- What is Amphibian Species of the World?
- How to cite
- How to use
- Structure of the taxonomic records
- Newly described species, changes, and additions, 2026
- Logs of changes and additions, 2014–2025
- What is the right name?
- Curator's blog
- 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
Leptodactylus fuscus (Schneider, 1799)
Rana fusca Schneider, 1799, Hist. Amph. Nat.: 130. Syntypes: "Museo Lev. Vincentii", "Museo Lampiano", presumed lost; MNHNP 680 designated neotype by Heyer, 1968, Copeia, 1968: 160–162. Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 186-187, noted that some of the original syntypes (location?) are still extant and without study of these, Heyer's neotype designation should not be accepted. Type locality: Implied to be from Suriname; neotype from "Surinam".
Rana typhonia Daudin, 1802 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Rain. Gren. Crap., Quarto: 55–56. Syntypes: MNHNP 680 (2 specimens), according to Guibé, 1950 "1948", Cat. Types Amph. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.: 30; MNHNP 680 designated lectotype (and neotype of Rana fusca Schneider, 1799) by Heyer, 1968, Copeia, 1968: 160–162. Type locality: "Amérique meridionale"; given as Surinam by Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 50. Synonymy by Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 402; Heyer, 1968, Copeia, 1968: 160–162. Secondary homonym of Rana typhonia Linnaeus, 1758.
Rana sibilatrix Wied-Neuwied, 1824, Isis von Oken, 14: 671. Also published by Wied-Neuwied, 1824, Abbild. Naturgesch. Brasil., Heft 8: pl. 47, fig. 2. Types: Including animal figured on pl. 47, fig. 2 of the original; specimens otherwise not designated or located according to Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 30. However, Vanzolini and Myers, 2015, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 395: 76, regarded AMNH A-485 as a surviving syntype. Type locality: "Ostkuste von Brasiliens . . . . Peruhype bei Villa Viçoz vor, am Mucuri, Caravellas . . .", Brazil. Restricted to "Villa Viçosa am Rio Peruhype", Brazil, by Müller, 1927, Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 40: 281. Synonymy (and expressed doubt about restricted type locality) by Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 30. Synonymy with Rana typhonia Daudin by Reinhardt and Lütken, 1862 "1861", Vidensk. Medd. Dansk Naturhist. Foren., Ser. 2, 3: 164, and Steindachner, 1867, Reise Österreichischen Fregatte Novara, Zool., Amph.: 24. Brusquetti, Bueno-Villafañe, Caballero-Gini, Pinheiro, Netto, Burgos-Gallardo, Fernández Ríos, Bernabé Cardozo, and Baldo, 2025, Vert. Zool., Senckenberg, 75: 347, discussed as a possible name for their Leptodactylus aff. fuscus.
Rana pachypus var. 2 Spix, 1824, Animal. Nova Spec. Nov. Test. Ran. Brasil.: 26. Type(s): Not specifically stated, but including animals figured on pl. 2, figs. 1–2 in the original publication; formerly including ZSM 2503/0, now lost according to Hoogmoed and Gruber, 1983, Spixiana, München, Suppl., 9: 356. Type locality: "aquis Parae", Brzil. Synonymy by Peters, 1872, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1872: 199; Hoogmoed and Gruber, 1983, Spixiana, München, Suppl., 9: 356. Brusquetti, Bueno-Villafañe, Caballero-Gini, Pinheiro, Netto, Burgos-Gallardo, Fernández Ríos, Bernabé Cardozo, and Baldo, 2025, Vert. Zool., Senckenberg, 75: 347, discussed as a possible name for their Leptodactylus aff. fuscus.
Leptodactylus typhonia — Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 64.
Leptodactylus sibilatrix — Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 64.
Cystignathus typhonius — Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 203.
Cystignathus sibilatrix — Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 203.
Cystignathus schomburgkii Troschel, 1848, in Schomburgk (ed.), Reisen Britisch-Guiana, 3: 659. Types: Not designated; ZMB 3337 (2 specimens), one renumbered ZMB 75292, according museum records according to F. Tillack, pers. comm. in Brusquetti, Bueno-Villafañe, Caballero-Gini, Pinheiro, Netto, Burgos-Gallardo, Fernández Ríos, Bernabé Cardozo, and Baldo, 2025, Vert. Zool., Senckenberg, 75: 345. Type locality: "Britisch-Guiana"; museum records have locality as "Guiana". Synonym with Leptodactylus typhonius by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 240. Tentative synonymy by Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 30. See discussion by Brusquetti, Bueno-Villafañe, Caballero-Gini, Pinheiro, Netto, Burgos-Gallardo, Fernández Ríos, Bernabé Cardozo, and Baldo, 2025, Vert. Zool., Senckenberg, 75: 346–347.
Cystignathus fuscus — Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 28.
Leptodactylus typhonius — Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 240.
Leptodactylus raniformis Werner, 1899, Verh. Zool. Bot. Ges. Wien, 49: 479. Holotype: Originally ZIUG, now ZFMK 28484, according to Böhme and Bischoff, 1984, Bonn. Zool. Monogr., 19: 177. Type locality: "Rio Meta, Llanos (Orocué)", Rio Meta, Colombia. Synonymy by Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 33.
Leptodactylus sibilator — Müller, 1927, Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 40: 281. Incorrect subsequent spelling.
Leptodactylus sybilatrix — Cei, 1950, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 9: 408. Incorrect subsequent spelling.
Leptodactylus sybilator — Cei, 1956, Invest. Zool. Chilen., 3: 48. Incorrect subsequent spelling.
Leptodactylus fuscus — Heyer, 1968, Copeia, 1968: 160–162.
Common Names
Rufous Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 81).
Fuscous Foam Frog (Eterovick and Sazima, 2004, Anf. Serra do Cipó: 89).
Lineated Frog (Rana virginica [no longer recognized]: Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 110).
South American White-lipped Grassfrog (Hedges, Powell, Henderson, Hanson, and Murphy, 2019, Caribb. Herpetol., 67: 14).
Lineated Frog (Batista, Hertz, Ponce, and Lotzkat, 2020, Herpetol. Notes, 13: 221).
Distribution
Savannas from Coclé and Herrera Provinces of Panama east through northern and northern Amazonian Colombia, Venezuela, and the Guianas, as well as Amapá and Pernambuco, Brazil, and Trinidad and Tobago; northern Bení and La Paz, Bolivia. Except as noted, records south of the Amazon apply to an unnamed species in the same group or to Leptodactylus gualambensis (see comments).
Geographic Occurrence
Natural Resident: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, French Guiana, Guyana, Panama, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela
Likely/Controversially Present: Peru
Comment
Brusquetti, Bueno-Villafañe, Caballero-Gini, Pinheiro, Netto, Burgos-Gallardo, Fernández Ríos, Bernabé Cardozo, and Baldo, 2025, Vert. Zool., Senckenberg, 75: 325–352, redelimited the species into three, Leptodactylus fuscus (this record), Leptodactylus gualambensis (central and western Paraguay and northern Argentina to eastern Bolivia and southern Mato Grosso and southwestern Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil), Leptodactylus aff. fuscus (Brazil south of the Amazon south to southern Paraguay and northeastern Argentina). Rosa, Lingnau, and Garey, 2025, ZooKeys, 1264: 109–128, provided records from Iguaçu Nacional Park, Paraná, Brazil. Verrastro and Borges-Martins, 2025, Anf. Rept. Pampa, 2: 76, provided a brief account (as Leptodactylus fuscus), photograph, and dot distribution map for the Pampa biome in Brazil (as well as adjacent areas of Argentina and Paraguay).
Comment from before the partition (prior to 21 October 2025), provided below. Use with caution:
Straughan and Heyer, 1976, Pap. Avulsos Zool., São Paulo, 29: 221–245, reported on the advertisement call. In the Leptodactylus fuscus group of Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 1–85. See synonymy in Hoogmoed and Gruber, 1983, Spixiana, München, Suppl., 9: 356. See account by Cei, 1980, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Monogr., 2: 333–336. Rana fusca Schneider, 1799, Hist. Amph. Nat.: 138, is a secondary homonym of Rana fusca—Meyer, 1795, Synops. Rept. Nov. Sist. Gen. Method.: 10 (= Bufo fuscus Laurenti, 1768 [= Pelobates fuscus]). See account by Heyer, Rand, Cruz, Peixoto, and Nelson, 1990, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 31: 308–309. Lescure and Marty, 2000, Collect. Patrimoines Nat., Paris, 45: 232–233, provided a photo and brief account for French Guiana. Wynn and Heyer, 2002 "2001", Tropical Zool., 14: 255–285, reported on allozymic variation and suggested that this taxon is composed of at least three (and maybe more) species: a) Trinidad-Tobago-French Guiana; b) Panama; c) south of the Amazon. Márquez, De la Riva, and Bosch, 1995, J. Zool., London, 237: 313–336, reported on vocalization in Bolivia. Izecksohn and Carvalho-e-Silva, 2001, Anf. Municipio Rio de Janeiro: 74, provided a brief account and photo. See comments regarding distribution in Venezuela by Gorzula and Señaris Vasquez, 1999 "1998", Scient. Guaianae, 8: 56–57. Heyer and Reid, 2003, An. Acad. Brasil. Cienc., 75: 39–54, noted strong genetic differentiation among populations was not accompanied by congruent geographic patterns of advertisement call variation. Kenny, 1969, Stud. Fauna Curaçao and other Caribb. Is., 29: 70–72, and Murphy, 1997, Amph. Rept. Trinidad Tobago: 85–86, provided accounts for Trinidad and Tobago. Lynch, 2006, Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. Exact. Fis. Nat., 30: 443–457, described larval morphology. Canelas and Bertoluci, 2007, Iheringia, Zool., 97: 21–26, provided a record for the Serra do Caraça, southern end of the Serra do Espinhaço, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 13, briefly discussed range in Paraguay. Fouquet, Gilles, Vences, Marty, Blanc, and Gemmell, 2007, PLoS One, 10 (e1109): 1–10, provided molecular evidence that this is a species complex. Ponssa, 2008, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res., 46: 249–266. Eterovick and Sazima, 2004, Anf. Serra do Cipó: 89–90, provided a photograph and brief account. Silva, Santos, Alves, Sousa, and Annunziata, 2010, Sitientibus, Ser. Cienc. Biol., 7: 334–340, provided records for Piauí, Brazil. Ugueto and Rivas-Fuenmayor, 2010, Amph. Rep. Margarita Coche Cubagua: 80–83, provided an account for the population on the Venezuelan island of Margarita. Jansen, Bloch, Schulze, and Pfenninger, 2011, Zool. Scripta, 40: 567–583, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence the possibility of a cryptic species in Bolivia. See account for Suriname population by Ouboter and Jairam, 2012, Amph. Suriname: 228–230.See Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 422–423, for brief account and records for Guyana. Köhler, 2011, Amph. Cent. Am.: 276–281, provided a brief summary of natural history and identification key for the species of Leptodactylus in Central America and provided a range map and photograph for this species. In the Leptodactylus fuscus species group of de Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa, and Stanley, 2014, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 9(Spec. Issue 1): 1–123, who provided a summary of the relevant literature (adult and larval morphology, identification, advertisement call, and range) of this species on pp. 32–33. Melo-Sampaio, 2015, Herpetol. Rev., 46: 212–213, who provided a record for Municipality of Taraucá, Acre, Brazil. Palacio Baena, Muñoz Escobar, Gallo Delgado, and Rivera-Correa, 2006, Anfibios y Reptiles del Valle de Aburrá: 87–89, provided a brief account and photograph. Schulze, Jansen, and Köhler, 2015, Zootaxa, 4016: 74–75, described, diagnosed, and pictured the larva of their lineage Leptodactylus fuscus A. Guarnizo, Paz, Muñoz-Ortiz, Flechas-Hernández, Méndez-Narváez, and Crawford, 2016, PLoS One, 10(5: e0127312): 1–20, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence that two species may exist in Colombia under this binomial. Zimmerman, 1983, Herpetologica, 39: 235–246, reported on advertisement call. Weiler, Núñez, Airaldi, Lavilla, Peris, and Baldo, 2013, Anf. Paraguay: 92, provided a brief account, image, and dot map for Paraguay. Señaris Vasquez, Lampo, Rojas-Runjaic, and Barrio-Amorós, 2014, Guía Ilust. Anf. Parque Nac. Canaima: 204–205, provided a photograph and a brief account for the Parque Nacional de Canaima, Venezuela. Acosta-Galvis, 2017, Biota Colomb., 18: 282–315, reported the species from the Municipality of Yopal, Casanare Department, Colombia. Freitas, Abegg, Dias, and Moraes, 2018, Herpetol. Notes, 11: 59–72, provided a record from the Serra da Jibóia, Bahia, Brazil. Lima, Pederassi, Pineschi, and Barbosa, 2019, Brazil. J. Biol., 79: 566–576, reported on the advertisement call from Piauí, Brazil. Neves, Yves, Pereira Silva, Alves, Vasques, Coelho, and Silva, 2019, Herpetozoa, Wien, 32: 113–123, provided habitat information and records for western Minas Gerais, Brazil. See Barrio-Amorós, Rojas-Runjaic, and Señaris Vasquez, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (1: e180): 91, for comments on range and literature. See brief comments on range and natural history in Panama by Batista, Hertz, Ponce, and Lotzkat, 2020, Herpetol. Notes, 13: 219–229. Dubeux, Silva, Nascimento, Gonçalves, and Mott, 2019, Rev. Nordestina Zool., 12: 18–52, summarized the literature on larval morphology. Rossa-Feres and Nomura, 2006 "2005", Biota Neotrop., São Paulo, 6 (2: bn00706012006): 1–24, characterized larval morphology of this species and provided a key to the larvae of northwestern São Paulo state, Brazil. See Dubeux, Nascimento, Lima, Magalhães, Silva, Gonçalves, Almeida, Correia, Garda, Mesquita, Rossa-Feres, and Mott, 2020, Biota Neotrop., 20 (2: e20180718): 1–24, for characterization and identification of larvae north of the Rio São Francisco in the Atlantic Forest of northeastern Brazil. Vaz-Silva, Maciel, Nomura, Morais, Guerra Batista, Santos, Andrade, Oliveira, Brandão, and Bastos, 2020, Guia Ident. Anf. Goiás e Dist. Fed. Brasil Central: 111–112, provided an account. Eterovick, Souza, and Sazima, 2020, Anf. Serra do Cipó: 1–292, provided an account, life history information, and an identification scheme for the Serra de Cipó, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Alves-Ferreira, Paixão, and Nomura, 2021, Biota Neotrop., 21 (4: e20201178): 1–11, reported on larval morphology in Goias, Brazil. Reported from the Environmental Protection Area of Catolé and Fernão Velho, Alagoas, Brazil, by Dubeux, Nascimento, Gonçalves, and Mott, 2021, Pap. Avulsos Zool., São Paulo, 61 (e20216176): 1–10, who provided a key to the frogs of that region. Pezzuti, Leite, Rossa-Feres, and Garcia, 2021, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 22 (Special Issue): 1–109, described and discussed larval morphology and natural history. Palmeira, Gonçalves, Dubeux, Lima, Lambertini, Valencia-Aguilar, Jenkinson, James, Toledo, and Mott, 2022, Cuad. Herpetol., 36: 65–75, reported on habitat in Natural Heritage Reserve Mata Estrela, Baía Formosa, Rio Grande do Norte state, Brazil. Bastos and Zina, 2022, Herpetol. Notes, 15: 365–376, reported the species from Jequié municipality, Bahia, Brazil, and briefly discussed its habitat and conservation status. Taucce, Costa-Campos, Carvalho, and Michalski, 2022, Eur. J. Taxon., 836: 96–130, reported on distribution, literature, and conservation status for Amapá, Brazil. Santos, Feio, and Nomura, 2023, Biota Neotrop., 23 (3:e20231486): 1–43, characterized tadpole morphology as part of an identification key to the tadpoles of the Brazilian Cerrado. Dubeux, Lisboa, Nascimento, Araujo, Tiburcio, Torquato da Silva, Freitas, Guarnieri, and Mott, 2024, Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ., 59: 967–982, reported the species from Estação Ecológica de Murici, Alagoas state, Brazil, and discussed its habitat. Vicente-Ferreira, Nascimento, Batista, Kardush, Reyes, and Garey, 2024, Biota Neotrop., 24(1: e20231526): 1–17, provided records from the Refúgio Biológico Bela Vista, Paraná, southern Brazil (adjacent to the Paraguay border), as well as providing identification keys to these species based on larval and adult morphology. Ocampo, Aparicio, Bernal Hoverud, Domic, and Wallace, 2024, Herpetol. Notes, 17: 371–389, reported the species and its habitat in Madidi National Park, La Paz, Bolivia. Rivas, Wallace, and Callapa, 2025, Reptiles & Amphibians, 32(e21473): 1–10, reported the species from the Great Tectonic Lakes of Exaltación region, Beni, Bolivia. Núñez, Zárate-Betzel, Ortíz, Salinas, Piris da Motta, Mendoza, and Duré, 2026, Rev. Soc. Cient. Paraguay, 31(e3101): 1–12, reported briefly on the distribution in wetlands within the Department of Ñeembucú, Paraguay.
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 additional information see AmphibiaWeb report
- For information on conservation status and distribution see the IUCN Redlist
- For related information on conservation and images as well as observations see iNaturalist