Hemiphractidae Peters, 1862, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1862: 146. Type genus: Hemiphractus Wagler, 1828.
Hemiphractina — Mivart, 1869, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1869: 294.
Amphignathodontidae Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 449. Type genus: Amphignathodon Boulenger, 1882. Synonymy by Guayasamin, Castroviejo-Fisher, Ayarzagüena, Trueb, and Vilà, 2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 48: 577.
Amphignathodontinae — Gadow, 1901, Amphibia and Reptiles: 139. Laurent, 1986, in Grassé and Delsol (eds.), Traite de Zool., 14: 716.
Hemiphractinae — Gadow, 1901, Amphibia and Reptiles: 139, 210. Laurent, 1986, in Grassé and Delsol (eds.), Traite de Zool., 14: 719.
Hemignathodontinae Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 27: 106. Type genus: Not designated, but including Coelonotus Miranda-Ribeiro, Fritzia Miranda-Ribeiro, Gastrotheca Fitzinger, Opisthodelphis Günther. Unavailable family-group name for reason of not being formulated on a generic name.
Hemiphractidae — Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 27: 18.
Gastrothecinae Noble, 1927, Ann. New York Acad. Sci., 30: 93. Type genus: Gastrotheca Fitzinger, 1843. Synonymy with Amphignathodontinae by implication of Duellman, 1970, Monogr. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas: 18. Synonymy by Guayasamin, Castroviejo-Fisher, Ayarzagüena, Trueb, and Vilà, 2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 48: 577.
Opisthodelphyinae Lutz, 1968, Pearce-Sellards Ser., 11: 13. Type genus: Opisthodelphys Günther, 1859 "1858". Synonymy with Amphignathodontinae by implication by Duellman, 1970, Monogr. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas: 18.
Cryptobatrachidae 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: 201. Type genus: Cryptobatrachus Ruthven, 1916. Synonymy by Guayasamin, Castroviejo-Fisher, Ayarzagüena, Trueb, and Vilà, 2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 48: 577.
None noted.
Tropical and Andean South America; Costa Rica, Panama; Trinidad and Tobago.
Duellman, 1970, Monogr. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas: 18, included eight genera. Subsequent workers, i.e., Duellman and Trueb, 1976, Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 58: 12, and Maxson, 1977, Syst. Zool., 26: 72, placed two of these genera, Anotheca and Nyctimantis, in Hylinae. Duellman and Gray, 1983, Herpetologica, 39: 333-358, provided a cladogram of the genera, as did Duellman and Hoogmoed, 1984, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 75: 33. Duellman, Maxson, and Jesiolowski, 1988, Copeia, 1988: 527-543, discussed the immunological evidence for evolution of hemiphractines. Laurent, 1984, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 38: 19-28, provided a phenetic study of the subfamily (as Amphignathodontinae) and demonstrated the possibility of generic rearrangements. Mendelson, Silva, and Maglia, 2000, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 128: 125-148, provided a cladogram based on morphology that suggested that Gastrotheca is paraphyletic with respect to Hemiphractus, although this was based on the analytical assumption of the monophyly of the group, which was the received wisdom at the time. Darst and Cannatella, 2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 31: 462-475, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence that Hemiphractinae (sensu lato) is polyphyletic and not closely related to hylids. Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294: 1-370, obtained similar results and transferred "Hemiphractinae" out of Hylidae and into "Leptodactylidae" (sensu lato, a former grade of hyloid frogs, not Leptodactylidae, sensu stricto) to render a monophyletic Hylidae. Wiens, Fetzner, Parkinson, and Reeder, 2005, Syst. Biol., 54: 719-748, also considered the hemiphractines (sensu lato) to not be hylids, but recognized them as a family, Hemiphractidae, strongly supported in their Bayesian analysis and weakly supported by their parsimony analysis. Wiens, Graham, Moen, Smith, and Reeder, 2006, Am. Nat., 168: 579-596 (suppl. inform.), with additional evidence, subsequently found "Hemiphractinae" to be nonmonophyletic in their parsimony analysis but did not provide a Bayesian or maximum-likelihood analysis of those data. 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, concluded on the basis of somewhat different lines of evidence that "Hemiphractinae" as previously considered is composed of three phylogenetically distantly related taxa which they recognized as families: Amphignathodontidae (Flectonotus and Gastrotheca), Cryptobatrachidae (Cryptobatrachus and Stefania), and Hemiphractidae (Hemiphractus). Wiens, Kuczynski, Duellman, and Reeder, 2007, Evolution, 61: 1886-1899, assumed the monophyly of Hemiphractidae (sensu lato) for purposes of their analysis of hemiphractid relationships and used outgroups that would be considered ingroups in the phylogenetic arrangement suggested by Frost et al. (2006). Guayasamin, Castroviejo-Fisher, Ayarzagüena, Trueb, and Vilà, 2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 48: 577, most recently considered Amphignathodontidae, Cryptobatrachidae, and Hemiphractidae to form a monophyletic group, which they referred to Hemiphractidae. This arrangement is followed here, although the question remains significant due to the largely non-overlapping datasets of Frost et al. (2006) and Guayasamin et al. (2008), different sets of analytical assumptions and reduced outgroup taxon sampling of Guayasamin et al. (2008). See comment under Hylidae. Vitt and Caldwell, 2009, Herpetology, 3rd Ed.: 446-450, provided general taxonomic accounts (as Hemiphractidae, Cryptobatrachidae, and Amphignathodontidae) and maps as part of a much more general and extensive overview of amphibian biology. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, in their study of Genbank sequences, confirmed the monophyly of this taxon, although continuing their exclusion of Cryptobatrachus from analysis. Blackburn and Wake, 2011, In Zhang (ed.), Zootaxa, 3148, 3148: 39-55, discussed briefly the taxonomic history of the group.
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.