Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758

Class: Amphibia > Order: Gymnophiona > Family: Caeciliidae > Genus: Caecilia
35 species

Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., Ed. 10, 1: 229. Type species: Caecilia tentaculata Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation of Dunn, 1942, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 91: 494. See also comment by Stejneger, 1936, Copeia, 1936: 139.

Coecilia —Latreille In Sonnini de Manoncourt and Latreille, 1801 "An. X", Hist. Nat. Rept., 4: 237. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758.

CécilieDuméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 271. French equivalent of Caecilia Wagler, 1828 (= Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758).

Amphiumophis Werner, 1901, Abh. Ber. Zool. Anthropol. Ethnograph. Mus. Dresden, 9: 14. Type species: Amphiumophis andicola Werner, 1901, by monotypy. Provisional synonymy by Taylor, 1968, Caecilians of the World: 347.

English Names

Common Caecilians (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 23).


Panama and northern South American south to Bolivia.


Suggested to be paraphyletic with respect to Oscaecilia by Nussbaum and Wilkinson, 1989, Herpetol. Monogr., 3: 34. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 22, suggested that previous statements of Caecilia sp. from Paraguay were in error. Wilkinson and Nussbaum, 2006, In Exbrayat (ed.), Reprod. Biol. Phylog. Gymnophiona: 49, 61, diagnosed the taxon and suggested that the monophyly of this taxon with respect to Oscaecilia remains undocumented, as did Maciel, Mott, and Hoogmoed, 2009, Zootaxa, 2226: 19–27. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583 (see comment in Amphibia record) on the basis of molecular evidence suggested that Caecilia is paraphyletic with respect to Oscaecilia. Köhler, 2011, Amph. Cent. Am.: 29–30, provided a brief summary of natural history, a key to the species of Central America, and range maps and photographs of the species. 

Contained taxa (35 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.