Field Guide to the Frogs of Queensland

Preface

This book aims to provide the reader with the means to identify any species of Queensland frog. Because many of these frogs are also found beyond the Queensland border, the book can also useful for frog identification in many other parts of the country, particularly northern New South Wales and the Northern Territory.

Frogs, for better or worse, are remarkably variable creatures when compared to, say, birds. Many species adopt different colours or patterns by day or night. In some cases, males are different from females, and many species can change their appearance remarkably when breeding. For some species, there is an almost bewildering variety of colours and patterns. For instance, Ornate Burrowing Frogs, Platyplectrum ornatum, perhaps the most extreme example, could be described as grey, brown, yellow, red, orange or white; blotched or immaculate; with or without a broad or narrow stripe running down the back, which is darker or lighter than the background; with smooth, warty, or even rough, ‘sandpaper’ skin! With practice, however, an Ornate Burrowing Frog is as easy to distinguish from most other frogs as it is to tell any of the myriad breeds of dog from a cat.

Frost et al. (2006) reviewed relations among the world’s amphibians. This review has been followed in assigning the frogs to six families: Bufonidae (‘true toads’ – the introduced Cane Toad), Hylidae (‘tree frogs’), Limnodynastidae, Microhylidae (‘narrow-mouthed frogs’), Myobatrachidae and Ranidae (‘true frogs’). Prior to the Frost et al. 2006 review, Limnodynastidae was grouped with Myobatrachidae (and called ‘southern frogs’), but this arrangement was unsatisfactory to many. In addition, Australian ‘tree frogs’ (Hylidae) have, on occasion, been given their own family: Pelodryadidae.

Within each family section of this book, species accounts are arranged alphabetically by genus then species. While this arrangement may not appeal to some, who might see groupings of similar-looking species as a useful adjunct to identification, alphabetical ordering is preferable for rapidly accessing different species accounts. To some extent this negates the need for similar species to be presented together.

Frog taxonomy is changeable because, perhaps unfortunately, nature is under no obligation to make things easy for us, and so hasn’t made a set of visible characters that easily define each family (or genus or species for that matter) of frogs. These days a species or family may be defined by its genetic ‘distance’ from another species or family. The genetic distance required to separate two species, for example, is somewhat open to interpretation. Since the publication of Frost et al. (2006) subsequent scientific papers have examined new evidence and reinterpreted and re-examined old genetic and morphological evidence and posited many new relationships among the world’s frogs. Such is the process of science and it can get confusing when it leads to changes in widely accepted scientific names. Frost (2008) provides a very useful reference tool for keeping track of such changes, and provides extensive references justifying the names used. For this reason names used in this book mostly follow Frost (2008). Genetic evidence is open to interpretation in the same way as externally visible traits are and the reader should also be aware that some authors disagree with Frost et al. (2006, 2008).

All this means that, once we have chosen to use genetic data and internal anatomical features to define families, genera and species, then the field naturalist needs a set of characters that reflect those genetic differences externally. Again, nature frequently disobliges.

However, take heart! Most frogs can be fairly easily identified by a combination of looking at pictures, reading the accompanying text carefully and utilising the keys that follow.

Species accounts

Each account is presented with the information in a set order, with the common name(s) presented first. Common names for Queensland frogs are not standardised. All common names of which the author is aware have been presented, usually beginning with the most preferred. However, this does not make the first name ‘right’. Regional and colloquial common names present another enjoyable facet of frogology. For example, many common names have been presented for Litoria rubella, reflecting its wide range across Australia and its colour variation. But all these names have problems – ‘rubellas’ can be reddish or brown or grey. The name Desert Tree Frog has been chosen as the most preferred name, reflecting the vast majority of this species’ range.

The Ornate Burrowing Frog, Platyplectrum ornatum, can be very common in certain habitats, but individuals display a bewildering variation in colour and pattern. These eight individuals were captured in a short period in one backyard, after early summer rains. Magnetic Is., BRB.

The scientific name is presented after the common name. Where a recent alternative scientific name has been in widespread use, the previously accepted name is given in brackets to guide the reader. Thus the Cane Toad is presented as Rhinella marina (= Bufo marinus). After the scientific name is a written description of the species, beginning with adult size measured as snout–vent length (SVL). The call is described next. Where sounds are presented in quotes, the reader should attempt to make the sound to see if it resembles a particular call they can hear. The keen reader is also referred to published CDs of frog calls. The most useful are Australian Frog Calls: Subtropical East and Australian Frog Calls: Tropical North-east (David Stewart, Nature Sound, 1998). The Notes section gives extra information such as preferred habitat, interesting aspects of life history and aspects of identification that may confound identification of some species.

Many species of frogs in Queensland are threatened in some way. For these species, conservation status is given on a state, federal and international level. These are governed by the Queensland Nature Conservation Act (NCA 1992), the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC 1999) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature: Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2010), respectively. Species that have no status listed are deemed of ‘Least Concern’ by default.

Eastern Snapping Frog, Litoria novaehollandiae, threat posture. Mackay, CQC.

Conservation status

Extinct – there are no living individuals of the species.

Critically Endangered – there is an extremely high risk of the species becoming extinct in the near future.

Endangered – there is a high risk of the species becoming extinct in the near future.

Vulnerable – there is a risk of the species becoming endangered in the near future.

Near Threatened – there is a risk of the species becoming vulnerable or endangered in the near future.

Least Concern – there is little risk of the species becoming eligible to be classed in one of the above categories in the near future.

Data Deficient – there is insufficient information available to determine the conservation status.

Finally, for most species, a ‘See also’ section suggests other similar looking species that are worth checking against the species in question.

This book is mostly about identifying adult frogs. Frog larvae (tadpoles) can be very difficult to identify and it would take another book of at least this size to do them justice. However, additional information, including on eggs and larvae, is provided for the Cane Toad because of its important place in the Australian frog fauna. Identification of tadpoles of all species found in southern Queensland is covered in the excellent book by Marion Anstis (2007), Tadpoles of South-eastern Australia. This reference should be sought by anyone with an interest in going beyond identifying adult frogs.

Similarly, metamorphs and young frogs can be very different from the adults. Mostly, the reader will be able to identify these using this book, but should be aware that many features of young frogs can be very different from those found in adults. In some cases, where space permits, obvious features of young frogs are presented.

Keys

Keys are an attempt at using field-observable variables to gradually nail down which species of frog you have observed. To use the keys, think of them as a set of paired statements, or couplets, and consider which half of the couplet is true (or closer to the truth) for the frog you are trying to identify.

For example, the couplet might be:

1. The frog is green. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The frog is not green . . . . . . . . . . 3

In this case, if the frog is green, go to couplet number 2; if not, go to couplet number 3, where another set of options are presented. Eventually, if all goes well, you should arrive at a satisfactory identification. Check the pictures, text and range maps to see if it is likely that you are correct. If not, try again. Try taking the alternative option at any point in the key when you were not sure which way to go in the first round. Also read the genus account as this may contain extra information about the frog you are looking at. The text ‘... (in part)’ in a key means that there is more than one way to arrive at that particular family, genus or species.

The bioregions and reference towns of Queensland

Abbreviations used

Photographs

Where possible, photographs have been used that show typical individuals of each species. For many species, there is no ‘typical’. In such cases, photographs showing some of the variations have been included. In all cases it is useful to look at the shape of the frog as well as colour and pattern. The reader should also be aware of how much an individual frog’s appearance can change in a short time. For example, an undisturbed calling male Laughing Tree Frog, Litoria tyleri (p. 73), may be bright yellow all over. If captured for identification, the same frog is likely to be dull brown or silver, with green spots, by the next day. All photographs of frogs from Queensland have the bioregion from which they came listed. Bioregional abbreviations are given opposite.

Range maps

A range map has been presented for each species as a guide to where it occurs. When printed at the size presented here, these maps are necessarily of fairly low resolution. It is common for species to be found in close proximity to, but just outside, the area represented in published range maps. It is less common for a species to be found a very long way, say, hundreds of kilometres away from its known range. Nevetheless this does happen from time to time and the range maps should be treated as a guide only.

Northern Water Frog, Litoria dahlii, gravid female. Abingdon Downs Stn, GUP.

Green Tree Frog, Litoria caerulea, living commensally with humans. Conondale Ra., SEQ.

Introduction

Australia is the driest inhabited continent on Earth, yet has about 230 species of frogs, with nearly 80 of these living in arid habitats. Queensland, with about 130 recorded species, has more than its share, which is not surprising since this is where most of Australia’s true tropical rainforests occur. The Wet Tropics are almost replete with microhylids – small, often semi-arboreal frogs that breed in moist leaf litter or burrows, and have forgone the need for free-standing water. The highest frog diversity in the country occurs in parts of north-east and South-east Queensland, where rainforests and other habitat types exist in close proximity.

The arid zones, when dry, are characterised by an almost complete absence of frogs – there, frogs are ‘on hold’ until the rains come. The only time one is likely to encounter frogs in dry times is in the outhouse or around cattle troughs and dams. When the rains arrive, the frogs emerge in their droves. Breaking through dry, protective cocoons and digging their way up through rain-soaked soils, desert burrowing frogs emerge in a flurry of eating, mating and avoiding being eaten. Their entire active lives might be spent in this way – a week here, a week there – spread over many years, with little time to lay eggs and for tadpoles to grow before the water soaks into the ground or evaporates. And then it’s over.

Eastern Snapping Frog, Litoria novaehollandiae, as found cocooned in sloughed skin and completely inactive underground. Mackay, CQC.

In the more hospitable climate of South-east Queensland, frogs have adapted to other difficulties. Waters with an acidity of pH 4 (like orange juice) will kill most frog eggs and tadpoles, but in the coastal heaths of South-east Queensland and northern New South Wales, ‘acid frogs’ tolerate these waters; some species are unable to compete anywhere else. And throughout all Queensland are generalist species, like Green Tree Frogs and Desert Tree Frogs, which can live in most habitats as long as their basic requirements of food, shelter and occasional standing water are met.

Frog declines

Since about the early 1990s there has been growing concern about the fate of frogs. Public perception might well be paraphrased as: ‘What’s happening to the frogs?’

On 17 March 1979, Greg Czechura and Steve Wilson, both now at the Queensland Museum, were visiting the Conondale Ranges in South-east Queensland. Steve wanted to photograph Rheobatrachus silus, the Platypus Frog (as it was usually called back then) or Southern Gastric Brooding Frog. Greg, having spent many hours traipsing through the rainforest in the area, knew just the place. Among the wet rocks of a pristine stream they found one, but while searching for Platypus Frogs, Greg, almost casually, remarked ‘That’s odd, there doesn’t seem to be any Day Frogs hopping around’. Greg was referring to Southern Day Frogs, Taudactylus diurnus. Only a couple of years before, these frogs were common in the rainforest streams of the Conondale and D’Aguilar Ranges. Unusually among frogs, they were active during the daytime, perching at the edges of waterfall splash zones and among rocks in riffles. When approached, they would hop off and were often quite visible doing so – a notable part of the stream fauna – unlike most frogs during the daytime.

Little did they know the portent that Greg had just spoken. For at that moment, Southern Day Frogs were becoming extinct. One year later, Rheobatrachus was also gone. The one they found was the last wild adult ever seen.

Unfortunately, what happened next was that the extinctions moved north. The next victim