Lithobates chiricahuensis (Platz and Mecham, 1979)

English Names

Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Stebbins, 1985, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 2: 89; Liner, 1994, Herpetol. Circ., 23: 27; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 107; Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 13; Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 14; Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37: 7; Liner and Casas-Andreu, 2008, Herpetol. Circ., 38: 16; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 8; Frost, McDiarmid, Mendelson, and Green, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 17; Frost, Lemmon, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2017, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 43: 14).

Wright's Leopard Frog (Platz and Mecham, 1984, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept., 347: 1; Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 121).

Ramsey Canyon Leopard Frog (Rana subaquavocalis [no longer recognized]: Platz, 1993, J. Herpetol., 27: 155; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 109; Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 13; Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 15).

Distribution

Moderate elevations of south-eastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico (USA) south along the eastern slope of the Sierra Madre Occidental in isolated populations to at least central Durango and possibly (see comment) to Aguascalientes.

Comment

In the Rana montezumae subgroup of the Rana pipiens complex as defined by Hillis, Frost, and Wright, 1983, Syst. Zool., 32: 132–143. In the section Pelophylax, subgenus Pantherana, Rana montezumae group of Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 332. Reviewed by Platz and Mecham, 1984, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept., 347: 1–2; however, their distribution map is inaccurate for Mexico, not including several published records according to Hillis, 1985, in Frost (ed.), Amph. Species World: 486. Status of Mexican populations and relationship with Rana montezumae requires investigation (especially records south and east of Jalisco). Platz, 1993, J. Herpetol., 27: 160, noted that various lines of evidence suggest that Rana chiricahuensis is composed of more than one species, with the central Arizona population notably distinctive (see comment under Lithobates fisheri). See Clarkson and Rorabaugh, 1989, Southwest. Nat., 34: 531–538, for discussion of population declines. McCranie and Wilson, 2001, Cour. Forschungsinst. Senckenb., 230: 14–15, discussed confusion between Rana chiricahuensis and Rana montezumae. Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 236–237, provided a brief account, figure, and map. Platz and Grudzien, 2003, J. Herpetol., 37: 758–761, reported on limited genetic variation in two populations (reported as now extinct) referred to as Rana subaquavocalis. Goldberg, Field, and Sredl, 2004, J. Herpetol., 38: 313–319, reported on genic variation in Arizona and noted that the Mogollon (central Arizona) population is distinctive (now referred to Lithobates fisheri) from the population in southeastern Arizona. Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 34: 299–314, recognized Lithobates subaquavocalis (as Rana), but may not have seen the Goldberg et al., 2004, paper. Regardless, the Hillis and Wilcox tree suggested (as  Rana) that the population of nominal Lithobates chiricahuensis from Rio Chico, Durango, Mexico, is the sister taxon of a group composed of Lithobates subaquavocalis + "Lithobates chiricahuensis" (now Lithobates fisheri). The phylogenetic position of topotypical Lithobates chiricahuensis is unknown. See photograph, map, description of geographic range and habitat, and conservation status (as Rana chiricahuensis and Rana subaquavocalis) in Stuart, Hoffmann, Chanson, Cox, Berridge, Ramani, and Young, 2008, Threatened Amph. World: 502, 512. Hekkala, Saumure, Jaeger, Herrmann, Sredl, Bradford, Drabeck, and Blum, 2011, Conserv. Genetics, 12: 1379–1385, provided genetic evidence that the populations from central Arizona to western New Mexico are attributable to Lithobates fisheri. Streicher, Sheehy, Flores-Villela, and Campbell, 2012, J. Herpetol., 46: 387–392, discussed morphological and color variation in a Durango, Mexico, population and suggested that the Aguascalientes record is based on a misidentification. Lemos-Espinal, 2007, Anf. Rept. Chihuahua Mexico: 57–58, provided an account for Chihuahua, Mexico. Valdes-Lares, Martín-Muñoz de Cote, and Muñiz-Martínez, 2013, Herpetol. Rev., 44: 649, provided new records for Durango, Mexico. Sredl and Jennings, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 546–549 (in the sense of including the central Arizona populations now transferred to Lithobates fisheri), and Dodd, 2013, Frogs U.S. and Canada, 2 : 515–522, provided accounts that summarized relevant literature and the shrinking range of the species in the USA. Elliot, Gerhardt, and Davidson, 2009, Frogs and Toads of N. Am.: 230–231, provided an account, photos, and advertisement call. See comment under Lithobates lemosespinali, which may be conspecific. Altig and McDiarmid, 2015, Handb. Larval Amph. US and Canada: 227–228, provided an account of larval morphology and biology. Painter, Stuart, Giermakowski, and Pierce, 2017, Western Wildlife, 4: 36–37, commented on the status and county range in New Mexico, USA.  Lemos-Espinal, Smith, and Valdes-Lares, 2019, Amph. Rept. Durango: 77–78, provided a brief account for Durango, Mexico.   

External links:

Please note: these links will take you to external websites not affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History. We are not responsible for their content.

• For additional sources of information from other sites search Google
• For images search CalPhoto Images and Google Images
• To search the NIH genetic sequence database, see GenBank
• For additional information see AmphibiaWeb report
• For information on conservation status and distribution see the IUCN Redlist
• For related information on conservation and images as well as observation see iNaturalist
• For access to available specimen data for this species, from over 350 scientific collections, go to Vertnet.