Basic Search [?]
Guided Search [?]
Craugastor Cope, 1862
Craugastor Cope, 1862, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 14: 153. Type species: Hylodes fitzingeri Schmidt, 1857, by subsequent designation of Dunn and Dunn, 1940, Copeia, 1940: 71. Coined as a subgenus of Hylodes.
Leiyla Keferstein, 1868, Arch. Naturgesch., 34: 296. Type species: Leiyla guentherii Keferstein, 1868 (= Craugastor fitzingeri), by monotypy. Also described as new by Keferstein, 1868, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, 1868: 330. Synonymy with Hylodes sensu lato by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 198; with Eleutherodactylus by Savage, 1974, Herpetologica, 30: 289–299, and into Craugastor by implication of having its type species be a synonym of Craugastor fitzingeri.
Leihyla Keferstein, 1868, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, 1868: 330. Type species: Leihyla güntheri Keferstein, 1868. Synonymy with Hylodes by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 198; with Eleutherodactylus by Savage, 1974, Herpetologica, 30: 290.
Liyla — Cope, 1870 "1869", Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., 11: 160. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Leiyla Keferstein.
Liyla — Cope, 1870 "1869", Proc. Am. Philos. Soc., 11: 160. Incorrect subsequent spelling.
Liohyla — Günther, 1900, Biol. Centr. Amer., Rept. Batr., Part 155: 220. Incorrect subsequent spelling.
Microbatrachylus Taylor, 1940 "1939", Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 26: 499. Type species: Eleutherodactylus hobartsmithi Taylor, 1936, by original designation. Synonymy by Lynch, 1965, Nat. Hist. Misc., 182: 1–12.
Hylactophryne Lynch, 1968, Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist., 17: 511. Type species: Hylodes augusti Dugés, 1879, by original designation. Synonymy (ambiguously) by Lynch, 1986, Herpetologica, 42: 255; and Hedges, 1989, in Woods (ed.), Biogeograph. W. Indies: 318. Treated as a subgenus of Craugastor by Hedges, Duellman, and Heinicke, 2008, Zootaxa, 1737: 42.
Campbellius Hedges, Duellman, and Heinicke, 2008, Zootaxa, 1737: 33. Type species: Eleutherodactylus stadelmani Schmidt, 1936, by original designation. Coined as a subgenus of Craugastor.
Northern Rainfrogs (Liner and Casas-Andreu, 2008, Herpetol. Circ., 38: 9).
Barking Frogs (Hylactophryne: Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept., 1(Amph.): 275)
Southern Arizona to central Texas (USA) and south through tropical and subtropical habitats to northwestern Ecuador and Colombia.
Synonymy of Craugastor with Eleutherodactylus by Dunn, 1931, Occas. Pap. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 5: 385; treated as a subgenus of Eleutherodactylus by Lynch, 1986, Herpetologica, 42: 248–258, and Hedges, 1989, in Woods (ed.), Biogeograph. W. Indies: 317. Elevated to genus by Crawford and Smith, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 35: 536–555. 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: 197, also recognized it as a genus, discussed the contents of Craugastor, and excluded from it the Eleutherodactylus fraudator group. According to Savage and DeWeese, 1981 "1980", Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 93: 928–942, the former Eleutherodactylus cruentus group is an unnatural composite. Mexican and Central American species of the Craugastor rugulosus group were reviewed by Lynch, 1965, Herpetologica, 21: 102–113, Savage, 1975, Copeia, 1975: 254–306, and Campbell and Savage, 2000, Herpetol. Monogr., 14: 186–292. Savage and DeWeese, 1981 "1980", Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 93: 928–942, discussed the species groups of Central American species (as Eleutherodactylus), as did Ford and Savage, 1984, Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 110: 1–9. Lynch and Myers, 1983, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 175: 481–572, reviewed the members of the then Eleutherodactylus fitzingeri group found in eastern Panama and Chocoan South America, noted that all of the features that defined the Eleutherodactylus fitzingeri group are primitive for the genus (sensu lato), and commented on the Eleutherodactylus fitzingeri group, Eleutherodactylus gaigei group, and Eleutherodactylus gollmeri group of Savage. Miyamoto and Tennant, 1984, Copeia, 1984: 765–768, discussed the Eleutherodactylus fitzingeri group sensu Savage. Miyamoto, 1986, Copeia, 1986: 505–511, reported on phylogenetics of the Eleutherodactylus fitzingeri group sensu Savage. Savage, 1987, Fieldiana, Zool., N.S., 33: 1–57, discussed the Mexican and Central American members of, defined the Craugastor gollmeri group (as Eleutherodactylus), provided a key to this group, and provided a discussion of jaw musculature and karyology in the taxonomy of Eleutherodactylus (sensu lato). McCranie, Savage, and Wilson, 1989, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 102: 483–490, discussed the Craugastor milesi group (as Eleutherodactylus). Campbell, Lamar, and Hillis, 1989, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 102: 491–499, discussed the Mexican and Guatemalan species of the Craugastor alfredi group (as Eleutherodactylus). Campbell, 1994, Herpetologica, 50: 398–411, provided a key to the Craugastor milesi group (as Eleutherodactylus). Savage, McCranie, and Espinal, 1996, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 109: 366–372, provided a key to the Craugastor rhodopis group (as Eleutherodactylus). Lynch, 2000, Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. Exact. Fis. Nat., 24: 129–156, discussed the Craugastor gollmeri group (including Craugastor daryi and Craugastor greggi) and the Craugastor rhodopis group (in which he placed Craugastor rhodopis, Craugastor occidentalis, Craugastor omiltemanus; all as Eleutherodactylus), and dissolved the former Eleutherodactylus omiltemanus group, placing the constituent species in other species groups. Lynch, 2000, Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. Exact. Fis. Nat., 24: 129–156, considered a subset of Craugastor to be monophyletic on the basis of one character; the members of Craugastor excluded from this monophyletic group are the Craugastor alfredi group, the Craugastor augusti group, the Craugastor bufoniformis group, three species removed from the Eleutherodactylus fitzingeri group (Craugastor andi, Craugastor cuadquero, and Craugastor emcelae), and four species removed from the Craugastor rugulosus group (Craugastor anatipes, Craugastor anomalus, Craugastor cheiroplethus, and Craugastor zygodactylus). Lynch, 2000 "1999", Caldasia, 21: 184–202, provided a key to the species from Chocoan Colombia. Savage, Hollingsworth, Lips, and Jaslow, 2004, Herpetologica, 60: 519–519, discussed the phylogenetics of the Craugastor fitzingeri group (as Eleutherodactylus). Crawford, 2003, Mol. Ecol., 12: 2525–2540, documented a number of undescribed species (in Eleutherodactylus at the time) in Costa Rica and Panama. Chen, 2005, in Donnelly et al. (eds.), Ecol. Evol. Tropics: 102–144, discussed chromosomal variation in the Craugastor rhodopis group (as Eleutherodactylus). Heinicke, Duellman, and Hedges, 2007, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104: 10092–10097, provided considerable evidence for phylogenetic structure within Craugastor on the basis of molecular evidence. Streicher, García-Vázquez, Ponce-Campos, Flores-Villela, Campbell, and Smith, 2014, Syst. Biodivers., 12: 1–22, revised and redelimited the Craugastor rhodopis species group. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, confirmed a relationship of subgenera Campbellius + (Hylactophryne + Craugastor); this was confirmed by Padial, Grant, and Frost, 2014, Zootaxa, 3825: 1–132, who in addition rejected species series within the subgenus Hylactophryne, recognized four species series within the subgenus Craugastor (the Craugastor mexicanus series, the Craugastor fitzingeri series, Craugastor rhodopis series, and an enlarged Craugastor punctariolus series, containing the former members of the Craugastor gulosus series) but excluded a number of species from any species series or group; these are noted in the species records. These authors also suggested that the three nominal subgenera would probably be considered genera in time, once morphological synapomorphies were identified.
Contained taxa (115 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.