Glandirana Fei, Ye, and Huang, 1990

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Ranidae > Genus: Glandirana

Glandirana Fei, Ye, and Huang, 1990, Key to Chinese Amph.: 146. Type species: Rana minima Ting and Ts'ai, 1979, by original designation.

Rugosa Fei, Ye, and Huang, 1990, Key to Chinese Amph.: 145. Type species: Rana rugosa Temminck and Schlegel, 1838, by original designation. Considered a subgenus of Rana by Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 332. Synonymy 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: 248, and Che, Pang, Zhao, Wu, Zhao, and Zhang, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 43: 3.

English Names

None noted.

Distribution

Korea and northeastern China, possibly in adjacent Ussuri region of Russia, south to southeastern China; Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu Is., Japan; introduced into Hawaii, USA

Comment

Fei, Ye, Huang, Jiang, and Xie, 2005, Illust. Key Chinese Amph.: 113, provided a key to the Chinese species of Rugosa (sensu stricto). Fei, Hu, Ye, and Huang, 2009, Fauna Sinica, Amph. 3: 1089-1105, provided accounts and keys as both Rugosa and Glandirana, implicitly rejecting the synonymy of Rugosa without addressing the lack of evidence of reciprocal monophyly of the two taxa. Kurabayashi, Yoshikawa, Sato, Hayashi, Oumi, Fujii, and Sumida, 2010, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 56: 543-553, noted a DNA translocation that may be a synapomorphy for Glandirana plus Hylarana (and possibly a larger group of genera not included in that analysis). Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, in their study of Genbank sequences confirmed the placement of Glandirana as the sister taxon of Hylarana although this result is obscured by their adoption of an antiquated and nonmonophyletic taxonomy. Sekiya, Miura, and Ogata, 2012, Zootaxa, 3575: 49-62, suggested that Rugosa and Glandirana should not be considered synonyms because Wiens, Sukumaran, Pyron, and Brown, 2009, Evolution, 63: 1217-1231, did not recover this taxon as monophyletic. However, Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, in their more data-and-taxon-dense study did recover the taxon as monophyletic and for that reason is retained here.

Contained taxa

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.