Caeciliidae Rafinesque, 1814

Class: Amphibia > Order: Gymnophiona > Family: Caeciliidae
49 species

Apoda Oppel, 1811, Ordn. Fam. Gatt. Rept.: 72; Oppel, 1811, Ann. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, 16: 409; Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 163. An unavailable family-group name containing solely Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758.

Cecilinia Rafinesque, 1814, Specchio Sci., 2, 2: 104. Type genus: Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758. See Dubois, 1985, Alytes, 4: 70. Authorship but not spelling to be conserved following Opinion 1830 of the ICZN (Anonymous, 1996, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 53: 68–69).

Caeciliadae Gray, 1825, Ann. Philos., London, Ser. 2, 10: 217. Type genus: Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758.

Coecilioidea — Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 63.

Hedraeoglossi Wagler, 1828, Isis von Oken, 21: 859. Type genus: Not designated; including Siphonops and Caecilia. An unavailable family-group name.

Caecilioidei — Eichwald, 1831, Zool. Special.: 177. Explicit family. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Coecilioidea Fitzinger, 1826.

Caecilidae — Bonaparte, 1832, Saggio Dist. Metod. Animal. Vert.: 9; Hogg, 1838, Ann. Nat. Hist., London, 1: 152; Bonaparte, 1839, Mem. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchâtel, 2: 16; Bonaparte, 1840, Nuovi Ann. Sci. Nat., Bologna, 4: 10.

Coeciliae — Schinz, 1833, Naturgesch. Abbild Rept.: 195; Boulenger, 1883, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 5, 11: 202–203.

Caeciliae — Bonaparte, 1839, Mem. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchâtel, 2: 16. Treatment as a subfamily. 

Caeciliadae — Hogg, 1839, Mag. Nat. Hist., N.S., 3: 273.

Caecilina — Bonaparte, 1840, Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, Ser. 2, 2: 394; Bonaparte, 1840, Nuovi Ann. Sci. Nat., Bologna, 4: 100.

Caecilöides — Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: foldout opposite page 53. Non-Latinized family-group name.

Coeciloidei — Troschel, 1848, in Schomburgk (ed.), Reisen Britisch-Guiana, 3: 661. Explicit family.

Caeciliina Bonaparte, 1850, Conspect. Syst. Herpetol. Amph.: 1 p. Type genus: Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758.

Caeciliadae — Bonaparte, 1850, Conspect. Syst. Herpetol. Amph.: 1 p.

Caeciloidae — Keferstein, 1867, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, 18: 361.

Coeciliidarum — Boulenger, 1883, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 5, 12: 166.

Coecilioides —Bruch, 1862, Würzb. Naturwiss. Z., 3: 221.

Cecilinia — Dubois, 1984, Alytes, 3: 114.

Ceciliidae — Dubois, 1985, Alytes, 4: 71.

Siphonopilae — Lescure, Renous, and Gasc, 1986, Mem. Soc. Zool. France, 43: 163. Infrafamily.

Caecilioidea — Lescure, Renous, and Gasc, 1986, Mem. Soc. Zool. France, 43: 167. Superfamily.

Oscaecilioidae Lescure, Renous, and Gasc, 1986, Mem. Soc. Zool. France, 43: 167. Type genus: Oscaecilia Taylor, 1968. Coined as an epifamily. Synonymy by Wilkinson, San Mauro, Sherratt, and Gower, 2011, Zootaxa, 2874: 3, 44.

Oscaecilioidae — Lescure, Renous, and Gasc, 1986, Mem. Soc. Zool. France, 43: 167. Family.

Caecilioidae — Lescure, Renous, and Gasc, 1986, Mem. Soc. Zool. France, 43: 168. Epifamily.

Caeciliinae — Lescure, Renous, and Gasc, 1986, Mem. Soc. Zool. France, 43: 168. Subfamily.

Caeciliilae — Lescure, Renous, and Gasc, 1986, Mem. Soc. Zool. France, 43: 168. Infrafamily.

Caeciliaidae — Anonymous, 1987, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 44: 263. Placed on Official Index of Rejected Names by Opinion 1830, Anonymous, 1996, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 53: 68–69.

Caeciliainae — Hedges, Nussbaum, and Maxson, 1993, Herpetol. Monogr., 7: 63–76.

Caeciliidae — Anonymous, 1996, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 53: 68–69. Opinion 1830; Wilkinson, San Mauro, Sherratt, and Gower, 2011, Zootaxa, 2874: 3.

Caeciliinae — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 268. 

Caecilioidea — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 268. Superfamily. 

Caeciliini — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 268. Tribe. 

Caeciliina — Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 268. Subtribe. 

Common Names

Common Caecilians (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 23; Vitt and Caldwell, 2014, Herpetology, 4th Ed.: 452).

Land Caecilians (Daniels, 2005, Amph. Peninsular India: 91).

Tailless Caecilians (Daniels, 2005, Amph. Peninsular India: 91; Vitt and Caldwell, 2009, Herpetology, 3rd Ed.: 414.).

Distribution

Costa Rica and Panama throughout northern South America south to Bolivia, southern Brazil, and possibly Paraguay.

Comment

See Dubois, 1984, Alytes, 3: 111–116, and Anonymous, 1996, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 53: 68–69 (Opinion 1830), for nomenclatural discussion. Nussbaum and Wilkinson, 1989, Herpetol. Monogr., 3: 32, disputed the availability of the name Caeciliidae Rafinesque, 1814. Taylor, 1969, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 48: 585–687, recognized two subfamilies within his Caeciliidae; these former subfamilies were not recognized by Nussbaum and Wilkinson, 1989, Herpetol. Monogr., 3: 1–42, who regarded the family as paraphyletic with respect to Typhlonectidae. Wilkinson, Loader, Gower, Sheps, and Cohen, 2003, Afr. J. Herpetol., 52: 83–92, suggested on the basis of mtDNA evidence that Caeciliidae is paraphyletic with respect to Typhlonectinae and to Scolecomorphidae. Wilkinson, 1997, Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 72: 423–470, suggested on the basis of neuroanatomical and traditional morphology that Caeciliidae is likely paraphyletic with respect to both typhlonectines and scolecomorphids. 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: 167, placed Typhlonectidae and Scolecomorphidae as subfamilies within Caeciliidae, but did not recognize a coordinate Caeciliinae, which would not have been monophyletic. Roelants, Gower, Wilkinson, Loader, Biju, Guillaume, Moriau, and Bossuyt, 2007, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104: 887–892, on the basis of less inclusive sampling, a moderately different molecular dataset, and a different analytical method from that employed by Frost et al. (2006) found Scolecomorphus in the more traditional phylogenetic placement as the sister taxon of remaining caeciliidae; they also found former typhlonectids to be in a clade of South American caeciliids. Nussbaum and Ducey, 1988, Herpetologica, 44: 290–296, suggested karyotypic evidence supporting the combined monophyly of the Seychelles taxa. Zhang and Wake, 2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 53: 479–491, provided a phylogenetic analysis of caecilians, further corroborating the paraphyly of the "Caeciliidae" with respect to nominal Typhlonectidae, but found Scolecomorphinae (their Scolecomorphidae) to be the sister taxon of all other caeciliids, unlike Wilkinson, Loader, Gower, Sheps, and Cohen, 2003, Afr. J. Herpetol., 52: 83–92, who found Scolecomorphinae within Caeciliidae. Wilkinson, San Mauro, Sherratt, and Gower, 2011, Zootaxa, 2874: 41–64, redelimited Caeciliidae to include only Caecilia and Oscaecilia, rendering the family monophyletic. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583 (see comment in Amphibia record) on the basis of molecular evidence confirmed the monophyly of Caeciliidae (sensu stricto). San Mauro, Gower, Cotton, Zardoya, Wilkinson, and Massingham, 2012, Syst. Biol., 61: 661–674, confirmed the relationship of Caeciliidae + Typhlonectidae. Maddin, Russell, and Anderson, 2012, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 166: 160–201, reported on the braincase of the family and also confirmed the sister-taxon relationship of Caeciliidae and Typhlonectidae. Vitt and Caldwell, 2014, Herpetology, 4th Ed., provided a summary of range, diagnosis, life history, and taxonomy. Köhler, 2011, Amph. Cent. Am.: 29–30, provided keys, maps, and brief accounts of the species of Central America. Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 1–738, suggested to greatly expand the size of Caeciliidae via the inclusion of Herpelidae, Dermophiidae, Typhlonectidae, Chikiliidae, Siphonopidae, and Indotyphlinidae, although the need for these rank modifications is unclear regardless of the nomenclatural complications offered.

Contained taxa (49 sp.):

Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758 (40 sp.)
Oscaecilia Taylor, 1968 (9 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.