Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Herpetology Notes”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS1987

Additions to the reptile fauna of Paraguay with notes on a small herpetological collection from Amambay

Specimens in a small collections of reptiles and amphibians from Parque Nacional Cerro Cora, Departamento Amambay, Paraguay are reported. Included are the first records of Bachia bresslaui, Phrynops gibbus, and Ololygon fuscomarginata for that country. Brief notes on morphology, distribution, and natural history of species collected are included. The systematic status of Phrynops tuberculatus vanderhaegei is evaluated.

Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment↗
USGS2020

Egg counts of Southern Leopard Frog, Lithobates sphenocephalus, egg masses from southern Louisiana, USA

Southern Leopard Frogs, Lithobates sphenocephalus (Cope, 1889), lay eggs year-round in their southern range, including Louisiana, but their peak breeding season is the cooler months from late fall through early spring (Mount, 1975; Caldwell, 1986; Dundee and Rossman, 1989). Double-enveloped eggs in globular masses are typically deposited in shallow water, but deeper waters are used when temperatures are warmer (Dodd, 2013). Egg masses are often attached to vegetation when present but may also lie free on the substrate (Dundee and Rossman, 1989; Dodd, 2013). Egg masses may be deposited singly, but are often found communally, with hundreds of egg masses in a small area (Dundee and Rossman, 1989; Trauth, 1989). Communal laying in Southern Leopard Frogs may be an adaptative response to cold temperatures (Caldwell, 1986), as has been noted in congeners (Waldman and Ryan, 1983).

Louisiana↗
USGS2015

Reproductive biology of Ambystoma salamanders in the southeastern United States

Reproductive aspects of Ambystoma salamanders were investigated at sites in Louisiana (2010&ndash;12) and Mississippi (2013). Three species occurred at the Louisiana site, Spotted Salamander ( A. maculatum ), Marbled Salamander ( A. opacum ), and Mole Salamander ( A. talpoideum ), whereas only Spotted Salamanders were studied at the Mississippi site. A total of 162 and 71 egg masses of Spotted Salamanders were examined at the Louisiana and Mississippi sites, respectively. Significantly more Spotted Salamander eggs per egg mass were observed at the Mississippi site (x̄ = 78.2) than the Louisiana site (x̄ = 53.8; P < 0.001). The mean snout&ndash;vent length of female Spotted Salamanders at the Mississippi site (82.9 mm) was significantly larger than the Louisiana site (76.1 mm; P < 0.001). Opaque Spotted Salamander egg masses were not found at the Mississippi site, but accounted for 11% of examined egg masses at the Louisiana site. The mean number of eggs per egg mass at the Louisiana site did not differ between opaque (47.3) and clear (54.6) egg masses (P = 0.21). A total of 47 egg masses of the Mole Salamander were examined, with a mean number of 6.7 embryos per mass. Twenty-three individual nests of the Marbled Salamander were found either under or in decaying logs in the dry pond basins. There was no difference between the mean numbers of eggs per mass of attended nests (93.0) versus those that were discovered unattended (86.6; P = 0.67). Females tended to place their nests at intermediate heights within the pond basin.

Louisiana, Mississippi↗
USGS2015

Comment on Spracklandus Hoser, 2009 (Reptilia, Serpentes, ELAPIDAE): request for confirmation of availability of the generic name and for the nomenclatural validation of the journal in which it was published (Case 3601; BZN 70:234–237; 71:30–38; 133-135,181-182 ,252-253)

In Case 3601 Raymond Hoser has asked the Commission to validate for the purposes of nomenclature the name Spracklandus Hoser, 2009, and &lsquo;the journal in which it was published,&rsquo; issue 7 of the Australasian Journal of Herpetology (AJH). We note that the entire run of AJH has been written, edited, and published solely by Hoser. Although his requests to the Commission were presented as narrow and, in his words, &lsquo;routine matters,&rsquo; we are convinced that they represent an important tipping-point with broad implications of major concern for zoological taxonomy and nomenclature as a whole and, by extension, the greater scientific community. Since Hoser&rsquo;s actions and works have failed to follow scientific best practices (e.g. Turtle Taxonomy Working Group, 2007, 2014; Kaiser et al., 2013; Kaiser, 2014) and both the Commission&rsquo;s general Recommendations and Code of Ethics in Appendix A, the global herpetological community has widely rejected his taxonomic decisions and resultant nomenclature. This has unfortunately caused a confusing dual nomenclature to develop in the herpetological community, with most boycotting or ignoring Hoser&rsquo;s 700+ new names coined in the AJH, while he and a few personal followers actively promote their usage. We believe that suppression of the name Spracklandus , and all issues of AJH, is the only effective way to bring this contentious and confusing issue to resolution. The plenary power available under Article 81.1 of the Code exist specifically to allow the Commission to make rulings in individual cases that disturb stability and cause confusion, whether the works are Code-compliant or not. We maintain that it is in the interest of nomenclatural stability, not only for herpetology, but for all of zoological taxonomy, that the plenary power be invoked to declare the works in AJH unavailable, regardless of any narrow interpretation of their technical Code-compliance. We present our arguments for rejection of the validity of AJH in the following commentary. In view of the wide-reaching implications of this case for all of zoology, and reflecting the deep and broad-based community concern over these issues, our contributing authors include 70 global scientific leaders and accomplished amateurs from a wide variety of zoological disciplines.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature↗