Overview

Comprehensive Description

Description

The Cajun chorus frog (P. fouquettei) is a recently described species that is found in the American South. It was previously considered a member of the P. feriarum species complex. Recent work using mitochondrial DNA, advertisement calls, and, to a lesser extent, morphology revealed that P. fouquettei is indeed a separate species from P. feriarum (Lemmon et al. 2008).

Description: Cajun chorus frogs are relatively small with males attaining a maximum snout-vent length (SVL) of 30 mm and females attaining at least 27 mm SVL (Lemmon et al. 2008). The head is barely convex when viewed from above and is slightly narrower than the body. The snout tapers to a sharp point when viewed from the side. The upper jaw exceeds the tip of the lower jaw. The snout is long, with a rounded canthus rostralis and barely concave loreal region. Nostrils are slightly protuberant and are positioned two-thirds of the distance from the anterior of the eyes to the tip of the snout. Eyes are medium in size and do not protrude. Lips are moderately thick and do not flare. The supratympanic fold is thin and runs from the back of the eye tp above the tympanum (barely obscuring the upper edge of the tympanum), and then downward towards the arm insertion. Distance from the eye to the tympanum is equal to about two-thirds the diameter of the tympanum. Arms are robust and moderately long. There is no axillary membrane (membrane between body and limb at insertion). A slight skin fold is evident at the ulnar joint but no tubercles are present. A distinct fold of skin is seen on the dorsal surface of the wrist. Fingers are long and slender and the toe pads are only slightly wider than the fingers. The round tubercles on the pads are moderately large and are not bifid. There is a large almost bisected tubercle on the palm. Breeding males do not bear nuptial excrescences (used to grip the female during amplexus). There is no webbing between the digits of the hand. Hindlimbs are slender and moderately long with a well developed, flap-like, inner tarsal fold running the entire length of the tarsus and connecting to the inner metatarsal tubercle. No outer tarsal fold is present. The inner metatarsal tubercle is small, oval-shaped, and raised, while the outer metatarsal tubercle is smaller and conical. Toes are long and slender with toe pads slightly wider than the digits. Subarticular tubercles are large, round, and flattened. Proximal segments of the outer digits have a few indistinct supernumerary tubercles. On the feet, webbing only occurs basally between digits III-IV and IV-V. The cloaca lies near the mid level of the thighs with a short flap of skin that lies above the opening and partially covers it. The skin on the back is weakly granular while the ventral surface is robustly granular. The tongue, barely free behind, is heart-shaped with a small notch posterior. Two or three teeth are present on each vomerine process. In males, vocal slits extend along the posterior 2/3 of the tongue to the jaw angle. A single median subgular vocal sac is present in males. This vocal sac is greatly expandable (Lemmon et al. 2008).

Similar species: P. fouquettei can be distinguished from sympatric congeners in the south-central U. S. as follows: from P. crucifer by lacking an X-shaped dorsal pattern, having smaller terminal discs, being more terrestrial, and having a pulsed call (vs. an unpulsed single-note call in P. crucifer) ; from P. streckeri by being smaller and less robust and having terminal discs, and having a pulsed call (vs. an unpulsed single-note call in P. streckeri); and from P. clarkii by lacking green spots or green stripes on the dorsum, lacking an interorbital triangle, and having a call with a much slower pulse rate. P. fouquettei hybridizes with P. nigrita along the border between Louisiana and Mississippi (Gartside 1980) but outside of the contact zone can be distinguished by color pattern, with P. fouquettei having three brown longitudinal stripes or rows of spots on a pale tan or gray dorsum, and a white labial stripe (vs. comparatively darker broken dorsal stripes or spots in P. nigrita, and wider, dark brown to nearly black transverse bars on the hindlimbs) (Lemmon et al. 2008).

Coloration of live adults is light brown above with three darker brown stripes along the back. If stripes are not present there will be three sets of dark spots forming rows along the back, or some individuals will be patternless except for leg markings. The back can range from light gray to tan with a slight pinkish hue. There also may be gold flecking on the back. A bright iridescent white labial stripe extends beyond the eye to just behind the tympanum. The pupil is dark brown with a bronze-gold iris. There is also a wide reddish-brown stripe that extends laterally from the tip of the snout along the flank just anterior to the hindlimbs. Hindlimbs are tan to medium brown with dark brown transverse bars. Variation has been observed in the number (2-15) and intensity of the leg bars. The ventral surface is cream colored with occasional dark flecks and the throat is yellowish-brown (Lemmon et al. 2008).

Coloration of preserved specimens is similar to live coloration. However, in preserved individuals the white labial stripe is no longer iridescent and no pinkish hue or bronze flecking is apparent on the dorsal surface (Lemmon et al. 2008).

Tadpoles reach a length of 43 mm (Dundee and Rossman 1989). They usually have dark spots along the back and bicolored tail musculature. The tail has a dark stripe on each side of the pigmented area and freckled tail fins. A further description of tadpoles of this species can be found in Siekmann (1949) and photographs of tadpoles (referred to as P. triseriata) can be viewed in Trauth et al. (2004). Newly transformed frogs in Louisiana are quite small and only measure 8.5-13.5 mm SVL (Dundee and Rossman 1989).

Pseudacris fouquettei was previously regarded as part of a wide-ranging chorus frog complex. It was previously called Pseudacris triseriata feriarum and most recently P. feriarum. The specific epithet "fouquettei" is in reference to Martin J. "Jack" Fouquette, Jr., who studied chorus frogs in the 1960s and 1970s.

This species is known to hybridize with P. nigrita within a narrow range in Southeastern Louisiana and Southwestern Mississippi (Gartside 1980). The small size of this hybrid zone suggests that the hybrids are less fit than the parental species (Lemmon et al. 2007). The presence of these hybrids and a survey of mitochondrial DNA clearly show that Pseudacris fouquettei and Pseudacris nigrita are sister species (Lemmon et al. 2007). Unlike P. nigrita, P. fouquettei is not restricted to pine forest (Lemmon et al. 2008).

  • Rothermel, B. B., Walls, S. C., Mitchell, J. C., Dodd, C. K. Jr., Irwin, L. K., Green, D. E., Vazquez, V. M., Petranka, J. W., and Stevenson, D. J. (2008). ''Widespread occurrence of the amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the southeastern USA .'' Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 82, 3-18.
  • Dorcas, M. and Gibbons, W. (2008). Frogs and Toads of the Southeast. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
  • Dundee, H. A., and Rossman, D. A. (1989). The Amphibians and Reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA.
  • Gartside, D. F. (1980). ''Analysis of a hybrid zone between chorus frogs of the Pseudacris nigrita complex in the Southern United States.'' Copeia, 1980(1), 56-66.
  • Hammerson, G. 2008. Pseudacris fouquettei. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 04 December 2009.
  • Lemmon, E. M., Lemmon, A. R., Collins, J. T., Cannatella, D. C., and Lee-Yaw, J. A. (2008). ''A new North American chorus frog species (Amphibia: Hylidae: Pseudacris) from the south-central United States.'' Zootaxa, (1675), 1-30.
  • Lemmon, E. M., Lemmon, A. R., and Lee-Yaw, J. A. (2007). ''Phylogeny-based delimitation of species boundaries and contact zones in the trilling chorus frogs (Pseudacris).'' Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, (44), 1068-1082.
  • Martof, B. S. and Thomspon, E. F. Jr. (1958). ''Reproductive behavior of the chorus frog, Pseudacris nigrita.'' Behaviour, 13(3/4), 243-258.
  • Siekmann, J.M. (1949). A Survey of the Tadpoles of Louisiana. M.S. Thesis. Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© AmphibiaWeb © 2000-2011 The Regents of the University of California

Source: AmphibiaWeb

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Distribution

endemic to a single nation

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

National Distribution

United States

Origin: Native

Regularity: Regularly occurring

Currently: Present

Confidence: Confident

Type of Residency: Year-round

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Range: (200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)) Range includes the south-central United States in eastern Oklahoma, southeastern Missouri, Arkansas, eastern Texas, Louisiana, and eastern and southern Mississippi (Lemmon et al. 2008).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Range Description

Range includes the south-central United States in eastern Oklahoma, southeastern Missouri, Arkansas, eastern Texas, Louisiana, and eastern and southern Mississippi (Lemmon et al. 2008).
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Distribution and Habitat

Pseudacris fouquettei is found throughout Louisiana, Arkansas, Eastern Texas, Eastern Oklahoma, Western Mississippi, and into extreme Southern Missouri (Lemmon et al. 2008). It is found in a variety of habitats from forested areas to open fields throughout the breeding season and frequently colonizes wet roadside ditches (Lemmon et al. 2008). The only habitat the species does not occupy within its range is the marshes of Southern Louisiana (Dundee and Rossman 1989). Little is known of the habitat utilized by Pseudacris fouquettei in the non-breeding season (Lemmon et al. 2008). However, since it is rarely seen above ground during non-breeding it is assumed that it must burrow underground (Dorcas and Gibbons 2008).

  • Rothermel, B. B., Walls, S. C., Mitchell, J. C., Dodd, C. K. Jr., Irwin, L. K., Green, D. E., Vazquez, V. M., Petranka, J. W., and Stevenson, D. J. (2008). ''Widespread occurrence of the amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the southeastern USA .'' Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 82, 3-18.
  • Dorcas, M. and Gibbons, W. (2008). Frogs and Toads of the Southeast. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
  • Dundee, H. A., and Rossman, D. A. (1989). The Amphibians and Reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA.
  • Gartside, D. F. (1980). ''Analysis of a hybrid zone between chorus frogs of the Pseudacris nigrita complex in the Southern United States.'' Copeia, 1980(1), 56-66.
  • Hammerson, G. 2008. Pseudacris fouquettei. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 04 December 2009.
  • Lemmon, E. M., Lemmon, A. R., Collins, J. T., Cannatella, D. C., and Lee-Yaw, J. A. (2008). ''A new North American chorus frog species (Amphibia: Hylidae: Pseudacris) from the south-central United States.'' Zootaxa, (1675), 1-30.
  • Lemmon, E. M., Lemmon, A. R., and Lee-Yaw, J. A. (2007). ''Phylogeny-based delimitation of species boundaries and contact zones in the trilling chorus frogs (Pseudacris).'' Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, (44), 1068-1082.
  • Martof, B. S. and Thomspon, E. F. Jr. (1958). ''Reproductive behavior of the chorus frog, Pseudacris nigrita.'' Behaviour, 13(3/4), 243-258.
  • Siekmann, J.M. (1949). A Survey of the Tadpoles of Louisiana. M.S. Thesis. Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© AmphibiaWeb © 2000-2011 The Regents of the University of California

Source: AmphibiaWeb

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Ecology

Habitat

Comments: Habitats of this ground-dwelling frog are diverse and include forests, fields, swamps, marshes, irrigation ditches, and temporarily flooded areas (Bartlett and Bartlett 1999, Lemmon et al. 2008). Eggs are laid in small clusters that adhere to submerged vegetationin shallow temporary pools, ditches, and flooded areas where emergent vegetation or a grassy margin is present (Dundee and Rossman 1989).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Habitat and Ecology

Habitat and Ecology
Habitats of this ground-dwelling frog are diverse and include forests, fields, swamps, marshes, irrigation ditches, and temporarily flooded areas (Bartlett and Bartlett 1999, Lemmon et al. 2008). Eggs are laid in small clusters that adhere to submerged vegetationin shallow temporary pools, ditches, and flooded areas where emergent vegetation or a grassy margin is present (Dundee and Rossman 1989).

Systems
  • Terrestrial
  • Freshwater
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Migration

Non-Migrant: No. All populations of this species make significant seasonal migrations.

Locally Migrant: Yes. At least some populations of this species make local extended movements (generally less than 200 km) at particular times of the year (e.g., to breeding or wintering grounds, to hibernation sites).

Locally Migrant: No. No populations of this species make annual migrations of over 200 km.

Individuals move seasonally between breeding sites and upland habitats.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Population Biology

Number of Occurrences

Note: For many non-migratory species, occurrences are roughly equivalent to populations.

Estimated Number of Occurrences: 81 to >300

Comments: This species is represented by large number of occurrences (subpopulations) (e.g., see maps in Dundee and Rossman 1989 and Trauth et al. 2004).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Abundance

100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals

Comments: Total adult population size is unknown but presumably exceeds 100,000.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History and Behavior

Reproduction

Breeds mainly in winter and early spring (Dundee and Rossman 1989, Trauth et al. 2004, Lemmon et al. 2008). Larvae hatch within a few days and metamorphose within a few months (Trauth et al. 2004).

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation

Conservation Status

National NatureServe Conservation Status

United States

Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

NatureServe Conservation Status

Rounded Global Status Rank: G5 - Secure

Reasons: Widespread in south-central United States; abundant; secure.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

IUCN Red List Assessment


Red List Category
LC
Least Concern

Red List Criteria

Version
3.1

Year Assessed
2008

Assessor/s
Geoffrey Hammerson

Reviewer/s
Global Amphibian Assessment Coordinating Team (Simon Stuart, Janice Chanson and Neil Cox)

Contributor/s

Justification
Listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, tolerance of a degree of habitat modification, presumed large population, and because it is unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in a more threatened category.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Global Short Term Trend: Relatively stable to decline of 30%

Comments: Current population trend is unknown but probably stable to slightly declining.

Global Long Term Trend: Relatively stable to decline of 50%

Comments: Over the long term, likley stable in extent of occurrence; unknown degree of decline in population size, area of occurrence, and number/condition of occurrences.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Population

Population
This species is represented by large number of occurrences (subpopulations) (e.g., see maps in Dundee and Rossman 1989 and Trauth et al. 2004). Many occurrences have good viability.

Total adult population size is unknown but presumably exceeds 100,000.

Over the long term, likely stable in extent of occurrence; unknown degree of decline in population size, area of occurrence, and number/condition of occurrences. Current population trend is unknown but probably stable to slightly declining.

Population Trend
Stable
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History, Abundance, Activity, and Special Behaviors

These mostly diurnal frogs are active throughout their breeding season. Breeding generally occurs from January through May (Lemmon et al. 2008), but depending on the temperature, breeding may commence as early as the end of October (Dundee and Rossman 1989). Breeding activity occurs from 4°-21°C, typically after rainfall (Lemmon et al. 2008). Breeding and courtship usually occur in shallow temporary pools and flooded fields where there is emergent vegetation (Dundee and Rossman 1989). Males sit concealed within the grasses to produce advertisement calls (Dundee and Rossman 1989).

The advertisement call of Pseudacris fouquettei generally resembles that of other chorus frogs. This call can be imitated by rubbing one's thumb along a stiff comb (Dundee and Rossman 1989). Although the call's average dominant frequency is similar for P. fouquettei and three parapatric congeners (3139 Hz in P. fouquettei vs. 2952-3079 Hz in the congeners), P. fouquettei has a slower call rate than P. feriarum and P. maculata, a higher duty cycle (call length/call period) than P. nigrita, an intermediate pulse number, and a longer call length than all three species (Lemmon et al 2008). It was shown ifor P. nigrita that most interactions between calling males were defensive with no aggressive territorial behavior observed (Martof and Thompson 1958).

Amplexus is axillary. Females lay anywhere from 500 to 1,500 eggs in small soft clusters attached to vegetation, usually grass stems (Dundee and Rossman 1989). These eggs will hatch within a few days, depending upon the water temperature (Dorcas and Gibbons 2008). The tadpoles remain in the water until they fully metamorphose (48 to over 80 days) (Dorcas and Gibbons 2008). The newly transformed frogs usually stay close to the water body for a short time after that (Dorcas and Gibbons 2008).

Adults usually disperse within 200 m of the breeding pool after breeding. They feed on small invertebrates like ants, beetles, and flies. Tadpoles most likely feed on algae and other detritus from grass stems and other objects. Tadpoles are likely consumed by large diving beetles and fishing spiders. Adults are probably heavily consumed by garter snakes, and ribbon snakes. They are probably also consumed by birds, mammals, water snakes, and turtles. No escape or defense behavior has been observed for Pseudacris fouquettei (Dorcas and Gibbons 2008).

  • Rothermel, B. B., Walls, S. C., Mitchell, J. C., Dodd, C. K. Jr., Irwin, L. K., Green, D. E., Vazquez, V. M., Petranka, J. W., and Stevenson, D. J. (2008). ''Widespread occurrence of the amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the southeastern USA .'' Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 82, 3-18.
  • Dorcas, M. and Gibbons, W. (2008). Frogs and Toads of the Southeast. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
  • Dundee, H. A., and Rossman, D. A. (1989). The Amphibians and Reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA.
  • Gartside, D. F. (1980). ''Analysis of a hybrid zone between chorus frogs of the Pseudacris nigrita complex in the Southern United States.'' Copeia, 1980(1), 56-66.
  • Hammerson, G. 2008. Pseudacris fouquettei. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 04 December 2009.
  • Lemmon, E. M., Lemmon, A. R., Collins, J. T., Cannatella, D. C., and Lee-Yaw, J. A. (2008). ''A new North American chorus frog species (Amphibia: Hylidae: Pseudacris) from the south-central United States.'' Zootaxa, (1675), 1-30.
  • Lemmon, E. M., Lemmon, A. R., and Lee-Yaw, J. A. (2007). ''Phylogeny-based delimitation of species boundaries and contact zones in the trilling chorus frogs (Pseudacris).'' Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, (44), 1068-1082.
  • Martof, B. S. and Thomspon, E. F. Jr. (1958). ''Reproductive behavior of the chorus frog, Pseudacris nigrita.'' Behaviour, 13(3/4), 243-258.
  • Siekmann, J.M. (1949). A Survey of the Tadpoles of Louisiana. M.S. Thesis. Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© AmphibiaWeb © 2000-2011 The Regents of the University of California

Source: AmphibiaWeb

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Threats

Degree of Threat: Low

Comments: No major threats have been identified. This frog tolerates a substantial level of habitat alteration. Various kinds of habitat loss and degradation attributable to human activities (e.g., urbanization, intensive agriculture) undoubtedly have caused localized declines.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Major Threats
No major threats have been identified. This frog tolerates a substantial level of habitat alteration. Various kinds of habitat loss and degradation attributable to human activities (e.g., urbanization, intensive agriculture) undoubtedly have caused localized declines.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Life History, Abundance, Activity, and Special Behaviors

Pseudacris fouquettei is currently recognized as a species of least concern by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN; Hammerson 2008). The overall trend of the population is thought to be stable or declining slightly throughout its range, with the total adult population size assumed to exceed 100,000 (Hammerson 2008). This species tolerates some environmental degradation. It also occupies many protected areas. Localized impacts are possible due to increased urbanization, agriculture, and logging (Hammerson 2008). In addition, Rothermel et al. (2008) reported that some Louisiana specimens were infected with the amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd).

  • Rothermel, B. B., Walls, S. C., Mitchell, J. C., Dodd, C. K. Jr., Irwin, L. K., Green, D. E., Vazquez, V. M., Petranka, J. W., and Stevenson, D. J. (2008). ''Widespread occurrence of the amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the southeastern USA .'' Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 82, 3-18.
  • Dorcas, M. and Gibbons, W. (2008). Frogs and Toads of the Southeast. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.
  • Dundee, H. A., and Rossman, D. A. (1989). The Amphibians and Reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA.
  • Gartside, D. F. (1980). ''Analysis of a hybrid zone between chorus frogs of the Pseudacris nigrita complex in the Southern United States.'' Copeia, 1980(1), 56-66.
  • Hammerson, G. 2008. Pseudacris fouquettei. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 04 December 2009.
  • Lemmon, E. M., Lemmon, A. R., Collins, J. T., Cannatella, D. C., and Lee-Yaw, J. A. (2008). ''A new North American chorus frog species (Amphibia: Hylidae: Pseudacris) from the south-central United States.'' Zootaxa, (1675), 1-30.
  • Lemmon, E. M., Lemmon, A. R., and Lee-Yaw, J. A. (2007). ''Phylogeny-based delimitation of species boundaries and contact zones in the trilling chorus frogs (Pseudacris).'' Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, (44), 1068-1082.
  • Martof, B. S. and Thomspon, E. F. Jr. (1958). ''Reproductive behavior of the chorus frog, Pseudacris nigrita.'' Behaviour, 13(3/4), 243-258.
  • Siekmann, J.M. (1949). A Survey of the Tadpoles of Louisiana. M.S. Thesis. Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0)

© AmphibiaWeb © 2000-2011 The Regents of the University of California

Source: AmphibiaWeb

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Management

Global Protection: Many to very many (13 to >40) occurrences appropriately protected and managed

Comments: Many occurrrences are in protected areas.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Conservation Actions

Conservation Actions
Many occurrrences are in protected areas.
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

© International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Source: IUCN

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Wikipedia

Pseudacris fouquettei

Common name: Cajun chorus frog[2]

Pseudacris fouquettei is a species of chorus frog found in the south-eastern United States. It was recently separated from similar species, Pseudacris feriarum.[2]

Physical description[edit]

The Cajun chorus frog is similar in morphology Pseudacris spp., being distinguished by genetics, habitat range and advertisement call.[2] The epithet fouquetti is a tribute to a Pseudacris researcher the 1960s and 1970s, Arizona State professor Martin J. Fouquette, Jr.[2][3]

Distribution[edit]

P. fouquettei is found in the southern United States, in Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi and Texas.[2]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/full/135819/0
  2. ^ a b c d e E. Moriarty Lemmon, A. R. Lemmon, J. T. Collins, and D. C. Cannatella. (2008). "A new North American chorus frog species (Amphibia: Hylidae: Pseudacris) from the south-central United States". Zootaxa 1675: 1–30. Retrieved 2008-12-02. 
  3. ^ "Aiee! Cajun frog discovered in Louisiana makes big splash in scientific community". Denton-Record Chronicle. Associated Press. 3 February 2008. Retrieved 2 December 2008. 
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Source: Wikipedia

Unreviewed

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Names and Taxonomy

Taxonomy

Comments: Using mtDNA samples from a large number of localities throughout North America, Lemmon et al. (2007) elucidated the phylogenetic relationships and established the geographic ranges of the trilling chorus frogs (Pseudacris). They redefined the ranges of several taxa, including P. maculata, P. triseriata, and P. feriarum; found strong evidence for recognizing P. kalmi as a distinct species; and discovered a previously undetected species in the south-central United States (now described as P. fouquettei; Lemmon et al. 2008).

Based on mtDNA data, Pseudacris maculata and P. clarkii did not emerge as distinct, monophyletic lineages but, given the degree of morphological and behavioral divergence between the taxa, Lemmon et al. (2007) chose to recognize them as separate species, until further data suggest otherwise.

Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 (CC BY-NC 3.0)

© NatureServe

Source: NatureServe

Trusted

Article rating from 0 people

Default rating: 2.5 of 5

Disclaimer

EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.

To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!