- What is Amphibian Species of the World?
- How to cite
- How to use
- Structure of the taxonomic records
- Running log of additions and changes, 2025
- Logs of changes and additions, 2014–2024
- 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
Chirixalus Boulenger, 1893
Chirixalus Boulenger, 1893, Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, Ser. 2, 13: 340. Type species: Chirixalus doriae Boulenger, 1893, by monotypy.
Common Names
Striped Asian Treefrogs (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 111).
Burmese Bushfrogs (Chan-ard, 2003, Photograph. Guide Amph. Thailand: 146).
Asian Treefrogs (Li, Zhao, and Dong, 2010, Amph. Rept. Tibet: 29).
Pigmy Tree Frogs (Dinesh, Radhakrishnan, Deepak, and Kulkarni, 2023, Fauna India Checklist, vers. 5.0 : 11).
Distribution
Southeast Asia (northeastern India, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China) south to peninsular Malaysia and Sabah in Borneo.
Comment
Chirixalus was suggested to be paraphyletic with respect to African Chiromantis by 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: 246. This result was corroborated by Wiens, Sukumaran, Pyron, and Brown, 2009, Evolution, 63: 1217–1231. Aowphol, Rujirawan, Taksintum, Arsirapot, and McLeod, 2013, Zootaxa, 3702: 101–123, reported on the molecular phylogenetics of the Chiromantis in Thailand and provided weak evidence for the polyphyly of the taxon, with Chiromantis hansenae and Chiromantis vittatus being more closely related to Feihyla, Rhacophorus, and Polypedates, and Chiromantis doriae and Chiromantis nonghkorensis being outside of this clade, but rendering African Chiromantis as paraphyletic. Removed from the synonymy of Chiromantis (with which it is the sister-taxon) by Chen, Prendini, Wu, Zhang, Suwannapoom, Chen, Jin, Lemmon, Lemmon, Stuart, Raxworthy, Murphy, Yuan, and Che, 2020, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 145 (106724): 5, where it had been placed by 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: 246. Munir, Hamidy, Kusrini, Kennedi, Ridha, Qayyim, Rafsanzani, and Nishikawa, 2021, Raffles Bull. Zool., 69: 219–234, provided a table of diagnostic morphological characters for the species within the genus and also provided ML and Bayesian molecular trees based on 483 bp of 16s mtDNA. Herlambang, Laksono, Riyanto, Fauzan, and Hamidy, 2023, Treubia, 50: 116, provided a 16s mtDNA tree of the species.
Contained taxa (6 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