Ranidae Batsch, 1796
Ranae Laurenti, 1768, Spec. Med. Exhib. Synops. Rept.: 20. Unavailable plural of Rana Linnaeus, 1758, not apparently intended as a taxon name.
Ranina Batsch, 1796, Umriss der gesammten Naturgeschichte: 179. Type genus: Rana Linnaeus, 1758. See discussion by Dubois and Bour, 2011, Alytes, 27: 154–160.
Ranaridia Rafinesque, 1814, Specchio Sci., 2, 2: 102. Type genus: Ranaridia Rafinesque, 1814 (= unjustified emendation of Rana Linnaeus, 1758).
Ranarinia — Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse Nat.: 78.
Ranae — Goldfuss, 1820, Handb. Zool., 2: 131.
Ranadae — Gray, 1825, Ann. Philos., London, Ser. 2, 10: 213.
Ranina — Gray, 1825, Ann. Philos., London, Ser. 2, 10: 214; Bonaparte, 1838, Iconograph. Fauna Ital., 2 (Fasc. 22): 117; Bonaparte, 1838, Nuovi Ann. Sci. Nat., Bologna, 1: 393; Bonaparte, 1839, Mem. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchâtel, 2: 16; Bonaparte, 1840, Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, Ser. 2, 2: 394; Bonaparte, 1840, Nuovi Ann. Sci. Nat., Bologna, 4: 109 (p. 11 in offprint); Günther, 1858, Arch. Naturgesch., 24: 319; Günther, 1859, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 3, 3: 61- 74.
Ranoidea — Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Class. Rept.: 37, explicit family; Laurent, 1967, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 22: 208; Lynch, 1973, in Vial (ed.), Evol. Biol. Anurans: 162; Duellman, 1975, Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 42: 5.
Ranidae — Boie, 1828, Isis von Oken, 21: 363; Bonaparte, 1832, Saggio Dist. Metod. Animal. Vert.: 10; Bonaparte, 1838, Nuovi Ann. Sci. Nat., Bologna, 1: 392; Bonaparte, 1839, Mem. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchâtel, 2: 16; Bonaparte, 1840, Nuovi Ann. Sci. Nat., Bologna, 4: 100 (p. 11 in offprint); Günther, 1859, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 3, 3: 61- 74.
Ranaria — Hemprich, 1829, Grundniss Naturgesch. Höhere Lehr., Ed. 2: xix.
Raniadae-- Smith, 1831, S. Afr. Q. J., 5: 18.
Ranae — Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 25.
Raniformes — Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: plate opposite page 53, and page 491. Explicit non-Latinized family-group name.
Limnodytae Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 31. Type genus: Limnodytes Duméril and Bibron, 1841.
Raninae — Bronn, 1849, Handb. Geschich. Natur, 5: 684.
Ranidae — Bonaparte, 1850, Conspect. Syst. Herpetol. Amph.: 1 p.
Ranoides — Bruch, 1862, Würzb. Naturwiss. Z., 3: 221.
Ranida — Haeckel, 1866, Gen. Morphol. Organ., 2: 132.
Ranidi — Acloque, 1900, Fauna de France, 1: 489.
Ranoidea — Laurent, 1967, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 22: 208.
Limnodytini — Dubois, 1981, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Suppl., 15: 231.
Amolopsinae Yang, 1991, Amph. Fauna of Yunnan: 172. Type genus: Amolops Cope, 1865.
Ranoidae — Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 309. Epifamily.
Ranoidia — Dubois, 2005, Alytes, 23: 9. Epifamily.
Stauroini Dubois, 2005, Alytes, 23: 17. Type genus: Staurois Cope, 1865. Tribe.
Amolopini — Scott, 2005, Cladistics, 21: 527.
Stauroinae — Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Herpetol. Sinica, 12: 19. See comment.
Meristogenyinae Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Herpetol. Sinica, 12: 19. Type genus: Meristogenys Yang, 1991. See comment. Subfamily.
Clinotarsini Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Herpetol. Sinica, 12: 19. Type genus: Clinotarsus Mivart, 1869. See comment. Tribe.
Glandiranini Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Herpetol. Sinica, 12: 20. Type genus: Glandirana Fei, Ye, and Huang, 1990. See comment. Tribe.
Hylaranini Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Herpetol. Sinica, 12: 20. Type genus: Hylarana Tschudi, 1838. See comment. Tribe.
Meristogenyini — Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Herpetol. Sinica, 12: 20. Tribe.
Odorranini Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Herpetol. Sinica, 12: 21. Type genus: Odorrana Fei, Ye, and Huang, 1990. See comment.
Pteroranini Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Herpetol. Sinica, 12: 21. Type genus: Pterorana Kiyasetuo and Khare, 1986. See comment.
Sanguiranini Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Herpetol. Sinica, 12: 22. Type genus: Sanguirana Dubois, 1992. See comment.
Nomina inquirenda - Name(s) unassigned to a living or extinct population
Rana temporaria var. nigromaculata Werner, 1897, Rept. Amph. Österr.: 92. Types: not stated, although presumably in NHMW. Type locality: "Wienerwald", Austria. Junior homonym of Rana nigromaculata Hallowell, 1861 (see discussion by Dubois and Ohler, 1996 "1994", Zool. Polon., 39: 163).
Rana arvalis var. nigromaculata Wolterstorff, 1904, Schr. Naturforsch. Ges. Danzig, 11: 149. Types: Not stated, although presumably originally in ◊MTD◊. Type locality: "Tucheler Heide . . . Der Glebozeksee", Germany. Junior primary homonym of Rana nigromaculata Hallowell, 1861 (see discussion by Dubois and Ohler, 1996 "1994", Zool. Polon., 39: 163).
Rhacophorus depressus Ahl, 1927, Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturforsch. Freunde Berlin, 1927: 37; Ahl, 1927 "1926", Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturforsch. Freunde Berlin, 1926: 115. Syntypes: ZMB (2 specimens), by original designation. Type locality: "Java", Indonesia. * Rhacophorus (Rhacophorus) depressus—Ahl, 1931, Das Tierreich, 55: 108. * Rhacophorus (Rhacophorus) buergeri depressus—Wolf, 1936, Bull. Raffles Mus., 12: 171. * Rhacophorus depressus—Inger, 1954, Fieldiana, Zool., 33: 385. By implication of doubting synonym conspecificity of Rhacophorus everetti with a number of Rhacophorus buergeri subspecies of Wolf, 1936, Bull. Raffles Mus., 12: 137–217. (AHL'S FLYING FROG (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 113). DISTRIBUTION: Java (problematical; see comment). COMMENT: Not assigned to subgenus by Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 77, and Iskandar, 1998, Amph. Java Bali: 92, noted that the taxon rightly belonged in Ranidae and likely did not occur in Java. See identification table by Manthey and Grossmann, 1997, Amph. Rept. Südostasiens: 122–123, to compare this species to rhacophorids of the Sunda Shelf region.
Rana kandiana Kelaart, 1854, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 2, 13: 30. Syntype(s): 2 specimens not known to be extant, although possibly in BMNH. Type locality: "Kaduganava, Kandyan Province", Sri Lanka.
Rana sanguine-maculata Lesson, 1834, in Bélanger (ed.), Voy. Indes-Orientales N. Eur. Caucase Georgie Perse, Zool.: 328. Types: Not stated, presumably originally MNHNP; clearly including animal figure on pl. 5, fig. 2 of the original. Type locality: "Bengale". Perhaps and older name for Rana lateralis according to Boulenger, 1920, Rec. Indian Mus., 20: 98.
Rana sanguineo-maculata Lesson, 1834, in Bélanger (ed.), Voy. Indes-Orientales N. Eur. Caucase Georgie Perse, Zool.: pl. 5, fig. 2. Alternative spelling.
Rana newera-ellia Kelaart, 1853, Prodr. Faunae Zeylan., 1: 192. Types: Not stated or known to exist; possibly in BMNH. Type locality: "Newera-Ellia", Sri Lanka. Considered a nomen dubium by Boulenger, 1890, Fauna Brit. India, Rept. Batr.: 438.
Limnodytes maculata Kelaart, 1854, Prodr. Faunae Zeylan., 2: 19. Types: Not stated or known to exist. Type locality: "Galle, Southern Province", Sri Lanka. Considred a nomen dubium, likely associated with Rana (sensu lato) by Boulenger, 1890, Fauna Brit. India, Rept. Batr.: 7.
Limnodytes mutabilis Kelaart, 1854, Prodr. Faunae Zeylan., 2: 19. Types: Not stated or known to exist, although possibly in BMNH. Type locality: "Cinnamon gardens; Cotta near Colombo", Sri Lanka. Considred a nomen dubium by Boulenger, 1890, Fauna Brit. India, Rept. Batr.: 438.
Lymnodytes lividus Blyth, 1855 "1854", J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 23: 299. Types: Not stated, although presumably ZSIC, by not mentioned in subsequent type lists. Type locality: " Colombo", Sri Lanka. Considered a nomen dubium, likely associated with Rana, by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 7.
Rana muta var. nigro-maculata Camerano, 1884 "1883", Mem. Accad. Sci. Torino, Ser. 2, 35: 263 (p. 79 in reprint). Type(s): MZUT. Type locality: "Piemonte". Junior homonym of Rana nigromaculata Hallowell, 1861 (see discussion by Dubois and Ohler, 1996 "1994", Zool. Polon., 39: 163).
Rana fusca var. reichenbachensis Klunzinger, 1903, Jahresheft. Ver. Vaterland. Naturkd. Württemberg, 59: 279. Types: Not stated. Type locality: "Kloster-Reichenbach", Württemberg region, Germany. A member of the Rana temporaria complex based on discussion in text, like either Rana agilis or Rana temporaria. Source is Boulenger, 1904, Zool. Rec., 40: 34.
Rana leybarensis Lataste, 1886, Le Naturaliste, 3: 230. Types: Not stated, although presumably ◊MNHNP◊ or ◊BMNH◊. Type locality: "Leybar", Senegal. Stated to be very similar to Rana delalandei in the original publication.
Rana halmaherica Deckert, 1938, Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturforsch. Freunde Berlin, 1938: 134. Type(s): Not designated, although likely ◊ZMB◊. Type locality: "Oho, Halmaheira", Indonesia. Nomen nudum. Original author cited as Boettger. * Hylorana halmaherica Deckert, 1938, Sitzungsber. Ges. Naturforsch. Freunde Berlin, 1938: 144.
Cascade Frogs (Amolopsinae [no longer recognized]: Li, Zhao, and Dong, 2010, Amph. Rept. Tibet: 53).
Cosmopolitan except for southern South America, South Africa, Madagascar, and most of Australia.
The literature of Ranidae is deeply intertwined in the literature with taxa now recognized as Arthroleptidae, Dicroglossidae, Hyperoliidae, Mantellidae, Nyctibatrachidae, Petropedetidae, Phrynobatrachidae, Ptychadenidae, Pyxicephalidae, and Rhacophoridae. Accounts for those families should be consulted for relevant literature. Six subfamilies of Ranidae (including Rhacophoridae as one of these) were defined by Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 305–352. Blommers-Schlösser, 1993, Ethol. Ecol. Evol., 5: 199–218, discussed the phylogenetic relationships of the ranoids, although this discussion has now been superseded. She identified Arthroleptidae (astylosternines and arthroleptinaes) and Hyperoliidae to be outside of Ranidae. She did not consider Indiraninae (now part of Petropedetidae) and Petropedetinae to be demonstrably monophyletic. Accounts and keys to most of the genera are supplied by Laurent, 1986, in Grassé and Delsol (eds.), Traite de Zool., 14. See Inger, 1996, Herpetologica, 52: 241–246, for a general discussion and critique of the ranoid classifications of Dubois and cautions about taxonomy generally in the ranids. Haas, 2003, Cladistics, 19: 23–89, presented evidence from larval morphology that the firmisternal groups do not form a monophyletic group; Ranidae (sensu stricto) forming the sister taxon of microhylids and various hyloid groups. Ranidae (Raninae auctorum) classification has seen considerable flux, mostly due to rank changes with little examination of phylogenetics until recently. Ford, 1993, Ethol. Ecol. Evol., 5: 219–231, suggested that Ranidae (sensu lato) might be polyphyletic or paraphyletic with respect to Rhacophoridae, mantellines, petropedetines, arthroleptines, and dendrobatids. Laurent, 1941, Rev. Zool. Bot. Afr., 34: 199, believed Raninae to be ancestral to Phrynobatrachinae of this list). Yang, 1991, Fieldiana, Zool., N.S., 63: 1-42, revised the Amolops group (Amolops, Huia, and Meristogenys). Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 7–95, provided a generic and subgeneric taxonomy. This taxonomy was amplified and expanded by Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 305–352, but Inger, 1996, Herpetologica, 52: 241–246 (who provided a careful critique); Matsui, Shimada, Ota, and Tanaka-Ueno, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 37: 733–742; and 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: 1–370 (who provided an extensive taxonomic history, phylogeny, and new taxonomy), found this system of sections and subsections (and some subgenera) to be poorly correlated with evolutionary history. Che, Pang, Zhao, Wu, Zhao, and Zhang, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 43: 1–13, reported on the molecular phylogenetics of Ranidae and further refined the results of Frost et al. (2006) as well as providing new data and new insights. Green and Borkin, 1993, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 109: 1–25, discussed Eurasian brown frog relationships and the difficulty in defining the group. Dubois, 1999, Alytes, 17: 91, provided a table of generic and family-group name priorities that will be very helpful to those attempting nomenclatural revisions. Marmayou, Dubois, Ohler, Pasquet, and Tillier, 2000, C. R. Acad. Sci., Ser. 3, Paris, 323: 287–297, discussed a phylogenetic analysis of molecular evidence, which suggested that Rhacophoridae is deeply imbedded within Ranidae. Iskandar, 1998, Amph. Java Bali: 61–80, provided keys and accounts for the species of Java and Bali. Marmayou, Dubois, Ohler, Pasquet, and Tillier, 2000, C. R. Acad. Sci., Ser. 3, Paris, 323: 287–297, discussed the phylogenetic placement of the taxon and provided molecular evidence for its placement. Manthey and Grossmann, 1997, Amph. Rept. Südostasiens: 83–120, provided accounts and and identification table for the species of the Sunda Shelf. Malkmus, Manthey, Vogel, Hoffmann, and Kosuch, 2002, Amph. Rept. Mount Kinabalu: 133–134, provided a key to the genera of Borneo. Dubois, Ohler, and Biju, 2001, Alytes, 19: 53–79, and Dubois and Ohler, 2001, Alytes, 19: 81–106, discussed a subfamilial and tribal structure of the Ranidae. Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2000, Acta Zool. Sinica, 46: 19–26, discussed relationships and generic assignments of the Amolopinae (Amo, Amolops, Huia, and Mertistogenys). Roelants, Jiang, and Bossuyt, 2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 31: 730–740, provided a molecular study of the Asian nominal subfamilies and started to construct a meaningful evidence-based tree for Ranidae (sensu lato), including evidence for the paraphyly of this group to Rhacophoridae and its sister taxon the Mantellidae. Bossuyt, Brown, Hillis, Cannatella, and Milinkovitch, 2006, Syst. Biol., 55: 579–594, corroboted the monophyly of Ranidae (sensu stricto), but, unlike Frost et al. (2006), suggested that it is the sister taxon of Dicroglossidae (their Dicroglossinae), rather than Nyctibatrachidae. Ranidae are treated in varying degrees of completeness in several regional studies: Schmidt and Inger, 1959, Explor. Parc Natl. Upemba, Miss. G.F. de Witte, 56: 1–264 (Dem. Rep. Congo); Schiøtz, 1963, Vidensk. Medd. Dansk Naturhist. Foren., 125: 1–92 (Nigeria); Poynton, 1964, Ann. Natal Mus., 17: 1–334; Poynton and Broadley, 1985, Ann. Natal Mus., 27: 115–181 (south-central Africa); Perret, 1966, Zool. Jahrb., Jena, Abt. Syst., 93: 289–464 (Cameroon); Anders, 2002, in Schleich and Kästle (eds.), Amph. Rept. Nepal: 201–316 (Nepal); Liu, 1950, Fieldiana, Zool. Mem., 2: 1–396 (western China); Liu and Hu, 1961, Tailless Amph. China: 137–245 (China); Bourret, 1942, Batr. Indochine (Indochina); Brown, 1952, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 107: 3–64 (Solomon Islands); Inger, 1954, Fieldiana, Zool., 33: 181–531 (Philippines); Taylor, 1962, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 43: 265–599 (Thailand); Inger, 1966, Fieldiana, Zool., 52: 1–402 (Borneo); Van Kampen, 1923, Amph. Indo-Austral. Arch. (Indonesia and the Papuan region); and Wright and Wright, 1949, Handb. Frogs Toads U.S. Canada, Ed. 3 (USA and Canada). Conlon, Kolodziejek, Nowotny, Leprince, Vaudry, Coquet, Jouenne, and King, 2008, Toxicon, 52: 465–473, provided a tree of relationships, based on brevinin-2 peptides sequences of some members of Rana, Glandirana, Odorrana, and Pelophylax, that suggested paraphyly of part of Rana with respect to Hylarana, polyphyly of Hylarana, and polyphyly of Odorrana. Vitt and Caldwell, 2009, Herpetology, 3rd Ed.: 478–479, provided a general taxonomic account and map as part of a much more general and extensive overview of amphibian biology. Wiens, Sukumaran, Pyron, and Brown, 2009, Evolution, 63: 1217–1231, corroborated the monophyly of this group (as Raninae) and provided a relatively dense phylogenetic hypotheses for the groups within it. Bossuyt and Roelants, 2009, in Hedges and Kumar (eds.), Timetree of Life: 357–364, considered this restricted taxon a distinct family based on its Mesozoic origin. Fei, Hu, Ye, and Huang, 2009, Fauna Sinica, Amph. 3: 968–1298, provided accounts and keys to the Chinese species. Kurabayashi, Yoshikawa, Sato, Hayashi, Oumi, Fujii, and Sumida, 2010, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 56: 543–553, provided a phylogenetic analysis of ranids that included hypotheses of synapomorphy from gene rearrangements. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, in their study of Genbank sequences largely confirmed earlier results, but this is difficult to apprehend because they employed an antiquated taxonomy that obscures much of the progress that had taken place in the last 6 years. See comments under generic records for more results. Blackburn and Wake, 2011, In Zhang (ed.), Zootaxa, 3148: 39–55, briefly reviewed the taxonomic history of this taxon. Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2010, Herpetol. Sinica, 12: 1–43, provided a review of ranid taxonomy and provided a new classification, strongly reminiscent of the earlier classification of Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 305–352. Although this classification was offered as a phylogenetic taxonomy it provides no new data and when this classification is cast onto the trees of Che, Pang, Zhao, Wu, Zhao, and Zhang, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 43: 1–13, and Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583, it is clear that parts of the taxonomy are intentionally gradistic (e.g., Amerana and Aurorana) rather than phylogenetic, rendering this taxonomy inherently difficult to interpret. Within Ranidae, their Stauroinae (solely for Staurois) is the sister taxon of all remaining ranids, which in their taxonomy forms an unnamed group. Within this unnamed group their topology was Meristogenyinae + (Amolopinae + (Raninae)). Meristogenyinae contains a paraphyletic "Meristogenyini" (containing the basal and nonmonophyletic "Huia" and Meristogenys) and a monophyletic Clinotarsini (divided by these authors into two phylogenetically uninformative monotypic genera, Clinotarsus and Nasirana). Amolopinae contains Amolops and Pseudoamolops, although Pseudoamolops was shown by Che, Pang, Zhao, Wu, Zhao, and Zhang, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 43: 1–13, to be a junior synonym of Rana and this confirmed by Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543–583. No data were offered to reject the earlier results, so the recognition of Amolopinae, at least so composed, is problematic. Raninae as proposed by these authors contains the remainder of ranids parsed into several tribes to contain a number of genera, many resurrected that render a considerable amount of taxon paraphyly. The topology of the tribes is (more-or-less, given issues noted below) Stauroinae + (Meristogenyinae + (Amolopini + (Ranini [part, Pelophylax] + (((Sanguiranini + Glandiranini) + Hylaranini) + (Ranini [part, excluding Pelophylax] + (Nidiranini + Odorranini)))). The content of the tribes is: Sanguiranini (including only the monophyletic Sanguirana); Glandiranini (a monophyletic taxon composed of Glandirana and a resurrected Rugosa, recognition of which would render Glandirana paraphyletic); Ranini (a nonmonophyletic taxon composed of Pelophylax [far from other ranines, which are likely more closely related to Amolops], Lithobates, Rana, Amerana [resurrected from Rana, but polyphyletic as demonstrated by Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 34: 305], Aurorana [resurrected from Rana, but paraphyletic with respect to Amerana, as demonstrated by Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 34: 305], a monotypic Liuhurana [for Rana shuchinae, this new generic name provided in an attempt to resurrect the otherwise nonmonophyletic "Amerana" and "Aurorana"]; Hylaranini (a monophyletic taxon previously containing only a very large Hylarana, but redelimited to include a number of smaller genera: Hylarana [redelimited by the exclusion of a number of groups that together with Hylarana sensu stricto form a larger monophyletic group, but the restricted group is likely monophyletic]; Chalcorana [resurrected from the synonymy of Hylarana and likely monophyletic]; Pulchrana [resurrected from the synonymy of Hylarana, but as conceived widely polyphyletic on the Pyron and Wiens, 2011, tree]; Tylerana [resurrected from the synonymy of Hylarana, but not demonstrable monophyletic with respect to Papurana]; Amnirana [resurrected from the synonymy of Hylarana and likely monophyletic]; Hydrophylax [a monotypic genus resurrected from the synonymy of Hylarana, recognition of which likely has the undesirable affect of rendering Sylvirana nonmonophyletic]; Papurana [resurrected from the synonymy of Hylarana, but not demonstrable monophyletic with respect to Tylerana]; Sylvirana [resurrected from Hylarana, but although support measures are low, the optimal tree of Pyron and Wiens, 2011, does not recover this taxon as remotely monophyletic]; Boulengerana [monotypic genus named for Hylarana guentheri and likely the sister specis of Humerana]; Nidiranini (to contain Dianrana [a monotypic genus for Babina pleuraden, possibly the sister taxon of remaining members of the tribe], Nidirana [resurrected from Babina, but for which no evidence of monophyly has yet to be proposed], and Babina [redlimited to be composed solely of Babina holstii, Babina subaspera, and Babina okinavana, and, as such, likely monophyletic]); Pteroranini (composed solely of Pterorana, but for whose recognition probably renders Hylaranini nonmonophyletic); and Odorranini (to contain Matsuirana [new genus for Odorrana ishikawae, likely the sister taxon of "Odorrana" + Bamburana and Eburana], Eburana [possibly monophyletic, but whose recognition renders Odorrana paraphyletic], Bamburana [likely monophyletic, but whose recognition renders Odorrana nonmonophyletic]). There is, of course, much here that is helpful to breaking Ranidae into useful chunks for discussion, but adoption of this taxonomy is so replete with careless return to nonmonophyly, that for purposes of this version (5.6) I am putting it to one side in the hopes that additional work will provide the suggested taxonomic changes with evidentiary support for corresponding monophyletic group. Fei, Ye, and Jiang, 2012, Colored Atlas Chinese Amph. Distr.: 293–435, provided accounts for the Chinese species. Vitt and Caldwell, 2013, Herpetology, 4th Ed., provided a summary of life history, diagnosis, and taxonomy. Li, Zhang, Wu, Xue, Yan, and Wu, 2014, Amphibia-Reptilia, 35: 331-343, reported on the molecular phylogenetics of the group on the basis of 11 examplars and 13 mtDNA protein-coding genes. Huang and Tu, 2016, Genet. Mol. Res., 15 (3, gmr.15038302): 1–9, reported on relationships within the family based solely on concatenated mitogenomes.
Contained taxa (380 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.