Rhinella marina - (Linnaeus, 1758)
Giant Toad
Other English Common Names: Cane Toad, Giant Marine Toad, Marine Toad
Other Common Names: Sapo Cururu
Synonym(s): Bombinator horridus ;Bufo agua ;Bufo brasiliensis ;Bufo horridus ;Bufo humeralis ;Bufo marinus (Linnaeus, 1758) ;Rana gigas ;Rana marina
Taxonomic Status: Accepted
Related ITIS Name(s): Rhinella marina (Linnaeus, 1758) (TSN 773729)
Spanish Common Names: Sapo Común, Sapo Grande
Unique Identifier: ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103751
Element Code: AAABB01100
Informal Taxonomy: Animals, Vertebrates - Amphibians - Frogs and Toads
Image 10661

© Dick Cannings

Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus
Animalia Craniata Amphibia Anura Bufonidae Rhinella
Genus Size: D - Medium to large genus (21+ species)
Check this box to expand all report sections:
Concept Reference
Concept Reference: Frost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732 pp.
Concept Reference Code: B85FRO01HQUS
Name Used in Concept Reference: Bufo marinus
Conservation Status

NatureServe Status

Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 29Mar2002
Global Status Last Changed: 10Oct2001
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Nation: United States
National Status: N2 (05Nov1996)

U.S. & Canada State/Province Status
Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
United States Florida (SNA), Hawaii (SNA), Texas (S2)

Other Statuses

IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

NatureServe Global Conservation Status Factors

Range Extent: >2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Range Extent Comments: Southern Texas to South America. Introduced in southern Florida, Puerto Rico (introduced in 1920s), St. Croix, St. Thomas, Hawaii (introduced from Puerto Rico in 1932, now common on all main islands), Jamaica (including Cabarita Island) (introduced from Barbados in 1844, common throughout island in lowlands), Lesser Antilles, Bermuda, Guam (McCoid 1993), Saipan (Wiles and Guerrero 1996), and many other tropical and subtropical localities (Schwartz and Henderson 1988). Elevational range: sea level to about 2900 ft (880 m) (Schwartz and Henderson 1991).

Number of Occurrences:  
Number of Occurrences Comments: Represented by many and/or large occurrences throughout most of the range.

Population Size: >1,000,000 individuals
Population Size Comments: Total adult population size likely exceeds 1,000,000.

Number of Occurrences with Good Viability/Integrity: Very many (>125)

Overall Threat Impact Comments: No significant threats.

Long-term Trend:  
Long-term Trend Comments: Has increased through introductions outside the native range. Trend in native range likely is relatively stable, though data are lacking.

Intrinsic Vulnerability: Moderately vulnerable

Environmental Specificity: Moderate to broad.

Other NatureServe Conservation Status Information

Global Range: (>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)) Southern Texas to South America. Introduced in southern Florida, Puerto Rico (introduced in 1920s), St. Croix, St. Thomas, Hawaii (introduced from Puerto Rico in 1932, now common on all main islands), Jamaica (including Cabarita Island) (introduced from Barbados in 1844, common throughout island in lowlands), Lesser Antilles, Bermuda, Guam (McCoid 1993), Saipan (Wiles and Guerrero 1996), and many other tropical and subtropical localities (Schwartz and Henderson 1988). Elevational range: sea level to about 2900 ft (880 m) (Schwartz and Henderson 1991).

U.S. States and Canadian Provinces

Due to latency between updates made in state, provincial or other NatureServe Network databases and when they appear on NatureServe Explorer, for state or provincial information you may wish to contact the data steward in your jurisdiction to obtain the most current data. Please refer to our Distribution Data Sources to find contact information for your jurisdiction.
Color legend for Distribution Map
Endemism: occurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations

U.S. & Canada State/Province Distribution
United States FLexotic, HIexotic, TX

Range Map
Note: Range depicted for New World only. The scale of the maps may cause narrow coastal ranges or ranges on small islands not to appear. Not all vagrant or small disjunct occurrences are depicted. For migratory birds, some individuals occur outside of the passage migrant range depicted. For information on how to obtain shapefiles of species ranges see our Species Mapping pages at www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/data-maps-tools.

Range Map Compilers: IUCN, Conservation International, NatureServe, and collaborators, 2004

Ecology & Life History
Reproduction Comments: Usually breeds after rains; capable of breeding any time of year in most areas. Eggs hatch in a few days. Larvae metamorphose in 1-3 months. Sexually mature generally in 1-2 years, possibly in as few as 6 months in some areas.
Ecology Comments: Very mobile. In Puerto Rico, moved as far as 165 m to water hole and back to activity center in same or next night; activity centers up to 862 sq m; 3-17 days between visits to water hole; water hole and damp surfaces used for rehydration (Carpenter and Gillingham 1987).

Dry-season dessication may be a major mortality factor.

Population density in seminatural habitats may be 50-150 adults and late-term juveniles per ha, with about 66% annual population turnover (Schwartz and Henderson 1991). Chernin (1979, MS thesis, Univ. Guam) reported densities as high as 225/ha in Guam.

Non-Migrant: Y
Locally Migrant: Y
Long Distance Migrant: N
Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Low gradient, Pool
Lacustrine Habitat(s): Shallow water
Terrestrial Habitat(s): Cropland/hedgerow, Savanna, Shrubland/chaparral, Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Hardwood
Special Habitat Factors: Benthic, Fallen log/debris
Habitat Comments: Humid areas with adequate cover, including cane fields, savanna, open forest, well-watered yards and gardens. Can be found by day beneath fallen trees, loose boards, matted coconut leaves, and similar cover (Lynn 1940). Flexible in breeding site (Evans et al. 1996, Copeia 1996:904-912); eggs and larvae develop in slow or still shallow waters of ponds, ditches, temporary pools, reservoirs, canals, and streams. May sometimes breed in slightly brackish water in Hawaii. Larvae are tolerant of high temperatures.
Adult Food Habits: Invertivore
Immature Food Habits: Herbivore
Food Comments: Metamorphosed toads eat mainly various terrestrial invertebrates, especially ants and beetles; sometimes small vertebrates; also may eat inanimate foods such as processed pet food and discarded food scraps (McCoid, 1994, Herpetol. Rev. 25:117-118). Larvae eat suspended matter, organic debris, algae, and plant tissue.
Adult Phenology: Nocturnal
Immature Phenology: Nocturnal
Phenology Comments: Mostly nocturnal, though often observed during daylight. Most active during warm, wet weather. Individuals may not be active every night.
Colonial Breeder: Y
Length: 22 centimeters
Economic Attributes
Economic Comments: Introduced in many areas in effort to reduce populations of agricultural pests (insects, white sugar cane grub in Puerto Rico).
Management Summary
Species Impacts: As an introduced species, B. marinus can negatively impact native species and predator assemblages through competition, predation, and toxicity of its eggs or metamorphosed individuals(Punzo and Lindstrom 2001, Phillips et al. 2003). Phillips et al. (2003) concluded that introduced B. marinus potentially threaten populations of approximately 30 percent of terrestrial Australian snake species.
Population/Occurrence Delineation
Group Name: Bufonid Toads

Use Class: Not applicable
Subtype(s): Breeding Site
Minimum Criteria for an Occurrence: Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence minimally includes collection or reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including larvae or eggs) in or near appropriate habitat where the species is presumed to be established and breeding.
Separation Barriers: Busy major highway such that toads rarely if ever cross successfully; roads with nonpermeable barriers to toad movement; urbanized areas dominated by buildings and pavement.
Separation Distance for Unsuitable Habitat: 1 km
Separation Distance for Suitable Habitat: 5 km
Separation Justification: Opportunistic observations of various toad species in lowland habitats indicate regular movements of up to at least several hundred meters from the closest known breeding site (G. Hammerson, pers. obs.). Sweet (1993) recorded movements of up to 1 km in Bufo californicus. In defining critical habitat for B. californicus, USFWS (2000) included breeding streams and upland areas within a 25-m elevational range of each essential stream reach and no more than 1.5 km away from the stream. In northwestern Utah, Thompson (2004) recorded movements of Bufo boreas of up to 5 km across upland habitat between two springs during the summer-fall season. Another toad moved 1.3 km between May of one year and May of the next year; the following June it was back at the original breeding location (Thompson 2004). Most studies of toad movements have not employed radiotelemetry and were not designed to detect long-range movements or dispersal.

The separation distance for unsuitable habitat reflects the nominal minimum value of 1 km. The separation distance for suitable habitat reflects the good vagility of toads, their ability to utilize ephemeral or newly created breeding sites, and the consequent likely low probability that two occupied locations separated by less than several kilometers of suitable habitat would represent truly independent populations over the long term.

Inferred Minimum Extent of Habitat Use (when actual extent is unknown): .5 km
Date: 27Apr2005
Author: Hammerson, G.
Population/Occurrence Viability
U.S. Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) Not yet assessed
NatureServe Conservation Status Factors Edition Date: 29Mar2002
Element Ecology & Life History Edition Date: 27Jan1995
Element Ecology & Life History Author(s): Hammerson, G.

Zoological data developed by NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs (see Local Programs) and other contributors and cooperators (see Sources).

  • Alcala, A.C. and Brown, W.C. 1985. Philippine Amphibians: An Illustrated Field Guide. Bookmark Press. Makati City, Philippines. 116.

  • Allen, C. R., S. Demarais, and R. S. Lutz. 1994. Red imported fire ant impact on wildlife: an overview. The Texas Journal of Science 46(1):51-59.

  • Barbour, R.W. 1916. Amphibians and reptiles from Tobago. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 29:221-224.

  • Barker, J., Grigg, G. and Tyler, M. 1995. A Field Guide to Australian Frogs. Surrey Beatty and Sons Pty Ltd. New South Wales.

  • Behler, J. L., and F. W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society field guide to North American reptiles and amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 719 pp.

  • Blackburn, L., P. Nanjappa, and M. J. Lannoo. 2001. An Atlas of the Distribution of U.S. Amphibians. Copyright, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA.

  • Boettger, O. 1895. A contribution to the herpetological fauna of the Island of Tobago. Journal of the Trinidad Field Naturalists' Club. 2(6):145-146.

  • Breuil, M. 2002. Histoire naturelle des amphibiens et reptiles terrestres de l'archipel Guadeloupeen. Guadeloupe, Saint-Martin, Saint-Barthelemy. Patrimoines Naturels. 54:1-339.

  • Breuil, M. 2004. Amphibiens et Reptiles des Antilles. PLB Editions. Guadeloupe.

  • Brown, R.M., Diesmos, A.C. and Alcala, A.C. 2001. The state of Philippine herpetology and the challenges for the next decade. Silliman Journal. 42:1:18-87.

  • Burrowes, P.A., Joglar, R.L. and Green, D.E. 2004. Potential causes for amphibian declines in Puerto Rico. Herpetologica. 60(2):141-154.

  • Carpenter, C. C., and J. C. Gillingham. 1987. Water hole fidelity in the marine toad, BUFO MARINUS. J. Herpetol. 21:158-161.

  • Cei, J.M. 1972. Bufo of South America. Evolution in the genus Bufo. Blair, W.F.,editor. University of Texas Press. Austin, Texas, USA.

  • Cisneros-Heredia, D.F. 2003. La herpetofauna de la Estacion de Biodiversidad Tiputini, Provincia de Orellana, Amazonia Ecuador. Mem. 1er Congreso Ecuatatoriano de Ecologia and Ambeinte. Univ. San Francisco de Quito. Quito, Ecuador.

  • Conant, R. 1975. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Second Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. xvii + 429 pp.

  • Conant, R., and J. T. Collins. 1998. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central North America. Third edition, expanded. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 616 pp.

  • Crossland, M.R. 2000. Direct and indirect effects of the introduced toad Bufo marinus (Anura: Bufonidae) on populations of native anuran larvae in Australia. Ecography. 23(3):283-290.


  • De la Riva, I. 2002. Taxonomy and distribution of the South American toads, Bufo poeppigii Tschudi, 1845 (Amphibia, Anura, Bufonidae). Graellsia. 58(1):49-57.

  • Easteal, S. 1986. Bufo marinus. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles. 395:1-4.

  • Freeland, W.J. 1985. The need to control Cane Toads. Search. 16(7-8):211-215.

  • Frost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732 pp.

  • Frost, D. R. 2002. Amphibian Species of the World: an online reference. V2.21 (15 July 2002). Electronic database available at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html.

  • Frost, D. R. 2010. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 5.4 (8 April 2010). Electronic Database accessible at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.php. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.


  • Gaston, K.J. and Williams, P.H. 1996. Spatial patterns in taxonomic diversity. Biodiversity - A biology of numbers, difference. Gaston, K.J.,editor. 202-229. Blackwell Science Ltd. University Press. Cambridge.

  • Hardy, J.D., Jr. 1982. Biogeography of Tobago, West Indies, with special reference to amphibians and reptiles. Bulletin of the Maryland Herpetological Society. 18(2):37-142.

  • Hedges, S.B. 1993. Global amphibian declines: a perspective from the Caribbean. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2:290-303.

  • Hedges, S.B. 1999. Distribution of amphibians in the West Indies. Patterns of Distribution of Amphibians. A Global Perspective. Duellman, W.E.,editor. The Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore, Maryland.

  • Hedges, S.B. 2001. Caribherp: database of West Indian amphibians and reptiles (http://www.caribherp.net). Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA.

  • Heyer, W.R., Coddington, J., Kress, W.J., Acevedo, P., Cole, D., Erwin, T.W., Meggers, B.J., Pogue, M.G., Thorington, R.W., Vari, R.P., Weitzman, M.J. and Weitzman, S.H. 1999. Amazonian biotic data and conservation decisions. Ciência e Cultura. 51:372-385.

  • Hoogmoed, M.S. 1979a. The herpetofauna of the Guianan region. Pages 241-279 in W.E. Duellman, ed. The South America Herpetofauna: Its Origin, Evolution, and Dispersal. Mon. Mus. Nat Hist. Univ. Kansas, 7: 1-485.

  • Ibañez, R., Rand, A.S. and Jaramillo, C.A. 1999. Los anfibios del Monumento Natural Barro Colorado, Parque Nacional Soberanía y areas adyacentes. Mizrachi, E. and Pujol, S.A. Santa Fe de Bogota. 187pp

  • Ibáñez, R., Solís, F., Jaramillo, C. and Rand, S. 2000. An overwiew of the herpetology of Panama. Pages 159-170 in J.D. Johnson, R.G. Webb, and O.A. Flores-Villela (eds.) Mesoamerican Herpetology: Systematics, Zoogeography and Conservation. The University of Texas at El Paso, Texas.

  • Inger, R.F. 1954. The systematics and zoogeography of Philippine Amphibia. Fieldiana. 33:181-531.

  • Inger, R.F. 1999. Distributions of amphibians in southern Asia and adjacent islands. Patterns of Distribution of Amphibians: A Global Perspective. Duellman, W.E.,editor. 445-482. John Hopkins University Press.

  • Kaiser, H. and Henderson, R.W. 1994. The conservation status of Lesser Antillean frogs. Herpetological Natural History. 2(2):41-56.

  • Kenny, S. J. 1969. The Amphibia of Trinidad. Stud. Fauna Curacao Carib. Is., 29 (108): 1-79.

  • Krysko, K. L., J. P. Burgess, M. R. Rochford, C. R. Gillette, D. Cueva, K. M. Enge, L. A. Somma, J. L. Stabile, D. C. Smith, J. A. Wasilewski, and G. N. Kieckhefer III. 2011. Verified non-indigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida from 1863 through 2010: outlining the invasion process and identifying invasion pathways and stages. Zootaxa 3028: 1-64.

  • Köhler, G. 2001. Anfibios y reptiles de Nicaragua Herpeton, Offenbach, Germany.

  • Köhler, G. 2001. Anfibios y reptiles de Nicaragua. Herpeton, Offenbach, Germany.

  • La Marca, E. 1992. Catalogo taxonomico, biogeografico y bibliografico de las ranas de Venezuela. Cuadernos Geograficos, Universidad de Los Andes. 1:1-197. Instituto de Geografia y Conservacion de Recursos, Universidad de Los Andes. Mérida.

  • Lampo, M., and G. A. de Leo. 1998. The invasion ecology of the toad BUFO MARINUS: from South America to Australia. Ecological Applications 8:388-396.

  • Lee, J. C. 2000. A field guide to the amphibians and reptiles of the Maya world: the lowlands of Mexico, northern Guatemala, and Belize. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 402 pp.

  • Lescure, J. 1976. Contribution a l´étude des amphibiens de Guyane francaise. VI. Liste préliminaire des anoures. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris. 3 serie. 377:475-524.

  • Lescure, J. and Marty, C. 2000. Atlas des Amphibiens de Guyane. 45:388p. Patrimoines Naturels. Paris.

  • Lever, C. 2001. The Cane Toad. The History and Ecology of a Success. Westbury Academic and Scientific.

  • Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Ed 10 Tom 1:824pp. Laurentii Salvii. Stockholm.

  • Lynn, W. G. 1940. Amphibians. Pages 1-60 in W. G. Lynn and C. Grant. The herpetology of Jamaica. Bull. Inst. Jamaica, Sci. Ser. No. 1.

  • Maeda, N. and Matsui, M. 1999. Frogs and Toads of Japan. Revised edition. Bun-ichi Sogo Shuppan Co., Ltd. Tokyo.

  • McCoid, M. J. 1993. The "new" herpetofauna of Guam, Mariana Islands. Herpetol. Rev. 24:16-17.

  • McCranie, J.R. and L.D. Wilson. 2002. The amphibians of Honduras. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca, New York.

  • McCranie, J.R. and Wilson, L.D. 2002. The Amphibians of Honduras. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Ithaca, New York, USA.

  • McKeown, S. 1978. Hawaiian reptiles and amphibians. Oriental Pub. Co., Honolulu. 80 pp.

  • Menzies, J.I. 1996. Unnatural distribution of fauna in the east Malesian region. Proceedings of the first International Conference. Kitchener, D.J. and Suyanto, A.,editor. 31-38. W.A. Museum. Perth.

  • Mertens, R. 1969. Herpetologische Beobachtungen auf der Insel Tobago. Salamandra. 5(1-2):63-70.

  • Mertens, R. 1972. Herpetofauna tobagana. Stuttgarter Beitrage zur Naturkunde aus dem Staatlichen Museum fur Naturkunde in Stuttgart. 252:11pp.

  • Mole, R.R. and Urich, F.W. 1894. A preliminary list of the reptiles and batrachians of the island of Tobago. Journal of the Trinidad Field Naturalists' Club. 2(3):77-90.

  • Morales, M. 2003. Evaluación ecológica rápida de herpetofauna en el sector sur de la Cordillera del Condor, provincia de Zamora-Chinchipe, Ecuador. Informes de las Evaluaciones ecologicas rapidas en el sector sur de la Cordillera del Condor, provincia de Zamora-Chinchipe, Ecuador. 31-62. Fundacion Natura, Informe Tecnico. Quito, Ecuador.

  • Morales, M., Ortiz, A., Toral, E. and Regalado, J. 2002. Monitoreo del aprovechamiento forestal con especies indicadoras de herpetofaunaen el Chocó ecuatoriano, Esmeraldas, Ecuador. Componente de monitoreo biológico, Proyecto SUBIR-CARE. Informe Final Fase III. 104-161. EcoCiencia. Quito, Ecuador.

  • Moreira, G.R., Gordo, M., Martins, M., Galatti, U. and Oda, W.Y. 1997. Relatório Final da Área Temática Herpetofauna. Macrozoneamento Sócio-Econômico-Ecológico do Estado de Rondônia. Planafloro report. 1-57. Planafloro. Porto Velho.

  • Murphy, J.C. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of Trinidad and Tobago. Krieger Publishing Company. Malabar, Florida. xiii+245.

  • Oliver, J. A., and C. E. Shaw. 1953. The amphibians and reptiles of the Hawaiian Islands. Zoologica 38:65-95.

  • Parker, H.W. 1933b. A list of the frogs and toads of Trinidad. Tropical Agriculture 10(1):8-12.

  • Pemberton, C. E. 1934. Local investigations on the introduced tropical American toad BUFO MARINUS. Hawaiian Planters' Record 38(1):186-192.

  • Phillips, B. L., G. P. Brown, and R. Shine. 2003. Assessing the potential impact of cane toads on Australian snakes. Conervation Biology 17:1738-1747.

  • Punzo, F., and L. Lindstrom. 2001. The toxicity of eggs of the giant toad, BUFO MARINUS to aquatic predators in a Florida retention pond. Journal of Herpetology 35:693-697.

  • Rivero, J. A. 1978a. Los anphibios y reptiles de Puerto Rico. (The amphibians and reptiles of Puerto Rico.) Universidad de Puerto Rico, Editorial Universitaria. Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. 148 p. + plates.

  • Rodríguez, L.O. and Duellman, W.E. 1994. Guide to the frogs of the Iquitos region, Amazonian Peru. 22:1-80. Asocacion de Ecologia y Conservacion, Amazon Center for Environmental Education and Research and Natural History Museum, The University of Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas.

  • Ron, S.R. 2001. Anfibios de Parque Nacional Yasuní, Amazonía ecuatoriana. [online]. Ver. 1.3:2 Marzo 2. Museo de Zoología, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador [Consulta: Abril, 2001). Quito, Ecuador.

  • Savage, J. M. 2002. The amphibians and reptiles of Costa Rica. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

  • Schwartz, A., and R. W. Henderson. 1988. West Indian amphibians and reptiles: a check-list. Milwaukee Pub. Mus., Contrib. Biological Geology No. 74:1-264.

  • Schwartz, A., and R. W. Henderson. 1991. Amphibians and Reptiles of the West Indies: Descriptions, Distributions, and Natural History. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. xvi + 720 pp.

  • Sengoku, S., Hikida, T., Matsui, M. and Nakaya, K. 1996. The Encyclopedia of Animals in Japan. Volume 5. Amphibians, Reptiles, Chondrichthyes. Heibonsha Limited. Tokyo.

  • Taylor, E.H. 1922a. Additions to the herpetological fauna of the Philippine Islands, I. Philippine Journal of Science 21:161-206.

  • Taylor, E.H. 1922b. Additions to the herpetological fauna of the Philippine Islands, II. Philippine Journal of Science 21:257-303.

  • Taylor, E.H. 1922c. Herpetological fauna of Mt. Makiling. The Philippine Agriculturist 5:127-139.

  • Wiles, G. J., and J. P. Guerrero. 1996. Relative abundance of lizards and marine toads on Saipan, Mariana Islands. Pacific Science 50(3):274-284.

  • Wingate, D. B. 1985. The restoration of Nonsuch Island as a living museum of Bermuda's pre-colonial terrestrial biome. Pages 225-238 in P. J. Moor, editor. Conservation of island birds. ICBP Tech. Publ. No. 3.

  • Young, B., Sedaghatkish, G., Roca, E. and Fuenmayor, Q. 1999. El Estatus de la Conservación de la Herpetofauna de Panamá: Resumen del Primer Taller Internacional sobre la Herpetofauna de Panamá. The Nature Conservancy Arlington, Virginia. 40 pp.

  • Zimmerman, B.L. and Rodrigues, M.T. 1990. Frogs, snakes, and lizards of INPA-WWF Reserves near Manaus, Brasil. Four Neotropical rainforest. Gentry, A.H.,editor. 426-454. Yale University Press. New Haven.

  • Zug, G. R., and P. B. Zug. 1979. The marine toad, Bufo marinus: A natural history resumé of native populations. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. No. 284:1-58.

Use Guidelines & Citation

Use Guidelines and Citation

The Small Print: Trademark, Copyright, Citation Guidelines, Restrictions on Use, and Information Disclaimer.

Note: All species and ecological community data presented in NatureServe Explorer at http://explorer.natureserve.org were updated to be current with NatureServe's central databases as of March 2019.
Note: This report was printed on

Trademark Notice: "NatureServe", NatureServe Explorer, The NatureServe logo, and all other names of NatureServe programs referenced herein are trademarks of NatureServe. Any other product or company names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.

Copyright Notice: Copyright © 2019 NatureServe, 2511 Richmond (Jefferson Davis) Highway, Suite 930, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. Each document delivered from this server or web site may contain other proprietary notices and copyright information relating to that document. The following citation should be used in any published materials which reference the web site.

Citation for data on website including State Distribution, Watershed, and Reptile Range maps:
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed:

Citation for Bird Range Maps of North America:
Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Bird Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Robert Ridgely, James Zook, The Nature Conservancy - Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International - CABS, World Wildlife Fund - US, and Environment Canada - WILDSPACE."

Citation for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Mammal Range Maps of North America:
"Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and Environment Canada-WILDSPACE."

Citation for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe, Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Acknowledgement Statement for Amphibian Range Maps of the Western Hemisphere:
"Data developed as part of the Global Amphibian Assessment and provided by IUCN-World Conservation Union, Conservation International and NatureServe."

NOTE: Full metadata for the Bird Range Maps of North America is available at:

Full metadata for the Mammal Range Maps of North America is available at:

Restrictions on Use: Permission to use, copy and distribute documents delivered from this server is hereby granted under the following conditions:
  1. The above copyright notice must appear in all copies;
  2. Any use of the documents available from this server must be for informational purposes only and in no instance for commercial purposes;
  3. Some data may be downloaded to files and altered in format for analytical purposes, however the data should still be referenced using the citation above;
  4. No graphics available from this server can be used, copied or distributed separate from the accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by NatureServe. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel, or otherwise any license or right under any trademark of NatureServe. No trademark owned by NatureServe may be used in advertising or promotion pertaining to the distribution of documents delivered from this server without specific advance permission from NatureServe. Except as expressly provided above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right under any NatureServe copyright.
Information Warranty Disclaimer: All documents and related graphics provided by this server and any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server are provided "as is" without warranty as to the currentness, completeness, or accuracy of any specific data. NatureServe hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to any documents provided by this server or any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, including but not limited to all implied warranties and conditions of merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement. NatureServe makes no representations about the suitability of the information delivered from this server or any other documents that are referenced to or linked to this server. In no event shall NatureServe be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential damages, or for damages of any kind arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information contained in any documents provided by this server or in any other documents which are referenced by or linked to this server, under any theory of liability used. NatureServe may update or make changes to the documents provided by this server at any time without notice; however, NatureServe makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Since the data in the central databases are continually being updated, it is advisable to refresh data retrieved at least once a year after its receipt. The data provided is for planning, assessment, and informational purposes. Site specific projects or activities should be reviewed for potential environmental impacts with appropriate regulatory agencies. If ground-disturbing activities are proposed on a site, the appropriate state natural heritage program(s) or conservation data center can be contacted for a site-specific review of the project area (see Visit Local Programs).

Feedback Request: NatureServe encourages users to let us know of any errors or significant omissions that you find in the data through (see Contact Us). Your comments will be very valuable in improving the overall quality of our databases for the benefit of all users.