Pseudotriton montanus Baird, 1850

Common Names

Mountain Triton (Pseudotriton montanus: Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 22).

Mud Salamander (Pseudotriton montanus: Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 47; Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 175; Collins, Huheey, Knight, and Smith, 1978, Herpetol. Circ., 7: 8; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 34; Tilley, Highton, and Wake, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 22; Tilley, Highton, and Wake, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 31; Powell, Conant, and Collins, 2016, Field Guide Rept. Amph. E. North Am., 4th ed.: 71).

Eastern Mud Salamander (Pseudotriton montanus: Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 9; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 15).

Baird's Red Salamander (Pseudotriton montanus montanus: Bishop, 1943, Handb. Salamanders: 383).

Eastern Mud Salamander (Pseudotriton montanus montanus: Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 48; Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 175; Conant, 1975, Field Guide Rept. Amph. E. Cent. N. Am., Ed. 2: 285; Collins, Huheey, Knight, and Smith, 1978, Herpetol. Circ., 7: 9; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 34; Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 9; Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 29; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 15;  Tilley, Highton, and Wake, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 31; Powell, Conant, and Collins, 2016, Field Guide Rept. Amph. E. North Am., 4th ed.: 71; Highton, Bonett, and Jockusch, 2017, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 43: 33).

Baird's Triton (Pseudotriton montanus sticticeps [no longer recognized]: Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 22).

Distribution

East of the Appalachian divide from southern New Jersey (with isolated populations in adjacent Pennsylvania) and Maryland through eastern Virginia to east-central Georgia and southern South Carolina, USA. (See comment.)

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: United States of America, United States of America - Delaware, United States of America - Georgia, United States of America - Maryland, United States of America - New Jersey, United States of America - New York, United States of America - North Carolina, United States of America - Pennsylvania, United States of America - South Carolina, United States of America - Virginia

Endemic: United States of America

Comment

See accounts by Martof, 1975, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept., 166: 1–2, and Petranka, 1998, Salamand. U.S. Canada: 295–298 (both including Pseudotriton diastictus and Pseudotriton flavissimus as a subspecies). Hunsinger, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 858–860, provided a detailed account (in the sense of including Pseudotriton flavissimus and Pseudotriton diastictus) that summarized the biology and conservation literature. Raffaëlli, 2007, Les Urodèles du Monde: 174–175, provided brief accounts by subspecies, photographs, and map (including Pseudotriton diastictus as a subspecies, but mentioning that it surely is a distinct species). Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 113, transferred this species to Gyrinophilus from Pseudotriton, citing the Bayesian tree produced by Bonett, Steffen, Lambert, Wiens, and Chippindale, 2014 "2013", Evolution, 68: 466–482, based on cytochrome b, ND4, and RAG1, in which Pseudotriton montanus was found to be the sister taxon of Gyrinophilus (sensu stricto). Bonett et al. (2013) hesitated to make the taxonomic change because of a) weak support of this part of the topology, and b) because monophyly of Gyrinophilus was supported by the earlier work of Kozak, Mendyk, and Wiens, 2009, Evolution, 63: 1769–1784, using denser taxon and data sampling and a different analytical method (maximum-likelihood versus Bayesian). It may still turn out that Pseudotriton montanus is in an inclusive group with Gyrinophilus, but it seems that Bonett et al. (2013) were correct in their stated caution and Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 113, in their haste to claim a taxonomic remedy when caution was warranted, were not. The latter authors (p. 144) also suggested that the recognition of Pseudotriton diastictus as a distinct species was made by Collins, 1991, Herpetol. Rev., 22: 43, "with no justification", a sleight of hand statement that applies Fouquette and Dubois' (2014) out-moded reproductive species concept in place of the evolutionary species concept applied by most systematists today, including, explicitly, by Collins in 1997. Similarly Fouquette and Dubois (2014: 115) claimed that Bonett et al. (2013) "found no justification for treating it [diastictus] as a full species". However, Bonett et al. (2013) do not address the topic beyond having diastictus treated as a terminal in their tree. I suspect that the trinominal was used solely as a short-hand for geographic provenance of the terminal. But, what really needs to happen is a detailed phylogeographic study of the whole Pseudotriton montanus complex, something that has never been accomplished. Raffaëlli, 2013, Urodeles du Monde, 2nd ed. : 232–233 (who provided a brief discussion, accounts, photographs, and map), and recognized flavissimus and floridanus (traditionally considered subspecies of Pseudotriton montanus) as a distinct species, Pseudotriton flavissimus, following Bishop, 1943, Handb. Salamanders: 377–378, who seemingly came to this arrangement without comment. However, Neill, 1948, Copeia, 1948: 134–136, found intergradation in morphology and color pattern across the contact zone of flavissimus and montanus along the Fall Line in Georgia and on this basis considered Pseudotriton flavissimus and Pseudotriton montanus to be conspecific. But, beyond the fact that the width of the intergrade/hybrid zone was never adequately investigated, at least some other taxa that meet and hybridize along the Fall Line (e.g., Anaxyrus terrestris and Anaxyrus americanus) are considered different species with a hybrid, as opposed to an intergrade, zone, the difference being that the Anaxyrus americanus complex has been studied in some detail over its entire range and the Pseudotriton montanus complex has not. At this point (2023) it seems that the most conservative path, the one that will engender more research, is to follow the three-species taxonomy of Raffaëlli, 2022, Salamanders & Newts of the World: 508–513, until the contact zone of flavissimus and montanus is addressed more carefully. Altig and McDiarmid, 2015, Handb. Larval Amph. US and Canada: 122–123, provided an account of larval morphology and biology. Tighe, 2022, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 654: 55, briefly discussed the types of Pseudotriton montanus and (p. 55–56) those of Pseudotriton montanus floridanus.

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 access to general information see Wikipedia
• For additional sources of general information from other websites search Google
• For access to relevant technical literature search Google Scholar
• 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 information on distribution, habitat, and conservation see the Map of Life
• For related information on conservation and images as well as observations see iNaturalist
• For access to available specimen data for this species, from over 350 scientific collections, go to Vertnet.