Red: Historic range in California
(No longer present in all these areas)
Click on the map for a topographical view
Map with California County Names
Listen to this frog:
A short example
|
|
|
|
|
Adult, Mendocino County |
Adult, Mendocino County |
|
|
|
|
Adult, Santa Clara County, showing the yellow under the legs
that give the species its name. |
Adult in water, Trinity County |
Adult, Del Norte County
© Alan Barron |
|
|
|
|
Adult, Santa Clara County |
Large old adult, Alameda County © Kevin Hintsa |
Adult, Marin County
© Zachary Lim |
|
|
|
|
Adult, Del Norte County
© Alan Barron |
Adult, Shasta County
© Luke Talltree |
Adult, Butte County
© 2005 Jackson Shedd |
Adult, Butte County
© 2005 Jackson Shedd |
|
|
|
|
Adult with mottled pattern,
Shasta County © Michael A. Peters |
Red-backed form, Humboldt County
© Steven Krause |
Adult, Monterey County
© David Hacker |
Adult, Del Norte County
© Alan Barron |
|
|
|
|
Adult, Marin County © Ben DeDominic |
Adult, San Luis Obispo County
© Ryan Sikola |
Adult, San Luis Obispo County
© Ryan Sikola |
Adult, Placer County
© Teejay O'Rear |
|
|
|
|
Adult, Yolo County © Teejay O'Rear |
Adult, Yolo County © Teejay O'Rear |
Adult, Nevada County
© Teejay O'Rear |
Adult, Placer County
© Teejay O'Rear |
|
|
|
|
Unusually-marked aduilt, Humboldt County © Nathan McCanne |
Red-backed form, Humboldt County
© Steven Krause |
Adult, Marin County © Ben DeDominic |
Adult in situ on a rock in a stream in Humboldt County © Spencer Riffle |
|
|
|
|
Adult, Placer County © Zachary Cava |
Underside of adult, showing the yellow under the legs. Linn County, Oregon |
This very large adult photographed in Humboldt County appears to be missing dark pigment except in the eyes and it may be erythristic, with an excess of red pigment. © Kong Tran |
|
|
|
|
A California Red-legged Frog and a Foothill Yellow-legged Frog in the same creek in Santa Clara County.
© Owen Holt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Juveniles |
|
|
|
|
Juvenile, Del Norte County |
Juvenile, Humboldt County |
Juvenile, Del Norte County |
Juvenile, Santa Clara County |
|
|
|
|
Juvenile in water, Santa Clara County |
Sub-adult, Shasta County
© Michael A. Peters |
New metamorph, Santa Clara County
© Neil Keung |
|
|
|
|
New metamorph, Santa Clara County
© Neil Keung
|
Sub-adult from Mariposa County
© Christian Naventi
|
New metamorph, Santa Clara County
© Neil Keung |
|
|
|
|
Sub-adult, Sonoma County creek.
© egret.org / Audubon Canyon Ranch |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Yellow-legged Frog Eating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wim de Groot captured this series of four pictures (the bottom two are enlargements) of a Foothill Yellow-legged Frog eating a fly in Santa Cruz County.
We only see part of the tongue that the frog is pulling back into its mouth here. The tongue was larger when it was fully extended. © Wim de Groot |
|
|
|
|
Comparison of Rana boylii - Foothill Yellow-legged Frog with similar sympatric
Rana aurora - Northern Red-legged Frog
(Rana aurora is also similar in appearance to Rana draytonii - California Red-legged Frog which is sympatric with Rana boylii in much of its range.)
|
|
|
|
|
Left: Adult Rana aurora - Northern Red-legged Frog
Right: Adult Rana boylii - Foothill Yellow-legged Frog
Both frogs were found near each other in the same river in Linn County, Oregon. |
Top: Rana boylii
Bottom: Rana aurora |
|
|
|
|
|
Reproduction, Eggs, Tadpoles |
|
|
|
|
Adult male with paired vocal sacs not inflated (left) inflated (right) |
Adult male and female in amplexus, Salmon River, Siskiyou County
© Janjaap Dekker |
Adult Foothill Yellow-legged Frog in amplexus with an American Bullfrog in Nevada County © Tom Van Wagner |
|
|
|
|
Egg mass, Linn County, Oregon |
Adult male and female in amplexus next to an egg mass in a Sonoma County creek.
© egret.org / Audubon Canyon Ranch |
Tadpole, Santa Clara County |
|
|
|
|
Adults in amplexus, Marin County
© Terry Goyan |
Adults in amplexus, Marin County
© Terry Goyan |
Adult and egg mass in creek, Marin County © Terry Goyan |
|
See More pictures of eggs and tadpoles and breeding habitat.
|
Habitat |
|
|
|
|
Habitat, Mendocino County river
|
Habitat, Mendocino County river
|
Habitat, Del Norte County creek |
Habitat, Santa Clara County creek |
|
|
|
|
Habitat, Santa Clara County creek |
Habitat, Humboldt County creek |
Habitat, Santa Clara County creek |
Habitat, Stanislaus County creek |
|
|
|
|
Habitat, Shasta County creek
© Michael A. Peters |
Habitat, 1600 ft., Del Norte County
creek © Alan Barron |
Habitat, Shasta County river
|
Habitat, Trinity County creek |
|
|
|
|
Habitat, El Dorado County
© Teejay ORear |
Habitat, Mariposa County
© Christian Naventi |
Habitat, Humboldt County coast
© Teejay ORear |
Habitat, Nevada County
© Teejay ORear |
|
|
|
|
Habitat, Mendocino County creek |
Habitat, Placer County
© Teejay ORear |
Habitat, Placer County
© Teejay ORear |
|
|
|
|
|
Short Videos |
|
|
|
|
Scenes from a Foothill Yellow-legged Frog breeding site along a river in Oregon, including calls made in the air and underwater. (The underwater calls were not recorded along with the video, they were added later, however, the frogs depicted underwater are calling male frogs.) |
A Foothill Yellow-legged frog calls at the edge of a small pool in a river with just its head out of the water, producing a call that can be heard in the air and underwater. The sounds heard here were recorded with an underwater microphone placed about 3 feet behind the frog. |
Foothill Yellow-legged frogs trying to hide by blending in with the rocks on the bottoms of several creeks in California and southern Oregon. |
|
Watch more short movies of this frog at Endangered Species International
|
Description |
|
Size |
Adults are 1.5 - 3.2 inches long from snout to vent ( 3.8 - 8.1 cm). (Stebbins & McGinnis, 2012)
|
Appearance |
A medium-sized frog with a slim waist, long legs, and webbing on the hind feet.
The skin is grainy rather than smooth.
Ridges on the sides (dorsolateral folds) are not distinct.
|
Color and Pattern |
Coloring is gray, brownish, or olive, sometimes red, tending to match the background of its habitat.
Can be plain or mottled with dark spotting. Occasionally heavily mottled.
There is no mask through the eyes.
A light-colored band runs across the top of the head.
The undersides of the rear legs and lower abdomen are yellow.
The venter is whitish with dark spotting on the throat and chest.
|
Larvae (Tadpoles) |
1.5 to 2.25 inches long (3.7 to 5.6 cm) (Stebbins & McGinnis, 2012)
Eyes are well up on the top of the head.
Color is olive-gray with coarse brown spotting.
|
Comparing Red-legged Frogs and Yellow-legged Frogs and Bullfrogs |
|
Life History and Behavior |
Activity |
Little is known about the life history of this species.
It is usually found near water and is mostly active during daylight. |
Defense |
Dives to the bottom and hides in rocks or litter when threatened, using cryptic color and markings to blend in with the stream substrate. |
Territoriality and Competition
|
Unknown. Adult males may defend breeding sites.
During the breeding period a male frog was observed competing forcefully with another male by kicking him away from a female with which he was in amplexus just after the female laid her eggs so the non-amplexing male could fertilize the eggs in a sort of "clutch piracy." (Herpetological Review 38(1), 2007a) |
Longevity |
Not known. |
Voice (Listen) |
The calling of this frog is rarely heard.
The call is a faint one-note low-pitched, raspy series of 4 - 6 notes per second, made with small, paired vocal sacs.
Grunts and oinks may also be heard.
Calls are made at night and during the day mostly underwater but occasionally in the air.
In the noisy stream environments where this frog breeds, underwater sounds are easier for the frogs to hear. |
Diet and Feeding |
Diet consists of a wide variety of invertebrates including aquatic, terrestrial, and flying insects, spiders, snails, and grasshoppers.
Prey is located by sight, then a large sticky tongue is used to catch the prey and bring it into the mouth to eat.
Cannibalism has been observed in adult frogs which had eaten recently-metamorphosed juvenile frogs. (Herpetological Review 38(2), 2007)
Tadpoles graze the surface of rocks and vegetation to consume algae and detritus. |
Predation |
Tadpoles, young, and adult frogs are preyed upon by garter snakes, and possibly small mammals. Tadpoles might also be preyed on by some aquatic invertebrates. Rough-skinned newts eat egg masses as do a variety of introduced trout and warm water fishes. Some large fish also consume adult frogs. (An adult Foothill Yellow-legged Frog was found in the stomach contents of a Sacramento Pike Minnow. (Herpetological Review 38(4), 2007)) |
Reproduction |
Reproduction is aquatic.
Fertilization is external, with the male grasping the back of the female and releasing sperm as the female lays her eggs.
The reproductive cycle is similar to that of most North American Frogs and Toads. Mature adults come into breeding condition and the males call to advertise their fitness to competing males and to females. Males and females pair up in amplexus in the water where the female lays her eggs as the male fertilizes them externally. The eggs hatch into tadpoles which feed in the water and eventually grow four legs, lose their tails and emerge onto land where they disperse into the surrounding territory.
The age at which males and females become reproductively mature is generally thought to be the second year after metamorphosis, but may be as early as six months after metamorphosis. (Fellers in Elliot et al, 2009)
Mating and egg-laying occurs exclusively in streams and rivers (not in ponds or lakes) from April until early July, after streams have slowed from winter runoff.
In California, researchers have found egg masses between April 22nd and July 6th, with an average of May 3rd. |
Eggs |
Grapelike clusters of eggs are laid on the downstream side of rocks in shallow slow-moving water where they are attached to submerged rocks and pebbles and occasionally vegetation.
Eggs can number from 300 - 2,000, averaging 900.
Egg masses are often covered with a layer of silt, which probably helps to hide them from predators.
Eggs hatch within 5 - 37 days, depending on water temperature. |
Tadpoles and Young |
Tadpoles remain around the egg mass for a about a week, then they move away to feed, using rocks and gravel for cover.
Tadpoles transform in 3 to 4 months, typically from July to October.
Newly metamorphosed juveniles typically migrate upstream from the hatching site.
|
Habitat |
Frequents rocky streams and rivers with rocky substrate and open, sunny banks, in forests, chaparral, and woodlands. Sometimes found in isolated pools, vegetated backwaters, and deep, shaded, spring-fed pools.
|
Geographical Range |
This frog originally ranged from northern Oregon west of the Cascades south along the coast ranges to the San Gabriel Mountains, and south along the foothills of the western side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the edge of the Tehachapi Mountains, with an isolated population (now possibly extinct) in the San Pedro Martir Mountains of Baja California. According to Stebbins & McGinnis (2012) "There are isolated populations in Southern California in Elizabeth Lake Canyon and the drainage of the San Gabriel River."
Populations on the north coast and in the northern Sierra Nevada are the healthiest. Several apparently healthy populations occur in streams draining the south coast range into the Central Valley. The few remaining populations in the foothills of the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains are nearly extinct. This frog is no longer found along the coast south of Monterey County or in the San Gabriel Mountains, where some previous locations were North Fork San Gabriel River, South Fork San Gabriel River, SW of Crystal Lake Park, Mt. Wilson, Monrovia, and Claremont. There were old museum records from the San Bernardino mountains east of Running Springs, and San Diego County at Jacumba and near Banner, but it seems those specimens were misidentified.
Baja California Population
In his 2002 field guide, Lee Grismer mentions that two specimens of Rana boylii were collected by Loomis (1965) from the La Grulla Meadow in the Sierra San Pedro Martir of Baja California, a high mountain meadow at 2,100 meters (6,890 ft.) elevation. The specimens were identified by Robert Stebbins and another herpetologist, but then they were lost in shipment. Because the collection site was inaccessible, Loomis believed that the frogs were not introduced there. After an unsuccessful search, Welsh (1988) concluded that Rana boylii may be extirpated there due to an abundance of Rana draytonii.
|
|
|
Six geographically and genetically distinct population segments (DPS) of the foothill yellow-legged frog are recognized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other state and federal agencies. Individual protection status is designated for each DPS. (See Convervation Status below.) |
Elevational Range |
Sea level to 6,000 ft. (1,830 m.) (Stebbins & McGinnis, 2012)
(The probably-extirpated population in Baja California was found in a mountain meadow that is 2,100 meters (6,890 ft.) in elevation.)
|
Notes on Taxonomy |
Alternate and Previous Names (Synonyms)
Rana boylei - Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Stebbins 1966 1985, 2003 Stebbins & McGillis 2012)
Rana boylei - Yellow-legged Frog (Stebbins 1954)
Rana boylii boylii - Caifornia Yellow-legged Frog (Thick-skinned Frog, Boyle's Frog) (Wright & Wright 1949)
Rana boylii boylii - California yellow-legged Frog (Storer 1925)
Rana boylii boylii - California yellow-legged Frog - Thick-skinned frog, Boyle's Frog (Rana pachyderma; Rana temporaria pretiosa, part) (Grinnell and Camp 1917)
|
Conservation Issues (Conservation Status) |
This frog has disappeared from much of its range in California (possibly up to 45 percent.) Populations south of southern Monterey County are now apparently extinct. Extremely high water levels in 1969 may have been one cause for that decline. Rana boylii is also gone from an estimated 66 percent of its range in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, especially south of highway 80 where it is nearly extinct. Water released from reservoirs is a serious problem for frogs in the Sierra Nevada foothills when it washes away eggs and tadpoles and forces adult frogs away from the streams leaving them more vulnerable to predators. Airborne pesticides from the vast agricultural fields of the Central Valley are also a threat. When gold mining and other recreational activities in streams alter the streambeds they also have a negative impact on yellow-legged frog populations in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Non-native fish also stress frog populations by consuming eggs and tadpoles, and introduced bullfrogs also compete for food and eat the frogs. Habitat loss, disease, introduced crayfish, stream alteration from dams, mining, logging, and grazing, are also threats to this species.
Frogs in Oregon have also undergone serious declines.
|
|
Taxonomy |
Family |
Ranidae |
True Frogs |
Rafinesque, 1814 |
Genus |
Rana |
True Frogs |
Linnaeus, 1758 |
Species |
boylii |
Foothill Yellow-legged Frog
|
Baird, 1854 |
Original Description |
Baird, 1854 - Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Vol. 7, p. 62
from Original Description Citations for the Reptiles and Amphibians of North America © Ellin Beltz
|
Meaning of the Scientific Name |
Rana - Frog - "Rana" probably mimics how the Romans heard their call.
boylii - honors Boyle, C.C.
from Scientific and Common Names of the Reptiles and Amphibians of North America - Explained © Ellin Beltz
|
Related or Similar California Frogs |
Lithobates yavapaiensis
Lithobates catesbeiana
Rana draytonii
Rana cascadae
Rana aurora
Rana pretiosa
Lithobates pipiens
Rana sierrae
|
More Information and References |
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
AmphibiaWeb
Stebbins, Robert C., and McGinnis, Samuel M. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California: Revised Edition (California Natural History Guides) University of California Press, 2012.
Stebbins, Robert C. California Amphibians and Reptiles. The University of California Press, 1972.
Flaxington, William C. Amphibians and Reptiles of California: Field Observations, Distribution, and Natural History. Fieldnotes Press, Anaheim, California, 2021.
Samuel M. McGinnis and Robert C. Stebbins. Peterson Field Guide to Western Reptiles & Amphibians. 4th Edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2018.
Stebbins, Robert C. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003.
Behler, John L., and F. Wayne King. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, 1992.
Powell, Robert., Joseph T. Collins, and Errol D. Hooper Jr. A Key to Amphibians and Reptiles of the Continental United States and Canada. The University Press of Kansas, 1998.
Corkran, Charlotte & Chris Thoms. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, 1996.
Jones, Lawrence L. C. , William P. Leonard, Deanna H. Olson, editors. Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audubon Society, 2005.
Leonard et. al. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, 1993.
Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie Jr., and R. M. Storm. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. Moscow, Idaho: University Press of Idaho, 1983.
Bartlett, R. D. & Patricia P. Bartlett. Guide and Reference to the Amphibians of Western North America (North of Mexico) and Hawaii. University Press of Florida, 2009.
Elliott, Lang, Carl Gerhardt, and Carlos Davidson. Frogs and Toads of North America, a Comprehensive Guide to their Identification, Behavior, and Calls. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009.
Lannoo, Michael (Editor). Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, June 2005.
Storer, Tracy I. A Synopsis of the Amphibia of California. University of California Press Berkeley, California 1925.
Wright, Albert Hazen and Anna Wright. Handbook of Frogs and Toads of the United States and Canada. Cornell University Press, 1949.
Davidson, Carlos. Booklet to the CD Frog and Toad Calls of the Pacific Coast - Vanishing Voices. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 1995.
Joseph Grinnell and Charles Lewis Camp. A Distributional List of the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. University of California Publications in Zoology Vol. 17, No. 10, pp. 127-208. July 11, 1917.
|
|
|
The following conservation status listings for this animal are taken from the April 2024 State of California Special Animals List and the April 2024 Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California list (unless indicated otherwise below.) Both lists are produced by multiple agencies every year, and sometimes more than once per year, so the conservation status listing information found below might not be from the most recent lists. To make sure you are seeing the most recent listings, go to this California Department of Fish and Wildlife web page where you can search for and download both lists:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.
A detailed explanation of the meaning of the status listing symbols can be found at the beginning of the two lists. For quick reference, I have included them on my Special Status Information page.
If no status is listed here, the animal is not included on either list. This most likely indicates that there are no serious conservation concerns for the animal. To find out more about an animal's status you can also go to the NatureServe and IUCN websites to check their rankings.
Check the current California Department of Fish and Wildlife sport fishing regulations to find out if this animal can be legally pursued and handled or collected with possession of a current fishing license. You can also look at the summary of the sport fishing regulations as they apply only to reptiles and amphibians that has been made for this website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six distinct population segments (DPS) of Rana boylii are recognized by state and federal agencies and each has its own conservation status. (See map above)
I show the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) listings from the January 2024 Special Animals List below. You can look at the most recent lists at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife CNDDB Plants and Animals page to see the status rankings of other organizations for each DPS: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals
Population 1: North Coast DPS
ESA: None
CESA: None
Population 2: North Feather DPS
ESA: Threatened
CESA: Threatened
Population 3: North Sierra DPS
ESA: None
CESA: Threatened
Population 4: Central Coast DPS
ESA: Threatened
CESA: Endangered
Population 5: South Sierra DPS
ESA: Endangered
CESA: Endangered
Population 6: South Coast DPS
ESA: Endangered
CESA: Endangered
|
Organization |
Status Listing |
Notes |
NatureServe Global Ranking |
|
|
NatureServe State Ranking |
|
|
U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) |
|
|
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) |
|
|
California Department of Fish and Wildlife |
|
|
Bureau of Land Management |
|
|
USDA Forest Service |
|
|
IUCN |
|
|
|
|