Wood Frog in Georgia 
19 
Clutch sizes varied from 295 to 706 eggs per mass (x = 553 ± 
139.05 SD; N = 8). No more egg masses were taken because of the small 
number of egg masses deposited in each breeding pond (range = 1-22). 
Eggs averaged 2.8 mm in diameter (range = 2.2-3. 3 mm; range in 
mean diameter per clutch = 2.7-2. 9 mm). Outer jelly envelopes averaged 
11.2 mm in diameter (eggs = 7.3-14.1 mm; mean per clutch = 10.4-12.3 
mm). 
Hatching began at NTL on 3 March and continued until 13 March. 
Hatching began 24 February at RC1 and 26 February at RC2. Hatching 
was completed 20 March at RC1 and 1 1 March at RC2. Hatching times 
ranged from 18 to 25 days after the date of egg deposition. Water 
temperatures during the hatching period averaged 12.3° C (range = 3-22) 
at NTL and 1 1.7° C (range = 6-17) at RC1. 
Hatching occurred at stage 20 (gill circulation) at an average total 
length of 8.7 mm (range = 8. 3-9.0). Larvae reached an average maximum 
total length of 51.6 mm (range = 49.0-55.6) before metamorphosing at 
an average body length of 17.8 mm (range = 15.0-21.0). The first 
metamorphosed frog was collected from RC2 on 21 June and the last 
on 19 July. From the start of hatching to the start of metamorphosis 
was 1 15 days, and from the end of hatching to the end of metamorphosis 
was 130 days. NTL and RC1 were completely dry by the end of April 
(22 and 25 April, respectively). Complete mortality of larval populations 
in both sites was assumed, and this was supported by the observation of 
large numbers of dead tadpoles at each site. 
DISCUSSION 
Rana sylvatica typically lays eggs in communal aggregates that are 
hypothesized to represent a thermal adaptation to development in cold 
climates (Wells 1977, Howard 1980, Seale 1982, Waldman 1982, Waldman 
and Ryan 1983). In four breeding ponds containing nine or more egg 
masses in our study, only two (RC1 and RC2) showed signs of communal 
oviposition. The lack of aggregation of NTL and SR egg masses may 
have been an aberration created by the small number of clutches in 
those breeding pools. 
Wood frog eggs from Georgia are only slightly smaller than those 
reported from Alabama (2.9 mm; Davis and Folkerts 1986). The 
tendency of wood frogs to deposit progressively larger eggs from the 
north to the south in their geographic range has been noted by several 
investigators (Herreid and Kenney 1967, Meeks and Nagel 1977, Davis 
and Folkerts 1986). 
Larvae in this study hatched at a smaller size than those in 
Alabama (10.7 mm; Davis and Folkerts 1986). The size difference is 
attributable to larvae in Georgia hatching at an earlier stage than those 
