Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838

English Names

Stream Frogs (Channing, 2001, Amph. Cent. S. Afr.: 351; Channing and Howell, 2006, Amph. E. Afr.: 324; Du Preez and Carruthers, 2009, Compl. Guide Frogs S. Afr.: 418).

Distribution

Southwestern South Africa north and east to southern Tanzania, Namibia.

Comment

Channing, 2001, Amph. Cent. S. Afr.: 351-363, and Du Preez and Carruthers, 2009, Compl. Guide Frogs S. Afr.: 418-431, provided keys to the species and accounts. Prior to the revision of 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, placed by Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 334, in his Section Strongylopus, subgenus Strongylopus of Rana. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, in their study of Genbank sequences, provided an estimate of phylogenetic position and organization, suggesting polyphyly of Strongylopus, with one group (exemplars Strongylopus bonaespei and Strongylopus fasciatus) sitting as the sister taxon of a taxon composed of Poyntonia, Microbatrachella, and Cacosternum, and Strongylopus grayii imbedded within Amietia. This result needs to be examined very carefully. In an earlier effort, and using only the 12S and 16S mtDNA sequences from 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, Wiens, Sukumaran, Pyron, and Brown, 2009, Evolution, 63: 1217-1231, recovered Strongylopus grayii within Strongylopus. The evidentiary difference between the 2009 effort and the effort by Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61, is that rhodopsin from Frost was added (with the same voucher as for the 12S and 16S mitochondrial loci) and sequences for RAG-1 and tyrosinase, according to Genbank, from Bossuyt, Brown, Hillis, Cannatella, and Milinkovitch, 2006, Syst. Biol., 55: 579-594. However, Strongylopus grayii was not included in the published version of Bossuyt et al., 2006, implying the possibility that identification was suspect. So, polyphyly of Strongylopus needs to be entertained as does voucher misidentification until additional sequences for Strongylopus grayii can be generated and compared with the earlier sequences of this species and/or the voucher specimen for those sequences can be verified. Channing, Rödel, and Channing, 2012, Tadpoles of Africa: 348–356, provided information on comparative larval morphology. Bittencourt-Silva, Conradie, Siu-Ting, Tolley, Channing, Cunningham, Farooq, Menegon, and Loader, 2016, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.: 89–102, did not find Strongylopus to be monophyletic, Strongylopus grayii being closer to Amietia than to other Strongylopus. 

Contained taxa (10 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.

• For additional sources of information from other sites search Google
• For images search Arkive, CalPhoto Images and Google Images
• To search the NIH genetic sequence database, see To search the NIH genetic sequence database, see GenBank