No interactions present.
The generic name Epidalea seems to have been rejected by the herpetological scientific community in general so we're now back to Bufo for the natterjack and green toad FOR NOW...
I'm going for Bufo, but it is kind of a matter of opinion in the end....
This is a natterjack toad for the reasons given above.
As for the name, taxonomy is always a difficult area. However, I go with what the key organisations use and the Herpetological Conservation Trust; the British Herpetological Society; and the IUCN all use Epidalea calamita (as named by Laurenti, 1768). The trouble is Laurenti also named the animal Bufo calamita in 1768 but the name E. calamita is apparently recorded a few days earlier than B. calamita therefore it wins out.
Do you think he knew the calamity he would cause 250 years later? Is this some kind of early taxonomist joke? Is he looking up/down/sideways at us now laughing at the results of his little joke? I for one feel life is too short to worry over names!
Visit the iSpot Yorkshire forum for information on events, issues and news relating to 'God's own country'
Amphibian taxonomy is indeed in flux since the recent "Frost paper". Although Epidalea may have been used before Bufo in reference to the natterjack, the genus Epidalea came back into use as a result of the Frost paper which split the genus Bufo into Bufo, Epidalea and Psuedepidalea. Most (but not all...) recent work on the subject has rejected this split until further work is undertaken. Therefore, according to these authors, the natterjack is still considered to be in the genus Bufo, which was first use in reference to the common toad Bufo bufo by Linnaeus in 1758 and therefore takes precedence.
Having said this, you are right... Life is too short, in the end it's just a great toad...
Thanks for the update, I wait with baited breath for the final decision!
Lat/Lng: 54.1, -3.3
OS grid ref: SD1975