Lithobates catesbeianus (Shaw, 1802)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Ranidae > Genus: Lithobates > Species: Lithobates catesbeianus

Rana catesbeiana Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 106. Type(s): Specimen illustrated by Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 106, pl. 33; not known to exist. Type locality: "many parts of North America . . . Carolina . . . . Virginia"; restricted to "South Carolina", USA, by Kellogg, 1932, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 160: 197; restricted to "Charleston, Charleston County", South Carolina by Smith and Taylor, 1950, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 33: 360; restricted to "vicinity of Charleston, South Carolina", USA, by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 79. These restrictions invalid for reason of not being based on disclosed evidence according to Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 407. 

Rana pipiens Daudin, 1802 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Rain. Gren. Crap., Quarto: 58. Syntypes: Including frog figured on pl. 18 of the original publication and five individuals noted in the original publication as being in the MNHNP. Type locality: "l'Amerique Septentrionale, et sur-tout dans la Caroline . . . la Virginie", USA. Primary homonym of Rana pipiens Schreber, with which Daudin was aware. Stated in the original publication to be Lacepede's Grenouille mugisante (= Lithobates catesbeianus).

Rana taurina Cuvier, 1817, Regne Animal., 2: 93. Replacement name for Rana pipiens Daudin, 1802.

Rana mugiens Merrem, 1820, Tent. Syst. Amph.: 175. Types: Based in part on Catesby, 1754, Nat. Hist. Carolina Florida Bahama Is.: pl. 72 (which appears from the illustration to be Rana grylio—DRF), Rana catesbeiana of Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 105; Rana pipiens of Latreille, Rept.: 153 (unknown citation: DRF; given as "Latreille, 1825, by Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 408, but not in their literature cited) and Daudin, 1802 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Rain. Gren. Crap., Quarto: 58: 58, t. 18; Daudin, 1803 "An. XI", Hist. Nat. Gen. Part. Rept., 8: 113, and frogs mentioned by Kalm, 1761, En Resa Norra America, 3: 140, 191, 512; under the names of "Manteskühe" and "Ochsenfrösche"; clearly a mixture of several species of frogs (DRF). Type locality: "America septentionali"; restricted to "vicinity of New York City", USA, by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 79, this restriction considered invalid by Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 408, for reason of not being based on disclosed evidence. Synonymy by Schinz, 1822, Thierr. Naturgesch., 2: 164 (Rana catesbeiana Shaw treated as if junior); Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 379 (as Rana mugiens); Le Conte, 1855, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 7: 423; Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 13 (using Rana mugiens as the name of choice); Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 36.

Rana scapularis Harlan, 1826, Am. J. Sci. Arts, 10: 59. Types: Not designated, although presumably originally in ANSP. Type locality: "Pennsylvania", USA; restricted to "vicinity of Philadelphia", USA, by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 79, this restriction considered invalid by Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 408, for reason of not being based on disclosed evidence. Synonymy with Rana mugiens and Rana catesbeiana by Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 370 with Rana catesbeiana by Le Conte, 1855, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 7: 423; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 36.

Rana conspersa Le Conte, 1855, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 7: 425. Syntypes: Including ANSP 2918, according to Malnate, 1971, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 123: 350. Type locality: "Pennsylvania"; restricted to "Riceborough, Liberty County, Georgia" by Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 79, this restriction considered invalid by Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 408, for reason of not being based on disclosed evidence. Synonymy by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 36.

Rana catesbyanaCope, 1889, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 34: 424. 

Rana catesbyanaWerner, 1909, Amph. Rept., 1: 86; Smith, 1978, Amph. N. Am.: 66. Incorrect subsequent spelling.

Rana (Rana) catesbeianaBoulenger, 1920, Rec. Indian Mus., 20: 10; Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 41; by implication.

Rana nantaiwuensis Hsü, 1930, Contrib. Biol. Lab. Sci. Soc., China, Zool. Ser., 6: 19. Holotype: Mus. Univ. Amoy, presumed lost in World War II. Type locality: "Nantaiwu, Amoy [= Xiamen Shi, Fujian Province], China". Considered a junior synonym or incertae sedis within Hoplobatrachus by Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 60; without discussion. Synonymy with Rana catesbeiana by Zhao and Adler, 1993, Herpetol. China: 140. Previously considered a synonym of Rana spinosa by Liu and Hu, 1961, Tailless Amph. China: 156.

Rana mugicusAngel, 1947, Vie et Moeurs Amph.: 253. Apparent incorrect subsequent spelling of Rana mugiens, but based on specimens of Lithobates pipiens; see discussion by Smith, 1948, Am. Midl. Nat., 40: 517–518. See confusing and extensive comment by Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 409, regarding this entry in this catalog. I have checked back to at least 2004 and cannot figure what they are referring to as this entry has been stable since at least then and these authors state that something else appeared here. Go figure. 

Rana (Rana) catesbeianaDubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 41, by implication; Maeda and Matsui, 1990, Frogs Toads Japan, Ed. 2: 107

Rana (Aquarana) catesbeianaDubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 331.

Rana (Novirana, Aquarana) catesbeianaHillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 34: 305. See Dubois, 2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 317–330, Hillis, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 331–338, and Dubois, 2007, Cladistics, 23: 390–402, for relevant discussion of nomenclature. Invalid name formulation under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999) as discussed by Dubois, 2007, Cladistics, 23: 395.

Lithobates catesbeianusFrost, 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: 369; Che, Pang, Zhao, Wu, Zhao, and Zhang, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 43: 1–13, by implication.

Lithobates (Aquarana) catesbeianusDubois, 2006, C. R. Biol., Paris, 329: 829; Dubois, 2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 325.

Rana (Aquarana) catesbeianaHillis, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 42: 335–336, by implication; Yuan, Zhou, Chen, Poyarkov, Chen, Jang-Liaw, Chou, Matzke, Iizuka, Min, Kuzmin, Zhang, Cannatella, Hillis, and Che, 2016, Syst. Biol., 65: 835. 

Rana (Lithobates) catesbeiana — Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 407. 

English Names

Common Bullfrog (Dickerson, 1906, The Frog Book: 227; Kellogg, 1932, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 160: 195; Carr, 1940, Univ. Florida Biol. Sci. Ser., 3: 64).

Jug-O'-Rum (Fowler, 1907, Annu. Rep. N.J. State Mus. for 1906: 126).

Bloody Nouns (Fowler, 1907, Annu. Rep. N.J. State Mus. for 1906: 126).

Bull Frog (as "Rana pipiens": Smith, 1833, Rep. Geol. Mineral. Bot. Zool. Massachusetts: 552); Storer, 1840, Boston J. Nat. Hist., 3: 40).

Bull Frog (Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool., 3(1): 106; Verrill, 1863, Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 9: 198; Wood, 1863, Illust. Nat. Hist., 3: 155; Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 25; Hay, 1892, Annu. Rep. Dept. Geol. Nat. Res. Indiana for 1891: 478; Davis and Rice, 1883, Bull. Chicago Acad. Sci., 1: 28; Rhoads, 1895, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 47: 394; Fowler, 1907, Annu. Rep. N.J. State Mus. for 1906: 120; Brimley, 1907, J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc., 23: 159; Wright and Wright, 1933, Handb. Frogs Toads U.S. Canada: xi; Stebbins, 1951, Amph. W. North Am.: 345; Schmidt, 1953, Check List N. Am. Amph. Rept., Ed. 6: 79; Conant, Cagle, Goin, Lowe, Neill, Netting, Schmidt, Shaw, Stebbins, and Bogert, 1956, Copeia, 1956: 177; Stebbins, 1966, Field Guide W. North Am. Rept. Amph.: 76; Conant, 1975, Field Guide Rept. Amph. E. Cent. N. Am., Ed. 2: 338; Collins, Huheey, Knight, and Smith, 1978, Herpetol. Circ., 7: 12; Liner, 1994, Herpetol. Circ., 23: 27; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 106; Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 13; Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 240; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 8).

Eastern Bull Frog (Storer, 1925, Univ. California Publ. Zool., 27: 43).

American Bullfrog (Cochran, 1961, Living Amph. World: 151; Arnold and Burton, 1978, Field Guide Rept. Amph. Brit. Eur.: 87; Maeda and Matsui, 1990, Frogs Toads Japan, Ed. 2: 107; Iskandar, 1998, Amph. Java Bali: 70; Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 14; Arnold, 2002, Rept. Amph. Eur., Ed. 2: 97; Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 240; Goris and Maeda, 2004, Guide Amph. Rept. Japan: 62; Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37: 7; Liner and Casas-Andreu, 2008, Herpetol. Circ., 38: 16; Frost, McDiarmid, Mendelson, and Green, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 17; Frost, Lemmon, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2017, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 43: 14).

Edible Bullfrog (McKay, 2006, Field Guide Amph. Rept. Bali: 36).

Distribution

Eastern North America, except southern Florida, north to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, southern Quebec, and southern Ontario (Canada), west to the central plains and south to Hidalgo, Puebla, and adjacent Veracruz (Mexico); introduced on Cuba, Isla de Juventud (= Isla de Pinos), Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, and Jamaica in the Antilles; introduced widely in the rest of the world including the Netherlands, Bordeaux region of France, Belgium, northern Italy, western Spain, Crete, Malaya (Malaysia), Java, Bali, Japan, southern and western Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guiana, Paraguay, Venezuela, Uruguay, northern Thailand, Korea, and Taiwan (China).

Comment

In the Rana catesbeiana group of XXX. In the equivalent Rana (Rana) clamitans group of Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 41, in the equivalent subgenus Aquarana of Dubois, 1992, Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon, 61: 331. Fei, 1999, Atlas Amph. China: 306–307, provided a brief account and figure for the species in China. Lanza and Ferri, 1997, in Gasc et al. (eds.), Atlas Amph. Rept. Eur.: 132–133, discussed range and relevant literature for European introduced populations. Maeda and Matsui, 1990, Frogs Toads Japan, Ed. 2: 100–107, provided an account for Japanese introduced populations. Fei and Ye, 2001, Color Handbook Amph. Sichuan: 228–229, provided a brief account and illustration for the introduced Chinese population. Grismer, 2002, Amph. Rept. Baja California: 79–81, provided an account for the introduced Baja California, Mexico, populations. Duifhuis-Rivera, García-Vázquez, and Zamora-Hebrego, 2008, Herpetol. Rev., 39: 479, provided a record for Hidalgo, Mexico and briefly discussed the nearby records in Puebla. Mullen, 1976, Herpetol. Rev., 7: 122, reported an introduced population in Baja California del Sur, Mexico. Borges-Martins, Di-Bernardo, Vinciprova, and Measey, 2002, Herpetol. Rev., 33: 319, discussed the introduced populations in southern Brazil. Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 240–242, provided a brief account, figure, and map. Yang, Kim, Min, and Suh, 2001, Monogr. Korean Amph.: 72–73, provided a brief account, figure, and map for South Korea. Lever, 2003, Naturalized Rept. Amph. World: 203-218, discussed the introduced populations in England, Italy, Spain, France, Netherlands, China, Java, Bali, Japan, Israel, Malaysia, Russia, Argentina, Paraguay, Peru, Guyana, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Hawaii. Goris and Maeda, 2004, Guide Amph. Rept. Japan: 62–63, provided an account for Japan, map, and photograph. Cisneros-Heredia, 2004, Herpetol. Rev., 35: 406, provided a record (introduced) for Ecuador. Pereyra, Baldo, and Krauczuk, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 37–40, discussed the introduced populations in Argentina (and noted the other South American countries for which populations have been discovered). Sanabria, Ripoll, Jordan, Quiroga, Ariza, Guillemain, Pérez, and Chavez, 2011, Rev. Mexicana Biodiversidad, 82: 311-313, reported a record for San Juan Province, Argentina.  Valakos, Pafilis, Sotiropoulos, Lymberakis, Maragou, and Foufopoulos, 2008, Amph. Rept. Greece: 134–135, provided an account for the introduced population on Crete. Austin and Zamudio, 2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 48: 1041–1053, reported on mtDNA phylogeographic structure. Chan, Wood, and Grismer, 2008, Herpetol. Rev., 39: 479, provided a record for West Malaysia. Savage and Bolaños, 2009, Zootaxa, 2005: 9, reported this species as introduced in Costa Rica. See detailed account for the introduced population in Italy by Stagni and Lanza, 2007, in Lanza et al. (eds.), Fauna d'Italia, 42 (Amph.): 377–381. Farr, Lazcano, and Lavín-Murcio, 2009, Herpetol. Rev., 40: 459–467, provided records for eastern Tamaulipas, Mexico, and discussed the historical range of this species in that region. Chan, Belabut, and Ahmad, 2010, Russ. J. Herpetol., 17: 202–206, noted an introduced population in West Malaysia. Both, Lingnau, Santos, Madalozzo, Lima, and Grant, 2011, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 6: 127–134, documented the widespread feral population in southeastern Brazil. Ferreira and Lima, 2012, North-West. J. Zool., Romania, 8: 386–389, also discussed populations in Espírito Santo, southern Brazil. Iñeguez and Morejón, 2012, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 7: 85–90, discussed the potential range in Ecuador. Lemos-Espinal, 2007, Anf. Rept. Chihuahua Mexico: 56–57, provided an account (as Rana catesbeiana) for Chihuahua, Mexico. Lemos-Espinal and Dixon, 2013, Amphibians and Reptiles of San Luis Potosí: 68–69, provided an account for San Luis Potosí, Mexico. Henderson and Powell, 2009, Nat. Hist. Rept. Amph. W. Indies: 96–97, summarized the natural history literature of the introduced Antillean populations. Casper and Hendricks, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 540–546, and Dodd, 2013, Frogs U.S. and Canada, 2 : 486–515, provided accounts that summarized relevant literature. Elliot, Gerhardt, and Davidson, 2009, Frogs and Toads of N. Am.: 186–189, provided an account, photos, and advertisement call. Rivalta González, Rodríguez Schettino, Mancina, and Iturriaga, 2014, Smithson. Herpetol. Inform. Serv., 145: 36–37, provided a dot map and localities for Cuba. Lin, Tao, Fang, Wang, and Zhang, 2014, Mitochondrial DNA, 25: 447–448, reported on the complete mtDNA genome. Altig and McDiarmid, 2015, Handb. Larval Amph. US and Canada: 225–227, provided an account of larval morphology and biology. See account of biology and life history in southern Florida by Meshaka and Lane, 2015, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol., 10 (Monogr. 5): 75–78. Vannini, Bruni, Cantini, Tricarico, and Inghilesi, 2015, Ital. J. Zool., 82: 416–424, noted an expanded range in Tuscany, Italy. Akmentins and Cardozo, 2010, Biol. Invasions, 12: 735–737, discussed this species' invasion of Argentina. Ficetola, Coïc, Detaint, Berroneau, Lorvelec, and Miaud, 2007, Biol. Invasions, 9: 767–772, discussed the introduced range in Europe with special reference to southwestern France. Laufer, Canavero, Núñez, and Maneyro, 2008, Biol. Invasions, 10: 1183–1189, reported on the feral population in Uruguay. 

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.