For the 10,921 species in the Class Amphibia (Amphibians), we average 11.19 observations each in our database; for the Eastern American Toad, we have 1,269 observations. Compared to other species in this Class, this species is extremely common.
A two-sample t-test can be used to determine whether the trend in observations of the Eastern American Toad is the same as the trend in observations of Amphibia. Is this species just as common, as a proportion of all observations, as it once was? The answer is no, changes in observation rate of this species significantly differ from changes in observation rate of its Class. (t=16.842, p<0.001)
How do observation rates of the Eastern American Toad differ from those of Amphibia? To answer this, we examined the percentage of observerations for Amphibia that were observations of the Eastern American Toad each year. We then correlated this percentage with observation year. If observations of the Eastern American Toad are becoming more common relative to other species of Amphibia, the correlation should be positive, but if it is becoming less common, the correlation should be negative. In fact, the correlation is negative (r=-.38), with a negative slope (m = -.055), suggesting that the Eastern American Toad may be in decline relative to other species of Amphibia. This correlation is statistically significant. (F = 86.13, p<.05)
The scatter chart to the right shows the percentage of all observations for Amphibia each year that were observations of the Eastern American Toad.
Common in the piedmont and mountain regions of NC, this species is very similar to Fowler's Toad. American Toads are distinguished from Fowler's Toads by a couple of ways: 1. Generally, Americans have only one or two large warts in the big black blotches on the back, whereas
Fowler's have 3 or more. 2. In Americans, the parotoid gland (long ovalbumpbehind the eye) does not touch or just barely touches the ridge behind the eye, sometimes connected by a spur. (In Fowler's
they touch for a significant length.) Even after looking at these characters, they can be an ID challenge!
Banks, R. C., R. W. McDiarmid, A. L. Gardner, and W. C. Starnes 2003. Checklist of Vertebrates of the United States, the U.S. Territories, and Canada.
Banks, R. C., R. W. McDiarmid, and A. L. Gardner 1987. Checklist of Vertebrates of the United States, the U.S. Territories, and Canada. Resource Publication, no. 166. United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C., USA. 79.
Bradford, D. F. (1984). and quot;Temperature modulation in a high-elevation amphibian, Rana muscosa. and quot; Copeia, 1984(4), 966-976.
Flores-Villela, Oscar / McCoy, C. J., ed. 1993. Herpetofauna Mexicana: Lista anotada de las especies de anfibios y reptiles de M and eacute;xico, cambios taxon and oacute;micos recientes, y nuevas especies. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publication, no. 17. Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. iv + 73. ISBN: 0-911239-42-1.
Francis R. Cook (1984). Introduction to Canadian Amphibians and Reptiles. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
James A. Oliver (1955). The Natural History of North American Amphibians and Reptiles. D. Van Nostrand Campany, Ltd., Canada.
Karl P. Schmidt (1953). A Check list of North American Amphibians and Reptiles. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Tom R. Johnson (1987). The Amphibians and Reptiles of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City.
Wright A. H. and A.A. Wright (1949). Handbook of frogs and toads of the United States and Canada. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Brands, S.J. (comp.) 1989-2006. Systema Naturae 2000. The Taxonomicon. Universal Taxonomic Services, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Accessed April 6, 2007.
Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Accessed March 05, 2008. http://www.gbif.org Mediated distribution data from 13 providers.