Amphibia Gray, 1825 — Amphibians
|
|
Anura Fischer von Waldheim, 1813 — Frogs
|
|
Bufonidae
Gray, 1825 —
True Toads
|
|
Anaxyrus
Tschudi, 1845 —
North American Toads
|
|
A. americanus
(Holbrook, 1836) — American Toad
The taxon remains insufficiently studied and evidence for its distinction from several species is unclear; see comments under A. baxteri, A. fowleri, A. hemiophrys, A. terrestris, and A. woodhousii. The status of A. a. charlesmithi (as a full species or subspecies) would benefit from additional study and fine scale geographic sampling.
|
|
A. a. americanus
(Holbrook, 1836) — Eastern American Toad
|
|
|
A. a. charlesmithi
(Bragg, 1954) — Dwarf American Toad
|
|
|
|
A. baxteri
(Porter, 1968) — Wyoming Toad
Historically, there has been discussion of the status of this taxon as a species or as an allopatric subspecies of A. hemiophrys and the issue has not been addressed in recent years. The allopatric distribution of A. baxteri and the abundant literature and resources expended toward its conservation (all contemporary efforts framed as A. baxteri) suggest widespread acceptance of this taxonomy, despite the lack of modern methodological approaches brought to bear on the problem.
|
|
|
A. boreas
(Baird and Girard, 1852) — Western Toad
The English name of Boreal Toad is sometimes used broadly for this taxon, especially for populations sometimes referred to A. b. boreas (Baird and Girard, 1852), and refer Western Toad to A. b. halophilus. Two subspecies (A. b. boreas, A. b. halophilus) have been inconsistently recognized historically and we do not recognize them here given the substantial need for additional taxonomic work on this complex. The A. boreas group generally is considered to include a number of isolated populations that appear to be diagnosable as species. Some have been recognized as species and/or subspecies and others have no history of taxonomic recognition. From this complex, A. canorus, A. exsul, and A. nelsoni are now generally accepted, and three additional allopatric populations have been named as species (A. monfontanus, A. nevadensis, and A. williamsi) recently have been described. Nevertheless, issues raised in older works by Cook (1983, Publications in Natural Sciences. National Museum of Canada: 89), Goebel (2005, in Lannoo, M. [editor], Amphibian Declines, University California Press: 210–211), Pauly (2008, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin), and Goebel et al. (2009, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 50: 209–225), using genetics, morphology, and advertisement calls, suggest that additional diversity remains unrecognized. The published genetic data used to investigate this group has been restricted to mitochondrial sequences, which have proven to be problematic in general (Dufresnes and Jablonski, 2022, Science 377: 127), and this complex is no exception. In such approaches, for example, the mitochondrial network and phylogenetic analyses of by Gordon et al. (2017, Zootaxa 4290: 123–139) found A. boreas to be paraphyletic with respect to A. canorus, A. exsul, and A. nelsoni. Their work also suggests that the subspecies A. b. boreas and A. b. halophilus may be valid species, but Goebel et al. (op. cit.) found A. b. halophilus to be polyphyletic within the broader A. boreas group. A comprehensive review of the A. boreas group that includes nuclear DNA and dense geographic sampling is needed and likely will reveal a complex evolutionary history, and corresponding taxonomy, for this group that spans a considerably large and complex geographic region.
|
|
|
A. californicus
(Camp, 1915) — Arroyo Toad
|
|
|
A. canorus
(Camp, 1916) — Yosemite Toad
Multiple studies (e.g., Goebel et al., 2009, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 50: 209–225, and Gordon et al., 2017, Zootaxa 4290: 123–139) have found two phylogenetically distinct mitochondrial DNA clades of this species, corresponding to samples from the southern Sierra Nevada range and northern samples from the same range. Goebel et al. (op. cit.) also reported hybrids between A. boreas and A. canorus. See comments under A. boreas; these issues require more research that is expanded to include nuclear DNA.
|
|
|
A. cognatus
(Say in James, 1822) — Great Plains Toad
|
|
|
A. debilis
(Girard, 1854) — Chihuahuan Green Toad
Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation: 301) rejected subspecies but presented no evidence for this conclusion, even though we agree that the nominal subspecies are unlikely to be anything other than arbitrarily defined sections of a cline.
|
|
A. d. debilis
(Girard, 1854) — Eastern Chihuahuan Green Toad
|
|
|
A. d. insidior
(Girard, 1854) — Western Chihuahuan Green Toad
|
|
|
|
A. fowleri
(Hinckley, 1882) — Fowler's Toad
Masta et al. (2002, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 24: 302–314) provided evidence for the distinctiveness of this species from A. woodhousii and noted (as did Smith and Green, 2004, Molecular Ecology. 13: 3723–3733) that, at the molecular level, there are multiple mtDNA matrilines.
|
|
|
A. hemiophrys
(Cope, 1886) — Canadian Toad
See comments under A. baxteri.
|
|
|
A. houstonensis
(Sanders, 1953) — Houston Toad
This species hybridizes with A. woodhousii (as well as with Incilius nebulifer); both hybrid and non-hybrid individuals can be difficult to identify with respect to A. woodhousii. Taxonomists and conservationists working on this endangered species consistently recognize it as distinct. Recent work confirmed a close historical relationship with A. americanus and supported recognition as a species (Sirsi et al., 2024, Science Reports, 14: 3306).
|
|
|
A. microscaphus
(Cope, 1866) — Arizona Toad
Hybridizes extensively with A. woodhousii in portions of its range (e.g., Wooten et al., 2019, Journal of Herpetology, 53: 104–114.
|
|
|
A. monfontanus
(Gordon, Simandle, Sandmeier, and Tracy, 2020) — Hot Creek Toad
This isolated population was diagnosed with respect to other taxa and populations in the A. boreas group using morphology and mitochondrial DNA data. See comments under A. boreas
|
|
|
A. nelsoni
(Stejneger, 1893) — Amargosa Toad
See comment under Anaxyrus boreas.
|
|
|
A. nevadensis
(Gordon, Simandle, Sandmeier, and Tracy, 2020) — Railroad Valley Toad
This isolated population was diagnosed with respect to other taxa and populations in the A. boreas group based on data from morphology and mitochondrial DNA. See comments under A. boreas.
|
|
|
A. punctatus
(Baird and Girard, 1852) — Red-spotted Toad
|
|
|
A. quercicus
(Holbrook, 1840) — Oak Toad
|
|
|
A. retiformis
(Sanders and Smith, 1951) — Sonoran Green Toad
|
|
|
A. speciosus
(Girard, 1854) — Texas Toad
|
|
|
A. terrestris
(Bonnaterre, 1789) — Southern Toad
|
|
|
A. williamsi
(Gordon, Simandle, and Tracy, 2017) — Dixie Valley Toad
This isolated population was diagnosed with respect to other taxa and populations in the A. boreas group based on data from morphology and mitochondrial DNA. See comments under A. boreas.
|
|
|
A. woodhousii
(Girard, 1854) — Woodhouse's Toad
See comments under A. fowleri. The incorrect spelling of the species name as woodhousei
has been used widely.
|
|
A. w. australis
(Shannon and Lowe, 1955) — Southwestern Woodhouse's Toad
|
|
|
A. w. woodhousii
(Girard, 1854) — Rocky Mountain Toad
|
|
|
|
|
Incilius
Cope, 1863 —
Central American Toads
|
|
I. alvarius
(Girard in Baird, 1859) — Sonoran Desert Toad
|
|
|
I. nebulifer
(Girard, 1854) — Gulf Coast Toad
A review of the distinction between I. nebulifer and I. valliceps that incorporates nuclear markers is advisable
|
|
|
|
Rhinella
Fitzinger, 1826 —
South American Toads
|
|
R. horribilis
(Wiegmann, 1833) — Mesoamerican Cane Toad
Newly listed species. Recently shown to be a distinct species from R. marina by Acevedo et al. (2016, Zootaxa,
4103: 574–586) and occurs naturally in southern Texas. Their results render R. marina as extralimital with regard to the scope of this list. However, the introduced cane toads in Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, and Florida (except Polk County [Abercrombie et al. (2022, Herpetological Review 53: 74–77)]) likely represent R. marina.
|
|
|
|
|
Craugastoridae
Hedges, Duellman, and Heinicke, 2008 —
Flesh-bellied Frogs
|
|
Craugastor
Cope, 1862 —
Northern Rainfrogs
|
|
C. augusti
(Dugès, in Brocchi, 1879) — Barking Frog
Goldberg et al. (2004, Herpetologica 60: 312–320) suggested that C. a. cactorum and C.
a. latrans are different species but did not make the taxonomic change. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, Xlibris 7(1)), referring to the work by Goldberg et al. (op. cit.) proposed recognition of the two subspecies. We do not recognize any subspecies pending additional data, preferably including nuclear DNA, and more substantial sampling in Mexico.
|
|
|
|
|
Eleutherodactylidae
Lutz, 1954 —
Free-toed Frogs
|
|
Eleutherodactylus
Duméril and Bibron, 1841 —
Rainfrogs
The English name Caribbean and Mexican Landfrogs is used by Hedges et al. (2019, Caribbean Herpetology (67): 1–53).
|
|
E. campi
Stejneger, 1915 — Rio Grande Chirping Frog
Removed from the synonymy of Eleutherodactylus cystignathoides by Grünwald, et al. (2018, Mesoamerican Herpetology, 5: 66), although this has not been universally accepted (e.g., Dodd, 2023, Frogs of the United States and Canada, 2nd edition, Johns Hopkins University Press: 992pp).
|
|
|
E. guttilatus
(Cope, 1879) — Spotted Chirping Frog
|
|
|
E. marnockii
(Cope, 1878) — Cliff Chirping Frog
|
|
|
|
|
Hylidae
Rafinesque, 1815 —
Treefrogs and Allies
|
|
Acris
Duméril and Bibron, 1841 —
Cricket Frogs
|
|
A. blanchardi
Harper, 1947 — Blanchard's Cricket Frog
|
|
|
A. crepitans
Baird, 1854 — Eastern Cricket Frog
|
|
|
A. gryllus
(LeConte, 1825) — Southern Cricket Frog
|
|
|
|
Dryophytes
Fitzinger, 1843 —
Holarctic Treefrogs
Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted Hyla to Eurasia and North Africa and referred the North American and east Asian sister taxa of this group to Dryophytes, although the acceptance of this taxonomy within the user community is controversial at this point.
|
|
D. andersonii
(Baird, 1854) — Pine Barrens Treefrog
This species has a conspicuously fragmented range across eastern North America that mirrors that of some wetland-associated plant species (Warwick et al., 2021, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 133: 120–134). Remarkably, no subspecies have ever been proposed. Recent molecular work by Oswald et al. (2020, Journal of Herpetology. 54: 206–215) found geographic variation consistent with geographic isolation and estimated divergence times, but neither work suggested that taxonomic changes at any level were warranted.
|
|
|
D. arenicolor
(Cope, 1866) — Canyon Treefrog
Bryson et al. (2010, Evolution, 64: 2315–2340) also reported on molecular geographic variation and demonstrated introgression with D. wrightorum. Based only on the mitochondrial subset of their data, Li et al. (2015, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 87: 80–90) found multiple divergent lineages within a monophyletic D. arenicolor. Barber (1999, Molecular Ecology 8: 563–576) examined geographic variation and suggested that at least two other species should be recognized within the Mexican component of its range.
|
|
|
D. avivoca
(Viosca, 1928) — Bird-voiced Treefrog
Smith (1953, Herpetologica 9: 169–173) discussed geographic variation and recognized
two nominal subspecies which are rarely employed, and apparently have not been explicitly tested.
|
|
D. a. avivoca
(Viosca, 1928) — Western Bird-voiced Treefrog
See comments under Dryophytes and D. avivoca.
|
|
|
D. a. ogechiensis
(Neill, 1948) — Eastern Bird-voiced Treefrog
See comments under Dryophytes and D. avivoca.
|
|
|
|
D. chrysoscelis
(Cope, 1880) — Cope's Gray Treefrog
See comment under D. versicolor.
|
|
|
D. cinereus
(Schneider, 1799) — Green Treefrog
The change from Hyla to Dryophytes necessitated that "cinerea" be amended to "cinereus".
|
|
|
D. femoralis
(Daudin, 1800) — Pine Woods Treefrog
See comments under Dryophytes.
|
|
|
D. gratiosus
(LeConte, 1856) — Barking Treefrog
The change from Hyla to Dyrophytes necessitated that "gratiosa" be amended to "gratiosus".
|
|
|
D. squirellus
(Daudin, 1800) — Squirrel Treefrog
The change from Hyla to Dyrophytes necessitated that "squirella" be amended to "squirellus".
|
|
|
D. versicolor
(LeConte, 1825) — Gray Treefrog
Booker et al. (2022, Molecular Biology and Evolution 39: msab316) and Booker et al. (2023, Molecular Ecology 32: 4863–4879) provided an updated view of genome duplication and hybridization in this species complex based on genome-wide nDNA data as well as a historical review of the topic.
|
|
|
D. wrightorum
(Taylor, 1939 “1938”) — Arizona Treefrog
See comments under Dryophytes.
|
|
|
|
Pseudacris
Fitzinger, 1843 —
Chorus Frogs
Based on a re-analysis of previously published molecular data, Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to P. nigrita and allocated the western species, P. cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. Based on genome-wide nDNA data, Banker et al. (2020, Systematic Biology 69: 756–773) argued that Hyliola should not be recognized because (a) the genus Pseudacris already is a monophyletic taxon without the change, and (b) the geographic separation rationale cited by Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) is insufficient as the sole criterion for splitting a long-recognized monophyletic clade, causing unnecessary taxonomic instability. Use of Hyliola has not gained any traction in the systematic community, presumably because of the small number of species involved.
|
|
P. brachyphona
(Cope, 1889) — Mountain Chorus Frog
|
|
|
P. brimleyi
Brandt and Walker, 1933 — Brimley's Chorus Frog
|
|
|
P. cadaverina
(Cope, 1866) — California Treefrog
|
|
|
P. clarkii
(Baird, 1854) — Spotted Chorus Frog
|
|
|
P. collinsorum
Ospina, Tieu, Apodaca, and Lemmon, 2020 — Collinses' Mountain Chorus Frog
Ospina et al. (2020, Copeia 108: 778–795) split P. brachyphona into two species by designating the name P. collinsorum to the southern populations and maintaining the name P. brachyphona for the northern populations, citing male call differences, nDNA and mtDNA genetic differences and reciprocal monophyly, ecological niche divergence, and geographic separation between the two species.
|
|
|
P. crucifer
(Wied-Neuwied, 1838) — Spring Peeper
|
|
|
P. feriarum
(Baird, 1854) — Upland Chorus Frog
Anderson et al. (2023, Ecology and Evolution 13: e9773) described substantial intraspecific genetic structure across the range of this species and occasional hybridization with congeneric taxa at range boundaries.
|
|
|
P. fouquettei
Moriarty Lemmon, Lemmon, Collins, and Cannatella, 2008 — Cajun Chorus Frog
|
|
|
P. hypochondriaca
(Hallowell, 1854) — Baja California Treefrog
Recuero et al. (2006, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 39: 293–304) recognized this species as distinct from P. regilla and composed of two subspecies, one of which is extralimital and whose mutual status is unclear. Barrow et al. (2014, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 75: 78–90) suggested that the distinction between P. hypochondriaca and P. sierra, drawn based on mtDNA, was not supported by nDNA analysis. Through a mtDNA study with expanded geographic sampling, Jadin et al. (2021, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 132: 612–633) found support for the species designations of Recuero et al. (2006, op. cit.) and refined range boundaries of the three taxa in this complex. The final resolution of this taxonomic question awaits nDNA analysis.
|
|
P. h. hypochondriaca
(Hallowell, 1854) — Northern Baja California Treefrog
See comment under P. hypochondriaca.
|
|
|
|
P. illinoensis
Smith, 1951 — Illinois Chorus Frog
Barrow et al. (2015, Molecular Ecology 24: 4739–4758) determined that P. illinoensis separated from P. streckeri only recently, and although the taxa are not yet reciprocally monophyletic, they have already accumulated genetic differences. The authors advocated treating P. illinoensis as a genetically distinct management unit but did not advise on taxonomic revision.
|
|
|
P. kalmi
Harper, 1955 — New Jersey Chorus Frog
|
|
|
P. maculata
(Agassiz, 1850) — Boreal Chorus Frog
|
|
|
P. nigrita
(LeConte, 1825) — Southern Chorus Frog
|
|
|
P. ocularis
(Bosc and Daudin, 1801) — Little Grass Frog
|
|
|
P. ornata
(Holbrook, 1836) — Ornate Chorus Frog
|
|
|
P. regilla
(Baird and Girard, 1852) — Pacific Treefrog
See comments under P. hypochondriaca.
|
|
|
P. sierra
(Jameson, Mackey, and Richmond, 1966) — Sierran Treefrog
Jadin et al. (2021, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 132: 612–633) found that P. sierra rather than P. regilla is present in Idaho and Montana, thus greatly expanding the known range of P. sierra. See comment under P. hypochondriaca.
|
|
|
P. streckeri
Wright and Wright, 1933 — Strecker's Chorus Frog
|
|
|
P. triseriata
(Wied-Neuwied, 1838) — Western Chorus Frog
|
|
|
|
Smilisca
Cope, 1865 —
Mexican Treefrogs
|
|
S. baudinii
(Duméril and Bibron, 1841) — Mexican Treefrog
|
|
|
S. fodiens
(Boulenger, 1882) — Lowland Burrowing Treefrog
|
|
|
|
|
Leiopelmatidae
Mivart, 1869 —
|
|
Ascaphus
Stejneger, 1899 —
Tailed Frogs
|
|
A. montanus
Mittleman and Myers, 1949 — Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog
Nielson et al. (2001, Evolution 55: 147–160) presented evidence supporting the recognition of this species distinct from A. truei and Nielson et al. (2006, Herpetologica 62: 235–258) reported on data from allozymes and mtDNA that perhaps two evolutionarily significant units are distributed, respectively; south of the South Fork of the Salmon River populations, and northwest of the Salmon River (including Blue, Wallowa and Seven Devils mountains).
|
|
|
A. truei
Stejneger, 1899 — Coastal Tailed Frog
See comments under A. montanus. Nielson et al. (2006, Herpetologica 62: 235–258), using data from allozymes and mtDNA, reported evidence supporting recognition of two evolutionarily significant units represented by populations in the Olympic Mountains and populations south of the Umpqua River.
|
|
|
|
|
Leptodactylidae
Werner, 1838 —
Tropical Grass Frogs
|
|
Leptodactylus
Fitzinger, 1826 —
Neotropical Grass Frogs
|
|
L. fragilis
(Brocchi, 1877) — Mexican White-lipped Frog
Much of the older literature about this species refers to this species as Leptodactylus labialis.
|
|
|
|
|
Microhylidae
Gunther, 1843 —
Micohylid Frogs and Toads
|
|
Gastrophryne
Fitzinger, 1843 —
North American Narrow-mouthed Toads
|
|
G. carolinensis
(Holbrook, 1836) — Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad
|
|
|
G. mazatlanensis
(Taylor, 1943) — Sinaloan Narrow-mouthed Toad
|
|
|
G. olivacea
(Hallowell, 1857 “1856”) — Western Narrow-mouthed Toad
|
|
|
|
Hypopachus
Keferstein, 1867 —
Sheep Frogs
|
|
H. variolosus
(Cope, 1866) — Sheep Frog
Although only two species are currently recognized within this genus, very strong geographic
variation in coloration, call, and toe structure suggests that several species are masquerading
under this species name. Given that the type locality of H. variolosus is in Costa Rica, the scientific name applied to the U.S. form is likely to change.
|
|
|
|
|
Ranidae
Rafinesque, 1814 —
True Frogs
|
|
Lithobates
Ftizinger, 1843 —
American Water Frogs
The generic taxonomy of American ranids is controversial, with three nomenclatural arrangements being consistent with current understandings of phylogeny. Reasonable but subjective arguments could be made for any of these three taxonomies. The least particulate is the single-genus arrangement of Yuan et al. (2016, Systematic Biology, 65: 824–842), which placed all Eurasian Rana and Pseudorana as well as all American ranids into Rana (thus including approximately 115 species). There is the three-genus model of Che et al. (2007, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 43: 1–13), largely in agreement with the earlier arrangement by Frost et al. (2006, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, (297): 1-370), which recognizes Pseudorana in Asia, Rana in Eurasia and western North America, and Lithobates in the Americas. The three-genus model has been widely, but not uniformly, accepted in publications for more than 15 years and this suggests relative taxonomic stability in a group sometimes considered to be controversial. Most recently, Dubois et al. (2021, Megataxa 5: 1–738) presented a seven-genus model that recognizes Pseudorana, Rana, and Liuhurana in Eurasia and Amerana (the Pacific Coast ranids of North America), Aquarana (for the bullfrogs and allies), Boreorana (a monotypic genus for Wood Frog, L. sylvaticus), and Lithobates (for the leopard frogs and allies). Although understanding of the phylogeny of these frogs appears to be stabilizing and the seven-genus model provides the most morphological coherence of units within the overall phylogeny as currently understood, we defer from recognizing Amerana, Aquarana, or Boreorana at this time pending achievement of more phylogenetic stability, especially with respect to the position of the taxon sylvaticus which inconsistently is recovered as sister to the proposed Aquarana or as sister to Lithobates. Because both the three-genus model and the seven-genus model embrace monophyly as a basic principle, the perspectives on the preferred taxonomy are subjective, and this subjectivity is the root of the ongoing controversy among mostly U.S. herpetologists regarding the generic allocations of these frogs. The recent seven-genus model may be unpopular in some circles, particularly in the U.S., so we do not think that the controversy will be resolved in the near-term.
|
|
L. areolatus
(Baird and Girard, 1852) — Crawfish Frog
See comment under L. capito. Geographic variation deserves further study to determine status of the nominal subspecies.
|
|
L. a. areolatus
(Baird and Girard, 1852) — Southern Crawfish Frog
|
|
|
L. a. circulosus
(Rice and Davies in Jordan, 1878) — Northern Crawfish Frog
|
|
|
|
L. berlandieri
(Baird, 1859) — Rio Grande Leopard Frog
Geographic variation is not well documented and relationships with extralimital Mexican
forms will require considerable morphological and nDNA work to resolve.
|
|
|
L. blairi
(Mecham, Littlejohn, Oldham, Brown, and Brown, 1973) — Plains Leopard Frog
|
|
|
L. capito
(LeConte, 1855) — Gopher Frog
Lithobates capito is considered by some to be part of L. areolatus (but see Case, 1978, Systematic Zoology 27: 299–311, who considered them distinct).
|
|
|
L. catesbeianus
(Shaw, 1802) — North American Bullfrog
[Is this first sentence what they intended?] Geographic variation within the natural range R. catesbeiana is not well understood, although Austin et al. (2004, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 32: 799–816) presented mtDNA evidence of distinct eastern and western lineages. The concept of western lineages also needs to be considered in light of the extensive, and mostly poorly documented, introductions and subsequent establishment of the species in the western U.S. (e.g., Storer, 1922, California Fish and Game 8: 219-22; Jennings and Hayes, 1985, Herpetologica 41: 94–103). We have adopted the modified English name of North American Bullfrog (Meshaka et al., 2022, Exotic Amphibians and Reptiles, University Florida Press, 245pp).
|
|
|
L. chiricahuensis
(Platz and Mecham, 1979) — Chiricahua Leopard Frog
The status of Mexican populations needs study. Rana subaquavocalis Platz, 1993, is a synonym according to Goldberg et al. (2004, Journal of Herpetology 38: 313–319), although some authors (e.g., Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34: 299–314; Dubois, 2006, Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences. Paris 329: 823–840) have continued to recognize the two taxa as distinct species, without comment.
|
|
|
L. clamitans
(Latreille in Sonnini de Manoncourt and Latreille, 1801) — North American Green Frog
Austin and Zamudio (2008, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48: 1041–1053) reported on
interpopulational variation at the molecular level and suggested an historical structure
inconsistent with the traditionally recognized subspecies. Historically, two subspecies (L. c. clamitans, L. c. melanotus) of this taxon have been recognized although their usage has not been common in recent decades. MacGuigan et al. (2002, Ichthyology & Herpetology, 110: 602–617), reported on the molecular phylogeography, concluding that L. clamitans is a single species, where the notion of subspecies is of limited use. Lithobates okaloosae is closely related and previous evidence (Austin et al. (2003, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 80: 601–624; Austin and Zamudio, 2008, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48: 1041–1053) based on mtDNA indicated that L. okaloosae is nested within L. clamitans, perhaps as a result of hybridization. Nevertheless, the two forms are morphologically and ecologically distinct and the broader approach of MacGuigan (op. cit.) supported recognition of these two species, with little evidence for hybridization, and does not support recognition of subspecies within L. clamitans. We have adopted the modified English name of North American Green Frog (Meshaka et al., 2022, Exotic Amphibians and Reptiles, University Florida Press, 245pp).
|
|
|
L. fisheri
(Stejneger, 1893) — Vegas Valley Leopard Frog
Previously considered to be extinct. Hekkala et al. (2011, Conservation Genetics 12: 1379–1385) used DNA sequence data from museum specimens to show that L. fisheri and frogs ascribed to L. chiricahuensis from near the Mogollon Rim in central Arizona comprise a lineage distinct from R. chiricahuensis populations to the south and east. Platz (1993, Journal of Herpetology 27: 154–162) previously noted the various lines of evidence suggesting that L. chiricahuensis was composed of more than one species, with the population in central Arizona being notably distinctive. Still, it was not possible, at that time, to compare those frogs genetically with L. fisheri.
|
|
|
L. grylio
(Stejneger, 1901) — Pig Frog
|
|
|
L. heckscheri
(Wright, 1924) — River Frog
|
|
|
L. kauffeldi
(Feinberg, Newman, Watkins-Colwell, Schlesinger, Zarate, Curry, Shaffer, and Burger, 2014) — Atlantic Coast Leopard Frog
The recognition of this species may require revision of the range of L. palustris to exclude areas of southern New York, southern Connecticut, Rhode Island, and parts of Massachusetts.
|
|
|
L. okaloosae
(Moler, 1985) — Florida Bog Frog
See comments under L. clamitans, and results and discussion by MacGuigan et al. (2002, Ichthyology & Herpetology, 110: 602–617).
|
|
|
L. onca
(Cope In Yarrow, 1875, in Wheeler (Editor)) — Relict Leopard Frog
|
|
|
L. palustris
(LeConte, 1825) — Pickerel Frog
|
|
|
L. pipiens
(Schreber, 1782) — Northern Leopard Frog
Many of the experimental works on nominal "Rana pipiens" are actually based on animals collected in northwestern Mexico, Lithobates forreri and L. magnaocularis.
|
|
|
L. septentrionalis
(Baird, 1854) — Mink Frog
|
|
|
L. sevosus
(Goin and Netting, 1940) — Dusky Gopher Frog
|
|
|
L. sphenocephalus
(Cope, 1886) — Southern Leopard Frog
|
|
L. s. sphenocephalus
(Cope, 1886) — Florida Leopard Frog
|
|
|
L. s. utricularius
(Harlan, 1826) — Coastal Plains Leopard Frog
The date of original publication was corrected from 1825.
|
|
|
|
L. sylvaticus
(LeConte, 1825) — Wood Frog
|
|
|
L. tarahumarae
(Boulenger, 1917) — Tarahumara Frog
|
|
|
L. virgatipes
(Cope, 1891) — Carpenter Frog
Data provided by Pytel (1986, Herpetologica 42: 273–282) suggest that careful evaluation for
cryptic species is warranted.
|
|
|
L. yavapaiensis
(Platz and Frost, 1984) — Lowland Leopard Frog
|
|
|
|
Rana
Linnaeus, 1758 —
Brown Frogs
The taxon Amerana Dubois, 1992 (Bulletin Mensuel de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon, 61: 305–352) was applied to this group of species from western North America as a subgenus based on phenetic criteria. It was recognized as a genus by Fei et al. (2010, Herpetologica Sinica 12: 1–43) and by Dubois et al. (2021, Megataxa 5: 1–738) based on phylogenetic criteria. We have chosen not to recognize Amerana at this time, pending a more stable phylogeny for the North American ranids, especially with respect to Lithobates sylvaticus. See additional comments under Lithobates.
|
|
R. aurora
Baird and Girard, 1852 — Northern Red-legged Frog
|
|
|
R. boylii
Baird, 1854 — Foothill Yellow-legged Frog
|
|
|
R. cascadae
Slater, 1939 — Cascades Frog
The disjunct populations in the Olympic Mountains, Washington, and the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains, California, and should be investigated with respect to call characters and molecular data. Previous studies on the populations have produced conflicting results (Dodd, 2023, Frogs of the United States and Canada, 2nd edition, Johns Hopkins University Press: 992pp).
|
|
|
R. draytonii
Baird and Girard, 1852 — California Red-legged Frog
|
|
|
R. luteiventris
Thompson, 1913 — Columbia Spotted Frog
|
|
|
R. muscosa
Camp, 1917 — Southern Mountain Yellow-legged Frog
|
|
|
R. pretiosa
Baird and Girard, 1853 — Oregon Spotted Frog
|
|
|
R. sierrae
Camp, 1917 — Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog
|
|
|
|
|
Rhinophrynidae
Gunther, 1858 —
Burrowing Toads
|
|
Rhinophrynus
Duméril and Bibron, 1841 —
Burrowing Toads
|
|
R. dorsalis
Duméril and Bibron, 1841 — Burrowing Toad
|
|
|
|
|
Scaphiopodidae
Cope, 1865 —
North American Spadefoots
|
|
Scaphiopus
Holbrook, 1836 —
North American Spadefoots
|
|
S. couchii
Baird, 1854 — Couch's Spadefoot
|
|
|
S. holbrookii
(Harlan, 1835) — Eastern Spadefoot
|
|
|
S. hurterii
Strecker, 1910 — Hurter's Spadefoot
|
|
|
|
Spea
Cope, 1866 —
Western Spadefoots
|
|
S. bombifrons
(Cope, 1863) — Plains Spadefoot
|
|
|
S. hammondii
(Baird, 1859 “1857”) — Western Spadefoot
There is considerable inconsistency in the older literature regarding this taxon and both S. multiplicata and S. intermontana. Recent genetic evidence suggests two allopatric clades (Northern and Southern) may warrant recognition of an undescribed species (Neal et al., 2018, Conservation Genetics 19: 937–946).
|
|
|
S. intermontana
(Cope, 1883) — Great Basin Spadefoot
See comment under Spea hammondii. Neal et al., 2018 (Conservation Genetics 19: 937–946), using nDNA and mtDNA recovered two distinct clades (“Oregon” and “California”), with the “Oregon” clade being sister to S. bombifrons and support for the California clade recovered as sister to the Southern clade of S. hammondii.
|
|
|
S. multiplicata
(Cope, 1863) — Mexican Spadefoot
See comment under Spea hammondii.
|
|
S. m. stagnalis
(Cope In Yarrow, 1875, in Wheeler (Editor)) — Chihuahuan Desert Spadefoot
|
|
|
|
|
|