Quasipaa spinosa (David, 1875)

Common Names

Chinese Spiny Frog (Karsen, Lau, and Bogadek, 1986, Hong Kong Amph. Rept.: 23; Zug, 2022, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 653: 24).

Chinese Edible Frog (Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 128).

Giant Spiny Frog (Karsen, Lau, and Bogadek, 1986, Hong Kong Amph. Rept.: 23; Fei, 1999, Atlas Amph. China: 208).

棘胸蛙 (Chinese: Wang, Ren, Chen, Lyu, Guo, Jiang, Chen, Li, Guo, Wang, and Che, 2020, Biodiversity Sci., 28: App. 1: 12). 

Spiny Paa Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 103).

Distribution

Southern and eastern Guangxi and southern Guangdong and Hong Kong to southeastern Hubei, southern Anhui, and northern Zhejiang, east throughout to the Pacific coast, 200–1500 m elevation; records from other parts of China, Vietnam, and suggestions of occurrence in Laos and Myanmar refer to other named an unnamed species. 

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: China, People's Republic of, Hong Kong

Comment

Discussed by Bourret, 1942, Batr. Indochine: 287–291; Pope, 1931, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 61: 500–508; and Liu and Hu, 1961, Tailless Amph. China: 156–159. See also Chang, 1947, Trans. Chinese Assoc. Adv. Sci., 9: 93. Removed from the synonymy of Rana boulengeri by Chang, 1947, Trans. Chinese Assoc. Adv. Sci., 9: 93, where it had been placed by Boulenger, 1920, Rec. Indian Mus., 20: 74. See accounts by Yang, 1991, Amph. Fauna of Yunnan: 149–151 (but see Yan et al., 2021, below); Ye, Fei, and Hu, 1993, Rare and Economic Amph. China: 284; and Fei, 1999, Atlas Amph. China: 208–210. Karsen, Lau, and Bogadek, 1986, Hong Kong Amph. Rept.: 23, provided a brief account. Huang, 1990, Fauna Zhejiang, Amph. Rept.: 72–73, provided an account (as Rana spinosa) for Zhejiang populations. Zhang and Wen, 2000, Amph. Guangxi: 114, provided an account for Guangxi. Nguyen, Ho, and Nguyen, 2005, Checklist Amph. Rept. Vietnam: 25, provided specific localities for Vietnam. Yang, 2008, in Yang and Rao (ed.), Amph. Rept. Yunnan: 82–83, provided a brief account (as Paa spinosa) for Yunnan, China (but see Yan et al., 2021, below). See photograph, map, description of geographic range and habitat, and conservation status (as Paa spinosa) in Stuart, Hoffmann, Chanson, Cox, Berridge, Ramani, and Young, 2008, Threatened Amph. World: 492.  Yu and Zheng, 2009, Curr. Zool., 55: 411–415, reported on the advertisement call. Fei, Hu, Ye, and Huang, 2009, Fauna Sinica, Amph. 3: 1375–1382, provided an account (as Paa spinosa) for China, figures, and map, and included this species in their Paa spinosa group. Not addressed, and therefore not assigned to subgenus, by Che, Zhou, Hu, Papenfuss, Wake, and Zhang, 2010, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107: 13765–13770, and Che, Zhou, Hu, Papenfuss, Wake, and Zhang, 2010, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Suppl. Inform., 107(31): 2. Yu, Zheng, Zhang, and Liu, 2010, J. Nat. Hist., London, 44: 1749–1741, reported on geographic variation (as Paa spinosa) among populations from Zhengjiang, southern Jiangxi, northeastern Hunan, and north-central Guangdong, China. Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Colored Atlas of Chinese Amph.: 366–367, provided a brief account (as Paa spinosa) for China including photographs. Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2012, Colored Atlas Chinese Amph. Distr.: 470–471, provided an account, photographs, and a range map for China. Yu, Zheng, Lu, Yang, Fu, and Zhang, 2016, Asian Herpetol. Res., 7: 75–86, reported on geographic variation of genetic markers, identifying four distinct groups which they suggested are species. Shen, 2014, Fauna Hunan, Amph.: 290–293, provided an account for Hunan, China. Li, 2011, Amph. Rept. Guangdong: 59, provided a brief account for Guangdong, China, and photograph. Zhang, 2017, Amph. Rept. Fanjing Mts.: 157–160, provided taxonomic and natural history information for the Fanjing Mountains population in northeastern Guizhou, China. Luo, Wang, Yang, Cheng, Liu, and Hu, 2021, Frontiers Zool., 18 (14): 1–14, reported on molecular phylogeography and the expected effects on range caused by climate warming. Records from Vietnam may be assignable to Quasipaa acanthophora, if that taxon is recognized. Yan, Nneji, Jin, Yuan, Chen, Mi, Chen, Murphy, and Che, 2021, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 163 (107218): 1–7, found mtDNA evidence of hybridization with Quasipaa spinosa, and reported on phylogeography and phylogenetics, excluding Quasipaa spinosa from the Yunnan, China, fauna. They did not include any samples from Vietnam, so, these (and the status of Quasipaa acanthophora)  require confirmation. Zug, 2022, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 653: 24, briefly discussed identification, habitat, and expected range in Myanmar. Zhang, Xiang, Li, Zhou, Hou, Huang, and Li, 2024, Comp. Cytogenet., 18: 97–103, reported the karyotype. Quasipaa sp. 2 of Yan, Nneji, Jin, Yuan, Chen, Mi, Chen, Murphy, and Che, 2021, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 163 (107218): 1–7, and populations of nominal Quasipaa spinosa from Phu Tho Province, Vietnam, and Yunnan, China, represent an unnamed species according to Pham, Nguyen, Hoang, Ziegler, Phan, Pham, and Nguyen, 2025, ZooKeys, 1240: 139–175. Qian, Li, Huang, Chen, Guo, and Jiang, 2025, Herpetozoa, Wien, 38: 311–320, reported on larval morphology from Fujian, China. Zhu and Shu, 2026, Genes, 17(411): 1–15, discussed genetic diversity. Dinh, Nishikawa, Luu, Nguyen, and Numata, 2026, Biodiversity Data J., 14(e178266): 8–9, briefly discussed Quasipaa cf. spinosa in Ba Vi National Park, Phu Tho Province, northern Vietnam. 

Quasipaa courtoisi was removed from the synonymy of Quasipaa spinosa by Dubois and Ohler, 2009, Alytes, 27: 49–61, where it had been placed by Pope, 1931, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 61: 501, and Liu and Hu, 1961, Tailless Amph. China: 156. (See Angel and Guibé, 1945, Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. Paris, Ser. 2, 17: 379–382, for a heterodox response to this synonymy.) Not addressed, and therefore not assigned to subgenus, by Che, Zhou, Hu, Papenfuss, Wake, and Zhang, 2010, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107: 13765–13770, and Che, Zhou, Hu, Papenfuss, Wake, and Zhang, 2010, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Suppl. Inform., 107(31): 2. Not mentioned by Yan, Nneji, Jin, Yuan, Chen, Mi, Chen, Murphy, and Che, 2021, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 163 (107218): 1–7, the implication being that the distinction of this nominal species from Quasipaa spinosa was not recognized by these authors, although this is conjecture (DRF).  Qi, Lyu, Song, Wang, Li, Li, and Wang, 2025, Asian Herpetol. Res., 16: 328, discussed the issue and formally replaced Quasipaa courtoisi into the synonymy of Quasipaa spinosa. 

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 additional information see AmphibiaWeb report
• For information on conservation status and distribution see the IUCN Redlist
• For related information on conservation and images as well as observations see iNaturalist
• For additional information specific to China see Amphibia China