Dryophytes chrysoscelis (Cope, 1880)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Hylidae > Subfamily: Hylinae > Genus: Dryophytes > Species: Dryophytes chrysoscelis

Hyla femoralis chrysoscelis Cope, 1880, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 17: 29. Holotype: Not stated; formerly ANSP 13672, according to Malnate, 1971, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 123: errata (not ANSP 13762 as mentioned on page 350), now lost; TNHC 37293 designated neotype by Opinion 1716, Anonymous, 1993, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 50: 94, which also placed this name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Type locality: "near Dallas", Texas, USA; neotype from "2 miles west of the Colorado River on Highway 969, Bastrop County, Texas", USA (according to Smith, Fitzgerald, and Guillette, 1992, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 49: 152.

Hyla versicolor chrysoscelisStrecker, 1910, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 23: 117; Smith and Brown, 1947, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 60: 49.

Hyla versicolor sandersi Smith and Brown, 1947, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 60: 48. Holotype: USNM 123978, by original designation. Type locality: "8 miles southwest of Somerset, Atascosa County, Texas", USA. Synonymy by Johnson, 1966, Texas J. Sci., 18: 361.

Hyla chrysoscelisJohnson, 1966, Texas J. Sci., 18: 361.

Hyla (Dryophytes) chrysoscelis — Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 336. 

Dryophytes chrysoscelis — Duellman, Marion, and Hedges, 2016, Zootaxa, 4104: 23. 

English Names

Cope's Chameleon Tree Frog (Hyla chrysoscelis: Strecker, 1915, Baylor Univ. Bull., 18: 50).

Western Common Tree Frog (Hyla versicolor chrysoscelis: Viosca, 1949, Pop. Sci. Bull., Louisiana Acad. Sci., 1: 10).

Southern Gray Tree Frog (Hyla chrysoscelis: Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 73).

Southern Gray Treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis: Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 176).

Cope's Tree Frog (Wright and Wright, 1933, Handb. Frogs Toads U.S. Canada: x).

Cope's Gray Treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis: Collins, Huheey, Knight, and Smith, 1978, Herpetol. Circ., 7: 11; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 54; Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 12; Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 10; Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37: 6; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 7; Frost, McDiarmid, Mendelson, and Green, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 15; Frost, Lemmon, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2017, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 43: 11).

Central Texas Tree Frog (Hyla versicolor sandersi [no longer recognized]: Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 73).

Central Texas Treefrog (Hyla versicolor sandersi [no longer recognized]: Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 176; Conant, 1958, Field Guide Rept. Amph. E. Cent. N. Am.: 282).


Eastern North Dakota, central and eastern South Dakota, north-central Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, south to Missouri and eastern Kansas to central and south-central Texas, east to through southern Illinois to Pennsylvania, Maryland, and to and including all of Florida, USA. 


 Cocroft and Ryan, 1995, Animal Behav., 49: 283–303, discussed advertisement call in an evolutionary context. In the Hyla versicolor group of Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294: 102. Hyla chrysoscelis is one of a pair of cryptic species with Hyla versicolor. Holloway, Cannatella, Gerhardt, and Hillis, 2006, Am. Nat., 167: E88–E101, provided an analysis that discussed the role of Hyla chrysoscelis in the formation of the tetraploid Hyla versicolor, discussed previous literature and provided a revised range. Cline, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 449–452, and Dodd, 2013, Frogs U.S. and Canada, 1: 250–262, provided accounts that summarized the literature of the species and discussed the difficulty of identification between this species and the closely-related Hyla versicolor. Indeed, the original holotype of Hyla chrysoscelis had to be replaced by a neotype because the holotype turned out to be a representative of Hyla versicolor on histological examination (Fitzgerald, Smith, and Guillette, 1981, J. Herpetol., 15: 356–360). Elliot, Gerhardt, and Davidson, 2009, Frogs and Toads of N. Am.: 66–67, provided an account, photos, and advertisement call. Altig and McDiarmid, 2015, Handb. Larval Amph. US and Canada: 199–201, provided an account of larval morphology and biology. Tye, Geluso, and Harner, Herpetol. Rev., 48: 382–382, provided a record for central Nebraska, USA, and discussed the range and possibility of introductions in Nebraska and South Dakota, USA. Ruhe, Poston, and Urban, 2019, Herpetol. Rev., 50: 96–97, provided a record from Washington County, Pennsylvania, USA. 

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.