72 Jeffrey C. Beane 



Little else has been published on R. heckscheri in North Carolina, and 

 little is known about its natural history in the state. Neither eggs nor calling 

 adults have been reported from the state. Martof et al. (1980) provided a brief 

 descriptive account of the species in the Carolinas and the aforementioned pho- 

 tograph. Stephan (1985) and Beane (1993a) wrote popular articles, and Stephan 

 (1989) provided a brief account of the frog's status in the state. In 1990 it was 

 granted protection as a species of Special Concern under the North Carolina 

 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Law (G.S. 113-331 to 113-337). Beane 

 (1993b) provided a more detailed summary of its status in the state. 



Short accounts of R. heckscheri in other states and general information 

 on the species may be found in Wright (1924, 1932), Allen (1938), Carr (1940), 

 Wright and Wright (1949), Mount (1975), Sanders (1984), Behler and King 

 (1985), Ashton and Ashton (1988), and Conant and Collins (1991). Recordings 

 of the breeding call are provided by Bogert (1958), Anon. (1982), and Elliott 

 (1992). 



A survey was undertaken to determine the current distribution of the 

 river frog in North Carolina (if indeed it still occurred in the state), to evaluate 

 the status of any populations located, to learn more about the biology and habi- 

 tat requirements of the species, to identify the level of protection it should be 

 afforded, and to outline any conservation measures that might be justified. 



METHODS 



Efforts were made to locate all museum specimens and literature 

 records of the river frog in North Carolina. Field survey work was centered 

 around the vicinity of these records, as well as other potential sites. Sites inves- 

 tigated included many areas along the Lumber, South, Black, Northeast Cape 

 Fear, Cape Fear, Waccamaw, and Lockwood Folly rivers and their larger tribu- 

 tary streams and swamps. 



Field work for this survey was conducted between spring 1987 and fall 

 1996, and is ongoing; however, most of the work was conducted between April 

 1992 and September 1993. During 1992-1993 over 1,500 man-hours were 

 devoted to field work and travel for the project, and a comparable amount of time 

 was devoted to office work. Over 10,600 miles of travel were logged in that time 

 period. The area surveyed included portions of Robeson, Scotland, Columbus, 

 Bladen, Sampson, Cumberland, Pender, Brunswick, Hoke, Duplin, New 

 Hanover, Moore, Richmond, and Harnett counties, North Carolina; and Horry 

 County, South Carolina. Beane (1993b) provided a map and list of specific local- 

 ities visited during 1992-1993 along with dates and survey methods used at each 

 site. 



Survey techniques included navigating rivers and other bodies of water 

 by canoe or johnboat during the day to search for suitable habitat, adult frogs, or 

 schools of tadpoles; floating the same areas by night with flashlights and head- 



