Content uploaded by Patrick Moldowan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patrick Moldowan on Feb 22, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Herpetological Review 42(3), 2011
NATURAL HISTORY NOTES 417
imbricata based on the observable characters. Though neither
of the latter two species was documented nesting in this area
during 2010, L. kempii nests are difficult to distinguish from C.
caretta nests and one may have been present. Loggerheads are
by far the principal species nesting in the area.
Though this is the first documentation of a C. flagellum prey-
ing on a sea turtle hatchling, coachwhip snakes have been docu-
mented preying on other species of turtles. Ortenburger (1928.
Mem. Univ. Michigan Mus. 1:1–247) reported an unidentified
turtle in the stomach of a coachwhip from the western United
States and Hamilton and Pollack (1956. Ecology 37[3]:519–526)
found a newly hatched Kinosternon subrubrum in the stomach
of a 1043-mm coachwhip from Georgia. Douglas and Winegar-
ner (1977. J. Herpetol. 11:236–238) reported remains of a Go-
pherus polyphemus from the feces of a coachwhip in Florida and
Amarello et al. (2004. Herpetol. Rev. 35:178) observed a coach-
whip preying on a G. agassizii in Arizona.
During our monitoring of sea turtle nests on Jupiter Island,
it is common to see O. quadrata burrows in nests. Ghost Crabs
are documented predators on sea turtle eggs and hatchlings
(Stancyk, op. cit.). It is also common to see signs that hatchlings
that have emerged from their nests have been dragged by ghost
crabs into their burrows (pers. obs.). This is evidenced by tracks
left on the beach the morning after the incident. With respect to
the incident reported here, the burrows in which the snake was
found were low on the beach and hatchling tracks were observed
coming from a nest higher on the beach. So it appears that, in this
case, the snake did not invade a turtle nest via a crab burrow but
rather invaded a crab burrow containing a hatchling turtle. It was
also observed that the coachwhip had two bulges in its stomach.
It is unknown whether these might represent additional hatch-
lings, crabs, or other prey. We could find no report of coachwhips
preying on crabs despite the fact that, in the beach environment,
they would provide an abundant food source for a snake that is
known to eat a wide variety of prey (Hamilton and Pollack, op.
cit.) and enter burrows (Dodd and Barichivich 2007. Florida Sci-
entist 70[1]:83–94). This might be explained by the lack of stud-
ies on coachwhips in the coastal environment despite the fact
that C. f. flagellum is abundant in these areas (Savannah River
Ecology Laboratory 2010. http://www.uga.edu/srelherp/snakes/
masfla.htm).
We thank Anne Meylan and Kevin Enge for providing helpful
comments on this manuscript.
IRENE ARPAYOGLOU (e-mail: diverdownbelow@hotmail.com) and R.
ERIK MARTIN, (e-mail: erikmartin@ecological-associates.com) Ecological
Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 405, Jensen Beach, Florida 34958-0405, USA.
CHRYSEMYS PICTA BELLI (Western Painted Turtle). MOR-
PHOLOGY. Additional carapace scutes (supernumerary scutes)
arising from embryonic mutations have been reported in a
number of turtles species (Fernandez and Rivera 2004. Bio-
logica 59:85–88; Kazmaier and Robel 2001. Trans. Kansas Acad.
Sci. 104[3–4]:178–182) but the extent of these anomalies within
populations of Chrysemys is not well documented. We have been
conducting a long-term study on the life history of C. picta belli
at Chapman Lake near Durango, Colorado, USA (37.33010°N,
107.88677°W; WGS84) since 1994. Of the 299 individuals cap-
tured and released at this location, 13 individuals with super-
numerary carapace scutes have been found to date. Of these,
nine were females, three were males, and one was a juvenile of
undetermined sex. In ten of the turtles (seven females and three
males), the supernumerary scute was located between vertebral
scute three (V3) and vertebral scute four ( V4) resulting in a total
of six vertebral scutes. Of the remaining three turtles, two indi-
viduals (one female and one juvenile) had six vertebral scutes
with the supernumerary scute located between V4 and V5 and
one individual (female) had eight vertebral scutes with the su-
pernumerary scutes located between V2, V3, and V4.
Within this population, 4.3% of the individuals exhibited
some type of carapace scute anomaly. Although the specific
causes of these embryonic mutations are still unclear, a number
of factors such as moisture levels during incubation (Hewavisen-
thi and Parmenter 2001. Copeia 2001:668–682; Lynn and Ullrich
1950. Copeia 1950:253–262), suboptimal environments, and in-
breeding (Fernandez and Rivera 2004, op. cit.) can contribute
to anomalies such as asymmetry and supernumerary scutes in
turtle shells. Further research will be necessary to elucidate the
underlying cause of this phenomenon within this population.
Photographs available from CRC (contact information below).
CHRISTOPHER R. COOLEY (e-mail: ccooley@regis.edu) and JESSICA
MILLER (e-mail: mill736@regis.edu), Department of Biology, 3333 Regis
Blvd., D-8, Regis University, Denver, Colorado 80221, USA.
EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII (Blanding’s Turtle). RECORD EGG
SIZE. Several turtle nesting sites on the west side of Algonquin
Provincial Park in Ontario, Canada are monitored annually as
fIg. 1. Tail of a Coluber flagellum flagellum protruding from an At-
lantic Ghost Crab (Ocypode quadrata) burrow low on the beach at St.
Lucie Inlet Preserve State Park, 29 August 2010.
fIg. 2. Coluber flagellum flagellum recently emerged from an Atlantic
Ghost Crab (Ocypode quadrata) burrow with a hatchling sea turtle in
its jaws, St. Lucie Inlet Preserve State Park, 29 August 2010.
COLOR REPRODUCTIONS SUPPORTED BY THE THOMAS BEAUVAIS FUND
Herpetological Review 42(3), 2011
418 NATURAL HISTORY NOTES
part of a long-term study. Blanding’s Turtles (Emydoidea blan-
dingii) are rare on the west side of Algonquin Park, with only 3
nests and 14 sightings recorded between 1959 and 2003 (Brooks
et al. 2003. Reptiles and Amphibians of Algonquin Provincial
Park. The Friends of Algonquin Park, Whitney, Ontario. 48 pp.).
On 8 June 2010, we observed a female E. blandingii (24.2 cm
straight line carapace length, 1810 g mass) nesting. This female
laid a clutch of nine eggs, of which one egg was noticeably larger
than the others (Fig. 1A). The largest egg weighed 17.0 g, and had
a length of 3.94 cm and a width of 2.71 cm. This egg mass is 1.2 g
greater than the largest mass previously reported for this species
(Ernst and Lovich 2009. Turtles of the United States and Canada,
2nd ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
827 pp.). The other eight eggs ranged from 11.4 to 12.3 g in mass
(mean ± SE = 11.6 ± 0.13 g), 3.46–3.64 cm in length (mean ± SE
= 3.53 ± 0.025 cm), and 2.33–2.49 in width (mean ± SE = 2.38 ±
0.018 cm). The large egg was 14.5, 6.2, and 6.5 standard devia-
tions larger than the mean mass, length, and width, respectively,
of the other eight eggs in the clutch.
The clutch was reburied and caged in situ to protect the eggs
from predators, and the nest was monitored daily for hatchling
emergence. On 3 September 2010, nine hatchlings were observed
on the ground surface under the cage. One of these hatchlings
was substantially larger than the rest, and this hatchling presum-
ably emerged from the large egg (Fig. 1B). The largest hatchling
weighed 13 g, and had a straight line carapace length of 3.85 cm.
The other eight hatchlings weighed 8.4–9.0 g (mean ± SE = 8.7
± 0.08 g) and had straight line carapace lengths of 3.36–3.46 cm
(mean ± SE = 3.40 ± 0.012 cm). To quantify the change in mass
during development, a ratio of hatchling mass to egg mass was
calculated. This ratio was found to be similar between the largest
egg (0.76), and the mean for the other eight eggs (0.75).
Pelvic aperture width constraints have been suggested as an
explanation for deviations from egg size/clutch size relation-
ships predicted by optimal egg size theory in small-bodied turtle
species (Congdon and Gibbons 1987. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.
84:4145–4147; Rollinson and Brooks 2008. Oikos 117:144–151).
Our observation of an anomalously large egg relative to others
in the same clutch supports the idea that, at least in this case, a
large-bodied turtle’s egg size may not be morphologically con-
strained, and may still deviate from optimal egg size theory. Also,
because the change in mass during development was similar re-
gardless of size, the requirements of embryological development
may not constrain egg size. Overall, our observation suggests
that Blanding’s Turtles may not experience the same constraints
on egg size as other species. This may leave traits, such as egg,
clutch, and hatchling size, free to respond to external selective
pressures making Blanding’s Turtles an optimal model for exam-
ining such traits.
Financial support for this work was provided by NSERC and
Laurentian University, and in-kind contributions were provided
by Algonquin Provincial Park (Ontario Ministry of Natural Re-
sources) and the University of Guelph. All work was carried out
under an approved Laurentian University Animal Care Commit-
tee protocol and was authorized by permits from the Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources.
JULIA L. RILEY, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 2C6 (e-
mail: jx_riley@laurentian.ca); MATTHEW KEEVIL, Laurentian University,
Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 2C6 (e-mail: mg_keevil@laurentian.ca); PATRICK
MOLDOWAN, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 (e -mail:
pmoldowa@uoguelph.ca); JACQUELINE D. LITZGUS, Laurentian Univer-
sity, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 2C6 (e-mail: jlitzgus@laurentian.ca).
EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII (Blanding’s Turtle). HATCHLING
BEHAVIOR. Emydoidea blandingii is a semi-aquatic emydine
turtle that occupies wetland habitats in the northcentral and
northeastern United States and southeastern Canada. Adults
overwinter aquatically to avoid freezing and desiccation (Edge
et al. 2009. Can. J. Zool. 87:824–834), but hibernacula used by
hatchlings and juveniles are not well known. It has been suggest-
ed that hatchlings might overwinter in the nest cavity, in aquatic
habitats, and occasionally on land outside the nest cavity (Ultsch
2006. Biol. Rev. 81:339–367), but conclusive field data are lacking.
Here we report on a putative communal terrestrial overwin-
tering of post-emergent Blanding’s Turtle hatchlings. Five in-
dividuals were found in a hollow subterranean root while con-
ducting a radio-telemetry study of three species of hatchling
turtles (E. blandingii, Glyptemys insculpta, Chelydra serpentina)
in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. Epoxy was used
to attach VHF transmitters (0.55 g, Advanced Telemetry Systems
[ATS], Isanti, Minnesota) to the carapace of hatchlings upon
emergence from their nests. Hatchlings were tracked every 1–3
days using a 3-element Yagi antenna attached to a R410 Scan-
ning Receiver (ATS, Isanti, Minnesota). On 17 September 2010,
Blanding’s Turtle hatchling #373 was tracked to the base of an
alder root system but was not visually located. The location was
narrowed down to a 1 m2 area and marked with flagging tape. On
22 September, Blanding’s Turtle hatchling #247 from the same
clutch was tracked to the same 1 m2 but neither turtle could be
visually located despite several hours of searching through the
leaf litter. After several days of not moving, the hatchlings were
assumed to have been predated and cached below ground, so
the area was excavated by hand to preserve any existing tunnels
and animal remains. On 27 September 2010, the two hatchlings
with transmitters were located alive and dormant inside a hol-
low root that was 14 cm in diameter and 25 cm below the soil
surface. In addition, three other live Blanding’s Turtle hatchlings
were within 15 cm inside the same root. All five hatchlings were
identified as siblings by a clutch-specific notch in their marginal
scutes given at emergence on 20 August 2010. Because the turtles
were observed inside the root in late fall, we presume that they
had selected this site for overwintering. The root was along the
border between an alder swamp and a softwood forest. This lo-
cation was 63 m from their nest and it is unknown how the tur-
tles entered the root.
There are two possible explanations for how the five sibling
turtles chose the same hollow root. The first is that the hatchlings
were using conspecific cues to follow each other. Although the
use of chemical cues has been suggested for other species (Tuttle
fIg. 1. A) From left to right, two Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) eggs,
three Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) eggs, and two Blanding’s
Turtle eggs. The unusually large Blanding’s Turtle egg is encircled.
Photo by Patrick Moldowan. B) A picture of the clutch of Blanding’s
Turtle hatchlings, with the unusually large hatchling encircled.
PHOTO BY DAVID LEGROS