Diario de cnddb_brian

There should really be only one freshwater turtle in California. However, many other turtles from the eastern US and elswhere end up in California, typically originating as pets, but end up in the wild. These resources may help ID some turtles that are otherwise rarely seen in California.

Peterson Field Guide
Conant and Collins. 1998. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians, eastern and central North America, 3rd edition (Peterson Field Guide Series). GoogleBooks (plates only, no species accounts): https://books.google.com/books?id=32Rm7c-v_McC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&dq=fieldguide%20to%20eastern%20reptiles%20and%20amphibians&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=true

---

Turtles of the World
Hosted by Naturalis Biodiversity Center. I believe this is an internet version and update of Ernst & Barbour 1989 and Ernst et al. 2000.
https://turtles.linnaeus.naturalis.nl/linnaeus_ng/app/views/introduction/topic.php?id=3290&epi=11
This should teach you everything you need to know about turtles. The website is a bit odd to navigate; sometimes you need to click and expand the “Menu” to navigate to other sections. Navigation was the primary issue; you can’t just turn the page and get to the next section. It has detailed species accounts and subspecies. It has a key that is very helpful. By moving through the key, it tells you which species you’ve eliminated and which species remain, both with links to those species; as well as a decision path that you’ve taken up to that point. Beware of older taxonomy and nomenclature. When you are on a species account page, note that there is a sub menu for Description, Classification, Nomenclature, Literature, and Media (photos).

Examples:
Western pond turtle (Clemmys [~ Emys, Actinemys] marmorata) https://turtles.linnaeus.naturalis.nl/linnaeus_ng/app/views/species/taxon.php?id=8095
Common slider (Trachemys scripta) https://turtles.linnaeus.naturalis.nl/linnaeus_ng/app/views/species/taxon.php?id=8103&epi=11
Painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) https://turtles.linnaeus.naturalis.nl/linnaeus_ng/app/views/species/taxon.php?id=8102&epi=11

---

Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/44116 (these can also be found on Internet Archive) (taxonomy may be old; the accounts may be dated).

Trachemys, https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/45343
Trachemys scripta, https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/45332
Clemmys marmorata (aka WPT), https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/45027
Chrysemys, https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/45335 (taxonomy may be old)
Pseudemys, https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/45310 (taxonomy may be old)

Looks difficult.
Peter Pyle 2013, https://www.sibleyguides.com/wp-content/uploads/On-separating-Sagebrush-and-Bells-Sparrows.pdf

Sagebrush Sparrow (A. nevadensis, formerly A. belli nevadensis) was elevated to species by AOU in 2013 from Bell's Sparrow (A. belli) and its subordinate subspecies, A. b. canescens (near A. nevadensis), A. b. belli, A. b. cinerea, and A. b. clementae.

It appears that A. nevadensis and A. b. canescens may be most difficult to separate in winter when the ranges of worn individuals overlap.

Below is a long comment I made about a red-eared slider identified as a western pond turtle. I'm linking to it here so I don't have to type it again.
Comment: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/111553431#activity_comment_c7b6e9e0-9f41-40c4-a766-dced0aab57f8
Observation: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/111553431

Good morning, I had meant to comment, but didn't have the chance earlier. I don't claim to be an expert on turtles, but lately I have been very active in documenting California's only native freshwater turtle, the western pond turtle, and trying to sort out all the non-native, likely liberated pet turtles that are often found near urban areas. So, typically I'm more concerned with putting turtles (in California) into 2 categories: our native WPT, and everything else (which is most often red-eared sliders).

Like up north, WPT is a sensitive species in California, currently a California Species of Special Concern by the Department I work for, and the SWPT (subsp/sp) is currently being reviewed for federal legal listing by the USFWS. For the work I do I need to be familiar with all the life history characteristics and threats for the species we track. When I first started getting into turtles a couple of years ago, I did wonder if it was possible for WPT to hybridize or intergrade with RES. I haven't done an exhaustive search on this, but in the casual searching on this specific subject and the general natural history I've researched on WPT, I have not come across any mention of WPT and RES being able to hybridize/intergrade. Considering the preponderance of non-native RES in WPT habitat in California, this would be a major threat if possible and would not be overlooked. Whereas RESs are considered a threat to WPT, its more about competition (basking sites, food) and possibly disease as opposed to genetic degradation. If someone knows otherwise, I'd be very interested in the information.

Like what Matthew noted, older RES start to turn dark with the stripes and red marking beginning to fade, and they start to appear more and more like a potential WPT. It is not uncommon to see dark (melanistic) RESs misidentified on iNaturalist in California as WPTs. Trust me, I wish they were all WPTs, but unfortunately they are often RESs, and whereas I don't like disagreeing with folks, I do think we need to have the threats identified properly in order to understand the impact to native species. There's some good information and photo comparison of melanistic RESs on the following pages,
http://www.californiaherps.com/turtles/pages/a.marmorata.html
http://www.californiaherps.com/turtles/pages/t.s.elegans.html

It's a complete heartache to think about WPTs being extirpated from their historic range and the likelihood that they may be extirpated from BC and nearly extirpated from Washington. Some good news is that WDFW started a recovery or head-start program in the late 1990s when there was only 2 known populations left; now there are 6 populations. Maybe if they keep increasing they might naturally immigrate to BC.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00398
https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/species/actinemys-marmorata

Sincerely,
Brian

1) Displaying hooded mergansers (these got to make everyone smile)
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/102106648

2) American dipper hide & seek foraging
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/65676809

3) Newts eating a Jerusalem cricket
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/109225726

Male northern harrier finishing off a meal
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/67940827
Peregrine falcon eating a coot
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/18313599
Octopus squirming over coral
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/18313599
Moorish Idols swimming in Hawaii
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/18532429
Fairy shrimp locomotion
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/84931092
Singing tree frog
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/103637227
Horsehair worms looking looking for a host
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/108703541
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/108703540
American dipper foraging
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/19353597
Dragonfly ovipositing (?)
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/29765462
Hairy woodpecker working a burned-up tree
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/67983171

* Pseudacris *

The most common frog in California is the tree frog (also known as a chorus frog); heard and seen across 80% of California - somewhat absent from the Mojave Desert. An article published in 2006 (Recuero et al. 2006) interested in studying the genetics of tree frogs on the Baja California Pennisula in Mexico ended up having a much greater geographic impact. The paper ends up splitting what was once considered a widely distributed single species (Pseudacris regilla) into the the following 3 species:
*Pseudacris regilla
*Pseudacris sierrae (a correction after they originally published it as P. pacifica)
*Pseudacris hypochondriaca
-and naming 2 subspecies:
*Pseudacris hypochondriaca hypochondriaca
*Pseudacris hypochondriaca curta

The issue in California is trying to separate the 3 newly proposed species. The authors provided no key to differentiate them and made no reference to geographic boundaries or contact zones to help understand their range (their few sampling locations were hundreds of miles apart). They state [and I add the correct names]: "[Pseudacris sierra (Jameson et al., 1966) stat. nov.] corresponds to the populations ranging from Central California to Montana. Populations from the northwest should be regarded as [Pseudacris regilla (Baird and Girard, 1852)]. Southern populations, from Nevada and southern California to the Cape region in Baja California, would take the name Pseudacris hypochondriaca (Hallowell, 1854) stat. nov., with two divergent subspecies, P. h. hypochondriaca from the Vizcaíno desert to the north and P. h. curta (Cope, 1867) distributed south of the Vizcaíno Desert to the southern tip of [Baja California Peninsula]."

Gary Nafis of CaliforniaHerps.com does a good job displaying a proposed ranges based on the very few sampled specimens by Recuero et al. (2006), but this is still one person's interpretation, and even notes that some folks don't believe P. regilla occurs in NW California (http://www.californiaherps.com/frogs/pages/p.sierra.html).

Other folks are skeptical of the split. Barrow et al. (2014) studied nuclear and mitochondrial DNA and concluded, "Our results, though limited in geographic scope, do not support the species designations suggested by Recuero et al. (2006) for mtDNA lineages of the P. regilla complex." Stebbins and McGinnis (2018), the most recent edition of the famous Peterson Field Guide series, states, "...some herpetologists believe that no obvious differences exist among the proposed new species groups, and that additional studies are needed. We concur with this view." Currently (March 2022), the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR), the keepers of the names for North America (taxonomy & nomenclature), still have the 3 proposed species list in their database, hence it appearing on iNaturalist, but also note under the P. hypochondriaca record, "Barrow et al. (2014) suggested that the distinction of P. hypochondriaca and P. sierra, drawn on the basis of mtDNA, was not supported by nuDNA analysis. This suggests that this taxon will ultimately be included in the synonymy of Pseudacris regilla."

Therefore, this conundrum is still unresolved, frustrating field biologist across California.

Barrow, L. et al. 2014. Species tree estimation of North American chorus frogs (Hylidae: Pseudacris) with parallel tagged amplicon sequencing. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 75:78-90.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.655.1289&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24583020/

Recuero, E. et al. 2006. Phylogeography of Pseudacris regilla (Anura: Hylidae) in western North America, with a proposal for a new taxonomic rearrangement. Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 39:293-304.
http://www.cetpo.upol.cz/files/lib/26/739/recuero2006b.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16627190/

Recuero, E. et al. 2006. Corrigendum to "Phylogeography of Pseudacris regilla (Anura: Hylidae) in western North America, with a proposal for a new taxonomic rearrangement." Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 41:511.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.545.9298&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790306003071

Stebbins, R. C. and S. McGinnis. 2018. Peterson Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. https://peterson-field-guides.harpercollins.com/product?isbn=9781328715500

Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR). [Accessed 17 Mar 2022]. SSAR Species Names Database. https://ssarherps.org/publications/north-american-checklist/

A brief list of primary literature references relating to California wildlife species I frequently see on iNaturalist; primarily regarding distribution.

* Identification issues of Plestiodon, skinks *
Information on identifying Western Skink and Gilbert's Skink.
Shedd, J. (@jdshedd) and J. Richmond (@jqrichmond). 2013. Conserved ontogeny of color pattern leads to the misdiagnosis of scincid lizards of the Plestiodon skiltonianus species complex. Herpetological Review 44(3):417-420. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269103271_Conserved_ontogeny_of_color_pattern_leads_to_the_misdiagnosis_of_scincid_lizards_of_the_Plestiodon_skiltonianus_species_complex

* New Anniella species, legless lizards *
In 2013 an article was published that split former Anniella pulchra in to 5 new species concepts:
Anniella pulchra
Anniella alexanderae
Anniella grinnelli
Anniella campi
Anniella stebbinsi
Papenfuss, T. and J. Parham (@jamesparham). 2013. Four new species of California legless lizards.
Brevoria 536:1-17. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/152056#page/1/mode/1up

* Taricha (Sierra newt/Calif newt contact zone) *
In 2007 Shawn Kuchta published his findings on the genetics of the Taricha (Pacific newts) contact zone near the Kaweah River drainage near Sequoia NP.

Kuchta, S. 2007. Contact zones and species limits: hybridization between lineages of the California newt, Taricha torosa, in the southern Sierra Nevada. Herpetologica 63(3):332-350.
JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/stable/4497967
BioOne https://doi.org/10.1655/0018-0831(2007)63[332:CZASLH]2.0.CO;2
ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228338785_Contact_zones_and_species_limits_Hybridization_between_lineages_of_the_California_Newt_Taricha_torosa_in_the_southern_Sierra_Nevada

* Dicamptodon *
Dicamptodon ensatus split from Dicamptodon tenebrosus by David Good in 1989 (vicinity of MEN/SON county line, Fish Rock/Anchor Bay). However, Nussbaum's (1976) excellent monograph on Dicamptodon is often indirectly referenced in field guides for distinguishing D. ensatus from D. tenebrosus though he did not suggest elevating D. ensatus to species level but previously separated D. copei.

Nussbaum, R. 1976. Geographic variation and systematics of salamanders of the genus Dicamptodon Strauch (Ambystomatidae). Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 149:1-49.
Available https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/56393
PDF https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/56393/MP149.pdf

Good, D. 1989. Hybridization and cryptic species in Dicamptodon (Caudata: Dicamptodontidae). Evolution 43(4):728-744.
Available https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb05172.x
PDF https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb05172.x

* Pseudacris *
The most common frog in California is the tree frog (also known as a chorus frog); heard and seen across 80% of California - absent from the Mojave Desert. An article published in 2006 (Recuero et al. 2006) interested in studying the genetics of tree frogs on the Baja California Pennisula in Mexico ended up having a much greater geographic impact. The paper ends up splitting what was once considered a widely distributed single species (Pseudacris regilla) into the the following 3 species:
*Pseudacris regilla
*Pseudacris sierrae (a correction after they originally published it as P. pacifica)
*Pseudacris hypochondriaca
-and naming 2 subspecies:
*Pseudacris hypochondriaca hypochondriaca
*Pseudacris hypochondriaca curta

The issue in California is trying to separate the 3 newly proposed species. The authors provided no key to differentiate them and made no reference to geographic boundaries or contact zones to help understand their range (their few sampling locations were hundreds of miles apart). They state [and I add the correct names]: "[Pseudacris sierra (Jameson et al., 1966) stat. nov.] corresponds to the populations ranging from Central California to Montana. Populations from the northwest should be regarded as [Pseudacris regilla (Baird and Girard, 1852)]. Southern populations, from Nevada and southern California to the Cape region in Baja California, would take the name Pseudacris hypochondriaca (Hallowell, 1854) stat. nov., with two divergent subspecies, P. h. hypochondriaca from the Vizcaíno desert to the north and P. h. curta (Cope, 1867) distributed south of the Vizcaíno Desert to the southern tip of [Baja California Peninsula]."

Gary Nafis of CaliforniaHerps.com does a good job displaying a proposed ranges based on the very few sampled specimens by Recuero et al. (2006), but this is still one person's interpretation, and even notes that some folks don't believe P. regilla occurs in NW California (http://www.californiaherps.com/frogs/pages/p.sierra.html).

Other folks are skeptical of the split. Barrow et al. (2014) studied nuclear and mitochondrial DNA and concluded, "Our results, though limited in geographic scope, do not support the species designations suggested by Recuero et al. (2006) for mtDNA lineages of the P. regilla complex." Stebbins and McGinnis (2018), the most recent edition of the famous Peterson Field Guide series, states, "...some herpetologists believe that no obvious differences exist among the proposed new species groups, and that additional studies are needed. We concur with this view." Currently (March 2022), the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR), the keepers of the names for North American (taxonomy & nomenclature), still have the 3 proposed species list in their database, hence it appearing on iNaturalist, but also note under the P. hypochondriaca record, "Barrow et al. (2014) suggested that the distinction of P. hypochondriaca and P. sierra, drawn on the basis of mtDNA, was not supported by nuDNA analysis. This suggests that this taxon will ultimately be included in the synonymy of Pseudacris regilla."

Therefore, this conundrum is still unresolved, frustrating field biologist across California.

Barrow, L. et al. 2014. Species tree estimation of North American chorus frogs (Hylidae: Pseudacris) with parallel tagged amplicon sequencing. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 75:78-90.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.655.1289&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24583020/

Recuero, E. et al. 2006. Phylogeography of Pseudacris regilla (Anura: Hylidae) in western North America, with a proposal for a new taxonomic rearrangement. Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 39:293-304.
http://www.cetpo.upol.cz/files/lib/26/739/recuero2006b.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16627190/

Recuero, E. et al. 2006. Corrigendum to "Phylogeography of Pseudacris regilla (Anura: Hylidae) in western North America, with a proposal for a new taxonomic rearrangement." Molecular Phylogentics and Evolution 41:511.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.545.9298&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790306003071

Stebbins, R. C. and S. McGinnis. 2018. Peterson Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. https://peterson-field-guides.harpercollins.com/product?isbn=9781328715500

Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR). [Accessed 17 Mar 2022]. SSAR Species Names Database. https://ssarherps.org/publications/north-american-checklist/

This is really a note-to-self to help find this info at a later time:

Thanks to comments from Angie Macias (@herebespiders11, West Virginia University) and Xavier Zahnle (@zahnlexj, University of California, Davis). What species of Brachycybe are in the NorCal area and how to tell apart.

Brachycybe producta https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/154895-Brachycybe-producta
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/37805397
"The two species in the area are B. rosea and B. producta, this one is B. producta by color pattern and body width."
"No problem! iNat is pretty good for showing the diversity of the Andrognathidae (this millipede family) in CA. Some genera to flip through are Brachycybe, Gosodesmus, Ischnocybe, and Mitocybe. In California, the Brachycybe species are B. producta (throughout the state), B. rosea (northern CA, primarily in the Sierras), and B. picta (very rare, known only from Marin and Mendocino Counties)."
~AMacias
Other observation https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/18909630

Brachycybe rosea https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/84435-Brachycybe-rosea
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/67942093 (both species in photo)
"You found both Sierra Nevada species! The B. producta in this picture are tawny orange with the bolder dark stripe and have a notch behind the side-plates (paranota) of each segment. B. rosea are reddish- or pinkish-orange and have smooth paranota. I'm ID'ing this record as B. rosea because you have another record of B. producta nearby."
"Glad I can help! The populations of both species tend to mingle a lot in the foothills above Sacramento, but when you see the two right next to each other the differences become super obvious."
~XZahnle

Brachycybe picta https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/154914-Brachycybe-picta
"...B. picta (very rare, known only from Marin and Mendocino Counties)"
~AMacias

To view all of your Comments on iNat

https://www.inaturalist.org/comments?mine=true

Flags

https://www.inaturalist.org/flags

To view Maverick identifications [modify user_id]

https://www.inaturalist.org/identifications?user_id=cnddb_brian&category=maverick

Other URL query strings

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-use-inaturalists-search-urls-wiki/63