River Frog 7 3 



lamps in search of adult frogs; walking or wading potential habitat at night with 

 lights; visually scanning for the large and conspicuous tadpoles at bridge cross- 

 ings or other sites with good visibility; seining and dipnetting for tadpoles; slow- 

 ly driving and walking roads through suitable habitats-particularly bridge cross- 

 ings—on rainy (and non-rainy) nights; and listening for calling adults at potential 

 sites by day and night. 



Posters depicting a drawing of the river frog's distinctive tadpole were 

 widely distributed in the southeastern part of the state. Biologists and outdoor 

 enthusiasts residing in, collecting in, or frequenting areas within the frog's range 

 were encouraged to report any suspected sightings. Local residents were often 

 questioned when encountered in the field, and many were shown a large pre- 

 served tadpole and photographs of adult frogs. Several articles featuring the 

 river frog project appeared in regional newspapers, and the survey was adver- 

 tised in several issues of the North Carolina Herpetological Society newsletter. 

 Several public field trips to search for river frogs were organized through the 

 North Carolina State Museum, and several public talks on the project were pre- 

 sented, using slides, photographs, call tapes, preserved specimens, field guides, 

 and a live adult frog from Florida as educational tools. Participants in the field 

 work were familiarized with river frog identification. 



RESULTS 



This survey revealed no current evidence of river frogs anywhere in 

 North Carolina. All 26 other anuran species known to share the potential range 

 of the river frog (NCSM files, Conant and Collins 1991) were encountered in the 

 state during the survey, most of them in relative abundance. The most produc- 

 tive methods for locating ranids were nocturnal searches with lights, conducted 

 either by canoe or on foot, and driving roads on rainy nights. All other Rana (R. 

 catesbeiana, R. clamitans, R. utricularia, R. palustris, R. virgatipes) with similar 

 habits and utilizing habitats similar to those of the river frog were frequently 

 encountered. River frogs were encountered with little difficulty in Franklin, Lib- 

 erty, and Wakulla counties, Florida; Charlton, Clinch, and Ware counties, Geor- 

 gia; and Hampton, Jasper, and Sumter counties, South Carolina during the time 

 of the survey. 



No reports of river frog encounters in North Carolina were received 

 during the time of the survey. Only two plausible and previously undocumented 

 reports of earlier sightings were received, and both may have occurred prior to 

 the last documented sighting in 1975. J. H. Carter III, an environmental consul- 

 tant and experienced field biologist with herpetological expertise, reported (per- 

 sonal communication) having seen what he believed to be an adult river frog in 

 a large lake on the campus of St. Andrews Presbyterian College in Laurinburg, 

 Scotland County. (Visits to this site during the day and again at night during a 

 thunder shower in late June of 1993 yielded no evidence of the species.) David 



