Anuran egg predation and heterocannibalism in a breeding community of East African frogs

Tropical Zoology

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 333-347

  Drewes, R C ^a   Altig, R ^b  

^a CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (United States)

^b MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

African anurans; Heterocannibalism; Hyperoliidae; Oophagy; Predation; Reproduction; Rhacophoridae

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030519503     PISSN: 03946975     EISSN: 19709528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03946975.1996.10539316     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. AMIET J.-L. 1991. Images d’Amphibiens camerounais. IV. Les constructeurs de nids. Alytes 9: 71-77.
2. BACKWELL P. 1992. Aspects of reproduction in the leaf-folding frog, Afrixalus delicatus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, 196 pp.
3. BARBOUR T. & LOVERIDGE A. 1928. A comparative study of the herpetological faunae of the Uluguru and Usambara Mountains, Tanganyika Territory, with descriptions of new species. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard 50: 87-265.
4. BOWKER r.g. & BOWKER M.H. 1979. Abundance and distribution of anurans in a Kenya pond. Copeia-. 278-285.
5. COE M.J. 1967. Co-operation of three males in nest construction by Chiromantis rufescem Günther (Amphibia: Rhacophoridae). Nature 2 A: 112-113.
6. COE M.J. 1974. Observations of the ecology and breeding biology of the genus Chiromantis (Amphibia: Rhacophoridae). Journal Zoology, London 172: 12-34.
7. COE M.J. 1985. Islands in the bush: a natural history of the Kora National Reserve, Kenya. London: Royal Geographical Society, 240 pp.
8. COGGER H.G. 1975. Reptiles and amphibians of Australia, 2nd ed. Hollywood, Florida: Ralph C. Curtis Books, 608 pp.
9. COTT H.B. 1932. The Zoological Society’s expedition to the Zambesi, 1927. No. 4. On the ecology of tree-frogs in the Lower Zambesi Valley, with special reference to predatory habits consid¬ered in relation to the theory of warning colors and mimicry. Proceedings of the Zooloÿcal Society, London II: 471-541.
10. DA SILVA H.R., DE BRTTTO-PEREIRA M.C. & CARAMASCHI U. 1989. Frugivory and seed dispersal by Hyla truncata, a neotropical treefrog. Copeia: 781-783.
11. DREWES R.C. & ROTH B. 1981. Snail-eating frogs from the Ethiopian Highlands: a new anuran specialization. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society 72: 267-287.
12. DUELLMAN W.E. 1985. Reproductive modes in anuran amphibians: phylogenetic significance of adaptive strategies. South African Journal of Science 81: 174-178.
13. DUELLMAN W.E. & TRUEB L. 1986. Biology of amphibians. New York: McGraw Hill Inc., XVII + 670 pp.
14. FROST S.W. 1924. Frogs as insect collectors. Journal of the New York Etomological Society 31: 174-185.
15. FUKUYAMA K. 1991. Spawning behavior and male mating tactics of a foam-nesting treefrog, Rhacophorus schlegelii. Animal Behaviour A2: 193-199.
16. GANS C. & GORNIAK G.C. 1982. How does the toad flip its tongue? Test of two hypotheses. Science 216: 1335-1337.
17. GASCON C. 1992. Spatial distribution of Osteocephalus taurinus and Pipa arrabali in a central Amazonian forest. Copeia: 894-897.
18. GOSNER K.L. 1960. A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on indentification. Herpetoloÿca 16: 183-190.
19. HOOGMOED M.S. & GORZULA S.J. 1979. Checklist of the savanna inhabiting frogs of the El Manteco Region with notes on their ecology and the description of a new species of treefrog (Hylidae, Anura). Zoologische Mededelingen 54 (13): 183-216.
20. JENNIONS M.D., BACKWELL P.R.Y. & PASSMORE N.I. 1992. Breeding behaviour of the African frog, Chiromantis xeram pelina: multiple spawning and polyandry. Animal Behaviour 44 (6): 1091-1100.
21. KASUYA E., SHEGEHARA H. & HIROTA M. 1987. Mating aggregation in the Japanese treefrog, Rhacophorus arboreus (Anura: Rhacophoridae): a test of cooperation hypothesis. Zoological Science 4: 693-697.
22. KELSEY M.G. & LANGTON T.E.S. 1984. The conservation of the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya. International Council for Bird Preservation and University of East Anglia. Cambridge, UK: I.C.B.P. Study Report no. 4, 76 pp.
23. MAGIMEL PELONIER O. 1924. La langue des Amphibiens. Thèse, Faculté des Sciences de Paris. Bordeaux: A. Saugnac & E. Provillard, 269 pp.
24. MCCOID M.J. & FRITTS T.H. 1980. Notes on the diet of a feral population of Xenopus laevis (Pipidae) in California. Southwestern Naturalist 25: 272-275.
25. NOBLE G.K. 1931. The biology of the Amphibia. New York & London: McGraw-Hill, 577 pp.
26. PASSMORE N.I. & CARRUTHERS V.C. 1979. South African frogs. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand Press, 270 pp.
27. POPE C.H. 1931. Notes on amphibians from Fukien, Hainan and other parts of China. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 61: 397-611.
28. REGAL P.J. & GANS C. 1976. Functional aspects of the evolution of frog tongues. Evolution 30: 718-734.
29. Roberts S.A. & LUKE W.R.Q. 1993. Kenya Coastal Forests. Unpubl. report of the NMK/WWF Coast Forest Survev WWF Project 3256. National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya and World Wide Fund for Nature International, Gland, Switzerland, 425 pp.
30. SCHIOTZ A. 1971. The superspecies Hyperolius viridifavus (Anura). Videnksabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening 134 21-76.
31. SCHIOTZ A. 1975. The treefrogs of eastern Africa. Copenhagen-. Steenstrupia, 232 pp.
32. SCHNEICHEL W. & SCHNEIDER H. 1988. Hearing and calls of the banana frog, Afrixalus fomasinii (Bianconi) (Anura: Rhacophoridae). Amphibia-Reptilia 9: 251-264.
33. SIMON M.P. 1984. The influence of conspecifics on egg and larval mortality in amphibians, pp. 65-86. In: Hausfater G. & Hrdy S.B., Edits. Infanticide: comparative and evolutionary perspectives. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Pub. Co., 598 pp.
34. TAYLOR P. 1971. Observations on the breeding habits of Chiromantis xerampelina. Journal of the Herpetologfcal Association of Africa 8: 7.
35. THIBAUDEAU D.G. & ALTIG R. 1992. Do amphibian yolk platelets provide information on am¬phibian reproductive biology? Jourruil of Herpetology 26: 342-346.
36. TOWNSEND D.S. STEWART M.M. & POUGH F.H. 1984. Male parental care, and its adaptive significance in a Neotropical frog. Animal Behaviour 32: 421-431.
37. TRIVERS R.L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual election, pp. 136-179. In: Campell B.G., Edit. Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago: Aldine Press, 378 pp.
38. TRUEB L. & Gans C. 1983. Feeding specializations of the Mexican burrowing toad, Rhinophrynus dorsalis (Anura: Rhinophrynidae). Jourruil of Zoology, London 199: 198-208.
39. TYLER M.J. 1963. A taxonomic study of amphibians and reptiles of the Central Highlands of New Guinea, with notes of their ecology and biology. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 36: 11-34.
40. VAN DK D.E. 1971. Anuran ecology in relation particularly to oviposition and development out of water. Zoologica Africana 6: 119-132.
41. WAGER V.A. 1965. The frogs of South Africa. Capetown & Johannesburg;. Purcell & Sons, 242 pp.
42. WELDON P.J., DEMETER B.J. & ROSSCOE R. 1993. A survey of shed skin-eating (dermatophagy) in amphibians and reptiles. Journal of Herpetology 27: 219-228.
43. WELLS K.D. 1981. Parental behavior of male and female frogs, pp. 184-197. In: Alexander R.D. & Tinkle D.W., Edits Natural selection and social behavior. New York: Chiron Press, 532 pp.
44. WEYGOLDT P. 1980. Complex brood care and reproductive behavior in captive poison arrow frogs, Dendrobates pumilio Behavioral Ecolology and Sociohiology 7: 329-332.
45. WILSON E.O. 1975. Sociobiology. The new synthesis. Cambridge & London: Belknap PressfHarvard, 697 pp.