Pipa pipa (Linnaeus, 1758)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Pipidae > Subfamily: Pipinae > Genus: Pipa > Species: Pipa pipa

Rana Pipa Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., Ed. 10, 1: 210. Syntypes: Specimens figured by Gronovius, 1756, Mus. Ichthyol. 2: 84 (n. 64), Seba, 1734, Locuplet. Rer. Nat. Thesaur. Descript. Icon. Exp. Univ. Phys. Hist., 1: 121, pl. 77, figs. 1–4, Vincent, 1726, Descript. Pipae Bufonis Aquat. Surinam.: pl. 62, Bradley, 1721, Philosoph. Account Works Nat.: pl. 22, fig. 1, Vallisnieri, 1733, Opere Fis. Med., 1: pl. 41, fig. 6. (See Vallisnieri, 1733, Opere Fis. Med., 1 for image of NHRM type.) Type locality: "Surinami".

Pipa americana Laurenti, 1768, Spec. Med. Exhib. Synops. Rept.: 25. Syntypes: Frogs illustrated by Seba, 1734, Locuplet. Rer. Nat. Thesaur. Descript. Icon. Exp. Univ. Phys. Hist., 1: Tab. 77 and by Merian, 1705, Diss. Generat. Metamorph. Insect. Surinam.: pl. 59, by original designation. Type locality: "Surinami". Synonymy by Daudin, 1803 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Gen. Part. Rept., 8: 172; Gravenhorst, 1807, Vergleich. Uebersicht Linn. Neuern Zool. Syst.: 437; Schinz, 1822, Thierr. Naturgesch., 2: 178; Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 89; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 774.

Buffo pipa — Lacépède, 1788, Hist. Nat. Quadrup. Ovip. Serpens, 16mo ed., 2: 367, 461. Rejected as a nonbinominal work by Opinion 2104, Anonymous, 2005, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 62: 55.

Bufo pipa — Bonnaterre, 1789, Tab. Encyclop. Method. Trois Reg. Nat., Erp.: 14.

Rana dorsigera Schneider, 1799, Hist. Amph. Nat.: 121. Type(s): "Museo Ducali Brunovicensi"; current status of these specimens not known. Type locality: "Guianae et Surinami". Synonymy by Daudin, 1803 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Gen. Part. Rept., 8: 172; Gravenhorst, 1807, Vergleich. Uebersicht Linn. Neuern Zool. Syst.: 437; Schinz, 1822, Thierr. Naturgesch., 2: 178; Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 89; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 774.

Bufo dorsiger — Latreille In Sonnini de Manoncourt and Latreille, 1801 "An. X", Hist. Nat. Rept., 2: 120; Daudin, 1802 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Rain. Gren. Crap., Quarto: 85.

Pipa dorsigera — Oken, 1816, Lehrb. Naturgesch., 3(2): 213; Goldfuss, 1820, Handb. Zool., 2: 131; Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 65; Gravenhorst, 1829, Delic. Mus. Zool. Vratislav., 1: 70.

Pipa tedo Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 179. Syntypes: Based on frogs described by Seba, 1734, Locuplet. Rer. Nat. Thesaur. Descript. Icon. Exp. Univ. Phys. Hist., 1: t. 77, the "Crapaud de Surinam" of Fermin, 1765, Hist. Nat. Hollande Equinox.: 24, Rana pipa Linnaeus, 1758, Pipa americana Laurenti, 1768, and Rana dorsigera Schneider, 1799. Synonymy by Schinz, 1822, Thierr. Naturgesch., 2: 178; Schinz, 1833, Naturgesch. Abbild Rept.: 237; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 774.

Pipa cururu Spix, 1824, Animal. Nova Spec. Nov. Test. Ran. Brasil.: 53. Syntypes: 3 specimens according to the original publication, of which two these were figured on pl. 22 of; presumably originally in ZSM, but now lost according to Hoogmoed and Gruber, 1983, Spixiana, München, Suppl., 9: 376, and Glaw and Franzen, 2006, Spixiana, München, 29: 185. Type locality: "Bahiam et ad flumen Amazonum" = Bahia (now Salvador) and Amazon River. Given as "Salvador, Bahia e 'rio Amazonas'", Brazil by Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 85. Synonymy by Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 199; Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 89; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 774. See Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 85, and Vanzolini, 1981, in Adler (ed.), Herpetol. Brazil Spix and Wagler: xxiv, for doubts about this synonymy (which possibly belongs with Pipa carvalhoi) and suggestion that examination of the types is warranted.

Pipa curururu — Spix, 1824, Animal. Nova Spec. Nov. Test. Ran. Brasil.: pl. 22. Variant original spelling.

Pipa pipa — Cuvier, 1829, Regne Animal., Ed. 2, 2: 113; Van der Hoeven, 1833, Handb. Dierkd., 2: 308.

Bufo (Pipa) pipa — Cuvier, 1829, Regne Animal., Ed. 2, 2: 113, by implication.

Bufo (Pipa) curururu — Cuvier, 1829, Regne Animal., Ed. 2, 2: 113, by implication.

Asterodactylus pipa — Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 199; Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 90.

Pipa laevis Cuvier, 1831, Animal Kingdom (M'Murtrie), 2: 89. Holotype: "Cabinet du Roi" (now MNHNP 0.7451, by museum records). Type locality: "Rio Negro", Brazil. Cuvier notes "There is a true Pipa in the Cabinet du Roi, from Rio Negro, which is entirely smooth and with an unusually narrow head. It will be my Pipal aevis [incorrect original spelling, clearly a misprint in context], very different from that of Merrem, which is a Dactylethra." See identical passage (with correct spelling) in Cuvier, 1831, Animal Kingdom (Griffith), 9: 401. Placed in this synonymy on the basis of Pipa laevis Cuvier, 1831, being considered a specimen of Pipa pipa in the online catalogue of the MNHNP (22 Aug. 2009). See discussion by Ceríaco, Parrinha, Santos, Marques, Perestrelo, Caramaschi, Pombal, Passos, and Rodrigues, 2025, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 36 (Special Issue): 91. 

Pipa aevis Cuvier, 1831, Animal Kingdom (M'Murtrie), 2: 89. Incorrect original spelling, clearly a misprint in context—DRF.

Leptopus asterodactylus Mayer, 1835, Analect. Vergl. Anat.: 34. Substitute name for Rana americana Laurenti, 1768. Synonymy by Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 89; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 774.

Pipa surinamensis Duvernoy In Cuvier, 1849, Regne Animal, Disciples Ed., 6: 155. Holotype: Animal figured in plate 39 of original publication; presumably originally in MNHNP, but not recorded as being their now (22 Aug. 2009). Type locality: "Surinam". Synonymy by Dunn, 1948, Am. Mus. Novit., 1384: 10.

Pipa dorsigerus — Gistel In Gistel and Bromme, 1850, Handb. Naturgesch.: 331.

Asterodactylus dorsigera — Gistel, 1851, Naturgesch. Thierr., Ed. 2: 101.

Pipa sedo — Schlegel, 1858, Handl. Dierkd., 2: 59. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Pipa tedo Merrem, 1820.

Asterodactylus dorsiger — Fitzinger, 1864, Bilder Altas Wissenschaftl. Naturgesch. Amph.: pl. 95, fig. 167.

Pipa americana — Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 459.

Pipa surinamensis — Sclater, 1895, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1895: 86. See Boulenger, 1896, Zool. Rec., 32: 34, who regarded this as a replacement name for Pipa americana, although no evidence in text suggests anything other than a subsequent use of Pipa surinamensis Duvernoy.

Pipa pernigra Barbour, 1923, Proc. New England Zool. Club, 9: 4. Holotype: MCZ 1442, by original designation. Type locality: "Lago Maximo, near Villa Bella [between the mouths of the Medeira and Tapajoz], Brazil". Synonymy by Dunn, 1948, Am. Mus. Novit., 1384: 10 (following suggestion by Noble, 1925, Am. Mus. Novit., 164: 1).

Pipa pipa — Dunn, 1948, Am. Mus. Novit., 1384: 9.

Common Names

Pipa Frog (Coloma and Duellman, 2025, Amph. Ecuador. Vol. 2: xxxv). 

Pipa (Spanish: Coloma and Duellman, 2025, Amph. Ecuador. Vol. 2: xxxv).

Surinam Toad (Barnes, 1826, Am. J. Sci. Arts, 11: 271; Wood, 1863, Illust. Nat. Hist., 3: 151; Cochran, 1961, Living Amph. World: 49; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 96).

Surinam Water-toad (Sclater, 1895, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1895: 86).

Pipa (Lacépède, 1802, Nat. Hist. Ovip. Quadruped. (Kerr transl.): 311).

Star-fingered Frog (Hedges, Powell, Henderson, Hanson, and Murphy, 2019, Caribb. Herpetol., 67: 15). 

Distribution

Amazonian Bolivia and Brazil to Colombia, Venezuela, and the Guianas to Peru, Ecuador; Trinidad. See comment. 

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela

Comment

Lescure and Marty, 2000, Collect. Patrimoines Nat., Paris, 45: 282–283, provided a photo and brief account for French Guiana. Duellman, 1978, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 65: 82–83, provided a brief account including an outline description of the call. Rodríguez and Duellman, 1994, Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Spec. Publ., 22: 77, provided a brief account for the Iquitos region of northeastern Peru. Gorzula and Señaris Vasquez, 1999 "1998", Scient. Guaianae, 8: 84–85, commented on range in Venezuela. Barrio-Amorós, 1999 "1998", Acta Biol. Venezuelica, 18: 60, commented on the Venezuelan distribution. Murphy, 1997, Amph. Rept. Trinidad Tobago: 95, provided a brief account for Trinidad. Duellman, 2005, Cusco Amazonico: 304–305, provided a brief account. Cisneros-Heredia, 2006, Herpetol. Rev., 37: 359, provided a range extension in Ecuador to the Province of Pastaza. Vaz-Silva and Andrade, 2009, Check List, 5: 507-509, provided a record for Goias, Brazil, and provided a distribution map. See account for Suriname population by Ouboter and Jairam, 2012, Amph. Suriname: 292–295. Acosta-Galvis, Lasso, and Morales-Betancourt, 2016, Biota Colomb., 17: 105–116, provided a record from the Orinoco drainage of Colombia and discussed its range and cast doubt on the distinctiveness of this nominal species and Pipa snethlagae. See Barrio-Amorós, Rojas-Runjaic, and Señaris Vasquez, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (1: e180): 109, for comments on range and literature. Dantas, Tavares, Pascoal, Nadaline, Ávila, Vasconcelos, and Oda, 2019, Biodiversity, 20: 149–160, provided a dot map and a model-predicted range. Vaz-Silva, Maciel, Nomura, Morais, Guerra Batista, Santos, Andrade, Oliveira, Brandão, and Bastos, 2020, Guia Ident. Anf. Goiás e Dist. Fed. Brasil Central: 181, provided an account for Goiás, Brazil. See brief account for the Manu region, Peru, by Villacampa-Ortega, Serrano-Rojas, and Whitworth, 2017, Amph. Manu Learning Cent.: 256–257. Metcalf, Marsh, Torres Pacaya, Graham, and Gunnels, 2020, Herpetol. Notes, 13: 753–767, reported the species from the Santa Cruz Forest Reserve, Loreto, northeastern Peru. Fouquet, Cornuault, Rodrigues, Werneck, Hrbek, Acosta-Galvis, Massemin, Kok, and Ernst, 2022, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 170 (107442): 1–14, suggested on the basis of molecular analysis that nominal Pipa pipa is composed of at least 5 species, of which at least 3 lack available names. Taucce, Costa-Campos, Carvalho, and Michalski, 2022, Eur. J. Taxon., 836: 96–130, reported on distribution, literature, and conservation status for Amapá, Brazil. Gagliardi-Urrutia, García Dávila, Jaramillo-Martinez, Rojas-Padilla, Rios-Alva, Aguilar-Manihuari, Pérez-Peña, Castroviejo-Fisher, Simões, Estivals, Guillen Huaman, Castro Ruiz, Angulo Chávez, Mariac, Duponchelle, and Renno, 2022, Anf. Loreto: 182–183, provided a brief account, photograph, dot map, and genetic barcode for Loreto, Peru. Ali, Muhammad, Berment, Walker, Baboolal, and Ali, 2023, Reptiles & Amphibians, 30(e20): 1–2, summarized what is known about the life history and distribution on Trinidad. 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. Coloma and Duellman, 2025, Amph. Ecuador. Vol. 2: 3–6, provided an account with photographs which summarized morphological identification, systematics, natural history, distribution (including a dot map for Ecuador), and conservation. Rivas, Wallace, and Callapa, 2025, Reptiles & Amphibians, 32(e21473): 1–10, reported the species from the Great Tectonic Lakes of Exaltación region, Beni, Bolivia. Crnobrna, Champagne, Williams, Turner, and Panduro Pisco, 2025, Biodiversity Data J., 13 (e154136): 1–42, provided records from along the Las Piedras River, Madre de Dios, Peru. 

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.