Pelobates fuscus (Laurenti, 1768)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Pelobatidae > Genus: Pelobates > Species: Pelobates fuscus

Bufo fuscus Laurenti, 1768, Spec. Med. Exhib. Synops. Rept.: 28, 122. Type(s): Stated on page 28 of the original publication to be the frog illustrated by Roesel von Rosenhof, 1758, Hist. Nat. Ran. Nost.: pl. 17, 18, but on page 122 Laurenti notes that the frogs are shown in Roesel's pl. 17 and 18. Type locality:"habitat in paludibus, rarissime hospitantur in continenti "; Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 146, mentioned that Rösel found his specimens, which Shaw appears to have redrawn from Rösel's plate, in the neighborhood of “Nurenberg” (Nürnberg), Germany, which therefore likely is the type locality; see comments by Dufresnes, Strachinis, Tzoras, Litvinchuk, and Denoël, 2019, ZooKeys, 859: 139; restricted, apparently in error, to "Wien", Austria, by Mertens and Müller, 1928, Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 41: 18. Note from DRF: it is not clear whether Laurenti intended to use the name twice in one publication for two different species or whether the types of this nominal species should be considered to be all of the cited figures by Roesel.

Rana fusca — Meyer, 1795, Synops. Rept. Nov. Sist. Gen. Method.: 10.

Rana alliacea Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 146. Holotype: Animal figured by Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 41, which appears to be the same frog as illustrated by Roesel von Rosenhof, 1758, Hist. Nat. Ran. Nost.: pl. 17, 18. Type locality: Vicinity of Nürnberg, Germany. Synonymy by Bonaparte, 1840, Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, Ser. 2, 2: 444; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 478; Fatio, 1872, Fauna Vert. Suisse, 3: 376; Camerano, 1884 "1883", Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, Ser. 2, 35: 217; Schreiber, 1875, Herpetol. Eur.: 90.

Bombinator fuscus — Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 65.

Bombina fusca — Sturm, 1828, Deutschl. Fauna, Amph.: 36.

Bombina marmorata Sturm, 1828, Deutschl. Fauna, Amph.: pl. Type(s): Not stated, but clearly including animal illustrated in the original. Type locality: Penig, Germany. Synonymy by Bonaparte, 1840, Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, Ser. 2, 2: 444; Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 40; Schreiber, 1875, Herpetol. Eur.: 90; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 437.

Pelobates fuscus — Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 206; Wiegmann, 1832, in Wiegmann and Ruthe (eds.), Handbuch der Zool., Amph.: 202; Leunis, 1844, Synops. Drei Naturr., Zool., Ed. 1: 146.

Cultripes minor Müller, 1832, Isis von Oken, 25: 538. Type(s): Not designated. Type locality: "unbekannt" (= Unknown). Synonymy by Schreiber, 1875, Herpetol. Eur.: 90; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 437.

Rana cultripes minor — Schinz, 1833, Naturgesch. Abbild Rept.: 221.

Pelobates fuscus var. lividis Koch, 1872, Ber. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 1871–72: 154. Type(s): Not stated, although presumably originally in SMF. Type locality: "von den Wiesen in der Nähe des Röder-Wäldchens bein Frankfurt [am Main]", Germany.

Pelobates insubricus Cornalia, 1873, Atti Soc. Ital. Sci. Nat. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Milano, 16: 103. Type(s): Not designated, but presumably originally in MSNM, although not located and considered to have never been deposited there by Blackburn and Scali, 2014, Herpetol. Monogr., 28: 38. Type locality: "Milano", Italy. Synonymy by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 437.

Pelobates latifrons Herón-Royer, 1888, Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 13: 85. Type(s): Not designated. Type locality: "environs de Turin", Italy. Synonymy by Peracca, 1888, Boll. Mus. Zool. Anat. Comp. Univ. Torino, 3 (46): 1–6. Synonymy with Pelobates insubricus by Boulenger, 1890, Zool. Rec., 25: 27; with Pelobates fuscus by Schulze, 1891, Jahresber. Abhandl. Naturwiss. Ver. Magdeburg, 1890: 174.

Pelobates fusca var. marmorata Prazák, 1898, Zool. Jahrb., Jena, Abt. Syst., 22: 216. Types: Based on Bombina marmorata var. a of Glückselig, 1851, Lotos, Prague, 1: 223. Type locality: Not designated although implied to be in Bohemia.

Pelobates fuscus insubricus — Mertens, 1923, Senckenb. Biol., 5: 123.

Pelobates fuscus fuscus — Mertens, 1923, Senckenb. Biol., 5: 123.

Pelobates praefuscus Khosatzky, 1985, in Negadaev-Niknov (ed.), Fauna Flora Late Caenozoic Moldavia: 59–72. Holotype: ZISP 21N RNA M-1 (frontoparietal), by orginal designation. Type locality: Etuliya, Moldova. [Pliocene fossil]. Synonymy by Sanchíz, 1998, Handb. Palaeoherpetol., 4: 122.

Pelobates fuscus insubricus — Crottini, Andreone, Kosuch, Borkin, Litvinchuk, Eggert, and Veith, 2007, Mol. Ecol., 16: 2750. Status rejected by Litvinchuk, Crottini, Federici, de Pous, Donaire-Barroso, Andreone, Kalezić, Džukić, Lada, Borkin, and Rosanov, 2013, Organisms Divers. Evol., 13: 448. 

Common Names

Alliaceous Toad (Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 146).

Garlic Toad (Hellmich, 1962, Rept. Amph. Eur.: 62; Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 108).

Garlic Spade-footed Toad (Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 108).

Garlic Digging Toad (Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 108).

European Spadefoot (Cochran, 1961, Living Amph. World: 76).

Common Spadefoot (Arnold and Burton, 1978, Field Guide Rept. Amph. Brit. Eur.: 67; Stumpel-Rienks, 1992, Ergänzungsband Handbuch Rept. Amph. Eur., Trivialnamen der Herpetofauna Eur.: 52; Kuzmin, 1999, Amph. Former Soviet Union: 212; Tarkhnishvili and Gokhelashvili, 1999, Adv. Amph. Res. Former Soviet Union, 4: v; Arnold, 2002, Rept. Amph. Eur., Ed. 2: 69).

Common Eurasian Spadefoot Toad (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 96).

Common Spadefoot Toad (Nöllert, 1997, in Gasc et al. (eds.), Atlas Amph. Rept. Eur.: 111).

European Common Spadefoot (Halliday and Adler, 2002, New Encyclop. Rept. Amph.: 83).

Distribution

Po Valley of northern Italy; extreme southern Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and extreme eastern France (isolated population in cnetral France) east and southeast to northern Romania and east through Estonia and western Kazakhstan and Russia to southern Siberia. See comment regarding Pelobates vespertinus.

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine

Comment

See accounts by Nöllert, 1990, Die Knoblauchkröte : 1–144, Kuzmin, 1999, Amph. Former Soviet Union: 212–221, and Kuzmin, 2013, Amph. Former Soviet Union, Ed. 2: 98–102, in the sense of including Pelobates vespertinus. Borkin, Litvinchuk, Milto, Rosanov, and Khalturin, 2001, Dokl. Biol. Sci., 376: 86–88, and Borkin, Litvinchuk, Rosanov, and Milto, 2002 "2001", Amphibia-Reptilia, 22: 387–396, presented evidence suggested that two species are covered under the name Pelobates fuscus fuscus, with the boundary between the two in eastern Ukraine and European Russia, and noting that the oldest name for the eastern form would be Pelobates vespertinus (Pallas, 1771), should the two populations prove to be different species (as it subsequently turned out to be). Nöllert and Nöllert, 1992, Die Amph. Eur.: 275–278, provided an account and polygon map. Borkin, Litvinchuk, Rosanov, Khalturin, Lada, Borissovsky, Faizulin, Kotserzhinskaya, Novitsky, and Ruchin, 2003, Russ. J. Herpetol., 10: 111–118, refined the geographic distribution of the two populations (now representing Pelobates fuscus and Pelobates vespertinus). Nöllert, 1997, in Gasc et al. (eds.), Atlas Amph. Rept. Eur.: 110–111, discussed relevant literature and distribution. Lanza, 1983, Guide Reconoscimento Spec. Animali, Anf. Rett.: 93–97, reported on the Italian populations. Gislén and Kauri, 1959, Acta Vert., Stockholm, 1: 262–271, reported on Swedish populations. Pikulik, 1996, Zemnavodnyia Pauzuny: 131–133, provided an account for the Belarus population. Mercurio and Li Vigni, 2007, Acta Herpetol., Firenze, 2: 1–6, reported the rediscovery of Pelobates fuscus insubricus in Asti Province, northwestern Italy. Mazanaeva and Askenderov, 2007, Russ. J. Herpetol., 14: 161–166, discussed the range in Dagestan, Russia. Crottini, Andreone, Kosuch, Borkin, Litvinchuk, Eggert, and Veith, 2007, Mol. Ecol., 16: 2734–2754, reported on phylogeographic relations. See detailed account for Italy by Andreone, Gentilli, and Scali, 2007, in Lanza et al. (eds.), Fauna d'Italia, 42 (Amph.): 352–362. Crombaghs, van Eijk, and Creemers, 2009, in Creemers and van Delft (eds.), Amph. Rept. Nederland: 154–163, provided a detailed account for the species in the Netherlands. Stojanov, Tzankov, and Naumov, 2011, Die Amph. Rept. Bulgariens: 169–174, provided a fairly detailed account and range map for Bulgaria (presumably mostly based on Pelobates balcanicus). Cogǎlniceanu, Székely, Samoilă, Iosif, Tudor, Plăiaşu, Stănescu, and Rozylowicz, 2013, ZooKeys, 296: 35–57, provided a dot map for Romania. Litvinchuk, Crottini, Federici, de Pous, Donaire-Barroso, Andreone, Kalezić, Džukić, Lada, Borkin, and Rosanov, 2013, Organisms Divers. Evol., 13: 433–451, reported on the biogeography and narrow contact zone of two evolutionary lineages, which they termed Pelobates fuscus fuscus and Pelobates fuscus vespertinus, although these presumably are Pelobates balcanicus and Pelobates syriacus under the new taxonomy). Seglie, Gauna, and Giacoma, 2013, Bull. Soc. Herpetol. France, 2013: 145–146, reported on the advertisement call of Pelobates fuscus insubricus. Ambrogio and Mezzadri, 2014, Girini d'Italia–Tadpoles of Italy: 23–28, provided an account of the morphology and natural history of the tadpoles in Italy. Suryadnaya, 2014, Vestn. Zool., Kiev, 48: 511–520, noted karyological differences between the two nominal lineages (Pelobates fuscus fuscus and Pelobates fuscus vespertinus) and considered the two taxa as species with a narrow hybrid zone in northeastern Ukraine and adjacent Kursk Province, Russia. Speybroeck, Beukema, Bok, and Van Der Voort, 2016, Field Guide Amph. Rept. Brit. Eur.: 139–140, provided a brief account. Ćurić, Zimić, Bogdanović, and Jelić, 2018, North-West. J. Zool., Romania, 14: 50–59, detailed the range in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Dufresnes, Strachinis, Tzoras, Litvinchuk, and Denoël, 2019, ZooKeys, 859: 131–158, reviewed the systematics and range of the species. Dufresnes, Strachinis, Suriadna, Mykytynets, Cogǎlniceanu, Székely, Vukov, Arntzen, Wielstra, Lymberakis, Geffen, Gafny, Kumlutaş, Ilgaz, Candan, Mizsei, Szabolcs, Kolenda, Smirnov, Géniez, Lukanov, Crochet, Dubey, Perrin, Litvinchuk, and Denoël, 2019, Mol. Ecol., 28: 3257–3270, reported on the hybrid zone with Pelobates vespertinus. See Dufresnes, 2019, Amph. Eur., N. Afr., & Middle East: 56, for brief summary of identifying morphology and biology, a range map, as well as a photograph. Jandausch, Schwarz, Bock, and Lukas, 2022, Zool. Anz., 296: 37–49, reported on larval and adult cranial anatomy. Koster, Prins, Dufresnes, France, de Visser, Struijk, and Wielstra, 2023, Amphibia-Reptilia, 44: 11–18, noted an introduced population in the coastal dunes of the Netherlands and discussed the conservation issues surrounding having both an introduced and native population in the Netherlands. 

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.