Hylidae Rafinesque, 1815

Common Names

Treefrogs (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 51).

Ameroaustralian Treefrogs (Vitt and Caldwell, 2014, Herpetology, 4th Ed.: 493). 

Typical Treefrogs (Hedges, Powell, Henderson, Hanson, and Murphy, 2019, Caribb. Herpetol., 67: 14). 

Distribution

North and South America, the West Indies, and the Australo-Papuan Region; temperate Eurasia, including extreme northern Africa and the Japanese Archipelago. 

Comment

See Dubois, 1985, Alytes, 4: 66, for discussion of family-group nomenclature. Duellman, 1970, Monogr. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas: 1-753, arranged the family into four subfamilies: Amphignathodontinae, Hemiphractinae, Hylinae, and Phyllomedusinae. Trueb, 1974, Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 29: 1-60, suggested that hemiphractines be included with amphignathodontines in a single group. On the basis of work done by Tyler, 1971, Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist., 19: 319-360, and Savage, 1973, in Vial (ed.), Evol. Biol. Anurans: 351-445, Dowling and Duellman, 1978, Syst. Herpetol.: 1.1, removed Australian hylids from Hylinae and placed them in the subfamily Pelodryadinae. Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 1-238, suggested that the Australian hylids were independently derived from Myobatrachidae. Ruvinsky and Maxson, 1996, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 5: 533-547, suggested that Hylidae (sensu lato) might be polyphyletic. Duellman, 2001, Hylid Frogs Middle Am., Ed. 2: 770, provided a cladogram of the subfamilies, and included Pseudidae as a subfamily: (Pelodryadinae + (("Hylinae" + Pseudinae) + (Phyllomedusinae + Hemiphractinae))). Haas, 2003, Cladistics, 19: 23-89, presented evidence from larval morphology that suggested that Hylidae is polyphyletic, with Hemiphractinae not closely related to other nominal hylids, Pelodryadinae being paraphyletic with respect to Hylinae, Hylinae not being demonstrably monophyletic, and with Pseudinae and Phyllomedusinae possibly being imbedded within it. Darst and Cannatella, 2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 31: 462-475, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence that Hemiphractinae (sensu lato) is polyphyletic and not closely related to hylids. Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294, obtained similar results and formally removed Hemiphractinae from Hylidae and into "Leptodactylidae" (in the old nonmonophyletic sense), found Pelodryadinae and Phyllomedusinae to be sister taxa and together the sister taxon of Hylinae, which they completely revised. 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, suggested that Hemiphractinae is polyphyletic, composed of three distantly related groups, and recognized these as families: Amphignathodontidae (Flectonotus and Gastrotheca), Cryptobatrachidae (Cryptobatrachus and Stefania), and Hemiphractidae (Hemiphractus). The Middle American taxa were treated in detail by Duellman, 1970, Monogr. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, and Duellman, 2001, Hylid Frogs Middle Am., Ed. 2. Accounts and keys to most of the genera are supplied by Laurent, 1986, in Grassé and Delsol (eds.), Traite de Zool., 14: 714-732. Wiens, Fetzner, Parkinson, and Reeder, 2005, Syst. Biol., 54: 719-749, provided a phylogenetic analysis of Hylidae, using less dense sampling and less molecular but more morphological evidence than the study of Faivovich et al (2005). Roelants, Gower, Wilkinson, Loader, Biju, Guillaume, Moriau, and Bossuyt, 2007, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104: 887-892, suggested that Hylidae is polyphyletic, with Phyllomedusinae + Pelodryadinae as the sister taxon of Brachycephalidae, and Hylinae imbedded within a paraphyletic Ceratophryidae. Bossuyt and Roelants, 2009, in Hedges and Kumar (eds.), Timetree of Life: 357-364, suggested on the basis of time of divergence late Cretaceous/early Cenozoic and suggested polyphyly of Hylinae and Pelodryadinae + Phyllomedusinae that these three taxa be regarded as three families: Hylidae, Pelodryadidae, and Phyllomedusidae. Wiens, Kuczynski, Hua, and Moen, 2010, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 55: 871-882, provided an expanded analysis of Hylidae, found, in particular, Hylidae, Hylinae, Phyllomedusinae + Pelodradinae, Phyllomedusinae, Pelodryadinae, Cophomantini, Hylini, and Lophiohylini strongly supported as monophyletic with Dendropsophini monophyletic, but weakly supported. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, in their study of Genbank sequences provided a large tree of hylines as part of a larger tree of all amphibians, and exhibiting some novel arrangements (noted here and in the relevant records). But, since they appear to have excluded at least the rhodopsin locus from the earlier study of Faivovich et al., 2005, whether these differences are due to analytical or data issues remains unclear. One clear difference is that Pyron and Wiens, 2011, arrived at a nonmonophyletic Dendropsophini. Schneider and Sinsch, 2007, Basic & Appl. Herpetol.: 2893–2933, summarized and discussed the contributions of bioacoustic study to the systematics of the species within this group. Blackburn and Wake, 2011, In Zhang (ed.), Zootaxa, 3148: 39-55, discussed briefly the taxonomic history of the group. Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 317-578, provided identification keys and accounts for the species in Guyana. Vitt and Caldwell, 2014, Herpetology, 4th Ed., provided a summary of life history, diagnosis, and taxonomy. Köhler, 2011, Amph. Cent. Am.: 195–274, provided keys to the subfamilies, genera, and species of Central America and provided a map and photograph of this species. Elliot, Gerhardt, and Davidson, 2009, Frogs and Toads of N. Am.: 42–125, provided accounts, photos, and voice for all species of the USA and Canada. Duellman, Marion, and Hedges, 2016, Zootaxa, 4104: 1–109, revised the entire group, excluding Phyllomedusinae and Pelodryadinae as families, reranking of several tribes of former Hylinae as subfamilies, and major generic rearrangements, some with regrettably low confidence values suggesting that this will not remain static. Streicher, Miller, Guerrero, Correa-Quezada, Ortiz, Crawford, Pie, and Wiens, 2018, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 119: 128–143, suggested on the basis of a molecular analysis of hyloid frogs that Hylidae (sensu lato) is part of a monophyletic group, along with Ceratophryidae and Hemiphractidae, within a group they named Amazorana. Faivovich, Pereyra, Luna, Hertz, Blotto, Vásquez-Almazán, McCranie, Sánchez, Baêta, Araujo-Vieira, Köhler, Kubicki, Campbell, Frost, Wheeler, and Haddad, 2018, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 13: 1–33, discussed taxonomic changes within Hylidae. Schmid, Steinlein, Haaf, Feichtinger, Guttenbach, Bogart, Gruber, Kasahara, Kakampuy, del Pino, Carrillo, Romero-Carvajal, Mahony, King, Duellman, and Hedges, 2018, Schmid, Bogart, and Hedges (eds.), Arboranan Frogs: 1–325, reported on the cytogenetics of Hylidae, Pelodryadidae, and Phyllomedusiae. Caviedes-Solis, Kim, and Leaché, 2020, Biodivers. Conserv., 29: 2515–2537, reported on a molecular tree of Hylidae, estimated using BEAST, and discussed conservation priorities within a phylogenetic context and noted discordances with results of Duellman et al. (2016) and Faivovich et al. (2018). Elias-Costa, Araujo-Vieira, and Faivovich, 2021, Cladistics, 37: 498–517, discussed the evolution of submandibular musculature optimized on the tree of Jetz and Pyron, 2018, Nature Ecol. & Evol., 2: 850–858, which provided morphological synapomorphies of this taxon. Koroiva and Santana, 2022, An. Acad. Brasil. Cienc., 94 (4: e20200825): 1–15, reported on the efficacy of different coding and noncoding loci as barcodes.

Contained taxa (1062 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.

• 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 related information on conservation and images as well as observations see iNaturalist