101 



indicates that when did composilion is 

 coinparcd ainoiiu popiilal ions, diet \aiia- 

 liDii wiihiii a population should he eonsid 

 cred. 



Nevertheless, even it this knid of \aria- 

 lion is consideied, diet eoniposiiion nia\ 

 dilTei among localities. 1 or example, 

 heetles (41 "n) were the most nnmeiiealK 

 inedontmani pie\ m India ( Monhantln - 

 I lejmadi and Aeliaiya, i')S2) unlike m the 

 oihei three localities. 1 he seeoiul iiuist 

 imporiani prey was henuiMei aiis (iCi"ii) in 

 ( hnia (I ui and ( hen, l^^.v'), leiiniles 

 (lS"o) 111 Sin;j,apoie (Beii\, 196.^), ants 

 (13%) in India (Monhanthy-Hcjmadi and 

 Acharya, 1982), and s|iiders (20.3%) m this 

 .study site. These local \ariations stronyK 

 suggest that the lood hahits ol A', liinno- 

 vhuris are L'enei ali/ed, and that the frog 

 chaiii'cs diet mentis llcxihK m response \o 

 local \aiiation in liei|iicnc\ ol a\ailable 

 prey items. 



It is noteuoitlu that A'. Iiniiioc/inn'^ 

 consumed a tadpole and a lioylel m this 

 study site. Much larger frogs like the 

 Inillt'io!' (A'. i(/ii-s/h'uinii) often eat small 

 ^cilebiates (see iUii\ and \\ helan |P^S4| 

 for revieu), hut theie aie leu lepoits that 

 rclativeh small lioi's hke A'. Iininocliuns 

 teed on vei tehiate pre\ . 1 \cii m A', iii'^ro- 

 ithhuhidi and A', pmnsii hi cvi/'oihi . onh 

 large individuals |S\ I s" mm) eat s\ntoiiic 

 I'roglels (iliiai and \laisui, P^^^; 2()()la). 

 Iheieloie, it m.i\ he sale to stale that the 

 tood habits ol A', lunnocfuiri.s are cliaiac 

 tcri/eil In dueise diet composition from 

 tin\ insects lo small vertebrates. Such 

 lood habits scein to contribute at least 

 paitiall\ to the success of this trog in estab- 

 lishing feral populations through artificial 

 introduclion (Osaua. 1998; Hasegawa and 

 Ogaiio, 1W';S, llayashi el al.. lOOO), 

 bccau.se the generalized tood habits of R. 

 limnncharis should be advantageous in 

 dealing with unfamiliar enviionments 

 where diversity and abundance of prey 

 may greatly differ fn^n the original 

 habitat. 



The recent !\ iniroduced populations of 

 A', liiniioi/uins in the Kaiito District have 

 received a Lueat ileal ol atientioii (Osawa, 

 199S; llasetMua and Oyano, I99S: llayashi 

 el al., 2()()()), because its eolom/atioii may 

 lead to unta\oiable inthieiice on the native 

 aiuiian poimlat ions. I iiither research is 

 urgently needed lo evaluate sueh influence 

 and to determine whether or not to exter- 

 minate the introduced A', luuninluins for 

 conscr\ alioii of liie native anmans. Since 

 ihc coloni/cd areas are still limited (Osawa, 

 1998; Hayashi and Kinuira, 21101), extermi- 

 nation would lie still possible. 



ACKNOW I M)( .Ml NTS 



We thank I. Ilavashi and S. Osawa for 

 l")i ov idini; lilei at Lire. 



Ll II R \ i I Rl C 1 I 1 I) 



I5i kio, P. P)65. The did of some Singapore 



\iHii,i ( \mpliibia). Proc. Zool. Soc. l.ond. 



144: UvV174. 

 Ml Kv. R. B. \\n J. .A. Win I \n. 1984. Hcol- 



n. v and managcnicni of the Bullfrog. U. S. 



Depi liii.. I ish Wikll. Scrv., Rcsour. Publ. 



155: 1-23. 



ll.ASl-.r..\WA. M. \M) 1). Oc.ANO. 1998. Dis- 

 covery of Raiia lininocfiarLs in the Boso 

 peninsula: its distribution and status, 

 (abstract) Jpn. J. Ik-rpctol. 17: 193-194. 

 (in Japanese) 



II \ rA. N. AND M. N.\c;o.sHl. 1995. Call analysis 

 of two pond frogs. Rana nigo.ui and R. 

 limnocharis. Bio. Inl. Wai. 10: 26-36. (in 

 Japanese with Unglish abstract) 



U\\ASHI. T.. K. .Akmiv. R. ISHl/rK\. \M) N 

 KiMURA. 2000. A record of the Indian rue 

 frog, Rana limnocharis. from Toehigi Prcfcv- 

 turc, central Japan. Bull. Tochigi Prcf. Mu». 

 17: 109-112. (in Japanese wiih English 

 absirael) 



May Nsm. T. and Y. Kimura. 2001. Rana lim- 

 notharis. p. 90-91. In: Amphibian* and 

 Rcpiilci of Tochigi Prefecture The naiural 

 environment section, the foretlfv dcpait 



