Basic Search [?]

Guided Search [?]

Xenopus laevis (Daudin, 1802)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Pipidae > Genus: Xenopus > Species: Xenopus laevis

Bufo laevis Daudin, 1802 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Rain. Gren. Crap., Quarto: 85. Type(s): Including frog figured on page 82, pl. 30, fig. 1 of the original, and noted to be in the MNHNP; no longer in existence according to Poynton, 1964, Ann. Natal Mus., 17: 31. Type locality: Unknown.

Pipa laevisMerrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 180.

Pipa bufonia Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 180 Type(s): Based on "Pipa mâle. Pl. 21. f. 2" Author? Type locality: Unknown. Synonymy by Cuvier, 1829, Regne Animal., Ed. 2, 2: 107; Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 90; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 765.

Engystoma laevisFitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 40.

Xenopus boiei Wagler, 1827, Isis von Oken, 20: 726. Type(s): Specimens of H. Boie. Subsequent deposition not known although Wagler notes a specimen in the "Leidener Museum" (= RMNH), which Gassó Miracle, van den Hoek Ostende, and Arntzen, 2007, Zootaxa, 1482: 59, suggested was possibly among RMNH 2267 (4 specimens). Type locality: Not stated; suggested to be "Cap" [Cape of Good Hope, Rep. South Africa] by Gassó Miracle, van den Hoek Ostende, and Arntzen, 2007, Zootaxa, 1482: 59. Synonymy by Wagler, 1830, Nat. Syst. Amph.: 200 (under Xenopus boiei); by Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 90; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 765.

Dactylethra bufoniaCuvier, 1829, Regne Animal., Ed. 2, 2: 107, by implication.

Dactylethra laevisCuvier, 1829, Regne Animal., Ed. 2, 2: 107, by implication.

Dactylethra capensis Cuvier, 1830, Regne Animal., Ed. 2, 3: pl. 7. Type(s): Not stated, although presumably originally in the MNHNP, but not recorded as being there now (22 Aug. 2009). Type locality: Not stated; Cape of Good Hope, Rep. South Africa; by implication of the formation of the name. The original (in volume 3, pl. 7) references to discussion on page 107 of volume 2, but there is no mention of this taxon on that page or in that volume. Synonymy by Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 765. Possibly a senior synonym of Xenopus gilli (DRF).

Tremeropugus typicus Smith, 1831, S. Afr. Q. J., 5: 19. Type(s): Not stated or known to exist. Type locality: "Inhabits fresh-water lakes and slow-running rivers in most parts of South Africa. It seldom leaves the water, and when upon dry ground it leaps well." 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.

Xenopus bojeiVan der Hoeven, 1833, Handb. Dierkd., 2: 308; Leunis, 1844, Synops. Drei Naturr., Zool., Ed. 1: 145; Leunis, 1860, Synops. Drei Naturr., Zool., Ed. 2: 145. Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Leptopus oxydactylus Mayer, 1835, Analect. Vergl. Anat.: 34. Holotype: Animal figured in Plate 2, fig 5 of original. Type locality: not designated; Africa by implication of the formation of the alternative name, Pipa africana. Synonymy by Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 90; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 765.

Leptopus boiei Mayer, 1835, Analect. Vergl. Anat.: 35. Alternative name for Leptopus oxydactylus Mayer, 1835.

Pipa africana Mayer, 1835, Analect. Vergl. Anat.: 35. Alternative name for Leptopus boiei Mayer, 1835.

Dactylethera boieiTschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 90.

Dactylethra levisDuméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 765. Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Pipa laevis —Duvernoy In Cuvier, 1849, Regne Animal, Disciples Ed., 6: 155.

Dactylethra delalandii Cuvier, 1849, Regne Animal, Disciples Ed., 6: pl. 38, fig. 2, 2a. Type(s): Animal figured in pl. 38 of the original publication, stated to be in the "musée de Strasbourg", France; status of this specimen unknown. Type locality: "midi de l'Afrique". Synonymy by XXX (not D&B or Boulenger).

Xenopus (Dactylethra) boieiSchlegel, 1858, Handl. Dierkd., 2: 59.

Dactylethra laevisGünther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 2.

Xenopus laevisSteindachner, 1867, Reise Österreichischen Fregatte Novara, Zool., Amph.: 4; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 456; Boulenger, 1902, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1902: 15.

Dactylethera laevisBlanford, 1870, Observ. Geol. Zool. Abyssinia: 459.

Xenopus laevis bunyoniensis Loveridge, 1932, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 45: 114. Holotype: MCZ 14616, by original designation. Type locality: "Bufundi on western shore of Lake Bunyoni, Kigezu District, South-western Uganda".

Xenopus laevis laevisParker, 1936, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 10, 18: 597.

Xenopus laevis sudanensis Perret, 1966, Zool. Jahrb., Jena, Abt. Syst., 93: 301. Holotype: MHNG 1017.74, by original designation. Type locality: "Ngaoundéré, Adamaoua,".

Xenopus (laevis) bunyoniensisTymowska and Fischberg, 1973, Chromosoma, Berlin, 44: 335.

Xenopus (Xenopus) laevisKobel, Barandun, and Thiebaud, 1998, Herpetol. J., 8: 13.

Xenopus sudanensisJacobsen, 2009, Afr. Herp News, 47: 6. Undiscussed arrangement.

English Names

Platanna (Xenopus laevis: Hewitt, 1937, Guide Vert. Fauna E. Cape Province, Rept. Amph. Fishes: 61; Rose, 1950, Rep. Amph. S. Afr.: 23; Rose, 1962, Rep. Amph. S. Afr., Ed. 2: 24; Wager, 1965, Frogs S. Afr.: 92).

Common Platanna (Xenopus laevis: Broadley, 1973, J. Herpetol. Assoc. Afr., 10: 22; 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: 44; Channing, 2001, Amph. Cent. S. Afr.: 243; Du Preez and Carruthers, 2009, Compl. Guide Frogs S. Afr.: 332; Xenopus laevis laevis: Pienaar, 1963, Koedoe, 6: 78).

Common Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis: Van Dijk, 1978, J. Herpetol. Assoc. Afr., 17: 14; Bates and Haacke, 2003, Navors. Nas. Mus. Bloemfontein, 19: 112).

Clawed Toad (Xenopus laevis: Passmore and Carruthers, 1979, S. Afr. Frogs: 44).

Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis: Rose, 1962, Rep. Amph. S. Afr., Ed. 2: 24; Passmore and Carruthers, 1979, S. Afr. Frogs: 44).

Upland Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis: Passmore and Carruthers, 1979, S. Afr. Frogs: 44).

Smooth Clawed Frog (Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 110).

African Clawed Toad (Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 110).

Upland Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis laevis: Stewart and Wilson, 1966, Ann. Natal Mus., 18: 297).

Common Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis laevis: Van Dijk, 1978, J. Herpetol. Assoc. Afr., 17: 14; Lambiris, 1990 "1989", Monogr. Mus. Reg. Sci. Nat. Torino, 10: 44).

Common Clawed Toad (Xenopus laevis laevis: Van Dijk, 1978, J. Herpetol. Assoc. Afr., 17: 14).

African Clawed Frog (Xenopus laevis: Liner, 1994, Herpetol. Circ., 23: 29; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 97; Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 244).

Sudan Clawed Frog (Xenopus sudanensis: Jacobsen, 2009, Afr. Herp News, 47: 6).

Distribution

Extreme southern Angola south to Cape Region of Rep. South Africa thence east and north in savanna habitats to north-east-central Central African Republic and South Sudan and then west to Nigeria; introduced in southern California, Arizona, USA, northern Baja California, Mexico, Chile, France, Mexico, Italy, and Java, Indonesia, as well as Ascension Island.

Comment

Range extends over 40° of latitude, occupying the cooler upland regions between the rainforests of the west and the hotter, drier savannas of the east and north (Tinsley, 1981, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Suppl., 15: 135). Bisbee, Baker, Wilson, Hadji-Azimi, and Fischberg, 1977, Science, 195: 785-787, suggested that the chromosome number 2n = 36, basic to several species, may reflect ancient tetraploidy and that total genome duplication occurred in an ancestor of the Xenopus laevis group. Vigny, 1979, J. Zool., London, 188: 103-122, found calls among Xenopus laevis petersii (now Xenopus petersii), Xenopus laevis victorianus (now Xenopus victorianus), and Xenopus laevis laevis, to be very different, suggestive of species limits. See accounts by Channing, 2001, Amph. Cent. S. Afr.: 243-246, Pickersgill, 2007, Frog Search: 50-52, and Du Preez and Carruthers, 2009, Compl. Guide Frogs S. Afr.: 332-333. Measey, 2004, in Minter et al. (eds.), Atlas Frogs S. Afr. Lesotho and Swaziland: 264-267, provided an account for South Africa. Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 244, provided for the American population a brief account, figure, and map. On the basis of a molecular phylogeographic study of populations in southern Africa, Measey and Channing, 2003, Amphibia-Reptilia, 24: 321-330, suggested that this nominal species represents a species complex. Note, however, that laboratory crosses of Xenopus victorianus, Xenopus laevis, and Xenopus petersii/poweri do not show any anomalies (Blackler, Fischberg, and Newth, 1965, Rev. Suisse Zool., 72: 841-857; Blackler and Fischberg, 1968, Rev. Suisse Zool., 75: 1023-1032) and that detailed systematic studies on the ground have not been carried out, which means that the possibility remains that geographic variation in Xenopus laevis (sensu lato) may incude the nominal species Xenopus victorianus and Xenopus petersii. Lever, 2003, Naturalized Rept. Amph. World: 141-146, reported on introduced populations in Arizona, California and adjacent Mexico, Chile, and Ascension Island. Lillo, Marrone, Sicilia, Castelli, and Zava, 2005, Herpetozoa, 18: 63-64, noted an introduced population in Sicily, Italy. Jacobsen, 2009, Afr. Herp News, 47: 2-20, reported this species (as Xenopus sudanensis) from east-north-central Central African Republic. Bates and Haacke, 2003, Navors. Nas. Mus. Bloemfontein, 19: 112-113, discussed the species in Lesotho. Mercurio, 2011, Amph. Malawi: 242, provided a brief account for Malawi. Ruiz-Campos and Valdéz-Villavicencio, 2012, Herpetol. Rev., 43: 99, commented on an introduced population in Baja California, Mexico, and commented on the introduced range in Mexico and adjacent California, USA. Lobos, Cattan, Estades, and Jaksic, 2013, Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ., 48: 1-2, reported on the potential for this invasive to spread out of Chile into adjacent South American countries. Channing, Rödel, and Channing, 2012, Tadpoles of Africa: 295–297, provided information on comparative larval morphology. Dodd, 2013, Frogs U.S. and Canada, 2: 828–832, provided an account that summarized the relevant literature particularly with reference to the introduced USA populations. 

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.