- 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
Anaxyrus nelsoni (Stejneger, 1893)
Bufo boreas nelsoni Stejneger, 1893, N. Am. Fauna, 7: 220. Holotype: USNM 18742, by original designation. Type locality: "Oasis Valley, [Nye County,] Nevada", USA.
Bufo nelsoni — Savage, 1959, Am. Philos. Soc. Yr. Bk., 1959: 252; Blair, 1972, Evol. Genus Bufo: 350; Stebbins, 1985, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 2: 70; Altig, McDiarmid, Nichols, and Ustach, 1998, Contemp. Herpetol. Inform. Serv., 1998: 7.
Bufo halophilus nelsoni — Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 40. Unsubstantiated arrangement.
Anaxyrus nelsoni — 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: 363.
Bufo (Anaxyrus) nelsoni — Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 306. See comment under Bufonidae regarding how this arrangement is part of a a system that requires widespread paraphyly.
Common Names
Amargosa Toad (Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 62; Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 176; Stebbins, 1966, Field Guide W. North Am. Rept. Amph.: 60; Collins, Huheey, Knight, and Smith, 1978, Herpetol. Circ., 7: 10; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 40; Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 11; Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 7; Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 209; Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37: 4; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 6; Frost, McDiarmid, Mendelson, and Green, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 13; Frost, Lemmon, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2017, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 43: 8).
Distribution
Amargosa River Valley, Nye County, Nevada, USA.
Geographic Occurrence
Natural Resident: United States of America, United States of America - Nevada
Endemic: United States of America, United States of America - Nevada
Comment
In the Bufo boreas group of Blair, 1972, Evol. Genus Bufo: 350. Considered by some to be an allopatric subspecies of Anaxyrus boreas. Stebbins, 1985, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 2: 70, recognized this allopatric and morphologically distinct population as a distinct species without discussion but presumably following the unpublished Feder, 1973, M.S. Thesis, Univ. California, Berkeley. Subsequently Altig, McDiarmid, Nichols, and Ustach, 1998, Contemp. Herpetol. Inform. Serv., 1998: 7, also considered it a distinct species, and although no formal discussion of this change was provided, they did note its allopatry as well as fixed differences between larvae and larval habitats. Morphological distinctiveness of the two forms is not controversial. Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 209–210, provided a brief account, figure, and map. Goebel, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 210–211, discussed the geographic variation, recognized nelsoni as a species and noted other populations of nominal boreas that might be distinct species. Goebel, Smith, Murphy, and Morafka, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 427–430, provided a detailed account, map, and conservation status. See photograph, map, description of geographic range and habitat, and conservation status (as Bufo nelsoni) in Stuart, Hoffmann, Chanson, Cox, Berridge, Ramani, and Young, 2008, Threatened Amph. World: 188. Goebel, Ranker, Corn, and Olmstead, 2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 50: 209–225, suggested on the basis of a discussion of mtDNA phylogeography of the Anaxyrus boreas group that Anaxyrus canorus is in a group composed southern California Anaxyrus boreas halophilus. Dodd, 2013, Frogs U.S. and Canada, 1: 132–136, provided an account that summarized relevant literature. Elliot, Gerhardt, and Davidson, 2009, Frogs and Toads of N. Am.: 176–177, provided an account, photos, and advertisement call. Altig and McDiarmid, 2015, Handb. Larval Amph. US and Canada: 175–177, provided an account of larval morphology and biology.
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 additional information see AmphibiaWeb report
- For information on conservation status and distribution see the IUCN Redlist
- For information on distribution, habitat, and conservation see the Map of Life
- For related information on conservation and images as well as observations see iNaturalist
- For access to available specimen data for this species, from over 350 scientific collections, go to Vertnet.