Hoplobatrachus chinensis (Osbeck, 1765)

Common Names

Asian Peters Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 99).

Chinese Bullfrog (Karsen, Lau, and Bogadek, 1986, Hong Kong Amph. Rept.: 21).

Chinese Tiger Frog (Fei, 1999, Atlas Amph. China: 184).

Chinese Bull Frog (Fei, 1999, Atlas Amph. China: 184).

I-san Field Frog (Nutphund, 2001, Amph. Thailand: 111).

Rugosed Frog (Nutphund, 2001, Amph. Thailand: 111).

Rugose Frog (Chan-ard, 2003, Photograph. Guide Amph. Thailand: 112).

Common Lowland Frog (Nguyen, Ho, and Nguyen, 2005, Checklist Amph. Rept. Vietnam: 20).

Taiwanense Frog (Nguyen, Ho, and Nguyen, 2005, Checklist Amph. Rept. Vietnam: 20).

East Asian Bullfrog (Vassilieva, Galoyan, Poyarkov, and Geissler, 2016, Photograph. Field Guide Amph. Rept. Lowland S. Vietnam: 89). 

Asian Rugose Bullfrog (Zug and Mulcahy, 2020 "2019", Amph. Rept. S. Tanintharyi: 35). 

Rugosed Frog (Niyomwan, Srisom, and Pawangkhanant, 2019, Field Guide Amph. Thailand: 248).

Taiwanese Bullfrog (Haas, Das, Hertwig, Bublies, and Schulz-Schaeffer, 2022, Guide to the Tadpoles of Borneo: 261).

Distribution

Myanmar (Bago, Kachin, Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing, Shan) and southern China (north to eastern Sichuan, Hunan, southern Shaanxi, southern Hebei, and Jiangsu, and including Hainan and Hong Kong) and Taiwan to Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand and peninsular Malaysia; introduced in Borneo (Sabah, West Malaysia) and the Philippines. (See comment regarding cryptic species.)

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Cambodia, China, People's Republic of, Hong Kong, Laos, Macao, Malaysia, Malaysia, West (Peninsular), Myanmar, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam

Introduced: Malaysia, Malaysia, East (Sarawak and/or Sabah), Philippines

Comment

In the Hoplobatrachus tigerinus group of Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 315 (following Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 60). See accounts by Okada, 1931, Tailless Batr. Japan. Empire: 147–149; Pope, 1931, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 61: 487–491; and (as Rana tigerina rugulosa) by Liu, 1950, Fieldiana, Zool. Mem., 2: 321–322; and Bourret, 1942, Batr. Indochine: 242–245. Taylor, 1962, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 43: 368–373, provided accounts as Rana tigrina pantherina and Rana rugulosa. See Matsui, 1979, Contrib. Biol. Lab. Kyoto Univ., 25: 334–336, for discussion of Bornean population. Fei, 1999, Atlas Amph. China: 184–185, provided a brief account of the Chinese population, map, and figure. Karsen, Lau, and Bogadek, 1986, Hong Kong Amph. Rept.: 21, provided a very brief account (as Rana tigrina rugulosa). See comment under Hoplobatrachus tigerinus which has been widely confused with this species. See discussion of type locality by Zhao and Adler, 1993, Herpetol. China: 148. See accounts by Yang, 1991, Amph. Fauna of Yunnan: 155–157, and Ye, Fei, and Hu, 1993, Rare and Economic Amph. China: 254. The name Rana rugulosa was published twice: first in 1834 (Wiegmann, 1834, in Meyen (ed.), Reise in die Erde K. Preuss. Seehandl., 3(Zool.)), and then in early 1835 (Wiegmann, 1834, Nova Acta Phys. Med. Acad. Caesar Leopold Carol., Halle, 17: 185–268). For additional discussion see Lavilla, 1997, Cuad. Herpetol., 11: 75–80, Anonymous, 1910, Cat. Books Mss Maps Brit. Mus., Vol. 3, and Bauer and Adler, 2001, Arch. Nat. Hist., London, 28: 313–326. Fei and Ye, 2001, Color Handbook Amph. Sichuan: 180, provided a brief account and illustration. Taiwan population (as Rana tigrina) reviewed by Okada, 1931, Tailless Batr. Japan. Empire: 149–151. See brief account and photo (as Hoplobatrachus tigerinus) by Manthey and Grossmann, 1997, Amph. Rept. Südostasiens: 90–91. Huang, 1990, Fauna Zhejiang, Amph. Rept.: 75–77, provided an account (as Rana tigrina rugulosa) for Zhejiang populations. Zhang and Wen, 2000, Amph. Guangxi: 97, provided an account for Guangxi. See also brief account (as Rana rugulosa) by Zhao and Yang, 1997, Amph. Rept. Hengduan Mountains Region: 97–98. Schmalz and Zug, 2003 "2002", Hamadryad, 27: 90–98, discussed geographic variation among populations noting distinctions between eastern and western populations in Myanmar. Song, Jang, Zou, and Shi, 2002, Herpetol. Sinica, 9: 69–79, reported the species from Hainan I. Reported (as Hoplobatrachus chinensis) for southwestern Cambodia by Ohler, Swan, and Daltry, 2002, Raffles Bull. Zool., 50: 465–481. Stuart, 1999, in Duckworth et al. (eds.), Wildlife in Lao PDR: 45, reported the species in Laos. Chan-ard, 2003, Photograph. Guide Amph. Thailand: 112–113, provided a very brief account (as Hoplobatrachus rugulosus), map for Thailand, and photograph. Nguyen, Ho, and Nguyen, 2005, Checklist Amph. Rept. Vietnam: 148, provided a photograph. Stuart, 2005, Herpetol. Rev., 36: 477, provided specific localities for Laos. Lue, Tu, and Hsiang, 1999, Atlas Taiwan Amph. Rept.: 82–83, provided a brief account for Taiwan (as Rana tigerana rugulosa). Yang, 2008, in Yang and Rao (ed.), Amph. Rept. Yunnan: 72–73, provided a brief account (as Rana rugulosa) for Yunnan, China. Neang and Holden, 2008, Field Guide Amph. Cambodia: 87, provided a photograph, brief account of identification, ecology, and range in Cambodia. Fei, Hu, Ye, and Huang, 2009, Fauna Sinica, Amph. 3: 1320–1328, provided an account (as Hoplobatrachus chinensis) for China, figures, and map. Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Colored Atlas of Chinese Amph.: 352, provided a brief account for China (as Hoplobatrachus chinensis) including photographs. Shi, 2011, Amph. Rept. Fauna Hainan: 106–107, provided an account for Hainan as Rana rugulosa. Chan-ard, Cota, and Makchai, 2011, Amph. E. Region Thailand: 62–63, provided a photograph and brief account for eastern Thailand. Gaulke, 2011, Herpetofauna Panay Island: 81–82, provided a brief account for Panay Island, Philippines, where it is introduced. Aran, Chuaynkern, Duangjai, and Chuaynkern, 2012, J. Wildlife Thailand, 19: 41–73, described larval morphology including the oral apparatus. Pansook, Khonsue, Piyapattanakorn, and Pariyanonth, 2012, Zool. Sci., Tokyo, 29: 54–59, provided molecular evidence for the existence of two species existing under this one name in Thailand alone, with the Isthmus of Kra being the dividing line. Given the large range and the taxic diversity in just this one part of the distribution workers should expect several new species to be named out of this complex in the next few years (DRF). Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2012, Colored Atlas Chinese Amph. Distr.: 440–441, provided an account (as Hoplobatrachus chinensis), photographs, and a range map. Yu, Zhang, and Zheng, 2012, Mitochondrial DNA, 23: 336–337, reported on the complete mtDNA genome. Peralta, Pagente, Balaba, Buenavista, and Sy, 2016, Herpetol. Rev., 47: 247, provided a record for Bukidnon Province, Mindanao, Philippines, and noted the known range of this introduced species on that island. See account, photograph, and map for Vietnam in Vassilieva, Galoyan, Poyarkov, and Geissler, 2016, Photograph. Field Guide Amph. Rept. Lowland S. Vietnam: 89–90. Yu, Zhang, Li, Zheng, and Shao, 2015, PLoS One, 10(4: e0124825): 1–22, reported on mtDNA and suggested on this basis that the species is composed of at least two cryptic species, both widely distributed from Zhejiang China to Thailand; other regions not investigated. Pham, An, Herbst, Bonkowski, Ziegler, and Nguyen, 2017, Bonn Zool. Bull., 66: 37–53, provided records for Cao Bang Province, Vietnam, along with observatons on morphology and natural history. Guo, Yang, and Li, 2009, Colored Illust. Amph. Rept. Taiwan: 80–81, provided a brief account, photographs, and map. Shen, 2014, Fauna Hunan, Amph.: 268–273, provided an account for Hunan, China. Li, 2011, Amph. Rept. Guangdong: 56, provided a brief account for Guangdong, China, and photograph. Hasan, Islam, Khan, Wanichanon, Kurabayashi, and Sumida, 2017, Asian Herpetol. Res., 8: 27–38, reported on crossing experiments with Hoplobatrachus litoralis and Hoplobatrachus tigerinus. Mulcahy, Lee, Miller, Chand, Thura, and Zug, 2018, ZooKeys, 757: 85–162, a record from Tanintharyi Division, Myanmar. Niyomwan, Srisom, and Pawangkhanant, 2019, Field Guide Amph. Thailand: 248–249, provided a brief account (photographs, habitat, and range) for Thailand (in Thai) Makchai, Chuaynkern, Safoowong, Chuachat, and Cota, 2020, Amph. N. Thailand: 55, provided photographs, a brief account for Thailand, and a range map. Zug and Mulcahy, 2020 "2019", Amph. Rept. S. Tanintharyi: 35–36, provided a brief account for South Tanintharyi, peninsular Myanmar. Pham, Do, Ngo, Tran, Ziegler, and Nguyen, 2020, Check List, 16: 1025–1041, provided a record from Hai Ha District, Quang Ninh Province, Vietnam, on the Guangxi, China, border. Traijitt, Kitana, Khonsue, and Kitana, 2021, Tropical Nat. Hist., Thailand, 21: 184–199. described larval development. Zug, 2022, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 653: 19–20, briefly discussed identification, habitat, and range within Myanmar. Dufresnes and Litvinchuk, 2022, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 195: 705, noted that the name Hoplobatrachus burkilli would be available for the southwestern cryptic lineage. Haas, Das, Hertwig, Bublies, and Schulz-Schaeffer, 2022, Guide to the Tadpoles of Borneo: 261–262, summarized the knowledge of habitat, reproduction, larval morphology and coloration.   

Rana chinensis Osbeck, 1765 was considered by Werner, 1903, Abh. Math. Physik. Cl. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., 22: 358, and Boulenger, 1918, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, 2: 241–257, to be synonymous with Rana nigromaculata. Stejneger, 1907, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 58: 94, considered chinensis to be only questionably an older name for Rana nigromaculata and more likely applied to Limnonectes tigerinus. Bolkay, 1911, Proc. Washington Acad. Sci., 13: 67–84, considered it an older name for Rana nigromaculata. Liu, 1950, Fieldiana, Zool. Mem., 2: 309, discussed this taxon in passing, noting that some authors thought it might be an older name for Rana nigromaculata, although he thought it unidentifiable, even to genus. Subsequently he (Liu and Hu, 1961, Tailless Amph. China: 114) treated it as a senior synonym of Rana nigromaculata. Dubois and Ohler, 1996 "1994", Zool. Polon., 39: 164, and Kosuch, Vences, Dubois, Ohler, and Böhme, 2001, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 21: 405, suggested that it was likely a senior synonym of Hoplobatrachus rugulosus and that Ohler and Dubois intended to publish evidence for this conclusion in the future. The neotype designation of Fei and Ye in Fei, Hu, Ye, and Huang, 2009, Fauna Sinica, Amph. 3: 1320, preempted the work by Dubois et al. Dubois, 2021, Bionomina, 24: 38–50, argued for use of the name Hoplobatrachus chinensis. DRF does not agree with at least some of his arguments, but pretty clearly this has to be settled and the least troublesome way forward, short of appealing to the ICZN (hardly a functioning institution at present), is to accept Hoplobatrachus chinensis. Tan and Sy, 2023, Herpetol. Rev., 54: 240, summarized the range in the Philippines and provided a new record from Pampanga Province, Luzon. Cook-Price, Makchai, Hasin, and Suwanwaree, 2024, ZooKeys, 1207: 167–183, reported the species and its natural history on Ko Pha-ngan I., Surat Thani Province, Thailand.  

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 additional information specific to China see Amphibia China
• For access to available specimen data for this species, from over 350 scientific collections, go to Vertnet.