Basic Search [?]
Guided Search [?]
Necturus lodingi Viosca, 1937
Necturus lödingi Viosca, 1937, Copeia, 1937: 126. Holotype: USNM 61752, by original designation. Type locality: "Enslava Creek, near Mobile, [Mobile County,] Alabama", USA. Given as "Eslava Creek near Mobile" by Bishop, 1943, Handb. Salamanders: 35. Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 17, considered the data associated with the holotype to be "Mertz Station, Eslava Creek,near Mobile, Mobile County, Alabama", USA. Misspelled as "Enslava Creek" by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 14.
Necturus lödingi — Smith, 1938, Zool. Rec., 74: 32; Bart, Bailey, Ashton, and Moler, 1997, J. Herpetol., 31: 192–201.
Necturus punctatus lodingi — Chermock, 1952, Mus. Pap. Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist., 33: 23; Neill, 1954, Publ. Res. Div. Ross Allen’s Rept. Inst., 1: 75-97; Hecht, 1958, Proc. Staten Island Inst. Arts Sci., 21: 14; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 34. Justified emendation of the species name.
Necturus (Parvurus) lodingi — Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept., 1(Amph.): 147.
Loeding's Mudpuppy (Bishop, 1943, Handb. Salamanders: 35).
Mobile Dwarf Waterdog (Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 8).
At least the lower Dog River drainage into the Mobile Bay of southern Alabama, USA; see comment regarding the possible extension east into the panhandle of Florida, southern Alabama, and southwestern Georgia.
Originally named as a species, it was treated by several authors (e.g., Chermock, 1952, Mus. Pap. Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist., 33: 23; Neill, 1954, Publ. Res. Div. Ross Allen’s Rept. Inst., 1: 75–97; Hecht, 1958, Proc. Staten Island Inst. Arts Sci., 21: 14) as conspecific with Necturus punctatus, although Gunter and Brode, 1964, Herpetologica, 20: 122–123, placed Necturus lodingi in the synonymy of Necturus alabamensis. Bart, Bailey, Ashton, and Moler, 1997, J. Herpetol., 31: 192–201, discussed taxonomic issues, problems, and delimited the ranges of Necturus beyeri and Necturus alabamensis, suggested that the situation from east of Lake Pontchartrain (Louisiana) to an including the Ochlockonee River drainage of the panhandle of Florida (and including the type locality of Necturus lodingi) was unresolved and deserved additional scrutiny, and likely involved more than one species. However, at least one of these populations would almost certainly bear the name Necturus lodingi. They recommended that these coastal populations of small waterdogs collectively be referred to as "Necturus n. sp. cf. beyeri" until those populations could be taxonomically resolved. Guyer, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 873, provided a brief discussion and wrote that the usage "Necturus cf. beyeri" for populations within this region was consistent with Guyer's unpublished molecular data. This left the status of populations, including nominal Necturus lodingi (the oldest available name within the delimited range) unresolved (as well was leaving a big question of what "consistent with unpublished data" might mean in this context). 15 years later Dubois and Raffaëlli, 2012, Alytes, 28: 77–161, applied the name Necturus lodingi to this catch-all informal collection of populations, and included Necturus lodingi within a subgenus, Parvurus, which includes Necturus lodingi, Necturus beyeri, and Necturus punctatus. Their association of the name Necturus lodingi, however, with populations extending east from the Mobile Bay into Florida is almost certainly incorrect as previous authors have suggested that multiple species are involved and one would think that if Necturues lodingi was conspecific with the rest of these populations that Guyer would have taken this easy remedy. So for purposes of this catalogue, I recognize Necturus lodingi was restricted to the vicinity of the type locality in the lower tributaries of Mobile Bay, Alabama, and retain the populations east from that region into Florida and southwestern Georgia and west to Lake Pontchartrain as Necturus n. sp. cf. beyeri as suggested by Bart et al. (1997) and Guyer (2005). The only real solution, of course, is publication of data.
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.