Basic Search [?]
Guided Search [?]
Hylidae Rafinesque, 1815
Hylae Laurenti, 1768, Spec. Med. Exhib. Synops. Rept.: 20. Unavailable plural of Hyla Laurenti, 1768, not apparently intended as a taxon name.
Hylarinia Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nat.: 78. Type genus: Hylaria Rafinesque, 1814 (an unjustified emendation of Hyla Laurenti, 1768).
Hylina Gray, 1825, Ann. Philos., London, Ser. 2, 10: 213. Type genus: Hyla Laurenti, 1768. Suggested as a subfamily.
Hyladae — Boie, 1828, Isis von Oken, 21: 363.
Hylenae — Gray, 1829, Isis von Oken, 22: 203.
Hyladina — Bonaparte, 1838, Iconograph. Fauna Ital., 2 (Fasc. 22): 117; Bonaparte, 1838, Nuovi Ann. Sci. Nat., Bologna, 1: 393; Bonaparte, 1840, Nuovi Ann. Sci. Nat., Bologna, 4: 100 (p. 11 in offprint); Bonaparte, 1840, Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, Ser. 2, 2: 394.
Hylae — Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 25.
Hylaeformes — Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: plate opposite page 53, 491. Explicit non-Latinized family-group name.
Dryophytae Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 31. Type genus: Dryophytes Fitzinger, 1843. Synonymy by implication of synonymy of Dryophytes with Hyla by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 373.
Pelobii Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 31. Type genus: Pelobius Fitzinger, 1843.
Pseudae Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 33. Type genus: Pseudis Wagler, 1830. Synonymy by Darst and Cannatella, 2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 31: 470.
Hylidae — Bonaparte, 1850, Conspect. Syst. Herpetol. Amph.: 1 p. .
Phyllomedusidae Günther, 1858, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1858: 346. Type genus: Phyllomedusa Wagler, 1830.
Pelodryadidae Günther, 1858, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1858: 346. Type genus: Pelodryas Günther, 1858.
Hyloides — Bruch, 1862, Würzb. Naturwiss. Z., 3: 221.
Acridina Mivart, 1869, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1869: 292. Type genus: Acris Duméril and Bibron, 1841. Synonymy by implication of Duellman, 1970, Monogr. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas: 18.
Chiroleptina Mivart, 1869, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1869: 294. Type genus: Chiroleptes Günther, 1858.
Cophomantina Hoffmann, 1878, in Bronn (ed.), Die Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs, 6(2): 614. Type genus: Cophomantis Peters, 1870. Synonymy by implication of synonymy of Cophomantis with Hyla by Peters, 1873 "1872", Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1872: 772; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 337.
Hylida — Bayer, 1885 "1884", Abh. K. Böhm. Ges. Wiss., Prague, 12: 18.
Hylidi — Acloque, 1900, Fauna de France, 1: 489.
Hylinae — Gadow, 1901, Amphibia and Reptiles: 139.
Lophiohylinae Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 27: 64. Type genus: Lophyohyla Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926. Synonymy by implication of generic synonymy by Bokermann, 1966, An. Acad. Brasil. Cienc., 38: 355-344; and Goin, 1961, Ann. Carnegie Mus., 36: 7.
Triprioninae Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 27: 64. Type genus: Triprion Cope, 1866. Synonymy by implication of Duellman, 1970, Monogr. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas: 18.
Phyllomedusinae — Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 27: 64.
Cycloraninae Parker, 1940, Novit. Zool., 42: 12. Type genus: Cyclorana Steindachner, 1867; Reig, 1972, in Blair (ed.), Evol. Genus Bufo: 34; Laurent, 1980 "1979", Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 104: 417.
Pseudidae — Savage and Carvalho, 1953, Zoologica, New York, 38: 198.
Acridinae — Kuhn, 1965, Die Amphib.: 96.
Trachycephalinae Lutz, 1969, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 24: 275. Type genus: Trachycephalus Tschudi, 1838. Synonymy by implication of Duellman, 1970, Monogr. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas: 18.
Pithecopinae Lutz, 1969, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 24: 274. Type genus: Pithecopus Cope, 1866. Synonymy by implication of Bokermann, 1966, Lista Anot. Local. Tipo Anf. Brasil.: 83, and Duellman, 1968, Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist., 18: 6, treating Pithecopus as a synonym of Phyllomedusa.
Cycloranini — Lynch, 1969, Final PhD Exam, Program: 3; Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 76.
Pelodryadidae — Savage, 1973, in Vial (ed.), Evol. Biol. Anurans: 351-445; Laurent, 1986, in Grassé and Delsol (eds.), Traite de Zool., 14: 734.
Nyctimystinae Laurent, 1975, Mem. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. Paris, A—Zool., 88: 183. Type genus: Nyctimystes Stejneger, 1916.
Pelodryadinae — Dowling and Duellman, 1978, Syst. Herpetol.: 1.1.
Hyloidia — Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept., 1(Amph.): 286. Explicit epifamily.
Lophyohylini — Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept., 1(Amph.): 368. Spelling correction.
Ameroaustralian Treefrogs (Vitt and Caldwell, 2013, Herpetology, 4th Ed.: 493).
North and South America, the West Indies, and the Australo-Papuan Region; temperate Eurasia, including extreme northern Africa and the Japanese Archipelago; introduced into New Caledonia, New Hebrides (Vanuatu), Guam, and New Zealand.
See Dubois, 1985, Alytes, 4: 66, for discussion of family-group nomenclature. Duellman, 1970, Monogr. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas: 1-753, arranged the family into four subfamilies: Amphignathodontinae, Hemiphractinae, Hylinae, and Phyllomedusinae. Trueb, 1974, Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 29: 1-60, suggested that hemiphractines be included with amphignathodontines in a single group. On the basis of work done by Tyler, 1971, Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist., 19: 319-360, and Savage, 1973, in Vial (ed.), Evol. Biol. Anurans: 351-445, Dowling and Duellman, 1978, Syst. Herpetol.: 1.1, removed Australian hylids from Hylinae and placed them in the subfamily Pelodryadinae. Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 1-238, suggested that the Australian hylids were independently derived from Myobatrachidae. Ruvinsky and Maxson, 1996, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 5: 533-547, suggested that Hylidae (sensu lato) might be polyphyletic. Duellman, 2001, Hylid Frogs Middle Am., Ed. 2: 770, provided a cladogram of the subfamilies, and included Pseudidae as a subfamily: (Pelodryadinae + (("Hylinae" + Pseudinae) + (Phyllomedusinae + Hemiphractinae))). Haas, 2003, Cladistics, 19: 23-89, presented evidence from larval morphology that suggested that Hylidae is polyphyletic, with Hemiphractinae not closely related to other nominal hylids, Pelodryadinae being paraphyletic with respect to Hylinae, Hylinae not being demonstrably monophyletic, and with Pseudinae and Phyllomedusinae possibly being imbedded within it. Darst and Cannatella, 2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 31: 462-475, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence that Hemiphractinae (sensu lato) is polyphyletic and not closely related to hylids. Faivovich, Haddad, Garcia, Frost, Campbell, and Wheeler, 2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294, obtained similar results and formally removed Hemiphractinae from Hylidae and into "Leptodactylidae" (in the old nonmonophyletic sense), found Pelodryadinae and Phyllomedusinae to be sister taxa and together the sister taxon of Hylinae, which they completely revised. 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, suggested that Hemiphractinae is polyphyletic, composed of three distantly related groups, and recognized these as families: Amphignathodontidae (Flectonotus and Gastrotheca), Cryptobatrachidae (Cryptobatrachus and Stefania), and Hemiphractidae (Hemiphractus). The Middle American taxa were treated in detail by Duellman, 1970, Monogr. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, and Duellman, 2001, Hylid Frogs Middle Am., Ed. 2. Accounts and keys to most of the genera are supplied by Laurent, 1986, in Grassé and Delsol (eds.), Traite de Zool., 14: 714-732. Wiens, Fetzner, Parkinson, and Reeder, 2005, Syst. Biol., 54: 719-749, provided a phylogenetic analysis of Hylidae, using less dense sampling and less molecular but more morphological evidence than the study of Faivovich et al (2005). Roelants, Gower, Wilkinson, Loader, Biju, Guillaume, Moriau, and Bossuyt, 2007, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104: 887-892, suggested that Hylidae is polyphyletic, with Phyllomedusinae + Pelodryadinae as the sister taxon of Brachycephalidae, and Hylinae imbedded within a paraphyletic Ceratophryidae. Bossuyt and Roelants, 2009, in Hedges and Kumar (eds.), Timetree of Life: 357-364, suggested on the basis of time of divergence late Cretaceous/early Cenozoic and suggested polyphyly of Hylinae and Pelodryadinae + Phyllomedusinae that these three taxa be regarded as three families: Hylidae, Pelodryadidae, and Phyllomedusidae. Wiens, Kuczynski, Hua, and Moen, 2010, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 55: 871-882, provided an expanded analysis of Hylidae, found, in particular, Hylidae, Hylinae, Phyllomedusinae + Pelodradinae, Phyllomedusinae, Pelodryadinae, Cophomantini, Hylini, and Lophiohylini strongly supported as monophyletic with Dendropsophini monophyletic, but weakly supported. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, in their study of Genbank sequences provided a large tree of hylines as part of a larger tree of all amphibians, and exhibiting some novel arrangements (noted here and in the relevant records). But, since they appear to have excluded at least the rhodopsin locus from the earlier study of Faivovich et al., 2005, whether these differences are due to analytical or data issues remains unclear. One clear difference is that Pyron and Wiens, 2011, arrived at a nonmonophyletic Dendropsophini. Blackburn and Wake, 2011, In Zhang (ed.), Zootaxa, 3148: 39-55, discussed briefly the taxonomic history of the group. Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 317-578, provided identification keys and accounts for the species in Guyana. Vitt and Caldwell, 2013, Herpetology, 4th Ed., provided a summary of life history, diagnosis, and taxonomy. Köhler, 2011, Amph. Cent. Am.: 195–274, provided keys to the subfamilies, genera, and species of Central America and provided a map and photograph of this species. Elliot, Gerhardt, and Davidson, 2009, Frogs and Toads of N. Am.: 42–125, provided accounts, photos, and voice for all species of the USA and Canada.
Contained taxa (948 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.