Hyla andersonii 245 



ENEMIES 



There are plenty of water snakes in the neighborhood which might prey- 

 on the adults when in ponds, and on journeys to and from breeding places. 

 In some localities the associated Chrysemys pida, Clemmys guttata, Chelydra 

 serpentina and other turtles do damage to tadpoles. In general the associated 

 fish, such as Acantharchus, Enneacanthus, Mesogonistius and Umbra doubt- 

 lessly prove of little consequence in the economy of the tadpoles. The eggs 

 are laid in shallow places where the fish are not so common. 



AUTUMNAL DISAPPEARANCE 



The last date of appearance is September 5, 1904, (Davis, 1904, p. 893). 

 "Mr. J. A. G. Rehn has reports of one seen August i6th, 1907, at Stafford's 

 Forge, in Ocean County. It was probably driven from the woods by a forest 

 fire" (Fowler, 1908, p. 193). Of course, it must retire into winter retreat much 

 later. 



AFFINITIES 



Cope likened it to Hyla arhorea as did Boulenger (1882). 



Cope (1862, p. 155) in speaking of the first specimen he ever saw alive 

 and from which this color description from life comes writes that, 



"I am indebted to Dr. Jos. Leidy for a beautiful specimen of this frog. 

 It was found in a cedar swamp, near the town of Jackson, in New Jersey, 

 sixteen miles east of Philadelphia. Without careful examination of the 

 specimen, he supposed it to be the viridis of the Southern States, from its 

 great resemblance to that species, and presented it as such, at the meeting of the 

 Academy the same evening (Vid. Proc. Acad, for July, p. 305). At the same 

 time Baltimore was given as its northern limit upon the authority of Dr. 

 Uhler of that place. As Dr. Holbrook gives lat. 33° as the most northern 

 habitat known to him, it would be interesting to receive specimens from 

 Baltimore, as there is a possibility of the supposed viridis being the andersonii.' 



At this time Cope (1862, p. 154) and later (1889, p. 365) likened it to 

 Hyla arhorea as did Boulenger (1882). 



Barbour (1914, p. 239) has compared it with Hyla pulchrilineata (Santa 

 Domingo) the form Boulenger (1882) places just before Hyla andersonii in 

 his Catalogue. Noble & Noble (1923) assert that "Hyla andersonii is not 

 closely related to H. arhorea nor to H. pulchrilineata.'' "The relationships of 

 Hyla andersonii are to be sought in Chinese forms and probably in H. 

 immaculata Bott (Boettger)". It may not be related to Hyla arhorea. It 

 is interesting to attempt to hnk it with a Chinese form, but somehow the 

 author is incHned to believe we must search for an American forebear. " Hyla 

 andersonii has been derived from a group of Hylas which laid surface eggs, 

 its method of oviposition being a modification of their method." The present 

 writer who has seen in nature and laboratory as well the eggs of almost all 

 the Hylids of the U. S. A. would not unhesitantly say this is the case though 

 he is inchned toward it. 



