Pithecopus rohdei (Mertens, 1926)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Hylidae > Subfamily: Phyllomedusinae > Genus: Pithecopus > Species: Pithecopus rohdei

Phyllomedusa rohdei Mertens, 1926, Senckenb. Biol., 8: 140. Holotype: SMF 2061 (formerly 1430. 2a), according to Duellman, 1977, Das Tierreich, 95: 163. Type locality: "Rio de Janeiro, Brasilien".

Bradymedusa moschata Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 27: 104. Syntypes: MNRJ 258 (2 specimens), according to Miranda-Ribeiro, 1955, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 42: 410, who designated 258A lectotype. Type locality: "Therezopolis [= Teresópolis], E. do Rio [de Janeiro]", Brazil. Synonymy by Mertens, 1929, Bl. Aquar. Terrarienkd., Stuttgart, 40: 287.

Pithecopus rohdeiDuellman, Marion, and Hedges, 2016, Zootaxa, 4104: 32. 

English Names

Rohde's Frog (Cochran, 1961, Living Amph. World: 139; Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 67).

Rohde's Leaf Frog (Cochran, 1961, Living Amph. World: 144; Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 67).

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


Lowlands of southern Brazil (Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo, and Bahia).


In the Phyllomedusa hypochondrialis group of Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294: 117, and Caramaschi, 2006, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 64: 159-179, and Faivovich, Haddad, Baêta, Jungfer, Álvares, Brandão, Sheil, Barrientos, Barrio-Amorós, Cruz, and Wheeler, 2010, Cladistics, 26: 259 (who suggested that this nominal taxon is a composite of cryptic species). Wogel, Abrunhosa, and Pombal, 2004, Herpetol. Rev., 35: 239–243, reported on vocalization. Izecksohn and Carvalho-e-Silva, 2001, Anf. Municipio Rio de Janeiro: 68, provided a brief account and photo. Vrcibradic, Teixeira, and Ferreira, 2006, Herpetol. Rev., 37: 101, provided a record for Espírito Santo, Brazil, and summarized the range known at that time. Araújo, Loebmann, Zina, and Toledo, 2007, Herpetol. Rev., 38: 98, provided the record for Bahia. Barth, Solé, and Costa, 2009, J. Herpetol., 43: 676-679, reported on karyotypic variation. Paiva, Nascimento, Silva, Bernarde, and Ananias, 2010, Ital. J. Zool., 77: 116-121, also reported on karyology. Ramos, Magalhães, Marques, Baêta, Garcia, and Santos, 2019, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 132: 105–116, suggested on the basis of DNA and morphology that this species is a complex of five cryptic species. Ferreira, Mônico, Silva, Lirio, Zocca, Mageski, Tonini, Beard, Duca, and Silva-Soares, 2019, ZooKeys, 857: 152, noted an unnamed species, "Pithecopus aff. rohdei" in the region of Santa Teresa, Espírito Santo, Brazil. 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. Pezzuti, Leite, Rossa-Feres, and Garcia, 2021, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 22 (Special Issue): 1–109, described Pithecopus aff. rohdei larval morphology and natural history.

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.