Ptychadena schillukorum (Werner, 1908)

English Names

Sudan Grassland Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 105).

Schilluk Ridged Frog (Channing and Howell, 2006, Amph. E. Afr.: 312).

Schilluk Grass Frog (Du Preez and Carruthers, 2009, Compl. Guide Frogs S. Afr.: 320; Channing and Rödel, 2019, Field Guide Frogs & Other Amph. Afr.: 330). 

Distribution

Grassland at high and low elevations from Senegal and southern Mauritania to western Ethiopia, southern coastal Somalia, Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania, and Mozambique, possibly in southern Dem. Rep. Congo; isolated records in western Angola (see comment) and in the Nile Delta and Fayum Depression of Egypt; expected in Central African Republic, Chad, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Gambia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Togo, Zambia, and Uganda.

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritania, Mozambique, Senegal, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania

Likely/Controversially Present: Central African Republic, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Togo, Uganda, Zambia

Comment

Ptychadena schillukorum was removed from the synonymy of Ptychadena floweri (where it had been placed by XXX) by Poynton and Broadley, 1985, Ann. Natal Mus., 27: 157, although subsequent workers (e.g., Perret, 1987, Bull. Soc. Neuchatel. Sci. Nat., 110: 63–70, and Channing, 1993, S. Afr. J. Zool., 28: 142–145 [who considered the calls of Ptychadena schillukorum and Ptychadena floweri to be identical]) have treated Ptychadena floweri a synonym of Ptychadena schillukorum. See Lanza, 1990, Biogeographia, 14: 410, for Somalian records. Discussed by Perret, 1987, who considered Ptychadena schillukorum and Ptychadena cotti to be synonyms of Ptychadena floweri. Discussed by Loveridge, 1933, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 74: 310, who synonymized Abrana cotti Parker, 1931, and Rana barbouri Loveridge, 1925. See Lanza, 1981, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Suppl., 15: 165, for synonymy. Schmidt and Inger, 1959, Explor. Parc Natl. Upemba, Miss. G.F. de Witte, 56: 68–70, reviewed Ptychadena frontalis. Channing, 1993, S. Afr. J. Zool., 28: 144, described the advertisement call. Rödel, 2000, Herpetofauna W. Afr., 1: 142–144, provided an account (as Ptychadena floweri), discussed the problems of identification and taxonomy, and compared Ptychadena floweri, Ptychadena schillukorum, Ptychadena cotti, and Ptychadena frontalis of various authors. Channing, 2001, Amph. Cent. S. Afr.: 338–339, provided an account for the southern African populations. Rödel and Ernst, 2003, Herpetozoa, Wien, 16: 27, noted animals from Ivory Coast that resemble this taxon, but whose status remains to be resolved. Channing and Howell, 2006, Amph. E. Afr.: 312–313, Pickersgill, 2007, Frog Search: 152–154, and Du Preez and Carruthers, 2009, Compl. Guide Frogs S. Afr.: 320–321, provided accounts. Baha El Din, 2005, Herpetozoa, Wien, 18: 178–181, reported the species in the Nile Delta of Egypt. Padial and De la Riva, 2004, Rev. Esp. Herpetol., 18: 96, suggested that this species (considered as two species, Ptychadena floweri and Ptychadena schillukorum) will be found in southern Mauritania. Nago, Grell, Sinsin, and Rödel, 2006, Salamandra, 42: 93–108, provided a record for Benin, discussed the problematic nature of the current synonymy, and noted that at least two species were covered by this name, a species from dry Sudanese savannah and another (probably unnamed) from the Upper Guinea highlands. Baha El Din, 2006, Guide Rept. Amph. Egypt: 29–31, provided an account for the Egyptian Nile Delta population and discussed the confusion with Ptychadena mascareniensis. Nago, Sinsin, and Rödel, 2009, Zootaxa, 2115: 65–68, reported on the comparative morphology of the larva. Mercurio, 2011, Amph. Malawi: 266–267, provided an account for Malawi. Channing, Rödel, and Channing, 2012, Tadpoles of Africa: 312–313, provided information on comparative larval morphology. See comments on distribution and population status in Egypt by Ibrahim, 2013, Basic & Appl. Herpetol., 27: 112. Sow, Gonçalves, Sousa, Martínez-Freiría, Santarém, Velo-Antón, Dieng, Campos, Diagne, Boratyński, and Brito, 2017, Basic & Appl. Herpetol., 31: 101–116, reported the species from extreme southeastern Mauritania. Sánchez-Vialas, Calvo-Revuelta, and Márquez, 2017, ZooKeys, 673: 125–133, reported this species from southern Mauritania and compared it to the other species recorded from that country. Baptista, Conradie, Vaz Pinto, and Branch, 2019, In Huntley, Russo, Lages, and Ferrand (eds.), Biodiversity in Angola: 253, suggested that Angola records require confirmation. See detailed account for Egypt and Mauritania by Escoriza and Ben Hassine, 2019, Amph. N. Afr.: 269–273. Spawls, Wasonga, and Drewes, 2019, Amph. Kenya: 42, provided a photograph, range map, and brief characterization. Channing and Rödel, 2019, Field Guide Frogs & Other Amph. Afr.: 330–331, provided a brief account, photograph, and range map. Ayoro, Segniagbeto, Hema, Penner, Oueda, Dubois, Rödel, Kabré, and Ohler, 2020, Zoosystema, 42: 547–582, discussed records, identification, and habitat in Burkina Faso. Sampaio, Velo-Antón, Martínez-Freiría, Sánchez-Vialas, Pleguezuelos, Géniez, Crochet, and Brito, 2021, Conserv. Genetics, 22: 233–248, discussed landscape genetics and range in Mauritania.  

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 information on distribution, habitat, and conservation see the Map of Life
• For related information on conservation and images as well as observations see iNaturalist
• For access to available specimen data for this species, from over 350 scientific collections, go to Vertnet.