Leptodactylus fuscus (Schneider, 1799)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Leptodactylidae > Subfamily: Leptodactylinae > Genus: Leptodactylus > Species: Leptodactylus fuscus

Rana virginica Laurenti, 1768, Spec. Med. Exhib. Synops. Rept.: 31. Types: Frog illustrated by Seba, 1734, Locuplet. Rer. Nat. Thesaur. Descript. Icon. Exp. Univ. Phys. Hist., 1: Pl. 75, fig. 4, by original designation. Type locality: Not designated. Considered (as Rana virginica Merrem, a subsequent usage), a synonym of Cystignathus fuscus by Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 28, and (under Cystignathus typhonius) by Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 402. Junior homonym of Rana virginica Laurenti, 1768.

Rana fusca Schneider, 1799, Hist. Amph. Nat.: 130. Syntypes: "Museo Lev. Vincentii", "Museo Lampiano", presumed lost; MNHNP 680 designated neotype by Heyer, 1968, Copeia, 1968: 160–162. Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 186-187, noted that some of the original syntypes (location?) are still extant and without study of these, Heyer's neotype designation should not be accepted. Type locality: Implied to be from Suriname; neotype from "Surinam".

Rana typhonia Daudin, 1802 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Rain. Gren. Crap., Quarto: 55–56. Syntypes: MNHNP 680 (2 specimens), according to Guibé, 1950 "1948", Cat. Types Amph. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.: 30; MNHNP 680 designated lectotype (and neotype of Rana fusca Schneider, 1799) by Heyer, 1968, Copeia, 1968: 160–162. Type locality: "Amérique meridionale"; given as Surinam by Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 50. Synonymy by Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 402; Heyer, 1968, Copeia, 1968: 160–162. Secondary homonym of Rana typhonia Linnaeus, 1758.

Rana virginica Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 177. Types: Based on frog illustrated by Seba, 1734, Locuplet. Rer. Nat. Thesaur. Descript. Icon. Exp. Univ. Phys. Hist., 1: Pl. 75, fig. 4 (named as Rana virginica Laurenti, 1768, although not so stated by Merrem), as well as other uses by other authors including Rana typhonia Daudin. Inasmuch as Merrem did not mention Laurenti one could consider this a nomenclatural act, although more likely this is a subsequent usage (DRF).

Rana sibilatrix Wied-Neuwied, 1824, Isis von Oken, 14: 671. Also published by Wied-Neuwied, 1824, Abbild. Naturgesch. Brasil., Heft 8: pl. 47, fig. 2. See comments by Types: Including animal figured on pl. 47, fig. 2 of the original; specimens otherwise not designated or located according to Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 30. However, Vanzolini and Myers, 2015, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 395: 76, regarded AMNH A-485 as a surviving syntype. Type locality: "Ostkuste von Brasiliens . . . . Peruhype bei Villa Viçoz vor, am Mucuri, Caravellas . . .", Brazil. Restricted to "Villa Viçosa am Rio Peruhype", Brazil, by Müller, 1927, Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 40: 281. Synonymy (and expressed doubt about restricted type locality) by Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 30. Synonymy with Rana typhonia Daudin by Reinhardt and Lütken, 1862 "1861", Vidensk. Medd. Dansk Naturhist. Foren., Ser. 2, 3: 164, and Steindachner, 1867, Reise Österreichischen Fregatte Novara, Zool., Amph.: 24.

Rana pachypus var. 2 Spix, 1824, Animal. Nova Spec. Nov. Test. Ran. Brasil.: 26. Type(s): Not specifically stated, but including animals figured on pl. 2, figs. 1–2 in the original publication; formerly including ZSM 2503/0, now lost according to Hoogmoed and Gruber, 1983, Spixiana, München, Suppl., 9: 356. Type locality: "aquis Parae", Brzil. Synonymy by Peters, 1872, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1872: 199; Hoogmoed and Gruber, 1983, Spixiana, München, Suppl., 9: 356.

Leptodactylus typhoniaFitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 64.

Leptodactylus sibilatrixFitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 64.

Cystignathus typhoniusWagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 203.

Cystignathus sibilatrixWagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 203.

Cystignathus schomburgkii Troschel, 1848, in Schomburgk (ed.), Reisen Britisch-Guiana, 3: 659. Types: Not designated and presumed lost, according to  Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 30. Type locality: "Britisch-Guiana". Synonym with Leptodactylus typhonius by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 240. Tentative synonymy by  Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 30.

Cystignathus fuscusGünther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 28.

Leptodactylus typhoniusBoulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 240.

Leptodactylus raniformis Werner, 1899, Verh. Zool. Bot. Ges. Wien, 49: 479. Holotype: Originally ZIUG, now ZFMK 28484, according to Böhme and Bischoff, 1984, Bonn. Zool. Monogr., 19: 177. Type locality: "Rio Meta, Llanos (Orocué)", Rio Meta, Colombia. Synonymy by  Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 33.

Leptodactylus sibilatorMüller, 1927, Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 40: 281. Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Leptodactylus sybilatrixCei, 1950, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 9: 408. Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Leptodactylus sybilatorCei, 1956, Invest. Zool. Chilen., 3: 48. Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Leptodactylus gualambensis Gallardo, 1964, Rev. Mus. Argent. Cienc. Nat. Bernardino Rivadavia, Cienc. Zool., 9: 46. Holotype: MACN 9752, by original designation. Type locality: "Argentina, Salta, Urundel, 43 Km al Oeste de Orán, Río Santa María". Synonymy by Heyer, 1968, Copeia, 1968: 160–162;  Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 34.

Leptodactylus fuscusHeyer, 1968, Copeia, 1968: 160–162.

English Names

Rufous Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 81).

Fuscous Foam Frog (Eterovick and Sazima, 2004, Anf. Serra do Cipó: 89).

Lineated Frog (Rana virginica [no longer recognized]: Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 110).

South American White-lipped Grassfrog (Hedges, Powell, Henderson, Hanson, and Murphy, 2019, Caribb. Herpetol., 67: 14). 

Lineated Frog (Batista, Hertz, Ponce, and Lotzkat, 2020, Herpetol. Notes, 13: 221).


Savannas from Panama (Coclé and Herrera Provinces) throughout South America, east of the Andes (seemingly excluding Ecuador), south to southern Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, and extreme northern Argentina.


In the Leptodactylus fuscus group of Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 1–85. See synonymy in Hoogmoed and Gruber, 1983, Spixiana, München, Suppl., 9: 356. See account by Cei, 1980, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Monogr., 2: 333–336. Rana fusca Schneider, 1799, Hist. Amph. Nat.: 138, is a secondary homonym of Rana fuscaMeyer, 1795, Synops. Rept. Nov. Sist. Gen. Method.: 10 (= Bufo fuscus Laurenti, 1768 [= Pelobates fuscus]). See account by Heyer, Rand, Cruz, Peixoto, and Nelson, 1990, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 31: 308–309. Lescure and Marty, 2000, Collect. Patrimoines Nat., Paris, 45: 232–233, provided a photo and brief account for French Guiana. Wynn and Heyer, 2002 "2001", Tropical Zool., 14: 255–285, reported on allozymic variation and suggested that this taxon is composed of at least three (and maybe more) species: a) Trinidad-Tobago-French Guiana; b) Panama; c) south of the Amazon. Márquez, De la Riva, and Bosch, 1995, J. Zool., London, 237: 313–336, reported on vocalization in Bolivia. Izecksohn and Carvalho-e-Silva, 2001, Anf. Municipio Rio de Janeiro: 74, provided a brief account and photo. See comments regarding distribution in Venezuela by Gorzula and Señaris, 1999 "1998", Scient. Guaianae, 8: 56–57. Heyer and Reid, 2003, An. Acad. Brasil. Cienc., 75: 39–54, noted strong genetic differentiation among populations was not accompanied by congruent geographic patterns of advertisement call variation. Kenny, 1969, Stud. Fauna Curaçao and other Caribb. Is., 29: 70–72, and Murphy, 1997, Amph. Rept. Trinidad Tobago: 85–86, provided accounts for Trinidad and Tobago. Canelas and Bertoluci, 2007, Iheringia, Zool., 97: 21–26, provided a record for the Serra do Caraça, southern end of the Serra do Espinhaço, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 13, briefly discussed range in Paraguay. Fouquet, Gilles, Vences, Marty, Blanc, and Gemmell, 2007, PLoS One, 10 (e1109): 1–10, provided molecular evidence that this is a species complex. Ponssa, 2008, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res., 46: 249–266. Eterovick and Sazima, 2004, Anf. Serra do Cipó: 89–90, provided a photograph and brief account. Silva, Santos, Alves, Sousa, and Annunziata, 2010, Sitientibus, Ser. Cienc. Biol., 7: 334–340, provided records for Piauí, Brazil. Ugueto and Rivas-Fuenmayor, 2010, Amph. Rep. Margarita Coche Cubagua: 80–83, provided an account for the population on the Venezuelan island of Margarita. Jansen, Bloch, Schulze, and Pfenninger, 2011, Zool. Scripta, 40: 567–583, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence the possibility of a cryptic species in Bolivia. See account for Suriname population by Ouboter and Jairam, 2012, Amph. Suriname: 228–230.See Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 422–423, for brief account and records for Guyana. Köhler, 2011, Amph. Cent. Am.: 276–281, provided a brief summary of natural history and identification key for the species of Leptodactylus in Central America and provided a range map and photograph for this species. In the Leptodactylus fuscus species group of de Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa, and Stanley, 2014, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 9(Spec. Issue 1): 1–123, who provided a summary of the relevant literature (adult and larval morphology, identification, advertisement call, and range) of this species on pp. 32–33. Melo-Sampaio, 2015, Herpetol. Rev., 46: 212–213, who provided a record for Municipality of Taraucá, Acre, Brazil. Palacio Baena, Muñoz Escobar, Gallo Delgado, and Rivera-Correa, 2006, Anfibios y Reptiles del Valle de Aburrá: 87–89, provided a brief account and photograph. Schulze, Jansen, and Köhler, 2015, Zootaxa, 4016: 74–75, described, diagnosed, and pictured the larva of their lineage Leptodactylus fuscus A. Guarnizo, Paz, Muñoz-Ortiz, Flechas-Hernández, Méndez-Narváez, and Crawford, 2016, PLoS One, 10(5: e0127312): 1–20, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence that two species may exist in Colombia under this binomial. Zimmerman, 1983, Herpetologica, 39: 235–246, reported on advertisement call. Weiler, Núñez, Airaldi, Lavilla, Peris, and Baldo, 2013, Anf. Paraguay: 92, provided a brief account, image, and dot map for Paraguay. Señaris, Lampo, Rojas-Runjaic, and Barrio-Amorós, 2014, Guía Ilust. Anf. Parque Nac. Canaima: 204–205, provided a photograph and a brief account for the Parque Nacional de Canaima, Venezuela. Acosta-Galvis, 2017, Biota Colomb., 18: 282–315, reported the species from the Municipality of Yopal, Casanare Department, Colombia. Freitas, Abegg, Dias, and Moraes, 2018, Herpetol. Notes, 11: 59–72, provided a record from the Serra da Jibóia, Bahia, Brazil. Neves, Yves, Pereira Silva, Alves, Vasques, Coelho, and Silva, 2019, Herpetozoa, Wien, 32: 113–123, provided habitat information and records for western Minas Gerais, Brazil. See Barrio-Amorós, Rojas-Runjaic, and Señaris, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (1: e180): 91, for comments on range and literature. See brief comments on range and natural history in Panama by Batista, Hertz, Ponce, and Lotzkat, 2020, Herpetol. Notes, 13: 219–229. Dubeux, Silva, Nascimento, Gonçalves, and Mott, 2019, Rev. Nordestina Zool., 12: 18–52, summarized the literature on larval morphology. Rossa-Feres and Nomura, 2006 "2005", Biota Neotrop., São Paulo, 6 (2: bn00706012006): 1–24, characterized larval morphology of this species and provided a key to the larvae of northwestern São Paulo state, Brazil. See Dubeux, Nascimento, Lima, Magalhães, Silva, Gonçalves, Almeida, Correia, Garda, Mesquita, Rossa-Feres, and Mott, 2020, Biota Neotrop., 20 (2: e20180718): 1–24, for characterization and identification of larvae north of the Rio São Francisco in the Atlantic Forest of northeastern Brazil. Vaz-Silva, Maciel, Nomura, Morais, Guerra Batista, Santos, Andrade, Oliveira, Brandão, and Bastos, 2020, Guia Ident. Anf. Goiás e Dist. Fed. Brasil Central: 111–112, provided an account. Eterovick, Souza, and Sazima, 2020, Anf. Serra do Cipó: 1–292, provided an account, life history information, and an identification scheme for the Serra de Cipó, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Alves-Ferreira, Paixão, and Nomura, 2021, Biota Neotrop., 21 (4: e20201178): 1–11, reported on larval morphology in Goias, Brazil. Reported from the Environmental Protection Area of Catolé and Fernão Velho, Alagoas, Brazil, by Dubeux, Nascimento, Gonçalves, and Mott, 2021, Pap. Avulsos Zool., São Paulo, 61 (e20216176): 1–10, who provided a key to the frogs of that region. Pezzuti, Leite, Rossa-Feres, and Garcia, 2021, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 22 (Special Issue): 1–109, described and discussed larval morphology and natural history. Palmeira, Gonçalves, Dubeux, Lima, Lambertini, Valencia-Aguilar, Jenkinson, James, Toledo, and Mott, 2022, Cuad. Herpetol., 36: 65–75, reported on habitat in Natural Heritage Reserve Mata Estrela, Baía Formosa, Rio Grande do Norte state, Brazil. Taucce, Costa-Campos, Carvalho, and Michalski, 2022, Eur. J. Taxon., 836: 96–130, reported on distribution, literature, and conservation status for Amapá, Brazil.     

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.