Basic Search [?]

Guided Search [?]

Fejervarya Bolkay, 1915

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Dicroglossidae > Subfamily: Dicroglossinae > Genus: Fejervarya
16 species

Fejervarya Bolkay, 1915, Anat. Anz., 48: 181. Type species: Rana limnocharis Gravenhorst, 1829, by subsequent designation of Dubois, 1981, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Suppl., 15: 238. Coined as a subgenus under Rana.

Incertae Sedis

Rana brama Lesson, 1834, in Bélanger (ed.), Voy. Indes-Orientales N. Eur. Caucase Georgie Perse, Zool.: 329. Holotype: Animal figured on pl. 6 of the original (Atlas); this is MNHNP 4899, according to Guibé, 1950 "1948", Cat. Types Amph. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.: 35. Type locality: "Bengale". Considered a synonym of Rana tigerina (sensu lato) by Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 376; Kelaart, 1853, Prodr. Faunae Zeylan., 1: 192; Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 10; Günther, 1864, Rept. Brit. India: 407; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 26. *Fejervarya bramaDubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35; Fei, Ye, Jiang, and Xie, 2002, Herpetol. Sinica, 9: 92. COMMENT: Recognized by Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35; without discussion beyond noting its problematic status, not associated with a biological population of frogs.

Rana assimilis Blyth, 1852, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 21: 355. Types: not stated; presumably original ZSIC, but not noted in recent type lists. Type locality: "Calcutta . . . (also inhabiting Arakan)", India. * Fejervarya assimilisDubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35; Fei, Ye, Jiang, and Xie, 2002, Herpetol. Sinica, 9: 92. COMMENT: Recognized by Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35, without discussion beyond noting its problematic status, not associated with a biological population of frogs. Previously considered a provisional synonym of (then) Rana limnocharis by Bourret, 1942, Batr. Indochine: 250, and a synonym of Rana vittigera by Theobald, 1868, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 37: 80. Considered incertae sedis or a synonym within Fejervarya by Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 61. Considered as "invalid" according to Matsui, Toda, and Ota, 2008 "2007", Curr. Herpetol., 26: 73, but without associating the name with a known living population.

Rana altilabris Blyth, 1856 "1855", J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 24: 720. Type(s): Not stated, but implied to be ZSIC; considered lost by Dubois, 1984, Alytes, 3: 152. Type locality: "Pegu" (= Bago), Myanmar; given as ""Schwe Gyen on the Sitang River, Pegu [= Bago]", Myanmar, by Blyth, 1856 "1855", J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 24 : 720. Considered by Theobald, 1868, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 37: 80, to be a synonym of Rana vittigera, but considered a nomen dubium by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 7, and Dubois, 1984, Alytes, 3: 152. Considered incertae sedis within or a synonym of a species of Fejervarya by Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 61; without discussion. * Limnonectes (Fejervarya) altilabrisDubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 61; by implication. * Fejervarya altilabrisIskandar, 1998, Amph. Java Bali: 71; by implication; Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35; Fei, Ye, Jiang, and Xie, 2002, Herpetol. Sinica, 9: 92. COMMENT: Name not associated with a biological population of frogs; see Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 15-50, for discussion. Considered "invalid" by Matsui, Toda, and Ota, 2008 "2007", Curr. Herpetol., 26: 73, but without associating the name with a known living population.

Pyxicephalus frithii Theobald, 1868, J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 37: 81. Types: Not stated, but presumably ZSIC, considered lost by Dubois, 1984, Alytes, 3: 154. Type locality: "Jessore", Bangladesh. Synonymy (with Pyxicephalus khasianus) by Stoliczka, 1872, Proc. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 1872: 102. Considered a nomen dubium by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 7, and Dubois, 1984, Alytes, 3: 154 (who considered it likely to be either in Sphaerotheca [as Tomopterna] or Fejervarya). Considered incertae sedis within Fejervarya by Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 57; without discussion. * Fejervarya frithiiDubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35; Fei, Ye, Jiang, and Xie, 2002, Herpetol. Sinica, 9: 92. COMMENT: Not associated with a known population of frogs; see Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35. Previously considered incertae sedis within or synonymous with one of the members of Hoplobatrachus or Fejervarya (both considered subgenera of Limnonectes as the time) or Sphaerotheca by Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 57, 60-61. Considered as "invalid" according to Matsui, Toda, and Ota, 2008 "2007", Curr. Herpetol., 26: 73.

English Names

Terrestrial Frogs (Li, Zhao, and Dong, 2010, Amph. Rept. Tibet: 47).

Distribution

Eastern India (Orissa) through Myanmar to southern China and Indochina to the islands of the Sunda Shelf; Japan; reported in Papua New Guinea.

Comment

Considered provisionally a subgenus of Rana by Dubois, 1984, Alytes, 3: 147; of Limnonectes by Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 315. Considered a distinct genus by Iskandar, 1998, Amph. Java Bali: 71, and Dubois and Ohler, 2000, Alytes, 18: 35. Emerson and Berrigan, 1993, Herpetologica, 49: 29, suggested that Limnonectes sensu Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 60, was paraphyletic with respect to Occidozyga. Subsequently, Inger, 1996, Herpetologica, 52: 244, suggested that Fejervarya be excluded from Limnonectes; following this Iskandar, 1998, Amph. Java Bali: 71, placed all members of the former subgenus Fejervarya of Limnonectes as a distinct genus, rendering Limnonectes monophyletic. Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 57, treated this taxon as a member of his Subfamily Raninae, Tribe Dicroglossini. In Dicroglossinae, tribe Dicroglossini of Dubois, Ohler, and Biju, 2001, Alytes, 19: 55. 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: 136, placed Fejervarya in Dicroglossidae/Dicroglossinae and regarded Fejervarya as paraphyletic, with at least Fejervarya syhadrensis + Fejervarya kirtisinghei as more closely related to Nannophrys, Euphlyctis, and Hoplobatrachus than to Fejervarya limnocharis and Fejervarya cancrivorus, and with Sphaerotheca also imbedded within nominal Fejervarya. Because their taxonomic sampling did not allow resolution of this problem they left "Fejervarya" nominally intact, although needing work. Kurabayashi, Kuramoto, Joshy, and Sumida, 2005, Zool. Sci., Tokyo, 22: 525-534, discussed phylogeny within the genus. Kuramoto, Joshy, Kurabayashi, and Sumida, 2008 "2007", Curr. Herpetol., 26: 81-105, also discussed phylogenetics within the group and suggested that Fejervarya is paraphyletic with respect to Minervarya, although the evidence in support of this conclusion remains unpublished (see comment under Minervarya). See comment under Fejervarya limnocharis for information on the many unnamed species in this taxon. Kotaki, Kurabayashi, Matsui, Khonsue, Djong, Tandon, and Sumida, 2008, Zool. Sci., Tokyo, 25: 381-390, provided additional elucidation and discussion of the problem, disagreed in part with the structure of the paraphyly of nominal "Fejervarya", although they did provide evidence for Sphaerotheca being imbedded within "Fejervarya", but did not make the taxonomic change of placing Sphaerotheca in synonymy. Wiens, Sukumaran, Pyron, and Brown, 2009, Evolution, 63: 1217-1231, corroborated the paraphyly of "Fejevarya" (in the sense of including Zakerana) with respect to Sphaerotheca, with one group containing Fejervarya cancrivora, Fejervarya vittigera, Fejervarya orissaensis, and Fejervarya triora, and the other group (more closely related to Sphaerotheca) including Fejervarya brevipalmata, Fejervarya nilagirica, Fejervarya rufescens, Fejervarya kirtisinghei, Fejervarya limnocharis, and Fejervarya syhadrensis (now in Zakerana). Kotaki, Kurabayashi, Matsui, Kuramoto, Djong, and Sumida, 2010, Zool. Sci., Tokyo, 27: 386-395, also suggested the paraphyly of Fejervarya with respect to Sphaerotheca on the basis of molecular data and reviewed the molecular phylogenetics as related to species boundaries. Howlader, 2011, Bangladesh Wildl. Bull., 5: 1-7, subsequently recognized the second group as Zakerana, to resolve this paraphyly. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, in their study of Genbank sequences confirmed the monophyly of this taxon as the sister taxon of Sphaerotheca and provided a phylogenetic estimate for exemplar species, although providing a tree that is consistent with the partition of Zakerana from Fejervarya. Islam, Kurose, Khan, Nishizawa, Kuramoto, Alam, Hasan, Kurniawan, Nishioka, and Sumida, 2008, Zool. Sci., Tokyo, 25: 1084-1105, discussed 4 morphotypes within Bangladesh that appear to be species and discussed the difficulty of association with species outside of Bangladesh. Kurniawan, Djong, Islam, Nishizawa, Belabut, Sen, Wanichanon, Yasir, and Sumida, 2011, Zool. Sci., Tokyo, 28: 12-24, reported on the morphology and interpopulational fertility of Indonesian populations in the Fejervarya cancrivora complex.

Contained taxa (16 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.