Rana aesopus 351 



sociates of the summer of 1922 (Mrs. A. H. Wright, Messrs. F. Harper and 

 Miles D. Pirnie). I showed them LeConte's figure of Rana capita with the 

 label hidden and gave no intimation of locality at all. One instantly pro- 

 claimed it the gopher frog (Rana aesopus) on general appearance. Another 

 called it the gopher frog because of its waist and general appearance. The 

 third thought the figure a gopher frog but felt it too slim in the waist until 

 when shown a photograph of a gopher frog (Ventral view July i, 1922, 

 PI. XXXIV, Fig. 4) in a similar position she pronounces the two as one without 

 reservation." All four of us who have called upon gopher frog adults at all 

 times of day and night feel the two too close to be considered separate forms. 



To be sure some may yet prefer to make R. areolata capita the northern 

 subspecies from Riceborough, Ga., northward and may restrict R. areolata 

 aesopus to the southern form. I see no real difference in the forms nor use for 

 this interpretation. Rana capita was described in 1855 by LeConte (1855, 

 p. 425) from the material secured in the ditches of the rice fields of Riceborough, 

 His description reads hke the Gopher frog {R. aesopus). In 1886 (1886, pp. 

 517, 518) Cope gave the four forms of R. areolata as R. a. areolata Baird & 

 Girard (Austroriparian region R. a. circulosa Rice & Davis (North Central 

 Eastern region, Illinois), R. a. capita LeConte (Floridan district) and a new 

 form R. a. aesopus Cope (Florida). Observe that Cope speaks of R. a. capita 

 as of the Floridan district. The combined ranges of R. capita and R. aesopus, 

 therefore, extend from Florida to South Carolina in the lower coastal region, 

 and we thus see R. capito more in agreement in range with other Floridan forms. 



Cope (1889, p. 409-416) uses the same groupings of four subspecies and 

 and writes "This well-marked species (R. areolata) is related to the R. palus- 

 tris, but is easily distinguished." 



We strongly incline toward the group which hold Rana aesopus separate 

 from Rana areolata and equally believe Rana capito and Rana aesopus the 

 same, but until more material is collected in Georgia and Carolinas, we little 

 wish hurriedly to make any changes from Rana aesopus to Rana capita, 

 though some may hold more or less rightly that consistency dictates such 

 action on our part. 



Our second consideration that R. aesopus is closely related to R. pipiens 

 and R. sphenocephala does not militate against some relationship with R. 

 palustris but R. palustris is not the nearest relative. We have silhouettes and 

 other photographs of the gopher frog that remind one very much of R. pipiens, 

 and R. sphenocephala or even R. palustris. Like Rana pipiens and R. spheno- 

 cephala and unlike Rana palustris, the gopher frog has a plinthlike egg mass, 

 black and white eggs, similar breeding place (with R. sphenocephala), tadpoles 

 very similar and lateral vocal sacs. R. aesopus has vocal sacs extending to the 

 groin of either side, R. sphenocephala has them as spheres and R. palustris is 

 without them. R. aesopus and R. sphenocephala egg masses and tadpoles are 

 quite similar and perplexed us for a long period. 



In breeding habits it did not need to be strongly differentiated from R. 

 pipiens and R. sphenocephala as these resort to the same type of place for 

 ovulation. 



