SWCHR BULLETIN - southwestern herp...Book Review: Peterson Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of...

SWCHR BULLETIN

Volume 6, Issue 4 Winter 2016

ISSN 2330-6025

Conservation – Preservation – Education – Public Information

Research – Field Studies – Captive Propagation

The SWCHR BULLETIN is published quarterly by the

SOUTHWESTERN CENTER FOR HERPETOLOGICAL RESEARCH

3600 FM 1488 Rd Ste 120-115, Conroe TX 77384

www.southwesternherp.com

email: [email protected]

ISSN 2330-6025

OFFICERS 2015-2016

PRESIDENT

Tim Cole

VICE PRESIDENT

Gerry Salmon

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Gerald Keown

BOARD MEMBERS AT LARGE

Toby Brock D. Craig McIntyre

Benjamin Stupavsky Robert Twombley

Bill White

BULLETIN EDITOR

Chris McMartin

ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Tom Lott

ABOUT SWCHR

Originally founded by Gerald Keown in 2007, SWCHR is a

501(c)(3) non-profit association, governed by a board of directors

and dedicated to promoting education of the Association’s

members and the general public relating to the natural history,

biology, taxonomy, conservation and preservation needs, field

studies, and captive propagation of the herpetofauna indigenous to

the American Southwest.

THE SWCHR LOGO

There are several versions of the SWCHR logo, all featuring the

Gray-Banded Kingsnake (Lampropeltis alterna), a widely-recognized

reptile native to the Trans-Pecos region of Texas as well as

adjacent Mexico and New Mexico.

ON THE COVER: Balcones Barking Frog (Craugastor augusti latrans), Val Verde

County, Texas (Kyle Elmore). With this photograph, Kyle won the SWCHR 2015

Award for Excellence in Herpetological Photography.

BACKGROUND IMAGE: Gates’ Pass, Tucson Mountains, AZ (Bill White)

COMMITTEE CHAIRS

AWARDS AND GRANTS COMMITTEE

Gerald Keown

COMMUNICATIONS COMMITEE

Gerald Keown

ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS COMMITTEE

[Vacant]

NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE

Gerald Keown

MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

[Vacant]

CONSERVATION COMMITTEE

Robert Twombley

JOINING SWCHR

For information on becoming a member please visit the

membership page of the SWCHR web site at

http://www.southwesternherp.com/join.html.

©2016 Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research. The SWCHR

Bulletin may not be reproduced in whole or in part on any web site or in any other

publication without the prior explicit written consent of the Southwestern Center

for Herpetological Research and of the respective author(s) and photographer(s).

http://www.southwesternherp.com/join.html

SWCHR Bulletin 63 Winter 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A Message from the President, Tim Cole 64

Synopsis of SWCHR Region Notes from 2016 Herpetological Review Issues, Robert Twombley 65 A Brown Anole (Anolis sagrei) County Record: the Story behind the Story (Lacertilia: Polychrotidae), Chris McMartin 67 Synopsis of Snakebite Cases in the Houston, Texas Area in 2016, Dr. Spencer Greene 74 Herping Regulations for States in the Southwestern Region, Part 2: California, Jim Bass 77

Book Review: Peterson Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, Fourth Edition by Robert Powell, Roger Conant, and Joseph T. Collins, Review by Tom Lott 82

A CALL FOR PAPERS

Are you a field herpetologist or a herpetoculturist (amateur or professional in either of those capacities) working with species native to the

American Southwest? Do you have a paper or an article you have written for which you would like to find a permanent repository? Want

to be assured you will always be able to share it with the world? Submit it to the SWCHR Bulletin for possible publication. Submitted

manuscripts from SWCHR members, as well as non-members, will be considered. There are no page charges to have your articles appear

in the SWCHR Bulletin, as some other publications now require.

To be accepted for publication, submissions must deal with herpetological species native to the American Southwest. Such topics as field

notes, county checklists, range extensions, taxonomy, reproduction and breeding, diseases, snake bite and venom research, captive breeding

and maintenance, conservation issues, legal issues, etc. are all acceptable. For assistance with formatting manuscripts, contact us at the

email address below.

Previously published articles or papers are acceptable, provided you still hold the copyright to the work and have the right to re-publish it.

If we accept your paper or article for publication, you will still continue to be the copyright holder. If your submission has been previously

published, please provide the name of the publication in which it appeared along with the date of publication. All submissions should be

manually proofed in addition to being spell checked and should be submitted by email as either Microsoft Word or text documents.

Send submissions to [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]


A Message from the President

Greetings! As 2016 closes out, I’m sure we are all thinking about what reptile-and-amphibian-related adventures lie ahead in

the coming year. Looking back on the past twelve months, I hope you all have fond memories of being in the field and/or

working with your animals.

This issue of the SWCHR Bulletin features some familiar authors as well as new ones gracing our pages. We start off with

Robert Twombley’s second annual recap of distribution records, natural history notes, and papers presented in this year’s

issues of the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles’ Herpetological Review which pertain to our six-state region of

interest. Next, Bulletin editor Chris McMartin tells the “rest of the story” behind his own county-record submission to Herp

Review. Reading Chris’s account and then referring back to Robert’s listings, it looks like our citizen-scientists in Nevada need

to roll up their sleeves and start collecting more data! Being in the field, you never know what interesting and heretofore

unreported species occurrences and behavior may be discovered.

Dr. Spencer Greene then provides a synopsis of venomous snakebite in 2016 from southeastern Texas—bites seem to happen

more often than you’d think, but fatalities nationwide are low, and thankfully nonexistent in Dr. Greene’s account.

Continuing our state-by-state review of herp-related regulations for the SWCHR region of interest, Jim Bass provides our

second installment addressing California. We round out this issue with another excellent book review by Tom Lott, this time

examining the latest edition of the popular Peterson Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America.

SWCHR is always looking for people willing to author an article or two (or more!) for the Bulletin. Don’t worry if you think

you lack the ability—your observations are important to share with our worldwide audience, and we can help polish up any

rough edges in your submission. For details on the type of material we seek, see “A Call for Papers” on the Table of Contents

page.

The end of this year also marks the end of my term as President. I would like to thank the members and fellow board

members for making it an enjoyable one, and I wish the incoming slate of officers well. Though I won’t have a leadership

role I plan on remaining active in the organization as well as with all my other herp-related events and activities. I look

forward to seeing you all at a show, festival, or in the field next year!


Synopsis of SWCHR Region Notes from

2016 Herpetological Review Issues

Compiled by Robert Twombley

SWCHR publishes these abbreviated accounts of Geographical

Distribution, Natural History Notes, and Peer Reviewed

Publications, so our readers may be aware of these items

pertaining to the herpetofauna of the American Southwest

(Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and

Utah). Accounts are listed by state, then by

class/order/suborder as follows: salamanders and newts, frogs

and toads, turtles, lizards, and snakes.

Only natural history notes observed in the SWCHR region of

interest are included, though other observations may have been

recorded from elsewhere in a given species’ range. Furthermore,

this synopsis should not be considered authoritative—for the

full, original accounts, please see the four 2016 issues of

Herpetological Review, published by the Society for the Study of

Amphibians and Reptiles (2016 was Volume 47 of Herpetological

Review; issue number is appended to each listing below).

Geographic Distribution

ARIZONA

Crotalus tigris, Tiger Rattlesnake, Pinal County (first record from

San Tan Mountains). (2)

Micruroides euryxanthus, Sonoran Coralsnake, Yuma County

(county record). (4)

Phyllorynchus browni, Saddled Leaf-nosed Snake), Gila County


Thamnophis eques, Mexican Gartersnake, Mohave County (first

records from the Big Sandy River and upper Bill Williams River

drainage). (1)

CALIFORNIA

Aspidoscelis flagellicauda/sonorae complex, Spotted Whiptail, Orange

County (county and state record). (2)

Coleonyx variegatus variegatus, Desert Banded Gecko, Inyo County

(northernmost Inyo County record west of the White

Mountains). (2)

Coleonyx variegatus variegatus, Desert Banded Gecko, Mono County

(county record and northernmost localities for the species and

genus). (2)

Podarcis sicula, Italian Wall Lizard, San Diego County (county

record; introduced). (3)

Saruomalus ater, Common Chuckwalla, Mono County (county

record). (2)

Xantusia vigilis, Desert Night Lizard, Mono County (county

record). (3)

Rena humilis humilis, Southwestern Threadsnake, Mono County

(county record and northernmost localities for the species). (2)

Rhinocheilus lecontei, Long-nosed Snake, Mono County (county

record). (2)

NEVADA

(No distribution records published).

NEW MEXICO

Pseudemys gorzugi, Rio Grande Cooter, Chaves County (county

record). (4)

Lampropeltis alterna, Gray-banded Kingsnake, Otero County


TEXAS

Hyla chrysoscelis, Cope’s Gray Treefrog, Medina County (county

record). (1)

Hyla squirella, Squirrel Tree Frog, Willacy County (county

record). (3)

Leptodactylus fragilis, Mexican White-lipped Frog, Zapata County


Rhinella marina, Cane Toad, Willacy County (county record). (1)

Apalone spinifera, Spiny Softshell, Zavala County (county record).

(2)

Pseudemys nelsoni, Florida Red-bellied Cooter, Harris County

(county record; introduced). (2)

Trachemys scripta elegans, Red-eared Slider, Aransas County (county

record). (2)

Anolis carolinensis, Green Anole, Bell County (county record). (1)

Anolis sagrei, Brown Anole, Lavaca County (county record;

introduced). (4)

Anolis sagrei, Brown Anole, Montgomery County (county record;

introduced). (4)

Hemidactylus turcicus, Mediterranean Gecko, Bastrop County


Hemidactylus turcicus, Mediterranean Gecko, Eastland County


Hemidactylus turcicus, Mediterranean Gecko, Hill County (county

record). (4)

Hemidactylus turcicus, Mediterranean House Gecko, Jim Hogg

County (county record). (3)


Hemidactylus turcicus, Mediterranean Gecko, Zavala County


Ophisaurus attenuatus, Slender Glass Lizard, Willacy County


Plestiodon tetragrammus, Four-lined Skink, Jim Hogg County


Sceloporus grammicus, Graphic Spiny Lizard, Jim Hogg County


Cemophora coccinea, Scarletsnake, Willacy County (county record).

(3)

Ficimia streckeri, Tamaulipan Hook-nosed Snake, Jim Hogg

County (county record). (3)

Lampropeltis calligaster, Yellow-bellied Kingsnake, Lee County


Micrurus tener, Texas Coralsnake, Jim Hogg County (county

record). (3)

Pantherophis obsoletus, Western Ratsnake, Dimmit County (county

record). (2)

Rena dulcis, Plains Threadsnake, Midland County (county record).

(2)

Rena dulcis, Texas Threadsnake, Willacy County (county record).

(3)

Tantilla nigriceps, Plains Black-headed Snake, Willacy County


UTAH

(No distribution records published).

Natural History Notes

ARIZONA

Gopherus morafkai, Sonoran Desert Tortoise, drinking behavior

using nares as well as mouth. (1)

Phrynosoma mcallii, Flat-tailed Horned Lizard, necrophilia in which

male attempted mating with a roadkill female. (1)

Crotalus atrox, Western Diamondback Rattlesnake, and

Lampropeltis californiae, California Kingsnake, direct competition

over a nest of Desert Cottontails (Sylvilagus auduboni). (1)

Crotalus atrox, Western Diamond-backed Rattlesnake,

reproduction/courtship tracks. (3)

Diadophis punctatus, Ring-necked Snake, predation on lizard eggs.

(1)

CALIFORNIA

Gopherus agassizii, Mojave Desert Tortoise, with Black-throated

Sparrow, Amphispiza bilineata, as a burrow associate. (1)

Gopherus agassizii, Mojave Desert Tortoise, nest depredation by

an unknown predator. (3)

Gopherus agassizii, Mojave Desert Tortoise, probable rattlesnake

envonomation. (4)

Gopherus agassizii, Mojave Desert Tortoise, and Coluber flagellum

piceus, Red Racer, burrow associates. (1)

Crotaphytus bicinctores, Great Basin Collared Lizard, maximum

elevation. (2)

Phrynosoma mcallii, Flat-tailed Horned Lizard, ultraviolet (UVB)

exposure measurement. (4)

Crotalus oreganus helleri, Southern Pacific Rattlesnake, loss of rattle

style and matrix. (4)

Lampropeltis californiae, California Kingsnake, predation on the

eggs of the Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura). (4)

NEVADA

(No natural history notes published).

NEW MEXICO

Anaxyrus microscaphus, Arizona Toad, predation on a whiptail

(Aspidoscelis sp.) and a conspecific. (1)

Anaxyrus microscaphus, Arizona Toad, first known record of this

species as a host, as well as a new distribution record, for the

chigger Hannemania bufonis. (1)

Aspidoscelis exsanguis, Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail, individual

diet consisting of unusually high proportion of beetle

(Coleoptera) and moth (Lepidoptera) larvae. (3)

Aspidoscelis exsanguis, Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail, maximum

body size. (2)

Aspidoscelis gularis, Texas Spotted Whiptail/Common Spotted

Whiptail, scavenging of the ant Atta mexicana. (4)

Aspidoscelis neomexicana, New Mexico Whiptail, aquatic

behavior. (2)

Crotalis lepidus klauberi, Banded Rock Rattlesnake, predation on

Mogollon Vole (Microtus mogollonensis) and subsequent mortality

due to prey size. (3)

Rena dissectus, New Mexico Threadsnake, predation by

Woodhouse’s Toad, Anaxyrus woodhousii. (4)

TEXAS

Eurycea sosorum, Barton Springs Salamander, predation on, and

by, the invasive Red Swamp Crayfish (Procambrus clarkia). (2)

Eurycea waterlooensis, Austin Blind Salamander, predation by a

Green Sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus). (2)

Malaclemys terrapin littoralis, Texas Diamond-backed Terrapin,

basking behavior atop Spartina alterniflora grass. (2)


Trachemys scripta elegans, Red-eared Slider, Jefea brevifolia seed

dispersal in plastral algae. (3)

Trachemys scripta elegans, Red-eared Slide, use of feral hog (Sus

scrofa) carcasses as a basking location. (3)

Anolis carolinensis, Green Anole, predation on Horned Assassin

Bug (Repipta taurus) and use of Yellow Trumpet carnivorous

plant (Sarracenia alata) as a perch site. (4)

Aspidoscelis inornata, Trans-Pecos Striped Whiptail, predation

(impalement) by Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). (1)

Holbrookia maculata, Lesser Earless Lizard, predation (impalement

on fence) by Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). (1)

Sceloporus olivaceus, Texas Spiny Lizard, predation by the centipede

Scolopendra heros. (3)

Bogertophis subocularis, Trans-Pecos Ratsnake, predation on the

Yuma Myotis bat (Myotis yumanensis) through foraging by

dangling its body through a drain hole in a bridge to the bats’

roosting area. (3)

Hypsiglena jani, Texas Nightsnake, reproduction/timing of

mating. (3)

Salvadora grahamiae, Mountain Patch-nosed Snake, winter

foraging behavior. (3)

UTAH

Sceloporus uniformis, Yellow-backed Spiny Lizard, bifurcated

tail. (4)

Peer Reviewed Publications

Weber, David J., Gordon W. Schuett, and Melanie Tluczek.

2016. “A Citizen Science Survey of the Herpetofauna of

Scottsdale’s McDowell Sonoran Preserve, Arizona, USA .”

Herpetological Review 47(1), 5-10.

Blomsten, Patrick, Gordon W. Schuett, Mats Hoggren, and

Randall S. Reiserer. “Fifteen Consecutive Years of Successful

Reproduction in a Captive Female Sidewinder (Crotalus

cerastes).” Herpetological Review 47(1), 69-72.

Marlow, Karla R., Kevin D. Wiseman, Clara A. Wheeler, Joseph

E. Drennan, and Ronald E. Jackman. 2016. “Identification of

Individual Foothill Yellow-Legged Frogs (Rana boylii) using Chin

Pattern Photographs: a Non-Invasive and Effective Method for

Small Population Studies.” Herpetological Review 47(2), 193-198.

Parker, William S., and William S. Brown. 2016. “The Utah

Snake Dens 75 Years Later: A Historical Review.” Herpetological

Review 47(3), 365-373.

A Brown Anole (Anolis sagrei) County Record:

the Story behind the Story (Lacertilia:

Polychrotidae)

by Chris McMartin

It all began with a chance encounter during a leisurely bicycle

ride. I moved to The Woodlands, Montgomery County, Texas

at the end of May 2015 to begin a new career. I began biking the

streets in the local area, partly for exercise, partly to assist in

orienting myself in my new hometown. The Woodlands is a

master-planned community of approximately 110,000 residents,

founded in 1974 and designed with plenty of green space, so the

various neighborhoods and surrounding environs provide

habitat for a variety of small reptile and amphibian species.

On the rock in the lower right corner of the photograph, a male Brown Anole

(Anolis sagrei), an introduced and invasive species, can be seen posing somewhat

ironically under a homeowner’s banner. All individuals in photographs

accompanying this article are from Montgomery County, Texas. Photo by the

author.

I had enjoyed seeing numerous Green Anoles (Anolis carolinensis)

both in my own yard and during my bike rides, but on a bike

ride 02 July 2015 in a neighborhood 2.8 air miles south-

southwest of my own, I noticed a slightly different-looking

lizard. I observed it for a minute, and after seeing a telltale


yellow-bordered orange throat fan (dewlap) displayed, confirmed

it was a male Brown Anole (Anolis sagrei). The Brown Anole is a

species native to Caribbean islands which has been inadvertently

introduced to various locales in the southeastern United States.

Though several sources primarily blame the pet trade, others

assert their spread in the U.S. is primarily (and more likely, in my

opinion) a result of the exotic plant trade (as I discuss below).

Having seen “browns” (as I’ll often refer to them throughout

this article) in other locations in the past, and knowing they had

been documented in the Houston area, I didn’t think too much

of this sighting. I did take a poor-quality photograph with my

cell phone—the only camera I had available at the time—and

submitted the sighting to the Herpetological Education and

Research Project online database (naherp.com). A few months

later, on 06 November 2015, I had a chance encounter with

another brown, this time on a sidewalk in a wooded area closer

to my home—approximately 1.5 air miles southwest.

Over the winter, on a lark I checked my reference books. To my

surprise, I discovered no documentation of this species in

Montgomery County. I also checked the VertNet biodiversity

portal (vertnet.org) and the Texas Parks and Wildlife

Department’s “Herps of Texas” project on iNaturalist

(inaturalist.org/projects/herps-of-texas) and also found no

records from the county. I then decided to get better

photographs, and ideally a specimen in hand as a voucher, to

properly submit a county-record distribution note to the Society

for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles’ quarterly Herpetological

Review. But to accomplish that goal, I’d have to wait for two

things: warmer weather and time to devote to the task.

Once I had both prerequisites (favorable weather and sufficient

time), I started biking the local area where I saw the first brown

anole. However, I initially came up empty-handed. After

returning from Snake Days 2016 in Sanderson, Texas, I started

looking in additional neighborhoods, including the one nearest

my November 2015 sighting. I was ultimately successful,

photographing several specimens on 09 June. For a time, I was

content with merely having photographed a few brown anoles

for the sake of documenting their existence in my new home

county.

However, curiosity as to the anoles’ overall distribution in the

area got the best of me. In addition to biking to look for brown

anoles, I was also interested in biking through every

neighborhood in The Woodlands, as a fun way to get exercise as

well as to continue familiarizing myself with the area. Since I

had now found browns in an additional neighborhood, I decided

to bring my camera along every time I went biking, just in case I

found additional specimens. This soon grew into an obsession,

and every day over the summer when I wasn’t out of town or

otherwise preoccupied, I went searching in earnest for brown

anoles. My efforts were rewarded with over 150 observations

(over 140 documented photographically) by the time I submitted

my distribution note to the Society for the Study of Amphibians

and Reptiles’ (SSAR) quarterly Herpetological Review. I have a

current total of 225 records from the county as of this writing,

with my last observation of the year occurring 26 November

2016.

Natural History

The brown anole is a small lizard, roughly the same size as the

native green anole—approximately 3 inches snout-vent length, 8

inches total length. In contrast to the green anole, though it may

change its coloration to various shades of brown or gray, it is

never green. Also, while the green’s tail is more or less circular

in cross-section, the brown’s tail is noticeably dorsolaterally

compressed. The species is sexually dimorphic, with males

having a more robust head (and when basking, they hold it at an

angle relative to their neck suggestive of the Velociraptor in the

movie Jurassic Park) as well as an extensible throat fan (dewlap),

and females having a proportionately smaller head, only a

vestigial throat fan, and a pale vertebral stripe. While green

anoles’ throat fans are pink with a thin white border, browns (at

least in southeast Texas) have bright orange to red-orange throat

fans with a substantial yellow border. I have not noticed male

greens with the same “Velociraptor” posture exhibited by male

browns.

Male brown anole holding its head in typical “Velociraptor” fashion (see text).

Photo by the author.

Typically, browns occupy lower perching sites than greens,

preferring more open terrain than the greens with elevated

positions from which to display for mates and look for food.

For example, I have watched numerous browns in Florida using

a simple curb at the edge of a street as a perch, periodically


dashing into the roadway to capture insect prey (and,

subsequently, getting hit by cars at a high rate).

Most homes in The Woodlands feature a front yard with half or

less consisting of Saint Augustine Grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum),

and the other half (or more) consisting of a landscaped area

featuring Loblolly Pine Trees (Pinus taeda) and/or a combination

of native and exotic trees, shrubs, and flowers. The

combination of favorable climate for growing and the monetary

resources to purchase them (The Woodlands has a

proportionately higher per-capita income than many surrounding

areas) contributes to a high proportion of exotic flora in most

front yards. Consequently, there are numerous nurseries in the

city catering to this demand through the importation of a wide

variety of plants, many coming from facilities in southern Florida

where the brown anole has long been established. Anecdotal

accounts mention a high number of observations in the vicinity

of these nurseries. I have yet to confirm this personally, but it

does lend credence to the assertion that browns were introduced

largely through the exotic plant trade, as substantiated by Dixon

(2013), Mahrdt et al (2014), Hibbitts and Hibbitts (2015), and

Glorioso (2016).

A front-yard landscaping layout common to neighborhoods in The Woodlands,

Montgomery County, Texas. The curb lining the street is visible in the extreme

lower left corner of the photo for a sense of scale/setback from the road.

Brown anoles can easily be observed on the “moss rocks” by bicycling down the

street. See text for details. Photo by the author.

Perhaps even more important than homeowners’ choice of

plants is that their landscaped areas are almost invariably ringed

by a low border of natural rock. The rock of choice is known

locally as “moss rock” and is sold at several area landscaping

stores. It appears to be a sandstone covered in various species

of lichen and is sourced from well outside the local area, often

out of state (the rock in my own yard came from Oklahoma).

The preferred size for the rocks is approximately one foot long

and perhaps half as wide, with a height of approximately six

inches (obviously, there is significant natural variation between

individual rocks). The rocks are often stacked to form a

landscape border a foot high.

The local homeowners’ collective landscaping effort results in a

fantastic perching and foraging site for brown anoles. The rock

borders afford the anoles a fairly open spot at the species’

preferred height for basking, displaying for mates, and watching

for prey, while the exotic plants and crevices between the rocks

offer quick retreat from the midday sun and potential predators

(or overly inquisitive humans).

A male brown anole hunting in the Saint Augustine-grass lawn of a local

residence. The grass impedes their locomotion sufficiently to give a would-be

captor a good chance, but without homeowner permission it’s just trespassing!


Brown anoles are native to Cuba, the Bahamas, and other islands

in the Caribbean Sea. However, they are quite adept at rapidly

colonizing new areas where they are introduced (often

inadvertently). Powell (2016) reports their presence in the

United States in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Hawai’i, Louisiana,

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. Mahrdt

et al (2014) documented apparently established populations in

California (Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties) as well.

I’ve personally seen them in Florida, Hawai’i, Texas, and most

recently on the island of Roatan in Honduras, where they have

also become established.

In Texas, Dixon (2013) lists this species’ occurrence in 11

counties: Cameron and Hidalgo in the lower Rio Grande Valley;

Bexar and Guadalupe in the San Antonio area; Kleberg and

Nueces in the Corpus Christi area; Brazos in the College Station

Area; and Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, and Harris in the

Houston area. The Hibbitts brothers (2015) do not list Kleberg

County, but indicate records from four additional counties:

Aransas near Corpus Christi; and Angelina, Nacogdoches, and

Polk in eastern Texas. The nearest documented parish (county)


in Louisiana is Calcasieu (Lake Charles area), sharing Texas’

southeastern border, as reported by Glorioso (2016). Though

Dixon reports the species “. . . has not been found in parts of

Texas other than the sites of its initial introduction,” I highly

suspect in the coming years county records will show brown

anoles established in the counties ‘connecting the dots’ between

Houston and College Station, as well as along the coast between

Houston and Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi and the lower Rio

Grande Valley, and Houston/eastern Texas and Louisiana.

Map of Texas showing counties in red where brown anoles have been

documented, after Dixon (2013) and Hibbitts and Hibbitts (2015). Montgomery

County, the newest county record, is highlighted in turquoise. Illustration by the

author.

Methodology

My primary means of searching for brown anoles consisted of

riding my bicycle through neighborhoods within reasonable

distance of my home, while scanning the yards of the homes for

the lizards. This form of “road cruising” had several benefits.

Riding is better than walking because the lizards don’t seem to

“spook” as easily by an approaching vehicle—even one with

only two wheels and an exposed human—as they do by a person

on foot. More ground can be covered on bike than on foot.

Bicycling is better than driving or riding in a car because visibility

is greatly increased. An added benefit is the ability to stop more

readily without arousing suspicion from residents. Of course,

bicycling is also much more environmentally friendly, especially

given the lower speed, shorter distance covered, and numerous

stops and starts.

The nature of the majority of residents’ yards as previously

described also lent itself to this style of observation. The anoles

(as well as native herpetofauna) stand out visually against the

rock landscaping borders. Because of this and the uniformity

between most yards encountered, I was able to use a search

pattern of simply biking at 10mph or less down each street and

scanning along the rocks in each yard, stopping to photograph

anoles encountered and log their coordinates. The browns make

an excellent subject for this sort of census as if they are present,

they are generally very conspicuous in this setting.

As much as practical, I made an effort to limit my daily

observation periods to the 9 to 10 a.m. (Central Daylight Time)

window to maintain consistency in my observations. I figured it

may be harder to consistently find the anoles in the midday heat

and direct sunlight. I also wanted to personally avoid midday

ultraviolet radiation. Of course, comfort was a significant

consideration, as it’s typically very humid in this part of Texas,

and the rapidly-escalating heat index on summer days makes for

unpleasant bike riding!

After observing browns in the same general neighborhood a few

times, I decided to target my expanded search with help from

local residents. I posted in several area Facebook groups and

sent an infographic to a community website, explaining the

difference between green anoles and browns, and a request to

contact me if any were seen in a particular yard or

neighborhood. I received a few leads, which I explored with

limited success, but it did help me focus my efforts to certain

areas within The Woodlands. Some of the sightings turned out

to be Green Anoles, but a couple did produce browns.

Hatchling brown anole observed 02 August 2016. Photo by the author.

Once I’d tried the “serendipitous find” and the “local input”

approaches to get a feel for habitat usage and develop my “sight

picture” for observations, I switched to a more methodical

approach—I simply surveyed a different set of neighborhoods

each day. Again, this served the dual purposes of documenting

brown anoles in additional localities as well as traveling


additional streets in The Woodlands for the sake of my bicycling

goals. As of this writing, I have not yet surveyed several

neighborhoods in the city—I ran out of time this year. It gives

me something to look forward to next summer (and perhaps the

summer after that). Some neighborhoods had apparently much

higher densities of browns than others. In those cases, I did not

document every single observation, but tried to gather a

representative set of observations from houses at the “corners”

of each neighborhood to indicate they were conspicuous

throughout said neighborhood.

In addition to photographic records, I wanted to capture a

voucher specimen. This proved quite challenging, as the browns

are typically more wary than the greens, not allowing as close an

approach. Furthermore, they seem much quicker. I attempted

noosing several specimens on public property without success—

partly due to not being able to approach closely enough, and

partly due to problems keeping the noose’s loop properly aligned

in windy conditions the day of my attempt. Most of my

sightings were on private property, meaning more difficulty in

being granted access to attempt capture (most of the time the

homeowners were at work during my survey windows).

My luck changed on 02 August, as I was exploring a

neighborhood where I noted several large and slightly more

approachable individuals. One of the homeowners came out to

ask what I was doing, so I struck up a conversation. He took an

interest in my quest and let me into one of his absent neighbors’

back yards to search for additional lizards. I learned the three

houses at the end of their cul-de-sac had turned their front yards

into a community “lizard-friendly” habitat, complete with

stacked-rock “homes” for the various species, including a Broad-

headed Skink (Plestiodon laticeps) that, based on later

communication with one of the homeowners, was observed

(but, unfortunately, not photographed) dashing from its perch to

catch and eat a brown anole! I received permission to attempt to

capture an anole as a voucher specimen and was able to

complete the mission with a large male, who now resides within

the University of Texas’ Biodiversity Collections—Integrative

Biology (formerly called the Texas Natural History Collections).

I had much less time to devote to the cause after mid-August, at

which time I submitted my draft Distribution Note to SSAR.

However, time off during Thanksgiving week coupled with

temperatures slightly above normal prompted me to venture into

two additional neighborhoods, just to see if anything was

moving. I was rewarded with a few additional observations.

Although December was similarly warmer than normal, I was

unable to locate any active individuals at a known location on

the 17th of the month when I had a morning free to check on

them.

Distribution note as it appeared in the December 2016 issue of Herpetological

Review.

From 09 June to 17 December, I spent approximately 44 hours

over 37 days searching for brown anoles. Preparation of the

observation data for upload to naherp.com took an additional

estimated 15 hours. I used weather data from Conroe-North

Houston Regional Airport (approximately 13 air miles to the

northeast) to log temperature, relative humidity, sky conditions,

moon phase, and barometric pressure for each observation.

Results

In my 37 days of searching this year, and including the two

individuals observed in 2015, I documented 163 adults (74

females, 75 males, and 14 undetermined), and 52 juveniles,

including four I estimated to be young-of-year (including one

very recent hatchling on 02 August). I did not record estimated

age for the remaining ten observations.

Of individuals I classified by age, I documented 17 adults in

June, 76 adults (including a 2015 observation) and 20 juveniles in

July, 50 adults and 18 juveniles/young-of-year in August, two

adults and one juvenile in September, one adult and two

juveniles in October, and 18 adults (including a 2015

observation) and ten juveniles in November. The first individual

I classified as “juvenile” was observed on 06 July and the last

was 26 November. Note that this raw data is not necessarily

indicative of seasonal population demographic variation in itself,

as the days I had available for surveying neighborhoods varied.

A perhaps more useful portrayal can be found below, in which I


have calculated proportions of each age/gender category per day

surveyed during the first and last halves of each month.

Number of individuals seen per survey day. “1/2” and “2/2” denote first and

second halves of each month. “Unknown” indicates unknown gender; these

individuals could have been juveniles or subadults with dimorphic characters

insufficiently pronounced to determine gender. The spike in these “unknowns”

the second half of October may represent juveniles hatched out earlier in the

season. Illustration by the author.

Temperatures in which individuals were observed ranged from

69 degrees Fahrenheit (in November) to 98 degrees Fahrenheit

in August. The median (and mode) temperature at which

individuals were observed was 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Note: the

low November temperatures were encountered during

opportune surveys in the afternoon on the day in question.

Relative humidity ranged from 41 to 94 percent, with a median

of 70 percent and mode of 67 percent. Barometric pressure

varied from 764 to 770 mm Hg, with a median of 764 and mode

of 762. Skies were clear or held only few clouds for 103 of the

observations, partly cloudy or cloudy for 114, and overcast for

only eight observations. This makes sense intuitively for a

diurnal, sun-loving species.

Two male brown anoles in combat 25 November 2016 over a female out of

frame to the upper right. Note the raised nuchal and dorsal crests. Photo by the

author.

Besides merely observing and photographing the browns to

confirm presence, I was able to witness a few interesting natural

history events. On 22 August, I photographed a mating pair.

On 25 November, I watched as two males engaged in displays

and physical combat against each other in Saint Augustine Grass,

over a female approximately two feet away under the shade of

ornamental shrubbery. These observations suggested an

extended breeding period in this area, despite historical mean

temperatures of 66 degrees Fahrenheit in November, 57 degrees

F in December, and 49 degrees F in January. This stands in

contrast to what has been documented in other states where they

have been introduced—in Florida, with warmer mean

temperatures in the winter months, Meshaka et al (2004)

reported peak reproductive activity from April to June.

Other natural history observations included a female in the

process of ecdysis apparently eating piece of her shed skin,

consistent with the habits of many lizard species including

anoles. Observed perching heights overall were consistent with

other published accounts. Most individuals were seen at heights

of two feet or less, and the highest perch noted was a male

approximately ten feet up a tree. When observed together on an

elevated perch (e.g. light pole, tree trunk), females perched lower

than males, as reported in Meshaka et al (2004). One individual

was observed perching on a manmade rock wall less than two

feet from the water’s edge of a local lake.

Previous research by Stuart et al (2014) indicates where browns

are found with native greens, competition between the two

species results in a shift for the greens toward more acutely

arboreal habits, so much so that within 20 generations the greens

exhibit proportionately larger toepads to facilitate these greater

arboreal tendencies. Anecdotally, in the Houston area some

residents report seeing fewer greens once browns are noted. It is

unclear whether the greens have been driven out or merely

driven higher into the trees and therefore are less frequently

observed. However, this phenomenon has not yet apparently

taken hold in The Woodlands. Eight of my brown anole

observations were in proximity to green anole observations,

ranging from two houses down to as close as three feet apart.

Another intriguing discovery was the apparent wide variation in

local densities. For example, there was a presence of brown

anoles in abundance in one neighborhood, yet none observed in

an adjacent neighborhood, with only a wooden fence separating

the two. I would not consider the fence to be a significant

barrier to dispersal, and will need to explore this area further in

the spring. Within neighborhoods, one residence would have

numerous individuals in evidence, yet the adjacent yards would

not. I suspect lawn pesticide use by some households may have

a role in this discrepancy. One on occasion I witnessed a local


pest control service spraying a lawn with, according to the

technician, “two kinds of fertilizer and an insecticide for chinch

bugs” (Hemiptera; e.g. Blissus leucopterus). While he was spraying,

I observed several anoles (apparently green anoles) running

ahead of the spray pattern to escape the toxins.

A juvenile brown anole (lower right, with detail) perched approximately three

feet from an adult female green anole (upper left, with detail). Browns and

greens were found on or near ground level in close proximity to each other on

several occasions. Photo by the author.

Future Plans

The coordinates I submitted with my Distribution Note were for

the farthest-north occurrence I documented. However, since

submission, a coworker provided a photograph of one on his

home exterior, pushing the northernmost known location in the

county 2.8 air miles further northeast. There are likely many

more locales to discover. I have received unconfirmed “leads”

on possible localities in Cleveland (28 air miles northeast, in as-

yet-undocumented San Jacinto County) and Huntsville (34 air

miles north, in as-yet-undocumented Walker County) which,

upon receipt of more specific addresses, I hope to check in the

spring or summer. The confirmation of San Jacinto County

would link the greater Houston area with the three counties in

eastern Texas, suggesting a more successful colonization than

localized around plant nurseries or specific neighborhoods.

Similarly, I plan to submit an article about this project to a local

lifestyle magazine in the hopes of getting more residents to

provide information on new neighborhoods to explore, or ones

to revisit if I missed observations there. Brown anoles haven’t

yet made it to my own neighborhood (as previously mentioned,

the closest I’ve found them is approximately 1.5 air miles to the

southwest), but it is likely only a matter of time. With routine,

systematic bicycle canvassing of nearby neighborhoods, I may be

able to document their spreading distribution in the coming

years.

In addition to simple documentation of presence, I may have the

chance to explore some as-yet anecdotal observations and

questions in the coming years. For example, at least two sources

reporting seeing unusual individuals suggesting the browns may

be hybridizing with the native greens. I have also heard of

browns predating on greens. At the least, the browns likely

outcompete the greens, due to their faster speed, on two

levels—they can capture available insects more quickly, and they

can outrun predators (my family has witnessed a housecat

removing a green anole from our yard; a home with both greens

and browns and nearby cats may experience a shift in the relative

populations over time). On the other hand, the homeowner

anecdote about the broad-headed skink eating a brown anole is

intriguing and warrants further study (and photographic

confirmation). I would be interesting to compare

neighborhoods with confirmed populations of the skinks with

brown anole densities.

Conclusion

I hope this has shed some light on the “story behind the story”

on the process of submitting my county record. Of course, it

would not necessarily take this level of effort to document a

species’ occurrence in a given county, but I wanted to ensure it

was clear this introduced and invasive species is well established

in my new home county. Again, this all started with a chance

encounter—had I not taken the time to research further, I would

have assumed someone else had already documented the brown

anole’s presence here.

Anyone reading Herpetological Review’s Distribution Notes each

quarter should be (pleasantly) surprised there are still quite a few

opportunities to fill in the gaps in our knowledge of various

species’ distributions, even those we all assume to be common

and well-known. I encourage everyone to get out in the field

and document, document, document!

References

Dixon, James R. 2013. Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas, with Keys,

Taxonomic Synopses, Bibliography, and Distribution Maps. College

Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Glorioso, Brad. 2016. Amphibians and Reptiles of Louisiana,

http://www.louisianaherps.com/brown-anole-anolis-sagrei.html


Hibbitts, Troy D. and Toby Hibbitts. 2015. Texas Lizards: A

Field Guide. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Mahrdt, Clark R., Edward L. Ervin, and Gary Nafis. 2014.

“Geographic Distribution: Anolis sagrei.” Herpetological Review

45(4).

McMartin, David C. 2016. “Geographic Distribution: Anolis

sagrei.” Herpetological Review 47(4).

Meshaka, Walter E. Jr., Brian P. Butterfield, and J. Brian Hague.

2004. Exotic Amphibians and Reptiles of Florida. Malabar, Florida:

Krieger Publishing Company.

Powell, Robert, Roger Conant, and Joseph T. Collins. 2016.

Peterson Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central

North America, 4th ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Publishing Company.

Stuart, Y.E., T.S. Campbell, P.A. Hohenlohe, R.G. Reynolds, L.J.

Revell, and J.B. Losos. 2014. “Rapid Evolution of a Native

Species Following Invasion by a Congener.” Science 346(6208),

pp. 463-466.

Synopsis of Snakebite Cases in the Houston,

Texas Area in 2016

by Spencer Greene, MD, MS, FACEP, FACMT

Director of Medical Toxicology

Assistant Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics

Section of Emergency Medicine

Baylor College of Medicine

Snakes were active in 2016, and their pervasiveness led to a high

incidence of human-snake encounters, some of which resulted in

snakebites to humans. The medical toxicology consultation

service at Baylor College of Medicine had treated 62 snake bites

in 2016 as of December 10, up from 33 in 2015.

Counties of origin for snakebite cases discussed. Illustration by Chris McMartin.

As the only board-certified medical toxicologist in Houston,

herein I report on bites which occurred throughout the Houston

metropolitan area. Slightly more than half of the bites were

sustained in towns north of Houston, including Spring,

Magnolia, Tomball, The Woodlands, and Conroe.

Approximately 30% occurred to the west, in towns such as

Sugarland, Katy, Belleville, East Bernard, and Sealy. The

remainder originated in the south and east, from towns as far

away as Beaumont, Angleton, El Campo, Bay City, and Lake

Jackson.

Bites affected children and adults of all ages. Patient ages ranged

from 12 months to 69 years old, with a median age of 7 years.

Among children, 36 boys sustained, compared with 15 girls. In

the adult population, males sustaining bites outnumbered

females 9:2.

More often than not, the interaction with the snake was

unintentional. Exceptions include two incidents of teenaged

boys choosing to pet venomous snakes, a 28-year-old male who

was envenomated while feeding a captive pet snake, and an

inebriated 43-year-old male who chose to play with a native

Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) he found along the side of the

road. A 69-year-old male sustained multiple bites when he

attempted to remove a Texas Coral Snake (Micrurus tener) he

found in his home in the vicinity of his preschool-aged

granddaughter.


“Canebrake” (Timber) Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) bite to the calf in a 28-year-

old male. Photo by the author.

Because so many of the victims were children, definitive

identification of the snake was not always possible. In 32 of the

62 bites, the species was unknown. Of the 30 bites in which the

species was confirmed, Copperheads (Agkistrodon contortrix)

accounted for 20 (67%). Cottonmouths, also known as Water

Moccasins (Agkistrodon piscivorus) were responsible for five bites

(17%). There were two bites from Western Diamondback

Rattlesnakes (Crotalus atrox) and one bite from a “Canebrake”

(Timber) Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus). One patient experienced

a Texas Coral Snake (Micrurus tener) envenomation, and one

envenomation was due to a captive White-lipped Green Tree

Viper (Cryptelytrops albolabris).

Bites occurred throughout most of the year. The first bite was

on 12 March 2016, and the most recent envenomation was

treated on 30 November. July was the busiest month for

snakebites (see chart below).

Bite distribution by month, 2016. Illustration by the author.

Bites were limited to the fingers, toes, hands, feet, ankles, and

calves. More than 70% of bites were to the foot or ankle, often

in patients who were barefoot or wearing sandals.

Most patients were symptomatic after their bites. Eight had

apparent dry bites, or were bitten by non-venomous species.

These patients were followed in the emergency department

and/or by telephone to ensure that signs and symptoms did not

develop later. Of the obvious envenomations, all but one were

due to crotalids. Clinical findings were largely confined to local

tissue damage, though this ranged from uncomplicated swelling

to severe tissue damage. Nearly 30% of patients did have

laboratory evidence of hematotoxicity (blood poisoning),

including coagulopathy (impaired clotting; defined as a

prothrombin time > 15 sec), hypofibrinogenemia (fibrinogen

level < 220 mg/dL) and/or thrombocytopenia (low platelet

count < 150,000/µL).

Systemic toxicity was observed in 16 (26%) patients, and ranged

from vomiting to clinically significant hypotension (low blood

pressure).

The coral snake bite presented with significant pain and

paresthesias (abnormal sensations such as tingling, prickling, or

numbness), but did not progress to any objective weakness or

other neurological deficits. Mild erythema (redness) and swelling

were noted locally, and laboratory results were unremarkable.

Unknown pit viper bite to 7-year-old boy, 12 hours post-

envenomation. Photo by the author.

A majority of patients with native crotalid envenomations were

treated with CroFab, the only commercially-available and FDA-

approved antivenom for bites from U.S. pit vipers. Doses

ranged from six to 18 vials, with a median of 10 vials. In

approximately 40% of the cases, antivenom was initiated at an

outside hospital prior to transfer to the toxicology service. The

02468

10

Snakebites 2016

copperhead cottonmouth rattlesnake

coral snake exotic snake unknown


non-native C. albolabris bite was treated with a total of 10 vials of

Thai Red Cross Green Pit Viper antivenom. The coral snake

bite did not require antivenom.

The same bite, three days post-envenomation. Photo by the

author.

Two patients had acute adverse reactions to antivenom. In the

first, an 11-year-old boy envenomated by a cottonmouth, the

infusion was stopped and the patient was treated with

diphenhydramine. The infusion was restarted but then

discontinued when the patient developed urticaria (hives) and

facial swelling. He was then treated with corticosteroids and

additional antihistamines. Intubation and epinephrine were not

needed. The other patient with an acute reaction was an 8-year-

old female, also bitten by a cottonmouth. The infusion was

paused and the patient was treated with diphenhydramine.

Antivenom was then restarted at a lower rate without incident.

There were no cases of serum sickness or other late

complications following antivenom administration.

Antibiotics were only required in one patient, a 4-year-old boy

who developed erythema, swelling, and purulent (thick, opaque)

drainage several weeks after discharge, after he had spent

considerable time chewing on the affected finger. Antibiotics

were initiated prophylactically by several referring facilities, but

were promptly discontinued by the toxicology service upon

arrival at the receiving hospital. None of these patients

developed any infections.

No patient required surgical intervention, and all regained full

use of the affected body part.

Copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) bite to 4-year-old boy, 24

hours post-envenomation. Photo by the author.

The same bite, 21 days post-envenomation. Photo by the

author.


Herping Regulations for States in the

Southwestern Region, Part 2: California

By Jim Bass

The first thing I will mention in regard to the California

Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is that its title

probably should read ‘Wildlife and Fish,’ as 75% of California’s

budget is dedicated to deer hunting, with the remaining 25%

divided between large game, small game, birds, and

fishing. Reptiles and amphibians do not rate their own category

and are lumped together on four pages within 78 pages of

fishing regulations, which is why you need a fishing license to

field herp in California. It is my hope here to provide an

overview of California’s herping regulations, as well as to

provide a practical guide to what one needs to know to herp

California legally.

Little wonder then, that many (if not most) California game

wardens know little to nothing about reptile and amphibian

regulations, much less how to tell one species from

another. Compounding this problem is the fact that in most

cases, wardens in the field can interpret the regulations as they

see fit. Also, given the small amount of resources dedicated to

herpetofauna, by necessity only large-scale poaching rings and

gross violators are targeted, leaving private hobbyists, for the

most part, little to no worry.

This is pretty much how it’s been since 1978 when California

reptiles and amphibians were first regulated, making it illegal

(with a few permitted exceptions) to sell any native California

reptile or amphibian. So, depending upon your point of view,

California is either a herper’s paradise or a State woefully remiss

in its management of herp resources.

That, however, has been changing over the last decade or so,

with the CDFW becoming more and more proactive regarding

herp management, and rather than basing their findings on the

efforts of a few researchers, they have been (more and more)

actively utilizing ‘Citizen Science,’ along with germane research

from academia, as a means to procure more comprehensive data

sets towards making better herp management decisions.

I compiled the Herpetological Education and Research Project’s

(HERP) data on California herps for the Reptile and

Amphibians Species of Special Concern (RASSC) update,

administered by the University of California—Davis. More

recently, HERP entries and North American Field Herping

Association (NAFHA) members assisted the State with their

Herp Range Map(s) update. Members of the CDFW also joined

NAFHA at our national meet in Southern California last year to

help gather data and provide expertise.

Overall, I would characterize the CDFW as progressive and

committed to improvement, but as in most bureaucracies, actual

changes lag behind ideals. The ‘grapevine’ has it that

. . . the CDFW is developing changes to the existing regulations pertaining to herps in order to update common and scientific names, add or subtract species from the list, determine closure zones, and “increase the ability of citizen scientists and recreationists to assist CDFW in amphibian and reptile conservation.” (www.californiaherps.com)

This last part looks really interesting and could indicate some

great new changes. Maybe we will be given approval to

temporarily handle threatened animals which may be difficult to

identify without capture. While awaiting these changes to come

to fruition, the extant regulations have some ‘flaws’ that need to

be recognized.

In order to simplify enforcement, wardens (ostensibly) have a list

of herps that can be taken, with the understanding that anything

not on the list is prohibited. This, however, can be problematic,

given the defunct taxonomy the regulations sometimes

employ. Take, for example, the Wandering Salamander (Aneides

vagrans), which used to be classified as the “Clouded

Salamander:” the “Clouded Salamander” can be taken, but the

Wandering Salamander is not on the list. Does this mean the

Wandering Salamander cannot be taken or is it still classified as

the “Clouded Salamander?”

Another problem is the genus Batrachoseps, which has recently been split into many new species which are probably not yet recognized by the CDFW, and that is why they are not on the list of animals which can be taken. For example, many of the Sierra Batrachoseps which were formerly classified as Batrachoseps nigriventris and Batrachoseps pacificus, have been re-classified as full species—B. kawia, B. regius, B. gregarius, B. diabolicus. This taxonomy and these names are in common use now, but the changes are not reflected in the CDFW list. The CDFW appears to be conservative, reacting slowly to changes in


nomenclature. This is not necessarily a bad thing at all, but it can make it confusing to those trying to understand the regulations. (www.californiaherps.com/)

Another thing one needs to research before herping California is

the list of ‘special closures’ (which I’ll cover in detail later),

making some subspecies of herps, within a species that can be taken,

prohibited in certain defined areas. For instance: of the three

subspecies of Western Patch-nosed Snake (Salvadora hexalepis),

only Coastal Patch-nosed Snakes (S. h. virgultea) are listed as

Species of Special Concern (SSC) and their collection (take) is

prohibited in the counties in which they occur. Problem is, in

my home county of San Bernardino, they did not specify ‘S. h.

virgultea’ but rather prohibited ‘S. hexalepis,’ making it technically

illegal to touch any patch-nosed snake in San Bernardino

County. I suspect this is for the sake of the game wardens, who

may not be able to tell one subspecies from another, although it

may just be an oversight in the writing of the regulations that

needs to be corrected.

Coastal Patch-nosed Snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea), found dead-on-road and

repositioned, San Bernardino County. Photo by the author.

While ostensibly the regulations are written with ‘take’ in mind, it

is a fact that a good portion of ‘herpers’ have only data

collection, photography, and ‘life-lists’ in mind. If this is the

case, we will now look at what is needed for that. It all starts

with the definition of ‘take’ which (according to California Fish

and Game Code Section 86) means to hunt, pursue, catch,

capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill

(emphasis added). Technically, you need a license to even look

for herps, whether you see any or not. Many of course argue

that a license should not be required to photograph herps

and/or collect data on them and if you are strictly an ‘in situ’

photographer (no touching or handling), with no collecting gear

with you, depending on your interaction with law enforcement

(and how they interpret the regulations) chances are you will be

okay. As California herper Gary Nafis explains so well:

. . . herpers need a license if they plan to pick up or handle a herp for any reason, including photography, even though they don’t plan to collect it. The reason they give makes sense: if you have an animal in your possession, even if it’s only temporarily, and a law enforcement officer sees you with the animal in your possession, it can appear to the officer that you are collecting the animal. If you don’t have a license, it will be up to you to convince the officer that your intention was to release the animal where it was found. Most people who are collecting an animal illegally will always lie and tell an officer that they were not going to keep it, that they are just taking pictures of it, and this makes it difficult for the officer to determine if you are also lying. (www.californiaherps.com/)

This, of course, applies to all California herps but even if you

have a valid California fishing license, (which now, by the way,

doesn’t have to be visually displayed—as before—but which you

must have with you) there are actually more ‘no touch’ (SSC or

otherwise protected) herps in California than ones you can

handle and/or collect! For some of these ‘otherwise protected’

herps (like the federally endangered Arroyo Toad, Anaxyrus

californicus) you (technically) need a Scientific Collecting Permit to

even look for them, even for ‘in situ’ photography. Given this

reality, I survey a certain stretch of riparian stream several times

a year for invasive Bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), which I

gig/kill whenever possible, and take photos of any Arroyo Toads

I also happen to see.

Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus), a Federal endangered species, San Bernardino

County. Photo by the author.

As the state having the second-highest number of rattlesnake

species (behind Arizona) and some that only occur here (which

many herpers really want to see), discussing regulations regarding


them is warranted. First of all, it should be noted that the laws

regarding rattlesnakes in California were not written by the

CDFW, but rather by the California legislature and signed by the

governor, making it the law that a license is not needed to ‘take’

rattlesnakes. This law exists to allow someone to remove or kill

a rattlesnake on private property in order to protect themselves,

their family, or their animals, without having to obtain a license

first. Some people interpret the no-license-required regulation

to mean that they can collect, kill, or possess as many

rattlesnakes as they want, but this is not true. For all species of

rattlesnakes except the Red Diamond-backed Rattlesnake

(Crotalus ruber), the CDFW regulations show a daily bag and

possession limit of two. C. ruber is now an SSC with a zero bag

limit.

A male Red Diamond-backed Rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber) exhibiting den defense

behavior, advancing from behind to allow his gravid mate to retreat, San

Bernardino County. Photo by the author.

Many folks might wonder exactly what SSC is, and what it

means. A Species of Special Concern (SSC) is a species,

subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to

California that currently satisfies one or more of the following

(not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria:

is extirpated from the state or, in the case of birds, is

extirpated in its primary season or breeding role;

is listed as federally—but not state—threatened or endangered; meets the state definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed;

is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for state threatened or endangered status;

has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized,

could lead to declines that would qualify it for state threatened or endangered status.

While some may assert that the SSC program is an unnecessary utilization of the Precautionary Principle, I think it is not only necessary but prudent. As a boy growing up in Highland, San Bernardino County, California, I could go into almost any open field and see half a dozen Coast Horned Lizards (Phrynosoma coronatum) in as many minutes. Who would have guessed that in just a few decades they would be hard to find in almost 90% of their range, due to urban development and introduction of invasive ants? A designation of SSC not only protects ‘at risk’ species but also initiates research on them, toward preventing future losses.

A young-of-year Coast Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum), San Bernardino


While SSC does not change the status of a species, it changes the bag limit to zero, thereby making them a ‘no touch’ species, which you are still free to photograph as long as you don’t handle them or have them in your possession. As many herpers (and possibly law enforcement officers [LE]) may not know which species are SSC and which are not, it is possible to get a ticket for just posing an SSC for a photograph, although this is not something that happens often. Having one of these species in your possession would be a different story, so I would advise knowing what species are ‘zero take.’ As a large state with a variety of habitats, California has roughly 175 herp species ranging from exceedingly easy to exceedingly difficult to find, so rather than try to list all which can or cannot be handled, I will just give a general breakdown:

Of the 51 snake species occurring in California, 17 are

‘zero take/no touch.’

Of 48 lizard species that can be found, 24 of them are

‘zero take/no touch.’

While three genera of invasive turtles can be taken

(Red-eared Sliders, Trachemys scripta elegans; Painted


Turtles, Chrysemys picta; and softshells, Apalone spp.)

with no limit, our three native turtle species and Desert

Tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) are ‘zero take/no touch,’ as

are (for some reason) invasive Common Snapping

Turtles (Chelydra serpentina).

Of 27 frog and toad species occurring in California, 17

are ‘zero take/no touch.’

Of the 46 salamander species that can be found in the

state, 36 (half of which are Batrachoseps) are ‘zero

take/no touch.’

One last class of herps remains: non-native invasives, which are

not yet listed as ‘no bag limit’ or as a restricted species, such as

Mediterranean Geckos (Hemidactylus turcicus), Italian Wall Lizards

(Podarcis siculus), or any new invasive which may be

found. Technically, if not on the list of species that can be

taken, they should be considered ‘zero take.’ However, the

CDFW has an invasive species program that encourages

collecting and reporting invasive species—Laws and Regulations

Regarding Invasive Species in California

(www.dfg.ca.gov/invasives/laws-regs.html)—under which you

are allowed to collect non-native species in order to send them

to the CDFW.

As for a practical guide for herping California, if you’re over 16

it would be best to have a license, which costs $48 a year, or you

can buy a 3-day license for less. There are no real problems with

road cruising or using lights, either day or night, except in State

Parks like Anza-Borrego, or National Preserves like Joshua Tree,

where any collecting of anything (even a rock) is

prohibited. Places like these are actually where you could have

the most problems, with state and federal LE, who may enforce

‘gray areas’ (such as moving a snake off the road to safety) more

strictly than on public land, and even just taking photos could be

considered ‘take.’ Often, it is LE who interprets regulations as

they understand them, which is why I personally rarely herp

these places; besides, everything in those places can be seen

other places as well.

Personally, I’ve had very little interaction with wardens in the

field and while I’ve heard of a few stories of ‘bad encounters,’ the

majority of stories I’ve heard have been positive. In the few

interactions I have had, I’ve found being friendly and forthright

(here’s my license; this is such and such a species, therefore I am

legal; etc.) has always worked well. Throwing in the phrase ‘As

I’m sure you know’ (even when certain they don’t) gives them

the chance to ‘save face’ and confirm that everything you’re

doing is legal.

If you do plan on any legal collecting, there are a few extra issues

to consider, such as bag and possession limits. You cannot

exceed the ‘possession’ limit, which is the same as the daily bag

limit. For example, if you have two wild-caught Rosy Boas

(Lichanura trivirgata) in a hotel room, the ‘daily’ bag limit no

longer applies. For amphibians, bag and possession limits (for

those approved for take) is four unless otherwise specified, and

can be found on page 20 of the current California Freshwater

Sport Fishing Regulations (paragraph 5.05).

For snakes and lizards, the standard limit is two except where

otherwise specified, and is subject to Special Closures listed on

pages 22 and 23 (paragraph 5.60). There are no limits on the

three invasive turtle species which can be taken—take all you

want; fill up your trunk and take them home with you.

Before giving ‘Special Closures’ the special attention they

deserve, I’d like to mention the four species of lizards that have

significantly higher bag limits (25 each in the aggregate, which is

to say a total of 25 of any combination of these four species),

which consist of Western Fence Lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis),

Sagebrush Lizards (Sceloporus graciosus), Side-blotched Lizards

(Uta stansburiana), Western Skinks (Eumeces skiltonianus), and

Desert Night Lizards (Xantusia vigilis), except the subspecies

Xantusia vigilis sierrae—see Special Closure (f)(2). Uta and to a

lesser extent these other lizards are short-lived, reproduce in

enormous numbers, and are basically feeder lizards for a variety

of animals, quite possibly even captive-bred kingsnakes

(Lampropeltis spp.). I can think of no other reason to collect so

many.

A ‘desert phase’ California Kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae), San Bernardino


This brings us to the SSC ‘special closures,’ which do deserve

some special attention, as you can literally cross a road or county

line (such as County Line Road dividing Riverside and San

Bernardino Counties) and move from legal possession to

illegal. To be clear, what may be legal to collect in most of their

range may be illegal in certain designated areas, wherein all


subspecies of a species are prohibited from collecting, SSC or

not. Here are the Special Closures from page 23 (f):

(1) No geckos (Coleonyx variegatus) may be taken in San Diego

County south and west of Highway 79 to its junction with

County Road S-2, and south and west of County Road S-2 to the

eastern San Diego County border.

(2) No rubber boas (Charina bottae or Charina umbratica) may be

taken in Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino

counties.

(3) No night lizards (Xantusia vigilis) may be taken in Kern

County.

(4) No ringneck snakes (Diadophis punctatus) may be taken in San

Bernardino or Inyo counties.

(5) No coachwhips (Masticophis [Coluber] flagellum) may be taken

in the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern,

Kings, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis

Obispo, Santa Barbara, Stanislaus, Tulare.

(6) No California Whipsnakes (striped racer) (Masticophis [Coluber]

lateralis) may be taken in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

(7) No Western (Desert) Patch-nosed Snakes (Salvadora hexalepis)

may be taken in the following counties: Los Angeles, Orange,

Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa

Barbara and Ventura.

(8) No glossy snakes (Arizona elegans) may be taken in the

following counties: Alameda, Fresno, Imperial (west of Hwy

111), Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside (southwest of Hwy 111 and

I-10), San Benito, San Bernardino (West of I-215 and Hwy 138),

San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa

Clara and Tulare.

(9) No California mountain kingsnakes (Lampropeltis zonata) may

be taken in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San

Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties.

Here’s the catch: each of these special closures was for an SSC

subspecies, but the closures are for the species as a whole, again (I

believe) as a nod towards LE’s lack of ability to tell one

subspecies from another.

I should also mention that there is one other exception to

California herping regulations: albino native reptiles. Albino

reptiles are defined as individual native reptiles lacking normal

body pigment and having red or pink eyes. No permit is

required for the possession, propagation, importation,

exportation, transportation, purchase, or sale of captive-bred or

wild-caught native albino reptiles or amphibians.

Normally-colored and hypomelanistic Rosy Boas (Lichanura trivirgata) as flipped,

San Bernardino County. Photo by the author.

Now for the topic that everyone seems to want to know about,

yet is not covered anywhere in the regulations (as far as I can

tell)—the exportation of native herps for commercial

breeding. California has three native species of snake that can be

bred, sold, and exported within and outside of California with

the appropriate permits, which are:

(A) California Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis californiae)

(B) California subspecies of the Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer)

(C) California subspecies of the Rosy (3-lined Northern) Boa

(Lichanura trivirgata).

It seems that if you legally collect a native California herp, or

have it gifted to you—once outside the state—there are no

California regulations preventing breeding them, as in some

states, like Arizona.

Finally, I will close with what I think would help ‘herp

management’ here in California, and something that very well

may be under consideration: a herp stamp or a herping license

so that the state can know how many licenses are purchased for

the collection (or photographing) of herps. Until such a system

is established, the CDFW has no way of knowing how many

licenses they are selling to herpers so they can allocate some

funding to herp-related issues, as herpers are currently counted

under ‘fishing.’ A stamp or special license would also allow

some reporting of how many herps are collected. As it is now,

the CDFW has no way of knowing how many animals are taken.


Knowing that could help to change how they manage their

‘allowable take’ list.

Great Basin Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola), San Bernardino County.


Here in California we are lucky enough to have a very

comprehensive, up-to-date herping resource called

Californiaherps.com maintainted by Gary Nafis, which I relied

heavily upon (paraphrasing liberally and directly quoting) in this

article. I suggest anyone considering herping in California

should absolutely avail themselves of this resource for a

productive and stress-free (legal) trip.

Book Review: Peterson Field Guide to Reptiles

and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North

America, Fourth Edition by Robert Powell, Roger Conant, and Joseph T. Collins

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: New York, 2016.

Softcover. 512 pp. List: $21.00, Amazon: $14.41,

Ebook: Currently unavailable. ISBN 978-0544129979

Review by Tom Lott

In the 58 years since its first appearance, the Peterson Field Guide

to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America

has undergone three major revisions (1975, 1991, and 2016) and

one minor one (1998). This new edition covers 501 species, an

increase of 32% over the 379 included in the 1991 edition (the

previous major revision). Unfortunately, most of that increase is

due to exotic species that have been recognized as established

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&text=Robert+Powell&search-alias=books&field-author=Robert+Powell&sort=relevancerank

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_2?ie=UTF8&text=Roger+Conant&search-alias=books&field-author=Roger+Conant&sort=relevancerank

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_3?ie=UTF8&text=Joseph+T.+Collins&search-alias=books&field-author=Joseph+T.+Collins&sort=relevancerank


and the promotion of taxa previously regarded as subspecies to

full species status.

The number of pages in this latest edition, however, has

increased only to 494 from the previous 450, an enlargement of

only about 10%. Obviously, then, a considerable amount of

material has been cut from the previous edition. Most of the

deletions appear to have come from introductory sections

regarding captive care and from natural history comments within

the individual taxon accounts, which have been reduced to terse

listings of habitats in which the animals are typically found.

Established, newly-added non-native species carry a distinctive

red “non-native” notation following their species name in the

text. Regrettably, however, their photos have not been added to

Isabelle Conant’s classic identification plates, which remain

largely intact. Instead, photos of non-native species appear

almost randomly in the appropriate section of the text.

Similarly, photos of legitimately new taxa (rather than promoted

former subspecies or “cryptic” species) have not been added to

the traditional plates, but are included in the text, some at a

considerable distance from their account entries. Nor, in some

cases, have such taxa been included in the “similar species”

sections of accounts where it would have been appropriate.

In a major layout alteration of no particular practical

consequence, amphibians now precede reptiles. Likewise,

diagrams illustrating the proper techniques for measuring herps

are now placed in the introductory section rather than on the

endplates, and the limited tadpole identification section has been

eliminated, presumably on the assumption that more thorough

resources are available elsewhere, especially on the internet.

Gone also is Roger Conant’s practice of providing separate

accounts for each major subspecies, lumping together only those

that were most similar in appearance and/or habits to the major

one. The new lead author, clearly belonging to the subspecies

denial school, lumps all currently recognized subspecies into

abbreviated descriptions appended at the end of each species

account. In the introduction, Dr. Powell seems almost annoyed

at having to deal with subspecies at all, stating that “the entire

concept has fallen into disfavor in recent years” and “may not be

recognized in the future.” He further implies that subspecies are

worthy of recognition only to the extent that they might be

indicators of populations to be elevated to full species in the

future. So much for recognizing diversity!

The range maps continue the trend established in the

“expanded” third edition (1998) of being located throughout the

species accounts, near the relevant taxon being discussed, rather

than lumped together as a group at the end of the text accounts.

Continued also is the representation of ranges with various

colors rather than black and white patterns. Also new and

helpful is the inclusion of color-coded page margins to rapidly

identify the major sections of the book dealing with the various

major groups of herps (i.e., salamanders, frogs, turtles, etc.).

Most of the range maps, however, have been revised from the

1998 edition by Dr. Travis Taggart, of the Center for North

American Herpetology (CNAH), some apparently for the better,

others not so much. Stanley Trauth has listed a number of

inaccuracies for his home state of Arkansas (Trauth 2016) and it

may be reasonably assumed that a similar number of problems

exist for other states covered by this guide. In Texas, for

example, the range of the Cat-eyed Snake (Leptodeira

septentrionalis) is seriously under-represented (see Keown and

Salmon 2014).

Another good example consists of the treatment of the

milksnake complex (Lampropeltis triangulum, sensu lato) in Texas.

In the 1998 edition, the milksnakes were still considered to

consist of a single species comprised of four subspecies

distributed more or less contiguously, at least in the southern

and eastern portions of the state. This latest edition, however,

follows the proposal of Ruane et al (2014) that only two full

species of the milksnake complex, the “Tamaulipan Milksnake,

Lampropeltis annulata” and the Western Milksnake, Lampropeltis

gentilis,” inhabit Texas. The new map suggests that an extensive

hiatus in distribution exists between “L annulata” and “L.

gentilis,” running from the south-central Texas coast to the north-

central Texas border, with a vast area of central Texas

uninhabited by either “species.”

While this paradigm is somewhat suggested by the most recent

compilation of Texas snake distributions (Dixon 2013), and is in

keeping with the Ruane et al. (op. cit.) proposal, it ignores the fact

well known to Texas herpers that milksnakes phenotypically

intermediate between “L. annulata” and “L. gentilis”(i.e., L. t.

amaura) remain common on the offshore barrier islands of the

entire Texas coast, despite the fact that virtually all of the

adjacent mainland coastal prairie habitat has been converted into

extensive areas of monoculture unfavorable for the species.

Traditionally, the incorporation of a new taxonomic arrangement

into a field guide format has been highly influential to its

acceptance. The average person, or even the average hobbyist,

typically will never read the technical literature nor even consult

the so-called standardized lists. They will, however, generally

accept whatever taxonomy their field guide uses as being

authoritative. Thus it is unfortunate that most of the recent

controversial proposals that desperately require either refutation

or confirmation from other workers using different methods


have been incorporated into this new edition of a previously

venerable field guide.

Lastly, and of no particular import, I found it peculiar that Dr.

Conant has been demoted to a junior author in this new revision

of his and Isabelle’s great work. This despite the fact that the

book retains much of their easily recognizable style. Truly great

field guides, even when revised by others after their initial

author’s passing, are almost always remembered and referenced

as so-and-so’s guide. This particular field guide will always be

referred to by me as “Conant’s guide.”

Perhaps, though, given his less than sanguine view of the

behavior and results of modern phylogeneticists, Roger would

have been content to assume a less involved role in presenting

the fruits of their labors in a field guide:

I have heard it said that some of the persons who

conduct such research [molecular taxonomy] would not

recognize the reptile or amphibian from which their

samples were derived if they saw it in life. . . . Imagine

trying to write a field guide based on such techniques.

—Roger Conant in A Field Guide to the Life and Times of

Roger Conant. 1997. Provo, UT: Selva, Canyonlands

Publishing Group, L.C.

Literature Cited

Conant, R. 1958. A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of the

United States and Canada East of the 100th Meridian. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company.

_________. 1975. A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians:

Eastern and Central North America. 2nd edition. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company.

_________. and J.T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and

Amphibians of Eastern-Central North America. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Company.

_______________________. 1998. A Field Guide to Reptiles and

Amphibians of Eastern-Central North America. 3rd edition

(expanded). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Dixon, J.R. 2013. Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas. 3rd edition.

W. L. Moody, Jr., Natural History Series 25. College Station:

Texas A&M University Press.

Keown, G. and G.T. Salmon. 2014. “Geographic Distribution.

Leptodeira septentrionalis.” Herpetological Review 45(3): 466.

Ruane, S.; R.W. Bryson, Jr., R.A. Pyron, and F.T. Burbrink.

2014. “Coalescent Species Delimitation in Milksnakes

(genus Lampropeltis) and Impacts on Phylogenetic Comparative

Analyses.” Systematic Biology 63(2): 231-250.

Trauth, Stanley E. 2016. “Book Review: Peterson Field Guide to

Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America.”

Herpetological Review 47(3): 497-498.

SWCHR CODE OF ETHICS

As a member of the Southwestern Center for Herpetological Research, I subscribe to

the Association’s Code of Ethics.

Field activities should limit the impact on natural habitats, replacing all cover objects,

not tearing apart rocks or logs and refraining from the use of gasoline or other toxic

materials.

Catch and release coupled with photography and the limited take of non-protected

species for personal study or breeding use is permitted. The commercial take and sale

of wild-caught animals is not acceptable.

Collecting practices should respect landowner rights, including but not limited to

securing permission for land entry and the packing out of all personal trash.

Captive-breeding efforts are recognized as a valid means of potentially reducing

collection pressures on wild populations and are encouraged.

The release of captive animals including captive-bred animals into the wild is

discouraged except under the supervision of trained professionals and in accordance

with an accepted species preservation or restocking plan.

The disclosure of exact locality information on public internet forums is discouraged in

most circumstances. Locality information posted on public internet forums usually

should be restricted to providing the name of the county where the animal was found.

When specific locality data is provided to one in confidence, it should be kept in

confidence and should not be abused or shared with others without explicit

permission.

Other members of the Association are always to be treated cordially and in a respectful

manner.

SWCHR

3600 FM 1488 RD, STE 120-115

CONROE TX 77384

Date post:	29-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

SWCHR BULLETIN - southwestern herp...Book Review: Peterson Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of...

Documents