Dicroglossinae Anderson, 1871

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Dicroglossidae > Subfamily: Dicroglossinae
211 species

Dicroglossidae Anderson, 1871, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 40: 38. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Discoglossidae Günther, 1858, applied in error to this taxon by Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 57, according to Ohler and Dubois, 2014, Zootaxa, 3838: 590–594, and ICZN petitioned by Ohler, Amarasinghe, Andreone, Bauer, Borkin, Channing, Chuaynkern, Das, Deuti, Frétey, Matsui, Nguyen, Pyron, Rödel, Segniagbeto, Vasudevan, and Dubois, 2014, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 71: 244–249, to preserve usage. As of 18 July 2020, the ICZN has not acted on the petition and, predictably, it looks as if they lost it as it is not in their online list of requests to be acted upon. 

Dicroglossini — Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 57; Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 314–315; Dubois, 2005, Alytes, 23: 16.

Dicroglossinae — Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 313; Dubois, 2005, Alytes, 23: 16.

Paini Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 317. Type genus: Paa Dubois, 1975. Synonymy by Roelants, Jiang, and Bossuyt, 2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 31: 734–735.

Limnonectini Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 315. Type genus: Limnonectes Fitzinger, 1843.

Dicroglossini — Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 314–315; Dubois, 2005, Alytes, 23: 16.

Limnonectinae — Chen, Murphy, Lathrop, Ngo, Orlov, Ho, and Somorjai, 2005, Herpetol. J., 15: 239.

Fejervaryini Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Herpetol. Sinica, 12: 19. Type genus: Fejervarya Bolkay, 1915. 

Nannophryini Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Herpetol. Sinica, 12: 19. Type genus: Nannophrys Günther, 1869. 

Annandiini Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Herpetol. Sinica, 12: 17. Type genus: Annandia Dubois, 1992. 

Dicroglosseidae — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 235. Apofamily. 

Dicroglossina — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 237. Subtribe. 

Nannophrynina — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 237. Subtribe. 

Painae — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 238. Subfamily. 

Chaparanina Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 238. Type genus: Chaparana Bourret, 1939. 

Chaparaninia — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 238. Infratribe. 

Diploapainia Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 238. Type genus: Diplopaa Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021. 

Feiraninia Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 241. Type genus: Feirana Dubois, 1992. 

Paina — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 241. Subtribe. 

Quasipaini — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 241. Subtribe. 

Annandiina — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 241. Subtribe. 

Eripaina Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 242. Type genus: Eripaa Dubois, 1992. Subtribe. 

Quasipaina — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 242. Subtribe. 

Nomina inquirenda - Name(s) unassigned to a living or extinct population

Rana brama Lesson, 1834, in Bélanger (ed.), Voy. Indes-Orientales N. Eur. Caucase Georgie Perse, Zool.: 329. Holotype: Animal figured on pl. 6 of the original (Atlas); this is MNHNP 4899, according to Guibé, 1950 "1948", Cat. Types Amph. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.: 35. Type locality: "Bengale". Considered a synonym of Rana tigerina (sensu lato) by Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 376; Kelaart, 1853, Prodr. Faunae Zeylan., 1: 192; Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 10; Günther, 1864, Rept. Brit. India: 407; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 26. *Fejervarya brama—Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35; Fei, Ye, Jiang, and Xie, 2002, Herpetol. Sinica, 9: 92. COMMENT: Recognized by Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35; without discussion beyond noting its problematic status, not associated with a biological population of frogs.

Rana assimilis Blyth, 1852, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 21: 355. Types: not stated; presumably original ZSIC, but not noted in recent type lists. Type locality: "Calcutta . . . (also inhabiting Arakan)", India. * Fejervarya assimilis— Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35; Fei, Ye, Jiang, and Xie, 2002, Herpetol. Sinica, 9: 92. COMMENT: Recognized by  Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35, without discussion beyond noting its problematic status, not associated with a biological population of frogs. Previously considered a provisional synonym of (then) Rana limnocharis by Bourret, 1942, Batr. Indochine: 250, and a synonym of Rana vittigera by Theobald, 1868, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 37: 80. Considered incertae sedis or a synonym within Fejervarya by Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 61. Considered as "invalid" according to Matsui, Toda, and Ota, 2008 "2007", Curr. Herpetol., Kyoto, 26: 73, but without associating the name with a known living population.

Rana altilabris Blyth, 1856 "1855", J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 24: 720. Type(s): Not stated, but implied to be ZSIC; considered lost by Dubois, 1984, Alytes, 3: 152. Type locality: "Pegu" (= Bago), Myanmar; given as ""Schwe Gyen on the Sitang River, Pegu [= Bago]", Myanmar, by Blyth, 1856 "1855", J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 24 : 720. Considered by Theobald, 1868, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 37: 80, to be a synonym of Rana vittigera, but considered a nomen dubium by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 7, and Dubois, 1984, Alytes, 3: 152. Considered incertae sedis within or a synonym of a species of Fejervarya by Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 61; without discussion. * Limnonectes (Fejervarya) altilabris—Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 61; by implication. * Fejervarya altilabris—Iskandar, 1998, Amph. Java Bali: 71; by implication; Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35; Fei, Ye, Jiang, and Xie, 2002, Herpetol. Sinica, 9: 92. COMMENT: Name not associated with a biological population of frogs; see  Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 15–50, for discussion. Considered "invalid" by Matsui, Toda, and Ota, 2008 "2007", Curr. Herpetol., Kyoto, 26: 73, but without associating the name with a known living population.

Pyxicephalus frithii Theobald, 1868, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 37: 81. Types: Not stated, but presumably ZSIC, considered lost by Dubois, 1984, Alytes, 3: 154. Type locality: "Jessore", Bangladesh. Synonymy (with Pyxicephalus khasianus) by Stoliczka, 1872, Proc. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 1872: 102. Considered a nomen dubium by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 7, and Dubois, 1984, Alytes, 3: 154 (who considered it likely to be either in Sphaerotheca [as Tomopterna] or Fejervarya). Considered incertae sedis within Fejervarya by Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 57; without discussion. * Fejervarya frithii— Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35; Fei, Ye, Jiang, and Xie, 2002, Herpetol. Sinica, 9: 92. COMMENT: Not associated with a known population of frogs; see Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: : 35. Previously considered incertae sedis within or synonymous with one of the members of Hoplobatrachus or Fejervarya (both considered subgenera of Limnonectes as the time) or Sphaerotheca by Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5:57, 60–61. Considered as "invalid" according to Matsui, Toda, and Ota, 2008 "2007", Curr. Herpetol., Kyoto, 26: 73.

Rana schlüteri Werner, 1893, Zool. Anz., 16: 84. Holotype: NHMW 20836, according to Häupl and Tiedemann, 1978, Kat. Wiss. Samml. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, 2: 28, and Häupl, Tiedemann, and Grillitsch, 1994, Kat. Wiss. Samml. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, 9: 33. Type locality: "Borneo"; * Rana schlueteri — Boulenger, 1893, Zool. Rec., 29: 37; * Rana tigerina schlueteri — Barbour, 1912, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., 44: 64; * Limnonectes (Hoplobatrachus) schlueteri — Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 60; * Fejervarya schlueteri — Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35; Fei, Ye, Jiang, and Xie, 2002, Herpetol. Sinica, 9: 93. Not specifically associated with a known population of frogs; see Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35. Considered a junior synonym or incertae sedis within Hoplobatrachus by Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 60; without discussion although considered to be in the synonymy of Rana tigerina by Werner, 1897, Zool. Anz., 20: 266; Barbour, 1912, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., 44: 64; Boulenger, 1920, Rec. Indian Mus., 20: 12; Van Kampen, 1923, Amph. Indo-Austral. Arch.: 170. Considered a possible member of Hoplobatrachus by Matsui, Toda, and Ota, 2008 "2007", Curr. Herpetol., Kyoto, 26: 73, but without discussing evidence.

Common Names

None noted.

Distribution

Northwestern and subsaharan Africa, southern Arabian Peninsula, Pakistan and India to Afghanistan, Nepal, Malaya, and Sri Lanka; east through Nepal and Myanmar to western and southern China, Indochina, and islands of the Sunda Shelf; Philippines; Japan; reported in Papua New Guinea; introduced into Guam.

Comment

Dubois, 2005, Alytes, 23: 16, recognized 4 tribes (Dicroglossini, Limnonectini, Occidozygini, and Paini), of which Paini was rejected as nonmonophyletic, and Occidozygini was treated as a subfamily, the sister taxon of Dicroglossinae, by 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: 241. See comments under Dicroglossidae. Ohler and Dubois, 2006, Zoosystema, 28: 769–784, presented a phylogenetic analysis of Paini based on morphology and did not address Frost et al. (2005), which had also addressed this group. On this basis of analysis of morphological Annandia was placed by Ohler and Dubois (2006) in a putatively monophyletic group with Euphlyctis and Limnonectes. Allopaa hazarensis they suggested was the sister taxon of all other Paini. See comments under Chrysopaa and Nanorana for further discussion. Che, Hu, Zhou, Murphy, Papenfuss, Chen, Rao, Li, and Zhang, 2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 50: 59–73, reported on molecular phylogenetics of the Paini and proposed a monophyletic taxonomy. Che, Zhou, Hu, Papenfuss, Wake, and Zhang, 2010, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107: 13765–13770 (and Che, Zhou, Hu, Papenfuss, Wake, and Zhang, 2010, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Suppl. Inform., doi:10.1073/pnas.1008415107/-/DCSupplemental: 1–5) reported on molecular phylogenetics of Paini (although lacking material of Allopaa and Chrysopaa) and suggested in their supplemental information a subgeneric taxonomy to complement the existing genera Nanorana and Quasipaa. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, confirmed the monophyly of this taxon and provided an estimate of relationship among the constituent taxa. Hofmann, Jablonski, Litvinchuk, Masroor, and Schmidt, 2021, PeerJ, 9 (e11793): 1–22, and Hofmann, Schmidt, Masroor, Borkin, Litvinchuk, Rödder, Vershinin, and Jablonski, 2023, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 198: 310–325, reported on the molecular phylogenetics and biogeography of Paini (Quasipaa, Nanorana, Chaparana, Allopaa, and Chrysopaa), suggesting that possible paraphyly of Nanorana, with the subgenus Chaparana being most closely related to Allopaa, and the subgenera Nanorana and Paa being the sister taxon of that unit. This 

Contained taxa (211 sp.):

Chrysopaa Ohler and Dubois, 2006 (1 sp.)
Euphlyctis Fitzinger, 1843 (8 sp.)
Fejervarya Bolkay, 1915 (14 sp.)
Hoplobatrachus Peters, 1863 (6 sp.)
Limnonectes Fitzinger, 1843 (91 sp.)
Minervarya Dubois, Ohler, and Biju, 2001 (31 sp.)
Nannophrys Günther, 1869 (4 sp.)
Nanorana Günther, 1896 (33 sp.)
Ombrana Dubois, 1992 (1 sp.)
Quasipaa Dubois, 1992 (13 sp.)
Sphaerotheca Günther, 1859 (9 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.