Microhyla Tschudi, 1838

Common Names

Rice Frogs (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 90).

Chorus Frogs (Dinesh, Radhakrishnan, Deepak, and Kulkarni, 2023, Fauna India Checklist, vers. 5.0 : 7).

Distribution

Ryukyu Is. (Japan) and China south through India to Sri Lanka and through Southeast Asia to Sumatra, Borneo, Java, and Bali.

Comment

Taylor, 1962, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 43: 539–563, reviewed the species in Thailand. Inger, 1966, Fieldiana, Zool., 52: 145–155, reviewed the Bornean species. Bourret, 1942, Batr. Indochine: 508–529, reviewed the Indochinese species. Liu and Hu, 1961, Tailless Amph. China: 295–304, reviewed the Chinese species. See Dubois, 1987, Alytes, 6: 1–9, for the subgenera (Diplopelma and Microhyla) and species group taxonomy used herein. See identification table by Manthey and Grossmann, 1997, Amph. Rept. Südostasiens: 46, to compare the species in the Sunda Shelf region. Malkmus, Manthey, Vogel, Hoffmann, and Kosuch, 2002, Amph. Rept. Mount Kinabalu: 131, provided a key to the species of Borneo. Fei, Hu, Ye, and Huang, 2009, Fauna Sinica, Amph. 2: 883–916, provided a key, accounts, and spot maps for China. Matsui, Hamidy, Belabut, Ahmad, Panha, Sudin, Khonsue, Oh, Yong, Jiang, and Nishikawa, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 167–176, suggested on the basis of mtDNA that Microhyla may be paraphyletic, with a clade composed of Calluella and Glyphoglossus imbedded within it. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, suggested their set of exemplar species to be monophyletic and the sister taxon of Glyphoglossus + Calluella. Poyarkov, Vassilieva, Orlov, Galoyan, Tran, Le, Kretova, and Geissler, 2014, Russ. J. Herpetol., 21: 89–148, rejected the subgenera formulated by Dubois, 1987, Alytes, 6: 1–9, as artificial but did discuss the provisional nature of the infrageneric taxonomy at present and the seeming conflict of morphology and molecules; these authors also provided and identification key and comments regarding systematics of the species found in Vietnam. Manthey and Denzer, 2014, Sauria, Berlin, 36: 3–21, discussed the species of Southeast Asia and provided natural history and systematic information. Yong, Song, Lim, Eamsobhana, and Tan, 2016, Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 66: 243–253, found Microhyla to be monophyletic on the basis of 13 protein-coding genes. Yuan, Suwannapoom, Yan, Poyarkov, Nguyen, Chen, Chomdej, Murphy, and Che, 2016, Curr. Zool., 62: 531–543, on the basis of molecular analysis, provided a discussion of Pleistocene climatic fluctuations on how they shaped the genetic structre of the Microhyla fissipes complex (Microhyla mukhlesuri and Microhyla fissipes). Garg, Das, Kamei, and Biju, 2018, MtDNA, Part B, 3: 856–861, addressed the Microhyla ornata complex via DNA barcodes, and provided generalized range maps. Results showed that the Microhyla muklesuri + Microhyla mumensinghensis group, is distant from the Microhyla nilphamariensis + Microhyla teraiensis + Microhyla ornata group. Firdaus, Ratih, Karima, Kusuma, and Suastika, 2018, Bioinform. Biomed. Res. J., 1: 1–6, reported on the mtDNA phylogenetic relationships of the species of Microhyla within Sumatra, Java, Borneo, and peninsular Malaysia. Garg, Suyesh, Das, Jiang, Wijayathilaka, Amarasinghe, Alhadi, Vineeth, Aravind, Senevirathne, Meegaskumbura, and Biju, 2018 "2019", Vert. Zool., Senckenberg, 69: 1–71, provided a revision of the species of South Asia. Zainudin and Alaudin, 2018, Malaysian Appl. Biol., 47: 15–21, reported on the relative relationships of Microhyla from Sarawak on the basis of of 16S mtDNA. Tominaga, Matsui, Shimoji, Khonsue, Wu, Toda, Eto, Nishikawa, and Ota, 2019, Zool. Scripta, 48: 400–453, reported on the phylogenetics and biogeography of the species of the Ryukyu Island chain, Japan. Zug and Mulcahy, 2020 "2019", Amph. Rept. S. Tanintharyi: 48, noted a potentially unnamed species found in South Tanintharyi, peninsular Myanmar. Gorin, Solovyeva, Hasan, Okamiya, Karunarathna, Pawangkhanant, de Silva, Juthong, Milto, Nguyen, Suwannapoom, Haas, Bickford, Das, and Poyarkov, 2020, PeerJ, 8 (e9411): 1–47, discussed the molecular phylogenetics and biogeography of the species and noted several unnamed species. Gorin, Scherz, Korost, and Poyarkov, 2021, Zoosyst. Evol., 97: 21–54, transferred several species to the new genus Nanohyla. Eprilurahman, Garg, Atmaja, Alhadi, Munir, Ubaidillah, Arisuryanti, Biju, Smith, and Hamidy, 2021, Zootaxa, 5027: 451–388, discussed the molecular phylogenetics (16S mt DNA), comparative morphometrics, and morphology of the members of the Microhyla achatina group. Garg, Sivaperuman, Gokulakrishnan, Chandramouli, and Biju, 2022, Zool. Stud., Taipei, 61 (2): 1–23, provided a mtDNA tree of the species of Microhyla. Hoang, Nguyen, Phan, Pham, Ninh, Wang, Jiang, Ziegler, and Nguyen, 2022, Eur. J. Taxon., 841: 1–18, reported on the phylogenetics and systematics of the Microhyla heymonsi group including a distribution map of the species. 

Contained taxa (55 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