- Amphibian Species of the World on Twitter
- What is the right name?
- Running log of additions and changes, 2021
- Logs of changes and additions, 2014–2020
- How to cite
- How to use
- History of the project, 1980 to 2021
- The big changes in amphibian taxonomy (2006–2013): versions 5.6 and 6.0
- Scientific Nomenclature and Its Discontents
- Structure of the taxonomic records
- Contributors, 1985 edition
- Contributors, online edition
- 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
Phrynobatrachus rouxi (Nieden, 1912)
Arthroleptis rouxi Nieden, 1912 "1911", Wissenschaft. Ergebn. Deutschen Zentral Afr. Exped., 4: 178. Holotype: ZMB 23102, according to Grandison, 1985, in Frost (ed.), Amph. Species World: 449. Type locality: "NW-Budduwald", Uganda.
Pseudarthroleptis rouxi — Deckert, 1938, Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturforsch. Freunde Berlin, 1938: 158.
Phrynobatrachus rouxi — Laurent, 1941, Rev. Zool. Bot. Afr., 34: 207.
English Names
Roux's River Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 104).
Roux's Puddle Frog (Channing and Howell, 2006, Amph. E. Afr.: 290).
Distribution
Western shore of Lake Victoria in Uganda; Mount Kenya, Kenya.
Comment
Although Laurent, 1972, Explor. Parc Natl. Virunga, Ser. 2, 22: 115–116, provisionally considered this species a junior synonym of Phrynobatrachus calcaratus; Perret, 1988, Arch. Sci., Genève, 41: 277, did not consider them conspecific (by implication), and by J.-L. Perret (personal communication) who noted that this nominal species could be conspecific with Phrynobatrachus cornutus. Loveridge, 1925, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1925: 783, had considered Arthroleptis rouxi a junior synonym of Arthroleptis ogoensis. Channing and Howell, 2006, Amph. E. Afr.: 290–291, provided an account. Frétey, 2008, Alytes, 25: 99–172, summarized the literature, and gave Dem. Rep. Congo as part of the range, but did not provide any definite localities. Not addressed by Zimkus, Rödel, and Hillers, 2010, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 55: 883–900, so not assigned to species group, but presumably in their group B. Channing and Rödel, 2019, Field Guide Frogs & Other Amph. Afr.: 397, regarded this nominal taxon as too insufficiently known to treat adequately in their fieldguide.
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 additional sources of information from other sites search Google
- 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 observation see iNaturalist; for a quick link to their maps see iNaturalist KML
- For access to available specimen data for this species, from over 350 scientific collections, go to Vertnet.