Bufo Garsault, 1764

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Bufonidae > Genus: Bufo
17 species

Bufo Garsault, 1764, Fig. Plantes et Animaux: pl. 672. Type species: Not designated although animal in figure, assuming it is from France, is tentatively identifiable as Rana bufo Linnaeus, 1758 (DRF). Designated as Rana bufo Linnaeus, by Dubois and Bour, 2010, Zootaxa, 2447: 24. This disputed by Welter-Schultes and Klug, 2011, Zootaxa, 2814: 55, who suggested that the type species is Bufo viridis Laurenti, 1768, by subsequent designation of Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 32. Both sets of authors reject the apparent subsequent type species designation of Bufo vulgaris Laurenti, 1758 by Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 88, as ambiguous. ICZN action is needed to finally resolve the issue, although DRF is inclined towards the position of Dubois and Bour. See comment under Bufotes viridis.

Phryne Oken, 1816, Lehrb. Naturgesch., 3(2): 210. Type species: Bufo vulgaris Laurenti, 1768, by original designation. Synonymy by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 281. Unavailable name by designation of Anonymous, 1956, Opin. Declar. Internatl. Comm. Zool. Nomencl., 14: 1-42.

Phryne Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 32. Type species: Bufo vulgaris Laurenti, 1768, by original designation.

Pegaeus Gistel, 1868, Die Lurche Europas: 161. Type species: Rana bufo Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation of  Dubois and Bour, 2010, Zootaxa, 2447: 24 (personal commun., J. Applegarth, 7 Feb. 2015). Synonymy by Mertens, 1936, Senckenb. Biol., 18: 76, and Dubois and Bour, 2010, Zootaxa, 2447: 24.

Platosphus de l'Isle, 1877, J. Zool., Paris, 6: 473. Type species: Platosophus gervais d'Ilse, 1877, by monotypy. Synonymy by Sanchíz, 1998, Handb. Palaeoherpetol., 4: 122, and Dubois and Bour, 2010, Zootaxa, 2447: 24.

Bufavus Portis, 1885, Atti Accad. Sci. Torino, Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Nat., 20: 1182. Type species: Bufavus meneghinii Portis, 1885, by monotypy. Fossil taxon. Synonymy by Sanchíz, 1998, Handb. Palaeoherpetol., 4: 125, and Dubois and Bour, 2010, Zootaxa, 2447: 24.

Torrentophryne Yang in Yang, Liu, and Rao, 1996, Zool. Res., Kunming, 17: 353. Type species: Torrentophryne aspinia Yang, Liu, and Rao, 1996, by original designation (but see comment by Dubois and Bour, 2010, Zootaxa, 2447: 24, who regarded the type species to be by their subsequent designation). Synonymy by Liu, Lathrop, Fu, Yang, and Murphy, 2000, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 14: 423-435. Recognized subsequently without discussion by Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2003, Acta Zootaxon. Sinica, 28: 762-766. Considered; without discussion, to be synonymous with Phrynoidis by Fei, Ye, Huang, Jiang, and Xie, 2005, in Fei et al. (eds.), Illust. Key Chinese Amph.: 92, 258-259. Synonymy with Bufo (sensu stricto) by 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: 215, and Dubois and Bour, 2010, Zootaxa, 2447: 24.

Schmibufo Fei and Ye, 2016, Amph. China, 1: 762. Type species: Bufo stejnegeri Schmidt, 1931. Coined as a subgenus of Bufo

English Names

Toads (common usage).

Stream Toads (TorrentophryneFei and Ye, 2016, Amph. China, 1: 803). 

Distribution

Temperate Eurasia and Japan south to North Africa, the Middle East, northeastern Myanmar and northern Vietnam.

Comment

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, removed most of the species of former "Bufo" to other genera and restricted the name Bufo to members of the Bufo bufo group of earlier authors. However, many species, because of being little-known were left in taxonomic limbo as members of "Bufo" and unassigned to genus. Literature and work to 1972 on Bufo (sensu lato, including what are now several other genera) were summarized in Blair, 1972, Evol. Genus Bufo. Tihen, 1962, Am. Midl. Nat., 62: 157-183, discussed osteological variation and species groups with Bufo (sensu lato). See Mertens and Wermuth, 1960, Amph. Rept. Europas: 45-48, for synonymies of European species. See Hu, Jiang, and Tian, 1984, Acta Herpetol. Sinica, Chengdu, N.S.,, 3 (1): 79-85, for review of Chinese species. Maeda and Matsui, 1989, Frogs Toads Japan, Ed. 1, reviewed Japanese species. Graybeal, 1997, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 119: 297-338, discussed phylogeny in the group as part of a conceptually larger and paraphyletic "Bufo". Smith and Chiszar, 2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol., 1: 6-8, implied that a relatively large number of bufonid genera (e.g., Ansonia, Mertensophryne, Schsmaderma) should be considered as subgenera of Bufo; see comment under Bufonidae. The status of Torrentophryne is controversial. Liu, Lathrop, Fu, Yang, and Murphy, 2000, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 14: 423-435, 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: 215, on the basis of molecular evidence suggested that this presumably monophyletic group is imbedded within and otherwise paraphyletic Bufo (sensu stricto). That recognition of Torrentophryne renders a paraphyletic Bufo has not been addressed by those who want to recognize it as a genus (e.g., Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2003, Acta Zootaxon. Sinica, 28: 762-766; Yang, 2008, in Yang and Rao (ed.), Amph. Rept. Yunnan: 53-64). The transfer, therefore of a number of species from "Bufo" into Torrentophryne (diagnosed by the possession in the larvae of a ventral sucker) by Yang, 2008, in Yang and Rao (ed.), Amph. Rept. Yunnan: 51-62. Van Bocxlaer, Biju, Loader, and Bossuyt, 2009, BMC Evol. Biol., 9 (e131): 131, and Van Bocxlaer, Loader, Roelants, Biju, Menegon, and Bossuyt, 2010, Science, 327: 679-682, suggested that Bufo is the sister taxon of Epidalea and that nominal Torrentophryne is imbedded within Bufo, requiring its synonymy. Speybroeck, Beukema, and Crochet, 2010, Zootaxa, 2492: 6-7, regarded Epidalea and Bufotes to be junior synonyms of Bufo on the basis of plesiomorphic retention of the ability to hybridize without regard to monophyly. Dubois and Bour, 2010, Zootaxa, 2447: 14, regarded several nominal genera as subgenera on the basis of retention of plesiomorphies to form a "Bufo" that is clearly paraphyletic on the basis of the most recent phylogenetic analysis: Van Bocxlaer, Loader, Roelants, Biju, Menegon, and Bossuyt, 2010, Science, 327: 679-682. The nomenclatural position taken here, that of Dubois, 1984, Mem. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. Paris, A—Zool., 131: 1-64, and Dubois and Bour, 2010, Zootaxa, 2447: 1-52, was challenged by Welter-Schultes and Klug, 2011, Zootaxa, 2814: 50-58. The former authors argue that Bufo Garsault, 1764, applies to the former Bufo bufo group, and that Bufo Laurenti, 1768, is a different name (homonym) that applies to the former Bufo viridis group, while the latter authors argue, I think inccorrectly, that Bufo Garsault, 1764 = Bufo Fitzinger, 1768. I have retained Bufo for the former Bufo bufo group and Bufotes for the Bufo viridis group following Dubois and Bour. Dubois and Bour, 2010, Zootaxa, 2447: 1-52, also suggested an over-arching taxonomy of bufonds discussed under the relevant generic headings. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, confirmed the monophyly of this taxon (although this is obscured by their explicit adoption of an out-dated and non-monophyletic taxonomy) and provided a tree of exemplar species. Recuero, Canestrelli, Vörös, Szabó, Poyarkov, Arntzen, Crnobrnja-Isailovic, Kidov, Cogǎlniceanu, Caputo, Nascetti, and Martínez-Solano, 2012, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 62: 71-86, provided a revision and molecular phylogeny of the Bufo bufo complex and redelimited species boundaries. Garcia-Porta, Litvinchuk, Crochet, Romano, Geniez, Lo-Valvo, Lymberakis, and Carranza, 2012, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 63: 113-130, also discussed the phylogenetics and biogeography of the Bufo bufo complex and largely confirmed the conclusions of Recuero et al., 2012, although differing in the interpretation of mtDNA variation across ranges. In addition, they applied a biological species concept and therefore regarded Bufo spinosus and Bufo bufo as subspecies of a larger Bufo bufo. Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 290, considered a large number of bufonid genera as subgenera of Bufo, cherry-picking their citation to literature (excluding any reference to  Van Bocxlaer, Biju, Loader, and Bossuyt, 2009, BMC Evol. Biol., 9 (e131): 1–10, Van Bocxlaer, Loader, Roelants, Biju, Menegon, and Bossuyt, 2010, Science, 327: 679–682, or Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, which provided results not congruent with the story that Fouquette and Dubois wanted to tell) to avoid recognizing that treating this these taxa of Bufo also requires under current understanding of phylogeny all Old-World bufonids, such as SabahphrynusNectophryne, and Ansonia to be treated as subgenera of Bufo as well. Moreover, their recognition of Torrentophryne as a subgenus renders their subgenus Bufo paraphyletic, not an acceptable resolution in 2014. Fei and Ye, 2016, Amph. China, 1:803–820, provided an accounts for their Torrentophryne, photographs, and spot map for China.   

Contained taxa (17 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.