Polypedates Tschudi, 1838
Polypedotes Tschudi, 1838, Classif. Batr.: 34. Alternative original spelling.
Trachyhyas Fitzinger, 1843, Syst. Rept.: 31. Type species: Polypedates rugosus Duméril and Bibron, 1841, by original designation. Synonymy with Polypedates by Günther, 1859 "1858", Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 78; by implication; by Stejneger, 1907, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 58: 143.
Whipping Frogs (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 113).
Eastern India, southeastern Asia, Philippines, and Borneo.
Although Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 74-85, considered Polypedates to be a synonym of the subgenus Rhacophorus of the genus Rhacophorus, Channing, 1989, S. Afr. J. Zool., 24: 116-127, did not consider Rhacophorus and Polypedates to be phylogenetic closest relatives. Jiang, Hu, and Zhao, 1987, Acta Herpetol. Sinica, Chengdu, N.S.,, 6 (1): 27-42, also considered Polypedates and Rhacophorus to be distinct. The species groups of Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 74-85, for the taxa considered here to be in Polypedates (part of his Rhacophorus) are mentioned in the species account, although these groups have never been rigorously diagnosed. Matsui and Wu, 1994, Zool. Sci., Tokyo, 11: 485-490, could not find a distinction of Rhacophorus and Polypedates on the basis of call characteristics. 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: 139, considered on the basis of limited sampling, Polypedates to form the sister taxon of Chiromantis. Rao, Wilkinson, and Liu, 2006, Zootaxa, 1258: 17-31, suggested that Polypedates is paraphyletic with respect to Rhacophorus, but did not address the possible inclusion of Chiromantis suggested by Frost et al. (2006). See Harvey, Pemberton, and Smith, 2002, Herpetol. Monogr., 16: 46-92, for comments. Anders, 2002, in Schleich and Kästle (eds.), Amph. Rept. Nepal: 320-337, provided a key and accounts for the species in Nepal. Grosjean, Delorme, Dubois, and Ohler, 2008, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res., 46: 169-176, reported on larval and molecular characters that serve to distinguish Polypedates from Rhacophorus and found them to be sister taxa. Li, Che, Bain, Zhao, and Zhang, 2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 48: 302-312, on the basis of a somewhat larger dataset, found Polypedates (including Taruga) to be the sister taxon of Feihyla + Rhacophorus. Pyron and Wiens, 2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 61: 543-583, confirmed this result on the basis of a study of Genbank sequences and provided a tree of exemplar species. Kuraishi, Matsui, Hamidy, Belabut, Ahmad, Panha, Sudin, Yong, Jiang, Ota, Thong, and Nishikawa, 2013, Zool. Scripta, 42: 54-70, reported on the molecular phylogenetics of the Polypedates leucomystax complex. Li, Li, Klaus, Rao, Hillis, and Zhang, 2013, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110: 3441–3446, confirmed Polypedates as the sister taxon of Taruga and recovered substantial phylogenetic structure within their relatively dense taxon sampling.
Contained taxa (24 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.