- What is Amphibian Species of the World?
- How to cite
- How to use
- Structure of the taxonomic records
- Running log of additions and corrections, 2024
- Logs of changes and additions, 2014–2023
- What is the right name?
- Curator's blog
- Amphibian Species of the World on social media
- History of the project, 1980 to 2024
- Comments on amphibian taxonomy relating to versions 3.0 to 6.2 (2004 to 2024)
- Scientific Nomenclature and its Discontents: Comments by Frost on Rules and Philosophy of Taxonomy, Ranks, and Their Applications
- Contributors, online editions
- Contributors and reviewers for Amphibian Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (1985)
- Versions
- Museum abbreviations
- Links to useful amphibian systematic, conservation, collection management, informational, and/or regional sites
- Links to useful FREE library sites
- Copyright and terms of use
Cycloramphus Tschudi, 1838
Cycloramphus Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 81. Type species: Cycloramphos fulginosus Tschudi, 1838, by monotypy.
Cycloramphos — Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 41. Alternative spelling.
Cycloramphus Agassiz, 1846, Nomencl. Zool., Fasc. 12: 110. Selection of preferred spelling.
Pithecopsis Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 22. Type species: Cycloramphus fulginosus Tschudi, 1838, by monotypy. Synonymy by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 189.
Zachaenus Cope, 1866, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 94. Type species: Cystignathus parvulus Girard, 1853, by original designation. Synonymy by Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 179.
Grypiscus Cope, 1867, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 208. Type species: Grypiscus umbrinus Cope, 1867, by monotypy. Synonymy by Lutz, 1929, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 22: 9.
Oocormus Boulenger, 1905, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 7, 16: 182. Type species: Oocormus microps Boulenger, 1905, by monotypy. Synonymy with Zachaenus by Lutz, 1944, Bol. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, N.S., Zool., 17: 42.
Iliodiscus Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920, Rev. Mus. Paulista, São Paulo, 12: 267. Type species: Iliodiscus dubius Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920, by subsequent designation of Gorham, 1966, Das Tierreich, 85: 46, and Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 139. The designation as type species of Telmatobius brasiliensis Steindachner, 1864, by Bokermann, 1951, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 42: 80, was in error because this taxon was not part of the original concept, according to Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 139. Synonymy by Lutz, 1929, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 22: 9.
Craspedoglossa Müller, 1922, Bl. Aquar. Terrarienkd., Stuttgart, 33: 167. Type species: Craspedoglossa santae-catharinae Müller, 1922, by monotypy. Synonymy by Heyer, 1983, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 30: 288.
Niedenia Ahl, 1924, Zool. Anz., 58: 107. Type species: Niedenia spinulifer Ahl, 1923, by monotypy. Synonymy by Noble, 1926, Am. Mus. Novit., 212: 14.
Cyclorhamphus — Lutz, 1929, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 22: 11. Incorrect subsequent spelling.
English Names
Button Frogs (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 71).
Bug-eyed Frogs (Zachaenus [no longer recognized]: Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 85).
Distribution
Southeastern Brazil.
Comment
Heyer, 1983, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 30: 235-339, revised and reviewed the genus. Heyer and Maxson, 1983, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 30: 341-373, discussed relationships, zoogeography, and speciation mechanisms. Lingnau, Solé, Dallacorte, and Kwet, 2008, North-West. J. Zool., Romania, 4: 224-235, discussed evidence and distribution of reproductive modes. Sabbag, Lyra, Zamudio, Haddad, Feio, Leite, Gasparini, and Brasileiro, 2018, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 122: 142–156, provided molecular evidence that Zachaenus is imbedded within Cycloramphus, rendering the latter nonmonophyletic. de Sá, Haddad, Gray, Verdade, Thomé, Rodrigues, and Zamudio, 2020, Evolution, 74: 459–475, found Cycloramphus to be deeply paraphyletic with respect to Zachaenus. Bueno, Gatto, Gazolla, Leivas, Struett, Moura, and Bruschi, 2021, PLoS One, 16(1: e0245128): 1–20, employed 5S rDNA analysis to illustrate chromosome evolution within the genus. Sabbag, Lyra, Zamudio, Haddad, Feio, Leite, Gasparini, and Brasileiro, 2018, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 122: 142–156, provided molecular evidence that Zachaenus is imbedded within Cycloramphus, rendering the latter nonmonophyletic. de Sá, Haddad, Gray, Verdade, Thomé, Rodrigues, and Zamudio, 2020, Evolution, 74: 459–475, found Zachaenus to sit phylogenetically within Cycloramphus but declined from taking the taxonomic remedy for undisclosed reasons. Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 179, placed Zachaenus into the synonymy of Cycloramphus. Colaço, Batista, Limp, and Silva, 2021, Pap. Avulsos Zool., São Paulo, 61 (e20216148): 1–11, discussed comparative larval morphology of the species and reviewed the literature of larval morphology of this group. Dias, Vera Candioti, Sabbag, Colaço, Silva, Haddad, Carvalho-e-Silva, and Grant, 2021, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res., 59: 1297–1321, reported on the comparative anatomy, systematics, functional morphology, and evolution of semiterrestrial tadpoles in the group.
Contained taxa (30 sp.):
External links:
Please note: these links will take you to external websites not affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History. We are not responsible for their content.
- For access to general information see Wikipedia
- For additional sources of general information from other websites search Google
- For access to relevant technical literature search Google Scholar
- For images search CalPhoto Images and Google Images
- To search the NIH genetic sequence database, see GenBank
- For related information on conservation and images as well as observations see iNaturalist