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 chrysoscelis — Strecker, 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 chrysoscelis — Johnson, 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).

Distribution

Southern Manitoba, southern Ontario, southern Quebec, and southern New Brunswick (Canada) south through Minnesota, eastern North Dakota, southeastern South Dakota, northeastern 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. 

Comment

 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. Guyer and Bailey, 2023, Frogs and Toads of Alabama: 187–190, provided a detailed account for the species in Alabama, 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.