Plethodon savannah Highton, 1989

Class: Amphibia > Order: Caudata > Family: Plethodontidae > Subfamily: Plethodontinae > Genus: Plethodon > Species: Plethodon savannah

Plethodon savannah Highton In Highton, Maha, and Maxson, 1989, Illinois Biol. Monogr., 57: 73. Holotype: USNM 257465, by original designation. Type locality: "locality 128 [33° 19′ 48″ N, 82° 03′ 49″ W]. . . , at an elevation of 101 m, Richmond County, Georgia", USA.

Plethodon (Plethodon) savannahVieites, Román, Wake, and Wake, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 59: 632, by implication.

English Names

Eastern Georgia Slimy Salamander (Highton In Highton, Maha, and Maxson, 1989, Illinois Biol. Monogr., 57: 73).

Savannah Slimy Salamander (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 33; Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 9; Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 28; Tilley, Highton, and Wake, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 21; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 14; Tilley, Highton, and Wake, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 30; Highton, Bonett, and Jockusch, 2017, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 43: 32).

Distribution

Known only from Burke, Jefferson, and Richmond counties, Georgia, USA.

Comment

In the Plethodon glutinosus group according to the original publication. Petranka, 1998, Salamand. U.S. Canada: 355, rejected the distinction from Plethodon glutinosus on the basis of overall similarity. Beamer and Lannoo, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 837–838, provided a detailed account that summarized the biology and conservation literature. Wiens, Engstrom, and Chippindale, 2006, Evolution, 60: 2585–2603, suggested the possibility that Plethodon ocmulgee and Plethodon savannah are conspecific; Highton, Hastings, Palmer, Watts, Hass, Culver, and Arnold, 2012, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 63: 278–290, discussed the evidence for this and rejected the hypothesis. Raffaëlli, 2013, Urodeles du Monde, 2nd ed.: 400–401, provided a brief account, photograph, and range map. 

External links:

Please note: these links will take you to external websites not affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History. We are not responsible for their content.