- Amphibian Species of the World on Twitter
- What is the right name?
- Running log of additions and changes, 2021
- Logs of changes and additions, 2014–2020
- How to cite
- How to use
- History of the project
- The big changes in amphibian taxonomy (2006–2013): versions 5.6 and 6.0
- Scientific Nomenclature and Its Discontents
- Structure of the taxonomic records
- Contributors, 1985 edition
- Contributors, online edition
- 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.
English 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, in their study of Genbank sequences, 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.
Contained taxa (15 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 additional sources of information from other sites search Google
- 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 observation see iNaturalist; for a quick link to their maps see iNaturalist KML