Basic Search [?]

Guided Search [?]

Microhylinae Günther, 1858 (1843)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Microhylidae > Subfamily: Microhylinae
77 species

Hylaedactyli Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 33. Type genus: Hylaedactylus Duméril anbd Bibron, 1841.

HylaedactylidaeBonaparte, 1850, Conspect. Syst. Herpetol. Amph.: 1 p. Günther, 1858, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1858: 346.

HylaedactylinaBonaparte, 1850, Conspect. Syst. Herpetol. Amph.: 1 p.

Micrhylidae Günther, 1858, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1858: 346. Type genus: Micrhyla Duméril and Bibron, 1841 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Microhyla Tschudi, 1838).

MichrylidaeFatio, 1872, Fauna Vert. Suisse, 3: 230. [sic]

HylaedactylidaKnauer, 1878, Naturgesch. Lurche: 112.

KalophryninaeNoble, 1931, Biol. Amph.: 451.

MicrohylinaeNoble, 1931, Biol. Amph.: 451.

Cacopinae Noble, 1931, Biol. Amph.: 532. Type genus: Cacopus Günther, 1864. Synonymy by Parker, 1934, Monogr. Frogs Fam. Microhylidae: 71.

Kaloulinae Noble, 1931, Biol. Amph.: 538. Type genus: Kaloula Gray, 1831. Synonymy by Parker, 1934, Monogr. Frogs Fam. Microhylidae: 71.

KaloulidaeParker, 1934, Monogr. Frogs Fam. Microhylidae: 16.

MicrohylidaeParker, 1934, Monogr. Frogs Fam. Microhylidae: i.

MicrohyloideaLaurent, 1967, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 22: 208. Duellman, 1975, Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 42: 5.

MicrohyloidaeDubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 309. Epifamily.

MicrohyliniDubois, 2005, Alytes, 23: 15.

Calluellinae Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2005, in Fei et al. (eds.), Illust. Key Chinese Amph.: 278. Type genus: Calluella Stoliczka, 1872. Synonymy by implication of results of Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, de Sá, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, and Green, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297: 230.

MicrohylidaeBossuyt and Roelants, 2009, in Hedges and Kumar (eds.), Timetree of Life: 358.

English Names

None noted.

Distribution

Eastern Asia from India and Korea to the Greater Sunda Islands.

Comment

Dubois, 2005, Alytes, 23: 16, regarded all New World members of Microhylinae (sensu lato) as the tribe Gastrophrynini, and the Old World component as Microhylini, without producing any evidence of either's monophyly. Frost, Grant, Faivovich, Bain, Haas, Haddad, de Sá, Channing, Wilkinson, Donnellan, Raxworthy, Campbell, Blotto, Moler, Drewes, Nussbaum, Lynch, and Green, 2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297, demonstrated that Microhylinae as previously considered by authors was a composite of a New World clade (Gastrophryninae in their sense and as used in this catalog), an Old World clade (Microhylinae, as redelimited), and other New and Old World genera that clustered around the base of the microhylid tree (e.g., Synapturanus, Kalophrynus) or near to other nominal subfamilies (e.g., Ramanella). These authors did not assign to subfamily several genera of former microhylines. See comment under Gastrophryninae. Bossuyt and Roelants, 2009, in Hedges and Kumar (eds.), Timetree of Life: 357-364, suggested on the basis of time of divergence that traditional Microhylinae should be regarded as a family, Microhylidae. Matsui, Hamidy, Belabut, Ahmad, Panha, Sudin, Khonsue, Oh, Yong, Jiang, and Nishikawa, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 167-176, rejected Microhylinae as monophyletic, with both Dyscophinae and Asterophryinae imbedded within it. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, in their study of Genbank sequences, suggested Microhylinae to be monophyletic (with respect to their set of exemplars) and the sister taxon of Dyscophinae; they also provided a phylogenetic estimate of their exemplar genera.

Contained taxa (77 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.