- What is Amphibian Species of the World?
- How to cite
- How to use
- Structure of the taxonomic records
- Running log of additions and corrections, 2024
- Logs of changes and additions, 2014–2023
- What is the right name?
- Curator's blog
- Amphibian Species of the World on social media
- History of the project, 1980 to 2024
- Comments on amphibian taxonomy relating to versions 3.0 to 6.2 (2004 to 2024)
- Scientific Nomenclature and its Discontents: Comments by Frost on Rules and Philosophy of Taxonomy, Ranks, and Their Applications
- Contributors, online editions
- Contributors and reviewers for Amphibian Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (1985)
- Versions
- Museum abbreviations
- Links to useful amphibian systematic, conservation, collection management, informational, and/or regional sites
- Links to useful FREE library sites
- Copyright and terms of use
Phyllodytes Wagler, 1830
Phyllodytes Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 202. Type species: Hyla luteola Wied-Neuwied, 1824, by monotypy.
Amphodus Peters, 1873 "1872", Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1872: 768. Type species: Amphodus wuchereri Peters, 1872, by original designation. Synonymy by Bokermann, 1966, An. Acad. Brasil. Cienc., 38: 355–344.
Lophyohyla Miranda-Ribeiro, 1923, Bol. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 1: 5. Type species: Lophyohyla piperata Miranda-Ribeiro, 1923, by original designation. Synonymy with Amphodus by Goin, 1961, Ann. Carnegie Mus., 36: 7.
Lophiohyla — Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 27: 64. Incorrect subsequent spelling.
Common Names
Heart-tongued Frogs (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 61).
Distribution
Eastern Brazil.
Comment
The most recent review of the genus was by Bokermann, 1966, An. Acad. Brasil. Cienc., 38: 335–344. Caramaschi, Peixoto, and Rodrigues, 2004, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 62: 185–191, proposed three species groups, and one species unnassigned to group. In Lophyohylini of Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294: 107–108, who continued recognition of the three species groups, and one species unnassigned to group, previously noted by Caramaschi et al., 2004. Jowers, Downieb, and Cohen, 2009, Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ., 43: 181–188, suggested that Phyllodytes (sensu lato) is polyphyletic and erected Phytotriades to remedy the situation. See comment under Phytotriades. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, but seemingly excluding the rhodopsin data from Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294, suggested that Phyllodytes is more closely related to to a clade composed of Osteopilus, Tepuihyla, and Osteocephalus, than to Phytotriades (their Phyllodytes auratus), which they considered to be the sister taxon of Itapotihyla. Mota, Oliveira, Napoli, and Weber, 2020, Zootaxa, 4895: 239–250, reported on comparative anatomy of the chondrocranium and hyobranchial skeleton in larvae of this taxon. Blotto, Lyra, Cardoso, Rodrigues, Dias, Marciano, Vechio, Orrico, Brandão, Assis, Lantyer-Silva, Rutherford, Gagliardi-Urrutia, Solé, Baldo, Nunes, Cajade, Torres, Grant, Jungfer, Silva, Haddad, and Faivovich, 2021, Cladistics, 37: 36–72, in their molecular study of the lophiohylines suggested that there are at least 7 unnamed species within the genus.
Contained taxa (16 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