Introduction

Detailed species information from your search of the Atlas.
Scientific name:
Leiopelma pakeka
Common name:
Maud Island frog
Naming authority:
Bell et al., 1998
Bio status category:
Indigenous (Endemic)
IUCN threat status:
Vulnerable
NZ threat classification:
Nationally Vulnerable

Refer to www.doc.govt.nz/nztcs for NZ threat classification system details.

Maud Island frog. Photo: Dr. James Reardon.
Maud Island frog

Habitat

  • Coastal forest, shelters beneath rocks and logs.
  • Nocturnal.
  • Eggs layed on damp soil beneath rocks or logs and guarded by male; development terrestrial, tadpoles and froglets may cling to males back until metamorphosis completed.

Description

  • Light fawn to dark brown, or juveniles sometimes greenish, with varying amounts of dark blotching.
  • No bright markings on thighs.
  • Measures up to 49 mm from snout tip to vent.
  • The skin is generally smooth, though some scattered tubercles (small knob-like projections on the skin) occur on the proximal (upper) portions of the thighs and shanks, and some individuals are more warty on their backs than others.

Distribution

  • Maud and Motuara Islands.

Notes

  • The scientific name is from Te Pakeka, the name that the Ngati Kuia tribe gave to Maud Island, before it was given the modern Maori name of Te Hoiere.
  • Lifespan may exceed 30 years.
  • Subfossil bones attributable to the Leiopelma hamiltoni species complex have been found in the Waitomo, Hawkes Bay, Wairarapa and north-west Nelson areas, suggesting that some or all of the members of this group were formerly more widely distributed.
  • Maud has around 20,000 individuals, and an additional population established on Motuara Island from a translocation of 300 individuals in 1998; one hundred frogs moved to Long Island in June 2005.
  • Initially described as a species separate from Hamilton's frog on basis of allozyme (enzyme/DNA) data, and multivariate analysis of morphometric (size and shape) data; subsequent studies of mitochondrial DNA suggest the population is not as distinctive as was first thought; further research needed.
  • Notes about NZ threat classification (Hitchmough, et al 2007): Maud Island: could decline rapidly if chytrid fungus reaches the area.
  • Notes about 2008-10 cycle of NZ threat classification for Frogs (Newman et al 2010): Qualifier 'CD' - island biosecurity, translocated Boat Bay and Motuara populations established but Motuara not yet shown to be increasing, Long Island and Karori populations not showing such promising signs.
  • Notes about 2012-14 cycle of NZ threat classification for Frogs: (Newman, et al.
  • 2013): Varying success of translocation - Long Island probably unsuccessful; Zealandia - survival and probable breeding, but not yet established; Motuara successful.

Statistical information and distribution map

  Before 1988 Since 1988
Dead Specimen 1 0
Bone 3 0
Total 4 0

  Live or dead specimen or shed skin
  Bone or fossil

Maud Island frog Distribution Map.'
Back to top