Basic Search [?]
Guided Search [?]
Myobatrachidae Schlegel, 1850
Myobatrachinae Schlegel In Gray, 1850, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1850: 10. Type genus: Myobatrachus Schlegel, 1850.
Myiobatrachidae Bonaparte, 1850, Conspect. Syst. Herpetol. Amph.: 1 p. Type genus: Myiobatrachus Bonaparte, 1850.
Myiobatrachina — Bonaparte, 1850, Conspect. Syst. Herpetol. Amph.: 1 p. Incorrect subsequent spelling.
Uperoliidae Günther, 1858, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1858: 346. Type genus: Uperoleia Gray, 1841.
Criniae Cope, 1866, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 89. Type genus: Crinia Tschudi, 1838.
Uperoleiidae — Keferstein, 1867, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, 18: 349.
Uperoliina — Mivart, 1869, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1869: 291.
Myobatrachida — Knauer, 1878, Naturgesch. Lurche: 104.
Criniinae — Noble, 1931, Biol. Amph.: 492.
Myobatrachinae — Parker, 1940, Novit. Zool., 42: 6; Laurent, 1980 "1979", Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 104: 417.
Myobatrachidae — Lynch, 1973, in Vial (ed.), Evol. Biol. Anurans: 170; Heyer and Liem, 1976, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 233: 1; Laurent, 1980 "1979", Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 104: 417; Davies, 2003, in Duellman (ed.), Grzimek's Animal Life Enclop., 6(Amph.): 147.
Rheobatrachinae Heyer and Liem, 1976, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 233: 11. Type genus: Rheobatrachus Liem, 1973. Synonymy by implication of Ford and Cannatella, 1993, Herpetol. Monogr., 7: 105; 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: 195.
Rheobatrachidae — Laurent, 1980 "1979", Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 104: 401; Laurent, 1986, in Grassé and Delsol (eds.), Traite de Zool., 14: 674.
Myobatrachoidea — Irisarri, San Mauro, Abascal, Ohler, Vences, and Zardoya, 2012, BMC Genomics, 13(626): 5. Formal superfamily to contain Myobatrachidae and Limnodynastidae.
Bufo leucogaster Péron, 1807, Voy. Decouvertes aux Terres Aust., 1: 406. Holotype: Not stated or known to exist. Type locality: "Paramatta . . . Nouvelle-Hollande".
Bufo proteus Péron, 1807, Voy. Decouvertes aux Terres Aust., 1: 406. Holotype: Not stated or known to exist. Type locality: "Paramatta . . . Nouvelle-Hollande".
Australian Water Frogs (Halliday and Adler, 2002, New Encyclop. Rept. Amph.: 84).
Australian Toadlets (Halliday and Adler, 2002, New Encyclop. Rept. Amph.: 84).
Australian Froglets (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 93).
Ground Frogs (Wells and Wellington, 1989, Aust. Herpetologists, 506: 3).
Parental-care Frogs (Ingram, Nattrass, and Czechura, 1993, Mem. Queensland Mus., 33: 222).
Australia; New Guinea.
At one time, the generalized arciferal frogs of the Australo-papuan region were regarded as members of Leptodactylidae (sensu lato). Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 1-238, considered these taxa to fall into two subfamilies of Leptodactylidae, Cycloraninae (containing what is now Limnodynastidae, and Cyclorana, now transferred to Hylidae), and Myobatrachinae. Subsequently, Lynch, 1973, in Vial (ed.), Evol. Biol. Anurans: 133-182, included Myobatrachinae and Cycloraninae into a larger Myobatrachidae, but posted the two groups to be phylogenetically distant from each other, with Myobatrachinae forming the sister taxon of Sooglossidae and Cycloraninae forming the sister taxon of Heleophryninae (which he transferred to Myobatrachidae). Tyler, 1972, Rec. S. Aust. Mus., 16: 1-20, also discussed relationships among myobatrachids and limnodynastids (as cycloranines) on the basis of hyomandibular features. Heyer and Liem, 1976, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 233, presented an analysis of the Myobatrachidae in the sense of including Limnodynastinae (= Cycloraninae excluding Cyclorana), the Myobatrachinae, and the new subfamily Rheobatrachinae (including only Rheobatrachus). This phylogeny reconstruction was criticized by Farris, Kluge, and Mickevich, 1982, Syst. Zool., 31: 317-327, who placed Rheobatrachus within Limnodynastinae. See also Blake, 1973, Aust. J. Zool., 21: 119-149, and Tyler, Martin, and Davies, 1979, Aust. J. Zool., 27: 135-150,for relevant discussion of phylogeny. Tyler, 1979, in Duellman (ed.), Monogr. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 7: 94-96, argued that the case for recognition of Myobatrachidae required phylogenetic substantiation. Ruvinsky and Maxson, 1996, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 5: 533-547, suggested that Heleophrynidae might be the sister taxon of the Limnodynastinae, rendering the Myobatrachidae (sensu lato) as paraphyletic. Some authors (e.g., Duellman in Halliday and Adler, 2002, New Encyclop. Rept. Amph.: 84), regarded the two nominal subfamilies, Myobatrachinae and Limnodynastinae as families, Myobatrachidae and Limnodynastidae, presumably because Ford and Cannatella, 1993, Herpetol. Monogr., 7, suggesteded that there were no synapomorphies of the taxon Myobatrachidae (sensu lato) and that previous work had suggested that Myobatrachinae is the sister taxon of Sooglossidae. Burton, 1998, Am. Mus. Novit., 3229: 1-13, did suggest evidence for the monophyly of Myobatrachidae (sensu lato) but his evidence is more suggestive than decisive. 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, provided a phylogeny and taxonomic history and transferred Mixophyes from Limnodynastidae to Myobatrachidae. Roelants, Gower, Wilkinson, Loader, Biju, Guillaume, Moriau, and Bossuyt, 2007, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104: 887-892, on the basis of less inclusive sampling, a moderately different molecular dataset, and a different analytical method found Mixophyes to be in Limnodynastidae. Literature reviews and synonymies for the Australian taxa can be found in Cogger, Cameron, and Cogger, 1983, Zool. Cat. Aust., Amph. Rept., 1: 12-54. Accounts and keys to most of the genera are supplied by Laurent, 1986, in Grassé and Delsol (eds.), Traite de Zool., 14. See also Sokal, Kim, and Rohlf, 1992, J. Classif., 9: 117-140, for discussion of taxonomic stability. Roberts and Watson, 1993, in Glasby et al. (eds.), Fauna Aust., 2A(Amph. Rept.): 35-40, summarized the understanding of systematics at that time. Although out of date, the review of the Australian "Leptodactylidae" by Parker, 1940, Novit. Zool., 42: 1-105, provides much useful information for the professional systematist, as does Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 1-238. Keys to all species available in Barker, Grigg, and Tyler, 1995, Field Guide Aust. Frogs., Ed. 2. Anstis, 2002, Tadpoles Southeast. Aust., provided keys to tadpoles for the species of southeastern Australia. See also comments under Limnodynastidae. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, in their study of Genbank sequences, confirmed the monophyly of the group and its sister-taxon relationship to Myobatrachidae, although retaining an older taxonomy where both Myobatrachidae and Limnodynastidae are treated as coordinate subfamilies within an enlarged Myobatrachidae. Blackburn and Wake, 2011, In Zhang (ed.), Zootaxa, 3148: 39-55, briefly reviewed the taxonomic history of this taxon and adopted this same taxonomy. Vitt and Caldwell, 2013, Herpetology, 4th Ed., provided a summary of life history, diagnosis, and taxonomy.
Contained taxa (88 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.