- 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
Physalaemus Fitzinger, 1826
Physalaemus Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 39. Type species: Physalaemus cuvieri Fitzinger, 1826, by monotypy.
Paludicola Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 206. Type species: Bufo albifrons Spix, 1824, by monotypy. Synonymy with Engystomops by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 275. Synonymy by Parker, 1927, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, 20: 460.
Physolaemus — Jan, 1857, Cenni Mus. Civ. Milano: 52. Incorrect subsequent spelling.
Liuperus Cope, 1861 "1860", Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 12: 517. Type species: Liuperus biligonigerus Cope, 1860, by monotypy. Synonymy by Parker, 1927, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, 20: 458.
Gomphobates Reinhardt and Lütken, 1862 "1861", Vidensk. Medd. Dansk Naturhist. Foren., Ser. 2, 3: 172. Type species: Gomphobates notatus Reinhardt and Lütken, 1862 "1861", by monotypy. Synonymy (with Liuperus) by Cope, 1869 "1868", Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 20: 312. Synonymy (with Paludicola) by Peters, 1873, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1873: 617. Synonymy with Paludicola by Boulenger, 1885, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 5, 16: 195. Synonymy by Parker, 1927, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, 20: 456. Considered a synonym of Physalaemus (but employing the younger name) by Steindachner, 1867, Reise Österreichischen Fregatte Novara, Zool., Amph.: 11.
Eupemphix Steindachner, 1863, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Phys. Math. Naturwiss. Kl., 48: 188. Type species: Eupemphix nattereri Steindachner, 1863, by monotypy. Synonymy by Faivovich, Basso, Haddad, Rodrigues, Wheeler, Lavilla, and Ferraro, 2012, Cladistics, 28: 465. See comments by Segalla, Berneck, Canedo, Caramaschi, Cruz, Garcia, Grant, Haddad, Lourenço, Mângia, Mott, Nascimento, Toledo, Werneck, and Langone, 2021, Herpetol. Brasil., 10: 124.
Nattereria Steindachner, 1864, Verh. Zool. Bot. Ges. Wien, 14: 279. Type species: Nattereria lateristriga Steindachner, 1864, by monotypy. Synonymy by Parker, 1927, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 9, 20: 456.
Common Names
Dwarf Frogs (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 83).
Foam Frogs (Lee, 2000, Field Guide Amph. Rept. Maya World: 80).
Distribution
Northern and central Argentina; eastern Bolivia; Paraguay; Uruguay; Brazil and the Guianas; lowlands of southern Venezuela and llanos of southeastern Colombia.
Comment
Argentinian species discussed by Cei, 1980, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Monogr., 2. See Lynch, 1970, Copeia, 1970: 488–496, for discussion of species groups noted in accounts and the generic nomenclature. Amaral, Cardoso, and Recco-Pimentel, 2000, Caryologia, 53: 283–288, suggested on the basis of karyological evidence that Physalaemus biligonigerus and Physalaemus fuscomaculatus are closely related. See comment under Engystomops. Nascimento, Caramaschi, and Cruz, 2005, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 63: 297–320, provided a phenetic study from which the species groups noted in the comments were drawn; in addition these authors removed Engystomops and Eupemphix from the synonymy of Physalaemus. Lobo, 1995, Cuad. Herpetol., 9: 21–43, provided a tree of Pseudopaludicola that suggested the paraphyly of Physalaemus with respect to both Eupemphix and Pseudopaludicola. Cardozo and Suárez, 2012, Zootaxa, 3515: 75–82, reanalysed the data of Lobo (1995) the the inclusion of Physalaemus canga and confirmed this topology. Tomatis, Baldo, Kolenc, and Borteiro, 2009, J. Herpetol., 43: 555–560, reported on karyology in the Physalaemus henseli group and suggested that karyological evidence did not support the recognition of the Physalaemus henseli species group. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, suggested that recognition of Eupemphix renders Physalaemus paraphyletic, with at least Physalaemus signifer being more closely related to Eupemphix than to other species of Physalaemus; they also provided a tree of exemplar species and retained Eupemphix and a paraphyletic Physalaemus without comment. Ruggeri and Weber, 2012, Zootaxa, 3200: 1–26, reported on larval morphology within the taxon. Lourenço, Targueta, Baldo, Nascimento, Garcia, Andrade, Haddad, and Recco-Pimentel, 2015, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 92: 204–216, provided a phylogenetic analysis of the species based on molecular data and redelimited the Physalaemus cuvieri group. Guerra Batista, Morais, Gambale, Oda, and Bastos, 2017, Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ., 52: 103–111, reported on advertisement call variation in a comparative framework within the Physalaemus cuvieri clade. Grosso, Baldo, Cardozo, Kolenc, Borteiro, Oliveira, Bonino, Barrasso, and Vera Candioti, 2019, PLoS One, 14(6: e0218733): 1–37, reported on the phylogenetics and ontogenetics of early larval development in the genus. Hepp and Pombal, 2020, Zootaxa, 4725: 1–106, reviewed and compared the bioacoustical traits of the species in the genus.
Contained taxa (50 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