Close
today i learned (til)

The Green Tree Frog: Southern Summer Ambience

October 20, 2021
A green tree frog resting on a post. This is a small green frog with a bright yellowish-white stripe running down the side of its body.
A green tree frog resting on a post.

Introduction

The green tree frog (Hyla cinerea) is a bright green, average sized frog. Adults are about an inch or two long, with females typically being slightly larger than the males. Most green tree frogs have a white stripe down the middle of their bodies, like the frog shown above. However, a minority of frogs don’t have this stripe. Some individuals, like the one shown above, have yellowish dots on their bodies as well. A green tree frog’s coloration can vary based on their environment – some individuals are more yellow, gray, olive, or brownish. An individual’s coloration is affected by lighting, stress levels, and temperature. The photo above was taken in warmer lighting, which explains why the frog is more of a yellow green.

Green tree frogs are found throughout the southeastern United States, with ranges in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, stretching all the way up into Virginia and Maryland.

Habitat & Behavior

Adult green tree frogs live in forested areas, which are located near freshwater access where they breed. These frogs become active in late spring each year, and go dormant in October. Frogs in the southern part of this range stay active all year, with frogs in the middle spending more time active than frogs in northern regions. You’re most likely to see these frogs active at night or at dusk, and you’re more likely to see an active green tree frog on a rainy day than a sunny one. While active, green tree frogs are most likely to be feeding, or moving to and from calling perches (used to signal nearby green tree frogs that they’re available for mating).

Breeding

Green tree frogs most often breed around permanent wetlands. Ponds, lakes, streams, and swamps are all common breeding grounds for green tree frogs. Human-built water structures are not off the table for breeding sites as well – you can often find breeding sites in all sorts of constructed water reserves. Breeding starts by one or a few males calling, with more males joining in the chorus. The chorus will swell as many males join, before going quiet. This cycle will continue for hours, from dusk into the early morning hours. There’s evidence that social signals between male green tree frogs have an impact on their testosterone and steroid levels, independent of calling behavior.

 

References

Burmeister, S., & Wilczynski, W. (2000). Social signals influence hormones independently of calling behavior in the treefrog (Hyla cinerea). Hormones and Behavior, 38(4), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1006/hbeh.2000.1605

Dodd, C. K. (2013). Frogs of the United States and Canada. In Frogs of the United States and Canada. John Hopkins University Press. https://doi.org/10.17161/randa.v20i3.13960

Jennison, C. (n.d.). Species Profile: Green Treefrog (Hyla cinerea) | SREL Herpetology. Savannah River Ecology Laboratory University of Georgia. Retrieved September 29, 2021, from http://srelherp.uga.edu/anurans/hylcin.htm

0Likes
About Author

Cassandra is a third year Computational Media student at Georgia Tech. Her concentrations are People and Interaction Design, and she hopes to work in UX/UI design after graduating from Tech. Outside of school, she enjoys tabletop RPGs, crochet, and photography.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til), vintage science
What’s behind your screen?
today i learned (til)
Researching the Anterior Cruciate Ligament
today i learned (til)
Carbon Negative Concrete???
today i learned (til)
The Dangers of Dye

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.