Common Names: No Common Names Synonyms: No Synonyms Taxonomic Note:

Red List Assessment

Red List Status
VU – Vulnerable, B1ab(iii,v) (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment Information

Reviewed?	Date of Evaluation:	Status:	Reasons for Rejection:	Improvements Needed:
False	-	-	-	-

Assessor(s): IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group, Contributor(s): Hedges, B., Angulo, A., Koenig, S., Holmes, I., Wilson, B.S. & Berezdivin, D.

Assessment Rationale

Listed as Vulnerable because its extent of occurrence is estimated to be 6,270 km², it is known from at least three locations, there is continuing decline in the extent and quality of its forest habitat in Jamaica and there is a decline in the number of mature individuals.

Reasons for Change

Nongenuine Change: New Information

Distribution

Geographic Range

This species is widely distributed in western Jamaica from sea level to 635 m asl. EOO estimated to be 6,270 km² based on area polygon. It is known from at least three threat-defined locations, but it is very likely to occur in other locations (I. Holmes pers. comm. March 2011).

Elevation / Depth / Depth Zones

Elevation Lower Limit (in metres above sea level): 0 Elevation Upper Limit (in metres above sea level): 635

Map Status

Map Status: Done

Biogeographic Realms

Biogeographic Realm: Neotropical

Occurrence

Countries of Occurrence

Country	Presence	Origin	Formerly Bred	Seasonality
Jamaica	Extant	Native	-	Resident

Population

It is more abundant than many other species of Eleutherodactylus on Jamaica and is moderately common. As long as there is a good underground retreat and a closed canopy forest, it is likely to occur in suitable areas; it is not considered to have a severely fragmented population distribution (I. Holmes pers. comm. March 2011). Although it is considered to be a common species, it is suspected to be decreasing given the effects of bauxite mining and limestone quarrying in suitable underground habitats (S. Koenig pers. comm. March 2011). It was last seen in March 2011 (S. Koenig pers. comm. March 2011).

Habitats and Ecology

It is found in association with rocks and it is closely associated with limestone karst and/or caves and requires closed-canopy moist forest. This species breeds by direct development, and eggs are laid on the ground. This species exhibits extensive maternal care (Diesel et al. 1995). It does not occur in open habitats, but it can tolerate moderate disturbance insofar as there is a majority closed canopy (I.  Holmes pers. comm. March 2011; S. Koenig pers. comm. March 2011).

IUCN Habitats Classification Scheme

Habitat	Suitability	Major Importance?
Caves and Subterranean Habitats (non-aquatic) -> Caves and Subterranean Habitats (non-aquatic) – Caves	Suitable	Yes
Forest -> Forest – Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland	Suitable	Yes
Rocky areas (eg. inland cliffs, mountain peaks)	Suitable	Yes

Life History

Breeding Strategy

Does the species lay eggs?
True / Yes

Does the species give birth to live young
False / No

Does the species exhibit parthenogenesis
False / No

Does the species have a free-living larval stage?
False / No

Does the species require water for breeding?
False / No

Systems

System: Terrestrial

Use and Trade

General Use and Trade Information

There are no reports of this species being utilized.

Threats

The main threat is habitat degradation and loss due to bauxite mining and limestone quarrying, and to a lesser degree, it is also impacted by small-holder agriculture (yam, bananas), human settlements, tourism development (especially cave eco-tourism; I. Holmes pers. comm. March 2011; S. Koenig pers. comm. March 2011), and clear-cut logging (I. Holmes pers. comm. March 2011). Bauxite mining activity is likely to increase throughout the rest of this species’ range in the future (S. Koenig pers. comm. March 2011).

Conservation

This species occurs in several forest reserves; although management has improved over the last five years, bauxite mining continues to be a major threat factor to this species (S. Koenig pers. comm. March 2011). Amphibian Ark conservation needs assessment identifies potential for ex situ research into developing husbandry protocols for more threatened species and can also be used for conservation education due to reproductive behaviour.

Diesel, R., Baurle, G. and Vogel, P. 1995. Cave breeding and froglet transport: a novel pattern of anuran brood care in the Jamaican frog, Eleutherodactylus cundalli. Copeia: 354-360. Hedges, S.B. 1993. Global amphibian declines: a perspective from the Caribbean. Biodiversity and Conservation: 290-303. Hedges, S.B. 1999. Distribution of amphibians in the West Indies. In: Duellman, W.E. (ed.), Patterns of Distribution of Amphibians. A Global Perspective, pp. 211-254. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Hedges, S.B. 2001. Caribherp: database of West Indian amphibians and reptiles (http://www.caribherp.net). Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Henderson, R.W. and Powell, R. 1999. West Indian herpetoecology. In: Crother, B.I. (ed.), Caribbean Amphibians and Reptiles, pp. 223-226. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Henderson, R.W. and Powell, R. 2001. Responses by the West Indian herpetofauna to human-influenced resources. Caribbean Journal of Science: 41-54. Schwartz, A. and Henderson, R.W. 1991. Amphibians and Reptiles of the West Indies: Descriptions, Distributions and Natural History. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.