74
A. R. MAIN
pooled and compared with the ahove pooled data of crosses between two
qFcies from Hullsbrook there is no significant difference, indicating
that there has been no enhancement of inviability in the area of contact.
Lindgren (1 963) showed t h a t females of C. insignifera and C. peudimignifem choose the call of the conspecific male when given a choice
in a discrimination chamber (p < 0.05).
On 17 August 1961, in the mixed breeding chorus at Bullsbrook, a
single male with a “discordant” call was recorded. This call waa aurally
distinct from both C. insignifera and C. pseudinsignifera. It was tentatively assumed to be of a hybrid and the calling animal was collected
and used in an in vitro cross but proved to be sterile. On 8 and 11 June
1962, further discordant calls were heard. On the second occasion five
males with “discordant” calls were actively being rebuffed from a
breeding site by typical male C. insignifera which “fought” with them
until the hybrids left the area. Three of these hybrids were used in
in dtro crosses but again proved sterile. The testes were minute and no
cleavage of eggs followed fertilisation.
Taking into account the later breeding of C. pseudimignifera at lower
temperatme, the habitat separation when vegetstion is present, the
significantly reduced inviability in experimental crosses compared with
controls, and the presence of Hterile presumed hybrid males with “discordant” calls, it seems clear that C, pseuclinsignifera is a valid biological spxies which should be recognised systematically.
The reaults obtained when C. pseudinsignifera is crossed to C. glauerti
are similsr to those obtained when C. insignifera and C . glauerti are
crossed, i.e. when female C. pseudinsignifera is used the number of
larvae hatching are reduced compared with controls. When female
C. glauerti are used embryos fail to include yolk and die (Main 1957b).
Similarly when female C. signifera is crossed to C. peudinsignifera
embryoc suffer gross developmental defects and only one larva has been
obtained from 79 fertilised eggs (Main, 1957, Table 7).
(iii) Crinia parinsignifera. Main (1967) waa not able to give an
extensive distribution for this species. Littlejohn (1969) indicated that
the range lay on the inland slopea of the Dividing Range in southern
New South Wales and Victoria. Moore (1961) was unable to extend the
known geographical range of this species. More recently Straughan and
Main (1966) have shown that the species extends aa far as southern
Queensland and is the common Crinia around Brisbane. The same
workers (op. cit.) have shown that where C. parinsignifera o c c m
sympatrically with C. signifera in the vicinity of Brisbane both calls
and morphology are distinct.
In vitro crosses between C. parinsignifera and C . signifera from
Horaham, Victoria, showed a marked inviability in the experimental
A. R. MAIN
pooled and compared with the ahove pooled data of crosses between two
qFcies from Hullsbrook there is no significant difference, indicating
that there has been no enhancement of inviability in the area of contact.
Lindgren (1 963) showed t h a t females of C. insignifera and C. peudimignifem choose the call of the conspecific male when given a choice
in a discrimination chamber (p < 0.05).
On 17 August 1961, in the mixed breeding chorus at Bullsbrook, a
single male with a “discordant” call was recorded. This call waa aurally
distinct from both C. insignifera and C. pseudinsignifera. It was tentatively assumed to be of a hybrid and the calling animal was collected
and used in an in vitro cross but proved to be sterile. On 8 and 11 June
1962, further discordant calls were heard. On the second occasion five
males with “discordant” calls were actively being rebuffed from a
breeding site by typical male C. insignifera which “fought” with them
until the hybrids left the area. Three of these hybrids were used in
in dtro crosses but again proved sterile. The testes were minute and no
cleavage of eggs followed fertilisation.
Taking into account the later breeding of C. pseudimignifera at lower
temperatme, the habitat separation when vegetstion is present, the
significantly reduced inviability in experimental crosses compared with
controls, and the presence of Hterile presumed hybrid males with “discordant” calls, it seems clear that C, pseuclinsignifera is a valid biological spxies which should be recognised systematically.
The reaults obtained when C. pseudinsignifera is crossed to C. glauerti
are similsr to those obtained when C. insignifera and C . glauerti are
crossed, i.e. when female C. pseudinsignifera is used the number of
larvae hatching are reduced compared with controls. When female
C. glauerti are used embryos fail to include yolk and die (Main 1957b).
Similarly when female C. signifera is crossed to C. peudinsignifera
embryoc suffer gross developmental defects and only one larva has been
obtained from 79 fertilised eggs (Main, 1957, Table 7).
(iii) Crinia parinsignifera. Main (1967) waa not able to give an
extensive distribution for this species. Littlejohn (1969) indicated that
the range lay on the inland slopea of the Dividing Range in southern
New South Wales and Victoria. Moore (1961) was unable to extend the
known geographical range of this species. More recently Straughan and
Main (1966) have shown that the species extends aa far as southern
Queensland and is the common Crinia around Brisbane. The same
workers (op. cit.) have shown that where C. parinsignifera o c c m
sympatrically with C. signifera in the vicinity of Brisbane both calls
and morphology are distinct.
In vitro crosses between C. parinsignifera and C . signifera from
Horaham, Victoria, showed a marked inviability in the experimental