Anaxyrus boreas (Baird and Girard, 1852)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Bufonidae > Genus: Anaxyrus > Species: Anaxyrus boreas

Rana canagica Pallas, 1814 "1831", Zoograph. Rosso-Asiat. Sist. Omn. Animal.: 12. Types: Not mentioned or known to exist. Type locality: "insulis Aleuticis inter Camtschatcam et Americam, et in hujus Continentis parte a Rossis occupato observait"; presumably Kanaga Island, Alaska, according to Kuzmin, 1996, Adv. Amph. Res. Former Soviet Union, 1: 51. Synonymy with Rana sylvatica by Lindholm, 1924, Copeia, 129: 46–47. This was disputed by Myers, 1930, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 43: 62, who placed it as a senior synonym of Bufo boreas Baird and Girard. Neither of these synonymies were followed by subsequent authors including Myers, following the assertion by Stejneger and Barbour, 1933, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 3: vi, that the name is a nomen dubium. More recently, Kuzmin, 1996, Adv. Amph. Res. Former Soviet Union, 1: 51, discussed the problem, allocated the name to the species known as Anaxyrus boreas, and treated Rana canagica Pallas as a nomen oblitum.

Bufo boreas Baird and Girard, 1852, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 6: 174. Syntypes: Not stated; USNM 15467–70, according to Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 32. Type locality: "Columbia River and Puget Sound", Washington, USA; restricted to "vicinity of Puget Sound", Washington, USA, by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 61; this restriction rejected by Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 296, as invalid by reason of not being based on evidence.

Bufo halophila Baird and Girard, 1853, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 6: 301. Syntypes: USNM 2589 (2 specimens) according to Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 34. Type locality: "Benicia", Solano County, California, USA. Synonymy with Bufo boreas boreas by Cope, 1886, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., 23: 514; Cope, 1889, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 34: 267; Camp, 1917, Univ. California Publ. Zool., 17: 116.

Bufo columbiensis Baird and Girard, 1853, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 6: 378. Syntypes: Not stated; including USNM 4182 (7 specimens) according to Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 32. Type locality: "Oregon . . . on the Columbia River", USA; restricted to "vicinity of the mouth of the Columbia River", USA, by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 61. but because that restriction was not based on presented evidence it was considered invalid by Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 296. Synonymy by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 296. Synonymy with Bufo boreas by Cope, 1886, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., 23: 514; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 296; Camp, 1917, Univ. California Publ. Zool., 17: 115.

Bufo lamentor Girard, 1859, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 11: 169. Syntypes: Not stated; USNM 4194 (4 specimens) according to Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 35. Type locality: "about Fort Bridger, Utah Territory [now Wyoming]", USA. Synonymy by Tanner, 1933, Copeia, 1933: 42.

Bufo politus Cope, 1862, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 14: 158. Holotype: USNM 5600 according to Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 36. Type locality: "near Greytown, Nicaragua"; in error, according to Savage, 1967, Copeia, 1967: 226, who suggested that the type came from "Pacific Coast region of the the western United States". Synonymy by Savage, 1967, Copeia, 1967: 225–226.

Bufo pictus Cope In Yarrow, 1875, in Wheeler (ed.), Rep. Geograph. Geol. Explor. Surv. W. 100th Merid., 5(4): 522. Holotype: USNM 8655 according to Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 164. Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 36, noted USNM 8655, 25332–34 as syntypes, apparently in error. Type locality: "neighborhood of Provo and Utah Lake"; given as "Utah" by Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 145; restricted to "Provo, Utah", USA, by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 61. Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 297, considered this restriction in valid as it does not rest on disclosed evidence. Synonymy by Cope, 1886, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., 23: 514; Cope, 1889, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 34: 267; Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 61.

Bufo halophilusBoulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 295.

Bufo lentiginosus pictusGarman, 1884, Bull. Essex Inst., 16: 43, by implication.

Bufo columbiensis columbiensisCope, 1889, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 34: 269.

Bufo columbiensis halophilusCope, 1889, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 34: 269.

Bufo halophilus columbiensisStejneger, 1893, N. Am. Fauna, 7: 220.

Bufo boreas boreasStejneger, 1893, N. Am. Fauna, 7: 220.

Bufo boreas halophilusCamp, 1917, Univ. California Publ. Zool., 17: 116.

Bufo nestor Camp, 1917, Univ. California Publ. Zool., 17: 115–125. Holotype: UCLA 22468, incomplete skull [fossil taxon]; now presumably in LACM. Type locality: Rancho La Brea, California, USA. Synonymy with Bufo boreas halophilus by Tihen, 1962, Am. Midl. Nat., 62: 157–183.

Bufo canagicus canagicusMyers, 1930, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 43: 62.

Bufo canagicus halophilusMyers, 1930, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 43: 62.

Bufo halophilus halophilusFrank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 40. Unsubstantiated arrangement.

Anaxyrus boreasFrost, 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: 363.

Anaxyrus boreas boreasFrost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37: 3).

Anaxyrus boreas halophilusFrost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37: 3).

Bufo (Anaxyrus) boreas — Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 295. See comment under Bufonidae regarding how this arrangement is part of a system that requires widespread paraphyly. 

Bufo (Anaxyrus) boreas boreas — Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 296. See comment under Bufonidae regarding how this arrangement is part of a system that requires widespread paraphyly. 

Bufo (Anaxyrus) boreas halophilus — Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 297. See comment under Bufonidae regarding how this arrangement is part of a system that requires widespread paraphyly. 

English Names

Columbia Toad (Bufo columbiensis [no longer recognized]: Cooper, 1860, Rep. Upon Explor Surv. Route Railroad Mississippi–Pacific Ocean, 12 (Book 2, Pt. 3, No. 4): 304; Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 23).

Salt-marsh Frog (Bufo halophilaCooper, 1873, Proc. California Acad. Sci., 4: 64). 

Painted Toad (Bufo pictus [no longer recognized]: Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 23).

Western Toad (Bufo boreas: Wright and Wright, 1933, Handb. Frogs Toads U.S. Canada: 50; Stebbins, 1951, Amph. W. North Am.: 234; Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 61; Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 176; Stebbins, 1966, Field Guide W. North Am. Rept. Amph.: 59; Collins, Huheey, Knight, and Smith, 1978, Herpetol. Circ., 7: 10; Liner, 1994, Herpetol. Circ., 23: 16; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 40; Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 11; Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 7; Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 208; Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37: 3; Liner and Casas-Andreu, 2008, Herpetol. Circ., 38: 7; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 6; Frost, McDiarmid, Mendelson, and Green, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 12; Frost, Lemmon, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2017, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 43: 7).

Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas: Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 176; Stebbins, 1966, Field Guide W. North Am. Rept. Amph.: 60; Collins, Huheey, Knight, and Smith, 1978, Herpetol. Circ., 7: 10; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 40; Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 11).

Baird's Toad (Bufo boreas: Wright and Wright, 1933, Handb. Frogs Toads U.S. Canada: 50).

Mountain Toad (Bufo boreas: Wright and Wright, 1933, Handb. Frogs Toads U.S. Canada: 50).

Small-spaded Toad (Bufo boreas: Wright and Wright, 1933, Handb. Frogs Toads U.S. Canada: 50).

Northwestern Toad (Bufo boreas boreas: Storer, 1925, Univ. California Publ. Zool., 27: 43; Slevin, 1928, Occas. Pap. California Acad. Sci., 16: 90; Wright and Wright, 1933, Handb. Frogs Toads U.S. Canada: ix; Vincent, 1947, Nature Notes from Crater Lake, 13: 20).

Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas: Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 61; Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 7; Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 209; Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37: 3; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 6).

Columbian Toad (Bufo boreas boreas: Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 61).

Baird's Toad (Bufo boreas halophilus: Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 23).

Alkali Toad (Bufo boreas halophilus: Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 62).

Marsh Toad (Bufo boreas halophilus: Wright and Wright, 1933, Handb. Frogs Toads U.S. Canada: 50).

California Toad (Bufo boreas halophilus: Dickerson, 1906, The Frog Book: 113; Grinnell and Storer, 1924, Animal Life in the Yosemite: 655; Storer, 1925, Univ. California Publ. Zool., 27: 43; Wright and Wright, 1933, Handb. Frogs Toads U.S. Canada: ix; Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 176; Stebbins, 1966, Field Guide W. North Am. Rept. Amph.: 60; Collins, Huheey, Knight, and Smith, 1978, Herpetol. Circ., 7: 10; Liner, 1994, Herpetol. Circ., 23: 16; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 40; Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 11; Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 7; Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 209; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 6).

Southern California Toad (Bufo boreas halophilus: Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37: 3; Liner and Casas-Andreu, 2008, Herpetol. Circ., 38: 7).

Distribution

Western North America from southeastern Alaska, USA, through western Canada and western USA to (formerly) northern New Mexico, southern Colorado, southern Utah, southern Nevada, and northern Baja California (south to Bahia de los Angeles), Mexico; populations in south-central Wyoming and northern New Mexico now extinct as are those for most of central Utah.

Comment

In the Bufo boreas group of Blair, 1972, Evol. Genus Bufo: 350. See comments under Anaxyrus exsul and Anaxyrus nelsoni. See comments by Schuierer, 1963 "1962", Herpetologica, 18: 262–267. The two remaining nominal subspecies (Anaxyrus boreas boreas and Anaxyrus boreas halophilus) are still recognized by some authors, but these are physiologically strongly divergent and there may be cryptic species masquerading under this binominal (DRF). Bogert, 1960, in Lanyon and Tavolga (eds.), Anim. Sound Commun.: 179, suggested differences that suggest that Anaxyrus boreas halophilus and Anaxyrus boreas boreas are different species. Grismer, 2002, Amph. Rept. Baja California: 65–66, provided an account for the Mexican population. Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 208–209, provided a brief account, figure, and map (and who commented on the disappearance of this species from large areas of its former distribution in the Rockies and Wasatch Ranges). Goebel, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 210–221, noted that analysis of mtDNA does not provide an unambiguous map of species within the Anaxyrus boreas group (including Anaxyrus exsul and Anaxyrus nelsoni). See statement of geographic range, habitat, and conservation status (as Bufo boreas) in Stuart, Hoffmann, Chanson, Cox, Berridge, Ramani, and Young, 2008, Threatened Amph. World: 611. Goebel, Ranker, Corn, and Olmstead, 2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 50: 209–225, discussed mtDNA phylogeography and provided evidence that (1) nominal Anaxyrus boreas is a complex of species that do not conform to the current arrangement of subspecies, Anaxyrus boreas boreas and Anaxyrus boreas halophilus; (2) nominal Anaxyrus boreas is paraphyletic in terms of mtDNA haplotypes with respect to Anaxyrus canorus (that they found to be polyphyletic); (3) that one component of Anaxyrus boreas halophilus is most closely related to Anaxyrus nelsoni, and together is the sister taxon of Anaxyrus exsul and that another component (the name-bearing component) is more closely related to a component of Anaxyrus boreas boreas. See comments under Anaxyrus canorus. Wiedmer and Hodge, 1996, Herpetol. Rev., 27: 148, provided a northern and western record in Alaska and commented on the range. Muths and Nanjappa, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 392–396, provided a detailed summary of the literature and map. Oliver-López, Woolrich-Piña, and Lemos-Espinal, 2009, Fam. Bufonidae Mex.: 24–26, provided an account for Mexico (although the mapped potential range extending into the summer-rainfall areas of central and southern Baja California is highly unlikely—DRF). Dodd, 2013, Frogs U.S. and Canada, 1: 47–65, provided an account that summarized relevant literature and the likelihood that the name represents a complex of species. Elliot, Gerhardt, and Davidson, 2009, Frogs and Toads of N. Am.: 172–175, provided an account, photos, and advertisement call. Altig and McDiarmid, 2015, Handb. Larval Amph. US and Canada: 175–177, provided an account of larval morphology and biology. 

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.