The Crinia laevis complex (Anura : Leptodactylidae) in south-eastern Australia

Abstract

On the basis of the presence of a call distinct from that of Crinia laevis (Gunther) and the absence of hybrids in sympatry, the species C. victoriana Boulenger is reestablished. A detailed account of the morphology, breeding biology, life history, and geographical distribution of these species is given. Their zoogeographical position in relation to the Bassian subregion is considered and a possible pattern of speciation advanced.

A comparative study of divergent embryonic and larval development in the Australian frog genus Geocrinia (Anura: Myobatrachidae)

“…Adults have a brown dorsum, often with a darker bifurcated patch less obvious in some, but dorsal pattern is variable (Littlejohn and Martin 1964). Ventral surface of males from Garvoc is white with dark flecks and a dull yellow throat and in females it is all white with darker flecks and patches .…”

“…Various descriptions of the embryonic and larval development of the two eastern exotrophic species have been published (Littlejohn and Martin 1964;Martin 1967;Littlejohn et al 1971;Watson and Martin 1973;Martin and Littlejohn 1982;Gollmann and Gollmann 1991a,b, 1992a,b, 1993, 1996aAnstis 2002). For the southwestern species, there are studies including some developmental descriptions of G. leai and G. rosea by Main (1957Main ( , 1965 and of G. vitellina by Mitchell (2001).…”

“…The remaining four allopatric species in southwestern Australia (G. alba, G. lutea, G. rosea and G. vitellina) belong to the G. rosea species-group and have terrestrial endotrophic (non-feeding) embryonic and larval development (Main 1957;Roberts et al 1990;. All seven species of adult frogs are small, ranging from 19-33 mm snout-vent length (SVL) and are generally similar in morphology (Littlejohn and Martin 1964;Driscoll 1997). Read et al (2001) presented a mitochondrial gene tree for the myobatrachids as then defined with an emphasis on Crinia and Geocrinia.…”

“…Three species, including G. victoriana and G. laevis found in the southeast (Littlejohn and Martin 1964;Watson and Martin 1973) and G. leai from southwestern Australia (Main 1957(Main , 1965, have terrestrial embryonic development and exotrophic (aquatic, feeding) larval development. The remaining four allopatric species in southwestern Australia (G. alba, G. lutea, G. rosea and G. vitellina) belong to the G. rosea species-group and have terrestrial endotrophic (non-feeding) embryonic and larval development (Main 1957;Roberts et al 1990;.…”

“…These two groups are also clearly separated by their breeding biology, call structure (Littlejohn and Watson 1974;Roberts et al 1990;Roberts and Wardell-Johnson 1995) and larval life history (Main 1957(Main , 1965Littlejohn and Martin 1964;Roberts et al 1990;. Anstis (2008) included the G. rosea group in the nidicolous endotrophic category of Altig and Johnston (1989) because the larvae of this group remain in a terrestrial nest, hatch from the eggs as free-moving tadpoles and metamorphose without feeding, unlike direct developers, which do not have a tadpole stage and differ significantly in other aspects of their physiological development (Altig and Johnston 1989;Thibaudeau and Altig 1999;Callery et al 2001).…”