectionson anterior body ........................................ .II TI. Oral flapwith medial gap; marginal edges of mouth flaps with papillae bumps ...... ..

6.

.................................................................. .Hypopac~us

Oral flapwith little to no medial gap; marginal edges of mouth flaps smooth ...........

................................................................. .Gustrop~ryne

12.

13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18, 19. 20.

I. 2.

Eyes dorsal ................................................................. 13 Eyes lateral ................................................................. I7 Marginal papillaeemarginate ................................................. 14 ~ a r g i n apapillae l not emarginate .............................................. I5 Distinct posterior papillarygap ............................................. .Bu.o No posterior papillarygap ................................................. &nu Distinct anterior papillary gap................................................ .16 Little to no anterior papillary gap ............................................. .18 Found in Cameron, Hidalgo, orStarr Counties ........................ . ~ e p t o ~ a c t y l ~ s Found in west Texas ...................................................... .HgZu Body widerposteriorly than anteriorly; to 35mm total length ..............~cup~iopus Body wider anteriorly than posteriorly;to 100 m total length .................S p e u Two posterior teeth rows .................................................... *I9 Three or more posteriorteeth rows ........................................... .20 Tail with a black tip....................................................... .Acris Tail without black tip ................................................. .Pseu~ucris Upper jaw with long processes that project laterally; found in Cameron or Hidalgo Counties .............................................................. . ~ ~ i l i s c u Upper jaw with short processes that project downward; widespread throughout the state ........................................................ .HyZu or P s e ~ ~ u c r i s

Carapace (Fig. 4)covered with leathery skin .................................... .2 Carapace coveredwith horny shields ............................................ 4 Carapace flat,without longitudinal ridges; snout long and flexible ..................3 Carapace rounded, with seven longitudinal ridges: snout never long and flexible .......

.......................................................

ATLANTICLEAT~ERBAC~

~er~oc~ coriuceu e l ~ coriacea s

18

~ ~ p ~ i ~and i a~eptiles n s of Texas

RIDGE,

CARAPACE VIEW

Fig. 4. Ke~features of the carapace (upper shell) of a turtle: a snapping turtle showirzg ridges; a sea turtle heads h o ~ i n gthe prefrontal shields.

INTERPECTORAL SUT

NASAL SEPTUM RIDGE

PLASTRON VIEW

Fig. 5. Keg features of the plastron (lower shell) of a turtle; a spiny soft-shelled turtle showing the nasals e ~ t ridge. u ~

3.

Horizontal ridgethrough nasal septum (Fig, 5 ) present; tubercles presentalong anterior edge of carapace .................................... .SPINY SOFT-SHELLED TURTLE" ~ r i o n g xs p i ~ i f e r ~ s Spiny Soft-shelledTurtle Pale rim around outer margin of carapace absent, or pale rim less than four times as wide posteriorlyas laterally;pale stripe behind eyenot interrupted ...........A Pale rimof carapace four or more times wider posteriorly than laterally; postocular stripe usually interrupted ...................TEXAS SPINY SOFT-SHELLED TURTLE ~ r i o s~p i~~ xf e r u s e ~ o r g i A. Carapace with white tubercles;eyelike spots (ocelli) usually absent unless surrounding white tubercles .......................................... .B White tubercles absent: dark spots and ocelli usually present ....................

......................................

.WESTERN SPINY SOFT-SHELLED TURTLE

~

r

is po~ ~~i f e~zartwegi ~r ~~s

B, White tubercles moreprevalent on the posterior part of the carapace; ocelli and black spotsabsent ..................... .PALLID SPINY SOFT-SHELLED TURTLE ~ r i o n spinifer~s ~x pullia~s

Large tuberclesmore prevalent on theanterior part of the carapace: ocelli and black dots often present ................GUADALUPE SPINY SOFT-S~ELLEDTURTLE ~ i o n spinifer~s ~ x g~uau~~pensis

~ o r ~ o n tridge a l through nasal septum absent: anterior edge of carapace smooth, lacking tubercles ......................... .MIDLAND SMOOTH SOFT-SHELLED TURTLE ~ i o n MI ~ tic x us ~ ~ t i c ~ s

4.

5.

Limbs modifiedinto flippers: digits never visible .................................. .5 Limbs normal: digits visible ................................................... .8 Four costal shields (Fig. 4) on each side of carapace, first costalnot touching nuchal shield ...................................................................... .6 Five or more costal shields on each side of carapace, fist costal shield touching nuchal shield ..................................................................... -7 Shields of carapace strongly overlapping: twopairs of prefrontals (Fig.4) on head . , . f

6.

.......................................................,..ATLANTICHAWKSBILL

~ret~ochel~s

i~~~icutu

Shields of carapace not overlapping; one pair of prefrontals on head ..................

......................................................

7.

Three small bridge shields................................

i~~ri

ATLANTIC GREEN TURTLE

Cheloniu ~ ~ a~~~s u s

.ATLANTIC LOGGERHEAD

Curettu curettu curettu

Four small bridge shields .......................................

.ATLANTIC RIDLEY

~epidockel~s ke~pi 8.

9.

Tail more than half the length of the plastron (Fig. S); bridge at least twice as long as wide ........................................................................ 9 Tail lessthan half the length of the plastron: bridge equal to or slightly,longerthan wide ........f......I...........................f..............1........... Four shields between marginals and costals: three prominent ridges (Fig.4) on carapace

................................................... ALLIGATORSNAPPINGTURTLE ~ucrocle~~s

te~~incki

~ a r g i n a lin s contact with costals along entire length of carapace; no prominent ridges on carapace ......................................... .COMMON SNAPPINGTURTLE Chel~aruserpentinu serpentinu

IO.

11.

12.

Ten marginals (Fig. 4) on each side of carapace .................................. 15 Eleven marginals on each side ofcarapace ..................................... .II Plastron with two hinges (Fig, 5); plastron nearly fills space beneath carapace .......12 Plastron without hinges; plastron small, not nearly filling spacebeneath carapace ...14 Ninth marginal roughly triangular with apex extending well aboveeighth marginal ..

...........................................................

YELLOVVMUDTURTLE

Kinosternon~uvescens~uvescens Ninth marginal not extending above eighth marginal ........................... -13 13. Interpectoral (Fig. 5) suture less than half the greatest length of the pectoral shield .....

....................................................... MISSISSIPPIMUDTURTLE

20

~ ~ p ~ i ~und i aReptiles n s of Texas

Kinosternon s u b r u b r u ~~ippocrepis

Interpectoral suture at least half the greatest length of the pectoral shield .............

..........................................................

BIGBENDMUDTURTLE

Kinos~erno~ ~irtipes ~urra~i 14.

Well-developed gular shield (Fig.S); head with two pale stripes on dark background; carapace dark, without keels or weakly keeled ........................... STINKPOT Sternot~erus o~oratus

Gular shield reduced in size or absent; head with dark spots on pale background; carapace tan, strongly keeled ............................ .RAZORBACK MUSK TURTLE Sternot~eruscarinatus

15. Gular shield forkedanteriorly: hind feet elephantine, with bony scales ..TEXAS TORTOISE

Gop~erus berla~~eri

Gular shieldsnormal; hind feet not elephantine ................................. .16 16. Plastron not hinged; carapace presents a low-arched profile ...................... .18 Plastron hinged; carapace presents highly arched profile ........................ .17 17. Carapace normally flattened on top; pattern on costals consistingof many yellow lines radiating downward on dark ground color ....................'WESTERN BOX TURTLE" ~errapeneornata

Western Box Turtle Eleven to 14 yellow lineson thesecond costal that are equal in length to half the width of the costal ...................................... .DESERT BOX TURTLE ~errapeneornata luteola

Five to eight yellow lineson thesecond costal ...............ORNATE BOX TURTLE

~errapeneornatu ornatu

Carapace normally rounded on top: pattern on carapace normally consisting of dark flecks on a tan to straw background ....................... .THREE-TOED BOX TURTLE ~errapene c~rolina triun~uis 18. Head and neck with pale stripes,smooth scutes, rarely with concentric ridges; inguinals and axillaries large and well developed ......................................... 19 Head and neck without pale stripes;head spotted or mottled; scutes with many concentric ridges; inguinals and axillaries smallor absent ...........................

................................................

.TEXAS DIAMONDBAC~ TERRAPIN

~ ~ a c lterrapin e ~ ~littoralis s 19. Head plus neckabout equal to half the plastron length no vertical pale stripeson posterior thighs ............................................................ .20 Head plus neckabout equal to plastron length; vertical palestripes on posterior thighs ..

...................................................... VVESTERNCHICKENTURTLE

~ e i r o c ~ ereticularia l~s ~iaria 20. Alveolar surface of upper jawwith a ridge or row ofk&ercles extending parallel to its margin ..................................................................... 21 Alveolar surface of upper jaw smooth or undulating, not ridged ..................a27 21. First marginal extending beyond suture bemeenfirst costal and first vertebral ......22 First marginal not extending beyond suture between first costal and first vertebral ,..,.

.............................................................. PAINTEDTURTLE"

C ~ r ~ spicta e ~ ~ s

Painted Turtle Bright redor yellow middorsalcarapace stripe ........SOUTHERN PAINTED TURTLE C ~ r ~ s e picta m ~ s~ o r s a l ~ s

Carapace markedbut never with pale dorsal stripe .....WESTERN d

PAINTED TURTLE

C ~ r ~ spicta e ~~ e~l lsi

A wide and prominent yellow, orange, or red postocularstripe or blotch ...........a23 Postorbital stripe always narrow, or absent; if present, always yellow...............24 23. A large dark-bordered orange spot behind eye;carapace reticulated;plastron with an intricate central plastron pattern ................................ .BIG BEND SLIDER

22.

~ r a c ~gaigeae e ~ ~ s

An elongate red bar behind eye (occasionally broken into two parts), carapace usually with light lines; plastron with paired, solid dark blotches ...........RED-EARED SLIDER ~ r a c h e scriptu ~ ~ s elegans

24. Dorsolateral palehead stripes pass between eyes and often to snout ................25 Dorsolateral palehead stripes stop behind eyes ..........FLORIDA RED-BELLIED TURTLE P s e ~ d e ~~e~l s o ~ i 25. Second costal with a pale verticalor inverted U-shaped mark; dark markings on plastron usually absent ..................................... .TEXAS RIVER COOTER Pseudem~stexana

Second costalwith a pale C-shapedmark pattern on plastron consisting of dark lines 26 26. Second costal with five distinct whorls of concentric black and yellow ocelli ...........

.....................................................

.RIO GRANDE RIVER COOTER

P s e u ~ e ~gorzugi z~s Secondcostal without whorls of concentric black and yellow ocelli...................

.......................................................

.METTER'S RIVER COOTER

~seudern~s concin~a metteri

27. One to nine yellow stripe(s)reaching eye ...................................... .28 Pale postorbitalcrescent mark extending anteriorly beneath eye, preventing stripes from reaching eye ........................................................... 29 28. One yellow or orange stripe terminating above eye,with a J-shapedmark behind eye ...

............................................................ TEXASMAPTURTLE

G r a p t e ~versa ~s

Two or more pale lines touching eye; light postorbital spot present...................

.......................................................

.OUACHITA MAP TURTLE"

Grapte~~s o~ac~itensis

Ouachita Map Turtle One to three lines reach eye; a pale spot below eye .........OUACHITA MAP TURTLE G r a p t e ~ouachite~sis ~s ouac~~tensis

Five to nine pale linesreach eye; no pale spot below eye ......SABINE MAP TURTLE

Grapte~~s ouac~ite~sis sa~i~ensi

29, Ventral surface of jaw with transverse cream lines ..............XACLE'S

MAP TURTLE

G r u p t e ~caglei ~s

Ventral surface of jaw with longitudinal yellow stripe at symphysisof jaw .............

.......................................................

MISSISSIPPInrAPTURTLE

G r a p t e ~pse~dogeograp~ica ~s ~ o ~ n i

I. Two pairs of legs ............................................................. .2 Legs absent .................................... .WESTERN SLENDER GLASS LIZARD Op~isaurusatteyzuatus 2, Movable eyelidspresent ...................................................... .6 Movable eyelidsabsent ....................................................... *3 Digits short, dilated: clawportion arising above expanded pad..................... .4 3. Digits slender, narrow through entire length ...................ROUGH-SCALED GECKO Cyrtopo~on sca~rum 4. Dorsal surface of body with small granules, or smallgranules with small rounded tubercles intermixedamong the granules; preanal pore series16 or more ...........*5 Dorsal surfaces covered with rows of large trihedral tubercles, intermixedwith granular scales: preanal pore series6-10 in males .................... ~ E D I T E R R A N E A NGECKO ~emidactylusturcicus Dorsal surface of body with uniform granules; dorsal surface of tail without tubercles; 5. sides of tail denticulate; tail flat ventrally ...................... .INDO-PACIFIC GECKO ~emidactylusgurnotii Dorsal surface of body with small rounded tubercles intermixedamong granules, especially toward rear of body; dorsal surface of tail with six rowsof enlarged tubercles; tail not flattened ventrally .......................................... ,HOUSE GECKO ~emidactylus~renatus 6, Tail with all scales about equal in size ........................................... 7 Tail with whorls of enlarged scales separated by one complete and often one incomplete series of smaller scales ............................ .WESTERN SPINY-TAILED IGUANA Cten~saurapectinata Scales around body equal in size, smooth and shiny .............................. .8 7Scales around body unequal in size, not smooth or shiny ........................ .16 8. Supranasals (Fig. 6) present; eyelids scaly ....................................... *9 Supranasals absent; lower eyelidwith a transparent disks ..............GROUND SKINK Seineella lateralis Lateral scales parallel to dorsal rows; young not black: adults not pale with dark9. bordered scales............................................................. .IO Lateral scalesnot parallel to dorsal rows; young black: adults pale with dark-bordered scales ..................................................... .GREAT PLAINS SKINK Eumeces o~soletus IO. Dorsolateral pale linesnot involving third scale row (only)from medianline ........II Dorsolateral palelines absent, or if present, involving onlythird scale row from median line .......................................................... .VARIABLE SKINK Eumeces m~ltivirgatusepipleurotus 11. Dorsal pale lines(dorsolateralor medial) not evident on either neck ortrunk ........IZ Dorsal pale linespresent on neck andlor trunk ................................. .14 12. Postnasal (Fig. 7 ) present ..................................................... 13 Postnasal absent ......................................... .FOUR-LINED SKINK* (A) Eumeces tetragrammus

Kegs 23

SUPRANASAL FRONTONASAL

SUPRAO~BITALSEMICIRCLE SUPERCILIARIES SUPRAOCULAR

FRONTOPARIETAL

PARIETAL

INTERPARIETAL

Fig. 6. ors sal view of the head scales of a lizar~.

PRIMARY TEMPORAL

SECONDARY TEMPO

PREOCULAR

,POST1 .BIALS

R( SUPRAt

\EA

OPENING

Fig. 7. ~ateral view of the h e a scales ~ of a lizard,

Pour-lined Skink A. Dorsolateral pale lines terminatenear front leg

......... .SHORT-LINED SKINK

~ u ~ e c tee st r a g r a ~ ~~revili~eatus us

... ... ......FOUR-LINED SKINK

s or so lateral pale lines terminate near hind leg

~ u ~ e c tee st r a g r a ~ ~tuest r a g r a ~ ~ u s

13. Postlabials (Pig. 7) two, of relatively large size; four supralabials anterior to subocular; size never greater than 5 mm snout-vent length

... ... ,...,.,. ~ I ~ E ~ L I NSKINK ED

,

~u~ecesfasciatus Postlabials absent, or if one or two, of relativelysmall size; five supralabials anterior to subocular: size f~equentlyover 85 m snout~ventlength ... ....BROAD-HEADED SKINK ~ u ~ e G 1at~Geps es

Fig. 8. V e ~ t view r ~ of the head scales ofU lizar~.

14. Postnasal present ............................................................ I7 Postnasal absent ........................................................... .IS 15. Pale linesabsent on dorsal surface of head; body with or without a median light line .16 A pair of pale lineson top of head, usually visible posterior to nuchals, where they unite into a singleline ............................... .FOUR-L1NED SKINK (see couplet IZ) E~~eces tetragra~~us 16. One postmental (Fig, 8);limbs overlappingwhen adpressed exceptin very large females: dorsolateralpale lines not edged mediallywith black ..........SOUTHERN COAL SKINK E ~ ~ e carlt~raci~us es pluvialis Two postmentals;limbs not overlapping or touching except in young; dorsolateral pale lines edged mediallywith black .......................... .SOUTHERN PRAIRIE SKINK E u ~ e c septe~trio~ul~s e~ o~t~sirostris 17. Postlabialstwo, of relatively large size; four supralabi~s anterior to subocular; do~solateralpale stripes involving third scale row from median line: lateral stripe passes directly through middle of ear,not directed toward upper anterior margin of ear; size not greater than 85 mm snout-vent length .......................... . ~ I ~ E - L I N ESKINK D Eu~ecesfasciatus Postlabials absent, or if one or two, of relatively small size; five supralabials anterior to subocular; dorsolateralpale stripesusually not involving third scale row from median line: lateral pale stripe reaching anterior border of ear at its upper margin; size frequently over85 mm snout-vent length .................... .~ROAD-HEADEDSKINK Eu~eces ~atice~s 18. Lateral fold fromhead to hind leg absent ........................................ 19 Lateral fold extending from head to hind leg; scalesin fold much smaller than those above and below the fold ............................... .TEXAS ALLIGATOR LIZARD Gerrho~otusi ~ f e r ~ a ~ ~ s

FEMORALPORES

GRANULAR SCALES

SMOOTH SCALES KEELED SCALES

Fig. g . A dorsal viewof various typesof lizard andsnake scales, and a ven~ralview of a male lizards~owingfemoral pores.

19. Head covered with small granular scales (Fig. g) ................................ .20 Head coveredwith scales of different sizes...................................... .21 20. Dorsal tuberclespresent among the dorsal granules, most evident over the rump....... ...........................................................RETICULATEDGECKO

Dorsal tuberclesabsent.. ...................................

Coleony~ re~iculat~s .TEXAS BANDED GECKO

Coleo~yxbrevis

Belly scales rounded and smaller than, equal to, or slightly larger than dorsal scales ..22 Belly scales rectangular, much larger than dorsal scales......................... .46 22, Femoral pores (Fig.g) present ................................................. 24 Femoral poresabsent ....................................................... *23 23. Dewlap pink; specimen green in life, but occasionallybrown or mottled green and brown .......................................................... .GREENANOLE 21.

Anolis carolinensis

Dewlap orange-red with median white border; specimenbrown in life, never green; females with yellow middorsalstripe with dark brown half-moon circlesalong each side of the back ...................................................... .BROWN ANOLE Anolis sagrei

..................................... -25 Head without bony spinesor projecting ridge .................................. -27

24. Head with bony spines or projecting ridge

26

A ~ p ~ i ~and i a~~e pst i ~ofe sTexas

25. Sides of belly with one or two fringelike rowsof enlarged scales ....................26 Sides of belly without fringe of enlarged scales .........ROUND-TAILED HORNED LIZARD Phr~noso~a

26. Sides of belly with one row of enlarged scales ....... ~ O U N T A I NSHORT-HORNED

~oaestu~

LIZARD

P h r ~ n o s o hernanaesi ~a

Sides of belly with two rows of enlarged scales .................TEXAS HORNED LIZARD Phr~nuso~a

cor~utu~

27. Ear openings absent ........................................................ .28 Earopeningspresent ......................................................... 31 28. Tail rounded, not flattened horizontally:without broad blackventral tail bands (small black spots may be present) ................................................... 29 Tail flattened horizontally, with broad blacktransverse bands below ..................

....................................................

.GREATER EARLESS LIZARD"

Cophosaurus t e ~ a ~ ~ s

Greater Earless Lizard Femoral pores27or fewer;orange or yellow dorsal spotsabsent ................. ................,................................,..TEXASEARLESSLIZARD

Cophosaurus t e ~ a nte~anus ~s

Femoral pores28or more: orange or yellow dorsal spotspresent, ...............

...........................................

. S O U T H ~ E S T E R NEARLESS LIZARD

Cophosaurus te~anusscitulus

29. Hack spots absent on ventral side of tail ....................................... a 3 0 Black spots on ventral side of tail .................... .SPOT-TAILED EARLESS LIZARD"

~ o l ~ r o o klacerata ia

Spot-tailed Earless Lizard Femoral pores30 or more; four rowsof dorsal blotches.........................

...............................................

.SOUTHERN EARLESS LIZARD

~ o l ~ r o o klacerata ia su~cau~lis

Femoral pores28or fewer: two rows of dorsal black blotches....................

................................................. .PLATEAU EARLESS LIZARD

30. Scales keeled (Fig. g)

....................................

~ o l ~ r o o klacerata ia lacerata .KEELED EARLESS LIZARD

~ o l ~ r o o kpropin~ua ia propi~~ua

Scales without keels ....................................

.LESSER EARLESS LIZARD*

~ol~rookia ~aculata

Lesser Earless Lizard Four rowsof dark dorsal blotches, or dorsal pale spots present and dark blotches absent ................................................................ .A Two rows of dark dorsal blotches: pale spots absent .....EASTERN EARLESS LIZARD ~ol~rookia ~aculata perspic~a

A. Dorsal blotches,if present, edged with white or blue

.............................................

.SPECKLED EARLESS LIZARD

~ol~rookia ~aculata appro~i~ans

Dorsal blotches presentand not edged with white or blue.......................

...............................................

, N O R T ~ E R NEARLESS LIZARD

~ o l ~ r o o k~i u aculata

~ac~lata

31. Transverse gular fold absent .................................................. 36 Transverse gular fold present ................................................ .32 32. Interparietal shield (Fig.6) much smaller than ear opening;nine or more supralabials (Fig. 7 ) from rostral to below center of eye ...................................... 33 Interparietal shield much larger than ear opening, fewer than nine supralabialsfrom rostral to below center of eye .................................................. 35 33. Black bands on neck absent .................................................. .34 Black bands on neck number one or two ........................ .COLLARED LIZARD" Crotap~~tus collaris Collared Lizard Several of the interorbital scales fuseto form one row ..BASTERN COLLARED LIZARD Crotap~~tus collaris collaris

Interorbital scales formtwo rows ...............CHIHUAHUAN COLLARED LIZARD ~ r o t u p ~ ~collaris t u s fuscus 34. Head width equal to or greater than distance between ear and nostril .................

.................................................

.RETICULATE COLLARED LIZARD

~ r o t u p ~ ~reticulatus tus

Head width less than distance between ear and nostril ...LONG-NOSED LEOPARD LIZARD G a ~ ~ e lwislizeni iu wislize~

35. Dorsal scale rows equal in size; supranasals separating nasals from internasals ........

.................................................

.DESERT SIDE-BLOTCHED LIZARD

Uta stans~uriunas t e j ~ e ~ e r i Three or more dorsal scale rows much larger than others: no scales betweennasals and internasals ...................................................... .TREE LIZARD" Urosaurusornatus Tree Lizard Central dorsal row of keeled scales less than one-half size of largest dorsal scales: large scales in even rows .............................. .EASTERN TREE LIZARD Urosaurus ornutus or~atus Central dorsal rowof keeled scales morethan one-half sizeof largest dorsal scales; large scales in uneven rows ........................... .BIG BEND TREE LIZARD Urosauru~or~utuss c ~ ~ i ~ t i 36. Postfemoral dermal pocket absent; breeding maleswithou~pink bellypatches .......37 Postfemoraldermal pocket present: breeding males with pink belly patches ............

.......................................................... ROSE-BELLIEDLIZARD

Sceloporus vuriu~ilis~ a r ~ o r a t u s 37. Lateral body scales large, overlapping;no rudimentary gular fold .................. 38 Lateral body scales small, granular, notoverlapping;r u d i m e n t a ~ granular gular fold on each side in front of shoulder ................................. .CANYON LIZARD* Sceloporus ~ e r r i a ~ i

Canyon Lizard Dark bars present on throat and beneath tail ............................... .A Dark bars absent on throat andbeneath tail .........MERRIAM'S CANYON LIZARD Sceloporus ~ e r r i a ~ i ~ e r r i u ~ A. Paired dorsal spots squarish in shape ..............BIG BEND CANYON LIZARD Sceloporus ~ e r r i aa~~i ~ u l u t ~ s

Paired dorsal spots“comma”-shaped ................ .PRESIDIO CANYON LIZARD Seeloporus merriami lo~gipu~etatus

Supraoculars (Fig. 6) small, in a single or double row, variable in number; all separated from median head scales by one or two complete rows of small scales ...............39 Supraoculars very large, in a single row,usually five in number: the last one or two not separated from the median head scalesby a row of small scalesas are the other supraoculars ....................................... .TWIN-SPOTTED SPINY LIZARD Seeloporus magister ~imaculosus

Broad black collar across neck and shoulders,bordered anteriorly and posteriorly by a pale line.................................................................... 40 Distinct pale-bordered black collar absent ...................................... .41 Tail brightly white and black-banded toward tip: supraoculars usually in two regular rows; median head scales usually divided irregularly ...........CREVICE SPINY LIZARD Seeloporus poinsettipoi~setti

Tail dimly banded: supraoculars large, irregular, one or two scales divided; median head scales usually not subdivided .................................. .BLUE SPINY LIZARD Seeloporus c ~ a n o g e n ~ s

Scales on posterior surfaceof thigh very small,granular, not overlapping ...........4.2 Scales on posterior surface of thigh usually large, always keeledand overlapping ....43 Lateral nuchal scales much smaller than and well di~erentiatedfrom dorsal nuchal scales: gular region of males bluish, not reticulated .................MESQUITE LIZARD

Seeloporus g r a ~ ~ i e mierolepidotus us

Lateral nuchal scales same size as dorsal nuchal scales; gular region of males neverwith two posteriolateralblue spots,but usually reticulated .......DUNES SAGEBRUSH LIZARD Seeloporus are~eolus

Posterior surface of thigh nearly immaculate: body dorsolateralpale linesdistinct and dorsal dark bars absent in males .............................................. .44 Posterior surface of thigh with a broad longitudinal dark line; poorly defined body dorsolateral pale lines:dark dorsal crossbands visible in adult males ................45 Dorsal scales 28-33,average about 30; supraoculars large .......TEXAS SPINY LIZARD Seeloporus olivaceus

Dorsal scales44-55, average about 50; supraoculars small

..DUNES SAGEBRUSH LIZARD

Sce~oporusa r e ~ i e o l ~ s

Males without blue throat patches; vertical white shoulder mark with black anterior and posterior margins:dorsal scales 44-55, average about 50 .......................

.....................................................

.DUNES SAGEBRUSH LIZARD

Seeloporus a r e ~ e o l ~ s

Males with blue throat patches (absent in S. U.g a r ~ a ~vertical ): white shoulder mark without black edging:dorsal scales 35-47, average about 40 ..EASTERN FENCE LIZARD*

Seeloporus u n ~ u l a ~ u s

Eastern Fence Lizard Female usually without distinct dorsolateralpale lines;male with dark blue throat patches (not from Panhandle area) ........................................ .A Both sexeswith distinct dorsolateral pale lines, male without blue throat patches (northern Panhandle area) ....................... .NORTHERN PRAIRIE LIZARD ~eeloporus u~dulatus gar~ani

A. Fine dark line between eyes; malewith dark dorsal tail bars (east Texas)

..............................................

.., .

.NORTHERN FENCE LIZARD

Seeloporus undulutus h~ueinth~nus

Fine dark line between eyes usually absent; male usually without dark dorsal tail bars (west Texas) ................................ SOUTHERN PRAIRIE LIZARD Sce~oporusun~u~utus co~sobrinus 4.4. Dorsal pattern of alternating dark and pale lines (stripes):dark stripes with even edges,

never with pale spotsor bars in the dark fields .................................. a47 Dorsal pattern reticulated, with pale and dark stripes and/or bars; if alternating pale and dark stripes, then dark stripes (fields) invadedwith white spots or bars .............W 5 0 47. Scales bordering gular area enlarged and angular .............................. .48 Scales borderinggular fold granular ................TRANS-PECOS STRIPED WHIPTAIL

Cne~idophorus inornut~s heptugru~~us

48. Postantebrac~ialscales moderatelyenlarged and angular ........................ 49 Postantebrachial scales granular ......................... .SIX-LINED RACE RUNNER*

Cne~iaophorussexlineatus

Six-lined RaceRunner Head yellow ...........................

.TEXAS YELLOW-HEADED RACE RUNNER

Cne~iaophorussexlineatus stephensac

Head not yellow ........................................................ .A A. Usually six pale stripes; scales around body 89-110, average about g5 ........

...............................................

.SIX-LINED RACE RUNNER

Cnc~idophorussexlineatus sexlineatus

Usually seven pale stripes: scales around body 42-89, average about 77 ..........

....................................................

.PRAIRIE RACE RUNNER

C ~ c ~ i a o p h osexlineatus r~s viridis 49. Usually six pale stripes;ventral surface of tail greenish, no faint pale spotsin dark fields

(El Paso area) .....................................

.DESERTGRASSLAND WHIPTAIL

Cne~idophorus~ n i ~ a r e n s

Usually seven pale stripes: ventral surface of tail pinkish or whitish: faint pale spots occasionallyin thedark fields (Laredo,south along Rio Grande) .....................

.....................................................

LAREDOSTRIPEDWHIPTAIL

Cnc~i~ophorus lureaoensis Postantebrachlal scales distinctlyenlarged, larger than first supralabial .............51 Postantebrachial scales similarin size to surrounding scales, or slightly enlarged, never larger than first supralabial ................................................... 53 51. Dorsolateral pale lines interrupted with white spots that either join the pale linesor are superimposedon them ...................................................... .52 Dorsolateral pale lines straight, with pale spots often in the dark fields between the pale lines ................................................. .TEXAS SPOTTED WHIPTAIL

50.

Cne~idophorus g~luris ~ularis 52. Dorsal pattern of distiict, straight dorsal pale lines: often with white spots superi~posed on them, but not obscuring the pale lines;gular region immaculate ..................

...............................................

. ~ H I H U ~ H U ASPOTTED N WHIPTAIL

C n e ~ ~ ~ o ~ hexsun~uis orus

Dorsal pattern of pale linesthat tend to become brokenand/or obscure posteriorly; pale spots often merging with pale lines:gular region orange with black flecks ............. ......................,..............................PLATEAUSPOTTEDWHIPTAIL

Cnemidophorusseptemvittatus

53. Scales along mesoptychial fold (gular fold) conspicuously larger than adjacent gular scales ..................................................................... 54

Scales along mesoptychial fold not conspicuously larger than adjacent gular scales .55 Dorsal pattern of six to seven pale lines joined transverse by crossbars to form a 54. checkerboardpattern: dorsal pattern appearing to have more dark areas than pale . . .

...............................................

.COLORADO CHECKERED WHIPTAIL

Cnemiaophorus tesselatus

Dorsal pattern of eight or more pale lines joined by transverse bars, often givingthe appearance of more bars than lines: dorsal pattern appears to have more palethan dark areas ............................................... .GRAY-CHECKERED WHIPTAIL C~emidophorusa i ~ o ~ i

pattern of pale and dark stripes: dorsolateralpale stripeszigzag: 55. Lateral midbody color dark fields with pale spots................................. .NEW MEXICO WHIPTAIL Cnemidop~orusneomexicanus

Lateral midbody color pattern reticulated and, if lines present, with lateral pale crossbarsjoining pale dorsal lines ............................. .MARBLED WHIPTAIL Cne~idophorustigris murmoratus

Snakes I.

Belly scales about same size as dorsal scales ..................................... .2 Belly scales much larger than dorsal scales(Figs. IO and 11) ...................... *3 Supraoculars absent; a very small, pinkish snake, with blackish eye spotsbeneath the scales: body scales all of the same size: length about 6 inches 1 (5 cm), maximum length around I1 inches (28 cm) ................................. .WESTERN BLIND SNAKE *

2.

~eptot~phlops hu~ilis

Supraoculars present: colorand scales similarto above; length about g inches (23cm), maximum length around 13inches (33 cm) .................... .TEXAS BLIND SNAKE* Leptot~phlopsdulcis

Texas BlindSnake One anterior supralabial ................................ Two anterior supralabials ......................... 3.

4. 5.

.PLAINS BLIND SNAKE

Leptot~phlopsdulcis dulcis

.NEW MEXICO BLIND SNAKE

Leptot~p~lops dulcis dissectus

A facial pit between eyeand nostril (Fig. 12) .................................... .4

No facial pit between eye and nostril ........................................... 13 No rattle or button on end of tail ................................................ 5 Rattle or button on end of tail ................................................. .6 Loreal scalepresent, maximum of 23 dorsal scale rows; copper color, dorsal saddles dark to moderate brown, narrow along the middle of the back, and frequently not meeting

I Fig. IO,~entralview of the headscales of a snake,

dorsally; dorsal scales weakly keeled, elliptical pupil, and tip of tail frequently yellow; belly pinkish brown:length ranges 24-36 inches (70-91cm), m ~ i m u m length about 42 inches (IO? cm) ............................................... .COPPERHEAD* Ag~strodoncontortrix

Copperhead Dark dorsalmarkings usually broad (six to eight scale rows) at middorsum and seldom interrupted or offset; usually continuous with dark ventral markings ....A Dorsal dark markings usually narrow at midbody and often interrupted or offset:may or may not be continuous with ventral dark markings .... S O ~ T H E R NC O P P E ~ H E A D Ag~strodo~ co~tortrix ~on~ortri

A. Venter usually heavily mottledwith dark color: subcaudals in males usually 57

or more, females usually 52 or more ..............TRANS-PECOS C O P P E R ~ E A ~ Ag~istrodoncontortrix pictigaster

Venter usually uniform tan or orangish pink, with or without a few dark markings; subcauda~sin males usually 54 or fewer, femalesusually 52 orfewer .............

..............................................

.BROAD-BANDED COPPERH~AD

Agkistrodo~ contortri~ laticinct~s

Fig. 11. ors sal view of the head scalesof a snake.

6. 7.

No loreal scalepresent, maximum of 25 dorsal scale rows; young occasionally “copper colored,’’but belly dark brown to black; black cheek stripe in young and adults, but frequently fadedin adults; black dorsal transverse bands are quickly lostas individual grows; general adult color dark brown to black; frequently swims with most of body visible above water: averages about 36 inches (91cm) in length, m ~ i m u m length about 62 inches (158 cm) ......................................... .COTTON~OUTH ~ g k i s t r o dpisc~vor~s o~ Head scales generally very small .............................................. * *7 Head scales consistof nine large plates (Pig.11) ................................. -12 Upper preocular divided vertically,anterior division beingsomewhat higher than posterior part and curved over the snout in front of the supraocular; body pattern of widely separated transverse dark bands, occasionally intermixedwith dark spots;length length about 32 inches (81 cm) .................. about 20 inches (51 cm), m ~ i m u m

..........................................................

.ROCK RATTLESNAKE*

Crotalus lepid~s

Rock Rattlesnake Single spoton occiput; body strongly banded with dark; no dark facial stripe ...... ...,.....,.......,..............................BANDEDKOCKRATTLESNAKE

Crotalus lcpid~s kla~beri

Fig. 12.~uterulview of U copperheud’s head, s ~ o w i the n ~posit~onof the loreulpit.

8.

Two spots on occiput;body mottled or faded; dark stripe from eyeto corner of mouth ........................................ .MOTTLED ROCK RATTLESNA~E Crotalus lepidus lepidus Upper preocular not divided vertically,or if dividedthe anterior division not noticeably higher than the posterior part and not curved over the snout in front of the supraocular ............................................................................ 8 Anterior body pattern of dark blotches that grade into bands on rear part of body and tail; length around 40 inches (102 cm), maximum length about 57 inches (145 cm) .,.. ..........................................................PRAIR~ERATTLESNAKE

g. IO.

Crotulus viridis Not patterned as above ....................................................... .g Dorsal pattern of diamond-shaped blotches,tail with black and white bands .........IO Dorsal pattern of transverse dark bands or diamonds;tail black ....................II Dark and pale tail bands of about equal width: white cheek stripe extends to mouth line; scales betweensupraoculars small;length about 48 inches (122 cm), maximum length about 84 inches (213cm) ....................WESTERN DIAMONDBACK RATTLESNAKE Crotulus utrox Dark tail bands about half the width of pale bands, white cheek stripe passes behindthe mouth line: scales between supraoculars larger than those on rearof head; length around 30 inches (76 cm), maximum length 51 inches (130 cm) ..................... ..........................................................MOJAVERATTLESNAKE

11.

Crotulus scutulutus Anterior body dorsal pattern with chevron-shapedbands, tail black; length about 48 inches (122cm), maximum length around 74 inches (188 cm) ..,TIMBER RATTLESNAKE Crotulus horri~us

Anterior body pattern with an interconnected chain of dark blotches or diamonds, tail black: length around 38 inches (97 cm), maximum length about 49 inches (125cm) ...

...................................................

.BLACK-TAILED RATTLESNAKE

Crotalus ~ O Z O S S U S 12. Upper preocular in contact with postnasal, a series of dark brown to brown body blotches outlined in pale brown, with a lateral alternating series of pale brown spots with ventrolateral darker spots alternating with the pale brown spots: rattles relatively large for a small rattlesnake with a length of 23 inches (58cm), maximum length about 34inches (86cm) ....................................... .WESTERN MASSASAUGA* Sistrurus catenatus Massasauga Midbody scale rowsnormally 25;venter light with darker markings .............

....................................................

WESTERNMASSASAUGA

Sistrurus catenatus t e r g e ~ i ~ u s

Midbody scale rowsnormally 23;venter white or nearly so ...DESERT

MASSASAUGA

Sistrurus catenatus e ~ w a r ~ s i

Upper preocular not contacting postnasal, usually a pale reddishbrown dorsal longitudina~stripe, interrupted by a series of short transverse blackish markings, One or two rowsof lateral or ventrolateral blackish spotsin addition to the dorsal bands: ground color grayto grayish pink: rattles very small:length around 18 inches (46cm), maximum length about 25 inches (64cm) .................... .PYGMY RATTLESNAKE Sistrurus ~iZ~urius 13. Body with rings that completely encirclethe body; redrings alternate with yellow rings that are separated by blackrings: snout andanterior head black, followed bya yellow ring, then a black ring; an erect fang at the anterior end of upper jaw:length about 25 inches (64cm), maximum length around 47 inches (119cm) .,TEXAS CORAL SNAKE ~ ~ c r u rfulv~us us Body with transverse bands or blotches,rings never completely encircle the body: no permanently erect fangat anterior end of upper jaw ............................ -14 14. Prefrontalsmore than two .................................................... 15 Prefrontalstwo (Fig. 11);color patterns highly variable;small orlarge snalces .......16 15. A large snake with more than 41 large dark body blotches on a yellowish ground color that contrasts more strongly with the ground color at each end of the snake: the dorsal blotches mayor may not fuse on theneck: belly marked laterally with large blackish marks on a yellow ground color: tendency to hiss (expelair) loudly: size around 48 inches (122cm), maximum length about IOO inches (254cm) ......GOPHER SNAKE" Pituop~is cate~fer Gopher Snake Rostral scalemuch higher than wide, raised well above nearby scales: blotches contrasting on each end of body, less distinct in themiddle ...........BULL SNAKE Pituop~iscutenifer sayi Rostral scalebroad, little ornot raised abovethe surrounding scales: anterior dorsal blotches brown, unconnected to other blotches; posterior blotches black ....

..................................................

.SONORAN GOPHER SNAKE:

Pituop~is caten~fer a ~ ~ i s

ENTIRE

Fig. 13. ~entral view of the a~alplate and tailof a s~ake, showi~ff the ~ v iand ~ entire e ~p~ateand ~ v i ~ e d s uscales. ~ca~da~

A large snake with 42 or fewer body blotches: neck blotches normally brown, somewhat obscure, and frequently fusingon theanterior body; blotchesjust in front of the vent and on the tail brownish red, distinct, and well separated: belly mottled with pale yellow and dark brown spots: length about 51:inches (130cm), m ~ ~ length u maround 70 inches (178cm) ....................................... .LOUISIANA PINE SNAKE Pituoph~s r~thve~ 16. Scales beneath tail normally in a single row; nose appears long; black transverse dorsal bands separated by red ground color: red scales often obscured with black Becks: belly pale yellowto cream: length about 26 inches (66cm), m ~ i m u m length around 41 inches (104cm) .................................... .TEXAS LONG-NOSED SNAKE Rhinocheilusleco~tei Scales beneath tail normally in two rows: colorpattern variable (Fig. 13) ...........17 17. Loreal scale absent ......................................................... .18 Loreal scalepresent .......................................................... 27 normally two morethan in front of vent; upturned 18. Number of middorsal scale rows pointed nose................................................................ I9 Number of middorsal scale rows the same as those in front of vent: nose neither upturned nor pointed ....................................................... .20 19. Prefrontal scales in contact, separating rostral from frontal scale; colorpattern of narrow transverse brown bands on a grayish ground color: head also banded:adults ~sually less than IZ inches (30 cm) in length but may reach 15 inches (38 cm) .........

.................................................. .WESTERN NOOK-NOSEDSNAKE

G~alopio~ canu~

Prefrontal scales not in contact, rostral contacts frontal; body with small and usually obscure transverse brownish bands or blotches; ground color grayish brown to pale brown; head seldom has bands; adults usually less than 1 2 inches (30cm), but may reach 19inches (48cm) ............................. .MEXICAN HOOK-NOSED SNAKE F i c i ~ i astreckeri

20.

21.

Body scales with keels (Fig.g) ................................................ .21 Body scales smooth ......................................................... .22 Body scales in 15 rows; belly yellowish, dorsal color tan or reddish tan, faint yellowish transverse band behind head, head usually dark reddish brown to dark brown; usually a white spot on theedge of the upper lip below and behind the eye: adults usually IO inches (25cm), but may reach 16 inches (41cm) ............. .RED-BELLIED SNAKE Storeria occipito~ac~lata

Body scales in 17 rows; belly grayish; dorsal body with tan or pale tan middorsal longitudinal stripe from rear of head to tail, with a series of small blackor dark brown dots along each side of stripe; rear of head with a pair of dark spots: adults usually about 12inches (30cm) in length but occasionally 19inches (48cm) .........BROWN SNAKE" Storeria deka~i

Brown Snake Anterior temporal scale immaculate; dark markings on sixth and seventh supralabials .......................................... .TEXAS BROWN SNAKE Storeria deka~it e ~ a ~ a

Anterior temporal scale with horizontal dark line though the long axisof scale: no dark markings on sixth and seventh supralabial ...........MARSH BROWN SNAKE Storeria ~ e k u ~ ~ 22.

li~~ete

Head brown, tan, or slightly darker than body color, upper lip scales six per side; belly bright pink to almost red; length around 7 inches (18 cm), m ~ i m u m length about g inches (23cm) ............................................ . ~ I ~ A ~ H E A DSNAKE ED ~antilla ~racilis

Head with black cap, contrasting with body color: upper lip scales normally seven per side ....................................................................... S23 23. Black head cap with a straight or slightly conves posterior margin, extending only about t h e e scales beyond posterior edge of parietals: usually followed bypale border.24 Black head cap with a V-shaped posteriormargin, extending four to eight scales beyond posterior edgeof parietals; the black cap may or may not be interrupted by a white neck band ...................................................................... -25 24. Normally one postocular, rear of black head cap straight: mental usually separated from chin shields:length less than 1 2 inches (30cm) .......MEXICAN BLACK-HEADED SNAKE ~antillaatriceps

Normally two postocular ,rear of blackhead cap straight; mental usually in contact with chin shields:length less than 1 2 inches (30cm) ...............................

..........................................

.SOUTHWESTERN BLACK-HEADED SNAKE

~anti~la ~o~arts~~t~i 25. Black head cap not extendingbelow end of mouth line, body pale brown or tan, midventral area of belly pinkish red posterior margin V-shaped; length about 10 inches (25cm), m ~ i m u m length around 15 inches (38cm) . ..PLAINS BLACK~HEADEDSNAKE ~antilla~ ~ r i c e p s

POSTOCULAR SUPRAOCULAR

1

/

PARIETAL

TEMPORAL

Fig. 14. ~ateralview of the head scalesof a snake.

Black head cap extending below end of mouth line .............................. '26 26. Black head cap extending four to eight scales behindparietals, dorsal and ventral surfaces of head completely black:no white cheek patch, or black head cap rarely extends beyond posterior tips of parietals: followed bynarrow white band, which in turn is followed bya broad blackband; snout usually white, a white cheek patch below and behind eye: chin shields white:the white band across neckusually one to two scale rows in longitudinal width, occasionallywith a longitudinal black line from parietal to black band, or a black dot, or interrupted line fromparietal to black band: length about 12inches (30 cm), maximum length around 25inches (64 cm) ......................

............................................ ,TRANS-PECOS

LACK-HEAD~D SNAKE

~antillacuc~llata 27. Two loreals; pupilof eye elliptical: bodywith about 20 dark brown to brown transverse

bands on a gray ground color: the broad dorsal blotches narrow laterally;belly white, cream, to dirty yellow: usually three obscure dark spots on back of head: length about 24 inches (61 cm), maximum length around 41 inches (104 cm) ....TEXAS LYRE SNAKE ~ri~orp~odon vilkinso~

One loreal (Fig, 14);pupil variable;color pattern variable; size variable ............'28 28. Preocular absent, loreal enters orbit .......................................... .29 Preocular present, loreal not entering orbit ..................................... 32 29. Dorsal scale rowssmooth, in 19 rows: dorsal body glossy black, belly red and black: body stout, tail short with horny tip; necknot distinguishablefrom rest of body: usually found around swamps, often burrows in mud: length about 45 inches (114 cm), maximu~n length around 81 inches (206 cm) ...................................... MUD SNAKE ~ a r a ~ ca~acura ia Dorsal scale rows keeled smooth, or in less than 19 rows .......................... 30 30. Dorsal scalerows 13; dorsum black to purplish black, belly pinkish: belly color extends up the sides to the third scale row;10-12 inches (25-30 cm) in length, occasionally reaching 15 inches (38 cm) ................................ .WESTERN WORM SNAKE

Carphophis v e r ~ ~ s

Dorsal scale rows17,dorsal surface gray, brown, or reddish brown: pointed head: length less than 15inches (38cm) .................................................. S31 14)upper lip scales: pointedsnout: scales strongly keeled: a 31. Postocular single: five (Fig. very plain, small brown snake with pale brown to gray belly: length about 8 to g inches (20-23 cm), maximum length about 12inches (30cm) ..........ROUGH EARTH SNAKE Virginiu striatula

Postocularstwo: six upper lip scales: scales smooth or weakly keeled; gray,brown to reddish snake; length 8-9 inches (20-23 cm), maximum length around 15inches (38cm) .................................................. SMOOTH EARTH SNAKE Vir~iniavuleriae 32. Anal plateentire (Fig. 13)..................................................... 33 Anal plate divided (Fig.13) .................................................. *45 33. Dorsal scales keeled ......................................................... .34 Dorsal scalessmooth ........................................................ .39 34. Belly pattern consisting of two parallel rows of black half-moon-shaped spots: three

pale coloredlongitudinal lines of yellow, orange, white, or gray: length 10-12 inches (25-30 cm), occasionallyreaching 21inches (53 cm) ..................LINED SNAKE" ~ropiaoclonionlinea tu^

Lined Snake Ventrals 144or more .................................

.CENTRAL LINED SNAKE

~ropiaoclonionlinea tu^ anneetens

Ventrals 143or fewer ...................................

.TEXAS LINED SNAKE

~ropi~oclonion Zineutu~ texffnu~ Belly without two rowsof black half-moon-shaped spots on the belly ..............S35 35. Pale lateral stripe of anterior body involving fourth scale row...................... 36

Pale lateral stripe of anterior body absent or not touching fourth scale row ..........37 36. Upper lips, lower lips, and belly with some dark markings, a double rowof black spots between palestripes;lateral pale lineon scale rowsthree and four: outer edge of belly with obscure blackish spots on each side: length around 20 to 24 inches (51-61 cm), maximum length about 41 inches (104cm) ...................PLAINS GARTER SNAKE ~ ~ u ~ n oradix p ~ i s Upper lips, lower lips, and belly without dark markings: three pale stripes, the median one highly variablein Texas populations-from pale yellow, grayish white, to orange red: two pale spotson theparietal scales; a thin, long-tailed garter snake with a length about 25 inches (63cm), but may reach 48 inches (122cm) ...WESTERN RIBBON SNAKE" ~ ~ a ~ n op pr ~o i~ si ~ ~ s Ribbon Snake Dorsum olive grayor some shade of brown ................................. .A Dorsum black;vertebral stripe orange and usually narrow; dark ventrolateral stripes absent ...................................... ,WESTERN RIBBON SNAKE ~ ~ a ~ n op rpo ~x ii~ suproxi~us s A. Vertebral stripe bright red, of medium width: ventrolateral stripes narrow or absent ...................................... ,RED-STRIPED RIBBON SNAKE ~ ~ a ~ n op rpo ~x ii~ su sru~rilineutus

Vertebral stripe orange, grayish tan, or some shade of gold ....................B

B. Vertebral stripe orange, of medium width; dorsum olive gray; lateral stripe ~equentlyreduced posteriorly;narrow ventrolateral stripe usually present ....

..............................................

.ARID LAND RIBBON SNAKE

~ha~nop~s

pro~i~~s

~a~o

Vertebral stripe usually some shade of gold and usually broad; dorsum olive brown; lateral stripe rarely reduced; ventrolateral stripe usually absent .................

................................................ .GULF COAST RIBBON SNAKE

~ h a ~ n o p hpi rs o ~ i ~orarius us 37. Lateral pale stripe on third scale row only near head a checkerboardpattern of squarish black and white spots, black spots frequently invade lateral pale lines: a yellowish crescent mark behind the corner of the mouth followed bya large black spot; scales in 21rows, anal plate single: about 21 inches (53cm) in length, a m ~ i length m ~ around 41 inches (104cm) ............................. .CHECKERED GARTER SNAKE ~ha~nophis ~arciunus Lateral palestripe on second and third scale rowson neck ........................ 38 38. Upper lipscales eight to a side: a white to pale yellowmark on theside of the head preceded bya pair of large black neck blotches that may or may not unite across the back of the neck: head usually gray or bluish gray,contrasting with the black neck blotches; an orange longitudinal stripe from rear of head to tail, but may turn yellowish posteriorly;one or two rowsof lateral black blotches between the middorsal and the ventrolateral pale stripes;scale rowsusually 19at midbody, anal plate single;length about 24 inches (61cm), m ~ i m u m length around 41 inches (104cm) ...............

................................................

.BLA~K-NECI~ED GARTER SNAKE*

~ h u ~ ~ oc~rtopsis p ~ i s

Black-necked Garter Snake Top of head gray; ventrals in males usually 164-78

....................................

(171), females 157-70

(167) ..

.WESTERN BLAC~-NECKEDGARTERSNAKE

~ h a ~ n o p c~rtopsis h~s c~rtopsis Top of head black; ventrals in males 157-64 (I~o), females 148-65 (157) ........

....................................

.EASTERN BLACK-N~CKEDGARTER SNAKE

~ ~ a ~ ~c ~or t po ~~socellutus i is s Upper lipscales sevento a side;no crescent-shaped palemark or paired black blotches behind head; lateral l o n g i t u ~ apale l stripes confined to scale rowstwo and three; basic colors highly variable, the t h e e longitudinal pale stripes may be yellow(usual color) but vary to gray, yellowishorange, greenish, bluish, or occasionally absent; usually two rows of black spots between pale stripes;may have red on scales or skin; belly with a lateral series of small black marks; length about 24 inches (61cm), maximum length about 48 inches (122cm) ............................... .COMMON GARTER SNAKE" T h a ~ n # p ~sirtalis is Common Garter Snake A. Vertebral stripe orange ............................. .TEXAS GARTER SNAKE ~ h a ~ ~ osirtalis p ~ i as~ n e c t e ~ s

Vertebral stripe yellow or tan ............................................. .B B, Vertebral stripe bright yellow, bordered by continuous a black linethat is irregular below .............................. .NEW MEXICO GARTER SNAKE ~ h a ~ n ~ psirt~lis his d ~ r s ~ ~ s

Vertebral stripe yellow or tan, bordered by a series of dark spots ................C C. Dark dorsal pattern without red interspaces;lateral light stripe, if present, occupying onlytwo scale rows .................... 'EASTERN GARTER SNAKE ~ a ~ ~ osirtalis p ~ sirtalis i s

Dark dorsalpattern with red interspaces;lateral light stripe occupying four scale rows ............................................ .RED-SIDED GARTER SNAKE ~ ~ a ~ ~sirtalis o p pariet~is ~ i s 39. Dorsal scale rows17;a large bluish blacksnake with some indication of black marks below the eye; young with anterior to middle of body brownish yellow to brown, with some indication of an obscure pattern of darker marks; length around 4 to 5 feet (12252cm) and m a ~ ~ length u m about IOO inches (254cm) ...........................

.................................................................I N D I G O S N A ~ E

~ r ~ ~ a r corais c ~ o n Dorsal scale rows19 or more; always some pattern of blotches, spots,or bands present .. ...........................................................................40 40. Dorsal scalesin 19 rows; snout pointed and red; transverse bands of red edgedwith black, and yellow bands between the black-edged redbands; belly immaculate, white to cream; length about 18 inches (46cm), reaching a m a x ~ u m length of about 32inches (81cm) ...................................................... .SCARLET SNAKE" C e ~ o p ~ ococcinea ra

Scarlet Snake Supralabialsusually six; red dorsal blotches black-edged ventrally

................................................

...............

.NORTHERN SCARLET SNAKE

C e ~ o p ~ o r a c o ccopei i~~ea

Supralabialsusually seven;red dorsal blotches not black-edged ventrally .........

.....................................................

TEXASSCARLETSNA~E

C e ~ o p ~ o r a c o clineri ~n~ea Dorsal scale rows 21 or more .................................................. 41 41. Dorsal scale rows 29 or more; pale brown to tan, moderately large transverse body

blotches, with alternating smaller brown body blotches on sides of body; bellywhite to cream; snout pointed, head with two preoculars; length about 30 inches (76cm), with m~imum length about 54 inches (137cm) ......................... .GLOSSY SNAKE*

Arizo~a eleg~ns

Glossy Snake Dark dorsalbody blotches usually 60 or more; midbody scale rows usually 27 or fewer ....................................... .PAINTED DESERT GLOSSY SNAKE Arizona elegans philipi

Dark dorsalbody blotches usually 59or fewer; midbody scale rows usually 29 or more .................................................................. .A A. Ventrals of males 207-25 (215)~ females 217-31 (225) ...TEXAS GLOSSY SNAKE Arizo~aelegans arenicola (216) . .KANSAS GLOSSY SNAKE Arizona elega~selegans Dorsal scale rows 27 or less: dorsal bodypattern, if consisting of a series of blotches or spots, accompanied by a blotched bellypattern; preoculars single ..................42 42. Dorsal pattern of narrow blackish gray to gray transverse bands; alternate bands mised

Ventrals of males 197-219

(206), females 208-27

or split with red color,or a pattern of alternating black-bordered redor orange saddles and white-bordered grey saddles; belly blotched with black, or sometimes almost entirely black length about 25 inches (64 cm), maximum length about 57 inches (145cm) ............................................. .GRAY-BANDED KING SNAKE Lampropeltis ulterna

Dorsal pattern not as described above .......................................... 43 43. Dorsal pattern of small yellow or yellowish white dots on each scale, or obscure black transverse black blotcheswith yellow or pale yellow borders, occasionally forming a chainlike pattern: or a series of transverse black blotchesseparated by white or yellow bands or spotted scale rows; belly mostly blackbut may be blotched with yellow and black: scalessmooth, anal plate single;length about 40 inches (102 cm), maximum length about 72 inches (183 cm) ............................ .COMMON KING SNAKE"

Lampropeltis getula

Common King Snake ~ ~ i m number u m of dorsal scale rowsZI or fewer ........SPECKLED KING SNAKE ~ a m p r o p ~getula ~ t ~ s~ o l ~ r o o k ~

~aximum number of dorsal scale rows 23 or more ...........DESERT KING SNAKE

Lu~propeltisgetula s p l e ~ ~ ~

Dorsal pattern of dark brown to brown transverse blotches with alternating small spots on the sides of the body, or pattern of red, black, yellow to white transverse bands that extend onto the belly and may occasionallyreach across the belly .................44 44. Dorsal pattern of brown to dark brown transverse body blotches; belly with squarish brown blotches alternating with pale tan tocream ground color: length about 36 inches (91 cm), maximum length around 56 inches (142 cm) ...........PRAIRIE KING SNAKE La~~ropeltis calli~aster

Dorsal pattern consisting of various widths of red, black, and yellow (occasionally white) transverse bands that may formrings around the body: belly istypically colored like the dorsum, but bands usually do not meet acrossthe belly: red bandsare always bordered by black bands that alternate with yellow or white bands: length around 24 inches (61 cm), masimum length about 42 inches (107 cm) ..........MILK SNAKE" La~propeltis triangul~m

Milk Snake Red rings complete around body ..................CENTRAL PLAINS MILE SNAKE Lampropeltis t r i a ~ ~ ugentilis lu~

Red rings interrupted by black ventrally ................................... .A rings interrupted by black ventrally ........ A. Head and snout black; first few red

.................................................. MEXICANMILKSNAKE

La~propeltistriangulum a~nulata

Pattern not as above .................................................... .B B. Red rings usually 20 or more; ventral black margin of red ring forming a distinct border ................................. .NEW MEXICO MILK SNAKE Lampropeltis triangulum celaenops

Red rings usually fewer than 20: ventral black margin of red ring forming an irregular border ..................................... .LOUISIANA MILK SNAKE La~propeltist r i a n g ~ l ~ ~ a m a ~ r a

45. Dorsal scales keeled .......................................................... 44 Dorsal scalessmooth ......................................................... 58 46. Dorsal colora uniform greento bright green in life, no other pattern: belly whitish to pale yellowto white or pale greencast: long and slender body and tail: length about 26 inches (66 cm), maximum length around 45 inches (114 cm) .,ROUGH GREEN SNAKE

O p ~ e o d r aestivus ~s

Dorsal surfacewith some pattern: old individuals mayappear unicolored, pattern may be lined, blotched,or spotted ................................................. .47 47. Nose scale (rostral) turned up ................................................ .48 Nose scale (rostral) normal, not turned up ..................................... .49 48. Prefrontal scales separated by small scales: nose scaleturned up sharply and keeled: underside of tail not paler than belly: bellyusually black, markedwith yellow areas; dorsum with flve rows of brown blotches, a larger middle rowand two smaller rows per side: length about 22inches (56 cm), m ~ i m u m about 39 inches (99 cm) .............

..................................................

.WESTERN HOG-NOSED SNAKE*

~ e t e r o ~ nasicus on

Western Hog-nosedSnake Median body blotches of males usually 35 or more, females 40 or more ........... .........,.......................................PLAINSHOG-NOSEDSNAI(E

~ e ~ e r o d nusicus on nasicus

Median body blotches of males usually 32 or fewer, females37 or fewer; twoto six small scales posteriorto rostral plate ................MEXICANHOG-NOSED SNAKE

.

~eterodonnasicus kennerl~i

Prefrontal scales contact one another; underside of tail paler than belly: bellyoften mottled with color of gray or greenish on yellow-gray or rose:dorsum normally with transverse brown to black blotchesin a single or double row, background color sometimes reddish: occasionally the dorsum appears uniform blackor gray: length about 25 inches (64 cm), m ~ ~ length u mabout 45 inches (114 cm) .................

................................................... .EASTERN HOG-NOSED

SNAKE

~eterodon plat~r~inos 49. Dorsal scalesin 19 rows ..................................................... 50 *

Dorsal scalesin 21 or more rows.............................................. 51 *

50. Dorsum with distinct yellow longitudinal lines on lowermost three scale rows;a distinct black line on outer edge of belly adjacent to lowermost body scale row: occasionally a faint series of dark spots down the center of the belly; scales keeled: belly usually yellow, buff, or grayish yellow; length around 24 inches (61 cm), maximum length about 45 inches (114 cm) ................................... .GRAHAM'S CRAYFISH SNAKE ~egina

gra~a~i

Dorsum unicolored, occasionally glossy brown, dark brown, or almost black; scales keeled; two rows of distinct black spots downthe belly, almost meetingat midline, but with a pale space between each pair of dark spots: length about 18 inches (46 cm), m~imum length about 31 inches (79 cm) ...................GLOSSY CRAYFISH SNAKE ~ e g i n arig~da 51. Subocular scalespresent (row of scales separating upper lip scales from eye) .........52

Subocular scales absent ..................................................... *S3

52. Dorsal pattern usually consisting of a seriesof longitudinal H-shaped blotches; a pair of black neck stripes extend posteriorly to form the outer segments of the H-pattern; desert form, nonaquatic; occasionally a "blond" form with pale yellowishbrown blotches in the Lajitas area of west Texas;length about 40 inches (102 cm), m a ~ m u m length around 66 inches (168 cm) .............................. .TRANS-PECOS RAT SNAKE ~ogertopkiss ~ ~ o c ~ l a r i s

Dorsal pattern usually greenish or brownish with dark brown or blackish markings intermixed: belly with distinctive mottling of dark and light, but color variable;strongly keeled scales; aquatic form; length about 36 inches (91 cm), m ~ m u m length around 50 inches (127cm) .............................. .MISSISSIPPI GREEN WATER SNAKE ~ e r o ~cyclopio~ ia

53. Large aquatic form with strongly keeled scales; dorsal pattern of chainliie dark brown to black markings; each dark loop of the chain extends down the sides to the belly, forming asomewhat loose diamond mark general ground color olivegreen or dark green to brownish; belly strongly marked with black spotson the outer edge of the belly with scattered smaller black spots down the center of the belly: length about 40 inches (102 cm), maximum length around 63 inches (160 cm) ,.,DIAMONDBACK WATER SNAKE ~ e r o r~k ao ~ ~ ~ e r a Small to large aquatic snakes with strongly keeled scales;pattern transverse blotches, bands, or spots .............................................................. 54 54. Dorsum with a double row of s o ~ e w h asmall, t reddish brown to pale brown spots on each side of dorsum, on a palebrown to pinkish brown ground color: arow of obscure to distinct dark spots along each side of the belly (known only &om middle Brazos, Concho, and Colorado Riverdrainages):length about 22inches (56 cm), maximum length about 39 inches (99 cm) ...................................... .HARTER'S WATER SNAKE" ~ e r o ~kurteri ia

Harter's Water Snake Dorsal spotsprominent; dark belly spots pronounced .......RRAZOS WATER SNAKE ~ e r o karteri ~ a harteri Dorsal spots faded; dark belly spotsobscure or absent .....XONCHO WATER SNAKE ~ e r o kurteri ~ a pa~ci~ac~lata Dorsum never with four rows of small, dorsal spots: belly pale or dark, never with small obscure dark spots along the sides on a pinkishor tannishbackground .............55 55. Belly pale yellow, yellow,or with a slightorange tinge: belly occasionallywith dark markings laterally;dorsum with dark brown to blackish blotchesthat may fadein larger snakes; usually some indication of pattern remaining even in old snakes: colors often variable in different parts of the state; length around 40 inches (102 cm), m ~ i m u m about 59 inches (150 cm) ........................... .PLAIN-BEI~LIEDWATER SNAKE" ~ e ~ erytkrogaste~ o ~ a

Plain"bel1iedWater Snake Dorsum of adults normally unpatterned; juveniles show pale crossbands ~ddorsally................................. . Y E L L O ~ - B E L L I E DWATER SNAKE ~ e r oerythrogaster~uvigaster ~ a Dorsum of adults normally patterned (blotches): juvenilepattern similar to adult .

................................................... BLOTCHEDWATERSNAI(E

~ e r o erythroguster ~ a tra~sversa

Belly never pale colored; dorsum blotched, banded, or striped ..................... 56 56. Dorsum with 30 or fewer reddishbrown to blackish brown transverse bands: belly yellow with squarish red to rust red spots, occasionally scattered and not uniform in size: scales strongly keeled: length about 30 inches (76 cm), maximum length around 45 inches (114 cm) ..................................... .SOUTHERN WATER SNAKE* ~ero~a~asciata

Banded WaterSnake Body bands usually fewer than I 7 and irregular in shape .......................

.............................................

.BROAD-BANDED WATER SNAKE

~ e r o ~ i a ~ a s c icaot a~ ~ u e ~ s

Body bands usually 19 or more and irregular in shape .....FLORIDA WATER

SNAKE

~ e r o ~ a ~ a s c ipictive~tris ata

Dorsum with two yellowish stripes and two brown stripes on each side of the body; belly reddish brown or blackish brown with a longitudinal central row of whitish dots: in addition, there may be a pair of whitish dots along the outer row of belly scales:length about 28 inches (71cm), m ~ i m u m length 36 inches (g1 cm) .......................

....................................................... GULFSALTNIARSHSNAKE

~ e r o ~clar~i ia 57. Dark stripe behind eyenormally crosses the end of the mouthline, and frequently

extends onto neck; number of brown to grayish brown body blotches variable, 28-56: belly with extensive dark squarish blotches, fewer blotches in south Texas and more numerous in north Texas; tail with or without a pair of ventral tail stripes, but stripes more common in east Texas; length about 40 inches (102 cm), m a ~ m u m around 72 inches (183 cm) ................................................ .CORN SNAKE* ~lap~e

g~tt~ta

Corn Snake Black stripes belowtail in 82 percent of sample, ventrals plus subcaudals average 282(267-304) .......................................................... A Black stripes belowtail usually absent in 72 percent of sample,ventrals plus subcaudals average 295 (275-312) ................. .SOUTHWESTERN RAT SNAKE ~ l a pguttata ~e ~ e a ~ l l ~ o r u ~

A. Combined dorsal and tail blotches average 67 (57-81), moderate number of black belly markings ............................

.GREAT PLAINS RAT SNAKE

~ l a pguttata ~e e ~ o ~ ~ i

Combined dorsaland tail blotches average 51 (44-59), dense blackbelly markings

.............................................................. CORNSNAKE

~ l a pguttata ~ e guttata Dark stripe behind eye,when present, stops near theend of the mouthline, never crossing or extending onto neck young are gray with brownish blotches; as young mature theblotches becomedark brown to black and kequently disappear;head usually black in adults: length about 45 inches (114 cm), maximum size around 86 inches (218 cm) .................................................. .RAT SNAKE Elap~eo~soleta or young are grayish to greenish brown, with more than 47narrow brown crossbands; adults with four dark stripes,the two lateral stripes frequently obscure and the two

upper ones more distinct but occasionally absent: length about 54 inches (137 cm), maximum about 62 inches (157 cm) ............................ .BAIRD'S UT SNAKE ~ l a p ~airdi ~e are thesame number throughout thebody (occasionally13 or 14 at 58. Dorsal scale rows vent in southTexas) ......................................................... 59 Dorsal scale rows two fewer in front of the vent than atmidbody ...................60 59. Dorsal colortan, brown, reddish brown, with or without small and narrow black transverse bands, or orange, or reddish orange longitudinal stripe down the back: length about IO inches (25 cm), maximum size around 15 inches (38 cm) .............

.................................................. GREATPLAINSGROUNDSNAKE"

Sonora se~iunnulata

Ground Snake Scale rows typically15-15-15, occasionally 15-14-14 ....WESTERN

GROUND SNAKE

Sonora s e ~ i a n n ~ l ase~iunnulata ta

Scale rows typically 15-13-13, occasionally 15-14-13...........................

..............................................

SOUTH TEXAS GROUND SNAKE

Sonoru s e ~ i a ~ n u l a t a t a ~ l o r i

Dorsal color uniformgreen, scales smooth: long, slenderbody and tail: belly white to pale yellow:length around 15 inches (38 cm),maximum length about 26 inches (66 cm) .................................................. .SMOOTH GREEN SNAKE ~ i o c ~ l o r o pvernalis ~is

60. Dorsal scale rows19 or more ................................................. .61 Dorsal scale rows fewer than rg ............................................... 63 . 61. Dorsal pattern of broad, dark brown to black longitudinal stripes that alternate with tan or pale brown stripes: awhite or yellowish line from snout, over eye,to rear of head: belly orange or reddish, without other markings; about 15 inches (38 cm) in length, maximum length around 20 inches (51 cm) ...................BLACK-STRIPED SNAKE Coniop~anesi ~ p e r ~ u l i s

Dorsal pattern with blotches orbands, no stripes ............................... .62 62, Dorsal pattern of large dark brown to black, roundish blotches or saddles, extending down sides almost to belly: blotches contrast with ground color: pupil elliptical; neck narrow, head broad: belly white, cream to pale yellow:about 22 inches (56 cm) in length, maximum length around 38 inches (96 cm) .......NORTHERN CAT-EYED SNAKE

~ e p t o ~ e iseptentrionalis ra

Dorsal pattern of small brown to dark brown irregularly shaped blotches that may be in one, three, or more rows; neck and middorsal blotches may be large and fused, while remainder may be paired and much smaller; a black stripe from snout, througheye to side of neck; neckpattern usually of three longitudinal black marks: lateral dark neck marks may fusewith lateral head stripe; belly cream to white; pupil of eye elliptical: about 15 inches (38 cm) in length, maximum length around 20 inches (51 cm) ........

.................................................................

NIGHTSNAKE

~~psigl~nu tor~ua~a

63. Nose scale (rostral) much enlarged, shieldliire, and with free edges ................ 64 Nose scale not enlarged, not with free edges..................................... 65 Upper lipscales eight per side: posterior chin shields usually in contact or separated by 64. a single scale: dorsum with broad dark brown to blackish longitudinal stripes strongly *

46

A ~ p ~ i ~ iand a n ~eptiles s of Texas

contrasting with yellowish tan ground color: a paler middorsal stripe that in color may be similar to or brighter than the sides of the body: occasionallywith a dark longitudinal line on thethird row of scales; belly pale yellow to cream; length about 30 inches (76cm), maximum length around 47 inches (119cm) .....................

................................................ MOUNTAINPATCH[-NOSEDSNAKE" Salvaaoya gyaka~iae

Patch-nosed Snake A narrow dark line on third scale row ...............TEXAS PATCH-NOSED

SNAKE

Salvaaoya gyaka~iaelineata

No narrow dark line on third or fourth scale rows.MOUNTAIN

PATCH-NOSED SNAKE

Salvaaoya gyaka~iae gyaka~iae

Upper lipscales nine per side; posterior chin shields separated by two to three scales: two broad blackish lines on theback; a thin dark line usually on scale rowfour, but posteriorly on scale row three: lower edgesof the broad blackish stripes often interrupted with ground color, having a zigzag appearance; belly peach to rose; length around 27 inches (69cm), maximum length about 40 inches (102cm) ...............

.................................................

,BIG BEND PATCH-NOSED SNAKE

Salvaaoya aeseyticola 65. Preocular single: bodyand tail long and slender;throat yellowish,ventral surface fading to whitish posteriorly; dorsum with a single yellow dot in the center of a black scale, the base of each scale blue;a black stripe from eyeto neck; some blackish marks may be present on theventral surface of body, mostfrequently under the tail; length about 35inches (89 cm), maximum length around 50 inches (127cm) .....SPECKLED RACER Dyy~o~ius ~argarit~~eyus Preoculars two ............................................................. .66 preocular almost equal in size to upper preocular; 66. Anterior temporal scale single; lower not wedged betweenadjacent upper lip scales; a small snake with a bright orange or orange-yellow neckband in most populations;neck ring may be interrupted by dorsal ground color; dorsal color gray,blue, bluish green, tan or brown; belly bright orange to yellow, with a series of black spotsscattered or densely spacedon thebelly: these spots may be in a single row, paired row; length about 12inches (30cm), maximum length around 19inches (48 cm) .................................. .RING-NECKED SNAKE" D~aaopkis punctatus Ring-necked Snake Light nuchal collar normally absent ................REGAL RING-NECKED SNAKE Dia~opkispunctatus regalis Light nuchal collar normally present ...................................... .A A. Dorsal scale rowsI7 anteriorly; dark belly spots scattered ...................

...........................................

.PRAIRIE RING-NECKED SNAKE

Diaaopkispunctatus arnyi

Dorsal scale rows 15anteriorly; dark belly spots arranged in more or less tranSVerSepairs ............................ .MISSISSIPPI RING-NECKED SNAKE ~iaaopkis p~nctatus stictogcn~s

Anterior temporal scales in two or three rows: lowerpreocular smaller than upper preocular and wedged betweenadjacent upper lip scales.......................... 67 just in front of vent 15:dorsal color highly variable-black,blue, 67. Dorsal scale rows

tan, green, bluish green, with or without brown, or reddish brown transverse blotches or bands (especially the young); belly pale yellow,cream, bright yellow, or lemon yellow; normally unicolored dorsallyas adults, but some populations may have individual white scales scattered over the dorsal surface;length highly variable by population-usually about 38 inches (97cm), m a s i m length ~ around 73 inches (185cm) .............................................................. .RACER* Coluber co~strictor Racer Dorsum blackto tan with few to many individual scalesof odd colors...........A Dorsum usually uniform in color, fromgray to black ......................... .B A. Dorsum blue, black, or olive ........................... .BUTTERMILK RACER Coluber co~strictora~thicus Dorsum tan ................................................... ,TAN RACER Coluber co~strictoretheri~gei B. Dorsum black chin and throatwhite ............... .SOUTHERN BLACK RACER Coluber co~strictorpriapus Dorsum greenish or bluish ............................................... .C C. Supralabialsnormally seven ...............EASTERN M EL LOW-~ELL~ED RACER Coluber co~strictorP1av~ve~tris Supralabialsnormally eight, Maxillaryteeth 13-14:young with narrow crossbands anteriorly; adults with middorsal area of body green or grayish green; sides of body lighter in color: belly usually light yellow to greenish yellow . ,. ..

..........................................................

MEXICANRACER

Coluber co~strictoroaxacg Dorsal scale rows1 ~ 1 2or , 13just in front of the vent ........................... .68 68. Dorsal scale rowsat midbody 17;dorsal color pattern highly variablethroughout the range of the species; bright red, brown, tan, and black anteriorly,to brown, tan, or pale yellow posteriorly; some populations may be completely black; rear of body appears braided to the human eye, resemblinga leather whip: bellyusually unicolor, cream, pinkish, or reddish: young have anterior brownish transverse bands or blotches, resembling young racers; length around 48 inches (122cm), m a ~ m u m length about 102 inches (259cm) ............................................... .COACHWHIP* Nlasticophis~lag~~ur Coachwhip Color of anterior body similar to posterior body: juveniles with anterior dark bands separated by three scale rowsof light scales ...............WESTERN C O A C ~ W H I P ~asticQphisP1agellu~ testaceus Color of anterior part of body much lighter than posterior part: juveniles with anterior bands separated by one to two scalerows of light scales .................

...................................................... EASTERNCOACHWHIP

Nlastocophis~~a~ellurP1agellum

Dorsal scale rowsat midbody 15 .............................................. .69 69. ~niformblack scalespredominate the dorsal surface of body; head black with some scales outlined in white; a narrow white transverse band or paired white nape spots across neckand normally 5 (0-10)white bands over the body; eight longitudinalblack lines (four per side) on scale rowsone, two, three, and four within white areas: anterior

two-thirds of belly black, including throat: posteriorly,the ventral black pigment shifts to coral red near the vent and on the ventral surface of the tail; length about 48 inches (122 cm), maximum length around p inches (183cm) . .... .STRIPED WHIP SNAKE as ti cop his t a e ~ i a t ~ s

Uniform bluish gray to greenish gray scales on dorsal surface of body: each scale with a pair of white, cream, or yellow marks on the anterolateral surface of the scale; usually two white stripes on scale rowsthree and four on each side of the body (usually absent in Rio Grande Valley): an occasional palestripe at the edge of the belly: throat and neck whitish, sides of neck reddishorange: belly with some speckled bluish marks throughout, but turning salmon pink toward the tail; length about 48 inches (122cm), m ~ ~ length u maround 66 inches (168cm) .. .,... ,.. . .SCHOTT’S WHIP SNAKE” I

ast ti cop his schotti

Schott’s WhipSnake No distinct lateral light lines in young or adults

I)

.... ...RUTHVEN’S WHIP SNAKE

ast ti cop his schott~r ~ t h v e ~ i A Lateral light stripe not involving fifthscale row; two to three stripes laterally ....

. .. ..... ... ... ....

................. .. ....SCHOTT’S WHIP

SNAKE

as ti cop his sch~ttischotti

There are some publicationsthat deal with either all or some of the major groups of species in Texas. Manyof these are popular books and field guides. The popular books and some of the field guides may not be found under each species,but are included here for general reference: Behlerand Icing (59.500),Blair (72.500)~ Cagle (203.100), Chaney (214.900),Conant (230.120),Conant and Collins (232.010, 232.011), Dixon (312.141),Dunlap (324.025)~Kiester (545.400), Petranka (726.100), Raun and Gehlbach (770.300), Rogers (786.120),Scott (813.475), Smitb and Brodie (854.079, Stanisze~ski (881.050), Tennant (1003.2~0,1003.260), Thomas (1oo3.300, roo3.310), Tyning (1035.700), Wright and Wright (1095.100).Two book reviewsare also worthy of mention: Conant (230.110)and Kroll(573.310). Readers interestedin the publications concerning fossil amphibians and reptiles of Texas may wish examine to the more than 170 titles inthe following list. About halfof the citations do not appear in the text of this book because theyare extinct Cretaceous fossils, or pre-Pleistoceneextinct species: 0.015,4.003, 9.170, 13.100, 13.120, 14, 55.200, 59.700, 59.710, 59.715, 121.500, 143.510,144.010, 145, 14~.010,148.010,149.550, 198.420, 204.950, 212.525, 216,216.200, 216.209,216.210,216.211,218.200,278,278.050,293.800,299.080,299.081, 299.082, 3 2 2 . 0 0 1 , 3 3 4 , ~ ~ o . o o ~ , ~~~~.~10,356.201,356.205,384.210, ~~.~oo, 387.450, 388.500, 394.400, 400, 432,100,458, 458.200,465.010,465.050, 4~7,4~8~4~9,470,470.400~ 480~48~.~oo,484.500,489,49o, 491,492,493, 494,495, 495.010,495.0m495.030~495.040,49~.050, 495.080,495.081~ 495.082,495.083,495.085,495.350,@5.450,~ ~ 5 . ~ 5 ~ , 5 0 8 . 0 5 0 , 5 o 8 ~ o 5 ~ , g11.504, ~~2.~1o,526.201,528,532.460,~~~.~o~,573.508,573.800,573.801, 573.810,578.050,578.051,578.065,~~~.~oo, 581.200, 581.202, 581.204, 581.206,585.050,602.200,602.550,609.350,609.500,610,611,612.095,614,

625.400,625.410,625.411,625.412,625.413,625.414,625.500,639, 645.020, 649,660,661,661.100,675.500,6~~.~1o, 681.300, 700.010, 700.020, 700.025, 713.050, 718.100, 720.231,720.232+720.233, 720.234, 720.235, 720.236. 720.237, 720.238, 720.250, 720.350, 720.400, 721, 732.550, 746.100, 770.200, 784.065, 784.075, 786.200, 786.210, 794.350, 801.200,817.400,818, 821, 821.100,821.200,821.305,821.307,821.309,~o~.~oo, 904.600,904.810,910, g1o.~oo,974.600,974.601,974~602,974.615,1oo~.2~~, 1oo~.~~~,1006.500, 1006.510,1008,100g,1045.220, 1045.230, 10~~.23~,1056,1063.340,1081.185, 1081.187,1081.188,1081.190,1084.100,1101. An important reference for all paleontologistsis Pleistocene A ~ p h i ~ i uand n s ~eptilesin NorthA ~ e r i c by u Holman (495.082).

50

A ~ p h i ~ i uand n s ~eptilesof Texas

Order Caudata Suborder Trachystomata Genus Siren Linnaeus S ~ s t e Nuturae ~a 1766,12(2):addenda (unpaginated) Siren i n t e r ~ e ~ a Lesser Siren (Map I) Siren i n t e r ~ e Le ~ aConte 1827.Jh a d . Nat. Sci, Phila. 1827,Ist ser., 5 : 322.

KEFEKENCES: 9.160,13,29, 37,63, 74, 137.005, 144.010,162, 171, 194, 211,223, 2 2 8 , 2 3 1 , 2 3 2 . 0 1 0 , 2 3 2 . 0 1 1 , 2 5 0 , 2 8 9 , 3 1 ~ . 1 ~ 1 , 3 1 ~ . 1 ~ 2 , 3 1 2 . 1 ~ ~ , 340.050, 372.900, 375.500,383,394.200,394.500,395.I00,424,425,442.005, 442,278,454.352,480.200,sog.575, 532.200,585.200,614.400,614.410, 614.420,614.600,615, 622.208,625.414,626.510,710,718.170,718.175, 726, 962,1092, 1098, 736, 753.400,784.100,809,814,858,913,914,928,932,947, SUBSPECIES: netti~giGoin 194.2. Ann. Carnegie Mus, 29: 211. COMMENTS: The museum record for DickensCounty is probablythat of an

escapee. Gehlbach and others (394.200,394.500, 395.100) describe the cocoon, aestivation, population ecology, and acoustic behaviorin the Texas population of S, i. nettingi. There is some controversyabout the relationship of this species to S. t e ~ a ~ a below. Siren te~ana Rio Grande Lesser Siren (Map I) Siren i n t e r ~ e ~ a t e ~ Goin a n a1957. ~er~etulugica 13 :37.

KEFERENCES: 56.402,162, 232.010, 232.011, 230.120, 340.050, 372.900,425, 443,496,614.400,61~.~1o,614.420,622.208,714. C O M ~ E N T SThe : taxon “texana”was described as a subspecies ofS. i n t e r ~ e ~ i a by Goin (425). Flores”Ville1aand Brandon (372.900) reexamined the type series of “te~ana”and discovered that theholotype was misidenti~edas a female, was

shorter in length (shrinkage in fluids?),and had one less costal groovethan was indicated in the original description.Flores-Villela and Brandon concluded that the holotype representedS. inter~ediaand that the type seriescontained two species, S. inter~ediaand S. ~acertina;they determined “te~ana”to be a synonym of inter~e~a, Paul Moler examined the blood proteins of S. i. n e ~ ~ i n gS.i ,lacertina, and S. i. texana, and he believes that thelarge siren of the Rio Grande Valley isnot lacertina (pers,c o ~ m , )Conant . and Collins (232.011) did not accept Flores-Villela an don’s proposedchange in the names of the Rio Grande sirens. Therefore, the Rio Grande Valley siren may stillrepresent the taxon “te~ana. ”

S~eciesAccounts 51

Iwill recognize“texana” as a potential species until evidence becomes available to determine the extent of sympatry in the two taxa and whether or not the two forms hybridize. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department placedthis species on their threatened species listin 1987.

Suborder Salamandroidea Genus Ambystuma Tschudi em. Soc. Sci. Nat. ~ e u c ~ a 1838,2 ~ e Z :92 Ambystuma ~ a c ~ l a t u ~ Spotted Salamander (Map 2) ~acerta ~acuZata Shaw 1802. Gen. ZuuZ. 3(1) :304. A m b ~ s t o mac~Za~um, ~a Stejneger 1902. Proc. Bid. Soc. as^. 15:239. REFERENCES: 5.320, 52, 63, 74,162,194,228,232.010, 312,141, 312.142,

312.144,323.011,383,454.400,4~0.200,573.543, 718.170,718.175, 753.400, 786,809,858,865,947,968,1009.100,1072.100,1092.

C O ~ ~ E N TThe S : spotteds ~ a m a n d eis r known only from extreme eastern Texas. This specieshas not been foundin the southern counties of east Texas since 1951.

A~bystumaupacum Marbled Salamander (Map 2) SaZumandra o ~ a c aGravenhorst 1807. VergZ. ~ b e r s i Zoul. c ~ ~Syst. 1807: 431. Ambys~u~ upacum, a Baird 1849. J.Acad, Nut, Sci. Phila., 1st ser., 2 : 283.

REFERENCES: 5.310, 52,63, 74,162,194,228, 232.010, 232.011, 24.0, 251, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 325, 375.500,480.200,509.575, 573.400,622.296, 643.600,718.170, 718.175, 753.4oa783.275, 786, 786.050,809,858,912,914, 915,928,947,968,IOO~,IOO, 1072,100,1092,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Scurry County (786,050). C O ~ ~ E ~ The T S :Wichita County (194)and McLennan County(915) records are erroneous, as is a museum record for Brown County. Recent east Texas studies by Foley (375.500) and Irwin (509.575)suggest that clear-cutting seasonally flooded hardwood forests may be detrimental to survivorship of this species. Those timber co~paniesthat leave streamside~ a n a g e m e n t zones within clear-cut hardwood forests, however, aid the marbled salamander in recolonizing secondary forest over time.

52 A m ~ ~ i b i aand n s ~eptilesof Texas

Am~ystoma talpoideu~ Mole Salamander (Map 2) S a ~ u ~ a ntalpoi~ea ~ r a Holbrook 1838.Nor~hAm. ~ e r p e ~ o3l:.117. A~~ystom ta~poideum, a Gray 1850.Cat. Batr: Grad. Brit.Mus, 1850:36. REFERENCES:

312,144,625,

9,9.525, 16, 52, 74, 232.010. 232.011, 718.170, 718.175, 786,858,1oog.1oo,1072.100. 753.400,

312.141,

312.1

C O ~ ~ E N TRecent S: museum records indicate that this species is relatively rare in Texas. The molesalamander is common in Louisiana, but the Sabine and other river basinsin eastern Texas mayact as dispersalbarriers to this species.

~ m ~ y s t o ~ a t e x a ~ ~ ~ Smallmouth Salamander (Map 3)

A ~ ~ y ~ti tgrin^^ u ~ a Tiger Salamander (Map 4) ~ a l a m a ~ti~rina ~ r a Green 1825.J.Acad. Nat. Sci, Fhila., 1st ser., 5:116, A ~ ~ ~ti~rinum, s ~ uBaird ~ 1849.J a Acad. Nat, Sci. F~ila.,2d ser., I :284.

~ E F E R E N C E S 26.120, : 37,564.01~63, 72.500, 74, 149.700,162, 194, 214.500, 223,228, 232.010, 232.OII, 251, 253, 293.300, 312.141, 312,142, 3 312.145,330, 330.910,383,393.OIO, 4.079 442.278,444, 451.5001 451.510 45~.10o,458.500,480,480~~00,4go, 495,4g5.030,~g5.040,4g5.0~0, 495.085, 521, 522.200, 529.500, 529.520, 529.550, 543.100, 545.535, ~87.10 613,622.297,622.298,626.510,630.300,634,642.060,662,665,683~200, 718.170, 718.175, 720.232, 720.233. 726, 732.100, 732.200, 732.210, 786, 786.320, 786.330, 786.400,786.410, 786.420,786.450, 786.500~809, 816.300,858~862.500,870, 871,883,885,g14,918,g22,g32,g42,947,gs1, g~~,967,1ooo,1oog.1oo, 1042.110,1048.400,1085.210,1092,1098.

SpeciesAccounts

53

FOSSIL RECORD: Delta, Knox, Llano, and Lubbock Counties (480,490,495,

495.0309 495.0401 495.050)‘ SUBSPECIES:

I :284; possibly

t i g r i ~ u ~ ; ~ a r vBaird u r t i 1850. u ~ J. Acad, Nat. Sci, Phi~a,, 2d ser., ~ e ~ ~ lHallowell u s u ~1852. Pruc. Acad. Nat. Sci, Phila. 6 :209 (near

El Paso). COMMENTS: This speciesand its associatedtaxa have been introduced widely in Texas as fish bait: thus the status of subspecies within the state may neverbe resolved. Additionally, in 1967Hurricane Beulah spread predatory fish into tiger salamander ponds in the Texas Coastal Bend, and these populationsare now believed extinct.

Genus A ~ p h i u Garden ~a In Smith, Currespu~de~ce of ~ i ~ ~ a1821, e u sI:333. A~p~iu~a tridact~l~~ Three-toed Amphiuma (Map 2) A~phiu~a

t r i dCuvier a c t ~ 1827. l ~ ~ me^. Mus. Nat. Hist. Paris 14: 708. 74,162,1g~,228,232.010,232.011,273,~1~.1~1,

REFERENCES: 40,63,

312.142, 312.144,480.200,482,~92,~95.050, 509.575, 532.200,626.510, 718~70,718.175.753.400, 794.320, 7g4.330,796,809, 821.100,858,949, 968,1092. FOSSIL RECORD: Harris County(492,~95.050,821.100).

C O M M E ~ T SThis : species is still moderately abundant in cypress swamps and oxbows on either side of the Neches Riverin the Big Thicket.

Genus ~ e s ~ u g ~ Baird ath~s

J. Acad, Nat. Sci, Phila. 1850,zd ser., I: 282.

~ e s ~ u g ~ a tauriculat~s hus Southern Dusky Salamander (Map 5) S a l a ~ a ~ d r a a ~ r iHolbrook c u l ~ t a 1838. Nurth Am. Herpetul. 3: 115. ~ e s ~ u g ~ a tauriculatus, hus Baird 1850.J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 2d ser., I:286. REFERENCES: 63, 74,162,175, 194,228, 23Z.OI0, 232.011, 232.900,295, 312.144~326,375.500,438,442.278,50g.575,598,633.500, 312.141,312.142, ,175, 753.400, 799, 809,816.800,858,10~$1,1049,1Og~.

COMMENTS: Although Raun and Gehlbach (770.300)

give the McLennan County recordas erroneous, it and Seifert and ~ u e r c h ’ (816.800) s record for County are identified correctly. These records may be the result of the larvae of this

Gutberlet et al. (442.278), however, have reported I). auriculatus from Limestone County, suggestingthat the more western reports may be valid distribution records unrelated to the bait industry. Genus E~rgcea Ra~nesque Kg. Gaz., ~ e ~ i n g t1822 o n (n.s.),~ ( g )3: SPECIAL COMMENT: The Texastaxa of Eurgcea are currently under investigation by D. M. Hillis, P. Chippindale,and A. H. Price (pers.comm.). According to these authors, there are approximately four undescribed species in addition to the recently describedE. s o s o r u ~The , aboveauthors are in the process of evaluating genetic data thatshould revealthe relationships of Texas aquifer salamanders.

Eur~cea ~ati~ans Cascade CavernsSalamander (Map 6) Eurgcea ~atitansSmith and Potter 1946. ~erpeto~ogica 3(4): 105. R E ~ E ~ E N C E5.110,g.525,42,44,45,45.100, S: 74,162,167.010,223,228,

232.010, 232.011, 274, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 340.050, 393.090,646,667, 667,100,677, 708,718.170. 718.175, 743,746.307, 775.100, 778.100, 786,809, 846,858,863,976.240,1044,104g. COMMENTS: ~ilstead's (646) record for KerrCounty is thought to be erroneous by Baker(45). This species known is only from Cascades Caverns in Kendall

County. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department placedthis salamander on their threatened species listin 1977. Eurgcea nana San Marcos Salamander (Map 6) ~ u r g c enana a Bishop 1941. Occas. Pap.Mus. Zool. Univ. M i c ~451 . :6. REFERENCES: 5.IIO,g.160, 9.525, 42,45,45.100,56,200,62,63, 74,144.010, 162,167.020,216,616,228,232.010,232.011,2~~, 312.141,312,142,312.144, 340.050,361,220, 391.002, 393.090,568.011,615,617,630,667,667.100, 718.170, 718.175, 725, 743, 746.307, 786,809,818.100,846,858,862.525,863,

873,976.210,976.220,1o~2.5oo. COMMENTS: S. Sweet has taken E. nana from Coma1 County (pers. comm.). According to Francis Rose, this species is still common at the mouth of San Marcos Springs (pers. comm.). The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department placedthis species on their threatened species listin 1977, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicehas listed this species as threatened on their endangered and threatened lists.

SpeciesAccounts

55

E ~ r ~ c~eotenes eu Texas Salamander (Map 6) E ~ r ~ c ~eotenes eu Bishop and Wright 1937.Proc. Bioi. Soc. us^, 50 :142,

KEFERENCES: ~.110,9.160,45,~~.100,56,56.200, 62,63,65, 74,144.010,162, 167.030,1~0.700,175, 194, 223, 228, 232.010, 232.011, 274, 312 312.144, 391.020, 393.090,454.100, j45.390,615,622.123,622.170,630,667, 667.100, 700, 718.170, 718.175, 743,786.065,809,818.100,858, 746.307, 786, 863,976~210,976,220,976.230,976.240,1o~~, 1092. C O ~ ~ ~ N This T S taxon : may consistof a species complex (several species; A.H, Price, pers.comm.),The Texas salamander is found from Sally’s Cavein Del Rio to the Jollyvilk Plateau north of Austin. Sweet’s (976.230)paper is the most recent compre~ensivework on the taxonomy and distribution of E. neotenes.

E~r~ceu ~~udri~igitutu Dwarf Salamander (Map 5) Sulu~undru~ ~ u ~ r i ~ g iHolbrook t u t u 1842.N o r t ~Am.~erpetol.5 :65. E ~ r ~ c~~udridigitutu, eu Dunn 1923.Proc. New E~gl.Zool, cl^^ 7 :40,

K E F E K E ~ C E S :63, 74,162, 232.010, 232.011, 312.141, 312,142, 312. 375.500, 391.002, 509.575, 595,622,296,671,672.100, 718.170, 718.17 783.~75, 786,809,858,865,947,1o~~,1072.100,1o~~.125, 1092.

C O ~ ~ E N TA S museum : record for Tarrant County is erroneous. The dwarf salamander is relatively commoneast of a line between Conroe and C o ~ e r c eespe, cially in closed canopy pine-oak forests.

E ~ r ~ cso e uso^^^ arton Springs Salamander (Map 6) E ~ r ~ cseou s o r ~ Chippindale, ~ Hillis,and Price 1993.~erpe~ologicu 49(2): KEFEKENCES: 216.613, C O ~ ~ E N T The S:

312.144.

arto on Sprin s salamander was recognized as a po~ulationof

a number of years, Its recent description as a species new to science the importance of having many isolated springsalamanders t ~ o u g h ds Plateau of Texas. This species is listed as federally endangered by the U.S. Fish and ~ i l d l i f e ervice. S

Eur~cea tri~ent~era Comal BlindS a l ~ a n d e(Map r 6) Eur~cea tride~t~era Mitchell and Reddell 1965. Tex. I. Sci, 17(1):14. ~ E F ~ ~ E N C 5.IIO,9,160, ES: 9.525, 144.010, 232,010, 232.011, 312.141, 312,142,~ 1 2 . ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ o . o ~ o , ~ ~ ~ . o ~ o , 6 718.170, 6 7 , 6 6 7 .718.175, 100, 746.307, 774,7~5.~oo,778.100,976.200,976~240,1o4~.

C O ~ ~ E N T The S : Comal blind salamander is a subterranean salamander of limestone caves and sinkholes in arts of Comaland Bexar Counties. The TexasParks and Wildlife ~epartmentplaced this species as t ~ e a t e n e don their 1997threatene~and endangered species list.

Eur~cea troglo~~tes Valdina Farms ~alamander(Map 6) E ~ ~trogXod~tes ~ c e Baker ~ 1957.Tex. I. Sci, 9(3):329. ~ E F E R E ~ C E 5.IIO,9.160, S: 9.525, 42, 43, 232.011, 718.170,

312.141, 718.175,

45,45.100, 144.010,228, 232.01 312.142, 312.144,3~3.090,617,667,667.100, 391.002, 708, 775.100, 778,100, 786, 976.240, 1044,1049.

C O ~ ~ E ~This T S salamander : is known only fromthe Valdina Farms l ~ e s t o n e sinkhole in the northwestern part of Medina County, The TexasParks and Wildlife ~epartmentplaced this salamander on their threatened species listin 1977.

Genus ~ l e t ~ oTschudi ~on ~ eSoc. Sci, ~ Nat, , Ne~c~ateZ 1838:92 rlet~odo~ al~ag~Za Western Slimy Salamander (Map 7 )

~ l e t ~g lo~~t i ~o o~saX~agu~a us Grobman 1944.Ann. N.Y: Acad. Sci. 45 :283. r l e t ~ o aZ~agula, ~ o ~ Highton 1989.IlX. BioZ. ~ o ~ 57: o 1-78. g ~ ~ E F E R E ~ C E45,63, S: 74, 86.100, 99, 1~~.o1o,162,1~~,228,229,232.010,

,312.141,312.142,312.144, 325,326,391.002,436,451.500,

~~~.o~o,~~~.~oo,568.011,611.130, 481,481.002,~95.o2o, 615,618,630,679, 718.170, 718.175, 7 5,774,775.100, 778,809,858,862.5 73,912,914,915,947,964,967,104g~ 1092,1098. FOSSIL R E C O R ~Kendall : county (495.020,495.050). C O ~ ~ E ~ Raun T S : and Gehlbach (770.300) question records of this species from Mc~ennan,Walker, and Upshur Counties. The cave records (775)from

San Saba Countiesare in doubt. The Upshur Countys~ecimenswere e x a m ~ e dand are E! al~agula;they represent the only known ~eld-co~ected specimens of the taxon outside of the E d ~ ~ r d s

Plateau. Highton (481.002), using geneticdata, has elevated E! g. albagula to a distinct species. Plethodon serratus Southern Red-backed Salamander (No Map) Plethodon cinereusserratus Grobman 1944.Ann. N.Tr: Acad. Sei. 45( :306. 7) Plethodon serratus, Highton and Webster 1976.~ v o l u t ~30(1): o n 33-45. REFERENCES: 232.010,232.011,~12.1~1. C O M ~ E ~ T This S : taxon was treated as E! cinereus under the heading of “species of uncertain position’’ in Dixon (312.141). The recordof E! cinereus (= serratus; 0. Sanders Coll. No.556)from Fern Lakenear Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County, has not been found Texas, taken on May 5,1940,remains a mystery. This species since itsoriginal discovery,and herpetologistshave searched the area over anumber of years. I assume that the species has been extirpated from the state, A population of this species existsin Louisiana, 85 air miles (137l m ) east of Fern Lake(Highton and Webster 1976).

Genus ~ p h l o ~ o lStejneger ge Proc. US, Natl. c us. 1896~18 :620 ~ p ~ l o ~ rathbuni olge Texas BlindSalamander (Map 6) ~ p h l ~ ~ r~thbuni o l g e Stejneger 1896.Proc. US. NatL Mus, 18 :620. REFERENCES: S, 5.110~9.525, 144.010,146,162, 223,228,

42,43,44,45,58,59.430, 63,66, 74,136,14 232.010, 232.011, 274, 312.141, 312.1

318, 3237 3251 326,342, 343, 3441 3457 346, 3477 350,353, 38 393.090,427,475,476,484,545.700,603.200,667,667.100,676,678,679, 680,682, 708,711, 718.170, 718.175, 732,743, 746.307, 775.100, 8~8.1oo~846,858,863,890,907,914,977,1036,1037,1038,1039,1040,1044, 104~,1084,1092. C O M ~ E N T SThis : speciesand I: robusta below have been treated as members of

the genus ~ u r ~ cine recent a years. The generic status of the two speciesremains controversial. For an excellent account of the spermatophoredeposition and breeding behavior of this rare salamander, see Belcher(59,430). The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department placedthis species on their endangered species listin 1974,and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicehas included this species on their federal endangered species list.

58

A ~ p h i b i aand ~ s ~eptilesof Texas

~ p ~ l o ~ oro~usta lge Blanco BlindSalamander (Map 6)

~ p ~ l o ~ oro~usta l g e Potter and Sweet 1981.Copeia 1981(1):

70. 5.110, 232.010, 232.011, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, ~~~.00~,603.200,718.170, 718.175, 738.300. COMMENTS: I do not accept Potterand Sweet’s (738.300)arguments that Longley (603.200)is the author of this species. Longley’sendangered species report on T, r a t ~ ~ uisnnot i primary literature, is not duplicated insuch a manner thateach REFERENCES:

340.0

copy isidentical to the next, and he did not suggest that it was a newspecies description. His references to the species name came froman unpublished thesisby Potter; in every case, Longley ascribed the name to Potter. Longley didnot designate a type species, or give a diagnosis or description, sensu stricto. In the spirit of the 1985 revised Code of ZoologicalNomenclature,Potter and Sweet are the authors of the name ro~usta. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department placedthis species on their endangered species list in 1987.

Genus Nect~rusRafinesque In Blainville,1. ~ h ~ s i o1819, l.

88:417

~ecturus~ e ~ e r i Gulf Coast Water Dog (Map 8) Necturus ~ e ~ Viosca e r i 1937.Copeia 1937(2):123. REFERENCES: 5.110,74,1~~.010,162,228,232.010,232.011,~1~.1~1,

312.142,312.144,323.1o2,391.002, 471,

718.170,

718.175,

753.400,

796,

80

COMMENTS: The

Montgomery County museum record is fromthe SanJacinto River system and is the first record west of the Trinity River basin. This species occurs in small creek systems of the Big Thicket.

ae

Genus N o t o p ~ t ~ aRafinesque l~~s Ann. Nat, ~ e ~ i n ~1820, t o n x :5 Notop~tha~~us ~eri~onalis lack-s~otted Newt (Map9) ~ i e ~ i c t ~ l u s ~ i n i a t u s Cope ~ e r i1880. ~ i o ~Bull. a l i US. s ~ a t lMus. . 17:30. N o t o p ~ ~ ~ a l ~ u s ~ eSmith r i ~ u1953. ~ a l ~erpeto~ogica is, 9(2): 98. REFERENCES:

9.160,56.402,63,

74,

86.100,

99,128,130,137.005,

32.010,232.011,250,251,31~.141,312.142,~12.1~~, 312.1

144.010,

325,340.050,383,391.002, 4.63,464,642.030,642~040, 718.170, 784.020,786,809,858,870,913, 926,967,977.639,1000,1092.

718.175,

SUBSPECIES: ~ e r i ~ o n u (see l i s above),

C O ~ M E N T SRaun : and Gehlbach (770.300)state that the Falls County(926)and Bexar County(162)records are erroneous. The Victoria County (913) record may represent N. viriaescens, and the Duval County record is unverified. This specieshas become endangered in Texas because of the pesticides and herbicides usedt ~ o u g h o uits t distribution in Texas. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department placedthis species on their endangered species list in 1987.

N o t o p ~ t ~ u lviri~escens ~us Eastern Newt (MapIO) Triturus viri~escensRafinesque 1820.Ann. Nut. ~ e ~ i n g I~:5 o.n N o t o p ~ t ~ a lviri~escens, ~us Smith 1953.~erpetolo~icu 9(2):98. REFERENCES: 63, 74,99,162,163,1~5,228,232.010,232.011,312.1~1,

-

312.142, 312.144, 375.500, 39I.002,451.500,451.510, 509.575,622.135, 622.296,622.298,642.010,643.600, 718.170, 718.175, 726, 753,400, 85% 865,913,914,915,928,947,968,1og2,1098. S U B S ~ E C I E Slou~siunensis : Wolterstorff 1914.A ~Mus. ~ Nut. , Mugae~urg2:283,is

786,809

the only taxon in Texas. C O M ~ E N T SNeither : the Hays Countyand Travis County records (162) nor a museum record for Duval Countyhave been verified. This speciesis much less common in east Texas since the introduction of the imported fireant.

Order Anura Suborder Opisthocoela Genus ~ ~ i n o p ~ rDumeril ~ n u s and Bibron ~rpetol.Gen. 1841,8: 757 ~ ~ i n o p ~ raorsulis ~nus

Mexican BurrowingToad (Map9) ~ ~ i n o p ~ raorsulis ~ n u s Dumeril and Bibron 184.1.Erpetol, Gen. 8 :758-60. REFERENCES: 5.100,9.160,9.525,113.804, 232.010, 232.011, 312.142,340.0~0,379.1oo,3~1.ooz, 513,718,170, 718.175, 786.

312,141,

C O ~ ~ E N T Specimens S: of this species havenot been taken in Texas since 1984. Gus Renfro, however, heard choruses of this frog in September of1998,following a tropical monsoon (pers. comm.). The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department placedthis species on their threatened species list in 1977.

60 A ~ p ~ i ~ iand u n~eptiles s of Texus

Suborder Anomalocoela Genus Scaphiop~sHolbrook North Am. ~erpetol.1836, I:85 Scaphiop~scouchi Couch’s Spadefoot (Map12) S c a p ~ i o p ~ s c oBaird ~ c h i 1854. Proc. Acad. Nat, Sei. P ~ i l a7: , 62.

REFERENCES: 5.100,1~.100, 20, 21, 27, 53.300, 74,79,98, 99,100.040,162, 217,228, 232.010, 232.011, 251, 254, 297, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 390, 39I.002,442,45I.500,451.510,454.IOO,495.030,497,509.210, 513, 519, 521, ~29.350,52~+510,533,545.549,545.620, 587.500,588.210,588.390,611.115, 619,622,297,626.510,642.060,662,665,683,200, 707.100,707.101,707.102, 714, 718.170, 718.175, 747.141, 753.400, 782, 786,809,816.300,858,865, 870,883,885,912,913,914, 915,917,918,924,945,947,951,952, 956,967, 977.210, 979,1000, 1021, IO42.120, 10~0.110,10~3,10~4, 1054.110, 1054.200, 1055.4.10,1064, 1072,050, 1072.113, 1072.175, 1 0 ~ 5 , 1 0 8 5 . 2 1 0 , 1 0 8 8 , 1 0 9 2 , 10~3,1098,1101. FOSSIL RECORD:Edwards County(495,030). COMMENTS: Couch’s spadefoot is a common toad of western and central Texas. It appears in roadside ditches following heavy thundershowers. Its plaintive call frequently is heard throughout the evening and the day following a heavy rain.

Scaphiop~s~ ~ r t e r i Hurter’s Spadefoot (Map13) S c a p ~ i p hurteri ~s Strecker 1910. Proc. Biol. Soc. ash. 23 :116.

R E F E ~ E N C E SO ~ IO :.O ~ I.IO ,, 20,27, 73,74,79,88,89,99,100.040,162, ZOS.005, 217,228, 232,010, 232.011, 297, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 312.145, 375.500, 391.002,438.410,442,454.I00,480.320~509.575, 515, 529.510, 614.110,619,622.297,622.298,714, 718.170, 718.175, 753.400, 765, 770, 782, 783.275, 786,809,829,858,860.014,860.030, 865,913,914,917,923,965,979, 1051, 1052, 1054.100, 1054.120, 1072.125,IO72.2OO, 1072.210, 1075, 1092, 1093.

COMMENTS: The behaviorof this species is similar to Couch’s spadefoot, but it is much less common in central Texas. There is some controversyas to the statusof the name hur~eri.Collins (223.450) elevated Hurter’s spadefoot to a distinct species, but others believe it should remain a subspecies(232.011).

Species A c c o ~ ~ t 61 s

Genus Spea Cope 1866

1.Acad. Nat. Sei.P~ila.,2d ser., 6 :81 Spea b o ~ ~ i f r o n s Plains Spadefoot (Map14) S c a p ~ ~ o bp ~o s ~ ~ ~Cope r o1863. ~ s Proc. Acad. Nut. Sci, P ~ ~ 15 l a :.53. Spea b o ~ b ~ r o nTanner s, 1989.Great ~ a sNat. i ~49(1):55. REFERENCES: 5.100,

5.245,20,26.120,27,

72.536,

79,98,100.040,142,162,

170.200,217,228,232.010,232.011,2~~, 251,253,297,312.141,312.142,

312.144, 330.910, 377.200, 379.110, 39I*002,4.51*500, 45I.~Io,499~500, 501, 529.510,611.115, 614.110,619,622.297,642.060,683.200, 718.700, 718.175, 816.300,858,883,885,914,922,979, 732.320, 753.400,801.500,809, 1004.450,1048, 10~4,1054.120, 1072.175, 1093, 1097.327. C O ~ M E N T SThere : is a curious gap in the distribution of the plains spadefoot toad (see Map14)that cannot be explained by current paleontological theories.

Spea ~ ~ l t i p l i c a t a

New Mexico Spadefoot (Map15) S c a p ~ i ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~Cope l t i p1863. l i c a Proc. t ~ s Acad. Nat. Sei.P~ila.15: Spea ~ ~ l t ~ p l i cTanner a t a , 1989.Great Basin Nat.49(1): 55.

52,

R E F E R ~ N C E S :5.100, 5.205, 5.245,21, 72.537, 5.343, 74, 79,98, IOO.O40,162, I7O.200, 217,228, 232.010, 232.011, 297, 312.141, 312.142, 312. 379.110,387, 39I.002,442,45I.500, 451.510,499, 501, 521, 533,602.1 602.516,614.110,622.297,662,665,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, [753.400,809, 816.300,858,870,883,885,914,917, 951,967,979,1021,1054,1o~4.120, 1055.410, 1072.050, 10~2.17~,1085.210, 1092, 1093. C O ~ M E N T SBrown’s : (170.200) review of the relationships betweenS, ~ a ~ ~ o ~ d

populations in California and populations east of California suggeststhat size, call structure, color, breedingseason, and other natural history information all point to two species being involved. Brown restricts S. ~ a ~to the ~ isolated o n California ~ population and uses the name S. ~ ~ l t i p l i c afor t a allremaining populations that once were consideredS. ~ a ~ ~ o n ~ , Wens and Titus (1072.175) have shown that morphological and genetic data support Brown and other recent authors. I follow Brownand Mens and Titus.

62 A ~ p ~ i ~and i a~eptiles ~ s of Texas

Suborder Procoela ily ~ e p t o ~ a c t y l i ~ a e Genus Eleuthero~uct~lus Dumeril and Bibron 1841 Erpetol. Gen. 8 :620 Eleuthero~ct~lus uugusti Barking Frog (Map16) H~loaes uugusti Duges 1879.In Brocchi, Bull, Soc. PhiIos, Puris, 7th ser., 3 :21. H~luctophr~ne uugusti,Lynch 1968.Univ. Kuns. Publ. Nat. Hist. 17:511. ~leutheroauct~lus uugusti,Lynch 1986. Herpetologicu 42 :254. REFERENCES: 21, 74,133,162,223,228,232.010, 232.011, 243,251, 297, 312.141, 312.142,360, 379, 391.002, 394,454.I00,495.050, 5339 514, 516, 611.010,618,639,656,683.200, 709. 718.170, 718.175, 720.233, 731, 774, 775,100, 778, 780, 816,816.500,858,870,871,882,885,912,914,~15, 786,809, ~2~,947,957,964,967,1ooo,1042,1092,1og3, 1098,1102,11o5, 1106.100. FOSSIL RECORD: BeXar COUllty (495,050,639, 720.233). SUBSPECIES: lutru~s Cope 1880.Bull. US.Nutl. Mus. 17: 25. COMMENTS: This species shows continuous a distribution along the Balcones Escarpment, but is scattered widely throughout isolated localities elsewhere. Some information existson its eggs,larval development, and reproductive be516). Zweifel(1102) discussesthe barking frog’s habitat in havior (Jameson; 514, Texas and elsewhere.

~ e p t o a u c t ~lubiu~s l~s ~hite-lippedFrog (Map9) C~stignathuslubiulis Cope 1877.Proc, Am.Philos, Soc. 17:90. ~eptoauct~lus lubiulis, Brocchi 1881.~ i s s i o Sci. n Mm., 3d pt., 2d sec. :20. REFERENCES: 5.100,9.160,9.525, 74,162,228,232.010,232.011,286, 312,141,312.142, 379?391.002,393.0go,~3o.o~o,478.200,478.210,691, 718,170, 718.175, 809,858,870,988,1ooo,1089,1092,1og3. COMMENTS: The specificname was changed tofrugilis by Heyer (478.210) who considered itthe oldest availablename. Dubois and Heyer (319.800), however,

have shown that the names ~ubiulisCope andfrugilis Brocchi were published the same year but that Cope’sname appeared first. This frog may have been extirpated from Texas through the continuous dispersal of organophosphate chemicals inthe Rio Grande Valley. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department placedthis species on their endangered species list 1988. in

SpeciesAccounts

63

Genus S ~ ~ r ~ oCope p~us Am. Nat. 1878,12:243 SPECIAL C O ~ ~ E NHedges T : (1989)studied the genus ~leutheyoauct~lus from the Caribbean islands in his review of the phylogeny of those species. Hisdata suggest exican genera S ~ Y Y ~and O ~~ o~mUo ~Su c t ~are l u sparap~yletic, and he synonymizes them with ~ l e ~ t ~ e r o ~ a c t ~ l u s . Hedges, however, failed to examine species of either S ~ Y Y ~orO~ ~ o m~oU a uSc t ~ l ~ s regarding their behavior, morphology, or genetic characters. Therefore,I do not follow hisarrangement, and retain both genera as distinct groupsof species.

S ~ r r ~ o c~stignuthoi~es p~~s cumpi Rio Grande Chirping Frog (Map I7 )

P ~ ~ l l o ~ u t e s c ~ s t i g ~ uCope t ~ o i1877. a e s PYOC. Am. Philos. Soc. 17:89. S ~ y y h o p c~stignut~oiaes ~~s Cope 1879.Proc. Am. P~ilos,Soc. 18 :268. ~ E F E ~ E N C E 9.160, S: 9.525,49.100, 74,139.650,162,223,228,232.OIO, 232.011,293.100,312.141,312.142,312.144,340.050, 391.002, 470.010, 626.501,630.400,683.200,718,170, 609.375,611.005, 616,200,622.17r, 718~75,809, 858,870,871,893,977.639, 1000, 1091,1092,1og3. S ~ ~ S P E C I EcSa: ~ pStejneger i 1915.PYOC. Biol. Soc. us^. 28 :131. C O ~ ~ E N TRio S : Grande chirping frogs have been introduced accidentally into Corpus Christi, Dallas, Houston, Kingsville, Tyler, San Antonio, and county fairgrounds near La Grange. Thisintroduction was likely via the potted plant trade from nurseries in the Rio Grande Valley, and the introduction event probably occurred after the four-day hard freeze of 1984. S~yyhophus g~ttilutus Spotted Chirping Frog (Map 42) ~ u l a c ~ ~g~ttilu~us l o ~ ~ Cope s 1879.PYOC. Am. Philos,Soc. 18 :264. S ~ y r ~ o pg~ttilutus, h~s Boulenger 1888. Proc. ZooL Soc. Lond. 2 :204. ~ E F E ~ E ~ C 9.160,9.525,21,162,228,232.010,232.011,290.200,292, ES: 312.141,~1~.1~2,~1~.1~~,3~o.o5o,391.002,~g~.ogo, 521,568.011,611.005, 615,626~510,656,665,718.170,718.175,~25, 809,811,1og3. ~ O ~ ~ E N Calls T S :of this species are reported fromthe east side of the Davis

Mo~ntains,Jeff DavisCounty (King, pers. comm.). S~rr~o~hus ~arnoc~i Chirping Frog (Map 18) ~~~

495.050,497.200, 509.052, 509.$52,516, ~17,610,611~005,612.052,613,618, 655,660,662,676,679,680,015,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 720.232, 775~00,778, 780,8og,858,860.014,860.030,865,~1~, 956,957,967,roo8, 1033,103491055.4IOt1092,1093FOSSIL RECORD: Ed~ards, Foard, andIn ' ox Counties (480,495.030,495.050, 610,1008).

C O M ~ E N T SKing : anda field party from TexasC ~ i s t i a n University heard calls of this species in CastleGap County Park, Upton County (pers. cormh.). M,J.Forstner suspectsthat thereis a morphological gradient insize and color pattern between the cliff and spotted chirping frogs (pers. comm.). It seems evident that Big Bend and Edwards Plateau chirping frogsare closely related, and roba ably represent the same species. Reproductive behavior is iven in Jameson (516).

Genus Acris Dumeril and Bibron ~rpetol.Gen. 1841,8:506 Acris erepitans Northern Cricket Frog( Acris crepitansBaird 1854.Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei, P ~ i l7: ~,

59. 4.450, 5.100,21, 33,59.200, 74, 85,76,84, 92, IOO.O4O,I13.700, 122,139,146,162,175, 195,196, 202,2O4,IOO,216,223,228,230.140, 232.011, 251,253,277,400$ 312.141, 297, 312.142,312.144,312.700, 329,336, 391.002,~~2.278,451.~00,451.510,454..100,480,489,4.90, 491,495.050, PI, 5-15, 532.200~545.541, 547,588.210, 588.390,592,597, 509.200,509.575, REFERENCES:

6o1,602.514,610,611,613,615,622.150,622.202,622.232,622.296,622.311, 625.100,625.102,642.060, 655,656,662,683.200,687.500,706, 714,718.170,

718.175, 720.232,726,736,749, 751, 752,753, 753.400,753.600~ 783.275, 791,045, 791.055, 791.056, 80g,816.120,858,862.525,865,8~0,8 882,885,907,912,913,914, 915,918,919,922,924,927,928,930, 932, 951,952,956,957,964,965,966,967,968,1048.541~10~0.165, 1063.100, 1072.100,1o~~.1~~ 1072~200,1072,210,1o~2.31o, 1092,1093,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Denton, Foard, Hardeman,Knox, and Lubbock Counties(216, 480,489,4~0,~91,49~.050,610).

S U B S ~ E C I E Screpitans; : ~ l a n c Harper ~ ~ r 1947. ~ Proc. ~ i o lSoc. . as^, 60: pa^^39; ~ i c oBurger, l~ Smith,and Smith1949.J Tenn. Acad. Sci. 24(2):131. C O ~ M E N T SThere : is no evidence that Acris g r ~ l loccurs ~ s in Texas.Ryan (791.045,7g1.055, 791.056) and his associates have studied the behavior of chard's cricket frog forthe past 12years.

Species Acco~nts 65

Genus Hylu Laurenti Syn. Rept. 1768 :32 Hylu arenicolor

Canyon TreeFrog (Map42) Hyla urenicolorCope 1866. J.Acud, Nut, Sci. hil la. 2(6):84. REFERENCES: 5.100,9.525,26.120,54.800,56.401, 74,85,86.100,87,99, 127, 130,162,232.010,232.011, 312.141, yz?~q.4,330.910,332.020,387, 521, 522.100,533,648,665,683.200, 700, 732.300, 732.310, 785,809,811,821.300, 858,870, 871, 883,885, 914,1000, 104~.210,10~5.~10,1092,1093. C O ~ ~ E N T The S : El Paso, Texas, locality of H. urenicolor is represented by the cotypes of H. copii Boulenger (127).R,W. Webb has suggested that H, uren~colorcurrently is unknown in El Paso County (pers. comm,).The cotypes of H. copii may not have been taken at El Paso, but were shipped from there. Thus, El Paso becamethe type localityby error, a common problemof early herpetological records from the western ~ n i t e dStates. The canyon tree frog iscommon in wet canyons of the Chisos and Davis Mountains of west Texas. H ~ lchrysoscelis a Cope's Gray Tree Frog (Map 20) H ~ l u ~ e ~ o rchrysoscelis ulis Cope 1880.~ ~ 1 US. 1 . Natl. Mus, 17:29. Hylu chrysoscelis, Johnson 1966. Tex. J.Sci, 18(4): 361. REFERENCES: 5.100,~2.~00,85,98,99,212.700, 222.005, 232.010,232,011, 312.141,312.142,312.144, 312.145, 372.100,391.002, 399200,438.410, 454.100, 523, 525,526,588.210,588.390, 593,614.110,617.500,617.510, 718.170, 718.175, 732.310, 732.330, 753.~00,753.510, 753.610,753.640, 1072.113, 1072.125. C O ~ ~ E N T H. S : chrysoscelis is frequently confusedwith H. versicolor because they are essentially identical in appearance. Much of the current literature includes one or both species asif they were one, and most museums maintain only one container labeled H, chrysoscelis/versicolor: Because call pulse rate and/or blood cells and karyology are the only waysto separate the species, both species stillare confused throughout their distribution. Map 20 shows a composite distribution of both species. H ~ l cinereu u Green Tree Frog (Map 21) C ~ l u ~ icinereus tu Schneider 1799.Hist, A ~ p h i bI, :174. H ~ l cinereu, u Garman 1891.Bull. Ill. Stute Lab.Nut, Hist, 3: 189. REFERENCES: 5.100,53.300,

56.100,61, 72.533,74, 85, 86.100, 87, 139,162,

66 A ~ ~ h i ~ iand u n~eptiles s of Te~us

175,204.100, 222.005, 228, 230.130,232.010,232.011,251,293.600,2~~, 299, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 312.145,321.OIO, 375.500,384.221, 391.002,4.05, ~~o,~~~.1oo,464,480.421,~o~.~~~,509.600,52 543,588,210, 2.100,~~g.~~o, ~~2,601,612.051,614.110,625.541,626.503,643.600,683.100,687.500, 714, 718.170, 718.175, 726, 732.310, 736, 753, 753.400, 765, 770.300,786.060, 786.215,809,858,860.030,862.500,865,912,913,914,~1~, 918,924,928,932, 935,956,964,965,966,968,969,985,1042.110,1072.113, 1092,1093, 1098. COMMENTS: The Real County

(770.300) is probably valid.

record questioned by Raun and Gehlbach

This frog is still relatively abundant in the presence of imported fire ants.

Hyla sq~irella Squirrel Tree Frog (Map22) Hyla s ~ ~ i r e lSonnini la and Latreille1802. Hist. Nat. Rept. 2: 181. REFERENCES: 5.100,74,86.100, 87, 90,162,228, 232.010, 232.011, 297, 312.141,312.142,312.144,375.500,391.002, 405,463,!jo9.575,588.210,.592, 614.430,622.296,622.298,626.504,687.500, 702, 718.170,0718.175, 732.310, 736, 753, 753.400, 780.050,809,858,913,~1~, 967,968,1092,1093. COMMENTS: The Bexar County record(914,967) is erroneous,but the Bowie County record(968) is probably valid. This species is noticeably abundant the in Big Thicket.

Hyla ve~siculur Gray Tree Frog (Map 20) Hyla versiculur Le Conte 1825.Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist, N.X I :281. REFERENCES: 5.100,74,85,87,98,99,122,162,195,~05.110,212.700,216, 223, 228, 232.010,232.011,251,293.600,297,312.141,312.142,312.144, 312.145, 372.100, 375.500,381,391.002,495.030,495.050,509.575, 523, 525, 610,611,614.110,617.500,617.510,632.297, 526, 542,588.210, 592, 593, 718.170, 718.175, 726,yv.310, ~ v . 3 3 0 ~ 7 3 750, 6 , 753, 753.500, 753.510, 753.610, 753.640, 765, 783.275,786.215,809,856,858,865,912,914,915,922, ~ 2 3 , 9 2 8 , ~ ~ 2 , 9 4 7 , 9 6 4 , 9 6 7 , 9 6 8 , 1 0 4 2 . 1 1 0 , ~ o ~ 2 . 1 1 3 ,1072.200, 10~2.~2~, 1072.210,1092,1og3. FOSSIL RECORD: Edwards, Foard, and Lubbock Counties (495.030,4.95.050, 610,611). COMMENTS: See c o m ~ e n tfor s H. c~rysoscelisconcerning identificatio~of this species. This species is still onethe of most c o m ~ o tree n frogs ineast Texas.

Species Acco~nts 67

Genus Pseuducris Fitzinger Syst. Rept. 1843:31

'

Pseuducris clurki Spotted Chorus Frog (Map 23) Helocuetes clurki Baird 1854.Proc. Acud. Nat. Sci. P~ila.7: Pseuducris c~urki,Smith 1934.Am, ~ iNut.~15 :462, .

60.

REFERENCES: 5.100,5.221,20,30,74,92,94,98,122,162,189,198.605, 204.100,205.110,216,220.140,228,232.010,232.011,232.~~5, 253,312.141,

312~142,312.144,333,391.002,438.410,442.278,~54.100, 480.380,495.040, ~22.100,529.510,536,588.390, 591,~92,594,605,610, 4g5.050,~15,519, 616.200,622.116,622.125,622.150,622.296,625.542,626,502,638,644, ~01.~~0,718.170,718.175,726, 732,115,~32.~10,765,802.311,809,850,858, 865,912,g1~,~51,~5~,1021,1072.100,1072.210,1092,1og3, 1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Foard and Lubbock ~ounties (495.040,495.050,610).

~ o ~ M ~This N ~species s : is fairly common in central Texas, but restricted to roadside ditches and irrigation ponds in thepanhandle area of Texas. Pseuducris c r ~ c ~ e r Spring Peeper (Map5) Hylu cruci~erWied 1838.Reise Nord Am. 1B(5):275. Pseuducris crucife~Hedges 1986,Syst. Zool. 35:11. R E ~ E R E N C E S :5.100, 74,87,162,204.100,228,232,010,232.011, 312.141, 312.142,313.144,375.~00,3g1.002, 406,442.006,442.278,454.150, 509.575, 529.510, 595,626.510,638, 714, 718~75,726, 718.170, ~53.400,783.275, 809, 858, 865, IO72,IOO, 1072.125, 1093. C O ~ M E ~The T Staxonomic : status of H, cruc~eris complexand unresolved. Hedges (1986)proposed that H. cruc~erbelonged in the genus P s e ~ ~ c rbased is upon electrophoretic data. Hardy and Borroughs (454.150) proposed a new generic name, Puru~seuducris,based upon similar data. Both Cocroft(1994)and da Silva (1997)have suggested that H, crucifer is basal tothe species of Pseuducris, and that

H, cruc~erplus others, should be placed in Pseuducris. Until the controversy is resolved,I will followthe most recent field guide authors and place cruci~erin the genus Pseuducris, ~ s e u ~ c rstreckeri is Strecker's Chorus Frog (Map 24) Pse~ducrisstreckeri Wright and Wright 1933.H u n d ~ o oof~Frogs and Toads of the ~ n i t e dStutes and Cunada. 1st ed. I? 102.

~ E ~ E R E ~ C 5.1oo,20,26.210,~2.53~, ES: 74,85,86.100,92,94,98,102,122, 133,162,189,228, 230.150, 232.010, 232.011, 251, 297, 312.141,

68

A ~ ~ h i ~ iund u n ~s e ~ t i lof e sTexas

3

312.144,381,391.002,438.410,454.100,494,495, ~95.050, 498,515,519, 594,611,622.112,622.150,622.203,626.510,638,640, 522.100,588.210,5~2, 642,643.600,699.301, 718.170, 718.175,726,753.400,753.600, 765, 786,809, 858,860.030,865,874.500,~1~, 930,934,952,956,965,966,967, 968, 1oo~.~~o,1062,1072,200,1072.210,1092,1o~~. FOSSIL RECORD:

Hmdeman and Llano Counties(495,050,611). above). C O M ~ E N T SThis : frog isanother example of amphibian decline in Texas. By 1976,it had disappeared completely from the post oaksavanna of Brazos County, and probably other similar sites as well. This species terrestrial/fossorial is and breeds inephemeral ponds. Its froglets are more exposed to imported fire ant predation than other species of Pseudueyis. SUBSPECIES: styeekeyi (see

Pseudueyis triseriutu Striped Chorus Frog (Map 25) ~ ~tyiseriutu l u Wied 1838,Reise N o d Am. 1(4):249. Pse~dueyistyiseriutu, Schwartz 1957.Am. Mus. Novit. 1838:11. ~ E F E R E N C E S 5.100, : 74,85,98,122,162,182,189,228,232,010,232.011,

312.141,312.142,375.500,391.002, 442.278,463,464,509.575,536, ,~90,600, 605,625,638,644,718.170, 718.175, 718.202, 726, 732.730, 753.400~78 809,850,858,865,876,885,913,914,915,918,924,967,968,1042.110, 1072.100,1072.200,1072.210,1092,1og~.

suBspEc1Es:~eYiuyumBaird 1854.Froc. Acud. Nut. Sei. Philu, 7:60. C O M M E N T S : The Bexar County (967)and Burnet County(914,967)records of this species probablyrepresent E! eluyki, but identifications havenot been verified.

Genus Smiliscu Cope PYOC. Acud. Nut. Sei, ~ h i l u1865,17: ,

194

Smi~iseu~uudini Mexican Tree Frog (Map 9) ~~~u ~ u u ~Dumeril ni and Bibron 1841.Erpetol, Gen. 8 :564. Smiliseu ~ u ~ ~Cope n i1875. , Bull. US. Nutl. Mus. I :31. REFERENCES: 5.100,9.525,30,74,87,162,223,228,232.010,232.011,238, 251, 297, 312.141, 312.142, 320.110, 320.120, 340,050,387, 533,699.500,718.170,718.175, 753,786,809,858,870,871,913,914,967, 1092,1093,1098. C O M ~ E N T SThe : Bexar County(967)and Refugio County(913)records me cor-

rect identi~cations,but probably representaccidental introductions via tropical plants transported from the Rio Grande Valley. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department placedthis species on their threatened species listin 1977.

391.00

Genus Bufo Laurenti Syn. Kept. 1768 :25

Sufo u~ericanus American Toad (Map8) Bufo americun~sHolbrook 1836. North Am. ~erpetol.I:75.

REFERENCES: 5.100, 9,525,162, 170.310, 231.010, 232.011, 249, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 312,145, 391.002,454.332, 532.200,625,718.170,718.175,

~~~.1o1,860,014,1072.112,1084.100. FOSSIL RECORD: Lubbock County(1084.~00). SUBSPECIES: charles~ithi Bragg 1954. ~ a s s 1.~Bioi. a ~12:247. COMMENTS: The American toadis more widespreadthan formerly believed. Purther ~stributional data is neededto clarify the relationships betweenthe Houston toad andthe American toad.

Sufo cognatus Great Plains Toad (Map 26)

Sufo cognatus Say 1823. In Long, ~ x p e a~.

o Mts. c 2:190. ~ ~ 5.245, 9.275, 74,82,100.010,14O,162, 213.500,228, 232.010, 232.011, 253, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 384.210, 390, 391.200, 443*030,457;*5OO~45I*SIO, 4-91? 495*0409 495.050, 521, 5337545.5421 573.501. 602.512,611.115,614.130,620,622.297,639,642.060,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 720.239, 786.100,786.110,809,816.300,858,865,870,882,883,885, R E ~ E R E N C E S 5.100, :

~1~,922,965,1ooo,1085.210,1092,1og~. FOSSIL RECORD: Bexar, Hardeman, and Lubbock Counties (491,495,040,

495*0501639).

COMMENTS: Some of the fossil records may represent B. speciosus (495.050). This toad is still relatively common along Interstate IO in Pecos and Reeves Counties, following summer monsoonrains,

Bufo aebilis Green Toad (Map27) Sufo aeb~lisGirard 1854. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci.Phila, 7: 87. REFERENCES: 5.100, 21, 74,82,85,88, 93,98,100.010,118,I3O, 162, 213.500, 228, 232.010, 232.011,250,251,253,254,297,312.141,312.142,312.144, 391.002,454.100,513,515, 521,529.510,533, 545.535,545.543,588.210,

588.390,611.115,612.100,614.110,616.200,620,622,150,622.180,642.060,

665,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 765,800,802,809,811,858,870,882,883, 885,

70 A~phibiansand ~eptilesof Texas

912,9137 914,915, 9179 918, 9247 9357 941, 944, 9451 1000,1001,100~.~50, IO40.200, 1055.410,1085.210, 1092, 1093. SUBSPECIES: d e ~ i ~ii s~; s i ~Girard o r 1854.Proc, Aclad. Nlat. Sci. P ~ i ~ l 7: a . 88.

952,9569

9

COMMENTS: This smalltoad breeds in roadside pondsand ditches following heavy rains, It often is found calling from the same bodies of water as Couch’s spadefoot.

Bufo ~ o u s t o ~ e ~ s i s Houston Toad (Map28) Bufo ~ o u s t o ~ e ~Sanders s i s 1953.Herpeto~o~icla 9(1):26.

REFERENCES: ~.100,9.100,9.110,9,120,g.1~o, 9.200,~.5~5,82,85,86.100, 88,96,96.100,98,99,100.010, 113.800,113.810,141,1~0.~00, 170.320, 1 ~ 0 . ~ ~ 0 , 1 ~ 0 . ~ ~ 0 , 1 7 0 . 3 6 170.380,223,228, 0,1~o.~~o, 232.010, 232.011, ~12.1~1,~12.1~2,~12.1~~,320. 340.500, 1 0 0 , ~ ~ 0 361.200,384.264, .0~0, 391.200,~ ~ ~ . 0 ~ 0 , 4 2 6 . 4 0 0 ,~~~~~~..00~100,,~ ~ ~ . ~ 0 0 , 4 8 2 . 6 0 0 , 4 ~ 5 . 4 0 0 , 529.100,541, 587, 568.011,588.200,588.210,617.700,620,622.150,625.~10, 630, 718.170, 718.175, 725.401,746.308,746.400, 725.100, 753~20,797, 862.525,873,100~.500,1008.100,10~1.500. 797.101, 798, COMMENTS: The Houston toad is threatened by extinction through modi~cation of its habitat due to urbanization, agricultural practices, and lignite coalmining operations. Andrew H. Price currently is studying the population dynamicsof this toad and has done so since 1991(pers. cornm.). Numerous state and federal reports have beenwritten about this toad since it was placed on the federal endangered species listin 1971and the state endangered species listin 1975.

Bufo ~ l a r i ~ u s

Giant Toad (Map11) Ranla ~

~ Linnaeus r 1758. i Spt. ~ Nut. ~ I:211. Bufo ~ l a r i ~ uSchneider s, 1799.Hist, A ~ pI :~ 219. ~ ~ .

5.IOO,9.160,9,180, 9.525, 27,56.402, 70, 100.010, 74,82,85, 228,232.010,232.011, 312.141, 312.142, 340.050, 391.00 393.090,442.278,$51.500,451.510,513, ~2~.~20,588.300,620,683.200, 718.170,718.175,809,858,1000,1001,1002,10g~, 1100.210. REFERENCES:

137,006,162,

COMMENTS: The natural history of the native populations of this species has been documented(1100,210). This toad is still fairly cornmon in Hidalgo and Zapata Counties.

Bufu punctatus Red-spotted Toad (Map29) ~ ~ ~ u p u n cBaird t a ~and ~ sGirard 1852.Proc, Acad. Nut. Sci, la, 6 :173. REFERENCE§: 5.100,21, 35,SO, 53.300,56.401, 88, 7O,82, 93,9 162,223,228,232~010,~3~.o11,250,251,253,2~~, 312.rq1,312

3I2*I45,391*002,394, 4.02, 442*278,454.100,521, 529.500, 533,545.544, 587.500, 588.210,611.115, 612.100,614.110,620,622.297,625.200,626.510, 642.060,648,662, 665,683200,700, 718.170, 718.175, 775.xoo,802.311 16.300,822,858,865,870,871,883,885,91~,915,917,918,919, 30,935, 938, 952, 966,967,1ooo,1021,1o55.~1o, 956,964,965,

1088,1092,x093,1098. MENTS: The Brazos County record (50) is due to an accidental introduction via upstream flooding of the Brazos River. The Duval County and Starr County records (250,533)are valid. This toad is more commonareas in of limestone, where it livesbeneath flat rocks. Bufu speciusus

Bufu specius~sGirard 1854.Pruc. Acad. Nat. Sci. P ~ i l7: ~ 85. . R E ~ E R E N C E S :5.100,20, 21,26.120, 53, 88,74, 93,98,IOO.OI0,117,I62, 82, 1~5,196,205.r10,~13.~oo,223,228,232.010,232.011,248,251, 253,297,

312.141,312.142, 312.144, 390, 391.002,394, 394.4.00,402,442.278,44.3.030, 4510500, 45I.510,454.100,458.200,491,495.050, 507,513,515, 521,533,

.200,588.210,588.390,611.115,612.100,613,614.110,614.130, 620, 622.232, 622.296, 626.510,634,639,642.060,662,665,683.100,683.200,

718.170,

718,175,

720.238,

726,

753,

753.400,

765,

951,956,967,1ooo,1oo~.~5o,1o55.~1o, 1072.200,1072.210,1o~5, x085

1o88,1092,1og3,1098. FOSSIL

RECORD: Bexar, Culberson,Hardeman, and Lubbock Counties(394.400,

4~8.200,~91,~95.0~0,639). Some fossilrecords are confused with B, c u g ~ u ~ u s

(495.050). COMMENTS: The Texas toad is suffering from heavy pesticide/herbicide use in the Rio Grande Valley, There are fewer toads inthis region of when density studies were conducted by students from Texas College Station.

7 2 A ~ ~ ~ i ~an& i a~ enpst ~ lof e sTexas

.

775.

Bufo valliceps Gulf Coast Toad (Map 31)

ufi valliceps ~ i e g m a n n 1833.Isis 26(7):657. REFERENCES: 5.100,15,20, 32,37,43,49, 53.300,67, 72.531, 74,76,81, 83, 88,89,91,92,93,94,97,98,100,100.010, 100.400,162,1~o.3oo, 170. 170.~~0,170.600,19~, 204.400, 204.410, 205.005, 205.110, 213.500, 22O. 220,140,223,22~.~oo,228,23o.1~o, 232.010,232.011,248,250,251 312.141, 312,142, 312.144, 312.145, 372.225, 372.700, 375.500, 384.2

~5~.1oo,469,482.600,487,~~7.~oo, 498,509~575,513,533,573~320,587.500, 20,614.110,614,130, 618,620,622.150,643.519,656,662,679, 00,687.500, 701.500, 718, 718.170. 718.175, 726, 732.10 737,738,738.100, 753.400, 775.100,777,778,780.050,782, 765, 786, 791.050, 797.100, 798,809,818,858,865,870,90~, 797.101, 1005,1oo6,1033,1o3~, 1040,200,1048.548, 1072.200,1072.210,1o~~, 1088,1092,1og3, SUES~ECIES: va~liceps(see 738.100). C O ~ ~ EThere ~ ~ are S museum : records of this species for Brewster and El Paso Counties. TheEl Paso County recordrepresents an accidental intro~uction. This toad is still common in east Texas and along the Gulf Coastal Plainto ro~nsville.

ufo velat~s East Texas Toad (Map 32)

Bufo ve~atusBragg and Sanders 1951. ~ a s s J.~Biol. a 9~:366. REFERENCES: 67,68, 74, 100.010,139,143,162,195, 82, 205.005, 223, 228, 232.010, 232.011, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 375.500, 532,200,542, 568.011, 587,601,622.296,630, 718.170, 718.175, 753.400, 783.275, 797.100, 798,803,862.525,873,928,968. 797.101,

COMMENTS: The name associated with this taxon has caused

391.00 725,4

controversy since

1952.Conant (228,230.120) and Conant and Collins (232.010,232.011) stead-

fastly refuseto recognize the species ve~atus,b e l i e ~ i nit~to be of hybrid origin. 797.100, 797.101,considers 797,105) ita valid species. Sanders (797. B, velatus does not represent a intergrade population b e t ~ e e nB. W.woo~~ousii and B. W.fowleri, According to Conant and Collins (232.011), B. W. fowlerihas a “v~tually unspotted chest and belly,”three or morewarts in each of the dorsal dark spots, no greatly enlargedwarts on the tibia, and a parotoid reaches the cranial ridge behindthe eye. Accordingto Bragg and Sanders (143), the chest and occasionallythe belly of B. velatus, is highly spotted,the dorsum is darker, and the call is somewhat different. Thistoad is also considerably smaller in snout-urostylelength than typical B. W. woo~~ousii, but closer to the size of B. W, ~owleri. Species ~ c c o u ~ t 73 s

I will followSanders (797.101) until genetic and call differentiation studies are completed forthis toad.

Bufu wuuahuusii Woodhouse’s Toad (Map 33) Bufu wuuahu~seiGirard 1854.Pruc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila, 7:

86. 53,56,56.100,67,68, ~2.~~2,81,82,83,88,92,93,95,96,98,100.010, 100.040,122,1~~, 162, 170.300,170.310, 170.320, 170.340,170.370,170.600,196,204.318, 204.400, 205.002,21~.500, 216.631,223,228,2~o.1~o,232.010,232.011, 251,253, 297, 312.141. 312.142, 312.144, 312.701, 330.910,384.210, 3g1.002,438 443.o1o~443.o3o,45~.~o~,4~1.~1o,~~4.~oo, 474,482.600,489,4go, 495.030, 587,588.200,588.210,588.390,602.514, 4g5.050,507,526.040, 545.535, 602.515,614.110,614,130,622.150,639,665,681.300,682.300, 701.240, 718.150, 718.170, 718.175, 725.401, 726, 765, 780.050, 7g1.050, 798~00,8~9,811,816.300,858,870,873,883,885,91~, g13,g14,g15,917,918, 91% 924,927,932,944, g51,g52,956,967, 974.502~974.503, 1000, 1006,1034, 1040.200,1o~2.2~o, 1o~~.~1o,1072.100,1o~~.12~, 1072.200,1072.210, 1084.100,1085.210,1092,1og~, 1097,320. FOSSIL RECORD: Bexar, Denton, Edwards, Foard, and Lubbock Counties(489, 4g0,4g!j.o30,4g5.050,639, 681.300). SUBSPECIES: ~uuahuusii;~ u s t r ~Shannon is and Lowe 1955.~ e r p e ~ u l u ~ i c a 11(3): 185. C O ~ ~ E ~Raun T S :and Gehlbach (770.300) suggest that a record from Webb County (162)is questionable. In light of additional distributionalrecords, however, REFERENCES: 5.100,5.202,20,25,26.120,46,47,

it is probably valid. There appears to be an isolated populationof Woodhouse’s toads in southern Texas. Sanders (797,101) examined three specimens,one each from Hidalgo, Kennedy, and Brooks Counties. TheBrooks County specimen was normal in appearance, while the other two specimens showed some hybridization with L).vulliceps. This populationof toads probably has been extirpatedthrough hybri~zation events and pesticide applicationto farmland.

Suborder Diplasiocoela e Genus R a Linnaeus ~ ~ Syst, Nat, 1758,1 :210 Rana areuluta C r a ~ s Frog h ( ~ a 34) p Rana areulataBaird and Girard 1852.Pruc, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 6:

173.

REFERENCES: 5.100,5.11~,37,86.100,1~~, 162,1g5,223,228,232.010,

232.011, 251,265,800,285, 297, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 391,002, 456,463,464,480.320,621,624.100,625,626.510,630.200,687.502,718.170, 718.175, 736, ~~3.~oo,809,816.540,865,~1~,1062,1092,1og3, 1098, SUBSPECIES: areola~a(see

above). This speciesis u n c o ~ o in n Texas.James Mueller recently found an individual in Refugio County (in front of a quail nest in a Gulf cordgrass environment; pers. comm.). COMMENTS:

Rana ~ e r l a ~ ~ e r i Rio Grande Leopard Frog (Map35)

ex. Boun~.Surv. 2:27. 8,21,33, 55,56.401,59.650,61, 74, 76,92,94,137,162,195, 196,223,228, 232.010, 232.011, 250, 265.800, 312.141, 315, 312.142, 31 384.210,388.600,391.002,394,394.400,454.100, ~~8.~00,482.410,482.420, 495,495.050,509.210,521,547, ~~3.o~o,588.220,~~~.1o,611.115,613,622, 622.150,622.297,639,642.060,642.200,648,662,664,683,683.200,687, 712.200, 712.300, 714, 718.170, 718.175, 718.200, 732.720, 732.700, 765, 770, 77~.100, 777,778, 778.100, 782. 794.310,809,811,818,858, 794.200, 865,882,883,907,913,914,915,918,924,930,944,956,957,964,966,967~ 985,1oo1,1040.200,1o55.~1o, 1085.210,1092,1og3. FOSSIL RECORD: Bexar and Llano Counties(495,050).

Rana ~ e r l a n ~ eBaird r i 1859.US. REFERENCES:

C O M M E N ~ SSome : R. ~ e r l a n ~ eliterature ri references are included under the name R. pipiens,

Rana ~lairi Plains Leopard Frog (Map36) Rana ~ ~ Mecham, ~ i r i Littlejohn, Oldham, Brown, and Brown 1973.Occas. Pap, us, rex, r e c ~ ~ 18 n i: v3, I

5.203,72.500, 74,162,170.361,196, 232.010, 232.011, 253, 25 312.141, 312.142,312.144, 3~1.oo2,480,482.410,489,~~1,~~~.o~o, 495.050, 509.200,529.550,545.547,568.011, ~~~.~oo,6~3,622.150,622.297,642.050, 642.200, 718.158, 718.170, 718.175, 720.238, 732.700, 753.400, 786.44 816.300,865,883,922,951,952,1040.200,1092,1og3. FOSSIL RECORD: Foard, Hardeman, and Lubbock Counties(495.040,495.050). REFERENCES:

COMMENTS: See remarks under Rana pipiens,The plains leopard frog is locally common in ponds and cattle tanks in north-central Texas and the Texas Panhandle.

Species ~ccounts 75

Runu cuteshe~unuShaw 1802.Gen. Zool. 3:

106. 33, 74, 76,84, 91, 92,94,122, 123.500,1 139,162,170.340,175,195, 22O.I3O, 228, 232.010, 232.011, 297, 312.141, 312.142, 312,144, 312,145, 312.702, 375.500,384.210, 391.002,426.200, 4~7.7oo~490,494,495,495.o5o,497.~oo, 509.200, 432.IIo,442.278,464, 509*575,5II*510* 51.4, 529.5001 529.510, 532.202+545-545+545-548,547,569, 588.210,601,609.500,611.115,612.051,612,100,613, 573.542, 587.500, 616.200,622.116,622.150,622.296,622.298,625,401,625.403,625.404, 701.260, 701.280, 626.500,626.510,639,642.060,663,683.200,687.500, 701.300,714,718.170, 718.175, 721, 726, 736, 753.400, 765, 770 858,862.500,865,870, 883,885,912,913,g14, 915,918,927,928,930,932, 944,947195~, 952,956,957,966,967,968, 977.41o,985,1000,1042.110, 1o~2.12~,1085.210,1092,1og~. FOSSIL RECORD: Bexar, Delta, Llano, and San Patricio Counties(490,494,495, 4g5.050,609.500,721). REFERENCES: 5.100,5.204,

C O ~ ~ E N T Natural S: distribution of this species is difficult to define because of ~ d e s ~ r eintroductio~ ad into waters as a food resource. Bullfrogs are known to co~sumeanything they can swallow, Theyare co~sidered pests in Arizona because they consume rare and endangered vertebrates wherever they are introduced. R. cutesheiunu now occurs in Big BendNational Park, and in isolated backwater areas of the RIO Grande fromBig Bendto Laredo.

Runa c ~ u ~ i t u n s Green Frog (Map38) ~

u cla~ituns ~ u Latreille 1802.In Sonnini and Latreille, Hist, Nut. R e ~ t2: . 157.

REFERENCES: 5.100,~~.~~o,99,162,228,232.010,232.011,312.1~1,~12.1~2

312.144,312.145, 375.500,377.340, 377.375,391.002,432.1~1,442.278, ~o~.~7~,~32.2oo,545.548,464,601,612.050,612.051,630.200,635, 714, 789.300,809,865,885,904.800, 718.170, 718.175, 726,736, 783.275, 753.400, 943,968,1072,100,1072,112,1o~~,12~, 1084.100,1092,1og~. FOSSIL RECORD: Lubbock County (1084.100). S ~ B ~ ~ E C I cE ~S u: ~ i t u(see ns

above). iscommon throughout east Texas forests, but especially in the Big Thicket region. C O ~ M E N T S The : green frog

Runu g r ~ l i u Pig Frog (Map8) ~ u n gry~iu u Stejneger 1901. Pruc. US. Nutl. Mus, 24: 212.

REFERENCES: 5.100,5.112, 9.525, 74, 86,100,162,228, 232.010, 232,011, 312.141, 312.142,312.1~~,~~1.oo2,601,624.110, 718.170, 718.175, 780.050, 809, COMMENTS: The pigfrog is common in extreme southeastern Texas. Dueto freshwater management practices by state and federal agencies, however, the bullfrog is becoming a major competitor of the pig frogin areas in which they are in syntopy.

~ u n pulustris u Pickerel Frog (Map8) Runu pu~ustrisLe Conte 1825. Ann. Lyc. Nut. Hist. N.VI 1(2):282.

REFERENCES: 5.100, 74,162,228,232.010,232.011,271,~g5,312.141, 312.142,312.144,3g1.002,463,480.320, 5og.575,588.210,595,622296,625, 718.170, 718.175, 718.200,802.300, 802,308,809,855,865,1072.112,1og3. C O M M E ~ T SPace : (718.200) discusses the relationships of pickerel frogsto leopard frogs. Schaafand Smith (802.300)analyze the distribution of pickerel frogsin Texas.

~ u n ~ipiens u Northern Leopard Frog (Map 42) ~unupipiensSchreber 1782. Der Nutur~orsc~er 18: 185. REFERENCES: 74,162,196,228,232.010,232.011,312.141,~~1.oo~, 611.115,

718.170, 718.175~720.232, 720.238, 811.140, 882,883,1093. C O ~ M E ~ TR.S pipie~s : occurs only in the Rio Grande Valley of the greater El Paso area, southto Fort Hancock. is It known to be relatively commonalong the Rio Grande in New Mexico,and probably reaches its southern limit near the Quitman Mountains in extreme southern Hudspeth County,Texas. Carl Lieb,however, has made numerous efforts to locate samplesof this species in the El Paso area without success (pers. comm.). Prior to Mecham et al. (642.100),Pace (718.200),and Hillis’ (482.410) publications on the R. pipiens complex in Texas, most references recorded only R. pipie~s,its subspecies,or synonyms, as the Texas leopard frog.A careful examinatio~of localities mentioned in the earlier references allowed me to place the majority of the literature with one or more of the species ~ ~ e r l u n ~ ~e r~iu, i pipiens, ri, s p ~ e n u c e p ~ ucur~u~ rently recognized in Texas. Only a few references could not be placedwith any degree of certainty within the currently recognized species,and these are: 251,297, 390,463,490,506,621, 675,912, and 1098. Species Acco~nts 77

Rana sp~enucephala Southern Leopard Frog (Map 39) Rana sphenucephalaCope 1886. Pruc. Am. Philus. Soc. 23: 517. REFERENCES: 20, 72.535, 74, 76, 92,137, 139,162,195, 220.130, 22O,I4O,

228, 232.010,232.OII,265.800, 277.400, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 312.145, 323.102,375.500,377.340, 377.375,384.223,384.228,391.002,391.011, 438.44O,442.278,45r-.500,4~1,510,454.1oo, 454.332,464,482.420,492, 497.200,509.575~545.350,545.535,573.050,594.100,595,601,622,622.150, 622.297,642.200,683,687.500, 712.200,712.300, 718.170, 718.175, 718.200, 720.238, 726, 736, 753.400, 764.500, 765, 780.051, 783.275, 789.300, 794.200, 794.310,809,821.100,865,883,91~, ~1~,928,g~2,947,968,1040.200,

1042.110,1072.100,1o~~.12~, 1072.200,1072.210,1092,1093. FOSSIL RECORD: Harris County(492,821.100). ~ O ~ ~ E N See T S remarks : under Rana pipiens, This frog is extremely abundant in the Big Thicket of Texas. Duringa five-yearstudy of anurans in the Big Thicket, 15,153 individuals of 13 species of frog werecaptured. Of this number, 12,408 were southern leopard frogs (Foley;375,500,509.575).

Genus GastruphryneFitzinger Syst, Rept. 1843:33 Gastruphrynecarulinensis Eastern N~rowmouthToad (Map40) Engystu~acarulinensis Holbrook 1836.Nurth Am. ~erpetul, I :83. G~strup~ryne carulin~nsis,Stejneger 1910. Pruc. Biul. Sac, ash. 23 :166.

REFERENCES: 5.100,74, 78,80,85,86.100, 99,162, 193, 228, 232.010, 232.011, 251, 297, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 375.500, 390, 391.002,451.500, 4~1.510,463,i&72,480.320,509.575, 532.200, 542,626.510,687.500, 704.200, 704.210, 704.230, 704.240,718.170,718.175, 719,726, 736, 753.400, 765, 780.050, 783.275,809,858,865,892,913,914,9-a0,921,928,932,941,968,

1ooo,1042.110,1072.100,1092,1o~~. C O ~ ~ E N T Raun S: and Gehlbach’s(770.300) Cooke County record forthis species iserroneous. This specimenhas been reidentifiedas G. ulivacea, as have specifrom other midwestern. Texascounties in museum mens i d ~ n t i ~ as e dG. caru~in~nsis collections. Gastruphryneulivacea Great PlainsN~rowmouthToad (Map41) E n g y s t u ~ a u l i v a cHallowell e~~ 1856.Pruc. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila. 8 :252. Gastru~hryneulivacea, Smith 1933. Cupeia 1933(4): 217. 78 A ~ p h i ~ i a and n s Reptiles of Texas

REFERENCES: 5.100,5.220,

5.240, 20, 5.250, 21,26,26.120, 53.300,61, 72.555, 78,80, 85,92,94,99,113.804,122,162,1~3,205.110, 220.140, 223,228, 232.010,232.011,250,251,297,312.1~1,312.142,312.1~~, 312.145, 333.200, 364,391.002,404,405,451.500, 451.510,454.100,472, 473,490,495.050, 588.390,589,611.115,622.150,622.229,622.230, 497,513, 515,521, 588.210, 622.232,622.261,622.296,622.298,662,665,667,683.200,687.500, 701.230, 704.200, 704.220, 704.230, 704.240, 718.154, 718.170, 718.175, 719 753.400,765,802.311,809,822,823,858,865,870,883,885,907, 912,914, g17,g21,gz3,924,935,944,9~2, 956,966,967,1001,1021,1040.200, 1oyj.~1o,1072.200,1072.210,1076,1088,1092,1og3. FOSSIL RECORD:Denton County(490,495.050). 74,

COMMENTS: Great Plainsnarrowmouth toads are common in central and western Texas followinglate summer rains. They are most often found calling in the same bodies of water with spadefoot toads, Great Plainstoads, green toads, and Texas toads.

Genus ~ypopachusKerferstein Nachr: Ges. Vviss. ~ o t t i 1867: ~ ~ e ~ 351 ~ y p o p a c ~ variolosus us Sheep Frog (Map11) ~ ~ ~ y svuriolosu~ t o ~ a Cope 1866. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. P ~ ~ l18 u .:131. ~ypopachusvariolosus Cope 1869(1871). Proc. Am. Philos, Soc. 11 :166.

R E ~ E R E N C E S5.100, : 74,162,1g3,223,228,232.010,232.011,250,251,2~~, 312.141,312.142, 340.050, 391.002,529,500, 529.510,693,699, 704.240, 704.250, 718.170, 718.175, 782,809,858,870,871,~1~,996,1000, 1076,1088, 1092,1093. COMMENTS: This frograrely is seen in the wild, except for short periods following tropical rainstorms during late August and September in the Rio Grande Valley. The mostrecent revisionary workconcerning this species isthat by Nelson

(704.250).

Species Accou~ts 79

Order Crocodilia Genus Alligator Cuvier Ann, ~ ~Hist.s Nat. . Paris 1807,

25 IO:

Alligator ~ississippiensis ~merican ~lligator (Map 65) Cruco~cylus~ississippiensisDaudin 1803.Hist. Hat, ~ e p t2. :412. Allig~tor ~ississippiensis, Gray 1831,Syn. Rept. I :62. R E F E ~ E N C E S 9.220,~.525,59.650,61.300,139.600,162,228,2~o.1~o, :

232,oro,232.011,23~.~oo, 264.500,312.141,312.142,334,3~o.o5o, 374, 375.500, 377-2301 39I.002,393*090,4~9,439,454*IOO, 4929 495.040, 495-0501 ~o~.~~~,526.200,528.100, ~~~.~1o,609.500,622.266,625.403,625.404,634, 674,681,050,687.500, 718,170, 718,175,726, 7 I, 786.600,809,813.540, 813,550,821,821.100,821.200,822.041,822.100,822.110,822.200,822.300, 822.400,822~500,860.030,862.500, 913,923,928,932,947,956,959,967, ~~~.~o1,1050.169,1o~o.~o1,1063.520,1063.540,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Dallas, Harris, Lubbock, McLennan, Orange, and San Patricio Counties (334,~~2,~~5.o~o,~~5.o5o,609.500,821,821.100,821.200), C O ~ ~ E ~ Ross T S and : &nst (786.585)give an excellent summary of the literature concerning the taxonomy and biology of the alligator, Because of federal and state protection since1967,the alligator has made a remarkable recovery. It was once extirpated from the majority of its natural range, but now has reestablished in many of those areas, The alligatorhas been removed from the endangered species list in the state, and now is beinghunted seasonally with permits purchased from the Texas Parks and ~ i l d l i f Depa~tment.' e

Order Testudinata Suborder Cryptodeira Genus Chelydra Schweigger ~ongis~erg, Arch. Haturg. ~ a t h1812, , I :292 C h e l y ~ serpentina r~ Snapping Turtle (Map 43) T e s t ~ serpent ~ o in^ Linnaeus 1758.Scyst. H&. I :199. C~elcydra serpentina, Schweigger 1812.~ongis~erg, Arch. Hat~rg.~ a t hI: . 292.

REFERENCES: 2,5.342, 74,122,162,168,195, 212,228, 230.140, 232.010, 232.011, 311, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 312.703, 323.011, 323.102 353.700,353.800,353.810,372.603,375.~00,380,391.002,399.205, 439,

80

A ~ p h i ~ i a and n s ~ e p t i ~ofe sTexas

442.278,464,491,495.050, 506, 509.575, 510.535,529.500, 529.510, 545.520, 545.535,573.516,576~060,588.600,622,116,622.288,622.290,622,298, 624.401,626.510,642.060,681.300,683.200,687.500,714, 718.170, 718,175, 726, 734, 7~3.400,765, 789.300,820,860.030,865, 872,883,885,g12,g13,g15, 925, 928,930,932, 947,952,956, 964,967,968,973,1004.450,1040.120, 1042.120,1046.050,1050.169,1072.112. FOSSIL RECORD: Hardeman county (4g1,4g5.050). SUBSPECIES: serpenti~a (see

above). most ~equentlyis seen deadon the road follo~ingrains, or moving across roads during dry periodswhen its “home”pond becomes dry. It seldom isencountered in the wild, unlesscaught by an angler on a trotlime. COMMENTS: This turtle

Genus Macrocle~ysGray Cat. Shiela. ~ e ~Brit. t . us. 1855, I :48 ~acrocle~ys te~~inckii Alligator SnappingTurtle (Map 5) Chelonura t e ~ ~ i n c Troost k i i 1835. In Harlan, Med. Phys. Res. 1835: 158. M ~ c r o c l e ~ y s t e ~ ~Gray i n c 1855. k i , Cat. Shiela ~ e p tBrit. . Mus, I :48.

162, 170.400, 228, 232.010, 232.011, 241, 311,312.141, 312.142, 312.144~323.102,34o.~5o,353.600,353.810,3g~~oo~, 439,454.332,468, 509.~75,510.535,681.300, 718.170, 718.175, 736, 746.501,753.~00,g32,947, 967,1050.169. FOSSIL RECORD: Brazos County (468). C O ~ ~ E NThis ~ S : species b ise c o ~ n rare g in Texas because of its exploitationas REFERENCES:

a food resource, This species,h o ~ e v e rmay , be locallyabundant in some rive te ast Texas. E.Nelson currently is investigatin~ the thermal biology, movements, and other ecological aspectsof this species ineastern Texas (pers. cornm.).

Genus ~ i n ~ s t e rSpix ~on Test, Brasil1824: 17 ~inosternon~avescens Yellow MudTurtle (Map 44)

529.5n545.535, 545.550~545.710,573.51o,576.010,576.020,576.050, 576.060,587.500,602.500,602.511,611.115,611.200,612.110,622.116, 622.264,622.290,626.510,642.060,665,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 720.238, 726,734, 736.200, 747.100,747.120, 765, 775.100, 786.515,809,811,816.300, 816.400,858,865,871,872,883,885, go7,g12, g15,918,91g, 922,942,951, g~2,956,964,966,1oo~.~~o,1042.181,1046.050,1050.169,1o~~.~1o, 1085.210. S U B S P E C ~ E S(see : ~ ~above). ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ COMMENTS: Controversy concerning subspecies of this taxon has not been settled (see 495.600, 510.310,510.320). The yellow mud turtle is relatively comxnon in central and parts of western Texas.

~~inosteynon ~iytipes Mexican Mud Turtle (Map 42)

CinosteYnon ~iytipeswagler 1830.Nat. Sgst, A ~ p ~1830: i ~ .137. ~inosteynon~ i y t i p e s Iverson , 1981. lune Stud. Zool. Bot. 23(1):44. REFERENCES: 9.160, 9.525,56.401,162, 212, 223, 230.140,230.200, 232.OI0, 232.011, ~12.1~1,~12.142,~~o.o~o,353.600,353.810,~g1.oo2, 3g3.ogo14o8, 510.500,510.510,510.533, 510.535, 545.710,568.011,585,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 725,8og,858,872,883,1050.169. SUBSPECIES: ~ u y y a gGlass i and Hartweg 1951. Copeia I ~ ~ I (50. I): COMMENTS: This taxon is fairly common in Mexico but rare in the United States, restricted tothe Alamita Creek drainage in the Big Bendregion of Texas. The systematicsof the Mexican mud turtle are reviewed in Iverson (510.500). Andrew H. Pricecurrently is investigating the population biology of this species in Texas (pers. comm.).

~ i ~ o s t e y n os nu ~ r u ~ y u ~ Eastern Mud Turtle (Map 45) Testudo s u ~ y u ~Lacepede ra 1788. Hist. Nat. Quud. Ovip, SeE, ~ e t ~ oId:168-619. . ~inosteynons u ~ r u ~ y u m Stejneger , and Barbour 1917. C ~ e c ~ l iNs ot y t ~Am. A ~ p ~ i ~ . Rept. 1917: 112. REFERENCES: 14,122,1~g.~2o,162,212,228,2~o.1~o,232.010,232.011,311,

312.141, 312.142,31.2.144,353.700,353g800,353.810,359.400,375.500, 391.002, 451.500,451.5I0,454.I00,464,5I0.300, 510.533, 510.535,529.500, ~~~.~oo,~~~.~1o,576.020,622.296,625.401,625.403,625.553,626.510, 687.500, 714, 718.170, 718.175, 726, 734, 753.400, 765,793,809,858,865 912, g13,g15,928,g42,947,956,967,968,1046.050, 1050.169. SUBSPECIES: ~ippocyepisGray 1856.PYOC. Zool, Soc.Lond. 1856: 198. COMMENTS: A museum record of this species forParmer County is in error. The specimen is likelyan accidental introduction or the locality data is wrong. 8z

A ~ p ~ i ~ iand u nRepti~es s of Texas

The eastern mud turtle is the counterpart of the yellow mud turtle in the westalong the bayous of southeastern Texas. ern part of Texas, and is locally common Genus Sternot~erusGray Ann. P ~ i l o s(as.) , 1825, IO:

211

Sternot~erus curinutus Razorback MuskTurtle (Map 46) A r o ~ o c ~ ecgrinutus l ~ s Gray 1855. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1855: 199. S t e r n ~ ~ ~ ecur~nutus, rus Stejneger 1923. P?"OC. US. Nutl. Mus. 62(6) :2. REFERENCES: 162, 212,228, 232.010, 232.011, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, ~~~.~oo,353.800,353.810,~ 391.002,432.012, ~~.~oo, 464,509.575,510.330, 510.533,~45.~10,545.535,545.710,622.290,622.297, 626.510, 714,718.170, 718.175, 726, 734,7 ~ 3 . 4 0 0 , 8 0 9 , 8 5 8 , 8 6 1 , ~ 2 ~ , 9 2 8 ~ ~ 3 0 , ~ 3 2 , 9 6 7 , 1 0 1 1 , 1 0 2 ~ , 1042.120,1042.181,1050.169,1098,1100.080.

COMMENTS: The genus to which this species and S. ~aorutus belong is controversial; both appear in the literature as Sternot~erusand ~inosternon.The two species are recognized as~ i n ~ s t e r nby o n Seidelet al. (1986), Gaffney and Meylan (1988), Ernst and Barbour (35'3.600), and Iverson (1991, 510.535). Both species were placed consistentlyin the genus Sternot~erusprior to1986, and later by Conant and Collins (232.010,232.011) and by Ernst et al. (353.810). The latter authors raised someinteresting questions about the phylogeny of the species and their related genera, preferred to be conservative in their analysis of the problem, and retained Stern~t~erus, I follow their suggested arrangement. The razorback musk turtle is very common the in Caddo Lakearea, and in river oxbows throughout the eastern half of Texas.

Sternot~erus oaorutus Stinkpot (Map47)

SpeciesAccounts

83

Genus C h r y s e ~ yGray s Cat. Tort. Brit. Mus. 1844:27 C h r y s e ~ ypicta s Painted Turtle (Map 48) ~estuaopictaSchneider 1783.Naturg. S c h i l ~1783: ~ ~ 348. C ~ r ~ s epicta, ~ y sGray 1856.Cat. Shield Rept.Brit. Mus. I :32. REFERENCES: 26.120,64,212,228,2~0.1~0,232.010,232.011,~1~.1~1,

312.142, 312.144,322.100, 353.500,353.600,353.810, 391.002,4~1.~10,470, 718.170,718.175, 734,809, 49s.0~0, 510.535,545.535,642.060,656,683~200, 858,872,883,885,1050.169, 1056. FOSSIL RECORD: Brazos and Lubbock Counties(322,100,~~0,~95.050). SUBSPECIES: ~elli Gray 1831.Syn. Rept. 1831:31;aorsali~Agassiz 1857.Contri~, Nat. Hist. US. I :440. C O ~ M E ~ TTexas S: museum records of C. p. ~ellispecimens are relatively few.

There is only one museum record of C. p. ors sal is from Texas,but reliable wildlife biologists have either examined or photographed, and then released, specimens of this taxon back to the wild from Caddo Lake (~arion/Harrison Counties)and Toledo Bend Reservoir (Shelby County). Genus ~ e i r o c h e lAgassiz ~s Contri~,Nat. Hist. US. 1857,I :441 ~ e i r o c h e l reticularia ~s Chicken Turtle (Map 49) Testu~oreticularia Latreille 1802.Hist. Nat. Rept. I :124. ~eirochelysreticularia, Gray 1870.Suppl. Cut, S ~ i e ~ ~ R eBrit. p t . Mus. 1870:39.

REFERENCES: 14,122,162,212,228,232.010,232.011,311,~12.1~1,~1~,1~z,

312.144,353.600,353.810,3g1.002, 439,451.500,4~1.~1o,480.305,510.535, 545.550,545.710, 622.290, 714, 718.170,718.175,726, 734, 753.400,8 858,862.525,865,873,1042.120,1050~169,1100.200. S ~ B S P E C I E S~: i u r i Schwartz a 1956.~ i e l ~ a 2 n0a01. 34 :486, C O ~ ~ E N TThis S : turtle appears to be declining throughout Texas. The cause of the decline isunknown, but habitat destruction and commercial turtle collectors are suspected sources.

84 A ~ p h i ~ i auna n s Reptiles of Texas

Genus Grupte~ysAgassiz Contri~.Nat. Hist. US. 1857,I :436 Grapte~yscuglei Cagle’s MapTurtle (Map 50) G r u p t e ~ y s c ~Haynes g ~ e i and ~ c ~ o 1974. w n ~ a n Stud. e 2001. Bot, 18(4):143.

R E F E R E N ~ E S 59.800, : 230.120, 232.010, 232.011, 312.141, 312.142, 31 353.600,353.810,391.002, ~~o.2oo,~~o.~oo,~1o.~~~,545.606,545.607, 545.608,~4~.~10,622.277,622.290, 718,170, 718,175, 765,1046,050,1050,169, 1072.140.

~ O M ~ ~ NThis T S :speciesis restricted to the waters of the Guadalupe River basin. Flavius Killebrewstates that theecology of this turtle is closely tied to rmes of the Guadalupe River,and G. c ~ g ~does e i not survive in river impoundments (pers. comm.),He has asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceto place this turtle on their threatened species list.

Grapte~ys pseuaogeographica ~ o h n i Mississippi MapTurtle (Map 52) ~~yspse~aogeographica Gray 1831.Sgn. Rept. 1831:31. Grapte~yspseuaogeogr~p~ica, Gray 1863.Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 3d ser., 12:180. ~ a l a c o c l e ~ y s Baur ~ o ~ 1890. n i , Science, 1st ser., 16:263. Grapte~ys ~ohni, Cagle 1953.Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich, 546 :16. Grupte~gspseuaogeogruphic~ ~ o h n iVogt , 1993.Ann. Carnegie Mus. 62(1) :1-46, R E F E R E N ~ E S 59.800,162,203,228,232.010, : 232.011,312.141, 312,142, ~12.1~~,315.260,~2~.1oo,353.600,353.810,3~1.oo~, 438.600,4.42.278, ~o~.~~~,~1o.~3~,545.535,622.298,626.510,630.200, 714, 718.170~718.175, 809,1021,1024,1o~~.1o1,10~~.102,1o~~.1o~, 1050.169,1084~200. ~ O ~ M E N TAlthough S: Raun and Gehlbach (770.3bo)suggest that knowledge of

the taxonomy and distribution of map turtles in Texas ispoor, it is no longer the case, Thereare several herpetologistswho have examined Texas specimensof Grupte~ysin.museums as well as in the wild and have clarified the species distribution and taxonomy. See Vogt( I O ~ ~ . I O I - I O ~ and ~ . IErnst O ~ )et al. (353.810). Grapte~gsouachitensis Ouachita Map Turtle (Map 51)

Species Accounts 85

FOSSIL RECORD: Dallas, Denton, and Henderson

Counties(910).

SUBSPECIES: uuachitensis; sa~inensisCagle 1953.Occas. Pap. Mus, Zuul.

Univ. Mich.

546:2,10. COMMENTS: This species is principallyturtle a of the Red, Sabine, and Neches River basins of Texas. See Vogt(1047.102) for a summary of the natural history for this species.

G r a ~ t e ~versa ys Texas MapTurtle (Map 53) Grapte~ys ~seudugeugrap~ica versa Stejneger 1925.J as^. ticad. Sci, 15:463. Grapte~ysversa, Smith and Sanders 1952.Tex. J.Sci. 4(2): 211.

~ E F E K E N C E S :59,800,162, 205.005, 211, 212, 223,228, 230, 232.010, 232.011, 312.141, 312.1~2,312.1~~,353.600,353.810, 391.002,454.100,470.300, ~10.535~545.590, 545.710,548.020,613, 622.277,622.290,632.005, 714, 718.170, 718.175, 725.200, 753.400,809,818,847,858,865,895,918,956,967, 1021,1o~~.1oo,1050.169,1084.200. ~ O M M E N T S This : species is relatively common in the riffle systemsof the Concho and middle Colorado River basins of Texas.

Genus M a ~ a c l e ~ Gray ys Cat, Tort, Brit. Mus. 1844:

28

Malacle~ysterrapin Diamondback Terrapin (Map 54) Testudu terrapin Schoepff 1793.Hist. Testud, 13 :64. M a ~ a c ~ e terrapin, ~ys Bangs 1896. Pruc. Bust. Soc. Nat. Hist. 27: 159. KEFERENCES: 74,210,212, 223,228, 232.010, 232.011, 312.141, 34o.o5o,353.600,353.8~0, 39~.0o~,393.090~451.50o~ 451.510,510.535, 718.170,

718.175,

734,809, 858, 871,872,93~,1084.200,1050.169.

312.142

litturalis Hay 1904.Bufl, us. Buu: is^. 24: 18. COMMENTS: The Texas population of diamondback terrapins currently is declining due to urbanization of coastal waters, increased crustacean fishing with gear that d r o ~ n turtles, s and general pollution. A recent presentation by W: M[.Rosenburg showedthat a 4.5x 1.0cm wire rectangle placedat the entrance of each funnel of a crab pot will eflectively exclude the turtle from entering the pot, whilenot ~iminishingthe size ofthe crab or their numbers. SUBSPECIES:

86 ~ ~ p h i ~ iand a n~eptiles s of Texas

Genus Pseuaemgs Gray Cat. Shield Rept.Brit. Mus. 1855,I :33 Pseuaemgs concinna River Cooter (Map55) Testuao concinnaLe Conte 1830.Ann. Lgc. Nat. Hist.N.X 3: 106. Pseuae~gs concinn~, Gray 1855.Cat. Shield Rept.Brit, Mus, I:34. REFERENCES: 14~59,162,195, 205.005,208,212,228,232.010,232.011, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 330.910, 353.600, 353,700,353.810, 391, 438.600,439,4~4.33~,480.306,480.320,~~o, .509.575,510.535, .53~.200, 545.535,622.100,622.298,625.401,626.510, 701.100, 714, 718.170, 718.175, 734,809,816.425,816.430,865,871,896,912,915,919,947,951,952,968, 1042.181,1o~~.1~o,1050.020,1050.169,1098. SUBSPECIES: metteri Ward 1984.Spec. Publ. Mus, Tex. Tech Univ. 21 :29-38. COMMENTS: There is considerable controversy over the status of the turtle genera Chrgsemgs, Pseuaemgs,and Trachemgs, The literature of the 1970sand much of the 1980s is repletewith the use of one, two, or three generic names. Ward (1050.020), however, demonstrated that there are three genera, and this arrangement has been followed by most turtle biologists and authors of field guides and turtle books.

Pseuaem~sgorzugi Ward Rio Grande River Cooter (Map56) Pseu~emgs concinna gorzugiWard 1984.Spec. P u ~ lMus. . Tex. Tec~Univ. 21:29-38 Pseudemgs gorzugi,Emst 1990.Cut. Am. Amphib. Rept. 461.1 REFERENCES: 205.005,228,230.130,230.140, 232.010,232.011, 312.141, 353.502,353.600,353.810, 391.002,450, 510.535,642.060, 312.142, 312.144, 662,681,683.200,816.430,872,885,g1g, 1021,1050.020,1050.169

C O ~ ~ E N TThis S : turtle has disappeared completely from San Felipe Springs and its run in Del Rio.In 1996,this turtle was abundant in the outflow of the springs within the city park. M. J. and Jenna Forstner markedand released 15adult turtles in one small city park area of the springs in 1996 (pers. comm.). The Forstners returned to the same site during the same month in 1998 and found no turtles. Coincidentally, earlyin 1998,a large commercial shipment of It! gorzugi was sent to Japan.

Pseuaemgs nelsoni Florida Red-belliedTurtle (Map 6) Pseuaemgs nelsoniCarr 1938.Occas. Pap, Bust,Soc. Nat. hist, 8 :307. REFERENCES:

786.510.

COMMENTS: Rose et al. (786.510) determined that

a breeding populationof this SpeciesAccounts

87

3

turtle occurs in the ~ q u a r Springs ~ a area of the San Marcos Riverin San Marcos. From the proposed age of the adults, Rose believesthat individuals of this population were releasedinto the springs morethan a decade ago(pers, c o ~ * ) , or more informationon this species, see Jackson (Cut, Am. A m p ~ iRept. ~. :202.1-202.2, C ~ r ~ s ene~soni~, m~s Pse~demys te~unu Texas River Cooter (Map 57) ~ s e ~ d e mt y s e Baur~1893. ~Proc, Am. ~ ~ os. Soc. 31 :223. R E F E R E ~ C E S162,149.308,175, : 205.005,ZO5.II0,223,228, 232.OIO,232.011,

1,312.142,312.144,353.600,353.8ro, 353.915,391.002, 439.450, 454.100, 510.535,529.510,545.535,545.605,622.200,622.264,622.267, .zgo,622.298,626.510, 732.500, 753.400,765,786.530,809, 734, 816.430, ,86~,~13,918,947,956,967,1oo~.~~o,1042.181,1046.030,1046.050,

1050.020,1050.169,ro56. C O M M E ~ T SPrior : to 1984,most of the literature for E! t e ~ ~was n u confused com-

pletely with that of E ! ~ o r i ~Ward u ~ ~(1050.020) , has pointed out that ~ ~ o r ~ ~ u n u does not occur in Texas and that most recent literature placed E! ~ e as a ~sub- ~ n ~ species of E! ~ o n c i n ~ u . ~ t c h b e r ~and e r Iverson (353.915) and Seidel and Ernst (816.430) s u m m a r ~ the e literature, biology, and ta~onomyof the species. Genus ~errupeneMerrem ~ e n tSyst, . A m p ~ i1820: ~ . 27 ~errupene curo~i~u ox Turtle (Map 58) ~ e s ~c u ~ rdo ~o i~innaeus ~u 1758.Syst. Nut. I:198. ~ e r r u p e ~ e c uBell r o ~1825. i ~ ~ ZooL , J.Lond, 2:309. R E F E R E ~ C E S14,74,92,122,162, : 205.005, 212,212.500,22

232.011,303,312.141,312.142,3r2.144, 353.600,

353.700,353.810,

353,826,

.210, 388.800,391,391+002, 399.400,439,451.510,454.100,463,464,

469,470,480.320, 480.377,494,~95.o~0,~95.o40,495.o5o, 495.085, 502,509.575, 510.535, 545.535,54.5.710,588.600, 609,500,622,116,

622.26

.2~~,625.401,625.500,632.200,649,660,661,661.100,

718.170,718.175, 726, 734, 753.~00,765, 783.275, 858,865,866,~23,928,932,947,956,967,1003,1042,120,1046.050, 821.200, 169,1072.100,1072,300,1098. SSIL R E C O R ~Archer, : Atascosa, Bee,

exar, Brazos, Dallas,Denton, Duval, atricio, Travis, and Uvalde Counties

(467,469,470,494, 49~.020,49~.040,495.050, 609.500,6~~.500,649,660, 661,661.100,681.300, 821,821.200).

1857.Contri~.Nat. Hist. US, I :445. Ernst and McBree~(353.826) give an excellent s u ~ a r ofy the literature, taxonomy, and biology of the species, SUBSPECIES: triu~guis Agassiz

COMMENTS:

Terrape~e or~atu Western Box Turtle ( ~ i s t ~ a o o Agassiz r ~ f f t a1857.C o ~ t r iNat, ~ . Hist. US. I:445. ~ e r r a p e ornata, ~e Baur 1891.Science 17: 191. REFERENCES:

I4,56.401, 74, IOO.O5O,92, 122,137.005,162, 205,005, 195, ,228,230.150,232.010,232.011,250,253,303,312.141,312.14

391.002,394.400,~42.2~8,~~1.~00, 451.510,454.r-o0, 463,487.611,490, 495.050,5IO.532,510.535,521,529.5IO, 545.5I0,545.550,573.543,576.060, 583,611.115,613,622.263,622~290,622.297,622.298,625.401,626.510, 632.200,634,642.060,649,657,661,661.100,662,665, 683.200,699.300,

714, 765,775.100, 786.310, 786.520, 18.170, 718.175, 726, 734,747.120, 753.400, 858, 860.030,862.525, 864,865,872, 873,883,885,907, 09,811~ 816.300, 913,915,918,919,922,927, 947,951,952,956,964~ 965,966,967,97 IOO3,IO04.45O1 IO42.I2O,1046.050, IO5O.OI0,1050.169, 1055.410,1072.100, 1072.112, 1072.300, 1073.100, I085.21091097.328. FOSSIL R E C O R ~Culberson : and Denton Counties(394.400,490,495.050). S U B S P E C ~ ~or~ata; S: luteo~a ~ m i t hand Ramsey 1952.~ a s s I.~ Biol. f f IO ~ :45. ~

C O M M E ~ T SThe : ornate and eastern box turtle are disappe~ingrapidly fromthe highways and b~waysof Texas. C o ~ e r c i acollecting, l increased traffic, alteration of habitat, and other compIicate~factors (e.g.,fire ants), are having a ~ e t r ~ e n t a l effect on existing populations. The Texas Parks and Wildlife De~artmenthas recently imposedregulations erning the “take”of Texas nongame wildlife.

Genus ~ r u c ~Agassiz e ~ ~ s C o ~ t r iNat. ~ . Hist. US, I:434 ~ r a c ~gaigeae e ~ ~ s Bend Slider (Map42)

weg 1938.~ccus.PapeMus. Zool. Univ, M i c ~397: , I. d 1984.Spec. P ~ ~Mus. l . Tex, ~ e U~iv, c ~21:454-7. R E F ~ R E ~ C E9.525,21,74,162,212,22 S:

1050,169,1o55.~1o,1056. COMMENTS:

For generic cl~ri~cation, see “account”of P s e u a e ~ ~ s c o n c i ~ n f f ,

A study of the po~ulationstructure, food habits, and distribution of this species

is currently under way by Michael and Jenna Forstner (pers. comm.). They have found large distributional gaps between individuals the in Big Bendregion of Texas and Socorro, New Mexico. Trachem~sscripta Slider (Map60) Test~aoscripta Schoepff 1792.Hist. Test, Parts I,2.P. 16,pl. 3,figs. 4,5. Trachem~sscripta, Ward 1984.Spec, P ~ b l~, ~Tex.s Tech, Univ. 21 :46.

REFERENCES: I4,60.180,61, 74,122, 149.200,162,168, 205.005, 212, 209, 228, 230.140, 232.010, 232.011, 250, 253, 265.300, 312.141, 3 353.600~353.7oo,353.800,353.81o, ~ss.300, ~~~.500,380,387,3g1,3g~.oo2, 454.100,461, 464,473.200,480, 485.500,4go, 4g2,4gs.050, ~09.230, .5og.s75, sog.7o3,5~o.535,522.2oo,5~g.5~o,545.535,~~~.~~o, 576.060,584,588.600, 602.100,609.500,611.115,615,622.160,622.262,622.264,622.290,622.298, 625.401,625.403,625.404,626.510,632.200,642.060,662,687.500,701.110, 712~oo,718.170, 718.175, 720.232, 726, 734,~j3.400, 746.100, 765,770, 786.503,809,816.300,819,821.100, 858, 865, 871, 872,885, 896,913,915, 918,922,927,928,g30,g32,g42,944,947,g51,956,965,966,967,968,g70, g~~.~oo,g~~.~1o,1042.120,1046.050,1o~7.1~o, 1050.020,1050.169,1056, 1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Denton, Harris, Knox, and San Patricio Counties(480,490, ~g2,~g~.o~o,609.500, 746.100,821.100). SUBSPECIES: elegans Wied 1838.Reise Nord. Am. I:213.

COMMENTS: Because this turtle is a commonpet store item, it has been released by petowners in many areas of the state, including west Texas between Langtry and El Paso. though this species seemsto be “holding”its own against commercial collectors, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has changed the regulations of “take,”and collectors now must purchase a licenseto obtain this turtle.

Genus Gopher~sRafinesque Atlantic~.1832,I :64 Gopher~sberlanaieri Texas Tortoise (Map61)

go Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas

529.461,529.480,529.510,545.600, ~~~.~10,582,602.53~,612.200,622.290, 673,683.200, 701.200, 701.270, 714, 714.120, 714.141,718,170, 718.175 786.800, 793, 795,809,857,858, 734, 770,786.460,786~469,786.470,786.520, 860.014,872,9~1,947,95o,966,967,985,1031,1046.050,1o~~.~oo, 1047.210, 1050.169,1o55.~1o, 1oyj.495,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: “Texas”(143.510). C O M ~ E N T SMuseum : records from Brazos, Brewster,Burnet, Callahan, Dallas, and Sutton Counties are probably due to accidentalintroductions: however, sightings of this species in Galveston, Fort Bend, and Matagorda Counties suggest an ancient distribution of this taxon, or accidental releases as above. In 1985,Edward Farmer saw a tortoise crossing a highway few amilessouth of Sonora, Texas (pers. corn.). I have not followed Bramble’s(143.510)recognition of ~ c a p t a c ~ eas ~ ythe s generic name for the Texas tortoise. Bramble may be correct, but there is not enough evidence for a final decision.

Genus ~ r i a Geoffroy n ~ ~ Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat, Paris 1809,14:I ~ r ~ ma~ tni c ~ s ~ Smooth Soft-shelled Turtle (Map 62) ~ r i a n yticus ~ us Le Sueur 1827.Mem. Mus. Hist. Nut. Puris 15:263. ~ E ~ E R E N C E 122, S: 162,

167.040,

212,228,

232.010,

232.011,

312.1~4,323.1o2,353.600,353.800, 353.810,391.002,510.5yj, 529,510, 545.710,588.600,622.296,718.170, 718.175, 753.400,820,858,873.061: 734, 885,898,967,1050.169,1060,1061.100,1061.122. SUBSPECIES: ~ u t i c (see ~ s above).

312.141,

COMMENTS: This taxon has a wide distribution over the eastern two-thirds of Texas, but with very curious gaps. TheTexas distribution of this species needsintensive study. There is controversy about the use of ~ r i a as n the ~ ~generic name for Texas species of soft-shelledturtles. Meylan (1987)proposed a division of the genus into nine enera based on an analysis of 113skeletal characters. This arrangement was folowed byConant and Collins (232.010,232.011)and Iverson (510.53~)~ but was not accepted by Webb(1061.122) and Ernst et al. (353.810). I follow the lead offinst et al. (353.810)and await further analysis by turtle biolists c~rrentlyworkin

3

Trion~xspiniferus Spiny Soft-shelledTurtle (Map 63) Triony~ spin~erus Le Sueur 1827, me^, Mus, Hist. Nat. Paris15:258.

REFERENCES: 4, I4,26.120,59.650, 122,162, 205.005, 212, 223, 205.II0, 228, 23O.II0, 232.010, 232.011, 233, 253, 312.141, 312.142, 3 3~3.~55,353.600,3~3.~oo,353.800,353.810,3~~.5oo, 319.500,323.1o2, 391.00~,454.I00,464,470, 485.500,495.050, 509.575, 510.535, 529.510, 568.011,574,576,576.060,585,613,622.129,622,185,622,264,622.280, 622.290,622,298,625.401,642.060,662,665,683.200, 704,714, 718,170, 718.175, 720.232, 726,734, 746.100,~~~~~00,765,809,811,858,871,872,883, 885898,912,913, 915,918,923,927,928,930,932,942, 944,947,952,956, 964,966,967,~~1,~~~,1oo~.~~o,1021,1042.120,1046.050,1050.169, 1o~~.~1o,1o~~,1058,1060,1061.110,1061.122,1061.150,1085.210,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Brazos and Knox Counties ( ~ ~ o , ~ ~ ~ . o ~ o , 7 4 6 , 1 0 0 ) . SUBSPECIES: e ~ o rAgassiz ~i 1857.C o ~ t rNat. ~ ~ Hist. . 27.5. I :407;guadal~pensis; ~ , Nat. Hist. 13:517,522;~ a r t ~ eConant gi pa~idusWebb 1962.Univ. Kans. P u ~Mus. and Goin 1948.Occas. Pap. Mus, Zool. Un~v,M i c ~501: . I.

COMMENTS: This speciesof soft-shelledturtle is very commont ~ o u g h o uTexas. t A recent survey of other turtle species in the Rio Grande basinof Texas by Michael and Jenna Forstner revealedthat spiny soft-shelledturtles were captured at nearly every trap site from Brownsville to El Paso (pers. comm.).

Genus Car~ttaRafinesque Spec, Sci. P a l e r ~ 1814: o 66 Curetta caretta Loggerhead (Map64) Tes~udo caretta Linnaeus 1758.Syst. Nat. I :197. Caretta carettu,Stejneger 1904.Ann. Rept. 27s. Natl. Mus. 1904:715. R E ~ E R E N C E S5.210,9,160,9.~2~, :

162, 232.010,232,011,~12.1~1, 205.005, 31~.~4~,~~~.~~~,31~.~o~,353.600,353.810,384.340,3~3.o~o, 510.535, 585.210, 718.170, 718.175, 753.300, 786.070, 878.350,885,1050.169,1071.800. SUBSPECIES: caretta (see

above). speciesand all other sea turtles are extremely rare along the Texas coast. Thereare specially designed“turtle excluder’’ devices builtinto trawling gearthat prevent turtles from being drowned in nets. Much of the “hype”about the effectiveness of these devices,however, is controversial.There are still many dead carcassesof sea turtles washed ashore along the Texas coast. Thedevice may not be effective,or trawler personnel may disregard the use of the devices while trawling. e All US.species are considered endangered by the U.S. Fish and ~ i l d l i f Service. C O ~ M E N T SThis :

92

A ~ p ~ i ~and i uReptiles ~ s of Texas

Genus CheloniaLatreille Hist. Nat. Rept. 1801,I :22 Chelonia mydas Green Turtle (Map 64) ~estudom ~ ~Linnaeus a s 1758.Syst. Nat. I:197, Che~oniamydas, Schweigger 1812.~ ~ ~ ~ Arch. s b Natur: e r ~ mat^. , I :412. REFERENCES:

5.2IO,g,160,

9.525,162,

232.010,

232.011,

312.141,

312.14

3g3.og0,4g5.700, 312.144,340.050,353.600,353.810,384.330,3g1.002, ~~~.~00,819.005,878.350,885,892,1050.169, 510.535,718.170, 718.175, 1071.800. COMMENTS: See comments under

Caretta.

Genus Eretmoche~ysPitzinger Syst. Rept. 1843: 30 E r e ~ m ~ c ~imbricata e~ys Hawksbill (Map64) ~estudo im~ricatu Linnaeus 1766.Syst. Nat. I :350. E r e t ~ o c ~ eimbricata, ~ys Agassiz 1857.Contrib, Nat, Hist. US. I :381. REFERENCES:

9.525, 232.010, 232.011, 312.141, 312.142, 340.050,353.600 353.810,384.330,3g1.002, 3g3.0g0,495.700,510.535,718.170,718.175, ~~~.~00,1050.169,1071.800. COMMENTS: This turtle still is being eaten in the Caribbean islands,and its shell made into various tourist items. Travelers should be aware that this turtle is considered an endangered species, and if they buy tortoise shell items (normallymade from this turtle), they will be confiscatedat U.S. Customs.

Genus Lepi~ochel~s Fitzinger Syst. Rept. 1843:30 Lepi~ochel~s ke~pi Atlantic Ridley (Map64) ~ha~assochel~s kempi Garman 1880.~ ~ 1Mus. 1 , Comp. Zool. 6 : 123.Lepi~oche~ys k e ~ p iBaur , 1890.Am,Nat. 24:487.

R E F E R ~ N C E S :0,100,4.005, 5.210, 9.150, 9,525,162, 204.050, 204.053, 205.005, 212,216.500, 232.010, 232,OII,289.600, 312.141, 312.142,353. 353.810,361.210,375.985,384.200,384.330,3g1.002, 3g3.og0,510.535, 5~5.220,545.825,573.680,602.150, 701.210, 718.170, 718.175, 734, 753.300, 786.070,819.010,819.020,872,878.350,1050.169,1055.~00, 1067,1071.800, 10~2.1~~,11076.200,1084.160,1108. t

specie^ Accou~ts g3

C O ~ ~ E N T The S : long-term project to reestablish a breeding population of Atlantic ridleys along South Padre Islandhas been successful.Shaver (819.006, the 819.008)reports on the successful nesting of this species in Texas: however, numbers of nesting individuals from Mexican L. emp pi populations are highly variable each year, and the fate of this species isstill indoubt.

Genus ~ermucheZ~s Blainville Bull, Soc. PhiZus, Paris 1816:111 ~ e r m u c h ecuriacea ~~s Leatherback (Map 64) ~estuducoriacea Linnaeus 1766.$pt. Nat, I :350. ~ e r m u c ~ ecuriaceu, l ~ s Boulenger 1889.Cat. Chelun. ~ h ~ ~Crucud, c h .Brit, Mus. 1889 :IO.

R E F E R E ~ C E S 5.210,g.525,162,232.010,232.011,312.141,312.142,3~o.o5o, : 353.600,353.700~353.810,3g1.~0~, 3g3.ogo,439,4g5.700, 529.420,580, 718.170, 718.175, 746.500, 753.300, 872,878.350, 885,1050.169,1071.8

COMMENTS: See comments under Caretta. This seaturtle is the largest living turtle in the world, with a shelllength greater than seven feet and a maximum weight approachi~g2000 pounds.

Order Squamata Suborder Lacertilia Gray ~ Genus C u l e u n ~ Ann. Mag, Nat. hist. 184516:162, CuZeon~~ revi is Texas Banded Gecko (Map 67) C u Z e u ~ ~ ~ Stejneger ~ ~ e v i1893. s ~ u rAm. t ~Eauna 7:

163.

REFERENCES: 21,26,120,26.160,74,129,162,223,228,232.010,232.011,

247,~5~,288,296,110,296.121,296.310,296.400,312.100, 312.120,312.141, 3g3.070,434.150,498.228,521, 312.142,323.210,356.200,387,3g1.002, ~~g~~oo,560,568,568.020,611.115,622.296,642.060,648,662,665,683.200, 683,210,689, 700, 718.170,718.175, 747.110, 747.140, 786,809,811, 844, 871,872,87~.300,883, 885,g1g,947,948,957,965~ 967,1003.200, 1046.007,1046.050,1050.169,1o55.41o, 1067,1085.210,1og1,1098. C O ~ M E N T SR. : IS. ~ a u g h a n (1046.007)compared the behavior of C. revi is in the

presence of two introduced geckos (H, turcic~s and C,s c a ~ r and u ~ found ~ that the Texas banded gecko was more a gressive and highly competitivein their presence.

There seemsto be no evidence that introduced Texas geckos willthreaten the existence of C, brevis. CoZeony~ reticuzatus Reticulated Gecko (Map79) CoZeon~~ reticuzatus Davis and Dixon 1958. Proc. BioZ. Soc. as^, 71 :151.

R E F E R E ~ C E S9.160, : 9.525, 56.401,232.010, 232.011,288, 296,100, 296.110, 296.121, 296.310, 296.400, 3I2.110, 312,120, 312.141, 312,142, 332,100, 388.400,391.002,~ ~ ~ . o ~ o , ~ ~ ~ . 1 ~ o , ~ ~ ~ . ~ o o , 5 2 2 . 2 0 0 , 5 6 8 . 0 2 0 , 6 4 4 . 1 3 683.200,683.210, 718.170, 718.175, ~86,816.600,816.700,1050.169,1o~~.~1o. COMMENTS: This species is more common in Brewster and Presidio Counties than formerly believed,and also occursin southern Coahuila and northeastern Durango, Mexico. Thereticulated gecko, however,has curious gaps in its distribution.

~o~ Genus C ~ r t o p oFitzinger Syst. Nat. 1843, I :93 C~rto~o~on scabru~ Rough-scaled Gecko (Map 68) StenodactyZus scaber scaberHeyden 1827. In Ruppell, AtZ. Reise Nord A~ricaRept.

1827: 15.

Kluge 1985. ZooZ. ~ e d e ~ e z i n59(10): ~en 98. C~rtopo~ion scabru~, REFERENCES: 232.010, 232.011, 312.141, 312.142, 391.002, 622,175,422.289, 718.170, 718.175,817.100,1046.025,1050.169. COMMENTS: Recently introduced into Texas, this species isreproducing along the comercial shipping docksof Galveston. Vaughan et al. (1046.025) examined the competitive nature between the wellestablished H. turcicus in Galveston and the new arrival, C. s c a ~ r uThey ~ . found that competition was not an obvious factor, but H. turcicus tended to disappear in the presence of C. s c a b r u ~Later, , Klawinskiet al. (564.091) discovered that allopatric populations of the two taxa consume the same prey items;in syntopy, however, they consume different prey. Genus H e ~ ~ d a c tOken ~Z~s Isis von Oken 1817: 1183 He~i~act~Zus~re~atus House Gecko (Map 68) He~idactyZus~renat~s Schlegel1836. In Dumeril and Bibron, ~rpetoZ, Gen. 3 :366. R E F E R E ~ C E S622.270,622.289, :

794,220.

SpeciesAccounts

95

C O M ~ E N T SThere : has been

only oneadditional sighting of this species (Saenz lawinski; 794.220)since the first report of this species in Texas by McAllister et. al. (622.270)in 1990. ~ e m i ~ u c t ~guynoti lus acific Gecko (Map68) ~emi~uct~ gurnoti l u s Dumeril and Bibron 1836.~ypetol,Gen. 3 :368. REFERENCES:

384.220,

toFranHin (384.220), this species probablywas introduced accid~ntallyinto the herpetariu~of the Dallas Zoo from Florida, via plants containers. Apparently, there is a thriving wild colonyat the zoo. COMMENTS: According

~e~i~uc~ turcicus ylus

editerran~anGecko (Map 69) ~ucertutuycicuLinnaeus 1758.Syst. NUL I :202. ~ e ~ i ~ f f ctuycicus, t ~ l u Boettger s 1876.Beu: ~ f f e ~ Beu: ~ u Nuturk, c ~ 1876:57.

RE~ERENCES: 113.710,162,204,080,216.281,226,228,2~o.1~o, 232.010, 289,400,308, 312.011, 312,141, 312.142, 312.144, 332,030, 391.002, 4 4 2 . 2 7 8 , ~ ~ ~ . r o o , 4 8 0 . 3 3 5 , 4 9 8 509.051, , 2 2 8 , 545.100,612.053, 622~275,622.289,62~.~~7,627.100,643.600,683,200,686, 718,170, 300,780.050,786,.050,786.430,794.211, 794.218, .oo1,817.002,817.003,817.004,817.200,844,862.500, 7.25O,1028,1040.230, 1040.235, 10~2.140,1046.050,1050.169, 10~~.~10,10~7.400. C O ~ ~ E N T This S: species is continuing to disperse rapidly over the state. The ~editerraneangecko has spread to62 of 254 Texas counties since its1955discovery inC a ~ e r o nCounty by Conant (226).The factthat this species lays two hardshelled eggsin cardboard boxes and other goods stored in garages, facilitates its ort across the state, Many pest removalco~paniesare asked to remove these by h o ~ e o ~ n e rusually s, without success.

tus Genus C y o t ~ p ~ ~Holbrook ~ o rAm. t ~~ e ~ p e t 1842,2: ol, 79 Crutup~ytuscolluyis C o l ~ ~~e d z (Map ~ 73) d

R E F E ~ E N C E S 3,14, : 21, 26.177, 29, 31, 33, 53.230, 7~,555 53.240,56.401, 122,14g.110,150, 155,162,17g,183,188,1g7,204.318, 205.005, 228,232. 232,011,250, 253, 257, 277.800, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 323,210 380,384.210,3g1.oo~,3g~.o~o, 393.080,3g~.4oo,~95.~oo, 398,423.500, 495,495.020, 443.020,450,451.500,451.~10,454.100,458.200,491,494, 4g5.o4o,4g5.05o1 509.300, 521,522.200,587.500,604, 611.103,613,616.500, 622.101,622,109,622.289,630.425,634,639,642.060,643.600,648, 681.100,681.120,681.150,683.200,687, 718.170,718.175, 719.200, 7 726, 736.500, ~~~.~oo,809,811,816,300,822.020,844,858,860 747, 872,873.200,873.220,883, 947,948,951,952,956,957 ~003.200~ 1014, 1017.4001 1022, 1046.050,1o~g.2oo, 1050.1 085.210, 1091, 1098.

FOSSIL RECORD: Bexar, Culberson, Hardeman, Kendall, Llano,and Lubbock Counties (394.400,458.200,4g1,494,495, 495.020,4g5.040,495~0 S ~ ~ S P E C Icollaris ~S: Stejneger 1890.~ o rAm. t ~~ a 3 :103; ~ ~~ ~ sa c ~ s Tanner 1971.~ r i ~o~~~ ~ ~~i~ ~ aSei,~~~11.13(2):23. C O M ~ E N T SBurleson : County(179)and Limestone County(162)records and a museum record for Falls Countyare questionable. Cameron(179)~ Duval(250), and Starr (129)County recordsof this species are of the reticulate collared lizard. Axtell (26.177)suggests that there may be a three-way intergradation amon the Texas subspeciesof the collared lizard.At best, it would be d i ~ c u lto t design any subspecies forthe state of Texas. has completed a cladistic analysis using 88 c h ~ a c t e r s M c ~ u (630.425) ~e drawn from squamation, osteology, allozymes, color pattern, behavior, and life history; he e l ~ i n a t e dall subspeciesof this taxon that did not conform to the phylo netic analysis(all but C. c. ~ e ~ r i ~ s ) .

Crot~p~~t~s retic~lat~s Reticulate Collared Lizard (Map11) C r o t a p ~ ~ t ~ s r e t i cBaird ~ l a t 1858. ~ s Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. P~ila.IO :253. REFERENCES: 9.160, 26.178,29,31, 56.402, 74,160,162,183,223,2 232.010, 232.011, 257, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 391.002,423.500,495.085, 522.200,566,622.289,643.600,681.110,681.120,681,130,681.150,683.200, 714, 714.160, 718.170, 718.175,809,833,844,858,871,872, 997,1050.169, 1067,1089,1og8.

C O M ~ E N T SThis : species threatened is in south.Texas because of habitat mod~cationthrough theintroduction of nonnative grasses and other land-use practices. This species was placed on the Texas D e p ~ t m e noft Parks and ~ i l d l i f threate ened species list in1987.

Species ~ c c o ~ ~97t s

Genus G a ~ ~ e Baird lia US. Mex. Buund, Surv. 1859,2:7 G a ~ ~ e lwislizeni ia Leopard Lizard (Map79)

Crutaph~tus wislizenii Baird and Girard 1852.In Stansbury,~ x p l uSurv. ~ ~ a l lGt. e~ Salt Lake 1852 :340. ~ 1946: k . 159. G ~ ~ ~ wislizeni, e l i a Smith 1946. ~ a n ~Liz, REFERENCES: 29, 34, 75, 150,155,162,197, 232.010, 232.011, 257, 312.141, 312.142, ~12.1~~,~~1.oo~,~~~.o~o,398,611.115,630.425,642.060,662.10 683,200, 714.210, 718.170, 718.175,809,816.100,844,858, 872,883, 885,908, ~1g,947,982,982.100,1012,1014,1017.200,1023,1029,1050.169,~o~~.~~o, 1085.210,1098. C O ~ ~ E NMcGuire T S : (630.425)~using an 88-character data matrix (see characeliminated all subspecies of G. wislizeni that did not ters under Crutap~~tus cullari~), conform to his phylogeneticanalysis, except for those he raised tospecific rank (e.g., cupei, silus).

Genus Ctenusaura Wiegmann Isis vun Oken 1828:371 Ctenusaur~pectinata Western Spiny-tailedIguana (Map 11) C~clura pectinata ~ i e g m a n n1834. ~erpetul.Mex, 1834:42. Ctenus~ur~pectinata, Gray 1845. Cat. Liz. Brit. Mus. 1845: 191. REFERENCES: 230.130, 232.010, 232.011, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 391.002, 718.170, 718.175,862.500,1050.169 CO~~EN The TS introduced : western spi~y-tailediguana is wellestab~is~ed in parks and near the zoo grounds in Brownsville, Texas.

Genus CuphusaurusTroschel Arch. ~ a t u r g1852,16(1):389 . Cuphusaurus texanus Greater Earless Lizard (Map72) Cuphusaurus texanus Troschel1852. Arch. ~ a t u r g16(1) , :389. REFERENCES: 3, 21,26.179, 27, 31,33,36,39, 53.200, 53.310, 54.500,56.401, 57.200, 74,15o,155,162,200,215,221,223,228,232.010,232.011,250,~5~, 257,290, 290.100, Z g O . I I O , 312.141, 312.142, 312.144,312,145,323.210, 98

A ~ p h i ~ i aand n s ~eptilesuf Texas

330.150,380, 387, 391.002, 393.070, 393.080,423.500,434, 454.100,495.010, 4g5.020,4g5.050,495.615,521,522,524,532.oo1, 545.535,567,568.011,6o4~

611.115,613,616.200,616.500,622.115,622.132,622.289,634,642.060,648, 654,662,665,683.200,683.210,687, 700, 718.170, 718.175, 719.200, 724, 736.500, 747, 747.120,747.130,756, 758, 794,805,8og,811,811.1oo,844,858, 865,871,872,878.310,883,885,go7,go8,gog, g12,g15,918,g1g, 922,924, 927,929, 938,944,9471 950,9529 956,9571964,965,9679 1003~20O,1030~ 1o~~.1oo,1046.050,1050.169,~o~~.~1o, 10~2.115,1085.210, 1097.329. FOSSIL RECORD: Kendall County(495.010,495.020,495.050). SUBSPECIES: t e ~ a ~ u scitulus s; Peters 1951. Occas. Pap,Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 537 :8. COMMENTS: Museum records from Fayette and Gonzales Counties are questionable. Axtell (26.179) recognizes two distinct subspecies in the state, but argues for not delineating distinctranges until an intergradation zone has been defined.

Genus ~olbrookiaGirard Proc. Am. Assoc, Adv, Sci. 1 8 5 ~ 4201 :

H01broo kialacerata Spot-tailed Earless Lizard (Map74) Holbrookia lacerata Cope 1880. Bull, US.Natl. Mus. 17:15. REFERENCES: 1g,26.100,26.189,29,1~g.~oo, 162,223,228,232,010, 232.011, 245, 25’7, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144,391.002,454.100, 529,510,613, 617,622.289,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 786,805,809, 844, 865,871,872, 886, g~~,938,~o1~.~oo,~046.050,1050.169. SUBSPECIES: lacera~a; subcaudal~sAxtell 1956. Bull. Chi. Acad. Sci.IO:174. COMMENTS: Museum recordsof this species from Dallas, Donley, Garza, McLennan, and Young Countiesrepresent the lesser earless lizard. ~ o l ~ r o o kmaculatu ia Lesser Earless Lizard (Map 75) ~ o l ~ r o o k i a ~ a c Girard u l a t a 1851. Proc. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 4: 201. REFERENCES: 1g,22,26.120,26.187,29,31,34,35,74,103,155,162,172, 223,228, 232.010, 232.011, 253, 257,277.800, 312.141, 312.142,312,144,380, 39I.002,449,451, 451.500, 451.510, 521,~2g.~10,611.115,613,622,289, 642.060,657,662.100,665,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 730, 736.500,792, 794, 805,8og,816.300,844,858,871,872,883,885,886,g1~,g1g1g51,g52,967, 1017.200,1022,1023,1o~~.1oo, 1050.169,1061.175,1085.210,1og8. SUBSPECIES: maculata;a p p r o ~ i ~Baird a ~ s 1858.Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci, hil la. IO:253;perspic~a Arztell1956. Bull. Chi. Acad. Sci.IO:166. COMMENTS: Records for Houston (162) and Kimble (770.300) Counties are erroSpecies Accou~ts 99

neous. Axtell believesthat the record for WardCounty is incorrect (pers.comm.). He further believes that theLlano County specimen H. is propin~ua, that county being an erroneous locality for the lesser earless lizard. Axtell also questions the records for Grayson, Terrell,and Val VerdeCounties. ~ o l ~ r o opropin~ua ~ia Keeled Earless Lizard {Map 76) Hol~roo~ia propin~ua Baird and Girard 1852.Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci, P~ila.6 :126.

REFERENCES: 0,010,26.130,26.150,26.188, 27, 29,36, 39, 74,162, 223,228, 232.010, 232.011, 233.390, 233.400, 233.401, 233.402, 233.404, 233.410, 233.422, 233.425,233.426, 233.501,250, 257,267, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 387,39I.002,455,529~300, 529.310, 529,320, 529.330, 529.340, 529.490, 52g.510,630.500, 714,714.160,718.170,718.175, 786,700,805,809,817,

817.200,844,858,871,872,g1~,947,967,1003.200,1017.200,1046.050, 1050.169,1oyj.~oo, 1098.

S ~ B S P E C I E Spropin~ua : Smith and Burger 1950.

~ ~ a nKans. s . Acad. Sci. 53:169. Real County erroneous. is The specimen for the Jim Wells County record cannot be found, and thus cannotbe verified. C O M ~ E N T SA : museum record for

Genus ~ ~ r ~ n oW s oi e~ ~a m a ~ Isis von Oken 1828,21: 367 ~ ~ r ~ n oc so ron u~ t au ~ Texas Horned Lizard (Map77) '

A g a ~ a c o r n u Harlan t u ~ 1825.J.Acad. Nat. Sci, P~ila.4: 299. ~ ~ r ~ n oc so ron u~t ua ~Gray , 1831. Syn. Rept., In Griffith, ani^, Kingd. g :45.

REFERENCES: 3,9.160, 21,26.185, 29, 33, 53.130, 53.200, 54.200,56.402,61, 61.310, 74, 92, 113.550,122,126, 149.110, 150, 155,162, 170.500,185, 195, 197, 204,213,220.130,223, 228,232.010,232,011,25~,267,2g4,312.141,312.142, 312.144~312.145, 3~3.~1o~338,339,34o,~~1,355.810,355~811,380,384.120, 384.300~391~ 391.002,3g3.070, 397,4019 439.1442.278,443.020,446,449, 473~5OI,478,487.S00,495*020,495.040~ 454.I00, 464, 473*4957473.500, 495.0.fj0, ~02,5~1,~~g.~oo,5~g.~~o,~~3.~~o,581,588.310,604,611.115,

616,500,622.110,622,289,622.2g7,625.403,634,642.060,645,662,662.100,

665,681.140,683,200,687, 714.160, 718.170, 718.175, 720.233, 723.100, 726, 730.~00,736.500, 739,740,741, 742,746.3o6,747,7s3.4oo,762,765,77o7 7839809,811,816,300,819.501,844,858,862.500,865,871,872,873,875,883, 885,908,912, 913,915,g16,918,922, %o, 938,g42,944,947,951, 952,956, 965,966,967,9689975,g7~.200, 1014,1017.200,1o1~.~oo, 1023,1042.120,

1046.050,1050.169,1o55.~1o,1061.175,1062,1072.112,1076.100,1082,1083, 1085.210,1097.325,1098,1100.

FOSSIL RECORD: Kendall and Lubbock Counties {4g5.020,4g5.040,

IOO

A ~ p ~ i ~ iand a n ~eptiles s of Texas

495,050).

COMMENTS: The Texashorned lizard is disappearing from the eastern half of Texas. Thecauses are complex. I suspect that aneffort to eradicate the imported fire ant in the 1970sthrough widespread useof the pesticide Mirex, decimated the common harvester ant, a principal prey item of the Texas horned lizard. Axtell (26.185;Texas) and Frice (746.306;the species) provide excellent summaries on the biology and distribution of this species. The Texashorned lizard is protected by state law from commercial collecting. New regulations by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department protectboth the mountain short-horned lizard and the Texas horned lizard as threatened state species.

P h r ~ ~ o sher~unaesi o~u Short-hornedLizard (Map79) P h r ~ n o s o hernunae~i ~u Girard 1858.US. E ~ p l E~pea., o~ ~erpetol.1858:395. REFEEENCE~:9.160,~.~~~,26,12,29,61.310,162,232.010,232.011, 257, 312.141, 312,142,312,144, ~~1.oo2,3~3.o~o,3~~.~00,458,200,487.500, 611.115,613,642.060,681.140,683.200, 718.170,718.175, 783,809,819.501, 885,1050.169,1098,1100.020. 844, 858, 872,883, FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson County(394.400).

COMMENTS: Herpetology students in the El Paso area have discovered the shorthorned Lizard in the Hueco Mountains, Zamudio et al. (1100.020) have shown that the short-horned lizard complex is composed of three species: E! ~ t ~ u r s ~ , E! aou~~ussi, and E! h e r ~ u ~ a eThis s i , newarrangement does not solve the geographic variation found inE! h e r ~ u ~ a ebut s i , does pointout where the geographic problems occur.

P h r ~ n o s o ~~ uo a e s t ~ ~ ~oundtailHorned Lizard (Map78) P h r ~ ~ o s o ~ u Girard ~ ~ a1852. e s t In u S~t a n s b u ~E, ~ p l Surv. o ~ Vulle~GC, Sult ~ u k e 1852:

361.

R E F E E E ~ C E S21,26.175,29,35,58.200,61.310, : 74,155,162,197,223,228, 232.010,232,011,2~3,312.1~1, 312,142,312.144,355.500,357,380,387,

~ ~ 1 . o o ~ , ~ ~ ~ . o ~ o , 3 9 7 , ~ o 1 ,451.500,451.510,521,611.115, ~0~,~23.50o, 613, 622.233,622.297,634,642.060,643.600,648,654,657,662,665,681.140, 683.200,683.210, 718.170, 718.175, ~1~.2oo,783,809,811,816.300,819,501, 844,858,862.525,872,883,885,908,909,91g, ~~~.2oo,1o~~.1oo,1050.169, 1o~~.~1o,1061.175,1072.108,1085,210,1098,11;oo. C O M ~ E N T SA : museum record for Zapata Countyis no longer questionable. Additional specimenshave appeared in Jim Hogg and Webb Counties (26.175,

312-1441.

W h i ~ n gand Dixon (1072.108) provide asummary of the literature on the roundtail horned lizard's taxonomy,life history, and distribution. SpeciesAccounts

for

Genus Sceloporus Wiegmann lsis von Oken 1828,21:369 Sceloporusare~icolus Dunes SagebrushLizard (Map79) Scelopo~usgraciosus arenicolusDegenhardt and Jones 1972.~erpet~logica 28(3):213. Scelo~orus arenicolus, Smith, Bell, Applegate,and Chiszar 1992.Bull. Md.~ e r p e ~ o l , Soc. 28(4):123. REFERENCES: 9.525,26.174, 223.130, 232.010, 232.011, 291.500, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 391.002,545.2oo,611.115,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 718.204, 792,820.150,820.225,853.050,872,885,1050.169.1072.169. C O ~ ~ E NThe T Sspecies : is restricted to the sand dunes of Andrews, Crane, Ward, and Widler Counties. The dunes sagebrush lizard currently is being studiedin New Mexico byCharles Painter (pers. c o r n . ) and in Texas by LeeFitzgerald (pers.c o r n . ) . Sceloporusc ~ a n o g e n ~ s Blue Spiny Lizard (Map 66)

~celoporus tor~uatusc ~ a ~ o g eCope n ~ s 1885. Proc. Am,P~ilos.Soc. 22 :402. Sceloporusc ~ a n o g e n ~Smith s, 1938. ~~i~ Kans. Sei. Bull. 24: 599. RE~ERENCES:26.171,56.402, 74,162, 205.005,228,232.010, 232.011, 250, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 312.145, 368.120, 391.002,432.100, 505, 539, 622.289,699.100,714.142, 714,160, 718.170, 718.175,809,820.150,827,835, 844,858,860.014,872,986,1003.200,1050.169,1089,1098,

C O ~ ~ E NA Tmuseum S: record for Kinney County was verified, but the specimen has been lost (Dalquest, pers. comm.). Olson (714.142) reviewedthe systematic status of S. c ~ a ~ o gand e ~Mexican ~s S. serrijer and concluded that they were conspecific. Because serrver is the older name, the Texas population shouldbe S. serrijer c ~ a n o g e n ~Wiens s. and Reeder (1072.169), however, suggest that serrijer and c ~ a ~ o gare e ~separate ~s species, using molecularand morphological evidence. I prefer to use the most recent evidence and retaih the blue spiny lizard as a distinct species. Sceloporus gr~mmicus Mesquite Lizard (Map 66) Sceloporusgrammicus Wiegmann 1828. Isis von Oken 21 :370. ~ E F E ~ E ~ Cg.525,15.500, ES: 26.176,29, 74,162,1g1,223,228,232.010, 2 3 2 . 0 1 1 , ~ 1 2 . 1 ~ 1 , ~ 1 2 . 1 ~ 2 , ~ 1 ~ . 1439.210,462.250,643.600, ~~,~~1.oo~, 683.200, 714.160, 718.170,718.175, 8 2 0 . 1 0 0 , 8 2 0 . 1 1 0 , 8 2 0 . 1 2 0 , 8 2 0 . 1 5 0 , 820.160, 820.200,820.220,820.235,835,844,894,1050.169,1089. 102

A m p ~ i ~ i aand n s ~eptilesof Texas

SUBSPECIES: ~icrolepidotusWiegmann 1834.~erpetoZ.Mex. 1834:51. COMMENTS: The Kleberg County(770.300) and Iiefugio County(643.600) records represent accidental introductions. Sites and Dixon (820.200)show that characters used to separate S. g. ~spurlis and S, g. ~icroZepid5tusare clinal, and that the two taxa should be treated as a single form. This species has been studied extensively in Mexico and Texas (see Sites 820.100,820.110,820.120,820.160,820.200,$20.220,820.225,and 820.235).

~ceZ5porus~ u g ~ s t e r Desert Spiny Lizard (Map 79) SceZoporus~ugisterHallo~ell1854.Proc. Acud. Nut. Sci. P ~ i l u 7: .

93. 14,21,26,180,29,56.401, 74,162,190,223, 232.010,232.011, 257, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 323,210, 391.002,434.170, 522.2OO,6 654,665,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, ~2g,809,811,820.150,835,844, 719.120, 858,871,872,883,885,1050.169.1o~~.~1o, 1085.210. SUBSPECIES: ~ i ~ ~ c u Z oPhelan s u s and Brattstrom 1955.~erpetozogicu11 :g. REFERENCES:

COMMENTS:Museum records from Ector and Val VerdeCounties are questionable. Axtell (26.180)summarizes the Texas distribution and taxonomy of the species.

Sceloporus ~ e r r i u ~ i Canyon Lizard (Map80) Sceloporus ~ e r r j Stejneger u ~ ~ 1904.Proc. Biol. Soc. W u s ~17 . :17.

REFERENCES: 9.16,21,29, 56.401, 74,162,1g1,206,206.100,215, 59.610, 223, 223.110, 232.010, 232.011, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 323.210 323.238, 368.100, 391.002, 392,427.190, 427.201,451.510,498.220, 427.200, 498.225,568.011,613,622.122,643.515,648,655,658,661.200,665,683.200, 683.210, 700,708.300, 714.100, 714.140, 718.170, 718.175, 725,789 811,820.150,828,835,844,858,862.525,871,872,873,878.310,891,g1g, 965, 1072.169,1ogo. ggg,1o~~.o~o,1050.169,1o~~.~1o, SUBSPECIES: ~ e r r i u ~unnuZut~s i; Smith 1937.Proc. Biol. Soc. W u s ~50: . 83; Z o n g i ~ u ~ c tOlson u ~ ~ s1973.~erpetoZ5gicu29(2): 124. COMMENTS: A museum record for San Saba Countyis erroneous. Axtell questions the validity of the Loving and Ward County records for this species (pers. corn.). The life history of this taxon is wellknown through the works of Dunham

(323.200,

323.210).

Species Accounts 103

Seeloporus olivace~s Texas Spiny Lizard (Map81) Seeloporus olivaceus ~ m i t h1934. Trans, Kans. Acad. Sci. 37: 263.

~ E F E R E ~ C E 26.181, §: 29, 33, 53.100, 53.200, 56.40 ,74,84, 92, 101, 135,

I49.110,150,162,1g1,192,198.605,205.005,206.100,223.108,228,232.010, 232.011,250,257,289.595, 312.141,312.142,312.144, 330.500,330. 368.100,380, 39I.002,398,399,451.500,451.510,~54.100,495.085

.289,622.297,626.510,643.515,662, 683 747, 748, 753.400,758, 765, 786.200,80

,858,860.012,860.013,860.017,865,871,872,873,912,g1~,915,

9

927, 930,938, 942,94419451 952, 9569 957,9649966,967,999, 6.050,1050.169,1062,1098,1107.

C O ~ ~ EA~record ~ § for : E1 Paso County iserroneous,Museum records of the species fromeast of the Trinity Riverare questionable. The Brewster County record

(289. air (92) studied the population d ~ n a ~ iofc sthis species, and Dean aryotypic, and~ o r p h o l o ~ i cattributes al of the species, (26,181) who questions sevt of Texas records, see Axtell eral distributional records for this species,

S c e l o ~ o rpoinsetti ~s rev ice Spiny Lizard (Map82) ScelopoyuspoinsettiBaird and Girard1852. Proc, Acad. Nat. Sei, P~ila.6: 126.

R E F E ~ E ~ C E 17,26.120,26.172, §: 29, 53.100, 53.200,56.402,74,135,14g.110,

g1g,94.7,957,964,967,986,1003.200,1003.210,1o~5.1oo,1046.050, 1050.169,1055.~1o, 1061.120,1085,210,1098.

FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson and Kendall Counties (4g5.020,4g5.0 § ~ ~ § ~ E c Ipoinsetti Es: (see above).

Webb (1061,120) presents an excellent account of the early military border route between San Antonio andEl Paso from 1849 to 185 During this period, the syntypes ofthe crevice spiny lizard were collected, along with a number ofother Texas reptiles. S:

104 ~ ~ p ~ i ~and i a~eptiles n s of Texas

SceZoporUs unaUZutUs Eastern FenceLizard ( StelZio UnaU~atus Latreille 1802. Hist. Nut, Rept. SeeloporusU~aUZutus ~ i e g m a n n1828. Isis von R E ~ E R E ~ C E S14, : 21,26,120, 29, 53.100, 53.200, 54.410,61, 7 ,149.110, 155,162, I75,I9I1I92,195, 204.400, 2I5,218.100, 257,277.800,290, 3,223.12, 228,232.010,232.011,233.~2o, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 323.210,3~9.100,368.100,375.500, 380, 391.002, 9~.04.0,49~.050,495.085~ 509.575,521, 529, 529.200,538, 543.010 573,..330, ~8~.1oo,602.200,609.400,613,616.110,616.130,616.500 2.289,622.297,634,642.060,643.600,643.800,648,657,662,6

3,200,687, 700, 712, 714.160, 718.170, 718.175, 726, 753. 809, 811, 816.300~ 820.150, 831, 844, 8~8,853.050,860.011, 9079 9 0 8 , 9 0 9 , 9 1 2 , 9 1 3 , 9 1 5 , 9 1 8 , 9 1 9 , 9 2 2 , 9 4 4 ,968,1003.200,1014,1o1~.~oo, 1021, IO 1046.050,1050.169,1o~~.~1o, 1072,100,1085.210,1098.

FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson, Kendall, and Lubbock Counties(394.400,~95.0207 ~$95.040~ 495.050,602,20 SUBS~ECIES:conso~rinU rd and Girard 1854. In Marcy, ~ ~ p Red Z o~ i~v e r 3 :23 7;gur~uniBoulenge 2. Proc. 2001. Soc. ~ o n a18 . 2 :762: ~ ~ a c i n t ~ i n ~ s Green 1818.1. Acaa, Nat. C O ~ ~ ~ N Conant T S : (230.120) recorded isolated populationsof S. U,g u r ~ a n i from extremeeastern New Mexico.Therefore, it would not be surprising to find a U . gur~uni in the northwestern Texas counties of Cochran and

Smith et. al. ($53.050) and Lemos-Espinal et al.(585,100) discuss the distribution and taxonomic relationship of S. unauZutUs among its subspeciesand to S, ~eZZi, SceZo~orus vuri~~ilis Rose- el lied Lizard (Map 84) Sce~5p5rusvuriu~ilis~ i e g m a 1834. ~ n Herpetol, Mex. 1834: 51. R E ~ E ~ E N C E 26.173, S: 56.402, 74, 135,162,191, 223, 223.140, 232.011, 250, 257, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 391.002,4.39.200, 495.050, 529.500, 587.500,616.110,616.120,616.130,616.200, 2,289,622,296, 714,160,718.170,718.175, 770, 809, 820,100 820,150,820.160,820.200, 820.210, 820.220,820.225,820.235, 826, 830, 844, 858,871,872,887,957,966,967,1003.200,1046.050,1050.169.

Kendall County(495.020,495.050). SUBS~ECIES: ~ u r ~ o r u tHallowell1852. us Proc. h a d . Nut. Sci, P ~ i ~6u: 178. , ~ O M ~ E N T Published S: recordsfor Dallas(835,844) and El Paso (826,835) Counties are erroneous, as is a museum record for LeeCounty. Sites and Dixon (820.210) discuss the Texas subspecies. FOSSIL RECORD:

SpeciesAccounts

105

Genus Urusaurus Hallowell

Pruc. Acud. Nut. Sci. P ~ i l a1854, ,

927:

Urusaurus urnutus Tree Lizard (Map85)

Uta urnatu Baird and Girard 1852,Pruc. Acud. Nut. Sci, la. 6: 128. Urusa~rusurnatus, Etheridge 1964.Cupeia 1964(4) :626.

REFERENCES: 14, 21,26.120,26.186, 29,36, 53.140, 74, 129, 155,162 198.205, 215, 223,228, 232.010, 232.011, 257, 312.141, 312.142 323.200, 323.210, 323.220, 323.225, 391.002, 393.070, 443.020, 4 4~1.~1o,4~~.1oo,521,~2~.~1o,602.200,613,614.120,614.150,616.500, 622.289,642.060,658,661.200,662,665,669,670,683.200,687, 700, 718.170, 718.175, 753.400,809,811,844, 858,871,872,878.310,883,885,886,919,930, 956,965,967,1003,200,1003.210,1o~~.1oo, 1046.050,1o~~.o~o, 1050.169, 1o~~.~11,1072.165,1085.210,1086. FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson County(602,200). S u B s P E c r E s : urnatus; s c ~ ~ i~dl t~t lie m a n 1940.~ e r p e t u ~ u2(2): ~ ~ c u 33.

COMMENTS: The natural

history of this species isdocumented by Dunham (323.210,323.220) and Martin (614.120,614.140). Axtell (26.186)lists all of the known Texas records for this species, and Wiens (1072.165) presents the most recent systematic phylogenyfor the genus. Genus Uta Baird and Girard In Stansbury,Explu~Surv. V u l l e ~Gt. Salt iuke 1852 :345 Uta s t a ~ s ~ u r i u ~ a Side~blotchedLizard (Map86) Uta stans~uriunuBaird and Girard 1852.In Stansbury,Explu~Surv. Valle~Gt. Sult Lake 1852: 345. R E F E R E ~ C E S :21, 29, 54, ~~.~00,56,401,1~~,162,197,206, 232.010, 232.011, 257,266,267,277.800,279, 290, 290.110, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 358,359,359.o1o,359.o~o~3~9.o3o,359.~oo, 359.205,359.210,380,384.020, 384.100,384.110,384.120,384.130,~~1.oo~, 393.070,398,432.200,442.278, 445,510,521,~~1,611.115,613,622.289,631.100,642.060,648,654,662.100, 665,683.200, 7oo,7o8.290,718.17o1 718.175,746,753.400,792,793,804,809, 811,816.300,844,858,872,883, 885,908,919,947,965,1014, 1016,1017,

10~7.100,1017.200,1020,1023,1024.100,10~~.200,1050.169, 1055.410,

1085.210,1085.230,1o~~.~~2,1098. SUBSPECIES: ste~negeriSchmidt 1921,Am. us, Nuvit. 15:I. ~ O M M E ~ TM S :u s e u ~ records fromCoke, Kimble,and Palo Pinto Counties are questionab~e. provided detailed life The late Donald Tinkle(1016,1017,1017.100,1o1~.~oo) history informationfor the side-blotched lizard.

106

A m p ~ i ~ i aand n s ~eptilesof Texas

323

Genus Anolis Daudin Hist. Nat. Rept. 1803,4:50 A ~ o l icarolinensis s Green Anole (Map70) A~olis caro~~nens~s Voigt 1832.In Cuvier, ~hierre~ch 2:

71.

R E F E R E ~ C E S14,29,53.100,53.200, : 74,84,92,162,198.500,220.130,

220.300,228,2~o.1~o, 232.010,232.011,257,265.300,31~.1~1,~12.142, ~ 1 2 . 1 ~ ~ , ~ 1 2 . 1 ~ ~ , ~ ~ 1 , 3 6 9 . 2 0 0 , ~ ~ ~ . ~393.080,439,443.020, 00,387,3g1.oo~~ ~~4.1oo,464,480.320,487.500,~o2, ~og.o5o,~og.5~5,5og.700,532.~~o, 542,588.390,612.054,616.200,625.540,643.600,643.700,6~~.~2o, 643.800, 714.160,718.170,718~175, 726, 753.400, 765, 780.050, 783.275,809,844,858, 859,860.030,862.500,g12,g~3,g~~, g28,g32,g42,943,947,956,967,968, 1003.200,1042.120,1o~2.1~o, 1042.160,1042.184,1046.050,1048.200, 1050.169,1072.100.

COMMENTS: Museum recordsfor Atascosa, Brown, Cameron, Frio, Hidalgo, Maverick, Menard, Uvalde,and Willacy Counties may reprksent accidental introd~ctions. I recently observed courting a pair of green anoles alongthe nature trail in Rio Grande Village, Big BendNational Park, Brewster County. These two individuals were probably deliberate introductions into the park. Anolis sagrei Brown Anole (Map71) Anolis sagreiDumeril and Bibron 1837.Erpetol, Gen. Hist. Rept.4: R E F E R E ~ C E S232.010, :

718.170,

232.011, 718.175,1050.169.

312.141,

312.142,

1.49. 391.002,545.806,

573

C O ~ M E NThis T S : species represents an introduction into Texas viathe interstate plant trade. It has not been foundin parts of Texas other than the sites of its initial introduction.

Genus E u ~ e c e~s i e g m a n n Herpetol. Mex. 1834: 36 Eu~eces anthraci~~s Coal Skink (Map 68) Plestiodon anthracinusBaird 1&29.I. Acad. Nat, Sci. Phila,, 2d ser., I :294. E u ~ e c eant~racinus, s Cope 1875.Bull. US. ~ a t lMus. , x:45.

REFERENCES: 165,1~~,228,232.010,232.011,257,~12.1~1,312.142,~12.1

Species Acc~unts 107

362,391.oo2,~5~.~~2,718.170,718.175,~53.~oo, 783.275,809,816+510,844, 848, 858,876,990,1019, 1o~g.~oo,1050,169,1062,1072.100. S U ~ S P E C ~ Epluvialis S: Cope 1880.Bull. US.Natl, Mus. 17: 19. C O M ~ E N T SA : literature record (816.510) for Dallas County and a museum record for Brazos County are questionable. Walley’s (1049.500) distribution map of the species followsthe distribution indicated by Dixon (312.141). Walley’s catalog account presents the latest summary of the literature, includin~the t a x o n o ~ yecology, , and behavior of the species. ,

E ~ ~ e cfasciatus es ~ i v e - ~ n e d S(Map k i k 87) ~acertafusciata Linnaeus 1758. Syst. Nut. I :209. E u ~ e c efasciatus, s Cope 1875. Bull. US,Natl. Mus, 1:45. REFERENCES: 2 9 , 5 3 . 2 0 0 , 1 2 2 , 1 6 2 , 1 6 5 , 1 7 5 ,2 2 8 , 2 3 2 . 0 1 0 , 2 3 2 . 0 1 1 , 2 5 ~ , 312.141,312.142,361,362,375.50a 39~.002,393.080,431,439,464,495.085, 502,503,509.575, 534, 714,718.170,718~75, 7~1.232,726, 753.400,780.050, 783.275,809,844,858,865,g12,924,927,928, 932,933,939, 947,952,968,

~~o,1o~o.2~o,1042.12,1050.169,1072.100,1098. COMMENTS: Museum recordsfrom Bexar, Brown,and Mason Countiesare questionable. The five-lined skink aiscommon lizard in theBig Thicket. E u ~ e c e latice~s s Bro~d-headedSkink (Map88) Scincus luticeps Schneider 1901.Hist. A ~ p ~2 : i189. ~ . E u ~ e c e laticeps, s Peters 1864. M o n a t s ~ e ~ A ~Wiss. a d . Berlin 1864:49. REFERENCE^: 74,162,228,

232,010, 232,OII, 233.403, 312.141, 312.142,

312.144,361,362,375.500,391.002, ~43.020,480.320,480.378,soy.575, 52y.510,622.233,622.297,7r8.170,718,175, 726, 753.400, 783.275,802.311, 809,844, 858,865,99o,1050.169,1072.100.

C O ~ M ~ N TA S Bexar : Countyliterature record (990) is erroneous, and a museum record for Llano County is questionable. A “bronze”color morph occurs among normally patterned individuals in. the Big Thicket. Photographs of this color morph have been taken by Dixon, Hibbitts, Malone, and Irwin (pers. comm.), and specimens residein the Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection.

E u ~ e c e ~ultivirgatus s any-~ined Skink (Map89) ~ l e s t i o ~ o n ~ u l t i v i r Hallowell g a t u ~ 1857. Proc, Acad. Nat. Sci, ~ ~ i lga: 215. . E u ~ e c e s ~ u ~ t i v i r gCope a t ~ s1875. , Bull. US.Natl. Mus. I :45. 108

A ~ p ~ i ~ i and a n ~eptiles s of ~ e ~ a s

REFERENCES: 21,26.120, 74,1~~.oo~,162,167,223,228,232.010,232.011, 245, 257, 312.130, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 312.145, 355.400,362, 391.002, ~~~.o~o,~~~.~oo,442.278,458.200,479,480.335,568.011,602.200,606, 622.236,637,642,020,642.060,642.070,683.200,687,718.170, 718.175, 725, 809,842,844,858,872,885,989,~~o,998,1050.169,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson County(~~~.~oo,458.200,602.200). SUBSPECIES: epipzeurotus Cope 1880. Bdz. Us. Natz, Mus. 17:40. COMMENTS: Both Mecham(642,020) and Dixon (312.130) suggest that their

specimen recordsare intergrades between E. m,ga~geae(= epipZeurotus)and E. m. ~uztivirgatus.It is also possiblethat thesouthern plains population may represent a distinct subspecies (642.070). Eumeces obsoZetus Great Plains Skink (Map90) PZest~odono~soZetumBaird and Girard 1852,. Proc, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 6 :129. E u ~ e c eobsoZetus s Cope 1875. BUZZ.US. NatZ. Mus, I:45.

REFERENCES: 3, 21, 29, 3I,36, 53.200, 72.555, 74,155,162, 180, 223,228, 232.010, 232.OII,25O, 253, 257, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 323,210,362,380, 384.120, 391.002, 391.007, 393.070, 393.080, 394..400,4.45.200, 448,449, ~~1~~oo,~~1.~1o,~~~.1oo,458.200,4 495.020,4.95.050,495.085, 80.300,495,

611.115,612.110,613,622.289,622.297,624,626.510,634,642.060,648,662,

662.100,665,683.200,687, 700, 714,718.170,718.175,719.200, 775.600,809, 811,816.300,844,858,871,872,883,885,909, 915,918,91g, 922,951,956, 964,967,976.400,990, 1004.450, 1014,1017.200,1o~~.1oo, 1046.050, 1050.169,1o~~.~1o, 1085.210,1o~~.~~1,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson, Kendall, and Llano Counties(3g4.400,458.200, 4959 495.020, 495.050). C O M ~ E N T SThe : eastern limit of this species in Texas appears to be restricted to edge of the calcareous soils that border an ancient Cretaceous reef.

Eumeces septentrionazis Prairie S k i d (Map 91) PZestiodon septentrionaz~s Baird 1858. Proc. Acad, Nat. Sci. P~iZa,IO: 256. ~ u ~ e cseptentrionazis, es Cope 1875. BUZZ. US. NatZ. Mus. 1:44. REFERENCES: 1 2 4 , 1 ~ g , 1 6 2 , 1 6 4 , 1 6 5 , 2 2 3 , 2 2 8 , 2 3 2 . 0 1 0 , 2 3 2 , 0 1 1 ,295, 2~~,

312.141, 312.142, 312,144,362,380,391.002,622.114,622,289,622.296,630, 718.170, 718.175,726,765, 794,809,844,860.030,865,867, 873,904,923,943,

g~o,1042.181,1046.050,1050.169,1og8, SUBSPECIES: obtusirostris Bocourt 1879. Miss. Sci. M e x 6 :423. C O ~ M E N T SA : Brewster County record (867,990) and a museum record for San Saba Countyare q~estionable. The prairie skink seems to be disappearing fromthe post oaksavanna plant Species Accou~ts 109

c o ~ u n i t of y Texas, along with many other lizards. Most herpetologists suspect that the loss isdue to heavy infestationby nonnative fire ants. E u ~ e c etse t r a g r a ~ ~ u s Four-lined Skink (Map 92) Plestiodo~t e t r a g r a ~Baird ~ ~ s 1858.Proc. ticad, Nat. Sci. Phila. IO:256. E u ~ e c e s t e t r a g r a ~Cope ~ u s ,1875.Bull. US. Natl, Mus, 1:45.

REFERENCES: 9,I7,21, 27, 29, 31, 74,129,162, 215, 223, 228, 232. 232.011, 245, 257, 292, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144,362,380, 391.00 443.020,454.Ioo, 495.020,495.050, 521, 529.500, 529.510, 532.400,546 588.360,588.371,613,622.289,626.510,648,656,662,665,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 794,809,811, 844,858,865,871,872,913,916,918,919,930, 947, 956,957,964,965966,967,990,1003.200,1046~050,1050.169,1o55.~1o, 1067,1103. FOSSIL RECORD: Kendall County(495.020,495.050). SUBSPECIES: ~revilineatusCope 1880.Bull. US. Natl. Mus, 17:18;t e t r a g r a ~ ~ u s

(see above). COMMENTS: Museum recordsfor Henderson and Limestone Counties(588.360) are questionable. Lieb’swork (588.360)is the most comprehensive taxonomic treatment of the four-lined slrinkand its allies.

Genus Sci~cellaMittleman ~erpetologica1950,6(2):

19

Scincella lateralis Ground Skink(Map 93) Scincus lateralis Say 1823.In Long, Exped. Rockg Mts. 2:324. Scincella lateralis, Mittleman 1950.~erpetologica6(2):19. REFERENCES:

3,

14,

29,

33,

53.200,

72.555,

74,

92,

122,150.500,

~~~,198,605,220.140,220.150,220.200,228,232.010, 232.011,250,257,284,

312.14~312.142, 312.144,312.145,369,372.700,375.500,391, 391.002,431, 454.100,463, 464,465,480.335, 5o2,~o3,5o~.~~5,52~.~oo,588,616.100, 616.200,622.289,634,655,656,662,683.200, 701.120,714, 718.170, 718.175, 726,753.400, 765, 780.050, 783.275, 809,844,858,865,875,907,911,912,9 9151 918, 924, 9271 928, 9309 932,942, 944,947,952, 956,957’ 967,968,976.405,1003.200,1022, 1o~o.~~o,1046.050,1050.169,1067, 1072.100,1098. C O M ~ E N T SMather’s : (616.100)work on the naturalhistory of the ground skink

is the most comprehensivestudy of the species in Texas.

IIO

~ ~ p h i ~and i Reptiles a ~ s of Texas

Genus C n e ~ i ~ o p h ~Wagler rus Sgst, A ~ p h i b1830: , 154 SPECIAL COMMENT: Information on Texas whiptail

lizardshas exploded since

1974.More than 250 papers have appeared on whiptails since1865.Of this approximate total, about 120 (48 percent) have appeared in the last 25 years. Currently,

there are five bisexual and six unisexual species in Texas. Theuniqueness of parthenogenesis and its evolutionary implications have led to an explosive growth of the literature. Cnemi~ophorus dixoni Gray-checkered Whiptail (Map 94) C n e ~ i ~ o p h o r ~ sScudday ~ i x o 1973. ~ i I; Herpetol. 7(4):364. REFERENCES: 232,010, 232.011, 312.141, 391.002,622.156,622.157, 312.142, 816.110,860.030,1042.100, 622.233, 718.170, 718.175, 746.305,802.412, 104g.220,104g.22g, 1050.169. COMMENTS: C. dixoni is restricted to the lower benchesof the Chinati Mountains

along the Rio Grande in Presidio County. Walker et al. (1049.245)recently reportedon the biology of this species. The gray-checkered whiptail is a parthenoform species. Cne~idophorusexsunguis Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail(Map 94) C n e ~ i ~ o p ~ sacki o r u sexsangu~sLowe 1956.Bull. Chi, Acad, Sci. IO:138. C n e ~ i ~ o p h o rexsunguis, us Duellman and Zweifel1962. Bull, Am. Mus. Nat, Hist. 123:184.

REFERENCES: 27.500,212.600, 232.010, 232,011,293,875, 312.141, 312.14 322,~~1.oo~,~~~.o~o,~~~.~oo,611.115,622.121,642.060,657,683.200 718.170, 718.175, 719.200, ~4~.12o,802.410,802.411,802.412, 721.044, 816.110,816.200,822.031,871,968,100,1042.100,1050.169,1085.210, 1097.110,1105. FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson County(394.400). COMMENTS: A Pecos County record(27.500) and museum records for Terre11

and Reeves Counties are questionable. The Chihuahan spotted whiptailis a part hen of or^ species.

Cne~idophor~s g~laris Texas Spotted Whiptail (Map 95) C n ~ ~ i d u p ~ o r u s gBaird ~ l a rand i s Girard 1852.Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci, P~ila.6 :128.

R E F E R E ~ C E S :3,21, 27.500, 29, 33,36, 39, 53.200, 54.300, 54.310,5 60.200,61, 74, 1~9.500,1~9,110,1~0, 92, 155,162,173,181,184,1~5,212.600, 223,228, 232.010, 232.011, 250, 252.100, 253, 257, 257.190, 312.141, 312. 312.144,322,377.325,380,388.805,388.810, yp.002, 392,393.070~434, 2.278,448,449,451,4~~.~oo,487.610,49o,~~~.o~o,~~1,566,567,604,6 609,613,622.113,622,122,622.200,622.225,622.289,622.297,622.310,634, 642.060,645,651,652,653,655,657,658,662,665,683,200,687, 701.zg0, 711.500, 712.005, 718.170, 718.175, 721.041, 721,044, 721.045, 721 1.065, 721.070, 7~1.071,726,732.400, 753.400, 756, 758, 765,802 8~0~075,822.031~844,858,871,8~2,883,885,go~,~o~,912,~13,g15, 916,918, 9197 922,930,9329 938, 944,947, 9517 952, 956,957,9671 1003-200, 9931 997, 1o1~.~oo,1027.200,1o2~.2~1,1042.100,1042.120,1o~2.1~o, 1042.1 1042,181,I0~5.100,1046.050,1049.201, 1049.202, 1049.203,1049.2 1o~~.211,1o~~.22~,1049.226,1049.230, 10 9.234,1o4g.250,1050.169, 1072.100.1o~~.1~o, 1096,1105. FOSSIL RECORD: Denton County(490,495.050). SU~SPECIES:gularis (see

above). C O M M E ~ T S~ : useum records fromAnderson, Cass, Harrison, Henderson, and Morris Countiesare questionable. Walker and his associateshave spent the past 30 years studying various aspects of Texas spotted whiptailbiology (see Walker’s references from1987through 1997).

Cne~idophorusinornatus Little Striped Whiptail (Map 94) Cne~idop~orus inor~atus Baird 1858,Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.IO:255.

R E F E R E ~ C E S :21,23,26.120,~~.5oo,1~~,212.600,232.010,232.011,~33.1~

.5OO, 290, 29O.II0, 312.141,312.142, 322, 377.325, 391.002 ~~~.o~o,609,611.115,622.122,622.289,642.060,648,654,655,658,659, 661,400,661.500,662,683.200,683.210, 718.170, 718.175, 792,802.200, 809,811,816.110, 816.120,816.200,858, 802.400,802.410,802.411,802,412, 865, 872,878,300, 878.310~883, 885,1002,1042,100,1050.169,1o~5.~1o, 1061.175,1072.100,1096.100, 1097.111, 1098. SUBSPECIES: ~ e p t o ~ r aAxtell ~ ~ u1961. s Copeia 1961(6): 156. C O M ~ E ~ TA S :museum record for GillespieCounty is erroneous, and a record for

Mitchell Countyis questionable. A re vie^ of C.inornatus and several new subspecies and their distributionsare presented by Wright and Lowe (1097.111). For Texaslocalities, see Axtell (26.183).

112

A ~ ~ h i ~ iand a n~eptiles s of ~ e ~ u s

C~emiaophoruslareaoensis Laredo Striped Whiptail (Map 66) C~emi~ophorus lareaoe~sis ~cKinney,Kay, and Anderson 1973. ~erpeto~ogica 29(4): 361. REFERENCES: 26.184,60.200, 232.010, 232.OII,293.875, 312,141, 312.142, 312,144, 319.600, 377.325,391.002,568.011,622.122,622.289,630,160,632, 718.170, 718.175, 721.040, 721.041, 721,042, 721,043, 721.044, 721.045, 72I.061, 721.065, 721.070, 721,071, ~~~.~oo,820.075,1042.100,1o~~.11o, 10~9.201,10~g.202,1o~~.203,1049,210,1o~9.211,1049.216,1049.226,

1 0 4 ~ . 2 3 ~ , 1 o ~ ~ . 2 ~ o , 1050,169,1og~.2oo. 1o~~.~oo, COMMENTS: Walker (1049.202) and %kd.keret d.(1049.216) have extended the distribution of this species southeast along the Rio Grande from Webb County to Cameron County. Population dynamics,courtship behavior, thermal biology, and relationships with sympatric C.gular~sare discussed by Paulissen (721.040-721.043) and Paulissen et al. (721,065, 721.070, 721.071). The Laredo striped whiptaila is part hen of or^ species. C~emiaophor~s neome~icu~us New MexicoWhiptail (Map94)

C~emiaophorusneome~ica~us Lowe and Zweifel1952. Bull. Chi. Acad. Sci. g :230. ~ E F E R E ~ ~9.525,26,26.120,29,36,39, ES: 74,103,155,162,184,223, 223.175, 232.010, 232.011, 257, 257.191, 257.210, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 322,391.002, 521,609,611.115, 613,616,622,120,650,652,653,665,683.200, 683.210, 700,718.170,718.175,809,811,844,871,919,947,1042.100, 1050.169,1061.175,1085.210,1096.110I O ~ ~ . I O O , I O ~ ~ . I I 1100. O, C O ~ M E ~ TMuseum S: recordsfrom Culberson and Presidio Countiesare questionable. The New Mexicowhiptail is a parthenoform species. C~emiaophor~s ~~ptemvittatus Plateau Spotted Whiptail (Map 94) C~emiaophor~s septemvitt~tusCope 1892. ~rans.Am. ~ ~ i l oSoc. s . 1892 :42. R E F ~ ~ E ~ C 9.525, ES: 27,500, 212.600, 223.175, 232.010, 232.011, 257.190, 2 9 0 , 2 9 0 , 1 1 0 , 2 9 3 . 8 8 5 , ~ 1 ~ . 1 ~ 1 , 3 1 2 . 1 ~ 2 322, , 3 1 2323,210,377,325, .1~~, ~~~.oo~,~g~.o~o,622.157,622.158,622.289,659,661.400,661.500,6

718.170, 718.175, 718.410, 718.500, 732.400,

802.412,816.110,816.121,

816.200,871,872,878.300,1042.100,1o~~.o~o, 10~~.2~2,1050.169,10~~.~10, COMMENTS: Because of an initial misunderstanding about type localitiesand their associated taxa by Burger (173)~ the correct name for this taxon should be se~temvittutusrather than scalaris,

Walker (1981) has suggested that C. septemvittutusis a subspecies of C. guZ~ris, based upon a zone of contact between thesetasa ~sc~Zuris = septemvittutus and guIuris) in Mexico. Forstner et al. (377.330)recently discoveredthe contact zone in Texas between these two tasa; they have proposedthat hybridization occurs in the zone and that the two taxa are probably species. Cnemidop~urussexzineutus Sis-linedRacerunner (Map 97) ~ucertusexZineutu Linnaeus 1766.Syst. Nut, I :364. C ~ ~ ~ i d o psexIineutus, ~ o r ~ s Dumeril and Bibron 1839.~rpetoZ.Gen. 5:131. REFERENCES: 3,14,26.182,29,53.200,60.200, 74,122,155,162,175,184, 1g~,220.140,220.150,220.200,22~.1~~, 228,232.010,232.011,252.100,25~,

257.175,277.800,293.885,312.141,312.142,312.144,322,348,365,380, ~~1~002,442.278,443.0~0,451.~00,451.510, 454.100,464,480.375, 485,495, ~2g.510,604,608,613,622.122,622.136,622.227,622.233, 495,050, 5og.575, 622.289, 622.297,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 718.410, 721.044, 721. 721,061, 721.070, 721.072, 726, 732.400, 747, 753.400, 765,783.27 809, 816.300,844., 853.001,858,860.030,865,872,883,885,go8,912,~15, 928, 947,g51,g52,956,966,967,968,975,977,1003.200,1oq., 1022,1027.252, 104.2.100,1042.120,1046.050,1o~g.202,104g.2o3,10~g.213,1o~g.215, 1049.226,1050.169,1072.100,1o~2.115, 1098, FOSSIL RECORD: Llano County(495,495.050). SUBSPECIES: sexzineutus; viridisLowe 1966.1.Ariz. Acud. Sci, 4(1) :44;step~ensue Trauth 1992.Teex. 1.Sci. 443437-43. C O ~ ~ E ~ The T S :taxonomicboundaries among subspecies in Tesas are not well defined. Trauth (1027.252) recently describeda yellow-faced race of this species from the deep sand zones of Brooks, Jim Hogg, Kenedy, Starr, and Webb Counties.

Cnemidop~orustessezatus Colorado Checkered Whiptail (Map 98) Ameivu tesseZutu Say 1823.In Long, ~ x p e roc^^ ~ . Mts. 2:50.Cnemidop~orustesselutus, Baird 1859.Puce R.R. Surv. 10(4) :18. REFERENCES: 21,26.120,2~.500,29,36,39, 74,155,162,184,212.600,215, 223,232.010,232.011,253,25~,267.500,290,293.875,293.885,~1~.1~1, 312,142,380,391.002,3g3.070, 3g4.400,398,~21,545.530,611.115, 613, 622.104,622.118,622.122,622.157,622.190,622.233,634,642.060,648,651, 652,653,655,658,662,665,683.200,683,210, 700, 718.170, 718.175, 718.400, 718.410, 718.500, 71g.200, 746.305, 747.140, ~g2,802.200,802.210, 802.400,802.410, 802.411, 802.412,809,812,816.110,816.120,816.121, 816,200,816.300, 844, 858,860, 865,871,872, 883,885,909,919, 922,947, 965,977,1012,1022,1042.100,1045.100, I0~g.232,1050.169,10~~.410, 1061.175,1072.100,1085.210,1096.111,1106.

1x4. A m p ~ i ~ i uand n s ReptiZes of Texas

FOSSIL

RECORD: Culberson County(394.400).

C O ~ ~ E ~ Unverified T S : museum records of this species

for Kent and Webb Counties probablyrepresent C. tigris. Both Wright (1096.111) and Walker et al. (1049.232)have discussed the application of the name tesselatus to Zweifel’s (1106)pattern classes A, B, C, D, E, and F. Wright (1096.111) resurrected the name g r u h a ~for i diploidpattern classes C, D, and E, recognized ~ ~for diploid o ~pattern i class F, and stated that anundescribed diploid pattern class C existed. Wright designated two C-pattern classes: CI for the diploid type and C2 for the triploid type. Walker et al. (1049.232) describedthe triploid pattern class C2 as C. ~eotesse~atus. They stated that Wright’s restriction of the name tesselatus to pattern classes A and B was inappropriate (Say’soriginal description of tesselatus could have been based onlyon a diploid classD pattern.) and redefined the characters of tesse~utus, selecting a neotype fromamong a sampleof individuals close to Pueblo, Colorado (the type locality). This action does not resolve completelythe placement of the name g r a ~ u ~Does i. it reside with diploid pattern classes CI, D, and E as Wright has indicated? Is it a synonym of tesselatus (pattern class D) as Walker et al. have suggested, is orthe pattern of g r a h a ~representative i of Zweifel’s pattern class E? C. g r u h u ~appears i to belong toZweifel’spattern class E, based upon illustrations, photographs, and its suspected type locality of El Paso. C. g r a h a ~ iwith , its unique pattern type E, probably represents another evolutionary line, and if accepted as such, represents the correct name for Texaspopulations. The Colorado checkered whiptail is parthenoform a species.

C ~ e ~ i ~ o ~ htigris orus

Western W~iptail(Map 99) C ~ e ~ i a o p h otigris r ~ s Baird and Girard 1852.Proc. Acud. Nat. Sci. Phila. 6 :69. R E ~ E R E N C ~ 14, S : 21,26.120,2~.~oo,36,~~.1oo,162,173,184,212.600,223, 232.010,232.011,267.500,~~~.8oo, 290,290.110, 312.141, 312.142, 323.210, ~ ~ ~ . ~ o o , ~ ~ ~ . ~ 2 ~ , 3 8 4 . 1 2 0 , 3 8393.070,398,423.500, 7 . 5 0 0 , ~ ~ ~ . o o ~ 4.54.375, , 473.410,473.420,473.430,473.431,473.432,611.115,622.122,622.157, 622,233,622.296,629,642,060,648,651,652,653,654,658,659,661.400, 661.500,662,100,665,665.500,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 718.400,718.410, 718.500, 719,200, 721.044, 721.050, 730.201, 802.200,802.4.00,802.410, 802.411,802.412,809,816.120, 816.121,816.200,871,872,878.300,878.310, 883, 885,987,1012,1014,1017.200,1023,1042.100,1o~2.3oo, 1049.195, ~o~g,23o,1050.169,1o~~.~~o, 1085.210,1085.410, 1og~.11o,1098,1104. S U ~ S P E C ~~ ~a S :r ~ o r u tBaird u s and Girard 1852. Proc. A c u ~Hat. . Sei. Phi~a.

6: 128. COMMENTS: Isolated records from orden, Fisher, Garza,and Webb Co~nties are verified specimensof C. Just~cationfor usin ame C, ~ a r ~ o r arather t ~ s than C,tigris is p ~ e s ~ n t e ”

by Hendricksand Dixon (473.431). Dessauer and Cole (1991), however, have shown that intergradation between these two taxa occurs in the contact zone in western New Mexico,and FI to F4 generation individuals are still present in the contact zone. Cne~idophorusuniparens Desert Grassland Whiptail (Map 94) C n e ~ i ~ o ~ h ouni~arens rus Wright and Lowe 1965.J.Ariz. Acad. Sci. 3(3) :167. REFERENCES: 9.525, 232.010, 232.011, 259,500,293.875, 312.141, 391.002,3~3.o~o,611.115,683.300, 718.170,718.175,885,1042.100,1050.169, 1085.210,10~7, 1097.110,

312.14

C O ~ ~ E N TThe S : Texas distribution of this species is restricted tothe imediate environs of El Paso. The desertgrassland whiptail is a parthenoform species.

Genus Gerrhonotus Wiegmann Isis von Oken 1828,21:380 Gerrhonotus infernalis Texas Alligator Lizard (Map 100) Gerrhonotus infernalis Baird 1858, Proc. Acad, Nat. Sci. Phila. IO :255. REFERENCES: 21, 29,

3I,56.401,

71,

74,149,110,

I5O,162,176,205.008,

228,232.010,232.011,25~, 2~~.~oo,290.200,292,31~.1~1,312.142,312.1~~

373,391.002,393.080,426.250, 426.251,426.275,433, 443.020,454.100, ~3~,oo1,588.310,622.128,624,644.150,665,683.200, 700, 701.400, 718.170, 718.175, 720.233, 753.~00,809,811,816.520,844,858,871, 747, 8722,884,918, 1050.169, 919,930,947, 948,956,964,967,1007, 1o32.700,1046.050, 10~~.410,1066,1067,1098. C O ~ ~ E N TThe S : isolated records for Fayette (701.400)and Dallas (816.520) Counties have been verified,but the Dallas recordis probably due to an accidental

introduction. Taxonomic information about Gerrhono~usand its relatedgenera and species is found in Good (426.250,426.251,426.275).

116

A ~ p h i ~ i a and n s ~eptilesofTexas

Genus Op~isaurusDaudin Bull. Soc. P ~ i ~ uParis s . 1803,3 :188 Op~isaurus atte~uat~s Western Slender Glass Lizard (Map 101) O ~ ~ i s a u rve~tralis us atte~uatus Baird 1880.In Cope, ~ ~ 1US. 1 , Natl, Mus. 17:18. Op~isaurus atte~uatus, Boulenger 1885.Cat, Liz. Brit, Mus. 2: 282.

REFERENCES: 29,61,74,122,162,198,605,228,232.010,232.011,2~5, 257, 312.141,312.142, 312.144,331,3g1,3g1.002,393.080,439,442.278,450, ~~~.1oo,463,480.301,480.320,485.500,~go, 495.060,~g5.o~o,52g.5oo, 622,289,626, 718.170, 718.175, 720.238, 726, 753.400, 765, 783.275 860.030,865,go~,g12,g1~, g1~,g~0,947,956,965,968,10~~.1~0,104~.181~ 1046.050,1050,120,1a50.169,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Denton County(490). SUBSPECIES:

a t t e ~ ~ a t(see u s above). museum record for Kerr County is questionable.

COMMENTS: A

Suborder Serpentes lups Genus ~ e p t o t ~ ~ ~Fitzinger Syst, Rept. 1843 :24 Leptot~p~lups ~ulcis Texas BlindSnake (Map 102) R e ~ a ~ u lBaird c i s and Girard 1853.Cat, ~ u rAm. t ~Rept. I:142. L e p t u t ~ p ~ l~ulcis, ~ p s Stejneger 1891.Pruc. US, Nat~.Mus, 14:501. REFERENCES: 21, 33,38, 52.500, 55,72.490, 72.542, 72.543,

74, 92,122,131, 148,010,14g.110, 151,155,162,185,198.605,220,220.110,223,228,232.010, 232,011, 252, 257,277,800, 281, 290.120, 290.200, 312.141, 312.142 312.~~5,332.0~0,372.200,380,389, ~g3.030,393.080, ~g4.005,3g5.200, & & w h 4~3.310,451.5oo,451.~1o,454.1o0,480.335,480.382, 395.210,415, 511.200,521, 529.510, 52g.530,555,564.089,573.500, 588.390,616.200, 626.510,642.060,662,665,683.200,699,010, 718.170, 718.175, 726, 765, 768, 784,809,810,811,816,300,858,860.011,865,869,871,872.230,883,885, 887, go~,g1~,918,g3o,947,956,967,995,1003.260,1003~261,1021,1o~o.2o2, 10~~.110,1046,1046.100,1050,169, 1055,1055.100,1055.200,1055.~10, 1085.210,1og~, 10g5,1098,IIOO.OIO. SUBSPECIES: ~ulcis; ~ssecta Cope 1896.Am.Nat, 30: 753. COMMENTS: A museum record for ~ o n t g o m County e~ isquestionable, Texas blind snakes consume eggs and larvae of termites and ants. Because of this, it frequentlyis found in houses that have ants and termites. In one case, young Texas blind snakes fell from the ceiling, and terrified the occupant into moving from the house.

Species Accuu~ts 117

Leptot~p~lops ~umilis Western BlindSnake (Map 103) Rena m mil is Baird and Girard 1853.Cat, N o r t ~Am. Rept. 1 :143. Leptot~p~lops ~umilis,Ruthven 1907. Bull. Am. Mus. Nut. HisC. 23: 573. R ~ F E R ~ ~ C 137.010,162, ES: 223, 232.010, 232.011, 312,141,312.142,415, 442.278,443.300,443.320,554,555,648,662,665,683.200,699.010, 718.170, 718.175, 768, 809,810,811,858,865,869,871,883,885,985,1003.160, 1003.261,1o5o.169, I o ~ ~ . ~ ~ o , 1 0 8 5 . 2 1 01095. ,~og~, SU~SPECIES: segregus Klauber 1939.Trans, San ~ i e Soc. ~ uNat. Hist. g : 67. C O ~ ~ E ~This T S :species is more widely distributed in western Texas than formerly believed.

~lops Genus R ~ a m p ~ ~ t ~ pFitzinger Syst. Rept., 1843. I :24 R~a~p~ot~~ p r~almo ipns(Daudin) ~s 1803 Brahminy Blind Snake (no map)

Eryx ~ r a ~ iDaudin n ~ s 1803 :279-80. Original description based on “Rondoutelouloupam” of Russel [I]1796. Type locality: Vizagapatam,India. ~ p ~ l o ~prs~ m i n uCuvier s, 1829,Le regna animal. ,....73. ~ p ~ l i nrami u in us, McDowellrg74,J.Herpetol. 8 :22, fig. 6. R ~ a ~ p ~ o t ~~ rpa~m~i no~Stimson, ps ,s Robb, and Underwood 1977. Bull. Zool, Nomencl. 33 :204. ICONOTYPE:probably Plate 43 in Russell 1796 : 48. ~ E ~ E E E N ~ 56.403. ES: C O ~ ~ ~ N Bartlett T S : (1998) indicates that three specimens of this new record of an.introduced species weretaken in the Rio Grande Valley. Atleast one of the individuals wasphotographed by Bartlett. Unfortunately,no voucher specimens were kept. Gus Renfro (in litt,) stated that these specimenscame from one of his relatives’ backyard in Brownsville, 0.5 miles north of the Brownsville airport. Because this pa~icularsnake is parthenogenetic, I assumethat we have a reproducing population in the city of Brownsville. The basic tenet of the second editionof the book isto inform the amateur and professional herpetologist of the breadth and scope of amS in the state of Texas, added to the book at a late date, and is not represented in the key to snakes. A brief descri~tionfollows: Where speciesof L e p t o t ~ p ~have l ~ ~14 s scale r o ~ around s the body, R ~ a m p ~ ~ t y p ~has l o p20. s R ~ ~ m p ~ o ~ yhas p ~alcomo~s plete verticalnasal suture. The total number of dorsals are fewer than 3 has a pairof lateral papil with a w ~ t tail e tipand

Genus Arizonu Kennicott In Baird, US. Mex. Bound. Surv. 1859,212:18. Arizonu eZeguns Glossy Snake (Map 104) Arizona e~egunsKennicott 1859.In Baird, US. Mex. Bound. Surv, 212:18.

REFERENCES: 21,26.120,45.300,74,1o8,132,137.006,148.010,151,1~~, 162,186,204.318, 205.005, ~o~.oo~,223,228,232.010,232.011,2~~, 281,307, 308.500, 309, 310, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 312.145, 312.300, 315.270,354, 359.200, 359.300, 372.400,377.107, 377.270,380, 394.400,4 451.~00,451.510,458.200,~90,491,495.050,495.700, 508,522.200, 529.510, ~~~.o10,~~~.~~o,561,602.200,612.110,613,626.510,631.200,642.060,665, 683.200, 714, 718.170, 718.175, 720.233, 720.237, 753.400, 759, 7 810,811,816.300, 816.700,858, 865,869,871,883, 885,967, 802.210, 809, 976,985.300,1003.260,1003.261,1017.200,1021,1023,1o~~.11o, 1046.100, 1050.169,1o~5.~1o,1070,1o~~, 1085.210,1og~,1og~, 1097.326. FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson,Denton, Hardeman, ICendall, and Llano

Counties

(394.400,490,495,495.050, 602.200).

SUBSPECIES: eZeguns (see above): urenicoZuDixon 1960.S o ~ t ~ w eNut. s t , 5(4):226; p~iZipiKlauber 1946.~ r u n sSun , Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. IO:333. COMMENTS: The distributional hiatus on the Edwards Plateau (770.300) recently was eliminated by the collection of several specimensof A. e. ure~coZuX A. e, eZeguns across the eastern end of the plateau (Llano Uplift). Collins (223.450)separated the western subspeciesof A. eZeguns, and has sugA. occidentuzis, without justifigested that they be recognized as a distinct species, cation. The westernTexas subspeciesp~iZipiand the Arizona subspeciesnoctivugu both occur in the San Simon Valley of southeastern Arizona, and there is reason to suspect inte~gradationbetween these two taxa.

Bogertop~~s su~ocuZuris Trans-Pecos Rat Snake (Map 105) CoZu~ers u ~ o c ~ uBrown r ~ s 1901.Proc. Acud. Nut. Sci. P ~ i ~53 u .:492. E Z u ~su~ocuzuris, ~e Stejneger and Barbour 1917.C~eckZistN o r t ~Am. ~ m p ~ Rept. i ~ , I :84.

Dowling and Price 1988.Snake 20: ~ o g e r t o p ~su~ocuzuris, is

63. 9.160, 9.190, 9.525, 21,26.120,~5.200,4~.300,56.401, 74, 137.006,151,1~~,162, 204.300,205.007, 232.010,232.011, 291,296,312.141, 393.090,415,495.700,518,520, 521, 529.530, 312.142, 317, 319, 319.110,374, 532.001,532.002, 545,010, 573.600,602.200,611.115,613,616.200,642.060, 644.140,662,665,683.200,683.210,699.100, 718.170, 718.175, 720,220, 720.237, 746.480, 768, 775.100,804, 809,81o,811,822.010, 858,869,871, REFERENCES:

878.125,883,885,1003.260,1003.261,1032.200,1o~~.3oo, 1050.169,1o~5.~1o, 1085.210,1085.220,1o89, 10g4,1ogg. FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson County(602.200). ~ U ~ S P E C I EsSu:~ o c ~ l a r(see i s above). C O ~ ~ E N TLamoureaux S: (573.600)has described a distinctive

colorphase of this species. Webb (1061.121) recently has given an account of a new race of the Trans-~ecos rat snake from

Genus Curphophis Gervais In ~ ' ~ r b i g nDic. y , ~ n i vHist, . Nat. 1843,3;191 Curphophis v e r ~ i s

~ e s t e r Worm n Snake (Map 68) C o l ~ ~v ee rr ~ iKennicott s 1859.1. Amd, Nat, Sci, P ~ i l a11 , :99. Curphop~~s v e r ~ i sClark , 1968. Herpetologicu 24(2):110. ~ E F E R E ~ C E~.~~~,162,228,232.010,232,011,312.1~1,312.142,312.144, S: 415, 454,332,630.200, 1050.169,1og4,10g5. SUESPECIES: v

718.170,

718.1[75, 810,858,1003.260,1003.261, 768,

~ r ~Kennicott is 1859. Proc, Acad. Nat. Sci. ~ h i l u11: . 99.

C O ~ ~ E ~ A. T museum S : record for

Bosque count^ is erroneous. The worm snake is extremelyrare in Texas and restricted to Bowie, Harrison, and Red River Counties. Conant and Collins (232.011)state that the western wormsnake hybridizes with C.~ ~ o e n~u~se ~ ein n uaesmall disjunct area of northeaster^ Louisiana.

Genus Ce~ophora Cope Proc, Acud, Nat, Sci. hil la, 1860,12:244

Colu~erc o c c i ~ e Blumenbach ~s 1788.~oigt's~ a g Neu, . Phus. Nat~rg.~ ( 1 )11. : C e ~ o p h o coccirze~, r~ Cope 1860.Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. hil la. 12:244.

~ E F E R E ~ C E11, S : 228, 232.010, 232.011, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144,37 495.700,~73.700, 5 .010,622.296,626.510, 7I8.170, 718.175, 768, 770.100, 816.~5o, 860.030,1003.260,1003.261,1050.169,1o~~.3oo,1078,1o94,1095. S ~ E S ~ E C ~copei E S : Jan 1863.Arch. 2001, Arzat. a is^. 2:231;1irzer~~ ~ l i a mbrow^, s, and son 1966.Tex, JSci, IS(I):85. C O ~ M E N T SA : ~istributiongap of ~ p ~ r o x ~ ~ 185 a tl ealexists ~ betweenthe east-

ern and w e s t e r ~ o slocalities t of the Texas subspecies. The scarlet snake is fossorial and seldom seenin Texas; thus it is considered rare butmay be locallyabundant.

Genus C o l ~ ~Linnaeus er Syst. Nut. 1758, I :216

Culu~ereu~stricturr~innaeus1758. Syst. Nut. I :216, R E F E R E ~ C E S 12,13, : 38, 56.402, 72.500, 74, 76,92,122,131,137.006, 148,010,151,162,204.318, ~ o ~ . o o ~ , 2 2 3 , 2 2 8 , 2 3 2 . 0 1 0 , 2 3 2 . 0 1 1 , 2 5 6269, ,2~7, 270,312.141,312.14& 312.144,312.145,355,367,368.310,372.600,375.003, 375.500,377.106,377.107, 380,391,408.~00,~3~.~~0,439,442.278, 4~1.~00, 451.510,464,480.335, 482.200,~9~.050, 495.700,498.200, ~09.575,529.200, 529.510,529.530,529.550,535.535,573~52g,587.500,588.390,612~110,613, 622.297,622.298,625.402,625.404,642.080,656,683,200,696, 714, 717, 718.170, 718.175, 720.237,720.238,726, ?j3.4oo9765, 768, 770, 783.275, 09, 81o,818,821,821.200,858,865,869,871, 883,885,904. g1o.100, 912, 91.51 918, 922, 9 9301932793879399 942,947, 9511 952l956, 9647 965, 967,1003.260,1003 I, 1040.202,1042.120,1046.100,1050.169,1072.100, 1081.110,1081.160,1082,1089,1og~, 1095,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Dallas, Denton,and Kendall Counties(495,050,821, 821.200). S U ~ S ~ ~ C Iu En S t: ~ i c Cope ~ s 1862, Proc. Acud. Nut, Sei. ~ ~ i l14: u . 338; et~eriagei Wilson 1970.?ex, I; Sci. 22 :75;~uviventris Say 1823. In Long, ~xpea.~ o c k ~ y t s , I :185; o u ~ u c uJan 1863. ~lencu Sist. ~ e g l0~~ i 1863:63; priup~sDunn and Wood 1939. Not~lueNut. 5 :4. C O M M E ~ T SFitch : et al. (368.310)recornend the r e c o ~ ~ i t i oofnthe western su~species~ ~ oas ardistinct ~ ospecies. ~ ~Greene (432,230) and Corn and Bury (1986) have demonstrated that the morpholo~icalv ~ i a t i o nin the western races of the racer show mores~ilaritiesin the t ~ o n o ~data i c once usedto disti~guish C. c, ~ o r and ~ C.uc.~uviventris. ~ West Texass p e c ~ e nof s C o l ~ ~once e r were t h o u ~ hto t represe~tC. c, ~ o r (see ~ Greene o ~ above). I have comparedspecime~sof C. eo~strictorfrom Jeff Davis,Brewster, Terrell, and Kinney Countiesto C. c. ou~ucu;they are more closely related to C. c, u u ~ u cthan u to C. c. ~ o r ~as oproposed ~ , by Glidewell(4o8.5oo). Genus C o ~ i o p ~ u ~ e s In Cope, Proc. Acu~.Nut. Sci, P~ilu.1860,12:248 Co~iop~unes i~periulis Blac~-stri~ed Snake (Map108)

Species Aceo~nts

I

632.100, 718.170, 718.175,768,809,810,819,858,869,888,1003.260, 1003.261,1050.169,1065,1089,1og~,1095. SUBSPECIES: imperialis (see above). COMMENTS: This species seems to be surviving in the Rio Grande Valley despite habitat alteration and intensive applicationof agricultural chemicals. Genus DiadophisBaird and Girard Cat. North Am. Rept.1853, I:112 ~iadophis punctatus Ring-necked Snake (Map 109) Co~u~erp~nctatus Linnaeus 1766. Syst. Nat, I:376. ~ i a d o p hpunctatus, ~s Baird and Girard 1853.Cat. North Am, Rept,I :112. REFERENCES: 26.120,29,38, 72.555, 74,107,113,122,148.010,151,155, 162, 205.100, 223,228,232.010,232.011,252,25~,269, 270,277.800,290.200, 312.141,312.142, 312.144, 312.145,332.030,380,391, 393,393.030,393.060,

393.080,~15,439,~~1.510, ~~~.1oo,480.307,480.320,48~.200,483,4g5.05o,

~g5.700,521,526.300,544, ~~~.~2o,602.200,612.110,614,615,622.297,636, 642,060,656,662,665,683.200,714, 718.170, 718.175, 720.237, 753.400, 768, 783,275, 789.300,793,809,810,811,816.300,858,865, 869,871,883,885, 912, g15,g1g,944,956,967,968,1003.260,1003.261,1046.100,1050.169,1o5~.1oo,

10~5.410,1085.210, 1094, IOg5,IOg7.300. FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson and Kendall Counties(482.200,4g5.050, 602.200). SUBSPECIES: arnyi Kennicott 1858. Proc. Acad. Nat, Sci. Phila. IO:g g ; reg~lis Baird and Girard r853.Cat. North Am.Rept, I :115;stictogenys Cope 1860. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci, Phila, 12 :250. COMMENTS: The zoneof intergradation between D, p. regalis and D. p. arnyi in Texas isunclear. Troy Hibbitts recently completed an MS.thesis at the University of Texas, Arlington, and his data demonstrated the uniqueness of rega~isand arnyi; however, they did not support the taxonomic positionof stictogenys (pers. c o r n . ) . Genus Drymarchon Fitzinger Syst, Rept. 1843:26 ~ r y m a r c ~corais on Indigo Snake(Map 110) C o ~ ~corais ~ e rBoie 1827. Isis vun Oken 20: 537. Drym~rchoncorais, Amaral1g2g. i em. Inst, But~ntan4: 84.

REFERENCES: 9.160,29,33,38,5g.~oo,74,86.100,132,151,162,1gg, 223,

228, 232.010,

232.OII,236,238,250, 257,281, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 75,389,415,458,4g5.700, 503,52g.500, 587.500,616.200,625.543,

122

A ~ p ~ i ~ iand a nReptiles s of Texas

630.100,683,200, 714, 718.170,718.175, 753.400, 768,809,810,836, 858,869, 871,945,947,1003.260,1003.261, IOIO,1046.100,1050.169,1o9~. FOSSIL RECORD: (genus only) Denton County (458,495.050). SUBSPECIES: ere~ennus Cope 1860. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 12: 342. COMMENTS: Two adult individuals from Starr County were found contain to five hatchling Texas tortoises in their stomachs. Despite continued protection under state law, this species remains uncommon t ~ o u g h o uthe t south Texas brush country.

Genus D r y ~ o ~ iFitzinger us Syst. Rept. 1843 :26 Dry~o~ius ~argarit~erus Speckled Racer (Map108) ~erpetodr~as ~argaritiferus Schlegel1837.Essai Physion. Serp. 2 : 184. D r y ~ o ~ i u s ~ a r g a r i t i Cope ~ e r u 1860. s, Proc, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila, 12 :561. R E F E R E N ~ E S g.525,29, : 74,132,162,228,232.010,232.011,~12.1~1,312.142, 858, 867.500~869, 3g3.oqo,415,612.300, 718.170, 718.175, 768,809,810,838, 888,1003.260,1003.261,1050.169,1081.~00,1081.500. SUBSPECIES: ~argaritiferus (see above).

COMMENTS: Based upon habitat preferences of this species, the museum records for Hidalgoand ICleberg Counties are questionable. The speckledracer is seen occasionallyin the Audubon Preservenear Brownsville.

Genus laph he Fitzinger In Wagler, Descl: Icon. A ~ p h1833(3):pl. ~ ~ . 27 (text) Elaphe air^ Baird's Rat Snake (Map 111) C o l u ~ eair^ ~ Yarrow 1880. Bull. US, Nat. Mus. 17:41. Elaphe ~ a i r ~Stejneger i, 1917. Checklist North Am.A ~ p h iRept. ~ , 1917:82.

REFERENCES: 132,137.006,148.500,162,223,228,230.120,232.010,

232.011, 2 5 2 , 257,296, 312.141, 312.142, 317,394,415, 522.200, 579.215, 588.350,655,662,665,695,714, 714.130, 718.170, 718.175,720.220, 768,809, 1055.410, 8 1 0 , 8 1 1 , 8 5 8 , 8 6 9 , 8 7 1g~~,1003.260,1003.261,1046.100,1o~o.16g, ~ 1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 4 , 1 o g ~1098. , C O ~ M E N T SA : record from Cameron County (947,1og5)is erroneous. This taxon has been elevated to specific status by Olson (714.130), and more recent genetic data support this decision (Lavvson and Lieb; 579.215).

EZap~eg~ttata Corn Snake (Map112) C o Z ~ ~ e r g ~Linnaeus t t a t ~ s 1766.@st. Nat. I :385. E ~ a pg~~et t ~ tDumeril, a, Bibron,and Dumeril1854. ErpetQZ, Gen.7:

273. 26.120, 29, 33,38,45.200,45.300,61, 72.500, 72.570, 74 151,155, 16% 205.005,~o~.oo~,222.005,228,232.010,232.011,250,~~~, 257, 269,2701281,2g5, 312.141,~ 1 2 . ~ ~ 2 , ~ 1 ~ . ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ 2 . 1 ~ ~ , 3 1 6 , ~ 1 ~ , 3 8 0 394.400,4~0, 415,442.278,~51.~oo1~~~.51o,~5~.1oo,458.200,477,482.200 483,485.500, 495g050,495.085, 4g5.700,521,522.200, 52g.~oo752g.510, ~~g.~o~,588.390,612~090, 529.530, 529.550, ~45.01a545.535, ~73.900, 612.110,622.111,622.126,622.295,622,297,622.298,613,616.200,622.233, 622,240,634,642.060,643.710,665,683.200,687, 718.170, 718.175, 720.210, 720.233~720.237, 720,238,726, 753.400~765, 768,771.300,783.275,809,810, 816.300,819,858, 860.014, 860.019~865, 869, 883,885,922,923,927,938,947, g~1,g~~,956,957,964,966,967,1003.260,1003.261,1040.202,~o~~.~~o, 1085,1085.210,1og~, 1095, 1098, 1046.027,1046.100,1050,169,1o~~.~1o, SUBSPECIES: e m Q rBaird ~ ~ and Girard 1853.Cat. N o r t ~Am. Rept. I :157;g~ttata (see above):m e a ~ Z Z m o Smith r ~ ~ et, al. 1994.Tex,1.Sci. 46(3): 263. ~ O ~ ~ E NVaughan T S : et al. (1046.027)clarified the taxonomic situation of Texas E. g ~ t t a tfollowing a the Smith et al. (860.019) description of E, g. mea~ZZ~orum. They showedthat the population of E. g ~ t t ~int aeast Texas represented the REFERENCES:

nominate race g~ttuta,and that there was a more broad intergradation zone between E. g. e ~ o rand ~ iE. g. meu~ZZmQr~m than previously believed. EZap~e Q~soZeta Rat Snake (Map 113) C o Z ~ ~ e r o ~Say s o ~1823. e t ~ sIn Long, Exped. ~ o c Mts. k ~ I :140. EZap~eo~soZeta,Garman 1883. me^, M ~ sComp, , ZooZ, 8(3): 54.

REFERENCES: 9.160, 33,38,45.300, 72.500, 74, 76, 86.100, 92,12 132,148.010,148.500, 149.110,151, 155,162,195,204.318, 205.007, 205. 223,228,232,010,232.011,250,252,2~~,269,270,281,293.60, 296,312.141, 312.142,312.144,312.145,316,317, ~3o.g10,372.600, 375.500,377.107, 377.300,380,384.261,389,3g1, 393.080,394,415, 439,442.278,450,451.500, 451.5~0,454.1oo,464,474,477,485.500,4g5.~oo, 502,~09.575~522.200, 529.51o,529.530,52g.550,542,545.535,558, ~7g.215,588.350,588.390, 612,110,616.200,622,295,622.298,624,625.401,625,403,626.510,632.200, 642.080,643.520,655,683.400,699.100, 703, 714.130, 715, 718.170, 718.17 720.200, 720.220, 720.233, 720.238, 726, 753.400, 765, 768, 77 780.050, 783.275, 785.200, 789.305,809, 810,853,860,030, 865,871,9

912,91379157 923,925, 926, 928, 930, 931,932,933, 935,9387 956,964,965,966,967,968,984,1003.260,1003.261,1040.202,1042.120, 1o~2.1~o,10~~.3oo,1046.100,1050.169,1065,1067,1072.100,~o~~, 1094, 1095.

124 A m p ~ ~ ~ iand a nReptiZes s of Texas

94

FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson and Kendall

Counties(~~~.~oo,458.200,482.200,

495.050).

SUBSPECIES: ~ i n ~ ~ e i m Baird e r i and Girard 1853.Cat. ~

o rAm. t ~Rept. I :74. County records (155,687) represent E, guttata or E, bair~i. The Cameron County record (947,1095) has been validated. Movements, feedingbehavior, and arboreal activity of this species is currently under study by A. Ibrahim (pers. comm.)and I). Roberts (pers. comm.). COMMENTS: Culberson and Reeves

Genus ~aranciaGray Zool. Mise, 1842: 78 ~arancia abacura Mud Snake (Map 114) Coluber a b a c ~ rHolbrook ~s 1836,N o r t ~ Am, ~erpetol,I :119. ~ a r a n c abacura, ~a Baird and Girard 1853.Cat. North Am. Rept. I :123.

R E F E R E N ~ E S IO, : I4,137.006,162,I7I, 175, 205,007,228, 232.010, 232.01 282,312.14~,312.142,312.14~,375.500,377.107,415,439,464,474,495.700, 502, 503, ~o~.~~~,~11.~oo,537,612,065,622.296,625.402,625.403,625.404, 626.510,630.200, 718.170,718.175, 726, 753.400, 768,809,810,832,858,865 ~13,928,~31,1003.260,1003,261,1050.169. SUBSPECIES: r e ~ ~ w a Schlegel1837. r~ti Essai P ~ ~ s i oSerp. n , I :173.

COMMENTS: An isolated Dallas County record has been verified byW, W. Lamar (pers. c o m . ) . Studies of the movements and ecology of the mud snake currently are under way byR. Fleet (pers. comm.).

Genus ~ i c ~ mGray ia Cat, ~ ~ aBrit. ~ eus, s 1849 :80 ~ i c i m strec~eri ~a Mexican Hook-nosed Snake (Map 108) ~ i c i m ~ a s t r eTaylor c ~ e r ~1931,Copeia 1g31(1) :5. REFERENCES: 16,26.110,56.402, 74,162,228,232.010, 232.011,312.141, 312.142,321,415,454.310,454.320,454.331, 529.500, 588.390,643.600,697, 714.110, 718.170, 718.175, 768,809,810,858,869,871,987,999,1003.260, 1003.261,~o~o.5oo,1042.120,1o4~.11o, i050.169,1085.210,1089,10g~, 1095. C O ~ M E N T SThis : species does not appear to be common in the Rio Grande Valley. The mostrecent taxonomic workfor this taxon is Hardy (454.310).

Genus G~ulopion Cope Proc, Acud. Nut, Sei. P ~ i l u1860,12 , :243 G~uZopionc u n u ~ Western Hook-nosed Snake (Map 115) G~uZopionc u n u Cope ~ 1860. Proc. Acud, Nut. Sci. P~iZu.1 2 :243. REFERENCES: 74, I32,137.006, 137.010,148.010, 151,162,218,228,232.010, 232.011, 271, 290.200, 312.141, 312.142, 312,144, 357,454.300,454.330, ~g~.~oo,~~1,622.296,627,642.060,662,665,683.200,683.210, 718,170, 718.175, 720.237, 768,809, 810, 811, 842,858,869,883,885,1003.260, 1003.261,1oo~.~5o, 1004.460,1042.120,1050.169,1o55.~1,1og~, 1095, 1097.301. COMMENTS: The Wise County record (1042.120) is questionable. This particular taxon has a wide distribution in the western half of Texas, but with curious gaps. The smallsize, nocturnal habits, and burrowing nature of the western hooknosed snake make itone of the more difficult Texassnakes to study.

Genus Heterodon Latreille Hist. Nut. Rept. 1802,4: 32 Heterodon nusicus Western Hog-nosed Snake (Map 116) Heterodon nusicusBaird and Girard 1852.In Stansbury,~ ~ p Surv. Z o ~~u Z Z Gt. e ~ Salt Luke 1852:352. REFERENCES: 26.120, 29, 33,34, 35,38,45.300, 72.555, 132, 137.005,137.006, 13g.o20,151, 162, ~ o ~ . o o ~ , 2 2 2 . 0 0 5 , 2 2 3 , 2 2 8 , ~ ~ 232.010,232.011, o.1~o, 252, 253, 257,312.141, 3I2.I42,312.144,324, 333.205,335,359.200, 377.107,380, 491,493,495.050, 389,398,415, 434,451.500, 451.51o,480,48~.200,483,4go, 495*700752x9 529-5307 529*5509532.200, 54-41573,320, 573-3309 573.3401 588.390,612.049,613,622.296,622.297,631.200,642.060,665,683.200,

718.170, 718.175, 720.232, 720.238, 726, 732.600, 768, 793, 794,809,810, 816.300, 858,865, 869,871, 876,883, 885,gog,922,g51, 1003.260,1003.261, I O O ~ . ~ ~ O , I O ~ ~ .1046.100,1050.169,1061.175,1067,1085.210,1og~, IIO, 10g5. FOSSIL RECORD: Denton, Hardeman, Kendall, and Knox Counties (482.200, 4901 491?493~495.050). S ~ B S P E C I E S nusicus; : ~ 1 Edgren 0 1952. ~ ~Nut. Hist. ~ i s c112 . :3; kennerl~i Kennicott 1860.Proc. Acud. Nut. Sei. P~ilu.12: 336. COMMENTS: There are no records of this taxon from the center of the Edwards Plateau. Its distribution is similar to that of the glossy snake in Texas. Manyof the early records for this species in east Texas were clarified by D. R. Platt and subsequently have been removed from the revised maps (pers. comm.). Curtis E c l ~ e r ~ (333.205) an recently reviewed the taxonomy of this species.

placed H. n, glo~aias a junior synonym of H.n. nasicus, based on genetic and morphological data analysis. Heteroaon platirhinos Eastern Hog-nosed Snake (Map 117) Heteroaonplatir~inosLatreille 1802.Hist, Nat, Rept. 4:

32. 26.140,26.170,29,~~.555, 74,113.600,122,148.010,1~g.11o, 151,162,228,232,010,232.011,250, 253,265.300,269,270,281,~1~.1~1, 312.142,312.144,312.145,330.g10,336,337,375.500, 377.106,377.107,380, 3g1,3g3.030,415,439,451.510,454.100,463, 464,480.320~480.335~442.278, 495.700,S O ~ . S ~ S , ~ ~ 529.530, ~ . ~ O O~40,542, , 482.200,483,495,495.050, 5~3.320,~~3.330,588.310,588.390,612.049,613,622.297~ 625.402,625.403, 630.400, 718.170, 718.175, 726, 732.600, 753.400, 766, 768, 780. 809,810,821.100,858,879,883, g10.200,g12,913,g1~, 927,932,933,935,942, 947,g52,956,965,966,967,968,1003.260,1003.261,1040.202,1042.120, 1o~~.~oo,1046.100,1050.169,1072.100,1o~5, 1og4,1og5,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Harris and Kendall Counties(482.200,495,4g5.050, 821,100). REFERENCES:

COMMENTS: This species is relatively widespread in the eastern two-thirds of Texas. It most often is found in backyards and streets of towns and cities becauseof the abundance of prey (toads)that occur within freshly watered lawns. Genus H ~ p ~ i gCope le~~ Pruc. Acd. Nat. Sei. Phila. 1860,12:

246

H~psiglena tur~uata Night Snake (Map118) H~psiglena tor~uuta Cope 1887.Bull. US. Natf.Mus. 32:78. REFERENCES: 21,26.120,56.400,

74,13~,148.010,

151,162,

205.007,

220.400,223,228,232.010,232.011, 250,255,25~,281,296.300,312, 312.141,

312.142, 312,144, 312.145,312.180,328, 332.020,380,393.080, 394, 394.4 ~15,458.200,480.310,~g5.~oo, 521,522,52g.510,52g.520, 573,901,622,231, 622.296,624,642.060,648,662,665,683.200, 714, 718.170, 718.175, 720.237, g1o.100, 939, 768,~~~.1oo,802.210,809,810,816.300,858,865,869,883,885, 944,947,980,1003.260,1003.261,1oo~.~5o, 1023,1040.202,1046.100, 1050.169,1o55.~1o, 1067,1085.210,1og~, 10g5,1og7.307. FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson County(394,400,458.200). SUBSPECIES: jani Duges 1865. me^. Acad. Sei, Lett., Montpellier 6: 32. COMMENTS: Isolated records from Anderson, Brazoria, Henderson, and Smith of the night snake. Counties are verified field-collected specimens Dixon and Dean (312.180) give a summary of the taxonomy and distribution of Texas specimens.

SpeciesAccounts

127

Genus ~ampropeztisFitzinger Syst. ~ e p t1843 . :25 ~am~ropeztis uZter~u ray-banded King Snake (Map 119) Op~i~oZus aZter~us Brown 1902.Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei.P~iZa,53:612. ~ a ~ p r o p e l taZter~u, is Stejneger and Barbour 1917.C~ec~Zist Nort~ Am. A m p ~ iKept# ~, 197:87.

RE~ERENCES:9.160, 9.525,18, 21,26.120, 45.300, 74,1O4,105, 113,500, 137.006,153,155,162,232.o1o,232.011,290.200,292,~1~.1~1,~12.1~2, 332-0209 353*875,3759 391*6OO,393*020,393*090~ 394-1 3951 415, 495.700,521 522.200,573.543,642~060,643,644.100,644.110,662,665,683~200,699.200, 700, 718.170,718.175,768,775.100, 786,809,810, 815,838,858,869, 871, 98~.100,1003.260,1003.261, 1032.210, 1032.230, 1032.330, 1032,400,

10~~.300,1050~169, 1055.410,105g,

1085.210,1o85.~oo,

C O ~ ~ E N TThere S: is considerable

rog4,10gg.

breedingdata for this species (644.110, g84.100,1032.230). The mostrecent taxonomic workis by Garstka (391.600). This species, more than any other Texas snake, is sought by the herpetoculturist because of its striking array of color patterns. ~ a ~ p r o p e l tcazligaster is Prairie King Snake (Map120)

~am~rope~ getuZa tis mon King Snake ( ~ a 121) p

CoZu~ergetulus Linn~eus1766. Syst, NaL 12:382. ~am~ropeltis get~lus, Cope 1860.Proc. rlcad. Nut, Sei. ~ ~ i Z12 u .:255.

REFERENCES:

29,38,45.300,

72.555,

74,113.500,

122, 113.510, 132,

137.005,

151,155,162,204.328,205.005, 2o~.oo~,205.110,205.150,220.150,228,

232.010, 232.011, 250, 253, 257,269, 270,281, 312.141, 312.142, 312.145,3I5.271,372.300,372.600, 375.500, 377.107,380, 391, 393.030, 394.400,415,434,439,4~1.~00, 451.51o,~5~.10o,458.200,480.335,482.200, 483,485.500,491,495.0~0,495.050, 495.085,495.700,509.575,521,5~~.~00, 529.500, 529.510, 529.530, 529.550, 545.010, 573.540, 612.110, 612 616.200,622.295,622.297,622.298,624,625.401,625.403,631.200,642.060, 662, 665,683.200, 714, 718.175, 718.170, 720.233, 720.237, 720,238, 726, 746.400,753.400,768,770, 783.275,809,810,816.300,816.350, 885,912,915,918,929,939,947,951,952, 956,964,965,967,96 1003.261,100~.~50, 1040.202,1042.120,1046.100,1050.169, IO 1072.100, 1073.100, 10~5,1080.100,1085.210, 1094, 1095,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson,Hardeman, Kendall, and Lubbock

Counties

(3~4.4oo,458.200,482.200,4~1,4~5.o~o, 4.~~~050). S ~ B S P E C I E S~ : ol~r~ Stejneger oki 1902.Proc. US. Natl. ~ ~25: s 152; s. p ~ e ~ ~ d a Baird and Girard 1853.Cat. N o r t ~ Am. R e ~ tI. :83. C O M M ~ ~ TThe S : c o ~ o king n snake is relatively abundant in the Big Thicket area, along the Texas coast, but is disappe~ingslowly in large urban areas and in the post oaksavanna. Blaney (113.510) is the most recent taxonomic revisorof this species.

am pro pelt is t r i a ~ g ~ l ~ m

ilk Snake (Map122) C o l ~ ~ e r t r i a ~Lacepede g u l ~ m 1788.Hist, Nat. ad. Serp. 2:86. am pro pelt is t r i a ~ g ~ l Stejneger ~m, and Barbour 1917.C~ecklistN o r t ~ Am. A m p ~ i ~ . Rept. 1917:90.

R ~ ~ E R E ~ 9.160, ~ E S : 26.120, 27,38,56.401, 72.556,104,I05, 113.500,I32, 216.632,223,228,232.010,232.011,2~5, 252,257,269,270, 137.005,151, 290.200, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 312.145, 375.500,377,387, 391, ~~~,439,~5~,451.5oo,45~.5~0,454.10o,480.335,480.38~~ 482.200,490,491, 495,~~5.o5o,495.085,~95.7o0,509.060,509.10~, 509.575,509.701,522.200, 529.500,529.530,529.550,544,fi~3.25o,576.040,612.110,612.400,622.298, 630.150,632.300,662,683.200,698,718.170,718.175, 720.231, 720.233, 720.237,726,753.400,768,802.310,809,810,839,858,869,883,885,888, 912,~1~,~15,947,956,967,968,983,1003.260,1003.261,1021,1032.230, 1042.185,10~~.110,1046.100,1050.169,10~~.100, 1055.410,1067,1077.100, 1og4,10gs,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Denton, H ~ d e m a nKendall, , and Llano Counties(482.200,

490,4911

4951

495.050).

SUBSPECIES: a m a ~ r Cope a 1860.Proc. cad, Nat,

Sei. P~ila.12:258;a ~ ~ ~ l a t a nicott 1860.Proc, Acad, Nat.Sei, P ~ i l a12: . 329;cela~opsStejneger 1903.Proc, US. at^. Mus, 25 :153; g e ~ t i ~Baird i s and Girard 1853.Cat. or^^ Am. Rept. I :90.

C O ~ M E N T SControversy : remains about the zones of contact among various races of this species in Texas, particularly west Texas. is the most recent taxonomic revisorof the species. ~ i l l i a m(1077.100) s

Genus Leptodeiru Fitzinger Syst. Nut. 1843:27 Leptodeiru septentrio~ulis Cat-eyed Snake (Map 108) Dipsus septentrionulisKennicott 1859.Baird, US,Mex, Bound. Sum 2:16. Lepto~eiru septe~trio~ulis, Stejneger 1891.Proc. US.Nutl, Mus, 14:505. REFERENCES: 9.160, 9.525, 32, 56.402, 74,134,151,162,

172.500,

232.010,232.011,252,2~~, 312.141,312.142,320,328,387,389,393.090,415,

632.100, 718.170, 718.175, 768,809,810, 1003.261,10~0.169,10~~, 1095,1098. SUBSPECIES:septentr~onulis(see above).

869,871,888,992,1003.260,

C O ~ ~ E N T An S : isolated museum record for KlebergCounty is questionable. The cat-eyedsnake is rare in Texas, but may appear locally abundant following late summer rains in extreme southern Texas.

Genus Liochlorophis Oldham and Smith Bull. Ma. ~erpetol.Soc. 27(4):208 Liochloro~his vernulis Smooth GreenSnake (Map 132) ~olubervernulis Harlan 1828.J. Acad. Nut. Sei. Philu.5 : 361. Opheodrys vernulis, Schmidt and Necker 1936.~erpetologicu1(2) :64. Liochlopophis ver~ulis,Oldham and Smith 1991.Bull. Ma. ~erpetol.Soc. 27(4):

208.

REFERENCES: ~.~2~,29,86.100,228,232.010,232.011,2~~, 281,285,287,

312.141, 312,142, 393.090,415,435,437,438.101,495.700,602.200, 391, 625.400,642.060, 718.170, 718.175, 768,858,885,1003.260,1003.261, 1050.169,1085.200,10g~, 1095,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson County(602.200). SUBSPECIES:blu~churdiGrobman 1941.Mise. Publ. Mus. Zool. Unir Mich. 50: 38. C O ~ ~ E N T Sort : thing ton (1085.200) has reviewed the doubtful locality records

of this species in Texas. I regard the Armstrong, Bosque, and Ellis County recordsas erroneous. Oldham and Smith (1991) divided the two U.S. species of green snakes into separate genera. They discussedthe history of the genus Opheo~rys,described eight basic differences between the two US,taxa, and relegated 0. vernulis to a monotypic genus. Some of these differencesare physiological (eggretention), anatomical

130

A ~ p h i b i uand ~ s ~eptiles of Texas

2

(number of paired musclesand hemipenes), osteological(skull),and squamative (scale rows, keeling, apical pits, and other scale differences). A living specimenof this species has not been observedin Texas in the past 30 years. Genus ast ti cop his Baird and Girard Cat. N o r t ~Am. Rept. 1853,I:98 ~asticophis~age~~~m Coachwhip (Map123) C o ~ ~ ~ e rShaw ~ a 1802. g e ~Gen. ~ ZooZ. ~ ~ 3 :475. ~usticophis~ageZZ~m, Baird and Girard 1853.Cut. North Am. Rept. I :98.

REFERENCES: 14,21,26.120,29,33,38,~~.300,57, 76,92,122,123,131, 148.010,1~g.110,1~~,162,1g~, 204.318, 205.005, 220.150,228,232.010, 2~~,248,~~~,2~~,269,270,277.800,281,296.300,~1~.1~ 232.011,232.200, 312.142, 312.144, 312.145, 315.250, 323.210, 331, 332.020, 359.200 377.106,377.107,380, ~~3.030,393.080,43[5, 434,439,450~ 4~1.500~ 451.510, ~~~.1oo,464,477,483,485.500,4~5.~oo, 509.575,521,522.200,5~g.200, 529.510, 529.520, 529.530, 529.550, 532.200,573.230, 573.902,588.300, 612.116,613,622.116,622.295,622.297,622.298,625.401,625.402,625.403, 625.404,631.200,642.060,648,657,662,665,683.200,687.505, 700, 714, 717, 718.170, 718.175, 720.237, 736.500, 726, 747.120, 753.400, 7 783.275,802.210,809,81o,816.300,819,858,865,869,883,885,~o~~ 913,915,

918,

9199

9229

9271

928,

930,9399

9449

9451

9471

9511

9567

964,

1003.260,1003.261,1012,1017.200,1023,1040.202,1042.120,1046.100,

1050.169,1o~~.~1o, 1067,1072.100,1o~3.1oo, 1081.100,1081.120,1081.130, 1100, 1099, 1085.210, 1094, 1097.323,1098, s u ~ s ~ E c ~ E s : ~ a g e(see Z Z ~above); m testace~s Say 1823.In Long, E ~ p e ~ rock^ . Mts. 2:48. COMMENTS: The coachwhip remains one of the most commonand visible snakes of Texas. Wilson (1081.100)is the most recent taxonomic revisorof this species.

~ a ~ t ~ c schotti op~is Schott's Whip Snake (map 124)

ust ti cop his schotti Baird and Girard 1983.Cat. NorthAm. Rept. I :160. REFERENCES:

38,4~.300,1o1,137.006,162,205.002, 205.006,223,228, 232.011, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 420, 529.500, 568.011,587.500,622.296, 716, 718.170, 718.175, 725, 768,769,809,810,819 862.525,869,1003.260,1003.261,1046.100,1050.169,1081.120,1091,1og~,

230.120,232.010,

1095.

Species Acco~nts 131

S ~ B S P ~ C I E ruthveni S: Ortenburger 1923.Occas, Pap Mus, Zool. ~ n i vMich. . 139:3; sc~otti(see above). COMMENTS: The striped whip snake and Schott’s whipsnake are seldom found in syntopy, but M. schott~and M. taeniatus may hybridizealong a contact zone in.Val Verde County (see Camper and Dixon; 205.006).

~ a s t i c o ~ htaeniutus is Striped WhipSnake (Map 125) ~ e ~ t o ~ h i s t aHallowell e ~ a t a 1852.Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. PhiZa. 6:181 Mastico~~is taeniatus, Baird and Girard 1853.Cat. North Am. Rept. I :98.

R ~ F E R E N C E S :21,26.120,29,33,38,~5.~oo,1o1,123,1~~.oo5, 148.010, 149.1ro,151,155,162, 205.003, 205.005, z05.006,~o5.oo~, 215,223,228, 230.120, 232.010, 232.011, 252, 257,281, 312.141, 312.142, 312, 389,393.080,4~5,~~o,45~~~oo,477,521,588.300,61~, 622.295,622.296, 626.510,642.060,648,662,665,683.200,687, 700, 716, 717, 718.170, 718.1 719.220, 720.237, ~2~,768,769,802.210,809,810,811,858,862.525,869,871, 883,885, gog,918,947,956,964, 967,985.500,1003.260,1003.261,1oo~.45o, 1046.100,1050.169,1081.120,1085.210,1og1,1og~, 1og5,1098. S~BSP~CIES g :i r a r ~Stejneger and Barbour 1917.Checklist N o r t ~Am. A m ~ h i ~ , Rept. I917 :80; C O ~ M E N T SA :

museum record fromT ~ o c ~ o r t County on is questionable.

A review of the systematics of this taxon by Camper and Dixon (205.006)sug-

gests that thenominate race taeniatus does not occur inthe state. Genus ~ e r Baird ~ ~anda Girard Cat. North Am.Rept. 1853,I :38 N e r o ~ cZarki a Salt Marsh Snake (Map 126)

N e r o ~ clarki a Baird and Girard 1853.Cat. North Am. Rept. I :48. REFERENCES: 29,33,38,131,151,162,214,222,223,228,230,232.010,

~~~.o1~,2~2,~5~,312.141,~~5,439,4g5.700,5~g.210,57g.217,687.500, 718.170, 718.175, 728,809,810,g1~,1003.260,1003.26r, 1050.169,1og~, 1095, 1098.

S ~ B S P ~ ~cZark~ I E S(see : above). COMMENTS: Lawson (1985,579,210) demonstrated that N.~ u s c ~ cu ~ a~ is auspe~ cies distinct from~asc~uta, but did not resolve the hybrid zone between the two taxa at thattime, Lawson et al. (579.217)resolved the complex geneticinteractions of the two taxa, and once again established cZar~ias a distinctspecies.

132 Amphi~iunsand ReptiZes of Texas

~

~

N e r o ~ uc~clopion

Green Water Snake (Map 127) T r o p i ~ o ~ o t ~ s c ~ cDumeril, ~ o p i o n Bibron,and Dumeril1854. ~ r p e t o Gen. ~ . 7 :576. N e r o ~ i u c ~ c l oRossman pio~ and Eberle 1977. ~ e r p e t o l ~ g i 33(I) c a :42. REFERENCES: I4,137.006,162, 222,228, 232.010, 232,011, 312.141, 312.142, 423,439,52g.530,643.600, 718.170,718.175, 753.400, 768,8o9,810,858,g2g1 1050.169,1064,1og~,1095. SUBSPECIES: c~clopion(see above). COMMENTS: The Harrison County record (770,300) has been verifiedthrough

recent examinations of specimens by W. W. Lamar (pers.comm.).

Nero~u er~throgaster

Plain-bellied Water Snake (Map 128) C o l ~ ~ e r e r ~ t h r o gForster a s ~ e r 1771. In Bossu, Trav. t h r ~ Pt. ~ gAm. ~ La. 1771:364. N e r o ~ i u e r ~ t ~ r o gBaird u s t e ~and Girard 1853. Cat. North Am. Rept. I :40. R E F E R ~ N C E S21,29,33,38,45.300,57, : 74, 76,g1,92,122,14.8.010,151,1~~, 162,19~,205.110,222,223,225,228,230.100,2~o.1~o, 230.150,232.010, 232.011, 252,253, 257,269, 270,281,298, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 333.100, ~~2.~oo,372~600 377.106,~~~.1o~,380,384.260,3g1,3g~.~oo, ,~~~.~oo, 395.300,415,432,439,4.50,451.500.451.510,454.I00,454.332,482.200,483, 485.500,4.g0, 4g1,4.g5.050,4g5.700,506,5og.2oo,~og.575, 511.50a52g.530, 529.550, 532,200, 532.202, 545,535,565, 579,210,613,614.600,622.265, 622.295,622,297,625.401,626.510,630.102,632.200,642.060,655,662,665, 683.200, 700, 714,718,170,718.175, 720.232, 720.237, 720.270, 726, 753.400, 765, 768, 780.050,809,810,811,816.120, 816.300,819,858, 865,869,878.500, 883,885,907, g10.200, g12,913,915,g1g, 922,927,928,930, 932,947,951, g~2,956,957,964,966,967,968, g77.!joo, 1003.260,1003.261,1oo~.~~o, 1018, 1042.120,1042.181,1046.100,1o~~, 1050,169, 1055.410, 1072.100,1og~, 1095, 1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Hardeman, Kendall, and Lubbock Counties (482.200,490, 491, 495.050).

S U B S P E C I E S : Conant ~ ~ ~ ~1949. ~ ~ ~Copeiu ~ ~ ~ 1g4g(1) 1852. Proc. Acud. Nat. Sci. P ~ i l u6, :177.

:2; trunsversu Hallo~ell

COMMENTS: A museum record for Starr County is questionable, See Conant (230.130) for a summary of the distribution in south Texas. This species and the diamondbacl~water snake are the most widespread and c o ~ o n water snakes in Texas.

Species A ~ c o ~ n t 1 s33

N e y o ~fasciata a Southern Water Snake (Map 129) Col~bey fasciat~sLinnaeus 1766.Sgst, Nat. I :378. Ne~oaia fasciata, Baird and Girard 1853.Cat, NorthAm. Rept. I :39.

REFERENCES: 14, 74, 86.100,106, 122,131, 151, 155,162,168, 222,228, 230 230.130, 232.010, 232.011, 257, 269, 270, 312.141, 312.142, 312. 333.100,372.300,372.600,375.~00, 377,377.106,377.107,415,439, 454.100, 464,480.320,495.085,50g.575,511.500, 529.530,532.200,~32.202, 542, 579.210,~79.217, 718.170, 718.175, 726, 728, 753.400, 765, 768, 913,915,928,933,947,952, 858,859,860.030,862.500,8651878.500,g~o.~00, 956,968,1003.260,1003.261,1042.120,1050.169,1067,1og~, 10g5,1098. SUBSPECIES: c o n ~ ~ eBlanchard ns 1923.Occas. Pap. Mus. 2001, Univ. Mich, 140 :I; pictiventyis Cope 1895.Am. Nat. 29: 677.

COMMENTS: Only four of the above references refer to the occurrence of N e ~ o a ~ a fasciatap~ctiventyis(230.130,232.010,232.011,860.030) in Texas. Conant (230.130) gives the history of the introduction of ~ e y o p~ctiventyis ~ a ~ into the Brownsville area.

Neroaia hayteyi Harter's Water Snake (Map 130) Natrix ~ayteyiTrapido 1941.Am. Mid. Nat. 25 :673. ~ e y o a i hayte~i, u Rossman and Eberle 1977.~ ~ y p e t o l ~ g33(1): ica

42.

R E F E ~ E N C E S45.300, : 74,137.006,162,205.120,223,224,228,232.010,

232.011, 312,141, 312.142, 312.144, 315.272, 321, 333.100, 340.050 3g3.ogo,568.011,57g.21o, ~1~,613,616.260,617,622.265,622.295,623,630, 718.170, 718.175, 768, 786.525, 810,813.490,820.200,820.300, 786.525, 809, 822,030,858,862.525,873,878.150,1003.260,1003.261,1018,1021,1025, 1095. 1o~o.2~~,1048.500,1050.169,1085.100,1og~, SUBSPECIES: hayteyi (see above): pa~cimac~lata Tinkle and Conant 1961.~ o ~ t h west. Nat,6 :34. C O M M E N ~ SIn : 1987,this species was given federallythreatened status under the

US.Endangered Species Act. Sincethat time, several studies have been completed on the biology of the species (432.161,1072.110). These studies essentially found that the species was not threatened by river impoundments. In 1998,A delisting protocolwas submitted to the US.Fish and Wildlife Service. by the personnel of the Colorado River Muncipal Water ~istrict. N e y o ~ y~ombifeya a ~iamondbackWater Snake(Map 131) Tyopiaonot~s~ h o m b ~ eHallowell ya 1852.Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei.Phila, 6 :177. N e y o ~ yhomb~eya, a Rossman and Eberle 1977.~eypetologica33(1): 42. 134 Amphi~iansuna Reptiles of Texas

REFERENCES: IO,45.300, 57, 74, 122,139,148.010, 149.110,151, 155,162 168,1g5,205.110,222,228,230.100,~~o.1~o, ~~o.1~0,232.010,232.011,250, 252, 255, 257,269, 270,281, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 312.707,3 322.200,333.100, ~ ~ 2 . 3 0~75.500~377.105, 0, 377.106,380,415,432,439, 442.278,~5~.1oo,464,480.303,483,5o2,5og.22o, 50g.575,511.500,529.500, 529.510,52g.530,542,545.535,565,588.390, 622.102,622.107,622.228, 622.265,622.297,625.401,643.600,656,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 726, 768,~~o,809,810,858,862.500,865,869,878.500,910.200,912, 753.400, 765, 9131 915,9189919, 928, 930, 9329 94.2, 952,956,957,964,966, 944,9471 951, 967,968,1003.260,1003.261,1oo~.~5o, 1018,1021,1o~5, 1o~o.1~o,1050.169, 1072.112,1og~,1og5.

SUBSPECIES: r ~ f f m ~ i ~ (see e r aabove). COMMENTS: The diamondbackwater snake and the blotched water snake are the most frequentlykilled water snakes by humans who believe they are water moccasins. The diamondback is the largest water snake in Texas byweight and length. Conant (230.100)is the latest taxonomic revisorof this taxon.

Nerffdia s~pedon Northern Water Snake (Map132) Cff~u~ sipedffn e r Linnaeus 1758.Syst. Nat. I :219. N e r f f ~sipedffn, a l3aird and Girard 1853.Cat. N f f r tAm. ~ Rept. I :38. REFERENCES:

232.010,

232.011,

312.141, 312.142,451.510,718.170, 718.175,

1050.169.

SUBSPECIES: p ~ e u r ~Cope ~ i s 1892.Proc.

US. Natl. Mus. 14:

672.

COMMENTS: Two specimenstaken five

milesnorth of Sherman, Grayson County, are housed in the Carnegie Museum. These represent the first verificationof the species in Texas.

Genus OpkeffdrysFitzinger Syst, Rept. 1843 :26

Op~effdrys aestivus Rough Green Snake (Map 133) Cff~u~ aestivus er Linnaeus 1766.Syst. Nat. I :387. Opkeffdrys~estivus,Cope 1860.Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. P ~ i l a1, 2 :560. REFERENCES: 29,38, 74, 76,92,122,132,148.010,1~g.11o, 162, 205.110,223, 228,232.010,232.011,238,250,25~, 269,270,272,281,312.141,312.142, 3~~.144,3~~.3oo,372.600,3~5.5oo, 377.125,377.106,377.107,380,3g1,399, 415,438.100,439,442.278,450, ~s1,4s4.1oo,480.308~ 485.5009486,487.500, 4-89? 490,495, 495.050,503, 529.200,529.500,529.5IO, 509.575, 529.530, 588.220,588.310,622.297,622.298,634,642.080,662,683.200, 720.237, 726,

Species Accffunts 135

753.400,765 768,7 ,275,794,802+311,80~,809~ 810,869,885,904,gx2, 913,9157 9189 922, 928,930, 932,933,947,952,9569 964, 9651 967,968, 1003.260,1003.261,1040.202,1042,120,1042.1 2,1046.100,1050.169, 1072.100,1085.200,xog~, 1095,1og8. FOSSIL RECORD: Denton, Foard, and Llano Counties(489,4g0,495,4g5.050). S U ~ S P E C I ~aestiv~s S: (see above);ma~ulisBaird and Girard 1853.Cat. ~ u rAm. t ~ ~ e p tI. :107. C O M ~ E ~ TRaun S: and Gehlbach (770.300)c o m ~ e non t erro~eouslocality data 9

for this species in west and n o r t h ~ e sTexas. t There has been considerable controversy over the recognition of subspecies in m. To understand this controversy and that of the evolutionary species one must read Grobman (1gg2), Collins (1992)~ ~ o n t a n u c c(x99 i Devender et al. (19g2), Frost et al. (1992)~ and Dowling (1993). ~ r o ~ m (438.100) an is the latest taxonomic revisorof the taxon.

Genus P i t ~ u p ~Holbrook is Nurt~Am. ~erpetul,1842,

(2)4: 7

C u l ~ ~cate~ifer er Blainville 1835.~ o ~Ann, v . Mus. Hist. ~ u t Paris u ~ 4: ~ i t ~ u ~ ~ i sBairdc and a t Girard e ~ ~ 1853. e ~ Cat. ~ u Am.r Rept. ~ I :69. ~ R E ~ E R E N C E S14,21,26.120,29,34,38, : 74,122,132,137.006,137.30~,162,

04.318,205.005,205.110,218,223,227,228,232.010,232.011,233,250, 53,257,269,270,277.800,281,293.600,3o5, 312.141~312.142,312.144, 380, ~84.210~393.080,415,451.500, 4~1.510,454.100,482.200,483,4 49~~0~0,495*700,521,522*~00, 529,500,529*530,532*00~,545.535, 55 588.390,605.800,605.803,613,614.200,622.105,622,297,631.200,639, 642.060~ 662,665,683,200,687,692, 700, 718.170, 718.175, 720.233, 120,753.400, 765, 768, 770, 789.~96,802.210,809,810, 811, 858,862,869,883, 885,904,907, g12,915,918,945,947,951, 952,956,967,969,976.260,1003,260,1003.261,1oo3.~oo, 1023,1040,202, 1046.100,1050.169,1o55.~1o, 1061,175,1o~~,1075,1085.210,1og~, 1095, 10g8,1100. FOSSIL RECORD: Bexar and Kendall Counties(14,384.210,482.200,~95.o5o, 0.233, 720.237, 720.238). PECIES: a ~ n iHallowell1852. s Pruc. Acad. NataScl. P ~ l ~6a:181; . sqyi 11837.Bssui P ~ ~ s i uSerp. n . 2: 157. C O M ~ E N T SSweet : and Parker (976.260)suggest that there are at least three distinct species of Pituup~is.Collins (223,440,223.450)and Reith~ng's(783.215) ele-

vation of R rut~venito species status, supports the separation of E! melu~uleuc~s as the eastern U.S. species and R cate~iferas the western U.S. species.

Pituophis ruthve~i Louisiana Pine Snake (Map 135) Pituophis mela~oleucusruthveni Stull192g. Occas. Pap. Mus. 21001. U ~ i v , M i c ~ , Conant 1956, Am. Mus, Novit. 1781 :28. Pituop~is ruthve~i, REFERENCES: 9.160, 9,525,132, 162,187,195, 227, 228, 232.010, 232,011, 558,668,718.I70,7I8.I75, 753.400,765, 783.2157 312.141,385,393. 789.296, 789.297, .298,809,810,862,969,976.260,1003.260,1003.261, 1003.400, 1050.1 COMMENTS: The Louisiana pine snake has long residedas a race of Et ~elanoleu” cus (Sweet and Parker; 976.260). Conant (227), Sweet and Parker (976.260), and Thomas et. al. (1oo3.400) have proposed speciesstatus based on morphology and raphy. Reichling(783.215) has sug~ested that there are several ~eneticdifferences betweenruthve~iand ~ e ~ a ~ o l e ~ c u s . 9

Genus ~ e g i Baird ~ a and Girard Cat. N o r t ~Am. ~ e p t1853, . I :45 Regi~a gra~ami Grah~m’s Crayfish Snake (Map136) ~egi~a

~Baird r a hand a ~ Girard i 1853. Cat. North Am. Rept. I :47. 223, 2 2 8 , 2 3 2 . 0 1 0 , 2 3 2 . 0 1 1 , z 5 5 , 257,269, 270,276,281,312.141, 312.142, 312.144,333.100,372.300, 372,600, 415,439, & ~ . s o o451.510,480.320,~42, , 545.610,565, s73.100,588.400,613, 622.137,622.296,626.510,643.600, 718.170, 718.175, 753.400, 761, 768, 788, R E F E R E N C ~ S :33,38,137.005,151,162,222,

58,865,910.200,912,915,928,g29,947,965,967,968,1003.~60,

1 0 0 3 . 2 6 1 , 1 o o ~ . ~ 51021,1042.120,1046.100,1050.169,1o9 o, C O M ~ E N T SThe : isolated geographic records from Bexar, Dimnit, Frio, Garza, Haskell, Hemphill,Runnels, Sterling,and Taylor Countiesrepresent verified specimens of Graham’s crayfishsnake. ~ e grigida i ~ ~ Glossy CrayfishSnake (Map132)

Colu~errigidus Say 1825.J h a d . Nat, Sci. P ~ i l a1(4): . 239. ~ e g i r~gida, ~ a Rossman 1963. Occas. Pap, M ~ sZool. , La. State Univ. 29 :20. REFERENCES: 14,161,162,228, 232.010, 232.011, 277, 312,141, 312.142, 312.144, ~ ~ ~ . I O O , ~ ~ S377.107,439,454.332,480.385, .SOO, 529.~00,568.011,599,718.170,718.175, 726, 7!j3.400q 768, 783.275,788,809, 862.525865, 873,g2g,947,1003.260,1003.261,1050.169,1og4, 1095. S U ~ S ~ E C I Esinico~a S: Huheey 1959. Copeia 1g59(4) :305. C O M ~ E N T SThe : m ~ j o r ioft ~the isolated museum records for the glossy c r a y ~ s ~ snake have been verified, Species Accounts r37

Genus Rhinucheil~sBaird and Girard Cut. Nurth Am.Rept, 1853,I :120 Rhi~ucheil~s lecuntei Long-nosed Snake (Map 137) Rhinuc~eilusleco~tei Baird and Girard1853.Cat. ~ u r t Am. h Rept, I :120.

REFERENCES: 26.120,29,38, 72.555, 74,132,151,1~~,162,218,228,232.010, 232.011, 235, 250, 255, 257, 271,281, 297, 312.141, 312.142, 3~9.200,393.080,4~1.~00,~~1.~10,~~~.100,458.200,482.200,495.0~0, 495*050,513*903, 521,522.200, 529.500, 529.5207 529.530, 557,573*90 612.110,613,616.200,628,631.200,634,642.060,643.500,643.510,662,665, 683.200, 700, 718.170, 718.175, 753.400, 81o,811,816.300,858,869, 768,809, 883,885,912,915,918,947,951,952,956,965,967,1003~260, 1003.261, 1017.200,1023,1050.169,10~~.~1o, 1070,1085.210,1og~, 1095,1098. SUBSPECIES: tessellat~s Garman 1883.Mem. Mus. Comp. Zuol. 8 :74. C O ~ ~ E N TThe S:

dietof the long-nosed snake is principally lizards, of which

75 percent belongto thegenus Cnemiaoph~r~s (Rodriquez-Robles and Greene,

pers. c o r n . ) . is the most recent revisor of this taxon. Medica (643.500,643.510) Genus SaIvadora Baird and Girard Cut, ~ u r t Am. h Rept. 1853,I :104 Salvuaora aeserticola Big Bend Patch-nosed Snake (Map 138)

Sulvaaura ~exulepis aeserticula Schmidt 1940.~ i e l~a ~Nat.s Hist., , ZouI. Sev: 24 :146. ~ulvaauradeserticola, Bogert and~egenhardt1961.Am. Mus, Novit.2064:13. REFERENCES: 9.525,21, 74, II5,116,162, 232.010, 232.OII,296.300, 312.142, 323,210,415, ~29.~30,615,642.060,665,683.200, 521, 718.170, 718.175, 725, 768,802.210, 8o8,809,810,811,858,869,871,883,885, 1003.260,1003.261,1050.169,1o~~.~1o, 1085.210,1og~,1og~, 1100. FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson, Kendall, and Lubbock Counties (458.200,482.200,

495:040,495.050).

C O ~ ~ E N TThis S : taxon and the ~ o u n t a i n patch-nosed snake were under study by C. M. Bogert prior to his untimely death (pers. comm.).

Sulvaauru g r u ~ a ~ i u e Mountain Patch-nosed Snake (Map 139)

138 A ~ p ~ i ~ andi ReptiIes a ~ s of Texas

312.

228, 232.010, 232.011, 257,281, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, ~1~,442.278,~~~.1oo,462,509.061,5og.1o~, 521,52g.510,52g.520, 52g.530, 588.220,588.300,602.200,615,622.312,642.060,662,683.120,687, 718.170, 718.175, 759, 765, 808,809,810,811,816.530,834,858,860.014, 768, 770, 862.525,869,871,880,883,885,go~,g08,g13,g15,g3o, 947,956,964, 966, 967,977.650,1003.260,1003.261,1040.202,1050.169,1o55.~1o, 1085.210, 1094.1 1095. FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson County(602.200). SUBSPECIES: grahamiae (see above);l~neata Schmidt 1940.~ieldMus.Nat. Hist., Zoof. Ser: 24 :148.

312.145

COMMENTS: I).I.Lannutti currently is studying the systematics of this species at the University of Texas, El Paso (pers. c0m.n.1.).

Genus ~onoraBaird and Girard Cat. NorthAm. Rept. 1853,I:117 Sonora semiannulata Ground Snake (Map 140) Sonora semiannulataBaird and Girard 1853.Cat. NorthAm. Rept. I:117.

REFERENCES: g.525,21,26.120,29,72,112, 72.555,74,132,1~~.oo5,148.010, 1~~.11o,151,1~~,162,186,220,223,228,232.010,232,011,236,2~~, 250,252, z53,25~,269,2~o,277.800,~12.1~1,~12.1~2,~12.1~~, 380,384.400,389, 3g3.o3o,3~3.o~o,393.080,3gs.~oo, 415,434,442.278,4~4.100,482.400, 483, 511.200, 521, 529.510, 529.530, 530, 573.300, 573.530, 576.030, 6 626.510,642.060,648,662,665,682.200,688,695, 622.235,622.297,624, 718.170, 718.175, 725, 753.400, 768, 7go,802.110, 809,810,811,816.3 816.700,858,865,869,871,883,885,go5, 906, goy, g22,936,g51,gs2,957, 965,967,1003.260,1003.261,100~.~50,1040.202, 1045.110,1055.100, 1046.100,1050.169,1o55.~1o, 1085.210,1og~, 1og5,1098. SUBSPECIES: semian~uzata (see above);taylori Boulenger 1894.Cat. Snakes Brit. Mus. 2:265. C O M ~ E N T SSonora : S. t a ~ l ois r ~restricted primarily to the Tarnaulipan Biotic Province and prairies to the northeast (Austin,Bastrop, Brazos, Freestone, Harris, Robertson, and Wilson Counties). Frost and Van Devender (384.400)are the latest revisors of this species.

Genus StoreriaBaird and Girard Cat. NorthAm. Rept, 1853,I:135 torer ria dekayi Brown Snake (Map141)

~ropidonotusdeku~iHolbroolr 1842.N o r t ~ Am, Herpetoz. 2d ed. 4: 53. Storeria deka~i, Baird and Girard 1853.Cat. NorthAm. Rept. I:135. Species Accounts 139

R E F E R E ~ C E S :7, 29,38,45.300, 72.555, 122,131, 137.00~,148.010,162, 74, 178.200,205.004, 218.200,223,228,232,010,232.011,~5~, 257,150,269, 270,2~5,281,312.1~1,312.1~2, ~ 1 2 . 1 ~ ~ , 3 ~ ~ . ~ o o , 3 7 2 . 6 0 0377.106, ,~~~.5oo, 41~,439,450,451.~00,451.~10,~5~.100, 463,464,480.320, 377.107,380,391, 483, 485.500, 489,495.050, 495.700, 509.200,509.500, 509.5 529.500, 529.530, ~~2.2oo,588.390,603,622.298,625.404,630,642.080, 718.170,718~75,726, 753.400,765, 768, 783.275, 793.500, 794,809,

855,858,865,869,871,g27,g3o,947,956,957,967,968,1003.260,1003.261, 100~.45o,1021,1027,1040,202,1o~2.1g~, 1046,100,1050.169,~og~,

1095,

1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Foard

County(489,495.050). iNat.~66 :246; . t e ~ aTrapido ~a

S~BSPECIES: limnetesAnderson 1961.Am. ~

194.4.Am, ~

iNat.~31:63. . COMMENTS: Isolated museum records fromCrosby and Lubbock Counties mayrepresent accidental introductions.

Storeria occipitomaculata ~ e ~ - b e ~Snake i e d (Map 132) Col~ber occipito-~aculatus Storer 1839,Rept. Mass, 1839:230. Storeria occipito~aculata,Cope 1900.Ann. Rept. US. Nat~. us, 1900:1003. R E F E R E ~ C E S :232.010,232.011, 295,312.141,312.142,312.144,377.106,

377.107,480.420,5og.575, 603,614, 718.170, 718.175, 788.200, 858,885,963,1003.260,1003.261,1027,1og~, 1095. S~BSPECIES:obscura Trapido 1944.Am.~ iNat.~31:33. .

753.400,768,783

C O ~ M E ~The T Sred-bellied : snake has not been found west of the Trinity River, altho~ghit is still commonin parts of east Texas. Irwin (509.575)conducted a longterm herpetofauna study at a Big Thicket siteand found I red-bellied snake to every IO brown snakes. Genus Ta~tillaBaird and Girard Cat. NorthAm. Rept. 1853,I:131 Tantilla atriceps Mexican Black-headed Snake (Map 66j ~ o ~ a ~ o c r a ~ u m Gunther ~ ~ r i c1895. e p s Biol. Ctu: Am., Rept. Batu: 1895: T~n~illa atriceps, do Amaral1g2g.~ e~nst. ~ ~utantan . 4:219.

146.

REFERENCES: 223.200,232.100,232.011,312.141, 312,142,718.170,718.175, 809,840,1003,260,1003.261,1050,169, (perhaps 52g.510,643.600j. COMMENTS: Prior to Cole and Hardy's review(223.200)of I: atriceps and I: ho~ a r ~ s ~most i t ~literature i, references for I: triceps were combinedwith those for I: ~obartsmithi.Appropriate referencesare listed with the latter species; those pert a i n i ~ gto I: triceps are listed above.

14.0

~ ~ ~ h i band i ~~eptiles n s of Texas

~ a ~ t i IcucuIlata la Trans-~ecos Black-headed Snake (Map 138) ~u~tiIIa cuc~~Iuta Minton 1956.~ i e IZooI. ~ . 34 :449 REFERENCES: 9.525,137.006, 232.010, 232.011, 290.200, 292, 312.141, 615,665,683.200, 718.170, 312.142,~12.1~4,~~2,~oo,382,482.500,~0~.~oo, 718.175, 736,100, 768,860.030,869,885,1003.260,1003.261,1050.169, 1055.410. COMMENTS: Dixon et al. (312.750) recently demonstrated that T, r u ~isr a~

can species, and that theraces of r u ~ r in a Texas ~cucuIIata,~ a ~ o I i are ca~ examples of polymorphismwithin a single population: cucuIIata has precedence as the older name, and is recognizedas a distinct species. Degenhardt et al. (290.200)comment on the taxonomic status of the Texas populations of T, r u ~ r a , ~ a ~ ~grac~Iis i ~ I a Flatheaded Snake (Map 142) ~ u ~ t igrac~Iis ~ I a Baird and Girard 1853.Cat. North Am, Rept. I:132.

REFERENCES: 29,38,43,92,112,1~~.11o,151,162,190,220,110,220.120, 222.001,223.200,228,232.010,232.011,250,252,~~~, 269,270,281,295,

377.107,389,395.200,4.15, 45I05I0,454..1o0, 483, 312.141, 312.142,312.144, 511.200,~29.~10,~29.~~0, 548,568.011,587.500,613,622.127,622.297, 683,200,718.170,718.175,~~~, 726, 753.400, 765,768,802.100,809,810, 822.001,858,865,874,907,912,915,918,920,927,928,929, 9365,944,947, ~~~,956,957,964,967,968,985,g9~,1003.260,1003.261,1o~1,1o4o~~45~ 1050.169,10~~.100,10~~, 1095,1098. C O ~ M E N T SIsolated : museum records of this species from Brewster, Hale, Kent, Lamb, and Randall Countiesare questionable.

~ a ~ ~ iho~artsmithi IIa SouthwesternBlack-headed Snake (Map 143) ~ a ~ t ~ I I a ~ o ~ u rTaylor t s m i t1937. hi ~ r a ~Ksa,~ sAcaG. . Sci. 39 :340. REFERENCES: 21, 74,112,162,223.200,228,232.010,232.011,290,200,292,

312.141, 312.142, 312,144, 332.020,495.700, 521, 529.510,622.297,642.060, 643.600,662,665,683.200,683.210, 700,718.170,~18.1~~, 768,809,811,840, 858,883,885,981,1003.260,1003.261,1050.169,1o~~.~1o, 1085.210,10~~, 109.5COMMENTS: See

Coleand Hardy (223.200)for the taxonomy of this species.

Species Accou~ts 141

Tantilla nigyiceps Plains Black-headed Snake (Map 144) Tantilla nigyiceps Kennicott 1860.PYOC. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.1 2 :328. REFERENCES: 56.401, 72.555,112,74, 134,151,155,162,166, 190,216.630, 257,281,312.141, 220,120,223,223.200,228,232,010,232.011,237,250,252, 312.142, 312.144, 312.1~5,380,389,~15,~~1.500,451.~10,488, 5II.200, 529.510, 544, ~~~.~o~,613,631.200,642.060,683.200, 714, 718.170, 718.175, 967, 753.400,768,809,810,816.300,833,840,858,869,871,883,885,~o~, 1003.260,1003.261,1o~5.11o, 1o~~.21o,1050.169,1og~, 1095. C O ~ M E N T SThe : McLennan County record is based on a specimen housedin the Field Museumof Natural History, Chicago. This specimen could not be located for verification.

Genus Thamnop~isFitzinger Syst. Rept. 1843: 26 Thamnophis cyytopsis Black-necked GarterSnake (Map 145) ~utaeniacyytopsis Kennicott 1860.Proc. Acad. Nat, Sci.Phila, 12:133. hamn no phis cyytopsis, Cope 1892.PYOC, US. NatL Mus. 14:656.

REFERENCES: 21,29,45.300,74,1~~.11o,151,155,162,223,228,232.010, 232.011,245,257, 312.141,312.142,371,378,394,394.400,415,426.165, 45~.~oo~45~.~1o~4~~.1oo~51~,~~~,5~9.53o,577,613,616.200,642 648,662,665,683,200,687, 700, 718.170, 718.175, 768, 775.100, 79 811,820.200,841,852,858, 860.030, 869, 883,885, 904.700, 912, 915,91 957,967,985.500,1oo3.260,1003.261,1046~100,1050.169,1o55.~1o, 1061, SUBSPECIES: cyrtopsis; ocellatus Cope 1880. 1061.120,1085.210,1og~, 1095,1098. Bull. US, Natl. Mus. I7 :22. C O ~ M E N T SThe : museum record for Cameron Countyis incorrect. The McLennan County record(770,300)is probably correct. Goldberg (426.165) presents the most recent reproductive data for this species.

~ha~nophis ~aycianus Checkered Garter Snake (Map 146)

142

A ~ p h i ~ i a and n s Reptiles of Texas

643.520,643.710,665,672,683,200, 700, 718.170, 718.175, 720.237,0723.020, 726, 736.500, 765,768, 770, 788.110, 790, 791, 809,810, 811,816.300,816.805, 819,820.200,858,865,869,883~885,912,913,915, 918,919,922, 930,931, 945,947,~51,~52,956,966,967,1003,260,1003.261,1018,1040.100, 1o~~.11o,1050.169,1o~5.~1o, 1067,1085.210,1og4,1og5,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Hardeman and Knox Counties (491,493,495.050), but these records mayrepresent I: radix. SUBSPECIES:

n?arc~anus(see above). foodhabits of this taxon were studiedby John Karges (pers.

COMMENTS: Detailed

comm.). ~han?nophis proxin?us Western Ribbon Snake (Map 147) Colu~erproxin?us Say 1823.In Long, ~ x p e dRockg . Mts. I:339. ~ h a ~ ~ opro~in?us, p h ~ s Streclrrer 1909.Ba~lurUniv. Bull. 12:8.

.

REFERENCES: 29, 33,38,45.300, 72.491, 74, 76, 92, 122,137.006, 1 148.010,1~g.11o,151,155, 162,197,~o~.oo~,220.140,220.150,220.200,228, 230.140, 232.010, 232.011, 252, 253, 257,269, 270, 281, 312.141, ~ 1 ~ . 1 ~ ~ , ~ 1 2 . 1 ~ ~ , ~ ~ o . ~ 1 o , ~ ~ ~ . ~377.106,377.107,378, oo,372.600,~~~.~oo, 380,384.210,~~1,391.800,393,41o, 431,439,454.100,4.54.332, 464,482.200, 485.500,490,491,495,4~5.040, 495.050,506,509.575,522.200,529.530, 529.550, 532.202, 542, 588.390,613,622.295,622.297,626.510,642.060, 565, 653.200,687.500, 700, 718.170, 718.175, 720.235, 720.237, 721, 726 765, 768,770, 783.275,786, 786.300, 788~00,788.205, 787, 791,809,810, 885, 907, 913, 915,918, 922, 927 816.120,820.200, 858,865, 869, 883, 912, 928,g3o,g32,938,944,947,g5~ 952,956,957,964,966,967,968,1003.260, 1003.261,1oo~.~52,1040.202,1042.120,1046.100,1050.169,1063.100, 1072.100,1072.112,1og~, 1og5,1098.

FOSSIL RECORD:Denton, Foard, Hardeman, Kendall, Llano,and Lubbock Counties (482.200,4~o,491,495,~~5.040,495.050, 721). SUBSPECIES: p r o x i ~ u(see s above);~ a ~ u l ~ orarius, c u s , and ru~rilineatus Rossman 132-35. 1963,Bull. Pla,State Mus. 7: COMMENTS: Subspeciesboundaries are difficult to ascertain for this species. Detailed lifehistory informationis presented by Rossmanet al. (788.205).

~~an?nophis radix Plains Garter Snake (Map 148) ~utaeniar a ~Baird x and Girard 1853.Cat. ~ o r t An?. h Rept. I :34. ~han?noph~s radix, Jordan 1899.Man Vert, Anim.,U.S. 1899 :193.

REFERENCES: 9.525, 228, 232.010, 232.011, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144 573.543,612.110, 718.170, 718.175, 768, 788.205~809, 883,885,1003.26 1003.261,1021,1050.169,1098.

SpeciesAccounts

143

SUBSPECI~S:haydeni Kennicott 1860.Explo~ Surv. R.R.

Miss. Pac. 12: 198. speciesremains one of the rarest garter snakes in Texas. etailed life history informatio~ is presented in R o s s ~ a net al. (788.205).

C O ~ ~ E N T This S:

T~am~ophis sirta~~s Common Garter Snake (Map 14.9) CoZuber sirtalis Linnaeus 1758.Syst. Nat. I:222. Thamnophis sirtaZ~s, Garman 1892.EuZZ, Essex Inst. 24:

104. 155,162, 175,228, 270, 312.141, 312.142, 3 230.140,230.150,232.010, 368.~00,370~378,380,3g1,439,442~278,449,~~4.1oo, 480.320,482.200,489, 495.~50~4g5.70o,~~g.~3o,~~g.~~o, 54.5.535,568.or1,588.220,588.300,613, .II~ 622.296,634,642.080,662,683.200, , 718.170, 718.175, 720.235, 725, 725.400, 753.400, 768, 788.205, 7g1,809,839, 854,858,869,883,885, g13,g1~,g18,928,956,1003.260,1003.261,1040.202,1042.120, IO~~.IIO, 1046.100,1050,169,1061,1067,1072.125,1og~, 1og5,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Foard and Kendall Counties(482.200,489,4g~.o~o). SUBSPECIES: sir~a~is (see above):ann~ctensBrown 1950.CheckZist Rept, Amp~ib, i s and Girard 1853.Cat. ~ o r t Am. h Rept. I :32;parietalis Tex, 1950:203;~ o r s ~Baird Say 1823.In Long, Exped. Rocky Mts, I :186. REFERENCES: 26.120,38,

74, 92,137,006, 151, 154, 232.011, 257,269,

C O ~ ~ E N T There S: is considerable confusion over the taxonomic boundaries of the above subspeciesin Texas. Thestatus of the taxa I: S. dorsulis and T. S, purietulis in Texas isunk~own.See Rossmanet al. (788.205)for more detailedinformation,

Genus Tri~orphodonCope Proc, Acad. Nat. Sci. PhiZa. 1861,13: 297. Tri~orphodo~l viZkinso~ Texas LyreSnake (Map138) Tri~orphodonvilkinso~iCope 1886.Proc, Am,Philos, Soc. 3 :285.

R E F E R E ~ C E S 9.160,26.120,~~.~oo, : 74,1~~.1~~,162,232.010,232.011,260, 290.200, 292, 293, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 332.200, 393.040,4 521,556,602,200,665,683,200,6gg.~oo, 718.170, 718.175, 768,809,810,837, 858,869,885,994,1003.260,1003.261,1050.169,1o~~.~1o, 1085.210,1og~,

1095.

Culberson County(602.200). C O ~ ~ EAlthough ~ T S : Gehlbach (393,040)placed I: vilkinso~ias a subspecies of I: b i s c ~ ~ a tJerry ~ s , Johnson and Travis LaDuc of the ~niversityof Texas, ElPaso, have evidence that suggests I: viZkinsoni is a distinct species(pers.comm.). FOSSIL RECORD:

Genus ~ropidoc1o~io~ Cope Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila, 1860,12:

76

~ropi~ocIo~io~ Ii~eatu~ Lined Snake (Map150) Microps 1 i ~ e a t Hallowell u~ 1856. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phi1a. 8 :241 ~ r o p i d o c 1 o ~ i o ~ 1 iCope ~ e a t1860. u ~ , Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phi1a. 12:76.

REFERENCES: 29,59.600, 72.554,122,137.006,151, 162,228, 230.150, 232.010, 232.011, 252. 25S9 257, 257.500,269, 270,281, 312,141, 454.33~~474, 4809 312.144,327,33o.9~0~384.~50,393.080,4~5,454,4~4.~oo, 495.085,52~.5oo,622.108,643.600,683.200, 714, 718.170, 483,493,495,050~ 718,175, 720.232, 753.400, 754, 755, 760,768,809,810,816.300, 820.3 860.o12,860.030,878,885,912,915, 9~~,~4o,~~~,947.95~,956,1003.260, 1003.261,1021,1040.202,1042.120,1046.100,1o5o.1~o, 1050.169,1082~200, 1094, 1095, 1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Knox COUnty (493,495.050). S ~ ~ S ~ E C I aE ~ S : ~ e c t e ~ s ; Ramsey t e ~ 1953. a ~ ~ ~erpeto1og~ca m 9(1j :12-14; ~ e r t e ~Smith s i 1965.J.Ohio ~erpetoI,Soc. ~ (j : 13. COMMENTS: In a recent paper by Smith and Chiszar (860.012) on the distribution and morphology of T. 1 i ~ e aint the ~ ~panhandle of Texas, they removed

T. I, merte~sifrom the Texas fauna, and indicated that it was synonymous with T. 1.Ii~eatum, This action left someinteresting gaps in the distribution of this taxon,

which Smith and Chiszar suggest is caused by soil types. Genus Virgi~iaBaird and Girard Cat. NorthAm. Rept. 1853,I :127 Virgi~iu stri~~u1a Rough Earth Snake ma^ 151)

Co1u~erstriatulus Linnaeus 1766.Syst. Nat. I :375. ~ i r g i ~striatuIa, ia arma an 1883. me^. Mus, Camp. Zool. 8 :97. R E F E R E ~ C E S 59.435, : 7~,92,109,11o,122,131,132,1~~.oo5, 148.01,151, 162,~o~.oo~,219,220.140,220.150,220.200,228,232.010,232.011,252,255, 257,269,270,281,312.1~1,312.142,312.144,312.145,377.106,377.150, 384.229,389,391,395.~00,~15,439,442.278,454.100.464~ 480.309~490, 588.390,622.295? 495.050,495.70095og.5~~,~11.200,529.5~o,5~9.53o~ 768,780.050, 783.275, 794, 642.080,663, 718.170, 718.175, 726,765,753.400, 19,858,860.030,865, 912,913, 915,928, 9329933,938, 939, 947,956,967,968,985~500,1003.260,1003.261,1oo~.~1o, ~oo~.~~o,1040.202, 1040.241,10~~,1046.100,1050.169, IOl;~.IOO, 1094, 1095, 1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Denton County (490,495.050). C O M ~ E N T SIsolated : museum records fromEl Paso, King,and Lubbock Counties are accidental i~troductions, probably through potted plant shipme~ts.

Species ~ c c o u ~ t s

~irginiuvaleriue

Smooth Earth Snake (Map152) ~irginiuvuleriue Baird and Girard 1853. Cut. North Am. Rept, I:127. REFERENCES: 74,109,11o,132,148.010,151,162, 228,232.010,232.011,252, 255,257,312.141,312,1~2,377.106,3~7.107,415,454.100,622.297, 718.170, 718.175, 743.050, 768,794.217,807,809,810,858,918,933,956,967, 1003.260,1003.261,1046.100,1050.169,1og~,1095. SUBSPECIES: eleguns Kennicott 1859. Proc. Acud. Nut. Sei. Phi~u.TI :99. COMMENTS: ~istributional records of this species continue to defy my abilityto recognize a geographicpattern.

Genus Micrurus Wagler In Spix, Serp, Brusil1824: 48. Micrurus fulvius

Coral Snake (Map 153)

Colu~erfulviusLinnaeus 1766. Sgst. Nat. I :381. NIicrurusfulvi~s,Stejneger and Barbour 1917. Chec~listNorth Am, A ~ p h iRept. ~, 1917: 106. REFERENCES: 14, 29, 33,38,61, 74, 92, 134, 137.005,137.006,148.010,151, 155,162,204.310, ~ o ~ . ~ 1 g , 2 2 0 , 2 2 3 , ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ o , 2 2 8 , 2 3 2 . 0 1 0 , 2250, 32.011,23~ 257,261.100,262,264,265,269, 270, 275,281,282.200, 312.141, 312.142, 393.030,393.050, 413,415, 312.144,314, 3I9.I00,353,375.500,377,377.106, 426.050,439,~51~5oo,~51.51o,~5~.1oo, 463,474,482.200,485.500,487.500, 495.050,495.700,509.575, 522.200,52~.510,588.450,626.510,665,666, 683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 726, 746.310, 753.110, 753.400, 765, 768, 783.275, 789, 789.100, 789.110, 790, 790.500, 794,807,809,810,811.206,858,869, 871,889,g12,913,915,918,928,930,939,947,952,9 5 6 , 9 5 7 , 9 6 4 , 9 6 6 , 9 6 7 , 1003.260,1003.261,1032,1032.220,1050.169,1061.175,1067,1068,1069, 1087,1094,1095, 1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Kendall County(482.200,495.050). SUBSPECIES: tenere Baird and Girard 1853. Cut. ~ o r t Am, h Rept. I :22. COMMENTS: Raun and Gehlbach (770.300) suggest that Brown's (155) Reeves

County record is erroneous, but recent records of the species from Pecos County indicate itspossible occurrence in Reeves County. The El Paso County record of Mibut is cited in recent literature (789.100). c r u ~ o i ~ e s e ~ r g ~(162) u n ~ hisuerroneous, s Roze (789.110) continues to recognizeNI. J:tenere as a race offulvius, even though he states that there is more tobe learned through future analyses of the poison and the population genome.Collins (223.450) recognizes it as an allopatric,diagnostic species. I have examinedthe external characters that areused toseparate these taxa as races, and the only usefulcharacter is whether the black nuchal band reaches the edge of the parietal scales ~ u l v i u or s ~usually coversthe posterior tipof the parietal 146

Amphi~iunsund Reptiles of Texas

scale tene ere^, Variation existsin this character and the two taxa are not always diagnosable. Thus, I prefer to be conservative,and retain the two taxa as races.

Genus Ag~istroaonBeauvois Trans. Am.Philos. Soc. 1799~4:381 Ag~istroaonco~tortrix Copperhead (Map154) Roa contortrixLinnaeus 1766. Syst. Nut, I :373. Ag~~istroaon contortrix, Baird 1854. Serp. N.Y; 1854: 13.

REFERENCES: 21,29, 33,38,45.300,56.401, 74,122,13~,137.006,148.010, 149.110, 151,155,162,165, 204.319, 205.0051 205.007, 215, 223,228, 230.150, 232.010,232.011,23~,262,264,265,269,270,281,282.200,283,3oo.1oo,301, ~ 1 ~ . 1 ~ 1 , ~ 1 2 . ~ ~ 2 , ~ 1 ~ . ~ ~ ~ , 3 1 2 . 7 0 6 , 3 1353,366,372,300, 4,3~~,3~~.~00,33~, 372.600,374,3~5.~oo,3~~.1o~,377.106,3~~.~o~, 39~,393.080,~~~,418.~00, 419,421,422, &U.IOO, 426,050,431,439, 442.278,449,454.100,464,470.350, 477,482.200,482.300,483,4g1,~95.o5o, 495.700,509.575,517,522.200,527, 529.200, 568.011,573.515, 573.544, 596,612.110,622.233,625.200,626.510, 630.140,644.120,655, 656,662,663.900,665,666,683.200, 714, 718.170, 718.175, 720.233,725, 726, 746.310, 7!j3.4001 765,768,777, 778,783.275, 790.500, 809, 810,811,811.200,811.206,811.320,818.205,858,865, 869,871, 875.500,878.500,889,904.650,g1~,913,915,918,927,928,930, 932,933,944, 946,947,~~2,960,964,966,967,968,1003.260,1003.261,1042.120,1050.169, 10~~.~10,1067,1068,1069, IO7I.IO0, 1072.100. 1073.100, 1094,1095. FOSSIL RECORD: Hardeman and Kendall Counties (482.200,491,49~.050). SUBSPECIES: contortri~ (see above):laticinctusGloyd and Conant 1934. Occas. Pap, Mus.Zool. Univ. Mich, 283: 2: pictigaster Gloyd and Conant 1943. Ru~l.Chi. Acad. Sei. 7 :156. COMMENTS: The subspecificboundary between the Trans-Pecos and broadbanded copperheadsis not well defined.A museum record for Lubbock County with attendant field data states “on load of wood from Kerrville.” Gloyd and Conant (422.100) cover all aspectsof the taxonomy and life history of this species,

Ag~istroaon piscivor~s Cotton~outh(Map 155) Crotal~spiscivor~s Lacepede 1789. Hist. Nat. Serp.2:130. Ag~istro~onpiscivor~s Stejneger 1895. Ann. Rept. US, Natf. Mus. 1893:406. REFERENCES: 29,38,45.300,48, 74,122,134,148,148.010,151,162,175

195,216.280,223, 2 2 8 , 2 ~ o . 1 3 o , 2 3 2 . 0 1 0 , 2 3 2 . 0 1 1 ,252, 2 ~ ~257,262,264, , 269, 270,281, 282.200, 301,312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 314, 315, 372.300,

SpeciesAccounts

147

372.600,375.500,377.106,3~~.1o~,389,~~1,~1~,418.100,422,422.100, 426.050,439,450, 454.IO0,48~.200,485.500,~~o, 495.050,495.700,502, 532.202,578,588.310,625.401,625.402,625.403, 509.575,529.700, 532.200, 625.404,666,687.500, 718.170, 718.175, 726, 746.310, 753.400,757, 783.~75,79o~5oo,809,810,811,860.030,865,869,878.500,889,912,~1~, 915, 932,947,956,960,966,967,968,1003.260,1003.261,1o~~, 1042.120, 918, 931, 1o46.020,1050.169,1068,1069,1071.100,1072.100,1og~, 1095. FOSSIL RECORD: Denton and Kendall Counties (482.200,490,495.050). S ~ ~ S R E C I E le~custuma S: Troost 1836.Ann. &c, Nat, Hist. N.yI 3: 176. C O M ~ E N T S Records : from Cameron and Fisher Countiesare erroneous. Museum records from Maverick, Sterling,and Val Verde Counties have been verified,but remain questionable. Gloyd and Conant (422.100) cover all aspectsof the life history and taxonomy of this species.

Genus Crutal~sLinnaeus Syst. Nat. 1758,I :214 Crutal~s atrux Western DiamondbackRattlesnake (Map 156) Crutal~s atrux Baird and Girard 1853.Cut, NurthAm. Rept, I :5.

REFERENCES: I, 4.200, 14, 21, 29, 33,38,45.300, 59.400,59.650,60,61, 74, 75, 77,92,121,015,134,137.006,1~5, 148.010,1~~.11o,151,155,162,204.318, 2o~.~1~,205.110,228,232.010,232.011,2~~, 234,250,252,253,255,257,261, 261.100,262,263,264,265,265.300,269,270,281,300.100,301,~1~.1~1, 312.142, 312.144,313,314, 315.100,330.910, 332.02Ch353.875, 359.200, 377.100,380,384,384.210,389, 394,394.400,398, 400,4~8.~00,414,415~ 416, 451.510,454.100,459,472.150, 474,483,485.500, 418,426.050, 450,451.500, 495.300,495.310,495.700, 502, 511.400,517, 495, 495.040, 495.050,495.085, 521, 522+200,529.505, 529.550, 532.00I,545.300, 545.500, 545.535, 549,550,551,55~,553,559~564,578,602.200,605.800, 613,613~200,622.124, 622.295,624,625.401,625.402,625.404,631,631.200,634,639,642.060, 643.710,648,662,663.900,665,665.005,666,683.200,687, 718.170, 718.175, 71g.100, 722.100, 722.200, 722.300, 726,746,310, 753.400,765,768, 773, 774, 775.100, 776, 777,779, 780, ~02.210,809,810,811, 790.500,801, 816,300,818,500,819,819.521,822,858, 869,871,881,883,885,887,889,912,

913,9157 918?919,9271930, 936,9447 9451 947, 9517 9521 956, 960,964, 967,1003.260,1003.261,1015,1017.200,1040.202,1o~5.11o, 1046.100, 1050,169,1o5o.5oo, 1o~~.~1o,1063.510,1063.530,1068,1069,1071.100,1072, 1073, 10~5,1076.100,1085.210, 1094,1095, IOg7.303,1097.318,1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Bexar, Culberson, Llano, and Lubbock Counties (394.400,495,

4~5.o~o,~~5~o5o,602.200,639). CO~MENTSA : do Amaral record (315)for Jefferson County is erroneous.

148 A m p ~ i ~ ia~~ a ~ Reptiles s of Texas

In spite of rattlesnake roundups and normal persecution fromhumans, this species seems to be as common now as it was 30 years ago.

C Y O ~ ~hOyyi~us US Linnaeus 1758.S@. Nat. I :214. REFERENCES: 29,59.650,

74,

86.100,122,131,151,162,

223.500,

228,

~~o.1~o,232.010,232.011,2~~, 262,264,265,269,270,282.200,301,~1~.1~1,

312.142,312.144,3~5.100,340.0~0,375.500, 389,393.080,402,414, 415,439, 495.085,~95.700,498.210, ~09.575,~29.500,550, 564,573.543,666,718.170~ 718.175, 726, 745, 746.310, 765,768, 789.296,789.297, 790.500, 794. 810,858,865,889,912,~1~,~15,928,~~2,947,960,967,1003.260,1003.261, 1050.169,1068,1069,1071.100,1og~, 1og5,1098. SUBSPECIES: atyicuuaatus Latreille 1802.In Sonnini and Latreille. Hist. Nut, Rept. 3 :209. C O M M E ~ T SRecords : from Eastland and Taylor Counties (1068,1069)are erro-

neous, an isolated museum record from Brown County is questionable,and a record fromBexar County is also doubtful. Accounts, however, of timber rattlesnakes between CopanoBay and Goliad by Berlandierbetween the years 1828-32 Palmetto State Park, Gonzales County, by (59.650)and an isolated record from distribution of the timber rattlesnake. Raun (765),suggest a previously wider Despite the efforts of Pisani et al. (1972;~ y ~ nKans. s . Acua. Sci. 75[3]: 255-63) to eliminate subspecies in C. hOYYiaus, there is a consistent effort to continue recognition of the southern form, a t ~ i c ~ u a a t ~ s . The timberrattlesnake is consideredthreatened by the Texas Parks and ~ i l d l i f e Department, and was so listed on March 1,1987.

Cyotalus l~piaus Rock Rattlesnake (Map 158) C ~ u ~ s lepi~u ~ n uICennicott 1861.PYOC.Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila. 13:206. CyOtalus lepiaus, Cope 1883.PYOC.Acud, Nut. Sci. Phila. 35: 13.

R E F E R E ~ C E S9.160,~,2~o,21,26.120,29,~5.~oo,56.050,56.400, : 59.312, 59.313,59.314,59.315, 74,134,137.006,151,162,204.319,215, 226,228, 232.010,232,011,~5~,261.100,262,264,265,292,306,~12.1~1,~12.1~2,~1 315.100,315.253,323.2ro,356,377.100,377.350,389,412, 414,415,426,050, 458.400,495.700,521, 522.200, 532.oo~,545,563,564,573.543,613,616.200, 642.060,648,655,662,663.900,665,666,683.200, 700, 714, 718.170, 718.175, 746.310, 753.130, 753.345,768,780, ~~o.~oo,809,810,811,81~.~0~, 813, 816.700,858,869,871,883,885,889,911,947,1003.260,1003.261,1o~5.11o, 1045.300,1046,100,1046.500,1046.510,1050.169,1o55.~1o, 1067,1068,1069, 1071.100,1085.210,1o~~, 1095.

Species Acco~nts 149

SUBSPECIES: l e p i ~ u s ;

337: 4.

~ l a uGloyd ~ e r i 1936. Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich.

COMMENTS: Color change and background matching in this species were confirmed by Vincent(1046.500,1046.510). In addition, Forstner et al. (377,350) demonstrated geographic variation in the properties of the venom of C. lepidus.

Crotalus ~olossus Black-tailed Rattlesnake (Map 159) Crotalus ~ o l u s s uBaird s and Girard 1853.Cat. North Am,Rept. I:IO.

REFERENCES: 14, 21,29,45.200,45.300,56.400, 56.401, 74,137.006,148.010, 162,169,204.200,2o~.~1g, 223,228,232.010,232.011,25~,261.100,262,264, 265,281,290.200,3O1, 312.141, 312.142, 314, 315.100, 323.210, 332.020,353, 377.100,414,415,426.0501448~451,4s4.~oo~458.450,495.~oo,521,532.~o1, ~~o,564,602.200,642.060, 648,655,662,663.900,665,666,683.200,687,700, 718.170, 718.175, 746.200, 746.310, 747.120, 768, 775.100, 790.500, 809,810, 811,822.051,858,869,883,885,889,947,964,1003.260,1003.261,1045.110, 1046.100,1050.169,1o55.41o, 1068,1069,1071.100,1085.210,rog~, 1095, 1098. FOSSIL RECORD: Culberson County(602.200).

SUBSPECIES: ~ o l o s s (see ~s

above).

COMMENTS: An isolated museum record for

Coke County questionable. is The black-tailedrattlesnake appears to be declining in n u ~ b e r along s the southern edge of the Edwards Plateau. Crotal~s scutulatus Mojave Rattlesnake (Map 138) Cau~sona scutulata Kennicott 1861. Proc. Acad. Nat, Sei. Ph~la,13:207. Crutalus scutulatus,Klauber 1g30. Trans, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 6 :117.

R E F E R E ~ C E S :45.300, 74,137.006,156,162, 204.319,228, 232.010, 232.011, 301, 312.141, 312.142,408.200,414, 415,426.050, 495.700, 511.400, 521, 532.001,549, 5~o,564,~~3.2~o,622.296,642.060,663.900,665,683.200, 683.210,699.310, 718.170, 718.175, 746.310, 753.350, 768, 7g0.500,809, 858, 864,883,885,1003.260,1003.261,1050.169,1o55.~1o,1068,1069,1071.100. 1085.210,109~,logs.

SUBSPECIES:

scut~~atus (see above).

C O M M E ~ T SThe : Mojave rattlesnake is the most lethal of Texas rattlesnal~es

based on the toxicity of its venom. Because of its rarity in the state, however, it seldom is encountered by humans.

150 A ~ p h i ~ i aand n s Reptiles of Texas

Crotalus viridis Western Rattlesnake(Map 160) Crotulinus v i r i ~ Rafinesque s 1818.Am. M o n t ~Mag. l ~ 4: 41. Crotalus viridis,Klauber 1936.Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 8 :240. K E F E ~ E N C E S :26.120, 29,38, 39,45.300, 151,155,162,204.318, 74, 204.319, 223,228,2~o.15o,232.010,232.011,246,25~, 2~~,261.100,262,264,265,301, 312.141, 312.142, 312.144, 312.145, 315.100, 315.110, 359.200,

377.1

550, 414, 4157 442*278,450, 480.3351 495-7001 5217 529*550, 545-5357 545.560, 564,5~3.22o,613,622,233,631.200,642.060,663.900,665,666,680.015, 683,200,699.310, 718,170,718.175, 736,500, 746,310,768, 770.300, 790.5 792,809, 810, 811.300, 816.300,858, 860.014,868,881, 883,885,889,91 947,g51,~5~,965,967,1003.260,1003.261,1050.169,1o55.~1o, 1067,1068, 1069,1071.100,1085.210,10~5, 10g7.303,1og8. SUBSPECIES: virid~s(see above). COMMENTS: Museum recordsfor Bexar,Burnet, and Tarrant Counties are incorrect. The systematicsand evolution of the western rattlesnake are currently under study.

Genus Sistrurus Garman Mem, Mus. Comp, Zool, 1883,8:110 Sistrurus cate~atus Massasauga (Map161) Crotali~uscatenutus Rafinesque 1818.Am. M o n t ~ Mug, l ~ 4:41. Sistrurus catenatus, Garman 1883.Mem. Mus. Comp, Zool. 8:176. REFERENCES: 26.120,29,32,453,52.675,

56.050,151,162,

204.319,

228,

230.150,232.010,232.011,25~, 257,261.100,262,264,265,282.200,301,

312.141,312.142,312.144,314~ 31g.100,391,393.080,414~ 4.15,417,426.050, 434,458.400,480.304, 495.700,522.200,550, 564,572,573.240, 614,622,296, 629.200,630.101,631.200,643.600,666,683.200, 718.170, 718.175, 726, 746.310,753.&~759,768, 790.500, 809,810,811.310, 858,883,885, 889,897 906.500,91~,922,947,965,1003.260,1003.261,1oo~.~5o, 1040.202,1o5o.1~o, 1050,169,1061.175,1068,1069,1071.100,1og~, 1og5,1098. SUBSPECIES: ed~ardsi Baird and Girard 1853,Cat. N o r t ~Amer: Rept. I :15; t e r g e ~ i nus Say 1823.In Long, ped. ~ o Mts, c I :499. ~ ~ COMMENTS: The massasauga has a spotty distribution in Texas, and very little is known of its habitat requirements. It appears to be locally abundant near Fort Worth, but extremely rare in south Texas.

Species Acco~nts r5r

Sistrur~smiliarius Pygmy ~ a t t l e s n (Map ~ e 162) Crotlalus ~ i l i ~ r i Garman us 1883.~ sistrurus miliarius Garman 1883. ~

~e

~~ C os ~.Zool. ~, . e us, ~ Comp .zool, 8: 177.

R E F E R E ~ C E S :14, 33,38,52.675, 134, 137.105,151, 228, 232.010, 23 262,264, 265,269, 27O,282.200, 301,312.141, 312.142, 312,144, 314,319.100, 372.5001377.130,384.263,391,411,414,415,426.050~4.39, 451.510,458.400, 4.64,~~5.~oo,522.200,55o,564,626.510,630.101,666, 704.258, 714, 718.170, 718.175, 718.300, 746.310, 753.400,768, 790.500, 794,809,810,811.205,858, 889,913,915,927,928,932, 947,960~968,97~.~oo,1003.260,1003.261, 1050.169,1068,1069,1071.100,1og~, 1095. S U B S P ~ C ~ E Sstrec~~eri : Gloyd 1935.occas. Plap ~ ~Zoo1,s ~ ~, i v , 322.4. ~ i c ~ * C O ~ ~ E N T Museum S: recordsfor Mit~hell and Somervell Countiesare erroneous, is and a McLennan County record ~uestionable. This smallrattlesnake seems to be disa~pearingfrom east Texas. Herpetolo~ists and students have visited known sites of occurrence and failed to locate the species, Habitat alteration, imported fireants, ur~ani~ation, and use of herbicides and pesticides are likely causes of its disappearance.

I

l

2

3

4

~~ e r ~ ~ ~the0Black-spotted ~ ~ ~0 ~ Newt s , (Map ~ g).

3.~

Photograph by D. G. Barker.

4. ~

~

~

~~ ~0 r spthe~ Mexican ~~ ~r s ~, Burrowing ~ ~ sToad (Map g).

of Natural History. Photograph courtesy of the Los Angeles County Museum

~

~

P h o t o ~ a p hby D.G. Barker.

8

7.

~~~~

~

~

~

sthe~Houston ~ ~ Toad e ~(Map s28).~

Photograph by J.W. Sites.

8.

~~~~

g ~ ~ the ~ Pig i ~Frog , (Map 8).

Photograph by L.J.Vitt.

~

,

IO

g. ~

i

~

~~ir~ipes s ~~ ~e r rr the ~~ Big ~ ~i Bend ,~ Mud Turtle (Map42).

Photograph by J. F.Scudday.

IO. ~ r u p c ~ ~~Cagle’s ~ ~e i ~, aps Turtle (Map Photograph by D. G. Barker.

50).

I1

i2

rhoto~aph courtesy of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.

13.~ c e ~ o p og r r~ u s Photograph byJ.W. Sites.

~ ~~~~ cc ~r os ~ e the p ~Mesquite ~ o ~ ~ Lizard s , (Map 66).

14.C ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~the pGra~-checl~ered ~~ ~ ~r ~ iW s ~ i, ~ t a i l ( Photog~aphby E. H. Conant.

15.C ~ e ~ i ~~ ~~ pi p~ ~the ~ ~ Desert r e ~~ ssGrassland , Whip

~ h o t o g ~ a pcourtesy h of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.

16.C e ~ o p ~c o~ rc~c i copei, ~ e ~ the ~ o r t h e ~ Scarlet n Snake (Map 106).

Photograph by J.E.Werler.

18

17.~ ~ r p ~vermis, ~ p ~ thei Western s Worm Snake (Map 68).

Photograph by J. T.Collins.

18. ~

~

~ i m pie ~ i ~~imperi~~is, ~is p the ~ Black-striped ~ ~ ~Snake s (Map 108).

Photograph by J. E. Werler.

20

19.~

r

~~ u ~ ~ u~r i ~~~~i ~r ~ ei ru ~r~si ~the i s~Speckled e r ~ s ,Racer (Map108).

Photograph by J.Darling and J. E.Werler.

~ ~ u~ u ip r ~~Baird’s i ,e Rat Snake(Map 111).

20.

Photograph by J.E. Werler.

I

22

21.~ e r s i~p e~~ ~u ~ Photograph by J.T.Collins. 2. ~

i

p ~ the e ~M ~ ui ~ ~ li as Water n, ~ Snake ma^ 132).

~ v e rc ~ ~the ~~ ~Smooth s ~, Green ~ ~ Snake ~(Map~13

Photograph by J. T.Collins.

~

i

~

24. ~

~

aradix,~the Plains ~ ~Garter ~ Snake ~ (Map i 148). s

Photograph by J.T. Collins.

25. ~

r

i v i ~~ ~ i the ~ ~ sTexas ~ r~ iLyre , ~ Snake ~ (Map ~ 138). ~

Photograph by I. H. Conant.

~

~

I

e r ~~e~~~~~~ e ~ (A), ~ ~~e s t e r Lesser n Siren. Rio Grande Lesser Siren.

3

c

5

Map 5. ~ e s ~ ~ guuricu~u~us ~ u ~ ~(A), u Southern s Dusky Salamander. ~ u r ~ c~e u~ ~ ~ (B), r Dwarf i ~ gSalamander. i ~ u ~ ~ Pseu~ucris crucifer c r ~ c ~(C), e r Spring Peeper. ~ u c r ~ c~ ~e ~ e ~~ ~ i (D), ~s cAlligator k i i Snapping Turtle.

6

7

8

Map 8. ~ e c ~begeri ~ r (A), ~ sGulf CoastWater Dog. r n ~ e ~ i c r ncn ~ sr n ~ ~ (B), e s ~Dwarf i ~ ~American i Toad. Rrnna ~ r g(C), ~ Pig i ~ Frog. ~rnna ~ r n ~ ~ s(D), ~ rPickerel is Frog. ~~~~

9

I1

Map 12.~ c ~ p h ~ couchi, o p u ~Couch’s Spadefoot. Map 13.~ c ~ p h ~ houpru~ ~~ Hurter’s r~, Spadefoot.

16

ap 18. ~ ~ r r ~~ u~ rp~ ~u cClif€ ~ k si Ch~ping , Frog. ap 19.Acris c r e p ~ ~~u ~ s~ u(A), ~B 1 ca ~ c~ h ~Cricket ~~ ’ sr Frog. ~ Acris ~ r e p i ~cur ~e ps ~ ~(B), u ~Northern s Cricket Frog. Acris c ~ e p i ~pu u ~ s~ ~(C), ~ Coastal c u ~ Cricket ~ Frog.

20

21

la chr;ysoscelislversicolov;CO

22

Map 22.HgZa s ~ ~ i r eSquirrel Z ~ ~ , Tree Frog. Map 23.~ s e ~ ~ clarki, c r i sSpotted Chorus Frog.

4

26

ap 26. Bufu c u g ~ ~ ~Great u s , PlainsToad. ap 27. ~ u ~ ~ e u~i~si~iur ~ ~ (A), i s~ e s t e r Green n Toad. Bufo ~ e ~~ ~e ~~(B), i i Eastern s ~ i ~ GreenToad.

28

Map 28. Bufo ~ o u ~ ~ o ~Houston. e ~ s ~ sToad. , Map 29. Bufo p u ~ c ~ u ~Red-spotted us, Toad.

33

Map 32. Bufu v e ~ u ~ uEast s , Texas Toad. Map 33.Bufo w o o ~ ~ o u s i i u u s(A), ~ ~ uS~oi su t h ~ e s t e r ~ Woodhouse’s Toad. Bufo w o o ~ ~ o u s i i w o o ~(B), ~ u uWoodhouse’s si~ Toad.

34

35

Map 34.~ uu r~e ~u~ u ~ u Southern ~ r e ~ ~ Crawfish u ~ u , Frog. Map 35.~u~~~ e r ~ u Rio ~ ~ Grande ~ e r ~Leopard , Frog.

37

39

Map 38. Rana c ~ a ~ c ~~ a~ ~a ~~Bronze ~ sa n s ,Frog, Map 39. Rana s p ~ e n ~ c e p ~Southern a ~ a , Leopard Frog.

A

c

D

Map 42. ~ u ~ u p i p i(A), e ~ sNorthern Leopard Frog. ~ u r r ~ g u~ ~~ ~~ i~(B), l su Spotted ~ ~ s Chirping Frog. Hula ure~iculur(C), Canyon Tree Frog. ~ i ~ u s~ir~ipes ~ e r~ ~~ r ~r u(D), ~u i Big Bend MudTurtle. ~ r u c ~guige~e e ~ ~(E), s Big BendSlider.

43

44

Map 43. C ~ e ~ ~serpent~n~ ~ r f l a serpe~tjnfla, Common S ~ a p p i Turtle. n~ Map 44.. ~jnosternonJlflavescensJlavescens, Yellow MudTurtle.

45

Map 45. ~

i ~ ~s u s~ r~u ~e~ipp~crepis, r ur ~ ~ ~Mississippi ~ Mud Turtle, Map 46. ~ ~ e r ~ ~c u~r i ~ ue~ urRazorback s u, s MuskTurtle.

47

48

Map 47. ~ ~ e r ~~ ~~ ~~ ~Stinkpot. r ae ~r ~ s , Map 48. C ~ r ~ s e ~ ~ s~ p ei (A), c ~ Western u~ i Painted Turtle. C ~ r ~ spicta e ~~ ~ rss a(B), ~ i Southern s Painted Turtle.

49

Map 49. ~ e i r ~ cr e~~ ei c~ ~ ~~u~sri iuur i uWestern , Chicken. Turtle. Map 50.G r u ~ ~c ueg ~ ~ eCagle’s ~ , s Map Turtle.

53

54

Map 53.G r u p t e ~versa, ~ s Texas MapTurtle. Map 54. ~ u ~ a c terrupi~ ~ e ~ ~~i t ts~ r u Texas ~is, Dia~ondba~ Terrapin. k

55

Map 55. ~ s e ~c ~u e ~~ ~ ce~ ~ ~ sMetter’s ~ ~ e ~r River ~ ~ , Cooter, ap 56. ~ s e ~g u~r z ~e gRio ~~, ~ Grande s River Cooter,

57

Map 57.~

s e ~te~ana, ~ e Texas ~ ~River s Cooter. ~ ~ ~ Tree-toed ~ ~ Box a Turtle.~

Map 58. ~ e ~ ~ a pce n ae

~

~

~

n

~

~

~

59

60

Map 59.~ e r r a p e nornata ~ ~ ~ t e (A), o ~ aDesert Box Turtle. ~errapeneornata o~nata(B), Ornate Box Turtle. Map 60. ~ r a c ~scripta e ~ ~e~egans, s Red-eared Slider.

61

62

Map 63. ~ r s p i ~i~ e reu s~ ~ (A), ~ Texas ~ ~ rSpiny ~ ~ Soft-shelled ~ Turtle. ~ r s p i ~i ~ e ~~ ~uu s r ~(B), ~ ~ Western e ~~ i ~Spiny Soft-shelled Turtle. ~ r s p i ~i ~ epr ~ ~~ Z s ~(C), ~ i ~Pallid ~~ s Spiny ~ Soft-shelled Turtle. ~ r s p i ~i ~ e~r ~~ s~ ~~ Z ~(D), ~p Guadalupe e ~ ~ s i s Spiny Soft-shelled Turtle.

Map 64. C u r e ~ c~ u~ r e (A), ~ ~ Loggerhead, u C ~ e ~ ~ ~ i u (B), Atlantic Green Turtle. ~ e p i ~ ~~c ~ e(C), e ~Atlantic ~~ s ~ Ridley. i ~ e r ~ # c~riuceu c ~ e ~(I)), ~ Leatherback. s ~ r e ~ i ~ ~~ r i c~ iu~~~ucr i c~(E), u ~eAtlantic u ~ ~ Hawksbill.

us us us

Map 65. A

~ ~ ~ s~s ~ s s~~ pAmerican p g~ e ~ s~~Alligator. s, ~ ~

~

66

B

c

Map 66. ~ c e ~ ~c p~ ~u r~ ~~ (A), sg eBlue ~ ~ Spiny s Lizard. ~ c e ~ ~g pr u~ ~r ~~i~sc i~cs r ~ ~ e(B), p Mesquite i ~ ~ ~ ~Lizard, s C ~ e ~ i ~~ ~ rpe ~~ ~ (C), ~ e rLaredo ~ ~s is s Striped Whiptail. ~ uu~riceps ~ (D),~Mexican. i Black-headed ~ ~ ~Snake.

68

Map 71.~~~~~s sagrei, Brown. Anole. Map 72. C ~ p ~ ~ s~ u e~ r~ s~asc ~~(A), ~ ~ sS~o ~~ thw ~ e sst eEarless r~ Lizard. C ~ ~ ~ ~~ se a~ ~~ a er ~~~ (B), ~sa sTexas ~ ~ Earless s Lizard.

73

74

Map 73. C r 5 ~ u p ~c~5~~ u~ su r ~ s ~(A), u s Chihuahuan c~s Collared Lizard. C r 5 ~ u p ~c~5 ~~ u~ sucr5~~s~ u(B), r ~ sEastern Collared Lizard. Map 74.. ~ 5 ~ ~ r 5 ~uceru~u 5 k ~ u ~uceru~u (A), Plateau Earless Lizard, ~ o ~ ~ r 5~uceru~u 5 k ~ us ~ ~ c u u(B), ~ uSouthern ~~s Earless Lizard.

75

77

79

A

Map 79. ~ u l er eut i c~~ l~ u t(A), ~~s Reticulated Gecko. G ~ ~ ~w ~e s l i zi wislize~i e~~ ~ (B), Long-nosed Leopard Lizard. ~ ~ r ~~ e~ r ~u u ~s(C), ~ ueMountain s ~i ~ Short-horned Lizard. ~ c e l u p u ru~rse ~ i c u l (D), ~ s Dunes SagebrushLizard. ~ c e l u p u r ~~ su ~ i s t~e ir ~ u c ~ l(E), u sDesert ~s Spiny Lizard.

80

81

ap 80. ~ c e ~ o p ~ r ~ s ~ e r r i(A), u ~ Presidio i ~ Canyon ~ ~ g i Lizard. p ~ ~ c ~ u ~ ~ s c ~ ~ o p o r ~ s ~u e r ~r i u~~(B), i ~ Big~ Bend u Canyon ~ ~ Lizard. s c e ~ o p ~ ~ ~ s ~ e r r i(C), u ~~i e r~~e ir aCanyon r~ i u’ ~s i Lizard. ap 81.~ c e ~ o p o r ~ s o ~ iTexas v u c e ~Spiny s, Lizard,

82

86

Map 86. Uta s t a ~ s ~ ~s rt e~~a~~e gaDesert e r ~ , Side-blot~hedLizard. ap 87. ~ ~ ~ e c e s ~ ~ Five-lined s c ~ a ~ ~Sltink. s ,

88

Map 88. E ~ ~ e c e s ~ ~Broad-headed ~iceps, Skink. Map 89. E ~ ~ e c e s ~ ~ ~ ~ i Variable v i r g Skink ~ ~ (A). ~ s E ~ ~ e c~e s ~ ~ ~ssp. ~(B), undescribed v i r ~ subspecies. ~ ~ ~ s

e p ~ p ~ ~

93

94

c n

t""i

D

E

Map 94. C n e ~ i ~ o p ~dixoni o r ~ (A), s Gray-checkered Whiptail. C n e ~ i ~ o p ~ o r ~ s (B), e ~ sC~ihuahuan ~ n g ~ i s Spotted Whiptail. C ~ e ~ i ~ ~n pe o~~ oe xr ~~ c(C), s~ nNew ~ s MexicoWhiptail. C n e ~ i ~ o p ~s oer p~ s~ e ~ v(D), i ~Plateau ~ ~ ~ Spotted ~ s Whiptail. C n e ~ i ~ o p ~~onri~ps~ r(E), e ~ Desert s Grassland Whiptail.

95

99

100

Map 99. ~ ~ e ~ i ~tigris Q ~p ~~ r~~ r o ~Western r s~ t ~ Marbled s , Whiptail. Map 100.~ e r r ~ Q ~ Q t ~Texas s iAlligator ~ ~ e ~ Lizard, ~ ~ ~ i s ,

P02

Map 101. O p ~ i s~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~eWestern s ~ ~ Slender ~ t ~ Glass s , Lizard. Map 102.~ e p t o t ~ p ~ zdulcis o p s ~ s s e c (A), ~ ~ New s Mexico BlindSnake. ~ e p t o ~ ~ p ~d~Zcis Z o p d~Zcis s (B), Plains Blind Snake.

Map 103. ~ e p ~ u ~ ~~p ~ ~ ~ sue ~ pjrse~g ~Trans-Pecos sj , s Blind Snake. Map 104.~ r ~ z eu~~ eu~ u ~ (A), ~ p Painted ~ j ~ ~Desert p j GlossySnake. ~ r j z ue~~a e ~ eu~~e gs a (B), ~ s Kansas Glossy Snake. ~ r j z u e~ ~u e ~ are~jcu~u u ~ s (C), Texas GlossySnake.

106

ap 106.C e ~ Q p ~c oQc cr i~~copei e ~ (A), Northern Scarlet Snake. Ce~Qp~Q cQcci~eu ru ~ ~ ~ (B),e Texas r i Scarlet Snake.

Map 107.C u ~ ~constrictorJluviventris ~er (A.), Eastern Yellow- belliedRacer. C u ~ ~cu~s~rictur ~er priup~s(B), Southern Black Racer. C u ~ ~cunstr~ctur ~ e r u n t ~ i c (C), ~ s Buttermilk Racer. C u ~ ~cu~str~ctur ~ e r e t ~ e r i ~ g(D), e i Tan Racer. C u ~ ~c ~ ne srt r ~ cutu~~ ru c u(E), Mexican Racer.

108

A

c

5

111

I12

116

Map 115. G ~ u ~ u cp i uu ~~Western ~ ~ , Hook-nosed Snake. Map 116. ~ e ~ e r~ u s~i cu~~ ~ s e ~(A),~Mexican e r Hog-nosed ~ ~ ~ Snake. ~ e ~ e r~ u s~i c ~u~ us~s i c (B), ~ s Plains Hog-nosed Snake. ~ e ~ e r~ u s~i cug~ ~ s ~ (C),uDusky ~ Hog-nosed ~ Snake.

118

120

121

122

Map 123.~usticol?hisJ2ugeZZ~~ testuceus (A),Western Coachwhip. ~usticul?hisJ2agelZumJ2ugeZZum(B), Eastern Coachwhip. Map 124. us tic up his schu~tischutti (A), Schott’s Whip Snake. ~usticul?hisschutti ~ u t h v e(B), ~ i Ruthven’s Whip Snake.

126

ap 125.~ u s ~ i c~~u pe ~ i~u~~~r~uCentral sr ~ , Tesas Whip Snake. Map 126. ~ e r c~urki ~ ~c~urki, u Gulf Salt Marsh Snake.

128

Map 127.~ e r u c~ ~u c ~ cu ~~ c~ ~uGreen ~ ~ Water ~ u ~Snake. , Map 128.~ e r u er~~hruguster ~ u ~ru~sversu (A),Blotched Water Snake. ~ e r u erythrogaster~uv~gas~er ~ u (B), Yello~-belliedWater Snake.

Map 129. N e r ~ ~ i u ~ u s cci uo~ u~ ~ (A), ~ eBroad-banded ~ s Water Snake. N e r ~ ~ u ~ u sp c~ic~~~i uv e(B), ~ ~Florida r ~ s Water Snake. Map 130.N e r ~ ~~ uur ~ pe rui ~ c i ~ u c (A), ~ ~ Concho u ~ u Water Snake. Nerodiu ~ u r ~ e~r ui r ~(B), e r Brazos ~ Water Snake.

A

c Map 132.~ e r o ~ u s i p e ~ o ~(A), p ~Midland e ~ r u ~ iWater s Snake. ~ i o c ~ ~ ~ r o p ~ ~ s~ uv e~r(B), ~c uSmooth ~~ ~u s r Green ~ Snake. ~ e ~ rig^^^ i ~s iu~ ~ c (C), o ~ uGulf CrayfishSnake. ~ ~ ~ r e r ~ ~ o ~~s cc(D), ~c riFlorida ~p ~ Red-bellied ~ ~ ~ ~ cSnake. ~ ~ u ~ u

'

Map 133.O p ~ e ~ ~u re sg~si v ~Rough s, Green Snake. Map 134.. P i ~ ~ ~ cp ~~ i~ se ~~~~s ~ i ~ (A), e r Sonoran Gopher Snake. P i ~ ~ ~ cp u~ ~i es ~sugi ~ e (B), r Bull Snake.

Map 138.~alvu~ora ~eserti ~ a ~ ~cuculla~a i l l a (B), Tran ~ r i ~ o r ~ ~ o ~ (C o ~ Cro~uluss c ~ t ~ u scutula ~us

end P~tch-nosedSnake. v ~ l ~ i ~ s o ~ ~

Map 141.Stureriu ~ e k u~~ ie ~ (A), u ~Texas u Brown Snake. S~ureriu~ e k u~~ i ~ ~(B), ~ Marsh t e s Brown Snake. Map 142.~ u ~gruci~is, ~ i Flatheaded ~ ~ u Snake.

I43

Map 151. Virgi~iu s ~ r i a ~Rough ~ ~ u , Earth Snake. Map 152.V ~ r g i ~vderiae i ~ e ~ e g u ~Western s, Earth. Snake.

ap 154.~ g ~ i s t r cQntortri~ Q ~ u ~ pictiguster (A),Trans-Pecos Copperhead. ~ g ~ i s t r Qc~QQn tnu r t r i ~ ~ u t i c(B), i ~ cBroa~-banded t~s Copperhead. ~ g ~ ~ s t r u ~ u ~ c Q ~ t Q r(C), t r ~~ ~o ~c tQhCopper~~ad, n e~ ru ~r t r i ~

Map 157.C r ~ ~ u~~ ~u sr r iud~ ~r ~sc u u d uCanebrake ~~s, Rattlesnake. Map 158. C r ~ ~ ulepidus ~ u s k ~ u ~ ~(A), e r Banded i Rock Rattlesnake. C r ~ ~ u~~ eu ~s ~~epidus d u s (B), Mottled RockRattlesnake.

160

161

162

Map 161.~istruruscutenutus e ~ w u r ~(A), s i Desert Massasauga. ~ i s t r ~ r ~ s c u t e ~ u t ~ s (B), t e r Western g e ~ i n u~assasauga, s Map 162.~istrurus~ i ~ istreckeri, ~ r i Western ~ ~ Pygmy Rattlesnake.

body and the hindlimb brought The crushing surface of the jaw just within the mouth of turtles. rminal scale (plate)of the ventral series of snakes. It maybe entire onal suture near the midline; always lies below the anus. pidermal plateon the anterior edge of the bridge of turtles. sion or“horn” on the posterior lateral edge of the tongue. with skin, i ~ e d i a t e l behind y the head of some lizards, nnects the upper (~arapace) and lower (plastron)bony parts. It maybe composed of several sutured shields. m the eye to the nostril or tipof the snout. cluding the epidermal shieldsand the longated scales between the ~andibles sides of salamanders, usually between and lie between the vertebrals

c r ~ n crests: i ~ ~ Elevated bony ridgeson the top of the head of bufonid toads; may have designated names according to their position on the head. :An.elevated (or folded) transverse layer of skin on the palate of some rtical, laterally Compressed fold ofextensible skinon the throat of some articularly anoles. An enlarged, granular, dorsolateralridge that canextend to varibehind the eye toward the hind limb of ranid frogs. ate: An indentation along the lateral margins of the oral disk of tadpoles. respiratory organ usually locatedon the side of the neck of salamanders.

A relatively deep pitin the center or near the posterior edgeof an e (or series of scales) on the ventral thigh surface of some lizards. An external wart (poison gland) on thedorsal thigh surface of bufonid toads. *

A depression that extends fromthe eyes tothe snout and lies

ructures that compose the external gills of larval and inous fingerlike processon the gill arch of larval sal~anders. it: A fissure or cleftin the side of the neck of salamanders that is associated with either internal or external gills. face texture of small, convex, nonoverlapping scales; has a se fold of skin acrossthe throat,anterior to the fore~mbinsertion. In teiid lizards, this fold is calleda mesoptychial fold. first pairof shields on the plastron of most turtles, but may be n epidermal shieldon the posterior edge of the bridge of turtles. ge: A segment of cartilage in thepenultimate position of a hylid

lizards, some amphibians. from the middle of the eye. the head. The scales frequentlyare bounded on theoutside by semicircular rows of scales that border the supraocular series of scales.

rlc area of pigmentation around the outer edge of the lens in the eye

salamanders. :A rectangular or squarish scale on theside of the head between the

2 62

G~oss~r~

nasal and preocular. Lizards mayhave one ormany, but snakes normallyhave only one. :A shield in the outer series on the carapace of turtles, usually visible from aboveand below, It is characterized by its sharp angle, marlring the edge of the carapace. :The azygous scale at the anterior edge of the lower jaw (lizards and ordered on each side bythe first lower labial scale. :Synonymous with the gular fold; however, the term frequently

iated scalesaround the fold in teiid lizards. t ~ tt ~~ s ~A~protuberance ~~ ~ c or~horny ~ projection : on the basal part of the t, generally near the heel in amphibians.

n the side of the head that includes the external naris (nostril) may be dividedvertically through the nostril.

rtical segment of cartilage separating the two nasal passages. turtles, the cartilage may have a horizontal ridgealong the :A groove extending from the nostril to the lip in some pletho-

dontid salamanders.

skin enclosingthe oral disk in tadpoles of the families ~icrohylidae and Rhinophrynidae.

ields with underlying bone. bow. Theyare usually characterized in teiid lizards bytheir shape and size.

A series of large or small scales lying posterior to and in-line with

line immediately posterior to the mental scale.

of the orbit. ately anterior to the frontal scale.

S: The dorsal scales of lizards and snakes, usually arranged in a continuous series of rows, with each scale clearly assignable to a sequence. Theseare normally counted in a particular fashion around the body to determine the number of rows between the ventrals in snakes, or around the entire body of some lizards. S: Scales lying beneath the tail in reptiles. The scales may be in single or d o u ~ l rows e in snakes. :A scale or series of scales directlybelow the orbit (in snakes, this scale, or row of scales, separates the orbit fromthe supralabials).

lateral to the internasal scale. e: A series of scales that lie on the dorsum of the orbit in lizards; a large scale that lies directly abovethe eye in snakes. S: A cranial crest that lies between the eyes and p ~ a l l e l the s can-

:A wart of variable size on the lower legsof some toads.

enlar~edand raised scalein lizards and snakes, or similar to warts in amphi~ians. :The membrane covering the external opening of the middle ear

ny oneof many large scales on the belly of a snake or lizard. :The ~ d l i n dorsal e rowof shields on the carapace of turtles, normally precededby the nuchalshield.

:Teeth lyingon the vomer bonein the palate of am~hibians. :Any hard, cornified, raisedstruct~reon the skin of amphibians. :A thin membrane of skin connecting adjacent digits in frogs and toads. :A symmetrical seriesof scales around a tail segment in lizards.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Literature on Texas Amphibiansand Reptiles, 1852 to April,~ g g g 0.010.

0.015.

0.100.

I. 2.

3.

4. 4.003.

4.005.

4.010. 4.200. 5. 5.100.

5.110.

5.120. 5.130. 5.140.

Adams, C. S., and W E.Cooper, Jr. 1988. Oviductal morphologyand sperm Herpetologica 44(2) : storage in the keeled earless lizard, Holbroo~ia propin~ua. 190-97. Adams, D. A. 1997. Tr~nacromerum bonneri, new species,last and fastest pliosaur of the western interior seaway. Tex. I; Sci. 49(3):179-98. e Soc.I. I(I): 18Adams, D. E. 1966. Operation: Padre Island. Tnt. ~ r t l Tortoise 20,40-43,45. Adams, H. E. 1963. About rattlesnakes. Te’ex. Caver 8(1):4. Adler, K.K.1958a. List of specimensof Chelonia and Crocodilia preservedin the author’s private collection.Spec. Publ. Ohio Herpetol.Soc. 2 :8-21. .195817. List ofthe Reptilia preservedin the zoological collectionsof the Publ. Dept.Zool. Ohio ~ e s l e g a ~ Museum of Zoology, Ohio Wesleyan University. Univ. Pp. 1-6. Agassiz, L. 1857. Contributions to thenatural historgof the United States of America. Boston: Little, Brownand Co. Albright, L. B. 1994. Lower vertebrates from an Arikareean (earliestMiocene) fauna near the Toledo BendDam, Newton County, Texas. I; Paleontol. 68(5): 1131-45. Allen, C. H., and A. L. Barr. 1989. Promoting conservation of Kemp’s ridley st symsea turtle through public education. In Proceedings of t ~ e ~ rinternational posium on Kemp’s ri~legsea turtle biologg, conservation, and management,ed. C, W. Caillouet and A. M. Landry. Galveston: Texas A&M University.260 pp. Allen, L. J. S., M. P. Moulton, and F. L.Rose. 1990.Persistence in an age-structured population for a patch-type environment. Nat. Resour.Model. 42: 197-214. Allen, R. F., and J. F. Lhotka,Jr. 1982. Crotalus atrox: Notes on the gastric wall, Copeia 1982(1): 198-200. Alt, A. 1910.On the histology of the eye of ~ p h l o t r ~ t spelaeus on from Marble Cave, Missouri.Trans. Acad. Sci. St. Louis 19(6):83-96. Altig, R. 1970. A key to the tadpoles of the continental United States and Canada. Herpetologica 26(2):180-207. Altig, R., and P. H. Ireland. 1984. A key to salamander larvae and larviform adults of the United States and Canada. Herpetolog~ca40(2) :212-18. Altig, R.,and R. Lohoefkner. 1982. Rana grglioStejneger. Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 286.1-286.2. .1983. Rana areolata. Cat. Am. Amp~ib.Rept. 324.1-324.4. Amos, A. F. 1989. Recent strandings of sea turtles, cetaceans, and birds in the t symvicinity of Mustang Island, Texas. In Proceedings of t h e ~ r sinternational posium OH Kemp’s ridley sea turtle biologg, conservation, and marlagement,ed. C. W. Caillouet and A. M. Landry. Galveston: Texas A&M University.260 pp.

5.150.

5,202. 5.203. 5.204. 5.205. 5.220, 5.221. 5.240. 5.245.

5.250. 5.300.

5.301. 5.320.

5.342. 5.343. 6. 7. 8.

9. 9.100. 9.110. 9.120. 9.125. 9.130. 9.140. 9.150, 9.160. 9.170.

Anaya, M., E. D. Rael, C. S. Lieb, J. C. Perez, and R. J. Salo. 1992. Antibody detection of venom protein variation within a population of the rattlesnake Crotalus v. v i r i ~ sJ. , Herpetol. 26(4):473-82. o Anderson, A. M., and J. T. Anderson. 1996a. Geographicdistribution. B u ~ wood~ousei wood~ousei. Herpetol, Rev. 27(1) :29. .1996b. Geographicdistribution. Rana bluiri. Herpetol.Rev. 27(1):30. .1996~.Geographicdistribution. Rana catesbe~ana.Herpetol. Rev, 27(1):30. .1996d. Geographicdistribution. Spea mult~plicata.~erpetol.Rev. 27(1):31. distribuAnderson, A. M.,J.T. Anderson, and D. A. Haukos. 1995a. Geographic tion. Gastrophr~neolivucea. Herpetol. Rev.26(4) :207. .1995b. Geographicdistribution. Pseudacris clarki. Herpetol.Rev. 26(4) : 207-208. Anderson, A. M., W. C. Conway, and D. A. Haukos. 1997. Geographicdistribu~ n e Herpetol. Rev. 28(1) :48. tion. ~ a s t r o p ~ roZivucea. Anderson,A. M,, D. A.Hudcos, and J. T. Anderson. 1999. Diet compositionof three anurans from the playa wetlands of northwest Texas. Copeia 1999(2): 515-20. Anderson, A. M.,and D. A. Haukos. 1997. Geographicdistribution. Gastrophr~ne olivucea, ~erpetol.Rev. 28(1) :48. Anderson,J.D.1967a. A m ~ ~ s t o m texanum. a Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 37.1-37.2. ,196713. A m b ~ s t o ~ opacum. u Cat. Am. A m p ~ iRept. ~ . 46.1-46.2. t u ~Am. . A ~ p h iRept. ~ . 51.1-51.4. .1967c, A m ~ ~ s t o m a m a c u l aCat. Anderson,J. T., and A. M. Anderson. 1996. Geographicdistribution. ~ h e l ~ d r a serpentina serpentina. Herpetol.Rev. 27(3):150. Anderson,J.T., W. C. Conway, and K. G. Ostrand. 1997. Geographicdistribution, Spea multiplicatu. Herpetol.Rev. 28(4):208. Anderson, P. 1942. New record for Sulva~oruli~eata.Copeiu 1942(2):127. Anderson, P. K. 1961. Variation in populations of brown snakes, genus Storeria, bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Am. Mid.Nat. 66(1):235-47. Anonymous. 1957. Reporton Harrel Cave. Tex. Caver 2(1) :11, Anon. 1959.New salamander discovered. Tex. Caver 4(5) :5. Anon. 1969. Escape fromextinction. Time 93(13) :54. Anon. 1974. Endangered fauna of the United States. Bull. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. 45(12):3-5. Anon. 1975. NPCA at work. Natl, ParksConserv. 49(1):25-26, Anon. 1976. In thenews. Herpeto~.Rev. 7(1):3. Anon. 1977. Endangeredand threatened species of the United States and Puerto Rico. Bull. ~ i e l dus. Nat. Hist,48(6):IO-IT. Anon. 1977. Newrules proposed for collecting in Texas. Herpeto~og~ 9(2):18-19. Anon, 1978. US-Mexico restoration efforts may be only hope for Kemp’s ridley. Bull. N.Y; Herpetol. Soc. 14(2):27”-9, ~ . Anon. 1978. Specieslisting for nongame regulations. Tex. Parks ~ i l Dept. Broch. 9000-52 :1-22. Anon. 1980. Back covers. (Photograph and distributional data of Eumeces tetragrammus tetragrammus).Tex. Parks Wil~l.38(7):32,

9.180.

9.200. 9.210. 9.220.

Anon. 1980.Bufo marinus publications, H e r p e t o l . ~ eII(IO): ~ 12. Anon. 1980. Selected vertebrate endangered species ofthe seacoast of the United ~ SSec Prog, FWSlOBS-8o/o1.38:ii-6. States-The Houston toad. U S ~ Biol. Anon. 1980. Selected vertebrate endangered species of the seacoast of the United S Seu: Prog. FWSIOBS-~OIOI.~~: 1-9. States. U S F ~ Biol. Anon. 1981. Growling gator awakens Lake Buchanan resident. Tex. Parks ~ i l ~ , 39(8): 21.

Anon. 1981. Mottled rockrattlesnake: A camouflage artist. Chi~uahuanDesert Disc. g :7. Anon. 1986. Release of head started Kemp's ridleysea turtles in Texas waters. Bull. Brit. ~erpetol.Soc. 16:8-9, Applegate,H.G. 1967. Pesticides at Presidio. V. Synopsis. Tex. J.Sei. 19(3) : 353-61.

~ m e n t r o u tD., , and F.L.Rose. 1971.Some physiological responses to anoxia in l . 447-55. the great plains toad, Bufo co~natus.Comp. Biochem, P ~ ~ s i o38A: Arnold, D. M.1997. Geographic~stribution. Anolis c~rolinensis.~erpetol.Rev. 28(1):49.

10.

Arnold, P. 1983. Come back Kemp's ridley.Science 834(8) :68-71. Ashton, R. E. 1976. Endangered and threatened amphibians and reptiles in the United States. Soc. Stud. Amph~b.Rept., Herp Circular(S):1-65. Auffenberg,W. 1948a.Range extension of ~ a r a ~ cabacura ia r e i ~ ~ a rin d Texas. t~ HerpetoZogica 4(5) :193.

11.

12.

13.

.1948b. Airplane introduces Cemophora coccinea to Texas. Herpetologica 4(5) :212. ,1949. The racer, CoZu~erconstrictor ste~negerianus, in Texas. Herpetologica 5(2): 53-58. ,1955.A reconsiderationof the racer, Coluber constricto~in eastern United States. Ttnlane Stud, ZooZ. 2(6) :89-155.

13.100. 25-34.

13.110.

13.120.

.1962. A redescription of Testudo he~agonataCope. Herpetologica 18(1):

.1969.Tortoise behavior and surv~val,BSCS patterns of life series. Chicago: Rand McNally. 1974. Checklist of fossil land tortoises. Bull. Ha. State Mus. 18(3) :121251.

13.130. 13.200.

.1976. The genus Gopherus (Testudinidae).I.Osteology and relationships of extant species. Bull.~la.State Mus. 20(2) :47-110. Auffenberg,W., and R. Pram. 1978a. Gop~erus.Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 211.1211.2.

13.220. 14.

14.100.

,1978b. Gopherus berlan~eri, Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 213.1-213.2.

Auffenberg,W., and W. W. Milstead. 1965. Reptiles in the Quaternaryof North r ~the ~ n i t e States, d ed. H. W. Wright and D. G. Prey, America. In "he ~ u a t e r n a of 557-67. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. in southeastern Auffenberg,W., and W. G. Weaver. 1969. Gop~erus berlan~eri Texas. Bull. Ha. State Mus. 13(3) :141-203.

15. 15.100.

,1968. Call discriminationin female Scap~opus couchi and caph hi opus hurteri. Copeia 1968(2):420-23.

16.

17. 18. 19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24. 25. 26. 26.100. 26.110, 26.120.

26.130.

26.140. 26.150. 26.160. 26.170. 26.171. 26.172. 26.173.

Axtell, R. W. 1950a. Two specimensof the snake Ficimia streckerifrom Texas. Copeia 1g50(2):157. .1g50b. Noteson a specimen of Seeloporuspoinsetti and its young. Herpetologica 6(3):80-81. .1951. An additional specimen of s am pro pelt is b l ~ rfrom i Texas.Copeia 1951(4):313. .1956. A solution to the long neglectedHolbrookia lacerata problem, and the description of two new subspecies of Holbrookia. Bull. Chi. Acad.Sci, IO(II): 163-79. .195ga. Femalereaction to the male callin two anurans (Amphibia). Southwest. Nut. 3(1-4): 70-76. .1g5gb. Amphibiansand reptiles of the Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, Brewster County, Texas. Southwest. Nut. 4(2):88-109. .1960. Orientation by HoZ~rookiamaculatu (Lacertilia,Iguanidae) to solar and reflected heat. Southwest, Nut. 5(1) :45-47. .1961a. Cne~idophorusinornutus, the valid name for the little striped whiptail lizard, with the description of an annectant subspecies.Copeia 1961(2):148-58. s Cope, a revived name of the southwestern .1961b. E u ~ e c eepipleurotus skink Eumeces ~ ~ l t i v i r g a tgaigei u s Taylor. Tex. 1.Sei. 13(3):345-51. ,1963. A reinterpretation of the distribution of Bufo W. wood house^ Girard, especially on the southeastern margin of its range. Herpetologica 19(2):115-22, .1966. Geographicdistribution of the unisexual whiptail Cne~idophorus Teiidae)-present and past. Herpetologica 22(4):241-53. ~ e o ~ e x i c a n (Sauria: us .1968. Holbrookia lacerata. Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 56.1-56.2. .1969. Another Ficimia streckeri from southern Texas. Tex. J Sei. 20(4):381. .1977(1978).Ancient playasand their influence on the recent herpetofauna of the northernChihuahuan desert. In Transactions of the s ~ m p o s i on u~ the ~iologicalresources of the Chihuahuan desert region, UnitedStates and ~ e x i c o , ed. R, W. Wauer and D. H. Riskind, Ser.3 :493-512. Alpine, Tex.:National Park Service. .1981. Holbrookiapropin~ua;Type specimens, collector, his route, and restriction of locality,with comments on Bairds’s Reptiles of theBoundar~as an important taxonomic reference. 1.Herpetol. 15(2):211-17. .1983a. Range portrayal and reality: Heterodonplat~rhinosdistribution on the High Plains of Texas and Oklahoma.1.Herpetol. 17(2):191-93. .1983b.Hol~rookiapropin~ua. Cat. Am. Amp~ib.Rept. 341.1-341.2. .1986. ~nterpretive atlas of Texas lizards.Coleon~xbrevis. Privately printed. I :1-13. .1987a. More accurate range portrayal, even on smaller maps? Axtell’s answer to Blem’s protestations. Herpetol. Rev. 18(1):9-10. .1987b. ~nterpr~tive atlas of Texas lizards.Seeloporus c~anogen~s. Privately printed. 2 :1-7. .1987c. ~nterpretive atlas of Texas lizards.Seeloporuspoinsetti,Privately printed. 3 :1-16. .1988a. ~nterpretiveatlas of Texas lizards.Seeloporus variabilis,Privately printed, 4: 1-11.

26.174. 26.175. 26,176. 26,177. 26.178, 26.179. 26.180. 26.181. 26,182. 26.183. 26.184. 26.185. 26,186. 26.187. 26,188. 26.189. 26.200. 26.210,

27. 27.500. 28.

.198813. lnterpretiveatlas of Texas lizards.Sceloporus graciosus. Privately

printed. 5 :I- 4.

.1988c. ~~terpretive atlas of Texas lizards.Phrynoso~amodestum. Privately

printed. 6 :1-18,

.1988d. lnterpretiveatlas of Texas lizards.Sceloporus grammicus. Privately

printed. 7 :1- 6.

.1989a. lnterpretiveatlas of Texas lizards. Crotaphytuscollaris. Privately

printed. 8 :1-38,

.1989b. lnterpretiveatlas of Texas lizards. Crotaphytus reticulatus.Privately

printed. 9 :1-8.

.1991. ~nterpretive atlas of Texas lizards, Cophosaurus texanus.Privately

printed. IO:1-41.

.1992a. lnterpretiveatlas of Texas lizards, Scelopor~s olivaceus. Privately

printed. I1 :I- 42.

.1992b. ~nterpretive atlas of Texas lizards.Sceloporus~ u g i s t Privately e~

printed. 12:1-8.

.1994a. lnterpretiveatlas of Texas lizards.Cne~idophorussexlineatus.Pri-

vately printed. 13:1-31.

.1994b. ~nterpretive atlas of Texas lizards.Cne~idophorusinornatus. Pri-

vately printed. 14 :1-1 7.

.1994c. lnterpretiveatlas of Texas lizards.Cne~idophoruslaredoensis. Pri-

vately printed, 15 :1-7.

,1996. lnterpretiveatlas of Texas lizards.Phrynosoma corn~tum(Harlan).

Privately printed. 16:1-52.

1997. lnterpretiveatlas of Texas lizards, ~rosaurusornatus. Privately

printed, 17: 1-29.

.1998. lnterpretiveatlas of Texas lizards.~ o l ~ r o o k~aculata ia Girard, Pri-

vately printed. 18 :1-19.

.1998. lnterpretiveatlas of Texas lizards.~ o i l ~ r o o k i a p r o p i Baird ~ ~ u aand Girard. Privately printed. 19 :1-14. .1998. ~nterpretive atlas of Texas lizards.~ o l ~ r o o klacerata ia Cope. Privately printed. 20: 1-11. Axtell, C. A., and R.W. Axtell. 1970. Hibernacula, birth, and young of Sceloporus g r a ~ ~ i cdispar~lis us (Iguanidae).~ o u t h ~ e sNat. t . 14(3): 363-66, Axtell, R.W., and N.Hasirell. 1977. An interhiatal population of Pseudacris streckeri from Illinois,with an assessment of its postglacial dispersion history. Chi. Acad. Sei. Nut. Hist. Misc. 202 :1-8. Axtell, R. W., and A. 0. Wasserman. 1953. Interesting herpetological records from southern Texas and northern Mexico. ~erpetologica9(1) :1-6. Ayah, S. C., and J.J.Schall. 1977. Apparent absence of blood parasites in southwestern Texas Cnemidophorus. Sout~west.Nut. 22(1) :134-35. Bailey, J.R.1939. A systematic revision of the snakes of the genus Coniop~zanes. Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci. Arts Ltr:24(2) :1- 48.

Bailey, V. 1905. Biological survey of Texas. North Am. Fauna25 :1-222. Baird, S, F,1854. Descriptionsof new genera and species of North American frogs. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 7: 59-62, ,1858. Description of new genera and species of North American lizards

in the museum of the S ~ t h s o n i a Institute. n Proc. Acad. Nut. Sei, ~ h i l u10 . : 253-65 ,r85ga. Reptiles of the boundary. Rept. US. Mex. Bound. Surv. 3(2):1-35. .1859b. (Severalreports upon reptiles and amphibians),In Ge~eral report upo~ the zoology of the several Pucijic Railroud routes, vol. IO.U.S. Senate Ex. Doc. 78,33rd Cong., 2nd sess. Baird, S. F.,and C. Girard. 185221. Reptiles.In ~ x p l o r a t i ound ~ survey of the v a ~ e y of the Great Salt Lake, ~ t a hed. , H. Stansbury,336-53. P ~ a d e l p h i a : L i p p ~ c o ~ , Grmbo and Co. .1852b, C h ~ a c t e ~ s t iofc ssome new reptiles in the ~ u s e u m of the Smitbsonian Institution. Proc, Acad. Nat. Sei, Phi~a.6 :68-70. 1852c. C h ~ a c t e ~ s t iofc ssome new reptiles in the museum of the Smithsonian Institution, 11. Proc. Acad. Nut, Sci, Philu, 6 :125-29. .1852d. Characteristicsof some new reptiles in the museum of the Smithsonian Institution. III. Roc. Acad. Nut. Sei. Phila. 6 :I73. .1853. Catalogue of North American reptilesin the museum of the Smithsonian Institute. I. Serpents,S~ithson.~ i s cColl. , 2, art. 5. ,1854. Reptiles. In ~xplorationof the Red River of Louisia~ain the year 1852,ed. R. B. Marcy and G. B. McClellan, 188-215, vol. 8, no. 4. U.S. Senate Ex. Doc., 32nd Cong., 2nd sess. Baker, C. L. 1947. The speciesof Amphiumae.I; Tenn. Acad. Sci. 2(1):9-21, Baker,J.K, 1956. Frogs of Texas caves.Tex. Caver I(IO): 8-9. ea A new blind cavesalamander from Texas. .1957a. ~ u r ~ ctroglodytes~ Tex, 1.Sei. g(3):328-36. .1g57b. Biological notes.Tex, Caver 2(1) :3. .1957c. Some notes on cave salamanders of the Edwards Plateau, Tex. I)

Caver 2(2): 10-11.

,1961. Dist~butionof and key to the neotenic Eurycea of Texas. Southwest, Nat. 6(1):27-32. .1966. Euryceu troglodytes, Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 23.1-23.2. Baker, R. J.,J.J.Bull, and G. A. Mengden. 1971. Chromosomes of laph he su~ocularis (Reptilia:Serpentes),with description of an in vivo technique for preparation of snake chromosomes. ~xperient~u 27(10):1228-29. J. 1972. Karyotypic studies of thiityBaker, R. J.,G. A, Mengden, and J. Bull. eight species of North American snakes. Copeiu 1g72(2):257-65. Baldauf, R.J.1955. Contributionsto the cranial morphology of Bufo W. woodhousei. Tex. J.Sei. 7(3):275-311. .1957a. Additional studies on the cranial morphology of Bufi W. wood-

housei. Tm. J.Sei, 9(1):84-88. .1g57b. Recordsof ~gkistrodonpiscivorus leucostomff.Copeia 1957(3):229. 1958. Contributionsto the cranial morphology of Bufo valliceps Wiegmann, Tex, J.Sei. 10(2):172-76. .1987. Houston invaded by frogs ...and few peopleknow it.E~plorer

29(1):4-6. Baldauf, R. J.,and R. D. Lord. 1954.Another noteworthy range extension of the toad Bufopunctatusin Texas. Copeia 1g54(2):157. Baldauf, R. I.,and E. C. Tamer. 1965. Contributionsto the cranial morphology of the leptodactylid frog,~ ~ r r h o p h u s ~ u r nCope. o c k i Tex. J.Sei. 17(1) :71-100.

Baldauf,R. J., and J.C, Truett. 1964. First record of Amb~stoma talpoi~eum (HolCopeia 1964(1):221. brook) from Texas. Baldridge, R. S., and D. E. Wivagg. 1992.Predation on imported fireants by blind snakes.Tex 7.Sci. 44(2) :250-52. Baldwin, A.S. 1999. Casereport of an untreated human. envenomation by the western Massasauga rattlesnake Sistruruscatenatus tergiminus [sic]. Bull. mar^Zan~ ~erpetol. Soc. 35(1): 14-20, Ballinger,R. E. 1966. Natural hybridization of the toads Bufo ~ o o ~ k o u sand ei B. spec~osus.Copeia 1966(2):366-68. .1971. Comparativ~demography of two viviparous lizards(SceZoporus j u r r ~ vand ~ S c e ~ o p o rpoi~setti) ~s with considerationof the evolutiona~ecology of viviparity in lizards. Ph.D. diss,, TexasA&MUniversity, CollegeStation. Diss. Abstr: Tnt. (B)32(8):4.540--41. .1973a. Exper~entalevidence of the tail as a balancing organ in the lizard, A~oZiscarolinensis. ~erpetozog~ca 29(1):65-66. .rg73b. Comparative demo aphy of two viviparousiguanid lizards (Sceloporus~arroviand Sceloporuspoinsetti). Ecolog~54(2):269-83. .1974. Reproduction in theTexas horned lizard, ~ k r ~ ~ o s cornutum. oma ~erpetologica39(4):321-27. .1977. Reproductionstrategies:Food availabi~tyas a source of proximal variation in a lizard. Ecolog~58(3):628--35. Ballinger, R. E., and D. R.Clark. 1973. Energycontent of lizard eggsand the measurement of reproductiveeffort. 1.Herpetol. 7(2):129-32. variations in thecollared Ballinger,R. E., and T. G. Hipp. 1985a. Hematological t ~ s (Sauria:Iguani~ae).Copeia 1985(3):782-84, lizard, C r o t a p ~ ~collaris ,1985b. Reproductionin the collared lizard,Crotapk~tuscollaris, in west central Texas. Copei~1985(4):976-80. y . Developmentaltemperature tolerBallinger,R. E., and C. 0.~ c ~ i n n e1966. ance of certain anuran species. 1.Exp. Zool.161(1):21-28. ,1967. Variation and polymorphismin the dorsal colorpattern of Uta stansburianastejnegeri. Am. mi^. Nat. 77(2):476. ~erpetoZog.1968. Occurrence of a patternless morph of Cne~i~opkorus' ica 24(3):264-65. Ballinger, R. E., and G. D. Schrank. 1970. Acclimationrate and variability of the critical thermal m ~ ~ inuthemlizard ~ k r ~ n o scornutum, o~a ~ k ~ s i oZool. Z. 43(1):19-22. ,1972. Reproductivepotential of female whiptail lizards, C~emi~opkorus g~laris~uZaris.HerpetoZog~ca28(3):217-22. .1973. Male reproductive cyclesin two speciesof lizards ~Copkosaurus exa anus and Cnemi~opkorusg ~ l a r ~ s~erpetozogica ). ag(3):289-93. ~allinger,R. E., and D. W. Tinkle. 1972. Systematicsand evolution of the genus Uta (Sauria: Iguanidae). Misc. PubZ. M ~ sZool, . U n i ~ c k145: . 1-83. .1979. On the cost of tail regeneration to body growth in lizards,1.Herpetal. 13(3):374-75. Ballinger,R. E., E. D. Tyler, and D. W. Tinkle. 1972. Reproductive ecologyaof west Texaspopulation of the greater earless lizard,Copkosaurus t e ~ a ~ uAm, s, ~ i ~Nat, l .88(~):419-28. Banicki,L. H,, and R. G. Webb. 1982. Morphological variation of the Texas lyre

54.800.

56.100.

56.200. 56.400. 56.401. 56.402.

snake (Trimorpho~onbiscutatus v ~ l ~ i n s ~from n i ) Franklin Mountains, west Texas. Southwest. Nut. 27(3):321-24. Barber, P. H, 1997. A fistfulof permits: Thetale of a scientific collector.Proc. San Diego Soc. Nat, Hist. 33: 12-15. Barbour, T., and A. Loveridge.1929. Typical reptilesand amphibians in the Museum of ComparativeZoology. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 69(10):205-360. Barck, A. 1992. Paleontologyof the Glen RoseFormation (Lower Cretaceous), Hood County, Texas.Tex.f. Sci. 44(1) :3-24. Barden, R. B,, and L. J. Kezer. 1944. The eggsof certain plethodontid salamanders obtained by pituitary gland implementation. Copeia 1944(1) :115-18. Barker, D. G. 1992. Variation, infraspecific relationshipsand biogeography of the ~ .Biolog~of the pitvipers, ed. J. A. Campridgenose rattlesnake, Crotalus ~ i l l a rIn bell and E. D. Brodie, Jr., 89-105. Tyler, Tex.: SeIva. Barrass, A, N. 1986. The effects of highway noise on thephonotactic and reproductive behaviorof selected anurans. Mss. Abstv: k t . (B) 46(8) :2609. Barrett, E. P., and C, P, Benjamin. 1977. Ananalysis of the pigmentation of the epigeal Eur~ceaof the Texas EdwardsPlateau. Copeia 1977(1) :59-65. of the United States. Bull. Chi. ~ e r p e t ~Soc. l. Bartlett, R. D. 1971. The pit vipers 6(2):29-39. .1994. Herping in Texas: TheBig Bend.Trop Fish ~ 042(11) ~ :112, ~ ~ . 114,116-18,120,122-26. .1996. Herping in Texas: Brownsvilleto Falcon Darn.Trop. Fish H o ~ ~ ~ . 44(5):164-66,168-70,172,1~~,176,178,180.

56.403. 57. 57.200.

59. 59.100. 59.200.

Bartlett, D. 1998. Herping in Texas, the sequel: Bartlett returns. ~eptiles6(10): 32-38. Barton, A. J. 1948. Snake litters. ~erpetologica4(6) :198. Bashey, F., and A.E. Dunham. 1997. Elevationalvariation in the thermal constraints on and microhabitat preferences of the greater earless lizardCophosaurus texanus. Copeia 1997(4): 725-37. Baughman, J. L. 1951. The cavesof Texas. Tex. Game Fish 9(8):2-7. rna Baur, B. 1979. Lebenin der Wiiste Krotenechsen( P ~ r ~ n ~ s oWiegmann, 1828). 2. Teil: Pflegeund Zucht derRund Schwanz-~oten-echse,P h r ~ n o s o ~ u m o ~ e s t ~Girard, m 1852. Das A ~ u a r ~125: ~ m528-32. Baur, G. 1893. Noteson the classificationand taxonomy of the Testudinata. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 31:210-25. . 24-27. Baxter, D. 1971. Lizards. Tex. Parks W i l ~29(11): Bayless, L, E. 1969. Post-metamorphic growth of Acris crepitans. Am. mi^. Nat, 81(2):590-92. Beasom, S. L. 1974. Selectivityof predator control techniques in south Texas. f. W i l ~ l , ~ u n a38: g e .837-44. Beaty, H.E. 1974a. EdwardsPlateau/Balcones Escarpment-Blackland Natural of Natural Laboratories, Inc. Laboratory.Lab. Index I. Austin: Texas Systems ,1974b.Lampasas Cut Plain Natural Laboratory.Lab. Index 2. Austin: Texas Systemsof Natural Laboratories, Inc. Beaty, H. E., and D. L. Jameson. 1974. Gulf CoastPrairie Natural Laboratory. Lab. Index 3. Austin: Texas Systems of Natural Laboratories,Inc. Beaupre, S. J. 1993. An ecologicalstudy of oxygen consumption in the mottled

59.600.

59.610.

59.715.

rock rattlesnake, Crotaluslepidus lepidus, and theblack-tailedrattlesnake, Crotalus molassus ~olossus, from two populations.Physiol. Ecol. 66(3):437-54. .1995a. Effects ofgeographicallyvariable thermal environment on bioenergetics of mottled rockrattlesnakes. Ecology 76(5):1655-65. .1995b. Comparative ecology the of mottled rockrattlesnake, Cro~aZus lepidus, in Big BendNational Park. ~erpe~ologica 51(1) :45-56. .1996. Field metabolioc rate, water flux, and energy budgets of mottled rock rattlesnakes, Crotalus lepidus. from two populations. Copeia 1996(2): 319-29. Beaupre, S. J.,A, E.Dunham, and K.E. Overall. 1993a. Metabolism of a desert lizard: Theeffects of mass, sex, population of origin, temperature, time of day, i. Ecol. and feeding upon oxygen consumption of Scelopor~s~ e r r i a ~Phgsiol. 66(1): 128-47. .1993b. The effects of consumption rate and temperature on apparent digestibility coefficient,urate production, metabolizable energy coefficient and ~ i ~ two populations. passage timein canyon lizards (Sceloporus~ e r r i a from F u n ~ tEcol. . ~ ( 3 )273-80. : Beavers, R. A.1976. Food habits of the western diamondback rattlesnake, Crotalus atrox, in Texas (Viperidae).S o u ~ h ~ e sNut. t . 20(4) :503-15. Bechler,D. L. 1988. Courtship behaviorand spermatophoredeposition by the subterranean salamander, ~phlomolgerathbuni (Caudata, Plethodontidae), Su~thwest.Nat. 33(1):124-26. tagging and tracking of rough Becht, D., and T.Hibbitts. 1970. Radioisotope using tantalum (182). TASCA 25(1): 10-12. earth snakes (~rginiu striat~la~ Behler,J.,and F. W. King. 1978. The Audubon Society~eldguide to Nortk American reptiles anda ~ p h i ~ i a nNew s . York: AlfredA. Knopf. Bell, E. L. 1996,Descriptions of neotypes forSceloporusundulatus undulatus, the southern fence lizard,and SceZoporus ~ndulatushyancinthinus, the northernfence lizard, and a lectotype for Sceloporus undulatus g a r ~ a n ithe , northernprairie lizard. Bull. Md. ~erpetol.Soc. 32(3):81-103. Benefield, G. E. 1979. Geographicdistribution. Tra~idoclonjonlinea tu^ lineatum. ~erpetol, Rev. 10(3):104. Bennett, A. F., and R, B. Huey. 1991.Studying the evolution of physiological performance. In Ox~ardsurvegs in evo~utionarg~iologg,ed. D. J.Futuyma and J.Antonovics, 7:251-84. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress. Berkhouse, C. S., and J. N. Fries. 1995.Critical thermal maxima of juvenile and adult San Marcos salamanders (Euryceu nana). Southwest. Nat. 40(4) :430-34. Berlandier,J.L. 1980.~ourneyto Mexico ~uringthe years 1826-1834.Translated by S. M. Ohlendorf,J. M. Bigelow, and M. M. Standifer. Austin: Texas State Historical Association.2 vols. Berman, D. S. 1970. Vertebratefossils fromthe Lueders Formation, Lower Permian of north-central Texas, Univ. Calif:Publ. Geol, Sci. 86 :1-61. Berman, D. S., R,R. Reisz, J. R. Bolt, and D. Scott. 1995.The cranial anatomy and relationshipsof the synapsid Varanosaurus (Eupelycosauria: Ophiacodontidae) from the early Permian of Texas and Oklahoma. Ann. Carnegie Mus. 64(2): 99-133. Berman, D. S,, R. R. Reisz, and D. A. Eberth, 1987. ~egmoriuSarI~uanens~s (Amphibia: Batrachosauria) from LowerPermian Cutler Formation on north-central

59.800. 60. 60.180,

60.200. 61. 61,300.

61.310. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

67. 68.

71. 72. 72.400.

72.531.

New Mexicoand the occurrence of sexual dimorphism in that genus questioned. Can. J.Eurth Sci. 24(9): 1769-84. Bertl,J.,and F. C. Killebrew. 1983.An osteologicalcomparisonof ~ruptemyscuglei Haynes and McKown and ~ruptemysversu Stejneger (Testudines: Emydidae). Herpetologicu 39(4): 375-82. Beyer, G. E. 1898,Contributionson the life histories of certain snakes. Am. Nut. 32: 17-24.. Bickham,J. W. 1990. Flow cytometry as a technique to monitor the effects of environmental genotoxins of wildlife populations. Environ. Sci. Res. 38:97-108, Bickham,J.W., C. 0. McKinney, and M. F. Mathews, 1976. Karyotypesof the parthenogenetic whiptail lizard Cnemidophorus luredoensis and its presumed parental species (Sauria: Teiidae),~erpetologicup(4) :395-99. Bider, J.R.1962.Dynamics and thetemporo-spatial relations of a vertebrate c o ~ u n i t yEcology . 43(4):634-46. Bigony, M. 1980.Skimming overthe marsh. Tex. P u r ~ W s i l ~38(3): . 10-12. ,1981.When was the last time yousaw a horned lizard? Tex. Parks W i l ~ . 39(2): 28-31. Bishop, S. C. 1941. Notes on salamanders with descriptions of several new forms. Occus. Pup. Mus, Zool, Univ. ~ i c h4.51 :1-21. .1947. Hundboo~of sulumunders. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornstock Publishing. Bishop, S. C., and F. J.W Schmidt.1931. The painted turtles of the genus Chrysemys. ~ieldMus.Nut. Hist,, Zool. Sel: 18(4): 123-39. Bishop, S. C., and M. R,Wright. 1937. A newneotenic salamander from Texas, Proc. Biol, Soc. Wush. 50: 141-43. Blackford, C. M. 1899. A curious salamander. Nuture 60: 389-90. Blair, A. P.1941.Variation, isolatingmechanisms, and hybridization in certain toads. ~enetics26: 389-417. .1943a. Geographicalvariation of ventral markings in toads. Am. ~ i ~ Nut. 29(3):615-20. ,1943b. The malewarning vibration in Bufo. Am. Mus. Novit, 1344: 1-7. .1947.Defensive use of parotoid secretionby Bufo murinus. Copeiu 1947(2): 137. ,1950. Notes on two anguid lizards. Copeiu 1950(1) :57. .1957. Amphibians. In Vertebrutes of the United States, ed. W. F. Blair, A, P. Blair, P. Brodkorb, F. R. Cagle, and G. A. Moore, 211-71. New York: McGraw-Hill. .1968.Amphibians. In Verte~rutesof the United States, 2nd edition,ed. W, F.Blair, A. P. Blair, P, Brodkorb,F.R, Cagle, and G. A. Moore, 167-212. New York McGraw-Hill. Blair, K.B., J.E. Chavez, D. Chiszar,and H. M. Smith. 1996a.Geographic distri~ . 27(4): 214. bution. ~eptotyphlopsdulcis dulc~s.~ e r p e t oRev. .1996b. Geographicdistribution. ~humnophisproximus.~ e r p e t oRev, ~. 27(4.): 215. Blair, K. B., D. Chiszar,and H. M. Smith. 1997.New records for Texasamphibians and reptiles. Herpetol. Rev. 28(2):99. Blair, K. B., F. C. Killebrew, H.M. Smith, and D. Chiszar. 1995a. Geographicdistribution. Bufo vulliceps. Herpetoz. Rev,26(3):152.

.

72,533. 72.534. 72.535. 72.536. 72.537.

72.541.

72.54372.554. 72.555.

73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81.

82.

.199513. Geographicdistribution. Bufo woud~ousei.Herpetol. Rev. 26(3):152. .1995~.Geographicdistribution. H ~ l ucinerea. ~erpetol,Rev. 26(3):152. .1g95d. Geographicdistribution. Pseu~ucrisstreckeri. Herpetol. Rev, N 3 ) : 1.53. 1995e. Geographicdistribution, Ranu sp~enocep~ulu. Herpetol. Rev. 26(3):154. .1995f. Geographicdistribution. Speu ~ u ~ ~ i f r Herpetol. ons, Rev, 26(3):154. .19958. Geographicdistribution. Spea ~ultiplicatu,Herpetol. Rev. 26(3):154. Blair, K. B., and H. M. Smith. 1993a. Geographicdistribution. Sceloporusundulutus gar~uni.Herpetol. Rev. 24(2):67. Her.1993b. Geographicdistribution. Sceluporus undulatus co~so~rinus. petol. Rev. 24(2) :67. .1993~.Geographicdistribution. ~ e p t o t ~ p ~ dulcis l o p s dulcis. Herpetol.Rev. 24(3):110. .1993d. Geographicdistribution.~ e p t o t ~ p ~ ldulcis o p s dissectus. Herpetol. Rev. 24(3):110. Blair, K. B., H. M. Smith, and D. Chiszar, 1993. Geographic distribution. Tropjdoclonion l i ~ z e a t~erpeto2. ~~. Rev. 24(3):110-11. .1g94a. Geographicdistribution. Thirty-five new herpetological county ~erpetol.Rev. 25(1) :36-37. records for Texas. ,r994b. Albinism and distributional records for~u~propeltis triangulu~ (Reptilia:Serpentes)in Panhandle Texas. Bull. Add. Herpetul. Soc. 30(1):1-5. Blair, K.B., J. R. Stanley 11,and H. M. Smith. 1993. Geographicdistribution. ~ l u pguttuta ~ e e ~ o r ~Herpetol. i. Rev. 24(2):67. Blair, W. F. 1949a. Developmentof the solitary spadefoot in Texas. Copeiu 1949(1):72. .194gb. The biotic provinces of Texas, Tex. J.Sci. 2(1) :93-117. .1952. Mammalsof the Tamaulipan Biotic Province in Texas. Tex. J.Sci, 4(2):230-50. 1953. Growth, dispersal, and age of sexual maturity of the Mexican toad (Bufo vulliceps Wiegmann). Cupeiu 1953(4):208-12. .1954. M a ~ a lofs the Mesquite Plains Biotic District in Texas and Oklahoma, and speciation in thecentral grasslands. Tex. J.Sci. 6(3):235-64. .1955a. Mating call and stage of speciation in the Adicru~~lu o1ivuce~M.curo~inensiscomplex, volution 9(4):469-80. .1955b. Differentiationof mating call in spadefoots, genus ~cup~iopus. Tex, J.Sci. 7(2):183-88. .1955c. Size differenceas a possible isolation mechanism in Adicro~~la. Am.Nut. 89: 297-301. .1956a. Comparative survival of hybrid toads(B.w o o ~ ~ o u sXe B. i vulliceps) in nature. Copeiu 1956(4):259-60. .1956b. Call differencesas an isolation mechanism in southwestern toads (genus Bufo). Tex. J.Sci, 8(1):87-106. .1956c. Themating calls of hybrid toads. Tex. J.Sci, 8(3):350-55. (I

I)

84.

.1957. Changes in vertebrate populations under conditions on drought.

Cold Springs HarborSymp. Quant. Biol. 22 :73-75.

.1958a. Mating call in the speciation of anuran amphibians. Am. Nat. 92: 27-51. 86, .1958b. Mating calland stage of speciation of two allopatricpopulations of spadefoots (Seaphiopus), Tex. J.Sci, 10(4):443-46. 86.100. .1958c. Distributionalpatterns of vertebrates in thesouthwestern United States in relation to past and present e n ~ o n m e n t sIn , Zoogeograph9, ed. C. L. Hubbs, 433-68. Washington,D.C.: ALIASPublication (51). .1959a. Call structure andspecies groups in United States tree frogs 87. (Hgla). South~est.Nat. 3(1-4): 77-89. 88. 1959b. Genetic compatibilityand species groups in US.toads (Bufo). Tex. J.Sci. 11(4):427-53. .1960a. ~adiation-induced genetic damage in the Mexican toad (Bufo 89. vaZl~ceps).Teex, J.Sci. 12(3-4): 216-27, .1960b, Mating callsas evidence of relations in the H9Za ex~miagroup. South~est.Nat. 5(3):129-35. .1960c. A breeding population of the Mexican toad (BufovalZiceps~in relation to its environment. EcoZog9 41(1):165-74. .1960d. The rust9 lizard: ApopuZation study.Austin: University of Texas 92, Press. .1961a. Further evidencebearing on intergroup and intragroup genetic 93. compatibilityin toads (genus Bufo). Tex. J.Sei. 13(2):163-75. -1961b. Callingand spawning seasons in a mised population of anurans. 94. EcoZogy 42(1): 99-110. .1962. Non-morphologicaldata in anuran classification.Syst. Zool. 95. 11(2):72-84. 96.001. .1963a. Intra-group genetic compatibilityin the Bufo americanus species group of toads. Tex. J.Sci.15(1): 15-34. 96.100. ,1963b. Evolutionaryrelationshipsof North American toads of the genus Bufo: A progress report. Evolution 17(1):1-16, ,1964a. Evidence bearing on relationshipsof the Bufo boreas group of 97. toads. Tex. J.Sei. 16(2): 181-92. ,1964b. Isolating mechanisms and interspeciesinteractions in anuran 98. amphibians. Q- Rev, BioZ, 39(4):334-44. i t e d ed. .1965. Amphibian speciation.In The ~uaternar9of the ~ ~ ~ States, 99H, E. Wright and D. G. Prey, 543-55. Princeton, N.J. Princeton : University Press. .1966. Genetic compatibi~tyin the Bufo vuZliceps and closely related 100. groups of toads. Tex.J.Sei. 18(4): 333-50. ,ed. 1972a.EvoZution in the genus Bufo, Austin: University of Texas Press. 100.010. ,1972~.Characteristicsof the testes. In EvoZution inthe genus Bufo, ed. 100*020* W, F. Blair, 324-28, Austin: Universityof Texas Press, .1972b. Evidence from hybridi~ation.In EvoZution inthe genus Bufo, ed, 100,030. W. F, Blair, 196-232.Austin: University of Texas Press. ,1974. Character displacement in frogs. Am,Zool. 14(4):1119-25. 100.040. 100.050. ,1976. Some aspectsof the biology of the ornatebox turtle, Terrapene ornata. ~ o u t h ~ e sNat. t , 21(1):89-104.. 85.

Blair, W. F.,and T. E. Kennedy, Jr. 1959. Effectsof X-irradiation on a natural leucopus). Tex. I. Sei. I I ( ~:137-49. ) population of the woodmouse ~Perom~scus Blair, W. F., and M. J.Littlejohn. 1960. Stage of speciation of two allopatric popu102. lations of chorus frogs ~Pseudacris~, volution 14(1):82-87. Blair, W. F., and C, E. Miller, Jr. 1949. Themammals of the Sierra Vieja Region, 103. southwestern Texas,with remarks on thebiogeographic positionof the region. Tex. I. Sei. I(I): 67-92. Blanchard, F. N. 1920. A synopsisof the king snakes: Genus Lampropeltis 104. Fitzinger. Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 87: 1-6. .1921. A revision of the king snakes: Genus Lampropeltis. Bull. US. Natl. 105. Mus, 114: 1-260. 1923a. A new North American snake of the genus Natrix. Occas. Pap. 106. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich. 140:1-7. .1923b. Commentson ring-neck snakes (genus ~iadophis)with diag107. noses of new forms. Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. Unix Mich. 142 :1-9. .1924a. A newsnake of the genus Arizona. Occas.Pap. Mus. Zool. Unix 108. Mich. 150:1-3. .1924b. The snakes of the genus ~irginia.Pap. Mich. Acad. Arts Sei. Ltl: 109, 3(3):343-65. .1924c. The status of Amph~ardusinornutus (Garman). Copeia 110. I924(I):83. ,1925. A key to the snakes of United States, Canada, and lower Califor111. nia. Pap. Mich. Acad. Arts Sei. Ltu: 4(2):1-65. 1938. Snakes of the genus Tant~llain the United States. ~ieldMus,Nut. 112. Hist., Zool. Ser. 20(28):369-76. s . Chi. Acad. Sei. ,1942. The ring-necksnakes, genus ~ i a ~ o p h iBull. 113. 7(I):1-142, t ~ sAm. . amp hi^. Rept. 150.1-150.2. 113.500. Blaney, R.M,1973. L a m p ~ o p ~ ~Cat. 113.510. .1977. Systematicsof the common kingsnake Lampropelt~sgetulus (Linnaeus). Tulane Stud. 2001. Bot. 19(3-4):47-103. .1g7g. LampropeItis cal~~gasteu: Cat. Am. Ampki~. Rept. 229.1-229.2. Blaney, R. M., and P. J. Kimmich. 1973. Noteson theyoung of the Texas horned lizard, P h r ~ n o s o ~cornutum. a Herpetoz. Rev. 1(4):120. 113.600. Hem, C. 1981. HeterodonpIat~rhinos.Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 282.1-282.2. 113,700. Block, E.F. 1967. Parasites of the Texas cricket frog, Acris erepitans. Tex. I; Sei. 19t4):422. 113.710. Bloom, R. A.,and M. Y. H. Farooqui 1992.Concentrationsof nonprotein l~s (Gekkonidae: sulfhydryls in the Mediterranean gecko, H e m i d a c ~ ~turcicus Squarnata), Tex. J.Sei. 44(1): 75-78. 113.720. Bloom, R. A., IC. W. Selcer,and W. W. King, 1986. Status of the introduced lizard, C~rtodact~lus s c a ~ in e ~Galveston, Texas.Southwest. Nut. 31(1):129-31. pour servir a l’histoire le defauna 113.750. Bocourt, l?.1879. Recherches zoologiques de l’Am6rique Centrale et du Mexique; fitudessur les reptileset les batraciens. Miss. Sci. Mexicoet dans I’Amerique Centrale,Partie Troisieme, LivraisonIV, 361-440; PIS. 21-22 (A.D.). ,1881.Recherches zoologiquespour servir l’ histoire de fauna le de 113.760. I’Amerique Centraleet du Mexique; Bstudessur les reptileset les batreciens. 101.

I)

113,800. 113.802. 113,804.

114. 115.

116. 117.

118. 119. 120.

121,

Miss. Sci. Mexicoet Amkrique Centrale.Partie Troisierne, Livraison VII, 441- 48; pls. 22(D-J). Bogart, J. P. 1968. Chromosomenumber difference in theamphibian genus Bufo; The Bufo reguZaris species group.~ v o ~ u t i 22(1):42-45. off in the g e n ~Bufo, s ed. W F. Blair, 171-95. .1972. Karyotypes.In Evo~utioff Austin: Universityof Texas Press. Bogart, J. E?, and C. E. Nelson. 1976, Evolu~onaryimplications from karyotypic . analysis of frogs of the families ~icrohylidaeand R h i n o p ~ n i d a eHerpetoZogicu

32(2): 199-208. ,1939a. Notes on snakes of the genus SuZvudoru with a redescription of a neglected Mexican subspecies. Copeiu 1939(3) :140-47. .1939b.A study of the genus Sa~vadoru,the patch-nosed snakes.PubZ. Bid. Sei., Univ. Calif: Los AffgeZ.I(IO) :177-236. ,1945. Two additional races of the patch-nosed snake, Su~vu~ora hexulepis, Am, Mus, Novit, 1285 :1-14. .1960. The influenceof sound on thebehavior of amphibians and reptiles, In An~muZsounds and commufficat~on, ed. W: Tavolga, 7: 137-320. New York:

American Institute of Biological Sciences. .1962, Isolation mechanisms in toads of the Bufo d e ~ ~group i s in Arizona and western Mexican Am. Mus. Novit. 2100: 1-37. Bogert, C. NI., and J. A. Oliver. 1945. A preliminaryanalysis of ~erpetofaunaof Sonora. BUZZ.Am. us. Nut. Hist, 83:303-425. Bogush, E. R. 1926. Superstitionsof Bexar County.PubZ. Teex. ~oZk-Lor~ Soc. 5: 112-25.

Bolen, E. G., B, McDaniel, and C. Cottam. 1964. Natural history of the blackbellied tree duck ~ ~ e n d r o c ~aut~ffaZis~ gnu in southern Texas. Southwest. Nut. 9(2): 78-88.

121.015.

121.500. 122.

123. 123.500. 126. 127. 128. 129.

Bolette,D.P.1997. First recordof Pach~sefftis can~coZac ~ s t a c a ~ (Acanthot~u cephala: Oligacanthorhynchida)and theoccurrence of ~esocestoidessp. tetrathyri~a(Cerstoidea: Cyclophyllidea)in the western diamond~acl~ rattlesnake, Cro~uZusatroex (Serpentes: Viperidae).f. Paras~~oZ, 83(4) :751-52. Bolt, J. R.1977. Dissorophoid relationships and ontogeny,and theorigin of the 51(2):235-49. Lissamphibia.I; Pu~eofftoZ. Bonn, E. W,, and W H. McCarley. 1953. The amphibians and reptiles ofthe Lake Texoma area. Teex. I; Sci. 5(4):465-71. Borrell,A. E., and M. D. Bryant, 194.2. N I a ~ of~thes Big Bendarea of Texas. Univ. Cali$ PubZ. ZooZ. 48(1) :1-62,

Boston,J. D., and C. R.Williams, 1968. Characteristics of proteolytic activityof pepsin fromRam cutesbeiu~a.Tex. f. Sei. 20(1): 77-86, Boulenger,E. G. 1916, A new lizard of the genus Phr~ffosoma, recently livingin the Society's gardens. Proc. ZooZ. Soc. Lond. 1916: 537. Boulenger, G,A, 1887. Descriptions of new reptilesand batrachians in the British Museum. III. Affffu.~ u g Nut. . Hist. Series 5.20: 50-53. ,1888. On a rare American newt, ~ o Z g merid~onaz~s e Cope, Anffu.Mag. Nat. Hist. Series 6, I :24. .1890a. First report on theadditions to the lizard collectionin theBritish Museum. Proc, ZooZ, Soc. Lond. 1890: 77-85.

1890b. Second report on additions to the batrachiancollection in the Natural History ~ u ~ e u Proc. m . Zool. Soc. Lond. 1890:323. 1893. Catalogue of the snakes in the Brit~sh~ u s e u mvol. , I. London: 131. Taylor and Francis. .1894a. Cutalog~eof the snakes inthe British ~ ~ s evol. u 2.~London: , Taylor and Francis. .1894b. Third report on additionsto the lizard collectionin the Natural History Museum.Proc, ZooX. Soc. Lond. 1894 :640. .1896. Catalogue of the snakesin the B r ~ t ~ s use^^, h vol. 3. London: Taylor and Francis. .1897. A revision of the lizards of the genus SceXoporus. Proc, Zool. Soc. .?hnd. 1897:474-522. .1898. Fourth report on additions to the batrachiancollection in the Natural History Museum,Proc. Zool. Soc. L o ~ d1898 . :4.73-82. .1920. A monograph of the American frogsof the genus Ranu. Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sei, 55(9):413-80. Boundy, J.1994. County recordsfor Texasamphibians and reptiles. ~erpetol.Rev. 25(3):129. ,1997. M a x ~ u m lengths of North American Snakes.Bull, Chicago Her137.006, petol. Soc. 29(6):109-122, 137.010. Boundy, J.,and T. G, Balgooyen,1988. Record lengths for someamphibians a d reptiles fromthe western United States. Herpetol. Rev 19(2):26-27. 137.500. Bowen, G. S. 1977. Prolongedwestern equine encephalitisviremia in the Texas r i ~ .f. Trop. ~ e dH$.jg, . 2611) :171-75. tortoise ~ ~ o p k e r~uesr l u n ~ e Am, Bowers, C. C., and H. M.Smith. 1947. Hibernation of lizards in western Texas, 138. ~erpetologica4(2) :80. Bowers, J.H. 1966. Foodhabits of the ~amond-backedwater snake, Natrix 139. rho~~~eru rhom in ~Bowie ~ e r fand f , Red RiverCounties, Texas.~erpetologica 22(3):225-29. 139.010. ,1967a. A record litter of Thumnophis s i r t a l i s p r o ~ i (Say). ~~s ~o~tkwest. Nat. 12(2): 200. ,196713. A new record length for the plains hognose snake ~eterodonnusi139.020. GUS nasicus Baird and Girard. Herpetologica 23(1):61. ~s f. ~erpetol. 139.500. Bowker, R. G. 1980. Sound production in C n e ~ i d o p k o rgular~s, 14(2):187-88. in Texas. Herpetol, Rev. 139.600. Bowman, D. 1984. American alligator reclassified 15(1):12. 139.650. Brach, V. 1992. Discoveryof the Rio Grande chirping frog in Smith County, Texas (Anum: ~~eptodac~lidae), Tex. f. Sci, 44(4) :490. Bragg, A. N.1954. Bufo terrestris char~esmithi,a new subspecies from Oklahoma. 140, WaSS~ffnnf.Bioi. 12(2):245-54. 141. .1960. Feeding in the Houston toad. S o ~ t h w ~ sNat. t , 5(2):1-06. 142, .1965. ~ n o ~ofethe s nigh^, ~hiladelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press. Bragg, A.N., and 0.Sanders. 1951. A new subspeciesof the Bufo w ~ o ~ h o u s e ~ group of toads. W a s s ~ u n I;n Biol. g(3) :363-78. Bramble,D, M. 1974. Occurrenceand significanceof the os transiliens in gopher tortoises. Copeia 1974(1): 102-109.

130%

143.510. 144. 144.010. 745. 145.010.

146. 147. 148. 148.010. 148.400. 148.500.

149. 149.110.

.1982.Scaptuchel~s~ Generic revisionand evolution of gopher tortoises. Cupeia 1982(4): 852-67. Brame, A. H., Jr. 1962.A survey of albinism in salamanders. Abh. Berichte N a t ~ ~ Vorgeschichte11(3): 65-81. .1967.A list of the world’s recent and fossil salamanders. ~erpetuluffica 2(1): 1-26. Brattstrom, B. H. 1954.The fossil pit-vipers (Reptilia: Crotalidae) of North America. Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 12(3): 31-46. .1961.Some new fossil tortoises from western North America with remarks on thezoogeographyand paleoecology of tortoises. J.Paleuntul. 35(3) : 543-60. .1963. A preliminary reviewof the thermal requirements of amphibians. ~ G U l U 4.4(2): g~ 238-55. .1964.Evolution of the pit vipers. Trans. San Diego Soc. Nut, Hist. I ~ ( I I:) 185-268. .1965.Body temperatures of reptiles. Am. Mid.Nat. 73(2):376-422. .1967. A successionof Pliocene and Pleistocenesnake faunas from the High Plains of the United States. Cupeia 1967(1) :188-202, Brazaitis,P. 1973.The identificationof living crocodilians.~uulugica58(1-4): 59-101. Brecke, B. J., J. B. Murphy, and W. Seifert. 1976.An inventory of reproduction and social behaviorin captive Baird’s ratsnakes laph he ubsuleta b a i r ~(Yarrow). Herpetulogica 32(4) :389-95. Breckenridge,W J. 1943.The life history of the black-banded skink~ ~ m e c e s septentriun~isseptentrionalis(Baird).Am. mi^. Nat. 29(3) :591-606. Brennan, J. N. 1945.Field investigationspertinent to Bullis fever:Preliminary

report on the species of ticks and vertebrates occurring at Camp Bullis, Texas. Tex. Rept. Bid. Med. 3(1) :112-21. 149.200. Brewer, K., and F. C. Killebrew. 1986.The annual testicular cycle of P s e ~ d e m ~ s scripta elegans (Ehydidae) in theTexas Panhandle. Su~thwest.Nat. 31(3) :299305.

149.300. Bridegam,A. S., and B. E. Smith. 1987.Geographicdistribution. Hul~ruu~ia lacerata. Herpeto~,Rev. 18(2) :40. 149.308. Bridegam,A, S., A. T. Patterson, B. E. Smith, C. M. Garrett, and M. R. Mateja. 1991.Geographicdistribution. P s e ~ d e m texana. ~s HerpetuZ. Rev, 22(1) :25. 149.400. Brimley, D. 1904.The box tortoises of southeastern North America. I; ~ l i s h a itche ell Sci. Soc. 20(1) :27-34. 1907.Notes on some turtles of the genus ~ s e ~ d e mJ.~~sl i. s h Mitchell a 149.410. Sei. Soc. 23(2): 76-84. 149.500. .I~IO, Records of some reptilesand batrachians from the southeastern United States. Pruc. Bid. Soc. ash. 23:9-18. 149.550. Brinkman, D. 1988.Size-dependentcriteria for estimating relative age in Ophiacodon and Dimetrudun (Reptilia: Pelycosauria) from the Admiral and lower Belle Plains Formationsof west-central Texas, I; Vert. P~leontul.8(2):172-80. 149.600. Brocchi, P. 1882.Etude desbatraciens de l’herique Centrale. Mission Scientifique au Mexique et dans 1’ Amerique Centrale-Recherches zoologiques, 3rdpt. 2nd sec. 149.700. Brodie, E. D. 1977.Salamander antipredator postures. Cupeia 1977(3) :523-35.

150. 150.500. 150.510. 151.

152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159.

160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167.

Brooks, B. 1906.The anatomy of the internal urogenital organs of certain North American lizards.Trans. Tex, Acad. Sci. 8 :23-38. Brooks, G. R. 1972. Intestinal parasites of the lizard ~ggosomalaterale. Q. f. Fla. Acad, Sci. 35(1):8-14. 1975. Scincella lateralis (Say). Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 169.1-169.4. Brown, A. E.IgoIa. A review of the genera and species of American snakes north of Mexico. Proc. Acad, Nat, Sci, Phila. 53: IO-110. .IgoIb. A new speciesof Colu~erfrom western Texas. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila, 53:492-95. .I ~ O I C . A new speciesof Ophi~olusfrom western Texas, Proc. Acad. Nat. 9ci. P ~ i l a53 . :612-13. ,1903a. The variations of Eutaenia in the Pacific subregion.Proc,Acad, Nut. Sci. Phila. 55 :286-97. .1go3b. Texas reptilesand their faunal relations, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 55: 543-58. .1903~.Note on Crotalus scutulatus,Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 55 :625. Brown, B. C. 1937. Noteson Coniophunes imperialis (Baird).Copeia 1937(4) :234. 1939.The effect of Coniophunes poisoning in man, Copeia 1939(2):109. .1g42a. Notes on Eurgcea neotenes. Copeia 1942(3):176. .1942b. Noteson Crotaph~tusreticulatus. Copeia1942(3):176. .1947. N a t r i ~rigida in Texas. ~erpetologica4(1):23. .1950. An a~notatedcheck listof the reptiles andamphi~iansof Texas. Waco: Baylor University Studies. .1951a. ~iemictglusviridescenes louisianensisin north-eastern Texas, Herpetologica 7(2):64. -1g5rb. A range extension of the southern prairie skink in Texas. Herpetolog~ca7(2):72. .1951c. Eumeces anthrucin~sin Texas. ~crpetologica7(2):76. .1951d. The Texas hooded snake in thelower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. ~erpetologica7(4):175. .1952. Anotable specimen of the Pecos skink, ~erpetologica8(3):101102.

167.010. 167.020. 167.030. 167.040. 168. 169.

170. 170.200.

170.300.

.1967a. E ~ r g c elatitans. a Cat, Am.amp hi^. Rept. 34.1-34.2, .1967b. Eurgcea nana. Cat. Am.amp hi^. Rept. 35.1-35.2, .1967c. Eurgcea neotenes. Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept, 36.1-36.2, .1967d. ~ r ~ o n muticus gx muticusin the Texas Panhandle. S ~ u t h ~ e Nut. st, :487. Brown, B. C., and 7. Haver, 1952. An unusually large congregation of turtles. ~erpetologica8(1):2. Brown, B, C., and M. B. M i t t l e m ~1947. . A range extension for Crotalus m, molossusB. and G. in Texas. ~erpetologica4(1):23-24. Brown, D, A. 1964. Nesting of a captive ~opherus~erlandieri(Agassiz).~ e r p e t o logica 20(3):209-10. Brown, H. A. 1976. Californiaand Arizona populations of the western spade~ ~286: . foot toads (GenusScaphiopus).Nat. Hist, Mus. Los Angel, Ctg, C o ~ t rSci. 1-15. r o w , L.E,1968. The significanceof natural hybrid~ationin certain aspects of

170.310.

170.320. 170.330. 170.340. 170.350. 170.360.

the speciation of some North American toads(genus Bufo). Diss. Abstu: Int. (B) 28(10) :4343. .1970. Interspeciesinteractions as possible causes of racial size differences in the toads Bufo americunus and Bufo woodhousei. Teex. Sei. 21(3): 261-67. .1971. Natural hybridization and trends toward extinction in some relict Texas toad populations. Southwest. Nut. 16(2):185-99. .1973. Bujo houstonensis. Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept, 133.1-133.2. .1974. Behavioralreactions of bullfrogs whileattempting to eat toads. South~est.Nat. 19(3):335-37. .1975. Thestatus of the near-extinct Houston toad (Buf~houstone~sis~ with recommendationsfor its conservation. ~erpetol.Rev. 6 :3 7- 40. .1979. Houston toad recovery team meets in Houston. ~erpetol.Rev. 10(3):100.

170.361. 170.370.

170.380. 170.400. 170.500. 170.600.

170.700. 171. 172. 172.500. 172.501,

I76,

177.

.1992. Rana blairi, Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 536.1-536.6. Brown, L, E.,and M. J. Littlejohn. 1972. Male release callin theBufo americanus group. In volution in the genus Bufo, ed.W. F. Blair, 310-23. Austin: University of Texas Press. Brown, L, E.,and R. A. Thomas. 1982. isc conceptions about the endangered l . 13(2):37. Houston toad (Bufo usto ton ens is). ~ e r p e ~ oRev. Brown, R.1968, Alligator snapping turtles ~ a c r o c l e m ~ s t e ~ m i ~ c k i . ~ e r p e t o l o g ~ 2(4):13-14. Brown, T. L.,and R. V. Lucchino. 1972. A record-sized specimen of the Texas horned lizard (Phr~nosoma cor~utum). Tex, I. Sci, 24(3):353-54. Brownell, J. A. 1971. Effects ofthe interaction between a hybrid toad and parof Texas, ental species,Bufo valliceps and B,~oodhousei.Ph.D diss., University Austin. Mss. Abstu: Int. (B)33(12):152. Bruce, R. C, 1976. Population structure, life history, and evolution of paedogenesis in the salamander ~ u r ~neotenes. c e ~ Copeia1976(2):242-56. Buck, H.D. 1946. Food of ~aranciaa~acurain Texas. ~erpetologicu3(4):III. Bundy, R. E.,D. Meyers, and J. Neess. 1955.Observationson two speciesof lizards in the Chihuahuan desert. Copeia 1955(4):312. Burchfield. P. M, 1993.An unusual dietary inclusion for the cat-eyed snake, Leptode~raseptentrionulis septe~trionalis.Bull. Chi. ~ e r ~ e t oSoc. l , 28(12):266-67. Burchfield, P,M,, T. F.Beimler, and C. S, Doucette, 1982. An unusual precoital head-biting behaviorin the Texas patchnosed snake, Salvadora graham~aelineatu (Reptilia: Serpentes: Colubridae). Copeia 1982(1): 192-93. Burger, W. L. 1950.New, revised, and reallocated names for North American whiptailed lizards,genus Cnemidophorus. Chi. Acad. Sei. Nut. Hist. Mise. 65 :1-9. Burger, W. L,,H. M, Smith, and F.E.Potter, Jr. 1950.Another neotenic E ~ r ~ c e u from the Edwards Plateau. Proc, Bid. Soc. was^. 63 :51-58. Burger, W. L.,P, W Smith, and H. M. Smith, 1949. Notable records of reptiles and amphibians in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas. I. Te~In.Acad. Sei.24(2): 130-34. Burkett, R. D. 1962. Two clutches of eggs in the lizard Gerrhon~tus l~ocephulus infer~alis. ~erpetologica 18(3): 211.

.1964. A new locality recordin Texas forthe lizard ~umeces ~nthrucinu~ pluvia~~s Cope. Trans. Kans. Acad. Sei. 67(1):98.

178. 1y8.010.

178.200. 178.300.

179. 180.

-1966.Natural history of cottonmouth moccasin, Ag~istrodonpiscivorus (Reptilia).Univ. Kans. PubZ. us. Nat. Wist. 17(9):435-91. ,1967. An extension of the known range in Texas forthe stinkpot turtles, Sternotherus oaoratus. ~rans, Kans. Acad, Sei, 69(3-4) :361. distribution. Storeria ae~ayiZimBurr, B. M,, and M. A.Morris. 1975. Geographic netes. Herpetol. Rev. 6(4):116. Bursey, C. R., and C. T. McAllister.1996. SpauZigoaon goZdhergi sp. n., (Nematoda: ~ h ~ n g o d o n i d aand e ) other parasites of Sonora semiannulata (Serpentes:Colubridae) from New Mexicoand Texas. I; WeZm~nthoZ.Soc. ash. 63(1):62-65. Burt, C. E. 1928. The synonymy,variation, and distribution of the collared lizard, Crot~phytuscoZlaris (Say). Occas. Pap. Mus. ZooZ, Univ. ~ i c h196: . 1-19. .192g. The synonymy,variation, and ~stributionof the Sonoran skink, ~ u m e c e ohsoletus s (Baird and Girard). Occas, Pap. Mus. ZooZ. Univ. Mich. 201 : 1-12.

181.

182. 183.

184.

185. 186,

187. 188. 189. 190.

191.

192. 193. 194. 195.

196.

.1g31a. The status of the spotted racerunner, Cne~iaophorusse~Zineatus g ~ ~ r(Baird i s and Girard).Proc. BioZ. Soc. Wash. 44: 73-78. .1g31b. A report on some amphibians and reptiles from Kansas, Nebraska, and Olrlahorna. Proc.B~ol.Soc. Wash.-44:11-16. . I ~ ~ I C On. the occurrence of a throat-fan in CaZZisaurus ventraZ~s gabbii and two speciesof Crotaphytus. Copeia 1931(2):58, .1931d, A study of the teiid lizardsof the genus Cnemiaop~oruswith special referenceto their phylogenetic relationships.Bull. US. Natl. Mus. 154 : 1-286. .1932. Thestatus of the horned lizard Phrynosoma brevicornis, described from Texas byE. G, Boulenger (1916).Proc. Biol. Soc. ~ u s h45 , :73-74. .1g35a. Contributionsto Texas herpetology,11.Some observationsand an experiment on the worm snake, LeptotyphZops. EcoZogy 16(3):530-31. .1935b. Contributionsto Texas herpetology,1 1 1 .Bullsnakes of the genera Arizona and Pituophis. J. ash. Acad. Sci. 25(8):380-83. ,1935~.A key to the lizards of the United States and Canada. Trans. Kans. Acad. Sei. 38:255-305. .1936a. Contributionsto the herpetology of Texas. I. Frogs of the genus Pseuaacris. Am. mi^. Nut. 17(4):770-75. .1936b. Contributionsto Texan herpetology.IV. Sand snakes of the genus ~antiZZa.Trans. Am. Micro. Soc. 55(2):239-42. .193ya. Contributionsto Texas herpetology.V. Spiny and scaly lizards ~SceZopor~s~. Pap. ~ i c hAcad. . Sci. Arts Ltu: 22:535-36. .1937b. Lizards of the southeastern United States. Duns. Kans. Acad. Sei, 40: 353-54. .1938a. Contributionsto Texas herpetology.VI. N a r r o ~ o u t h e froglike d toads ~MicrohyZaand ~ypopachus~. Pap. Mich. Acad. Sei. Arts Ltu: 23 :607-10. .1938b. Contributionsto Texas herpetology.V?T. The salamanders. Am. ~ i a ZNut. . 29(2): 374-80. Burt, C. E., and M.D. Burt. rgaga. A collectionof amphibians and reptiles from the Mississippi Valleywith field observations. Am.Mus. Novit. 381 :1-14. .~ g z g bField . notes and locality recordson a collectionof amphibians and reptiles chieflyfrom the western half of the United States. I. Amphibians, J.~ ~ sAcad. h . Sci. 19(1g):428-34.

.1929~. Field notes and locality recordson a collectionof amphibians and reptiles chiefly from the western half of the United States. 11. Reptiles. f. ash. Acud. Sci. 19(20):448-60. 198. .1932.A brief review of Texas herpetologicalhistory with comments on the zoogeographicimportance of the state. Bio-Log (Dallas)2(1):1-2. 198.400. Bury, R, B., and E. L. Smith. 1986.Aspects of the ecology and management of ateLaguna ri Atascosa, Texas,So~thwest, Nut. the tortoise Gopherus ~ e r ~ u n ~

197.

31(3): 387-94. 198.420. Busbey, A.B., 111.1986.Pristichumpsuscf. I? vorux (Eusuchia:Pristichampsinae) from the Uintan of west Texas.f. Vert. Puleontol.6(1):101-103. 198.500. Buth, D. G., G. C. Gorman, and C. S. Lieb. 1980.Genetic divergence between Anolis carolinensisand its Cubanprogenitor, Anolisporcatus. 7.Herpetol. 14(3):

279-84. 198,605. Butterfield,B. l?.,S. E.Trauth, T. W. Steward, V. R. McDaniel, and P. McLarty. 1991.New county records of amphibians and reptiles from Texas. Herpetol, Rev. 22(1):28. Byles, R. 1993.Head-start experimentno longer rearing Kemp’s ridleys.Muu: ~ r t lNwsltu: e 63:1-3. Byrd, E. E.,and J.F.Denton. 1938.New trematodes of the subfamily Reniferinae, with a discussion of the systematics of the genera and species assignedto the subfamilygroup. f. Purusitol. 24(5): 379-99. 200. Cagle, F, R.1950.Notes on HoZ~roo~ia texanu in Texas. Copeia 1950(3):230. 201. .1954a.Two new subspeciesof Graptemyspseudogeogruphica. Occus. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. ~ i c h546 . :1-17. 202. ,1954b. A Texas population of the cricket frog,Acris. Copeia1954(3): 227-28. 203. .1957.Reptiles. In Verte~ratesof the UnitedStates, ed. W. F, Blair, A. P. Blair, P. Bordkorb,F.R. Cagle, and G. A. Moore, 273-358.New York: McGrawHill.

203.100.

204. 204.050.

.1968.Reptiles. In Verte~ratesof the UnitedStates, 2nd edition, ed, W. F. Blair, A. P. Blair, P. Brodkorb,F.R. Cagle, and G. A. Moore, 214-68.New York: McGraw-Hill. Cahn, A. R. 1962.The breedinghabits of the Texas horned toad, ~hrgnosomu

cornutum. Am. Nut. 60:546-51. Caillouet,C. W., D. B. Koi, C. T. Fontaine, T. D. Williams,W. J.Browning, and R. M.Harris. 1986.Growth and survival of Kemp’s ridleysea turtle, Lepidochelys emp pi, in captivity. NOAA Tech. Mem. NM~S-SE~C-186 :1-34.

204.053. Caillouet,C. W., and A. M.Landry, eds.1989.Proceedingsof the first international symposium on ICemp’s ridleysea turtle biology, conservation, and management. Galveston: TexasA&M University. 204.080. Calaway, M.S., J.F. Cordes, and J.M. Walker. 1988,Geographicdistribution.

Hemiductylus turcicus turcicus. Herpetol. Rev. 19(1):19. 204.100. Cain, B. W., and S. R,Utesch, 1976.An unusual color pattern of the green tree s t . 21(2): 235-36. frog, Hglu cinereu. ~ o ~ t h w e Nut. 204,200, Calmonte, A. 1978.Die Schwarzschwanz-Klapperschlange-in der Freiheitund im Terrarium beobachtet. Dus A~uarium107: 221-23. 204.205. Campbell, H.W, 1974.Turtles at the brink: Our endangered species, Bull. Md. ~ e r p e t oSoc. ~ . IO(I) :1-7.

204.300. 204.310. 204.316. 204.318. 204.319. 204.400. 204.410.

204.950. 205.001. 205.002. 205.003. 205.004. 205.005. 205.006,

205.007. 205.008. 205.100. 205.110. 205.120. 205.150. 206. 206.100, 207.

Campbell, J. A. 1972. Reproductionin captive Trans-Pecosratsnakes, Elaphe suboc~laris.Herpetoz. Rev. 4: 129-30. .1973. A captivehatching of Micrurusfulvius tenere (Serpentes, Elapidae). J.Herpetol. 7(3):312-15. Campbell,J. A., and E. D. Brodie, Jr., eds. 1992. Biolog~of the pitvipers, Tyler, Tex.: Selva. Campbell,J. A,, D, R, Formanowicz,and E. D. Brodie. 1989.Potential impact of rattlesnake roundups on naturalpopulations. Tex, J.Sci. 41(3) :301-17. Campbell, J.A., and W. W. Lamar. 1989.The venomous reptiles of LatinAmericu. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Campbell, P. M., and W. IC.Davis. 1968. Vertebratesin stomachs of Bufo valliceps. 24(4):327-28. ~erpetolo~ica ,1971. The effects of various combinationsof temperature and relative humidity on theevaporativewater loss of Bufo vazliceps. Tex. J.Sci. 22(4) : 389-402. Campbell, T.N. 1958. Archeologicalremains &omthe Live Oak Point Site, hansas County, Texas.Tex. J.Sci. 10(4):432"42. Camper, J. D. 1994. Geographicdistribution. Scaph~opusholbrooki hurteri. Herpetol. Rev. 25(1):32 .1996a. Masticophis schotti (Baird and Girard). Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 638.1-638.4. .1996b. ast ti cop his taeniatus (Hallowell).Cat. Am, Amp~ib. Rept. 639.1639.6. Camper,J. D., and J. R. Dixon. 1988a. Albinism in the Texas brown snake, Storeria deka~i.Bull. Chi. Herpetol. Soc. 23(5):73. .1988b. Evaluation of a microchipmarking system foramphibians and ~ . Res. Publ. 7100-159. 22 pp. reptiles. Tex. Parks ~ i l Dept. .19g4. Geographicvariation and systematics of the striped whipsnakes (Masticophistaeniatus complex: Reptilia: Serpentes: Colubridae), Ann. Carnegie Mus. 63(1):1-48. Camper,J. D., and B. G. Hanks. 1995. Variation in the nucleolus organizer region among new worldsnakes. J.Herpetol. 29(3):468-71. Carignan,J. M.1988 Geographicdistribution. Gerrhonotus l~ocephulusinfernaZ~s. Herpetol. Rev. 19(3):60. Carl, G. 1978. Notes on worm-eating in the prairie ringneck snake, D ~ a ~ o p ~ i s punc~atusarnyi. Bull. Md. Herpetol. Soc. 14(2):95-97. .1980.Distributional records for Johnson County, Texas.Herpetol. Rev. 11(4):116-17. ,1981. Reproduction in thecaptive Brazos water snake, N e r o ~ aharteri. Tex. 1.Sci. 33(1): 77-78. Carl, G., and R. Hudson. 1983. Life history notes. am pro pelt is getulus holbrooki X sple~~ida. Herpetol. Rev. 14(1) :20. Carpenter, C. C. 1961. Patterns of social behaviorof Merriam's canyon lizard (Sceloporus m. merria~i;Iguanidae). Southwest, Nut. 6(3-4): 138-48. .1978. Comparative display behavior in the genus Sceloporus (Iguanidae). Milw. Publ. Mus. C~ntrib.BioZ. Geol. 18:1-71. Carpenter, C. C., H, L, Cleveland, W. A. Talbot,J. M. Goode, H.G. Merriman, and

D,R. Taylor. 1961. A Uta invasion of Oklahoma. Sout~west.Nat. 6(3-4): 192-93. Carr, A. F,, Jr. 1938. A new subspeciesof P s u e ~ e m g s ~ o r i ~with a ~ a notes , on t h e ~ o r i ~complex. a~a Copeia 1938(3):~ o g - ~ o g . 209. .1938. Noteson the P s e u ~ e ~scripta gs complex. ~erpetologica1(5): 731-35. 210. .1946. Status of the mangrove terrapin, Copeia 1946(3):170-72. 211. 1949. Theidentity of ~ a ~ a c o c ~ e m Baur. ~ s ~erpetologica ~oh~i 5(1) :9-10. 212. ~ Ithaca, o o N.Y.: ~ Comstock Publishing. 1952. ~ a ~ of ~turtles. 212,050. C m ,D,E. 1996. Morphological variation among species and populations of ~ u ~ complex. ~erpetologicu52(1) :56-65, sala~andersof the P ~ e t k oglut~~osus 212.500. Carr, J.L,, and T. W. Houseal, 1981. Post-hibernationbehavior in Terrape~et r i u ~ g a s (Emydidae). Southwest, Nat, (2):199-zoo. 212.525. Carroll, R, L,1990. A tiny microsaur from the Lower Permian of Texas: Size con33(4):893-909. straints in Paleozoic tetrapods. Palaeo~tolog~ 212.600. Case, T.J.1983. Sympatry and size sidarity ia C n e ~ d o p ~ o r uIn s .~ i z aecolr~ ogg: S t u ~ ~ of e sa ~ ou r g~a ~ iesed. ~ ,~ R. B. Huey, E. R. Pianka, and T. W. Schoener, 297-325. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 212,700. Cash, M. N., and J.P. Bogart. 1978. Cytological differentiationof the diploidtetraploid species pair of North American treefrogs (Amphibia, Anura, Hylidae). f. ~erpetol, 12(4):555-58. 213. Cavazos, L. F. 1951. Spermatogenesisof the horned lizard ~ k r ~ ~ ocor~utum. s o ~ a Am. Nut, 85: 373-79. V. Erspamer, and M,Roseghini. 1968. Taxonomicand evolutionary 213.500. Cei, J.M,, significanceof biogenic amines and polypeptides in amphibian skin. 11. Toads of the genera Bufo and ~ e l a ~ o p h r g ~ i s cSyst, u s . Zool, 17(3):232-45. ~ ~ . Censky, E. J. 1986. ~celoporusgraciosus Baird and Girard. Cat. Am. ~ m p kRept. 213.510. 386.1-386.4.. Chamberlin,E. B. 1937. Clark'swater snake on the mid-Texas coast.Copeia 214. 1937(2):140. 214.500. Chambers, R. C. 1977. Energeticsin different lifehistories of Am~gstoma t i g r i ~ u ~ . ~ e r p Rev. e t o l8(3) , (suppl.):4. 214.900. Chaney,A.H. 1982. Kegs to the verte~ratesof Texas. Icingsville, Tex.: Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute. 215. Chaney,A. H.,and R. E. Gordon. 1954. Noteson a population of Sceluporus merriami m e r r i a ~Stejneger. i Tex. f. Sci. 6(1):78-82, the Great Plains.~erpetologica Chantell, C. J. 1966. Late Cenozoic hylids from 216. 22: 259-64. 216.200. Chatterjee,S. 1983. An ictidosaur fossil from North America, Scie~ce220(4602) : 1151-53. 216.209. ,1984. A new ornithischian dinosaur from the Triassic of North h e r ica. ~aturwissckafte~ 71(12): 630-31. 216.210. .1986. ~alerisaurus Za~gsto~i, a new diapsid reptilefrom the Triassic of Texas, f. Vert. P ~ e o ~ t o6(4) l . :297-312. 216.211. .1993. Shuvosaurus, a new tetrapod. Res. ~ x p l 9(3): o ~ 274-85. 16.280. Cheatham, M.1988a. Geographicdistribution, A g ~ i s t r o piscivorus ~o~ le~costo~a, ~erpetol, Rev. r9(1): 19. 208.

216.281. 216.500. 216.610. 216.613.

216.614.

216.616.

.198813. Geographicdistribution.Hemidactylusturcicus turcicus, Her-

): petol. Rev I ~ ( I17-18. Cherfas,J.1978. A tale of two turtles. New Sei, 78(1104): 513-16.

Childs, E. 1987. A newcounty record forthe small mouth salamander in north central Texas. HerpetoZog~17(2):22-23. Chipp~dale,P. T., A. H. Price, and D. M. Hillis. 1993.A new speciesof perennicea; from Austin, Texas. Herpetobranchiate salamander ( ~ ~ r ~ Plet~odontidae)

logica 49(2): 248-59. Chippindale,P. T., D, M. Hillis, and A, H.Price. 1994. Rela~onships,status, and distribution of central Texas hemidac~lineplethodontid salamanders ~ ~ ~ r ~ c e a and ~ p ~ l o ~ Final o l ~ Section e ~ , 6 Report. Austin: Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. 26 PP*

Chippindale,P. T., A. H. Price, and D. M. Hillis. 1998, Systematic status of the San Marcos salamander, ~ ~ r ~nana c e(Caudata: a Plethodontidae).Copeia 198(4) : 1046-49.

216.630.

Chiszar,D., and H. M,Smith. 199x1. Geographicdistribution, Tuntillu nigriceps.

:124. ~ e r p e ~Rev. ~ Z 23(4) .

1992b. Geographicdistribution. ~~~ow o o ~ ~ o ~ s e i . ~ e rRev. p e t23(4): ol,

216.631. 122.

216.632. 217. 218, 218.100, 218.150. 218.200.

219. 220. 220,110.

220.120.

220.130. 220.140. 220.150.

.1992~. Geographicdistribution. ~u~propeZtis t r ~ u n gcelaenops. ~ l ~ ~ Herpetol, Rev. 23(4) :124. C~apliwy, P. S,, and E. V, Malnate. 1961, The systematicstatus of the spadefoot Cope. Tex. J. Sei, 13(2): 160-62. toad Spea ~at~ceps C~apliwy, P. S., and A. J.Ward, Jr. 1963. New records of the western hooknosed ~ i(Cope), a in west Texas.S o ~ t ~ ~ Nat, e s t 8(1): . 52-53. snake, ~ i c ~cana Christian,K.A., C. R, Tracy, and 'W;P. Porter. 1986. The effect of cold exposure during incubation of Scelopor~s~ n d ~ l ueggs. t ~ sCopeia 1986(4): 1012-14. Christman, S. P. 1982. S~oreria~ e k u(Holbrook). ~i Cat, Am.A ~ p ~ Rept. i ~ 306.1. 306.4. Clack, J.A., and R. Holmes. 1988.The braincase of the a n t h r a c o s a ~ Arc~epia crassi~scawith comments on the interrelationshipsof p r ~ i t i tetrapods. ~e Puleonto~og~ ~ I ( I85-107. ): Clark, D.R. 1964. Reproduction and sexual d ~ o r p h i s min a population of the rough earth snake, ~ ~ r g i n i a s ~ r(Linnaeus). iat~lu "ex, J. Sei. 16(3):265-95. ,1966. Notes on sexual dimorphism in tail-length in American snakes. Puns. Kans. Acad. Sei, 69(3-4) :226-32. .1968. Experimentsinto selection of soil type, soil moisture level, and temperature by five speciesof small snakes.Truns. Kans, Acad. Sei. 70(4) : 490-96. ,1970. Loss of the left oviduct in thecolubrid snake genus Tan~i~la, Herpet~~ogica 26(1) :130-33. .1971. Brandmg as a marking technique for amphibians and reptiles. Copeia 1g71(1): 148-51. , 1 9 7 4 ,The western ribbon snake ~ ~ ~ a mp rno x~i mp~; s~Ecology ~ ~ s of a Texas population. HerpetoZogica 30(4) :372-79. .1976. Ecological observations on a Texas population of six-lined racerunners, C n e ~ i d o p ~ o r ~ s s e x(Reptilia, l i ~ ~ e a ~Lacertilia, ~s Teiidae). 1.Herpetol. 10(2): 133-38.

220.200.

220.250.

220.300. 220.400. 220.405.

221.

221,200.

222.

222,001.

222.005. 223. 223.100. 223.108. 223.110. 223.120. 223.130.

223.140. 223.175.

223.200.

223.220. 223.300.

Clark, D, R., and R.R.Fleet. 1976. The rough earth snake ~ ~ i ~ g isnt i~a~ a t u ~ a ~ : Ecology of a Texaspopulation. Southwest. Nut. 20(4) :467-78. Clark, D. R.,E. L. Flickinger,D. H. White, R. L.Hothem, and A. A. Belisle. 1995. Dicofol and DDT residues in lizard carcasses and bird eggs from Texas, Florida, and California.Bull. ~nv~ron. Co~tam. Toxico~.54(6):817-24. Clark, D, R.,and C. S. Kroll. 1974. Thermal ecology of anoline lizards: Temperate I9-19. ) versus tropical strategies. ~outhwest.Nut. I ~ ( : Clark, D, R., and C. S. Lieb. 1973. Noteson reproduction in the night snake (Hgpsiglena t o r ~ u a t aSouthwest. ~. Nut. 18(2):248-52. Clark, D. R.,and G.W Pendleton. 1995.Texas rat snake laphe he o~soletalindh e i ~ e reggs i ~ and hatchlings from acommunal nest. Southwest. Nat. 40(2) : 203-207. Clarke, R. F, 1965. An ethological study of the iguanid lizard genera C~l~suurus, Cophosaurus,and Ho~~rookia. ~ m p ~ rState i a Res, Stud. 8(4):1-66. Clary, J.C., III, and J.K. Keong. 1984. Disease studies aid Kemp’s ridleysea turtle headstart research. ~erpetol.Rev, 15(3) :69-70. Clay, W. M.1938. A synopsisof the North American water snakes of the genus Nutrix. Copeia 1938(4):173-82, on the eggs and offspring of Tuntil~graciZis Cobb, V.A. 1990. Reproductive~otes (Serpentes: Colubridae) with evidence of communal nesting. ~outhwest.Nat. 35(2):222-24. Cobb, V.A,, and L. M. Cobb. 1991.New county records foramphibians and reptiles of east Texas. Herpetol. Rev. 22(1): 27-28. Cochran, D.M.1961. Type specimensof reptiles and amphibians h the United States National Museum. Bull. US.NutI. Mus. 220: 1-291, Cochran, D. M,, and C. J.Goin. 1970. The n e w ~ e l dbook of reptiles and amphi~ians, New York:G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Cole, C. J.1970. Karyotypesand evolution of the spinosus group of lizards in the genus Sceloporus. Am. Mus, Novit. 2431: 1-47. .rg71. Karyotypes of the five monotypic speciesgroups of lizards in the genus Sceloporus. Am. Mus, Novit. 2450:1-17. .1g72. Chromosomevariati~nin North American fence lizards (Genus Sceloporus; undulatus species group). Syst. Zool. 21(4):357-63. ,1975. Karyotypeand systematic status of the sand dune lizard (Sceloporus graciosus arenicolus~of the American Southwest.Herpeto~ogica31(3): 288-93. .1978. Karyotypes and systematics of the lizards in the vuriabilis, ~alapue, and scalaris species groups of the genus Sce~oporus.Am. Mus. Novit. 2653 :1-13. Cole, C. J., H. C, Dessauer, and G. F. Barrowclough. 1988.Hybrid originof a unisexual species of whiptail lizard,C n e ~ i d o p ~ o rneomexicanus, us in western North America: New evidence and a review.Am,Mus. Novit, 2905:1-38. Cole, C. J.,and L.M, Hardy, 1981. Systematicsof North American colubrid l e ) .Am. Mus. Nut. Hist. 171(3) : snakes related to Tantillapluniceps ( ~ l a ~ ~ i lBull. 199-284. .1983a,Tant~~Ia atriceps (~unther). Cat. Am. A ~ p ~ iRept. b . 317.1-317.2. .1983b. Ta~tilla ho~artsmit~i Taylor. Cut. An A m p ~ iRept. ~ . 318.1-318.2. Cole, C. J., C. H. Lowe,and J.W. Wright. 1968. Karyotypesof eight species of toads (genus Bufo) in North America. Copeia 1968(1):96-100.

223.440. Collins,J.T. 1990.Standard common and currentscientific names for North SSAR Herpeto~,Circ. 19. American amphibians and reptiles, 3rd edition. .1997.Standard common and current scientific names for North Ameri223.450. can amp~biansand reptiles, 4th edition. SSAR Herpetoz. Circ. 25. 223.460. Collins,J.T., R. Conant, J. E.Huheey,J.L.Knight, E.M. Rundquist, and H. M. Smith. 1982.Standard common and scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles, 2nd edition. SSAR ~erpetol.Circ. 12. Collins, J.T., J.E, Huheey,J. L.Knight, and H. M.Smith. 1978.Standard common and current scientificnames for North American amphibians and reptiles. SSAR Herpetol, Circ. 7. 223.500. Collins,J.T., and J. C. Knight. 1980. Crotalus horridus. Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 253.1-253.2. Conant, R. 1942.Notes on theyoung of three recently described snakes, with 224. comments upon their relationships. Bull. Chi. Acad. Sei, 6(10):193-200. .1949.Two new races of Natrix er~throgaste~ Copeia 1949(r):1-15. 225. .1955.Notes on three Texas reptiles,including an addition to the fauna 226. of the state. Am. Mus. Novit. 1726:1-6. -1956. A review of two rare pine snakes from the Gulf Coastal Plain. Am. 227. Mus. Novit. 1781: 1-31. .1958,Afield guide to reptiles andamph~biansof the ~ n i t e dStates and 228. Canadu east of the rooth meri~an. Boston: Houghton M a i n Co. .1960,The queen snake, Natrix septemvittata, in the interior highlands 229. of Arkansas and Missouri, with comments upon similar disjunct distributions, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila. 112(2):25-40. .1963.Evidence forthe specific status of the water snake, Natrix fasciata. 230. Am. Mus. Novit. 2122:1-38. .1969. A review of the water snakes of the genus Natrix in Mexico. Bull. 230,100. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist, 142(1) :3-140. ,1973. Reviews and comments: Amphibiansand reptiles in Texas. Copeia 230.110. I973(1): 184-85. .1975. field guide to the reptiles andamphi~iansof eastern and c e n t r ~ 230.120. North Americu, 2nd edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. ,1977.The Floridawater snake (Reptilia:Serpentes,Colubridae) estab230.130. lished at Brownsville, Texas,with comments on other herpetologicalintroductions in the area. J.Herpetol. 11(2): 217-20. .1977(1978). Semiaquatic reptilesand amphibians of the Chihuahuan 230.140, desert and their relationshipsto drainage patterns of the region, In ~ransactions of the s~mposiumon the ~iologicalresources of the Chihuahuan ~esertregion, ~ n i t e d States andMexico, ed. R.W, Wauer and D. H. Riskind, Ser.3: 455-91. Alpine, Tex.: National Park Service. 1978.Distribution patterns of North American snakes: Some examples 230.150. of the effects of Pleistocene glaciationand subsequent climatic changes, Bull. :24.1-59. Md. ~erpetol.Soc. 14(4) 230.200. Conant, R.,and J.F. Berry. 1978.Turtles of the family Kinosternidaein the southwestern United States and adjacent Mexico: Identification and distribution. Am. Mus. Novit. 2642:1-18. 231. Conant, R., and W. Bridges. 1939.c hat snake is that?New York:D. AppletonCentury Co.

Conant, R., F. R. Cagle, C. G. Goin, C. H. Lowe,Jr., W. T. Neill,M. G. Netting, K,P. Schmidt, C. E.Shaw, R. C. Stebbins, and C, M. Bogert. 1956. Common names for North Americanamphibians andreptiles. Cupeia 1956(3):172-85. ~s~ Conant,R., and J. T. Collins, 1991.Afield guide to repti~esand a ~ p h i b i a Eastern and central Nurth America. Boston: Houghton M~ Co. Eastern and centra^ N o ~ t ~ .1998. Afield guide to repti~esand amphibiu?~s: A~er~ca, 3rd edition (expanded). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Conn, D, B., and C. T, McAllister. 1990. An aberrant acephalic metacestode and otherparasites of ~ u s t i c o p ~ i s ~ a g e l (Reptilia: lum Serpentes) from Texas, J ~elminthol.Soc. as^. 57(2): 140-45. attacks on humans in the Conover, M. R.,and T. J. Dubow. 1997. Alligator United States.~erpetol.Rev. 28(3): 120-24. Conway, W. C., J. T. Anderson, and K.G. Ostrand, 1997. Geographic distribution. Pseudacris clarki. ~erpetol.Rev. 28(4):208. Cook, M.L., and B. C. Brown. 1974. Variationin the genus~ e s m o g n a t ~ u s (Amphibia: Plethodontidae)in the western limitsof its range. f. ~erpetol.8(1) : 93-105. Cook, R. S., D. 0. Trainer, W. C. Glazener, and B. D. Nassif. 1965.A serological

study of infectious diseasesof wild popu~ationsin south Texas. Trans. NorthAm. ~ i lNut. ~ re . so^^ ConJ13 :142-55. Coombs, W P.,Jr. 1995. A new nodosauridadylosaur (Dinosauria: 0rnithBchia) from the Lower Cretaceousof Texas. 1.Vert. ~aleontul.15(2):298-312. and sex recognition Cooper, W. E., Jr. 1984.Female secondary sexual coloration in the keeled earless lizard, ~ulbrou~iapropinquu. Anim, ~ e h 32(4) a ~ :11qa-50. .1985. Fernale residencyand courtshipintensity in a territorial lizard, ~ulbruokiapropi~~ua. Amp~b.-Rept~ 6(1): 63-69. .1986. Chromatic components of female secondary sexual coloration: In~uenceon social behaviorof male keeled earless lizards ~~ulbrookiapropinqua). ~opeiu 1986(4):980-86. , 1 9 8 8 Aggressive ~~ behaviorand courtshiprejection in brightly and plainly colored female keeled earless lizards ~ ~ o l b ~ u upropinqua). kia tho lo^^ 77: 265-78. .1988b. E ~ ~ e cluticeps es (Schneider),Cat. Am,Amphib. Rept. 445.1445.3. .1998. Direction of predator turning,a neglected cue to predation risk. ~ e ~ u v i u135(1): ur 55-64, Cooper, W. E.,Jr., C. S. Adams, and J.L. Dobie. 1983. Female colorchange in the keeled earless lizard, ~ulbruu~iu propi~qua~ elations ship to the reproductive cycle. Southwest. Nat. 28(3):275-80. Cooper, W. E., Jr., and A, J. Billy. 1988. Life history notes.Sauria. ~celuporusundulatus consob~inus.Coloration. ~erpetol.Rev. 19(2) :34. Cooper, W. E., Jr., and R. F. Clarke, 1982. Steroidalinductionof female reproduc~ o ~ b r u o kprupin~ua. ia ~erpetu~ug~ca tive colorationin thekeeled earless lizard, 38(3):425-29. Cooper, W. E.,Jr., and D. Crews. 1987. Hormonal induction of secondarysexual ~ulbrook~u coloration and rejection behaviorin female keeled earless lizards, prupin~ua.Anim. ~ e 35(4): ~ 1177-87. a ~ .1988. Sexual coloration, plasma concentrationsof sex steroidhor-

mones, and responses to courtship in the female keeledearless lizard ~ ~ o l b r o o k i a

prop in qua^. ~ o r m o n e Behav. s 22: 12-25.

233.501.

Cooper, W. E,, and L.J.Guillette.1991. Observationson activity, display behavior, coloration, and androgen levels in thekeeled earless lizard,~olbrookia

propin~ua. Amphib.-~ept. 1z(1):57-66.

235. 236. 237. 238,

240. 241.

242.

243. 244. 245. 246.

249. 250,

251. 252.

252.100.

Cope, E. D. 1859. Catalogue of the venomous serpents in theMuseum of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,with notes on thefamilies, genera, and species. Proc. Acad. Nut. Sci. Phila.11 :332-47. .1860a.Catalogue of the Colubridae in theMuseum of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,with notes and descriptions of new species.IT. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila.12:242-66. .1860b.Notes and descriptionsof new and little known species of American reptiles. Proc. Acad. Nat, Sei, Phila. 12 :339-44. .1860c. Descriptions of reptiles fromtropical America. Proc, Acad. Nat. Sei, Phil~.12: 368-74. ,1860d. Catalogue of the Colubridae in the Museum of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,111.Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei.P ~ i l a12 . :553-56. .1863. On ~ruch~cephalus, Scaphiopus, and other American Proc. Acad, Nat. Sei. €‘hila,14:43-54. .1867. A review of the species of the Amblystomidae.Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei, P ~ i l a18: . 166-211. .1872. Synopsis of the species of the Chelydriiae. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei.

Phila. 24: 22-29, .1875. Check-list of North American Batrachia and Reptilia with a systematic list of the higher groups, and an essay on geographic distribution. Bull. US,Natl. Mus. I :1-104. .1878a. A Texas ClifTfrog.Am. Nat. 12: 186. ,1878b. A new genus of Cystignathidae from Texas. Am. Nat. 12: 253. ,1880. On the zoological positionof Texas. Bull. US.Natl. Mus. 17: 1-51. ,1883. Notes on thegeographic distribution of Batrachia and Reptilia in western North America. Proc, h a d . Nat. Sei. Phila. 35 :10-35. ,1886a. The habits of ~ublepharisvariegatus, Am.Nat. 20: 735-36. 1886b. Synonymic list of the North American speciesof Bufo and.Rana, with descriptions of some new species of Batrachia from specimensin the National Museum. Proc. Am. Ph~l.Soc. 23 :514-26. 1888a. On a new speciesof Bufo from Texas.Proc. US.~ u t lMus. , T I :317-18. .1888b. Catalogue of Batrachia and Reptilia brought by William Taylor from San Diego, Texas.€‘roc. US.Nat~,Mus. 11 :395-98. .1889. The Batrachia of North America, Bull. US.Natl, Mus. 34: 1-525. ,1891, A critical review of the characters and variations of the snakes of North America, Proc. US. Natl. Mus. 14: 589-694. ,1892a. A synopsisof the species of the teiid genus Cnemidop~or~s. ~rans. Am. P ~ i lSoc. . 17(1) :27-52. .1892b, The Batrachia and Reptilia of northwestern Texas. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. P~zila,443331-37. .1893. On a new spadefoot from Texas. Am.Nat. 27: 155-56. I

255. 256. 257. 257.150. 257.175. 257.190. 257.191.

257.200. 257.210.

257.300.

257.500. 258. 259. 259.500. 260. 261. 261.100. 262. 263. 264. 264.500. 265. 265.300. 265.800.

1895a. Classification of the Ophidia. Trans, Am. Phil. Soc. 18:186-219. ,1895b. On somenew North American snakes, Am. Nat. 29:676-80. goo. The crocodilians, lizards, and snakes of North America. Annu. Rept. US. Natl. Mus. 1898: 155-1294. Cordes, J.E. 1988. Geographicdistribution. Storeria dekayi texana(Texas brown ) snake). ~crpetol.Rev. I ~ ( I:21. Cordes, J.E., and J.M.Walker. 1987. Geographicdistribution. Cnemidopkorus sexlineatus viridis.~erpetol.Rev. 18(2):40. Cordes, J.E., J.M.Walker, and R. M.Abuhteba 199oa. Cnemidop~or~s gularis Tex. J.Sei. 42(2):209-10. septe~vittatus(Teiidae) from Pecos County, Texas. .I990b. Genetic homogeneityin geographically remotepopulationsof us Teiidae). Tex. J.Sei. parthenogenetic Cnemi~ophorusn e o ~ e ~ i c a n (Sauria: 42(3):303-305. Cordes, J. E.,J.M.Walker, and M.S. Calaway. 1987. Geographicdistribution. Gerr~onotusliocepkalusin~ernalis.~erpetol,Rev. 18(2):40. Cordes, J. E.,J. M.Walker,J.F, Scudday,and R, M.Abuhteba. 1989. Distribution and habitat of the parthenogenetic whiptail lizard, Cnemidophorusneome~icanus (Sauria:Teiidae) in Texas. Tex. J.Sei. 41(4):425-28. Cottam, C., W. C. Glazener,and G. G. Raun. 1959. Food of moccasins and rattle. Consnakes from the Welder Wildlife Refuge,Sinton, Texas. Welder ~ i l d ZFound. trib. 45: 1-12. Cover, J.F. 1985. Life history notes. TropidocZonionlineat~mannectens X texanum (central X Texas linedsnake). Coloration.~erpetol.Rev. 16(3):81. Craun, V, S. 1948. Commercial caves ofTexas.Bull. Natl. Speleol. Soc. 10:33-45. Creel, G. C. 1963. Bat as a food item of Ranapipiens. Tex. J.Sci. 15(1):104-106. Crews, D.,and L.J. Long. 1991.Pseudocopulation in nature ina unisexual whiptail lizard. Anim. Behav, 42(3) :512-14. Crimmins,M.L. 1925. An additionto the herpetologicalfauna of the United States. Copeia 1925(1): 7. .1926. Collecting rattlesnake venom to be usedin making antivenin serum. J.Am.Med. Assoc. 87: 1645. Inst. ~ ~Am. I(I): .1927a. Notes on Texas rattlesnakes. Bull. A n t ~ v e n 23-24. .1g27b. Facts about Texas snakes and their poison. Tex. State J.Med. 23(3):198-203. .1931. Rattlesnakesand their enemies in the Southwest. Bull. Antivenin Inst. Am. 5(2):46-47. ,1946. The treatment of poisonous snake bites in Texas. Proc. Trans. Tex. Acad. Sei. 24:54-61. Crouch, G. E. 1978. An ecologicalstudy of the American alligatorin a reservoir receiving thermal effluents.Master’sAbstt: 16(2):78. Crouse,H, W. 1902, The venomous snakes and spiders of Texas, Trans. State Med. Assoc. (unpaginated reprint). Crum, C. 1983. Notes concerning locality data of Texas reptiles,Trans. ~ a l ~ a s ~erpetol.Soc. 5:1-2. Cuellar, H,S. 1971. Levels ofgenetic compatibilityof Rana areolat~with southwestern members of the Rana pipienscomplex (Anura: Ranidae). volution 25(2):399-409.

Cuellar, 0.1966a. Delayed fertilizationin thelizard Uta stansburiana. Copeia 1966(3):549-57. .1966b, Oviductal anatomy and sperm storage structures in lizards. 267. J.~ o r p h o lI. I ~ ( : I7-20, ) .1984. Reproduction in a parthenogenetic lizard, with a discussionof 267.010. optimal clutch size and a critique of the clutch weight I body weight ratio. Am, Mid. Nat. 111(2):242-58. 267.500. Culley, D. D., and H. G. Applegate. 1967. Pesticidesat Presidio. IV.Reptiles, birds, and mammals. Tex. JSei. 19(3):301-10. Curran, C. H., and C, Kauffeld. 1937.Snakes and their wags. New York:Harper 268. and Bros. Curtis, L. 1949a. Thesnakes ofDallas County, Texas.FieldLab 17(1):1-13. 269. ,194qb. A key to the snakes of Dallas County, Texas. F~eldLab17(4): 2 70. 146-50. .195oa.Distribution of some Texas reptiles and amphibians. F ~ eLab l~ 271. 18(1):47. .1950b. A case of twin hatching in the rough green snake. Copeia 272. 1950(3):232. .1g51a. An additionalrecord of the salamander A ~ p h in~Texas. ~ ~ a 273. Fie~dLab 19(2):84. .1951b. Physiographicinfluence of the Edwards Plateau on its endemic 2 74. amphibian fauna-a resume. ~ i e l Lab d 19(3):119-24. . 1952. Cannibalism in the Texas coral snake. ~erpeto~ogica 8(2):27. 275. Curtis, L., and D, Sellers. 1952. Range extension of Natr~xgra~amiB, and G. in 276. Texas. Field Lab 20(I):34. Curtis, L., and D, W. Tinkle. 1951. The stripedwater snake, Natr~xrigi~a(Say), 277. in Texas. F~eldLub19(2): 72-74. 277.400. Cutting, R. H., and L. R.Irby. 1970. A radioecologicalstudy of White Creek, Brazos County, Texas.TASCA 24(3):3-8. 277.800. Cys, J.M. 1976. New county records and range extensionsof some west Texas reptiles. ~erpetol.Rev. 7(3):126. Dalquest, W.W. 1962. Tortoises fromthe Pliocene of Texas, Tex. J.Sei. 14(2): 278. 192-96. .1963. Large amphibian ichnites from the Permian of Texas. Tex. J.Sci. 278.002. 15(2) :220-24. 278.050. Dalquest, W. W., and M. J.ICocurlro. 1986, Geology and vertebrate paleontology S o ~ t ~ w e sNut. t. of a Lower Permian delta margin in Baylor County, Texas. 31(4):477-92* Dana, S. W., and D, W. Tinkle. 1965.Effects ofX-radiation on thetestes of the 279. . 9(1):67-80. lizard, Uta stansburiana ste~negeri,Int. J.R a ~ a tBiol, Daugherty, A. E. 1942. A record of ~ r a p t e ~pseu~ogeograp~ica gs versa. Copeia 280, 1942(1):51. Davenport,J.W, 1943. Field book of the snakes of Bexar Countg, Texas, and vicinitg. 281. San Antonio: Witte Memorial Museum. 282. Davis, D. D, 1948. Flash displayof aposematiccolors in Farancia and other snakes. Copeia 1948(3):208-11. 282.200. Davis, H. T., and C. S. Brimley. 1944. Poisonous snakes of the eastern United States w i t ~ ~ raid s t guide. Raleigh: North Carolina State Museum.

266.

283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288, 289. 289,400. 289.410. 289.595. 289.600. 290.

290.100. 90,110.

290,120. 290.200. 291,

Davis, W, B. 1938. W h i t e ~ t ~ o a tsparrow ed killed bycopperhead. Condor 40(4):183. .1945. Thehatching of Leiolopisma latera~e.Copeia 1945(2):115-16. .1949. The smooth green snake in Texas. Copeia 1949(3):233. .1951. Food of the black-banded snake, Con~ophanesimperial~s imperiu~s Baird. Copeia 1951(4): 314. .1953. Another record of the smooth green snake in Texas. ~erpetologica 9(2):165. Davis, W. B., and J.R, Dixon. 1958.A new C o l e o ~ from ~ x Texas.Proc. Biol. Soc. ~ U S h71 . :149-52. on the salamander Siren ~ ~ t e r m e ~ a . Davis, W. B., and F. T, Knapp. 1953. Notes Copeia 1953(2):119-21. us in Texas. Davis, W. K.1974. TheMediterranean gecko,~ e m i d a c t ~ lturcicus, I; ~erpetol.8(1): 77-80. de Ruiter, M.1993. ErsteNachzucht des Gray-Wara~s.DATZ 46(10):619, Dean, R. H. 1984. Karyotypic, genic,and mo~hologicalvariation in thelizard ~celoporusolivaceus. Ph.D. diss,,Texas A&M University, College Station. 131 pp. Dean, R. H., and D. W. Steinbach, 1981. Endangered marine turtles of the Gulf Coast. Tex. Agric, Ext. Sel: L-1867:1-5. Degenhardt, W. G. 1966. A method of counting some diurnal ground lizards of i a Cnemidophorus with results from the Big Bend Nathe genera ~ o l b r o o ~and tional Park. Am. ~~~.Nat. 75(1) :61-100. 1967. Reptiliandistribution in Big BendNational Park, Texas. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 48(2):82. .1977(1978).A changing environment: Documentationof lizards and plants over a decades. In Tra~sactionsof the s ~ ~ p o s i uonmthe biological r e s o u ~ e s of the Chihuahuan desert region, United States and ~ e x i c oed. , R. W. Wauer and D. H. Riskind, Ser.3:533-55. Alpine, Tex.: National Park Service. .1984. Geographicdistribution. Leptot~phlopsdulcis dulcis.~erpetol,Rev. 15(4):114-15. Degenhardt,W. G,, T, L,Brown, and D. A.Esterla, 1976. The taxonomic status of Ta~tillacucullata and Tantilla ~ a ~ o lTex, u , I; Sei. 17(1) :225-34. Degenhardt, W. G., and P. B. Degenhardt. 1965. The host-parasiterel~tionshi~ between ~ l a psuboc~aris ~~e (Reptilia: Colubridae) and Aponomma elaphensis (Acarina: Ixodidae). ~outhwest.Net. 10(3):167-78. De~enhardt,W. G., and K. L.Jones. 1972.A new sagebrush lizard, Seeloporusgraciosus, from New Mexicoand Texas, ~erpetologica28(3) :212-17. De~enhardt,W. G., and W. W. Milstead. 1959. Noteson a second specimen of the snake TantiZla cuculla~aMinton. ~erpetologica15(3):158-59. De~enhardt,W. G., and G. E. Steele, 1957. Additional specimens of T r i ~ o r p h o d o ~ vil~insonifrom Texas.Copeia 1957(4):309-IO. de la Reza, A. G., C. Balcome, and T.Schlenke, 1998. Geographicdistribution. ~ ~ r r h o p hc~stignathoides. us ~erpetol.Rev, 29(2):108-109. Delisle, K.,and F. L. Rose. 1973. Serum protein changes during ~ e t a ~ o r p h o s i s in ~ ~ b ~ stigri~um. t o ~ Comp. u Biochem. Ph~siol.44A:1015-20. Delnicki, D., and E. Bolen. 1977. Useof bla~k-belliedduck nest sites by other species. ~outhwest.Nat. 22(2) :275-77.

Delvinquier,B. L. J., and S. S. Dresser. 1996. Opalinidae(Sarcomastigophora)in North American Amphibia. Genus Opalina Purkinje & Valentin, 1835.Syst, Parusitol, 33(1):33-51. 293.800. DeMar, R. E. 1967. Two new speciesof Broiliellus (Amphibia)from the Permian of Texas. ~ieldianuGeol, 16(5): 117-29. 293.820. Densmore,L. D,, III,F. L. Rose, and S. J.ICain. 1992.Mitochon~ialDNA evolua ) special referenceto tion and speciation in water snakes (genus ~ e r o ~with ~ e r o ~hurteri. iu Herpetologicu48(I):60-68, and within nominal 293.8754 Dessauer, H. C., and C. J.Cole. 1989. Diversity between n ecology of u n i s e ~ ~vertebrates, al forms of unisexual teiid lizards.In E v o l ~ t ~ oand ed. R. M,Dawly and J. P. Bogart, 466:49--71. NewYork: Bulletin of the New York State muse^. 293.885. Dessauer, H. C., T. W. Reeder, C. J. Cole, and A. Knight. 1996. Rapid screening of DNA diversity using dot-blot technologyand allele-specific oligonucleotides: Cne~idophor~s). ternity of hybrids and unisexual clones of hybrid origin (lizards, ~ o l e cPhyloge~zet. . Evol. 6(3):366-72. Detrie, A. J.1950. Osteologyof the skull of Phrynoso~uc ~ r n ~( t u ~ 294. Lab 18(4):146-55. Dial, B, E. 1965. Distributionalnotes on reptiles and amphibians from northeast295. ern Texas. South~est.Nut. 10(2):143-44. .1965. Pattern and coloration in juveniles of two west TexasEluphe, Her296. petologicu 21(1): 75-78. ‘1g78a. Aspects of the behavioral ecology of two Chihuahuan desert 296.100. eckos (Reptilia, Lacertilia, Gekkonidae). f. ~erpetol, 12(2): 209-16. .1978b. The thermal ecology of two sympatric,nocturnal CoZeo~y~ (Lac296.110. ertilia: Gekkonidae).Herpetologicu 34(2):194-201. ,1986. Tail displayin two species of iguanid lizards: A test of the “preda296.120. tor signal”hypothesis. Am. Nut, 127(1):103-11. ,1990. Predator-prey signals:Chemosenso~ ide~ti~cation of snake 296,121. predators by eublepharid lizards and its ecological consequences, In Chem~cul s i ~ n ~inl svertebrates5,ed. D. W. McDon~d, D. Muller-Schwarze,and S. E. Natynczuk, 555-65. New York: Oxford~niversityPress. 296.300. Dial, B. E.,and L.C. Fitzpatrick. 1981. The energetic costs of tail autotomy to reproduction in thelizard C ~ Z e o brevis n ~ ~ (Sauria: Gekkonidae).Oecologia 51: 310-17. 296.310. .1982. Evaporativewater loss in sympatric C o ~ e o(Sauria: ~ z ~ ~Ge dae). C o ~ p~. ~ o c ~Physiol. e m . 71(4A) :623-25. 296.320. ,1983. Lizard tail autotomy: Function and energeticsof postautoto~y tail movement in Scincellu later~lis.Science 219(4583) :291-393. 296.400. Dial, B, E.,and L. L. Grismer, 1992.A phylogenetic analysis of physiologicalecological character evolution in the lizard genus C o l e o n and ~ ~ its implications for historical bio~eographicreconstruction. Syst. Bid. 41(2) :178-95. o g Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Doranand Dickerson, M.C. 1931. ~ ~ e f r book. 297. Co. 298. Diener, R.A. 1957. An ecologicalstudy of the plain-bellied water snake. ~erpeto-

293.700.

logica 13(3): 202-11.

299.

,1965. The occurrence of tadpoles of the green treefrogH ~ l ci~ereu u ci~2erea(Schneider)in Trinity Bay, Texas.Brit. f. Herpetol, 3(8):198-99.

299.080. 299.081. 299.082. 300. 300.100. 300.105. 301. 302. 303. 304. 304.500.

305.

306. 307. 308. 308.005. 309. 310. 311. 312. 312.100. 312.110. 312,120, 312.130. 312.141. 312.142. 312.143.

Dilkes, D. W 1990.A new trematopsid amphibian (Temnospondyli:Dissorophoidea) fromthe Lower Permian of Texas. J.Vert. P~eontol.10(2): 222-43. .19g1.Reinterpretation of a larval dissorophoidamphibian from the Lower Permian of Texas. Can,J.Earth Sei, 28(9) :1488-92. .1qg3. Biology and evolution of the nasal region in trematopid amphibians. Palaeontologg 36(4): 839-53. Ditmars, R. L. 1922. The reptile book.Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Pageand Co. .1927a.Occurrence and habits of our poisonous snakes. Bull. A~tivenin Inst, Am. I(I): 3-5. .1927b. Afield bookof North Arnerican snakes. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co. -1930.The poisonoussnakes of the New World.Bull. N.Y; Zool. Soc. 33(3): 79-132. 1931.Snakes of the world. New York: Macmillan and Co. .1934. A review of the box turtles. Zoologica 17(1):1-44. .1946. The reptilesof North America.New York: Doubledayand CO, Dixon, J. M,, J.E.Cordes, J. F,Scudday,R. V; Kilambi, and C. C. Cohn. 1991. Activity, temperature, age, size, and reproduction in theparthenogenetic whiptail lizard Cnemidophorus dixoniin the Chinati Mountains in Trans-Pecos Texas.Am. ~ i d lNut. . 126:256-68. Dixon, J.R. 1952. A large bull snake, Pituophis c a t e ~ ~sagi, e r from Texas.Copeia 1952(3): 193. .I956. The mottled rockrattlesnake, Crotalus lepidus lepidus, in Edwards County, Texas.Copeia 1956(2): 126-27. .1957. Notes on the glossy snake, Arizona eZega~s,in Texas. ~ o u t ~ w e s t . Nut. 2(3): 132-33. .1958.The warty gecko from Laredo, Texas. HerpetoZogica 13(4) :256. .1959a. Arizona elegansin southeastern Texas, ~erpetologica15(2) :72. .195913. Geographicvariation and distribution of the long-tailed group of the glossy snake, Arizona elegansKennicott. Southwest, Nut. 4(1): 20-29. .1960a. A new name for the snake Arizona elegans arizo~ae.Southwest, Nut. 5(4): 226. .1960b. Epizoophytic algae on some turtles of Texas and Mexico. Tex. J. Sei. 12(1--2) :36-38. .1965. A taxonomic reevaluation of the night snake, HgpsigZena ochro~ g n ~ hand a , relatives. Southwest. Nut. 10(2) :125-31. .~ g p aCoZeongx . brevis, Cat. Am. amp hi^, Rept. 88.1-88.2. .1g70b, Coleo~gxreticulatus. Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 89.1-89.2. .1970~.Co~eongx.Cat. Am, Arnphib. Rept. 95.1-95.2. .1g70d. A noteworthy record of Eurneces mul~~vi~gatus from Texas.S o u t ~ west. Nut. 15(4): 502. .1987. Amphibians and reptilesof Texas. W. L.Moody, Jr., Nat. Hist. Ser.8. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. .1g93. Supplement to the literature for the Amph~biansand reptilesof Texas, 1987. Smithson. Herpetol.lnfo. Serv, 94:r-43. .1996a. Texas herpetologicalliterature: 1828-1996. Tex. Herpetol. Soc., I

Spec. Publ. I :1-201.

312.144.

312.145. 312.180.

312.300. 312.400. 312.700. 312.701. 312.702. 312.703. 312.704. 312.705. 312.706.

313. 314. 315.100. 315.110.

315.224. 315.225.

.1996b. Ten year supplementto Texas herpetologicalcounty records published in Amp~ibiunsand reptiles of Texas, 1987. Tex. Herpetol. Soc., Spec. Publ, (2): 1-64. ,1997.1997 supplementto Texas herpetologicalcounty records and Texas literature. Tex. Herp~tol.Soc., Spec, Publ. 3 :1-14. Dixon, J. R., and R. H. Dean. 1986. Status of the southern populations of the night snake (Hypsiglenu;Colubridae) exclusive of California and Baja California. Sout~weSt.Nut. 31(3):307-18. Dixon, J. R., and R, R. Fleet. 1976.Arizona elegu~s Kennicott. Cut. Am. A m p ~ i ~ . Rept. 1976:179.1-179.4. Dixon, J. R., M. Sabath, and R. Worthington. 1962. Commentson snakes from central and western Mexico. ~erpetologicu18(2):91-100. Dixon J. R., and 0, W. Thornton. 1996a. Geographicdistribution. Acris crepituns ~ l u n c ~ u r ~ i . ~ e rRev. p e t27(1) o l . :29. .1996b. Geographicdistribution. Bufo wood~ouseiwood~ousei.Herpetol. Rev. 27(1):29. , 1 9 9 6 ~Geographic . distribution. Runu cutesbeiunu. Herpetol. Rev. 27(1):30. .1996d. Geographicdistribution. C ~ e ~ y d~erpentinu ru serpent~izu,H~rpetol. Rev. 27(1):31. scripta eleguns. Herpetol. Rev. .1996e. Geographicdistribution. Truc~emys 27(1):31. .1996f. Geographicdistribution. Terrupene ornutu ornutu.Herpetol. Rev. 27(1):31. .199615. Geographicd~stribut~on. Agkistro~o~ ~ontortrix lutic~~ct~s. Herpetol. Rev. 27(1):33. .199611. Geographicdistribution.N e r o r~~~o m ~ i f err u~ o ~ ~Herpetol. ~ e r ~ . Rev. 27(1):35, Dixon, J. R., R. K.Vaughan, and L. D. Wilson. Thetaxonomy of Tu~tillu cuc~llutu and allied taxa (Serpentes, Colubridae).S o u t ~ ~ e Nut. s t . In press 1999. do Amaral, A. 1927a. Noteson Nearctic poisonoussnakes and treatment of their bites. Bull. Antivenin Inst. Am.1(3):61-76. .1927b. The anti-snake bite campaign in Texas and in the subtropical United States. Bull, Antivenin Inst. Am.1(3):77-85. .1929a. Key to the rattlesnakes of the genus CrotulusLinne, 1758. Bull. Antive~inInst. Am, 3(1):4-6, .1929b. Studies on Nearctic Ophidia.V. On Crotuluscon~uentusSay, 1823 and its allied forms.Bull. A~tiveninInst. Am, 2(4):86-97. i ~482.1-482.2. . Dodd, C. K., Jr. 1990a. Curettu Rafinesque.Cut. Am. A ~ p ~Rept. .Iggob, Curettu curettu(Linnaeus).Cut. Am. A m p ~ iRept, ~ , 483.1-483.7. Dodd, C. K.,Jr., and R. Byles. 1991. The status of the loggerhead, Curettu curettu, Kemp's ridley,~ e p i ~ o c ~kempi, e l ~ and s green, C~eloniu mydus. Sea turtles in U.S. waters: A reconsideration.~u~ Fish. Rev. 53(3):30-31. Donaldson, W., A. H. Price, and J.Morse. 1993. Texashorned lizard ~P~rynosomu l . Find Rept., Tex. Proj. E-1-4,21. cornutum~status survey. Tex. Parks ~ i l ~Dept. ,1994. The current statusand future prospects of the Texas horned lizard ~P~rynosomu cornutum~in Texas. Tex. I; Sci. 46(2) :97-113.

315.250. 315.253. 315.260. 315.261. 315.270. 315.271. 315.272. 315.295316.

317. 318,

319. 319.100. 319.110. 319.495'

319,500.

319.600. 319.800.

320. 320.100.

320.110, 320.120, 321.

Dorcas, M. E. 1990. Geographicdistribution. Masticophis~agellum~agellum. Herpetol. Rev. 21(1):23. .1gg2, Relationships among montane populations of C r o t ~ u~epidus s and Crotalus triseriatus, In Biolog~of thep~tvipers,ed. J. A. Campbell and E.D. Brodie, Jr.,71-87. Tyler, Tex.: Selva. Dorcas, M. E,,and M. B. Harvey, 1ggoa. Geographicdistribution, Graptem~s k o h ~ iHerpetol. . Rev. 21(2): 39. .Iggob. Geographicdistribution. Nerod~arhomb~era.~erpetol.Rev, 21(2):41.

Dorcas, M. E., and J. R,Mendelson III, Iggoa. Geographicdistribution. Arizo~a elega~sarenicolor [sic]. ~erpetol.Rev. 21(1) :23. .Iggob. Geographicdis~ribution.L a m ~ r o p e ~getulus t ~ s ho~brook~. ~erpeto~. Rev. 21(1): 23. 1991. Distributional notes on ~ e r o harteri ~ u hurt er^ in Parker and Palo Pinto Counties, Texas.Herpetol. Rev. 22(4): 117-18. Doughty, R.W. 1984. Sea turtles in Texas: A forgotten commerce.S o u t ~ w e s ~ , Hist. Q. 88:43-70. Dowling, H.G, 1951. A taxonomic study of the ratsnakes, genus ~ l a p kFitzinger. e I, The status of the name Scotophis luetusBaird and Girard (1853). Copeia r951(1):39-44* .1g52. A taxonomic study of the ratsnakes, genus laph he Fitzinger. IV. A check listof the American forms.Occas. Pap. us. 21001. Unix ~ i c k 541 . :1-12. .1956, Geographicrelations of Ozarkian amphibians and reptiles. Southwest, Nut. 1(4):174--89. .1g57. A taxonomic study of the ratsnakes, genus ~ l a pFitzinger. ~e V, The rosalie section. Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. ~ i c h583 . :1-22. ,1975. Snake venoms and venomous snakes. In 1974 ~ e a r ~ ooof kherpetolog~,ed. H,G. Dowling, 203-12. New York: HISS Publishing. p ~ e Dowling, H,G,, and R.M.Price. 1988. A proposed newgenus for ~ ~ usuboculuris and laph he rosalie. Snake20:52-63. Dronen, N.0.1994. Utilization of the trophic structure of small pond ecosystems by helminths of frogs, Rana catesbeia~aand Runa utr~culuria.Tex. 1.Sci. 46(2) : 173-86. Dronen, N., and H, T. Underwood.1977. The life cycleof Cep~alogonimusvesicaudus (Digenea: Cephalogonimidae) from ~ r i sp~ni~erus ~ ~ from ~ x Texas.Proc, ~ e l m i ~ t h oSoc. l . ask. 44(2) :198-200. Dryden, L. S. 1985. Geographicdistribution. C ~ e ~ i d o p h o rluredoe~sis. us ~er~etol. Rev. 16(2) :60. Dubois, A., and W. H, Heyer.1992. ~~eptodact~lus labialis, the valid name for the America~white-lipp~dfrog (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae). Copeia 1gg2(2) : 584-85. Duell~an, W. E. 1958. A monographic study of the colubrid snake genus Leptodeiru. Bull. Am. h us. Nut. Hist. 114: 1-152. .1967, Additional studies of chromosomes of anuran amphibia~s. S@. 2001.16(1): 38-43. 1968a.Sm~~iscu. Cat. Am.Ampki~.Rept. 58.1-58.2. .1968b. Smilisca b a u ~ ~Cat. i i , Am. Amp~ib. Rept. 59.1-59.2. Duellman, W. E.,and B, Berg. 1962. Type specimensof amphibians and reptiles

322. 322.100. 322.200. 323. 323.100. 323.101. 323Cr02. 323.200.

323.210.

323.220.

323,230.

323.238.

323.245.

in theMuseum of Natural History, the University of Kansas. Unis. Kans. Publ. Mus, Nat. Hist. 15(4):183-204. DueUman, W. E., and R. G. Zweifel. 1962. A synopsisof the lizards of the sexZi~eatus group (genus C~emidophor~s). Bull. Am. Mus. Nut, Hist. 123:159-210. vertebrates and paleoeDuffield, L. P. 1970. Some Panhandle aspect sites: Their cology. Diss. Abstu: Xnt. (B) 31(6):3123. Dukes, R. 1983. Innate food preferences basedon tongue flick rates of two sympatric species of the genus Nerodia, Trans. DaZlas Herpetol. Soc. 4 :1- 4. Dundee, H. A. 1957.Partial metamorphosisinduced in ~phlomolgera~hbuni, Copeia 1957(1):52-53. ,1974. Evidence for specific status of Graptem~spseudogeogruphica.Copeia 1974(2):540-4-2. .1995a. Natural history notes. Cnemidop~orus gular~s gular~s.M a x ~ size. Herpetol, Rev, 26(2):100. ,1995b. New Texasherpetofaunal county records representedin the Tulane University Museumof Natural History, Herpetoz. Res. 26(4):211-12. Dunham, A. E. 1978. Food availability as a proximatefactor influencing indi~ : vidual growth rates in the iguanid lizard Seeloporus merriami.E c o l ~ g59(4) 770-78. ,1981. Populations in a fluctuating environment: The comparativepopulation. ecologyof the iguanid lizards Seeloporus~ e r r ~ a and m i Urosaurus or~utus, l . ZooZ. 158: 1-62. U~iv. Mich, Mise,P ~ ~Mus. .1982. ~emographicand life-historyvariation among populations of the iguanid lizard Urosaurus ornatus~Implications forthe study of life-history phenomena in lizards. Herpetologica 8(1) :209-21. the .1980. An experimentalstudy of interspecific competition between iguanid lizards Seeloporus merriamiand Urosaurus ornutus.Ecol. M o ~ o g ~ 50(3): 309-30. 1983. Realized niche overlap, resourceabundance, and intensity of in~ of a modeZ o r g a ~ sed. ~ ,R. B. terspecific competition.In Lizard e c o l o g ~Studies Huey, E. R. Pianka, and T. W: Schoener, 261-80. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dunham, A. E., B. W. Grant, and K. L. Overall. 1989. Interfacesbetween biophysical and physiological ecologyand thepopulation ecology of terrestrial vertebrate ectotherms. Ph~siol.Ecol. 62(2):335-55. Dunham, A. E., and K.L. Overall. 1994. Population responses to environmental change: Life history variation, individual-based models,and thepopulation dynamics of short-lived organisms. Am. ZooZ. 34(3):382-96. Dunkle, D. H., and H. M. Smith. 1937. Notes on some Mexican ophidians.Occas. Pap. Mus, Zool, Unis. ~ i c h363 . :1-15. Dunlap, J. 1994. Slitherin' 'rou~dTexas. A ~ e l guide d for people who don't like snakes, Plano: Republic of Texas Press. of Amphibia Caudata of the Museum of ComDunn, E. R, 1918. The collection parative Zoology. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 62 :445-71. 1926. The sala~andersof thefa mil^ P l e t h o d o ~ t ~Northampton, ~e. Mass.: Smith College. .1932. The status of ~ropidoclonio~ lineatum. Proc. BioZ. Soc. ask. 45: 195-98. I)

~

.1936, Notes on North American ~eptodeira.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, 22(12) :689-98.

.1938. Notes on frogs of the genus Acris. Proc. Acad. Nut. Sci. Ph~la. 90: 153-54. .1940. Theraces of Amb~stumatigrinum. Copeia 1940(3):154-62. Durtsche, R. D., P. J.Gier, M. M. Fuller, W, L, Lutterschmidt,R,Bradley, C. K. Meler, and S. C. Hardy. 1997. Ontogeneticvariation in the autecology of the greater earless lizardCuphosaurus texanus.Ecugraph~20(4):336-46. compensationto seasonal Dutton, R. H., and L. D. Fitzpatrick. 1975. Metabolic temperatures in the rusty lizard ~Sce~oporus olivaceus~.Comp. Biuchem. Ph~siol. 51A:309-18. Dyrkacz, S. 1974. Western diamondback rattlesnake, Crotalus atrux,from Brewster County, Texas(photograph and caption). HerpetuZ. Rev. 5(2):41. .1981. Recentinstances of albinism in North American amphibians and reptiles. SSAR Herpetol. Circ. 11 :1-32. Eads, R. B., G. C. Menzies, and B. G. Hightower. 1956. The ticksof Texas, with notes on their medical significance.Tex, J.Sci. S(I) :7-24. Eads, R. B., J. S. Wiseman, and G. C. Menzies. 1957.Observationsconcerning the Mexican free-tailedbat, T a ~ r imexicana, ~a in Texas. Tex. J.Sci. 9(2):227-42. (Linnaeus).Cat, Am. Amphib. Rept. 395.1-395.4. Easteal, S. 1986. Sufi marin~s Easterla, D. A. 1975. Giant desert centipede preys upon snake. Southwest. Nut. 20(3): 411. .1975a. Reproductiveand ecological observationson ~ u ~ t icucullatu ~la from Big BendNational Park, Texas (Serpentes, Colubridae) ~erpetulogica 31(2):234-36. .1975b. An an~otatedchecklist of the amphibians and reptilesof Big Bend National Park, Texas. Alpine, Tex.: Big BendNatural History Association. .1978. The Mediterranean gecko, ~ e m i d a c t ~ lturcicus, us at Big BendNational Park. Tex. J.Sci. 30(2):199. Easterla, D. A., and R. C, Reynolds. 1975. Additional recordsand ecological ~x (Davis and Dixon), fromthe notes on thereticulated gecko, C o l e ~ n retic~utus southern Trans-Pecos of western Texas. 1.Herpetol. 9(2):233-36. Eaton, T. H,, andR. M. Imagawa. 1948. Early development of Pseudacrisc~arki. Copeia 1948(4):263-66. Eberle, W. G. 1972. Comparativechromosomalmorphology of the New world natricine snake genera Natrix and Regina. ~erpetulugica28(2):98-105. Eckerman, C. M. 1995. Geographicdistribution. Gastruphr~neolivacea. Herpetol. Rev. 26(4) :207. .1996. Vwiatisn, systematics, and interspecific positionof ~ e t e r ~ dnasion cus (Serpentes: Xenodontidae). M.S. thesis, Universityof Texas, E1 Paso. Eddleman, C. D., and W. A. Akersten, 1966. Margay fromthe post-Wisconsinof southeastern Texas. Tex.J.Sci. 18(4):378-85. Edgren, R. A.1952. A synopsis of the snakes of the genus Heterodo~,with the diagnosis of a new race of Heterodon nasicusBaird and Girard. Chi. Acad. sci. Nut, Hist. Misc. 112:r-4. .1957. Melanismin hog-nosed snakes. Herpetologica 13(2):131-35. .1961. A simplified method foranalysis of clines: Geographicvariation in Latreille. Copeia 1961(2):125-32. the hognose snake Heterodo~plat~r~inos

338.Edwards,

C. L. 1896a. Notes on the biology of Phr~nosoma cornutu~ Harlan,

2001. Anzeiger 19:108-11.

340.500. 341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350.

351. 352. 353.

353.620. 353.700. 353.800.

1896b. Life habits of Phr~nosoma.Science n.s. 3 : 763-65. .1go3. A note on Phr~nosoma.Science n.s. 17:826-27. Edwards,R. J.,G. Longley, R. Ross, J. Ward, R. Matthews, and B, Stewart. 1989. A classificationof Texas aquatic communities with special consideration toward the conservation of endangered and threatened taxa. Tex. J.Sci. 41(3) : 231-40. Bhrenfield, D. W. 1976. The conservation of non-resources.Am. Sci. 64(6): 648-56. Eifrig, C. W. G. 1929.Texas birdhabitats. Auk 46(1): 70-78. g e the artesian wells of San Eigenmann, C. H. 1899. The eyeof ~ p h ~ o m o lfrom Marcos, Texas.Proc. lnd. Acad. Sci. 8 :251. .Igooa. Degeneration in the eyes of the cold-blooded vertebrates of the North American caves.Proc, lnd. Acad. Sci. g :31- 46. .Igoob. Degeneration in the eyes of the cold-blooded vertebrates of the North American caves.Science n.s. 11(274) :492-503. .I ~ O O C .The blind fishesof North America. Pop. Sci. 56 :437-86. .Igood. The eyesof the blind vertebrates of North America. 11. The eyes of ~phlomolgerathbuni Stejneger,Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 21 :49-61. .Igooe. A contribution to the faunaof the caves of Texas. Proc. Am. AsSOC. Adv. Sei, 49 :228-30. .Igoof. A contribution to the faunaof the caves of Texas. Science n,s. 12: 301-302. ,1901,Description of a new cave salamander, Sperlerpes ste~negeri,from the caves of southwestern Missouri. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 22 :189-92. . ~ g o gCave . vertebrates of America: A study in degenerativeevolution. Publ. Car~egieTnst, ash. 104 :1-241. Elder, R.L. 1987. Taphonomy and paleoecology of the Dockum Group, Howard County, Texas.J.Arizona-~evada.Acad. Sci. 22(1) :85-94. Ellis, T.K.1940. Notes on behavior in Anolis. Copeia 1940(3):162-64. ge Proc. Bust. Soc. Emerson,E. T. 1905. General anatomy of ~ p h ~ o m o l rathbuni. Nut. Hist. 32:43-76. Englehardt,G. P. 1932. Notes on poisonous snakes in Texas. Copeia 1932(1): 37-38. Ernst, C, H. 1971. Chr~sem~spicta. Cat. Am. A ~ p h i bRept. . 106.1-106.4. .1988. C h r ~ s e m Gray. ~ s Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 438.1-438.8. .1990.Pseudem~sgorzugi Ward. Cat, Am. Amphib. Rept. 461.1-461.2. .1992. T r a c h e ~gaigeae. ~s Cat. Am, Amphib. Rept. 538.1-538.4. Ernst, C. H., and R.W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States, Lexington: University Pressof Kentucky. Ernst, C. H., and R. B. Bury. 1982. Malaclem~sGray. Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 299.1-299.4. Ernst, E. M.,and C. H. Ernst. 1977. Synopsisof helminths endoparasiticin native turtles of the United States. Bull. Md. Herpetol. Soc. 13(1):1-75. Ernst, C. H,, and E. M. Ernst. 1979. Synopsisof protozoans parasitic in native turtles of the United States. Bull. Md. H~rpetol.Soc. 15(1):1-15.

b s t , C. H., J.W. Gibbons, and S. S. Novak. 1988. Ckel~ara Schweigger.Cat. Am.

Ampkib. Rept. 419.1-419.4.

Ernst, C. H,, J.E. Lovich, and R. W. Barbour. 1994.~ r t l eofs the UniteaStates and C a n a ~Washington, . D.C.: S ~ t h s o nInstitution i~ Press. Ernst, C. H., and J.F, McBreen. IggIa. Terrupene, Cat, Am, Amphib. Rept.511.1511.6.

.1ggIb. Terrapene carolinu. Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept.512.1-512.13. Ernst, C. H., and G. R. Zug, 1996. Snakes in ~uestion:The Smithsoniana n s ~ e book, r Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Insti~tionPress. Estes, R. 1969. The Batrachrosauroididaeand Scapherpetontidae,late Cretaceous and early Cenozoic salamanders. Copeja 1969(2):225-34. .1983.~ a n b u c hde Palaoherpetologie/Enc~clopeaia of puleo~erpetolog~. Teil roA/Part IOA, Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag. Etchberger, C. R., and J. B. Iverson. 1990.Pseudem~stexana Baur. Cut. Am. Amphib. Rept. 485.1-485.2. Etheridge,R. E. 1948.Range extension of the faded snake Arjzona e. elegans in Texas. ~erpetologica4(6):194. .1952. The southern range of the racer Coluber constrictor ste~negerj~nus (Cope),with remarks on the Guatemalan species Co~uberortenbergerj. Cope~a 1952(3): 189-90. Everhart, B. 1958. Noteson thehelminths of P s e u ~ escripta ~ ~ s elegans (Wied, 1838)in areas of Texas and Oklahoma. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 38 :38-43. Everett, C, T. 1971.Courtship and mating of Eumeces~ u l t i v i ~ ~ a(Scincidae). tus f. ~erpetol.5(3-4):189-90. Everitt,J.H. 1974.Geographicdistribution. P ~ r ~ n o s o m moaest~m. a ~erpetol. Rev, 5(4) :108. Ewert, M. A.,and C. E. Nelson. 1991.Sex determination in turtles: Diverse patterns and some possibleadaptive values, Copeia I ~ ~ I:(50-69. I) Fair, W, S. and S. E. Henke, 1997.Efficacy of capture methods for a low density Rev, 28(3) :135-37. population of Phr~nosoma cornutu~. ~erpetol. Fair, W. S. and S. E. Henke. 1997.EfTects of habitat manipulation on Texas .e :1366-70. horned lizards and their prey. 1.~ i l ~ ~g m~ t61(4) Falck, E, G. 194.0.Food of an eastern rock rattlesnake in captivity. Copeia 1940(4): 135. Falko,J. 1973.The Texasbanded gecko. ~ull.Can. Ampkib. Rept. Conserv, Soc. 11(2):4--5* Farlow, J.0,1987.A guide to Lower Cretaceous dinosaur footprints and traclcsites of the Paluty River Valley, SomervellCounty, Texas.~ a ~ lUrziv,. o r 1987: 1-109.

Farlow, J.O,,J. G. Pittman, and J. M,H a ~ h o r n e1989. . ~rontopodus bira~, Lower Cretaceous sauropod footprintsfrom the U.S. Gulf Coastal Plains.In ~inosaur t r a c ~and s traces, ed. D. D. Gillette and M.G. Lockley, 371-94.New York: Cambridge Universi~Press. Ferguson, G. W. 1965. Verification of a population of ~icimiucana in northcentral Texas. ~erpetologica21(2):156-57. .1966a. Effect of follicle-st~ulatinghormone and testosterone propionate on the reproduction of the side-blotched lizard,Uta stansburjuna, Copeia 1966(3):495-98*

.1966b. Releasers of courtship and territorial behavior in the sideAnirn. ~ehav.14(1) :89-92. blotched lizard,Uta stansbI~riana. , 1 9 6 9 ~Geographic ~. variation and evolution of stereotypedbehavioral patterns of the side-blotched lizards of the genus Uta (Iguanidae),Diss. Abstr: Int. (B) 30 :2466. .1969b. Interracial discr~inationin male side-blotched lizards,Uta stansburiana. Copeia 1969(1): 188-89. .1971. Variation and evolution of the push-up displays of the sideblotched lizardgenus Uta (Iguanidae).Syst, Zool. 20(1):79-101. Ferguson, G. W,, and T. Brockman, 1980. Geographic differencesof growth rate of SceZopurus un~ulutus(Sauria:Iguanidae). Copeiu 1980(2): 259-64. Ferguson,G. W,, K. L. Brown, and V. G. DeMarco. 1982. Selective basis for the evolution of variable egg and hatchling size in some iguanid lizards,HerpetoZogica 38(1):178-88. 359.200. Ferguson, G. W., and S. F. Fox, 1984. Annual variation of survival advantage of large juvenile side-blotched lizards,Uta stansbur~ana~ Its causes and evolutionary sign~cance. EvoIution 38(2): 342-49. Ferguson, G. W., H, W. Snell, and A, J.Landwer. 1990. Proximate control of vari359.210. ation of clutch, egg, and body sizein a west Texas population of Uta stansburiana ste~negeri(Sauria: Iguanidae). ~erpetoloff~ca 46(2) :227-38. Fetzer,A. 1982, The glossysnake (ArizonaeZegans~.San Diego Herpetoz. Soc. Newszt~4(5) :1-2. Feuer, R. C. 1971. Ecological factorsin success and dispersal of the,snapping turtle Chely~raserpentinu (Linnaeus). BuIZ. PhiZa, Herpeto~.Soc. 19 :3-14.. Fichter,L. S. 1969. Geographicaldistribution and osteologicalvariation in fossil and recent specimens of two species of Kinosternon (Testudines).f. Herpetoz. 3(3-4) :113-19. 360. Finch, R. C. 1962, S.S.S. reports on the Bat-Well, Tex. Cuver 7(12): 139-42. 360.200. Pinnley, D.,ed. 1978a. Critical habitat determined for Houston toad. En~ang.Species Tech. BuZl, 3(2): 1,3. 360.210. .1978b. US.-Mexico restoration efforts may be only hope for Kemp's ridley. E n ~ n f fSpecies . ~ech.BuZl. 3(10):6-8. 360.220. , 1 9 7 8 ~Rulemaking . actions-July 1978. S a n Marcos gambusia and salamander. En~ang.Species Tech. Bull. 3(8) :8. 361. Pitch, H.S , 1954. Life history and ecology of the five-lined skink, E u ~ e c e s ~ a s c ~ a tus, Univ. Kans. P u ~ Mus. ~ . Nut. Hist. 8(1) :1-156. 362, .1955. Habits and adaptions of the Great Plains skink (Eu~eces obsoletus). Ecol. ~ o n u 25(1):59-83. g~ .1956a. An ecologicalstudy of the collared lizard~Crutaphytus coZ~aris~. 363. Univ, Kans. PubZ. Mus. Nut, Hist, 8(3) :213-74. '1956b. A field study of the Kansas ant-eating frog, Gastrophryne oZivacea. 364. Univ. Kans. Publ. Mus. Nut. Hist. 8(4) :275-306. .1958, Natural history of the six-lined race-runner, ~Cnerni~op~orus sex365. Zineatus~.U n Kans, ~ ~ P u ~ lMus, . Nut, Hist. 11(2) :11-62. 366. ,1960. Autecology of the copperhead. Univ. Kans.PubZ. Mus, Nat. Hist, 13(4): 85-288. .1963. Natural history of the racer CoZu~erconstrictur: Univ,Kans. pub^. 367. Mus. Nat, Hist. 15(8):351-468.

368. 368.100.

368,200. 368.305. 368.310. 369. 369.200. 370.

371. 372.

372.100.

372.200, 372.225. 372.300. 372.400. 372.500. 372.600. 372.603. 372.608.

372.700. 372.800. 372.900.

.1965.An ecologicalstudy of the garter snake, T ~ a m n o p ~sirtalis. is Univ. Kans. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. 15(10):493-564. .1978. Sexual size differencesin the genus Seeloporus. Univ. Kans.Sei. Bull. 51(13):441-61. 1980.Thamnophis sirtalis. Cat. Am. Amp~ib. Rept. 270.1-270.4. .r985. Variation in clutch and litter size in New Worldreptiles. Univ. Kans. Mus. Nat. Hist. Mise.Publ. 76 :1-76. a species disFitch, H. S., W. S. Brown, and W. S. Parker. 1981.Col~ber mormon, tinct from C. constricto~Trans. Kans. Acad, Sei. 84(4):196-203. Fitch, H. S.,and H. W. Greene. 1965.Breeding cyclein theground skink, Lygosoma laterale. Univ. Kans. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist.I ~ ( I I:565-75. ) Fitch, H. S., and D. M, Hillis. 1984. The Anolis dewlap: Interspecific variability and morphological associationswith habitat. Copeia 1984(2):315-23. Fitch, H. S., and T. P. Maslin.1961. Occurrence of the garter snake, T ~ a m n o p ~ i s sirtalis, in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. Univ. Kans. Publ. Mus. Nat, Hist. 13(5):289-308. Fitch, H. S., and W.W. Milstead. 1961. An oldername for T ~ a m n o p ~cyrtopsis is (Kennicott).Copeia 1961(1):112. Fitch, H. S., and W.W. Tanner. 1957.Remarks concerning the systematics of the collared lizard,~Crotap~ytus co~laris~, with a description of a new subspecies. Trans. Kans. Acad. Sei. 54(4):548-59. Fitzgerald, K. T., H. M. Smith, and L. J.Guillette, Jr.1981.Nomenclature of the diploid speciesof the diploid-tetraploidHyla versico~orcomplex. J.Herpetol. 15(3) : 356-60. Fleet, R. R. 1972. Noteson theblind snake, Leptotyp~lopsdulcis dulcis, in eastern 17(3):309. Texas, Sout~west. Nut, Fleet, R. R., and B. C. Autrey. 1997. Geographicdistribution. Bufo valliceps. Herpetol. Rev. 28(1):48. Fleet, R. R., D. R. Clark, and F. W. Plapp. 1972. Residuesof DDT and dieldrin in Bioscience 22(11):664-65. snakes from two Texas agro-systems. Fleet, R. R., and J.R. Dixon. 1971. Geographicvariation within the longtailed group of the glossy snake, Arizona elegans, ~erpetologica27(3):295-302. and parturition behavior in Sist~urus Fleet, R. R., and J.Kroll. 1.978. Litter size miliarius streckeri. Herpetol. Rev. g(1): 11. Fleet, R. R., and F. W. Plapp. 1978, DDT residues in snakes decline sinceDDT ban. Bull, Environ. Co~tam, To~icol, 19(4): 383-87. Fleet, R. R. and F. C. Rainwater. 1998. Geographicdistribution. C~elydraserpentina. Herpetol. Rev, 29(4) :247. Fletcher,M. R. 1989.The National Park Service’srole in the introduction of the Kemp’s ridleysea turtle. In Procee~ngsof t ~ e ~ rinternational st symposiu~ on ~ ~ e m pridley ’ s sea turtle biology conservation and manage~ent,ed, C. W. Caillouet and A, M. Landry, 7-9. Galveston: Texas A&MUniversity. Fliclcinger, E.L.1981,Wildlife mortality at petroleum pits in Texas. J.~ i l d l . N a n ~ age. 45(2):560-64. Flickinger,E. L., and B. M. Mulhern. 1980. Aldrin persistsin yellow mud turtle. ~ e r p e t oRev, ~ . 11(2):29-30. Flores-Villela, O.,and R. A. Brandon. 1992. Siren lacertina (Amphibia:Caudata) in northeastern Mexico and Texas, Ann. Carnegie Nus. 61(4) :289-91.

373. 374. 375. 375.500*

375.985.

377J05. 377.106. 377.107.

377.109.

Flury, A. 194ga. er rho not us liocephalus i~~ernalis Baird in Texas. ~erpetologica 5(3):65-67. ,1949b. Range extension for two west Texas snakes. Copeia 1949(3):2.93. .1950.A new kingsnake from Trans-Pecos Texas. Copeia 1950(3) :215-17. Foley, D. H., 111.1994. Short-term response of herpetofauna to timber harvesting in conjunction with streamside-managementzones in seasonally flooded bottomland-hardwoodforestsof southeast Texas. M.S. thesis, TexasA&M University, College Station. Fontaine, C. T,,K , W, Indelicato, and J.P, Flanagan. 1990.A congenital lung disorder in a juvenile head-started Kemp’s ridleysea turtle (Lepidoche~~s emp pi^. ~erpetol.Rev, 21(4):80-81. Fontaine, P. 1944. Natrix as a predator of fish in the Dallas area. F i e l d ~ a ~ 12(1):17-18. coral snake ~ i c r u r ~ s ~ u l tenere v ~ u s(B. and Fontaine, P,,and L. Curtis. 1948. The G.) in Dallas County, Texas. Field Lab 16(2):93. Foote, R., and J.A,MacMahon. 1977. Electrophoreticstudies of rattlesnake (Crotalus and Sistrurus~venom: Taxonomic implications. Comp. ~iochem. Ph~sjol. 57B(3):235-41. Ford, N. B., and V A. Cobb. 1992, Timing of courtship in two colubridsnakes of the southern United States. Copeia 1992(2): 573-77. Ford, N. B., V. A. Cobb, and W, W. Lamar. 1990. Reproductivedata onsnakes from northeastern Texas. Tcx. J. Sei. 42(4):355-68. Ford, N. B., V. A. Cobb, and J.Stout. 1991. Speciesdiversity and seasonal abundance of snakes in a mixed pine-hardwood forestof eastern Texas. So~thwest. Nut. 36(2):171-77. Ford, N. B., andJ. P. Karges. 1987. Reproduction in the checkered garter snake, hamn no phis marcianus, from southern Texas and northeastern Mexico: Seasonality and evidence for multiple clutches. Southwest, Nat. 32(1):93-101. Ford, N. B., and M. L. O’Bleness. 1986. Species and sexual specificity of pheromone trails of a garter snake, Tham~op~is marcia~us. J. ~erpetol.20(2) :259-62. Ford, N. B., and G. A. Shuttlesworth. 1986. Effectsof variation in food intake on locomotory performanceof juvenile garter snakes. Copeia 1986(4):9991001.

377.325.

377.350.

Forestor, D. C. 1973. Mating callas a reproductive isolatingmechanism between Seaphiopus ~ o m ~ i ~ rand o n sS. h a ~ ~ o ~ Copeia l d i . 1973(1) :60-67. Foreyt, W. J., C. W. Leathers, and E. N.Smith. 1985. ~ichodermasp, infection in J. ~erpetol.19(4):530-31. the alligator ~~lligutor ~ississjppiensis~. Forks, T. P., and J.E. Forks. 1982, Defensive displayof the Texas rat snake, E~aphe o~soleta l~ndheimeri,Bull. Chi. ~erpetol.Soc. 17(4):100. Forster, C. A., P. C. Sereno, T. W. Evans, and T. Rowe. 1993.A complete skullof ~ h a s m o s a ~ r u s ~ a r i s c a(Dinosauria: ~e~sis Ceratopsidae) fromthe Aguja Formation (late Campanian) of west Texas.1.Vert. Pal~o~tol. 13(2):161-70, Forstner, M. R, J., J. R. Dixon, J. E.McKnight, and S. K,Davis, 1998.Apparent ~ s Cne~idophor~s sep~emvittatus hybridization betweenCnemjdophorus g ~ a r and from an area of sympatry in southwest Texas. J. ~ e r p e t o32(3) ~ , :418-25. Forstner, M.R. J.,R. A.Hilsenbeck,and J. F. Scudday. 1997. Geographic variation in whole venomprofiles fromthe mottled rockrattlesnake ~Crotalus lep~dus l e p i d ~ in s ~Texas. J. ~erpetol.37(2):277-87.

377,375.

378. 379-

380.

381. 382. 383.

384. 384.100. 384.110. 384.120. 384.130.

384.140.

384.200.

384.210. 384.220, 384.221. 384.222.

384.224.

Forstner, J. M,, M. R. J. Forstner, and J. R. Dixon. 1998. Ontogenetic effects on prey selectionand food habits of two sympatric east Texas ranids: The southern leopard frog,Rana sphenocephala, and the bronze frog,Rana clamitans cla~itans. ~erpetol, Rev. 29(4):208--11, Fouquette, M.J., Jr. 1954. Food competition among four sympatric species of garter snakes, genus Thamnophis. Tex. I. Sei. 5(2):172-88. ,1960. Call structure in frogs of the family Leptodac~lidae.Tex. J Sci. 12(3-4):210-15. .1969. Rhinop~ynidae.Cat. Am. A ~ p h iRept. ~ . 78.1-78.2. .1980.Effect of environmental temperatures on body temperatures of aquatic-callinganurans. 1.~erpetol,14(4):347-52. Fouquette, M. J.,Jr., and H. L.Lindsay, Jr.1955.An ecological survey of reptiles in parts of northwestern Texas. Tex. J.Sei. 7(4):402-21. Fouquette, M. L,, Jr., and M.J. Littlejohn. 1960. Patterns of ovipositionin two t . 5(2):92-96. species of hylid frogs.S o u t ~ ~ e sNut. Fouquette,M.J., Jr., and F. E. Potter, Jr. 1961. A new black-headed snake from southwestern Texas. Copeia 1961(2):144-48. Fowler, H,W., and E. R. Dunn. 1917. Noteson salamanders. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila. 69: 7-28. Fowler, J. A.1948. A Texas snake den. Bull, Natl, Speleol. Soc. IO:118. Diss. Abstr Int. Fox, S, F. 1974. Natural selection in the lizard Uta stans~~riana, 03) 34(12):5498. .1975. N a t ~ ~selection al on morphological phenotypesof the lizard Uta stans~uriana.~voZution29(1):95-107. .1978. Natural selection on behavioral phenotypesof the lizard Uta stans~uriana,~cologg59(4):834-47. .1983.Fitness, home-range quality, and aggression in Uta stans~urian~. In Lizard e c u ~ o Sg ~t u~~ e of s a mode^ organ is^, ed. R. B. Huey, E.R,Pianka, and T. W. Schoener, 149-68, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Fox, S. F., J. M. Conder, and A.E.Smith. 1998. Sexual dimorphismin the case with and without previous tail loss. Copeia of tail autonomy: Uta stans~ur~una 1998(2):376-82, Francis, K.1978.Kemp’s ridleysea turtle conservation programs at South Padre Island, Texas, and Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico.In P r o c e e ~ ~ofg sthe ~ ~ o r iand d a ~ n t e r r e ~ i co~~erence on~ on sea turt~es, lulg 1976, ed. G. E. Henderson, 33:51-62, Jensen Beach, Fla.: Florida Marine Research. Frank, R, M.1964. The vertebrate paleontology of Texas caves.Tex, SpeZeol. Surv. 2(3):1-43. Franklin, C. J. 1996. Geographicdistribution, ~ e ~ i d a c t g l~arnottii. us ~erpetoZ. Rev. 27(3):152, .1997a.Geographicdistribution.~ g l cinerea. a ~ e r p e t o lRev. , 28(2) :93. .1997b. Geographicdistr~bution.~ e ~ i d a ct~rcicus. t ~ ~ ~~erpeto2. s Rev. 28(2):96. .1998a. Geographicdistribution. Rana sphenocephu~autricuZaria, ~ e r p e t o ~ . Rev. 29(1):50. 1998b. Geographicdistribution. La~propeZt~s call~gaster~ e r p e t oRev. ~. 29(1):53.

Franklin, C. J., and D. Glaze, 1998. Geographicdistribution. Terrupene ornutu. Herpetol. Rev. 29(2):109. 384.228. Franklin, C. J., and R. L. Gutberlet,Jr. 1996a.Geographicdistribution, Runu sphenocephula utriculuriu,Herpetoz. Res. 27(4) :209. .1996b. Geographicdistribution, ~ r g i ~striutul~. iu Herpetol. Rev, 27(4): 384.229. 215. 384.250. Freed, P. S. 1983a. Geographicdistribution. Tropiaoclon~onl~neutumtexunu~. Herpetoz. Res. 14(I):29. 1983b.~ e r o erytheroguseer~uviguster ~ u (yellowbelly water snake). Col384.260. oration. Herpetol. Rev, :75. ,1989. An amelanisticTexas rat snake ~ ~ l u po~soletu he l i n ~ ~ e i m e Herri~. 384.261. petoput~olog~u ~ ( 1 )125-27. : ,1992. An anomalous Gulf Coasttoad, Bufo vu~~ceps. Bull. Chi. Herp~tol. 384.262. SOC. 27(7):149. the western pigmy rattlesnake. Bull. C ~ ~ c u g o 384.263. Freed, P. 1997. Record small size for Herpetol. Soc. 32(2):27. 384.264. Freed, P.S., and K,Neitman, 1988. Notes on predation on the endangered Houston toad, Bufo houstonensis. Tex. J.Sei. 40(4):454-56. Freehling, M, 1976a. Hueco TanksState Historical Park. Lab. Index 4-76, Austin: Texas Systems of Natural Laboratories, Inc. .rg76b. Southern Hueco Mountains. Lab. Index 5-76. Austin: Texas Systems of Natural Laboratories,Inc. C our n u t u ~ (Harlan) in Louisiana. Copeiu 384.300. Frierson, L. 1927.P ~ r ~ n o s o m 1927(165):114. 384.330. Fritts, T. H., W Hoffman, and M. A. McGehee.1983. The distribution and abundance of marine turtles in the Gulf of Mexicoand nearby Atlantic waters. JHerpetoz. I7(4):327-44. 384.390. Frost, D. R. 1983. Sonoru se~iunnulutuBaird and Girard. Cut, Am, amp hi^, Rept. 333.1-333.4. 384.400. Frost, D. R., and T. R. Van Devender.1979. The relationship of the ground Occus. Pup. snakes Sonoru se~iunnulutuand S. episcopu (Serpentes: Colubridae), Mus. Zool. La. State Univ. 52 :1-9. Fugler, C. M.1955.New locality recordsfor the Louisiana pinesnake, Pituophis cuteni~errut~seniStull. Herpetologicu II(I):24. ~ i ureptiles.London: Macmillanand Co. Gadow, H. 1901.A ~ p ~ i una 386, 1905. The distribution of Mexican amphibians and reptiles. Proc. Zool. 387. SOC. Lana. 2:191-244. 387.450. Gaffney, E. S. 1979. Comparative cranial morphology of recent and fossil turtles. Bull. Am. Mus. Nut. Hist. 164(2):67--376. and lipid cyclesin the lizard, 387.500. Gaffney,F. G., and L. C. Fitzpatrick. 1973. Energetics Crze~iaop~orus tigris. Copeiu 1g73(3):446-52. ~ i Copeiu 1931(2) :63. Gaige, H. T.1931.Notes on Syrrhophus ~ u r n o cCope. 388. 388.200, Gallaway, B. J. 1968, A habitat study of the Brazos water snake, ~ u t r i xhurteri hurteri, in Texas. TASCA 23(2):13-15. 388.400. Gallo, J. R., Jr., and K.Reese. 1978. Notes on thehatching of eggs and description of the hatchlings of the reticulated gecko, Cole~nyxreticulutusDavis and Southwest. Nut, 23(2):308-309. Dixon (Lacertilia: Eublepharidae), 384.227.

388.500. 388.600,

388.800. 388.805.

388.810.

389. 390. 391. 391.002, 391.005. 391.007. 391.011.

391.400. 391.600. 391.800.

392.

Gallup,M. R. 1989. Functional morphology of the hind-foot of the Texas sauropod Pleurocoelussp. indet. Ceol. Soc. Am, Spec.Pap, (Reg. Stud.)238 :71-74. Gambs, R. D., and M. J.~ttlejohn.1979. Acoustical behaviorof males of the Rio ~Rana~ e r l a n ~ e:rAn i ~experimentalanalysis through field Grande leopard frog playback trials. Copeiu 197g(4): 643-50. Gannon, M. R. 1987. New western distributionalrecord of Terrapene Carolina triunguis. Tex. J.Sei. 39(3) :293. Gannon, M, R., and IC.B. Willis 1990. Clutch size and parasitism of the Texas spotted whiptail ~nemidop~orus gularis (Sauria: Teiidae) fromsouth-central Texas. Soutk~est.Nut. 35(2): 215-17. Gannon, M. R., M. R, Willig,K. B. Willis,and M. P. Moulton. 1990, Intraspecific comparisons of diet of Cnemidopkor~sgularis (Sauria: Teiidae) in central Texas. Tex. J.Sei. 42(3): 263-72. Garman, S. W. 1883(1884). The reptilesand batrachians of North America. I. Ophidia. Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool. 8(3) :1-185. .1887. Reptiles and batrachians from Texasand Mexico. Bull. Essex, Inst.

19: 119-38. 1892. On Texasreptiles. Bull. Essex Inst. 24: 1-12. Garrett, J. M., and D. G. Barker. 1987. Afield guide to reptiles and a m p ~ i ~ i aof ns Texas. Austin: Texas Monthly Press. Garrett, C. M. 1992. Geographicdistribution. Lu~propeltistrianguZum ama~ra. ~ e r p e t o lRev. , 23(1) :27. Garrett, C. M',andB. E. Smith. 1991. Geographicdistribution, Eumeces o~soletus, ~erpetol.Rev. 22(1) :26. Garrett, C. M,, M.R. Mateja, B. E, Smith, A. T. Patterson, and A. S. Bridegam. 1991. Geographicdistribution.Rana ~ t r i ~ u l a rutriculuria. ia ~erpetol.Rev. 22(1) :24, Garriott,J.1978, Observationson the Mediterranean gecko ~ ~ e ~ i ~ a cturdt~Zus cus). Occas. Pap. all as ~erpetol.Soc. I :11-12. Garstka, W. R. 1982. Systematicsof the ~exicanaspecies group of the colubrid genus ~ a ~ p r o p e l t with i s , an hypothesis mimicry.Breviora 466 :1-35. Gartside,D. F., J. S. Rogers, and H. C. Dressaur. 1977. Speciationwith little genic kis and and morphological differentiation in the ribbon snakes T ~ a ~ n o p proximus T. sauri~us(Colubridae).Copeia 1977(4): 697-705. Gehlbach, F. R. 1956. Annotated records of southwestern amphibians and reptiles, Truns, Kans. Acad. Sei. 59(3) :364-72.

393'

.1965.Herpetology of the Zuni Mountains region, northwestern New Mexico. Proc. US. Natl. Mus. 116:243-332.

393.010. 393.020.

.1967a. Amh~stoma tigrinu~~. Cat. Am. A ~ p ~Rept. i ~ 51.1-52.4. . .1967b. Lamprope~tismexicuna. Cat. Am, A ~ p ~Rept. i ~ 55.1-55.2. . ,1970, Death-feigningand erratic behavior in leptotyphlopid,colubrid, and elapid snakes. ~erpe~ologica 26(1):24-34, .1g71. Lyre snakes of the Tri~orpkodon hiscutatus complex: Ataxonomic resume. ~erpeto~ogica 27(1): 200-11. 1972. Coral snake mimicry reconsidered: The strategy of self-mimicry. Forma et Funet. 5:311-20. 1974. Evolutionaryrelations of southwestern ringneck snakes (D& adop~is p ~ n c t a t u s ~ . ~ e r p e t o30(2) ~ o g ~:1 c4 a.0-48.

393.030. 393.040393.050. 393.060.

.1979. Biomes of the Guadalupe escarpment:Vegetation, lizards,and human impact. Natl. Park Serv. Trans. Proc. Sec4 :427-39. 393.080, .1g91. The east-westtransition zone of terrestrial vertebrates in central Texas: A biogeographical analysis. Tex. 1.Sei. 43(4):415-27. 393.090- Gehlbach, F, R., IC. A. Arnold, K. Culbertson, D. J. Schmidly, C. Hubbs, and R. A. Thomas. 1975.TOES watch-list of endangered, threatened, and peripheral vertebrates of Texas. Tex. Org. ~ndang.Species Publ.I :1-12. Gehlbach,F. R., and J. K. Baker. 1962. Kingsnakes alliedwith Lampropeltis mexicana: Taxonomy and natural history. Copeia 1962(2):291-300. Gehlbach,F. R., and R. S. Baldridge. 1987. Live blindsnakes ( ~ e p ~ o t ~ p h dullops cis) in eastern screech owl (Otis asio) nests: A novel commensalism. Oecologia 71(4):560-63. Gehlbach, F. R., R, Gordon, and J. B. Gordon. 1973. Aestivationof the salamander, Siren interme~a.Am. mi^. Nat. 89(5):455-63. Gehlbach, F. R., and J. A. Holman. 1974. Paleoecologyof amphibians and reptiles fromPratt Cave, Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. Sout~west. Nat. 19(2):191-98. 394.500* Gehlbach, F. R., and S. E. Kennedy. 1978. Population ecology of a highly productive aquatic salamander (Siren interme~a). So~thwest. Nat. 23(3):423-30. Gehlbach,F. R., and C. J. McCoy, Jr. 1965. Additionalobservationson variation 395. and distribution of the grey-banded kingsnake, Lampropeltis mexicana(Garman). Herpetologica ~ ( 1:35-38. ) Gehlbach, F. R., and B, Walker, 1970. Acoustic behaviorof the aquatic salamander Siren interme~a.B~oscience20(2) :1107-1108. Gehlbach, F. R., J.F.Watkins, and J. C. Kroll, 1971. Pheromone trail-following studies of typhtopid, leptotyplopid,and colubrid snakes.Be~aviourgo(19) : 282-94. Gehlbach, F. R., J. F.Watkins, and H. W. Reno. 1968. Blind snake defensive behavior elicited byant attacks. Bioscience 18(8):784-85. Gehrmann, W. H. 1973. Serum proteins and nutritional state in immature Natrix erythrogastertransversa, Copeia1973(1): 176-78. Gehrmann, W. H., and C. C. Carpenter. 1973. Evidence fora central cholinoceptive component in despotic behaviorin themale collared lizard Crotaph~tus collaris. Proc. Okla,Acad. Sei. 53 :38- 40. ~ i eLab l ~g(2): Geiser, S. W. 1941. Dr. Benno Matthes: An early herpetologist. 37-45. Gentry, A. F. 1885.A reviewof the genus Phrynosoma. Proc.Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila. 37:138-48. George, J. E. 1960. Notes on theparasitic mites of some west Texas reptiles.

393.070.

Southwest. Nat.~ ( 2 )105-106. :

George, J. L., and W. H. Stickel. 1949. Wildlife effects of DDT dust used for tick control on a Texasprairie, Am, M i d Nat. 42(1):228-37. eastern and western popuGerhardt, H. C. 1974. Mating call differences between Copeia 1974(2):534-36. lations of the treefrog Hyla chr~soce~is. serpentina (Linnaeus). Gibbons, J.W., S. S. Novak, and C. H. Ernst. 1988. CkeZ~dra Cat, Am, Amphib. Rept. 420.1-420.4. Gillette, D. D. 1974. A proposed revisionof the evolutionary history of Terrapene carolinu triunguis. Copeia1974(2): 537-39.

400. 401.

402. 403

*

408.

408,200.

Gilmore, C. W. 1938. Fossil snakes of North America, Geol. Soc. Am, Spec. Pap. 9:viii-g6. Girard, C. 1852. A monographic essay on thegenus Phrynoso~a.In Stan~ury’s e~ployation and s~yveyof the valley of the Great SaltLake of Utah, 345-65. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo and CO, .1854. A list of North American bufonids,with diagnoses of new species. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila. 7: 86-88. .1858.Herpetology. In United States e~ployinge ~ p e ~ t iduying o n the years 1838,1840, 1841,1842,under the c o ~ ~ a ofn Charles d ~ ~ k eUS.N., s , 20: 1-492. (Repr~tedby J.B. Lippincott and Co. of Philadelphia). .1859. Herpetological notices.Proc. Acad. Nat.Sei. P ~ i l a11 . :169-70. 3(3):101-103. Glass, B. P. 1946a. A new Hyla from south Texas. Her~etolog~cu .1946b. H ~ c ~ y ~ ac ~in e yTexas, Copeia 1946(2):103. .1951. Ageof maturity of neotenic A ~ ~ y s t o ~ a t ~ g Baird. r ~ n ~ ~ Am, ~ i Nat.~ 46:391-94. , ~ , musk turtle of the Glass, B. P., and N. Hartweg. 1951. ~inosternon~ u r r aa~new ~iytipesgroup from Texas,Copei~1951(1) :50-52. Glenn,J. L., R. C. Straight, M. C. Wolfe, and D. L. Hardy. 1983.Geographical t u l a t ~rattlesnake) s venom properties. variation in ~YotaZuss c ~ t ~ Z a t ~ s s c ~(Mojave TO~~COn 21(1):119-30,

408.500.

~

a

Glidewell, J.1974. Recordsof the snake Colu~erco~styictoy(Reptilia: Colubridae) Gom New Mexicoand the C ~ h u a h desert u ~ of Texas, So~thwest.Nat. 19(2): 215-17.

409. 410. 411. 412. 413. 414.

41-5. 416, 417.

419. 420.

Gloyd, H.IS. 1935a. Thecane-brake rattlesnake. Copeia 1935(4): 175-78. .1935b. Someaberrant color patterns in snakes. Pap. ~ i c hAcad, . Sei. Arts Ltr: ;zo:661-68. .1935~.The subspeciesof ~ i s t r u r u s ~ i l i a yOccas. i ~ s . Pap. ~ ~2001. s Univ. . Mich. (322):1-7. .1936. The subspeciesof Cyotal~s le~idus. Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. M~ch.(337):1-5. .1938.A case of poisoning fromthe bite of a blackcoral snake. ~ e r p e t o ~ logica (5):121-25. -1940. The rattlesnakes, genera Sistruyus and Cyotal~s.Spec. ~ ~Chi.~ 1 Acad. Sei, 4: 1-270. ,1944. Texas snakes. Tex.Geogr: 8 :1-18. ,1948. Another account of the “dance”of the western diamond rattlesnake, Chi. Acad. Sei. Nat, Hist. Mise. 34: 1-3. .1955. A review of the massasaugas, ~isty~yus catenat~s, of the south83-9 western United States (Serpentes: Crotalidae).BulZ. Chi. Acad. Sei.10(6): .1958. Aberrations in the color patterns of some crotalid snakes. B ~ l . Chi. Acad,Sei. 10(12):185-95. ,1969. Two addition^ subspeciesof N erican crotalid snakes, Biol. Soc. ash. 82 :2 ant, 1934a. The broad-banded copperhead,a new n. Pap. Mus. 2001, Univ. ~ i c(283) ~ . :1-5. subspeciesAgk~strodon~ o ~ a s eOccas. .1934b. The t a x o n o ~ status, c range, and natural history of Schott’s racer. Occas. Pap. us. Zool. Univ. ~ i c (287) h ~ :1-17.

.

421, 422. 422.100, 423.

423.500. 424. 425. 426. 426.050.

426.165. 426.181.

426,282.

426,190,

426.200. 426,250. 426.251. 426.275,

427.190. 427.200.

.1938. The subspeciesof the copperhead Agkistrodun ~ o k a s e Beauvois. n Bull. Chi. Acad. Sci. 5: 163-66. .1943. A synopsisof the American formsof Agkistrodon (copperheads and moccasins). Bull. Chi. Acad. Sci.7(2):147-70. of the Agkistrodon c o ~ p l e xA. : onog graphic review. Oxford, . ~ g g oSnakes . Ohio: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. GoE, C. C. 1936. Distribution and variation of a new subspeciesof water snake, ~ a tc ~r c ~ l o p~~ o ~ ~ o r i with d a n aa,discussion of its relationships.Occas. Pap. ~ ~ s Zuol. Univ. Mich, (327):1-9. GoE, M. L,, and R. B. Loomis. 1978. The genus Oduntacarus(Acari:Trombiculi~ l u :370-73. daej in North America, J ~ e dE.n t o ~ o l~. o ~ o l uI&) a . Carnegie Mus. Goin, C. J, 194.2.Description of a new race of Siren i n ~ e r ~ e d iAnn. 29:211-17. .1957. Descriptionof a new salamander of the genus Siren from the Rio Grande. ~erpetulogica13(1):37- 42. Goin, C. J., and M. G. Netting. 1940. A new gopher frog from the Gulf Coast, with comments on theRana areolata group. Ann. Carnegie us. 38 :137-68. H. M. Smith, D, G. Broadley, J.R, Dixon, C. McCarthy, J. C. Rage, Golay, P*, B. Schatti, and NI. Toriba. 1993.Endogl~phs and other~ a ~venu~ous u r snakes of the world. Cairo, Egypt: Azeimops, S.A. Goldberg, S, R. 1998. Reproduction in the blackneck garter snake, Tha~nophis c ~ ~ ~ o (Serpentes: psis Colubridae).Tex. J.Sci, 50(3):229-34. Goldberg, S. R., C. R. Bursey, and H. J. Holshuh. 1994. Ph~socephalussp. (Spirurida, Spirocercidae)larvae in thestomach granulomas of the blue spiny lizard Scelopor~s serrifer (Phrynosomatidae)fkom Texas.1.~ i lMs. ~ 30(2) , : 274-76. Goldberg, S. R., C. R. Bursey, and C. T.McAllister. 1995.Gastrointestinal from Texas, helminths of nine species of ~celoporuslizards (P~ynosomatidaej J.~ e l ~ i n t h oSoc. l . ash, 62(2):188-96. Goldberg, S. R., C, R. Bursey, and R. Tawil, 1993.Gastrointestinalhelminths of Sce~uporuspoinset~i (P~ynosomatidaej.f. ~ e l ~ i ~ t h o l . the crevice spiny lizard, Soc. ash. 60(2j:263-65. Gollob, R. 1978. Bullfrogs preyingon cedar waxwings. ~erpetol.Rev. 9(2): 47-48, Good, D. A, 1988, Phylogeneti~relatio S among ge~honotine lizards: An analysis of external morphology. Univ Pub!, ZOOl. 121:1-139. .1994. Species limits in the genus ~errhunotus(Squamata: Anguidae). ~ e r p e t o l~, o n o 8g:180-202. ~ Good, D. A.,and M. G. Wiedenfeld. 1995.The holotypeof the Texas alligator lizard, er rho not us i ~ ~ e rBaird ~ a (Squamata: ~ s Anguidae).1.~ e r ~ e ~ 29(4j o l .: 628-30. Natl. ~ i l ~12(3): l . 29-31, Goodwin, H. A. 1974. Heretoday. ..gone tomorro~? Copeia 1g57(1): Graham, A, B, 1957. Thethyroid gland of T~p~lornolge ra~h~uni. 41-45 Grant, B, W. 1990. Trade-offh in activity timeand physiological performancefor r r i a ~ i71(6) , :2323-33. the~oregulat~ desert g lizards,S c e ~ o p o r ~ s ~ eEcolug~ , A.E. Dunham. 1988. Thermally imposed timeconstraints on Grant, B. ~ .and a ~ i . 69(1):167-76. the activity of the desert lizardScel~purus~ e r r ~ Eculug~

.

427.201. 428. 429. 430. 430.500.

431' 432. 432.100. 432.110. 432.111. 432.112. 432.150. 432.161.

432.200. 432.230. 433. 434. 434.150.

434.170.

435.

436. 43 7.

.1990. Elevationalcovariation in environmental constraints and life his~ ~ . 71(5): 1765-76. tories of the desert lizard,Sce~oporus~ e r r i uEcolog~ Grant, C. 1936. The southwestern desert tortoise, Gopherus ugussizi. Zoologicu 21 :225-29.

.1956. Alligators in western Texas. Herpetologicu 12(2) :90. .1960. Di~erentiation of the southwestern tortoises (genus Gopherus), with notes on their habits. Truns. Sun Diego Soc. Nut, Hist. 12(27):441-48. Graybeal,A. 1997. Phylogenetic relationshipsof bufonid frogsand tests of alternate macroevolutionaryhypotheses characterizingtheir radiation. Zool. J.Linn. Soc. 119: 297-338. Greding,E. J., Jr. 1964a. Food of Ag~istrodonc. contortrix in Houston and Trinity Counties, Texas.Southwest. Nut. 9(2) :105. .1964b. Food of Nutrix in Hunt County, Texas.Sout~west.Nut. 9(3) :206. Godkey, C. K.,and J. K.Cole. 1986. Blunder in their footsteps. Nut. Hist. 95(8) :4, 6,8,10-12. Green,D., and D. Thomas. 1989a. Geographicdistribution. Sternot~eruscarinutus. Herpetol. Rev, 20(1) :14. .198933. Geographic distribution.Ranu c. clum~tuns.~erpetol.Rev, 20(1): 11-12. .1989c. Geographicdistribution.Rana cutesbe~unu.Herpetol. Rev. 20(1): 11. Greenberg,N. 1977. An ethogram of the blue spiny lizard, Sce~oporusc ~ a ~ o g e n ~ s (Reptilia, Lacertilia, Iguanida). J.Herpetol. 11(2) :177-95. Greene,B. D., J. K. Dixon, J. M. Muller, M. J. Whiting, and 0. W. Thornton. 1994. Feeding ecologyof the Concho water snake, N e r o ~ u~urteripauci~uculu~u. J,Herpetol. 28(2): 165-72. Greene,H. W. 1969. Fat storage in females of an introduced lizard, H e ~ i d u c t ~ l u s turcicus from Texas,"ex. J.Sei. 21(2): 233-35. .1984. Taxonomicstatus of the western racer, Coluber constrictor mormon. J.Herpetoz. 18(2): 210-11. Greene, H. W., and B. E. Dial. 1966. Brooding behaviorby a female Texas alligator lizard. Herpetolog~cu22(4) :303. Greene,H. W., and G. V.Oliver, Jr. 1965. Notes on the natural history of the western massasauga, Herpetologicu 21(3) :225-28. Grimser,L.L. 1988. Phylogeny, taxonomy,class~cation,and biogeography of eublepharid geckos. In Ph~logeneticrelutions~psof the lizurd~u~~lies, ed. K.Estes and G. Pregill, 369-469. Stanford,Calif.: Stanford University Press. Grismer,L.L., and J. A.McGuire. 1996. Taxonomy and biogeography of the Seeloporus ~ u g ~ s tcomplex er (Squamata: P~ynosomatidae)in Baja California, Mexico. Herpetologicu 52(2):416-27. Grobman,A. B. 1941. A contribution to the knowledge of variation in O p ~ e o d r ~ s uest~vus(Harlan), with the description of a new subspecies.Mise, pub^. Mus, Zool. Univ. Mich. 5 0 : 1-38. .1944. The distribution of the salamanders of the genus Plethodo~in eastern United States and Canada. Ann. N.Y; Acad. Sei. 45(7) :261-316. ,1950a.The problemof the naturalrange of a species.Copeiu 1950(3) : 231-32,

438. 438,100. 438,101, 438.400. 438.410. 438.420. 438.430. 438.440. 438,600,

.195ob. Thedistribution of the races of Desmognat~usfuscusin the southern states. Chi. Acad. Sei. Nut. Hist. Mise. 70:1-8. .1984.Scutellationvariation in O p ~ e o d raestivus. ~s Bull. Flu. State Mus. 29(4): 153-70. ,1992.Metamerism in the snake O p ~ e o d rver~~alis, ~s with a description of a new subspecies.J.*erpetol. 26(2):175-86. Grubb,J.C. 1970.Orientation in post-reproductive Mexicantoads, Bufo vall~ceps, Copeia 1970(4): 674-80. ,1971. Selected aspectsof olfactory and visual orientation in anuran am154. phibians. Diss. Abstu: Int. ( B ) 33(1): .1g73a. Orientation in newly ~etamorphosedMexican toads, Bufo valliceps, *erpetolug~ca29(2) :95-100. .197313.Olfactoryorientation in breeding Mexicantoads, B ~ fvalliceps. o :490-97* Copeia I973(3) .1975.Olfactoryorientation in southern leopard frogs,Rana utr~cularia. *erpetulogica 31(2) :219-22. Grunwaldt,P,H, 1980,Liste der Schildkrotenin der herpetologischen Sammlung des ZoologischenInstituts und Zoologischen Museums der Universitat Hamburg. (Testudines, Reptilia). Bestandslisten der herpetologischen ~ammlungdes Zoologisc~en Instituts und Zoologisc~enM u s e u ~ der s Universitut amb burg (ZMH) I :1-19.

438.700. Guenther, M. M., G. W. Ferguson, H. L.Snell, and H. Snell. 1993.The variation and genetic basisof dorsal colorpattern in the desert side-blotched lizard, Uta stans~urianastejnegeri. J.*erpetol. 27(2) :199-205. Guidry, E,B. 1953.Herpetological notes from southeastern Texas. *erpetologica 439. 9(1>:49-56. 439.200. Guillette, L. J.,J. Weigel, and G. Flater. 1983. Unilateral testicular pigmentation in theMexican lizardSeeloporus variabilis. Copeia1983(1):155-61. 439.210. Guillette,L.T., and D. A. Bearce. 1986. The reproductiveand fat body cyclesof grammicus ~sparilis.Trans. Kans. Acad. Sei. 89(1-2):31-39. the lizard, Sce~opor~s Gunter, G. 1941.A plague of toads. Copeia 1941(4): 226. :175. .1945.The northern range of Berlandier’s turtle. Copeia 1945(3) Gunther, A.1858. Catalogue of colubrine snakes in the collectionof the British 231. Museum. Arch. J:Naturg. 24: 442.005. Gutberlet, R. L.,and D. S. Figueroa. 1995a. Geographicdistribution. Siren inter:207. media. *erpetol. Rev. 26(4) 442.006, .1995b. Geographicdistribution. Pseudacris crucifeu: *erpetol. Rev. 26(4): 208. 442.007. .1995c. Geographicdistribution. ~inos~ernon oduratum. *erpetol, Rev. 26(4):209. 442.250. Gutberlet, R.L., and C. J.Franklin. 1996. Geographicdistribution, ~umpropeltis :213. calligaster calligasteu: *erpetol. Rev.27(4) Gutberlet, R. L., and C. L. Stewart. 1996. Geographicdistribution. ~ ~ n o s t e r ~ u ~ 442.275151. odoratum. *erpetol. Rev. 27(3): 442.278. Gutberlet,R. L.,C. L.Stewart, and M. B. Keck. 1998. New distributional records for Texas reptiles and amp~ibians.Sout~west,Nut. 43(1) :6-12. Guttma~,S. I. 1965. An electrophoreticanalysis of the blood proteins of the 443. genus Siren. Tex. J.Sei. 17(3):267-77.

,1969. Blood protein variation in the Bufo americanus species group of toads. Copeia 1969(2):243-49. .1971. An electrophoreticanalysis of the hemoglobins of Old and New World lizards.J. ~erpetol.5(1-2): 11-16. .1972. Blood proteins. In Evolution inthe genus Bufo, ed.W. F. Blair, 26578, Austin: Universityof Texas Press. Gwynne, P. 1975. Wildlife in danger. Ne~sweek85(10:36-41. Haenel, G. 1.1997. ~itochrondialDNA variation in populationsof the tree lizard Urosaurus ornatus. Copeia1997(1):174-78. Hahn, D. E. rg79a. Leptotyphlopidae,~ e p t o t ~ p ~ l Cat. o p s ,Am. Amphib. Rept. 230.1-230.4. o p s Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 231.1-231.2. 1:97gb.~ e p t o t ~ h ~ ldulcis. kumilis. Cat. Am. Amph~b.Rept. 232.1-232.4. .1979c. ~eptot~phlops Hahn, W. E. 1962. Serum protein and erythrocyte changes during metamorphosis in paedogenic A m b ~ s t o ~ tigrinum a mavortiu~.Comp. Bioche~z.P h ~ s i o7: ~. 55-61. Halan, W. E.,and D. W. Tinkle. 1965.Fat body cycling and experimentalevidence forits adaptive significanceto ovarian follicle develop~entin thelizard Uta stansburia~a.J. Exp. Zool. 158(1): 79-86. b. Hall, R.J. 1976. Eumeces o~soletus(Baird and Girard),Cat. Am. A ~ p ~ iRept, 186.1-186.3. Hallowell, E. 1852a.Descriptions of new species of reptiles inhabiting North America, Proc. dead. Nat. Sei, Phila. 6: 177-82. 1852b. On a newgenus and three new speciesof reptiles inhabiting North America. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei, Phila. 6 :206-209. .1854. Notices of new reptiles from Texas. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phi~a. 7: 192-93. .1856a.Notice of a collectionof reptiles from Kansas and Nebraska, presented to the Academy of Natural Sciences,by Dr.Hammond, U.S.A. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila. 8 :238-53. .1856b.Note on thecollection of reptiles fromthe neighborhood of San Antonio, Texas, recently presented to the Academy of Natural Sciences byDr. A. Heerman. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sui, Phi~a.8 :306-10. .1859. Report on reptiles collectedon thesurvey. Expl. Surv. R.R. ~ i s s ~ s sippi R. Pac@c Ocean10(4):1-27. Hambrick, P. S. 1975. New county records and range extensionsof Texas amphibians and reptiles. ~erpetol.Rev. 6 ( 3 ) :79-80. .1976, Additionsto the Texas herpetofauna, with notes on peripheral range extensions and new recordsof Texas amphibians and reptiles. Tex. J. Sci. 27(2):291-99. Hamilton, R.D. 1944. Notes on mating and migration in Berlandier’s turtle. Copeia 1944(1):62. .1947. Therange of Pseudem~sscripta gaigei. Copeia1947(r):65-66. Hamilton,W J.1947. Hibernation of the lined snake, Copeia 1947(3):209-10, Hampton, N. 1976. Annotated checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of Travis n ~naturalist’s n g guide for us tin, Texas, area, ed. County, Texas.In A ~ i r ~ ~ and E, Kutac and S. Caran, 84-101. Austin: Oasis Press, Hading, K. A. 1983. Catalogue of New World amphibians.New York:Pergamon.

Hardy, J. D., Jr., and R. J. Borroughs. 1986. Systematic status of the spring peeper, H ~ l crucifer a (Amphibia: Hylidae).Bull. Md, ~erpetul.Soc. 22(2): 68-69, Hardy, L. M. 1975a. A systematic revision of the colubrid snake genus G~alupiun. 454'300. JHerpetul. q(1):107-32. 1975b.A systematic revisionof the colubrid snake genus ~icimia.JHer454.310. petul. q(2):133-68, .1976a.~icimiastreckeri Taylor. Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 181.1-181.2. ,1976b.G~alupiun Cope. Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 182.1-182.4. 1990.~icimiuGray. Cat. Am. ~ m p h iRept. ~ , 471.1-471.5, .1995.Checklist of the ~ p h i b i a nand s reptiles of the Caddo LakeWatershed in Texas and Louisiana. Bull. Mus. Life Sei, IO:1-31. 454.375 Hardy, L. M., and C, J. Cole. 1998. Morphologyof a sterile,tetraploid, hybrid Am. Mus. Nuvit. 3228 :1-16. whiptail lizard (Squamata:Teiidae: Cnemidup~urus), and M. C. Lucas. 1991.A crystallineprotein is responsiblefor di454.400. Hardy, L.M,, muculutu~ a (Shaw) morphic egg jellies in thespotted salamander, A m ~ ~ s t u m 100A(3):653-60, (Caudata:Ambystomatidae).Cump. Biuchem. Ph~siuZ. Harper, F.1932,A new Texas subspeciesof the lizard genus Hul~ruu~iu, Pruc. 455. Biul, Soc. ash. 45:15-18. ,1935.The name of the gopher frog.Pruc. Bid. Soc. ~ u s h48: . 79-82, 456. .194.7.A new cricket frog~ A c r i from s ~ the middle western states. Pruc. 457. Bid. Soc. ash. 60:39-40. Harrington, J. W. 1953.A fossil Pleistocene snake from Denton County, Texas. 458. 454.150.

~ i e l a L z~(r):zo. a~ Wisconsin age environments in the northernChi458.200, Harris, A. H. 1977(1978). huahuan desert: Evidence from the higher vertebrates. In Transactiunsof the resuurces of the C~ihuahuun desert region,U ~ i t eStates a s~mpusiumon the ~iulugical and Mexicu,ed. R. W. Wauer and D. N. Riskin, Ser.3 :23-52. Alpine, Tex.: National Park Service. . A preliminary account of the rattleHarris, H. S., and R. S. S i ~ o n s1978. snakes with the description of four new subspecies. Bull. Ma. Herpetul. Soc. 14(3) : 105-211.

Harrison, C. R., and T. LaDuc.1998, Geographicdistribution, Crutalus mulussus mulussus. ~ e r p e t ~Rev, l . 29(3):176. Harshberger,J. C., F.L. Rose, and L. C. Cullen. 1989. Histopathologyof skin, connective tissue, pigment cell,and liver neoplasmsin neotenic Am~~stumu tigrir~urn from a sewage lagoon. HerpetuputhuZugiu I(I): 19-27. Hartrnan, C. 1922.A brown rat kills a rattler. JMammaZ, 3(2): 116-17. 459. 460. Hartweg, H. 193qa. A new AmericanP s e ~ d e m ~Occas, s. Pup. Mus. Zuul. Univ. ~ i c h(397):1-4. . 461. .rg39b.Further notes on the Pseuaem~sscriptu complex,Cupeiu 1939(1):55. 462. 194.0.Description of SaZvaaura interme~u,new species,with remarks on the graha~iuegroup. Cupeia 1940(4) :256-59. 462.200. Harvey, M.B. 1992.The distribution of Graptem~spseuaugeugraphicaon the upper Sabine River.Tex. I. Sci. 44(2):257-58. Errata: 494 462.250. Harwell, G. M.1972.Variation in selected populations of Scelupurus g r a ~ ~ ~ c u s (class: Reptilia;order: Squamata; family: Iguanidae), TASCA 27(1) :11-16. Harwood, P. D. 1930.A new speciesof Ox~sumatium(Nematoda),with some re463.

464. 465. 465.010. 465.050. 466. 467. 468. 469. 470. 470.001. 470.010.

470.015. 470.018.

marks on thegenera Oxysomutium and Aplectunu and observations on thelife history. J.Purusitol. 17(2):61-73. .1932. The helminths parasitic in the Amphibia and Reptilia of Houston, Texas, and vicinity, Proc. US. Nutl. Mus, 81, Art. 17. .1936.The effects of soil typeson thehelminths parasitic in the ground lizard, ~e~olopismu luterule (Say).~cology17(4):694-98. Hastings, R, J. 1990.New observations on Paluxy tracks confirm their dinosaurian origin, Geol. Soc. Am. Field Trip Guidebook9 :193-201. Hawthorne, J. M.1990.Dinosaur track-bearing strata of the Lampasas Cut Plain and Edwards Plateau, Texas, Bu~lorUniv. Geol. Stud. Bull. 49: 1-47. Hay, 0.P. 1892. On the ejection of blood fromthe eyes of horned toads. Proc. US. Nutl. Mus. 15:375-78. .1908.The fossil turtles of North America. Publ. Cur~egieInst. ~ u s h , 75: 1-568. . I ~ I IA . fossil specimen of alligator snapper ~ ~ u c r o c h e l ~ s t e m m e ~ c k i i ~ from Texas.Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 50 :452-55. .1916.Description of some fossilvertebrates found in Texas. Bull. Univ. Tex. 71:1-24. .rgaq. The Pleistoceneof the middle regionof North America and its vertebrate animals. Publ, Curnegie Inst. ash^ 332A:1-385. Hay, W. P. 1904. A revision of ~uluclemys,a genus of turtles. Bull. US. Bur: Fisher: 24: 1-20. Hayes-Odum, L. A. 1990.Observationson reproduction and embryonic development in Syrrhophus cystignu~hoidescumpi (Anura: Leptodactylidae).Southwest. Nut. 35(3):358-61. Hayes-Odum, L., L. Bailey, T. Kennedy,D. Cowman, and P. Reiff. 1994. Natural history notes. ~lligutormississippiensis. Nests. Herpetol. Rev. 25(3):119. Hayes-Odum, L., and J. R. Dixon. 1997. Abnormalitiesin embryos from a wild American alligator ~Alligutormississippie~sis~ nest. Herpetol. Rev, 28(2):73-75. Hayes-Odum, L., T. Hill-Kennedy,L. Bailey, D. Cowman, P. Reiff, and D, Jones. 1996. Natural history notes: Al~gutor ~~ssissippie~sis. Reproduction. Herpetol. Rev. 27(4):199-200. of drought on American alligaHayes-Odum, L. A., and D. Jones. 1993. Effects tors ~A~ligutor miss is sip pi ens is^ in Texas. Tex. J.Sei. 45(2):182-95. Hayes-Odum, L. A., D, Valdez, M. Lowe, L. Weiss, P. H. Reiff,and D. Jones. 1993. American alligator ~Alligutormississi~pie~sis~ nesting at aninland site. Tex. J.Sei. 45(1):51-61. Haynes, D. 1976. Gruptemys cugleiHaynes and McKown. Cut. Am. Amphib. Rept. 184.1-184.2, of turtle (genus GrapteHaynes, D., and R. R. McKom. 1974. A new species map mys) from the Guadalupe River system in Texas, lune Stud. Zool. Bot. 18(4): 143-52. Haynie, M.R.,and A. Knight. 1998. Color pattern variants in the Trans-Pecos copperhead. Southwest. Nut. 43(4):499-500. Heaton, M.J. 1979. Cranial anatomy of primitive captorhinid reptiles fromthe late Pennsylvanian and early Permian of Oklahoma and Texas. Okla. Geol, Surv. Bull. 127:1-84.

471. 472. 472.100. 472.120.

Hecht, M. K,1958. A synopsisof the mud puppiesof eastern North America. Proc. Staten M , Inst. ArtsSei, 21(1): 3-38. Hecht, M. K.,and B, L,Matalas, 1946. A review of middle North American toads of the genus Microk~Za.Am. Mus. Novit. 1315:1-21. Hedges, B. S. 1986. An electrophoretic analysis of Holarctic hylid frog evolution. Sgst. zooz. 35(1):1-1 7. Hedin, M. C., P. D. Sudman, I. F. Greenbaum, and J.W, Sites. 1990. Synaptonemal complexanalysis of sex chromosome pairing in thecommon ground skink, Scinc~ZZa ZateraZis (Sauria, Scincidae).Copeia 1gg0(4) :1114-22. Hembree, C. A., and L. A. Windberg. 1969. Function of the facial pitsof CrotaZus atrox. TASCA 23(4):15-17. oZivacea. Tex.J.Sei. Henderson,G. G. 1961. Reproductivepotential of Micro~~Za 13(3):355-56. Hendricks,A. C., J. T. Wyatt, and D. E. Henley. 1971,Infestation of a Texas redeared turtle by leeches. Tex. J.Sei. 22(2-3) :247. HlSS News-J. Hendricks,F, S. 1973. Geographicdistribution: CoZeon~xret~c~Zatus. I(1):21.

.1g75. Biogeography, natural history, and systematics of Cnemidopkorus tigris (Sauria: Teiidae) east of the ContinentalDivide, Diss. Abstclnt. 36(5): 473.420.

473.430,

473.431473.432.

476. 477. 478.

2105-2106. ,1985. Intrapopulational variation in the caudal osteology of Cnemidopkorus tigris marmoratusBaird and Girard (Reptilia: Teiidae). Tex. J.Sei. 37(1):33-47* Hendricks,F. S., and J. R. Dixon.1984. Population structure of Cnemidopkorus tigris (Reptilia: Teiidae)east of the ContinentalDivide. Sout~west.Nut. 29(1): 137-40. .1986. Systematicsand biogeography of Cnemi~opkorus marmuratus (Sauria: Teiidae). Tex.J.Sei. 38(4):327-402. .1988. Regenerated tail frequenciesin populations of C n e ~ i ~ o p ~maror~s moratus (Reptilia: Teiidae). Sout~west.Nat. 33(1):121-24. Henke, S, E. 1998. The effect of multiple search item and item abundance on the efficiency of human searchers. J Herpetoz. 32(1):112-15. Henke, S. E.,and M.Montemayor. 1997.Natural history notes. P~rgnosomacor~ u t ~Growth. m. ~erpetoZ.Rev. 27(4):152. .1998. Diel and monthly variations in capture success of P~rgnosomacornutum via road cruising in southern Texas. ~erpetoZ.Rev. 2g(3) :148-50. Hensley, M. 1959. Albinism in North Americanamphibians and reptiles. PubZ. Mus. M i c ~State . Univ. Bid. Ser: 1(4):135-59. ,1968. Another albino lizard,SceZoporus u~duZatus~ ~ a c i n t k(Green), ~n~s J.He~petoZ.1(1-4):92-9 Herald, E. S. 1952. Texas blindsalamander in the aquarium. Aquac J.23(8): 149-52. 1955. A longevity recordfor the Texas blindsalamander. HerpetoZogica lI(3):192. Herreid, C.F., 11.1961. Snakesas predators of bats. HerpetoZogica 17(4):271-72. corn~tum. a Hewatt, W. G. 1937. Courtingand egg-layinghabits of P ~ r ~ n o s o m Copeia 1g37(4):234. /I

478.200. 478.210. 479. 480.

480.200. 480.300. 480.301. 480.302. 480.303. 480.304. 480.305. 480.306. 480.307. 480.308. 480,309. 480,310. 480.311. 480.320,

480.335. 480.375. 480.376. 480.377. 480.378.

Heyer, W. R. 1971.Leptodactgluslabialis. Cat. Am.A ~ p k i bRept. . 104.1-104.3. .1978. Systematicsof thefuseus group of the frog genus ~eptodactglus (Amphibia, Leptodactyidae). Nat, Hist, Mus, Los Angel, Ctg, Sei. Bull. 29 :1-85, Heyl, D. H., and H. M.Smith. 1957. Another unicolor many-lined skink from Nebraska. Herpetoloffica 13(1): 12-14. Hibbard, C. W., and W. W. Dalquest. 1966. Fossils fromthe Seymour Formation of Knox and Baylor Counties, Texas, and their bearing on thelate Kansan climate of that region. Co~trib.Mus, ~ a ~ e o n t oUniv, l , ~ i c21 ~:1-66. . Hibbitts, T.1978. Techniques for collectingthe common salamanders of Texas. Dallus Herpetol.Soc. Occas. Pap. I :4-7. Hibbitts,T. D,IggIa.Geographicdistribution. Eumeces obsoletus. Herpetol. Rev, 22(2) :65.

.IggIb. Geographicdistribution. Op~isaurus atte~uatus utte~uutus.Her-

petol. Rev, 22(2) :66.

.I ~ ~ I CGeographic . distribution, a am pro pelt is calliffastercall~gaste~ Her-

petol. Rev. 22(2) :67.

.1991d. Geographicdistribution. ~ e r o d ~ a r k o ~Herpetol. b ~ e r a . Rev. 22(2): 68. .IggIe. Geographicdistribution. ~ i s t r u rcatenutus ~s edwar~i. ~erpetol, Rev, 22(2) :68. .19g2a. Geographicdistribution.Deiroc~elgsreticular~a~ ~ u r iHerpetol, a. Rev. 3(3):88. .1992b.Geographicdistribution. ~ s e u d eco~cinna ~ ~ s ~ e ~ t eHerpetol, ~i. Rev. 23(3): 88. 1992~.Geographicdistribution.Diadup~is punetatus arnyi. Herpetol. Rev. 23(3):91. .1992d. Geographicdistribution. Op~eodrgsaestivus. Herpetol. Rev. 23(3): 92. .rg92e. Geographicdistribution. ~irginia stri~t~la. Herpetoz. Rev, 23(3): 93. .rggzf. Life history notes. Hgpsiff~enat o ~ ~ u a(night t u snake), Predation. ~ e r ~ e t Rev. o l , 23(4) :120. .1994. Geographic variation and evolutionary relationshipsof ringneck snakes, genus D i u ~ o p ~M.S. ~ s . thesis, University of Texas, Arlington.121 pp. Hibbitts,T. D., and M.P. Hibbitts. 1994. Geographicdistribution, New county records of ~ p h i b i a n and s reptiles fromnortheastern Texas. Herpetol. Rev. 25(1): 35-36. Hibbitts,T. D.,M. P. Hibbitts, and T. J.Hibbitts. 1996. New distributional records of reptiles fromwestern and Trans-Pecos Texas.Herpetol. Rev. 27(4) :217-18. Hibbitts,T.J.1997. Geographicdistributi .Cne~idopkorus se~li~eatus viri~s. Herpeto~,Rev. 28(4): 210. .1998a. Geographicdistribution. Sternot~erusodoratus, ~erpetol.Rev. 29(3): 174.1998b. Geographicdistrib~tion.~ e r r a p eCarolina ~e triu~guis.Herpetol. Rev. 29(3):174.. ,1998~.Geographicdist~bution.E u ~ ~ e claticeps, es Herpetol. Rev, 29(3) : 174.

480.379.

.1998d. Geographicdistribution. Lampropeltis calligastercalligaste~Her-

petol. Rev. 29(3):177.

480.380.

Hibbitts, T. J.1999. Geographicdistribution. Pseudacris clar~ii.Herpetol. Rev,

480.381.

Hibbitts,T. J. 1999. Geographicdistr~bution.La~prope~tis triangulu~ celanops. Herpetol. Rev. 30(1):54. Hibbitts,T. J. 1999, Geographicdistribution, Leptotyph~ops~ u l c i s d ~ cHerpe~ol. is. :54. Rev, 30(1) Hibb~tts,T. J.,and T. L. Hibbitts. 1998. Geographicdistribution. Reg~na rigi~a sinicola. Herpetol. Rev. 29(3): 178, Hibbitts, T,J.,and J.H. Malone. 1997.Geographicdistribution. Storeria occipito~aculataobscura. ~erpetol.Rev. 28(4) :211. Hibbitts,T. J.,and J.H. Malone. 1999.Geographicdistribution. Hgla cjnerea. Herpetol. Rev. 30( I):50. Highton, R. 1962, Revisionof North American salamanders of the genus ~ l e ~ h o don. Bull. Fla. State Mus, 6(3):235-367. 1986. PZethodo~serratus Grobman, Cat. Am, ~mphib.Rept. 394.1-394.2. .1989. Biochemical evolutionin theslimy salamanders of the P l e t h o ~ o ~ ~ g ~ ~ t i ~complex o s ~ s in theeastern United States. I. Geographicprotein v ~ i a t i o n . Ill. Eliol. ~ o n o 57: g ~1-78, ~ ~ a n e Hill, I.R, 1954. Thetaxonomic status of the mid-Gulf Coast ~ ~ p h i u ~ a . Stud. ZOOl. I(I2):191-215. Hill, W. H. 1971. Pleistocenesnakes from a cavein ICendall County, Texas.Tex. 1. Sei, 22(2”3): 209-16. Hiller,I.1973. Birthof snakes. Tex. Parks Wild. 31(3):30-31. Hillis, D,M.1977. Anincident of death-feigning in Sonora semiannulata la^c~ardi.Bu~Z.Md Herpetol, Soc. 13(2):116-17. ,1981. Premating isolating mechanisms among three species of the Rana pip~enscomplex in Texas and southern Oklahoma. Copeia 1981(2):312-19. .1982. Morphological di~erentiationand adaption of the larvae of Rana ~ e r l a ~ ~and e r R. i sphenocephala (Ranapipie~scomplex) in sympatry, Copeia 1982(1): 168-74. Hillis, D. M., and S. L. Campbell. 1982. New localities for~ a ~ t ~rubra l l a cucullata (Colubridae)and the distribution of its two mo~hotypes.Southwest. Nut. 27(2):220-21. Hillis, D.M.,J.S. Prost, and D. A. Wright. 1983. Phylogeny and biogeography of the Ranapipiens complex: A biochemical evaluation. Sgst. Zool. 32(2):132-43. .,A. M.Hillis, and R. F. M ~ t i n1984. . Reproductive ecologyand hybridization of the endangered Houston toad ~ E l u ~ o ~ o u s ~ o1 n.Herpetol. e~sjs~. 18(1):56-72. Hilman,J.L., and R. W. Strandtmann. 1960. The incidenceof hepatozooa serpentium in some west Texas snakes.Southwest. Nat. 5(4):226-28. ’ Hilton, W. A. 1956,Eye muscles of s~amanders.Herpeto~ogica12(4):273-76. Hinderstein,B., and J.Boyce. 1977.The Miocene s a ~ ~ a n dBatr~chosauro~d~s er dissi~nulans(Amphibia, Urodela) from east Texas,1.Herpe~ol.I I ( ~:369-72. ) Hirth, H, F, 1997. Synopsisof the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). U S F W S - U S ~ I ~ i uRept. l . g7(1):i-r20,

30(1):51.

480.382. 480.385. 480.420. 480.421. 481, 481,001. 481,002.

482. 482.200, 482.300. 482.400. 482.410, 482.420. 482.500.

4.83.

484. 484.500. 484.520.

485. 485.500. 486. 487. 487.500. 487.610. 487.611. 487.700. 488. 489. 490. 491. 492. 493. 494. 495. 495.010. 495.020. 495.030495.040. 495.050. 495.060. 495.070495.080. 495.081,

Hoddenbach, G. A. 1966. Reproductionin western Texas C~ze~idophorus sexlineatus (Sauria: Teiidae),Copeta 1966(1): 110-13. Hoff, G,, and D.0 . Trainer. 1973. Arbovirusesin reptiles: Isolationof a bunyamwera group virus from a naturally infected turtle. J.~erpetol.7(2):55-62. Hoffman, C. H., and J. P. Linduska. 1949. Some considerationsof the biological effects of DDT. Sci. month^^ 69 :104-14. a s from Bufo val~~ceps. Hoffpauir, C. H., and E. P. Morrison. 1966. R h a ~ ~ ranae So~thwest.Nut. 11(z):302, Misc. Publ., SSAR Facsimile Holbrook,J.1842. North American herpeto~og~. reprint 1976, five volumes in one. Holland, R.L., andH. M. Smith. 1992. Geographicdistribution. ~ n e ~ ~ d o p h o r u s gularis gularis. Herpetol, Rev. 23(4):123. .1993. Geographicdistribution. Terrapene ornata ornuta (ornate box turtle). Herpetol. Rev. 24(3):108. Hollis, P.1972. A survey of parasites of the bullfrog, Rana cates~eianaShaw, in central east Texas. Southwest. Nat. 17(2):198-200. nigriceps from Kinney County, Texas. Herpet~logica Holman, J.A. 1962a. Ta~tiZ~a 17(4):274. .1962b. A Texas Pleistoceneherpetofauna. Copeia 1962(2):33-61. .1963. Late Pleistoceneamphibians and reptiles of the Clear Creekand Ben Franklin local faunas of Texas. J.Grad. Res. Ctv: 3113): 152-67. .1964. Pleistocene amphibians and reptiles from Texas. ~erpetolo~ica 20(2): 73-83. .1965a. A small Pleistoceneherpetofauna from Houston, Texas. Tex. J. Sci. 17(4):418-23. .1965b. Pleistocenesnakes from the Seymour Formationof Texas. Copeia 1965(1):102-104. .1966a. A huge Pleistocenebox turtle from Texas.Q. J.Fla, Acad, Sci. 28(4):345-48. .1966b. The Pleistoceneherpetofauna of Miller's Cave, Texas.Tex.J.Sci. 18(4):372-77. .1966c. A small Miocene herpetofauna from Texas.Q. J.Fla. Acad. Sci, 29(4):267-75. '1968. A Pleistocene herpetofauna from Kendall County, Texas. Q, J.Ha. Acad. Sci. 31(3): 165-72. .1969a. Pleistocene a m p h i b i ~from s a cave in Edwards County, Texas. Tex. J Sci. 21(1):63-68. .1969b. Herpetofauna of the Pleistocene Slaton local fauna of Texas. Southwest. Nat. 14(2):203-12. .1969c. The Pleistocene amphibians and reptiles of Texas. Puhl. Mich, State Mus. Bid. Sev: 4(5):163-92, .1971a. 0phisuurus. Cat. Am, Amphib. Rept. 110.1-110.3. .~ g p bOp~isaurus . attentua~us. Cat. Am. A ~ p ~ iRept. b . 111.1-111.3. .1977. Amphibians and reptiles of the Gulf Coast Miocene of Texas. Herpeto~ugtca33(4):391-403. .1979. A review of North American Tertiary snakes. Publ. ~ i cState ~ , Univ. Paleontol. Sev: r(6):203-60.

.1995.Pleistocene arnp~ibiansand reptiles in North Arnerica.New York: Oxford University Press. ,1996.Herpetofauna of the Trinity River local fauna (Miocene, early Barstonian), San Jacinto County, Texas,U.S.A. Tertiar~Res. 17(1-2):5-10. Holman, J.A., and A. J. Winkler. 1987.A mid-Pleistocene (Irvingtonian)herpetofauna from a cavein southcentral Texas. Pearce-Sellars Ser:, Tex. Mern. Mus. 44:1-1 7. Holmback,E. 1981.Life history notes.Crotalus atrox. Herpetol.Rev. 12(2): 70. .1985.Life history notes.Crotal~satrox (western diamondbackrattlesnake). Coloration. Herpetol. Rev. 16(3): 78. 495.350. Holmes, R. 1989,The skulland axial skeleton of the Lower Permian anthracosauroid amphibian Archeria crassi~scaCope. Paleontogr: Abstr:A. PaZaeozool.~ Stratigr: 207(4-6):161-206. Honegger, R. E. 1970.Houston toad, Bufo oust on ens is Sanders 1953.In Red ~ a t a a rep~i~ia. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN. book vol.3 - A ~ p ~ i b i and Hook, R. W., and N. Hotton 111.1991. A newsphenacodontidpleycosaur (Synapsida) from the Wichita group, Lower Permian of north-central Texas, J.'Vert, Paleontol. 11(1):37-44. 495.451- Hook, R. W, 1993.C~enoprosopusZ~wesi,a new cochleosaurid amphibian (Amphibia: Te~nospondyli) from the Permo-Carboniferousof north-central Texas. Ann. CarnegieMus, 62(4): 273-91, Hough, D, 1992,Turtle diary. Fresh Wat. Mar: Aguar: 1st~): 186-89. Houseal, T. W.,J. W. Bickham, and M. D. Springer. 1982.Geographicvariation in theyellow mud turtle. Kinosternonpavescens. Copeia1982(3): 567-80. 495.610. Houseal, T. W,,and J.L .Carr. 1983.Notes on thereproduction of Kinosternon subrubru~(Testudenes: Kinosternidae) in east Texas. Sout~west.Nat. 28(2): 237-39. Howland, J. M. 1992.Life history of C~p~osaurus texan~s (Sauria: Iguanidae): : Environmentalcorrelates and interpopulationalvariation. Copeia 1992(1) 82-93. snakes. In ~unger495.700. Huang, T. T., S, R. Lewis, and B. S. Lucas 111,1975, 'Veno~ous ous Plunts, Snakes,a r t ~ r o p o ~and s , ~ a r i nlife e in Texas,123-42.Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Hubbs, C. 1962,Effects of a hurricane on the fish fauna of a coastal pool and 496. :289-96. drainage ditch. Tex. J.Sci, 14(3) Hubbs, C., and N. E. Armstrong. 1961.Minimum developmentaltemperature 497. couchi and ~ i c r o ~olivacea. ~ l a Tex. J.Sci. tolerance of two anurans, Scap~iopus 13(3): 358-62. Hubbs, C., and F. D. Martin. 1967.Bufo valliceps breeding in artificial pools.

495.082.

498.200. 498.210. 4.98.220.

~

Sout~west, Nat. ~ ( 1 )105-106. : Hubbs, C., T. Wright, and 0.Cuellar. 1963.Developmentaltemperature tolerance of central Texas populations of two anuran amphibians, Bufo valliceps and Pseudacris streckeri.Sout~west. Nat. 8(3):142-49. Hudson, R., and G. Carl. 1983.Life history notes. Coluber constrictorpaviventris. Coloration.Herpetol. Rev. 14(1) :19. .1985.Life history notes.Crotalus orr rid us (timberrattlesnake). Coloration. Herpetol. Rev. 16(1):28-29. Huey, R. B., and A.E. Dunham. 1987.Repeatabilityof locomotor performance

498.225.

498.228.

499. 500. 501.

in natural populations of the lizard Seeloporus~erriumi.~ ~ o l u t41(5) i ~ n: 1116-20. Huey, R.B., A. E.Dunham, K. L. Overall,and R.A. Newman. 1990. Variation in locomotor performancein demographically known populations of the liiard, Seeloporus ~erriami. Pk~siol. Zool. 63(5):84.5-72. Huey, R.B., P.H. Niewi~owsky, J. Kaufmann, and J.C. Herron. 1989. Thermal biology of nocturnal ectotherms:Is sprint performanceof geckosmaximal at low ~ . 62(2) :488-504. body temperatures?.P k ~ s i oZool, Hughes, N. 1962. The number and form of chromosomes in the genus Scupkiopus. Tex. J. Sei. 14(2):225-28. ,1963. Notes on two partial albino (1)toads, ~cupkiop~s b o ~ ~ ~ r Herons, petolog~cu19(2):139-40. -1965.Comparison of frontoparietalbones of ~ c a p ~ i o~po~~sb i ~ rand ons S. k u ~ ~asoevidence n ~ of interspecific hybridization, ~erpetologicu21(3):196201.

502. 503-

504. 505. 506.

507. 508.

508.050. 508.051.

508,052. 509. 509.050. 509.0s1. 509.052. 509.060.

Hughes, R. C., J.R. Baker, and C. B. Dawson. 1941. The tapeworms of reptiles.E. Am. ~ iNut.~25(2) . :454-68. Hughes, R.C., J. W. H i g g i n b o t h ~andJ. , W. Clary. 1942. The trematodes of reptiles. I. Systematic section.Am. ~ iNut.~27(1): . 109-34. Huheey, J.E. 1959.Distribution and variation in the glossy water snake, Natriex rigi~u(Say). Copeia 1959(4):303--11. Scelopor~s Hunsaker, D., II.1g59a. Birth and litter sizes of the blue spiny lizard c ~ ~ n o g e nCo~eiu ~ s . 195g(3):260-61, .195gb. Stomach contents of the American egret, C u s ~ e r o ~ul~us, u s in Travis County, Texas. Teex. I. Sei. 11(4):454. Hunsaker, D.,II, R, E.Alston, W. F.Blair, and B. L, Turner. 1961. A comparison of the ninhydrin positive and phenoloci substances of parotoid gland secretions ~ o and their hybrids. ~ v o l ~ t i q(3) o n :352-59. of certain ~ uspecies Hunsaker, D., 11,and D. Sellers. 1953. Notes on the possible intergradation between the colubrine snakes Arizona elegans~ ~ u ~ c Klauber k a r ~ i and Arizona eleguns eleguns Kennicott in Texas. Tex. J. Sei. 5(2):268-69. ei, Hunt, A.P,, and S. G. Lucas 1990. Re-evaluation of “ ~ p o t k o r a x ” m e aa~late Z. 64(3-4) :317-28. Triassic aetosaur from the United States. Pulueon~olog~ ,1991a. A new r h ~ n c h o s from a ~ the Upper Triassic of west Texas, and the biochronologyof the late Triassicrhynchosaurs. pule onto log^ (Ox$) 34(4):927-38. nus and the correlation of the n o n - m ~ i n e 1991b.The P a ~ e ~ r ~ ibiochron Upper Triassicof Pangaea. PuleontoZog~(Ox$) 34(4):487-501. Hurter, J., and J.K,Strecker. 1909. Amphibiansand reptiles of Arkansas. Trans. Acad. Sei. St. Louis 18: 11-27. Husak, J.F. 1996a. Geographicdistribution. Anolis curolinensis.~ e r ~ e t oRev. l. 27(4) :210. 1996b. Geographicdistribution. ~ e m i d u c t ~turcicus. l ~ s ~erpetol.Rev. 27(4): 211. ,1998. Geographicdistribution. ~ l e u t k ~ r o ~ a c t ~ l u s ~Herpetol, u r n o c ~Rev. i. 29(1):48, tria~guHusak, J.F., and J.Wright. 1998a, Geographicdistribution. La~prop~ltis 1 ~~erpetol, ~ . Rev. 29(2):114.

509.061.

1998b. Geographicdistribution. Salvadura grakamiaeZineuta,~erpetol.

Rev. 29(2) :116.

509.105.

509.106. 509.200. 509.210. 509.220,

Hutchinson, R. H. 1929, Onthe incidence of snake-bite poisoningin the United States and the results of newer methods .of treatment, BuZl. An~veninInst. Am. 3(2) :43-57. ,1930. Further notes on theincidence of snakebitepoisoning in the United States.Bull. Antive~inInst. Am. 4(2) :40-43. Ideker,J.1974. Storeria dekayi texanafrom the caprock of northwest Texas. Tex. J. Sei. 25(1-4): 87. .1979a. Adult C~bister~mbriolatus are predaceous (Coleoptera:Dytisci:41-44. dae), Coleopt. Bull. 33(1) a ~erpetol. Rev. 197913. Geographicdistribution. ~ e r o d i rkomb~eru. 10(2) :60,

509.230. 509.300.

Ingold, D. A., and W. E.Patterson. 1988. Population of red-eared slidersin a Texas farm pond. Bull, Md. ~erpetol.Soc. 24(2) :27-40. tus Ingram, W., 111. and W.W. Tanner. 1971. A taxonomic study of C r o ~ a p ~ ~colYoung Univ. Sci, Bull. laris between the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers.Bri~~am Biol. Sel: 13(2):1-29. Irby, L. R., and R. H, Cutting. 1970. Comparativecranial osteology of St~reriu dekayi texanuand ~irginiastriatulu (Serpentes: Colubridae).TASCA 24(2):7-14. Irwin, IS.J.1997. Herpetofaunalcommunity response to timber harvest practices in an east Texas bottomland hardwood forest.MS,thesis, Texas A versity, College Station. a Irwin, K.'J.,M. Bray, and S. Collins. 1996. Geographicdistribution. ~ y l cinerea, ~erpetol.Rev, 27(1):29, distribution. ~untillu cucu~lata. Irwin, K.[I.,and J.T. Collins, 1995. Geographic ~erpetol.Rev. 26(1):47, .1996, Geographic distribution. ~ a ~ p r o p e l triangu~um. tis ~erpetol.Rev. 27(1):34. Irwin, K.J.,T. W. Taggart, and A. Sweetman. 1994a. Geographicdistribution, Storeria dekuyi.~ e r p e t o lRev. , 25(2):77. .199413. Geographicdistribution. T r u c ~ escripta. ~ ~ s~ e r p e t oRev. ~. 25(2):75. Irwin, L. N.1965. Dielactivity and social interaction of the lizard Uta stunsburiana stejnegeri,Copeia 1965(1):99-101. Iverson, 'J.B. 1977. Kinosternon s~brubrum.Cat. Am. Ampkib. Rept. 193.1-193.4. .1978. Distribution problemsof the genus Kinosternon in the American Southwest. Copeia 1978(3):476--79. .1979a. A taxonomic reappraisal of the yellow mud turtle, ~inosternon ~avescens(Testudines: ISinosternidae), Copeia 1979(2):212-25. .1979b. Sternot~eruscarinatus. Cat. Am. Amp~ib,Rept. 226.1-226.2. .1981.~iosystematicsof the ~inuster~~on ~irtipes species group (Testudines: ISinosternidae). lan ne Stud. Zool. Bot. 23(1):1-74. .1985a, Geographicvariation in sexual d ~ o r p h i s min the mud turtle Kinosternon ~irtipes.Copeiu 1985(2):388-93. .1985b. Kinosterno~~ ~irtipes (Wagler),Cat. Am. Amp~ib.Rept. 361.1361.4.

510.531. 510.532. 510.533510.535

511.

511.200. 511.400.

511.500.

511.504. 511.510.

512.

512.025.

513. 514. 515. 516,

517. 518. 519.

520. 521.

522. 522.100.

.1986. A checklist with aistri~utiu~ ~ a pof s the turtles of the world. Richmond, Ind.: J. B. Iverson. .IggIa. Patterns of survivorshipin turtles (order Testudines).Can.J.Zoul. 69: 385-91. .1991b. Phylogenetic hypothesesfor the evolution of modern kinosternine turtles. Herpetoz. ~ u ~ 5:1-27. o g ~ .1992.A revised checklist withaistri~utio~ maps of the turtles of the wurla. Richmond, Ind.: Privately printed. 363 pp. Jackson,A. W. 1952. The effect of temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure on the rate of call in Acris crepita~zsBaird in Brazos County, Texas.Nerpetulogica 8(2):18-20. Jackson,M. K.,and H. Reno. 1975. Comparative skinstructure of some fossorial and subfossorial leptotyphloid and colubrid snakes.Nerpetulug~cu31(3) :350-59. Jacob,J. S, 1977. An evaluation of the possibility of hybridization betweenthe rattlesnakes Crotulus atruxand C. scut~latusin the southwestern United States. Southwest. Nut. 22(4):469-85. Jacob,J. S., and H. S. McDonald. 1976. Diving bradycardia in four speciesof North American aquatic snakes. Camp. ~ ~ u c h e PhysioL m. 53A(1) :69-72. s. Station: Texas A&MUniversity Press. Jacob, L. 1995. Lune Star ~ ~ o s u u rCollege Jacobs, B., and E.0. Morrison. 1966. Ectopic lung fluke. ~outhwest.Nut. I I ( ~ ) : 412. Jacobs,L. L.,D. A.Winkler, P. A, Murry, and J. M.Maurice. 1993.A. nodosauid scutelingfrom the Texas shore of the Western Interior Seaway. In ~ i ~ u s aeggs ur and ~ a ~ ~ed, e sK., Carpenter,K, F. Hirsch, and J. R. Homer, 337-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobson,N. L.1989. Breeding dynamicsof the Houston toad. Southwest. Nut. 34(3):374-80. James, P.1966.The Mexicanburrowing toad, ~ h i ~ u p h rdorsalis, ~ ~ u s an addition to the vertebrate fauna of the United States. Tex. I; Sci, 18(3) :272-76. Jameson,D. L. 1g50a. The developmentof Eleut~eroaactyluslatrans. Copeia 1950(1):44-46. .1g50b.The breedingand development of Strecker’schorus frog in central Texas. Copeiu 1950(1) :61, .1954. Social patterns in the leptodactylidfrogs ~yrrhophusand E h theroauctylus. Copeia 1g54(1): 36-38. .1955. The population dynamics of the cliff frog, S~rrhophus mur~ucki. Am. ~ iNat.~54(2): . 342-81. .1956a. Duplicate feedinghabits in snakes. Copeia 1956(1):54-55. .1956b. Survival of some central Texas frogsunder natural conditions. Copeia 1956(1): 55-57. .1957. tension of the range of the Davis ~ o u n ~rata snake. i ~ Herpetologica 13(1):80. Jameson, D. L.,and A.G. Flury. 1949. Reptilesand amphibians of the Sierra Vieja. Tex. 1. Sci. 1(2):54-79. Jameson, D, L., and A.M. Jameson,Jr. 1956. Food habits and toxicity of the venom of the night snake. Nerpetologica 12(3):240. Jameson,D.L.,and R. C. Richmond. 1971.Parallelism and convergence in the ~ u ~ :497-508. evolution of size and shape in Holarctic Hyla E v o l ~ t 25(3)

522.200.

5-23. 524. 525. 526. 526.200.

526.201,

526.225. 526.240. 527. 528.

528.050.

Jester, S. L., C. E.Adws, and J. K.Thomas. 1990. Commercial trade inTexas nongame w i l ~ i ~College e. Station: Texas Agricultural ExperimentStation. Johnson, C. 1959.Genetic incompatibilityin the call races of Hula versicolor LeConte in Texas. Copeia 1959(4):327-35. .1960. Reproductive cyclein females of the greater earless lizard,Holbrookia texana. Copeia 1960(4):297-300. .1963. Additional evidenceof sterility between call types in the Hyla versicolor complex. Cop& 1963(1):139-43. .1966. Species recognition in the Hyla versicolorcomplex. Tex. 1.Sci. 18(4):361-64. Johnson, C. R., W. G. Voight, and E. N. Smith. 1978. Thermoregulationin crocodilians. 111,Thermal preferenda, voluntary maxima, and heating and cooling rates in theAmerican alligator, Alligator ~ississippiensis.Zoo!. 1.Linn. Soc. 62(2):179-88. Johnson, E. 1987. Vertebrateremains. In Lubbock Lake: Late Quarternaru~tuaies on the sout~ernHigh Plains, ed. E. Johnson, 49-89. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. ~ Herpetol, Johnson, J. D.1994. Geographicdistribution. Diaaophis p u n c t a t ~arnyi. Rev. 25(4):166. Johnson, J. D.,and T. J. LaDuc. 1994. Geographicdistribution. Bufa wooahouse~ wooahousei, Herpetol, Rev. 25(4):159. Johnson, J. E., Jr. 1948. Copperhead in a tree. Herpetologica 4(6):214. Johnson, L., Jr., D. A.S u h , and C. D.Tunnell. 1962. Salvage archeologyof Canyon Reservoir: The Wunderlich,Footbridge,and Oblate Sites.Bull. Tex. Mem. Mus. 5. Johnson, R. R. 1994. Modelprograms for reproduction and management: ex situ and in situ conservation of toads of the family Bufonidae.Contrib. Herpetol. I1 : 243-54. Jones, C,, and J. R. Goetze. 1991.Vertebrate remains found in barn owl pellets from Wilbarger County, Texas. Tex. J.Sci 43(3):326-28. Jones, D.,and L.Hayes-Odum. 1990.Life history notes. Alligator ~ississippiens~s (American alligator). Behav. ~erpetol.Rev. 21(3):59-60. ,1994. A method for the restraint and transport of crocodilians.Herpe~ol. Rev. 25(1): 14-15. Jones,J. M.1976. Variations of venom proteinsin Agkistroaon snakes from North America. Copeia 1976(3):558-62. Jones,J. P. 1926. The propername for Sce!oporusconsobrinu~ Baird and Girard. Occas. Pap. Mus, Zool. Univ. Mich. (172):1-3. Jones, M,P, 1977. Rulemaking actions May-June 6,1977. Proposed rulemakings.'HoustonToad. ~ ~ a a nSpecies g. Tech. Bull. 2(6):4. Jones, S. M.,and G. W. Ferguson. 1980. The effect of paint marking on mortality in a Texas population of ~celoporusun~ulatus.Copeia r980(4):850-54. Judd, F. W. 1974a.Intraspecificvariation in blood properties of the keeled earless lizard, Holbrookiapropin~ua.Herpetolog~ca30(1):99-102. 197413. The ecologyof the keeled earless lizard,H o l b r ~ o ~ i a p r o p i ~ ~ u a . D~ss,A b s t ~k t . (B) 35(1):599-600. .1975.Activity and thermal ecology of the keeled earless lizard,Hol~rook~apropin~ua. Herpetologica 31(2):137-50.

.1976a. Food and feeding behaviorof the keeled earless lizard~ o l ~ r o o ~ j a

propinqua. Southwest. Nut. ~ I ( I17-25. ):

529.460. 529.461. 529.480.

529.4904

.1976b. Demography of a barrier island population of the keeled earless lizard ~ o l ~ r o opropinqua. ~ja Occas, Pup. Mus. Tex. Tech, Univ, 44 :I- 45. .1977. Toxicity of monosodium methanearsonate herbicide to Couch's spadefoot toad, Seaphiopus c~uchi. ~erpetologica 33(1) :44-46, Judd, F. W., and M.Bray. 1996. Date of birth, litter and neonate sizeof a diamondback water snake, Nero~iur ~ o ~ ~ i from ~ e r sout~ernmost a, Texas. Tex. f. Sei. 48(1):85-86. Judd, F. W., and J. C. McQueen. 1980. Incubation, hatching, and growth of the tortoise, Gopherus berla~~jeri. I. ~ e ~ p e t oql(. 4 ):377-80. '1982. Notes on thelongevity of Gopherus ~erZun~ieri (Testudinidae). ~outhwest.Nat. 27(2):230-32, Judd, F. W., H. Nieuwendaal,andD. L. Hockaday. 1991. The leatherback turtle, Der~ocheZ~s cor~acea, in southernmost Texas. Tex. I; Sci. 43(3):101-103. Judd, F. W., and F. L. Rose. 1977. Aspects of the thermal biology of the Texas ~eri Testudines, Testudinidae). I. ~erpetol. tortoise, G o p h e r ~ s b e r l a ~(Reptilia, 11(2):147-53. ,1983. Population structure, density, and movements of the Texas tortoise Gop~erus berlan~erj. Southwest, Nat. 28(4):387-98. .1989. Egg production by the Texas tortoise, Gopherus ~ e r l a n ~ ein rj, southern Texas. Copeiu 1989(3):588-96. Judd, F. W., F.L. Rose, and J. C. McQueen. 1980. Population structure, size relationships, and growth of the Texas tortoise, Gopherus berlan~eri.In Desert Tortoise C o u ~ c i ~ p r o c e e ~ 1979 n g s , s ~ ~ p o s ied. u~ E. ,St. Amant, S. Allan, and R. Kirwan, 186 (abstr.), Long Beach, Calif. Judd, F. W., and R,K.Ross, 1978. Year-to-year variation in clutch size of island ~ja (Reptilia, Lacertilia, Iguaniand mainland populations of ~ o l ~ r o oprop~n~uu dae). f. ~erpetol.12(2):203-2077. Karges,J. P. 1978. Texas amphibians and reptiles: Somenew distributional records. I.~erpetol.Rev. 9(4): 1-43-45, .1979a. An aberrant pattern morph in a western diamondbackrattlesnake, Crotalus atrox, from southern Texas. T r u ~ s~, f f Acad. ~ s . Sei. 82(4):205-

20s.

.197gb. Texasamphibians and reptiles: Some new distributionalrecords. 11. ~erpetol.Rev, 10(4):119-21. ,1981. Texas amphibians and reptiles: Some new distributionalrecords, III. ~erpetol.Rev. 12(2):68-69. .1982. Texas amphibians and reptiles: Somenew distributionalrecords. IV.~erpetol.Rev. 13(1):27. .1983. Reproductivebiology and seasonal activity of the checkered garter snake Tha~nuphis ~arc~unus. M.S. thesis, Universityof Texas, Arlington. 224 PP. Kasper, S.,and D. Parmley, 1990. A late Pleistoceneherpetofauna from the lower TexasPan~andle.Tex. f. Sci. 42(3):289-94. Kassing,E. F. 1961. A life history study of the Great Plains ground snake, Sonorff epjscopu episcopa (Kennicott),Tex. f. Sci, 13(2):185-203.

a

Kauffeld, C. F. 1948. Notes on a hook-nosed snake from Texas.Cope~u1948(4) :

531.

301.

,1957. Snukes and snake hunting. Garden City, N.Y.: Hanover House. .1960a.The search for s ~ ~ o c u l u r iBull. s . Philu. Herpetol. Soc. 8(2) :13-19. ,1960b. The search for su~oc~!uris. B ~ lP~h,~ ~Herpe~ol. u. Soc. 8(3):9-15. Keck, M. B. 1993. New distributional records of a ~ p h i b iand ~ s reptiles from Titus County, Texas.Tex. I; Sei. 45(4): 360-62. .1994. A new technique for sampling semiaquatic snake populations, ~ e r p e t oNut. ~ . Hist. 2(2) :101-103.

532.220.

532.460.

532.950.

533. 534. 535. 536. 537. 538.

539. 540.

r

541.

542. 543. 543.010.

.1gg8. Habitat use by semi”aquaticsnakes at ponds on a reclaimed strip ~ . 43(1): 13-19. mine, S o u t ~ w e sNut. Keck, M.B., and P, D. Klawinski 1991.Geographicdistribution. Ano~isc u r o ~ ~ ~ e ~ -

sis. ~erpetol.Rev. 22(4): 134. Keck, M. B., J. R. s end el son III, and D. P. Dawson 1991.Geographicdistribution.

I c ~ ~ e ctee st r u g r u ~ ~ u s ~ r e v i l i ~Herpetol. e u t ~ s . Rev. 22(3) :102-103. Keddy-Hector, A.C., W. Wilczynski, and M, J. Ryan. 1992. Call patterns and basilar papillatuning in cricket frogs.2.Intrapopulational variation and allomei ~ Icvol. 39(4):238-46. try. ~ r uBehav, Kellner, A.W. A.,and W, Langston,Jr. 1996. Cranial remains of ~ u e t z u ! c o u ~ ~ u s (Perosauria:Azhd~chidae)from late Cretaceous sedimentsof Big BendNational Park, Texas. 1.Vert. Puleontol. 16(2): 222-31. Kellogg, R. 1929. The habits and economic importance of alligators, ~~~A Tech. Bu~l.147. .1932. Mexican taillessa m p h i b i ~ in s the United States National Museum. Bull. US, Nut!. Mus. 160:1-224. Kennedy, J. P. 1956a. An arboreal nest of the five-lined skink, ~ u ~ e c e s ~ u s c i u t u s , in eastern Texas, Southwest. Nut, 1(3) :138-39. .195613. Food habits of the rusty lizard, Seeloporus oliv~ceusSmith. Tex.J. Sei. 8(3) :328-49. ,1958. Notes on a breeding congress of Pse~ducris cZ~rki and P s e ~ ~ u c r i s nigritu in Harris County, Texas.Herpetolog~cu14(2) :192. .1g59a. A mini mu^ egg complement for the western mud snake, ~urunru Copeiu rg59(1): 71. cia u ~ u c ~reirzward~~, Igsgb. Sleeping habits of the eastern fence lizard,Scelopor~s ~ndulutus h ~ u c i ~ t h(Sauria, i ~ ~ s Iguanidae). Southwes~.Nut. 3 :90-93. .1960,~arturition of the blue spiny lizard, Seeloporus c ~ u ~ u gCope, e~~s Southwest. Nut. 5(1):44-45. .1961,Eggs of the eastern hog nosesnake, Heterodon p l ~ t ~ r h i n oTex. s . J. Sci, 13(4):416-22. ,1962. pawni in^ season and experimentalhybri~izationof the Houston toad, B ~ho~stonensis. ~ o ~erpetologicu 17(4) :239-45. ,1964a. Natural history notes on some snakes of eastern Texas. Tex. J. Sei. 16(2): 210-15. al of the green treefrog,H ~ cinereu ~ u .1964b. ~ p e r i ~ e n thybridization Schneider (Hylidae). Zoologicu 49(4) :211-19. .1968, Reproductive successin Seeloporus u ~ ~ u ~J.uHerpeto~. t ~ s ~2(3-4): 179-

544.

545.300.

545.390, 545.400.

545.510. 545.520. 545.530. 545.531. 545.535545.540. 545.541545.542. 545'543. 545.544, 545.545. 545.546.

.1973.Seeloporus olivaceus. Cat. Am,amp hi^. Rept, 143.1-143.4. Kenney, J.W., and E L. Rose. 1974.Oxygen requirements and activity rhythms u~~ Caudata). Herpetologica of the tiger salamander, A m b g s t o ~ a t i g r i n(Amphibia: 30(4): 333-37. Kennicott, R, 1860.Descriptions of new species of North American serpents in the Museum of the Smithsonian Institution, Was~ington,DX. Proc. Acad, Nat. Sei. Phila. 12:328-38. .1861.On three new forms of rattlesnakes. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila. 13:206-208. Keogh, J. S. 1996.Evolution of the colubrid snake tribe Lampropeltini:A mor~erpetologica52(3) :406-16, phological perspective. Keown, G. 1972.Geographicdistribution. HemidactgZu$#sturcicus. Herpet~l.Rev, 4(5): 170. Kerfoot, W, C. 1968. Geographical variabilityof the lizard, Seeloporus gruc~osus Baird and Girard, in theeastern part of its range. Copeia 1968(1):139-52. Kerivan, J. M.1989.Sea-Arama ~ ~ i n e ~and o rKemp'sridley ~ d sea turtle: A look into the future. In Procee~ngsof t ~ e ~ rinternatio~az st s g ~ p o s on ~ uKemp's ~ ridleg sea turtle~iology, co~servatio~, and ~ a n u g e ~ e ned, t , C,W Caillouet and A. M. Landry, 36-39. Galveston: TexasA&M University. ~ botuu~ Kessler, W. W., and D. A.Ingold. 1977.Studies on ~ ~ uto Cno l s it r i ~ l i ~ toxins u ~ in the western diamondback rattlesnake. Bull. Chi. Herpetoz. Soc. 12(2) :47-52. Kezer, J.1952,Thyroxin-~ducedmetamorphosisof the neotenic salamanders ~ u r y c e tynerensis a and ~ur$#cea neotenes. Copeia1952(2) :234-37. Kiester, A.R.1971.Species density of North American amphibians and reptiles. S$#St.ZOOl, 20(2): 127-37. Killebrew, F. C. 1975.Mitotic chromosomesof turtles. 111. The kinosternids.Her398-403. petologica 31(4): .1977a.Mitotic chromosomesof turtles. I l l The Emydidae.Tex. J.Sei. 29b-4):245-53. .1977b.Mitotic chromosomesof turtles. V,The Chelyridae.Sout~west. Nat. 21(4):547-48. .1980.Geographicdistribution. Cnemidop~orustesselatus. ~erpeto2.Rev. 11(2):38. .1990.Review. Amphibians and reptiles of Texas: With keys,taxonomic synopsis, bibliography, and distribution maps. Herpetologica 46(1):128-29. Killebrew, F.C., K.B. Blair, D. Chiszar,and H. M. Smith. 1996. New records for amphibians and reptiles from Texas. Herpetol. Rev. 27(2) :90-91. Killebrew, F, C., K.B. Blair, H. M. Smith, and D. Chiszar. 1995a.Geographic distribution. A~bystomu tigrinu~ marvort~u~. Herpetol. Rev. 26(3) :150. .1995b.Geographicdistribution,Acris crepita~s.Herpetol. Rev. 26(3):151. .rgqgc. Geographic ~stribution.Bufo cog~atus,Herpeto~.Rev. 26(3):151. ,1995d.Geographicdistribution. Bufo de~ilis. Herpe~ol, Rev 26(3):151, .1995e.Geographic distribution. Bufopunct~t~s. Herpetol. Rev. 26(3): 152. .19951: Geographicdistribution. Bufo speciosus. Herpetoz. Rev. 26(3):152. .1995g.Geographicdistribut~on.Pseuducr~sclurki. ~ e r p e t oRev. ~ , 26(3): 153.

545.547. 545.548.

.1995h. Geographicdistribution.Rana ~lairi.~erpetol.Rev. 26(3):153.

.1995i. Geographicdistribution. Rana cates~eiuna.~erpetol.Rev. 26(3): 153-544 .19951. Geographicdistribution. Seaphiopus couchi. ~erpetol.Rev, 26(3): 545.549. 154. 545.560. Killebrew, F, C., and T. L. James. 1983. Life history notes. Crotalus viridis viridis (prairierattlesnake). Coloration.~erpetol, Rev. 14(3):74. .1984. Life history notes. Arizona elegans elegans (Kansas glossysnake). 545-570* Coloration.~erpetol.Rev. 15(2):49. 545‘590. Killebrew, F. C., T. L.James, and J. Bertl. 1984. Geographicdistribution. Graptemys versa. ~erpetol.Rev. 15(3):77. F. C., and R. R.McKown. 1978. Mitotic chromosomesof ~opherus Killebrew, 545.600. ~erZandier~ and Kinixys ~ellianu ~elliana (Testudines, Testudinidae). Sout~west. Nat. 23(1):162-64. 545.605. Killebrew, F. C., and D. Porter. 1989a. Life history notes. Pseudem~stexana (Texas river cooter).Size maximum. ~erpetol.Rev. 20(3):70. .1989b. Life history notes.Grapternys cagZei (Cagle’smap turtle). Size 545.606. maxima. ~erpetol.Rev. 20(3):70. .1990. Life history notes. Grapternys cugZei, Size. ~erpetol.Rev. 21(4):92. 545.607. ,1991. Geographicdistribution. Grapte~yscaglei. ~erpetol.Rev. 22(1) :24. 545.608. F.C., and M. Rhea. 1980, Geographicdistribution. Reginu gruha~i. Killebrew, 545.610. ~erpetol.Rev. 11(2):39. 545.620. Killebrew, F. C,, and R. C. Stone,Jr. 1978. An unusual color pattern in Couch’s spadefoot,Scuphiopus couchi (Anura: Pelobatidae). Tex. J.Sei. 30(4):389. l g e Stejneger. Anirn. 545,700. King, F. W. 1969. Texas blindsalamander ~ p ~ l o ~ orath~uni Kingd. 72(2):33. 545*705* King, F. W., and P. Brazaitis. 1971. Speciesident~cationof commercial crocodilian skins. ZooZogica 56(2):15-70. 545.710. King, F. W., and R. L. Burke, eds.1989. Crocodilians, tuutara,and turtle species of the world. Washington,DX.: Associationof Systematic Collections, 545.800. King, K. A. 1975. Unusual food item of the western diamondback rattlesnake ~Crotalusatrox), Sout~west.Nut. 20(3):416-17. 545.806. King, K. IC., D. Cavazos, and F. W. Judd. 1987. ~nolissagrei(Sauria: Iguanidae) established in southern Texas. Tex. J.Sei. 39(3):289-90. R. E. 1989. Beachtemperature versus polystyrenefoambox temperature King, 545.825. s~ in theincubation of Kemp’s ridleysea turtle eggs. In Procee~ngsof t h e ~ r internutional symposiu~on Kemp’s ridey seu turtle biology, conservation,and ana agement, ed. C. W. Caillouet and A. M.Landry, 71-76. Galveston: TexasA&M University. Kingman, R.H. 1932. A comparativestudy of the skull in thegenus ~ ~ r n e cofe s 546. the Scincidae(a preliminary paper). Univ. Kans. Sei. Bull. 20(15):273-95. Kirn, A.J. 1949. Cannibalism among Rana pipie~s ~erlandier~, and possibly by 547. una cates~eiana,near Somerset, Texas.~erpetologica5(4):84. Kirn, A. J., W. L. Burger, and H. M.Smith. 1949. The subspeciesof Tant~ZZagra548. cilis. Am. Mid. Nut. 42(1):238-51. 548.020. Kizirian, D, A., W. K. King, and J.R. Dixon. 1990. Life history notes.Grapte~ys versa (Texas map turtle). Size maximum and diet. ~erpetol. Rev. 21(3):60,

Klauber, L,M. 1930. Differentialch~acteristicsof southwestern rattlesnakes allied to Crotulus atrox. Bulk Sun DiegoZool. Soc. 6 :1-72. 1936a. A key to the rattlesnakes with summary of characteristics. Trans. 550. Sun Diego Soc. Nut. Hist, 8(20):185-276. .1936b. A statistical study of the rattlesnakes. I. Introduction. Occus, Pup. 550.010. San DiegoSoc.Nut, Hist. I :2-24. ,1937. A statistical study of the rattlesnakes. I$. The growth of the rattle551. snake. Occus. Pup. San Diego Soc. Nut. Hist. 3 :1-56. ,1938. A statistical study of the rattlesnakes. V. Head dimensions.Occas. 552. Pap, Sun DiegoSoc. Nut. Hist. 4: 1-53, .1939a. A statistical study of the rattlesnakes. VI, Fangs. Occas. Pup.San 553. Diego Soc. Nut. Hist. 5 :1-61. .rg39b. A new subspeciesof the western worm snake. Truns. Sun Diego 554. Soc. Nut. Hist, 9:67-68. .1940a. The wormsnakes of the genus ~eptot~phlops in the United States 555.. and northernMexico. Duns, San DiegoSoc.Nat. Hist. g :87-162. .rg40b. The lyresnakes (genus T r ~ ~ o r p ~ of o dthe o ~United ~ ) States. Trans. 556. Sun DiegoSoc. Nut. Hist, 9: 163-94. .rg41a. The long-nosedsnakes of the genus Rhinocheil~s.Truns. Sun 557. Diego Soc. Nut. Hist, 9 :289-332, ,1941b. [Review] Variations and relationshipsin the snakes of the genus 558. Pituop~isby 0. G. Stull. Bull,U.S. Natl. Mus. 175.Copeia q41(1): 57-60. .1943. The correlation of variability within and between rattlesnake 559. populations. Copeiu 1943(2):115-18. .1945. The geckosof the genus C o l e o with ~ ~ ~descriptions ~ of new sub560. species. Truns, Sun DiegoSoc.Nut. Hist. IO:133-216. .1946. The glossy snake, Ar~zonu,with descriptions of new subspecies. 561. Truns. San DiegoSoc. Nut. Hist. IO:311-98, .1947. Classification and ranges of the gopher snakes of the genus 562. Pituophis in. the western United States. Bull. Sun DiegoZool. Soc. 22: 1-81. ,1952, Taxonomicstudies of the rattlesnakes of mainland Mexico. Bdl, 563. Sun Diego 2001. Soc. 26 :1-143. . 1956. Ruttlesnu~es, their hu~its, lije ~istories,and in~uenceon ~ u n ~ i n ~ . 564. 2 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press. Klawinsl~i,P, D., and M. B. Keck. 1gg1a. Geographicdistribution. ~eptot~phlops d~lcis ~ulcis, Her~etol. Rev. 22(4):135. .1991b.Geographic~stribution,~ u ~ p r o ~ ecazliguster ltis call~guste~ Her564.090, peto~.Rev, 22(4):135. 564.091. Klawinski, P. D., R. K.Vaughan, D. Saenz, and W. Godwin. 1994.Co~parison of dietary overlap betweenallopatric and sympatric geckos. 1.Herpetoz. 28(2): 225-30. Klein, T. A.,Jr. 1949. A record litter of ~ h u ~ n o p ~ ~ s s i r t u l Herpetologicu ispro~~~u~. 5(1): 17. .rg51a. Notes on the feeding habits of Crotuph~tusr e t i c ~ u t ~Herpetologs. icu 7(4):200. .1951b.A new method of collectingHol~roo~iu texuna. HerpetoZogica 7(4):200.

549.

568.

Kluge, A, G. 1962, Comparative osteologyof the eublepharid lizard genus C o ~ e o n Gray. ~ x I; morpho^. 110(3): 299-332. 1975. Phylogeneticrelationships and evolutionary trends in eublephar568.010. ~ , 1975(1) :24-25. ine lizards C o l e o n ~Copeia 568.011. .1984. Type-specimens of reptiles in the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Mise, Publ. Univ. Mich, Mus. Zool. (167) :1-85. .1993. Gekkonoid lizardt a ~ o n o mSan ~ . Diego, Calif,:International Gecko 568.012. Society. Knight, M. T., G, J. Barbay, and E.0. orriso on. 1965.Incidence of infection by 569. lung-fluke ~ ~ a e ~ a t o l e o c of h uthe s ~bullfrog, Rana cates~eiuna,in Jefferson County, Texas. Sout~west.Nut. IO(^): 141-42. Knopf, G. N.1962. Paedogenesisand metamorphic variation in A m ~ ~ s t o m a tigrirlum muvortiu~, South~est. Nut. 7(1):75-76. .1963. Sexual, geographic,and individual variation in three Texas populations of the lizard, Uta stans~uriana. Am, Mid. Nut. 70(1) :74-89. Knopf, G, N.,and D. W. Tinkle. 1961. The distribution and habits of Sistrurus catenat~sin northwest Texas. ~erpetologica17(2):126-31. Knowlton, G. F. 1948. Some insect food of Sce~oporuspoinsettiB. and G. Herp~tologica 4(4): 151-52. Kocher, T. D,, and R. D. Sage. 1986, Further genetic analysis of a hybrid zone between leopard frogs ( R u mpipie~scomplex)in central Texas. ~ v o l u t i o40( ~ I): 21-34. Kofron, C. P., and J. R.Dixon. 1980. Observationson aquatic colubrid snakes in Texas. S o u t ~ ~ e sNut. t . 25(1):10’p”og. 3 Kour, E. L.,and V.H. Hutchinson. 1970. Critical thermal tolerances and heating and cooling rates of lizards from diverse habitats. Copeia 1970(2):219-29, Kraus, F., and G. W. Schuett. 1980a.Geographicdistribution. Crotalus scutulutus scutulatus. ~erpetol.Rev. 11(3):81. 1980b. Geographicdistribution, Crotalus viridis vir~dis. Herpeto~. Rev. 11(3):81. .1980~.Geographicdistribution.Masticop~is~agellu~ testaceus, Herpetol. Rev. 11(3):81. ,1980d. Geographicdistribution, S i s t r ~ r u s c a ~ e n u t ~ s e d w ~ r ~ s i . ~ e r p ~ t o l . Rev. 11(3):81. .1981. An intergrade ~ u ~ p r o p e l t i s t r i a n from ~ u l u ~west Texas. Herpetol. Rev. 12(2):53, Kroll, J. C. 1971. Combatbehavior in male Great Plains ground snakes ~Sonora episcopu episcopa~,Tex. JSei. 23(2):300.

, 1 9 7 Review. ~ ~ ~ p h i b i aand n s reptiles in Texas: Taxonomic synopsis, bibliography,and county distributionalmaps by G. G, Raun and F. R.Gehlbach, (Dul~usMus. Nut. Hist, Bull. 2.7” x IO”.61 pp. 140 county distribution maps. 1972 [paper].)So~thwest.Nut. 17(2):218-19. 1973. Comparative physiological ecology of eastern and western hogr ~ iH. n onusicus. s Diss, Abstr: Int, (B) 34(3): nose snakes, H e t e r o ~ o ~ p ~ a t ~and

+

573.320.

1069.

573.330.

,1976. Feeding adaptations of hognose snakes. South~est,Nut. 20(4.): 537-57.

.1977. Self-wounding while death feigningby western hognose snakes ~ ~ e t e r o anasicus~. on Copeia 1977(2): 372-73. Ickoll,J. C., and T. IC.Paley. 1973. Marbled salamander. Tex. Parks~ i l a Z . 3I(II): 23.

Kroll, J. C., and H, W. Reno. 1971. A reexamination of the cloacal sacsand gland of the blind snake, ~eptotgphlops dulcis (Reptilia: Leptotyphlopidae). J.~ o r p h o l . 133: 273-80.

Krupa, J. J. 1990. Bufo cognatus Say. Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 457.r-457.8. Krusling, P. J., J. W. Ferner, and J. Patterson. 1995a. Geographicdistribution.

Anolis sagrei. ~erpetol.Rev. 26(2) :108. .1995b. Geographicdistribution. ~ e ~ i a a c t g lturcicus us turcicus.~erpetoZ. Rev. 26(2): 108-109. Kuban, G. J. 1989a. Elongate dinosaur tracks. In Dinosaur tracks and traces, ed. D. D. Gillette and M. G. Lockley, 57-72. New York: Cambridge University

Press. .1989b. Color distinctionsand other curious features of dinosaur tracks ed. D. D. Gillette and M.G. near Glen Rose, Texas.In Dinosaur trucks and traces, Locldey, 427-40. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ladd, C. G. 1989. Geographicdistribution. I(in0sternonf:~avescens. ~erpetol.Rev. 20(1) :14.

Ladd, C. G,, and G. G. Galbraith. 1989a. Geographicdistribution.Agkistroaon contortrix. ~erpetol.Rev. 20( I):14. .1989b. Geographicdistribution. Chelgara serpentina.~erpetol.Rev. 20(1) :14.

LaDuc, T.J. 1997. Geographicdistribution. Diadopkispunctatus regalis.~erpetol. Rev 28(3): 159. LaDuc, T.J., and C. R. Harrison, 1997. Geographicdistribution. Coluber constrictor~aviventris, ~erpetol. Rev. 28(3) :159.

LaDuc, T.J., and J. D. Johnson. rgg4.a. Geographicdistribution. Sonora serniunnuluta. ~erpetol.Rev. 25(4) :168, .1994b. Geographicdistribution. TantiZla nigriceps. ~erpctol.Rev. 25(4): 168.

LaDuc, T.J., D. I. Lannutti, M. K. Ross, and D. Beamer. 1996. Natural history notes. am pro pelt is getulus splen~aa.Diet. ~erpetol.Rev. 27( I) :25. LaDuc, T.J.,and K. C. Lunt. 1996. Geographicdistribution. Rana catesbeiana.

~erpetol.Rev. 27(4) :209. Lagesse, L.A.,and N. B. Ford, 1996. Ontogenetic variation in the diet of the southern copperhead,Agkistrodon contortrix, in northeastern Texas. Tex. I. Sei. 4 8 0 ) :48-54. Lamar, W,W. 1997. The world's most spectucular reptiles anda~phibiuns,Tampa:

World. Lamb, T.,C. Lydeard,R. B, Walker, and J, W. Gibbons. 1994. Molecular systemgAscomparison ~ of mitochon~ialrestriction site atics of map turtles ~ G r a p t e ~: versus sequencedata. Sgst. Biol. 43(4) :543-59. Lamb, T.,and M.F, Osentoski. 1997. On the parapatry of ~ a ~ a c ~ Ae molecu~gs; lar genetic assessment.I; ~erpetol.31(2): 258-65. Lambert, S., and G. M. Ferguson. 1985. Blood ejection frequencyby P h r ~ n o s o ~ z a cornutum (Iguanidae)Southwest. Nut. 30(3) :616-17.

573.598. 573.600.

573.680,

Lamoreaux, W. E. 1980.Adult femalel lap he su~oculurisfrom Brewster County, Texas, collected byLuther Sims (photograph and caption). Herpet~l,Rev, II(4): 117. .1981. An aberrant pattern variant of alias “blond suboc” of the TransPecos region, laph he su~oculuris(Brown). alla as Herpetol. Soc. Occas. Pup. 1981(1): 9-13. Landry,A. M. 1989. Morphometry of captive-rearedIcemp’s ridleysea turtles.

Proceedings of the first international symposium on Kemp’s ridleysea turtle biology, conservation, and management, ed. C. W. Caillouet and A. M.Landry, 220-31, Galveston: TexasA&M University. Lanky, L. A. 1973. Distribution: Cnernophora coccinea lineri.HISS News-J. 1(3) :98, Landwer, A.J., and G. W. Perguson. 1994. Effects of incubation environment on thesize and incubation time of Seeloporus unaulat~shatchlings. Tex. J Sei. 46(2) :115-20.

573.800. 573.801. 573.810.

Langston,W., Jr. 1974. NonmaxmnalianComanchean tetrapods. Geosci. Man 8 : 77-102. . ~ g g oLower . Cretaceous dinosaur tracks near Glen Rose, Texas. Geol. Soc. Am. Field Trip Guiae~ookg: 39-61. Langston, W,, Jr., and E. C. Olson. 1986. Carrolla craadocki,a newgenus and species of microsaur from the Lower Permian of Texas, Pearce-Sellars Ser, Tex. em. Mus. 43 :1-20.

573.900. 573.901573.902. 573,903.

Lannutti, D. I., T. J. LaDuc, and J. D. Johnson, 1gg6a, Geographicdistribution, laph he guttata ernor~i,Herpetol. Rev. 27(4) :212.

.199615. Geographicdistribution,Hgpsiglena tor~uatajuni. Herpetol,Rev.

27(4): 212,

.1 9 9 6 ~Geographic . distribution. ~asticop~is~agellurn testace~s, Herpetol.

Rev. 27(4) :214.

1996d. Geographicdistribution, R h i n o c ~ e i llecontei ~s tesselatus. Herpetol.

Rev. 27(4) :214.

.1996e. Geographicdistribution. Tantilla nigriceps. Herpetol.Rev. 27(4) :

573.904, 215.

573.905.

5 74. 575.

5 76. 576.010. 576.020. 576.030. 576.040.

.1996f. Geographicdistribution. Tharn~lop~is rnarcianus marcianus.Herpetol. Rev. 27(4) :215. Lardie, R.L. 1963. A length record forTriong~ spin~er ernorgi. Herpetologica 19(2): 150. .1965a. Eggs and young of Rhinoc~eiluslecorztei tessellatus. Copeia 1965(3): 366. .1965b. Pugnacious behavior in the soft-shell Trio~gxspin~erpulliaus and implications of territoriality. Herpet~logica20(4) :281-84. .1975a.Courtship and mating behavior inthe yellow mud turtle, KinosternonJlavescens~avescens.1.Herpetol. 9(2) :223-27. .1975b. Observationson reproduction in ~ i n o s t e r ~ ~J.oHerpetol. n. g(2): 260-64. ,1976a.Eggs of the Great Plains ground snake, Sonoru episcopa episcopa from Texasand Oklahoma, Bull. Oklu. Herpetol. Soc. 1(2): 19. .1976b. Louisiana milksnake from Parker County, Texas.Bull. Okla. Herpetol. Soc. 1(3): 36,

576.041. 576.050. 576.060. 576.200. 577. 578. 578.050. 578.051. 578.065. 579. 579.200. 579.201. 579.210. 579.215. 579,217.

579.600. 580.

581,

581.200. 581.202.

581.204. 581,206.

.1976c.Geographicdistribution. Lampropeltis triangulu~u ~ u u r aHer. petol, Rev. 7(3):2.4.

.1979. Eggs and young of the plain's yellowmud turtle. Bull. Okla. Her-

petol. Soc. 4(2--3):24-30.

,1980. Winter activity of C h r ~ s e mscrjptu ~s elegans(Wied"Neuwied)in. north central Texas. Bull. Oklu. ~ e r p e t oSoc. ~ . 4(4):72-76. Larsen, K. R., and W, W, Tanner. 1974. Numericanalysis of the genus Sce~opor~s with special referenceto cranial osteology. Great Basin Nut, 34(1) :I- 41, La Rue, G. R. 1917. Two new larval trematodes from Thamnophis marcia~usand Tha~nophiseques. Occas. Pap.~ ~Zool.s Univ. . ~ i c h35 , :1-12. Laughlin,H. E., and B. J. Wilks. 1962. The useof sodium pentobarbital in population studies of poisonous snakes. Tex. J.Sei. 14(2):188-91. Laurin, M.1988. Abstract: The osteologyand relationshipsof an early Permian diapsid from Texas.J.Vert, Paleontol.8(3) (suppl.):19a-20a. ,1991.The osteologyof a Lower Permian eosuchian from Texasand a review of diapsid phylogeny.Zool. J.Linn, Soc. IOI(I) :59-65. Laurin, NI., and R. R. Reisz. 1996.The osteologyand relationshipsof Tetraceratop ~nsignis,the oldest known therapsid.J.Vert. Paleontol. r6(1):95-102. Lawrence,J.F. 1955.Range extension of the whiptailed lizardCne~idop~zorus n e o ~ e ~ i c a nCopeia ~ s . 1955(2):142. Lawson, D. A. 1975. Pterosaur from the latest Cretaceous of west Texas: Discovce :947-48. ery of the largest flying creature. ~ c i e ~187(4180) Lawson, D. P., M. B. Keck, and W B. Jennings. 1993. Geographicdistribution. Eluphe guttata.Herpetul. Rev. 24(3):109. Lawson, R. 1987. Molecularstudies of t h a ~ o p ~snakes. n e I. The phylogenyof . 21(2) :140-57. the genus ~ e r o d ~J.aHerpetol. Lawson, R.,and C. S. Lieb. 1990.Variation and hybrid~ationin Eluphe bairdi (Serpentes: Colubridae). JHerpeto~.24(3):280-92. Lawson,R., A. J.Meier, P. G. Frank, and P. E. Moler 1991.Allozyme variation and systematics of the Nerodiafasciatu-~erodiaclur~icomplex of water snakes Copeia 1991(3) :639-59. (Serpentes: Colubridae). Lazell, J. 1995.Natural history notes. Plethodun glutinosus.Foot anomalies.Herpetol. Rev. 26(4):198. Leary, T.R. 1957. A schooling of leatherback turtles, ~ e r ~ o c hcorjaceu e ~ ~ scoriaceu, on the Texas coast.Cope~a1957(3):232. Ortlepp Lee, S, H. 1955.The modeof egg dispersalin Ph~salopteraphr~nosoma (Nematoda,Spiruroidea)a gastric nematode of Texas horned toads, P h r ~ ~ o s o ~ a c5rnutum. J.Parusitol, 41(1): 70-74. Lee, Y.-N. 1995.The early Cretaceous pterodactyloidpterosaur Co~o~orh~nchus from North America. pale onto log^ 37(4):755-63. .1996.A new nodosaurid ankylosaur (Dinosauria:Ornithischia) from the Paw Paw Formation (late Albian) of Texas,J.Vert. PaZeo~tol.16(2): 232-45. .1997. The Archosauria from the Woodbine Formation(Cenomanian)in Texas. J.Paleontol. 71(6): 1147-56. ,1997. Bird and dinosaur footprints in theWoodbine Formation (Cenomanian), Texas. Cre~uceousResearch 18(6):849-64.

~ . :224-25. 581.400. Leech, J.1925.Alligator hunting in Texas. Am. ~ i e l103 Legler, J.M.1959.A new tortoise, genus Gopkerus,from north central Mexico, 582. Univ. Kans, Publ, Mus. Nat. Hist. 11(5):335-43.

.1960a.Natural history of the ornatebox turtle, ~errapene orna~a ornatu Agassiz. Univ, Kans. Publ, Mus. Nut. Hist, 11(10):527-669. .1960b. A new subspeciesof slider turtle ~ P s e u ~ e m scripta) ~ s from Coahuila, Mexico. Univ. Kans. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. I&) :73-84. .1960c.Remarks on the natural history of the Big Bendslider, P s e u d e ~ ~ s scripta gaigeaeHartweg, Herpetologica 16(2):139-40. Lehman, T. M. 1989. C~asmosaurusmarisculensis sp. nov., a new ceratopsian dinosaur from Texas.J.Vert, pale onto^. 9(2):137-62. .1996.A horned dinosaur from the Picacho orm mat ion of west Texas, and review of ceratopsian dinosaurs from the American Southwest.J.Paleontol. 70(3):494-508.

585.100.

585.200.

Le~os-Espinal,J.A,, H.M. Smith, R. E. Ballinger, G. R, Smith, and D. Chiszar, 1998. A cont~bution to the superspecies conceptof the lizard Sceloporus u n ~ u ~ a t . 43(1):20-24. tus: S. U. belli a species.S o u t ~ ~ e sNat. Leon, P,,andJ. Kezer. 1974.The chromosomesof Siren ~nterme~ia ~ettingi (Goin) and their sign~cance to comparative salamander lcaryology. Herpetologica

30(1):11. 585.210, Leong, J.W., D, L. Smith, D. B. Revera, J. C. Clary, D. H. Lewis,J.L. Scott, and A. R. Di Nuzzo. 1989.Health care and diseases of captive-reared loggerheadand Kemp’s ridleysea turtles. In Procee~ngsof t k e ~ r s internat~ona~ t s ~ m p o s i on u~ Kemp’s ridle~sea turtle biolog~, co~servation, and management, ed. C. W. Caillouet and A. M.Landry, 178-201.Galveston: TexasA&M University, Leviton,A. E. 1953.Catalogue of the amphibian and reptile typesin the Natural 586. History Museumof Stanford University.Herpetologica 8(4):121-32, Leviton,A. E., and B. H. Banta. 1956. Catalogue of the amphibian and reptile 587. types in the Natural History Museumof Stanford University, suppl. I.Herpetolog213-19. ica 12(3): 587.100. Lewis, H.L., and F. L, Rose. 1969.Effects offat body fatty acids on ovarian and liver metabolismof A m ~ ~ s t o m a t ~ g r ~Comp. n u m .Biockem, P ~ ~ s i o30: l. 1055-60, 587.500. Lewis, M.R. 1974.Recent county records and range extensionsin south central Texas. Herpetol. Rev, 5(1) :21. Lewis, T.H. 1951.The biologyof ~eiolopismalaterale (Say).Am. M ~ ~Nat. Z ,45(1): 588,

232-40. 588.010. 588.200.

588.210. 588.220.

Lewis, T.W., and J.R. Dixon. 1976.Geographic~stribution.Cemopkora cocci~ea Copei. Herpetol. Rev. 7(4):178, Licht, L, E. 1967a. Initial appearance of the parotoid gland in three species of toads (genus Bufo). Herpetologica 23(2): 115-18. 1967b.Growth inhibition in crowded tadpoles:Intraspeci~cand interspecific effects.~ c o l o 48(5): g~ 736-45. ,1968.Unpalatab~ityand toxicity oftoad eggs, HerpetoZogica 24(2):

93-98. 588.300. 588.310.

Licht, L. E., and B. Low. 1968. Cardiac responseof snakes after ingestion of toad parotoid venom.Copeia 1958(3):547-51. Lichtenstein, H. 1856. Nomenclator Reptiliumet Amphibiorum. Musei zoologici berolinensis, Berlin,

588.350. 588.360.

588.370. 588.371. 588.390. 588.400. 588.405.

588.450. 588.600.

595.

597. 598.

599. 600.

Lieb, C. S. 1971. A study of the variationin Eluphe o~soletaof Texas. TASCA 26(1): 3-6. .1985a.Systematics and distribution of the skinks allied toEumeces tetrugrummus (Sauria: Scincidae).Nut. Hist, Mus. Los Angel. Cty. Contri~.Sei, 357 : 1-19. .1985b. Reviews: Snakesof Texas-by Alan Tennant. Southwest, Nut. 30(4):621-22. .1990. ~ ~ ~ tetrugrummus e c e s (Baird).Cut. Am. Ampkib. Rept. 492.1492.4Lieb, C. S., and V, J. Roessling. 1983. Distributional records for central and southern Texas. Herpetol. Rev. 14(2):54. Liner, E.A. 1982. Life history notes, Reginu gruhumi.Coloration. Herpetol. Rev. 13(2) :48. ,1998. Bibliography and scientific name index to amphibians and reptiles, In Proceedings and trunsuctions the of Texas Acudemy of Science, vols. 1-30 (1892-1948); Specia~publicutionsof the Texas Acudemy of Science, 2 editions (1936-38j; and theTexusJournul of Science, vols. 1-45 (1949-93). ~mithson. ~erpetol.In$ Serv. 119:1-44. Liner, E. A., and A. H. Chaney. 1973.Life history notes.Micrurusfu~viustenere. Herpetol. Rev. 1(6):186. Little,J., and S. Hopkns. 1968.Neoechinorkynchus constrictussp. n. An acantho46- 49. cephalan from Texasturtles. Proc. helm in tho^. Soc. Wus~.35 : within thePelobatidae and MicroLittlejohn, M. J.1959. Artificial hybridization hylidae. Tex. J.Sei. II(I):57-59. .1960. Call d ~ s c r i ~ n a t i oand n potential reproductive isolation in Pseuducris triseriutu females from Olclahoma. Copeiu 1960(4):370-71. .1961a. Mating call discri~inationby females of the spotted chorus frog ~Pseuducris clurki~.Tex. 7. Sci. 13(1):49-50. .1961b. Artificial hybridization between some hylid frogs of the United States. Tex. J.Sei, 13(2):176-84. Littlejohn, M. J.,M. J. Fouquette, Jr., and C. Johnson. 1960,Call discrimination by female frogsof the Hyla versicolor complex. Copeiu 1960(1):47-49. Littlejohn, M. J., and T. C. Michaud. 1959. Mating call discrimination by females of Strecker’schorus frog ~Pseuducrisstreckeri). Tex,7.. Sci. II(I):86-92. Littlejohn,M. J.,and R. S. Oldham. 1968. Runupipiens complex: Mating call structure andtaxonomy, Science 162(3857): 1003. Livezey,R. L. 1948. Distributional records of amphibiansin east Texas. Copeiu 1948(1):67-68. .1949. Anaberrant patternof Ag~istrodonmukeson uustrinus.~erpetolog5(4):93. .195oa.The eggsof Acris g r y ~ l crepituns u~ Baird. Herpetologicu 6(5): 139-40. ,195ob.An intergradepopulation of the Texas subspeciesof Desmognuthusfuseus, Am. Mid. Nut. 43(3) :600-604. .1951. ~ u t rrigidu i ~ from Tyler County, Texas. Herpeto~ogicu7(2):60. 1952. Observationson Pseuducris nigritu triseriutu(Wied)in Texas. Am. Midl. Nut. 47(2):372-81.

601.

Livezey, R. L., and H. M. Johnson, 1948. liana g r ~ l i in o Texas, HerpetoZogica

602.

Livezey, R. L., and A. H. Wright. 1947. A synoptickey to the salientian eggs of the United States. Am. Midl. Nat, 47(I): 179-222. Lockwood, S. F., B, S. Holland, J. W. Bickham, B. G. Hanks, and J. J.Bull. 1991. Intraspecific genomesize in a turtle ~Trachem~s scripta~ exhibitingtemperaturedependent sex determination. Can. J.Zool. 69: 2306-10. Loetscher,I, M. 1989. The roleof Sea Turtle Inc. in Kemp’s ridleysea turtle cont sgmposervation and public awareness. In Procee~ngsof t h e ~ r sinternational g turtle ~ i o l o gconservation, ~, and management,ed. C. W. sium on Kemp’sr i ~ e sea Caillouet and A. M. Landry, 25-26. Galveston: TexasA&M University. Loftus-Hills,J. J., and M, J.Littlejohn. 1992. Reinforcementand reproductive character displacement in Gastrophr~necarolinensis and G. olivacea (Anura: Microhylidae):A reexamination. ~voZution46(4) :896-906. Logan, L. E., and C. C. Black. 1979. The Quarternary vertebrate fauna of Upper Sloth Cave, GuadalupeMountains National Park, Texas. Natl. Park Serv. Trans. Proc. Ser 4: 141-58. Long, D. R. 1985. Lipid utilization during reproduction in female ~ i ~ u s t e r n o n

602.100.

602.150,

602.160.

602.200.

602.500. 602.510. 602.511. 602.512.

4(5) :164.

~avescens, HerpetoZogica 41(1): 58-65.

.1986a.Lipid content and delayed emergenceof hatchling yellow mud turtles. Sout~west.Nat, 31(2): 244-46. .1986b. Clutch formation in the turtle ~inosternon~avescens (Testudines: Kinosternidae).Sout~west.Mat. 31(1) :1-8. ,1987a. Reproductive and lipid patterns in a semiarid-adaptedanuran,

CUgnUtuS. TCX. I. sei. 39(1):1-13. ,1987b. A comparison of energy substrates and reproductivepatterns of two anurans, Acris erepitansand Bufi wood~ousei, Comp. B i o c ~ ePh~siol. ~, 87A(1): 81-91. .1988. Mullerian ducts in male Bufo woodhousei. Southwest, Nat.33(2) : 240-43. ,1989. Energetics and reproduction in female Scap~iopusmultip~icatus from western Texas. J.Herpetol. 23(2): 176-79. Long, D. R., and F, L. Rose. 1989. Pelvic girdle.sizerelationshipsin three turtle species. J.Herpetol. 23(3) :315-18. Long, R. A., and K.L. Ballew. 1986. Aetosaur dermal armor from the late TriasBUfO

602,514.

602.515. 602.516. 602.530. 602.545.

sic of southwestern North America with special referenceto material from the Chinle Formation of Petrified ForestNational Park. Mus. nth. Ariz. Press Bull. 54(985) :45-68.

602,550.

Long, R, A., and P. A, Murry.1995. Late Triassic(Carnian and Norian) tetrapods from the southwestern United States. Bull. N.MeX, Mus. Nat. Hist. Sei. 4 :i-v,

603.

Long, R. L. 1961.A recordof the red-bellied snake from Texas.Herpetologica

603.200.

Longley, G. 1977. Status of ~ p h l o m o l g (= e Eur~cea) rath~uni, the Texas blind salamander, U S ~ ~ndang. ~ S Species Rept.2:izr-76. Longoria, R. N., Jr. 1993. An observationof H e ~ ~ d a c t ~turcicus l u s nesting. Llactp ZUS ~ ( 2 )79-80. : Loomis, R. B., and D.A. Crossley. 1963. New speciesand new records of chiggers (Acarina:Trombiculidae) from Texas. Acarologia 5(3) :371-85.

1-254.

603.300. 604.

17(3) :208-209.

605.

Lord, R. D., Jr., and W. B. Davis. 1955. A taxonomic study of the relationship between ~seudacrisnigrita triseriataWied and ~seudacris clar~i Baird. Herpetologica

605.800,

Loughry, W. J. 1987a. Differences in experimentaland natural encounters of black-tailedprairie dogs with snakes. Anim. Behav, 35(5) :1568-70. .1987b. The dynamics of snake harassment by black-tailed prairie dogs.

12(2): 115-20.

605.801.

605,802. 605.803.

605.910. 606.

607. 608. 609.

609.350. 609.375. 609,400. 609.500. 610. 611.

611.005.

611.010.

611,115. 611.130.

611,200.

Behaviour 103(1--3):27-48,

.1988. Population differences in how black-tailedprairie dogs dealwith snakes. Behav, E d ,Sociobiol. 22(1) :61-67. .1989. Discrimination of snakes by two populations of black-tailed prairie dogs.J.Ma~maZ.70(3):627-30. Lovich, J. E., and T. Lamb.1995. Morp~ometricsimilarity betweenthe turtles Kinosternon subru~rumhipp~crepisand K. baurii.J.Herpetol. 29(4) :621-24. Lowe, C. H., Jr. 1955. The evolutionary relationshipsof the narrow-lined skinks of the inland Southwest,Eumeces taylori, E. gaigei, and E. ~ u ~ t i v i r g u t ~ s . ~ e r p e t o logica 11(3):233-35. .1956. A new speciesand a new subspecies of whiptailed lizards(genus Cnemido~h~rus) of the inland Southwest. Bull. Chi. Acad.Sci. 10(9): 137-50.

1966. The prairie lined racerunner. J.Ariz. h a d , Sci. 4(1) :44-45. Lowe, C. H., Jr., andJ.W. Wright. 1966. Evolution of parthenogenic species of C~e~idophoru whipt s tailed lizards) in western North America. J.Ark. Acad. Sci. 4(2): 81-87. Lucas, S. G., A, B. Heckert, and A, P. Hunt, 1995. Unusual aetosaur armor from the Upper Triassic of west Texas, U.S.A.Pa~eonto~. Z. 69(3-4):467-73. Lutterschmidt,W. I., and M. L, Thies. 2999. Geographicdistribution. Syrrhophus Herpetol. Rev. 30(1) :51. cystignutk~i~es. Lundelius,E. L., Jr. 1957. Skeletal adaptations in two speciesof Sce~oporus. Evolu” tion 11(1):65-83. 1972. Fossil vertebrates from the late Pleistocene Inglesidefauna, San Patricio County, Texas. Univ. Te’ex.Buu: Econ. Geol. Rept. Invest. 77: 1-74. Lynch, J. D.1964. Additional hylidand leptodactylidremains from the Pleistocene of Texas and Florida. Herpeto~ogica20(2) :141-42, the North American Pleisto.1966. Additional treefrogs (Hylidae) from cene. Ann. Car~egieMus. 38: 265-71. .1g70. A tasonomic revision of the leptodactylidfrog genus Syrrhophus Cope. U n h KUnS. P U ~ l .hfUS. Nut. HiSt. 20(I):I- 45. 1986. The definitionof the middle American clade of Eleuthrodacty~us based on jaw musculature (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae). ~erpetologica42(2) : 248-58. MacMahon,J.A. 1985. Audubon Society natureguides: Deserts. New York: Alfred

A. Knopf. Maha, G. C,, and L,R.Maxson. 1989. Biochemical evolution in the slimy salamanders of the Pleth~donglutinosus complex in the eastern United States.11. Immunological analysis of geographic variation in plasma proteins, IIl. Bid. ~ o n o 5g7 ~ :79 -I 53. Mahmovd, I.Y., and J. Klicka. 1972. Seasonal gonadal changes in kinosternid ~, 183-89. turtles. 1.~ e r p e t o6(3-4):

612. 612.009.

612.049.

Malnate, E.1939.A study of the yellow-lipped snake, Rhaainaea~avizata(Cope). ~oologica24(3):359-66. Malnate, E. V. 1971. A catalogue of primary types in theherpetological collections of the Academy of Natural Sciences,Philadelphia (ANSP),Proc. Acad. Nat. Sei. Phila, 123(9):345-75. Malone,J.H. 1993. The hognose snake. East Tex. Herpetol. Soc. ~ w s l 4(5) t~: 1-2.

.1997a. Geographicdistribution.Rana c ~ a m i t ac~~s a ~ i ~ aHerpeto~. ns. Rev. 28(2):93. ,1997b.Long-term amphibian monitoring at Brazos BendState Park. 612.051. East Tex. Herpetol. Soc. Nwsltr: Jan. 1gg7:3-6. .1998. Geographicdistribution. S ~ r r h o p ~marnocki. us her pet^^. Rev. 612.052, 29(4):247. 612.053. .1998.Geographicdistribution. H e m i ~ c t ~ l ~urcicus. us Herpetol. Rev. 29(4 :248. 612.054. .1998. Geographicdistribution. Anolis curolinensis.Herp~tol,Rev ag(4.1:248. 612.065. Malone,J.H., D. Heinicke,and D. Winsor. 1999. Geographicdistribution. ~ a ~ a n cia abac~rarei~waratii.Herpetol. Rev. 30(1) :53-54. 612.090. Malone,J,H., and T. J. Williams. 1999.Geographicdistribution,EZaphe g~ttata. Herpetol, Rev. 30(1):53. 612.095. Mamay, S. H., R. W. Heck, and N.Hotton. 1998, Amphibian eggs fromthe Lower Permian of north-central Texas. J. Vert. ~ a ~ e18(1): ~ ~80-84. t , Manaster, J. 1997. Horned lizards. Austin: Universityof Texas Press. 612.100, 612.110. ~ a n n i n gR., W., C. Jones, and P. D. Yancey 11.1995.Noteworthy recordsof amphibians and reptiles fromnorthwestern and western Texas. Tex. J. Sei. 47(3): 213-35. e r iJ .. 612.200. Mares, M, A. 1971. Coprophagyin the Texas tortoise, Gopherus ~ e r ~ a n ~Tex.

612.050.

Sei. 23(2):300.

612.300. 612,400, 613.

613.100. 613.200. 613.400, 613.410. 614. 614.110. 614.120.

Marker, R. G. 1979. The kingsnakes: An annotated checklist, 13uIl. Chi. ~ e r p e t o ~ , SOC. I4(4):101-16. Marion, W. R., and D. R. Blankenship. 1974. Geographic distribution. ~ r ~ ~ o b i ~ s Rev. 5(1):21. mar~itiferus ~argitiferus. ~erpetol. Marr, J.C, 1944. Notes on amphibians and reptiles fromthe central United , 32(2):478-90. States, Am. ~ i a lNut. Marsh, E. G. 1937. Biological survey of the Santa Rosa and Del Carmen Mountains of northern Coahuila, Mexico. 85 pp. (~meograph). Martin, J. H,, and R. M.Bagby. 1972. Temperaturefrequency relationshipsof the rattlesnake rattle. Copeia 1972(3):482-85. Martin, N.1986a. The sweet smell of success. Tex. Shores 19(2):11-14. ,1986b. Mission possible.Tex. Shores 19(2): 19-22. of temperate biotas Martin, P. S., and B. E. Harrell. 1957. The Pleistocene history in Mexico and eastern United States. Ecolog~38(3):469-80. Martin, R. F. 1972. Arciferal dextrality and sinistrality in anuran pectoral girdles. Copeia 1972(2):376-81. us in central .1973a. Reproduction in thetree lizard ~ ~ r o s a u rornatus~ Texas: Drought conditions. ~erpetologica29(1):27-32.

614.130. 614.140, 614.150. 614.200. 614.400. 614.410. 614.420. 614.430. 614.600,

.1973b. Osteology of North American Bufo: The americu~us,cognatus, and boreas species groups.~erpetologica29(4) :375-87. .1977. Variation in reproductive productivityof range margin tree u s us^. Copeia 1977(1): 83-92. lizards ~ ~ r o s a ~orr nut .1978. Clutch weight/total body weight ratios of lizards (Reptilia, Lacertilia, Iguanidae): Preservativeinduced variation. J. ~erpetol.12(2): 248-51. Martin, W. F.,and R. B, Huey. 1971. The function of the epiglottisin sound production (hissing)of Pituophis melanoleuc~s.Copeia 1971(4) :752-54. Martof, B. S. 1973. Siren interme~u.Cat. Am. ~mphib.Rept. 127.1-127.3.

.1974a. Siren. Cat. Am. Amp~ib,Rept. 152.1-152.2.

1974b. Sirenidae. Cat. Am, Amphib. Rept. 151.1-151.2. .1975. la s~uirellaBosc. Cat. Am. Amp~ib.Rept. 168.1-168.2. Marvel, B. 1972. A feeding observation on the yellow-bellied water snake, Nutrix e'~avi~usteu: Bull. Ma, ~erpetol.Soc. 8(2): 52. 614.620. Marven, N., and R. Harvey. 1996. ~aentifyingsnakes. London: Quintet. 615. Marx, H. 1958. Catalogue of type specimensof reptiles and amphibians in the nu :411-96. Chicago Natural History Museum,~ i e l ~ a Zoo1.36(4) 616. Maslin, T. P.,R. G. Beidleman,and C. H. Lowe, Jr. 1958. The status of the lizard Cne~iaophorusperplexusBaird and Girard (Teiidae).Proc, US. Natl. Mus. 108 : 331-45. 616.010. Maslin, T. P. 1971. Parthenogenesis in reptiles. Am, Zool. 11 :361-80. 616.100. Mather, C. M.1970. Some aspectsof the life history of the ground skink, Lygosoma laterale. Tex, I; Sci. 21(4) :429-38. 616.110. .1977. Comparative ecologyof two lizards~Sceloporusvariabilis and Sceloporus un~ulatus~ in an area of sympatry. Diss. Abstu: k t . (B) 37(8) :3756. .1978. A case of limb regeneration in Sceloporus vuriabilis (Reptilia, Lacer616.120. tilia, Iguanidae).J. ~erpetol.12(2) :263. .1g79. Incidence of mites on Sceloporus vuriubi~isand Sce~oporusunaulutus 616.~30. (Sauria: Iguanidae) in south Texas. Tex. I; Sci. 31(1) :103. 616.140. .1982, Record of a turtle eaten by a catfish.Bull. Okla. ~erpetol.Soc. 7(1): 5. 616.200. Mather, C. M., and J. R. Dixon. 1976. Geographic recordsof some Texasamphibians and reptiles. ~erpetol.Rev. 7(3) :127. 616.250. Mather, C. M., and J. W. Sites,Jr. 1985. Sceloporus vur~ubilisWiegmann. Cat, Am, amp hi^. Rept. 373.1-373.3. 616.260. Mathews, A. E, 1989. Conflict, controversy,and compromise: The Concho water snake ~ ~ eharteri r opauc~mac~lutu~ ~ ~ versus the Stacy Dam and Reservoir. Enviran, Munage. q ( 3 ) :297-307. 616.500. M a t ~ e ~ s oJ.nJ., 1979. Enterobacteriaceaeisolated fromiguanid lizards of west38(3) :402- 405. central Texas. Appl. Enviro~. ~icrobiol. 617. Mattiessen, P. 1959. ~ i l ~inlAme~icu, ~ e 273-76. New York: VikingPress. 617.100. Mattison,C. 1996. R a t t ~ e A r ~n~ ~ ~ ~hisr tor^ u l of ruttlesnakes. London: Blandford. 617.500. Maxson, R. D., and L. R. Maxson, 1978. Resolution of diploid-tetraploidtree frogs. Science 202(4365): 336, Maxson, L. R., E, Pepper, and R. D. Maxson. 1977. I ~ u n o l o g i c aresolution l of a 617.510, of tree frogs, Sc~ence197: 1012-13. diploid-tetraploid species complex

617.700.

618.

Mays, S. R., and P. S. Freed, 1985. Life history notes. Bufo houstonensis, Coloration. Herpetol. Rev. 16(4): 108-109. McAlister, W. 1954.. Natural history notes on thebarking frog. Herpetologica 10(3): 197-99.

619.

1959.The vocalstructures and method of call production in the genus Scaphiop~sHolbrook, Tex. J.Sci. II(I):60-77.

620.

-1961a.The mechanics of sound production in North American Bufo. Copeia 1961(1): 86-95.

621, 622. 622.100. 622.101. 622.102. 622.103. 622.104. 622.105. 622.106. 622.107. 622.108. 622.109, 622.110. 622.111. 622.112.

622.113.

622.114. 622.115.

.1961b. Artificial hybridization between Rana a. areoluta and Ranap, pipi-

ens from Texas.Tex. J.Sci. 13(4):423-26.

.1962, Variation in Ranap~p~ens Scheber in Texas. Am. ~ iNut.~67(2). : 334-63. McAllister, C. T. 1982, Geographicdistribution. C h r ~ s e mco~cinna. ~s Herpetol. Rev. 13(3):80. .1983.Life history notes. Crotaph~tuscollaris collaris (eastern collared lizard). Hibernacula.Herpetol. Rev. q ( 3 ) :73-74. 1984a. Geographicdistribution. N e r o ~ ra h o m ~ ~ erhombifera. ra ~erpetol. Rev. 15(1):21. .r984b. Life history notes.Crotaph~tuscollaris collaris (eastern collared lizard). Reproduction.Herpetol. Rev. 15(2) :48. 1985a.Geographicdistribution. Cnemi~ophorustesselatus. Herpetol. Rev. 16(2): 60. 1985b. Geographicdistribution, Pituophis melanoleucus sa@. Herpetol. Rev, 16(3): 78, .1985c.Geographicdistribution, Sonora semiannulata. ~erpetol.Rev. 16(3):78. .1985d. Nerodia r h o m ~ ~ e(Hallowell). ra Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 376.1376.4. .1986. Geographicdistribution. ~rop~~oclonion lineatum texanum. Herpetol. Rev. 17(3): 67. ,1987a. Life history notes. C r o t a p h ~ tcollaris ~s collaris. Seasonal activity. ~erpetol.Rev. 18(1):15. ,1987b. Geographicdistribution. P ~ r ~ n o s o m cornut~m. a Herpetol. Rev. 18(1):20.

.1987c.Geographicdistribution. Elaphe guttata emor~i.Herpetol. Rev.

18(1):20.

.1987d. Protozoan and metazoan parasites of Strecker's chorus frog, Pseu~ucris strec~eri s ~ r e c ~ e(Anura: ri Hylidae), fromnorth-central Texas, Proc, ~elminthol.Soc. Wash. 54(2) :271-74. ,1987e. Ingestion of spinose ear ticks, Otobius megnini (Acari: Argasidae) by a Texas spotted whiptail, Cnemi~ophorusg ~ l a r g~laris ~s (Sauria: Teiidae). South~est.Nat. 32(4): 511-12. .1987f.Life history notes. Eumeces septentr~onuliso~tusirostris'Reproduction. ~erpetol.Rev. 18(4) :75. ,1988a. ~ e s o c e s t o i ~sp. e s tetrathyridia (Cestoidea: Cyclophylidea)in the iguanid lizards, Cophosa~rustexanus and Sceloporusolivaceus,from Texas,J.~ i l ~ . Dis. 24(1): 160-63.

622.116. 622.117, 622.118,

622.119, 622.120.

622.121.

622.122.

622.123.

622,124, 622.125.

622.126, 622.127. 622.128,

622.129. 622.135. 622.136. 622.137. 622.150.

622,154,

.1988b. Geographicdistribution. New county records for amphibians and reptiles of north central Texas. ~erpetoZ.Rev. 19(3):61,63. SeeZop~rusUZivuceus .1g8g. Eggs and hatchlings of the Texas spiny lizard, ( S a ~ i aIguanidae), : from northcentral Texas. BUZZ.Chi. ~ e r p e t o lSoc. , 24(4) :79. .Iggoa. Helminth parasites of unisexual and bisexual whiptail lizards (Teiidae)in North America. I. The Colorado checkered whiptail ~ C ~ e ~ i d o p h ~ r u s tessezutus). J.~ i ZDis. ~ 26(1): . 139-42. .Iggob. Geographicdistribution. T h u ~ ~ o p hsirtu~is is u ~ ~ e c t e~erpetol. ~s. Rev. 21(1):24. .19goc. Hehinth parasites of unisexual and bisexual lizards (Teiidae) in North America. 11. The New Mexicowhiptail ~ C ~ e ~ i ~ o p h o p r u s ~ e o ~ e x i c u ~ u J.~ i ZDis. ~ 26(3):403-406. . .Iggod, Helminth parasites of unisexual and bisexual whiptail lizards (Teiidae) in North America. 111.The Chihuahua~spotted whiptail ~ C ~ e ~ i ~ o p h u rus exsu~guis).J.~ i ZDis. ~ 26(4) . :544-46. .~ggoe.Helminth parasites of unisexual and bisexual whiptail lizards (Teiidae) in North America, I V The Texas spotted whiptail ~ C ~ e ~ i ~ gu~ p h o r ~ s Iuris). Tex. J.Sei, 42(4) :381-88. .Iggof. ~etacercariaof C Z i ~ o s t c~o~~up~l u ~ (Rudolphi, u ~ u ~ 1814) (Trematoda:Digenea)in a Texas salamander, ~ ~ r ~~e c~ et eu(~~epsh i b i aCau: data), with c o ~ e n ton s C. ~ u r g i ~ u(Rudolphi, tu~ 1819).f. ~ e Z ~ i Soc. ~ t ~ ~ l . ~ u ~57: h 69-71. . .Iggog. Geographicdist~bution.CrotuZus utrox. ~erpetoZ.Rev. 21(4):97. .rgg1a. Protozoan, helminth, and arthropod parasites of the spotted chorus frog, Pseuducris clurki (Anura: Hylidae), fromnorth-central Texas. J.~ e Z ~ i ~ t hSoc, oZ~ . u s h58(1) . :51-56. .IggIb. Geographicdistribution, ~ Z u pguttutu ~e e ~ o r ~~erpetoZ, i. Rev. 22(2):67. .I ~ ~ I CGeographic . distribution. Tu~~~ZZu gru~il~s. ~erpetoZ.Rev. 22(2) :68. .IggId. First report of ~ e s o c e s t o i ~sp. e s tetrathyridia (Cyclophllidea: ZiocephuZus o t u s (Sauria: Mesocestoididae) in the Texas alligator lizard, ~ e r r ~ ~ ~ Anguidae) fromCoahuila,Mexico. Tex. J.Sci. 43(3):325-26. .1992.Geographicdistribution.ApuZo~es p i ~ ~ epuZZidu. ru ~erpetoZ.Rev. 23(4) :122.

~cAllister,C. T., and D. K.Bibb, 1ggIa. Geographic~stribution. ~otophthul~us v i r i ~ s c eZ ~ so ~ s i u ~ e ~ ~erpetoZ. s ~ s . Rev. 22(2) :62. .IggIb. Geographicdistribution. C ~ ~ ~ i ~ o se~Zi~eutus p h ~ r u ss e ~ Z ~ ~ e u t u s . ~erpetoZ.Rev. 22(2) :65. .1g91c. Geographicdistribution.Regi~u gruhu~i. ~erpetoZ.Rev, 22(2) :68. C. T., and D. B. Conn. 1990.Occurrence of t e t r a t h ~ i of ~ a~ e s o ~ e s ~ Mc~lliste~, toides sp. (Cestoidea: Cyclophyllidea) in North A m e ~ c a n a ~ u r (Amphibia). ans J.~ i lDis, ~ 26(4):540-43. . McAllister, C,T., D. B. Conn, P, S, Freed, and D, A, Burdick. 1991. A new host ~esoeestoides sp. tetrathyri~a(Cestoidea: Cyciophyland locality record for lidea),with a summary of the genus from snakes of the world, J.P~rusitol.77(2): 329-31. .IggIb. Helminth parasites of unisexual and bisexual whiptail lizards (Teiidae)in North America. VI. The gray-checl~eredwhiptail ~ C ~ e ~ i d o p ~ o r u s d ~ x o ~ ~Tex. ) . f. Sei. 43(3):309-14.

622.157. McAllister, C. T., J. E.Cordes, and J. M. Walker, 1ggIa. Helminth parasites of unisexual and bisexual whiptail lizards (Teiidae)in North America. V. ~esocestopides sp. tetrathyridia (Cestoidea: Cyclophy~idea) from four species of Cne~idophorus. 1.~ i ~Dis,~27(3):494-97. l . Helminth parasites of unisexual and bisexual whiptail lizards (Tei,1995. 622,158. idae) in North America. IX. The plateau spotted whiptail ~ C n e ~ i d o p h o r ~ s g ~ l a r i s 83-88. septe~vittatus~. Tex, 1.Sei. 47(2): ~s 622,160. McAllister, C. T,,and B. D, Earle 1989. Geographicdistribution. T r u c k e ~scripta elega~s.Herpetol. Rev. 20(1) :14. 622.170. McAllister, C. T.,and L. C. Fitzpatrick 1989. The effect of therrnal acclimation on oxygen consumption in thes a l ~ a n d e r~, u r ~ cneotenes. ea J.Herpetol. 23(4): 439-4.2. sp. (Spirurida:Physa622.171. McAllister, C. T., and P. Freed. 1992.Larval A~~reviata lopteridae) in introduced Rio Grande chirping frogs, S ~ r r h ~ p h ~ s c ~ s ~ i g ~ a t k o ~ d e s Leptodactylidae), fromHouston, Texas. Tex. J.Sei, 44(3):359-61. c u ~ p(Anura: i 622.175. McAllister, C. T., P, S. Freed, S. J. Upton, D. A. Burdick, and N. A. Wilson. 1991. Parasites of the roughtail gecko, C ~ r t o s pc a ~ b r u~~(Sauria: ~ ~ Gekkonidae), from Galveston, Texas. Tex. J.Sei. 43(2): 199-204. ~s 622.180. McAllister, C, T.,and K.L. Fry. 1986. Geographicdistribution. Bufo d e ~ i lde~ilis. :91. Herpetol. Rev. 17(4) 622.184. McAllister, C. T., S. R. Goldberg, S. R. Bursey, P, S. Freed, and H. J. Holshuh. 1993.Larval Ascarops sp. (Nematoda:Spirurida)in introduced Mediter~anean l ~ s (Sauria: Gekkonidae) from Texas. J.Hel~inthol. geckos, H e ~ i d a c t ~turcicus Soc. ash. 60(23): 280-82. (Ne622.185. McAllister, C. T., S. R. Goldberg, and H. J. Holshuh, 1993.Spirox~s contor~a ~e pulli~a (Reptilia: matoda: Spirurida)in gastric granulomas of A p a ~ o spin~era ~ , q(3):50y”I. Testudines).J.~ j l dDis. 622.190. McAllister, C. T., and J. E. ICeirans. 1987.Additional recordsof tick (Acari: Ixodidae: Argasidae) ingestionby whiptail lizards, genus C ~ e ~ i d o p ~ oTex, r ~J. s Sei. . 39(3): 287-88. ~s 622.200. McAllister, C. T.,and W. W. Lamar. 1987.Life history notes. P s e u d e ~ texuna. Size maxima. Herpetol. Rev. 18(4): 73. 622.201. McAllister, C. T., R. Lenington,and S. Tucker. 199s.Notes on the general ecol~ u ~V i v a r i ~ 7(3) ~ :10-12. ogy of C r ~ p t o s p o r i spp. 622.202. McAllister, C. T., and E. A. McAllister. 1984.Geographicdistribution. Acris crepita~s blanchur~. Herpetol. Rev, 15(1) :20, .1985. Geographicdistribution. Pseu~acris strec~eri. Herpetol. Rev, 622,203. 16(3): 83. 622.208. McAllister, C. T., and V.R. McDaniel. 1g92.Occurrence of larval C o ~ t r a c u e c u ~ sp. (Ascaridida: Anisakidae) in Rio Grande lessersiren, Siren i ~ t e r ~t e x~a ~ aa (Amphibia:Caudata), from south Texas, J.H e ~ ~ i n t h oSoc. l . ash. 5912):239-40. 622.220. McAIlister,C. T.,N. J. Scott,Jr., andB. E. Smith. 1987.Geographicdistribution. C ~ e ~ i d o p h o rgular~s us ~uluris.Herpetol. Rev. 18(1) :20. 622.225. McAllister, C. T., J. P.Scudday,and M. Nelson. 1986. Geographic~stribution. Cne~idophorusguluris guluris. Herpetol. Rev. 17(4) :92. 622.227. McAllister, C.T., and S. P.Tabor. 1985a. Geographicdistribution. C n e ~ i d o p k o r ~ s sex~jneatusv i r j ~ sHerpetol. . Rev. 16(3):83. 1985b. Geographicdistribution. ~ e r o d i a r h o ~ ~ ~ e r u rHerpetol. ho~~i~era. 622.228. Rev. 16(3) :84.

622.229. 622.230. 622,231. 622.232.

622.233.

622.235. 622.236. 622.260.

622.261. 622.262.

622.263,

622.264. 622.265.

622.266.

622.267,

622.270.

622,277.

.1985~.Life history notes. Gastruphrgne ulivacea.Coexistence. ~ e r p e t u l . Rev. 16(4): 109. .1985d. Geographicdistribution. Gastruphr~neulivacea. ~ e r p e t u lRev, . I6(4):114-15. .1985e. Geographicdistribution.~ g p s i g l e ~t uar ~ ~ a t~erpetol. a. Rev. 16(4): 115-16. McAllister, C, T., and S. E. Trauth. 1995. Newhost records for ~ ~ x iserut~ i u ~ in~rn(Protozoa: Myxosporea) from North American amphibians.J.Parasit~l. 81(3):485-88. McAllister, C. T., S. E. Trauth, and D. B. Conn. 1991, Helminth parasites of unisexual and bisexual whiptail lizards (Teiidae)in North America. VII. The sixlined racerunner, C~erniduphurus se~lineut~s. Tex. J.Sei. 43(4):391-97. McAllister, C. T., S. E. Trauth, V. R. McDaniel, and R. B, McAllister. 1g91a. Geographic distribution. Sunura serniann~lata.~ e r p e t u 2Rev. . 22(3):103. -19g1b. First recordof the many-lined slrink,Eurneces rn~ltivirgat~s J.Sei. 43(4):439. (Sauria: Scincidae),in Presidio County, Texas.'Tex. McAllister, C. T,, and S. J.Upton. 1987a. Endoparasites of the smallmouth salamander, A r n ~ g s ~ utr ne ~x a n (Caudata: ~~ Ambystomidae) from Dallas County, Texas. Pruc. ~elrninthul,Sac. Wash. 54(2):258-61, '198713. Parasites of the Great Plains narrowmouth toad ~Gastruphrgne ul~vacea~ from northern Texas. I; W i ~Dis. ~ . 23(4): 686-88. .1988. ~irneria trachgerng~isn. sp. (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae)and other eimerians from the red-eared slider,~ r a c h e ~scripta gs elegans (Reptilia: Testudines), in northcentral Texas. J. Parasitul. 74(6):1014-17. .1989a. E i ~ e r i ornata a n. sp. (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) from the ornate box turtle, ~errapene urnata urnata(Reptilia: Testudines),in Texas. J. Prutuzuul. 36(2):131-33. .1989b. The Coccidia (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) of Testudines, with descriptions of three new species. Can. J.Zuul. 67 :2459- 67. .1989c. Coccidian parasites (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) of ~ e r uspp. ~ a (Serpentes: Colubridae), with a description of a new species of Eirner~a.1.PrutuZOUL 36(3):271-74. .1g90. TheCoccidia (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) of Crocodilia, with de(Reptilia: Alligatoriscriptions of two new species Alligatur from ~ississippiens~s dae) from Texas.J.Parasitul. 76(3):332-36. .1992. A new speciesof Eirneria (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) from Pseuderngs texana (Testudines: Emydidae), from north-central Texas. Tex.J.Sei. 44(1) : 37-41. McAllister, C. T., S. J.Upton, and D. M. Boyer. 1990.Eirneria ~ x usp. ~ n. i (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae)from an introduced population of common house geckos, ~erni~actglus~renat~s (Sauria: Gekkonidae) in Dallas County, Texas. I; ~ e l ~ i n thul. Sue. Wash, 57(1) :1-4. e r isp. a n. (ApiMcAllister, C, T., S. J. Upton, and P. S. Freed. 1988.~ ~ ~ lineri complexa: Eimeriidae) from the Medite~aneangecko, ~ e ~ i ~ a~ c~ rt c~i c~~ ~s s (Sauria: Gekkonidae),in Louisiana and Texas. Pruc. ~ e l ~ i n ~Sue. h u ~ash. . 55(4 :256-59. McAllister, C. T., S. J.Upton, and F.C, Killebrew. 1991. Coccidianparasites (Apicomplexa: Eimeridae) of Graptern~scaglei and Grapte~gsversa (Testudines:Emydidae) from Texas. J.Parasitul. 77(3):500-502.

622.280.

622.288.

622.289.

622.290, 622.295,

622.296, 622.297. 622.298.

622.299. 622.310. 622.311. 622.312. 623. 624, 624.100. 624.110. 625. 625.100.

625,102,

625.200. 625.400.

McAllister, C. T,, S. J. Upton, and L. D. McCaskill. 1990,Three new species of E i ~ e r i (Apicomplexa: a Eimeridae) (Testudines: Trionchidae)in Texas, with a redescription of E.a ~ ~ J ~.Parasitol. a e , 76(4):481-86. McAllister, C. T., S. J. Upton, and S. E. Trauth. 1990. Coccidianparasites (Apira (Testudines: Chelydridae) of complexa: Eimeriidae)of C h e l ~ ~serpentina a e n, and Arkansas and Texas, U.S.A.,with descriptions of Isospora c h e l ~ ~ rsp. E i ~ e r i serpentina a sp. n.Can. J.2001.68:865-68. .1gg4a. New host and distribution records for Coccidia (Apicomplexa: Soc. Eimeriidae) fromNorth American lizards (Reptilia: Sauria). 1.~eZ~inthoZ. ash. 61(2):221-24. .1994b.New host and geographic records for Coccidia (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) fromNorth American turtles. J.Parusitol. 80(6):1045-49. McAllister, C. T., S. J. Upton, S .E. Trauth, andJ. R. Dixon. 1995.Coccidian papasites (Apicomplexa) from snakes in the southcentral and southwestern United States.New host and geographic records.J.Parasitol. 81(1):63-68. McAllister, C. T., and R. Ward. 1986a.New distributionalrecords of Texas herpetofauna. Tex. J.Sci, 38(1):65-69. .1986b. More distributionalrecords of amphibians and reptiles from ): Texas. ~erpetol.Rev. I ~ ( I28-30. McAllister, C. T., R. Ward, and J. R. Glidewell. 1983. New distributional records for selected amphibians and reptiles of Texas. ~erpetol.Rev. 14(2): 52-53. McAllister, C. T., R. Ward, and K. L. Williams. 1987. Noteworthy milk snakes (La~propelt~s t r i a n g ~from l ~ ~Texas. ~ S o ~ t ~ w e sNat, t . 32(3):406-408. McAllister, C. T., and M. C. Wooten. 1981.Geographicdistribution. C n e ~ i ~ o p h o rus ~uZaris.~erpetoZ.Rev. 12(3):84. .1982. Geographicdistribution. Acris crepitans~ l a n c h a r~erpetol. ~. Rev. 13(1):24. NlcAllister, C. T., M. C, Wooten, and T. L. King. 1981. Geographicdistribution. Salva~ora graha~iae lineata. ~erpetol, Rev. 12(2):66. McCallion,J. 1944. Noteson Natrix hurteriin captivity. Copeia 1g44(1) :63. 2(7-8): 197-98. 1945. Noteson Texas reptiles.~erpeto~ogica McCarley, H.1970. Rana areolata in southern Oklahoma- northern Texas. Southwest. Nut. 15(2):266-67. o the coastal prairie of Texas. S ~ ~ t ~ wNat. est. ,1975. Rana g r ~ l i in 20(3):420. McCarley, H., and M.J.Cundiff, 1965. Range extensions for someeast Texas amphibians. So~thwest.Nat. 10(4):311-12. McClelland, B, E.,W. Wilczynski, and M.J.Ryan. 1996. Correlationsin call characteristics and morphology in male cricket frogs(Acris crep~tuns~. J.Exp. Biol. 199(9): 1907-19, McClelland,B. B., W. Wilczynski, and M. J. Ryan. 1998. Intraspecificvariation in Biol. J.Linlaryngeal and ear morphology in male cricket frogs(Acris crep~tans~. ~ e a Soc. n 63(1):51-67. McClung, G. D., and T. C. Maxwell. 1976. Newlocality for Ag~istrodoncontortr~x pictigas~er(Crotalidae)in Texas. Tex. 1.Sci. 27(3):405-406. ~s ~ l a n c h airn~Texas. McClure, W. L. 1969. A new record of O p h e o ~ rvernalis Southwest,Nat. 14(1):129.

625.410. 625,411. 625,412. 625.413. 625.414. 625.500. 625.540. 625.541. 625.542. 625.543. 625.553. 625.554. 625.555. 625.557. 626. 626.500. 626.501. 626.502. 626.503. 626.504. 626.510. 627. 627.100. 628. 629. 629.200.

.1974. The Houston toad Sanders.Tex. Hwg. Dept. ~nviron,Brief 74-12-02. .1986. Faunal analysis of 41FB34. J. Housto~Archeol. Soc. 86: 1-7. .1987a. Snakes of Allen Creek sites.J. Ho~stonArcheol. Sac,88 :9-10. n Soc. 89: 1-6. .1987b. Faunal analysis of 41FB37. J. ~ a u s t o Archeo~, ,1989.The vertebratesof 41FB32.J. Houston Archeol.Soc. 93 :15-21, McClure, W. L.,and W. W. Milstead. 1967. ~errupenecurolinu triunguisfrom the late Pleistocene of southeast Texas. Herpetologicu 23(4):321-22, McCoid, M. J.1994. Natural history notes.Anolis curolinensis.Interspeci~c behavior. Herpetal. Rev. 25(2):65. McCoid, M. J. 1998. Geographic ~stribution.Hglu cinerea. Herpetol. Rev. 29(4): 246. McCoid, M. J.1998. Geographic distribution.~ s e u ~ c rclurki. i s Herpetol. Rev. 29(4): 246. McCoid, M. J.1998. Geographic distribution.Drgmurchon coruis,~erpetol.Rev. 298(4):249. McCoid, M. J.,and P. B, Berolli. 1996. Additional evidence for rotenone hazards to turtles and amphibians. Herpetoz. Rev. 27(2):70-71. McCoid, M. J.,T. H. Fritts, and E.W. Campbell 111,1994. A brown tree snake (Colubridae: Boigu irregulur~s)sighting in Tesas. Tex. J. Sci. 46(4):365-68. McCoid, M. J.,and D. S. Hensley. 1996. Natural history notes.Sceloporus olivaceus. Size. ~erpetol.Rev. 27(1):21. ,1997.Natural history notes.H e m i ~ c t g lturcicus. ~s Intraspeci~cinteractions. Herpetol. Rev. 28(4):203. McConkey, E.H, 1954. A systematic study of the North American lizards of the genus Ophisu~rus.Am. Mid. Nut, ~ I ( I133-69. ): McCord, J.S. 1986. Geographic distribution.Runu cutesbe~unu. Herpetol. Rev, 17(1):26. .1993a. Geographic distribution.S g r r ~ o p ~ c~stignuthoi~es us cumpi. Herpetol. Rev. 24(2):64. ,1993b. Geographic distribution.P s e ~ ~ u c rclurki. is Herpetol. Rev,24(2): 64-65. , 1 9 9 3 ~Geographic . dist~bution.H ~ l cinerea. u Herpetol. Rev. 24(2):64. McCord, J.S.,K.S. Castafieda, and E,N. Smith. 1993. Geographic distribution, Hglu s~uirellu.Herpetol. Rev. 24(2):64. McCord, J.S., and M, E,Dorcas. 1989. New Texasherpetological distribution records fromthe University of Texas at Arlington collectionof vertebrates. Herpetol. Rev. 20(4):94’96. McCoy, C. J.1961. Additional recordsof ~ ~ c i mcunu i u from Mexicoand Texas. Herpetologicu 17(3):215. .1970. H e m ~ ~ u c t ~turcicus, lus Cat. Am. Amph~b.Rept. 87.1-87.2. McCoy, C. J.,and F. R. Gehlbach. 1967. Cloacal hemorrhage and the defense display of the colubrid snake Rhinocheil~slecontei, Tex,J. Sci. 19(4):349. McCoy, C. J.,and G. A. Hoddenbach. 1966. Geographical variation in ovarian cycles and clutchsize in C n e ~ i ~ o p h otigris r ~ s (Teiidae).Science 154(3757):1671. McCoy, C. J.,and W. L.Minckley. 1969. Sistrurus cutenutus (Reptilia: Crotalidae) Herpetologicu 25(2):152-53. from the CuatroCienegas Basin, Coahuila, Mexico.

630. 630.100. 630.101. 630.102, 630.135. 630.140. 630.150. 630.160. 630.200. 630,290, 630.300. 630.350. 630.400. 630.425. 630.450. 630.451. 630.452, 631. 631.100. 631.200. 632. 632.005. 632.100, 632.200. 632.300.

McCoy, C. J., and N. D. Richmond. 1966.Herpetological type-specimens in :233-64. Carnegie Museum.Ann, Carnegie Mus. 38(10) McCranie, J.R. 1980.~ r ~ m a r c h oCat. n . Am. amp^^. Rept. 267.1-267.4. .1988. Description of the hemipenis of Sistrurus ravus (Serpentes:Viperidae). Herpetologica 44(1): 123-27. .1990.N e r o ~ aer~throgaster(Forster).Cat. Am. Amphi&.Rept. 500.1500.8. McCrystal, H.K. 1991.The herpetofauna of the Big Bendregion. Sonoran Herpetol. 4(4):137-41. McCrystal, H,K., and R. J.Green. 1986.Life history notes. A~kistrodoncontortr~~ pictigaste~Feeding. Herpetol. Rev. 17(3) :61. McCrystal, H. K.,R. H. Dean, and J.R. Dison. 1984.Life history notes. a am propeltis ~riangulum an~ulata (Mexican milksnake). Size. Herpe~ol.Rev. 15(1) :19. .1985.Range extension for the whiptail lizard Cnemi~ophoruslaredoensis (Teiidae). Tex. J.Sci. 36(4):283-84. McCullen, R. E., and G. G. Raun. 1971.Notes on thedistribution of some reptiles and amphibians in northeastern Texas. Southwest. Nat. 16(2) :220. McDaniel, V. R. 1969.An albinoAm&~stomu tigrinum marvortium. Tex. AGI U&v. Stud. 2(1):4-5. McDaniel, V. R., and J.P. Karges. 1983.~aranciaa&acura(Holbroolr). Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 314.1-314.4. ~cDonald,H. S. 1974.Brachycardiaduring death-feigning of He~erod~n plat~rhinos Latreille (Serpentes).J.Herpeto~,8(2):157-64. McGown, L., M.T, Dixon,and L. K. A ~ e r m a n1994 . Geographicdistribution, S~rrhophus c~st~gnathoides. Herpetol. Rev. 25(1) :32. McGuire,J.A. 1996.Phylogenetic systematicsof crotaphytid lizards (Reptilia: Iguania: Crotaphytidae).Bull. Carnegie Mus. Nut. Hist. (32):1-143. McIntyre, D. C. 1977a.Reproductivehabits of captive Trans-Pecosrat snakes Elaphe su&oculari~. J.North. Ohio Assoc. Herpetol.3(1):20-22, First report of double embryosin Elaphe su&oculuris.J.North. Ohio .1977b. Assoc. Herpetol. 3(2) :29, ,1978.The NOAH breeder’scorner. Notes NOAH6(2):9. McKenzie,D., and J.R. Reddell. 1964.The cavesof Bell and Coryell Counties. Tex. Speleol. Sum 2(4):1-63. McI~inney,C. 0.1969.Experimentalh~bridizationin three populations of the :289-92. lizard Uta stans&uriana.Copeia 1969(2) McKinney, C. O.,F. R. Kay, and R. A. Anderson. 1973.A new all-female species Herpetolog~ca29(4):361-66. of the genus C~em~dop~orus. McKinney, C. O.,and R. E. Ballinger. 1966.Snake predators of lizards in western Texas. ~outhwest.Nat, 11(3):410-12. Mc~inney,J.M. 1987.Life history notes.~ r a p t e m versa. ~ s Maximum size.Herpetol. Rev. 18(1): 17. McRnstry, D. M. 1978.Evidence of toxic salivain some colubridsnakes of the United States.To~icon16:523-34. McMickle,T.J.1970.A study to determine the presence of encephalitisin reptiles in Harris County, Texas.TASCA 24(3) :11-12,16. McNaughton,G. 1976.Geographicdistribution. am pro pelt is triang~umumura, :124. ~erpetol,Rev, 7(3)

633.

Meacham, W K.1962. Factors affecting secondaryintergradation between two allopatricpopulations in the Bufo woo~houseicomplex. Am. Midl. Nat. 67(2) :

633.500.

Means, D. B. 1974. The status of Desmognathus ~rimlegorumStejneger and an analysis of the genus Desmognathus (Amphibia: Urodela)in Florida. Bull, Ha,

634.

Mearns, E. A. 1907. Mammals of the Mexican boundary of the United States. I. Families Didelphidaeto Muridae. Bull. US.Natl. Mus. 56. Mecham, J.S. 1954. Geographicvariation in the green frog,Rana clamitans. Tex.

282-304.

State Mus. 18(1):1-100.

635. 636. 637. 638. 639. 640. 641. 642. 642.010. 642.020. 642.030. 642.040. 642.050. 642.060. 642.070. 642.080. 642.090. 642.100.

643. 643.200,

J.Sci, 6(1): 1-25.

is .1956. The relationship between the ring-neck snakes ~ i a ~ o p hregalis and D. punctatus. Copeia 1956(1): 51-52. .1957a. The taxonomic status of some southwestern skinks of the multivirgatus group. Copeia 1957(2): 111-23. .1957b. Some hybridcombinationsbetween Strecker'schorus frog, Pseudacris streckeri, and certain related forms. Tex. J.Sei. 9(8) :337-45. .1959a. Some Pleistoceneamphibians and reptiles fromFriesenhahn Cave, Texas.Southwest. Nat. 3: 17-27. .1959b. Experimental evidence of the relationship of two allopatric chorus frogs of the genus Pseudacris. Tex. J.Sei. 11(3) :343-47. .1961, Isolating mechanisms in anuran amphibians. In Vertebrate speciation, ed. W. F. Blair, 24-61, Austin: Universityof Texas Press. .1965. Genetic relationships and reproductiveisolation in southeastern frogs of the genera Pseudacris and Hgla. Am. Midl. Nat, 74(2) :269-308. .1967a. Notophthalmus viri~escensRafinesque. Cat, Am. amp hi^. Rept. 53*1-53*4* .1967b. PolymorphicEumeces multivirgat~sfrom the Texas High Plains. Southwest. Nat. 12(1) :104-105. 1968a. On the relationshipsbetween ~ o t o p h t h ~ mmerid~onalis us and Notopht~almuskallerti. J.Herpetoz. 2(3-4): 121-27. '1968b. Notophthalmus meri~onalis(Cope). Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 74.174.2' .1971. Vocalizations of the leopard frog,Rana pipiens, and three related Mexican species.Copeia 1971(3): 505-16. .1979. The biogeographicalrelationshipsof the amphibians and reptiles of the Guadalupe Mountains. Nat. Park Serv. Trans. Proc. Sec 4 : 169-79. .1980. Eumeces multivirgatus. Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 241.1-241.2. .1982, New distributionalinformation for some snakes in western Texas. Tex. I; Sei. 34(2): 191. ,1983. N e r o ~ aharteri (Trapido).Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 330.1-330.2. Mecham,J. S., M. J.Littlejohn, R. S. Oldham, L. E.Brown, and J.R. Brown. 1973. A new species of leopard frog(Rana pipiens complex) fromthe plains of the central United States. Occas, Pap. Mus. Tex. Tech Univ. 18 :1-11. Mecham,J. S., and W. W. Milstead. 1949. a am pro pelt is alterna from Pecos County, Texas. Herpetologica 5(6) :140. Medellin-Leal,F. 1982. The Chihuahuan desert. In Reference handbookof the deserts of N o r t ~America, ed. G. L. Bender, 317-81. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood I

Press.

643.500. 643.510. 643.515. 643.516. 643.517.

643.518.

643.519.

Medica, P. A. 1975. Rhinocheilus Baird and Girard. Cat. Am. amp hi^, Rept, 175.1175.4. ,1980. Locality recordsof Rhinocheilus leconteiin the United States and Mexico. Herpetol. Rev. 11(2):42. Mendell, D. P., J. W. Sites, and D. Graur. 1989. Speciationalevolution:A phylogenetic test with allozymes in Sceloporus (Reptilia).Cla~stics5:49-61. Mendelson,J.R. 1994. A new species of toad (Anura: Bufonidae) fromthe lowlands of eastern Guatemala. Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. {Kans.) 166:1-21, .1997a. A new speciesof toad (Anura: Bufonidae) fromthe Pacific highlands of Guatemala and southern Mexico, with comments on the status of Bufo macrocr~status. Herpetol~gica 53(1) :14-30. .1g97b. A new species of toad (Anura: Bufonidae) fromOaxaca,Mexico, with comments on the statusof Bufo cavijronsand Bufo cristatus. Herpetologica 53(2):268-86, .1998. Geographicvariation in Bufo va~liceps (Anura: Bufonidae), a widespread toad in theUnited states and Middle America. Scientific Papers,Nat. Hist. Mus. Univ. Kansas (8) :1-12.

643.520.

643.600. 643.700. 643.710. 643.720. 643.800. 644. 644.100. 644.110. 644.120. 644.130. 644.140. 644.150. 644.160. 645. 645.010. 645.020.

Mengden, G. A., and A. D, Stock 1980. Chromosomalevolution in Serpentes: A comparisonof G and C chromosome banding patterns of some colubridand boid genera, Chromosoma 79 :53-64. Merkord, G. W. 1975. Range extension and new county records of some Texas amphibians and reptiles. Herpetol. Rev. 6(3):79. Michael,E. D. 1969. A longevity recordfor a non-captive Anolis caroline~~sis. Herpetologica 25(4): 318. 1971.Snake visits to m earthen tankin south Texas. J.Herpetol. 5(3-4): 195-96. .1972. Growth rates in Anolis caroline~sis.Copeia 1972(3):575-77. Michael,E.D., and T. F,Bailey. 1972.Hibernation sites of Anolis carolinensisand Sceloporus undulatus.Tex. J.Sci. 24(3):351-53. Michaud, T, C, 1962. Call discriminationby femalesof the chorus frogs, Pseudacris clarkiand Pseudacris nigrita. Copeia 1962(1):213-15. Desert Disc.2 :g. Miller, D. 1977. The grey-bandedkingsnake. Chih~ahuan ,197ga. A life history study of the gray-banded kingsnalre,am pro pelt is mexicana alterna,in Texas, C h i ~ u a ~ uDesert an Res. Inst.Contri~.87: 1-48. .1979b. The Trans-Pecos copperhead. C~ihuahuan Desert Disc.6 :3. , 1 9 7 9 ~Whatever . became of the Big Bendgecko?C~ihuahuanDesert Disc. 4: 5. 1980. Trans-Pecosratsnake: Handle with (loving)care, C~ihuahuan Desert Disc.8 :7. .1983.The Texasalligator lizard. Chihuah~an Desert Disc.6 :3, Miller, G. 0.1988. Afield guide to wildlife in Texas and the Southwest. Austin: Texas Monthly Press. Milne, L. 1.1938. Mating of P ~ r ~ n o s o m cornutum, u Copeia1938(4):200-201. Milne, L. J.,and M. J.Milne. 1950. Noteson the behavior of horned toads. Am. Midl. Nat. 44(3):720-41. nectridean amphibian from the Lower Milner, A. C. 1996.A juvenile diplocaulid Permian of Texas and Oklahoma. Spec. Pap. Palaeontol, 52 :129-38.

Milstead, W. W. 1951. A new locality recordfor the Texas neotenic salamander, Burycea latitans. ~erpetolo~ica 7(2):57-58, in the garter snake, Thamnophis cyytopsis. .1g53a. Geographic variation 647. Tex. JSci. 5(3):348-79. .1g53b. Ecological distribution of the lizards of the La Mota~ o u n t re~ n 648, gion of Trans-Pecos. [rex, I; Sci, 5(4):4.03-15. .1956. Fossil turtles of Friesenhah Cave, Texas,with the description of 649. a new species of Testudo, Copeia1956(3):162-71. 650. -1g57a. A reconsiderationof the nomenclat~eof the small whiptail lizards, Cne~idophoyus,of southwestern Texas. Copeiu 1g57(3):228-29. 651. .1g57b. Some aspects of competition in natural populations of whiptail lizards (gepus C~emidophoyus).Tex, J.Sci. g(4) :410-47. 652. .1957C. Observationson the naturalhistory offour species of whiptail lizards, Cnemidophorus(Sauria, Teiidae),in Trans-Pecos Texas.Southwest. Nut. 2(2-3): 105-21. -1958.A listof the arthropods found in thestomachs of whiptail lizards 653. from fourstations in southwestern Texas. Tex. 1.Sci, 10(4):443-46. Drift-fence trapping of lizards on the Black Gap Wildlife Management 654. Area of southwestern Texas. Teex. f. Sci. II(Z) :150-57. .1960a. Supplement~y notes on the herpetofauna of the Stockton 655. Plateau. Tex. 1. Sci, 12(3-4):228-31. .1960b, Relict speciesof the Chih~ahuandesert. Southwest. Nat. 5(2): 656. 75-88. .1g6Ia. Observationsof the activities of small animals (Reptiliaand 657. M a ~ a l i aon ) a quadrant insouthwest Texas. Am. mi^. Nut. 65(1) :127-38. .1961b. ~ o ~ p e t i t irelations ve in lizard populations, In ~eyte~yate specia658. tion, ed, W. F. Blair, 460-89. Austin: ~niversityof Texas Press. ,1965a. Changes in competing populations of whiptail lizards ~ C n e ~ i 659. dophoyus~in southwestern Texas. Am. ~ iNut.~73(1). :75-80. .1g65b. Notes on some poorly known fossils of box turtles ~Teryapene~. 660. Copeia 1965(4):513-14. from central North America and box 661. .1967. Fossil boxturtles ~Teryupene~ turtles of eastern Mexico. Copeiu 1967(1):168-79. ,1969. Studies on the evolution of box turtles (genus Teyyupene). Bull. Flu. 661.100. State Mus. 14(1) :1-113. 661.200. .1g70a. Late summer behavior of the lizards Scelopo~us ~eyyiami and ~~osauyus oynat~s in thefield. ~eypetologicu26(3):343-54. '1g70b. On the problems of home range measurements and individual 661.201. recognition in lizard ecologicalstudies. ~eypetol.Rev, 3(1):17. ok .1g73. A re-studyof a lizardpopulation after twenty years. ~ a r ~ o Am. 661.400. Phil, Soc. 1973: 337-38. .1977(1978).The Black gap whiptail lizards aftertwenty years. In ~ r a n s ~ 661.500. uctions of the symposium on the ~iolofficulyesouyces of the Chihuahuan desert ~egion, o ,R.W. Wauer and D. H. R1skind, Ser. 3:523-32. United States and~ e ~ i ced. Alpine, Tex.: National Park Service, Milstead, W. W., J. S, Mecham, and H, McClintock, 1950. Theamphibians and 662. reptiles of the Stockton Plateau in nor the^ Terre11 County, Texas.Tex. J.Sci. 2(4):543-62. 646.

Milstead, W. W., and D. W, Tinkle. 1969. Interrelationshipsof feeding habits in a population of lizards in southweste~ Texas. Am. Mid. Nat. 81 :491-99. Minton,J. E. 1949. Coral snake preyed upon by a bullfrog,Copeia 1949(4):288. 663. 663.900. Minton, S. A. 1955. Some health problems forthe medical zoologistin the Big Bend country. Ind. Univ Med‘ Ctu: Q. Bull. (October):81-84. .1956. A new snake of the genus Tuntilla from west Texas. ~ie~diana Zool. 664. 34: 449-52. .1959. Observationson amphibians and reptiles of the Big Bendregion of 665. Texas. Southwest. Nat, 3 : 28-54. .1983. Sistrurus catenat~s(Rafinesque).Cut. Am. Amphib. Rept. 332.1665.001. 332.2. ,1992. Serologic relationshipsamong pitvipers: Evidence from plasma al665.005. bumins and i ~ u n o d i ~ u s i oIn n .B ~ o l o gof~thepitvipers, ed. J. A. Campbell and E. D. Brodie, Jr., 155-61. Tyler, Tex.: Selva. 665.010. Minton, S. A., H. G. Dowling, and F. Russell. 1970. Poisonous snakes of the worl~. Was~ngton,D.C.: US,Gove~mentPrinting Office. 665.015. Minton, S, A., and M. R. Minton. 1969. Venomous rept~les.New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. .1973. Giant reptiles. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 665.016. 665.500. Mitchell,J. C, 1979. The conceptof phenology and its applicationto the study of amphibian and reptile life histories. ~erpetol,Rev. 10(2) :51-54, .1982. ~aranciaGray. Cat. Am, Amphib. Rept. 292.1-292.2, 665.510. Mitchell, J. D. 1903. The poisonoussnakes of Texas, with notes on their habits. 666. Trans. Tex. Acad. Sei, ~ ( 2 )19-48. : Mitchell,R. W., and J.R. Reddell. 1965. Eur~ceu t~den~ifera, a new speciesof 667. troglobitic salamander from Texasand a reclassificationof ~ p h l o ~ o l rathbu~i. ge Tex. 1.Sei. 17(1):12--27. 667.100. Mitchell, R, W,, and R. E. Smith. 1972. Some aspectsof the osteology and evolution of the neotenic spring and cave salamanders (Eur~cea,Plethodontidae)of central Texas. Tex. 1.Sei. 23(3): 343-62. 668. Mitchell, R. W., and D. Tinkle. 1960. Another Texas record for the Louisiana pine snake, Pituoph~s melanole~cas ruthveni Stull. ~erpetologica16(2) :143-44. 669. Mittleman,M. B. 1940. Two new lizards of the genus Uta, ~erpetologica2(2) : 33-38, .1942.A summary of the iguanid genus ~rosaurus.Bull. Mus. Comp. 6 70. Zool. 91: 103-81. .1947. American Caudata. I.Geographicvariation in M a ~ c u l u s ~ u a d r i ~ g 671. itatus. ~erpetulogica3(6) :209-24. .1949. Geographicvariation in Marcy’s garter snake, T~amnophismar672. cia~us(Baird and Girard). Bull. Chi. Acad. Sei, 8 :235-49. .1967. ~ a n c ~Cope. u s Cat. Am.amp hi^. Rept. 44.1-44.2. 672.100. Mittleman,M. B., and B. C. Brown, 1947. Notes on Gopher~s berlan~ieri (Agas673. siz). Copeia 1947(3):211. .1948. The alligatorin Texas. ~erpeto~ogica 4(6): 195-96. 674. Mittleman,M. B., and J. T. Geir.1942. Notes on leopard frogs.Proc. New E n ~ l . 675.

662.100.

&d. Club 2 0 : 7-15.

675.500.

Modesto, S. P. 1994, The Lower Permian synapsid Glaucosaurusfrom Texas.Paleonto log^ 37(1): 51-60.

675.510. 676. 677. 678. 679. 680.

681. 681,050. 681.100. 681.110.

681.120.

681.130. 681.140. 681,141. 681.150.

681.300. 681,380. 682. 683. 683.100.

683.200. 683.210.

.1995. The skull of the herbivoroussynapsid ~duphosuurus ~ounerges from the Lower Permian of Texas. Puleontology 38(1):213-39. Mohr, C. E. 1939. I explore caves. Nut, Hist. 43(4): 190-204. .1948a. How fast dobats fly? Bull. Natl. Spe~eol.Soc. IO:108. .1948b. Tracing an underground stream: A digestof an article by Edward Uhlenhuth. Bull. Nutl. Spe~eol.Soc. IO:109-11. .1948c. Uniqueanimals inhabit subterranean Texas. Bull. Nutl. Speleol. Soc. IO:15-21,88. ~-.1958. Creatures of darkness. ~llus.Lib. Nut. Sci. I :606-17. Moll, E, O., and K.L. Williams. 1963. The muskturtle Sternotherus odoratus from Mexico. Copeia 1963(1):157. Montalbano, F.,and R. B. Paine 111.1971. An alligator ~AlZigatorm~ssissippie~sis~ census on theJ.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area. TASCA 25(3):3-10. Montanucci, R. R. 1969. Remarks upon the Crotuphytus-Gambeliucontroversy (Sauria:Iguanidae). Herpetolugica 25(4):308-14. .1971. Ecological and distributional data onCrota~hytusreticulatus (Sauria:Iguanidae). Herpetologica 27(2):183-97. ,1974. Convergence, polymorphism, or introgressive hybridization? An analysis of interaction between Crotuphytus collurisand C.reticulatus (Sauria: Iguanidae), Copeiu 1974(1): 87-101. .1976, Crotuph~tusreticulatus Baird. Cat. Am, A ~ p k iRept. ~ . 185.1-185.2. doug~ussi a and P. ~ r ~ i c u ~ u r e .1981. Habitat separation between ~ h r y ~ o s o m (Lacertilia:Iguanidae). Copeia 1981(1):147-53. .1996. Morphological variation in the gular fold in thehorned lizard o ~ u Ph~nosomatidae). Herpetologicu 52(1):46-55. genus, ~ h r y ~ o s(Iguania: Montanucci,R, R., R. W. Axtell, and H. C. Dessaur. 1975. Evolutionary diverwith comments on the status of gence among collared lizards~Crotuphytus~, G a ~ ~~erpetologicu el~. 31(3): 336-47. Moodie, K.B., and T, R, Van Devender. 1979.Extinction and extirpation in the herpetofauna of the southern High Plains with emphasis on G e o c h ~ ~ o ~ e w ~ ~ s o n i (Testudinidae).Herpetologicu 35(3):198-206. Moore, B.1987. A newcounty record of the common snapping turtle. Herpetol09y I7(2):1-3. Moore, G. W., and G. G. Nicholas. 1964. Speleo~ogy~ The studyof caves. Boston: D. C. Health and Co. Moore, J.A. 1944. Geographicvariation in ~ u ~ a p i p iSchreber e~s in eastern North America. Bull. Am. Mus. Nut. Hist.82 :345-70. on MusMoore, R. H. 1976. Reproduction habitats and growth of Bufo spec~osus tang Island, Texas, with notes on the ecology and reproduction of other anurans. Tex. 1.Sci. 17(1):173-78. Morafka, D. J.1977. A biogeographical analysis of the Chihuahuan desert 9 :1-313. through its herpetofauna. Bi~geogrupk~cu .1977(1978). Isthere a Chihuahuan desert?A quantitative evaluation of the symposium on the through a herpetofauna perspective.In Transuct~o~s biolog~culresources of the Ckihuuhuun desert region, ~ ~ i tStates e d and~ e ~ i c o , ed. R.W. Wauer and D. H. Riskind, Ser. :3437-54. Alpine,Tex.: National Park Service.

683.300. 684. 685. 686, 687. 687.500. 687.502. 687.505. 688,

689. 690. 691. 692. 693. 694. 695. 696. 697. 698. 699. 699.010.

699.100. 699.200.

699.300. 699.301. 699.400. 699.500.

Morris, M. A, 1978. Geographicdistribution. Cnemidophorusscalaris septe~vittatus, ~erpetol.Rev. 9(3):108. Morris, P. A, 1944. Theg hopand crawl. Lancaster, Pa.: Jaques Cattell Press. .1948, Bog's book of snakes. New York:Ronald Press. Morrison, E. 0.1961. A new locality recordfor the warty gecko. Tex. f. Sci. 13(3):357. Mosaur, W. 1932. The amphibians and reptiles of the Guadalupe Mountains of New Mexicoand Texas. Occas. Pup. Mus. Zool. Univ. NIic~.(246):1-18. Mueller, A. J.1985. Vertebrateuse of nontidal wetlands on Galveston Island, Texas, ?'ex 1.Sei. 37(2-3):215-25. Mueller,J. M, 1998. Geographicdistribution. Rana areolatuareoluta,~erpetol.Rev. 29(4) :247. Mueller,J. M., and M. J. Whiting 1989. Life history notes. Mas~icophis~agellu~ testaceus.Predation. ~erpetol. Rev. 20(3):72-73. Mulaik, S. 1935a. ASonora from the lower Big Bend of Texas.Copeia 1935(1) :43. .1935b. Tailregeneration in Coleongx brevisStejneger. Copeia 1935(3):155-56. -1936.An ovoviviparousSeeloporusfrom Texas.Copeia 1936(1):72. .1937. Noteson ~eptodactgluslabialis (Cope). Copeiu 1937(1):72-73. .1938. Noteson NIustelufrenatufrenatu.J.NIum~al.19(1):104-105. .1945. New mites in thefamily Caeculidae.Univ. Utah Biol.Sev: 8(6) : 1-23. Mulaik, S., and D. Mulaik, r g q ~ aVariation , in Sonora tuglori. Copeia 1941(4):263. .1941b. ~ l a p b~u ei r ~ from ICerrCounty, Texas.Copeia 1941(4) :263-64. .1942. A neglected speciesof Colube~Copeia 1942(1) :13-15. . .1943. Observationson ~ i c i ~streckeri ia Taylor. Am. Mi~l.Nut. 29(3): 796-97. .1945. ~ a ~ p r o p e triang~lum lt~s unnulata from KerrCounty, Texas.Copeia 194503:49. Mulaik, S., and D. Sollberger.1938. Notes on theeggs and habits of ~ ~ p o p u c h ~ s cu~eus.Copeia 1938(2):90. natural history Mulvany,P. S. 1983. Blind snakes of the United States: Their with a discussion of climate and physiography as limiting factorsto their range. Bull. Okla. ~erpetol.Soc. 8(1):2-45. Murphy, J. B. 1979. Herpetologyat theDallas Zoo. ~erpetol.Rev. 10(4): 111-12. Murphy,J. B., B. W. Tyron, and B. J. Brecke. 1978. Aninventory of reproductive and social behaviorin captive gray-banded kingsnakes,am pro pelt is mexicanu ulterna (Brown).~erpetologica34(1): 84-93. Murphy,J. C. 1976. The natural history of the box turtle. Bull. Chi. ~erpetol.Soc. II(I-4):2-45. .1979. Pseudacris streckeri, a small frog with an interesting history. Bull. Chi, ~erpetol.Soc. q ( 4 ):120-29. .1980. The lyresnakes. Bull. Chi. ~erpetol.Soc. 15(1):24-28. Murphy, R. W., and R, C, Drewes. 1976. Comments on theoccurrence of Sm~liscu and Bibron) (Amphibia: Hylidae) in Bexar County, Texas. Tex. I; b a u ~ n(Dumeril i Sci. 17(3):406--407.

699.510.

700. 700.010.

700.020. 700.025.

701. 701.100. 701.110. 701.120. 701.200. 701.210. 701.220. 701.230. 701.240. 701.250. 701.260. 701.270. 701.280. 701.290. 701.300. 701.400, 701.500.

Murphy, R. W., and C. B. Crabtree, 1988.Genetic identificationof a natural hybrid rattlesnake: CrutaZus scutuZatus s c u t ~ a t u X s C, viridis viridis, Herpetulugica @(I): 119-23. Murray, L. T. 1939.Annotated list of amphibians and reptiles fromthe Chisos Mountains. Cuntri~,BayZur Univ. us, 24:4-16, Murry, P. A. 1986,Vertebrate paleontologyof the Dockum Group,western Texas and eastern New Mexico.In The ~ e g i n of~ the ~ gageof the dinusaurs. ~ a ~ n a Z change acruss the ~iassic-Jurassic~ u u n ~ a red. y , K.Padian, 109-37.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murry, P.A., and G. D. Johnson. 1987.Clear Forkvertebrates and environments :253-66. from the Lower Permian of north-central Texas. Tex, 1.Sci. 39(3) Murry, P,A., D. A. Winkler, and L. L.Jabobs. 1991.An a z h d ~ c pterosaur ~d humerus from the Lower Cretaceous Glen RoseFormation of Texas. J.~aZeonto1. 65(1): 167-70. Myers, C, W. 1967.The pine woodssnake, Rha~~aea~avilata. Bull. Fla. State ,&&.B, II(2):47-97. Myers, S. 1982.Geographicdistribution. Chryse~yscunci~na.HerpetuZ. Rev, 13(1) :24. .1983a.Geographicdistribution. Chryse~ysscripta elegans, HerpetuZ. Rev. 14(3): 83. .1983b. Geographicdistribution. ~ e i u ~ u p i~s a~tae r a ~ e . ~ e rRev. peto~. 14(3): 84. Neck, R.W 1977.Cutaneous myiasis in Gupherus ~erlandieri(Reptilia,Testudines, Testudinidae).J.~erpetoZ.II(I):96-98. $1978. Occurrence of marine turtles in the lower Rio Grande of south Texas (Reptilia, Testudines), J.~erpetuZ.12(3) :422-27. .1980a. Geographicdistribution.A ~ ~ y s t texanu~. o ~ a Herpetoz. Rev. 11(2):36. .1980b. Geographicdistribution. Gastruphryneolivacea. HerpetuZ. Rev. 11(2):36. 19806.Geographicdistribution. Bufu wou~huuseiwuu~house~. ~erpetoZ. Rev. 11(2):36. 1980d.Geographicdistribution, P s e u ~ c r i cZarki, s ~ e r p e t u Rev. l. 11(2): 38. .1980e.Geographicdistribution. Rana cates~eiana.~erpetol.Rev. 11(2):38, .1980f. Geographicdistribution, ~errapeneU, ornata. Herpetoz. Rev, 11(2):38. .1981.Probable native populations of bullfrog, Rana cates~e~ana, in south Texas. HerpetuZ. Rev. 12(2):68. .1982.Geographicdistribution. C ~ e ~ o ~ o p gu~aris h o ~ ugu~uris. ~ ~erpeto~. Rev. 13(3): 80. ,1983.Origin of Rana cates~eia~a populations in theRio Grande delta of Texas. HerpetuZ, Rev. 14(2): 55. Neck, R. W, D. H. Riskiid, and K.Peterson. 1979.Geographicdistribution. Gerrhunutus ~ i u c e p h ~ ~nfernaZis, us ~erpetuZ,Rev. 10(4) :118. Neill, W. E.,and J.C. Grubb, 1971.Arboreal habits of Bufu va~~iceps in central 347-48. Texas. Copeia 1971(2):

Neill, W, T. 1949a. The status of ~yla~avigula. Copeia 1949(1): 78. ,194913.A new subspecies of rat snake (genus Elaphe), and notes on re703. lated forms. Herpetologica 5 (suppl. 2) :1-12. .1951. The taxonomy of North American soft-shelledturtles, genus 704. Am~aa.Publ, Res. Div, Ross Allen’s Rept. Inst. I :1-24. 704.200. Nelson, C. E. 1g72a. Systematic studies of the North American microhylidgenus Gastrophr~ne.J Herpetol. 6(2) :111-37. .1972b. Gastrophry~ecarolinensis. Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 120.1-120.4. , 1 9 7 2 ~~astrophryne . olivacea. Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 122.1-122.4. .1973a. Gastrophry~ze.Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 134.1-134.2. .1973b. Mating callsof the Microhylinae: Descriptions and phylogenetic and ecological considerations,~erpetologica29(2) :163-76. ,1974. Further studies on the systematics of ~ ~ p o p a c h (Anura: us Microhylidae). ~~rpetologica 30(3) :250-74. 704.258. Nelson, M. A.1988. Geographicdistribution. Sistr~rusmiliarius streckeri. Herpetol. Rev. 19(1):20-21. Netting, M. G. 1936. Rhaainaea~avilata(Cope)in Texas. Copeia 1936(2): 114. 705. Netting, M. G., and C. J. Goin. 1946. Acris in Mexico and Trans-Pecos Texas. 706. Copeia 1946(3) :253. Newman, H. H.,and J.T. Patterson. 1909. Field studies of the behavior of the lizard Sceloporus spi~osus~orjaanus. Bull, Univ. Tex. Sci. Ser: 15:1-24. Newman, R. A, 1987. Effectsof density and predation on Scaphiopus couchitadpoles in desert ponds.Oecologia 7(2) :301-307. ,1988. Adaptive plasticityin development of Scaphiopus couchitadpoles in 707.101, desert ponds.Evolutio~42(4): 774-83. .1989. Developmental plasticity of Scaphiopus couchitadpoles in an 707.102. unpredictableenvironment. Ecology 70(6): 1775-87. 707.106. 1994. Effectsof changing density and food levelon etam morphosis of a desert amphibian, Scuphiopus couchi, Ecology 75(4) :1085-96. Newman, R. A., and A. E. Dunham. 1994. Size at metamorphosisand water loss in a desert anuran ~Scaphiopus couchi~. Copeia 1994(z) :372-81. Nicholas,B. G. 1960. Checklist of macroscopic troglobiticorganisms of the United States. Am. Mial. Nat. 64(1): 123-60. 708.290. Niewiarows~,P. H., J. D. Congdon,L. J. Vitt, and D. W. Tinkle. 1997. Tales of lizard tails: Effects of tail autonomy on subsequent survival and growth of the 75(4): 542-48. free-ranging hatchling Uta stu~sburiana.Can. J2001. 708.300. Niewiarowski,P.H., and S, R. Waldschrnidt. 1y.p. Variation in metabolic rates of a lizard:Use of SMR in ecological contexts. Funct. Ecol. 6(1):15-22. Noble, G,K.1925. An outline of the relation of ontogeny to phylogeny within 709. the Amphibia. I,Am. Mus. Novit, 165:1-10, 710. Noble, G. K.,and B. C. Marshall. 1932. The validityof Siren i n t e r ~ e LeConte, ~a with observations on its life history. Am. Mus. Novit, 532 :1-16. 711. Norman, W. W 1900. Remarks on the San Marcos salamander, ~ p h l o ~ o l g e r a t ~ b uStejneger. ~i Am. Nut. 34: 179-83. 712. O’Brien,G. P., H. K.Smith, and J.R. Meyer. 1965. An activitystudy of a radioisotope-tagged lizard,Seeloporusu ~ ~ ~ ahyacinthinus t u s (Sauria: Iguanidae). South~est.Nut, 10(3): 179-87. 702.

I)

712.005.

712.015.

712.100. 712.200. 712.300. 713. 713.050. 714. 714.100. 714.110. 714.120.

714.142. 714.160.

714.200. 714.210.

715. 716. 717. 718.

O'Connell, D. J., and D. R. Formanowicz,Jr. 1998. Differential handling of dangerous and non-dangerous prey bynaive and experienced Texas spotted whiptail lizards, Cnemidophorus gularis. J.Herpetol. 32(1):75-79. Odendaal, F. S., M. D. Rausher, B. Beurey, and J. Nufiez-Farfan. 1987.Predation by AnoIis lizards on Battusphilenos raises questions about butterfly mimicrysystems. J.Lepidopt. Soc. 41(3): 141-44. Odum, R. A. 1985. Natural history notes. P s e u ~ e mscripta ~s elegans. Deformity. Herpetol. Rex 16(4):113. Oldham, R. S. 1974. Mateattraction by vocalizationin members of the Ranapipiens complex. Copeia 1974(4):982-84. ns .1976. Chorus maintenance in breeding populations of R a ~ a p ~ p i ecomplex. Tex, J.Sei. 27(2):323-25. Oliver, J. A. 1955.North Americanamphibians and reptiles.Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Co. (Leonardian;Lower Permian) and its Olson, E. C. 1989. The Arroyo Formation vertebrate fossils. Bull. Tex. Mem. Mus, (35):1-25. Olson, R. E. 1967. Peripheral range extensions and some new records of Texas ): Errata: 329. amphibians and reptiles. Tex. J.Sei. I ~ ( I99-106. .1973. Variation in the canyon lizard, Seeloporusmerr~amiStejneger. Herpetologica 29(2):116-21. 1975. ~icimiastreckeri in south Texas. Tex. 7. Sei. 16(3-4): 614-15. .1976. Weight regimesin thetortoise Gopherus berla~dieri.Tex. J.Sei. 17(2):321-23. .1977. Evidence forthe species status of Baird's ratsnake. Tex. J.Sei, 29(1): 79-84. .1979. Seeloporusmerriami. Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 227.1-227.2, .1987a.Evaporativewater loss in thetortoise Gopherus b e r l a ~ ~in e rami bient temperature regimes. Bull. Md. Herpeto~.Soc. 23(3):93-100. .1987b, Taxonomic revisementof the lizards Seeloporusserrijer and c ~ a n o g e n of ~ sthe Gulf Coastal Plain.Bull. Md. Herpetol. Soc. 23(4) :158-67. Olson, R. E., B. Marx, and R. Rome. 1987. Descriptive dentition morphology of lizards of middle and North America. 11. Iguanidae. Bull. Md. ~erpetol.Soc. 23(1):12-34. Onadeko, S. A. 1992. The American alligator and concern for visitors at Brazos Bend State Park. J.~nviron.Manage. 35(4):261-69. Orange,D. I., B. R. Riddle, and D. C. Nickle. 1999.Phylogeography of a wideranging desert lizard,Gambeliu wislizeni~(Crotaphytidae).Copeia 1ggg(2) : 267-273. Ortenburger,A. I. 1922. Some casesof albinism in snakes. Copeia 1922(2):90. ,1923. A note on thegenera Coluber and Masticophis, and a description of new speciesof Masticophis. Occas. Pap. Mus, Zool. Univ. Mich. 139 :1-14. .1928. The ~ h i p s n ~and e s racers: Genera Masticophis and C o l u ~ e ~ Mem. Univ. Mich. Mus. I :1-247. Orton, G. L.1951.An exampleof interspecificmating in toads. Copeia 1951(1): 78.

718.100.

Osten, L. W. 1977. A protostegid (seaturtle) from the Taylor Formationof Texas. 7'ex.J. Sei. 29(3-4):289-92,

718.150. 718.154. 718.158. 718.160.

718.165. 718.166, 718.170. 718.175. 718.200, 718.202. 718.204. 718.205. 718.300. 718.400.

718.410.

718.500. 719. 719.100.

719.200. 719.210. 719.220. 720, 720,001.

Ostrand, K.G., J. T. Anderson, and W. C. Conway. 1997. Geographicdistribution. Bufo woodhousei woodhousei. Herpetol. Rev. 28(4) :207. Ostrand, K.G., W. C. Conway, R. Jimenez,and R. R. Young. 1998. Geographic distribution. Gastrop~r~ne olivucea. Herpetol. Rev. 29(1):48. Ostrand, K.G., D. J. Echels, W. C. Conway,J. Depew, and G. D. Pleasant. 1998. Geographicdistribution. Rana blairi. ~erpetol.Rev. 29(1):49. Historicu~and exOverall, K,L. 1994.Lizard eggenvironments. In Lizard ecolog~~ perimentalperspectives, ed. L. J. Vitt and E, R. Pianka, 51-72. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Owens, D. 1981. Seaturtles face extinction today. M m Ed. 2(2) :1-3. .1986. The turtle lady. Tex. S~ores19(2):15-18. Owen, J. G. 1989. Patterns of herpetofaunal species richness: Relation to temperature, precipitation,and variance in elevation. f. Biogeog~16: 141-50. Owen, J. G,, and J. R. Dixon. 1989. An ecogeographic analysis of the herpetofauna of Texas. Southwest. Nut. 34(2):165-80. Pace, A. E. 1974. Systematicand biological studies of the leopard frogs(Runapipians complex)of the United States.Mise. Publ. Mus. 2001. Univ. ~ j c h48 . :1-140, Paine, A. 1972. Ossificationin the chorus frog Pseuducris triseriuta. TASCA 26(3):14-18. Painter, C. W., and D. S. Silas. 1998. Geographicdistribution. Sceloporus urenicolus. Herpetol. Rev. 29(1) :52. Pajak, IC. W. C., and J. S, McCord. 1993.Geographicdistribution. Hemiduct~~us turcicus. ~erpetol.Rev. 24(2) :66. ~ . 220.1-220.2. Palmer, W. M. 1978. Sistrurus miliuris. Cut. Am. A m p ~ iRept. Parker, E. D., Jr. 1979a.Phenotypicconsequences of parthenogenesisin Cnemiparthenogenetic and sexual populations,Evoludophorus lizards. I, Variability in tion 33(4):1150-66. .1979b. Phenotypicconsequences of parthenogenesisin Cnemidophorus lizards. 11. Similarityof C.tesselutus to its sexual parental species. Evolution 33(4):1167-79. Parker, E. D.,Jr., and R. K.Selander. 1976. The organization of genetic diversity in the parthenogenetic lizard Cnemidophorustesse~utus.Genetics 84(4):791-805. Parker, H. W. 1934. A monograph of thefrogs of the fa mil^ Micro~~lidae. London: British Museum. values of the western diaParker, 0. S., and R.H. McCoy. 1977. Some blood ~ 13(3) . : mondback rattlesnake ~Crotulusatrox) from south Texas. f. ~ i lDis. 269-72. Parker, W. S. 1973. Noteson reproduction of some lizards from Arizona, New Mexico, Texas,and Utah. Herpetologica q ( 3 ):258-64. .1982a. Sceloporus magister Hallowell.Cat. Am. Amph~b.Rept. 290.1290.4. .1982b. ast ti cop his taeniutus (Hallowell).Cat. Am. Amp~ib.Rept. 304.1304.4. Parks, H. B., F.Archibald, and M. Caldwell, 1939.Amphibians and reptiles of the east Texas pine belt.Tech. Bull. step he^ E Austi~State Teach. COIL1(6):I- 4. Parks, H. B., V. L, Cory, and others. 1936. Biological survey of the east Texas Big Thicket area. Tex. Acad. Sci. Spec. Publ. 51 pp. "

720.002.

Parks, H. B., V. L. Cory, and others. 1938. Biologicalsurvey of the east Texas Big Thicket area, Tex. Acad. Sci. Spec. P u ~ l .2nd , edition. 51 pp.

.1984. Herpetofauna of the Coffee Ranch local fauna (Hemphillianland mammal age) of Texas.In ~estschri~t~or alter W ~ a l ~ u e sed. t , N.V. Horner, 97-106. Wichita Falls: Texas Midwestern State University. .1986a. An annotated key to isolated trunk vertebrae of zaph he (Colubri720.220, dae) species occurring in Texas. "ex. J. Sci. 38(I) :41- 44. .1986b. Herpetofaunaof the Rancholabrean Schulze Cave local fauna of 720.230. Texas. J. ~ e r p e t o20(1) ~ . :1-10. .1987. ~ampropelt~s sirnilis from the Coffee Ranch local fauna (Hem720.231. phillian land mammal age) of Texas. Tex. I;. Sci, 39(2):123-28. 720.232. .1988a. Additional Pleistoceneamphibians and reptiles fromthe Seymour Formation, Texas. I; ~erpetol.22(1): 82-87. 720.233. .1988b. Middle Holoceneherpetofauna of Klein Cave, KerrCounty, Texas. S o ~ t ~ ~ Nut, e s t 33(3): . 378-82. .1988c. Late Pleistoceneanurans from Fowlkes Cave, Culberson County, 720.234. Texas. Tex.1.Sci. 40(3) :357-58. 720.235. ,1988d. Early Hemphillian (late Miocene) snakes from the Higgins local fauna of Lipscomb County, Texas.J. Vert. aleo onto^. 8(3):322-27. .1989. A plethodontid vertebra from the mid-Hempillian of Texas. Tex, J. 720.236. sei. 41(4):434-35. .Iggoa. Late Pleistocenesnakes from Fowlkes Cave,Culberson County, 720.237. Texas. J ~erpetol.24(3):266-74, .~ g y o bA, late Holocene herpetofauna from Montague County, Texas. 720.238. Tex.I;.Sci. 42(4):412-15. 720.250. Parmley, D.,and R. S. Pfau, 1997. Amphibiansand reptiles of the late PleisTex. I;. Sci. 49(2): tocene Tonk Creek local fauna, Stonewall County, Texas. 151-58. 720.270, P m l e y , D.,and C, Mulford. 1985. Aninstance of a largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, feeding on a water snake, N e r o ~ er~throgaster a transversa, Tex, J. Sci. 37(4):389. e s United States. New York: Vantage Parrish, H. 1980.Poisonous s ~ a ~ e ~ iint the Press. Parrish, J, M. 1994. Cranial osteology of ~ o ~ g o srneudei ~ c ~ and ~ sthe phylogeny and distribution of the Aetosauria. J. Vert. Paleontol. 14(2):196-209. Parrish, W. C. 1978. Paleoenvironmentalanalysis of a Lower Permian bonebed and adjacent sediments,Wichita County, Texas. Paleo~eog~ PaleoclimatoZ. Paleoecol, 24(3) :209-37. Patton, T. H,1963. Fossil vertebrates from Miller's Cave, Llano County, Texas. 721. Bull, Tex,Mem. Mus. 7: 1-41. and escape behaviorsof syntopic clonal 721.040. Paulissen,M. A.1994. Microhabitat use or~s Am. complexes ofthe pa~henogeneticwhiptail lizard C n e ~ ~ ~ o p hlaredoensis. M~dl,Nat. 132(1): 10-18. .1995a. Comparative escape behavior of parthenogenetic and gonocho721.041. ristic Cne~idophorusin southern Texas. Copeia 1995(1):223-26.

720.210.

.r995b. Sexual and pseudosexual

behaviorsof the unisexual lizard Cne-

~idophorus Zu~edoens~s in nature. ~erpetoZ.Nut, Hist.3(2):165-70.

721.060.

721,061. 721.065,

721,070.

721.071. 721.072. 722.

722.100.

722.300.

723.100. 724. 725.

,1997. Aggressive behaviorsof lizards in the parthenogenetic Ckernidopkorus luredoensis complex (Sauria:Teiidae) fromsouthern Texas. Tex, J.Sei. 4903 :49-56. .1998.Laboratory study of escape behaviortactics of p~thenogenetic and gonochoristic Cne~idopkorusfrom southern Texas. Copeiu r998(1) :240-43. 1999. Thermal biology of the pa~henogeneticwhiptail lizards of the Cne~idophorus ~ r e d o e ~ scomplex is (Sauria:Teiidae) in southern Texas. Te~us J. Sei. 51(1):37-48, Paulissen,M. A., and J. M. Walker. 1989. Pseudocopulation in theparthenogenetic whiptail lizard C ~ e ~ i d o p ~Zuredoensjs o r ~ s (Teiidae).Soutkwest. Nut, 34(2):296-98. . ~ q q gC. n e ~ i d o p k o rZuredoerzsis ~s McKinney, Kay,and Anderson. Cut. Arnev: A ~ p k i bRept. . 673.1-673.5. Paulissen,M.A., J. E. Cordes, and J. M. Walker. 1989. Notes on the thermal l~redoe~sis (Teiidae).Tex, J.Sei, biology of the Laredo whiptail Cnern~dop~orus 41(2):224-28. Paulissen,M. A., J. M. Walker, and J. E. Cordes. 1988. Ecology of syntopic clones of the p~thenogeneticwhiptail lizard, Cne~idophorus Zuredoe~sis.J.~erpe~oZ, 22(3):331-42. .1992.Can p~thenogeneticCnernidopkorus Zuredoensis(Teiidae) coexist with its bisexualcongeners?J.~erpe~oZ. 26(2):153-58. .1997.Diet of the yellow-faced racerunner, C n e ~ i d o p h o r ~ s s e ~ l i ~ e u t u ~ stephensi (Sauria:Teiidae),in southern Texas. Tex. I; Sei. 49(2):143-50. Paxon, D. W. 1962. An observationof eggs in a tortoise shell. HerpetoZogicu 17(4):278-79* .Effects ofpentastome infection on reproduction in a southern Texas population of the Mediterranean gecko,~ e ~ i d u c t ~ Z u s turcicus. Copeiu1988(3) :565-72, Perez, J. C,, W, C. Haws, and C. H. Hatch. 1978. Resistance of woodrats ( ~ e o t o ~ u ~ i c r o p uto s ~CrotuZusatrox venom. Toxicon16(2):198-200. Perez, J. C., W. C. Haws, V. E. Garcia, and B. M. Jennings. 1978. ~esistanceof o ~ :375warm-blooded animals to snake venoms. T o ~ i c16(4) rez, J. C., S. Pichyangkul, and V.Garcia. 1979. Theresistance of three species warm-blooded animals to western diamondbacl~rattlesnake (CrotuZu~ u~rox~ venom. ~ o x ~17(6) c o ~:601-607. Perkins, C. B. 194.0. A key to the snakes of the United States. Bull, Zool. Soc. Sun ~ i e g 16: o 5-61. Perry- chard son, J. P.,C. W. Schofield, and N. B. Ford, 1990.Courtship of the garter snake, T k u ~ ~ ornurciunus, p ~ ~ s with a descriptionof a female behavior for coitus inte~uption. J.~ e r p e ~ o24(1) l . :76-78, Peslak, J., Jr. 1986. An obse~ationon thesocial interaction of Texas horned lizards (Pkr~nosornuc o r n ~ t u~outhwest. ~~. Nut, 31(4):552. ~u with descripPeters, J. A. 1951.Studies on the lizard ~olbrookiu~ e x u (Troschel) tions of two new subs ecies. Occus. Pup.~ ~Zool.s Univ. . ~ i c537: ~ 1-20. . e of type specimensin the herpetological collectionsof

725.100.

725.200.

726. 726.100, 727. 728. 728.900. 729. 730. 730.200. 730.201.

732.105. 732.115. 732.117. 732.200.

732.210.

732.300.

the University of Michigan Museumof Zoology. Occas, Pap. Mus. Zool, Univ. ~ i c h . 539 :I-55. ,1968. Houston Toad-Bufo houstonensis Sanders (endangered).In Rare and endangered~shand w i l ~of~ the e United States,34:Sheet RA-IO. USDI/BSFW Resources. Pflege und Langlebigkeit verPeters, U. W. 1978. Einige Bemerkungen uber die m :272-74. schiedener Graptem~sArten. Das A ~ u a r ~ u12(108) ~ . II(I):g. Peterson,K.H. 1980. Coprophagyin Thamnophis S. sirtalis, ~ e r p e t oRev. Peterson, K. H., and S. R. Mays. 1989. Abnormal epidermisin theHouston toad (Bufo ousto on ens is), ~erpetopat~ozogia 1(2): 49-51. Am, mi^. Peterson, R. L. 1950. Amphibians and reptiles of Brazos County, Texas. Nat. 43(1): 157-64. Washington, D.C.: Petranka, J.1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press. Pettus, D. 1958. Water relationshipsin Natrix sipedon. Copeia1958(3):207-11. + 1963. Salinityand subspeciation in Natrix s~pe~on. Copeia 1963(3): 499-504. Phelan, R. 1976. Texas wild. The land, plants, and animals of the Lone Star State.Excalibur Books. Phelan, R. L,, and B, H. Brattstrom. 1955. Geographicvariation in Seeloporus magistev: ~erpetozogicaII(I):1-14. Phillips,H. W,, and W. A. Thornton. 1949. Thesummer resident birdsof the Sierra Vieja range in southwestern Texas. Tex, J.Sci. 1(4):101-31. u s in difPianka, E. 1970. Comparative autecologyof the lizard C n e ~ i d o p ~ o rtigris ferent parts of its geographicrange, E c o ~ o 51(4) g ~ :703-20. Pianlca, E., and W. S. Parker. 1975. Ecologyof the horned lizards:A review with special referenceto Phr~nosoma plat~rhinos. Copeia 1975(1):141-62. latrans. Am. mi^. Nat, Piatt, J. 1934. The systematicstatus of Eleutherodact~Z~s 15(1) ~89-91. ,1935. A comparative study of the hyobranchial apparatus and throat musculature in the Plethodontidae.J.Morphol. 57: 213-52. Pierce, B, A., and J.B. Mitton, 1980. Patterns of allozyme variation in A m b ~ stoma t~gr~num mavortiu~nand A. t. nebulosum. Copeia1980(4):594-605. Pierce, B. A., and J.Montgomery. 1989. Effectsof short-term a c i ~ c a t i o on n growth rates of tadpoles.J.~ e r p e ~ o23(2):97-102. l. Pierce, B, A., and P. H. Whitehurst. 1990. Pseudacris clarki(Baird).Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept. 458.1-458.3. Pierce, B. A., and D. K.Wooten. 1992. Acidtolerance of ~ m b ~ s t o m a t e x a n ~ m from central Texas. J.~ e r p e t o l26(2) , :230-32. Pierce, B. A., J. B. Mitton, and F. L. Rose. 1981. Allozyme variation among large, small, and cannibal morphs of the tiger salamander inhabiting the Llano Estacado of west Texas.Copeia 1981(3):590-95. Pierce, B. A,, J. B. Mitton, L.Jacobson, and F. L. Rose. 1983. Head shape and size in cannibal and noncannibal larvae of the tiger salamander from west Texas. Copeia 1g84(4):1006-12. o nthe canyon tree frog, r la Pierce, J. R.1968. Isolationand ~ ~ e r e n t i a t i in arenicolov: Diss. Abstv:Int, (B)29:2244-45.

732.600. 732.610. 732.700. 732.710.

732.900.

733. 734. 735. 736. 736.100. 736.200. 736.500.

736.510.

.1975. Genetic compatibilityof Hgla are~colorwith other species in the family Hylidae.Tex. J.Sei. 16(3-4):431-41. ,1976. Distribution of two mating call typesof the plains spadefoot, Seaphiopus bombi~rons,in southwestern United States. Southwest. Nat, 20: 578-82, Pierce, J. R.,and D. B. Ralin, 197-2, Vocalizationand behavior of the males of the t h e e species in theHgla versicolor complex. Herpetologica 28(4) :329-37. Pietruszka,R. D. 1981,Use of scutellation for distinguishingsexes in bisexual species of Cne~idophorus.Herpetologica 37(4):244-49. ~s texana. Herpetol, Rev. Pilch,J., Jr. 1981.Life history notes. C h r ~ s e mconcinna 12(3):81. Pinsof,J. D., and J. Echols. 1997.A late Pleistocene ( S a n g ~ o n i a nvertebrate ) fauna from eastern Texas. Tex. J.Sei. 4g(1) :3-22. Pisani, G. R., J. T,Collins, and S. R.Edwards. 1972.A re-evaluation of the subspeciesof Crotalus horridus.Trans. Kans. Acad. Sei. 75(3):255-63. Pittman, J. G. 1989. Stratigraphy, lithology, depositionalenvironment, and track type of dinosaur tracl-bearing beds of the Gulf Coastal Plain. In ~inosaurtracks and traces, ed. D. D. Gillette and M. G. Lockley, 135-53. New York: Cambridge University Press. Platt, D, R. 1969. Natural history of the hognose snakes Heterodonplatgrhirzos and Heterodon nasicus. Univ. Kans. Publ. Mus. Nut. Hist, 18(4):253-420. on Cat. Am.Amphib. Rept. 315.1-315.2. .1983. ~ e t e r o ~Latreille. Platz, J. E. 1972. Sympatricinteraction between two formsof leopard frog(Rana pipiens complex) in Texas, Copeia 1972(a) :232-40. .1981.Suture zone dynamics: Texas populations of Rana b e r l a ~ ~ eand ri R.~lairi.Copeia 1981(3):733-34. . ~ g g xRana . berlan~eri.Cat. Am. A m p ~ ~Rept. b . 508.1-508.4. Platz, J.E., and D. C. Forester. 1988.Geographicvariation in mating call among four subspeciesof the chorus frog: Pseudacris tr~seriata(Wied),Copeia 1988(4): 1062-66. of the loggerPlotkin, P. K., K, Wicksten, and A. F. Amos. 1993. Feeding ecology head sea turtle Curettu caretta in thenorthwestern Gulf of Mexico.M m Biol. 115:1-15, e s and how theg live, New York VikingPress. Pope, C. H. 1937. S ~ a ~ alive .1939. ~ r t l e of s the United States and Canada. New York:A, A. Knopf. -1955. The reptile world. New York:A.A. Knopf. Pope, P. H. 1919. Some notes on theamphibians of Houston, Texas. Copeia 1919(6): 93-98. Porras, L. 1982. Lifehistory notes. Tantilla rubra cucullata. Herpetol,Rev. I ~ ( I ) : 18-19. Porras, L.,and J.Beraducci. 1980. Newsnotes. DicephalicKinosternon. Herpetol, Rev, 11(2):35. Porter, C. A., M. J.Hamilton, J. W. Sites, and R. J.Baker. 1991. Locationofribosomal DNA in chromosomes of squamate reptiles: Systematicand evolution^ implications, Herpetologica 47(3):271-80. Porter, C. A., M. W. Haiduk, and K. de Queiroz. 1994. Evolution and phylogenetic sign~cance of ribosomal genelocation in chromosomes of squamate reptiles. Cope~a1994(2): 302-13.

737. 738. 738.100. 738.200. 738.300.

739. 740.

741. 742. 743. 743.050. 744. 745. 746‘ 746.100. 746,200. 746.300. 746.301. 746.305. 746.306. 746.307. 746,308. 746.309. 746.310,

Porter, K. R. 1964a. Distributionand taxonomic status of seven speciesof Mexican Bufo. ~erpetologica19(4):229-47. 1964b. ~orphologicaland mating call comparisonsin the Bufo valliceps complex. Am. ~ iNat,~81(1) . :232-45. 1970. Bufo vulliceps. Cat. Am, Amphib. Rept.94.1-94.4. ~ . Potter, F. 1981. Status of the American alligator in Texas. Tex. Parks ~ i l Spec. Rept. 7000-74. Potter, F. E., and S. S.Sweet, 1981. Genetic boundaries in Texas cavesalamanders and redescription of ~ p h l o m o l grobusta e (Amphibia:Plethodontidae).Copeia 1981(1):64-75. Potter, G. E., and S. 0. Brown. 1941. Color changes in Phr~n~somu cor~~utum. Proc, Trans, Tex. Acad. Sei, 4(1):7 (abstr.), .1942. Effect of sex and gonadotropichormones on the development of ~~a during reproductive and nonreproductive the gonads in P h r ~ n o scornutum phases. Proc. Truns. Tex. Acad, Sei. 25: 55-56, Potter, G. E., and H. B. Glass. 1931a. A study of respiration in hibernating horned lizards, P h r ~ n ~ s cor~utum. ~ma Anat. Rec. 51(1)(suppl.):2. .1931b. A study of respiration in hibernating horned lizards. Copeia 1931(3): 128-31. Potter, G. E., and E. L.Rabb. 1955.Thyroxin inducedh eta morphosis in a neotenic salamander, ~ u r ~ c~e aa Bishop. ~ u Tex. AGM Coll.Zool, Sev: I(I) :11. Powell, R., J. T. Collins,and L.D. Fish, 1992.Vi~giniu valeriae. Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 552.1-552.6. Pratt, H. S. 1923. A manual of landandfreshwater vertebrate a ~ i m a lofs the ~ ~ i t e d States. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston’s Sons and Co. .1935.A manu^ of land undfresh wuter verte~rateunimals of the United States, 2nd edition. Philadelphia:P. Blakiston’s Sons and Co. Preston, J. R., and W. L.Pratt, Jr.1962. Aneastward range extension of Uta (I

I

stansburiana stejnegeri.~erpetologica18(1):53. Preston, R. 1965(1966).Turtles of the Gilliland faunule from the Pleistocene of Knox County, Texas.Pap. ~ i c hAcad, . Sei. ArtsLtv: 51 :221-39. Price, A. H. 1980a. Crotalus molossus. Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rep&242.1-242.2. .1980b. Geographicdistribution.~ e m i d u c t ~turc~cus. ~ u s ~erpetol.Rev.

II(2):39. ,1982. Crota~usscutulatus (Kennicott),Cat. Am. Amp~ib.Rept. 291.1291.2. .1986. Cne~idophorustesselatus (Say).Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 398.1398.2. . ~ g g oP. h r ~ ~ o s o m cornutum a (Harlan), Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 469.1469.7. .rg92a. Central Texas salamander studies. Perform. Rept.,Tex. PAP E-I-E, 3.4: 1-34, .1992b. Houston toad ~ B uhoustone~sis~ f~ status survey. Perform, Rept., Tex. PAP E-1-3,8.0: 1-23. .1992c.Houston toad status survey. Perform. Rept. ~ ~ d a nSpecies g. Act, Sect. 6, Tex. PM E-1-3 :1-39. ,1998. Po~sonoussnakes of Texas. Austin: TexasParks and Wildlife Press.

746.313. 746.315. 746.350. 746.400. 746.480. 746.490. 746.491. 746.500. 746.501.

Price, A.H., and D. M.Hillis. 1993. Houston toad taxonomic relationships,Final Rept., ~ n d a ~Species g. Act, Sect. 6, Tex, FAP E-1-4: 1-15. Price, A. H., D. M. Hillis, and P. T, Chippindale,1993. Central Texas salamander studies. Perform. Rept., Tex. FAP E-1-4,3.4: 1-67. Price, A. H., and J.L. LaPointe. 1981. Structure- functional aspects of the scent gland in am pro pelt is getulus splen~da,Copeia 1981(1) :138-46. Price, A. H., and J.H. Yantiss, 1993. Houston toad (Bufo housto~ensis~ status survey, Final Rept., ~ ~ d a nSpecies g. Act,Sect. 6, Tex FAP E-1-4: 1-31. Price, R. M. 1990. Bogert~phisDowling and Price. Cat. Am, A ~ p h iRept. ~ . 497.1497.2'

Pritchard, P. C. H. 1967. ~ i v i turtles ~ g of the world. Neptune, Fla,: TFH Publishing.

.Taxonomy,evolution, and zoogeography. In ~ r t l ePerspectives s~ and research, ed. M.Harless and H. Morlock, 1-42. New York:John Wiley & Sons.

~

.rg80. ~ e r m o c h e l coriacea. ~s Cat. Am. amp hi^. Rept. 238.1-238.4.

.1989. Alligator snapping t ~ r t lBioZog~ e~ and conservation. Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public Museum.

747. 747.050. 747.100. 747.110. 747.120. 747.130. 747.140. 747.141. 748

*

749. 750. 1960. 751.

752. .1961b. 753. 753.110. 753.115.

Pritchett, A.H. 1903. Some experimentsin feedinglizards with protectivelycolored insects.Bid. B ~ ~ 5l:.271-87. Proudfoot, G., and M. J. McCoid. 1996, Geographicdistribution. ~ e m i ~ u c t ~ l u s turcicus,~erpetol.Rev. 27(2): 87.

Punzo, F, 1974a. A qualitative and quantitative study of the food items of the yellow mud turtle, ~ ~ ~ o s t e r n o n ~ a v eAgassiz. s c e n s J.~erpetoZ.8(3) :269-71. .1974b. An analysis of the stomach contents of the gecko Coleon~xrevi is. Copeia 1974(3): 779-80. .1976. Analysis of the pH and electrolyte components found in the blood plasma of several speciesof west Texas reptiles. J.~erpetol, IO(I): 49-52.

~

.1982a. Tail autonomy and running speed in the lizards Cophosu~rustexanus and Uma notatu. J.~erpetol.16(3):329-31. .1982b. Clutch and egg sizein several species of lizards fromthe desert Southwest.J.~erpetol.16(4):414-17.

~

,1991. Feeding ecologyof spadefooted toads(Scaphiopusc o ~ c hand i Spea multiplicata~in western Texas. ~erpetol.Rev. 22(3) :79-80,

~

Pyburn, W F. 1955. Species discriminationin two sympatric lizards, Scelopor~s olivaceus and S. poinsetti. Tex. J.Sci. 7(2) :312-15. .1958. Size and movement of alocal population of cricket frogs (Acris c r e p i ~ a ~Tex, s ~J ..Sci, 10(3): 325-42.

Hybridization between

1960(1): 55-56.

Hglu versicolor

and R femora~is.Copeia

.1961a. The inheritance and distribution of vertebral stripe color in the cricket frog,In ~ e r t e ~ rspeciation, ~te ed. W. F. Blair, 235-60. Austin: University of Texas Press. Inheritance of the green vertebral stripe in Acris crep~tans.South-

west, Nut. 6(3-4):164-67.

Pyburn, W. F., and J. P,Kenney. 1960, Artificialhybridization of the gray treefrog, la versicolor (Hylidae).Am. ~ i ~ Nut. Z . 64(1) :216-23. Quinn, H. R, 1979a. Reproduction and growth of the Texas coral snake ~ ~ i c r ~ r~sfulvius tenere). Copeia 1979(3) :453-63.

.1g79b. The Rio Grande chirping frog, S~rrhophus c~stig~uthoi~es campi

(Amphibia, Leptodactylidae), from Houston, Texas. Trans. Kuns. Acad. Sei.

82(4) :209-10. .1980. Captive propagation of endangered Houston toads. ~ e r p e t u Rev, l. 11(4): 109. .1981.Life history notes. Crutalus lepidus lepidus. Herpetul. Rev. 12(3): 79-80, Rabalais, S. C., and N. N. Rabalais. 1980.The occurrence of sea turtles on the south Texas coast. Cuntrib. M m Sei. 23: 123-29. Rael, E. D., J. D. Johnson, 0. Molina, and H. K. McCrystal. 1992. Distribution of a ~ s ~ In BidMojave toxin-like protein in rock rattlesnake (Crutalusl e ~ ivenom. ugy of t~epitv~pers, ed. J. A. Campbell and E. D. Brodie, Jr.,163-69. Tyler, Tex.: 753.350.

753.351.

Selva. Rad, E. D., R. A. Knight, and H. Zepeda,1984. Ele~trophoreticvariants of Movenoms and migration differjave rattlesnake (Crutalusscutulat~sscutulat~s~ ences of Mojave toxin. Tuxicu~22(6): 980-85. Rael, E. D., C. S. Lieb, N.Maddux, A. Varela-Ramirez, andJ. Perez. 1993. Hemorrhagic and Mojave toxins in the venoms of the offspring of two Mojave rattleu ~ . :595snakes (Crutalus scutuZatusscutulatus~.Cump. B i u c ~ eP~~. ~ s i106B(3) 600.

Rakowitz, V. A., R. R. Fleet, and F.L. Rainwater. 1983. New distributional records of Texas amphibians and reptiles. Herpetul. Rev. 14(3) :85-89. Ralin, D. B. 1968. Ecological and reproductive di~erentiationin the cryptic species of the la versiculur complex (Hylidae).Suut~west.Nat. 13(3) :283-99. .1978. Resolution of diploid-tetraploidtree frogs. Science 202(4365) : 335-36.

Ralin, D. B., and J. S. Rogers. 1972. Aspects of tolerance to desiccation in Acris erepitans and Pseudacris streckeri.Cupeia 1g72(3) :519-25. .1g79. A morphologicalanalysis of a North American diploid-tetraploid complex of treefrogs (Amphibia,Anura, Hylidae) J~ e r p e t u13(3) ~ . :261-69. Ralin, D. B., M. A, Romano, and C. W. Kilpatrick. 1983. The tetraploid treefrog Hyla versicuZur~Evidence for a single origin from the diploid H. c~rysuscelis.Her-

petulugica 39(3): 212-25. 754-

Ramsey, L. W, 1946. Captive specimensof Trupiducluniu~Z i ~ e a t uHerpetulugica ~. 3(4) :112. ,1947. Feeding behaviorof ~rup~ducluniu~ lineatum. Herpetulugica 4(1) : 15-18.

756. 757. 758. 759. 760. 761. 762.

.1948a.Hibernation of ~ulbruu~ia texana. ~erpetuZugica4(6) :223. du~ Zeu.1948b. Combat dance and range extension of A g ~ i ~ t r upiscivuruus c u s t u ~ a~ . e r p e t u l u g i c4(6) a :228. .1g49. Hibernation and the effect of a flood on ~ulbruuk~a texana. Herpetolugicu 5(6) :125-26. .1951.New localities for several Texas snakes. Herpetu~ugica7(4) :176. .1953.The linedsnake ~rupiduczuniun li~eatum(Hallowell).Herpe~ulugica 9(1):7-24. .1954. A possible range extension for ~ a t r g~rxa ~ a ~~ie.r p e t u ~ u g i c a 10(3): 188. ,1956.Nesting of Texas horned lizards. ~erpetu~ugica 12(3) :239-40.

763. 764. 764.500. 765. 766. 767. 768. 769. 770. 770.100. 770.200,

770.300. 771. 771.300.

772. 773. 774. 775. 775.100. 776. 777 778. 778.100.

779.

Ramsey, L, W., and E. T. Donlon.1949. The young of the lizard Sceloporus poinsetti. Copeia 1949(3): 229. Rarnsey, L. W., and J.W. Forsyth, 1950. Breeding dates for Am~ystomatexunum, Herpetologica 6(3) :70. Ramirez, S. A., and R. E. Hug. 1967. A cytologicalstudy of parthenogenetically activated eggs of ~anapipiens.Tex. J.Sci. 19(1) :41-56. Raun, G, G. 1959. Terrestrialand aquatic vertebrates of a moist, relictarea in central Texas. Tex, J,Sci, 11(2): 158-71. .1962. Observationson behavior of newborn hog-nosed snakes, Heterodonp. platyrhinos. Tex. J.Sci. 14(1): 3-6. .1965a. Western limitsof distribution of the stinkpot, S ~ e r n o ~ ~ eodorarus ius, in Texas. HerpetoZog~cu21(1):69-71. .1965b.A guideto Texas snakes. Tex. Mem. Mus. Notes 9. .1966a. The distribution of whipsnakes ~Mas~icophis taenia~us~ in Texas. Tex. J.Sci, 18(2):226-27. .1966b. A population of woodrats ~ ~ e o t~oi c~r oap u in s ~southern Texas. Bull. Tex. Mem, Mus, 11. 1974. The scarlet snake ~Cemophoracoccinea~in Texas. J.Herpe~ol. 8(2) :186-87. Raun, G. G., and L, J.Eck. 1967. Vertebrateremains from four archeological sites in the Amistad ReservoirArea, Val VerdeCounty, Texas.Tex. J.Sci. 19(2) : 138-50. Raun, G. G., and F. R. Gehlbach. 1972. Amphibians and reptiles in Texas. ~ a ~ l a s Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 2 :1-61. Raun, G. G., and B. J.Wilks. 1964. Natural history of B a i o ~ ytaylor~ s in southern in a mixed population. Tex. J.Sci. Texas and competition with Sigmodo~ hispi~us 16(1):28-49. Raymond, L, R., and L. M. Hardy. 1983. Taxonomicstatus of the corn snake E l a p ~gut~uta e Linnaeus (Colubridae),in Louisiana and east Texas. South~est. Nat. 28(1) :105-107. Reddell, J.R. 1961. The cavesof Uvalde County.I. Tex. Speleol. Surv. 1(3):1-34. ,1963.The cavesof Val Verde County.Tex.Speleol. Surv. 1(7) :1-53. .1964. The cavesof Coma1 County.Te'ex. Speleol. Surv. 2(2) :1-60. 1967. A checklist of the cave fauna of Texas. 111,Vertebrata. Tex. J.Sci. 19(2): 184-226. ,1970. A checklist of the cave fauna of Texas. VI.Additional recordsof Vertebrata. Tex,J.Sci. 22(2-3): 139-58. Reddell, J.R., and J.H.Estes. 1962. The cavesof San Saba County, I. Tex. Speleol, Surv. 1(6):1-42, Reddell, J. R., and R. C. Finch. 1963. The cavesof Williamson County.Tex. Speleol. Soc. 2(1): 1-61. Reddell, J.R., and 0. Knox. 1962. The cavesof Bexar County. I.Tex. Speleol, Soc. ~ ( 4 1-38. ): Reddell, J.R., and R. W. Mitchell. 1969. A checklistand annotated bibliography of the subterranean aquatic fauna of Texas. Tex. Tec~nol.Coll., Wat. ~ e s o u cCtc, ~ u b ~ oTexas, c ~ , Spec. Rept. 24(1969) :I- 48. Reddell, J.R,, and W H. Russell. 1961. The cavesof Travis County.Tex. Spele~l. Surv. I(I): 1-31.

780, 780.050. 780.051. 781, 782.

783. 783.150. 783.215.

783.275.

784. 784.020.

784.065.

784.075.

784.100.

Reddell, J. R., and A. R. Smith. 1965. The cavesof Edwards County.Tex. Speleol, Surv. 2(5-6):1-70. Redxner, M.1987.Observationson the urban herpetofauna of Beaumont, Texas. Bull, Chi. ~erpetol.Soc. 22(12): I~o-~I. .1qg2. Life history notes. Runu sphenocephulu. Variation. ~erpetol.Rev. 2 3 m :58-59. Reese, A.M. 1915.The ulli~utorand its ullies. New York:G. P. Putnarn’s Sons. Reese, R. W, and I. L. Firschein, 1950.Herpetologicalresults of the University of Illinois field expedition, spring 1949.11. Amphibia. Truns. Kuns. Acud, Sei, 53: 44-54. Reeve, W. L. 1952.Taxonomy and distribution of the horned lizards genus P ~ r ~ n o s oUrziv. ~ u . Kuns, Sei, Bull. 34(14):817-960. Rehtik, I.1993.[Systematicsand biology of the mills snake Lu~propeZtisalternu.] A k v u r i u ~ T e r u36(2): ri~~ 24-27. Keichling, S. B. 1995.The taxonomic status of the Louisiana pinesnake ~~ituophis ~elunole~cus r ~ t h v and e ~ its ~ relevance to the evolutionary species 29(2): 186-98. concept. I; ~erpetol, Reid, J. A., and R. M.Whiting, Jr. 1994.Herpetofauna of pitcher plant bogs and adjacent forestsin eastern Texas. Proc. Annu. Con$ Sout~eust.Assoc, Fish ~ i l ~ . Agencies, Oct. 23-26,199~:411--21. Reid, J.R., and T. E. Lott. 1963.Feeding of Leptot~phlopsd~lcisdu~cis(Baird and Girard). ~erpetolog~cu 19(2): 141-42. Reilly, S. M.1990.Biochemical systematicsand evolution of the eastern North ~us Salaman~idae). ~erpetologicu American newts, ~ o t o p h t h u ~(Caudata: 46(I):51-59. Reisz, R. R., D. S. Berman, and D.Scott. 1992.The cranial anatomy and relationan unusual m ~ m a l - reptile ~ ~ e (Synapside:Sphenaships of Secodo~tosuu~us, codontidae) fromthe early Permian of Texas. Zool. J.Linn. Soc. 1 0 4 2 ):127-84. Reisz, R. R., D. Scott, and J. van Bendegem. 1992.Atlasaxis complex of Seco~ontosuur~s,a sphenacodontidmammal-li~ereptile (Eupelycosauria: Synapsida) t ~29(3):596-600. from the Lower Permian of Texas. Can. I. ~ u rSei. Renaud, M. L. 1995.Movementsand submergencepatterns of Kemp’s ridley turtles ~ ~ e p ~ d o c hk eel ~~s ~I; ~erpetol. i ~ . 29(3) :370-74. Reno, H. W., F. R. Gehlbach, and R, A. Turner. 1972.Skin and aestivational e Conte, ~ u Copeiu 1g72(4) : cocoon of the aquatic amphibian Siren i ~ t e r ~Le 625-31.

~s Cut. Am. 784.400. Reynolds,S. L,, and M.E. Seidel. 1982,Sternother~so ~ o r u t(Latreille), phi^. Rept. 287.1-287.4, .1983. Morphological homogeneity in the turtle Sternotherus odorut~s 784,500. (~inosternidae) t ~ o u g h o uits t range, I; ~erpetol.17(2): 113-20, Richardson, C. H, 1912.The distribution of ~ ~ ure~color l u Cope, with notes on 785. its habits and variation. Am. Nut. 46 :605-11. idlehuber,IC. T., and N. J. Silvy. 1981.Texas rat snake feeds on Mexican freetail 785.200. 70-71. bat and wood duck eggs,South~est.Nut. 26(1): 786. Riemer, W. J.,H, G. Dowling, J. D. Anderson, R, G. Zweifel, G. K. Zug, C. J.McCoy, and D. A. Rossman, eds.1963 et seq. Cutulo~ueof ~ ~ e r i c uu~np h i ~ i u rund l s reptiles, New York:American Societyof Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. teuguese~n, sp. (Pen786,050. Riley, J., C, T. ~cAllister,and P. S. Freed, 1988. uil~etie~u

tastomidae: Cephalobaenida) fromthe Mediterranean gecko, ~ e r n i ~ a c t ~turcilus cus (Sauria: Ge~onidae), in Texas. J.Parasitol. 74(3):481-86. 786.055. Roberts, D. T., E. W. Hartdegen, and D. Fomanowicz. 1999. Natural history ~ ~ u s Predation. ~ e r p e t oRev, ~ . 30(1) :41-42. notes. ~ e r n i ~ a c tturcicus, 786.060, Roberts, D. T,, and P, D.Shilling. 1991 Geographicdistribution. la cinerea. ~ e r p e t o lRev. , 22(3):102. 786.065, Roberts, D. T., D. M, Schleser, and T, L. Jordan. 1995 Notes on thecaptive husbandry and reproduction of the Texas salamander Eur~ceaneotenes at the Dallas Aquarium. ~erpetol.Rev, 26(1):23-25. 786.070. Robertson, B. A., and A. C. Cannon. 1997. Occurrence of infectiousbacteria kernpi) e l ~ sand loggerhead ~Caretta in c a p ~ v e ~ r eKemp’s ~ e d ridley( ~ e p i ~ o c ~ caretta) sea turtles. Tex, J,Sei. 49(4) :331-34. 786.100. Rogers, J.S. 1972. Discriminant function analysis of ~orphological relatio~ship within the Bufo cognatus species group, Copeia 1g72(2):381-83. 786.110, ,1973. Protein polymorphism, genichetero~gosity,and divergence in the toads Sufi cognatus and B. specios~s.Cope~a1973(2):322-30. 786.120. ,1976. Species densityand taxonomic diversity of Texas amphibians and reptiles. Sgst, Zool, 25(1): 26-40. 786.200. Rogers, K,C.1975. Herpetofauna of Beck Ranch local fauna (Upper Pliocene: Blancm), Diss. Abstr Int, (B)36(3):1095. 786.210. .1976. Herpetofauna of the Beck Ranch local fauna (Upper Pliocene: ~ .Univ. (Paleontol,Ser) 1(5):163-200. Blancan) of Texas. Publ. us. ~ i cState Romano, P. R., and J. C. Vaughn. 1986. Restriction endonucleasemapping of 786.215. ribosomal RNA genes: Sequence divergence and the origin of the tetraploid tree frog Hgla versicolor Bioc~ern.Genet. 24(5-6): 329-47. 786.280. Root, W. R, 1977. Subocularis eggs hatch. Notes ~0~~4(4):1-2. is ~erpetoZogica15(4):233. 786.300. Rose, F. L. 1959. Albinismin ~ a r n n o p ~sauri~us. .1969. Desiccation rates and temperature relationshipsof Terrapene or786.310. nata following scute removal. Sout~west,Nut. 14(1) :67-72, 786.320. m ~ Green ,1976a. Sex ratios of larval and transformed A ~ b ~ s t otigrinurn inhabiting the Llano Estacadoof west Texas.Copeia 1976(3):455--61. 786.330. o~a ,1976b. Tumorous growths of the tiger salamander, A r n ~ ~ s ttigrinurn, associated with treated sewage effluent.Prog. Exp. ~ r n oRes. r 20 : 251-62. 786.331. ,1989. Aspects of the biology of the Concho water snake ( ~ e r o~~aar ~ e r ~ paucirnacu~ata~. Tex. J.Sei. 41(2):115-31. 786.400. Rose, F, L., and D.Armentrout. 1974. Population estimates of A r n ~ ~ s t o r n ~ t i ~ r i n inhabiting u~ two playa lakes. J.Anirn, EcoZ. 43 :671-79. 786.410. .1976. Adaptive strategies of A ~ b ~ s t o r tigrinurn na Green in~abitin Llano Estacadoof west Texas.J.Anirn, Ecol. 45(3): 713-29. , P. Roper. 1971. Physiological responsesof paedo786.420. Rose, F. L., D. ~ m e n t r o u tand genic Arn~~storna ~igrin~rn to acute anoxia. ~erpetologica27(2):101-107. 786.430. Rose, F. L., and C. D. Barbour. 1968. Ecology and reproductive cyclesof the inl u s in the southern United States. Am, ~~~. troduced gecko, ~ e r n i ~ a c t ~~urcicus, Nat. 79(1):159-68. 786.440. Rose, F. L., and R, B. Drotman. 1967. Anaerobiosisin a frog, Ranapipiens. J.Exp. ZOd. 166(3):427--32. 786.450. Rose, F. L.,and J. C.Harshbar~er.1977. Neoplastic and possibly related skin le~

~

786.460. 786.465. 786.469. 786.470.

786.500.

786.503.

786.510.

786.515.

786.520.

786.525. 786.530.

sions in neotenic tiger salamanders from a sewage lagoon. Science 196(4287): 315-17. Rose, F. L., and F.W. Judd. 1975. Activityand home range size of the Texas tortoise, Gopherus berland~eri,in south Texas. ~erpetologicap ( 4 ):448-56. i 36(3): ~ 17-19. ~ . .1978. Tiny tanks. Tex. Parks~ ,1989. Gopherus berlandieri.Berlandier’s tortoise, Texas tortoise.Occas. Pap. IUCN, Species Surviv. Cornrn. (SSC) 5:8-9. .1980. Home range estimates of Gopher~sberlarzdieri,In Desert Tortoise Cou~cilproc.1979 syrnposiurn, ed. E, St. Amant, S. Allen, R. Klrwin, 187 (abstr.), Long Beach, Calif. Rose, F.L., and H. L. Lewis. 1968, Changes in weight and free fatty acid concentration of fat bodies of paedogenic Ambystoma t i g r i ~ during u~ vitellogenesis. Comp, Biochem. Physiol, 26: 149-54. Rose, F. L,, and R. W. Manning. 1996. Notes on the biology of the slider, Trachemys scripta e~eguns(Reptilia: Emy~dae), inhabitating man-made cattle ponds in west Texas.Tex. J.Sei. 48(3):191-206. Rose, F, L.,R. W. Manning, T, R. Simson, and S. Jenkens. 1998. A sustaining population of the Florida red-belliedturtle, Pseudemps nelsoni (Reptilia:EmydiTex. I; Sci. 50(1): 89-92. dae), in Spring Lake, Hays County, Texas. Rose, F. L.,R, Paxton, and C. W. Britton. 1989. Gastric oxyuriasisand its consequences in yellow mud turtles ~Kinostern0n~avescens) associated with sewage effluent,~erpetopathoZogia192):53-64. Rose, F. L., M. E. T. Scioli,and M,P. Moulton. 1988. Thermal preferentia of Berlandier’s tortoise (Gopherus b e r l a n ~ e rand i ~ the ornatebox turtle (Terraperze ornutu). South~est.Nut. 33(3): 357-61, Rose, F. L.; and IC,W. Selcer. 1989. Genetic divergenceof the allopatricpopula~ a J.~ e r p e t o23(3) ~ . :261-67. tions of ~ e r o harteri. Rose, F. L., T. R. Simpson, and R. W Manning, 1996. Measuredand predicted egg volumeof Pseudem~stexana with comments on turtle egg shape. 1.~erpetol. 30(3) :433-35.

786.550.

786.585. 786.600. 786,700. 786.800.

787. 788.

788.100.

Rosenberg,E. A., and B. A. Pierce. 1995. Effect ofinitial mass on growth and mortality at low pHin tadpoles of Pseudacris clarkiand Bufo valliceps. J.~erpetol. 29(2): 181-85. Ross, C, A., and C. W. Eknst. 1994. Al~igator m~ss~ssippiensis (Daudin).Cat. Am. A ~ p h i bRept. . 600.1-600.14. Ross, C, A.,and C. D.Roberts. 1979.Scalation of the American alligator. USDI~~S Spec. Rept. 225:1-8. Ross, R. K.,and F.W. Judd. 1982. Comparison of lipid cyclesof ~olb~ook~apropinqua from Padre Island and mainland Texas. J.~erpetol.16(1):53-60. Rosskopf, W. J., Jr. and R.W. Woerpel, 1981, Response to medical treatment in a critically ill Texas tortoise Gopherus berlun~eri.Bull. Chi. ~erpetol.Soc. 16(4): 95-99. Rossrnan, D. A. 1963a. The colubridsnake genus ~harnnophis;A revision of the sauritus group, Bull. Ha. StateMus. 7(3):99-178. .1963b. Relations~ipsand taxonomic status of the North American natricine snake genera Liodptes, Regina, and Clonop~is.Occas. Pap. Mus. Zoo!. La. State Univ. 29: 1-29. .1970. Thumnop~lispro~irnus. Cat, Am,A r n p ~ iRept. ~ , 98.1-98.3,

788.110. 788.200.

788.205. 788.220. 789. 789.100. 789.110. 789.120. 789.150.

789.295. 789.296. 789.297.

789.298.

.1g71. Systematicsof the Neotropicalpopulations of Thamnophis marcianus (Serpentes: Colubridae).Occas. Pap. Mus. Zool. La. State Univ, (41):1-13. Rossman, D. A., and R. Erwin. 1980. Geographic variation in the snake Storeria in southeastern United States. occip~tomaculata(Storm)(Serpentes: Colubridae) B r i m ~ e ~ a4:n95-102, ~ Rossman, D. A., N. B. Ford, and R. A. Seigel. 1996. The garter snakes, Evolut~on and ecolog~.Norman: Universityof Oklahoma Press. Rossman, D. A., and V. Wallach. 1991. ~irginia.Cat. Am. ~ m p h iRept. ~ . 529.1529.4Roze, J. A. 1967. A checklist of the New Worldvenomous coral snakes (Elapidae), with descriptions of new forms.Am. Mus. Novit. 2287: 1-60. .1g74. Micruroides. Cat. Am. A m p h ~Rept. ~ . 163.1-163.4. and venoms. .1996. Coral snakesof the Americas: Riolog~, ident~cation, Melbourne, Fla.: Krieger Publishing. (Linnaeus).Cat. Am. amp hi^. Roze, J. A., and G. M. Tilger. 1983.~icrurusjulv~us Rept. 316.1-316.4. Ruby, D. E., and A. E. Dunham. 1987. Variation in home range size along an elevational gradient in the iguanid lizard Sce~oporus~erriami.Oecologia 71(3): 473-80. Rudolph, D. C., and S. Burgdorf. 1995. Radio-telemetry study of Louisiana pine his ruthveni), East Teex. ~erpetol.Soc. Nwslt~7(1):19. snakes ~ ~ i t u ~ pmelanoleucus .1997. Timber rattlesnake and Louisiana pinesnake of the west Gulf Coastal Plain: Hypothesesof decline. Tex.I. Sci. 49(3) (suppl.):111-22. Rudolph, D. C., S. J. Burgdorf,J. C. Tull, M. Ealy, R. N. Conner, R. R. Schaefer, and R. R. Fleet. 1998. Avoidanceof fire ants by Louisiana pinesnakes, Pituophis melanoleucus ruthveni, ~erpetol.Rev, 2g(3):146-48. Rudolph, D. C., S. J. Burgdorf,R. R. Schaefer,R, N. Conner, and R. T.Zappalorti, 1998. Snake mortality associated with late season radio-trans~tterimplantation, ~erpetol.Rev. 29(3):155-56. Rudolph, D.C., and J.G. Diclrson. 1990. Streamside zonewidth and amphibian and reptile abundance. Southwest. Nat. 35(4):472-76. Rudolph, D.C., €3.Kyle, and R. N. Conner 1990. Red-cockaded woodpeclrers vs, rat snakes: The effectiveness of the resin barrier. ~ i l s o nBull. 102(1):14-22. Ruick, J. D., Jr. 1948. Collecting coral snakes, Micrurusjulvius tenere in Texas. ~erpetolog~ca 4(6): 215-16. Russell, F. E, 1980. Snake venom poisoningin the United States. ann^. Rev. Med. 31 : 247-59. Ruthven, A. G. 1908. Variationsand genetic relationshipsof the garter snakes. Bull. US.Natl. Mus. 61:1-198. Ryan, M. J., R. B. Cocroft, and W, Wilczynski. 1990. The role of env~onmenta1 selection in intraspecific divergence of mate recognition signals in the cricket frog, Acris crepitans. ~vo~ution 44(7) :1869-72. Ryan, M.J., and B. K. Sullivan,1989. Transmission efkcts on temporal structure in theadvertisementcalls of two toads, Buji woodhousei and Bufo valliceps. Ethology 80(1-4): 182-89. Ryan, M. J., and W. Wilczynski, 1988. Coevolution of the sender and receiver:Effect of local mate preferencein cricket frogs.Science 240(4860) :1786-88.

.1qq1, Evolutionof intraspecificvariation in the advertisementcall of a 249-71. cricket frog(Acris crepitans, Hylidae).Bid. I; Linn. Soc. 44(3): Rybiski, L. R., and M. A. Paulissen, 1995. ~omerofactoryexplorationof novel environments by the parthenogene~cwhiptail lizard Cnemiaop~oruslaredoens~s (Sauria: Teiidae).Tex. I. Sci. 47(1): 39-44. Sabath, H. 1960a. Sceloporusg, gruciosus in southern New Mexicoand Texas. ~erpeto~ogica 16(1):22,

.1960b. Eggs and young of several Texas reptiles. ~erpetolug~ca r6(1) :72. Sabath, M.C., and L.E. Sabath. 1969.Morphological intergradation in Gulf coastal brown snakes, Storerea d e k a ~and i Storerea tropica. Am.Mid, Nat. 81(1): 148-55. Sabath, M,C., and R. Worthington. 1959.Eggs and young of certain Texas reptiles. ~erpeto~ogica 15(1) :31-32, Sage, R.D., and R. L. Selander. 1979.Hybrid~ationbetween speciesof the Rana pipiens complex in central Texas. ~ v o l u t i ~ 33(4) n :1069-88. Saenz,D. 1996. Dietary overviewof ~ e m ~ a u c t turc~cus ~ ~ u s with possible implical. :461-66. tions of food partitioning. 1.~ e ~ p e t o30(4) .1998.Geographic~stribution.~emiauctylusturcicus. ~erpetol.Rev. 29(3):174. Saenz, D., S. J. Burgdorf,D. C, Rudolph, and C. M. Duran. 1996. Natural history r i~ ~u ~sb. i n~ge .r p e t oRev, ~ . 27(3): 145. notes. C r o t ~ ~ u s ~ o rC Saenz,D., C. S. Collins, T.Trees, and J. H. Williamson. 1999.Geographic distria ~erpetol.Rev. 30(1):56. bution. ~ r g i n i valeriae. Saenz, D., and R. N. Conner, 1996. Sexual dimorphis~ in head size of the l u s (Sauria: Gekkonidae).Tex. 1.Sci. ~ e d i t e r r ~ e gecko a n ~ e m i d a c ~ ~turcicus 207-12. Saenz, D,, and P. D. Hawinski. 1996.Geographicdistribution. ~ e m ~ ~ a c t ~ ~ u s f r e nu~us.~erpetol.Rev. 27(1):32. Salthe, S. N. 1969. Geographicvariation of the lactate d e h ~ ~ o g e n a sof e sR a ~ a pipie~sand Ram palustris. Bioc~em.Genet. 2(4) :271-303. .1973a.Amphiumidae, Cat. Am. Amp~ib.Rept, 147.1-147.4. .1973b,A m p ~ i ~ mtriaactyl~m. u Cut. Am. Amp~ib.Rept. 149.1-149.3. Sander, P. M.1989. Early Permian depositional environments and pond bonebeds in central Archer County, Texas.Paleogeog~ Paleocli~atol. Puleoecol. 69(1-2):1-21.

Sanders, C. L.,Jr. 1963.Habitat preferences of the white-tailed deerand several exotic ungulates in south Texas. ~ c ~ l44(4) o g ~:803-16. Sanders, 0.1948.Necturus and Amp~iumain Texas. ~erpeto~ogica 4(5):167. .1953.A new speciesof toad, with a discussionof morphology of the bufonid skull.~erpetologicag ( ~ 25-47. ): .1978, Bufo wooa~ouse~ in central Texas. Bull, Md. ~ e r ~ e tSoc. o ~14(2): . 55-66, ,1986. The heritage of ~ u f o~ ~ o o a ~ o uGirard s e i in Texas (Salientia: Bufonidae). Occus. Pap. S t r e c ~ e r ~ u~s ,u, ~ ZUniv, o r (I):1-28. 1987.~voZut~onur~ ~ybri~ization and speciatio~in ~ o r t ~ ~~ bu-e r i c u n fonids, v-1x0. Dallas: Privatelyprinted. Sanders, O., and J. C. Cross. 1964.Relationships betweencertain North Ameri19(4) :248-55. can toads as shown by cytological studies.~erpetoZ~gicu

799. 800. 801.

801.200.

801,500. 801.501.

802. 802.100.

802.110. 802.115.

802.200. 802,210.

802.220. 802.300. 802.308. 802.310. 802.311. 802.400. 802.410. 802.411.

Sanders, O., and H. M. Smith. 1949. Some noteworthy records of amphibians from Texas.Trans. Kans. Acad. Sei. 52 :28-29. .1g51.Geographicvariations in toads of the debilis group of Bufu. Field Lab 1g(4) :141-60. Sanger, D,B. 1931. An adventure with snakes. Bull. A ~ t i v e nInst. i ~ Am. ~ ( 2 ) : 34-35 Sarjeant, W. A. S., and W. Langston. 1994.Vertebrate footprintsand invertebrate traces from the Chadronian (late Eocene) of Trans-Pecos, Texas.Bull. Tex, me^. Mus. 36 :1-86. Sattler, P. W. 1980. Genetic relationshipsamong selected speciesof North American Scuphiupus. Cupeiu 1980(4) :605-10. Sattler, P.W,, and J.S. Ries. 1995. Intraspecific geneticvariation among four ~u JHerpetul. 29( I): populationsof the Texas horned lizard, P h r ~ n u s u curnutum. 137-41. Savage,J.M.1954. A revision of the toads of the Bufu debiZis complex. Tex, J Sei. 6(1):83-112. Savitzlry, A. H.,and J.T. Collins. 1971a. Tantilla grucilis,a snake new to the fauna of Mexico. I; Herpetul. ~(1-2):86-87. .1g71b.The ground snake Sunuru episcupa ep~scupain Coahuila,Mexico. 1.Herpetul. 5(1-2):87-88. Sawyer, M. W., and J.T, Baccus.1996(1997). Movement ecologyand thermal biology of Bugertupk~ssubucularis from Texas (Serpentes: Colubridae). Suuthwest. Nut, 41(2): 182-86. Saxon,J.G. 1968. Sexual behaviorof a male checkeredwhiptail lizard, Cnemidup~urustesselatus (Say).Suuthwest. Nat.13(4) :454-55. .1g71.The biologyof the lizard, C~emiduphurustesselutus and egects of Diss. Abstc Int. (B) pesticides upon the population in the Presidio Basin, Texas. 37(5) :3079. Saxon,J. G., H. G, Applegate,and J. M.Inglis, 1967. Male C ~ e ~ i d u p ~tesselaur~s Tex. J.Sei. 1912) :233-34. tus Say from Presidio, Texas. Schaaf, R, T., Jr., and P. W. Smith, 1970. Geographicvariation in the pickerel frog. Herpetulugicu 26(2): 240-54. 1971. Ra~apalustris.Cat. Am. Amphib.Rept. 11,7.1-117.3. Schaefer,D. C., D. Chiszar,and H. M. Smith. 1995. Geographicdist~bution,LamHerpetul, Rev, 26(2) :110. prupeltis tria~guZu~ ge~tilis. Schafer, T. C., and S. Kasper. 1989. Additional herpetological records for Texas. Tex. I; Sei. 41(3) :337-38. Schall,J.J. 1977a. Comp~ativeecology of sympatric parthenogenetic and bisexual species of C~emiduphurus, Diss. Abstl: Tnt. ( B ) 37(8): 3757-58. .1g77b. Thermal ecology of five sympatric species of Cn~m~duphurus (Sauria:Teiidae).~erpetulug~ca 33(3) :261-72. ,1978. Reproductivestrategies in sympatric whiptail lizards (Cnem~duphurus) ;Two parthenogenetic and three bisexual species.Cupeiu 1978(1) : 108-16.

802.412.

,1993. C o ~ u n i t ecology y of Cnemidupkuruslizards in south~estern Texas: A test of the weed hypothesis. In ~ ~ u l ofu the g ~whiptaiZ lizards (genus Cnemidophorus), ed.J. W. Wright and L.J.Vitt, 319-43. Norman: Oklahoma Museum of Natural History.

802.415. 802.421. 802.701. 803. 804. 805. 806. 807. 808. 809. 810. 810.005, 811. 811.100.

811,140. 811.200. 811.205. 811.206. 811,300. 811.310. 811.320. 811.345. 812, 813.

Schall,J.J., and E. R. Pianka. 1980. Evolution of escape behavior diversity. Am. Nat. 115(4): 551-66. Schatti, B., and L. D. Wilson. 1986, Coluber Linnaeus. Cat. Am. A ~ p h ~Rept. b. 399.1-399-4. Schleser,D. 1995. Texas blindsalamanders hatch at Dallas Aquarium. A.Z.A.A. C o ~ m u n i March ~ u ~ 1995 :22. Schmidt,K.P. 1 9 2 0 . 3 ~ f o f o w ~ i enr iLouisiana and Texas. Copeiu 1920(1): 84-85. .1921, A new name for a subspeciesof Uta stans~uriarza Baird and Girard. Am. Mus, Novit. 15: 1-2. ,1922. A review of the North American genus of lizards,Hol~rookia.Bull. Am. Mus. Nut. Hist. 46: 709-25. .1925,Note on Eluphe subocularis(Brown),Copeiu 1925(1): 87-88. .1932. Stomach contents of some Americancoral snakes, with the description of a new speciesof G e o ~ h ~Copeiu s. 1g32(1):6-9. .1940. Notes on Texas snakes of the genus Sa~vadora,Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Zool. Sec 24(12): 143-50. .1953. A checkZistof North A ~ e r i c a numphibians and reptiles.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schmidt,K, P,, and D. D. Davis.1941. Field bookof snakes of the United States and Canu~a.New York:G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Schmidt,K. P., and R, F. Inger. 1957. Living reptiles of the world. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubledayand Co. and reptilesof the Big Bend reSchmidt,K.P., and T, F. Smith. 1944, Amphi~~ans gion of Texas. FieldMus. Nat. Hist. Zool. Ser: 29 :75-96. Schrank, G. D., and R. E. Ballinger. 1973. Male reproductivecycles in two species of lizards ~Cophosaurustexanus and Cne~idophorusg ~ a rHerpetoZogica ~ ~ . ag(3): 289-93. Schreber,H.1882. Beitrag zurNaturgeschichteder Frosche.Der Naturforscher. Halle: Johann Jacob~ e b a u18 r :182-93, Schuett, G. W. 1982. A copperhead ~Agk~strodon contortrix~ brood produced from autumn copulations. Copeia 1982(3) :700-702. .1992. Is long-term storage an important component of the reproductive biology of temperate pitvipers?In Biolog~of the Pitvipers, ed. J.A.Campbell and E. D. Brodie, Jr., 169-84. Tyler, Tex.: Selva. Schuett, G. W, 1997. Body sizeand agnostic experience affect dominance and mating success in male copperheads. Ani~aZBehaviour 54(1): 213-224. Schuett, G, W., and F. ICraus. 1980a. Geographicdistribution. Crotalus viridus viridus. Herpetol. Rev. 11(3):81. .1980b. Geographicdistribution. Sistrurus catenatusedwar~i. ~erpetol. Rev. 11(3): 81. .1982, Life history notes. ~gkistrodoncontortrixpictigaster: Herpetol.Rev. 13(I): 17. Schulz,K.-D. 1996. A p ono graph of the colu~ridsnakes of the genus Elaphe Fitzi n g e ~Havlickuv Brod, Czech Republic: Koeltz Scientific Books. l~s Schwartz,A.1956. Geographicvariation in the chicken turtle ~ e ~ r o c h ereticua 34:461-503. laria Latreille. F i e l ~ a nZooZ. Schwartz,A., and W. A.Babis. 1949. Extensionof the range of Crotal~s lepidus k Z u ~ ~ eCopeia r ~ . 1g49(1) :74.

Scott,C, 1996. Snuke laver’s life list a~d~uurnul. Austin: Universityof Texas Press. Scott,N. J., T. C. Maxwell, 0. K.Thornton, L. A. Fitzgerald,andJ. W. Flury. 1988. Distribution,habitat, and future of Harter’swater snake, Nerudia hurteri, in Texas. I; Herpetul. 23(4): 373-89. 813.500. Scott,N. J.,and R. W. McDiarmid. 1984a. ~imurphudunCope. Cut. Am. A ~ p h i b . Rept. 352.1-352.2. 813.510. .1984b. Tri~urphudunbiscututus (Dumeril, Bibron,and Dumeril). Cut. Am. Amphib. Rept. 353.1-353.4. 813.540. Scott, T. P,, and B. G. Foster. 1997. Sul~unellussp in free-ranging and farmed allifrom Texasand Louisiana, USA. A~uucul~ure gators ~A~ligutur m~ssissipp~ensis~ 156(1-2): 179-81. 813.550. Scott, T. P,, S. R. Simick, and T, M.Craig. 1997. Endohel~nthsof American alligators ~Alligutormiss is sip pi ens is^ from southeast Texas. J.~elminthul.Soc. ~ u s h ington 64(2):258-62. Scroggin,J.B., and W. B. Davis. 1956.Food habits of the Texas dwarfsiren. Her814. petulogica 12(3):231-37. Scudday, J.F. 1965a. Another ~amprupeltisaltern~in Brewster County, Texas. 815. Suuthwest. Nut. IO(I) :77-78. .1965b. ~leutherudact~lus lutruns in Terre11County, Texas.Southwest. Nut. 816. IO(I) :78. .1967. Additionalnotes on distribution of Crutuph~tus wisl~zeni in Texas. 816.100. Tex. J. Sci. 19(4): 396-97. of lizard of the Cnemiduphorus tesselutusgroup from .1973. A new species 816.110. Texas. J.Herpetul. 7(4): 363-71. .1977(1978).Some recent changes in theherpetofauna of the northern 816.120. Chihuahuan desert. In Trunsactionsof the sy~pusiumon the biulugical resuurcesof the Chihuahuan desertregiun, United Statesand ~ e x i c ued. , R. W. Wauer and D. H. Riskind, Ser.3:513-22. Alpine, Tex.: National Park Service. .1988. All-female lizard populations, an advanced formof sexual repro816.121. duction. Chih~uhuunDesert Disc. 23 :4-5. 816.200. Scudday,J.F., and J.R. Dixon. 1973. Diet and feeding behaviorof teiid lizards for Trans-Pecos, Texas.Suuthwest. Nut. 18(3):279-89. 816.300. Scudday,J.F., and F. Scudday. 1975. A preliminary survey of the vertebrate fauna of the upper Canadian Breaks area. In C u n u ~ u nBreaks, a nutural area survey, 59-67. Austin: Divisionof Natural ResourcesEnv~onment,University of Texas. 816.350. Secor, S. M. 1987. Courtship and mating behavior of the speckled kingsnake, ~umprupeltisgetulus holbruuki. Herpetolugica43(1): 15-28, . 216.1-216.4. 816.400. Seidel, M, E, 1978. I(inosterr1onpavescens. Cat. Am.A ~ p h i bRept. 816.410. Seidel, M.E., W. G. Degenhardt, and J.R. Dixon, 1997. Geographicdistribution. Truchemys guigeae(Big Bendslider).Herpetol. Rev. 28(3):157. 816.425. Seidel, M. E., and M. J.Dreslik. 1996. Pseudem~scuncinnu (Le Conte). Cat. Am. Amp~ib.Rept. 626.1-626.12. 816.430. Seidel, M. E,, and C. H. Ernst. 1996. ~seudemysGray. Cut. Am. Amphib. Rept. 625.1-625.7. 816.491. Seifert; W, 1971a. Poisonous snakes ofDallas. I.Dul~asNut. Sci. Assoc. Q. 3(1): 4-7. .1971b. Poisonous snakes of Dallas. 11. Dullus Nut. Sci.Assoc. Q. 3(2) :4-7. 816,492.

813.475. 813.490.

816.494. 816.500. 816.510. 816.520. 816.530. 816.540. 816.550. 816,600.

816.700.

816.800, 816.805. 817.

817.001. 817.002. 817.003.

817.004.

22-29.

, 1 9 7 1 ~Poisonous . snakes ofDallas,111. D ~ l u Nut. s Sei, Assoc, Q. 3(3-4):

.1978a. Geographicdistribution.H~luctophr~ne uugusti lutruns. Herpetol. Rev. g(2): 61, .1978b. Geographicdistribution.E u ~ e c eunthrucinus~~uviulis. s Herpeto~. Rev. g(2): 61. .1978c. Geographicdistribu~on.G e r r ~ o n o ~~u iso c e p h ~iu~s~ e r n uHet" ~is, pe~ol.Rev. g(2) :61-62. 1978d. Geographicdistribution. Salvu~orug r ~ h u ~ i u e l i ~ e u t a . ~ e r p e t o l . Rev. g(2): 62. .1980a, Geographicdistribution. Ranu ureolut~ureo~utu.Herpetol. Rev. 11(4): 115. .1980b. Geographicdistribution. Ce~ophorucoccineu copei. Herpetol, Rev. 11(4): 116. Seifert, W. S., and R. W Murphy. 1972. Additional specimensof Coleon~xreticulutus (Davis and Dixon) fromthe Black GapW~dlifeManagement Area, Texas. ~ e r p e t o ~ o ~28(1) i c u :24-26. Seifert, W, F. Rainwater, and T. Kasper.1973. Significantrange extension with field and lab notes for the reticulated gecko, ~ o l e o n ~retic~Zutus x Davis and Dixon, Su~thwest.Nut, 18(1): 101-103. Seifert, W,, and I), Wuerch. 1978. Geographicdistribution. D e s ~ o g ~ u t h uuricuus latus. ~ e r p e ~Rev. o ~g(3) , :106. Seigel, R. A., M. M. Huggins, and N.B. Ford. 1987. Reduction in locomotor abil~ ~:481-85, u ity as a cost of reproduction in gravid snakes. ~ e c o l o 73 Selander,R. K,,R. F. Johnston, B. J. Wilks, and G, G. Raun, 1962. Vertebrates ~ sHist, .. from the barrier islands of Tamaulipas Mexico. Univ. Kuns. ~ u~ ~~Nut. 12(7) :309-45. Selcer,K. W. 1986. Life history of a successful colonizer: The ~edite~anean , Texas. Copeiu 1986(4) :956-62. gecko, ~ e ~ i ~ u c t ~~rlc u~ cs uins southern .1987a. Seasonalvariation in fat body and liver massof the introduced Me~terraneangecko, H e ~ i ~ u c t ~turcicus, lus in Texas. I; Herpetol. ,1987b.Factors aflecting reproductive output of Mediterranean geckos, H e ~ i ~ u c t ~turcicus l u s (Sauria: Geldconidae). Diss, A ~ sInt, t ~B,Sei. Eng. 47(10): 4036. .1990. Egg-size relationshipsin a lizard with fixed clutch size: V~iation

817.005. 817.100. 817.200. 817,400,

18. 818.100.

Selcer,K. W., and R. A. Bloom.1984. C ~ r t o ~ u ~scuber t ~ ~ (Ge~onidae) us :A new gecko to the fauna of the United States.Southwes~.Nut. 29(4) :499-500. Selcer,K. W, and F. W Judd. 1982, Variation in the re~roductiveecology of HoX~ r o o ~ i ~ ~ ~ (Sauria: o p i n ~Iguanidae). uu "ex. I; Sei. 34(2): 225-35. Sellar&, E. 1940. Pleistocene artifacts and associated fossils from Bee County, Texas, ~ull.Geol. Soc. Am,51 :1627-58. Semken,H. A.,Jr. 1961. Fossil vertebrates from Longhorn Cavern, Burnet County, Texas."ex. J.Sei. 13(3) :290-310. Sever,D.M.1985. Sexually dimorphic glands of ~ u r ~ cnun^, e u ~ u ~ ~neote~es, c e u

818.500.

819.

819.005.

819.006. 819.007. 819.008. 81g.010,

819.020.

819.300. 819.400. 819.500. 819.501. 819.521, 820. 820.050. 820.075.

820.100.

820.110.

820,120.

and ~phZomolge rath~uni (Amphibia:Plethodontidae).~ e r p e ~ o ~ o g41(1) ica : 71-84. Sexton,0. W., P. Jacobson,and J.E. Bramble. 1992.Geographicvariation in some activities associated with ~bernationin Nearctic vipers.In B ~ o l o of g~ the pitv~pers, ed. J. A.Campbell and E.D, Brodie, Jr., 337-45. Tyler, Tex.: Selva. Shannon, F.A.,and H. M. Smith. 1949.Herpetologicalresults of the ~niversity of Illinois fieldexpedition, spring 1949.I. Introduction. Testudines, Serpentes. ~ a n sKans. . Acud. Sei. 52:494--509. Shaver, D. J.1989.Geographicdist~bution.Chelonia m ~ d a s~erpetol, , Rev. 20(I):14. ,1992.Life history notes. ~ e p i d o c h e lk~es~ p iReproduction. . ~erpetol.Rev. 23(2): 59. .1gg4. Relative abundance, temporal patterns, and growth of sea turtles at the Mansfield Channel, Texas. I. ~erpetol,28(4) :491-97. .1995.ICemp’s ridleysea turtles nest in southTexas. Mar ~ r t l~e w s l t r 70:IO--11. ,1996.~ e a d - s t a ~Kemp’s ed ridleyturtles nest in Texas. M a r ~ r t l e Nwsltr 74: 5-7. Shaver, D. S., and A. H. Chaney, 1989.An analysis of unhatched Kemp’s ridley sea turtle eggs. In Procee~ngs of t h e ~ r s~nternationul t s ~ m p o s i ~onm Kemp’sr i ~ e ~ sea turtle ~ j o l o gconservation, ~, andmanageme~t,ed. C. W. Caillouet and A. M. Landry, 82-89. Galveston: TexasA&M ~niversity. Shelton, S, Y.,K, C. Barnett, and M. D, Magruder. 1993.Conservation of a dinosaur trackway exhibit, Coll. ~ o r g(1) u ~:17-26. Shelton,H., and J. Kilton. 1981.~ a t ~ ~ e s n uinkA e s~ e r i c and a a his tor^ of the Sweetwater Ia~ceesratt~esnakeroundup. Sweetwater,Tex.: Shelton Press. e ~ ~ n i ~reptiles z ~ e of western ~ o r t h A ~ e r i c u . Sherbroolce,W. C. 1981.~ o r nlizurds: Globe, hiz,: Southwestern Parks and Monument Association. ,1987.Defense head posture in horned lizards ( ~ h r ~ n o s Sauria: o~a; Iguanidae). So~thwest.Nat. 32(4): 512-15. Sheridan, B. S., G. R. Wilson, and P. J. Weldon, 1989.Aerobic bacteria fro skin of the rattlesn~e,Crotal~satrox. I. ~ e r p e t o23(2) ~ . :200-202. Shields,L. M.,and R. G. Lindborg. 1956.Records of the spineless turtle and the snapping turtle from New Mexico.Copeia 1956(2) : Shine, K.1991.Intersexual dietary divergence and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in snakes. Am. Nut. 138(1):103-22, Sievert, L. M[., and M,A. Paulissen. 1996.Temperature selection and thermor~s regulatory precision of bisexual and partheno~eneticC n e m ~ d o p ~ olizards from southern Texas. I; ~ e r mBiol. . 21(1): 15-20. Sites,J. W. 1980. Chro~osomal,allozyme, and morp~ological ~ ~ i a t i in on three cytotypes of the Seeloporusgram~icuscomplex,Diss, A ~ s t rInt. (B) @(4) : 1181. .1982.Morphological variation within and among three chromosome us Iguanidae) in the ~orth-centralpart of its races of ~celoporusg r a m ~ i ~(Sawia: range, ~ ~ p1982(4) e i ~:920-41. grum~i.1983.Chromosome evolution in the iguanid lizard Sce~opor~s cus, I. Chromosomepol~orphisms, EvoZ~tion37(1):38-53.

Sites,J. W., J. W. Archie, C. J.Cole, and 0.Flores-Villela. 1992. A review of phylogenetic hypothesesfor lizardsof the genus Scelopor~s(Phrynosomatidae):Implications for ecologicaland evolutionary studies. Bull. Am. Mus, Nat. Hist. (213): 1-110. 820.160. Sites,J.W., and D, A.Boyce. 1985. A test for allozyme selection in Sce~opor~s gra~micus(Sauria: Iguanidae). Southwest. Nat. 30(1):41-51. 820.200. Sites,J.W., and J. R. Dixon. 1981. A new subspeciesof the iguanid lizard, Sceloporus gra~micus,from northeastern Mexico, with comments on its evolutionary ) implications and the statusof S. g. ~sparilis.J.~erpetol.I ~ ( I:59-69. 820.210. .1982. Geographicvariation in Sceloporus varia~ilisand its relationship to S. te~pensis(Sauria: Iguanidae). Copeia 1982(1):14-27. 820.220. Sites,J.W., and I. F. Greenbaum. 1983. Chromosomeevolution in the iguanid lizard Scelopor~sgrammicus. II.Allozyme variation, volution 37(1) :54-65. 820.225. Sites,J.W., C. A. Porter, and P. Thompson. 1987. Genetic structure andchromosoma1evolution in the Sceloporus g r u ~ ~ icomplex. c ~ s Natl. Geogr: Res. 3(3): 343-62. 820.235. Sites,J.W., P. Thompson, and C. A. Porter. 1988. Cascadingchromosomalspeciation in lizards: A second look.Pac. Sei. 42(1-2):8 9 -104. 820.300. Sitou-Hsian,M., and H. C. Dessauer. 1972, Selectively neutral mutations, transferrins, and theevolution of natricine snakes. Comp. ~ i o c ~Ph~siol. e ~ . 4.012: 669-80. 820.400. Slater, S. C. 1991.An unusual color pattern. for an eastern hognose snake (HetBull. Chi. Herpetol. Soc. 26(12):267-69. ero~onplat~rhinos~. 820.401. 1995. The reptilesand amphibians of Coleman County, Texas. Bull. Chi. Herpetol. Soc. 30(1):10-11. 821. Slaughter, B. H,, W. W. Creek, R. K.Harris, D. C. Allen, and M,Seifert,1962. The Hill-Shuler localfaunas of the upper Trinity River, Dallas and Denton Counties, Texas. Buv: Econ. Geol. Tex., Rept. Invest. 48:viii-75. 821,100. Slaughter, B. H. 1966. The Moore Pit localfauna: Pleistocene of Texas. J.Paleontol. 40(1): 78-91. 821.110. Slaughter, B. H., and B, R. Hoover. 1963. Occurrence of ichthyosaurian remains in the Cretaceous of Texas. Tex, J.Sei. 15(3):339-43. 821.200. Slaughter, B. H., and W, L. McClure. 1965. The Sims Bayou localfauna: Pleistocene of Houston, Texas. Tex. J.Sei. 17(1):404-17. s western North America. Occas. Pap.Cali$ 821.300. Slevin,J.R. 1928. The ~ p h i b i a nof Acad. Sei. 16 :1-152. 821.305, Small,B, J.1987. Late Triassicaetosaurs from Texas: Their biostratigraphic and taxonomic significance.J,Vert, PaZeontol. 7(3) (suppl.):26A. 1989, Aetosaurs fromthe Upper Triassic DockumFormation, Post 821.307, Quarry, west Texas. In Dawn of the age of the ~inosaursin the erica^ Southwest, ed. S. G. Lucas and A.P. Hunt, 301-308. Albuquerque:New MexicoMuseum of Natural History. 821.309. Small,B, J. 1997. A new procolophonid from the Upper Triassic of Texas, with a descriptionof tooth replacement and implantation.I; Vert. Paleont~l,17(4): 674-78. Smith, A. R., and J.R. Reddell. 1965. The cavesof ICinney County. Tex. SpeZeol. 822. Surv. 2(7) :1-34. 822.001. Srnith, B. E.,A.S. Bridegam, and C. M,Garrett. 1990. Geographicdistribution. Tantilla gracilis. ~erpetol,Rev. 21(2):42.

820.150.

822.010. 822.011.

822.012. 822.020, 822,030, 822.031. 822.041.

822.051.

822.080. 822.100. 822.110, 822.200. 822.300. 822,400. 822.500.

Smith,D. B,, and H. L. Gregory. 1983. Life history notes. E l a p ~subocu~aris, e Coloration. ~erpetul.Rev. 14(2):47. Smith,D. D. 1974. Population structure, growth, and reproduction of two one unisexual and one bisexual. ~erpetol, Rev. 5(3): species of Cnemiaop~orus, 77-78, .1975. Death feigning by the western coachwhip snake. ~erpetol, Rev. 6(4):126. '1983a. Life history notes.Crotap~ytuscollaris (collared lizard). Reproduction, ~erpetol.Rev. 14(2):46. .1983b. Geographicdistribution. ~eroaia ~arteri ~arteri, ~ e r p e t oRev, ~. 14(3):84-85. .1989. A comparison of food habits of sympatric C~emiaop~orus e~sa~g~is and Cnemiaop~orus gularis (Lacertilia, Teiidae). S o u t ~ ~ e sNat. t . 34(3):418-20. synthetase in liver of the Smith,D. D., and J.W. Campbell. 1987. Glutamine P~ysiol.86B(4): American alligator, Alligator mississippiensis,Comp. Bioc~em. 755-62. Smith,D.D., N. A. Loposha, R. Powell, and J. S, Parmerlee. 1985.Life history notes, Crotalus molossus (blacktail rattlesnake). Anomaly. Herpetol. Rev. 16(3):78-79. Smith, D. D., and W,W. Milstead 1971.Stomach analysis of the crevice spiny c a :147-49. lizard (Sceloporuspoinsetti). ~ e r p e t o l o ~ i27(2) Smith, E. N.1979. Behavioraland physiologicalthermoregulation of crocodilians, Am. Zoo16~g:23g-47. ,1980. The alligator population of the Welder Wildlife Refuge from 1972-1978. ~ e l a e~r i lFound, ~ . Symp. I :225-28. and S. R.Adams. 1978. Thermoregulationof small American alliSmith, E. N., gators. ~erpetologicu34(4):406- 408. Smith, E. N.,R. D. Allison, and W E. Crowder. 1974. Bradycardiain a free ranging American Alligator.Copeia 1974(3):770-72. Smith, E. N.,C. R, Johnson, and B, Voight. 1976. Leech infestation of the American alligator in Texas.Copeia 1976(4):842. Smith, E. N.,S. Robertson, and D. G. Davies. 1978. Cutaneous blood flow during heating and cooling in the American alligator.Am. I; P~ysiol.235(3):R16oR167.

823. 824. 825. 826.

827. 828.

Smith, H. M. 1g33a.On the proper name for the brevicipitid frogGastrop~ryne t e ~ e ~ s(Girard), is Copeia 1933(4):217. .1933b. On the relationshipsof the lizards Coleony~brevis and C u ~ e o n ~ ~ variegat~s.Trans. Kans. Acad.Sci. 36:301-14. .1934a. Descriptionsof new lizardsof the genus Seeloporus from Mexico and southern United States. Trans. Kans. Acad. Sci.37: 263-70. .1934b. On the taxonomic status of three species of lizards of the genus Sceloporus from Mexicoand southern United States.Proc. Bid. Soc. as^. 47: 121-34. 1936,The lizardsof the torq~atusgroup of the genus Sceloporus. Univ. Kans. Sci, Bull. 24(21):539-693. .1937a. A new subspecies of the lizard genus Scelopor~sfrom Texas.Proc. Bid. Soc. Wash. 50: 83-86.

829.

I

108.

830.

831.

832. 833.

834. 835. 836.

837. 838.

839. 840. 841,

842. 843. 844. 845.

1g37b. Noteson Scaphiopus hurteriStrecker.Herpetologica 1(4):104-

.1g37c. A synopsisof the variabiZ~sgroup of the lizard genus Seeloporus, with descriptions of new subspecies.Occas. Pap. Mus. 2001. Urziv. Mich. (358) : 1-14. ,1938a.Remarks on the statusof the subspeciesof Scelo~orus u~au~utus, with descriptions of new species and subspeciesof the unaulatus group. Occas. Pap.Mus. Zool. Univ. ~ i c h(387) , :1-17. .1938b. A review of the snake genus ~aruncia.Copeia 1938(3):110-17. ' 1 9 3 8 ~Additions . to the herpetofauna of Mexico. Copeia 1938(3): 149-50. ,1938d. Notes on thesnakes of the genus Sa~vaaora.Univ Kans. Sei. Bull. 25(12):229-37. .1g3g. The Mexicanand Central American lizardsof the genus Sceloporus. Field Mus,Nut. Hist, Zool. Sex 26: 1-397. .1g41a. A reviewof the subspeciesof the indigo snake ~ ~ r ~ ~ a r c h o n corais). J ash. Acad. Sei. 31(11):466-81, rgqrb. Notes on the snake genus T r ~ ~ o r p h ~ aProc. o n . US. Natl. M ~ s . 91: 149-68. .1g4za. Mexican herpetological miscellany.Proc. US. Natl, Mus. 92 : 349-95. -1g42b. Remarks on theMexican kingsnakes of the triangulu~group. Proc. ~ o c ~ e s tAcad. e r Sei. 8 :196-207. .1942c. A resume of Mexican snakes of the genus Tantilla. Zoologicu 27(7):33-42. .1g42d, The s y n o n ~ m of ~the garter snalces ~ T h a ~ n o p ~with i s ) ,notes on Mexican and Central American species.Zoologica 27(3- 4) :97-123. .1g42e, A new name for a UnitedStates skink, Proc. ne^ Engl. Zool, Club 2 1 : 93-95. .1g44. Snakes of the Hoogstral expeditionsto northern Mexico. ~ ~ e l a Mus, Nat. Hist, Zool. Sev: 29:139-52. .1946a. Han~book of lizards, Ithaca, N.Y.: Comstock~ u b ~ s h i Co. ng Baird. Univ, Kans. Sei. Bull. .1946b. The status of Sceloporus~ori~nus 31:103-106.

846.

, 1 9 4 6 ~Neoteny . in Texas sala~anders.Proc. Trans, Tex. Acad. Sei, 30:59-60 (abstr.),

847. 848,

849. 850. 851.

1946d. The map turtles of Texas. Proc. Trans, Tex. Acad. Sei. 30 :60 (abstr.) .1946e. The systematicstatus of E u ~ e c ~ s p ~ uCope, v ~ ~and i s note~orthy records of other amphibians and reptiles from Kansas and Oklahoma. Univ Kuns. P u ~Mus. ~ . Nut. Hist. 1(2):85-89. .1947a. Herpetological papersin some TexasJournals. ~ ~ r p e t o l o g ~ c u 3(5):179-82. .1g47b. Pseuaacris clarki and E! n, triser~utain Texas. Herpetologica 3(5):183-84. .1947c. Subspecies of the Sonoran toad (Bufo co~pactilis~ i e g m a n n ) . Herpetologica 4(1):7-13.

852. 853. 853.001, 853.002. 853.050.

854. 854.075. 855. 856, 857. 858.

,1951. The identity of the ophidian name Colu~eregues Reuss. Copeia 1951(2):138-40. 1953. Case history of a snake with a irregurgitable artificial egg.Herpetolo~icag(2): 93-95 sexZi~eatusv i r i ~ sHer. -1993. Geographicdistribution. C~e~idophorus petoz. Rev. 24(2) :66. 199.1.. Ottys Elone Sanders:A multitalented maverick scientist. Bull. Md. Herpetol. Soc. 30(1):33-47. converSmith, H.M., B. L.Bell, J.S. Applegarth, and D. Chiszar. 1992. Adaptive gence in the lizard superspeciesSceZoporus u~dulatus.Bull. Md. Herpetol. Soc. 28(4): 123-49. Smith, H. M., and B. C. Brown. 1946a. The identityof certain specific names in T h u ~ ~ o p h Herpetologicu is, 3(3):71-72. Smith, H.M., and E.D. Brodie, Jr. 1982. A guide to~eZd ide~t~cation. Reptiles of North A ~ e r i c uNew , York: GoldenPress. (LeConte)in Texas. Herpetologica 3(3):73. ,1946b. Ra~apalustr~s .1947. The Texas subspecies of the tree frog, Hgla versicolo~Proc. Biol. SOC.~ u s h60: . 47-50. Smith, H.M., and S. 0.Brown. 1946. A hitherto neglected integumen.tarygland in theTexas tortoise.Proc. ~ u n sTex. . Acud. Sei, 30: 59 (abstr.). Smith, H. M., and H.K.Buechner. 1947. The influence of the Balcones Escarpment on thedistribution of amphibians and reptiles in Texas. Bull. Chi. Acad. Sci. I

8(1):1-16.

Smith, H. M., and W. L. Burger. 1947. The banded water snake, Nutri~sipedon fasciata, in Texas. Chi. h a d . Sci, Nut, Hist. Misc. 11 :I. 860. .1949. The identityof A ~ e i v atesselZata Say. Bull, Chi. Acud. Sci, 8(13): 277-84. 860,011. Smith, H,M,, and D. Chiszar. 1993.Apparent integration in. Texasbetween the dulcis~.Bull. Md. ~erpetoZ.Soc. subspeciesof the Texas blindsnake ~~eptotgphlops 29(4):143-55. 860.012. .1gg4a. Variation in the lined snake ~ T r ~ p ~ d o c Z~o ~i i~o ~e aint unorthern ~ ~ Texas. Bull. Md.Herpetol. Soc. 30(1):6-14. 860.013. .1gg4.b. Geographicdistribution. SceZoporuso~vaceus.Herpetol. Rev. 25(2):76. 860.014. .1gg7. New records foramphibians and reptiles from Texas. Herpetoz. Rev. 28(2):99-100. 860.015. Smith, H. M,, D. Chiszar,and J.A.Lemos-Espinal. 1995. A new subspecies ofthe polytypic lizard speciesSceloporus u~duZutus(Sauria:Iguanidae) from northern Mexico. Tex. J. Sci, 47(2):117-43. 860,016. Smith, H. M., D. Chiszar,J. X.Lemos-Espinal,and E. L. Bell. 1995.The Cabeza de . Acud. Sci. Vaca Basinsubspeciesof the lizard Sceloporusu~duZatus.T r a ~ sKans. 98(1-2):44-60. 860.017. Smith, H.NI.,D. Chiszar,and W. Marmie. 1991. Peripheral variation in the lizard Sceloporusolivaceus and its hybrid~ationwith S, undulatus. Bull. Md. ~erpetol. SOC.27(3): 128-45. 860,018. Smith, H. M,, D. Chiszar,and R.B, Smith. 1983. Comparisonof regional taxonomic densities.Bull. Philu. Herpetol. Soc. 29 :9-13. 860.019, Smith, H.M.,D. Chiszar,J. R. Staley 11, and E;, Tepedelen. 1994.~opulationalre859.

lationshipsin the corn snake E l a p ~guttata e (Reptilia:Serpentes).Tex. J.Sei. 46(3): 259-92. 860.030. Smith, H. M,, and J.R. Dixon. 1987.The amphibians and reptiles of Texas: A guide to records needed for Mexico. Bull. Md. Herpetol. Soc. 23(4): 154-57. J. R. Dixon, H. K. McCrystal, and D. Chiszar. 1996.Relative prior860.100. Smith, H. M*, ity of names for membersof the eastern and central spotted whiptail lineages of the lizard genus Cne~idophorusin North America. Herpeto~.Rev. 27(3): 129-30. 861. Smith, H. M., and B. F. Glass. 1947.A new muskturtle from the southeastern United States.J. was^. Acad. Sei. 37(1):22-24. 862. Smith, H. M., and J.P. Kennedy. 1951.~ituophis ~elanoleucus rut~veni in eastern Texas and its bearing on the status of E! c a t e n ~ ~erpetologica e~ 7(3) :93-96. 862,500, Smith, H, M., and A. J.Kohler. 1977.A survey of herpetologicalintroductions in the United States and Canada. Trans. Kans, h a d . Sei. 80(1-2):1-24. 862.525. Smith, H. M., D. A. Langbartel,and IC.L. Williams. 1964.Type-specimens in the University of Illinois Museumof Natural History. IZl, Biol. nog^ (32) :1-80. Smith, H. M,, and F, E. Potter, Jr. 1946.A third neotenic salamander of the genus 863. ~ u r ~ cfrom e a Texas.Herpeto~og~ca 3(4) :105-109. Smith, H. M.,and L. W, Ramsey. 1952.A new turtle from Texas.~ a s s 1.~ a ~ ~ 864. Bid, IO(I):45-54. 865. Smith, H. M., and 0. Sanders. 1952a.Distributionaldata on Texas amphibians and reptiles. Tex. I. Sei. 4(2):204-19. 866. r ~erpetolog~ca 8(3) :93. 1g52b.Terrapene carolinu~ a ~inoArkansas. 867. Smith, H. M.,and J.A. Slater. 1949.The southern races of ~ u ~ e cseptentriones 48. alis. Trans. Kans. Acad,Sei. 52:438e t ~1802 a (Reptilia, Ser867.500. Smith, H. M.,and R,B. Smith. 1979.Colu~erc ~ ~ a ~Shaw, pentes):Revived proposal for suppression under the plenary powers A.N. (S.) 1704.BUK Z d . No~enCl.35(3): 184-86. 868, Smith, H. M., and E. H. Taylor.1941.A reviewof the snakes of the genus ~ i c i ~ i a . 1.Wash. Acad. Sei. 31(8):356-68. 869. .1945.An annotated checklist and key to the snakes of Mexico. US. Natl. &fUS. Bull. 187: 1-239. 870. .1948.An annotated checklist and key to the amphibia of Mexico. US. Natl. Mus. Bull. 194:1-118. 871. .1950a.Type localitiesof Mexican reptilesand amphibians. Univ. Kans. Sei. Bull, 33:313-79. .1g5ob.An annotated checklist and key to the reptiles of Mexico exclu872. sive of the snakes. US. Natl. Mus, Bull. 199: 1-253. 872.230. Smith, H. M., F. van Breukelen, D, L. Auth, and D, Chiszar. 1998.A subspeciesof ~ ~ o pwithout s supraoculars. Southwest. the Texas blindsnake ~ ~ e p t o t ~ pdulcis) Nat. 43(4):437-40. 872.500. Smith, H. M., and J.E. Werler. 1969.The status of the northernred black-headed snake, Tantil~a~ a ~ oFouquette la and Porter. J Herpetol, 3(3-4): 172-73. 873.050. Smith,J.R,, 0,W. Thornton, and J.R. Dixon. 1996.Geographicdistribution. H e ~ i d a c t ~ lturcicus. us Herpetol.Rev. 27(1) :32. 873.060. Smith,J.R., C. Brown, and 0. W. Thornton. 1996a.Geographicdistribution. Nerodia harte~ipauci~aculata. Her~etol. Rev. 27(1) :35.

873,061. 873.200. 873.220. 8 74.

874.500. 875.

875.500. 876. 877. 878. 878.125. 878.150. 878.300.

878.310. 878,350. 878.500.

879. 880. 881. 881.050. 881.200. 882,

883.

.1996b. Geographicdistribution.Apalune mutica ~ u t i c aHerpetol, , Rev. 27(1):31. Smith, N. M.,and W. W. Tanner. 1972. Two new subspecies of Crutaph~tus (Sauria: Iguanidae). Great BasinNut, 32(1j :25-34. .1974. A taxonomic study of the western collared lizards,Crutaph~tuscollaris and Crotaph~tus insu~aris.Brigham Young Univ.Sei. Bull. 19(4j :1-29. Smith, P. W. 1956. Extensionsof the known range of the flat-headed snake. Herpetulogicu 12(4):327. .1966. Pseudacris streckeri. Cat,Am. Amphib. Rept. 27.1-27.2. and W. L. Burger. 1950. Herpetologicalresults of the University Smith, P. W., of Illinois fieldexpedition,spring 1949.111. Sauria, Trans. Kans. Acad. Sei. 53 : 165-75. Smith, P. W., and L. M.Page. 1972. Repeated mating of a copperheadand timber rattlesnake. Herpetul. Rev. 4(2):196. Smith, P. W., and D. M. Smith. 1952. The relationship of the chorus frogs, Pseudacris ~ g r i t a f e r i a r u and ~ Pseudacris n. triseriutu. Am.~ iNut. ~ 48(1),:165-80. Smith, P. W., and H. M.Smith. 1952. Geographicvariation in the lizard Eumeces anthracinus. Unix I