Plethodon sequoyah Highton, 1989

Class: Amphibia > Order: Caudata > Family: Plethodontidae > Subfamily: Plethodontinae > Genus: Plethodon > Species: Plethodon sequoyah

Plethodon sequoyah Highton In Highton, Maha, and Maxson, 1989, Illinois Biol. Monogr., 57: 68. Holotype: USNM 257485, by original designation. Type locality: "locality 91 [34° 07′ 29″ N, 94° 40′ 15″ W]. . . , Beavers Bend State Park, at an elevation of 140 m, McCurtain County, Oklahoma", USA.

Plethodon (Plethodon) sequoyahVieites, Nieto-Roman, Wake, and Wake, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 59: 632, by implication.

English Names

Southeastern Oklahoma Slimy Salamander (Highton In Highton, Maha, and Maxson, 1989, Illinois Biol. Monogr., 57: 68).

Sequoyah Slimy Salamander (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 33; 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: 28; Tilley, Highton, and Wake, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 21; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 14; Tilley, Highton, and Wake, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 30; Highton, Bonett, and Jockusch, 2017, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 43: 32).


Known only from the type locality (McCurtain County, Oklahoma, USA).


In the Plethodon glutinosus group according to the original publication. Reviewed by Huntington, Stuhlman, and Cullen, 1993, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept., 557: 1–2. Petranka, 1998, Salamand. U.S. Canada: 355, rejected the distinction from Plethodon glutinosus on the basis of overall similarity. See comment under Plethodon cinereus. Anthony, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 838, provided a detailed account that summarized the biology and conservation literature. Wiens, Engstrom, and Chippindale, 2006, Evolution, 60: 2585–2603, suggested the possibility that Plethodon albagula and Plethodon sequoyah are conspecific; Highton, Hastings, Palmer, Watts, Hass, Culver, and Arnold, 2012, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 63: 278–290, discussed the evidence for this and rejected the hypothesis. Raffaëlli, 2013, Urodeles du Monde, 2nd ed.: 400, provided a brief account, photograph, and range map. 

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.