Basic Search [?]

Guided Search [?]

Xenopus Wagler, 1827

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Pipidae > Genus: Xenopus
21 species

Xenopus Wagler, 1827, Isis von Oken, 20: 726. Type species: Xenopus boiei Wagler, 1827 (= Bufo laevis Daudin, 1802), by monotypy.

Dactylethra Cuvier, 1829, Regne Animal., Ed. 2, 2: 107. Type species: not designated among the allocated original species Pipa bufonia Merrem and Pipa laevis Merrem (= Bufo laevis Daudin). Here designated as Pipa laevis Merrem (= Bufo laevis Daudin); Dactylethra capensis Cuvier, 1830, was designated by Poynton, 1964, Ann. Natal Mus., 17: 30, according to Dubois, 1984, Mem. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. Paris, A—Zool., 131: 20. Nevertheless Dactylethra capensis Cuvier was not named until the third volume of Regne Animal in 1830 and Dactylethra Cuvier was named in volume 2 in 1829, with the only species mentioned being Pipa bufonia Merrem and Pipa laevis Merrem. Synonymy by Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 762; Steindachner, 1867, Reise Österreichischen Fregatte Novara, Zool., Amph.: 4; Hoffmann, 1878, in Bronn (ed.), Die Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs, 6(2): 615; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 456.

Tremeropugus Smith, 1831, S. Afr. Q. J., 5: 18. Type species: Termeropugus typicus Smith, 1831, by monotypy. 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.

Silurana Gray, 1864, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 3, 14: 315. Type species: Silurana tropicalis Gray, 1864, by monotypy. Synonymy by Müller, 1910, Abh. Math. Physik. Cl. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., 24: 625Pauly, Hillis, and Cannatella, 2009, Herpetologica, 65: 126, although recognized by Cannatella and Trueb, 1988, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 94: 1-38.

English Names

Platannas (Cochran, 1961, Living Amph. World: 52; Wager, 1965, Frogs S. Afr.: 44; 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: 42).

Clawed Frogs (Broadley, 1971, Puku, 6: 108; Van Dijk, 1978, J. Herpetol. Assoc. Afr., 17: 14; Liner, 1994, Herpetol. Circ., 23: 29).

Clawed Toads (Van Dijk, 1978, J. Herpetol. Assoc. Afr., 17: 14).

Common Clawed Frogs (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 96).

Tropical Clawed Frogs (Silurana [no longer recognized]: Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 96).

Distribution

Africa south of the Sahara with an isolated record in the Ennedi (northeastern Chad); introduced into parts of the USA, Mexico, Indonesia, Chile, and Europe.

Comment

Fossil evidence suggested that diversification of the genus preceded separation of African and South American continental plates according to Estes, 1975, Herpetologica, 31: 263. Almost all extant species have been confused with one another for varying periods; older literature records require considerable evaluation. Recognition of series of diploid-polyploid cryptic species (presumably of hybrid-origin) has produced new problems for establishing identity and distribution from museum records (Loumont, 1983, Rev. Suisse Zool., 90: 169). Recent comparative techniques have provided data on interspecific relationships, including analysis of albumins (Bisbee, Baker, Wilson, Hadji-Azimi, and Fischberg, 1977, Science, 195: 785-787), karyotypes (Tymowska and Fischberg, 1973, Chromosoma, Berlin, 44: 335), mating calls (Vigny, 1979, J. Zool., London, 188: 103), LDH isozymes (Vonwyl and Fischberg, 1980, J. Exp. Biol., 211: 281-290), hemoglobins (Muir, 1981, J. Exp. Biol., 218: 327), and DNA restriction sites (Carr, Brothers, and Wilson, 1987, Evolution, 41: 176-188). Reumer and Graf, 1986, in Rocek (ed.), Studies in Herpetol.: 107-110, outlined a phylogenetic tree of the genus. Loumont and Kobel, 1991, Rev. Suisse Zool., 98: 731-738, recognized four groups in this genus: the Xenopus tropicalis group (Xenopus tropicalis and Xenopus epitropicalis), the Xenopus fraseri group (Xenopus fraseri, Xenopus pygmaeus, Xenopus amieti, Xenopus andrei, Xenopus boumbaensis); Xenopus laevis group (Xenopus gilli, Xenopus laevis); and the Xenopus muelleri group (Xenopus borealis, Xenopus muelleri), with other species not assigned to group. Channing, 2001, Amph. Cent. S. Afr.: 237-249, and Du Preez and Carruthers, 2009, Compl. Guide Frogs S. Afr.: 328-337, provided keys and accounts for species of southern Africa. Evans, Kelley, Tinsley, Melnick, and Cannatella, 2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 33: 197-213, discussed phylogenetics of Xenopus and Silurana and noted at least one undescribed species of Silurana (now in Xenopus) and two species of Xenopus. Evans, Carter, Tobias, Kelley, Hanner, and Tinsley, 2008, Zootaxa, 1780: 55-68, further discussed phylogenetics evolution and noted several unnamed species. Evans, 2008, Frontiers Biosci., 13: 4687-4706, provided a detailed discussion of phylogenetics and reticulate evolution in Silurana and its sister taxon, Xenopus. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, in their study of Genbank sequences, confirmed the placement of Xenopus as the sister taxon of Silurana and provided a tree of their exemplar species. Evans, Kelley, Tinsley, Melnick, and Cannatella, 2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 33: 197-213, discussed phylogenetics of Xenopus and Silurana (now the Xenopus tropicalis group) and noted at least one undescribed species of Silurana and two species of Xenopus. Evans, Carter, Tobias, Kelley, Hanner, and Tinsley, 2008, Zootaxa, 1780: 55-68, noted other unnamed tetraploids. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, in their study of Genbank sequences, confirmed the placement of Silurana (now the Xenopus tropicalis group) as the sister taxon of XenopusChanning, Rödel, and Channing, 2012, Tadpoles of Africa: 290–300, provided information on comparative larval morphology (as Silurana and Xenopus).

Contained taxa (21 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.