Xenopus laevis (Daudin, 1802)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Pipidae > Subfamily: Dactylethrinae > Genus: Xenopus > Species: Xenopus laevis

Bufo laevis Daudin, 1802 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Rain. Gren. Crap., Quarto: 85. Type(s): Including frog figured on page 82, pl. 30, fig. 1 of the original, and noted to be in the MNHNP; no longer in existence according to Poynton, 1964, Ann. Natal Mus., 17: 31. Type locality: Unknown.

Pipa laevis — Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 180.

Pipa bufonia Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 180 Type(s): Based on "Pipa mâle. Pl. 21. f. 2" Author? Type locality: Unknown. Synonymy by Cuvier, 1829, Regne Animal., Ed. 2, 2: 107; Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 90; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 765.

Engystoma laevis — Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 40.

Xenopus boiei Wagler, 1827, Isis von Oken, 20: 726. Type(s): Specimens of H. Boie. Subsequent deposition not known although Wagler notes a specimen in the "Leidener Museum" (= RMNH), which Gassó Miracle, van den Hoek Ostende, and Arntzen, 2007, Zootaxa, 1482: 59, suggested was possibly among RMNH 2267 (4 specimens). Type locality: Not stated; suggested to be "Cap" [Cape of Good Hope, Rep. South Africa] by Gassó Miracle, van den Hoek Ostende, and Arntzen, 2007, Zootaxa, 1482: 59. Synonymy by Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 200 (under Xenopus boiei); by Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 90; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 765.

Dactylethra bufonia — Cuvier, 1829, Regne Animal., Ed. 2, 2: 107, by implication.

Dactylethra laevis — Cuvier, 1829, Regne Animal., Ed. 2, 2: 107, by implication.

Dactylethra capensis Cuvier, 1830, Regne Animal., Ed. 2, 3: pl. 7. Type(s): Not stated, although presumably originally in the MNHNP, but not recorded as being there now (22 Aug. 2009). Type locality: Not stated; Cape of Good Hope, Rep. South Africa; by implication of the formation of the name. The original (in volume 3, pl. 7) references to discussion on page 107 of volume 2, but there is no mention of this taxon on that page or in that volume. Synonymy by Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 765. Possibly a senior synonym of Xenopus gilli (DRF).

Tremeropugus typicus Smith, 1831, S. Afr. Q. J., 5: 19. Type(s): Not stated or known to exist. Type locality: "Inhabits fresh-water lakes and slow-running rivers in most parts of South Africa. It seldom leaves the water, and when upon dry ground it leaps well." Synonymy by Branch and Bauer, 2005, in Branch and Bauer (eds.), Herpetol. Contrib. Andrew Smith: 4; and Bauer and Branch, 2005, Afr. J. Herpetol., 54: 181–184.

Xenopus bojei — Van der Hoeven, 1833, Handb. Dierkd., 2: 308; Leunis, 1844, Synops. Drei Naturr., Zool., Ed. 1: 145; Leunis, 1860, Synops. Drei Naturr., Zool., Ed. 2: 145. Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Leptopus oxydactylus Mayer, 1835, Analect. Vergl. Anat.: 34. Holotype: Animal figured in Plate 2, fig 5 of original. Type locality: not designated; Africa by implication of the formation of the alternative name, Pipa africana. Synonymy by Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 90; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 765.

Leptopus boiei Mayer, 1835, Analect. Vergl. Anat.: 35. Alternative name for Leptopus oxydactylus Mayer, 1835.

Pipa africana Mayer, 1835, Analect. Vergl. Anat.: 35. Alternative name for Leptopus boiei Mayer, 1835.

Dactylethera boiei — Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 90.

Dactylethra levis — Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 6: 765. Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Pipa laevis —Duvernoy In Cuvier, 1849, Regne Animal, Disciples Ed., 6: 155.

Dactylethra delalandii Cuvier, 1849, Regne Animal, Disciples Ed., 6: pl. 38, fig. 2, 2a. Type(s): Animal figured in pl. 38 of the original publication, stated to be in the "musée de Strasbourg", France; status of this specimen unknown. Type locality: "midi de l'Afrique". Synonymy by XXX (not D&B or Boulenger). Unlikely to fit into this synonymy (DRF)

Xenopus (Dactylethra) boiei — Schlegel, 1858, Handl. Dierkd., 2: 59.

Dactylethra laevis — Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 2.

Xenopus laevis — Steindachner, 1867, Reise Österreichischen Fregatte Novara, Zool., Amph.: 4; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 456; Boulenger, 1902, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1902: 15.

Dactylethera laevis — Blanford, 1870, Observ. Geol. Zool. Abyssinia: 459.

Xenopus laevis laevis — Parker, 1936, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 10, 18: 597.

Xenopus (Xenopus) laevis — Kobel, Barandun, and Thiebaud, 1998, Herpetol. J., 8: 13.

English Names

Platanna (Xenopus laevis: Hewitt, 1937, Guide Vert. Fauna E. Cape Province, Rept. Amph. Fishes: 61; Rose, 1950, Rep. Amph. S. Afr.: 23; Rose, 1962, Rep. Amph. S. Afr., Ed. 2: 24; Wager, 1965, Frogs S. Afr.: 92).

Common Platanna (Xenopus laevis: Broadley, 1973, J. Herpetol. Assoc. Afr., 10: 22; Van Dijk, 1978, J. Herpetol. Assoc. Afr., 17: 14; Passmore and Carruthers, 1978, J. Herpetol. Assoc. Afr., 19: 3; Passmore and Carruthers, 1979, S. Afr. Frogs: 44; Channing, 2001, Amph. Cent. S. Afr.: 243; Du Preez and Carruthers, 2009, Compl. Guide Frogs S. Afr.: 332; Xenopus laevis laevis: Pienaar, 1963, Koedoe, 6: 78).

Common Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis: Van Dijk, 1978, J. Herpetol. Assoc. Afr., 17: 14; Bates and Haacke, 2003, Navors. Nas. Mus. Bloemfontein, 19: 112).

Clawed Toad (Xenopus laevis: Passmore and Carruthers, 1979, S. Afr. Frogs: 44).

Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis: Rose, 1962, Rep. Amph. S. Afr., Ed. 2: 24; Passmore and Carruthers, 1979, S. Afr. Frogs: 44).

Upland Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis: Passmore and Carruthers, 1979, S. Afr. Frogs: 44).

Smooth Clawed Frog (Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 110).

African Clawed Toad (Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 110).

Upland Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis laevis: Stewart and Wilson, 1966, Ann. Natal Mus., 18: 297).

Common Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis laevis: Van Dijk, 1978, J. Herpetol. Assoc. Afr., 17: 14; Lambiris, 1990 "1989", Monogr. Mus. Reg. Sci. Nat. Torino, 10: 44).

Common Clawed Toad (Xenopus laevis laevis: Van Dijk, 1978, J. Herpetol. Assoc. Afr., 17: 14).

African Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis: Liner, 1994, Herpetol. Circ., 23: 29; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 97; Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 244).

Sudan Clawed Frog (Xenopus sudanensis: Jacobsen, 2009, Afr. Herp News, 47: 6).

Distribution

Extreme southern Angola (see comment) south to Cape Region of Rep. South Africa thence east and north in savanna habitats through Zimbabwe and southeastern Zambia to Malawi; introduced in southern California, Arizona, USA, northern Baja California, Mexico, Chile, Spain, France, Belgium, United Kingdom (see comment), Mexico, Italy, Japan, China, and Java, Indonesia, as well as Ascension Island.

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Angola, Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Introduced: Belgium, Chile, China, People's Republic of, France, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, United States of America, United States of America - Arizona, United States of America - California, United States of America - Florida

Comment

Range extends over 40° of latitude, occupying the cooler upland regions between the rainforests of the west and the hotter, drier savannas of the east and north (Tinsley, 1981, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Suppl., 15: 135). Bisbee, Baker, Wilson, Hadji-Azimi, and Fischberg, 1977, Science, 195: 785–787, suggested that the chromosome number 2n = 36, basic to several species, may reflect ancient tetraploidy and that total genome duplication occurred in an ancestor of the Xenopus laevis group. Vigny, 1979, J. Zool., London, 188: 103–122, found calls among Xenopus laevis petersii (now Xenopus petersii), Xenopus laevis victorianus (now Xenopus victorianus), and Xenopus laevis laevis, to be very different, suggestive of species limits. See accounts by Channing, 2001, Amph. Cent. S. Afr.: 243–246, Pickersgill, 2007, Frog Search: 50–52, and Du Preez and Carruthers, 2009, Compl. Guide Frogs S. Afr.: 332–333. Measey, 2004, in Minter et al. (eds.), Atlas Frogs S. Afr. Lesotho and Swaziland: 264–267, provided an account for South Africa. Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 244, provided for the American population a brief account, figure, and map. On the basis of a molecular phylogeographic study of populations in southern Africa, Measey and Channing, 2003, Amphibia-Reptilia, 24: 321–330, suggested that this nominal species represents a species complex. Note, however, that laboratory crosses of Xenopus victorianus, Xenopus laevis, and Xenopus petersii/poweri do not show any anomalies (Blackler, Fischberg, and Newth, 1965, Rev. Suisse Zool., 72: 841–857; Blackler and Fischberg, 1968, Rev. Suisse Zool., 75: 1023–1032) and that detailed systematic studies on the ground have not been carried out, which means that the possibility remains that geographic variation in Xenopus laevis (sensu lato) may incude the nominal species Xenopus victorianus and Xenopus petersii. Lever, 2003, Naturalized Rept. Amph. World: 141–146, reported on introduced populations in Arizona, California and adjacent Mexico, Chile, and Ascension Island. Lillo, Marrone, Sicilia, Castelli, and Zava, 2005, Herpetozoa, Wien, 18: 63–64, noted an introduced population in Sicily, Italy. Bates and Haacke, 2003, Navors. Nas. Mus. Bloemfontein, 19: 112–113, discussed the species in Lesotho. Vera Candioti, 2007, Zootaxa, 1600: 1–175, reported on detailed larval morphology. Rebelo, Amaral, Bernardes, Oliveira, Pinheiro, and Leitão, 2010, Biol. Invasions, 12: 3383–3387, reported on an introduced population in Oeiras, Portugal. Mateo, Ayres, and López-Jurado, 2011, Bol. Asoc. Herpetol. Esp., 22: 4–5, discussed introduced populations in northeastern Spain. Mercurio, 2011, Amph. Malawi: 242, provided a brief account for Malawi. Ruiz-Campos and Valdéz-Villavicencio, 2012, Herpetol. Rev., 43: 99, commented on an introduced population in Baja California, Mexico, and commented on the introduced range in Mexico and adjacent California, USA. Lobos, Cattan, Estades, and Jaksic, 2013, Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ., 48: 1–2, reported on the potential for this invasive to spread out of Chile into adjacent South American countries. Channing, Rödel, and Channing, 2012, Tadpoles of Africa: 295–297, provided information on comparative larval morphology. Dodd, 2013, Frogs U.S. and Canada, 2: 828–832, provided an account that summarized the relevant literature particularly with reference to the introduced USA populations. Furman, Bewick, Harrison, Greenbaum, Gvoždík, Chifundera, and Evans, 2015, Mol. Ecol., 24: 909–925, transferred the population ranging from South Sudan west to Nigeria from Xenopus laevis to Xenopus poweri. Altig and McDiarmid, 2015, Handb. Larval Amph. US and Canada: 220–221, provided an account of larval morphology and biology. Measey, Rödder, Green, Kobayashi, Lillo, Lobos, Rebelo, and Thirion, 2012, Biol. Invasions, 14: 2255–2270, discussed potential range and ongoing introductions worldwide.  In the Xenopus laevis group of Evans, Carter, Greenbaum, Gvoždík, Kelley, McLaughlin, Pauwels, Portik, Stanley, Tinsley, Tobias, and Blackburn, 2015, PLoS One, 10(12): e0142823: 29. Tinsley, Stott, Viney, Mable, and Tinsley, 2015, Biol. Invasions, 17: 3183–3195, reported the extinction of introduced populations in Wales and Lincolnshire, England. Measey, 2017, Salamandra, 53: 398–404, reported on source populations of invasive populations in the USA, being predominantly from Hong Kong, China. Catchpole and Medina, Bol. Chil. Herpetol., 5: 37, reported on an introduced population in Quillota, Región de Valparaíso, Chile. Nagy, Chifundera, Collet, and Gvoždík, 2013, Herpetol. Notes, 6:  413–419, and Baptista, Conradie, Vaz Pinto, and Branch, 2019, In Huntley, Russo, Lages, and Ferrand (eds.), Biodiversity in Angola: 257, noted specimens from Bas-Congo, southwestern Dem. Rep. Congo, which are so far out of range as to require confirmation. Phaka, Netherlands, Kruger, and Du Preez, 2017, Bilingual Field Guide Frogs Zululand: 60, provided a photograph, Zululand regional map, and a brief account of life history and identification. Channing and Rödel, 2019, Field Guide Frogs & Other Amph. Afr.: 48–49, provided a brief account, photograph, and range map. Conradie, Bittencourt-Silva, Engelbrecht, Loader, Menegon, Nanvonamuquitxo, Scott, and Tolley, 2016, Zoosyst. Evol., Berlin, 92: 163–180, reported a population from Mount Mabu, Zambezia Province, Mozambique. Wang, Hong, and Measey, 2019, BioInvasions Rec., 8: 457–464, reported an introduced albino population from the vicinity of the north shore of Kunming Lake on the south side of Kunming, Yunnan, China. See Dufresnes, 2019, Amph. Eur., N. Afr., & Middle East: 117, for brief summary of identifying morphology and biology, a range map for Europe, as well as a photograph. Goodman, Jongsma, Hill, Stanley, Tuckett, Blackburn, and Romagosa, 2021, J. Herpetol., 55: 62–69, discussed the genetics and morphology of the introduced population of Xenopus tropicalis in Hillsborough County, Florida, USA, previously misidentified as Xenopus laevis. González-Sánchez, Johnson, González-Solís, Fucsko, and Wilson, 2021, ZooKeys, 1022: 87, discussed the introduced population in the Tijuana area of Baja California del Norte, Mexico. Díaz Morales and González, 2020, Bol. Chil. Herpetol., 7: 87, reported the species from Hualañé, Maule Region, Chile. Introduced populations in California, Arizona, and Florida, USA, discussed and mapped to county by Meshaka, Collins, Bury, and McCallum, 2022, Exotic Amph. Rept. USA: 47–49. Figueroa, Low, and Lim, 2023, Zootaxa, 5287: 242, noted that his species has no established populations in Singapore. Pauwels, Brecko, Baeghe, Venderickx, Vanderheyden, and Backeljau, 2023, ZooKeys, 1184: 41–64, characterized the call, morphology, and molecular markers of a reproducing population in Belgium. 

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.