Philautus Gistel, 1848
Orchestes Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 35. Type species: Hyla aurifasciata Schlegel, 1837, by monotypy. Junior homonym of Orchestes Illiger, 1798.
Ixalus Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 523. Substitute name for Orchestes Tschudi, 1838. Junior homonym of Ixalus Ogilby, 1837.
Philautus Gistel, 1848, Naturgesch. Thierr.: x. Substitute name for Orchestes Tschudi, 1838.
Gorhixalus Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 72. Type species: Rhacophorus hosii Boulenger, 1895, by original designation. Name proposed as a subgenus of Philautus. Rejected as nonmonophyletic by Hertwig, Schweizer, Das, and Haas, 2013, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 68: 574.
Bubble-nest Frogs (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 111).
Gorham's Oriental Shrub Frogs (Gorhixalus: Bossuyt and Dubois, 2001, Zeylanica, 6: 84).
Gistel's Oriental Shrub Frogs (Philautus [subgenus]: Bossuyt and Dubois, 2001, Zeylanica, 6: 86).
Provisionally, central India through Myanmar and Thailand, the Philippines, and the Greater Sunda Is.
Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 69-73, recognized three subgenera: Philautus, Gorhixalus, and Kirtixalus (now considered a synonym of Pseudophilautus). Dring, 1987, Amphibia-Reptilia, 8: 19-47, reviewed the species of Borneo, and defined species groups noted in the relevant accounts. The Philippine species and their placement in Dring's species groups were discussed by Brown and Alcala, 1994, Proc. California Acad. Sci., Ser. 4, 48: 185-220. The Philautus aurifasciatus group in Borneo was discussed by Malkmus and Riede, 1996, Sauria, Berlin, 18: 27-37. The Philautus hosei group and Philautus vermiculatus group of Borneo were discussed by Malkmus and Riede, 1996, Sauria, Berlin, 18: 21-28. Iskandar, 1998, Amph. Java Bali: 85-90, provided brief accounts for the species of Java and Bali. Malkmus, Manthey, Vogel, Hoffmann, and Kosuch, 2002, Amph. Rept. Mount Kinabalu: 178, discussed and expanded the species groups as previously defined by Dring. Bossuyt and Dubois, 2001, Zeylanica, 6: 1-112, provided a nomenclatural review of the genus as then understood and provisionally retained the subgenera of Dubois, 1987 "1986", without formal diagnoses; these authors also noted that the group still needs considerable work. Meegaskumbura, Bossuyt, Pethiyagoda, Manamendra-Arachchi, Bahir, Milinkovitch, and Schneider, 2002, Science, 298: 379, provided a molecular phylogeny that suggested that Philautus as then composed was not monophyletic. Li, Che, Bain, Zhao, and Zhang, 2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 48: 302-312, suggested that the group is not monophyletic, with some species (e.g., Philautus microtympanum, Philautus charius, and Philautus wynaadensis) close to Kurixalus and others (e.g., Philautus acutirostris and Philautus surdus) outside of a clade composed of the first group of Philautus, Kurixalus, Gracixalus, Feihyla, Chiromantis, Polypedates, and Rhacophorus. The sole morphological diagnostic feature of Philautus is direct development, but most species have never had this characteristic evaluated; their assignment to Philautus being based on overall similarity. Recent efforts (e.g., Grosjean, Delorme, Dubois, and Ohler, 2008, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res., 46: 169-176; Li, Che, Bain, Zhao, and Zhang, 2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 48: 302-312) have shown that "Philautus" sensu lato was a hodge-podge of species that phylogenetically are distributed all over the rhacophorine side of the tree. Yu, Rao, Yang, and Zhang, 2008, Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 153: 733-749, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence that at least some members of Philautus are more closely related to Chiromantis than to other species of Philautus. Li, Che, Murphy, Zhao, Zhao, Rao, and Zhang, 2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 53: 509-522, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence that Philautus as currently constructed is not monophyletic and suggested a number of taxonomic remedies reflected in this catalog, including the transfer of some species to other genera and the recognition of Pseudophilautus. Unfortunately, assignment of species from central India to Southeast Asia and the Sundas have not been assayed for molecular signatures and their generic assignment is questionable. Many species were transferred provisionally to Pseudophilautus by Li, Che, Murphy, Zhao, Zhao, Rao, and Zhang, 2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 53: 509-522, but the status of many nominal of species of Philautus remain to be evaluated. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, confirmed the monophyly of Philautus (sensu stricto), and its placement as the sister taxon of Nyctixalus, but by employing an antiquated taxonomy they obscured this result. Li, Li, Klaus, Rao, Hillis, and Zhang, 2013, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110: 3441–3446, confirmed the monophyly of Philautus and its sister-taxon relationship with Gracixalus.
Contained taxa (51 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.