Amphibians of North Carolina

Scientific Name:	Common Name:		Family (Alpha):

NC Records
Ranidae Members:
Lithobates sphenocephalus - Southern Leopard Frog

caption

Taxonomy

Class: Amphibia

Order: Anura

Family: Ranidae

Synonym: Rana sphenocephala


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. Barrow et al. (2018) analyzed mtDNA variation in populations in the Southeast and found evidence of two deeply divergent eastern and western mtDNA clades that meet in central Alabama. In contrast, analyses of nuclear genes resulted in poorly resolved gene trees.
Species Comments:

Identification

Description: The adults are medium-sized frogs with a dorsal ground color that can be various shades of dark olive-green, brown, bronze, gray or light green. Some specimens may be bicolored, with green between the dorsolateral folds and brown along the sides of the body (Dodd 2013). A conspicuous yellowish-white dorsolateral fold in present that extends from behind each eye to near the attachment of the rear legs, and a white to dull yellowish spot is present in the center of the tympanum. The skin on the dorsum is mostly smooth except for scattered small tubercles and a series of short, irregular raised ridges between the dorsolateral folds. The snout is rather pointed relative to many of our native ranids, and there is a light line on each side of the upper jaw that projects rearward towards the insertion of the front leg. Dark mottling is usually evident below the light line and on the opposing top of the lower jaw. There is a series of large brown or blackish spots on the back, along the sides, and on the legs. These can be rounded, oval, or more elongated, and are sometimes arranged in two or three irregular rows between the dorsolateral folds. The spots along the sides tend to become progressively smaller towards the belly. The hind legs are long with webbed toes, and the belly, chest and undersides of the legs are white. The hidden portion of the back of the hind leg is variable, but in most specimens it is predominantly light with large, connected blotches of dark pigment. The males develop enlarged thumbs during the breeding season, along with a pair of lateral vocal pouches near the corners of the mouth. Males in local populations average slightly smaller than females. Most adults range from 50–90 mm SUL, but they can reach 127 mm SUL. Mitchell (1986) reported the maximum SUL as 70 mm for males and 80 mm for females in Virginia. The ranges of L. sphenocephalus and L. kauffeldi overlap in the northern Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Details concerning how to distinguish between these species are in the account of L. kauffeldi. The fully grown tadpoles are large and can reach 70 mm TL or more (record = 83 mm; Dodd 2013). The body coloration varies from dark brown to dull green above and is covered with small gold spots. A faint vertical white line is usually present down the middle of the snout between the nostrils. The belly is usually cream colored with a bronze iridescence and the viscera tend to be visible through the skin (Dodd 2013). The tail fins can vary from largely unmarked to being heavily marked with dark speckles or spots. Specimens are occasionally found that resemble the Pickerel Frog. The Southern Leopard Frog can be distinguished by the light spot in the center of the tympanum, more rounded dorsal spots, a more pointed snout, and the dark markings on the concealed portions of the hind legs. Lithobates kauffeldi can be difficult to distinguish from L. sphenocephalus and is most reliably separated using the advertisement calls (see the detailed discussion in the L. kauffeldi account). These species only occur sympatrically in the northeastern corner of the state so that most specimens can be reliably assigned to species based on the collection site.
Vocalizations: The advertisement call is distinctive, but rather complex and difficult to describe. It generally consists of one or more rapid sequences of 2-6 guttural notes or clucks ('ah-ah-ah-ah' or 'aka-aka-aka-aka') that is often referred to as a chuckle call sequence. These may be preceded or followed with a series of longer guttural groans that some have likened to running a thumb over an inflated balloon. Numerous variations on this general pattern occur. Individuals also may issue a release call (short trill) if a male is amplexed by another male, and a distress call when ceased by a predator such as a snake that sounds like a guttural scream. This may function to draw other predators to the attacker.
Technical Reference: Dodd (2013)
Online Photos: Google iNaturalist
Observation Methods: Individuals can be found calling at the breeding sites and moving across roads on rainy nights. Searching areas in or near the shorelines of ponds or other wetlands can be productive.

Download Video: "MP4"

Download Video: "MP4"
AmphibiaWeb Account

Distribution in North Carolina

Distribution Comments: The Southern Leopard Frog has a large range that extends from much of New Jersey and the Delmarva Peninsula southward through the Atlantic Coastal Plain and Piedmont of the southeastern United States to southern Florida. From there the range extends westward through all of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas to eastern Texas and eastern Oklahoma. The range extend northward from the Gulf States to encompass Tennessee, most of Kentucky, extreme southern Ohio, southwestern Indiana, southern Illinois, most of Missouri, and southeastern Kansas. Schlesinger et al. (2018) noted that previous records from southern New York and northern New Jersey are not valid, while Beane et al. (2010) noted that this species extends into the mountains of South Carolina. In North Carolina, populations occur throughout the Coastal Plain and eastern and central Piedmont. They are absence from the mountains and most of the western Piedmont.
Distribution Reference: Beane et al. (2010), Dodd (2013), Schlesinger et al. (2018)
County Map: Clicking on a county returns the records for the species in that county.


GBIF Global Distribution

Key Habitat Requirements

Habitat: The juveniles and adults are typically found in mesic settings, and often in landscapes that have clusters of wetlands of various hydroperiods that are embedded within forests (Dodd 2013). They can use both upland and bottomland habitats, and both deciduous and pine forests, as long as there are moist and humid microhabitats available. Individuals are often found in close proximity to the breeding sites or other bodies of water, but may forage in the surrounding habitats. Breeding occurs in both seasonal and permanent bodies of water. Dodd (2013) listed a variety of known multipurpose habitats that are used for breeding, terrestrial habitats, and overwintering sites. These include riparian floodplains along rivers and streams, wooded ravines, cypress savannas, cypress-gum ponds, dome swamps, Carolina bays, Atlantic White Cedar swamps, mangrove forests, sloughs, wet meadows, marshes, lake margins, beaver ponds, and artificial habitats such as canals and ditches. Individuals have also been found in freshwater tidal wetlands and sawgrass marshes.

Isolated seasonal, fish-free ponds that hold water long enough for the hatchlings to metamorphose appear to offer ideal habitats for breeding. The adults occasionally breed in ponds with fish, but generally tend to avoid ponds with dangerous predators such as centrarchid fishes (Dodd 2013, Holbrook and Dorn 2015). It is uncertain to what extent this reflects active avoidance of ponds with fish by the adults versus poor juvenile recruitment coupled with site philopatry.

Both the juveniles and adults can move relatively long distances and often cross habitats that may be otherwise unsuitable. Krysko et al. (2019) noted that this species was trapped in drift fence arrays in 88% of 145 habitats that were surveyed in Florida. Drayer et al. (2020) found that mean occupancy and larval abundance were similar for breeding ponds in unmanaged closed canopy forests, unmanaged open canopy forests, and managed open canopy forests in western Kentucky - a fact that reflects the tendency of this species to be a generalist and use a wide variety of aquatic sites.

In North Carolina, individuals have been observed in and about hardwood bottomlands, cypress swamps, pocosins, Carolina Bays, waterfowl impoundments, the margins of lakes and streams, woodland pools, ephemeral ponds in pine flatwoods, interdune ponds, the margins of creeks and rivers, sinkhole ponds, freshwater marshes, as well as artificial habitats such as canals, ditches, borrow pits, flooded fields, and pasture ponds.

Environmental and Physiological Tolerances: The eggs and larvae appear to be moderately salt tolerant. The larvae have been found in coastal, salt-invaded wetlands in North Carolina at concentrations as high a 11 ppt (Albecker and McCoy 2017). Adults have been found in a variety of other salt-invaded wetlands such as coastal marshes, creeks, and ponds with saline contents of 0.05 to 21.4 ppt (Dodd 2013), although salinities as high as 21.4 ppt would undoubtedly be lethal to the eggs and larvae (Hopkins and Brodie 2015). Christman (1974) found that adults from coastal populations are more salt-tolerant than those from more inland localities.

The eggs and larvae are tolerant of acidic water (Dodd 2013). The lethal pH for the eggs is 3.7, with a critical pH of around 4.1 (Gosner and Black 1957a). Pehek (1995) reported that rearing larvae at pH 3.9 has no effect on survival or larval growth parameters.

Biotic Relationships: The eggs and larvae are commonly found in seasonal ponds with moderate to long hydroperiods and are vulnerable to predation from both invertebrate and vertebrates. Richter (2000) found that the eggs and developing embryos at a site in southern Mississippi were heavily preyed upon by phryganid caddisflies. Johnson et al. (2003) discovered that late-term embryos will hatch earlier when in the presence of crayfish (Procambarus nigrocinctus) and dytiscid beetle larvae that feed on the developing embryos. Responses were strongest to the crayfish, which was a far more effective predator on the embryos. The Eastern Newt is also a well documented predator on the eggs of this and other amphibian species, and American Bullfrog tadpoles can kill and eat the hatchlings (Boone et al. 2004).

Adams et al. (2011) found that the young tadpoles are mildly noxious to fish and odonates. In general, however, the tadpoles appear to lack strong chemical defenses against fishes, newts and aquatic invertebrates and are readily consumed by all of these (Dodd 2013). Crayfishes (e.g., Chandler et al. 2016) and odonates are important invertebrate predators, but fishing spiders, giant water-bugs and numerous other invertebrates take their toll. Saenz et al. (2020) found that the larvae have moderately high activity levels when feeding which allows them to grow quickly and escape sites with short hydroperiods. However, this feature also makes them vulnerable to odonate attacks. They compensate by being relatively good at escaping lethal attacks from odonates compared to other anurans - a feature that allows them to survive at sites with long hydroperiods and high predator densities.

The larvae have behavioral defenses against fish and invertebrate predators that involve reducing movements, moving away from predators, or hiding in cover (Babbitt 2001, Fraker and Luttbeg 2012, Gregoire and Gunzburger 2008), but these typically come at the costs of reduced growth rates. Individuals can also track predators in their environment by using chemical cues. Lefcort (1996), for example, found that tadpoles reduce movements relative to controls when they were exposed to chemical cues from sunfish and sirens, along with extracts from killed tadpoles.

Both the larvae and terrestrial stages are eaten by numerous vertebrate predators (Dodd 2013). Some of the documented vertebrate predators include newts (both Notophthalmus perstriatus and N. viridescens), Ambystoma larvae (Stemp et al. 2021), fishes (particularly centrarchids), aquatic and semiaquatic snakes (Agkistrodon; Nerodia; Regina; Thamnophis), snapping turtles (Chelydra), wading birds, grackles, raccoons, and foxes. Fogarty and Hetrick (1973) recovered 25 adults from the guts of Cattle Egrets in Florida.

The juveniles and adults appear to rely rather heavily on crypsis and their jumping ability to minimize predation risk (e.g., Bateman and Fleming 2014). The dorsal coloration and patterning blends in well with vegetation. Individuals largely remain immobile except when actively feeding or dispersing, and are capable of long leaps into adjoining vegetation or water where they seek cover. Dodd (2013) noted that the white belly is a form of countershading and makes the frogs difficult to see from below when floating in water. Frogs will also scream when grasped by a predator such as a snake. This may function to attract other predators to the snake.

See also Habitat Account for General Waters and Shorelines

Life History and Autecology

Breeding and Courtship: As might be expected for this wide-ranging species, the seasonal patterns of calling and breeding vary geographically. Peak breeding for southern populations in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and elsewhere in the Deep South typically occurs during the cooler months of late fall through late winter or early spring. However, sporadic breeding can occur at other times of the year, particularly following heavy rain events (Caldwell 1986, Dodd 2013, Krysko et al. 2019, McCallum et al. 2004, Mount 1975, Dundee and Rossman 1989). In Georgia, breeding mostly occurs from December-February in the southern part of the state, and from March-June in northern Georgia (Jensen et al. 2008). Breeding at a site in Mississippi that was intensely studied by Doody and Young (1995) was episodic, with widely-spaced breeding bouts occurring from November through March after heavy rains. The beginning of fall and early winter breeding for some local populations may be constrained by when seasonal ponds first fill with the onset of cooler weather and decreased evapotranspiration rates.

In the northern portion of the range breeding appears to peak during the spring warm-up. Individuals in populations that were monitored by Hocking et al. (2008) in Missouri mostly bred from March - May, while individuals in Virginia that were monitored by Mitchell (1986) called from late February through mid-April, then again during September. Individuals in North Carolina may call and breed from late summer or fall through the spring depending on the location and weather events. A peak in seasonal breeding normally occurs during February and March (Gaul and Mitchell 2007, Todd et al. 2003).

The adults migrate to the breeding sites at night during bouts of rainy weather (Pechmann and Semlitsch 1986, Todd and Winne 2006). The males typically call from the water, and often while floating half-submerged in shallow vegetation (Dodd 2013). Calling can occur throughout the day and night, and tends to be more intense the first few hours after dark. Calling and breeding often intensifies during or following bouts of warm rains.

Most aspects of the mating system is poorly documented. Calling males are easily spooked if approached and observations of male-male and male-female interactions are poorly documented. It is uncertain if females select individual males based on their call characteristics, or if males engage in scramble competition and attempt to intercept and amplex any female that enters a pond. Amplexus is axillary and egg laying presumably begins within several hours after the females are amplexed.

Reproductive Mode: Females deposit their eggs in large globular masses. Each female normally lays a single egg mass that is either attached to a support structure or simply laid freely on mats of submerged plant debris or other substrates. Dodd (2013) noted a general tendency for the masses to be laid in shallow, sunny microhabitats when water temperatures are relatively cool (e.g., winter), and in deeper waters when conditions are warmer. Females may either scatter their egg masses wide apart in a pond, or lay them communally in groups (Caldwell 1986). Trauth (1989) found a group of 75 masses in close contact to one another in Arkansas, while Caldwell (1986) found clusters of 6-126 masses in South Carolina. Communal deposition such as this tends to prevail during the cooler months of the year. Its exact function is unknown for this species, but Caldwell (1986) surmised that clusters of dark egg masses may function as thermal traps that allow more rapid embryonic development.

Freshly laid eggs that were measured by Trauth (1989) averaged 1.8 mm in diameter (range 1-4-1.8 mm), while Altig and McDiarmid (2015) reported a size range of 1.0–2.2 mm for ovum diameters. Each ova is surrounded by two jelly envelopes, and the outer envelopes vary from 3.4–7.0 mm in diameter (Altig and McDiarmid 2015, Wright 1932). The developmental rates of embryos are temperature-dependent, and the time to hatching varies considerable depending on the seasonal time of egg deposition and weather patterns. Hatching normally occurs in 7–16 days (Dodd 2013, Erdmann et al. 2018), but Wright (1932) reported hatching in 3–5 days during the early summer in Georgia. Ashton and Ashton (1988) reported a 4-5 day incubation period in Florida.

The egg masses commonly contain from around one to three thousand eggs. Mitchell and Pague (2014) reported a mean of 1,766 eggs (range = 898–3,509) for 35 masses from Virginia, while Glorioso et al. (2020) reported a mean of 1,649 eggs (range = 529–2,612) for 28 egg masses from Louisiana. Trauth (1989) gave a mean clutch size of 2,959 eggs (range = 1,700-5,537) in Arkansas based on ovarian egg counts versus a mean of 2,106 eggs (range = 1,289-3,366) for egg mass counts. The latter study suggests that some females may deposit one or more additional masses during the breeding season (Dodd 2013). Both egg mass and ovarian ova counts were positively correlated with female SUL. In another study in Arkansas, McCallum et al. 2004 reported a mean of 1,828 eggs per mass.

Aquatic Life History: In situations where the eggs are laid communally, the hatchlings often congregate in close proximity for several days before dispersing widely throughout the breeding sites. The larval diet is poorly documented but likely includes both plant and animal material, including algae, zooplankton, and possibly small insects and other invertebrates. Hillis (1982) found that the larvae mostly filter-fed on green algae at a site in Texas, while Watters et al. (2018) found that the tadpoles were effective predators on mosquito larvae.

Larvae show density-dependent crowding responses that are typical of many pond-breeding species. In general, crowding reduces larval growth rates, prolongs the larval period, reduces the size at metamorphosis and lowers premetamorphic survival (e.g., Wilbur et al. 1983). The extent to which intraspecific competition for food occurs in natural populations is unknown. In situations where several size classes of larvae are present in a pond due to staggered breeding, small tadpoles tend to segregate from larger tadpoles (Alford and Crump 1982). This may reflect ontogenetic shifts in habitat preferences, as well as the active avoidance of larger tadpoles that tend to be better competitors.

The length of the larval period and growth rates vary markedly depending on the time of egg laying. Larvae that hatch in the autumn in northern locales normally overwinter and transform the following spring or summer, while those that hatch in late winter or early spring in the southern part of the range may transform in as little as 2.5-3.5 months (Dodd 2013, Erdmann et al. 2018, Jensen et al. 2008). Gaul and Mitchell (2007) collected larvae during every month of the year in eastern North Carolina, which is not an uncommon phenomenon in many areas of the range (e.g., Drayer et al. 2020).

Erdmann et al. (2018) conducted a detailed study in Louisiana and estimated a larval period of 99–117 days. Eggs at this site were deposited in late January, and changes in average body length and total length were linear throughout the larval period. Hatchlings that averaged 6.3 mm TL reached a maximum size of 60.5 mm prior to metamorphosis. The reported sizes of recent metamorphs vary from 20–33 mm SUL (Dodd 2013, Jensen et al. 2008).

Survivorship to metamorphosis is poorly documented but appears to typically be in the order of 0-10%. Juvenile recruitment tends to be episodic, with reproductive failures commonplace due to factors such as premature pond drying (e.g., Doody and Young 1995, Semlitsch et al. 1996) or heavy predator loads. Bumper crops are occasionally produced that may consist of tens of thousands of metamorphs leaving a pond (Dodd 2013). Semlitsch et al. (1996), for example, trapped over 56,000 metamorphs from a Carolina bay over a 16-year period, of which over 50,000 emerged during a single year. Todd and Winne (2006) recorded over 210,000 juveniles leaving a large wetland site during a one year period, while Greenberg and Tanner (2005a) trapped 1,338 metamorphs leaving a cluster of eight small ponds in central Florida over a 7-year period.

Terrestrial Life History: Both the young metamorphs and adults often move substantial distances from the breeding sites as they make their way to terrestrial habitats. Movements typically occur during wet weather and individuals seek out moist, humid environments for permanent settlement. Others may remain near aquatic sites, particularly where there is thick shoreline vegetation that provides good cover and opportunities for foraging (Kilby 1945). Dodd (2013) noted that forests with well-developed herbaceous understories and low overhead canopies often provide ideal habitats.

Pitt et al. (2017) tracked the movement of tagged adults in northwestern South Carolina and found that they traveled an average of 392 m (range = 10–908 m) from the initial point of capture. This study was conducted during a drought and individuals moved primarily among ephemeral wetland, marsh, and streamside habitats. Individuals that dispersed from the breeding sites sequestered themselves in tunnels in stream banks that were created by tree roots. Graeter et al. (2008) followed animals over a 24-hour period that were released on experimental forest plots. The frogs moved an average of 86 m (maximum distance = 351 m), which reflects their ability to move substantial distances over a short period of time.

Individuals may be more or less active year-round in many locales except during periods of cold weather when they may find refuges along shorelines or in the mud on pond bottoms (Dodd 2013). Individuals can quickly desiccate under very dry conditions. They often feed during the day and night in wet habitats such as pond shorelines and marshes, but in drier habitats they tend to be more active during rainy weather and at night. During dry spells individuals retreat to permanent wetlands or shelter in cool, moist microhabitats such as stump holes and animal burrows. Parris (1998) found that the young metamorphs reduce desiccation risks by moving into artificial burrows in laboratory tanks. They also were capable of using their backs legs to construct their own shallow burrows.

The juveniles and adults appear to be gape-limited, opportunistic generalists that mostly function as ambush predators. They consume a wide variety of prey and may feed in the water, along shorelines, and in more upland settings. Kilby (1945) noted that the adults often move substantial distances away from wetlands to feed during the rainy summer months in Florida. The juveniles and adults feed heavily on invertebrates, but the adults occasionally cannibalize and take small vertebrates (Dodd 2013). Some of the known prey include Desmognathus salamanders and small frogs, including Acris gryllus, Anaxyrus quercicus, Hyla cinerea, H. squirella, and Pseudacris ocularis (Crawford et al. 2009, Dodd 2013, Duellman and Schwartz 1958, Jensen et al. 2008, Kilby 1945). Some of the invertebrate prey that are consumed (summarized by Dodd 2013) include roaches, beetles, orthopterans, true bugs, ants, flies, mayflies, lepidopteran larvae, grasshoppers, spiders, snails and crayfishes.

General Ecology

Population Ecology: Very limited information is available on population structure and population interconnectivity across the landscape. The adults are known to move long distances from the breeding sites and often quickly colonize created wetlands. This suggests that a single local population may use clusters of local ponds with high connectivity among ponds. McKee et al. (2017) analyzed genetic variation in local pond sites in an 11,800-ha site in Georgia and found little evidence of significant population structure at this spatial scale. Local populations did exhibit genetic isolation by distance, but the pattern was weaker when compared to that of Eurycea quadridigitata that was sampled at the same site.

Community Ecology: Larvae of the Southern Leopard Frog often share breeding ponds with numerous other amphibians, including both potential predators and competitors. Attempts to understand ecological interactions between these species have relied almost entirely on studies in laboratory aquaria or outdoor tanks with experimentally assembled communities. Studies by Morin (1983) using artificial pools demonstrate that interactions between community members are often mediated by predators, particularly the Eastern Newt. In the absence of predators, L. sphenocephalus competed relatively well with other anuran species that shared tanks. Newts played an important role in reducing the densities of competitors, mediating density-dependent competition, and influencing whether L. sphenocephalus tadpoles overwintered in the experimental tanks.

Alford (1989a) found that experimentally altering the seasonal time of when newts were added to experimental pools strongly affected the performance of four anuran species that were present. High densities of L. sphenocephalus can depress the growth rates of other anurans, including Hyla gratiosa, H. chrysoscelis, and Hyla andersonii (Alford 1989a, Morin 1983, Pehek 1995). The relative time at which anurans are added to pools can also influence the outcome of competitive interactions (Alford 1989a, Alford and Wilbur 1985). We have much to learn about competitive and predatory interactions in natural breeding sites, and the extent to which results from studies of artificial communities apply to natural systems.

Adverse Environmental Impacts

Habitat Loss: The Southern Leopard Frog has undoubtedly suffered significant historical losses since European colonization due to the loss of natural wetlands and widespread deforestation of many areas of the Southeast.

Habitat Fragmentation: Southern Leopard Frog appears to tolerate habitat fragmentation fairly well so long as suitable breeding sites are scattered across the landscape and habitats are available for the juveniles and adults (Dodd 2013). This species is generally poorly represented in highly urbanized settings.

Status in North Carolina

NHP State Rank: S5

Global Rank: S5

Environmental Threats: Populations in North Carolina are threatened locally by urbanization, vehicular losses, and the conversion of forested habitats to agricultural fields and other uses.

Status Comments: The southern Leopard Frog tolerates landscape disturbances relatively well and its use of artificial aquatic habitats has allowed it to adapted to human-altered landscapes. Although this species has been adversely impacted by the historical loss of natural wetlands and adjoining forested uplands, populations in North Carolina appear to be stable and show no evidence of recent widespread population declines.

Stewardship: Populations are best maintained by have a cluster of seasonal or semi-permanent breeding sites that are surrounded by forests with mesic microhabitats.

Recording Gallery for Lithobates sphenocephalus - Southern Leopard Frog
	2022-02-18. Hyde Co. Jim Petranka and Becky Elkin - A large chorus was calling from a marshy waterfowl impoundment; 12:20 PM; air temp. = 70F.
	2022-03-07. Orange Co. Steve Hall - Large chorus along the edge of a marshy slough (fish present). Smaller number of Pickerel Frogs, American Toads, and Spring Peepers were also singing. Between 2100 and 2200 following a heavy downpour. ~64 F.
	2022-03-18. Scotland Co. Jim Petranka and Becky Elkin - Air temp. ca. 70 F

Photo Gallery for Lithobates sphenocephalus - Southern Leopard Frog		13 photos are shown.
	Recorded by: Mark Shields Onslow Co.	Recorded by: R. Newman Carteret Co.
	Recorded by: R. Newman Carteret Co.	Recorded by: Steve Hall Durham Co.
	Recorded by: Jim Petranka and Becky Elkin Hyde Co.	Recorded by: Steve Hall and Andy Walker Carteret Co.
	Recorded by: C. Taunton Wake Co.	Recorded by: Mark Shields New Hanover Co.
	Recorded by: Mark Shields Carteret Co.	Recorded by: Owen McConnell Durham Co.
	Recorded by: Mark Shields Onslow Co. Comment: A calling male with inflated lateral pouches.	Recorded by: Owen McConnell Durham Co. Comment: Note the dark patterning on the hidden portions of the hind limbs.
	Recorded by: Steve Hall Orange Co.

Lithobates sphenocephalus - Southern Leopard Frog

Recording Gallery for Lithobates sphenocephalus - Southern Leopard Frog

Photo Gallery for Lithobates sphenocephalus - Southern Leopard Frog

13 photos are shown.