The Ecological Impact of Man on the South Florida Herpetofauna Larry David Wilson Louis Porras .s The University of Kansas Museum of Natural History and World Wildlife Fund-U.S. Ernst Mayr Llferary Museum of Compara%ve ZooJogy Harvard University UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Copies of publications may be purchased from the Publications Secretary, Museum of Natural History. University of Kansas, Law- rence, Kansas 66045. Price for this number: $7.00 postpaid Published in cooperation with WORLD WILDLIFE FUND-U.S. & From cover: An adult giant toad (Bufo marinus) in an urban South Florida setting. Photograph © 1983 by Jim Bridges. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Special Publication No. 9 8 August 1983 '-M;/|f; The Ecological Impact of Man on the South Florida Herpetofauna By Larry David Wilson Division of Iiiterciirricular Studies Miami-Dade Community College South Campus Miami. Florida 33176 and Louis Porras Department of Herpetology Hogle Zoological Gardens 2600 Sunnyside Avenue Salt Lake Citv. Utah 84108 University of Kansas Lawrence 1983 University of Kansas Publications Museum of Natural History Editor: Joseph T. Collins Special Publication No. 9 pp. i-vi; 1-000; 35 figures 4 tables; 1 appendix Published 8 August 1983 , HARVARD COP'^'RIGHTED Bv Museum of Natural History University of Kansas Lawrence. Kansas 66045 U.S.A. Printed By Allen Press, Inc. Lawrence, Kansas 66044 ISBN: 89338-018-0 FOREWORD In the late IQSO's I encountered my first inkling of the amount of biological change being wrought in South Florida. It came from comparing the plastic neon strip of Palm Beach south to Miami with the watercolors and impressions of my grandfather Leon Gillette who, in the '30's, held a number of architectural commissions there. Yet I was too young to realize all the adverse change, and indeed a lot of it remained generally undiscerned. The alteration during the subsequent 25 years has almost dwarfed that which came before. Yet I don't think I ever truly appreciated the extent of environmental modification, until recently, when my attention was drawn to a slim, privately printed volume by John Kunkel Small, the pioneering botanist of the flora of the southeastern states. From Eden to Sahara: Florida's Fragedy is illustrated with photographs of Florida's vegetation from the early part of the cen- tury. Part is a Florida that most people will never see. Part is a Florida that will never be seen again. How frightening it is that so much ecological and biotic change can take place with it scarcely attracting attention or tweaking curiosity. In a sense, the South Florida story is representative o^ such change on a global scale. There is massive habitat destruction, dra- matic overuse of pesticides, major disruption of ecological systems, in particular, massive alteration of the south Florida water table even to the point of possible climatic change. In addition, there is, probably to an extent greater than anywhere else in the contiguous United States, the impact of alien species. This latter makes this situation of particular interest. The species that loom largest in this story are the introduced plants, three terrestrial and two aquatic. They, almost as much, if not more than urbanization, create homogenized landscapes unsup- portive of much of the native fauna. An interesting aspect of this study is that in comparison to plants, for example, competition from alien herpetofauna apparently has little affect on the native species. In comparison, habitat destruction and the simplification of habitats by these introduced plants appears to have played a major role. Where foreign fauna have been successful and the native fauna has waned, more often than not the causal factor appears to be habitat change; the natives vacate the barrio, and only then do the new arrivals move into the vacated space. An account of such profound environmental change as this inev- itably engenders renewed emphasis on the task of environmental protection. The indiscriminate use of chemicals, the substantial al- teration of south Florida hydrology, and the impact of some of the introduced species render that task exceedingly difficult, but hope- fully not to the point of discouraging appropriate agencies both public and private. Yet, to a major extent in all instances and almost entirely so in the case of the herpetofauna, these are the real prob- lems, and conservation cannot succeed in the end without facing them. When I was first getting deeply imbued in natural history I was attending a school of which a major benefactor had been the very Henry Flagler whose East Coast Florida railroad made possible some of the early development. It would be unfair, I think, to lay the blame at his door, for clearly there was a growing pressure for de- velopment far larger than his particular initiative. Indeed the bulk of the destruction came long after, and part of Flagler's motivation must have been to bring people to the world of the palmetto and the Barefoot Mailman, not to destroy it. In fact, presiding as a trustee, as he did, over a school where matters biological received their proper due, I can only think that he would indeed be horrified by the ecological change of the Florida of today, and take some pleasure that a student of that school, about which he cared so much, should have the opportunity to provide a forcward to this work. Thomas E. Lovejoy World V\ 'ildlife Fund Washington, D.C. IVashlngton's Birthday 1983 PREFACE The picture we paint for the herpetofauna of south Florida in this paper is, in some ways, pecuHar to this area, but it is also illustrative of the kinds of effects which increasing urbanization and manipulation of the environment can have, wherever they may oc- cur. Few areas of the United States are likely to have the exotic herpetofaunal load that currently exists in south Florida, but many parts of the country are now feeling, or will soon begin to feel, the pressure on the natural environment resulting from rapid population growth. South Florida has been the focus for unparalleled growth for much of its recent history, but several other regions, especially in the Sun Belt, are now vying for the dubious honor of attaining the highest growth rate in the nation. Thus, although we are writing about man's impact on the herpetofauna of a small and, to some extent, unique area, much of what you will read in the remainder of this paper will, we think, have distressingly familiar overtones. Larry David Wilson and Louis Porras Miami, Florida Mav 1981 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 3 THE HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT 4 Geology 4 Physiography 5 Hydrography 5 Chmate 6 Vegetation 6 THE PRESENT-DAY ENVIRONMENT 9 Settlement Patterns 9 Changes in Hydrography 1 0 Climatic Changes 1 1 Vegetational Changes 12 THE SOUTH FLORIDA POPULATION EXPLOSION 18 THE METAMORPHOSIS OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA HER- PETOFAUNA 23 The Native Herpetofauna 23 The Introduced Herpetofauna 3 1 DISCUSSION 57 Pattern of Amphibian and Reptile Introductions 62 Commentary on Literature Dealing with Introductions in South Florida 63 The Issue of Competition 64 The Influence of the South Florida Climate on the Dis- persal of Exotic Herpetofauna 71 Additional Considerations and Recommendations 72 LITERATURE CITED 74 APPENDIX 80 INDEX TO SCIENTIFIC NAMES 83 INTRODUCTION During the many years we have Hved in south Florida we have been keenly interested in the composition, distribution, and status of introduced amphibians and reptiles in this area. Several years ago we became aware of certain additions to the area's exotic component of the herpetofauna and began to prepare a report on them. As we gathered data it gradually became apparent that instead of simply reporting the additions, there was a need to summarize the existing data on the entire introduced herpetofauna, with special reference to its impact on native amphibians and reptiles. As we progressed, some of the additions we intended to include were reported elsewhere (e.g., Anolis cristateUiis. Anolis garniani, and Ctenosawa pectina- /a— the latter misidentified as C similis). In addition, it also became apparent that we would only tell a portion of the story if we were to restrict our coverage to the exotic herpetofauna and its impact on the native one. We soon saw the need to adopt a broader per- spective and to examine the sum total of man's activities in south Florida as they relate to the ecological status of both the introduced and indigenous segments of the herpetofauna. This then is the subject of this paper. In 1958 Duellman and Schwartz wrote a classic paper on the amphibians and reptiles of south Florida. In that work they sum- marized the available information on the south Florida herpeto- fauna, most of which was stored in numerous short papers of limited scope, and they considerably augmented these data as a result of their own extensive field work. Since the publication of the Duellman and Schwartz paper, numerous others of limited scope dealing with the native and introduced members of the south Florida herpeto- fauna have appeared, but the only subsequent comprehensive work to appear was that of King and Krakauer ( 1 966), which summarized the available information on the entire exotic component of the herpetofauna. There is now a need for an extensive update. First, many changes have occurred with respect to the indigenous herpetofauna since the publication of the Duellman and Schwartz paper. Secondly, there is much new information on the status of populations of exotic species, and additional species have become established since the publication of King and Krakauer's paper. Finally, we have written this paper because we have a different point of view from that expressed in most of the literature on south Florida's introduced amphibians and reptiles. We feel qualified to consider the ecological impact of man on the south Florida herpetofauna, both native and exotic, for several reasons. First, one of us has resided in the area since 1955' and the The second author moved to Utah in September 1982. SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Florida Bay .; ' jV '^ Upper Matecumbe Key MONROE ^ Cudjoe key & ,-g^» Grassy ley a Hcnda Key oppi Key Figure 1. Map of south Florida showing principle localities mentioned in text. Other since 1971, a combined total of 38 years. Secondly, over the course of this time, we have been in contact with the broad spectrum of the herpetological community of south Florida. Of particular importance is the fact that one of us (LP) has been involved in the animal trade since childhood, being in continual contact, therefore, with the majority of the area's animal dealers, professional collectors, and amateur enthusiasts, and in addition, has spent considerable time in the field. The other author (LDW) has taught environmental science courses for several years, emphasizing the human role in the ecology of the area. For the past several years we have been collab- orating on numerous research projects focusing on the herpetofauna of Latin America and the American Southwest, but since we are SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 3 both avid field biologists we have traveled and worked extensively throughout the southern portion ot^ the Florida peninsula. During this time we have been actively gathering data relating to the prob- lems discussed above. The scope of our study area has been expanded beyond that of Duellman and Schwartz. Those authors included the area of the peninsula south of a line between Fort Lauderdale and Naples (more or less the path now followed by Florida Route 84, or Alligator Alley). We consider south Florida (Fig. 1 ) to consist essentially of the area south of the southern part of Lake Okeechobee, or the counties of Broward, Collier, Dade, Hendry, Lee, Monroe, and Palm Beach. We have done so because we believe a better overview is afforded by a consideration of the larger area. Following the reasoning of Duellman and Schwartz, we also have deleted consideration of the species of marine turtles occurring in Florida waters. In discussing the native herpetofauna, we have omit- ted records which we consider questionable. Voucher specimens documenting most of the new introductions and/or new populations of exotic species have been placed in the Louisiana State University Museum of Zoology and the Florida State Museum collections. We acknowledge that some of our sources of data are anecdotal, but they are important in obtaining an historical perspective. The south Florida described by Carr (1940), Barbour (1944), and even Duellman and Schwartz (1958) is now only a memory. We are hopeful, however, that our efforts will provide an incentive for future workers to conduct even more detailed studies on the ecological relationships of both the native and exotic amphibians and reptiles of this area. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We can never hope to adequately acknowledge, in a paper of this nature, all of the people who have contributed their assistance. The work began, for one of us (LP), almost twenty years ago when he had the opportunity to care for amphibians and reptiles at a wildlife compound owned by Charles P. Chase. A few years later, during the heyday of the South Florida Herpetological Society, the field work of some of the members provided a continuous stream of infor- mation about south Florida's amphibians and reptiles. Field enthu- siasm was then sparked, in large part, by the zealous collecting efforts of the late William Tudor. We began serious work toward the preparation of this paper in 1973. Since then, we have received help from a large number of friends and colleagues. For the provision of information, donation or loan of specimens, and/or field assistance, we would like to thank 4 SPECIAL PUBLICATION -MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY the following: Ray E. Ashton, Jr., Robert Bader, Lawrence G. Bailey, Tim Barken, Arthur G. Bass, Scott Bazemore, Bruce Bednar, John Boursot, Robert Bush, Jonathan A. Campbell, Edward Chapman, Ralph Cramer, George H. Dalrymple, Jeff Doyle, Tamir Ellis. Rich- ard S. Funk, Richter A. Gideon, James L. Glenn, Ted Greenwald, Scott Hearsey, Michael Heinrichs, David Hewett, Tom R. Johnson, Howard E. Lawler, Robert Lawton, Julian C. Lee, Greg Longhurst, RobRoy Maclnnes, John A. Mascarello, Carl May, Regis Mc- Dermott, Roy McDiarmid, Brian Mealey, Peter Meylan, Paul E. Moler, Ann Ramus, Eugene R. Robinett, Gordon W. Schuett, Ben Simonetti, Joseph Terry, Raymond Van Nostrand, C. Rhea Warren, Joseph Wasilewski, William Ziegler, and John Zura. We are grateful to Jim Bridges and John Rindfleish for providing information and for the use of photographs,* and to Arthur C. Echternacht for examining specimens of Amelva. Joseph Beraducci was especially helpful in providing us with information, specimens, and field assistance. For critically reviewing the manuscript and numerous other cour- tesies we are especially indebted to Joseph T. Collins, William E. Duellman, Philip S. Humphrey, James R. McCranie, Lewis D. Ober, Gordon W. Schuett, and Albert Schwartz. Roger Conant was of indispensable aid in improving the manuscript, working long hours on its editing even while in the field in Costa Rica. He also kindly supplied us with photographs of three exotic species taken by his late wife Isabelle. Our wives. Elizabeth Wilson and Diane Porras, have been more than patient when our work on this paper at times seemed inter- minable. Our special thanks go to them. Finally, we will never forget the encouragement and assistance provided by the late Phil Bennett, a long term friend and field com- panion of one of us (LP), who generously allowed us to report the existence of a number of introduced species. THE HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENT The following summary of the geology, physiography, hydrog- raphy, climate, and vegetation of south Florida is necessary in pro- viding a background for a discussion of changes that have occurred in the entire area, in general, and in populations of amphibians and reptiles, in particular, since modern man's intrusion. Gt'o/o^v. — Geologically speaking, the southern portion of the Florida peninsula is only recently emergent from the sea. About 100,000 years ago the sea level stood 25 feet above its present level. * Photographic credits in this book are as follows: Jim Bridges (JB), Isabelle Hunt Conant (IHC), Louis Porras (LP) and John Rindfleish (JR). SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 5 and virtually the entire southern portion of the peninsula was under water (Hoffmeister 1974). Several geological formations occur in south Florida which were discussed and mapped by Duellman and Schwartz (1958) and Hoff- meister ( 1974). The following summary is based on these two sources. The oldest formation is that of the Tamiami limestone of Miocene age and is best seen in most of Collier County. The Caloosahatchee marl of Pliocene age is visible in most of Hendry County. All the other geological formations (Fort Thompson, Key Largo limestone, Anastasia, Miami limestone, and Palmico sand) are of Pleistocene age and of approximately equivalent geological antiquity, differing from one another principally in the method of formation, having been deposited under different environmental conditions. Physiography. — The southern portion of the Florida peninsula is basically flat. The highest elevations occur along the Atlantic coastal ridge or eastern rock rim (20 feet, or about 6 meters) and on sand dunes on Marco Island on the western coast (55 feet, or 16.8 meters). Between these areas lie the lowlands of the Everglades and the Big Cypress Swamp. The former slopes gradually toward the sea, forming the broad, flat basin of the Everglades River. Between the Everglades and the Atlantic coastal ridge and above the Big Cypress Swamp lie sandy flatlands, and the southern portion of the peninsula consists of mangrove and coastal glades (Hoffmeister 1974). //I'^^ro^rapM'. — Historically, the surface water drainage patterns in south Florida were rather simple (Fig. 2A). Rain falling on the Kissimmee Basin was channeled into Lake Okeechobee and the sandy flatlands to the southwest. During the wet season occasional spillover from the southern bank of the lake created a water flow which formed a broad, shallow ""river" coursing southward to empty into Florida Bay. Water in the Big Cypress Swamp also flowed south- ward, entering the region of the Ten Thousand Islands. Water also moved westward along the Caloosahatchee River to empty into the Gulf of Mexico. From the sandy flatlands to the east of Lake Okee- chobee, water issued into the Everglades, percolating into the aquifer underneath the Atlantic coastal ridge. The surface water of the south Florida peninsula, thus, moved in three directions, viz.: (1) the at- mosphere by evapotranspiration; (2) the sea by surface runoff; (3) the underlying aquifer by infiltration. Storage water in the aquifer slowly discharged into the sea (Browder, Littlejohn, and Young 1 977). All of the geological formations in south Florida are fair to ex- cellent aquifers, except for the Tamiami formation (the area of the Big Cypress Swamp). The Biscayne Aquifer underlies southeastern Florida, principally in Broward, Dade, and Monroe counties, grad- ually increasing in thickness from 10 feet or less in the west to 150 to 200 feet in the east. Bodies of fresh water in south Florida are limited to cypress ponds, sinkhole ponds, and a few rivers and sloughs. 6 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Figure 2A. Historical drainage patterns in south Florida. C/ i mate. — DueUman and Schwartz pointed out that the cHmate of south Florida is equable, that the summers are hot and rainy and the winters mild with reduced precipitation. They further stated that the heaviest precipitation occurs during September and October, the hurricane season. I 'egetation. — The variety of vegetation types seen in south Flor- ida is primarily a function of edaphic conditions, elevation, fre- quency of fires, proximity to the shoreline, and, to a lesser extent, the amount of rainfall (Carr 1940; Duellman and Schwartz 1958; Craighead 1971). A simplified discussion of vegetation types, based on these works and our personal field experience is presented below. SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA Figure 2B. Present-day network of drainage canals in south Florida. The sandy scrub areas in extreme western Collier and parts of Lee and Hendry counties in the west, and in northern Dade and parts of Broward and Palm Beach counties in the east, occur in slightly elevated areas having a porous, sandy soil and which sup- ports a vegetational cover consisting of sand pine, myrtle oak, and rosemary. Prickly pear and various grasses are found in the under- story. Intermingling with the sandy scrub areas and extending south- ward along the Atlantic coastal ridge and on the Lower Florida Keys are the pine flatwoods. This vegetational type is more extensive than the rosemary scrub. On the western side of the peninsula, pine flat- 8 SPECIAL PUBLICATION -MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY woods are present on a sandy soil, whereas in the east they occur on a rocky ooHtic Hmestone substratum, which is often covered with a thin layer of sand. The vegetation consists principally of Caribbean pine, saw palmetto, and silver palm. Wiregrasses, coontie. and prick- ly pear occur in the understory. Scattered through the pine flatwoods on the Atlantic coastal ridge in Dade County are the oak hammocks. These hardwood patches develop on elevated, well-drained soils and are characterized by the presence of the dominant tree, live oak. The branches of these trees are covered with airplants, such as various wild pines and Spanish moss. Another type of hammock in south Florida is the tropical hard- wood hammock. Such areas occur in patches along the Atlantic coastal ridge. Some are quite extensive and form tree islands in the Everglades and in elevated areas of the upper Florida Keys. They develop on rocky, oolitic or Key Largo limestone, which often ap- pears at the surface and is extremely pitted with solution holes, some of which are very large, forming sinkholes. The vegetation includes many species of West Indian and Bahamian affinity, among them such trees as strangler fig, mahogany, pigeon plum, mastic, Jamaica dogwood, poisonwood, lignum vitae, gumbo-limbo, wild tamarind, sargeant palm, thatch palm, and manchineel. The limbs and trunks of the trees are covered with various species of bromeliads. orchids, peperomias, and lichens. The understory consists of various species of stoppers, wild coffee, and various ferns. In the low interior catch basin of the southern portion of the peninsula are the freshwater marshes known as the Everglades. Most of that area is occupied by prairies in which the dominant plant is the sedge commonly called sawgrass. The area is dotted by tree islands composed of varying species associations and is bounded on the east and west by poverty-grass prairies. The tree islands may be bayheads, willow heads, tropical hardwood hammocks, cypress domes, cabbage palm hammocks, or saw palmetto rings. West of the Everglades and occupying much of Collier County, lies the Big Cypress Swamp. The swamp is dotted with bayheads, pond apple swamps, and pop ash domes. Higher areas support pal- metto thickets, Caribbean pine, and some hardwoods. Along the coastal areas of the southern tip of the peninsula are scattered salt marshes, which occur as a transitional area between the freshwater and mangrove swamps. They support growths of low, herbaceous halophitic plants such as black rush, saltwort, saltbush, saltgrass, prickly cord grass, and samphire. Extensive areas along the coast are covered with mangrove swamps. The dominant plants are red mangrove, black mangrove, and white mangrove (occurring in that order from open water to the inland limits of such swamps). Buttonwood is also common on the more elevated areas. SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 9 Sandy beach areas are backed by coconut palms, sea grape trees, and sea oats, with the ubiquitous sand spurs underfoot. Railroad vine grows outward over the open beaches. THE PRESENT-DAY ENVIRONMENT South Florida has undergone staggering environmental changes within a relatively short span of time. The changes have primarily resulted from the dramatic increase of the human population in the area. Here we discuss settlement patterns and changes that have occurred in hydrography, climate, and vegetation, as a preface to an examination of the impact of these changes on the area's amphibians and reptiles. Sett lenient patterns. — The peculiarities of the physiography of south Florida have played a decisive role in the pattern of human settlement. Key West, at the terminus of the chain of islands that comprises the Florida Keys, was an early center, primarily because of its strategic position for shipping and military purposes and the relative inhospitability of the mainland. Population grew from 517 m 1830 to 17.1 14 at the turn of the century (Browne 1973). Settle- ment of the mainland was inevitable, however, and the areas first occupied were those that were relatively high and dry, viz., the Atlantic coastal ridge and later the sandy flatland coastal area from the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River south to the beginning of the coastal zone near present-day Naples. Settlement proceeded most rapidly along the Atlantic coastal ridge. Dade County was established in 1836 and by 1890 its population was 861 (Hollingsworth 1949). By 1896 Henry Flagler had brought his Florida East Coast Railroad to Miami and by 1900 the population had mushroomed to almost 5000 (Hollingsworth 1949: Tebeau 1966). On the west coast the relatively high, flat terrain attracted cattle ranchers to the Caloosa- hatchee River area, the site of a fortification used during the Sem- inole Indian wars. The population of Dade County has always advanced ahead of other areas of mainland south Florida. Between 1900 and 1920 it increased from 4955 to 42,753. Three years later the beginning of the first Florida land boom brought unprecedented growth to south- east Florida, and during the boom years of 1924-1926 Miami "was transformed from a sleepy little town on the edge of Biscayne Bay into a Magic City of modest skyscrapers and legendary real estate profits" (Ballinger 1936). The boom, which had been statewide, but centered on Miami, came to an abrupt halt when a hurricane struck the city in September 16.1 926 (Tebeau 1971). Even though another hit Palm Beach on the same day two years later, growth continued and by 1935 the population had increased more than fourfold. Be- tween 1935 and the present, growth has continued along the Atlantic 10 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY coastal ridge, and today a megalopolis exists stretching for almost 100 airline miles from West Palm Beach to Florida City. Growth along the west coast south of the Caloosahatchee River has been modest compared to that of the east. Troubles with the Seminoles prompted the building of Fort Myers near the mouth of the river in 1850. After the Civil War the area became a thriving agricultural region, and the city of Fort Myers was incorporated in 1885. Lee County, which then encompassed all of the present-day Hendry and Collier counties, was created in 1887. Naples was started in 1876 and incorporated in 1923. Estero was founded in 1894. The Ten Thousand Islands area remains unpopulated even to the present day, inasmuch as it consists of several thousand small mangrove islands. Only Chokoloskee and Everglades City exist as small outposts. The interior of the southern portion of the peninsula has re- mained sparsely populated. Only La Belle, Immokalee, and a string of small towns around the southern and western borders of Lake Okeechobee (Belle Glade, Clewiston, and Moore Haven) exist as centers of population in this farming and ranching area of south Florida. In 1912 the Florida East Coast Railroad reached Key West, connecting the Florida Keys with the mainland. The Labor Day hurricane of 1935, however, destroyed the Keys extension of the railroad, but three years later the overseas highway was built utilizing long spans of the former railroad bed. Since then, people have oc- cupied the length of the Keys, which is fast becoming a pencil-thin megalopolis. Changes in hydrography. — ThQ history of water management in south Florida has been one of modification of the hydrography for human benefit at the expense of nature's (Fig. 2B). Water manage- ment in the area has passed through three major stages. Prior to 1900 portions of the Kissimmee and Caloosahatchee rivers were dredged for navigational purposes, and minor efforts toward drain- age for development were made. During the period from 1900 to 1953 numerous uncontrolled canals were built for the express pur- pose of draining the Everglades to the Atlantic, i.e., to remove large amounts of "excess" wet season fresh water in order to open up land for development. Whereas these efforts were successful in reducing the water storage capacity of the area, flooding of urban areas still occurred, so in 1 948 the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District was created to "(1) reduce the flooding in the urbanized east coast, (2) further protect and enhance the Everglades Agricultural Area farm production, (3) reclaim thousands of acres of wetlands for agricultural and urban use, and (4) form water conservation areas in the Central Glades to store water for recharge of the Biscayne Aquifer and for supply to Everglades National Park" (Browder. Lit- tlejohn, and Young 1977). SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 1 1 These objectives have been achieved but not without massive aherations in the natural systems of south Florida. Among the mostly detrimental effects are: (1) reduction of the storage capacity of the system, severely decreasing the amount of holdover of wet season water to meet dry season needs; (2) increase in loss of fresh water to the sea; (3) increase in the severity of droughts, extent of salt water intrusion, and frequency of fires; (4) eutrophication of Lake Okeechobee; (5) creation of more distinct but smaller storage units; (6) intensification of dependence on energy intensive technology to solve water management problems (Browder, Littlejohn, and Young 1977). These effects continue to the present day. Climatic changes. — WisXoncdiWy , south Florida received about 75% of its rainfall during the six wet season months from May through October, a rainfall pattern typical of tropical areas to the south. The resulting freshwater was held in the Kissimmee-Okee- chobee-Everglades catchment basin to moderate drought during the dry-season months. However, south Florida has experienced several droughts since the dry-season of 1970-1971, and each was severe enough to rank with the worst during the previous hundred years. Furthermore, predictions of future world weather patterns suggest that south Florida may be entering a dry period of approximately 30 years duration (Fairbridge 1974; Browder. Littlejohn, and Young 1977). It can be expected that the dry season effects, enhanced by the water management practices in south Florida, will be intensified. Such changes will be aggravated, by an increasing demand for water by the burgeoning south Florida population. On the other hand, the rainy season of 1 979 began with a violent rainstorm that left vast areas of southeastern Florida flooded. Ex- pansion of concrete and asphalt-covered areas made runoff and per- colation more difficult. The flooding that occurred in 1979, however, probably will not seriously affect overall drying trends. The ex- tremely dry spring of 1 98 1 , with the driest April in recorded history, would seem to bear that out, but the heavy rainfall in the fall left areas of the East Everglades flooded. Another climatic change of interest is the absence of tropical cyclones or hurricanes affecting south Florida in recent years. In the 102 hurricane seasons recorded since 1878, 42 tropical cyclones affected the Miami area, or an average of one every 2.4 years. Thir- teen of the storms developed hurricane force winds, or one every 7.8 years. Major hurricanes occurred during 1 926 (the one that killed the Florida land boom), 1945, 1950, 1960 (Donna), 1964 (Cleo), and 1965 (Betsy). During the 1979 season, the Miami area was threatened by Hurricane David, but the threat did not materialize. The 1980 season was the fourteenth consecutive one in which no tropical storm affected the Miami area, an all time record. The previous one was the six year period from 1954 through 1959 (Mer- rill 1 977). In 1981, Tropical Storm Dennis passed over south Florida 12 SPECIAL PUBLICATION -MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY dumping large amounts of rain, but producing minimal winds. South Florida is long overdue for a big one. Temperatures at or below freezing are of infrequent occurrence in most of the south Florida area. In January 1977 temperatures dropped below freezing and snow fell for the first time in recorded history in Miami. It is suspected that the freezing temperatures were the reason for the apparent disappearance of at least one exotic species of amphibian from south Florida. In January 1981 the tem- perature again fell below freezing on two occasions, and in January 1982 once. J'egetational changes. — The subtropical character of the natural vegetational associations in south Florida is a unique feature of the area. Key West is only 30 miles north of the Tropic of Cancer. Consequently, Florida enjoys a climate favorable to the growth of many tropical species of plants. As a result of human activities, however, the nature of the vegetation in the area is changing rapidly and, seemingly, irrevocably. The major factors involved in bringing about these changes are several, viz.: (1) destruction of primary vegetation to make way for buildings and agricultural fields; (2) introduction and subsequent release of various exotic plants; (3) man-generated fires; (4) changes in water supply; (5) use of native trees for lumber. Destruction of the primary vegetation in the wake of human expansion into the area has continued apace. Since the major set- tlement of south Florida has occurred along the coastal areas, it is those areas that have been most heavily affected. The relatively elevated areas of the Atlantic coastal ridge historically harbored extensive stretches of pine flatlands interspersed with hardwood hammocks and patches of sandy scrub. It was precisely because of the elevated and well-drained nature of these areas that early settlers were attracted to the region. The land was used for homesites and has continued to attract developers. According to data provided in the South Florida Study (Browder, Littlejohn, and Young 1977), 32.9 percent of the area they surveyed (they included the Kissimmee River basin, which lies north of our area) has been given over to urban and agricultural development. Their study divided the natural areas into uplands, wetlands, coastal systems, and estuarine/marine systems. Among these subsystems, those most adversely affected by human intrusion have been the uplands and wetlands. In 1 900, the uplands and wetlands constituted 33.0 and 54.7 percent of the total area of south Florida, respectively. By 1973 the figures had dropped to 18.3 and 36.8 percent. Within the uplands subsystem the areas most heavily affected (primarily by agriculture) were the wet prairies and sawgrass marshes whose re- spective percentages fell from 18.7 to 10.3 and 1 1.4 to 5.5 during the same period. The coastal and estuarine/marine subsystems have remained relatively unaffected by development. Mangrove areas have SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUN A 13 been cleared for beach development, however, and the acreage oc- cupied by that vegetational type dropped from 606,517 to 589,440 from 1900 to 1973. Development in the Fort Myers-Naples area has not been so rampant as on the east coast, and relatively undisturbed areas of pine flatwoods are still well in evidence. Nevertheless, the area is rapidly becoming urbanized, and there is no reason to believe that it will not follow the same course as that of the east coast. To the south, Marco Island has been extensively developed as a resort com- munity, especially for retirees. Even if the spread of human building and agricultural activities were to stop today, it is likely that enormous changes would occur in the vegetation because of the naturalization and dispersal of cer- tain exotic plants. The subtropical nature of south Florida, coupled with the existence of Miami as a port of entry into the United States, has meant that the area has long acted as a funnel for the movement of tropical plants into this country. The mild climate has permitted the establishment of numerous nurseries and botanical gardens for the propagation of such plants, and some of these outlets have played an important role in the introduction of exotic plants into the area. As a result of a number of early accidental and planned intro- ductions, some plants, now known to be ecologically detrimental, have become naturalized and have spread rapidly in the area. Five such plants, three terrestrial and two aquatic, are generating the most environmental concern. These are Australian pine {Casuarina cqui- setifolia and two other less common members of the genus). Brazilian pepper {Schinus terebinthifolius). paperbark, cajeput or melaleuca {Melaleuca qiiiuqiienervia), water hyacinth {Eichhornia crassipes), and hydrilla {Hydrilla verticillata). Of the three trees, Melaleuca poses the greatest threat. Pritchard (1976) recently noted that "^Melaleuca must be considered the prime ecological problem in south Florida today." Whereas this may be somewhat of an overstatement, the spread of the paperbark tree undoubtedly poses a grave environmental threat. It was introduced into south Florida on both coasts during the early 1 900's and became naturalized within about a decade; during the 1930's seeds were spread into the sawgrass prairies of central and western Broward County in an eifort to "reclaim the useless swamp" (Pritchard 1976; Austin in Morris 1977). This species requires considerable water for growth, and it tends to dry out the land. The seeds are wind-dispersed and will sprout in damp places or even under water. It is an aggressive invader of disturbed areas, and will also penetrate undisturbed areas. The seedlings are able to grow very densely (900 per square meter in some cases) so as to exclude other species (Pritchard 1976). The paperbark tree is dispersing rapidly into the Everglades and "infes- tation is particularly severe in conservation area 28, inland from Ft. Lauderdale, where some estimates suggest that as much as 40 percent 14 SPECIAL PUBLICATION- MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Figure 3. Dense, impenetrable stand of melaleuca along the Homestead exten- sion of the Florida Turnpike near the Broward-Dade county line. (LP) of the area is covered with melaleuca"" (Pritchard 1976). It is also growing densely in Dade County in the vicinity of the Homestead extension of the Florida Turnpike, from which it is spreading west- ward into the Everglades (Fig. 3). Melaleuca is an extremely hardy tree and difficult to eradicate. Mechanical or fire damage will cause liberation of the seeds to the wind. Cutting the tree down will cause it to sprout anew from the stump and also the fallen trunk. Research is now underway to find ways to control its spread, but thus far mechanical removal and direct application of herbicides seem to be the only effective methods. Australian pine was originally introduced into south Florida by settlers in the late 1800"s. It is a ''seashore tree of Australia and the tropical West Pacific"" (Austin in Morris 1977). and it tends to occur in similar areas in south Florida except where planted. It produces seeds freely which are wind-dispersed, and the tree will also resprout from its stump. Casuarina aggressively invades coastal areas scar- ified by humans and will form dense stands (Fig. 4). It constantly sheds its jointed, green stems which produce phytotoxic substances that retard the growth of other plants in their shade. "The roots form thick mats down to the high tide line, interfering with suitable nesting sites for such endangered species as the American Crocodile and the Green Sea Turtle"" (Austin in Morris 1977). Because coconut palms were struck by the lethal yellowing blight and have disap- peared in many areas of south Florida, Australian pines now dom- inate the skyline of Miami. Large areas of coastal south Florida, SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 15 >. Figure 4. "Takeover" of the shoreline by Casuaruia at Cape Florida State Park on Key Biscayne, Dade County. Most native vegetation has been crowded out by the Australian pines. (LP) particularly in Dade County, have been completely taken over by this tree. Another troublesome tree is the Brazilian pepper. Austin {in Morris 1977) pointed out that the date of its introduction is not known, "but it has become a noticeable part of the Florida flora only since about 1950." Its red berries are eaten, and the seeds are dispersed by birds. It occurs in a wide variety of habitats, especially in areas disturbed by humans. Cutting the tree encourages a more disordered growth from the trunk. In areas where it has become well-established, the wild and tangled growth of its branches pro- duces dense shade in the understory that retards the growth of all but the most shade-tolerant plants (e.g., certain species of ferns). Schinus is extremely fast-growing and can take over an area in a relatively short span of time, presumably before norinal successional changes can bring about a serai stage that could effectively compete for the space (Fig. 5). Two aquatic weeds are causing both ecological and economic problems in south Florida. One is the water hyacinth, which is now widespread throughout the southeastern United States. The water hyacinth, a native of Brazil, was introduced into the St. ,Tohn's River at Jacksonville, whence it has spread widely in Florida, clogging waterways due to its rapid growth (Fig. 6). Gore (1976) noted that 16 SPECIAL PUBLICATION -MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY ^ Figure 5. Brazilian pepper {Schinus terehinthifolius) is so abundant throughout southeastern Florida that it is widely considered native and labelled "Florida holly." (LP) Fk.ure 6. Waterway in northern Hendr\' County so blanketed with water hy- acinths as to appear to be solid land. (LP) SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 17 Figure 7. Regrowth of hydrilla in a recently-dredged canal. Continued removal is necessary to prevent clogging of waterways. (LP) "today water hyacinths blanket as many as 200,000 acres of Florida canals and lakes," which together with the even more prolific hydrilla "cost at least 1 5 million dollars a year to combat." Hydrilla may eventually cause more problems than water hy- acinths. The plant was imported into Dade County for aquarium use in the 1950's and became introduced into waterways in 1959 (Austin in Morris 1977). Its rapid growth (an inch a day) allows it to blanket an area quickly (Fig. 7). It also spreads easily by becoming attached to "boat propellers, bird's feet, and other objects that move from lake to lake. . . . Consequently, in only a few years it has clogged some 1 50,000 acres of waterways, and has moved into most other southern states. So far it has been found as far north as Iowa, and biologists fully expect it to spread throughout the country" (Gore 1976). Only a minor fraction of the introduced plants growing in south Florida have become escapees, but these few have combined to create grave environmental problems. They are all characterized by rapid growth, which interrupts normal successional patterns. The two aquatic weeds can reproduce vegetatively. The three trees have efficient means of seed dispersal, some are self-seeding, and all can sprout from the cut trunk. Another factor that causes vegetational change in south Florida is the increased frequency of fires due to the reduction of the water storage capacity of the Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades system. 18 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Extensive fires during May 1971 burned more than half a million acres before being quenched by the late summer and fall rains (Ward 1972). Continued fires make way for the advance of the fire-resistant melaleuca and burn the muck in the sawgrass glades, exposing the pitted oolite underneath (Gore 1976). The cutting of trees (especially pine and cypress) for homesites, lumber, landscaping mulch, furniture, and ornaments is a further problem. THE SOUTH FLORIDA POPULATION EXPLOSION Population growth in south Florida during the relatively brief history of modern human involvement has been dramatic and un- precedented with respect to the remainder of the state. In fact, "south Florida is the fastest growing region in the second fastest growing state in the nation" (Florida Regional Coastal Zone Population Anal- ysis 1976). Compared with other states east of the Mississippi River, Florida is a relatively young one. Only West Virginia and Wisconsin achieved statehood later. Tremendous growth and a marked shift in popu- lation center from north to south have occurred in the 136 years since statehood. In 1830 only 517 people lived in Monroe County which encompassed an area slightly larger than south Florida. That population constituted only about 1.5% of the total for the state. By 1860 south Florida had a population of 3014 or 2.15% of the state's total. At that time four-fifths of the population was restricted to the tier of counties along the Alabama and Georgia state lines (Dietrich in Morris 1979). In 1860 most of the people in south Florida lived in Key West (2832) and only 83 people lived in Dade County (Anon- ymous 1978). After the turn of the century, when the population was 528,542, Florida was growing "steadily but not spectacularly" (Tebeau, 1971). Between the decade of 1 9 1 0-1920 and that of 1 920-1 930 the percent of population change went from 28.7 to 51.6 and the population of the state almost doubled between 1910 and 1930 from 752,619 to 1,468,211 (Dietrich in Morris 1979), principally as a result of the Florida land boom. Near the beginning of World War II in 1940, the total population of the state was 1,897,414, a relatively modest percentage increase of 29.2 over the 1930 level. The south Florida portion of that total, however, had risen to 429,427 or 22.6%. Since 1940 the percentage of the state's total that is made up by south Florida's populace has grown steadily, as follows: 1950 — 27.4%; 1960-32.8%; 1970-36.0%; 1980 estimate- 36.8%. By the year 2000 it is estimated that the percentage will reach 37.3. By the beginning of the twenty-first century it is estimated that one of every SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 19 2.68 people in Florida will live in south Florida, an area comprising only 19% of the slate (Thompson 1977). In 1830 the population of Florida was entirely rural; there were no cities (places with a population of 2500 or more). By 1 860 Florida had acquired two cities, Pensacola (2876) and Key West (2832). In 1910 Jacksonville became the largest city in the state (28.249) with Pensacola (17,747), Key West (17,144),' and Tampa (15,839) fol- lowing in that order (Tebeau 1 97 1 ). By 1 920 36.5% of the population was in urban areas and the percentage has continued to rise ( 1 930 — 51.7%; 1940-55.1%; 1960-73.9%; 1970-80.5%) (data from U.S. Census and the 1977-1978 Florida Handbook). The reasons for the tremendous population growth during Flor- ida's history, especially since 1950, are several, but they all relate to one major factor, viz., increase in net migration (difference be- tween the number of persons migrating into and out of the state). In 1949 Morris stated that "Florida might be described as a land of large area and few people." At about that time, however, it ranked twentieth among the states in population; in 1970 it ranked ninth (Carter 1974). One report (Florida Estimates of Population, July 1, 1977) indicated that "Florida's population growth during the past quarter century has been little short of spectacular." The same report pointed out that "while the United States population as a whole grew by 42 percent between 1950 and 1977, the Florida population more than tripled, growing from 2,771,305 to 8,717,334." In 1977 Florida was the eighth most populous state. During the 1950's net migration averaged more than 1 30,000 and almost 250,000 annually during the period of 1970-1977. In the boom years of 1972-1974, net migration into Florida exceeded 380.000 per year. Growth slowed dramatically during the mid-1970''s. both in terms of net migration and natural increase, due to rising inflation and economic uncer- tainty. Nonetheless, during the period from April 1, 1970 to July 1, 1 977 the south Florida population rose from 2,444,346 to 3, 1 88,978. Of this increase of 744.632 people, net migration accounted for 704,174 or 94.6% of the total (Florida Estimates of Population, July 1, 1977). Migration into south Florida primarily has resulted from people flocking there to avoid the cold northern winters and the deterio- rating quality of life in some of the larger cities, and also because of Cuban exiles immigrating to escape from Castro's oppressive regime. As a result of the influx of retired people into Florida, the state's natural increase has been declining steadily since the mid-1950's, increasing the median age from 30.9 in 1950 to 32.3 in 1970, whereas that of the United States as a whole during that period dropped from 30.2 to 28.0 (Florida Estimates of Population, July 1, 1977). As noted by Burns (1975), "foreign sources of immigration into Florida increased substantially during the 1960's, principally because of the influx of residents from Cuba. It is conservatively estimated that 20 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY U- o fl; o on /)> 00 Ov c " " o o n '^ rT> p^ u 00 ri On •^' 00 r- '^d On o o o o o o o o o o o o o o — • CC r"^ r~~ — ^ m Tt ri — ' -rf oo' m' ■<^' — <' so ■^ NO (N On oo -^ r^l O ON ri o[ '^t ON -rf Tf ^ ri 00 ri r^ NO •^ r<-i — r- n r~- o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O 00 in — ^ oo O ri O O n ON NO NO rn O 'i' ON in — ^ oo 1/^ — ^ O r~- oo r~i in r^ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o On 00 — ^ — ■ iri On — ' tT r-- 00 n-i in •^ r) r^l OOOOOOO O OOOOOOO O ONi/1 — — ^■^Or- t~- ^' NO 1^' NO ^ Q ^' ^ 00 On m m — ^ri Tf r) ON r~ oo 00 On ON o ("O r^ oo r-- oo t~~ — ' I^ C'l ■^ O ON a
  • -% Figure 26. Curly-tailed Lizard (Leiocephalus carinatus). (LP) Leiocephalus carinatus was reported from Palm Beach (as L. c. virescens) by Duellman and Schwartz (1958). King ( 1 960) later stud- ied the Palm Beach population and determined it to consist of L. c. annouri and to occur on both the island of Palm Beach and the adjacent mainland. Today the lizard is abundant at both localities and has also been sighted at Boynton Beach. King and Krakauer (1966) and Schwartz and Thomas (1975) further reported L. c. ar- mouri to be established on the grounds of the Miami Seaquarium on Virginia Key and also on Key Biscayne (Crandon Park Zoo). Apparently, none still remain at the zoo, but the population on Virginia Key is well-established on the Seaquarium grounds and environs. We are also aware of a new population on the premises of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration at the Port of Miami. Leiocephalus schreihersi.— This Hispaniolan curly-tailed lizard (Fig. 27) has been established in Dade County at least since 1978 at N.W. 70th Avenue and 70th Street. The introduction of L. schrei- hersi resulted from escapees imported by an animal dealer from the north coast of Haiti. We observed young specimens in 1979. The area was bulldozed in late 1981 and we have seen no specimens there since. A secondary introduction from this population, how- ever, is present in the vicinity of N.W. 67th Avenue and Kilmarnock Drive in Miami Lakes and was established shortly after the parent population. Sphaerodactyhis argus. — S2i\a.gQ (1954) first reported the ocel- lated gecko (Fig. 28) from Key West. Duellman and Schwartz (1958) 52 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY ;■.'■"• ■Sari. 'V- '-y' .'"^"^ *^, _ ,. ;.v FiGURE 27. Red-Sided Curly-tailed Lizard (Leiocephalus schreibersi). (LP) Stated that the population was no longer extant, but King and Krak- auer ( 1 966) indicated that the lizard had been seen near the aquarium at Mallory Square on the western end of the island. We have a specimen collected on Stock Island in 1 977, and Love ( 1 978) recently reported collecting a specimen in a vacant lot in Key West. Sphaerodactylus elegans. — S\Q']nQ:gtr (1922) was the first to re- cord the ashy gecko (Fig. 29) from Key West. Duellman and Schwartz (1958) confirmed its occurrence on Key West and also reported it on Boca Chica Key to the north. One of us (LP) has found the lizard Figure 28. Ocellated Gecko {Sphaerodactylus argiis). (IHC) SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 53 -i Ms: ■« Figure 29. Ashy Gecko (Sphaewdactyliis clegans). (JB) on Big Coppit Key. the key directly north of Boca Chica Key. Gra- ham and Schwartz (1978) pointed out that e/egaus is the correct specific name for this gecko, which was formerly called S. cincreiis. Caiman crocody/iis. — King and Krakauer (1966) reported that specimens of the brown caiman (Fig. 30) were occasionally released Figure 30. Brown Caiman (Caiman crocodylus). (JB) 54 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Figure 31. Red-eared Slider {Pseiideniys scripta elcgans). (JB) in south Florida and became feral, but were not known to be breed- ing. One of us (LP) observed a number of caimans of various sizes in the late 1950's in a section of a canal which extended from Maule Lake to N.W. 27th Avenue. Ellis (1980) had information of caimans in canals in Miami as early as 1960. In 1968 specimens from a canal in North Miami in the vicinity of N.W. 22nd Avenue and 197th Street were brought to the animal trade by a local collector. Animals up to six feet in length were captured and the collector reported having seen nests. We have been unable to determine the current status of this population. In 1 976 an adult caiman with several young perched on its back was spotted near Coopertown on the Tamiami Trail (J. Wasilewski, pers. comm.). In 1980 a series of hatchling caimans were collected near the same locality (R. McDermott, pers. comm.). Ellis (1980) reported an established and breeding popula- tion confined to the canal system on the Homestead Air Force Base; the population was first discovered in 1974. Efforts have been made to extirpate this population, but have not been completely successful. Pseudemys scripta. — Three subspecies of the slider presumably have been reported introduced into south Florida. King and Krak- auer (1966) reported Chrysef)iys {= Pseudemys) s. elegans as estab- lished but not breeding and C. 5. callirostris and C. s. oruata as not having been seen again after their initial release. Specimens of the latter two subspecies were stated to have been released into the Red Road Canal at W. 27th Street in Hialeah. We have visited that locality several times without seeing any of these turtles. On the other hand, P. s. elegans (Fig. 3 1) is known to have been established SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 55 ^" ^'(JV^ Figure 32. Brahminy Blind Snake (Rainphotyphlops hramina). (LP) and breeding since at least 1 958 by one of us (LP); it occurs in canals throughout the Metropolitan Dade County area. Rainphotyphlops bramina. — No exotic snake has previously been recorded as established in the continental United States. Myers (1958) mentioned the possible introduction of Typhlops htnibricahs into south Florida, based on a single specimen collected in 1930, but the species has not been found since. We herein report the introduction of the Brahminy blind snake in three separate localities in Dade County. Ramphotyphlops hramina (Fig. 32) is the most widely-dis- tributed terrestrial snake in the world (McDowell 1974). It is pan- tropical, occurring in many far-flung areas, including Hawaii. It has been introduced in Baja California del Sur. Guerrero, Michoacan, and Sinaloa, Mexico (Smith and Smith 1976; Murphy and Ottley 1979). In April 1979. the late Phil Bennett presented us with several of these snakes, which he collected in the vicinity of S. W. 63rd Court and 64th Street in South Miami. He subsequently collected a series of additional specimens in the same vicinity indicating that this parthenogenetic species is well-established in a residential area. In late 1 980 two others were found by a telephone company crew during excavation activities at E. 56th Street and 42nd Avenue near the Amelia Earhardt Air Base. In December 1 98 1 , a specimen was found in a vacant lot between the Palmetto Expressway and Hialeah Speed- way north of Okeechobee Road in Hialeah. These three localities are widely separated; the second locality is near the site of a weekend swap meet where plants are sold. In summary it appears that most of the 24 exotic species and 56 SPECIAL PUBLICATION -MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY the single native transplant which are established and breeding in south Florida were introduced either as stowaways or as a result of accidental or purposeful release by an animal dealer or the subse- quent recipient of the animal(s). Other species were also introduced as a result of escape from zoological parks or other exhibits, or through release by individuals not connected with the animal trade. In addition, there are a few species (or populations of species) whose means of origin remain unknown. Although the manner of intro- duction of certain exotic species is nebulous, our best guesses follow. We are listing some species in more than one category, because there are populations that obviously arrived by different methods of in- troduction. We believe that the following ten species of exotic animals were introduced as stowaways through the shipping of produce or other commodities, or the plant trade: Eleuthewdactylus plauiros- Hemidactylus garuotii (Hi- tris aleah population) Osteopilus septentrionalis Hemidacty/iis turcicus Anolis distichus {domini- Sphaerodactylus argiis censis) Sphaerodactylus elegaus Anolis sagrai Rhanipliotyphlops braniina Gonatodes albogularis A second major group includes nine species that were released by animal dealers or subsequent purchasers, as follows: Bufo marimis Gekko gecko Ameiva aiueiva (Hialeah Iguana iguana (airport pop- and Suniland popula- ulation) tions) Leiocephalus schreihersi Basiliscus xittalus Caiman crocodylus Cneniidophorus lemniscatus Pseudonys scripta A third group consists of four lizards introduced by individuals who were not associated with the animal trade: Anolis cybotes Hemidactylus garnotii Anolis equesths (South Miami/Coconut Leiocephalus carinatus Grove populations) (Palm Beach population) A fourth group is composed of three lizards released from zoo- logical parks or exhibits and includes: Ameiva anwiva (Key Bis- Leiocephalus carinatus (Vir- cayne population) ginia Key population) Iguana iguana (Key Bis- cayne and Virginia Key populations) SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 57 A final group includes four lizards or populations oflizards whose method of origin of introduction remains unknown. Thev consist of: Ano/is garniani Leioccphalus carinatus (Port Anolis cristatcUus of Miami population) Ctenosaura pcctinata We suspect, however, that the two anoles and the curly-tail were introduced as stowaways and the ctenosaur as a result of the animal trade. It is possible that some recent introductions (e.g., Aiiolis sagrai, Henuckicty/us garnotii, H. turcicus), especially of populations found outside of our study area, may have resulted from individuals trans- ported from their native range or elsewhere via shipping, as opposed to spread from other introduced populations in Florida. We have decided not to consider a number of alien species which, although introduced into south Florida, have not established breed- ing populations. It is important to note, however, that one particular area of the city (vicinity of N.W. 70th Street and 70th Avenue) where Basiliscus vittatus and Leiocephalus schreihersi were known to occur, was inundated by other exotic species releases. This area has now been demolished to allow for construction of a link in a rapid transit system, so it is unlikely that any of these "released" species, unless transported elsewhere, have survived. We originally intended to report a colony of Agania agcuua from this area, estab- lished since 1976, but we are now virtually certain that it did not survive the demolition. DISCUSSION South Florida is approaching ecocollapse. The ecological systems of south Florida are so imperiled that unless significant steps are quickly taken to halt ecosystem manipulation, the life support sys- tems of the southern peninsula will be extinguished. From a natu- ralist's point of view, the Atlantic coastal ridge is dead, large sections of the Everglades have become dehydrated, and the Everglades Na- tional Park is struggling for its existence. Although a few years behind the east, the west coast seems inevitably to be following the same uncontrolled pattern of growth. The subtropical majesty of the Flor- ida Keys is succumbing to a seemingly terminal malignant growth syndrome. Our intention in writing this paper has been to focus attention on the nefarious impact of humans on the south Florida ecosystem, based on what is happening to the animal group we know best— the herpetofauna. It is our hope that our work will augment efforts to bring relief to this beleaguered area, and help to rescue it from the constant undermining of its ecological framework. The string of SPECIAL PUBLICATION- MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Fici Kh 33. Rock\ canal dike in webiern Uade County commonly inhabited by Elaphe guttata as well as other snakes. In recent years extensive portions of such dikes have been hauled away for use in constructing roadbeds and housing founda- tions. (LP) sleepy little towns, which comprised the urban areas of southeastern Florida in the 1940's and 1950's, deserved a better fate than the development that overtook them in the 1960's and then exploded completely out of hand in the 1970's. Their sad fate is one that will be duplicated anywhere that undisciplined and unlimited growth is allowed to occur. We must learn these lessons. Our concern for these problems has resulted in part from our interest in assessing man's impact on the area's native amphibians and reptiles. From the data we have presented, it is obvious that the major factors acting to reduce native amphibian and reptile populations are destruction of natural cover and manipulation of the hydrologic cycle. This statement cannot be too strongly empha- sized. Additional pressures on the indigenous herpetofauna exist, but their importance is insignificant when compared with the two major sources of environmental pressure. The additional pressures, listed in what we believe to be their decreasing order of importance, in- clude: (1) destruction of man-made cover; (2) naturalization and spread of injurious exotic plants; (3) vehicular traffic; (4) biocides and other forms of pollution; (5) man-generated fires; (6) outright killing; (7) collecting; and (8) competition with exotic amphibians and reptiles. SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 59 i Figure 34. The "devil catcher," used to control plant growth along canal banks in western Broward and Palm Beach counties, leaves a path of destruction in its wake. (JR) Once the natural cover of an area has been removed, there are a number of native amphibians and reptiles that will become estab- lished in the newly-created niches if the land is allowed to lie fallow. Secondary growth and an accumulation of discarded objects provide favorable habitat for insects and rodents which, in turn, provide food for frogs, toads, lizards, and snakes. Eventually most of the altered areas are plowed for cultivation or bulldozed for housing, which to use a colloquialism, gives these animals the "double wham- my."' A similar situation occurs when rows of old Australian pines are cut down, when rocky canal dikes (Fig. 33) are hauled away for use as fill, when tractors pulling staggered series of large bladed rollers called "devil catchers" (Fig. 34) devastate rocky canal banks in order to root up plant growth, and when canals are dredged by boats to remove aquatic weeds. Two of the three terrestrial injurious exotic plants of concern (i.e., Melaleuca and Schimis) are trees, which in south Florida, create a monobiotic environment that lacks the diversity necessary to sup- port a complex herpetofauna. The third plant, Casuarina, has proved detrimental for certain native amphibians and reptiles, but has also been a salvation for others. Of the two aquatic injurious plants, 60 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY FioiKi 35. Road kills of al least five snake species found duiing the spring of 1979 on about twelve feet of the Tamiami Trail at the entrance to the Everglades National Park at Shark Valley, western Dade County. (LP) Hydrilla physically fills up the space in the water that it occupies, thereby reducing the space utilized by other aquatic organisms. Water hyacinths, on the other hand, blanket the surface of the water and are especially harmful to wet-adapted species that occupy shallow ponds for breeding during the spring. An additional factor of concern is that both plants are disruptive to natural food chains. Vehicular traffic has long been known as an important agent in reducing populations of amphibians and reptiles. The impact was noted by Barbour (1944) when he stated that ". . . in Florida the slaughter of reptilian life on the roads has been devastating, and the reason is clear. There are cold spells, sharp northers, bringing the temperature down to frost or near freezing. Normal temperatures return in a few hours and then the snakes and tortoises creep out on the black tarred road to warm up. There they have been killed literally by millions. I mean what I say, and I am not exaggerating, for Florida is a very large state." In south Florida, road kills are found throughout the year, especially on those roads traversing the Everglades (e.g., the Tamiami Trail and Alligator Alley). During the spring, however, following a ''normal" winter (i.e.. where manipu- lation by the Central and Southern Flood Control District approx- imates natural water levels), species that have survived or. in some cases, have taken advantage of hydrographic manipulation, congre- gate for breeding at small pools and ditches, particularly those formed at road culverts. Countless numbers are slaughtered by vehicles as they cross the highways (Fig. 35). SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 61 South Florida is one ol'the most pesticide-sprayed regions in the world. "Roughly two million pounds of chemicals each year are spread over Dade County alone, more than a pound per person'' (Dorschner 1980). Biocides are commonly used in agriculture for controlling pests and weeds, and also for the suppression of aquatic weeds in waterways and mosquitoes in inhabited areas. During rains the biocides run off into nearby canals, contributing to the status of Miami's drinking water as "one of the most chemically contami- nated of any city in the country" (Boyle and Mechem 1981). Ob- viously, these pollutants have taken their toll of amphibian and reptile populations. For example, extensive fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal kills frequently occur in northwestern Broward County as a result of pesticides sprayed from airplanes onto sugar cane fields to control rodents. Also, the Miami River and much of the network of drainage canals in southeastern Florida are so polluted that the native amphibians and reptiles once found there have been largely extirpated. Chemical contamination of water by biocides is not the only thing affecting south Florida's water quality. In November 1981, the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority began adding liquid anhydrous ammonia to chlorinated drinking water supplies. The ammonia and chlorine react in water to produce the chemical com- pound chloramine. This procedure was initiated as a cheap method to comply with a federal mandate to rid the drinking water of car- cinogenic trihalomethanes. Soon thereafter, however, hundreds of thousands of dead fish were reported by tropical fish aquarists and suppliers. In addition, reptile dealers were faced with heavy losses among amphibians and turtles, especially softshell turtles {Trionyx). Our preliminary observations indicate that plants may be adversely affected by chloramine-contaminated water. As is often the case, we have another example of materials being introduced into the envi- ronment before adequate testing has been carried out, with the pos- sibility of massive damage being done to organisms that are part of aquatic food chains in south Florida. Chloramine, itself possibly carcinogenic, nonetheless, is still present in Dade County's water supply, and its use is spreading to other areas of the country. The manhandling of the hydrologic cycle in south Florida is especially obvious during the dry season in years of drought. Water, shuttled off to agricultural and urban areas through the 1400-mile network of drainage canals, leaves the Everglades parched and sub- ject to devastating fires that sweep through tens of thousands of acres of supposed wetlands. The toll taken during very dry years is tre- mendous (Ward 1972), but large numbers of fires occur every year. After such conflagrations the charred remains of the herpetofauna, especially reptiles, are often encountered, and for years thereafter the areas remain virtually devoid of amphibian and reptile life. The ignorant and fearful attitude of the layman toward amphib- 62 SPECIAL PUBLICATION -MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY ians and reptiles is well-known. Weekends, holidays, and the hunting season are times when there is an exodus of armed people from urban centers into the Everglades in their swamp-buggies, half-tracks, and airboats, ostensibly for fishing and hunting. Unfortunately, the result of such activities is often a trail of maimed and slaughtered wildlife of all descriptions. Even a share of the hunters themselves do not manage to escape the barrage. Most people who develop an interest in herpetology begin by collecting specimens in the out-of-doors. Later, their interests will usually begin to diverge. Some become hobbyists, others develop a scientific interest, and a few people collect these animals as a live- lihood. South Florida has long been an important wildlife import- export center and animal dealers have been willing to purchase most species of local amphibians and reptiles for resale. Over the years, commercial collecting must have had an impact on the populations of some native south Florida herpetozoans, but it is interesting to note that currently the native species most favored by such collectors are those whose populations remain relatively stable. In recent years there has been a trend toward a reduction in the number of full- time commercial collectors, as well as the orientation of part-time collectors toward collecting introduced species within the city. Pri- vate and scientific collecting has been so minimal as to be hardly worthy of mention. Albert Schwartz, in an address read at an Exotic- Nonnative Species Conference held in April 1979, at the Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, noted that "'animals themselves have rarely (if at all) been overcollected for commercial or scientific reasons; rather, the tremendous growth of Miami as a prime Sun Belt city has caused habitat destruction with its companion destruc- tion of animals and plants." We consider competition of exotic species of amphibians and reptiles with native ones to be the least important factor in reducing the latter's populations. Since the publicity surrounding this matter has been so overwhelming, however, and because the potential exists for escalation of the importance of the problem, we have decided to consider it at length in the following sections. Patterns of amphibian and reptile introductions.— There is no way of telling how long introductions of amphibians and reptiles into areas outside their natural range have been occurring. Some introductions have been purposeful but most, undoubtedly, have been accidental, occurring as a consequence of shipping. Introduc- tions have taken place world-wide in temperate and tropical regions. The giant toad (Bufo marinus) is an example of an amphibian that was introduced purposely for insect, rodent, or snail control. It is extremely widespread, occurring outside its natural range in such varied places as Hawaii, New Guinea, Australia, Japan, the Philip- pines, Fiji, Tonga, and Solomon Islands. Guam, several islands in the West Indies, and, of course, south Florida. For food, the bullfrog SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 63 (Rana catesbelana) has been introduced into such areas as Mexico, Canada, some islands of the West Indies, Japan. Italy, Hawaii, and many areas of the western United States. Heniidaclylus twriciis is a good example of a stowaway lizard, which has become established in several states bordering the Gulf of Mexico, as well as Arizona, Mexico, the Greater Antilles, and Panama. Raniphoiyp/i/ops bra- mina is another example of a stowaway which has become widely distributed in Hawaii, Mexico, Australia. Japan, southeastern Asia, and many islands of the south Pacific. This snake is now so wide- spread that its original range can only be approximated (McDowell 1974). Introductions have also occurred as a consequence of the animal trade. The lizard A no/is carolinensis is an example, now found in Japan; its close relative A. porcatus, native to Cuba, is introduced in Hawaii. A large number of introductions have been reported in the United States (Smith and Kohler 1978). Most of these have taken place in four states, viz.. California (Bury and Lukenbach 1976). Florida (this paper), Hawaii (McKeown 1978), and Texas (Thomas 1974; Conant 1977); a summary is found in Table 4. which also indicates that Florida harbors the greatest number of introduced species, followed by Hawaii and trailed by California and Texas. The majority of the species are native to tropical areas and most are lizards. The patterns of introduction into south Florida have already been discussed. ConifJicntary on literature dealing with introductions in South Florida. — Over the course of the last few years we have amassed a copious amount of popular literature dealing with exotic wildlife in south Florida. Perusal of it indicates that there is a basic theme running throughout, viz.. that exotic organisms are outcompeting their native counterparts, and that the southern portion of the pen- insula will eventually be overrun with these creatures. The veracity of this conclusion is open to question, and we are concerned that many statements have been made on the basis of little field or ex- perimental data. We believe that in most cases the statements were made indiscriminately to help sell the magazines and newspapers in which these articles appeared. Many are sensational and intended to trade on the idea of an "invasion" by these organisms. Such an approach tends to obscure the biology of the introductions. An ex- ample is the situation involving cobras. The news media have often inferred that cobras are breeding in the Everglades, information which is patently false. In the early 1970's a snake handling religious sect conducted services with various species of venomous snakes, including cobras. The leader of the sect was bitten by a Florida cottonmouth and, as a result, released some native venomous snakes and two cobras, one a Siamese cobra (Naja naja kaouthia), the other an Egyptian cobra {Naja haje). The Siamese cobra was later found dead on a road traversing the Everglades, and taken to the Miami Serpentarium for identification. Some years later a Ceylonese cobra 64 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY {Naja naja naja) was captured within the Miami city hmits and reputed by the news media to be gravid. That snake was also taken to the Miami Serpentarium, and was found to be a male (J. Wasi- lewski, pers. comm.). It is suspected that it had escaped from a serviceman who had recently traveled to Asia. The black cobra {Naja melanoleuca) has also been stated to occur in south Florida, in several popular accounts, which is equally untrue. A further problem is that in popular articles covering several plant or animal groups, conclusions derived concerning the nature of the introductions in one group tend to be applied to the other groups, resulting in additional confusion. Exotic organisms of other kinds, notably fishes, insects, and snails have caused massive prob- lems requiring millions of dollars in an effort to control them. We feel that there is a considerable need for ecological research in each biological group to elucidate the nature and consequences of intro- ductions into south Florida. Only two papers appearing in scientific journals have significantly addressed the question of south Florida's exotic herpetofauna. In the first. King and Krakauer (1966) summarized the information available at that time on the alien species, and the history of their introductions and subsequent spread (if any). Their paper, although it was a useful summarization of the topic, presented a somewhat exaggerated view by listing a large number of species as "unreported since release."' The same species were later uncritically included by Smith and Kohler (1978) in their "exotic released"" category. As an example. King and Krakauer indicated that 2361 specimens of 17 species of amphibians and reptiles were released in 1964 at an ad- dress formerly occupied by an animal dealer along the Red Road Canal in Hialeah. All 1 7 species were included by Smith and Kohler. We have made numerous trips to the locality and have found no evidence that any of the species have survived. The other major paper, by Smith and Kohler (1978), which we have already mentioned, summarized amphibian and reptile intro- ductions in the United States and Canada. Although this paper is valuable, it is deficient in two important respects. First, the infor- mation it contains is based strictly on a survey of previously pub- lished literature; it includes no original data on the introductions. The comments regarding south Florida are repetitious of those pre- sented in 1966 by King and Krakauer, with the addition of those exotic species that had been reported in subsequent literature up to 1978. Secondly, ideas are proposed in Smith and Kohler"s summary to which we take major exception. Our objections are the same as those admirably discussed, in rebuttal, by Rundquist (1978). The issue oj competition. — The principal and justifiable concern evinced in papers on introductions of exotic amphibians and reptiles into south Florida is that these alien species may enter into com- petition with native ones to the detriment of the latter. The question SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 65 remains, however, as to whether such competition is actually oc- curring and what, if any, other kinds ol^ relationships exist between the exotic and native herpetofauna and/or other organisms. The picture presented in the literature to date has been a simplistic one, limiting the impact of an exotic to interspecific competition with native species. Competition occurs when two organisms are using the same limited resource, and may be interspecific or intraspecific. Com- petition can be expected to be more severe among members of the same species, because of the greater similarity of their ecological requirements. The closer two different species are in their require- ments, the more severe their interspecific competition will be. The principle of mutual exclusion, however, predicts that no two species existing in the same area will have the same niche requirements, and be able to coexist for an indefinite period of time. The question whether exotic species compete with native ones is a multifarious one. If a given exotic species is suspected of entering into competition with a native one, several questions should be raised. What are the resources they are both utilizing? If they are using the same resources, to what extent is this occurring? What are the characteristics of the exotic species that enable it to outcompete its native counterpart? What part does availability of open niches play? What part is played by the great competitor. Homo sapieusl These are fundamental questions that thus far have been sidestepped in the literature on the subject in south Florida. Answers are not available for all these questions, but it is our hope that our obser- vations and conclusions will open avenues for long-term research. To begin an analysis of these questions, it is necessary first to ask which species of exotic amphibians and reptiles are entering into competition with which native ones. If they do compete, they must occur syntopically. One way to approach this question is to note first those exotic species which, for the present and foreseeable future, are restricted in distribution to urban areas. These species have the ability to adapt to modified habitats. Also, their ability to disperse is overshadowed by the growth of the city. These species are: Ameiva anieiva ^ Ctenosaiira pectiuata Anolis chstatellus Gekko gecko Anolis cybotes Iguana iguana Anolis distichus dominicen- Leiocephalus carinatus cis Leiocephalus schreibersi Anolis garniatu Sphaerodactylus argus Basiliscus rittatus Pseudeniys scripta Cnemidophorus lemniscatus Ramphotyphlops bramina Most of these are known only from urban areas of Dade County. There are a few native species that are able to exist in the same 66 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY areas, but only two native lizards appear locally abundant, viz., Anolis distichus floridamis and Sphaewdactylus fwtatiis. The re- mainder are only occasionally found within the confines of the city. They arc: Pseiideinys fJoridana Coluber constrictor Pseudemys nelson! Diadophis punctatus Triony.x fero.x Elaphe guttata Anolis carolinensis Storeria dekayi Eumeces inexpectatus Thamnophis sirtalis Ophisaurus ventralis Of these native species, only P. floridana, P. nelsoni, and A. caro- linensis, because of their morphological and/or ecological similari- ties, could conceivably come into competition with any of the exotic species that are limited to urban areas. The question as to the reality of such competition is discussed below. The other group of exotic species are those which occur both in urban and agricultural/natural areas. These species are: Bufo marinus Anolis sagrai Eleutherodactylus planiros- Hemidactylus garnotii tris Hemidactylus turcicus Osteopilus septentrionalis Sphaerodactylus elegans Anolis equestris Caiman crocodylus The majority of these are primarily confined to urban areas. Eleu- therodactylus planirostris. however, is found in abundance in all three areas. Anolis sagrai and O. septentrionalis are abundant in urban and agricultural areas, and have invaded natural areas to a marginal degree. Sphaerodactylus elegans is primarily distributed in urban areas in the Lower Keys but is also found in quasi-natural areas as well. At this point we have identified a group of exotic species that are restricted to urban areas, and we have presented a list of those native species whose ranges include urban conditions. We have also listed those exotic species whose ranges include both urban and agricultural/natural areas. It is now necessary to examine the pos- sibility of competition, or threat thereof, between exotic species and certain native counterparts. These species are listed in Table 5. The giant toad (Bufo nuninus) is capable of undergoing popu- lation explosions in introduced situations, and its occurrence in south Florida, therefore, is a matter of serious concern. King (1968) stated that the giant toad "is replacing the native southern toad in residential areas."" That this is due to direct competition seems not to be the case. According to our recollections and those of numerous long-time residents and collectors, what decimated B. terrestris in urban areas was its inability to adapt to changes in vegetation and water supply instituted through human agency. The departure of the SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 67 Table 5. Exotic and native species in south Florida between which competition may conceivably take place. Exotic species Native counterpart Bufo inannus Osteopilus scptcnlno)ialis Caiman crocodylus Pseudemys scripta Anolis cristalelliis Anolis cybotes Anolis dislichus doniinicensis Anolis equestns Anolis garmani Anolis sagrai Sphaerodactylus argiis Sphaewdactylus elegans Bufo terresiris Hyla cincrca Hyla squirclla A lligutor mississippicnsis Pseudemys jloridana Pseudemvs nelsoni Anolis carolinensis A nolis dist ich us Jlorida n us Sphaerodactylus notatus southern toad from disturbed areas was followed by the intrusion of B. niarinus. Krakauer (1968, 1 970) came to the same conclusion. Bartlett (1967) stated that the Cuban treefrog (O. septcntrioualis) was "seriously decimating all native Hylas over its entire range" (in south Florida), but no supportive evidence for this statement was offered. Over the years we have witnessed the rapid expansion in range and numbers of the Cuban treefrog within urbanized areas of southern Florida. Its spread has been facilitated by the many swim- ming pools in the area. This frog is also commonly found in agri- cultural areas where it inhabits exotic trees, such as various species of Ficus and Casuarina, run-down old buildings, railroad trestles and bridges, as well as patches of disturbed vegetation. Hyla ciiierca and H. squirella, the two native treefrogs with which O. septcntrio- nalis is known to come into contact, occur primarily in natural areas, but also inhabit agricultural areas and urban areas where sufficient vegetational cover exists. Hyla ciuerca and //. squirclla, although frequently encountered, do come into contact with O. scplcnlrio- nalis, which eats other frogs, even of its own species. This situation appears to us to have the greatest potential for displacement of the native treefrogs by the exotic one. Caiman crocodylus and Alligator niississippicnsis are similar morphologically and competition between the two is to be expected. Among those native species that have taken advantage of human- created niches, A. mississippiensis, in recent years, has shown a dramatic increase in population size and is no longer in danger of extirpation. Caiiuan crocodylus currently occurs in very restricted areas and the only natural area where the two would come into contact is near Coopertown (see species account). Although we sus- 68 SPECIAL PUBLICATION -MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTOPvY pect that the alligator's superiority of numbers will hold it in good stead against potential competition with the brown caiman, there is a pressing need to use the Coopertown locality to study the inter- action between the two species and/or to remove the caimans from that area. Over twenty years ago the red-eared slider, Pseiideiuys scripta elegans, was established and breeding in sizable populations con- taining many adult individuals. At that time P. scripta was found with the native P. floridaua and P. ne/soni. Today all three turtles are present in urban canals and lakes, but P. s. elegans is no longer so abundant as it once was. Our experience indicates that P. nelson! is a turtle of broader adaptability than P. s. elegans, and it is able to exist in polluted waters with little surrounding vegetation. Six taxa of exotic anoles are known to occur in south Florida; two additional lizard taxa are native. Most of the literature on the introduction of anole species into south Florida has raised the specter of competition of the introduced lizards with the native Anolis car- olinensis. The only major work dealing with this question is that of King (1966) on competition between Anolis carolinensis and A. dis- tichus in Miami. King studied the ecology of A. carolinensis in a "pure" population (in an area not occupied by A. distichus) and compared data from there with other information gathered in an area occupied by both carolinensis and distichus. The subspecies of A. distichus studied is what is now called A. d. Jloridanus (Schwartz 1968). King concluded that competition does occur between these two anoles. He pointed out that A. distichus enjoys an advantage of greater natality but that A. carolinensis possesses a broader tem- perature regime and can move from its preferred habitat on trees and shrubs in filtered sunlight into areas of more intense sunlight. Thus, competition is minimized by these mechanisms. Similar con- clusions may well apply to relationships between A. carolinensis and the introduced A. d. dominicensis. The conclusions reached by King may have been somewhat different if he had chosen to study the ecology of A. carolinensis in natural surroundings, instead of in an urban area. The study area he selected for studying competitive relationships between A. carolinensis and A. distichus was one of the planting areas in Fairchild Tropical Garden. Conceivably, in an artificially created environment such as this, A. carolinensis might be expected to operate at a disadvantage. Nevertheless, the param- eters of competitive interaction studied by King could be applied to the relationships between other anoline species in south Florida. If there are any of the introduced anoles that would appear to possess the potential for outcompeting one of the native anoles, it would seem to be the superabundant Anolis sagrai. To date there has been no attempt made to assess its impact on the native A. carolinensis in the detailed fashion of King (1966). Nonetheless, we offer a few comments based on both the literature and our own SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 69 personal observations. Fu'st. A. clistichus, A. sagrai and A. snia- ragdiniis (a species closely related to A. caroliucnsis) occur syntop- ically as natives in many areas of the Bahamas. A similar relationship exists between A. cawlinensis, A. distichus, and A. sagrai in south Florida. In Cuba. A. sagrai occurs syntopically with A. porcatiis, a very close relative of (and formerly considered conspecific with) A. caro/incnsis. The interactions of those two species in both Cuba and south Florida were studied by Collete (1961). He noted that in areas of syntopy. porcatus and sagrai adjusted their perch sites to accom- odate the presence of the other species. He also mentioned that "the ecology of sagrei [=sagrai] in regions of sympatry with caroliucnsis (in south Florida) does not differ noticeably from sagrei in the study area in Cuba." In addition, he indicated that the relative abundance of porcatus and sagrai changed depending on the amount of vege- tation present from year to year. Our own observations in south Florida are in accord with Colette's conclusions. Furthermore. Schwartz, in his previously-mentioned conference address, sum- marized the history of the spread of A nol is sagrai in south Florida, noting that "the success of A. sagrei can by 'blamed' on open niches for an ecologically very tolerant lizard plus its ability to survive successfully under situations which other anoles would find intol- erable." We have not observed the Puerto Rican anole. Anolis crista tell us in contact with A. caro/inensis. About six years ago we began ob- serving a small population of the tbrmer species at a locality on Red Road (see species account). At that time, A. sagrai and A. distichus were both present but not abundant. During the ensuing years the populations of all three species have increased in size, although not so dramatically in the case of A. distichus. Unlike Brach (1977). who postulated that A. cristatellus would displace A. sagrai as the former expands its range, we find the two species coexisting to the point of occurring together on the same branch. The population of Anolis cybotes in south Florida has been under observation for several years by Lewis Ober. who has informed us (pers. comm.) that this Haitian Anole lives in contact with A. car- olinensis and A. sagrai and has displaced neither. Anolis carolinensis is not common, but its relative abundance apparently has not changed since A. cybotes became established. Little information is available on the two giant anoles, Anolis garmani and A. equestris, in terms of their competitive relationships. They are very different morphologically from the native anoline species, and the possibility of competition would appear to be greater between the two of them than between either and a native anole. At any rate, A. carolinensis is not abundant in the city as already noted, whereas A. distichus is very common. Sphaerodactylus notatus is a common gecko along the eastern edge of the rock ridge in Dade County and throughout the Florida 70 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Keys. Wherever found, it is abundant. Sphaerodactylus elegans, al- though it occupies the same microhabitat in the Lower Keys, is noticeably less abundant. Sphaerodactylus argus appears to be barely maintaining itself in restricted areas in Key West. We doubt whether these introduced lizards will offer any threat of serious competition to S. notatus. There is another native lizard that shows some resemblance in ecological and/or morphological characteristics with two of the other exotic species. The six-lined racerunner {Cnenndophorus sexlinea- tus) might be expected to compete with C. leniniscalus or ADwiva anieiva. Cneniidophorus sex/ i neat us prefers habitats with sandy soils and its numbers decreased dramatically coincidental with the in- creased housing development, long before the exotic teiids became established. The six-lined racerunner. however, is abundant in other portions of the peninsula, particularly the Florida Keys. Cnemi- dophorus lemniscatus and A. anieiva occur only in restricted areas within the city. If C lemniscatus or A. anieiva were introduced into sandy areas on the Keys, however, they could present a threat to C. sexlineatus. In summary, we believe that, in light of all the environmental pressures impinging upon the populations of native amphibians and reptiles, the issue of competition between exotic and native species has been largely overplayed. The other pressures we have discussed are either well-documented or abundantly evident. Evidence of com- petition between native and introduced species, on the other hand, remains scant. Competition between species for limited resources is, after all, only one possible outcome of the introduction of one ecologically similar species into the range of another. There are any number of ways in which the ecological requirements of one species may be accomodated with those of another, such as spatial or tem- poral displacement, shift of food preferences, and so forth. The pattern we have observed, however, involves the disappearance of most of the native species concurrent with the advance of the city, and the subsequent influx into the vacated areas by the various exotic species. Of additional interest is the fact that some exotic species are preyed upon by native forms. For example, the ringneck snake {Diadophis punctatus) preys on the greenhouse frog (Eleutherodac- tylus planirostris) and the racer {Coluber constrictor) has been ob- served to feed on young Anieiva anieiva. More importantly, the Lower Keys population of the corn snake {Elaphe guttata) has stead- ily grown in urbanized areas as a direct result of the increase in the numbers o^ Anolis sagrai. Curiously enough, members of the Anieiva ameiva population of Key Biscayne have been observed to feed on the eggs oi Iguana iguana. Anolis equestris also preys on Osteopilus septentrionalis and Anolis sagrai, as well as exotic vegetation. Cte- nosaura pectinata is known to feed on the fruit and leaves of various exotic trees. SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 71 The influence of the south Florida clinmte on the dispersal of exotic herpetofauna. — The Climate of south Florida, though sub- tropical, is not uniform throughout the area. Hela (1952) pointed out a distinction between the climate of the coastal region of south- eastern Florida and the inland areas to the west. The coastal region is under the moderating maritime influence of annual temperature extremes. The fact that the temperature parameters along the south- eastern coast are narrower than along the southwestern coast results from the effect of continentality. i.e., their proximity to a large con- tinental mass and its influence on increasing the annual temperature range. Also, there is the moderating effect of the prevailing easterly trade winds along the southeastern coast. As a result, the coastal area of southeastern Florida, according to Hela, possesses a "mon- soon rainforest climate"', which is "an intermediate climate type between the tropical rainforest climate and the tropical savanna climate" characterized by the presence of forest vegetation m spite of a dry season. The remainder of the peninsula has a "tropical savanna climate" with a "relatively long and severe dry season" with rainfall amounts insufficient to compensate for the drought; it supports more open forest and tall grass (or sedges). Studies on the relationships between climatic differences in south Florida and the distribution and dispersal of introduced amphibians and reptiles are few. Only Krakauer (1968, 1970) has commented on this matter. He pointed out that the more extreme inland tem- peratures and more frequent, longer widespread frosts could well limit the expansion of the range of the giant toad (Bujo niarinus). Krakauer ( 1 968) determined the 96 hour LT50 for marine toads from Miami to be about 5°C. Muscle tonus was lost after 12 hours at 4.2°C. Krakauer (1970) indicated, however, that B. niarinus "will probably spread a long way up coastal Florida, because of the mild temperatures and the protection from cold provided around houses." Some exotic amphibians and reptiles have expanded their ranges into north-central Florida and along both coasts, but for the majority of the south Florida exotics the cold winter temperatures in the Everglades and to the north of Lake Okeechobee probably will prove to limit their dispersal. Barbour (1944) noted that after the digging of numerous drainage canals "the size of Lake Okeechobee was greatly reduced and the warm waters were drained from the Ever- glades. Since these waters were a God-given aid in warming the air when cold northwest winds swept down, the climate of southeastern Florida changed for the worse." Because of the continued manip- ulation of the area's water supply, the situation can be expected to worsen. The changing weather patterns in recent years, such as colder winter temperatures and even snow, as well as the extended, severe droughts which have brought the water level in Lake Okeechobee to its lowest point in history, seem to confirm what Barbour said four decades ago. 72 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Additional considerations and recommendations. — In 1979 a conference held at Florida Atlantic University, concerned with ex- otic vertebrates in Florida, was sponsored by the Florida Audubon Society and the State of Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Com- mission. The papers presented at the conference summarized the extent of our knowledge concerning the various groups of introduced vertebrates. The pattern of competitive interactions between exotics and their native counterparts was shown to be distinct in each ver- tebrate group examined. A powerful undercurrent existed at the meeting to the effect that introduction of exotic creatures into Florida would cause increasing threats to the survival of native represen- tatives of those same groups, and that efforts should be directed toward control of the situation. The consensus was that legislation should be enacted to place tighter restrictions on animal ownership, primarily by prohibiting or severely limiting the importation of ex- otic wildlife, and by initiating eradication programs for established populations of exotic vertebrates. We consider these proposed solutions to be too simplistic, be- cause they are directed toward one of the most easily identified but least important exacerbating agents. The major factors, which we have already identified, were essentially ignored except in our own presentation on the alien amphibians and reptiles. Exotic organisms have become established in Florida through several different means, and not simply by the release or escape of imported animals. For example, the immigration of stowaways is virtually impossible to control. Governmental agencies also have a long history of inten- tional exotic introductions. Furthermore, it is difficult for anyone, not directly involved in the animal trade, to vizualize the importance of supplying animals to organizations and individuals engaged in educational, biological, and medical research. More importantly, we believe that the status of an organism as an exotic should not be the sole criterion used to judge the need for its prohibition. As we have pointed out, the animal trade has been responsible for numerous introductions. Obviously, there is a need for the ap- propriate authorities to monitor animal compounds, pet shops, and animal exhibits to assure that escape-proof facilities are utilized. It is also necessary that owners and employees of such establishments be educated as to the problems inherent in the release of exotic wildlife into the environment. The release of exotic animals by pri- vate individuals is more difficult to prevent. Most assuredly, there are irresponsible people who have and will continue to release exotic animals. Governmental agencies need to initiate a propaganda pro- gram for the distribution of literature to animal businesses which in turn should be passed on to the purchaser of an exotic animal. Perusal of the list of species suspected to have been introduced as a consequence of the animal trade indicates that (3// were imported, at one time or another, in large numbers to be sold for a relatively SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 73 cheap price. Obviously, the greater the number of specimens of each species imported and the lower their sale price, the greater the chance that either the importer or the buyer will be instrumental in their release. Would not a quota system for the importation of non-native amphibians and reptiles help to curb such releases? A quota system would have the effect of raising prices, reducing the loss of animals from their native populations, and suppressing the likelihood of releases by the animal dealers or the animal's eventual owner. Over the years we have been aware that a few thoughtless people have purposefully liberated exotic venomous snakes into the envi- ronment. Some of them had been issued a license to possess ven- omous reptiles by the State of Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. The regulations governing the possession of venomous reptiles, for the most part, are well-constructed, but they appear to have one major flaw. A sufficiently stringent screening process for permit applicants is not practiced. In some cases, permitees are not of legal age or are people who have only a meagre knowledge of venomous reptiles and the responsibilities involved with their pos- session. Thus the issuance of permits actually constitutes a menace to themselves and to others. Our suggestion to curb this problem would be for the game officials to require that permitees be of legal age. be able to prove sufficient expertise for housing the animals, and agree that the exotic venomous reptile(s) will not be liberated into the environment. It should be understood that any such agree- ment would be legally binding and that its violation would constitute a criminal offense. Characteristically, once an exotic organism is known to be re- leased and/or established, the question has arisen as to how these creatures can be eradicated. In the well-publicized case of the giant African snail, which became established in Miami in 1966, an erad- ication program, although costing nearly one million dollars, was successful, largely because the organism was confined to a limited area. Attempts to eradicate various exotic organisms have involved the use of chemicals, outright killing, importation of appropriate predators, parasites, or disease organisms from the animafs home- lands, or concerted collecting efforts. The problems with eradicating the established exotic amphibians and reptiles, however, are aug- mented because so many species have become so widely distributed. If a program for the eradication of introduced herpetofauna is se- riously considered, we believe that the following questions should be asked: 1. Is there documented proof that the species in question is outcompeting native counterparts or otherwise disrupting natural ecosystems? 2. Could the eradication campaign prove harmful to native species? 74 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY 3. Are there signs that the campaign would prove to be costly and time-consuming only to be futile? 4. Is the eradication of the species morally defensible? This last consideration, philosophical though it may be. is one we think of paramount importance. Is it morally defensible for a human being to attempt to eliminate a creature that is here because it was brought here? Is not man, after all, the prime culprit in the destruc- tion of our natural heritage? Instead of investing in programs of eradication, another approach would be to accept the animals to constitute part of the new urban herpetofauna, and to recognize their potential as a source of bio- logical material for scientific, medical, and educational study. For example, the giant toad {Biifo niarinus) is imported into this country in enormous quantities to fill the needs of biological and medical institutions. If a quota system, such as we have suggested, were to be put into effect, then animal dealers would have to turn to intro- duced populations to meet their needs. Although it is unlikely that this procedure would assure the disappearance of these populations, it would certainly be a step in the right direction and might eventually serve as a control. We consider that there is an important need for research on the biology of non-native species, especially in terms of possible com- petition with native species in natural habitats, as well as in their ability to disperse from urban into natural areas. Thorough ecolog- ical surveys of certain areas are needed in order to provide data to permit the establishment and maintenance of critical habitat for members of the native biota, and to assure the protection of such areas from further molestation by people. Our last and most critical recommendation is that steps be taken immediately to establish procedures for placing limits on the human populations in south Florida and the consequent development in- tended to support this burgeoning population. We can only reiterate the conclusions of the South Florida Study (Browder, Littlejohn, and Young 1977), which indicated at the time the study was completed (about 1973), that south Florida was approaching or had reached its carrying capacity for Homo sapiens. Growth has continued, of course, and the situation has become more critical. The time to act is now; our natural heritage and our children cannot afford our procrastination. LITERATURE CITED Allen, E. R. and Neill. W. T. 1953. The treefrog. Hyla scptcntnonalis. in Florida. Copeia, 1953(2): 127-128. Anonymous 1978. 140 years of growth: A new monograph has a profile of the population history of every Florida county. Florida St. Univ. Bull.. 4(2):5-6. SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 75 Austin, D. F. and Sc hvvartz. A. 1975. Another exotic amphibian in Florida, KIciithcrodaclvliis coqiii. Copeia, 1975(1):188. Austin, S. 1977. Exotics. Pp. 430-432. In Morris. A., The Florida Handbook. 1977-1978 (q.v.). 1975. Exotics. Florida Natur.. 48(3):2-5. Bader. B. 1976. A turtle paradise. St. Louis Herpetol. Soc. Newsletter, 3(7-8):7-9. Ballincer, K. 1936. Miami millions. Franklin Press. Inc., Miami, Florida. Barbour, T. 1910. Eleuthcrodaclvlus ricorclii in Florida. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 23: 100. 1931a. A new North American lizard. Copeia, 1931(3):87-89. 1931b. Another introduced frog in North America. Copeia. 193 1(3): 140. 1936. Two introduced lizards in Miami. Florida. Copeia, 1 936(2): 1 13, 1944. That vanishing Eden. Little. Brown and Co., Boston. Bartlett, R. D. 1967. Notes on introduced herpetofauna in Dade County, Florida. Bull. Pacific Northwest Herpetol. Soc, 2(2):5-7. 1980. Non-native reptiles and amphibians in Florida. Western Massachusetts Herpetol. Soc. Bull., 1978-79:7-11. Bell, L. N. 1953. Notes on three subspecies of the lizard Anolis sagrci in southern Florida. Copeia, 1953(1):63. Biscc:)e, a. B., Jr., Jones, E. C. and Moody, D. L. 1 967, Florida statistical abstract, 1 967. Bur. Econ. Bus. Res., Coll. Bus. Admin., LIniv. Florida, Gainesville. Bo"! LE, Robert H. and Mechem. R. M. 1981. There's trouble in paradise. Sport's Illustrated, 54(6):82-86, 88. 90, 93- 94, 96. Brach, V. 1976. Habits and {ooA oi A)iolis cquestnsm Florida. Copeia, 1976( 1 ): 187-189. 1977. Notes on the introduced population oi Anolis cristalellusm south Florida. Copeia, 1977(1):184-185. Browder, J., LiTTLEjOHN, C. and Young, D. 1977. South Florida: Seeking a balance of man and nature. Florida Dept. Ad- min., Tallahassee. Brown, M. T. 1976. Lee County: An area of rapid growth. A report of the South Florida Environmental Study. Center for Wetlands, Univ. Florida and Florida Division of State Planning, Tallahassee. Browne, J. B. 1973. Key West, the old and the new. LJniv. Florida Press. Gainesville. Burns, J. F. 1975. Patterns and characteristics of migration into Florida. Economic Leaflets, Bureau Econ. Bus. Res. Univ. Florida, 34(8): 1-4. Bury. R. B. and Luckenbach, R. A. 1976. Introduced amphibians and reptiles in California. Biol. Conserv., 10:1- 14. Carr, a. F., Jr. 1939. Ageckonid lizard new to the fauna of the United States. Copeia, 1939(4): 232. 1940. A contribution to the herpetology of Florida. Univ. Florida Publ. Biol. Sci. Ser., 3(1): 1-1 18. 76 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Carr. a. and Goin, C. J. 1955. Guide to the reptiles, amphibians and fresh-water fishes of Florida. Univ. Florida Press, Gainesville. Carter, L. J. 1974. The Florida experience: Land and water policy in a growth state. John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Colette, B. B. 1961. Correlations between ecology and morphology in anoline lizards from Havana, Cuba and southern Florida. Bull. Mus. Comp. ZooL, 125(5): 137-162. Collins, J. T., R. Conant, J. E. Huheev, J. L. Knight, E. M. Rundquist and H. M. Smith. 1982. Standard common and current scientific names for North American am- phibians and reptiles. SSAR Herp. Circ, 12:1-28. Conant, R. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central North America. Houghton Mifflin Co.. Boston. 1977. The Florida water snake (Reptilia, Serpentes. Colubridae) established at Brownsville, Texas, with comments on other herpetological introductions in the area. J. Herpetol., 1 1(2):2 17-220. Cope, E. D. 1875. Check-list of North American Batrachia and Reptilia. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., 1:1-104. 1889. The Batrachia of North America. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus.. 34:1-525. CoRwiN, C. M., LiNZE'* , A. V. and Linze^', A. W. 1977. Geographic distribution: Anolis sagrci sagrei. Herpetol. Rev., 8(3):84. Craighead, F. C. 1971. The trees of south Florida. Univ. Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida. Dalrymple, G. H. 1980. Comments on the density and diet of a giant anole. Anolis equcstiis. J. Herpetol., 14(4):412-415'. Dietrich, T. S. 1979. The urbanization of Florida. Pp. 519-520. In Morris, A., The Florida Handbook, 1979-1980 (q. v.). Division of Population Studies, Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1978. Florida estimates of population. July 1. 1977: States, counties and mu- nicipalities. Univ. Florida, Gainesville. DORSCHNER, J. 1980. Don't worry. It may be at least 10 years before they know if this stuff kills us. Miami Herald Tropic Magazine, May 4, 1980:14-20. 38. Duellman, W. E. and Crombie, R. I. 1970. Hyla septentnonalis. Cat. Amer. Amphib. Rept.: 92.1-92.4. Duellman, W. E. and Schwartz. A. 1958. Amphibians and reptiles of southern Florida. Bull. Florida St. Mus., 3(5): 181-324. Dunson, W. a. 1981. Behavioral osmoregulation in the Key Mud Turtle, Kinoslernon b. bawl. J. Herpetol.. 15(2):163-173. Eggert, J. 1978. The invasion of the wish willy. Florida Wildlife, 31(5):9-10. Ellis, T. M. 1980. Caiman crocodvlus: An established exotic in south Florida. Copeia, 1980(1): 152-1 54. Fairbridge, R. W. 1 974. The Holocene sea-level record in south Florida. Pp. 223-232. //; Gleason, P. J. (ed.). Environments of South Florida: Past and Present. Miami Geol. Soc. Mem. 2. SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 77 Fernald, E. a. 1972. Florida: Its problems and prospects. Trend House, Tampa, Florida. Fowler, H. W. 1915. Cold-blooded vertebrates from Florida, the West Indies. Costa Rica, and eastern Brazil. Proc. Acad. Natur. Sci. Philadelphia, 67:244-269. Funk, R. S. and Moll, D. 1979. Geographic distribution: Ano/ls s. sagrci. Herpetoi. Re\., 10(3):102. Garman. S. 1887. On West Indian reptiles. Iguanidae. Bull. Essex Inst., 19:1-26. GoDLE'i , J. S., LoHRER. F. E., La> NE, J. N. and Rossi. J. 1981. Distributional status of an introduced lizard in Florida: Anolis sagrei. Herpetoi. Rev., 12(3):84-86. GoiN, C. J. 1 947. Studies on the life history of Elculherodactylus ricorciii p/anirostris (Cope) in Florida with special reference to the local distribution of an allelo- morphic color pattern. Univ. Florida Press, Gainesville. Gore. R. 1976. Florida, Noah's Ark for exotic newcomers. Nat. Geogr., 1 50(4):538-559. Graham, E. D., Jr. and Schwartz, A. 1978. Status of the name Sphaerodaclyhis cincreus Wagler and variation in "" Sphaerodactvlus stejnegei-r Cochran. Florida Sci., 41(4):243-25 1. Hela, I. 1952. Remarks on the cHmate of southern Florida. Bull. Marine Sci. Gulf Carib., 2(2):438-447. Hoffmeister, J. E. 1974. Land from the sea. Univ. Miami Press. Cora! Gables, Florida. HOLLINGSWORTH, T. 1949. History of Dade County, Florida. Parker Art Printing Association, Coral Gables, Florida. Jones, E. C. (ed.) 1971. Florida statistical abstract, 1971. Univ. Florida Press, Gainesville. King, W. 1960. New populations of West Indian reptiles and amphibians in southeastern Florida. Quart. J. Florida Acad. Sci.. 23(1 ):7 1-73. 1968. As a consequence many will die. Florida Natur., 41(3):99-103, 120. King, W. and Krakauer, T. 1966. The exotic herpetofauna of southeast Florida. Quart. J. Florida Acad. Sci., 29(2): 144-1 54. Kluge, a. G. and Eckardt, M. J. 1969. Heiuidactylus garnotii Dumeril and Bibron, a triploid all-female species of geckonid lizard. Copeia, 1969(4):65 1-664. Krakauer, T. 1968. The ecology of the Neotropical toad, Biifo luarinus, in south Florida. Herpetologica, 24(3):2 14-221. 1970. The invasion of the toads. Florida Natur., 43(1): 12-1 4. Lehman, M. E. 1976. Collier County: Growth pressure in a wetlands wilderness. A report of the South Florida Environmental Study. Center for Wetlands, Univ. Florida and Florida Division of State Planning, Tallahassee. Lee, D. S. 1969. Treefrogs of Florida. Florida Natur., 42(3): 1 1 7-120. Love, W. B. 1978. Observations on the herpetofauna of Key West, Florida, with special emphasis on the Rosy Rat Snake. Bull. Georgia Herpetoi. Soc. 4(1): 3-8. 78 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Lynch, J. D. and Smith, H. M. 1964. Tooth replacement in a senile lizard, Anolis equestris Merrem. Herpe- tologica, 20(1): 70-71. McCoy, C. J. 1970. Hemidactylus turcicus. Cat. Amer. Amphib. Rept.:87. 1-87.2. 1971. New Records: Hemidactylus turcicus. Herpetol. Rev., 3(5):89. 1972. New Records: Hemidactylus garnoti. Herpetol. Rev., 4(1):23. McDowell, S. B. 1974. A catalogue of the snakes of New Guinea and the Solomons, with special reference to those in the Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Part 1 Scolecophidia. J. Herpetol., 8(1): 1-57. McKeown, S. 1978. Hawaiian reptiles and amphibians. Oriental Publishing Co., Honolulu, Hawaii. Merrill, R. 1977. Tropical cyclones affecting Miami— 1876-1976. Mimeograph. Meylan, p. 1977a. Geographic distribution: Anolis sagrei. Herpetol. Rev., 8(2):39. 1977b. Geographic distribution: Hemidactylus turcicus. Herpetol. Rev., 8(2):39. Mitchell, J. C. and Hadle^ , W. B. 1980. Geographic distribution: Hemidactvlus ganioti. Herpetol. Rev., 11(3): 80. Morris, A. (ed.) 1949. The Florida handbook, 1949-1950. Peninsular Publ. Co., Tallahassee, Florida. 1977. The Florida handbook, 1977-1978. Peninsular Publ. Co., Tallahassee, Florida. 1979. The Florida handbook, 1979-1980. Peninsular Publ. Co., Tallahassee, Florida. Murphy, R. W. and OTTLE^ , J. R. 1979. Geographic distribution: Ramphotvphlops bramimis. Herpetol. Rev., 10(4):119. Myers, C. W. 1967. The Pine Woods Snake, Rhadinaea flavilala (Cope). Bull. Florida St. Mus., ll(2):47-97. Myers, S. 1977. Geographic distribution: Osteopilus septentrionalis. Herpetol. Rev., 8(2): 38. 1978a. Geographic distribution: Anolis sagrei. Herpetol. Rev., 9(3): 107-108. 1978b. Geographic distribution: Hemidactylus turcicus. Herpetol. Rev., 9(3): 107-108. 1979. Geographic distribution: Hemidactylus garnoti. Herpetol. Rev., 10(3): 102-103. 1981. Geographic distribution: .-J /;ofo 5«^rf/. Herpetol. Rev., 12(1):13. Neill, W. T. 1957. Historical biogeography of present-day Florida. Bull. Florida St. Mus., 2(7): 176-220. Ober, L. D. 1973. Introduction of the Haitian anole. .-inolis cybotes. in the Miami area. HISS News-Journal, 1(3):99. Odum, H. T. and Brown, M. T. (eds.) 1975. Carrying capacity for man and nature in south Florida. Center for Wet- lands, Univ. Florida, Gainesville. 3 vols. OODEN, J. C. 1978. Status and nesting biology of the American Crocodile. Crocodylus acutus (Reptilia, Crocodylidae) in Florida. J. Herpetol., 12(2): 183-196. SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 79 Oliver, J. A. 1950. Anolis sagrei in Florida. Copeia. 1950(l):55-56. PoRRAS, L. and Wilsiin. L. D. 1979. New dislributiona! records for Tantilla oolitica Telford (Reptilia, Ser- pentcs, Colubridae) from the Florida Keys. J. Herpetol., 13(2):2 18-220. Pritchard, p. C. H. 1976. Melaleuca. Florida Natur., 49(6):7-l 1 . PucKETTE, G. and Smith, H. M. 1963. A longevity record for Anolis cquestris. Herpetologica, 19(2): 138. RiEMER, W. J. 1 958. Giant toads of Florida. Quart. J. Florida Acad. Sci.. 2 1 (3):209-2 1 1 . Roberts, M. F. 1977. .411 about chameleons and anoles. T.F.H. Pub!.. Inc., Neptune, New Jersey. RllDLOE, J. 1979. Time of the Turtle. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. RUIBAL, R. 1964. An annotated checklist and key to the anoiine li/.ards of Cuba. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool.. 130(8):473-520' Rl'NDQL'IST, E. M. 1978. Rebuttal to Smith and Kohler on introduced species. Herpetol. Rev., 9(4):131-132. Savage, J. M. 1954. Notulae herpetologicae 1-7. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci.. 57(3):326-334. Schwartz, A. 1952. Hvla seplenlnonalis Dumeril and Bibron on the Florida mainland. Co- peia. 1952(2):117-118. 1968. Geographic variation in Anolis dislichus Cope (Lacertilia, Iguanidae) in the Bahama Islands and Hispaniola. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 137(2): 255-310. 1974. Eleuthewdactylus planirostns. Cat. Amer. Amphib. Rept.: 154. 1-1 54.4. Schwartz, A. and Thomas. R. 1975. A check-list of West Indian amphibians and reptiles. Carnegie Mus. Natur. Hist. Spec. Publ.. 1:1-216. Smith, H. M. and Kohler, A. ,1. 1978. A survey of herpetological introductions in the United States and Canada. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci.. 80(1-2): 1-24. Smith, H. M. and McCalile^, R. H. 1948. Another new anole from south Florida. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 61: 159-166. Smith, H. M. and Smith. R. B. 1976. Synopsis of the herpetofauna of Mexico. Volume III. Source analysis and index for Mexican reptiles. John Johnson. North Bennington, Vermont. South Florida Regional Planning Council 1975. Dermographic analysis 1950-1990 for Broward, Dade, Martin. Palm Beach, and St. Lucie counties. South Florida Regional Planning Council. 1976. Analysis of coastal land-use for Broward. Dade, Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie counties. South Florida Regional Planning Council. Southwest Florida Recjional Planning Council 1978. Land use policy plan. Fort Myers. Steiner, T. M. and McLamb, L. T. 1982. Geographic distribution: Hcmidaclvlus garnoti. Herpetol. Rev., 13(1): 25. STEJNECiER, L. 1922. Two geckos new to the fauna of the LInited States. Copeia, (108):56. SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Tebeau, C. W. 1966. Florida's last frontier, the histor\' of Collier County. Univ. Miami Press, Coral Gables. Florida. 1971. A history of Florida. Univ. Miami Press. Coral Gables. Florida. Thomas, R. A. 1974. A checklist of Texas amphibians and reptiles. Tech. Ser. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.. (17) a-b, 1-15. Thompson, R. B. (ed.) 1977. Florida statistical abstract 1977. Univ. Presses of Florida. Gainesville. 1978. Florida statistical abstract 1978. Univ. Presses of Florida. Gainesville. Trapido, H. 1947. Range extension of Hrla septentrionalis in Florida. Herpetologica, 3(6): 190. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Endangered Species technical bulletin, 3(2): 1-1 2. Ward, F. 1972. The imperiled Everglades. Nat. Geogr., 141(l):l-27. Wilcox, J. R. 1979. Florida Power and Light Company and endangered species: Examples of coexistence. U.S. For. Svc. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM 65:451-454. Wygoda, M. L. and Bain. J. R. 1980. Geographic distribution: Anolls sagrei. Herpetol. Rev., 1 1(4):1 15. APPENDIX The following is a list of amphibians and reptiles that are native to South Florida. Common names are those recommended by Collins £'/«/. (1982). Salamanders and Newts Amphiuma means Two-toed Amphiuma Nothophthalmus viridescens Eastern Newt Pseudobranchus striatus Dwarf Siren Siren lacertina Greater Siren Frogs and Toads Acris gryllus Southern Cricket Frog Bufo quercicus Oak Toad Bufo terresths Southern Toad Gastrophyne carolinensis Eastern Narrowmouth Toad Hyla cinerea Green Treefrog Hyla femoralis Pine Woods Treefrog Hyla gratiosa Barking Treefrog Hyla squirella Squirrel Treefrog Limnaoedus ocularis Little Grass Frog Pseudacris nigrita Southern Chorus Frog Rana areolata Crawfish Frog Rana grylio Pig Frog Raria sphenocephala Southern Leopard Frog Scaphiopiis holbrookii Eastern Spadefoot SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA Turtles Chelydra serpentina Deirochelys reticularia Gophenis polypheinus Kinosternon baurii Kinosternon suhrubruin Malaclemys terrapin Pseudemys floridana Pseudemys ne/soni Sternotherus odoratus Terrapene Carolina Trionyx ferox Snapping Turtle Chicken Turtle Gopher Tortoise Striped Mud Turtle Eastern Mud Turtle Diamondback Terrapin Cooter Florida Redbelly Turtle Stinkpot Eastern Box Turtle Florida Softshell Crocodilians Alligator ntississippiensis Crocodvlus acutus American Alligator American Crocodile Lizards Anolis carolinensis Anolis di Stic hits Cneniidophorus sexlineatiis Eumeces egregius Eumeces inexpectatus Ophisauriis attenuatus Ophisaurus compressus Ophisauriis ventralis Sceloporus woodi Scincella lateralis Sphaerodactyliis notatus Green Anole Bark Anole Six-lined Racerunner Mole Skink Southeastern Five-lined Skink Slender Glass Lizard Island Glass Lizard Eastern Glass Lizard Florida Scrub Lizard Ground Skink Reef Gecko Snakes Agkistrodon piscivorus Cemophora coccinea Coluber constrictor Crotalus adamanteus Diadophis punctatus Dryniarchon corals Elaphe guttata Elaphe obsoleta Farancia abacura Heterodon platyrhinos Lampropeltis getulus Lanipropeltis trianguluin Masticoph is . flagelli ini Cottonmouth Scarlet Snake Racer Eastern Diamondback Rat- tlesnake Ringneck Snake Indigo Snake Corn Snake Rat Snake Mud Snake Eastern Hognose Snake Common Kingsnake Milk Snake Coachwhip SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Micrurus fulviiis Nerodia cyclopion Nerodia fasciata Nerodia taxispilota Op/ic'odrys acstivus Pituoplus nic/ano/eitcus Regiua a/leni Rhadiuaea fJavilata Seniinatri.x pygaea Sistrunis nii/iarius Storeria dekayi Tantilla oolitica TantiUa rclicta Than inoph is sa iirit i ts Thanuioph is sirt a lis Eastern Coral Snake Green Water Snake Southern Water Snake Brown Water Snake Rough Green Snake Pine Snake Striped Crayfish Snake Pine Woods Snake Black Swamp Snake Pigmy Rattlesnake Brown Snake Rim Rock Crowned Snake Florida Crowned Snake Eastern Ribbon Snake Common Garter Snake SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 83 INDEX TO SCIENTIFIC NAMES PAGE abacura, Farancia 26. 81 Acris grylhis 26. 80 acutus, Croc'ody/us 26. 81 adamanteus. Crotalus 25. 26. 30. 8 1 aestivus. Opheodrys 27, 28, 82 Agama agama 57 agania. Agama 57 Agkistrodon piscivorus 28, 81 albogularis. Gonatodes 33, 47, 48, 56 alleni, Regina 26, 82 Alligalor niississipplensis 29, 67,81 Amhystoina tigrinuni 33 Aniciva 4 ameiva 33, 35, 36, 37, 56, 65, 70 anieiva aniciva 35,36 anwiVLi pctcrsi 35, 36 a)uciya Aniciva 33. 35. 36. 37, 56. 65. 70 Anieiva ameiva 35. 36 ameiva ameiva, A meiva 35.36 ameiva petersi. Ameiva 35, 36 Amphiiima means 27, 28, 80 A no/ is carolinensis 24, 29, 33, 63, 66. 67. 68. 69, 81 cristate/Ins 1, 33, 37, 38, 57, 65, 67. 69 cyboles 33, 37, 39, 56, 65, 67, 69 distichus 33, 37, 68, 69. 81 distichus dominicensis 38, 40, 56, 65, 67, 68 distichus JJoridanus 24, 28, 37, 38, 66, 67, 68 distichus ignigularis 38. 39 equestris 33, 39, 40, 41, 56, 66, 67, 69, 70 gannani 1. 33. 42, 57. 65. 67, 69 porcatus 33. 63. 69 sagrai 24, 33, 42, 43, 56, 57, 66, 67, 68, 69. 70 sagrai ordinatus 43 sagrai sagrai 43 sagrai stejnegeri 42. 43 sagrei 42. 69 smaragdinus 69 areolala. Rana 25. 26, 80 argus, Sphaerodaclylus 33, 51, 52, 56, 65, 67, 70 armouri. Leiocephalus carinatus- .> 5 1 attenuatus. Ophisaurus 25, 26, 81 aural us. Dendrobales 33 Basili.scus viilatus 33, 44. 45. 56. 57. 65 baurii, Kinoslernon 27, 8 1 boutonii. Cryptoblepharus 33 branuna. Rampholyphlops 33, 55, 56, 63, 65 Bufo marinus 31, 33, 34, 56, 62, 66, 67, 71, 74 quercicus 28, 80 terrestris 28, 66, 67, 80 84 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Caiman cwcodyhis 33, 53, 56, 66, 67 callirostris, Chryseniys scripta 54 cahnatus, Leiocephaliis 33, 50. 5L 56, 57, 65 carinatiis armoiiri, Leiocephaliis 51 carinatiis coryi. Leiocephaliis 50 cahnatus virescens. Leiocephaliis 50, 51 Carolina, Terrapene 28,81 carolinensis Anolis 24, 29, 33, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 81 Gastrophryne 27. 80 Casuarina 14, 15, 59, 67 equisetifolia 13 catesbeiana. Rana 33. 63 Cemophora coccinea 29, 30, 81 Chamaeleo jacksonii 33 Chelydra serpentina 27, 28, 33. 8 1 Chryseniys scripta callirostris 54 scripta elegans 54 scripta ornata 54 cinerea. Hyla 27, 28, 33. 67. 80 cinereus, Sphaerodactylus 53 Cnemidophoriis lemniscatiis 33. 45. 56. 65, 70 picturata 45 picturatus 45 sexlineatus 28, 70, 81 coccinea. Cemophora 29, 30. 8 1 Coluber constrictor 27, 28, 66, 70, 81 compressus. Ophisaurus 27, 28, 8 1 concinna. Pseudemys 33 constrictor. Coluber 27, 28. 66. 70. 81 coqui, Eleiitherodactylus 34 corais. Drymarchon 29. 30. 81 corals couperi, Drymarchon 24 corais erebenntis. Drymarchon 24 coryi, Leiocephaliis carinatus 50 couperi. Drymarchon corais 24 crassipes. Eichhornia 13 cr is tat el I us. Anolis 1. 33. 37, 38, 57, 65, 67, 69 Crocodylus aciitus 26, 81 crocodylus. Caiman 33, 53, 56, 66. 67 Crotalus adamanteus 25, 26. 30. 81 Cryptoblepharus boutonii 33 Ctenosaura 47 hemilopha 33 pectinata 1, 33, 46. 47. 57. 65. 70 similis 1, 46 cvanura. Einoia 33 cybotes, Anolis 33. 37. 38. 56. 65. 67. 69 cyclopion, Nerodia 27. 82 Deirochelys reticularia 27. 81 dekayi, Sloreria 27. 66. 82 Dendrobates auratus 33 Diadophis punctatus 27. 28, 66, 70, 81 distichiis, Anolis 33, 37, 68, 69, 81 SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA distichus donilnlcensis. Anolls 38, 40, 56, 65, 67, 68 distichus floridaniis. Anolis 24, 28, 37, 38, 66, 67, 68 distichus ignigularis, Anolis 38, 39 dominicensis. Anolis distichus 38, 40. 56, 65. 67, 68 Drvmarchon ' corais 29. 30, 8 1 corais couperi 24 corais erehennus 24 egregius Eumeces 29, 81 Eumcces egregius 30 egregius egregius, Eumeces 30 egregius onocrepis, Eumeces 29 Eichhornia crassipes 13 Elaphe guttata 27, 28. 58. 66. 70. 81 obsoleta 27. 28. 81 elegans Chrysemys scripta 54 Pseudemys scripta 54. 68 Sphaerodactylus 33, 52, 53, 56. 66. 67. 70 Eleutherodactylus coqui 34 planirostris 24. 33. 34. 35. 56. 66. 70 Emoia cyanura 33 equestris, Anolis 33. 39. 40. 41. 56. 66. 67. 69. 70 equisetifolia. Casuarina 13 erehennus. Drymarchon corais 24 Eumeces egregius 29. 81 egregius egregius 30 egregius onocrepis 29 inexpectatus 27. 28. 66. 81 Farancia abacwa 26. 81 fasciata, Nerodia 27. 30, 33. 82 femoralis. Hyla 25, 26, 80 ferox. Trionvx 27, 66, 81 Ficus 38, 40, 67 fJagellum, Masticophis 25. 26, 81 flavilata, Rhadinaea 25, 26, 82 fhridana, Pseudemys 27, 66, 67, 68, 81 fJoridanus. Anolis distichus 24, 28, 37, 38, 66, 68 frenatus, Hemidactylus .: 33 fulvius. Micrurus 28, 82 garmani. Anolis 1, 33, 42, 57, 65, 67. 69 garnotii. Hemidactylus 33. 48. 49. 56. 57, 66 Gastrophryne carolinensis 27,80 gecko. Gekko 33, 47. 56. 65 Gehvra mutilata 33 Gekko gecko 33,47,56,65 getulus. Lampropeltis 29, 30, 8 1 Gonatodes albogularis 33, 47, 48, 56 Gopherus polvphemus 25, 26, 81 gratiosa. Hyla 25, 26, 80 86 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY gryllo. Rana 27, 80 grylliis. Acris 26, 80 guttata, Elaphe 27, 28, 58. 66. 70, 81 haje. Naja 63 Hemidactylus frenatus 33 gamotii 33, 48, 49, 56. 57. 66 picturatus 45 turacus 33. 49, 56, 57. 63. 66 henii/opha. Ctenosaura 33 Heiniphyllodactylus typus 33 Heterodon platyrhinos 25, 26. 81 holbrookii, Scaphiopus 28, 80 Homo sapiens 65. 74 Hydrilla 60 verticillata 13 Hvia cinerea 27, 28, 33, 67, 80 femoral is 25,26,80 graliosa 25. 26, 80 squirella 27. 28. 67. 80 ignigularis. Auolis distichus 38, 39 Iguana iguana 33, 50, 56. 65. 70 iguana. Iguana 33. 50, 56. 65. 70 inexpectatus. Eumeces 27. 28, 66, 81 jacksonii. Chamae/eo 33 kaouthia. Naja naja 63 Kmosternon baurii 27. 81 subruhrum 27. 81 lacertina. Siren 26. 80 laevis, Xenopus 33 Lampropeltis getulus 29. 30. 81 triangulum 27. 28. 81 lateralis. Scincella 28, 81 Leiocephalus carinatus 33, 50, 51, 56, 57, 65 carinatus armouri 51 carinatus coryi 50 carinatus virescens 50, 51 schreibersi 33. 51. 52. 56. 57. 65 Leiolopisma metallicum 33 lenmiscatus. Cncmidophorus 33. 45. 56. 65. 70 Lepidodactylus lugubris 33 Limnaoedus ocularis 26. 80 Lipinia noctua 33 lugubris. Lepidodactylus 33 lumbncalis. Typhlops 55 macrospUota. Malaclcmys terrapin 29 Malacleniys terrapin 29. 81 SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 87 terrapin macrospilola 29 terrapin rhizophorariiin 29 terrapin tequesta 29 marinus. Bufo 31, 33, 34, 56, 62, 66, 67, 71. 74 Masticop/iis Jlagelluni 25, 26, 81 means. Aniphiiinia 27, 28. 80 Melaleuca 13. 59 quinquenervia 13 nielanoleuca. Naja 64 melanoleiiciis, Pitiiophis 25, 26, 82 inetallicum, Leiolopisma 33 Micrurus fiilvius 28, 82 miliarius. Sistrurus 28, 30, 82 nnssissippiensis. Alligator 29, 67, 81 njiitiluta, Gehyra 33 Naja haje 63 nielanoleuca 64 naja kaouthia 63 naja naja 64 naja, Naja naja 64 naja kaouthia, Naja 63 naja naja, Naja 64 nelsoni, Pseudemys 27. 66. 67. 68, 81 Nerodia cvclopion 27. 82 fasciata 27. 30, 33. 82 taxispilota 27. 28. 82 nigrita, Pseudacris 26. 80 noctua, Lipinia 33 notatus Sphaerodactylus 28, 66, 67, 69, 70, 81 Sphaerodactylus notatus 24 notatus notatus, Sphaerodactylus .' 24 Notophthalnius viridescens 26. 80 obsoleta, Elaphe 27.28.81 ocularis, Limnaeodus 26. 80 odoratus, Sternot herns 27.81 onocrepis, Eumeces egregius 29 oolitica, Tantilla 25, 26, 82 Opheodrys aestivus 27. 28, 82 Ophisaurus attenuatus ., 25, 26, 81 compressus 27, 28, 81 ventralis 27, 66, 81 ordinatiis, Anolis sagrai 43 ornata, Chrysemys scripta ... 54 Osteopilus septentrionalis 24, 33, 35, 36, 56, 66, 67, 70 peclinata. Ctenosaura 1, 33, 46, 47, 57. 65. 70 petersi, Ameiva anieiva 35, 36 picturata, Cnemidophorus 45 picturatus Cnemidophorus 45 Hemidactylus 45 pipiens, Rana 33 88 SPECIAL PUBLICATION-MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY piscivonis. Agkistrodon 28, 81 Pituophis melanoleucus 25, 26, 82 planiroslris. Eleutherodactylus 24, 33, 34, 35, 56, 66, 70 platyrhinos. Heterodon 25, 26, 81 polyphemus. Gopherus 25, 26, 81 porcatiis, A nolis 33, 63. 69 Pseudachs nigrita , 26, 80 Pseudemys concinna 33 floridana 27, 66, 67, 68, 81 nelsoni 27, 66, 67, 68, 81 scripta 33, 54, 56, 65, 67, 68 saipta elegans 54. 68 Pseudobranchus striatus 26. 80 punclatus. Diadophis 27, 28. 66. 70. 81 pygaea. Seniinatrix 26. 82 querciciis. Bufo 28, 80 quinquenervia, Melaleuca 13 Raniphotyphlops hraniina 33, 55, 56, 63, 65 Rana i areolata L 25. 26. 80 catesbeiana 33. 63 grylio 27. 80 pipiens 33 nigosa 33 sphenocephala 27, 80 Regina alleni 26,82 relicta. Tantilla 25, 26, 82 reticularia, Deirochelys 27. 81 Rhadinaea flavilata 25, 26. 82 rhizophorarum, Malaclcinys terrapin 29 rugosa. Rana 33 sagrai Anolis 24. 33. 42. 43, 56. 57. 66. 67, 68, 69. 70 Anolis sagrai 43 sagrai ordinatus. Anolis 43 sagrai sagrai. Anolis 43 sagrai stejnegen. Anolis 42, 43 sagrei. Anolis 42, 69 sapiens. Homo 65,74 sauritus. Thamnophis 27. 82 Scaphiopus holbrookii 28. 80 Sceloporus woodi 25, 26, 81 Schefflera 38 Schiniis 15, 59 terebinthifolius 13, 16 schreibersi. Leiocephalus 33, 51, 52, 56, 57. 65 Scincella lateralis 28. 81 scripta. Pseudemys 33, 54, 56, 65, 67, 68 scripta callirostris. Chrysemys 54 scripta elegans Chrysemys 54 Pseudemys 54. 68 scripta ornata. Chrysemys 54 Seminatrix pygaea 26, 82 SOUTH FLORIDA HERPETOFAUNA 89 septentrionalis, Osteopilus 24, 33, 35, 36, 56, 66, 67. 70 serpentina. Chelydra 27, 28, 33. 8 1 sexlinealiis. Cnemidophonis 28. 70. 8 1 si mi/is, Ctenosaura 1. 46 sinensis. Trionyx 33 Siren laceriina 26, 80 sirtalis. Thaninophis 27. 66. 82 Sislrurus miliarius 28. 30. 82 smaragdinus. Anolis 69 Sphaerodactvhis argus '. 33, 51, 52, 56, 65, 67, 70 cinereus 53 elegans 33, 52, 53, 56, 66. 67. 70 notatus 28, 66, 67, 69, 70. 81 notatus notatus 24 sphenocephala, Rana 27, 80 spini ferns. Trionvx 33 squirella. Hyla 27, 28, 67, 80 stejnegeri. Anolis sagrai 42, 43 Sternothenis odoratus 27.81 Storeria dekayi 27, 66, 82 striatus. Pseudobraticlms 26, 80 subrubrun], Kinosternon 27.81 Tanlilla oolitica 25. 26. 82 relict a 25.26.82 taxispi/ota. Nerodia 27. 28. 82 tequesta. Malaclemys terrapin 29 terebinthifolius, Schinus 13. 16 Terrapene Carolina 28.81 terrapin, Malaclemys 29, 81 terrapin inacrospilota. Malaclemys 29 terrapin rhizophorarum. Malaclemys 29 terrapin tequesta. Malaclemys 29 terrestris. Bufo 28, 66, 67. 80 Thamnophis sauritus 27, 82 sirtalis 27, 66, 82 tigrinum. Ambystoma 33 triangulum. Lampropeltis 27, 28, 81 Trionvx 61 ferox 27, 66. 81 sinensis 33 spiniferus „ 33 turcicus. Hemidactylus 33, 49, 56, 57, 63, 66 Typhlops lumbricalis 55 typus. Heniiphyllodactylus 33 ventralis. Ophisaurus 27. 66, 81 verticillata. Hydrilla 13 virescens. Leiocephalus carinatus 50, 5 1 viridescens. Notophthalmus 26. 80 vittatus. Basiliscus 33, 44, 45, 56. 57, 65 woodi. Sceloporus 25. 26, 81 Xenopus laevis 33 3 2044 072 228 802 AVAILABLE SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS 1. Catalogue of publications in herpetology published by the University of Kan- sas Museum of Natural History. By Linda Trueb. Pp. 1-15. December 1976. $0.25 postpaid. 2. Catalogue of publications in mammalogy published by the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. By Robert S. Hoffmann. Pp. 1-19. 15 February 1977. $0.25 postpaid. 3. Maintenance of rattlesnakes in captivity. By James B. Murphy and Barry L. Armstrong. Pp. 1-40. 29 December 1978. $3.00 postpaid. 5. The natural history of Mexican rattlesnakes. By Barry L. Armstrong and James B. Murphy. Pp. 1-88. 14 December 1979. $6.00 postpaid. 7. A diapsid reptile from the Pennsylvanian of Kansas. By Robert R. Reisz. Pp. 1-74. 18 February 1981. $5.00 postpaid. 8. 1982 Catalog of publications of the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. Pp. 1-28. November 1982. $1.00 postpaid or free with orders.