ECOLOGY, SYSTEMATICS AND EVOLUTION OF AUSTRALIAN FROGS 76
croms when compared with controls (Main, 1957). Furthermore in
vitro c r o w between C. primignifera malea from Brisbane and
Seymour, Victoria, and C. eignifera females from Brisbane produce
embryos having developmental abnormalities charwterised by failure
to inolude yolk (Straughan and Main, 1960). Thus C. pri-ifera
is
wide raqging and reproductively isolated from C. &gnifera at least at
the extremes of its range. Straughan and Main fqp. cit.) also showed
that there was no reproductive isolation between C. primignifera from
Seymour, Victoria, and Brisbane, Queeneland - a distance of 800 air
miles. All these data indicate that C. primiqnifera is a valid biological
species with a very extensive geographical range.
Crinia parinsignifera is morphologically distinguishable from C.
glawrti. In six cromes between these species most embryos died at
blastulae or failed to include the yolk and then died (Main, 1957).
In call and morphology C. pariwignifera is clearly closely related to
C. insignifera and C , petdinsignifera. It is therefore surpri~ing that in
two crosses of two C. parimignifera malea to t~ single C. insisnifera
female, 36 eggs produced only 3 larvae; the remainder died as blastulae
or failed to include the yolk and then died. When two C. purimigngera
mala were crossed with two C. paeudinsisignifera females, similar results
were obtained; 28 eggs produced 10 larvae (6 with small heads, bent
tails and ruptured gut and 6 apparently normal) and most embryos
failed aa blaatulae or aa gaatrulae (Main, 1957). These results indicate
that there are great genetic differences between these very similar
appearing species and that these differences are of the sort which
should be recognised nomenclatorially as species.
(iv) Crinia subinsignifem. This species occurs sympatrically with
C. petdinsignifera in the south-western part of that species’ range.
The oall of C. szlbiwignifera is long and not unlike a wet finger being
drawn over a balloon. The call of C. paeudinsignifera is not aa long and
in addition has a four-pulsed modulation superimposed so that it
sounda &B a “bleat” (Littlejohn, 1969, Fig. 3). Nowhere has any
suggestion been found of hybridisation between theae two sympatric
species. Under these circumatances the apparent high viability of
C . peudineignifera when crossed with C . subinsignifera (Littlejohn,
1957: 20) haa little relation to the field situetion where the two are
behaving rn valid biological species.
Littlejohn (op. cit.) crossed C. aubinsignifera with C. insignifera to
which ifs mating ca, U bears a great resemblance. When Littlejohn’s data
are,pooled the experimental crosses are significantly lees viable than the
control cromes (p < 0.001).
(v) C h i a ahnei. Littlejohn (1968) showed that in eastern Australia
another species of Crinia occurred which, in morphology and in m l e
croms when compared with controls (Main, 1957). Furthermore in
vitro c r o w between C. primignifera malea from Brisbane and
Seymour, Victoria, and C. eignifera females from Brisbane produce
embryos having developmental abnormalities charwterised by failure
to inolude yolk (Straughan and Main, 1960). Thus C. pri-ifera
is
wide raqging and reproductively isolated from C. &gnifera at least at
the extremes of its range. Straughan and Main fqp. cit.) also showed
that there was no reproductive isolation between C. primignifera from
Seymour, Victoria, and Brisbane, Queeneland - a distance of 800 air
miles. All these data indicate that C. primiqnifera is a valid biological
species with a very extensive geographical range.
Crinia parinsignifera is morphologically distinguishable from C.
glawrti. In six cromes between these species most embryos died at
blastulae or failed to include the yolk and then died (Main, 1957).
In call and morphology C. pariwignifera is clearly closely related to
C. insignifera and C , petdinsignifera. It is therefore surpri~ing that in
two crosses of two C. parimignifera malea to t~ single C. insisnifera
female, 36 eggs produced only 3 larvae; the remainder died as blastulae
or failed to include the yolk and then died. When two C. purimigngera
mala were crossed with two C. paeudinsisignifera females, similar results
were obtained; 28 eggs produced 10 larvae (6 with small heads, bent
tails and ruptured gut and 6 apparently normal) and most embryos
failed aa blaatulae or aa gaatrulae (Main, 1957). These results indicate
that there are great genetic differences between these very similar
appearing species and that these differences are of the sort which
should be recognised nomenclatorially as species.
(iv) Crinia subinsignifem. This species occurs sympatrically with
C. petdinsignifera in the south-western part of that species’ range.
The oall of C. szlbiwignifera is long and not unlike a wet finger being
drawn over a balloon. The call of C. paeudinsignifera is not aa long and
in addition has a four-pulsed modulation superimposed so that it
sounda &B a “bleat” (Littlejohn, 1969, Fig. 3). Nowhere has any
suggestion been found of hybridisation between theae two sympatric
species. Under these circumatances the apparent high viability of
C . peudineignifera when crossed with C . subinsignifera (Littlejohn,
1957: 20) haa little relation to the field situetion where the two are
behaving rn valid biological species.
Littlejohn (op. cit.) crossed C. aubinsignifera with C. insignifera to
which ifs mating ca, U bears a great resemblance. When Littlejohn’s data
are,pooled the experimental crosses are significantly lees viable than the
control cromes (p < 0.001).
(v) C h i a ahnei. Littlejohn (1968) showed that in eastern Australia
another species of Crinia occurred which, in morphology and in m l e