- What is Amphibian Species of the World?
- How to cite
- How to use
- Structure of the taxonomic records
- Running log of additions and corrections, 2024
- Logs of changes and additions, 2014–2023
- What is the right name?
- Curator's blog
- History of the project, 1980 to 2024
- Comments on amphibian taxonomy relating to versions 3.0 to 6.2 (2004 to 2024)
- Scientific Nomenclature and its Discontents: Comments by Frost on Rules and Philosophy of Taxonomy, Ranks, and Their Applications
- Contributors, online editions
- Contributors and reviewers for Amphibian Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (1985)
- 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
Lithobates Fitzinger, 1843
Lithobates Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 31. Type species: Rana palmipes Fitzinger, 1843 (= Rana palmipes Spix, 1824), by original designation. See discussion by Dubois, 1981, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Suppl., 15: 249, and Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 330.
Ranula Peters, 1859, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1859: 402. Type species: Ranula gollmeri Peters, 1859, by monotypy. Junior homonym of Ranula Schumacher, 1817, and therefore unavailable. Synonymy with Rana by Peters, 1873, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1873: 622, and in Lithobates by implication. See discussion by Pauly, Hillis, and Cannatella, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 115–128; and Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153.
Pohlia Steindachner, 1867, Reise Österreichischen Fregatte Novara, Zool., Amph.: 15. Type species: Rana palmipes Spix, 1824, by monotypy. Synonymy in Rana by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 7.
Trypheropsis Cope, 1868, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 20: 117. Type species: Ranula chrysoprasina Cope, 1866, by original designation. Synonymy (with Hylarana) by O'Shaughnessy, 1878, Zool. Rec., 13: 17; with Rana by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 7. See comments by McCranie and Wilson, 2002, Amph. Honduras: 496, Pauly, Hillis, and Cannatella, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 115–128; and Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153, regarding the status of this taxon.
Levirana Cope, 1894, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 46: 197. Type species: Levirana vibicaria Cope, 1894, by monotypy. Synonymy by Boulenger, 1920, Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci., 55: 462–464. See Pauly, Hillis, and Cannatella, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 115–128; and Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153, for discussion.
Chilixalus Werner, 1899, Zool. Anz., 22: 117. Type species: Ixalus warszewitschii Schmidt, 1858, by monotypy. Synonymy with Trypheropsis by Dubois, 1999, Alytes, 17: 85.
Anchylorana Taylor, 1942, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 28: 199–235. Type species: Rana moorei Taylor, 1942. Synonymy by Martín, Alonso-Zarazaga, and Sanchíz, 2012, Graellsia, 68: 159–180.
Sierrana Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 330. Type species: Rana sierramadrensis Taylor, 1939, by original designation. Proposed as a subgenus of Rana. See comments by McCranie and Wilson, 2002, Amph. Honduras: 488, regarding the status of this taxon. See Pauly, Hillis, and Cannatella, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 115–128; and Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153, for discussion.
Zweifelia Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 330. Type species: Rana tarahumarae Boulenger, 1917, by original designation. Proposed as a subgenus of Rana. See Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153, for discussion of nomenclature.
Pantherana Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 331. Type species: Rana pipiens Schreber, 1782, by original designation. Proposed as a subgenus of Rana. See Pauly, Hillis, and Cannatella, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 115–128; and Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153, for discussion of nomenclature.
Novirana Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 34: 311. Type species: Rana pipiens Schreber, 1782. See Dubois, 2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 317–330, Hillis, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 331–338, and Dubois, 2007, Cladistics, 23: 390–402, Pauly, Hillis, and Cannatella, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 115–128; and Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153, for relevant discussion of nomenclature. Dubois, 2007, Cladistics, 23: 392, discussed and considered this name a nomen nudum and an objective synonym of Pantherana Dubois, 1992, under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999).
Torrentirana Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 34: 312. Type species: Rana tarahumarae Boulenger, 1917. See Dubois, 2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 317–330, Hillis, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 331–338, Dubois, 2007, Cladistics, 23: 390–402, Pauly, Hillis, and Cannatella, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 115–128; and Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153, for relevant discussion of nomenclature. An objective synonym of Zweifelia Dubois, 1992, according to Dubois, 2007, Cladistics, 23: 392, under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999).
Stertirana Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 34: 311. Type species: Rana montezumae Baird, 1854. See Dubois, 2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 317–330, Hillis, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 331–338, Dubois, 2007, Cladistics, 23: 390–402, Pauly, Hillis, and Cannatella, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 115–128; and Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153, for relevant discussion of nomenclature. Dubois, 2007, Cladistics, 23: 392, discussed and considered this a nomen nudum under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999).
Lacusirana Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 34: 311. Type species: Rana megapoda Taylor, 1942. See Dubois, 2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 317–330, Hillis, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 331–338; Dubois, 2007, Cladistics, 23: 390–402; Pauly, Hillis, and Cannatella, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 115–128; and Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153, for relevant discussion of nomenclature.
Nenirana Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 34: 311. Type species: Rana areolata Baird and Girard, 1852. See Dubois, 2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 317–330, Hillis, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 331–338, and Dubois, 2007, Cladistics, 23: 390–402, for relevant discussion of nomenclature.
Scurrilirana Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 34: 311. Type species: Rana berlandieri Baird, 1854. See Dubois, 2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 317–330, Hillis, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 331–338, and Dubois, 2007, Cladistics, 23: 390–402, for relevant discussion of nomenclature.
Nomina inquirenda - Name(s) unassigned to a living or extinct population
Rana missuriensis Wied-Neuwied, 1839, Reise Innere N. Am. 1832–1834, 1 (Heft 7–14): 548. Types: Originally in Wied collection, but now lost. Type locality: "Windsor's Creek" [near O'Fallon, a suburb of St. Louis], Missouri, USA. Considered a nomen dubium by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 7. See also Wied-Neuwied, 1865, Nova Acta Phys. Med. Acad. Caesar Leopold Carol., Halle, 32: 115. The description does not sound like a ranid, e.g. (from the German), "this frog, which I named Rana missuriensis, seems to form a species hitherto unknown. Shape rather like a small toad, alone without visible parotids, the abdomen protruding sideways; body covered with many small bumps; belly granulated; Front foot 4 toes, the 2nd toe from the outside is the longest, the innermost is the shortest; Sole of the forefoot covered with many small pads; on the hind foot the 2nd toe from the outside is the longest, the innermost is the shortest; Sole of hind foot and toes covered with small pads in rows. Coloring: Underparts dirty whitish, flesh-brownish under the throat and thighs; upper parts of animal pale grey-green; through the eye an olive-green longitudinal line, which runs to over the foreleg; back marked with larger and smaller olive-green, irregular spots, some elongated, others more runny; skull and neck almost unspotted; Hind legs also marked with some green spots; Rim of the mouth white."
Common Names
American Water Frogs (Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37: 7; Frost, McDiarmid, Mendelson, and Green, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 16; Frost, Lemmon, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2017, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 43: 13).
North American Water Frogs (Liner and Casas-Andreu, 2008, Herpetol. Circ., 38: 15).
North American True Frogs (Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 8).
Distribution
North (excluding the Pacific and Arctic region), Central, and South America south to southern Brazil.
Comment
Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, de Sá, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, Green, and Wheeler, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297 : 248, resurrected Lithobates as a genus, placing it as the sister taxon of a redelimited Rana, and rejected the system of Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 305–32. Where mentioned species groups follow Hillis, Frost, and Wright, 1983, Syst. Zool., 32: 132–143; Webb, 1978, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 300: 1–13; and Case, 1978, Syst. Zool., 27: 219–311, although the generic taxonomy is nowadays considerably altered from when those groups were delimited. The literature of Lithobates is so intertwined with that of Rana that that account should be examined for relevant literature. Webb, 2001, Mesoam. Herpetol.: 20–43, reviewed the species of the Rana tarahumarae group (expanding on the earlier discussion by Hillis, Frost, and Webb, 1984, Copeia, 1984: 398–403). Savage, 2002, Amph. Rept. Costa Rica: 398–405, provided a key and accounts for the species in Costa Rica. Pace, 1974, Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, 148: 1v140, reviewed the Rana pipiens complex of the eastern USA. Hillis, 1988, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 19: 39v63, reviewed the history of classification and the state of taxonomy of the Rana pipiens complex. Hillis and de Sá, 1988, Herpetol. Monogr., 2: 1–26, discussed the phylogeny and taxonomy of the Rana palmipes group. Greding, 1977, Bull. Chicago Herpetol. Soc., 12: 58–59, compared immunologically some of the Central American species. Zaldívar-Riverón, León-Regagnon, and Nieto-Montes de Oca, 2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 30: 38–49, provided a molecular phylogenetic analysis of the Rana pipiens group rejecting some of the results previously suggested by Hillis, Frost, and Wright, 1983, Syst. Zool., 32: 132v143. Pytel, 1986, Herpetologica, 42: 273–282, discussed phylogenetic relationships among North American species. Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 34: 299–314, reported on the phylogenetics of Lithobates (as Rana containing two subsidiary clades, Laurasiarana [Rana of this catalogue] and Novirana [a subjective synonym of Lithobates of this catalog]), as well as providing new names for other monophyletic taxa coined in the original publication to meet both the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999) and the needs of a phylogenetic taxonomy. Dubois, 2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 317–330, criticized aspects of this taxonomy, noting that at least some of the names were nomina nuda and others had been applied outside of the dictates of the Code. Hillis, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 331–338, responded, and Dubois, 2007, Cladistics, 23: 390–402, responded to his response as part of a more general discussion of nomenclatural practice. Che, Pang, Zhao, Wu, Zhao, and Zhang, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 43: 1–13, in a large study of ranid phylogenetics, recognized Lithobates as a genus in the sense of Frost et al. (2006), the sister taxon of Rana, but placed Pseudorana outside of this group. Wiens, Sukumaran, Pyron, and Brown, 2009, Evolution, 63: 1217–1231, corroborated the monophyly of this taxon, but did not employ this taxonomy. Pauly, Hillis, and Cannatella, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 115–128, suggested that the earlier taxonomies by Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 34: 299–314, and Hillis, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 331–338, were consistent with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999) and that Lithobates must be restricted to the Lithobates palmipes group. This was not accepted by Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153 (see also Dubois, 2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 317–330, and Dubois, 2007, Cladistics, 23: 390–402, for earlier rejections of Hillis' assertion). Tennessen and Blouin, 2010, Immunogenetics, 62: 333–343, provided an analysis based on a very reduced number of terminals for purposes of comparing skin peptides. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, confirmed the monophyly of this taxon (in the sense of including Aquarana) and its sister-taxon relationship to Rana (in the sense of including Amerana) as well as confirming most previous work on relationships among the group, although this is difficult to appreciate because they adopted an antiquated and nonmonophyletic taxonomy. Powell, Collins, and Hooper, 2011, Key Herpetofauna U.S. & Canada, 2nd Ed.: 51–57, provided a key to the species (now in Amerana, Aquarana, Boreophrys, and Lithobates) of the United States and Canada. Conlon, Kolodziejek, Mechkarska, Coquet, Leprince, Jouenne, Vaudry, Nielsen, Nowotny, and King, 2014, Comp. Biochem. Physiol., Part D, 9: 49–57, suggested phylogenetic relationships of some of the species on the basis molecular evidence. Yuan, Zhou, Chen, Poyarkov, Chen, Jang-Liaw, Chou, Matzke, Iizuka, Min, Kuzmin, Zhang, Cannatella, Hillis, and Che, 2016, Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842, treated Lithobates in the sense of this catalog as an unnamed monophyletic taxon within Rana, comprising Lithobates sylvaticus (now Boreophrys) and the subgenera Aquarana, Pantherana, Zweifelia, and Lithobates. The reason for this appears to be that Hillis' earlier terminology (Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 34: 299–314) for this taxon, here referred to Lithobates, was Novirana, a non-Linnaean node-based name without a formal diagnosis and therefore not available in Linnaean nomenclature. Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 1–178, partitioned Rana into a Eurasian Rana, a Chinese Liuhurana and an American Amerana, and Lithobates (in the largest sense) into Boreorana (for Lithobates sylvaticus), Aquarana (form the Lithobates catesbeianus group), and a more restricted Lithobates (for Leopard Frogs and allies). Chen, Qian, Miao, Qian, Yuan, Liu, Dai, Hu, and Chang, 2022, Animals, 12 (1250): 1–15, reported on comparative mitogenomics and phylogeny of Rana (in the sense of including Rana and Lithobates of this catalogue, but not addressing Pseudorana). Dufresnes and Litvinchuk, 2022, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 195: 733, supported the generic distinction of Lithobates (in the sense of including Boreophrys and Aquarana) and Pseudorana from Rana (in the sense of including Amerana) on the basis of lineage antiquity based on molecular evidence. Pérez-Ramos, 2023, Rev. Zool., Mexico, 35: 16, provided an identification key to the species of the Lithobates berlandieri group of the Pacific drainage of Mexico. Coelho, Camurugi, and Garda, 2023, Organisms Divers. Evol., 23: 967–981, reported on niche divergence, phylogenetics, and biogeography of the Lithobates palmipes group (as the Rana palmipes group).
Contained taxa (47 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