Eupsophus Fitzinger, 1843

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Alsodidae > Genus: Eupsophus
10 species

Eupsophus Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 31. Type species: Cystignathus roseus Duméril and Bibron, 1841, by original designation. Incorrectly stated to be Cystignathus nodosus by Cope, 1865, Nat. Hist. Rev., N.S., 5: 113.

Borborocoetes Bell, 1843, Zool. Voyage Beagle, Part 5: 34. Type species: Borborocoetes grayii Bell, 1843 (= Eupsophus roseus), by subsequent designation of Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 124. Preoccupied by Borborocoetes Schoenherr, 1842 (Insecta). Synonymy by Strand, 1928, Arch. Naturgesch., Abt. A,, 92: 55. See nomenclatural discussion by Poche, 1903, Zool. Anz., 26: 701.

BorborocoetusPhilippi, 1902, Supl. Batr. Chil. Descr. Hist. Fis. Polit. Chile: 93. Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Borborocoetea Strand, 1928, Arch. Naturgesch., Abt. A,, 92: 55. Replacement name for Borborocoetes Bell, 1843.

English Names

Ground Frogs (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 80).


Chile (ca. 35° 28′ S and 49° 25′ S) and Argentina (ca. 39° 20′ S and 43° S′).


See Formas, 1980, Experientia, 36: 1163–1164, and Formas, 1985, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 98: 411–415, for discussion of intrageneric relationships. See Formas, Vera, and Lacrampe, 1983, Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B—Comp. Biochem., 75: 475–478, for discussion of morphological and allozymic differentiation. Formas and Brieva, 1992, Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 20: 747–751, reported on immunological similarities, questioned the validity of the tribe Calyptocephalellini, as well as the association of Eupsophus with the former Telmatobiini (Alsodes, Atelognathus, Batrachophrynus, Eupsophus, Hylorina, Insuetophrynus, Limnomedusa, Somuncuria, and Telmatobius). Diaz and Valencia, 1985, Copeia, 1985: 175–181, analyzed the larval morphology and doubted the inclusion of this genus in any of the recognized tribes. See Formas, 1985, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 98: 411–415, for discussion of the close relationship of Eupsophus migueli, Eupsophus calcaratus, and Eupsophus roseus, and their more distant relationship to Eupsophus vittatus. Formas, 1992, Bol. Soc. Biol. Concepción, 63: 77–82, discussed karyological evolution in the genus and suggested the species groups noted in the comments. Formas and Brieva, 1992, Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 20: 747–751, reported on immunological similarities. Formas and Brieva, 1994, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 107: 391–397, discussed advertisement calls and karyology and suggested that two groups were evident: one composed of Eupsophus contulmoensis and Eupsophus insularis, Eupsophus roseus, Eupsophus calcaratus, and Eupsophus migueli and another composed of Eupsophus vertebralis and Eupsophus emiliopugini. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, considered the batrachylids Batrachyla taeniata, Batrachyla antartandica, and Hylorina sylvatica to be members of this clade, due to misidentified sequences in Genbank; see Blotto, Nuñez, Basso, Úbeda, Wheeler, and Faivovich, 2013, Cladistics, 29: 113–130, for details and a detailed study of the molecular phylogenetics of the group. Nuñez, Rabanal, and Formas, 2012, Zootaxa, 3305: : 53–68, included a discussion of the state taxonomy of Eupsophus. Suárez-Villota, Quercia, and Nuñez, 2018, J. Genomics, 6: 98–102, reported on molecular phylogenetics of the species. Suárez-Villota, Quercia, Vera-Sovier, and Nuñez, 2018, PLoS One, 13(12: e0204968): 1–19, revised the genus, resurrecting several species from the synonmy of Eupsophus roseus. Correa-Quezada and Durán, 2019, ZooKeys, 863: 107–152, discussed the instability in the species-level taxonomy of the genus, the evidence for the various arrangements, and provided a revised taxonomy, including detailing ranges and noting unnamed species.  

Contained taxa (10 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.