Adenomus Cope, 1861

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Bufonidae > Genus: Adenomus
2 species

Adenomus Cope, 1861 "1860", Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 12: 371. Type species: Adenomus badioflavus Cope, 1860, by monotypy.

English Names

None noted.


Sri Lanka.


Adenomus was placed in the synonymy of Bufo by Cope, 1862, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 14: 358; Günther, 1864, Rept. Brit. India: 421; Cope, 1867, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 193; and Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 281. Manamendra-Arachchi and Pethiyagoda, 1998, J. South Asian Nat. Hist., 3: 215, resurrected Adenomus without discussion of diagnostic features or phylogenetic placement, a move that will likely prove controversial. Nevertheless, Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 25, had resurrected the Adenominae for a number of genera (Ansonia, Bufoides, Leptophryne, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, and Pseudobufo), but did not include Adenomus (the type genus of the Adenominae) in this list, implying that he considered Adenomus badioflavus to fit into one of these nominal genera, none of which is Bufo, in which synonymy Adenomus sat at the time. Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, de Sá, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green, and Wheeler, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297, did not address Adenomus and its phylogenetic status remains questionable. Likely, several of the species of "Bufo" in southern India will prove to be cladistic near relatives of Adenomus (DRF). Smith and Chiszar, 2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol., 1: 6-8, implied that this taxon should be considered a subgenus of Bufo; see comment under Bufonidae. Van Bocxlaer, Biju, Loader, and Bossuyt, 2009, BMC Evol. Biol., 9 (e131): 1-10, and Van Bocxlaer, Loader, Roelants, Biju, Menegon, and Bossuyt, 2010, Science, 327: 679-682, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence that Adenomus is the sister taxon of Duttaphrynus + Xanthophryne. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, confirmed this relationship, although finding Xanthophryne imbedded within Duttaphrynus. Meegaskumbura, Senevirathne, Wijayathilaka, Jayawardena, Bandara, Manamendra-Arachchi, and Pethiyagoda, 2015, Zootaxa, 3911: 245–261, discussed species boundaries of the species based on osteology, larval morphology, calls, ecological niche modeling, and a molecular tree. 

Contained taxa (2 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.