- What is Amphibian Species of the World?
- How to cite
- How to use
- Structure of the taxonomic records
- Newly described species, changes, and additions, 2026
- Logs of changes and additions, 2014–2025
- 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
Cycloramphus Tschudi, 1838
Cycloramphus Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 81. Type species: Cycloramphos fulginosus Tschudi, 1838, by monotypy.
Cycloramphos — Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 41. Alternative spelling.
Cycloramphus Agassiz, 1846, Nomencl. Zool., Fasc. 12: 110. Selection of preferred spelling.
Pithecopsis Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 22. Type species: Cycloramphus fulginosus Tschudi, 1838, by monotypy. Synonymy by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 189.
Zachaenus Cope, 1866, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 94. Type species: Cystignathus parvulus Girard, 1853, by original designation. Synonymy by Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 179.
Grypiscus Cope, 1867, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 208. Type species: Grypiscus umbrinus Cope, 1867, by monotypy. Synonymy by Lutz, 1929, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 22: 9.
Oocormus Boulenger, 1905, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 7, 16: 182. Type species: Oocormus microps Boulenger, 1905, by monotypy. Synonymy with Zachaenus by Lutz, 1944, Bol. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, N.S., Zool., 17: 42.
Iliodiscus Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920, Rev. Mus. Paulista, São Paulo, 12: 267. Type species: Iliodiscus dubius Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920, by subsequent designation of Gorham, 1966, Das Tierreich, 85: 46, and Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 139. The designation as type species of Telmatobius brasiliensis Steindachner, 1864, by Bokermann, 1951, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 42: 80, was in error because this taxon was not part of the original concept, according to Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 139. Synonymy by Lutz, 1929, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 22: 9.
Craspedoglossa Müller, 1922, Bl. Aquar. Terrarienkd., Stuttgart, 33: 167. Type species: Craspedoglossa santae-catharinae Müller, 1922, by monotypy. Synonymy by Heyer, 1983, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 30: 288.
Niedenia Ahl, 1924, Zool. Anz., 58: 107. Type species: Niedenia spinulifer Ahl, 1923, by monotypy. Synonymy by Noble, 1926, Am. Mus. Novit., 212: 14.
Cyclorhamphus — Lutz, 1929, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 22: 11. Incorrect subsequent spelling.
Common Names
Button Frogs (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 71).
Bug-eyed Frogs (Zachaenus [no longer recognized]: Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 85).
Distribution
Southeastern Brazil.
Comment
Heyer, 1983, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 30: 235-339, revised and reviewed the genus. Heyer and Maxson, 1983, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 30: 341-373, discussed relationships, zoogeography, and speciation mechanisms. Lingnau, Solé, Dallacorte, and Kwet, 2008, North-West. J. Zool., Romania, 4: 224-235, discussed evidence and distribution of reproductive modes. Sabbag, Lyra, Zamudio, Haddad, Feio, Leite, Gasparini, and Brasileiro, 2018, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 122: 142–156, provided molecular evidence that Zachaenus is imbedded within Cycloramphus, rendering the latter nonmonophyletic. de Sá, Haddad, Gray, Verdade, Thomé, Rodrigues, and Zamudio, 2020, Evolution, 74: 459–475, found Cycloramphus to be deeply paraphyletic with respect to Zachaenus. Bueno, Gatto, Gazolla, Leivas, Struett, Moura, and Bruschi, 2021, PLoS One, 16(1: e0245128): 1–20, employed 5S rDNA analysis to illustrate chromosome evolution within the genus. Sabbag, Lyra, Zamudio, Haddad, Feio, Leite, Gasparini, and Brasileiro, 2018, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 122: 142–156, provided molecular evidence that Zachaenus is imbedded within Cycloramphus, rendering the latter nonmonophyletic but did not make the taxonomic change. de Sá, Haddad, Gray, Verdade, Thomé, Rodrigues, and Zamudio, 2020, Evolution, 74: 459–475, found Zachaenus to sit phylogenetically within Cycloramphus but declined from taking the taxonomic remedy. Dubois, Ohler, and Pyron, 2021, Megataxa, 5: 179, placed Zachaenus into the synonymy of Cycloramphus on phylogenetic grounds. Colaço, Batista, Limp, and Silva, 2021, Pap. Avulsos Zool., São Paulo, 61 (e20216148): 1–11, discussed comparative larval morphology of the species and reviewed the literature of larval morphology of this group. Dias, Vera Candioti, Sabbag, Colaço, Silva, Haddad, Carvalho-e-Silva, and Grant, 2021, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res., 59: 1297–1321, reported on the comparative anatomy, systematics, functional morphology, and evolution of semiterrestrial tadpoles in the group. Portik, Streicher, and Wiens, 2023, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 188 (107907): 67, also recovered Zachaenus both non-monophyletic and imbedded within Cycloramphus, but declined to make the taxonomic change, presumably because, not mentioned by them, it had already been synonymized by Dubois et al., 2021. Carmo, Folly, Pombal, and Hepp, 2024, Ethol. Ecol. Evol., 36: 627–644, discussed evolution of the advertisement call within the genus.
Contained taxa (30 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