Dryophytes cinereus (Schneider, 1799)

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

Calamita cinereus Schneider, 1799, Hist. Amph. Nat.: 174. Type(s): at least two specimens, that used by Pennant, 1787, Arctic Zool., 2: 331 for Carolina and a specimen in the Bloch Museum (now ZMB) "ex India" (apparently in error). Type locality: Carolina; by implication of statement relating to "Calamita carolinensis" and "India" (in error); restricted to "Charleston, South Carolina", USA, by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 69, although as noted by Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 341, the lack of disclosed evidence for this restriction renders it invalid.

Calamita carolinensis Schneider, 1799, Hist. Amph. Nat.: 174. Substitute name for Calamita cinereus attributed in error by Schneider to Pennant, 1787, Arctic Zool., 2: 331. See comment below and by Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 341. 

Hyla lateralis Daudin, 1800, Hist. Nat. Quad. Ovip., Livr. 2: 21, pl. 5. Types: including specimenfigured by Catesby, 1754, Nat. Hist. Carolina Florida Bahama Is.: pl. 71, as Hyla viridis,"Sp. medic. No 26. B. of Laurenti, 1768, Spec. Med. Exhib. Synops. Rept., and specimens used to name Calamita cinereus by  Schneider, 1799, Hist. Amph. Nat.: 174, but clearly including frog illustrated in the original. Type locality: beyond the localities given in the cited literature the locality is given as ". . . dans l'Amérique septentrionale; et elle es commune aux environs de Charlestown [= Charleston]", South Carolina, USA. Restricted to "Charleston, South Carolina" by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 71, but without disclosed evidence for this the restriction is invalid. Synonymy with Calamita cinereus Schneider by Daudin, 1802 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Rain. Gren. Crap., Quarto: 16 (but using the name Hyla lateralis). Synonymy by Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 171 (under Calamita lateralis); Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 105. 

Rana bilineata Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 136. Holotype: Animal figured by Catesby, 1754, Nat. Hist. Carolina Florida Bahama Is.: pl. 71. Type locality: "warm and temperate parts of North America". Locality of type given as "Virginia and Carolina" by Catesby, 1754, Nat. Hist. Carolina Florida Bahama Is.: pl. 71. Restricted to "Charleston, South Carolina", USA, by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 70, but as noted by Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 342, without disclosed evidence for the restriction it is invalid. Synonymy by Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 171; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 587, and by Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 105. Possibly a junior secondary homonym of Hyla bilineata Daudin, 1801 (= Hylarana nicobariensis).

Hyla blochii Daudin, 1802 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Rain. Gren. Crap., Quarto: 43. Type(s): Bloch Museum, Berlin (now ZMB); based on the description of the specimen of Calamita cinereus Schneider, 1799, Hist. Amph. Nat.: 174, from "India orientali". Type locality: "India orientali", apparently in error. Synonymy by Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 171.

Calamita lateralis — Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 171.

Rana lateralis — Bory de Saint-Vincent, 1828, Dict. Class. Hist. Nat., 14, 14: 453.

Hyla semifasciata Hallowell, 1857 "1856", Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 8: 307. Syntypes: ANSP 2024–25, according to Malnate, 1971, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 123: 352. Type locality: "Texas", USA. Restricted to "vicinity of Houston, Texas", USA, by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 70, although this is invalid due to not being based on disclosed evidence according to Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 342. Synonymy by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 377.

Hyla carolinensis — Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 105. See comment.

Hyla carolinensis semifasciata — Cope, 1875, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 1: 31.

Hyla cinerea cinerea — Garman, 1890, Bull. Illinois State Lab. Nat. Hist., 3: 189.

Hyla cinerea semifasciata — Garman, 1890, Bull. Illinois State Lab. Nat. Hist., 3: 189; Rhoads, 1895, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 47: 397.

Hyla evittata Miller, 1899, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 13: 76. Holotype: USNM 26291, by original designation. Type locality: "Four Mile Run, Alexandria [= Fairfax] County, Virginia", USA. Synonymy by Dunn, 1918, Copeia, 53: 21.

Hyla cinerea evittata — Dunn, 1918, Copeia, 53: 21; Dunn, 1937, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 50: 9–10. Status as a subspecies rejected by Reed, 1956, J. Washington Acad. Sci., 46: 328–332, and Duellman and Schwartz, 1958, Bull. Florida State Mus., Biol. Sci., 3: 241.

Hyla holmani Lynch, 1966, Ann. Carnegie Mus., 38: 268. Holotype: MU 6581, fragmentary left ilium. Type locality: "Groesbeck Creek Fauna, 5 miles north, 1 to 2 miles west of Quanah, Hardeman County, Texas", USA [Upper Pleistocene]. Considered a likely synonym by Sanchíz, 1998, Handb. Palaeoherpetol., 4: 118.

Hyla (Epedaphus) cinerea — Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 341. 

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

Common Names

Bilineated Frog (Rana bilineatus [no longer recognized]: Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 136).

Cinereous Frog (Hyla lateralis [no longer recognized]: LeConte, 1855, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 7: 428).

Carolina Hyla (Hyla carolinensis [no longer recognized]: Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 24).

Hallowell's Tree Frog (Hyla cinerea semifasciata [no longer recognized]: Rhoads, 1895, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 47: 396).

Carolina Tree Frog (Hyla cinerea: Brimley, 1907, J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc., 23: 158).

Green Tree Frog (Hyla cinerea: Dickerson, 1906, The Frog Book: 126; Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 69).

Marsh Tree Frog (Hyla cinerea cinerea: Viosca, 1949, Pop. Sci. Bull., Louisiana Acad. Sci., 1: 10).

Green Treefrog (Hyla cinerea: Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 176; Conant, 1975, Field Guide Rept. Amph. E. Cent. N. Am., Ed. 2: 320; Collins, Huheey, Knight, and Smith, 1978, Herpetol. Circ., 7: 11; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 55; 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).

American Green Treefrog (Cochran, 1961, Living Amph. World: 124).

Green Tree Frog (Hyla cinerea cinerea [no longer recognized]: Strecker, 1915, Baylor Univ. Bull., 18: 49; Wright and Wright, 1933, Handb. Frogs Toads U.S. Canada: x; Carr, 1940, Univ. Florida Biol. Sci. Ser., 3: 58; Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 69).

Green Treefrog (Hyla cinerea cinerea [no longer recognized]: Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 176).

Northern Green Tree Frog (Hyla cinerea evittata [no longer recognized]: Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 69).

Miller's Tree Frog (Hyla cinerea evittata [no longer recognized]: Wright and Wright, 1933, Handb. Frogs Toads U.S. Canada: x).

Northern Green Treefrog (Hyla cinerea evittata [no longer recognized]: Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 176).

Banded Hyla (Hyla carolinensis semifasciata [no longer recognized]: Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 24).

North American Green Treefrog (Hedges, Powell, Henderson, Hanson, and Murphy, 2019, Caribb. Herpetol., 67: 13). 

Distribution

Southeastern USA, from southern and East Texas east through the coastal plain to Peninsular Florida and Delaware; from East Texas and western Tennessee north in the Mississippi Embayment to southeastern Missouri, central, eastern, and southern Arkansas, southern Illinois, western Kentucky, and extreme southwestern Indiana; introduced into northwestern Puerto Rico and New Providence, Bahamas.

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: United States of America, United States of America - Alabama, United States of America - Arkansas, United States of America - Delaware, United States of America - District of Columbia, United States of America - Florida, United States of America - Georgia, United States of America - Illinois, United States of America - Indiana, United States of America - Kentucky, United States of America - Maryland, United States of America - Mississippi, United States of America - Missouri, United States of America - North Carolina, United States of America - Oklahoma, United States of America - Pennsylvania, United States of America - South Carolina, United States of America - Tennessee, United States of America - Texas, United States of America - Virginia

Introduced: Bahamas, Puerto Rico, United States of America - Missouri, United States of America - Texas

Comment

In the Hyla cinerea group of Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294: 102. See Duellman and Schwartz, 1958, Bull. Florida State Mus., Biol. Sci., 3: 241, for discussion. The frequent citation of Calamita carolinensis Pennant, 1792, (e.g., Daudin, 1800, Hist. Nat. Quad. Ovip., Livr. 1: 21; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 587; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 377) as an older name for this species is based on ambiguous text by Schneider, 1799, Hist. Amph. Nat.: 174; the name Calamita carolinensis has never been purposely proposed (DRF) (see also discussion of the error in Rhoads, 1895, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 47: 398, and footnote by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 69). Reed, 1956, J. Washington Acad. Sci., 46: 328–332, discussed geographic and population variation. Lever, 2003, Naturalized Rept. Amph. World: 178, noted that the introduced population in Puerto Rico may have died out. See also Lever, 2003, Naturalized Rept. Amph. World. See account by Redmer and Brandon, 2003, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept., 766: 1–14. Killebrew, 1983, Herpetol. Rev., 14: 52, provided a record for west-central Arkansas. Lodato, 2013, Herpetol. Rev., 44:103, provided a third locality and briefly discussed the range in southeastern Indiana. Henderson and Powell, 2009, Nat. Hist. Rept. Amph. W. Indies: 84, commented on the introduced Puerto Rican population and implied that it may no longer be present there. Redmer and Brandon, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 452–454, and Dodd, 2013, Frogs U.S. and Canada, 1: 262–273, provided accounts that summarized the literature of the species. Elliot, Gerhardt, and Davidson, 2009, Frogs and Toads of N. Am.: 44–47, provided an account, photos, and advertisements call. Altig and McDiarmid, 2015, Handb. Larval Amph. US and Canada: 195–196, provided an account of larval morphology and biology. See account of biology and life history in southern Florida by Meshaka and Lane, 2015, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol., 10 (Monogr. 5): 42–50. Johnson and Yates, 2020, IRCF Rept. & Amph., 26: 257–258, reported an introduced population on New Providence, Bahamas. Guyer and Bailey, 2023, Frogs and Toads of Alabama: 205–209, provided a detailed account for the species in Alabama, USA. Bassett, 2023, Reptiles & Amphibians, 30(e18486): 1–18, provided an updated county distribution map for Texas, USA.Introduced populations in Taney County, Missouri, and Brewster County, Texas, USA, discussed and mapped to county by Meshaka, Collins, Bury, and McCallum, 2022, Exotic Amph. Rept. USA: 41–23.  

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.