Leptodactylus Fitzinger, 1826

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Leptodactylidae > Subfamily: Leptodactylinae > Genus: Leptodactylus
74 species

Leptodactylus Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 38. Type species: Rana typhonia Latreille in Sonnini and Latreille, 1801 (= Rana fusca Schneider, 1799), by subsequent designation of Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 31.

Cystignathus Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 202. Type species: Cystignathus pachypus Wagler, 1830 (= Rana pachypus Spix, 1824) by subsequent designation of Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 31. The subsequent designation of Rana mystacea Spix, 1824, by Lynch, 1971, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 53: 187, is in error. Synonymy by Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 78 (although using Cystignathus); Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 237.

Gnathophysa Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 31. Type species: Rana labyrinthica Spix, 1824, by original designation. Synonymy by Jiménez de la Espada, 1875, Vert. Viaje Pacif. Verif. 1862–1865: 36; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 237.

Sibilatrix Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 31. Type species: Cystignathus gracilis Duméril and Bibron, 1841, by original designation. Synonymy by Jiménez de la Espada, 1875, Vert. Viaje Pacif. Verif. 1862–1865: 44.

Plectromantis Peters, 1862, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1862: 232. Type species: Plectromantis wagneri Peters, 1862, by monotypy. Synonymy by Nieden, 1923, Das Tierreich, 46: 479.

Entomoglossus Peters, 1870, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1870: 647. Type species: Entomoglossus pustulatus Peters, 1870, by monotypy. Synonymy by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 237.

Pachypus Lutz, 1930, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 23: 22. Type species: None designated. Proposed as a subgenus of Leptodactylus. Preoccupied by Pachypus d'Alton, 1840 (Mammalia) and Pachypus Cambridge, 1873 (Arachnida).

Cavicola Lutz, 1930, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 23: 2, 22. Type species: None designated. Coined as a subgenus of Leptodactylus. Preoccupied by Cavicola Ancey, 1887 (Mollusca).

Parvulus Lutz, 1930, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 23: 2, 22. Type species: Leptodactylus nanus Müller, 1922, by subsequent designation of Parker, 1932, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 10, 10: 342. Coined as a subgenus of Leptodactylus.

Vanzolinius Heyer, 1974, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 87: 88. Type species: Leptodactylus discodactylus Boulenger, 1883, by original designation. Synonymy 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: 207; de Sá, Heyer, and Camargo, 2006 "2005", Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 63: 87-97.

Nomina inquirenda - Name(s) unassigned to a living or extinct population

Rana boans Lacépède, 1788, Hist. Nat. Quadrup. Ovip. Serpens, 16mo ed., 2: 300, 458. Lacépède, 1788, Hist. Nat. Quadrup. Ovip. Serpens, Quarto ed., 1: Table following page 618 and referencing account starting on page 541. Types: Including animals figured by Catesby, 1754, Nat. Hist. Carolina Florida Bahama Is.: fol. 72, tabl. 72, and Seba, 1734, Locuplet. Rer. Nat. Thesaur. Descript. Icon. Exp. Univ. Phys. Hist., 1: 1, Pl. 75, fig. 1. Collective replacement name for Rana ocellata Linnaeus, 1758, and Rana pentadactyla Laurenti, 1768, as well as several pre-Linnaean names. Rejected as published in a nonbinominal work by Opinion 2104, Anonymous, 2005, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 62: 55.

Rana rubella Daudin In Sonnini de Manoncourt and Latreille, 1801 "An. X", Hist. Nat. Rept., 2: 160. Type(s): MNHNP, and presumably the same as the frog figured by Daudin, 1802 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Rain. Gren. Crap., Quarto: 56, pl. 17, fig. 1. Type locality: Unknown. Provisional synonymy with Rana ocellata Linnaeus by Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 177. Lavilla, Langone, Caramaschi, Heyer, and de Sá, 2010, Zootaxa, 2346: 1-16, regarded this name to possibly apply to some member of the Leptodactylus podicipinus-Leptodactylus wagneri complex.

English Names

Nest-building Frogs (Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 176; Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 88; Liner, 1994, Herpetol. Circ., 23: 25).

White-lipped Frogs (Collins, Huheey, Knight, and Smith, 1978, Herpetol. Circ., 7: 11).

White-lipped Frogs (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 81).

Tropical Frogs (Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 12; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 8).

Thin-toed Frogs (Caramaschi, de Sá, and Heyer, 2005, Herpetol. Rev., 36: 120)

Neotropical Grass Frogs (Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 11; Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37:7; (Liner and Casas-Andreu, 2008, Herpetol. Circ., 38: 15; Frost, McDiarmid, Mendelson, and Green, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 16; Frost, Lemmon, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2017, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 43: 13).

Amazon Frogs (Vanzolinius [no longer recognized]: Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 85).

Distribution

Southern North America, South America, and the West Indies.

Comment

Heyer, 1969, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 155: 1–13, redefined the genus. Heyer, 1970, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 191: 1–48, discussed the relationships of the Leptodactylus melanonotus group. The Leptodactylus pentadactylus group was defined and discussed by Heyer, 1972, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 231: 1-8, and Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 1–43. The Leptodactylus fuscus group was defined and discussed by Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 1–85. Relationships and biogeography of Leptodactylus in South America were discussed by Heyer and Maxson, 1982, in Prance (ed.), Biol. Diversification Tropics: 375–388. Cei, 1980, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Monogr., 2: 320–361, discussed the species in Argentina. Heyer, 1994, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 546, discussed the species related to Leptodactylus wagneri-Leptodactylus podicipinus complex. Bogart, 1974, Copeia, 1974: 728–737, discussed karyological relationships within the genus (sensu including Adenomera). Heyer, 1998, Alytes, 16: 1–24, presented evidence suggesting that Vanzolinius was deeply imbedded in a paraphyletic Leptodactylus, that there was weak evidence for the paraphyly of Leptodactylus with respect to Lithodytes and Adenomera, and that the species groups currently applied needed reevaluation. Larson and de Sá, 1998, J. Morphol., 238: 287–305, suggested that the species groups may not be monophyletic, with the exception that they did find evidence for a Leptodactylus melanonotus-Leptodactylus ocellatus clade and a Leptodactylus pentadactylusLeptodactylus fuscus clade. Further, they suggested that at least Physalaemus was phylogenetically nested within nominal Leptodactylus. Savage, 2002, Amph. Rept. Costa Rica: 214–223, provided a key and accounts for the Costa Rican species. de Sá, Heyer, and Camargo, 2006 "2005", Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 63: 87–97, also placed Vanzolinius in the synonymy of Leptodactylus on phylogenetic grounds; this paper was in press when the Frost et al. (2006) appeared and differs from that paper in not placing Adenomera and Lithodytes into the synonymy of Leptodactylus, instead considering them to be part of the assumed out-group along with Physalaemus (now in Leiuperidae). Ponssa, 2008, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res., 46: 249–266, provided an analysis of the Leptodactylus fuscus group, suggested Leptodactylus monophyly, and implied that the synonymy of Adenomera, Vanzolinius, and Lithodytes may have been premature. Ponssa, Jowers, and de Sá, 2010, Zootaxa, 2646: 1-25, reported on osteological phylogenetics of the taxon, suggested that the Leptodactylus melanonotus group is paraphyletic with respect to the Leptodactylus latrans (formerly Leptodactylus ocellatus) group, and provided evidence that suggests that Adenomera could be recognized as the sister taxon of a more restricted Leptodactylus, but that Leptodactylus lineatus would have to be included within Adenomera. Heyer and de Sá, 2011, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 635: 1–58, provided a review and revision of the Leptodactylus bolivianus complex. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, in their study of Genbank sequences, and excluding morphology, concluded on the basis of a tree of their exemplars that Lithodytes is the sister taxon of Adenomera and together the sister taxon of Leptodactylus. This arrangement is followed here. Köhler, 2011, Amph. Cent. Am.: 276–281, provided a brief summary of natural history, identification key, photographs, and range maps for the species of Central America. This taxon may be paraphyletic with respect to Hydrolaetare as implied by the molecular tree of Fouquet, Cassini, Haddad, Pech, and Rodrigues, 2014, J. Biogeograph., 41: 860. de Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa, and Stanley, 2014, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 9(Spec. Issue 1): 1–123, revised the genus, provided a phylogenetic tree, redelimited and discussed the species groups, and provided species accounts. Miranda, Maciel, Tepedino, and Sebben, 2014, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res., 53: 55–66, provided a detailed study of internal features of the larvae and provided a phylogenetic hypothesis based on those data. 

Contained taxa (74 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.