Frogs of the United States and Canada

2nd Edition C Kenneth Dodd Jr

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/frogs-of-the-united-states-and-canada-2nd-edition-c-k
enneth-dodd-jr/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Handbook of Frogs and Toads of the United States and

Canada Third Edition Albert Hazen Wright

https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-frogs-and-toads-of-the-
united-states-and-canada-third-edition-albert-hazen-wright/

276 Edible Wild Plants of the United States and Canada

Caleb Warnock

https://ebookmeta.com/product/276-edible-wild-plants-of-the-
united-states-and-canada-caleb-warnock/

The United States and Public Diplomacy Diplomatic

Studies 5 Forthcoming Kenneth A Osgood Editor Brian C
Etheridge Editor

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-united-states-and-public-
diplomacy-diplomatic-studies-5-forthcoming-kenneth-a-osgood-
editor-brian-c-etheridge-editor/

Canada and the United States Ambivalent Allies 3rd

Edition John Herd Thompson Stephen J Randall

https://ebookmeta.com/product/canada-and-the-united-states-
ambivalent-allies-3rd-edition-john-herd-thompson-stephen-j-
randall/
1 000 Places to See in the United States Canada Before
You Die 3rd Edition Schultz

https://ebookmeta.com/product/1-000-places-to-see-in-the-united-
states-canada-before-you-die-3rd-edition-schultz/

Borderline Citizens The United States Puerto Rico and

the Politics of Colonial Migration Robert C Mcgreevey

https://ebookmeta.com/product/borderline-citizens-the-united-
states-puerto-rico-and-the-politics-of-colonial-migration-robert-
c-mcgreevey/

America's Longest War - The United States and Vietnam,

1950–1975 Sixth Edition George C. Herring

https://ebookmeta.com/product/americas-longest-war-the-united-
states-and-vietnam-1950-1975-sixth-edition-george-c-herring/

Pan Africanism and Education A Study of Race

Philanthropy and Education in the United States of
America and East Africa 1st Edition Kenneth J King

https://ebookmeta.com/product/pan-africanism-and-education-a-
study-of-race-philanthropy-and-education-in-the-united-states-of-
america-and-east-africa-1st-edition-kenneth-j-king/

Health Care in the United States 2nd Edition Howard P.

Greenwald

https://ebookmeta.com/product/health-care-in-the-united-
states-2nd-edition-howard-p-greenwald/
Frogs of the United States and
Canada
Frogs of the United States and
Canada
SECOND EDITION

C. Kenneth Dodd Jr.

Johns Hopkins University Press

Baltimore
© 2013, 2023 Johns Hopkins University Press
All rights reserved. Published 2023
Printed in China on acid-free paper
987654321

Johns Hopkins University Press

2715 North Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
www.press.jhu.edu

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Dodd, C. Kenneth, author.

Title: Frogs of the United States and Canada / C. Kenneth Dodd Jr.
Description: Second edition. | Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, 2023. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022011648 | ISBN 9781421444918 (hardcover ; acid-free
paper) | ISBN 9781421444925 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Frogs—United States. | Frogs—Canada.
Classification: LCC QL668.E2 D57 2023 | DDC 597.8/90971—dc23/eng/20220420
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022011648

A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.

Frontispiece: “Rain Response” by Audrey K. Owens

Special discounts are available for bulk purchases of this book. For more
information, please contact Special Sales at specialsales@jh.edu.
To the memory of Albert Hazen Wright and Anna Allen Wright,
pioneers in the study of North American frogs,

and my late colleagues Lauren E. Brown, Gary Fellers, Joseph C.

Mitchell,
and Raymond D. Semlitsch
for their contributions to amphibian conservation
In the Eyes of a Toad

In the eyes of a toad there is no vision of tomorrow,

nor a shadow image of bygone years.
There is merely and simply: Here; and, Now.
Oh, there will, no doubt, be a golden fleck or two
of memory shining there—a sort of
photograph album drifting about the periphery
of the pupil like a silent movie reel . . .
. . . flip-flash; flip-flash . . .
disjointed moments when spring breeding
and winter hibernation have been recorded.
Perhaps there also will be a random cast
to the windowed orb,
streaks and shadows of camouflaging pattern,
a permanent file of instinct-plus-genetics;
subtle markings; unobtrusive identity;
a natural logic and nurturing reason why
toads do whatsoever it is that toads do—
without question, doubt, or hesitation.
It is not the man-trail changes that shine reflection,
but rather, it is the unchanged traits
and symbiotic habits of a timeless world
that are recorded in the marvelous eyes of the toad.

Marian Lovene Griffey

Contents

Preface to the First Edition

Preface to the Second Edition
Introduction
Abbreviations

SPECIES ACCOUNTS

Family Ascaphidae
Ascaphus montanus
Ascaphus truei

Family Bufonidae
Anaxyrus americanus
Anaxyrus baxteri
Anaxyrus boreas
Anaxyrus californicus
Anaxyrus canorus
Anaxyrus cognatus
Anaxyrus debilis
Anaxyrus exsul
Anaxyrus fowleri
Anaxyrus hemiophrys
Anaxyrus houstonensis
Anaxyrus microscaphus
Anaxyrus monfontanus
Anaxyrus nelsoni
Anaxyrus nevadensis
Anaxyrus punctatus
Anaxyrus quercicus
Anaxyrus retiformis
Anaxyrus speciosus
Anaxyrus terrestris
Anaxyrus williamsi
Anaxyrus woodhousii
Incilius alvarius
Incilius nebulifer
Rhinella marina

Family Craugastoridae
Craugastor augusti

Family Eleutherodactylidae
Eleutherodactylus cystignathoides
Eleutherodactylus guttilatus
Eleutherodactylus marnockii

Family Hylidae
Acris blanchardi
Acris crepitans
Acris gryllus
Dryophytes andersonii
Dryophytes arenicolor
Dryophytes avivoca
Dryophytes chrysoscelis
Dryophytes cinereus
Dryophytes femoralis
Dryophytes gratiosus
Dryophytes squirellus
Dryophytes versicolor
Dryophytes wrightorum
Hyliola cadaverina
Hyliola regilla
Pseudacris brachyphona and Pseudacris collinsorum
Pseudacris brimleyi
Pseudacris clarkii
Pseudacris crucifer
Pseudacris feriarum
Pseudacris fouquettei
Pseudacris illinoensis
Pseudacris kalmi
Pseudacris maculata
Pseudacris nigrita
Pseudacris ocularis
Pseudacris ornata
Pseudacris streckeri
Pseudacris triseriata
Smilisca baudinii
Smilisca fodiens

Family Leptodactylidae
Leptodactylus fragilis

Family Microhylidae
Gastrophryne carolinensis
Gastrophryne mazatlanensis
Gastrophryne olivacea
Hypopachus variolosus

Family Rhinophrynidae
Rhinophrynus dorsalis

Family Ranidae
Lithobates areolatus
Lithobates berlandieri
Lithobates blairi
Lithobates capito
Lithobates catesbeianus
Lithobates chiricahuensis
Lithobates clamitans
Lithobates fisheri
Lithobates grylio
Lithobates heckscheri
Lithobates kauffeldi
Lithobates okaloosae
Lithobates onca
Lithobates palustris
Lithobates pipiens
Lithobates septentrionalis
Lithobates sevosus
Lithobates sphenocephalus
Lithobates sylvaticus
Lithobates tarahumarae
Lithobates virgatipes
Lithobates yavapaiensis
Rana aurora
Rana boylii
Rana cascadae
Rana draytonii
Rana luteiventris
Rana muscosa
Rana pretiosa
Rana sierrae

Family Scaphiopodidae
Scaphiopus couchii
Scaphiopus holbrookii
Scaphiopus hurterii
Spea bombifrons
Spea hammondii
Spea intermontana
Spea multiplicata

Introduced Species
Dendrobates auratus
Eleutherodactylus coqui
Eleutherodactylus planirostris
Glandirana rugosa
Litoria caerulea
Osteopilus septentrionalis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus tropicalis

Glossary
Bibliography
Index of Scientific and Common Names
Index of Potential Stressors
Preface to the First Edition

There are two reasons I became a biologist. First, nature fascinates

me. I have always been astonished at the diversity of life and how
the sum total of its parts, from basic chemistry through physiology
and genetics all the way to immense ecosystems, still cannot explain
the essence and “why” of life. Through herpetology, I have tried to
make sense of how even a small portion of nature works, and I have
never understood people who have no interest in what makes them
and our world what they are. There is nothing more fascinating than
the organization and evolution of life. The second reason for
becoming a biologist was the dread of working in an office building.
I wanted to be outdoors, not anchored to a desk; if there were
canyons and forests and wild animals “out there,” why be inside? I
was not always successful at avoiding the tedium of paperwork and
administration—but then I was able to take to the woods, creeks,
deserts, and mountains. Many people are drawn to the beauty of
nature, but I was drawn also to its silence. I am never happier than
when I am in some wild beautiful quiet place.
I cannot say when I saw my first frog, but I must have been very
young. Growing up in mostly rural northern Virginia in the late 1950s
and 1960s provided a wealth of habitats to explore. I remember
hearing the singing American Toads and catching leopard frogs along
the creek near my house in places that no longer exist. That started
me on a long journey that has taken me to six continents, fifty
states, three Canadian provinces, and many Caribbean islands. At
every turn I found frogs, and each place left its own special
memories: listening to Bird-voiced Treefrogs in a Mississippi swamp,
trying to photograph a large ranid in Kenya and suddenly realizing I
was lying on an ant mound (do the dance!), searching
unsuccessfully for gastric-brooding frogs in Australia’s tropical
rainforest, finding rare frogs in the Seychelles under a starry sky with
fruit bats squawking in the trees, finding Scutiger tadpoles at 5,000
m in Tibet and foam-nesting Rhacophorus in Taiwan, and seeing my
first poison dart frogs in Costa Rica. I still get a thrill seeing a
Barking Treefrog or hearing the soft chirping of Eleutherodactylus
planirostris around our front porch in Florida. Frogs are truly gentle
beings and, as the New Zealanders say, “Fact: the survival of the
Earth depends on frogs.”
Throughout my career, I have been fortunate to work with many
creative, enthusiastic, and knowledgeable friends, colleagues, and
students. Although they may not have contributed directly to this
book, it could not have been written without their guidance and
friendship at least at some point over the past 30 years. I specifically
thank Butch Brodie, my major advisor at Clemson University so
many decades ago. There is nothing to stimulate interest and
excitement better than someone who is interested and excited about
their work. Ronn Altig secured my first teaching position, Hobart
Smith provided encouragement when I needed it, Jim Williams got
me a job in conservation, Ernie Liner talked books and made great
food, Bob Shoop and Carol Ruckdeschel offered perspective and
wine, and Dick Franz got me started again in research after an eight-
year administrative stint. Thanks to you all.
I thank the following persons, in particular, for providing help with
literature and information used in the first edition of this book: Kraig
Adler, Ronn Altig, Kim Babbitt, Jamie Barichivich, Breck
Bartholomew, Aaron Bauer, James Bettaso, Jeff Briggler, Robin Jung
Brown, Charles Bursey, Bruce Bury, Brian Butterfield, Christine
Campbell, Celia Chen, Michael Conlon, Steve Corn, Christopher
Distel, Nathan Engbrecht, Edward Ervin, Gary Fellers, Don Forester,
Tony Gamble, Dana Ghioca, James Gibbs, Harry Greene, Patrick
Gregory, Jackson Gross, Gavin Hanke, John Himes, Steve Johnson,
Larry Jones, Tom Jones, William Karasov, Vicky Kjoss, Kenney
Krysko, Michael Lannoo, James Lazell, Emily Lemmon, Lawrence
Licht, Ernie Liner, Lauren Livo, Mickey Long, Clark Mahrdt, Chris
McAllister, Malcolm McCallum, Jonathan Micancin, Joseph Mitchell,
John Moriarty, Erin Muths, Max Nickerson, Deb Patla, Thomas
Pauley, Greg Pauly, Chris Pearl, David Pilliod, Andrew Price, Louis
Porras, Michael Redmer, Phil Rosen, Mark Roth, Ray Saumure, David
Seburn, Lynnette Sievert, Hobart Smith, Lora Smith, Scott Smyers,
Mike Sredl, Dennis Suhre, Dean Thompson, Stan Trauth, Susan
Walls, Kent Wells, and Richard Yahner.
I thank Monica McGarrity for preparing the maps, Camilla Pizano
and Breck Bartholomew for the illustrations, and Audrey Owens for
the beautiful frontispiece. I appreciate the photographs sent by
many colleagues, even though I was unable to use them all. Specific
thanks go to: Ronn Altig, Jennifer Anderson-Cruz, Adam Backlin,
Jamie Barichivich, Sean Barry, Breck Bartholomew, James Beck,
Dawne Becker, Steve Bennett, David Bishop, Steve Brady, Koen
Breedveld, Christopher Brown, Jennifer Brown, Travis Brown, Jason
Butler, Robert Byrnes, Jan Caldwell, Alessandro Catenazzi, Adam
Clause, Steve Corn, John Cossel, Alan Cressler, Eric Dallalio, Nina
D’Amore, Ray Davis, Chris Dellith, David Dennis, Dana Drake,
Andrew Durso, Anna Farmer, Gary Fellers, Mike Forstner, Justin
Garwood, Carl Gerhardt, Jim Godwin, Earl Gonsolin, Tom Gorman,
Mike Graziano, Matt Greene, Kerry Griffis-Kyle, Kyle Gustafson,
Robert W. Hansen, James Harding, Chris Harrison, Marc Hayes,
Valentine Hemingway, Aubrey Heupel, Jody Hibma, Brian Hubbs,
John Jensen, Steve Johnson, Mike Jones, James Juvik, Kris Kendell,
Ceal Klingler, Roland Knapp, Fred Kraus, Brian Kubicki, Jeff LeClere,
Twan Leenders, Kirk Lohman, Patrice Lynch, Bryce Maxwell,
Jonathan Mays, Brome McCreary, Melanie McFarland, Maija Meneks,
Gabe Miller, Joe Mitchell, Martin Morton, Gary Nafis, Robert
Newman, Justin Oguni, Charles Painter, Cindy Paszkowski, David
Patrick, Seth Patterson, Joe Pechmann, Ryan Peck, Maria Pereyra,
Jeff Petersen, Todd Pierson, David Pilliod, Brian Pittman, Jesse
Poulos, Jim Rorabough, Francis Rose, Kevin Rose, Paddy Ryan, Rob
Schell, Sara Schuster, Cecil Schwalbe, Betsy Scott, Richard Seigel,
Brad Shaffer, Nathan Shepard, Brent Sigafus, Bill Stagnaro, David
Steen, Cameron Stevens, Dirk Stevenson, Jim Stuart, Dennis Suhre,
Cynthia Tate, Robert A. Thomas, Stan Trauth, John Tupy, Michael
van Hattem, Sara Viernum, Laurie Vitt, Kenny Wray, and Bob
Zappalorti. Lee Brumbaugh of the Nevada Historical Society, Kraig
Adler, and Mark Jennings were helpful in obtaining photos of
Lithobates fisheri habitat in the Las Vegas Valley; Stephanie Munson
of Cornell University Press granted permission to reproduce the
Wrights’s photographs of Lithobates fisheri.
Ellin Beltz permitted me to use her information on amphibian
etymologies and updated generic names. Other colleagues provided
advice and technical assistance, particularly Kraig Adler, Jamie
Barichivich, Sherry Bostick, Priya Nanjappa, Ken Sulak, Susan Walls,
and Jim Williams. This book could never have been completed
without the outstanding services provided by the University of
Florida library system, particularly in finding theses, dissertations,
and sometimes very obscure papers. Vincent Burke of the Johns
Hopkins University Press got me into this project in the first place,
and Helen Myers ensured the readability and accuracy of the
manuscript—I can’t thank her enough. To all of you, I offer my
sincere thanks.
Finally, I thank Marian Griffey, Dick Daniell, Antoinette Marie,
Benjamin Silas, Christopher Robin, Etta Mae, Fallicity Sue, Frederick
Hercules, Guinevere Faye, Gwyneth Grace, Herman Bartholomew,
MacMurphy O’Leary, Sir Reginald Michael, and Mortisha Marie for
their special support and encouragement.
Preface to the Second Edition

In 1933, Anna and Albert Wright published the first continent-wide

review of the biology of North American frogs. It was a slim volume
of 231 pages. A second edition of 286 pages was published in 1942,
with a third edition in 1949 of 640 pages. It is interesting to note the
simultaneously occurring world events—the Great Depression, World
War II, and the aftermath of the war as the economy recovered.
Information increased rapidly in the late 1940s as world events
allowed for focus in North America on the natural world, free from
the threat of total economic collapse and the horrors of war. I
suspect that the earlier restrictions on travel and finances, however,
also gave the Wrights the opportunity to assemble their data and
make them available to their colleagues, their students, and the
public.
Much of the preparation of the second edition of Frogs has taken
place during the coronavirus pandemic of late 2019–2021. Although
many parts of the world have been in a lockdown state for
considerable periods of time—causing all sorts of problems—the
lockdown offered me the opportunity (and excuse) to focus my full
attention on revising the text. I have incorporated a large number of
publications from ca. 2011, when the original text was submitted, to
mid-2021; more than 1,100 additional publications have been
examined. This book is not a field guide, but a compendium about
what is known about our North American frog fauna. I hope it
stimulates both research and conservation.
As the pace of scientific knowledge is accelerating, so is our
knowledge of the biology and status of our North American frogs.
Unfortunately, the news is not good, as our frogs continue to
experience unprecedented threats and declines as the Anthropocene
continues unabated. During the coronavirus pandemic, the reality of
human-nature interconnectedness became apparent, but it remains
to be seen whether the importance of biodiversity, ecosystem
function, and climate will be recognized, and whether the need to
curb population, toxic substances, and the wholesale waste of our
planet’s resources will lead to a reexamination of what is important
in life. Solutions are in science and in will, not in the misinformation
of current politics. Archie Carr was an optimist; I am not.
An undertaking of this magnitude (i.e., the revision of Frogs)
cannot be approached in isolation. Unlike the Wrights, I have been
fortunate to have nearly instantaneous access to people,
publications, and information that it would have taken them months
or years to assemble. In addition to those acknowledged below, I
thank the University of Florida library system that somehow
managed to function during the tightest days of COVID lockdown. I
don’t know how they did it, but thanks a million.
My wife, Marian Griffey, granted permission to republish her poem
In the Eyes of a Toad, originally published in Dire Elegies, 59 Poets
on Endangered Species in North America (2006, Foothills
Publishing). Monica McGarrity again prepared the maps, and Audrey
Owens graciously offered a new frontispiece, “Rain Response,” for
the second edition featuring the Arizona Treefrog. These three
deserve special credit for making this volume a success.
I thank the following individuals for providing information and
advice during preparation of the second edition: Jim Andrews, David
Blackburn, Vernon Bleich, Erica Crespi, Marty Crump, Charles Drost,
Nathan Engbrecht, Jeremy Feinberg, Jason D. Gibson, Andy
Gluesenkamp, Jim Godwin, Colin Goodman, Jeff Hall, Robert Hansen,
David Hillis, Andrew Holycross, Jason Hoverman, Mark Jennings,
Mike Lannoo, David Laurencio, Melissa Lawton (Museum of Northern
Arizona), Scott Lindemann, Dale Marcum, Chris McMartin, Walter
Meshaka, Erin Muths, Matthew Niemiller, John Orr, Audrey Owens,
John Palis, Dennis Parmley, Tom Pauley, Trevor Persons, Dave
Pfennig, Steve Price, Steve Roble, Mark-Oliver Rödel, Jim Rorabaugh,
Brian Sullivan, Jeffrey Wimsatt, and Fred Zaidan.
The following persons offered photographs for the second edition:
Ronn Altig, Marion Anstis, Jamie Barichivich, Tim Burkhardt, Jan
Caldwell, David Dennis, Andrew Didiuk, Kevin Enge, Jeremy
Feinberg, Brad Glorioso, Colin Goodman, Marian Griffey, Clint
Guadiana, David Hillis, Jake Hutton, Steve Johnson, Thomas R.
Jones, Kris Kendell, Alexa Killion, Erik Kiviat, Patrick Kleeman,
Kenney Krysko, Chris Lechowicz, Emily Lemmon, John MacGregor,
Jessica Martin, Gary Nafis, Piotr Naskrecki, John Palis, David Pfennig,
Michael Redmer, Jim Rorabaugh, Kelsey Ruehling, Jackson Shedd,
Greg Sievert, Brent Sigafus, Brian Sullivan, C. Richard Tracy, and
Ryan Wolfe. I wish I could have used more of them.
I would like to thank the editors at Johns Hopkins University Press
for shepherding this work to completion, particularly Tiffany
Gasbarrini, Diem Bloom, Juliana McCarthy, and Kristina Lykke.
Thanks also to production editor Angela Piliouras and copyeditor
Kelly Walters. This book could not be a success without their help
and careful attention to detail.
Finally, I thank Marian Griffey, Antoinette Marie, Benjamin Silas,
MacMurphy O’Leary, Sir Reginald Michael, Elvira Gray, and Cat-lin
Dawn for their special support and encouragement.
Introduction

I have always liked frogs . . . I like the looks of frogs, and their
outlook, especially the way they get together in wet places on warm
nights and sing about sex.

Archie Carr, The Windward Road

As this book is completed (1 July 2021), there are 7,370 species of
frogs known worldwide with new species being described at a rapid
pace. North of the United States–México border, however, only 106
species occur naturally (1.4% of the world total), and 13 of them
barely enter the United States. All of Hawai’i’s frogs are introduced
species, and only 27 species occur in Canada, with many only just
entering the country. Only the genera Acris, Ascaphus, Hyliola,
Pseudacris, and Spea may be considered endemic to our region,
although Hyliola, Pseudacris, and Spea also cross the border into
northern México. Centers of species richness of frogs in temperate
North America include the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains, the Pacific
Northwest, and the arid Southwest. Although it might appear that
the diversity of North American frogs is reasonably well known, one
new species from the Southeast has yet to be described (see
Lithobates catesbeianus account), a new species was described in
2012 from near New York City, three new toad species were
described from the western United States in 2017 and 2020, and a
new Pseudacris species was described from Alabama in 2020; a
number of other subspecies or isolated populations seem likely to be
reevaluated as full species.
Fig. 1. Basic body plan of an aquatic frog. Illustration by Camila Pizano
Fig. 2. Basic body plan of a toad. Illustration by Camila Pizano

No one can mistake a frog for any other vertebrate. All frogs are
tetrapods and have the same basic body plan (Figs. 1, 2), with a
short head, large bulging eyes (reduced in some fossorial forms),
little or no neck, and a short compact body. The front legs have four
toes on each foot; the rear legs have five toes on each foot and are
often webbed to some extent, except in terrestrial forms. Frogs, of
course, lack tails as adults. Their short powerful bodies with
specialized hind legs are made for hopping, jumping (sometimes in
great leaps), running, climbing, swimming, or burrowing. Toads
(Anaxyrus, Incilius, Rhinella), for example, usually walk or hop,
whereas the so-called true frogs (Lithobates, Rana) and chirping
frogs (Eleutherodactylus) are expert leapers; Scaphiopus and Spea
are burrowers with specialized digging tubercles (Fig. 3); Xenopus
are swimmers; and Dryophytes, Smilisca, and Osteopilus are expert
climbers.
The toes of frogs normally are long and thin, except within the
chorus and treefrog family (Hylidae). In this group, the ends of the
toes are expanded slightly in cricket and chorus frogs (Acris, Hyliola,
and Pseudacris) and greatly in treefrogs (Dryophytes, Osteopilus,
Smilisca). The treefrogs use their expanded toe tips to climb trees
and smooth surfaces; the expanded surface area of the toe pad
exerts hydric friction toward the surface on which the frog walks,
enabling it to hold on and climb. The largely ground-dwelling chorus
frogs do not need such expanded toe pads, although Spring Peepers
climb high in trees in Florida and elsewhere. Aquatic species usually
have a membranous web between their hind toes that facilitates
swimming, but Xenopus laevis has webs between the front toes as
well. A comparison of the hind feet of bufonids, hylids, and ranids is
provided in Fig. 4.
Frogs do not have external ears, although they are very attuned
to sound. The opening to the inner ear is covered by a thin,
membranous sheath of skin, the tympanum, located behind the eyes.
The tympanums of American Bullfrogs, for instance, are rounded and
large; they are conspicuous on either side of the head. The
tympanums of some other species are less easily seen or may not be
present (Ascaphus). Many frogs have “warts”—bumps or ridges on
the back (the dorsum)—dorsolaterally, or on the upper portions of
the limbs. These bumps and ridges usually contain mucous or
granular glands and are important for moisture retention and
defense. The parotoid glands of toads are kidney bean–shaped
structures located on the head behind the eyes, and their shape and
size are important, in conjunction with the configuration of the
cranial crests, for the identification of the different species of toads
(see Fig. 2).
Fig. 3. Configuration of the spade on the left hind foot in the genus Scaphiopus
(left) and Spea (right). In Scaphiopus the tubercle is cycle shaped, whereas in
Spea it is wedge shaped. Illustration by Camila Pizano

Fig. 4. A comparison of the hind feet of bufonids (left), hylids (center), and ranids
(right). Note the differences in the extent of webbing and the presence of toepads
in hylids. Illustration by Camila Pizano
Male frogs of many species can be distinguished from females by
the presence of vocal pouches and a darkened coloration on their
throats, at least during breeding season. Males also develop enlarged
and roughened thumbs during the reproductive season, which are
useful while amplexing females (that is, when the male clasps the
female during courtship). Female frogs are often much larger than
males, and usually do not produce the “warning croak” when picked
up. Eggs may be visible through the ventral body wall. Outside the
breeding season, differentiating the sexes may be difficult. Juveniles
usually resemble miniature adults.

Anuran Evolution
The first vertebrates to leave the water did so during the Devonian
Period, some 350–370 million years ago. These animals were
transitional between the lobe-finned fishes and the true Amphibia.
These amphibian ancestors moved around on land, based on the
fossilized trackways that they left in soft muds. Their bony fossils
clearly demonstrate that they were not adapted solely for living in
the water, although they may have had fish-like tails. Some of the
transitional forms, such as the giant flat-headed Ichthyostega, had
impressive rows of teeth and a vertebral structure designed for
flexibility and mobility outside water. The first true amphibians, the
Labyrinthodonts, appeared in the Carboniferous Period and survived
until the Early Cretaceous Period, a span of about 230 million years.
The Labyrinthodonts gave rise to both the modern Amphibia and the
reptiles, and were present throughout the age of the dinosaurs.
Another group of primitive amphibians, the Lepospondyls, became
extinct in the Early Permian Period, and left no modern descendants.
Modern amphibians evolved at least by the mid-Mesozoic Era, and
Holman (2003) has discussed the importance of paedomorphosis and
locomotion in the evolution of the first frogs. Frog-like amphibians,
Triadobatrachus massinoti (from Madagascar; Rage and Roček,
1989) and Czatkobatrachus (from Poland; Evans and Borsuk-
Białynicka, 2009), are known from the Early Triassic Period (about
225–245 million years ago). These proto-frogs certainly resembled
modern frogs in terms of body plan, but they possessed very
different morphological characters, such as having up to 26
vertebrae (modern frogs have 4–9), of which 10 formed a tail in
Triadobatrachus. Their pelvic bones suggest these animals swam by
kicking their hind legs and were unable to jump as do modern frogs.
The earliest known true frog (Prosalirus bitis) was found in Lower
Jurassic Kayenta Formation deposits in Arizona (Shubin and Jenkins,
1995). These deposits date from 190 million years ago. Thus, both
primitive and modern amphibians were present throughout the
Mesozoic Era, and the first known true frog likely evolved in what is
now North America. The basic body plan of modern frogs was set
nearly 200 million years ago, although the earliest frog-like
amphibians likely walked more than they hopped or jumped. When
dinosaurs ruled the world, frogs called from the swamps. More
information on the early evolution of frogs can be found in Volume 4
of the Amphibian Biology series (particularly Roček, 2000; Roček,
and Rage, 2000) and in Carroll (2009).

Life History
North of the Mexican border, frogs occur from sea level to the high
Rocky Mountains, and from the south Florida Keys to the Arctic
Ocean. They occur in tropical lowlands, grassland prairies, deserts,
and in alpine-tundra habitats. Although thought of as entirely
freshwater in nature, a few frogs and tadpoles have been found
associated with saline habitats near oceans and in isolated desert
wetlands. Some species have restricted habitat requirements,
whereas others occur contiguously from the arid Great Plains
(Pseudacris maculata) or humid Southeastern forests (Lithobates
sylvaticus) to the high tundra.
In the “typical” amphibian life cycle of most US and Canadian
frogs, adults move to water to breed and lay eggs, then emigrate
back to terrestrial or other aquatic habitats to forage and overwinter.
The eggs develop into larvae that remain in water for a period of
time, then the larvae metamorphose, and the tiny juveniles disperse.
The only entirely aquatic species in North America are the introduced
African Clawed Frog, Xenopus laevis, and the Tropical Clawed Frog,
X. tropicalis. All members of the mostly tropical genus
Eleutherodactylus deposit eggs terrestrially. The larval period occurs
entirely within the egg, and hatchlings resemble miniature adults.
Only a few other frogs depart from the typical pattern. In the
nonindigenous Dendrobates auratus of Hawai’i, eggs are oviposited
in moist situations and fertilized by the male who then guards them
until they hatch. He then carries the tadpoles on his back to an
appropriate developmental site, such as a treehole or bromeliad cup.
In Leptodactylus fragilis, eggs are oviposited into a foam nest and
tadpoles are released as water eventually fills the shallow nest
depression.
All frogs in Canada and the United States have external
fertilization except for Ascaphus (internal fertilization via an
intromittent organ) and Eleutherodactylus (through cloacal
apposition). The process of holding onto a female during
reproduction is termed amplexus. The male frog grabs the female
dorsally either under the armpits (axial or pectoral amplexus; Fig. 5)
or just in front of her hind legs (inguinal or pelvic amplexus) and
holds on as strongly as he can. The location where the male grabs
the female is species specific. As eggs are extruded from the
female’s vent, the male releases clouds of sperm over them. Male
frogs often amplex the wrong species, other males, or inanimate
objects. If another male is amplexed, he gives a warning croak
and/or vibration to let the courting male know that he has erred in
his mate choice. Otherwise, a male amplexing an inappropriate
object often has a long and frustrating reproductive season. Spent
females also may give a warning vibration, but many amplexing
males seem to be able to determine whether a female is gravid by
her girth and perhaps the firmness of her body as she carries eggs.
Fig. 5. Axillary (pectoral) amplexus in aquatic frogs. Illustration by Camila Pizano

Nearly all North American anurans lay eggs in water. A few

(Dendrobates auratus, Eleutherodactylus sp.) deposit their eggs in
moist terrestrial locations. The eggs are coated by one or more jelly-
like capsules surrounded by a firm membrane (Fig. 6). The capsules
and membrane help protect the eggs from infection and desiccation
while allowing for the exchange of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and
nitrogenous wastes (mostly ammonia). Eggs may be deposited
individually, in small clusters, in strings, in thin sheaths that float on
the surface of water, or in large compact jelly masses (Figs. 7–9). In
addition, eggs may or may not be attached to aquatic vegetation or
to the wetland bottom. Depending on the species, the number of
eggs deposited can be from a few to as many as tens of thousands.
All these characteristics are important in helping to identify species in
the field, and they are mentioned in more detail in the species
accounts.
Fig. 6. Diagram of a frog egg. The vitellus is surrounded by two jelly envelopes
enclosed within encapsulating membranes. Illustration by Camila Pizano

Fig. 7. A frog egg mass. Egg masses of this type are typical of many ranids.
Illustration by Camila Pizano
Fig. 8. Surface film of frog eggs. A number of ranids and microhylids deposit their
eggs in single-layer surface films. Illustration by Camila Pizano

Fig. 9. Toad egg strings. Note that in some species the eggs are partitioned into
separate chambers (left), whereas in others the eggs are continuous, forming one
or more rows without partitioning (right). Illustration by Camila Pizano

In the early stages of development, most anuran eggs have a dark

animal pole and a light cream to yellowish vegetal pole, although in a
few species (Eleutherodactylus sp.) the eggs are entirely white. The
cells of the animal pole will eventually overgrow the vegetal pole and
form the developing embryo, whereas the yolk forms from cells of
the vegetal pole. The nutrient-rich yolk supplies all the energy
needed to complete development prior to hatching. Hatching occurs
as partially developed larvae (tadpoles) in aquatic situations, and as
miniature adults in terrestrial nests (Eleutherodactylus sp.). All larvae
have gills for respiration; in larval frogs, the gills are hidden shortly
after hatching within an internal chamber covered by an operculum
on the side of the head.
As the larva grows, it eventually reaches the stage where it
metamorphoses into an adult. Metamorphosis involves a complex set
of morphological and physiological changes that radically alter the
body plan. It is also the time when the animal is most likely to be
affected by chemicals or pollutants in the environment that interfere
with the intricate developmental changes. Anurans remain as larvae
from a few days (e.g., Eastern Spadefoot) to 3–5 yrs (e.g., Coastal
and Rocky Mountain Tailed Frogs). Most larvae, however, transform
within a few months to a year. If breeding occurs in spring or early
summer, transformation usually occurs in late summer to autumn. If
breeding occurs in the fall, the larvae overwinter and metamorphose
the following spring or summer. There is a great deal of variation in
the larval period among species, however. Some of the variation
undoubtedly is derived from hereditary factors, although the
availability of high-quality food and the duration of the hydroperiod
also influence the length of the larval period. Unlike salamanders,
there are no paedomorphic frogs.
Tadpoles are mostly detritivores in that they eat a wide variety of
benthic organic matter. They graze on algae or aquatic vegetation
using a specialized mouth structure that rasps small bits of
vegetation into the mouth. This material is funneled into the gut for
digestion. Some tadpoles are filter feeders and feed in the water
column or at the surface, specializing on phytoplankton and
zooplankton, but others are carnivorous or even cannibalistic. Adult
frogs are all carnivorous, usually eating a wide array of insects,
spiders, and other invertebrate animals. A few species, such as
American Bullfrogs, consume large prey such as small mice or
snakes, whereas others, such as the ant-loving Eastern Narrow-
mouthed Frog, are specialist feeders.
Larvae are largely free swimming and do not form social
aggregations. Spadefoots, some toads (Anaxyrus sp.), and the River
Frog (Lithobates heckscheri) are exceptions, however, in that their
tadpoles form large schools that move and feed together throughout
a pond or lake. Schooling helps to churn up the bottom and expose
more food for consumption, provides a measure of protection, and
maintains a favorable thermal environment. Spadefoot schools in
particular are initially comprised of kin—that is, tadpoles that
hatched from eggs deposited by the same parents. They apparently
keep in contact via pheromones, chemicals that aid them in sibling
recognition. Tadpoles also are known to respond to alarm chemicals
within their environment. If another tadpole is attacked and injured,
the chemical released by the injured tadpole alerts the rest of the
tadpoles to danger in the area.
Larval anurans have a smooth and moist skin that readily allows
water to enter and waste products to be expelled. During the
terrestrial phase of their life cycle, however, frogs must remain in
moist situations because their skins are only semi-impermeable to
water loss. In dry conditions, moisture is lost to the surrounding air
from the animal’s body, and frogs will desiccate if too much water is
lost. Anuran skins are usually moist to the touch because of mucous
secreted to keep them damp. The skins of some species, such as
toads, may appear rather dry, however. A few species are able to
spread a lipid-based secretion across the body to impede water loss.
All North American frogs possess sac-like lungs, but gas exchange
takes place across the skin of larvae and adults. Some areas of the
skin are particularly well vascularized (e.g., the pelvic patch of
certain frogs), and gases and water readily diffuse across the thin
skin membranes. Frog skin also is remarkable in terms of defense.
Many species possess either toxic (Dendrobates auratus, Rhinella
marina) or noxious (e.g., Anaxyrus sp., Scaphiopus sp., Lithobates
palustris) secretions that help them avoid predators and parasites.
Noxious and toxic skin secretions are produced from granular glands
in the skin of frogs. Such glands may be concentrated, such as in the
“warts” of toads, or they may be more diffusely distributed over the
dorsal part of the body. Toads (Fig. 2) and spadefoots (Fig. 10) have
kidney bean–shaped glands behind the head that contain glands that
produce noxious secretions. These parotoid glands have even been
observed to squirt secretions in the direction of an attacking
predator, especially as the predator bites down on the frog. Other
anurans (many Lithobates, Rana, Ascaphus sp.) have antimicrobial
peptides in their skin that help ward off disease and fungi. Chemical
communication is not as important in terrestrial frogs as it appears to
be for salamanders, at least as adults. Larvae and perhaps aquatic
adults seem to be keenly aware of chemical cues in water.
Most male frogs in the United States and Canada gather at
breeding sites from winter to late summer and send out chirps,
peeps, and trills depending on species. Only Ascaphus is truly silent.
The calls serve two main functions: to entice females to the pond
and to inform other males that the caller has occupied a particular
portion of the breeding site. Thus, what sounds to a human listener
like a single call conveys multiple messages to conspecifics. For
example, a female may assess male quality by the sound of his call,
how long it is, how loud it is, or how deep it is. Inasmuch as some
frogs are territorial at breeding sites, the calls also serve to alert
other males that the caller is ready to defend his calling space.
Females often prefer the largest males when presented with a
choice. However, “satellite” males (males that do not call but sit near
a calling male) sometimes intercept females on their way to breed,
and thus avoid the competitive chorus.
Fig. 10. Head morphology of a Spadefoot showing the position of the boss,
parotoid gland, tympanum, and vertical eye pupil. Illustration by Camila Pizano

Frogs generally return to the same ponds or wetlands to breed

from one year to the next, although there are exceptions. In some
frogs, both sexes may use the same ponds each breeding season. In
other species, the males are site specific, but the females are not. In
this way, a female can choose the best-fit male among all the males
that she can hear, regardless of where he is located. Male pond-
breeding frogs usually arrive at the ponds first and establish their
calling sites and territories, and such males may overwinter closer to
the ponds than females, presumably so they can get to the breeding
sites early. Males also stay at ponds longer than females, who
frequently stay only long enough to mate and deposit their eggs. In
explosive breeders (that is, frogs with short reproductive periods in
which nearly all adults breed at the same time), males and females
arrive nearly simultaneously.
 At least some species of frogs breed in about any type of wetland.
Frogs that breed in small temporary or semipermanent ponds do so
because these habitats lack fish and may have fewer invertebrate
predators, especially early in the season. In areas lacking aquatic
vertebrate predators, larvae are often conspicuous; in habitats where
predators are abundant, larvae are secretive and cryptic. Many of the
ponds and streams in North America are temporary or intermittent,
especially in the Great Plains and the West. Even in the East, small
breeding pools often disappear by summer. As the year progresses,
these habitats dry up, making them unsuitable for breeding. Drought
and low-rainfall years can also pose problems, and in some years
frogs may not be able to breed. Thus, whereas frogs breeding in
temporary wetlands may reduce predation risk to their larvae, there
is a trade-off as to whether the wetlands will fill and allow sufficient
time for the larvae to develop and metamorphose.
Many frogs travel short distances from their breeding sites,
whereas others travel hundreds of meters or even several kilometers
from where they passed the larval stage. Terrestrial habitats may be
as close as streamsides, making certain frogs (e.g., Ascaphus) seem
semiaquatic. Other frogs (for example, the Western Toad, Anaxyrus
boreas) travel extensively before establishing a nonbreeding
terrestrial home range. Here, they spend their time in surface,
subsurface, cliff face, or arboreal habitats before returning to the
area where, presumably, they hatched. As a rule, the shorter lived a
frog is, the sooner it begins to breed. Still, not every adult frog
breeds every year, and little is known about reproductive periodicity
through their life-span. I have observed a female Florida Eastern
Narrow-mouthed Frog skip a breeding season, even though the
radioactive-tagged animal was near a pond, and the life-span of this
species is only about 4 yrs. Females, in particular, seem to skip
breeding in years of harsh environmental conditions and poor food
availability, and instead keep their energy reserves to stay alive.
Anurans are especially active at night, although those species with
noxious secretions (especially toads) and a few others (e.g., Acris)
are often active by day. Aquatic frogs (e.g., Lithobates, Rana) are
especially active diurnally on cloudy and rainy days, but they are
usually in water and tend to be very alert. Frogs congregate around
all kinds of wetlands, emerge from under rocks and logs, and forage
arboreally or through the terrestrial leaf litter or along stream edges.
With a flashlight, one can often spot frogs sitting on buildings, at the
mouths of burrows and hiding places, and in water or along the
shoreline waiting for unsuspecting invertebrates. At night, larvae also
become more conspicuous as they leave daytime refugia for open
and shallow water. Nocturnal activity presumably makes some frogs
less prone to predation, especially by visually oriented predators.
Only on rainy nights can the abundance of anurans be appreciated
as they call and forage.

Anuran Conservation
Frogs play significant roles in ecosystem function, particularly as
predators of invertebrates, prey for a vast array of other species, and
in nutrient and energy transfer to and from habitats rich in nutrients
(e.g., ponds) to areas poor in nutrients, such as sandy uplands (Earl
et al., 2011; Hocking and Babbitt, 2014; Capps et al., 2015).
Unfortunately, frogs are now at greater peril worldwide than at any
time in recent geologic history (Stuart et al., 2004; Sodhi et al.,
2008; Wake and Vredenburg, 2008). In the United States alone,
overall amphibian population declines reached 3.7% between 2002
and 2011 (Adams et al., 2013). Indeed, the Earth’s biota may already
be well into the sixth mass extinction event since life began on this
planet (Barnosky et al., 2011). It is beyond the scope of this
introduction to discuss in depth the many threats to anuran
populations in Canada and the United States and the ways to
mitigate and manage these threats. Much more detail can be found
in Stebbins and Cohen (1995), Kingsbury and Gibson (2002),
Semlitsch (2003), Lannoo (2005), Bailey et al. (2006), Mitchell et al.
(2006), Pilliod and Wind (2008), Dodd (2010), and in the references
in the species accounts.
Threats to anuran populations derive from local, regional, and
global sources. Wetland and associated terrestrial habitats are being
lost and fragmented (or shredded, as some biologists have termed it)
at alarming rates because of expanding human populations and
economic and political considerations fostering rapid and often poorly
regulated development (Hamer and McDonnell, 2008). In the United
States alone, 185,400 ha of wetlands were destroyed per year from
the mid-1950s to the 1970s, with another 117,400 ha lost per year
from the mid-1970s to the 1980s; another 155,200 ha were lost from
1986 to 1997 (Dodd and Smith, 2003). In the Great Plains, optimal
amphibian habitat declined by 22% from 2007 to 2012, or 3.8 million
ha to 2.9 million ha (Mushet et al., 2014). These numbers are
frightening when considering the potential loss of aquatic diversity
and individual frogs. Habitat changes affect amphibians over a long
time period, so it is necessary to consider both historic and current
landscape effects on frog populations in order to conserve them
(Piha et al., 2007).
Anurans, with their unprotected eggs, aquatic larval development,
permeable skins, complex endocrinological and morphologic changes
associated with metamorphosis, diverse life histories, and biphasic
life cycles requiring both terrestrial and aquatic habitats, are being
saturated by a host of lethal and sublethal pesticides and other toxic
substances (Quaranta et al., 2009). Emerging infectious diseases
such as amphibian chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis),
ranaviruses, and novel alveolate pathogens threaten worldwide
impacts (e.g., Fisher and Garner, 2007; Vredenburg et al., 2010b;
Gray and Chinchar, 2015; James et al., 2015; Earl et al., 2016; Kolby
and Daszak, 2016; Isidoro-Ayza et al., 2017; Rollins-Smith, 2020).
Indeed, amphibian chytrid is now so widespread that it can be
considered endemic across North America (Lannoo et al., 2011).
Unfortunately, there are still no effective methods to reduce the
impacts of chytridiomycosis, and the strategies that have been
proposed have not been tested in the field and face a variety of
economic, logistic, societal, and biological hurdles to their
implementation (Woodhams et al., 2011; Garner et al., 2016).
In addition to diseases, many malformations have appeared in
amphibian populations (Lannoo, 2008; Reeves et al., 2013). Threats
such as global and regional climate change affect both temperature
and precipitation patterns and further imperil frogs, especially those
with limited distributions and dispersal capabilities (Corn, 2005;
Lawler et al., 2009; Barrett et al., 2014). Invasive plants and animals
offer additional novel threats to amphibian habitats and species
(Bucciarelli et al., 2014). As with all biota, threats faced by
amphibians do not act in a vacuum. Threats may act synergistically,
that is, the factors are additive, thus accelerating the rate of decline
(Blaustein et al., 2011; Hof et al., 2011; Buck et al., 2012; Battaglin
et al., 2016; Grant et al., 2016, 2020). Fully one-third of all
amphibians are now considered threatened worldwide (Stuart et al.,
2004), and 168 amphibians have become extinct within the last
several decades. Clearly, these are treacherous times for many frogs,
as many of the species accounts will indicate.
Anuran conservation requires an integrated landscape approach to
management, rather than a species-oriented focus, except under dire
circumstances (e.g., Semlitsch, 2000; Grant et al. 2013; Thompson
et al., 2015). The reason for this is simple: frogs do not live in nature
in a biotic or physical vacuum. They frequently move from wetlands
to terrestrial sites, and movements may cover hundreds of meters.
This necessitates the protection of breeding sites, movement
corridors, and surrounding terrestrial habitats used for foraging and
overwintering (Cayuela et al., 2020). Simply “protecting” breeding
sites will not conserve anuran populations. It once was thought that
if frogs and habitats could be protected against take or destruction,
then frog populations would survive. Threats from disease, toxic
chemicals, and climate change clearly have demonstrated the
inadequacy of such an approach. The genetic consequences of
habitat fragmentation also are much better understood, so
connectivity among even protected sites must be maintained despite
serious habitat fragmentation (Cushman, 2006; Becker et al., 2007).
Habitats cannot be surrounded by a fence or even be inside well-
protected parks with the assumption they will maintain their
ecological integrity (Nori et al., 2015).
Frog management options range from the rather simple and
inexpensive to the very complex and expensive. When planning, the
overriding consideration should be “first, do no harm” to the species,
its community, or its habitat. High technology–based approaches
may work no better than simple and inexpensive approaches, and
care should be exercised to maximize the benefits from the human
resources and funds available. The primary objectives of
management should always focus on the species or community of
concern, and not on peripheral or extended objectives, such as
positive publicity. Even when extensive restoration and other
management efforts are undertaken, it may take a long time for
them to show positive results (e.g., Walls et al., 2014b).
All state and provincial governments have statutes aimed at
protecting endangered and threatened species. The effectiveness of
regulations varies considerably among jurisdictions, and rarely is
habitat considered on an equal basis with individual protection. For
listed species, wildlife and conservation agencies frequently attempt
to develop conservation and recovery plans, but these plans are
vastly underfunded. When compared to highly publicized species
such as manatees, frogs receive a pitiable amount of financial
support for research and conservation. Unfortunately, many
individuals and organizations oppose environmental land purchase
and protection under the guise of economic recovery, which masks—
such as in Florida—a deep-seated opposition to impediments to
wealth accumulation. Such myopic foresight will have devastating
consequences for frogs and their habitats.
As of April 2022, the following species are protected under
provisions of the US Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,
as Endangered or Threatened: Wyoming Toad (Anaxyrus baxteri),
Arroyo Toad (A. californicus), Yosemite Toad (A. canorus), Houston
Toad (A. houstonensis), Dixie Valley Toad (A. williamsi), Chiricahua
Leopard Frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis), Dusky Gopher Frog (L.
sevosus), California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii), Mountain
Yellow-legged Frog (R. muscosa, both northern and southern
populations), Oregon Spotted Frog (R. pretiosa), and Sierra Nevada
Yellow-legged Frog (R. sierrae). The following should be considered
candidate species: Railroad Valley Toad (A. nevadensis), Hot Creek
Toad (A. monfontanus), Illinois Chorus Frog (Pseudacris illinoensis),
and Relict Leopard Frog (Lithobates onca).
 In 2002, the Government of Canada enacted the Species at Risk
Act, its first endangered species act. Under that legislation, the
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC) decides which species are at risk. COSEWIC is funded by
Environment Canada, but it otherwise operates independently of the
government. COSEWIC commissions studies of native species whose
survival in Canada might be at risk. Based on that research, it places
them in one of five categories: extinct, extirpated, endangered,
threatened, or special concern. The Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog
(Ascaphus montanus), Fowler’s Toad (Anaxyrus fowleri), Great Basin
Spadefoot (Spea intermontana), Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana
pretiosa), Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens, Rocky
Mountain population), Blanchard’s Cricket Frog (Acris blanchardi),
and Western Chorus Frog (Pseudacris triseriata) are listed as
endangered or threatened species by COSEWIC.
The rise of human population coupled with agricultural and
industrial development has been termed the Anthropocene. Although
lasting only a few thousand years, direct and indirect human activity
during the Anthropocene has dramatically threatened the
environment of frogs and indeed much of nature. At the same time,
human action is necessary to prevent the continued loss of frogs and
biodiversity in general; if frogs are to survive, humans must take
effective measures to ensure their future. There are many ways to
do this, from active participation in research to joining organizations
trying to conserve what remains of Earth’s biotic diversity. Concerned
individuals may become “citizen scientists,” learning the methods of
research and cooperating with state, provincial, and national
conservation organizations and government agencies in monitoring
species’ status (Lee et al., 2021). People need to be aware of how
land-use proposals impact the function and diversity of nature, and
to oppose those that are detrimental to natural systems. Individuals
must learn to think critically, keep abreast of scientific developments,
develop a passion for the value of nature unto itself, and not be
afraid to oppose ignorance and ideologically based hyperbole, such
as that surrounding climate change and the impact of pesticides on
sexual development, health, and ecosystem function. In short, be
involved.

The Frog in North American Culture

Frogs have had a very long association with humans throughout the
world, whether through mythology, spirituality, art, literature, or
scientific investigation (Crump, 2015). Their effigies occur on totem
poles in Alaska, pueblo pottery, and on pipes ceremonially smoked by
Native peoples in the Midwest and Southeast (Figs. 11–12). In post-
European contact, images of frogs from North America first appeared
in Catesby’s magnificent The Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and
the Bahamas, published in parts from 1729 to 1742 (Fig. 13). Frogs
continue to provide us with immense inspiration and enjoyment with
their calls that signal an end to winter and the rebirth of dormant
nature. They eat massive quantities of injurious insects; they are
subjects of research in development, regeneration, tissue repair, and
genetics; and they are prey for countless other animals within their
community. Despite the presence of sometimes noxious or toxic
secretions, frogs and toads are gentle creatures that can be handled
safely.
Fig. 11. Zuni bowl featuring tadpole motif. Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, England.
Photo: C.K. Dodd, Jr.

Archie Carr, a well-known Florida naturalist and scientist, once

noted that “any damn fool knows a catfish.” The same could be said
of frogs. Because of their sheer abundance during the breeding
season and at metamorphosis, and their often sudden appearance
associated with rainfall, frogs are familiar to people throughout the
continent, and likely have been since humans first set foot in North
America. Universally, they are associated with fecundity (abundance)
and rebirth (the end of drought, the arrival of spring after a long
winter). Sometimes they are representative of good, whereas at
other times—particularly in European cultures—they are associated
with evil or the underworld. In fact, they are simply benign animals
going about their business of life.
Fig. 12. Frog pipe, Hopewell Culture, central United States. British Museum,
London. Photo: C.K. Dodd, Jr.

Frogs occur frequently in the stories and mythology of First

Nations peoples (Crump, 2015) where their biphasic life cycle
suggests spiritual transformation. They were (and are) symbols of
wisdom, knowledge, wealth, and protection to some Nations; for
example, the Haida of coastal Canada and the Pacific Northwest
carved frogs on house posts to prevent the house from falling down.
Frogs possess the power to go between worlds and live in both the
natural and supernatural. Frog images appear frequently on feast
bowls and totem poles and in Haida art. An excellent collection of
these is on display at the Museum of Anthropology at the University
of British Columbia.
Frogs occur frequently in oral traditions. In the Frog Mountain
Story of the Sinixt Nation, a frog tells the People how to survive a
great drought, with the frogs coming to feed the People until the
land recovers. One day a frog tells the People in their protective cave
to no longer eat the frogs, for the danger has passed. The frog gives
the People a final gift, transforming into a great mountain (Frog
Mountain). The moral: “We are small creatures who do not seem to
impact life, threaten life, or support life in any way. We have shown
through our love and our offering to you that even something
believed to be small and unimportant can become a powerful being
in both deed and symbol” (see
http://sinixtnation.org/content/swarakxn-chaptikwl-frog-mountain-
story). There certainly is a lesson there for everyone. In addition to
symbolism, frogs also are important in the history of First Nations
peoples. For example, the Kiks.adi (Frog) Clan of the Tlingit Nation
built a fort at Sitka, Alaska, in 1804 to defend themselves temporarily
against invasion by Russian colonists (Urban and Carter, 2021; also
see https://www.akherpsociety.org/kiksadihistory.htm).
Fig. 13. Green Treefrog (Dryophytes cinereus) on skunk weed. Mark Catesby:
Natural History of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands. Issued in parts 1731–
1743.

In the Native American Southwest, frogs feature prominently on

pottery and in legends and stories, particularly those associated with
rain and Creation. The four frogs motif can be found on Navajo rugs
(Fig. 14) and sand paintings. (The frog is a deity who can make
floodwaters recede and who plays a role in fertility.) For the Hopi,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of A marvelous
history of Mary of Nimmegen
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: A marvelous history of Mary of Nimmegen

Translator: Harry Morgan Ayres

Author of introduction, etc.: Adriaan Jacob Barnouw

Release date: June 30, 2022 [eBook #68434]

Language: English

Original publication: Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1924

Credits: Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed Proofreading

Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced
from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A

MARVELOUS HISTORY OF MARY OF NIMMEGEN ***
 THE DUTCH LIBRARY.
Vol. I. LANCELOT OF DENMARK
Vol. II. ESMOREIT
Vol. III. MARY OF NIMMEGEN

THE DUTCH LIBRARY

III

A MARVELOUS HISTORY
OF MARY OF NIMMEGEN

Printed in the Netherlands

A
MARVELOUS HISTORY OF
MARY OF NIMMEGEN
WHO FOR MORE THAN SEVEN YEAR
LIVED AND HAD ADO WITH THE DEVIL
 Translated from the Middle Dutch by
HARRY MORGAN AYRES
Associate Professor in Columbia University
With an introduction by
ADRIAAN J. BARNOUW
Queen Wilhelmina Professor in Columbia University

Of this series fifty copies have been printed

on real Dutch hand-made paper, in 8vo size
 INTRODUCTION
The miracle play of Mary of Nimmegen is one of the gems of
Dutch mediaeval literature. Its heroine is a reincarnation of Beatrice,
the runaway nun from a Brabant convent who, after wandering
seven years with her paramour, and living other seven as a public
woman, returned, a repentant sinner, to the convent to find that she
had never been missed. For all those fourteen years the Mother of
God had served, in her person, as sacristan, because Beatrice had
never let a day go by without praying an Ave Maria.
The love idyll of this early legend has been turned into a grotesque
caricature by the author of our miracle play. The handsome youth
whose seductions proved stronger than the nun’s monastic vows is
changed into “an ill-favored devil of a man”, as he is described by
one of the tipplers in the Antwerp tavern. Leering Moonen’s one eye
is a mirror that distorts the smile of love into a grimace. His promise
to satisfy the girl’s craving for pleasure and finery is the substitute
magic whereby he works his charm upon her, and even that would
have failed of its effect without the aid of Mary’s fit of despair.
Despondency is the devil’s abettor. To us moderns, accustomed to
the searching analysis of mental reactions, the girl’s easy surrender
to both the fit and the fiend is not sufficiently accounted for. But the
author of “Mary of Nimmegen” did not attempt to unravel the
involutions of the mind. His aim was to glorify the ways of God’s
mother to man, and the actions of man required no further exposition
than sufficed to exemplify her divine mercy in its fullness. For that
purpose the relation between cause and effect could be expressed in
the simplest of terms, such as give force to the proverbial wisdom of
those early days. Wanhope is the devil’s snare. That homely truth, a
reflection of the mediaeval doctrine that wanhope was one of the
sins against the Holy Ghost, is illustrated by Mary’s reckless
invocation of “either God or all the fiends of Hell”, and Moonen
appears on the scene at once in accordance with the Dutch adage
which says that when you speak of the devil you tread on his tail.
English sense of decorum, which shuns the mention of the
unspeakable one, pretends to hear the flutter of wings when it
speaks of an angel of heaven. Dutch love of realism, in scorning to
barter the tangible tail under foot for the invisible wings over head, is
truer to the experience of life, for weak humanity has always been
more easily susceptible to the suggestive power of evil than of good.
Mary of Nimmegen finds it so. Her “God or the Devil, ’tis all one to
me”, is a vain pretence at impartial allegiance. Who stands at the
parting of the ways to Heaven and Hell, waiting for God to call or for
the Devil to snatch her, has already passed beyond the point of
retrievement. The response to the divine summons will require a
moral effort which the snatcher will spare her. The way of least
resistance is the way to Hell.
Mary is never in doubt as to the real nature of her one-eyed
companion. “Ye be the devil out of hell!”, is her reply to Moonen’s
introduction of himself, and in her first lament over the sinful life she
is leading she admits to her own soul that

“Though he saith little, I may not him mistake:

He is a fiend or but little more.”

The innocent maiden who lived a blameless life in her uncle’s home
has, by one night’s experience, become a hardened sinner. It is
difficult for a modern reader to believe in Mary’s sudden wickedness.
But we must remember that the mediaeval playwright did not mean
to show his audience the consecutive stages of her degradation. The
action on the stage is an epitome of that mental process, condensing
temptation and surrender into one simple scene, the intervening
phases of mental struggle and agony being left to the imagination of
the audience. The language, which is more conservative than the
stage, has retained that simple allegory which modern drama has
discarded: we still speak of “a fallen girl”, although we demand from
the modern playwright that he show us how she slid into sin.
While the inner life is thus translated into the simplest of allegories,
life’s visible pageant is mirrored in all its variety. Its realistic portrayal
is the chief beauty of this drama. In the romantic playlets of
“Esmoreit” and of “Lanseloot” a faint reflection is seen of courtly
manners imported from France. In “Mary of Nimmegen” the everyday
life of Netherlands burghers is astir on the stage. We get a glimpse
of the simple household of a village priest, who, not unknown to his
niece, dabbles in necromancy, we are introduced into the low life of
Antwerp and hear the drawer’s call to the tapster repeating an order,
“A first, ho, a first! Draw of the best and fill to the brim!”, we watch
with the good people of Nimmegen the performance of a mystery on
a pageant-wain in the market-place, and see women take a
passionate part in the political factions of the day.
This participation of women in politics was evidently characteristic
of the Netherlands. Their meddling with affairs of state suggested to
an English dramatist of a later period a vivid scene between an
English gentlewoman and a group of Dutch Pankhursts. They
counsel her to follow their example:

“You are wellcom, Lady

And your comming over hether is most happy;
For here you may behold the generall freedom
We live and traffique in, the ioy of woemen.
No emperious Spanish eye governes our actions,
Nor Italian jealouzie locks up our meetings:
We are ourselves our owne disposers, masters;
And those that you call husbands are our Servants.
...

Do you think there’s any thing

Our husbands labour for, and not for our ends?
Are we shut out of Counsailes, privacies,
And onely lymitted our household business?
No, certaine, Lady, we pertake with all,
Or our good men pertake no rest.”

The Tragedy of Sir John van Olden Barnavelt (1619).

 Women in the Netherlands were evidently emancipated before
their sisters elsewhere. The Italian Quirini, Venetian envoy to the
Court at Brussels, in the early sixteenth century, was amazed at the
freedom the women of Antwerp enjoyed. “The ladies”, he wrote in
1506, “wear bright costumes and spend all their leisure, when the
work is done, in dancing, singing, and playing musical instruments,
giving themselves entirely over to pleasure. They keep house, in
addition, and manage all domestic affairs, without their husbands’
control.” And when Albrecht Dürer visited Antwerp, with his wife and
maid, in the autumn of 1520, he found it difficult to bring his own
ideas of decorum into line with the equality which there prevailed
between the sexes. At the banquet given in his honor by the Guild of
St. Luke, the artists’ wives were all present, and Dürer could not do
otherwise than bring his women companions to the feast. But at his
inn in the Woolstreet where he could live in German fashion, he let
his wife and maid have their meals in the kitchen, and took his own
in the parlor with mine host.
The Antwerp that Dürer knew can not have been much different
from that where Moonen and Mary lived for seven years. For hardly
more than a generation had passed, in 1520, since the author
conceived his play. The wicked aunt’s fealty to Duke Adolf of
Guelders is a motif extraneous to the plot, as poetic justice demands
that her suicide be an atonement for her cruelty to young Mary, but it
reconciles the historian to its preposterous intrusion by affording him
a clue to the date of composition of the drama. The old Duke
Aernout was imprisoned by his son in the year 1465, and in 1471
occurred his release, which stirred the virago’s wrath to such a pitch
that “she cut her throat out of pure spite”. At the time of Mary and
Moonen’s return to Nimmegen three years had gone by since her
death, and Mary, after her pilgrimage to Rome, is said in the
Epilogue to have survived the miracle of the rings for “about two
years.” The play does not tell us how many years her penance
lasted, but supposing that it was short and that the author wrote
soon after Mary’s death, the date of composition can hardly have
been much earlier than 1480. It matters little whether the poet
dramatized historical events or an invented story. The records of the
town of Nimmegen contain no reference to a performance of the
wain-pageant of Maskeroon, nor has a trace been found of Mary’s
grave, with the three rings suspended over it, in the convent for
converted sinners at Maastricht. But even if she were a fictitious
character, the author, while inserting these chronological data into
the play, imagined the incidents of his female rake’s progress as
actual occurrences in a recent past, which justifies the historian’s
use of these data in trying to fix the date of composition.
If the poet were also the writer of the prose sections, it would be
wrong to ignore the statement that Mary’s uncle, after their visit to
the Pope, lived yet, according to the earliest version, for twenty-four
years in his village near Nimmegen. The author recording events of
a quarter of a century ago would, in that case, have written, at the
earliest, in the year 1498. But there is good ground to believe that
the poet was not responsible for the interpolated prose, which is not
essential to the play on the stage. Some Dutch critics hold the prose
to be part of the drama as originally written, and intended to be
spoken by a stage manager who supplied in his narrative the
missing links between the scenes. But the fact is that only in a few
instances does the prose serve that purpose, and in those isolated
cases the imagination of the audience could be relied upon to help
itself. By far the greater part of the prose narrative either repeats the
drift of the preceding dialogue or anticipates the incidents of later
scenes. The first meeting between Mary and her aunt is introduced
by a short account in prose from which we gather that the aunt “held
of the side of the young Duke, and after did destroy herself whenas
she learned that the old Duke was made quit of prison”. If this was
destined to be addressed to the audience from the stage, not the
past, but the present, tense would have been in order. But apart from
this grammatical unfitness for a speaker’s role, these words are
dramatically unfit as they forestall the surprise of the audience at the
aunt’s scornful reception of her niece. That the author can not be
guilty of thus crudely spoiling his own creation is sufficiently evident
from many instances of his insight into the exigencies of dramatic
technique. By premonition and foreboding he will give the audience
an inkling of imminent calamity, but to blurt out the full truth before
the truth is seen in action is not his manner. When Mary has
departed from her uncle, the good priest becomes aware of a
heaviness that he can not explain:

“Scarce had the maiden from me gone,

It came o’er my spirits, how I can not tell.
I fear with her or me ’twill not go well.”

The audience get an intimation that something awful is impending,

but they are kept in suspense as to what it will be and who will be the
victim, whether Mary or her uncle. In that we observe the subtle
touch of the artist who wrote the dialogue. He can not have been the
same man who inserted the superfluous and meddlesome prose.
How, then, must we account for its intrusion if the prose did not
originally form part of the play? The manner in which the drama has
been preserved accounts for it. “Mary of Nimmegen” has not come
down to us in manuscript form. The earliest known version is a
printed chapbook from the press of Willem Vorsterman of Antwerp,
who was admitted as a member of St. Luke’s Guild in 1512, and
remained at work in that city until 1543. The volume is not dated but
probably came from the press in 1518 or 1519. Printed plays were a
novelty at that early date. Vorsterman may have felt that to publish a
drama in book form needed some justification. The word that was
intended to be spoken could not be made to serve the reader’s
purpose without a compromise between the dramatic and the epic.
For the book is the story-teller’s domain, and the dialogue was not
felt to be a story until the narrator’s “quoth he” subordinated every
speech to his control. That seems to be the purpose of the inserted
prose sections. They were not written, in the first instance, to
elucidate situations left indistinct by the dramatist, but to lend to the
drama the semblance of a narrative and thereby justify its
appearance in print. Willem Vorsterman was careful not to offer his
book to the public as a play: “A very marvelous story of Mary of
Nimmegen who for more than seven years lived and had ado with
the devil”, is his description of the contents of the volume on its title-
page. And the three subsequent editions, that of 1608 by Herman
van Borculo, of Utrecht, that of 1615 by Pauwels Stroobant, of
Antwerp, and a reprint of the latter probably published in Holland,
though falsely bearing the imprint of Stroobant on the title-page, all
persist in calling the book a “story”, be it a “very marvelous”
according to Vorsterman, or a “beautiful and very marvelous and
true” according to Van Borculo and Stroobant. The printers knew too
well that the play’s dramatic qualities would not secure its ready sale.
The moral tale it embodied, not its literary form, was its chief
attraction, and as a “story” it made its appeal to the reading public.
This popular estimate of the drama as literature accounts for the
manner in which an English translator of “Mary of Nimmegen” felt
free to handle the original. “Here begynneth a lyttell story that was of
a trwethe done in the lande of Gelders of a mayde that was named
Mary of Nemmegen that was the dyuels paramoure by the space of
vij yere longe”, runs the title of this rendering, and its “Amen” is
followed by the statement, “Thus endeth this lyttell treatyse
Imprynted at Anwarpe by me John Duisbrowghe dwellynge besyde
the camer porte.” The story in dialogue as printed by Vorsterman
became a “treatyse” in the English version as printed, in probably the
same year, by his fellow citizen Jan van Doesborch. Vorsterman left
the dialogue of the playwright intact from no scrupulous respect for
an author’s work of art. It suited his convenience to print it as it was
written, his own prose, or that of the scribbler he employed, being
sufficient to justify his labeling the book a “story”. But the translator,
who had to re-word the entire dialogue in any case, had no reasons
of convenience to make him spare the poet’s creation. He made a
fairly literal rendering of the interpolated prose and turned the
dramatic dialogue into a clumsily phrased narrative, of which the
following extract may serve as a sample:

“When they were come to Nemmegyn it fortuned on the

same that it was the dilycacyon of a chyrche, and when they
were within the Towne than sayde Emmekyn to Satan let us
goo see howe my aunte dothe, than sayde Satan ye nede nat
go to hyr for she is dead more than a yere a goo, than sayd
Emmekyn is it trewth, than sayd Satan ye, than sayd
Emmekyn to the dyuell what do all yender folks that be
yender gathered than sayde the dyuell the play a play that is
 wont every yere to be played, than sayde Emmekyn good
love let us goo here it for I have harde my vnckyll say often
tymes that a play were better than a sermant to some folke.”

The Englishman who perpetrated this murder of a good book was

not more guilty in intention than Willem Vorsterman, only the result of
his labor, due to the different task he undertook, makes him seem
the greater sinner of the two.
Although extraneous to the play as it was acted, the prose is not
altogether a negligible accretion. For its writer evidently drew on his
recollections of the play as he had seen it staged for his description
of some of the incidents. The quarrel between the aunt and her
gossips, enacted by their shouting and cursing and pulling of each
other’s hair; the row stirred up by Moonen among the crowd that
listened to Mary’s recital of a “goodly ballat”, one among the folk
being stabbed to death, whereupon “he who did this had his head
smote off”; the manslaughter committed by one of Mary’s potmates
at the Golden Tree; the uncle locking the rings round Mary’s neck
and hands; these are apparently bits of pantomime as essentially
part of the play as is the written context. And because of its value as
the only testimony we possess of an eye-witness of the drama’s
production on the mediaeval stage, the prose has been retained by
the present translator, his book being a faithful reproduction in
English of the earliest version of the play as printed by Willem
Vorsterman.
Of the author of our little drama nothing is known. He was,
doubtless, not a native of the good town of Nimmegen. For it
appears from verse 652 that he imagined Mary’s uncle to live at
Venlo, and a citizen of Nimmegen would have known that the
distance between these two places was not a three hours’ walk but
four times as long. The poet was evidently more familiar with the city
of Antwerp, and his picture of the drinking scene in the tavern of the
Golden Tree is vivid enough to be a first-hand impression. He was a
poet of no mean talent, and not unconscious, it seems, of his own
excellence in the noble art of rhetoric. The pride of the poets of the
Renaissance is forestalled in his praise of poesy, of which he made
Mary his mouthpiece:

“Rhetoric is not to be learned by skill.

’Tis an art that cometh of itself solely.
The other arts, if a man giveth himself thereto wholly,
These be to be learned and eke taught.
But rhetoric is to be praised beyond aught.
’Tis a gift of the Holy Ghost’s bestowing.”

The goodly ballat lamenting in its refrain that “through folly falls
poesy to decay” seems itself to bear the marks of folly’s blight. It was
a concession to the taste of the day, which held the accumulation of
rhymes, the use of grandiloquent gallicisms, and the elaborate
structure of stanzas—all skilfully reproduced in Mr. Ayres’ rendering
—to be the elements of poetry. That was the kind of versification
admired and cultivated in the so-called Chambers of Rhetoric, a kind
of mediaeval theatre guilds where the local poets and poetasters
imbibed the love of poetry with their beer. But our author, who
believed in “Poeta nascitur, non fit”, proved by his own achievement
that neither can the born poet be unmade by the temporary vagaries
of poetic fashion. Where he wrote the language that his mother had
taught him, instead of the bombast admired among the brethren of
his craft, it yielded true poetry, vibrant with emotion in the lyrical
parts, and full of plastic force in its realistic passages. Intricate rhyme
schemes are employed to emphasize the lyrical note, but the verse
runs on so smoothly through the reverberation of sounds, and the
language remains so simple and direct, that the artificial effort does
not obtrude itself upon our notice. Sometimes the dialogue assumes
the form of a rondeau, and in the scene between uncle and aunt this
device is applied with consummate skill, the uncle’s sad lament
“Alas, my sister, ye deceive me”, which is its “leitmotif”, becoming
intensified at its second and third repetition by its contrast with the
aunt’s replies, which proceed from mockery at her clodpate brother
John to heartless slander of the lost girl. The poet’s device of varying
the rhyme scheme of the dialogue according to the mood of the
speakers has been carefully reproduced by the translator, so that the
reader can form his own opinion of its effectiveness.
Apart from its poetical qualities the play of “Mary of Nimmegen”
deserves to be read—and enacted, to be sure—because it is a fine
specimen of mediaeval drama. Recent productions in Holland have
shown that the play does not miss its effect upon a twentieth-century
audience. The author selected a plot which yielded to modern
literature two of its noblest dramatic compositions. For the heroine of
the Dutch poet is a female prototype of Faust and of Tannhäuser. To
have been the first to discover its fitness for the stage is a title of
distinction for our playwright, and we regret our ignorance that can
not link his name, as it deserves, with those greater names of
Marlowe, Goethe and Wagner. His drama also affords an early
instance of the effective introduction of the play within the play. It
served a double purpose in this case. For not only did the show of
“Maskeroon” cause Mary to repent her sinful life, but it was, at the
same time, an “oratio pro domo” of the poet, as it fitly impressed the
audience with the ethical value of his art. “Better than many a
preaching,” was the village priest’s verdict. And we, of the twentieth
century, can agree with him, though we do not share the poet’s
Mariolatry. For Heaven’s joy over a repentant sinner must ever find
its echo in the poetry of this world which is a gift of Heaven to its
chosen. And of those chosen was our nameless author. The play of
“Maskeroon” has long ceased to impress repentant Maries, but
“Mary of Nimmegen” herself has attained immortality, thanks to her
maker’s gift, which was of the Holy Ghost’s bestowing.
 PROLOGUE
In the days that Duke Arent of Guelders was done in prison at Grave
by his son Duke Adolf and his knavish fellows there dwelt three mile
from Nimmegen a devout priest hight Sir Gysbrecht, and with him
dwelt a fair young maid hight Mary, his sister’s daughter, whose
mother was dead. And this aforesaid maid kept her uncle’s house
serving him in all needful with honesty and diligence.

¶ How Sir Gysbrecht hath sent his niece Mary to Nimmegen.

It chanced that this Sir Gysbrecht would send his niece Mary to
Nimmegen there to buy what so they needed, saying to her thus:

Mary!

MARY
What would ye, my good eme?

UNCLE
Hark, child, give heed as doth beseem.
Get ye to Nimmegen with all speed
To fetch straight our provisions; we have need
Of candles, of oil in the lamp to set;
Salt, vinegar, and onions eke must ye get,
And store of sulphur matches, as ye say truly.
Here be eight stivers, go hen and buy
In Nimmegen what so we lack, as ye well may.
It is by good hap the week’s market day,
So shall ye the better find what ye desire.

MARY
 Good eme, to do even as ye require
Ye know me ready; I will go my gait.

UNCLE
This even to win home again if it be too late,
For the days be now full short the while,
And ’tis hither to Nimmegen two great mile,
And now ten o’ the clock, or well more,
Heark, child, and if ye may not give o’er
Ere by broad day, as it seemeth you,
Ye may win home as ye would fain do,
Bide there the night, I would be the more at ease,
And go sleep at thine aunt’s, my sister, if it please;
She will not deny you for a night but one.
I had liefer that, than ye should over stile and stone
Come homewards darkling and alone all wholly;
For the road is of stout knaves none too free.
And ye be a maid, but young and fair thereto,
And like to be accosted.

MARY
Eme, as it pleaseth you,
I will nought other do than as ye tell.

UNCLE
Greet me your aunt, my sister, and farewell.
Buy what we lack by weight and measure true.

MARY
I will, good eme; adieu.

UNCLE
Dear niece, adieu.
God’s grace be ever thy company.—
Lord God, why doth my heart so heavy lie?
Is it that the land so sorely is distraught?
Or that my niece may in some snare be caught?
Stay, whence this heaviness? ’Tis strange to think upon.
Scarce had the maiden from me gone
It came o’er my spirits, how I cannot tell.
I fear with her or me ’twill not go well.
Would I had kept her with me at home.
’Tis madness at their will to let roam
Young maids or women through the countryside.
The knavery of this world is deep and wide.

¶ How Mary was shamefully bespoken of her aunt.

Thus is Mary departed from her uncle and come unto Nimmegen,
where she did buy all that was needful for her or her uncle. And on
the selfsame day that she was come to Nimmegen her aunt had
fallen out with four or five of her gossips concerning the Duke Adolf
who had done into prison the old Duke his father. So that she was
the rather mad or a raging she-devil than a Christian wight; for she
held of the side of the young Duke, and after did destroy herself
whenas she learned that the old Duke was made quit of prison by
the hand of the chastelain of Grave, as ye will hereafter learn. Mary,
seeing that it grew to evening when she had done all those things for
the which she had come to Nimmegen, said unto herself thus:

Now have I all such as we wanted,

By weight and measure no whit scanted,
Bought and duly therefor paid.
But meseems I have here so long delayed
That yonder is the night risen well nigh.
There is a dial, whereon I may espie
The hour of the day. ’Tis already betwixt four and five.
Here I must get me a lodging, as I would thrive.
There remains yet an hour more of day,
And in three hours I scarcely may
Win home to mine eme’s. Nay, to stay here were best.
Mine aunt dwelleth hard by, as I have guessed.
I will go pray her that she make me a bed,
An on the morrow, so soon as I be awak’ned,
I will haste me home to my task once more.
I see mine aunt standing before her door.
In seemly wise I will her greet.—
Aunt, may Christ make all your sorrow sweet,
And all them you love keep both fair and well.

AUNT
Fy, welcome, devil, how do ye in hell?
Well, mistress, what would ye hereabout?

MARY
Mine eme sent me at noon, without a doubt,
For candles, mustard, vinegar and verjuice
And for such other as at home we have use;
And ere I could run from one thing to another in hie
And search out each and all and then buy,
It is grown so late; and little may it misease you
That as for tonight ye make me a bed, an it please you.
I would e’en now get me home, but in the night
There be those who lie in wait for maids to do them despite,
Ay, and dishonor, so that they have shame of it;
And for that I am afraid.

AUNT
Out upon it, chit!
God a mercy! Make ye so much pother about a maidenhead?
Fy, dear niece, ye ken well how ye were bred
This long time, though ye pretend to such dismay.
Nor with your household matters since noonday
Ye have not been busy, as to my thinking.

MARY
In good sooth, aunt, I have.

AUNT