jon davis arizona game and fish department - wildlife ... (andrias davidianus). photo by yonggang...

SONORANHERPETOLOGIST24(11)2011 109

Volume24 Number11November2011

h e r p e t o f a u n a o f t h e 1 0 0 - m i l e c i r c l e

110 “ArizonaTreefrog,Hyla wrightorumTaylor,1939”byRobertL.Bezy,KitB.Bezy,KathrynBolles,andErikF.Enderson

e l e c t i o n s

114 2012TucsonHerpetologicalSocietyElections:ListofCandidates

n a t u r a l h i s t o r y n o t e s

115 “PhainopeplaandBlack-headedGrosbeakintheDietoftheWesternDiamond-backedRattlesnake(Crotalus atrox)inArizona”byJamesC.Rorabaugh

117 “LoggerheadShrike(Lanius ludovicianus)predationonaPacificGopherSnake(Pituophis catenifer catenifer)”byHowardO.Clark,Jr.

p r e s s r e l e a s e

119 CourtSlamsForestService’sRefusaltoMonitorSouthwesternEndangeredSpecies

n e x t m o n t h ’ s s p e a k e r

TBD

Tuesday,20December

TucsonHerpetologicalSocietymeetingsareopentothepublic

andareheldonthethirdTuesdayofeachmonthstartingat7:15PM

JonDavis

ArizonaGameandFishDepartment-WildlifeManagementDivision

ConfrontingcontemporaryconservationchallengesfromMemphistomainlandChina

7:15PMTuesday,15November

UniversityofArizona,BIO5/KeatingBuilding1657EastHelenStreet

Dr. Jon Davis holding a large adult chinese Giant sala-mander (Andrias davidianus). photo by yonggang nie.

Jon Davis began studying Arizona herps as an undergraduate at Northern Arizona Uni-versity where he met Erika Nowak and began volunteering on her projects. Jon completed his dissertation at Arizona State University in 2008 where he worked in Dale DeNardo’s laboratory and studied the environmental physiology of the Gila Monster (Heloderma suspectum), which he previously presented at THS in spring of 2007.

Jon spent 2008-2011 in Memphis, Tennes-see, as a postdoc with a dual appointment at Rhodes College and the Memphis Zoo where he developed a broad amphibian conserva-tion research program that took him from downtown Memphis to the remote moun-tains of China. Jon is now back in Arizona for good and is a Wildlife Specialist for the Arizona Game and Fish Department Wildlife Management Division.

t h i s m o n t h ’ s s p e a k e r


ArizonaTreefrog,Hyla wrightorumTaylor,1939Robert L. Bezy, NaturalHistoryMuseumofLosAngelesCounty,LosAngeles,CA,USA; [email protected] Kit B. Bezy and Kathryn Bolles, TucsonHerpetologicalSocietyErik F. Enderson,DrylandsInstitute,Tucson,AZ,USA; [email protected]

The Sierra Madre Occidental and the Sonoran and Chihua-huan deserts usually take center stage in discussions of the biogeography of southern Ari-zona’s herpetofauna. Surpris-ingly, two species found in the region, the Canyon Treefrog (Hyla arenicolor) and the Arizona Treefrog (H. wrightorum), were considered in the 1960s to have close biogeographic affinities with the herpetofauna of the Pacific coast. This was the heyday of taxonomy based on overall similarity, and there is a general resemblance of Ari-zona’s boulder-adapted Canyon Treefrog (H. arenicolor) to its analog, the California Treefrog (Pseudacris cadaverina) and of the vegetation adapted Arizona Treefrog (H. wrightorum, Figures 1-4) to members of the Pacific Treefrog complex (P. regilla complex, Figures 5-6). But these are recurrent ecomorphic themes among treefrogs (Hylidae).

When E. H. Taylor described the Arizona Tree-frog in 1939 he considered it to be most similar to the Pacific Treefrog. In a study of geographic varia-tion in external measurements, Jameson et al. (1966) concluded that the Arizona Treefrog was a subspecies of the Pacific Treefrog and coined the combination H. regilla wrightorum. But eight years later, genetic data entered the picture in the form of immunological distances, and Maxson and Wilson (1974) announced in the pages of Science that the similarity of the Ari-zona Treefrog to the Pacific Treefrog is the result of evolutionary convergence, and that its nearest relative is the Mountain Treefrog (Hyla eximia) of Mexico. Subsequent analyses using allozymes and nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences (Case et al. 1975, Hedges 1986, Barber 1999, Faivovich et al. 2005, Hua et al 2009, Wiens et al. 2010) have upheld this conclu-sion and place the Arizona Treefrog in the Hyla eximia species group that includes the Canyon Treefrog (H. arenicolor). Analyses of DNA sequences also indicate that a parallel relationship exists among the Pacific species, with the boulder-adapted California Treefrog (P. cadaverina) comprising the nearest relative of the Pacific Treefrog complex (P. regilla complex; Moriarity and Cannatella 2004, Recuero et al. 2006a, 2006b) and place these species in Pseudacris (chorus frogs) rather

TheSierraMadreOccidentalandtheSonoranandChihuahuandesertsusuallytakecenterstageindiscussionsofthebiogeographyofsouthernArizona’sherpetofauna.Surprisingly,twospeciesfoundintheregion,theCanyonTreefrog(Hyla arenicolor)andtheArizonaTreefrog(H. wrightorum),wereconsideredinthe1960stohaveclosebiogeographicaffinitieswiththeherpetofaunaofthePacificcoast.

h e r p e t o f a u n a o f t h e 1 0 0 - m i l e c i r c l e

than Hyla (Holarctic treefrogs). The several studies of nuclear and mitochondrial markers appear to be largely congruent, reveal remarkable instances of convergent evolution, and confirm that the biogeographic affini-ties of the treefrogs of southern Arizona are with the herpetofauna of the Sierra Madre Occidental rather than the Pacific coast.

The advertisement call of the Arizona Treefrog was first studied by Blair (1960). He found it to be similar to that of the Squirrel Treefrog (Hyla squirella) and certain populations of the Mountain Treefrogs (Hyla eximia). He found large differences in pulse rate among populations of the Mountain Treefrog, with rates of less than 50 pulses/second (slow eximia) in the states of Jalisco, Morelos, Mexico, and Tlaxcala; and rates greater than 100 pulses/second (fast eximia) in Michoacan. He concluded that H. eximia may include more than one species and that H. wrightorum calls resemble fast eximia from Michoacan rather than slow eximia from near the type locality in Valley of Mexico. He rejected the combination Hyla eximia wrightorum listed by Schmidt (1953), and recognized Hyla wrighto-rum as a separate species.

In an unpublished dissertation, Renaud (1977) found that H. wrightorum differs from H. eximia of southern Mexico in body shape and size and in domi-nant frequency of advertisement calls, and concluded that the two represent distinct species.

Sullivan (1986) studied the advertisement calls of Hyla wrightorum at Baker Lake, Coconino Co., Arizona.

figure 1. arizona treefrog (Hyla wrightorum), cochise co., arizona. the dark eye stripe extends beyond the shoulder.

photo by erik f. enderson.


He found dominant frequency to be negatively cor-related with male body size. Males found in amplexus were not significantly larger than non-mating males, and there was no significant correlation between sizes of males and females for pairs in amplexus. Mating success of males appears to be unrelated to size. The advertisement calls of H. wrightorum differ from those of Hyla eximia in having a higher pulse rate and shorter call duration.

Although Duellman (1970) considered H. wrighto-rum to be conspecific with H. eximia based on tadpole and adult morphology and on variation in advertise-ment calls, more recently he concluded that the two represent separate species, mapping H. wrightorum south into southern Chihuahua separated by a dis-tributional gap from H. eximia in southern Durango (Duellman 2001).

Gergus et al. (2004) found that H. wrightorum in Arizona differed substantially in al-lozymes and mitochondrial sequences from H. eximia from the Distrito Federal, Mexico and concluded that they represent separate evo-lutionary species.

A thorough study of variation throughout the range of H. eximia is needed to determine whether it includes several cryptic species and to clarify their relationship to H. wrightorum. Additional data also may elu-cidate the findings by Barber (1999) that mitochondrial DNA from three populations of H. arenicolor from the

Pinaleño Mts., Graham Co, have a closer phylogenetic relationship with H. eximia from Estado de Mexico than with other Canyon Treefrogs.

Geographic variation in advertisement calls, allozymes, and mitochon-drial DNA sequences of the Arizona Treefrog was examined by Gergus et al. (2004). For all populations as a group, temperature significantly influenced pulse rate and call dura-tion, whereas snout-vent length influenced dominant frequency. Size-adjusted dominant frequency and temperature-adjusted call

duration differed significantly among populations. However, no significant differences were found among the populations in temperature-adjusted pulse rate, which is considered the most important call compo-nent for mate recognition. The authors conclude that over-all variation in call parameters among populations of the species probably are not biologically significant. Divergence in allozymes among the populations was found to be low, with no fixed differences. A unique cytochrome b haplotype was found to be fixed in the populations in the Huachuca Mts. and Canelo Hills, although the three population clusters (Mogollon Rim, Huachuca/Canelo, and Sonora) have approximately equal overall divergence in the cytochrome b fragment sequenced. The authors conclude that the levels of divergence in allozymes, mitochondrial DNA, and advertisement call parameters suggest that the three

figure 2. arizona treefrog (Hyla wrightorum), cochise co., arizona. photo by kit B. Bezy.

figure 3. arizona treefrog (Hyla wrightorum), cochise co., arizona. photo by erik f. enderson.

Geographicvariationinadvertisementcalls,allozymes,andmitochondrialDNAsequencesoftheArizonaTreefrogwasexaminedbyGergusetal.(2004).Forallpopulationsasagroup,temperaturesignificantlyinfluencedpulserateandcallduration,whereassnout-ventlengthinfluenceddominantfrequency.


population clusters may have become isolated rela-tively recently (late Pleistocene), and they refrain from recommending that they be given formal taxonomic recognition.

Chapel (1939) found that in central Arizona the species breeds from 2 July to 9 August primarily in shallow grassy temporary ponds, but occasionally in permanent lakes. He reported that he heard the frogs calling from trees on sultry days, found several in wells 20 feet deep, and observed individuals jarred loose from felled trees, some up to 75 feet above the base. Examinations of stomach contents of 7 individuals from near Williams revealed beetles, earthworms, a fly, and a spider. Three of the seven had fed on bark beetles (Ips).

Zweifel (1961) described and illustrated larval Arizona Treefrogs hatched in the lab from an egg mass collected on 24 June in Greenlee Co. (8 mi SW Alpine, Apache Co.). The tadpoles hatched at stage 20 with a total length of 4.9 - 5.2 mm and attained a maximum total length of 38 mm and body length of 12.7 mm. Mouth parts were found to be similar to those of other North American species of Hyla.

Sredl and Collins (1992) studied the effects of predation by Arizona Tiger Salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium nebu-losum) on H. wrightorum tadpoles using field enclosures in a lake in Coconino County. They found when salamanders were absent, survival of treefrog larvae was nearly five times greater than when two or four salamanders were in an enclosure.

Goldberg et al. (1996) examined 53 specimens of H. wrightorum and found that they harbored 3 spe-cies of helminth parasites (1 cestode, 2 nematodes). They conclude that for Arizona species, the helminth

communities found in treefrogs appear to be depauperate and, with the exception of ubiquitous larval physalopterans, are mutu-ally exclusive of those found in toads.

Gergus et al. (2005) provide a very useful summary of the literature on the species, including a number of unpublished works (Renaud 1977, Holm and Lowe 1995, Collins 1996, Gergus 1999).

In Arizona the species occurs in Petran Montane Coniferous Forest from Williams (Coconino Co.) southeast along the Mo-gollon Rim to Alpine (Apache

Co.) and Hannagan Meadow (Greenlee Co.), and in Madrean Evergreen Woodland in the Huachuca Mts. (Cochise Co.) and Canelo Hills (Santa Cruz Co.; Gergus et al. 2005; Figure 7). Published distributional records for the species in Arizona include localities in the White Mts. at 8 mi SW Alpine (Zweifel 1961), 7 mi N Hannagan Meadow (Gergus et al. 2005), Greenlee Co.; 11 mi S Springerville (Taylor 1938), Bog Creek, McNary (Blair 1960), Apache Co; Pinetop (Chapel 1939), Navajo Co.; west along the base of the Mogol-lon Rim to Pine and Strawberry (Sullivan 1986), Gila Co.; and above the rim at Lake One (Sredl and Collins 1992), Lee Johnson Spring (Williams and Chrapliwy 1958), Baker Lake (Sullivan 1986), Hart Canyon (Cha-pel 1939), 12 mi N Flagstaff, Jones Crossing (Gergus et al. 2005), and Williams (Chapel 1939), Coconino Co. Isolated populations occur in the Sierra Ancha (Ger-gus et al. 2005), Gila Co., the Huachuca Mts (Taylor 1939), Cochise Co., and Canelo (Gergus et al. 2005), Santa Cruz Co.

figure 4. arizona treefrog (Hyla wrightorum), cochise co., arizona. Brown color variant. photo by erik f. enderson.

figure 5. Baja california treefrog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca) of the pacific treefrog (P. regilla) complex, once considered to be

the nearest relative of the arizona treefrog. Brown color variant. the eye stripe ends on the shoulders and a distinctive dark tri-

angle usually is present between the eyes. mohave co., arizona. photo by erik f. enderson.

Chapel(1939)foundthatincentralArizonathespeciesbreedsfrom2Julyto9Augustprimarilyinshallowgrassytemporaryponds,butoccasionallyinpermanentlakes.Hereportedthatheheardthefrogscallingfromtreesonsultrydays,foundseveralinwells20feetdeep,andobservedindividualsjarredloosefromfelledtrees,someupto75feetabovethebase.


The species is the official “Arizona State Amphib-ian”. The genus is named for Hylas, a figure in ancient Greek religion who was kid-napped by nymphs from the spring of Pegae. The species is named for Anna Allen Wright and Albert Hazen Wright, a rare herpetological combination of a matronym and patronym.

On a personal note, in August 1989 at the South-western Research Station, R.L.B. presented Charles Lowe with a live Arizona Treefrog from the White Mts. The frog was in a gal-lon bottle with a wet clump of grass from the same locality. Dr. Lowe, always fascinated with ecological relationships, pointed out that the grass was the same species found around the ponds in the Huachuca Mts. where the treefrog breeds. Waxing poetic, he said, “Bob, wherever we may be down the road of life, we will always be watching Hyla wrightorum calling from that grass.” Indeed, his predictions proved accurate, and the authors have spent many delightful hours ob-serving, listening to, and photographing these magnifi-cent frogs around the grassy ponds of the Huachuca Mountains.

Literature Cited

Barber, P. H. 1999. Phylogeography of the Canyon Treefrog, Hyla arenicolor (Cope) based on mito-chondrial DNA sequence data. Molecular Ecology 8:547-56.

Blair, W. F. 1960. Mating call as evidence of relations in the Hyla eximia group. Southwestern Naturalist 5:129-135.

Case, S. M., P. G. Haneline, and M. F. Smith . 1975. Protein variation in several species of Hyla. System-atic Zoology 24: 281-295.

Chapel, W. L. 1959. Field notes on Hyla wrightorum Taylor. Copeia 1939:225-227.

Collins, J. P. 1996. A status survey of three species of endangered/sensitive amphibians in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Pro-gram, Project Report, Number I92014, Phoenix, Arizona.

Duellman, W. E. 1970. The hylid frogs of Middle America, Volume 2. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

Duellman, W. E. 2001. The hylid frogs of Middle America. Expanded edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, St. Louis, Missouri.

Faivovich, J., C. F. B. Haddad, P. C. A. Garcia, D. R. Frost, J. A. Campbell, and W. C. Wheeler. 2005. Systematic review of the frog family Hylidae, with special reference to Hylinae: a phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 294:1-240.

Gergus, E.W.A. 1999. Geographic variation in hylid frogs of southwestern North America: taxonomic and population genetic implications. Ph.D. disserta-tion. Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

Gergus, E. W. A., T. W. Reeder, and B. K. Sullivan. 2004. Geographic variation in Hyla wrightorum: advertisement calls, allozymes, mtDNA, and mor-phology. Copeia 2004:758-769.

figure 6. Baja california treefrog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca). Green color variant. mohave co., arizona. photo by erik f.

enderson.

figure 7. Distributionof the arizona treefrog (Hyla wrightorum) in arizona.

Thespeciesistheofficial“ArizonaStateAmphibian”.ThegenusisnamedforHylas,afigureinancientGreekreligionwhowaskidnappedbynymphsfromthespringofPegae.ThespeciesisnamedforAnnaAllenWrightandAlbertHazenWright,arareherpetologicalcombinationofamatronymandpatronym.


Gergus, E. W. A., J. E. Wallace, and B. K. Sullivan. 2005. Hyla wrightorum: (eximia) Taylor, 1938(a) Arizona Tree-frog. Pages 461-463 in: M.J. Lannoo (ed), Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Goldberg, S. R., C. R. Bursey, E. W. A. Gergus, B. K. Sul-livan and Q. A. Truong. 1996. Helminths from three treefrogs, Hyla arenicolor, Hyla wrightorum, and Pseudacris triseriata (Hylidae) from Arizona. Journal of Parasitol-ogy 82:833-835.

Hedges, S. B. 1986. An electrophoretic analysis of Holarc-tic frog evolution. Systematic Zoology 35:1-21.

Holm, P. A. and C. H. Lowe. 1995. Status and conserva-tion of sensitive herpetofauna in the Madrean riparian habitat of Scotia Canyon, Huachuca Mountains, Ari-zona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Technical Report, Phoenix, Arizona.

Hua, X., C. Fu, J. Li, A. Nieto Montes de Oca, and J. J. Wiens. 2009. A revised phylogeny of Holarctic Tree-frogs (genus Hyla) based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Herpetologica 65:246-259.

Jameson, D. L., J. P. Mackey, and R. C. Richmond. 1966. The sytematics of the Pacific Tree Frog, Hyla regilla. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 33:551-620.

Maxson, L. R. and A. C. Wilson. 1974. Convergent morphological evolution detected by studying proteins of treefrogs in the Hyla eximia species group. Science 185:66–68.

Moriarity, E. C., and D. C. Cannatella. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships of the North American chorus frogs (Pseudacris: Hylidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 30:409-420.

Recuero, E., Í. Martínez-Solano, G. Parra-Olea, and M. García-París. 2006a. Phylogeography of Pseudacris regilla (Anura: Hylidae) in western North America, with a proposal for a new taxonomic rearrangement. Molecu-lar Phylogenetics and Evolution 39: 293-304.

Recuero, E., Í. Martínez-Solano, G. Parra-Olea, and M. García-París. 2006b. Corrigendum to “Phylogeogra-phy of Pseudacris regilla (Anura: Hylidae) in western North America, with a proposal for a new taxonomic rearrangement” [Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 39 (2006) 293-304]. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 41: 511.

Renaud, M. 1977. Polymorphic and polytypic variation in the Arizona treefrog (Hyla wrightorum). Ph.D. disserta-tion. Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

Schmidt K. P. 1953. A Check List of North American Amphibians and Reptiles. Sixth edition. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists and University of Chicago Press, Illinois,

Sredl, M. J., and J. P. Collins. 1992. The interaction of predation, competition, and habitat complex-ity in structuring an amphibian community. Copeia 1992:607-614.

Sullivan, B. K. 1986. Advertisement call variation in the Arizona treefrog, Hyla wrightorum Taylor, 1938. Great Basin Naturalist 46:378-381.

Taylor, E. H. 1939 [“1938’]. Frogs of the Hyla eximia group in Mexico, with descriptions of two new spe-cies. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 25:421-445.

Wiens, J. J., C. A., Kuczynski, X. Hua, and D. S. Moen. 2010. An expanded phylogeny of treefrogs (Hylidae) based on nuclear and mitochondrial sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 55:871-882.

Williams, K. E., and P. S. Chrapliwy. 1958. Selected records of amphibians and reptiles from Arizona. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Sciences 61:299-301.

Zweifel, R.G. 1961. Larval development of the tree frogs Hyla arenicolor and Hyla wrightorum. American Museum Novitates 2056:1-19.

2012TucsonHerpetologicalSocietyElections:ListofCandidatesThe 15 November general meeting of the Tucson Herpetological Society will host elections for the following positions:

Officers (Running Unopposed):President: Robert VillaVice President: Roger ReppSecretary: René ClarkTreasurer: Heidi Flugstad We are excited at the prospect of having enough people willing to serve on the Board to have an actual election.

Many thanks to the nominating committee, Robert Villa, Dianna, and Roger Repp for their efforts to line up these candidates. And we profusely thank those who are willing to serve by throwing their hat in the ring. We hope to see aggregations of herpers at this meeting. As we used to say in Chicago: “Vote early, and vote often.”— Roger Repp

Director Positions (Vote for 3):Tim AllenJim RorabaughWarren SavaryKrista SchmidtJeff Stensrud

Serving their second year as Directors:Dennis Caldwell (2011-2012)Robin Llewellyn (2011-2012)Robert Nixon (2011-2012)Serving as Past PresidentTrevor Hare


PhainopeplaandBlack-headedGrosbeakintheDietoftheWesternDiamond-backedRattlesnake(Crotalus atrox)inArizonaJames C. Rorabaugh, SaintDavid,Arizona,USA;[email protected]

n a t u r a l h i s t o r y n o t e

figure 1. Crotalus atrox swallowing a male phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens). photo by James c. rorabaugh.

Birdspreyeduponaretypicallyground-dwellingorground-nestingspecies(Beavers1976,Quinn1985).Crotalus atrox consumesprimarilymammals;thepercentageofbirdsinthedietwas5.55%byfrequencyand3.78%byweightfor205snakesfromTexas(Beavers1976).InChihuahua,Mexico,birdsmadeup2.0%ofthedietofC. atrox byfrequency.

Western Diamond-backed Rattlesnakes (Crotalus atrox) prey upon a wide variety of vertebrates, particularly mam-mals (Pygmy mice [Baiomys], Grasshopper mice [Onycho-mys], Pocket mice [Perognathus], White-footed mice [Peromys-cus], Harvest mice [Reithro-dontomys], House mice [Mus], Voles [Micotus], Woodrats [Neotoma], Kangaroo rats [Dipodomys], Rats [Rattus], Cotton rats [Sigmodon], Shrews [Crytotis], Rabbits [Sylvilagus], Jackrabbits [Lepus], Squirrels [Sciurus, Spermophilus], Pocket gophers [Geomys, Pappogeomys], Prairie dogs [Cynomus], and Opossums [Diadelphis]); but also reptiles (whiptails [Aspidoscelis], geckos [Coleonyx], collared lizards [Crotaphytus], skinks [Plestiodon], horned lizards [Phrynosoma], spiny lizards [Sceloporus], earless lizards [Holbrookia], side-blotched lizards [Uta], and rattlesnakes [Crotalus]); amphibians (frogs and toads); and birds (Ditmars 1936, Klauber 1972, Beavers 1976, Reynolds and Scott 1982, Best and James 1984, Ernst 1992, Degenhardt et al. 1996, see review in Ernst and Ernst 2003). Some invertebrates have been found in the stomachs of C. atrox (Lubber grasshoppers [Brachystola], beetles, and ants); although the latter two may have been secondarily ingested (in the stomach of another animal that was consumed by the snake; Klau-ber 1972, Ernst 1992, Ernst and Ernst 2003). Crotalus atrox will consume carrion (Klauber 1972, Gillingham and Baker 1981, Rubio 2010). On more than one oc-casion in southern Arizona, I have observed C. atrox in the process of consuming road-killed rodents on paved roads, sometimes with lethal consequences for the snake.

The following species of birds have been reported in the diet of Crotalus atrox: Northern Bobwhite, Gambel’s Quail, Laughing Gull, Caspian Tern, Black Skimmer, Blue-footed Booby, Burrowing Owl, Com-mon Ground-Dove, Mourning Dove, Northern Mockingbird, Spotted Towhee, Horned Lark, Western Meadowlark, Black-throated Sparrow, Song Spar-row, unidentified small sparrows, and an unidentified passerine (Cottam et al. 1959 in Beavers 1976, King 1975, Beavers 1976, Best and James 1984, Quinn 1985,

Grismer 2002, Dugan and Melanson 2005, Rubio 2010, Schudda 2011). Birds preyed upon are typically ground-dwelling or ground-nesting species (Beavers 1976, Quinn 1985). Crotalus atrox consumes primar-ily mammals; the percentage of birds in the diet was 5.55% by frequency and 3.78% by weight for 205 snakes from Texas (Beavers 1976). In Chihuahua, Mexico, birds made up 2.0% of the diet of C. atrox by frequency.

Herein I report two new bird species in the diet of Crotalus atrox. At 0545 on 8 August 2011, I found an approximate 1.0 m (3.3 ft; total length) C. atrox with a male Phainopepla in its mouth (Figure 1) next to my gray water sump at my residence in Cochise County, Arizona (7.6 km [4.7 miles] NE of Saint David, Chihuahuan desertscrub, 1260 m [4134 ft] elevation). By 0600 the snake had consumed the bird and was moving away from the sump. Prior to that day, I had frequently observed Phainopeplas coming into the water at the sump. Presumably, the snake ambushed the bird as it came to drink. This same snake, or a very similar individual, was seen in an ambush position under a seed feeder about 15 m (50 ft) from the sump about two weeks earlier. Mobbing birds and a White-winged Dove that was displaying to the snake (walking around it and periodically raising one wing towards it) alerted me to its presence.

Midday on 11 September 2011, I noticed a dead female Black-headed Grosbeak below a window of my


figure 2. Crotalus atrox attempting to swallow a female Black-headed Grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus). photo by James c. rorabaugh.

At2115IfoundthesnakeattemptingtoswallowtheBlack-headedGrosbeak(Figure2).At2135ithadonlysucceededinmovingitsjawsovertheheadandslightlyontothebird’sback.Apparentlythegrosbeakwastoolargetoswallowbecauseat2223Ifoundthesnakemovingaway,afterhavingdisgorgedthebird,whichbasedonthesaliva-drenchedfeathershadnotbeenswallowedanymorethanwhenIobserveditat2135.

house. It appeared the bird had flown into the window and died. At 2030 that evening I noted a small (~0.7 m [2.3 ft] total length) Crotalus atrox crawling about 10 m (33 ft) from the bird. At 2115 I found the snake attempting to swallow the Black-headed Grosbeak (Figure 2). At 2135 it had only succeeded in moving its jaws over the head and slightly onto the bird’s back. Apparently the grosbeak was too large to swallow because at 2223 I found the snake moving away, after having disgorged the bird, which, based on the saliva-drenched feathers, had not been swallowed any more than when I observed it at 2135.

The Phainopepla is a flycatcher, usually seen perched atop trees or on exposed lateral branches. It nests on my property and is probably a year-round resident. On my property, the Black-headed Grosbeak is a common spring and fall migrant. Typically seen in forest or woodland canopies in southeastern Arizona, it nests in montane canyons and pine-oak and conif-erous forests (Taylor 2005). Neither species is often found on the ground, making them unlikely to fall prey to Crotalus atrox, except in unusual circumstances as described here.

Literature Cited

Beavers, R. A. 1976. Food habits of the Western dia-mondback rattlesnake, Crotalus atrox, in Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist 20:503-515.

Best, T. L., and H. C. James. 1984. Rattlesnakes (genus Crotalus) of the Pedro Armendariz lava field, New Mexico. Copeia 1984:213-215.

Cottam, C., W. C. Glazener, and G. G. Raun. 1959. Notes on food of mocassins and rattlesnakes from the Welder Wildlife Refuge, Sinton, Texas. Contribu-tions to the Weldon Wildlife Foundation 45:1-12.

Degenhardt, W. G., C. W. Paint-er, and A. H. Price. 1996. Amphibians and Reptiles of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albu-querque, NM.

Ditmars, R. L. 1936. The Reptiles of North America. Doubleday and Company, Inc., Garden City, NY.

Dugan, E. A., and M. A. Melanson. 2005. Crotalus atrox (Western diamond-backed rattlesnake). Diet. Herpetological Review 36:322-323.

Ernst, C. H. 1992. Venomous Reptiles of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

Ernst, C. H., and E. M. Ernst. 2003. Snakes of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Books, Washington DC.

Gillingham, J. C., and R. E. Baker. 1981. Evidence for scavenging behavior in the Western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox). Zeit fur Tierpsychol 55:217-227.

Grismer, L. L. 2002. Amphibians and Reptiles of Baja California, including its Pacific Islands and the Is-lands in the Sea of Cortez. University of California Press, Berkely, CA.

King, K. A. 1975. Unusual food item for a Western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox). The Southwestern Naturalist 20:416-417.

Klauber, L. M. 1972. Rattlesnakes, Their Habits, Life Histories, and Influence on Mankind. University of California Press, Berkely, CA.

Quinn, J. S. 1985. Caspian terns respond to rattlesnake predation on colony. Wilson Bulletin 97:233-234.

Reynolds, R. P., and N. J. Scott, Jr. 1982. Use of mam-malian resources by a Chihuahuan snake commu-nity. Pages 99-118 in: N.J. Scott, Jr. (ed.). Herpeto-logical Communities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research Report 13. Washington D.C.

Rubio, M. 2010. Rattlesnakes of the United States and Canada. ECO Herpetological Publication and Distribution, Rodeo, NM.

Schudda, J. 2011. Observations of a “backyard natural-ist”: Predators and prey. Sonoran Herpetologist 24(9):86-87.

Taylor, R. C. 2005. A Birder’s Guide to Southeastern Arizona. American Birding Association, Inc., Colo-rado Springs, CO.


LoggerheadShrike(Lanius ludovicianus)predationonaPacificGopherSnake(Pituophis catenifer catenifer)Howard O. Clark, Jr., WildlifeDivision,H.T.Harvey&Associates,Fresno,CA,USA;[email protected]

figure 1. loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) perched on a barbed wire fence. photo by howard clark.

TheLoggerheadShrike(Lanius ludovicianus)isbestknownforitspredatorybehavioronavarietyofvertebrateandinvertebratespecies,includingamphibiansandreptiles.Ittypicallyimpalesitspreyonsharpobjects,suchasbarbedwire,thorns,andbranches.HereinIreportLoggerheadShrikepredatorybehavioronaPacificGopherSnake(Pituophis catenifer catenifer).

The Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is best known for its predatory behavior on a variety of vertebrate and invertebrate species, including amphibians and reptiles. It typically impales its prey on sharp objects, such as barbed wire, thorns, and branch-es. Herein I report Loggerhead Shrike predatory behavior on a Pacific Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer).

In a previous review (Clark 2011) the Pacific Gopher Snake was not reported in the literature as a prey item, although likely to be a common occurrence. My observation may be the first published record. If the reader-ship knows of a reference detailing the predation of a Pacific Gopher Snake by the Loggerhead Shrike, please send me an email, [email protected].

On the evening of 23 September 2011, I was head-ing eastbound on State Route 58 in San Luis Obispo County, California. At 1820 I observed a Loggerhead Shrike carrying what looked like a ribbon in its beak as it flew across the road and onto the shoulder. I turned around and drove back to where I saw the bird perched on the fence about 50 feet ahead of me (Fig-ure 1). The bird flew to the shoulder of the highway and made a few display flaps with its wings (Figures 2 and 3). I saw what looked like a snake in front of it. After a few moments the shrike flew off; I exited my vehicle and approached the snake. I identified it as a juvenile Pacific Gopher Snake (Figures 4 and 5). Al-though still alive, it was in a weakened condition, with head trauma (Figure 6). When I picked it up it did not struggle. It weighed 13 g (0.46 oz) and measured 35.5 cm (14 inches) long. I left the snake where I found it in hopes that the shrike would return for its meal. Ambi-ent temperature: 31°C (88°F); no breeze; coordinates of observation: UTM 10S 0772238 3916148; elevation 613 m (2010 ft).

Literature Cited

Clark, H. O., Jr. 2011. Reptiles and Amphibians as Loggerhead Shrike Prey. Sonoran Herpetologist 24(3):20-21. figures 2 and 3. loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) attack

displays. photos by howard clark.

n a t u r a l h i s t o r y n o t e


figure 4. pacific Gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer) as seen when first approached by the author. photo by howard clark.

figure 5. pacific Gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer) dorsal surface after handling by author. photo by howard clark.

figure 6. close up of head, showing trauma on the right side of head with bloodied eye. photo by howard clark.

Sonoran HerpetologistNaturalHistoryObservations

The Tucson Herpetological Society invites your contributions to our Natural History Notes section. We are particularly interested in photographs and descriptions of amphibians and reptiles involved in noteworthy or unusual behaviors in the field. Notes

can feature information such as diet, predation, community structure, interspecific behavior, or unusual locations or habitat use. Please submit your observations to Howard Clark, [email protected]. Submissions should be brief and in electronic form.


CourtSlamsForestService’sRefusaltoMonitorSouthwesternEndangeredSpeciesTaylor McKinnon, CenterforBiologicalDiversity,(928)310-6713Erik Ryberg, WesternWatershedsProject,(520)622-3333

TUCSON, Ariz.— A federal judge on October 11, 2011, sided with the Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds Project in a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Forest Service’s chronic refusal to monitor the health of threatened and endangered species in national forests throughout Arizona and New Mexico.

The 2010 suit alleged that the Forest Service failed to monitor populations of species, including the Mexican Spotted Owl and Ridge-nosed Rattlesnake, as required by a 2005 “biological opinion” authorizing implementation of forest plans for national forests in Arizona and New Mexico.

“The U.S. Forest Service has been shirking its legal obligation to monitor the Southwest’s most imperiled species and make sure its actions aren’t pushing them into extinction. Instead the agency’s been spending its money elsewhere and leaving these vulnerable species in the lurch,” said Taylor McKinnon of the Center. “This court ruling finally holds the Forest Service accountable for neglecting these species and putting them at the very bottom of its list. We hope the Mexican spotted owl and other imperiled species will now get the protection they need and deserve.”

The ruling provides endangered species with interim protection while the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service reinitiate consultation on the regional forest plans. The ruling suspends livestock grazing on four grazing allotments that were determined likely to harm endangered rattlesnakes, imposes restrictions recommended by Fish and

Wildlife on logging near Mexican spotted owl nests at the Upper Beaver Creek timber sale in northern Arizona, and may provide a basis for suspending other actions harming endangered species prior to completion of a new biological opinion.

“Arizona’s public lands are deceptively rich in animal life, and it is unfortunate that the Forest Service treats those animals with such disdain,” said Erik Ryberg with the Western Watersheds Project. “Western Watersheds Project is hopeful that this legal victory will cause the Forest Service to acknowledge the damage that their widespread livestock grazing programs inflict on animals that make these public lands their home.”

In June 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion (http://bit.ly/o0cf3t) that gave the Forest Service, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, permission to implement forest-management plans in all 11 national forests in Arizona and New Mexico. As a condition of that permission, the Forest Service agreed to monitor threatened and endangered species’ populations and their habitats.

But in October 2008 the Service issued a report (http://bit.ly/plOOCd) admitting it had not done the monitoring. It also admitted that it might have exceeded its allowable quota of harm to some species, including the Mexican Spotted Owl. The Center warned the Forest Service of an impending lawsuit if it did not begin the required monitoring, which the agency has continued to refuse to do.

After the Center filed suit, the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service reinitiated consultation; the decision provides interim protections for endangered species until the reinitiated consultation is completed.

The lawsuit was argued by attorneys Marc Fink with the Center for Biological Diversity and Matt Kenna from Durango, Colorado.

To view the ruling, click here:

http://bit.ly/pOeAB7

f o r i m m e D i a t e r e l e a s e

arizona ridge-nosed rattlesnake (Crotalus willardi willardi). photo by erik f. enderson.

AfederaljudgeonOctober11,2011,sidedwiththeCenterforBiologicalDiversityandWesternWatershedsProjectinalawsuitchallengingtheU.S.ForestService’schronicrefusaltomonitorthehealthofthreatenedandendangeredspeciesinnationalforeststhroughoutArizonaandNewMexico.


m e m B e r s h i p u p D a t e

As of 7 November 2011Membership InformationIndividual $20 Sustaining $30Family $25 Contributing $50Student $14 Life $500

TheTucsonHerpetologicalSocietywouldliketothankexistingmembersandnewmembersforrenewingtheirmembership.WeappreciateyoursupportandarealwayslookingformemberstoactivelyparticipateinTHSactivitiesandvolunteeropportunities.ItisagreatwaytobeinvolvedwiththeconservationofamphibiansandreptilesintheSonoranDesert.

New MembersE.ClarkBloomJohnGunn

Time to Renew Your THS membership?

Thisisafriendlyreminderforthoseofyouwhosemembershipisdue.Pleasesendyourcheckandamembershipform(especiallyifinformationhaschanged)toTHS,P.O.Box709,Tucson,AZ,85702.Ifyouareanewmember,pleaseincludeyouremailaddresswithyourpaymenttoreceivemonthlynewsletteronline.Amembershiprenewalformisattachedforyourconvenience.Welookforwardtoseeingyouatthemonthlymeetings.

Thankyou!RobinLlewellyn-MembershipDirector

Memberships Due in SeptemberLeighAnneDelrayDavidEdmundsGeorgeFergusonRichGassawayTylerTerrellMichaelCardwell

Members Due in OctoberHannahWilsonGordonSchuettTimAllen

Members Due in NovemberEmilyBennettRusty&PeggyBussLainieLevickJanineR.McCabeRobNixon

It’s hard to believe that it’s been two years—but yes—I’ve been the Sonoran Herpetologist editor for two years, with the November 2009 publication being the first issue I produced with the associate editors. I look forward to 2012 and hope to see lots of great material from our membership! Please submit your articles to me at [email protected]. Let’s make 2012 a memorable year.

TwoYearsattheHelmHoward O. Clark, Jr., Editor,Sonoran Herpetologist;[email protected]

howard clark in the field, near lancaster, los angeles county, california, with a red racer (Coluber flagellum piceus). photo by

Darren p. newman.

MannyRubioBrianK.SullivanDaleTurner&JuliaFonsecaRichard&FrancesZweifel

IncludingtheTHSinyourwillisanexcellentwaytosupportthevalueofthisorganizationandtheconservationoftheherpetofaunaoftheSonoranDesert.WewouldliketorecognizeandthankanyonewhohasincludedtheTHSintheirwill.Pleasecontactussowecanexpressourappreciation.ForinformationaboutdesignatingtheTHSinyourwill,pleasecontactHeidiFlugstad,Treasurer,TucsonHerpetologicalSociety,[email protected].

Remember the THS in Your Will


Sonoran Herpetologististhenewsletter-journaloftheTucsonHerpetologicalSociety,andisCopyright2011.ThecontentsofSonoran Herpetologistmaybereproducedforinclusioninthenewslettersofotherherpetologicalsocietiesprovidedthematerialisreproducedwithoutchangeandwithappropriatecredit,andacopyofthepublicationissenttotheTucsonHerpetologicalSociety.Occasionalexceptionstothispolicywillbenoted.ContentsareindexedinZoologicalRecord.AcompletesetofbackissuesareavailableintheSpecialCollectionsareaoftheUniversityofArizonalibrary.TheyareaccompaniedbyacopyofThe Collected Papers of the Tucson Herpetological Society, 1988-1991.

Editor-in-ChiefHowardClark,[email protected]

Associate EditorsRoyAverill-Murray,[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

Art Editor DennisCaldwell,[email protected]

Book Review Editor PhilipBrown,[email protected]

Information for ContributorsAuthorsshouldsubmitoriginalarticles,notes,bookreviewstotheEditor,eitherviaemailusinganattachedwordprocessedmanuscriptorbymailtotheSociety’saddress.ThemanuscriptstyleshouldfollowthatofJournal of HerpetologyandotherpublicationsoftheSocietyfortheStudyofAmphibiansandReptiles.Forfurtherinformation,pleasecontacttheeditor,[email protected].

OfficersPresidentTrevorHare,[email protected]

Vice PresidentRobertVilla,[email protected]

SecretaryKrisRatzlaff,[email protected]

TreasurerHeidiFlugstad,[email protected]

Directors:RobinLlewellyn(2011-2012),[email protected](2010-2011),[email protected](2010-2011),[email protected](2011-2012),[email protected](2011-2012),[email protected]

Past President TaylorEdwards,[email protected]

SocietyActivitiesMonthly Members MeetingRobertVilla,ProgramChair3rdTuesday,7:15PM

Board of Directors MeetingLastTuesdayofeachmonth(exceptDecember),7:00PMUniversityofArizona,BIO5/KeatingBuilding1657EastHelenStreet

Speakers Bureau (scheduledpresentations)RobertVilla,DirectorEdMoll,Director

Conservation CommitteeDennisCaldwell,Director

Herpetological Information HotlineBobBrandner760-0574

Jarchow Conservation AwardTaylorEdwards,Chairperson

Publications:Sonoran Herpetologist, Backyard Ponds brochure,Living with Venomous Reptiles brochure, THS Herp Coloring Book, THS Collected Papers, 1988-1991

THS Internet World Wide Webpagehttp://tucsonherpsociety.orgMartyTuegel,Webmaster,[email protected]

The Tucson Herpetological

Society is dedicated to conservation,

education, and research

concerning the amphibians and

reptiles of Arizona and

Mexico. Tucson Herpetological Society

is a registered non-profit organization.

FormoreinformationabouttheTHSandthereptilesandamphibiansoftheTucsonareavisittucsonherpsociety.org

Tu c s o n H e r p S o c i e t y. o r g

Deadline for Sonoran Herpetologist 24(12): November 15

jon davis arizona game and fish department - wildlife ... (andrias davidianus). photo by yonggang...

Documents