Knowledge of the rate of growth and time of sexual maturity is necessary in analyzing the age structure, survival rate and reproductive potential of anuran populations. Growth rates of transformed anurans have been determined in three ways, depending on measurements of (1) preserved materials, (2) captive individuals, and (3) individuals, either marked,or in large samples taken from the same natural population at different times during the same growing season. Except for the first two or three-year classes, the identification of age groups is impossible in samples from different, or even the same, populations. Nevertheless, Wright (1932) presented growth rates of 19 anuran species from Georgia based primarily on size-frequency distributions. Subsequent analyses of anuran growth rates in Florida (Pearson, 1955; Hamilton, 1955) have confirmed some of Wright's conclusions. On the other hand, Wright's (1920, 1932) estimates of growth in Rana catesbeiana, based on northern material, do not agree with findings of later workers (Raney and Ingram, 1941; Ryan, 1953). Growth rates of captive individuals,as reported by Flower (1925, 1936), Cowan (1941), and Wilson (1950), are of questionable validity as estimates of growth rates of individuals under natural conditions. There are few studies of growth under natural conditions. Force (1933) and Bannikov (1950) depended on modal size differences in mass samples collected at the same locality at different times. This technique reveals the average growth rate but tends to obscure the magnitude of individual variation. Furthermore, this method is most effective when the growth rate is fast enough to give a recognizable modal difference within a period of a few weeks. The time element may be critical-unless the entire population is restricted to a small area, movements or ecological shifts may modify the age structure of the second sample (with reference to the first) and invalidate the whole procedure. Other studies have been based on the growth of marked individuals in a natural population. Growth data are based on subsequent recaptures and remeasurements of these marked individuals (e.g., Hamilton, 1934 and 1955; George, 1940; Raney and Ingram, 1941; Raney and Lachner, 1947; Blair, 1953; Pearson, 1955 and 1957; Fitch, 1956a and 1956b; Jameson, 1956; Martof, 1956; and Turner 1957). The snout-vent (or snout-urostyle) length is usually measured and is difficult to determine accurately. Ryan (1953) and Hamilton (1955) made several measurements of each individual and used a mean value, achieving greater accuracy. Pearson (1955) showed that some other