Basic Search [?]
Guided Search [?]
Leptodactylidae Werner, 1896 (1838)
Cystignathi Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 26, 78. Type genus: Cystignathus Wagler, 1830.
Leiuperina Bonaparte, 1850, Conspect. Syst. Herpetol. Amph.: 1 p. Type genus: Leiuperus Duméril and Bibron, 1841.
Cystignathidae — Günther, 1858, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1858: 346.
Plectromantidae Mivart, 1869, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1869: 291. Type genus: Plectromantis Peters, 1862. Synonymy by implication by Nieden, 1923, Das Tierreich, 46: 479; Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 169.
Paludicolina Mivart, 1869, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1869: 290. Type genus: Paludicola Wagler, 1830.
Cystignathina — Mivart, 1869, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1869: 293.
Adenomeridae Hoffmann, 1878, in Bronn (ed.), Die Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs, 6(2): 613. Type genus: Adenomera Steindachner, 1867. Synonymy by implication of synonymy of Adenomera with Leptodactylus by Parker, 1932, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 10, 10: 342.
Leptodactylidae Werner, 1896, Verh. Zool. Bot. Ges. Wien, 46: 357. Type genus: Leptodactylus Fitzinger, 1826.
Cystignathinae — Gadow, 1901, Amphibia and Reptiles: 139.
Leptodactylinae — Metcalf, 1923, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 120: 272; Noble, 1931, Biol. Amph.: 504; Laurent, 1980 "1979", Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 104: 418. : 5.
Paludicolidae — Miranda-Ribeiro, 1924, Bol. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 1: 143.
Paludicolinae — Lutz, 1929, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 22: 5.
Leptodactylydae — Lutz, 1954, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 52: 172.
Pseudopaludicolinae Gallardo, 1965, Pap. Avulsos Zool., São Paulo, 17: 84. Type genus: Pseudopaludicola Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926.
Leptodactyloidea — Reig, 1972, in Blair (ed.), Evol. Genus Bufo: 29.
Leiuperinae — Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583.
Nomina inquirenda - Name(s) unassigned to a living or extinct population
Hylodes (Craugastor) hallowelli Cope, 1862, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 14: 153. Holotype: USNM 4343, by original designation; not mentioned in USNM type list of Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220, so presumed lost. Type locality: "Near Carthagena [= Cartagena], New Granada [= Colombia]". * Craugastor hallowelli—Cope, 1862, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 14: 357. * Cystignathus hallowelli—Cope, 1868, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 20: 115. * Leptodactylus hallowelli—Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 237. ENGLISH NAME(S): Hallowell's Cartagena Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 81). DISTRIBUTION: Known only from the type locality (near Cartagena, Colombia). COMMENT: Considered a nomen dubium, possibly in Leptodactylus, by Heyer, 1974, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 253: 44-45. Rejected as a member of Leptodactylus by de Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa, and Stanley, 2014, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 9(Spec. Issue 1): 1–123.
Leptodactylus ochraceus Lutz, 1930, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 23: 28. Types: Not designated; AL-MNRJ 1445 according to Caramaschi, 2008, Rev. Brasil. Zool., 25: 523. Type locality: "Estado de Pernambuco (? Tapera)", Brazil. Given as "Tapera, Pernambuco", Brazil by Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 73, and further discussed by Caramaschi, 2008, Rev. Brasil. Zool., 25: 524. This taxon was long forgotten, but Caramaschi, 2008, Rev. Brasil. Zool., 25: 523-528, discussed reasons for retaining it as a valid taxon within Leptodactylus, also noting that it is known only from the holotype. Unassigned to species group, or even to Leptodactylus, by de Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa, and Stanley, 2014, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 9(Spec. Issue 1): 1–123, and who provided a summary of relevant literature on p. 89.
Plectomantis rhodostima Cope, 1874, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 26: 127. Holotype: Presumably ANSP (most likely) or USNM, not located. Type locality: "Nauta", Departamento Loreto, Peru. * Plectomantis rhodostigma — Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 250. Incorrect subsequent spelling. *Leptodactylus rhodostigma — Nieden, 1923, Das Tierreich, 46: 489. New combination but incorrect spelling. A nomen dubium only known from the type locality Heyer, 1974, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 253: 44, considered this form to possibly belong in Lithodytes. Definitely not a Leptodactylus according to de Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa, and Stanley, 2014, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 9(Spec. Issue 1): 1–123. Heyer, 1974, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 253: 44, considered this form to possibly belong in Lithodytes.
Extreme southern Texas (USA), Sonora (Mexico), and northern Antilles, south to Brazilm Argentina, and Chile
With the discovery that Cystignathus Wagler was a synonym of Leptodactylus Fitzinger, the family-group name Cystignathidae became unavailable according to the rules of nomenclature then in effect. The name Leptodactylidae was proposed as a replacement name by Werner (1896) and has gained nearly universal acceptance subsequently. Leptodactylidae is therefore a conserved name in zoology under the provision of Article 40 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999) and for purposes of priority takes the date of Cystignathi Tschudi, 1838. Noble, 1931, Biol. Amph.: 504, was the first to recognize the subfamily Leptodactylinae, which is close in content to Leptodactylidae as currently recognized. Prior to 2005, Leptodactylidae was a very large unwieldy Neotropical family. Ruvinsky and Maxson, 1996, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 5: 533-547, suggested Leptodactylidae (sensu lato) was polyphyletic and 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, partitioned former Leptodactylidae into several reformulated families: Batrachophrynidae (now Calyptocephalellidae by return of Batrachophrynus to Ceratophryidae), Leptodactylidae, Ceratophryidae, Cycloramphidae, and subsequently Grant, Frost, Caldwell, Gagliardo, Haddad, Kok, Means, Noonan, Schargel, and Wheeler, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 299: 1-268 (151), partitioned Cycloramphidae into Cycloramphidae and Hylodidae, and Leptodactylidae into Leptodactylidae (as here recognized) and Leiuperidae. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, in their sutdy of Genbank sequences, provided the taxonomy followed herein, which includes three subfamilies: Leiuperinae, Leptodactylinae, and Paratelmatobiinae. Accounts and keys to most of the genera were supplied by Laurent, 1986, in Grassé and Delsol (eds.), Traite de Zool., 14: 594-797. Blackburn and Wake, 2011, In Zhang (ed.), Zootaxa, 3148: 39-55, discussed briefly the taxonomic history of the group. Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 317-578, provided identification keys and accounts for the species in Guyana. Vitt and Caldwell, 2013, Herpetology, 4th Ed., provided a summary of life history, diagnosis, and taxonomy.
Contained taxa (200 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.