ECOLOQY, SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION OF AUSTRALIAN FROGS 53
wiEEmurrei and Neobatrachue ador) is lost. (Bentley ed d., 1958; Main and
Bentley, 1964; Main, 1966a). The per cent body weight lost at death for
H . moore? is significantly leas than all other species (p = 0.01) and
Hyla caerdea (Shaw in White) survives significantly longer than H y b
lafopalmta (Gunther) (p = 0.06). Cte’nia georgiana is clearly comparable
to H y h nworei in its inability to withstand desiccation and them two
species stand apart from all other speciea listed on Table IV. However,
it is noteworthy that while H y h w e i has the lowest mean body water
content Crinia georgiannc has the highest. Conversely H y b moorei haa
the fasteat water uptake after dehydration to 75% of initial weight
while Crinia georgiana has the loweat.
Species in many genera, such w the following, burrow - Cyclo7ana,
Heleiqlporue, Neobdtrachue, Notaden, Limlzody.raastes; but species of
Crinia, Peeudophryne, Ohuertia and Hyla which occupy wetter habitats
become cryptozoic in times of drought and rely on humid situations
beneath logs and debris, cracks in soil or burrows of other species for
survival.
Species of Heleiopomrs dig burrows in sandy situations and extend
the burrow down to damp soil. The soil from the burrow remains above
the frog and serve8 aa a loose plug sealing the burrow. During the
summer. drought all species of Heleiol>otrcs may be found feeding at
the surface during the night. Lee (1966, 1967) showed that during the
1968-67 summer the mean weight of H&eyrei caught in the
early evenings (at the beginning of feeding) was significantly greater
than the mean weight at dawn after feeding and before burrowing
(p = 0.006). These observations suggest that all species of Heleiopoma
are likely to dehydrate while out feeding at night.
Packer (1963) showed that the stimulus for burrowing in Heleioporus
eyrei is dehydration and light. He furthermore showed that dehydrated
animak can re-hydrate from damp soil, and consequently field animals
burrowing to the damp sub-soil would’be able to rehydrate each day
tw was inferred from Lee’s (1965) observations.
Species of Neobatrachue dig burrows in clay and, like Heleiqwrw
species, leave the loose soil above them. However, they are unable to
dig deep burrows and the soil in the vicinity of the aestivating frog has
the appsarance of being dry. Neverthelees, when dried in an oven at
106OC scch soil has a moisture content of 7-11% by weight and the
atmosphere surrounding the frog is relatively humid, so accounting for
the observed survival after drought. N W n niehdbi is common among
spinifex (Triodia) covered sand hills where it digs deep (110-170 cm)
burrows into the damp sub-soil (Slater and Main, 1963). Presumably
while the sand remains damp this species is in no greater danger of
desiccation than species of Hdeioporw.
wiEEmurrei and Neobatrachue ador) is lost. (Bentley ed d., 1958; Main and
Bentley, 1964; Main, 1966a). The per cent body weight lost at death for
H . moore? is significantly leas than all other species (p = 0.01) and
Hyla caerdea (Shaw in White) survives significantly longer than H y b
lafopalmta (Gunther) (p = 0.06). Cte’nia georgiana is clearly comparable
to H y h nworei in its inability to withstand desiccation and them two
species stand apart from all other speciea listed on Table IV. However,
it is noteworthy that while H y h w e i has the lowest mean body water
content Crinia georgiannc has the highest. Conversely H y b moorei haa
the fasteat water uptake after dehydration to 75% of initial weight
while Crinia georgiana has the loweat.
Species in many genera, such w the following, burrow - Cyclo7ana,
Heleiqlporue, Neobdtrachue, Notaden, Limlzody.raastes; but species of
Crinia, Peeudophryne, Ohuertia and Hyla which occupy wetter habitats
become cryptozoic in times of drought and rely on humid situations
beneath logs and debris, cracks in soil or burrows of other species for
survival.
Species of Heleiopomrs dig burrows in sandy situations and extend
the burrow down to damp soil. The soil from the burrow remains above
the frog and serve8 aa a loose plug sealing the burrow. During the
summer. drought all species of Heleiol>otrcs may be found feeding at
the surface during the night. Lee (1966, 1967) showed that during the
1968-67 summer the mean weight of H&eyrei caught in the
early evenings (at the beginning of feeding) was significantly greater
than the mean weight at dawn after feeding and before burrowing
(p = 0.006). These observations suggest that all species of Heleiopoma
are likely to dehydrate while out feeding at night.
Packer (1963) showed that the stimulus for burrowing in Heleioporus
eyrei is dehydration and light. He furthermore showed that dehydrated
animak can re-hydrate from damp soil, and consequently field animals
burrowing to the damp sub-soil would’be able to rehydrate each day
tw was inferred from Lee’s (1965) observations.
Species of Neobatrachue dig burrows in clay and, like Heleiqwrw
species, leave the loose soil above them. However, they are unable to
dig deep burrows and the soil in the vicinity of the aestivating frog has
the appsarance of being dry. Neverthelees, when dried in an oven at
106OC scch soil has a moisture content of 7-11% by weight and the
atmosphere surrounding the frog is relatively humid, so accounting for
the observed survival after drought. N W n niehdbi is common among
spinifex (Triodia) covered sand hills where it digs deep (110-170 cm)
burrows into the damp sub-soil (Slater and Main, 1963). Presumably
while the sand remains damp this species is in no greater danger of
desiccation than species of Hdeioporw.