Phyllomedusa iheringii Boulenger, 1885

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Hylidae > Subfamily: Phyllomedusinae > Genus: Phyllomedusa > Species: Phyllomedusa iheringii

Phyllomedusa iheringii Boulenger, 1885, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 5, 16: 88. Syntypes: BMNH 1947.2.22.26–31 (formerly 1885.6.26.54–59) according to Condit, 1964, J. Ohio Herpetol. Soc., 4: 97, and ZFMK 28560 (according to Böhme and Bischoff, 1984, Bonn. Zool. Monogr., 19: 182). Type locality: "S. Lorenzo, on the southern border of the Lagoa dos Patos. . . . Rio Grande do Sul", Brazil; rendered as "São L[o]urenço do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul", Brazil, by Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 83.

Phyllomedusa burmeisteri iheringiiLutz, 1950, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 48: 604.

Phyllomedusa (Pithecopus) burmeisteri iheringiLutz, 1950, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 48: 605.

Phyllomedusa iheringiiFunkhouser, 1957, Occas. Pap. Nat. Hist. Mus. Stanford Univ., 5: 49; Klappenbach, 1961, Comun. Zool. Mus. Hist. Nat. Montevideo, 5: 4.

Pithecopus burmeisteri iheringiiLutz, 1966, Copeia, 1966: 236.

Pithecopus iheringiiLaurent, 1967, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 22: 232.

English Names

Southern Walking Leaf Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 62).


Extreme southern Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul), and Uruguay.

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Brazil, Uruguay


Account provided by Cei, 1980, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Monogr., 2: 435–436. In the Phyllomedusa burmeisteri group of Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294: 117, and Faivovich, Haddad, Baêta, Jungfer, Álvares, Brandão, Sheil, Barrientos, Barrio-Amorós, Cruz, and Wheeler, 2010, Cladistics, 26: 259. See brief account by Klappenbach and Langone, 1992, An. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Montevideo, Ser. 2, 8: 188–189. The Argentinian population of some authors was suggested tp be Phyllomedusa tetraploidea; see Pombal and Haddad, 1992, Rev. Brasil. Biol., 52: 224, 227; this confirmed by Lavilla and Cei, 2001, Monogr. Mus. Reg. Sci. Nat. Torino, 28: 62. Achaval and Olmos, 2003, Anf. Rept. Uruguay, ed. 2: 50, provided a brief account and photograph for the Uruguay population. Iop, Lipinski, Madalozzo, Maragno, Cechin, and Santos, 2015, Acta Herpetol., Firenze, 10: 67–72, redescribed the external morphology of the adult and larva. Forti, Haddad, Leite, Drummond, Assis, Crivellari, Mello, Garcia, Zornosa-Torres, and Toledo, 2019, PeerJ, 7(e7612): 1–39, reported on advertisement call. Röhr, Camurugi, Paterno, Gehara, Juncá, Álvares, Brandão, and Garda, 2020, Canad. J. Zool., 98: 495–504, reported on the evolution and causes of variability of advertisement call.  

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.