Amphibians of North Carolina
Scientific Name:
Common Name:
 Family (Alpha):
« »
Ranidae Members:
NC Records

Lithobates catesbeianus - American Bullfrog


caption
Taxonomy
Class: Amphibia Order: Anura Family: Ranidae Synonym: Rana catesbeiana
Taxonomic Comments: Frost et al. (2006) placed species in North American that were formerly in the very large genus Rana into a separate genus, Lithobates, to distinguish them from a large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana (sensu stricto). There have been numerous arguments put forth for well over a decade about whether these species should be placed back into Rana or retained as Lithobates, with some supporting placing Lithobates as a subgroup within Rana and others supporting the recognition of both genera. There has been no clear resolution of the issue, and both Lithobates and Rana continue to be widely used in recent published literature on North American species. Here, we follow the recommendations of the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles' Standard English Names Committee and use Lithobates for North American representatives of this group.
Species Comments: Lithobates catesbeianus is the largest frog in North America and has been the subject of hundreds of scientific studies. It is noteworthy for its dietary breadth, which includes everything from small insects to vertebrates, including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. The American Bullfrog has been introduced to numerous areas of the world -- including western North America -- and has adversely affected many native amphibians and other vertebrates. The decline of native amphibians is likely due to a combination of direct predation, larval competition, and the transmission of pathogens. This species is considered as one of the world's top 100 alien invasive species by many experts. It has been implicated as being one of several factors that have contributed to the decline of certain anurans in western North America, as well as to the decline of members of the western pond turtle complex (Nicholson et al. 2020). Here we provide a general overview of the life history based on studies in eastern North America.
Identification
Description: The adults are very large, robust frogs that typically range from 85–200 mm SUL, with the recording being a 204 mm SUL female from Oklahoma that weighed 909 g (Dodd 2013). The dorsal ground color is usually some variation of olive, dark green, or brown and may either largely lack dorsal patterning or be distinctly mottled with darker blotches or reticulations. The head region is usually washed in green, particularly along the sides to the tympanum. A series of dark brown to blackish bars are present on the dorsum of the hind limbs, and the skin on the back has scattered granular tubercles. The ground color of the belly is cream colored to white, and is often overlain with varying amounts of light gray to near blackish reticulations or mottling. This species does not have a dorsolateral fold that extends along the body as seen in some Lithobates. Instead, the fold wraps around the posterior margin of the tympanum and projects towards the insertion of the front leg. The eyes and tympanum are both large, and the rear feet are webbed, with the longest toe of the hind foot lacking webbing near its tip (Jensen et al. 2008). The juveniles are similar, and often have a series of small black spots on the dorsum that are normally lost with age.

The adult males average slightly smaller than the females. Sexually mature males have a relatively large tympanum that is much wider in diameter than the eye (these are about the same size in females). A vocal pouch is present at each corner of the mouth that extends laterally when inflated. During the breeding season the males develop a deep yellow throat and enlarged thumbs that are used to clasp onto females (Dodd 2013).

The tadpoles can reach a very large size, but most metamorphose at around 100 mm TL or so. The older tadpoles are typically drab grayish green to olive above with small, widely spaced black flecks or dots throughout the body and tail. The black flecks or dots are more prominent on the dorsal fin relative to the ventral fin, which is helpful in distinguishing the tadpoles from those of certain other ranids such as L. clamitans (Dodd 2013). The belly varies from off-white to straw colored and the eyes are placed dorsolaterally. Larvae < 25 mm TL have transverse gold bands on the snout and body and are black. Dodd (2013) noted that a second larval phenotype occurs in Florida and along the southern sections of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. This form is much more olive to dark green dorsally and has bright yellow pigmentation ventrally.
Vocalizations: The juveniles and adults produce a variety of vocalizations, the most familiar being the advertisement call of the male that consists of deep groans that are commonly repeated in sequences of 3-5 or more. These have been likened to 'br-rum - br-rum - br-rum- br-rum' or 'rum, rum, jug-o-rum' among other descriptions. A warning call is issued when two males in close proximity engage in a territorial dispute. It sounds like a throaty spit or 'puck'. Individuals often emit an alarm call that is a fast squeak that is usually issued just as they are spooked and jump into the water. Juveniles do this frequently, and it may help to disorient potential predators. Distress calls that sound like a prolonged torturous shriek are often issued if an animal is grabbed by a snake or otherwise injured or provoked. Females also produce a territorial call that differs from that of the male. Capranica (1968) provides details about these and other vocalizations that are produced by this species.
Technical Reference: Dodd (2013)
Online Photos:    Google   iNaturalist
Observation Methods: The juveniles and adults are commonly found in or around permanent bodies of water, particularly those with emergent or floating vegetation and vegetated shallows. They are commonly seen on roads during rainy weather, and the large tadpoles can be easily spotted by walking the edges of ponds and lakes.
AmphibiaWeb Account
Distribution in North Carolina
Distribution Comments: The American Bullfrog is native to eastern North America, but has been introduced throughout many areas of North America. It was introduced in the western US in the early 1900's and is now widespread throughout the West where water bodies are present to complete the larval stage (Urbina et al. 2020). It has also become an invasive species in more than 40 countries worldwide.

The natural distribution is not fully known since range expansions and introductions have occurred in eastern North America as well, particularly in the Midwest (Casper and Hendricks; AmphibiaWeb, Dodd 2013). The natural range likely encompassed much of extreme southern Canada from Nova Scotia westward to Ontario, and much of the eastern US to as far west as the Great Plains region where natural aquatic habitats became limiting. The range extends southward to the Gulf States, southern Texas, and south-central Florida. This species is found statewide in North Carolina, but is mostly restricted to lower-elevation sites in the mountains.
Distribution Reference: Casper and Hendricks (AmphibiaWeb), Dodd (2013)
County Map: Clicking on a county returns the records for the species in that county.
GBIF Global Distribution
Key Habitat Requirements
Habitat: The American Bullfrog is a semiaquatic species that spends much of its time during the warmer months of the year in the immediate vicinity of bodies of water. Individuals frequently feed and rest either in shallow water or on shorelines immediately next to the water. Permanent habitats are preferred as breeding sites since the larval period typically lasts for a year or more, but semipermanent sites that hold water year-round during wet years are sometimes used. Sites with extensive vegetated shallows or floating plants such as water lilies are generally preferred over those with little emergent or shoreline vegetation. Both the juveniles and adults are capable of moving long distances overland to new wetland sites. They may use a wide assortment of habitats along the way, including seasonal wetlands.

Breeding adults use both natural and artificial habitats. Natural habitats that were listed by Dodd (2013) include large lakes, beaver ponds, oxbows, dome swamps, depression marshes, and the quiet waters of rivers and creeks. Many types of artificial habitats are used such as farm ponds, golf course ponds, retention ponds, reservoirs, canals, and ornamental ponds in urbanized settings. During the non-breeding season, bullfrogs can be found along the shorelines of both seasonal and permanent wetlands, along small streams and creeks, and in terrestrial habitats of various sorts when moving between wetlands. Populations in eastern North America appeared to have been associated with forested habitats historically, but now exploit a much greater variety of terrestrial habitats.

In North Carolina the adults breed in all sorts of permanent bodies of water and will also occasional use semipermanent habitats. The breeding sites tend to be large habitats such as farm and golf course ponds, beaver ponds, Carolina bays, coastal swamps, waterfowl impoundments, reservoirs, oxbows, sloughs, and the sluggish sections of rivers and creeks.
Environmental and Physiological Tolerances: This species appears to be moderately tolerant of acidic waters, but is generally restricted to sites with a pH of 4.5 or greater (Dodd 2013).
Biotic Relationships: Local pond populations of the American Bullfrog can lay many tens of thousands of eggs in a single pond, but only a small percentage of individuals will survive to metamorphosis. Significant mortality often occurs during both the egg and larval stages, particularly for hatchlings and young larvae that are readily eaten by gape-limited predators. The thick jelly capsule that surrounds the eggs provide some protection from raccoons and newts (Dodd 2013). Howard (1978a) noted that a leech (Macrobdella decora) is a major egg predator in Michigan populations where as much as 43% of the embryos in a clutch may be consumed.

The larvae are typically found in semipermanent and permanent wetlands that have high densities of aquatic predators. These include odonates, backswimmers, aquatic beetles and other invertebrates, crayfishes, newts, Ambystoma larvae, and numerous species of predatory fishes. The larvae produce skin secretions that provide chemical defenses against fishes and other aquatic predators (Kats et al. 1988, Kruse and Francis 1977, Szuroczki and Richardson 2011), but some predators such as Tiger Salamander larvae readily consume them (Relyea 2001a). The larvae will reduce their activity levels when in the presence of sunfishes and invertebrate predators, but appear to rely mostly on chemical defenses to reduce predation risks. The hatchlings grow rapidly and can eventually reach sizes that make them less vulnerable to gape-limited predators such as sunfishes (Anholt et al. 2000, Relyea and Werner 1999, Smith and Awan 2009).

The tadpoles are commonly found in ponds and lakes with predaceous fishes (Babbitt et al. 2003, Dodd 2013, Hecnar 1997, Hecnar and M’Closkey 1997b, Sexton and Phillips 1986) and appear to benefit from their presence. In detailed studies that examined this phenomenon, Werner and McPeek (1994) surveyed an array of ponds in Michigan and found that bullfrogs were common in permanent ponds with bluegill sunfish, but rarely present in similar permanent or semipermanent ponds that lacked fish and had high densities of aquatic predators such as aquatic insects, newts, and Ambystoma tigrinum larvae. Their experimental studies suggest that fish benefit this species by removing aquatic predators such as odonates (Anax junius) and A. tigrinum larvae that readily feed of the small tadpoles. Smith et al. (1999) manipulated sunfish densities in an experimentally sectioned pond and found similar results, with larvae reaching their highest densities when fish were present. As documented elsewhere, fish functioned to reduce the densities of invertebrate predators and adult newts.

The juveniles and adults lack chemical defenses as seen in the tadpoles (Formanowicz and Brodie 1979) and are eaten by numerous aquatic, semiaquatic, and terrestrial predators. They also occasionally cannibalize. Dodd (2013) summarized the known predators of the juveniles and adults. These include fishes, large frogs, several species of snakes (Nerodia spp., Thamnophis spp., Coluber constrictor, Agkistrodon contortrix), turtles, alligators, birds (particularly raptors and wading birds) and mammals such as raccoons, minks, and otters. Humans also harvest many each year as a food source. Individuals may puff up their bodies and raise their legs to intimidate attackers, but camouflage and fleeing are undoubtedly their primary defenses.
See also Habitat Account for General Waters and Shorelines
Life History and Autecology
Breeding and Courtship: Breeding in eastern North America can occur anytime between early spring through the summer months depending on latitude (Dodd 2013). Males in local populations may call for several weeks before females engage in mating, and in some cases individuals may migrate to the breeding sites from nearby overwintering sites. Calling may begin as early as February or March in Florida and Louisiana, but not get underway until May or June at the northernmost localities. Calling may continue into August or September in the southern portion of the range, but usually terminates by July in the north. Mitchell (1986) reported calling from April-July in Virginia. In North Carolina calling can begin as early as late March and extend into August, but is most intense from mid-April through mid-July. Gaul and Mitchell (2007) heard calling males from May to July in coastal North Carolina.

Mating and egg laying in a local population normally extends for only one or two months, although a small percentage of females may produce a second clutch of eggs about three weeks after laying their first in late spring or summer (Dodd 2013, Emlen 1977). Females exhibit asynchronous breeding, with small numbers arriving periodically throughout the breeding season (Emlen 1976). They often leave the breeding sites after ovipositing so that operational sex ratios are strongly male biased (Dodd 2013).

Both the males and females are territorial and both sexes use territorial calls to communicate to members of their own sex. The males space out around breeding sites and use their advertisement calls to attract mates and advertise their territories to rival males (Dodd 2013, Emlen 1977). Rival males that do not respond to warning calls and enter another male's territory are usually attacked. Wrestling matches often ensue with individuals using their forearms to lock around the body of their rival. Contests are often decided when one throws the other on its back or otherwise physically dominates it. These fights are based on brute strength, and older and larger males are usually the winners (Howard 1988a, Ryan 1980, Wiewandt 1969).

Emlen (1976) found that the males at a Michigan site spent the day in cracks and crevices in the overhanging bank of a pond or in shallow water. They left these retreats with the onset of darkness and took up calling stations in deeper water far from the shore. Territorial males greatly inflated their lungs to allow much of the body to float high in the water, then called repeated. Rivals that entered territories were served warning calls, and then attacked if the intruder did not retreat. Wrestling matches ensued and the loser deflated its lungs and swam low in the water. This appears to be a submissive posture and prevents further attacks. The average distance between neighboring territorial males in this study was about 6 m, while Wiewandt (1969) estimated that males at his site defended from 9-25 m of shoreline. Shirose et al. (1993) provided data which suggests that the large males have higher mortality than the females. This likely reflects the energetic costs of calling and defending territories.

Males may often move between local ponds or shift positions seasonally in a single pond or lake. They establish new territories after moving to new sites (Howard 1978a, Raney 1940, Wiewandt 1969). Howard (1988a) found that larger males usually held high quality territories based on data for egg survival. The larger females preferred the larger males. Larger males benefited by not only having more mating opportunities than smaller males, but also by mating with more fecund females. Territorial males often have one or more small satellite males in their territories. These behave submissively and attempt to intercept females, but are rarely successful. As they age and grow, their likelihood of holding territories greatly increases, as does their mating success (Howard 1988a).

Emlen (1976) noted that the females are secretive prior to ovulating. When ready to breed they enter active choruses and may cruise through the territories of males for several hours. They swim in a low, submissive posture that does not elicit a response from the males. Each female eventually selects a mate of her choosing and moves to him to make contact. The male responds by immediately amplexing the female. Egg laying is usually completed within a few hours after amplexus and normally occurs within the male's territory (Howard 1988a, Ryan 1980). During oviposition, the female extends her legs backward and arches her body to bring her cloaca close to the male's. The male fertilizes the eggs as they are extruded then uses his rear legs to spread them out in a surface film (Dodd 2013).
Reproductive Mode: Each female lays her eggs in a large surface film that is often a half a meter wide or more. It sinks shortly after being laid, and may either remain relatively flat, or may collapse and clump up as it becomes snagged on vegetation and branches (Dodd 2013). The freshly laid ova are 1.2–1.7 mm in diameter, and the single gelatinous envelope varies from 6.0–10.4 mm in diameter. The eggs normally hatch in 2–5 days (Dodd 2013).

Females can live for several years and the number of eggs that are produced increases marked with age and body size. Dodd (2013) summarized numerous studies that have been published that document clutch sizes. In extreme cases, very large females can produce over 40,000-45,000 eggs in a single year. Howard (1988a) reported that females at his study site in Michigan produce an estimated average of 2,007 eggs when they first breed, then an average of 3,372, 7,228, 10,238, and 11,147 eggs, respectively in years 2-5. Other examples of clutch size estimates include 3,826-23,540 eggs for Québec specimens (Bruneau and Magnin 1980), 12,756–43,073 eggs (mean = 22,944) for Arkansas specimens (Trauth et al. 1990), and 11,585-21,510 eggs for Nova Scotia specimens (Gilhen 1984). One very large female examined by McAuliffe (1978) had 47,480 eggs.
Aquatic Life History: The larvae subsist on algae, plant material, and detritus, along with their associated microflora and protozoan communities (Dodd 2013). They will opportunistically feed on the eggs and hatchlings of other anurans, and may consume small insect larvae and other invertebrates (Bury and Whelan 1984, Ehrlich 1979). They also have been observed scavenging on dead tadpoles and other animal carcasses. Growth rates, developmental rates, and size at metamorphosis are highly variable and depend on the length of the growing season and local site conditions (Dodd 2013). Recent metamorphs commonly range from around 30-50 mm SUL (Dodd 2013, George 1940, Walker 1946).

The tadpoles appear to take one or more years to metamorphose in most populations in eastern North America. Dodd (2013) noted that much of our knowledge about the life history of this species are based on studies in the northern US or Canada, and that more information is needed for southern populations. In many populations the tadpoles overwinter for one or two years before transforming during the warmer summer months. Studies in Canada (Bruneau and Magnin 1980a) and New Hampshire (Oliver and Bailey 1939) indicate that some individuals overwinter a third time before transforming. George (1940) found that tadpoles in Louisiana transform four months after hatching. Willis et al. (1956) estimated the larval period to last about one year in Missouri, with larvae overwintering just once. Populations in Tennessee and Kentucky may have staggered metamorphosis, with a percentage of larvae (5-50%) metamorphosing during their first summer and the remainder overwintering and transforming the following summer (Gentry 1955, Viparina and Just 1975). Krysko et al. (2019) reported the larval period to last 3-12 months in Florida, while Beane et al. (2010) reported a larval period of a year or more for the Carolinas and Virginia.

The larvae are basically solitary and do not form social schools or other organized social aggregates. They often concentrate in large numbers locally in ponds in response to temperature profiles or perhaps threats from predators (Smith and Awan 2009). Thermal preferences tend to change with developmental stages and tadpoles of different sizes and stages of development may spatially segregate in ponds to varying degrees (Dodd 2013). It is uncertain to what extent larvae compete for limited food resources, but they can reach high densities in some ponds. Cecil and Just (1979), for example, estimated densities of 0.9–13 larvae/m2 in Kentucky ponds. Larval survival was estimated to be around 12–18% at their study sites.
Terrestrial Life History: Metamorphosis tends to be asynchronous in this species with juveniles emerging in staggered fashion over the summer months. The juveniles grow rapidly and males in many areas of eastern North America may become sexually mature within a year after metamorphosing. Females often require an additional year of growth to mature (Dodd 2013). The metamorphs may take 3-5 years to mature in Canada where the growing season is short (Bruneau and Magnin 1980, Shirose et al. 1993). Size at sexual maturity is variable, but typically is around 9-11 cm SUL for males and 10-12 cm SUL for females in eastern North America. Dodd (2013) noted a general trend for males to reach sexual maturity faster than females throughout the range, and for individuals in northern populations to reach sexual maturity at smaller sizes than those in southern populations. Studies in the northern US and Canada indicate that individuals have a life span of 5-9 years (Bruneau and Magnin 1980, Howard 1978b, 1988b). We have little comparable data for southern populations.

The young metamorphs, small juveniles, and adults are all capable to dispersing long distances from breeding sites, although juveniles appears to disperse more than the adults. They frequently colonize newly constructed ponds such as farm ponds, golf course ponds, or mitigation wetlands. They also commonly inhabit seasonal wetlands that are presumably unsuitable as breeding sites. The adults are also capable of moving long distances from capture sites and often move to neighboring ponds. Willis et al. (1956) documented interpond movements in Missouri of 160-1060 m, while Ingram and Raney (1940) found that marked animals in New York moved up to 1,600 m (mean = 402 m). The juveniles are commonly found crossing roads on rainy nights that are far from the nearest known breeding sites.

Both the juveniles and adults frequent areas near wetlands where they forage either while in the water or along the margins of shorelines. They function as gape-limited, generalist predators and their dietary breadth is legendary among herpetologists. The young metamorphs mostly subsist on insects and other small invertebrates. The older frogs also eat invertebrates, but frequently incorporate vertebrate prey into the diet. Numerous dietary studies have been conducted on this species that are summarized by Bury and Whelan (1984) and Dodd (2013). Individuals will eat just about any palatable prey that they can, with the diet often reflecting local food resources. Corse and Metter (1980), for example, found that frogs inhabiting fish hatchery ponds in Missouri fed on insects, crayfishes, and fishes. Crayfishes and fishes comprised most of the bulk of the volume of food items. Other vertebrates that were taken in lesser numbers included mammals, snakes, frogs, and tadpoles.

Dodd (2013) has a comprehensive list of prey that are taken. Invertebrate prey include aquatic and terrestrial insects, worms, spiders, scorpions, snails, clams, millipedes, isopods, and crayfishes. Crayfishes can form a significant bulk of the diet in large individuals. Documented vertebrate prey include numerous species of fishes, semiaquatic and aquatic salamanders, numerous species of frogs and tadpoles, snakes, lizards, juvenile turtles, small birds, and small mammals (mice, rats, voles, moles, bats, shrews, muskrats, young minks). There is even one record of an adult eating a small alligator.
General Ecology
Population Ecology: Data on population structure and local population sizes are scant. The juveniles and adults are capable of dispersing long distances from breeding sites, which hampers the ability to identify populations from a genetic standpoint. Austin et al. (2004b) examined microsatellite loci and concluded that breeding aggregations separated by only a few kilometers often do not represent independent populations. In many cases populations separated by up to tens of kilometers are not genetically distinct. This suggests that genetic connectivity is very high in areas where there are numerous breeding sites across a regional landscape.
Community Ecology: Lithobates catesbeianus larvae often share breeding sites with other anurans as well as a variety of predators. Attempts to understand interactions between species have mostly involved studying experimental communities that are established in mesocosms or field enclosures where the density of tadpoles and community members are manipulated. Overwintering bullfrog larvae, for example, can lower the survivorship or growth of other anurans as well as Spotted Salamander larvae in experimental settings. The large tadpoles are capable of preying on hatchings and the small larvae of other anurans, so predation as well as competition and the transmission of diseases could be involved in these outcomes (Boone et al., 2004, Boone et al. 2008).

Bullfrog larvae that were subjected to different densities of Green Frog tadpoles grew slower and had lower survival when the densities of the latter were high. There have been many other studies involving species interactions that are often mediated by the types and densities of predators that are present in experimental communities, as well as food resources, physical cover, and the size and developmental stages of larvae that are used in experiments. Dodd (2013) provides a detailed list of these. Many that involve predator-prey interactions are discussed in the biotic interactions section above.

Large adult L. catesbeianus frequently prey on other frogs, and congenerics that share ponds often shift their habitat use to avoid predation (Dodd 2013). Courtois et al. (1995), for example, surveyed a series of lakes in Canada and found that the Green Frog and Mink Frog were more abundant and more evenly distributed around lake margins at sites where L. catesbeianus was not present. A similar pattern was observed in New Brunswick where Green Frogs and Northern Leopard Frogs shifted to using areas of cooler water, denser vegetation, and areas that are closer to the shoreline when bullfrogs were present (McAlpine and Dilworth 1989). Dodd (2013) noted that L. catesbeianus tends to be relatively uncommon on the southeastern Coastal Plain where it overlaps and sometimes shares habitats with the highly aquatic Pig Frog (L. grylio). The latter appears to possibly exclude L. catesbeianus at many sites, but additional studies are needed to confirm this.
Adverse Environmental Impacts
Habitat Loss: Casper and Hendricks (AmphibiaWeb 2022) note that bullfrogs were common in the United States historically and that many native populations appear to be declining due to factors such as habitat loss and degradation, water pollution, pesticide contamination, wetland drainage, shoreline development, and damage to the wetland fringes of lakes from home building and recreation. However, the creation of artificial habitats such as farm ponds, golf course ponds, and reservoirs has increased bullfrog populations in some areas.
Habitat Fragmentation: The juveniles and adults are closely associated with bodies of water and appear to tolerate landscape disturbance fairly well so long as wetlands remain.
Status in North Carolina
NHP State Rank: S5
Global Rank: G5
Environmental Threats: Urbanization, road kill from vehicular traffic, and the loss of wetlands poise the greatest threat to this species in North Carolina. However, populations have adapted well to human-disturbed landscapes and are common in most areas of the state.
Status Comments: Populations appear to be stable in North Carolina and show no evidence of long-term declines.
Stewardship: Populations are best maintains by having one or more large wetlands with well-vegetated shorelines and vegetated shallows.

Photo Gallery for Lithobates catesbeianus - American Bullfrog

29 photos are shown.

Recorded by: Mark Shields
Onslow Co.		Recorded by: H. Talcott
Moore Co.
Recorded by: Travis McLain
Stokes Co.		Recorded by: Mark Shields
Jones Co.
Recorded by: Mark Shields
Caldwell Co.		Recorded by: K. Bischof
Transylvania Co.
Recorded by: K. Bischof
Transylvania Co.		Recorded by: John Petranka
Alleghany Co.
Recorded by: K. Bischof
Burke Co.		Recorded by: Mark Shields
Onslow Co.
Recorded by: J. Summers
Harnett Co.		Recorded by: C.Bennett
Dare Co.
Recorded by: N. Crider
Beaufort Co.		Recorded by: j.wyche
Gates Co.
Recorded by: J.Williams
Halifax Co.		Recorded by: Owen McConnell
Durham Co.
Recorded by: Jim Petranka
Rutherford Co.
Comment: A male in front and female behind. Note the large tympanum and yellow throat of the male.		Recorded by: J. Mickey
Wilkes Co.
Recorded by: K. Long
Rockingham Co.		Recorded by: K. Bischof
Beaufort Co.
Recorded by: Cooksey, B.
Dare Co.		Recorded by: Jane Wyche/James Boone/Hunter Derby/Julian Sawyer
Gates Co.
Recorded by: Doris Ratchford
Watauga Co.		Recorded by: N. Ward
Dare Co.
Recorded by: Owen McConnell
Durham Co.		Recorded by: D. Lequire
Washington Co.
Recorded by: C. Dykstra
Beaufort Co.		Recorded by: C. Dykstra
Beaufort Co.
Recorded by: Steve Hall
Orange Co.