Basic Search [?]
Guided Search [?]
Phyllomedusinae Günther, 1858
Phyllomedusidae Günther, 1858, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1858: 346. Type genus: Phyllomedusa Wagler, 1830.
Phyllomedusinae — Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 27: 64.
Pithecopinae Lutz, 1969, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 24: 274. Type genus: Pithecopus Cope, 1866. Synonymy by acclamation inasmuch as Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 83, and Duellman, 1968, Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist., 18: 6, treated Pithecopus as a synonym of Phyllomedusa, and this remained generally accepted.
Phyllomedusidae — Bossuyt and Roelants, 2009, in Hedges and Kumar (eds.), Timetree of Life: 359.
Tropical Mexico to Argentina.
Frogs referred to this subfamily possess distinctive morphological, biochemical, behavioral, and reproductive features (Duellman, 1968, Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist., 18: 1–10). Bagnara and Ferris, 1973, J. Exp. Biol., 190: 367–372, suggested that similar melanosomes in some Phyllomedusa and some Litoria might be indicative of a close relationship between Phyllomedusinae and Pelodryadinae. The immunological evidence of Maxson, 1976, Experientia, 32: 1149–1150, did not refute such a relationship, but suggested that the divergence was not recent. Osteological and myological evidence of Tyler and Davies, 1978, Herpetologica, 34: 219–224, does not refute such a hypothesized relationship (D.C. Cannatella In Frost, 1985, Amph. Species World: 197). Savage, 2002, Amph. Rept. Costa Rica: 277–288, provided a key to and accounts for the species of Costa Rica. Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294: 111–118, discussed the generic taxonomy of Phyllomedusinae and demonstrated a sister taxon relationship with Pelodryadinae. Bossuyt and Roelants, 2009, in Hedges and Kumar (eds.), Timetree of Life: 357–364, regarded this taxon as a family, Phyllomedusidae, based on its antiquity of divergence from Pelodryadidae and Hylidae. Faivovich, Haddad, Baêta, Jungfer, Álvares, Brandão, Sheil, Barrientos, Barrio-Amorós, Cruz, and Wheeler, 2010, Cladistics, 26: 227–261, reported on the phylogenetics of the group and provided a revision. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, in their study of Genbank sequences, confirmed the results of Faivovich et al., 2010, but retained a paraphyletic Hylomantis rather than accepting the synonymy of Hylomantis and Pachymedusa with Agalychnis. Köhler, 2011, Amph. Cent. Am.: 196–204, provided a key to the genera and species of Central America and provided a map and photograph of this species.
Contained taxa (60 sp.):
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.