![Thumbnail: [Volume 39, 1906 page 144]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_39/thumbnails/rsnz_39_00_0174_0144_ac_02.gif)
[Read before the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, 14th November, 1906.]
Our New Zealand fauna can only boast of one amphibian—namely, the indigenous frog, Liopelma hochstetteri—which was rare at the time of its discovery, but now is rarer still, if not almost extinct, only being found occasionally on the Coromandel Peninsula.
About the year 1868 several batches of the common green Australian frog, Hyla aurea, were liberated in different parts of New Zealand, as Christchurch, Wellington, &c.: these have increased so much that they are now to be seen in hundreds in many parts of the country.
Since the introduction of Hyla aurea there is only one other recorded instance of the introduction of frogs into New Zealand—namely, in 1898, when the Agricultural Department liberated another kind of Australian frog in this country.
Mr. T. W. Kirk, Government Biologist, writing in his report, says, under the heading of “Climbing-frogs,” “A consignment of six dozen of these insect-destroyers was also obtained and liberated at suitable spots in the following districts: West Coast (North Island), Wellington Province, Wairarapa, Hawke's Bay, and Auckland. This frog is similar to the ordinary common frog, so common in many parts of New Zealand, except that it has a very considerable advantage over that species in that its toes are provided with suckers, which enables the animal to climb trees and houses in search of insects. In Sydney I have seen these frogs at the top of a wall four stories high.” Unfortunately, Mr. Kirk does not mention the name of the frogs, and so far I have been unable to obtain it.
As late as 1904 Captain F. W. Hutton included only Hyla aurea in his list of naturalised amphibians, inserted at the end of the “Index FaunÆ NovÆ-ZealandiÆ” (page 348). However, for the last thirty years there has been living and increasing in West-land, especially around Greymouth, another species of Australian frog, which, though well known to the residents, was not thought to be very different from the common green frog of Canterbury. My brother, Mr. F. G. Marriner, was the first person to draw my attention to the presence of this amphibian around Greymouth. He told me that the frogs in the district had a
![Thumbnail: [Volume 39, 1906 page 145]](/journals/rsnz/images/rsnz_39/thumbnails/rsnz_39_00_0175_0145_ac_02.gif)
peculiar whistle, which, when a large number joined in chorus, could be heard for some distance.
This at once aroused my interest, and through the kindness of Mr. H. West, Greymouth, I received five live specimens on the 3rd February, 1906.
On inspection I found that they were small frogs from 1¼ in. to 1 ½ in. in length, and of a brown colour; and in order to get them properly named I forwarded two live ones to Mr. J. J. Fletcher, of Sydney, who has done much work on Australian frogs.
He described it as Hyla ewingii, D. and B., var. calliscelis, and stated that it was included in the British Museum Catalogue of Batrachia (1882), page 406; he also informed me that it is one of the commonest frogs of eastern Australia and Tasmania.
On the 1st March I received about forty more from Mr. H. West, and so had a good opportunity of noticing any variation that might occur between different individuals. When exposed to light they are of a light-brown or even a very pale brown colour; there is usually a broad dark band running down the middle of the back, with two lighter broad bands on each side. The under-surface is lighter, and on the ventral surface of the thighs there is a yellow streak. When buried in the earth, or not exposed to a bright light, they go to dark reddish-brown colour—almost to a dark chocolate; and if one is buried with only a part of its body exposed to bright light, the buried portion turns a dark reddish-brown colour, and the exposed portion, no matter how small it may be, keeps its very light colour, the line of demarcation being very definite.
In the specimens that I received the male seems to be about ¼ in. smaller than the female, but otherwise they seem to be the same externally. The average size of my specimens was about 1 ½ in., but one specimen was about 2 in. in length. The head is large, eyes prominent, and snout short; hind feet are webbed, but fore feet are not so; all the digits have suckers at their tips.
The frogs in my case seem to be more strictly nocturnal than Hyla aurea, for they seldom come out in the daytime, except in wet weather. I kept a large number among some grass in a bell jar for some days; at night-time they could be seen climing all over the sides of the jar, but in the daytime they were almost all invisible. Since then I have kept them in a glass aquarium, with a dish of water and turf, but I seldom see them out in the daytime. Mr. H. West tells me that they are best caught at dusk or later, when they crawl over the grass, &c., and can be located by their peculiar cry, which somewhat resembles a whistle when compared with the hoarse croak of Hyla aurea.