Morphology and vocalization comparison of the Houston Toad and the Dwarf American Toad: implications for their...

Documenting changes in the distribution and abundance of a given taxon requires historical data. In the absence of long-term monitoring data collected throughout the range of a taxon, conservation biologists often rely on preserved museum specimens to determine the past or present, putative geographic distribution. Distributional data for the Houston Toad (Anaxyrus houstonensis) has consistently been confounded by similarities with a sympatric congener, the Dwarf American Toad (A. americanus charlesmithi), both in monitoring data derived from chorusing surveys, and in historical data via museum specimens. In this case, misidentification can have unintended impacts on conservation efforts, where the Houston Toad is federally endangered, and the Dwarf American Toad is of least concern. Previously published reports have compared these two taxon on the basis of their male advertisement call and morphological appearance, often with the goal of using these characters to substantiate their taxonomic status prior to the advent of DNA sequencing technology. However, numerous studies report findings that contradict one another, and no consensus on the true differences or similarities can be drawn. Here, we use contemporary recordings of wild populations of each taxon to test for quantifiable differences in male advertisement call. Additionally, we quantitatively examine a subset of vouchered museum specimens representing each taxon to test previously reported differentiating morphometric characters used to distinguish among other Bufonids of East-Central Texas, USA. Finally, we assemble and qualitatively evaluate a database of photographs representing catalogued museum vouchers for each taxon to determine if their previously documented historic ranges may be larger than are currently accepted. Our findings reveal quantifiable differences between two allopatric congeners with respect to their male advertisement call, whereas we found similarities among their detailed morphology. Additionally, we report on the existence of additional, historically overlooked, museum records for the Houston Toad in the context of its putative historic range, and discuss errors associated with the curation of these specimens whose identity and nomenclature have not been consistent through time. These results bookend decades of disagreement regarding the morphology, voice, and historic distribution of these taxa, and alert practitioners of conservation efforts for the Houston Toad to previously unreported locations of occurrence.