Poyntonophrynus Frost & Grant & Faivovich & Bain & Haas & De Sá & Channing & Wilkinson & Donnellan & Raxworthy & Campbell & Blotto & Moler & Drewes & Nussbaum & Lynch & Green & Wheeler 2006
Creators: name: Frost, Darrel R.
name: Grant, Taran
name: Faivovich, Julián
name: Bain, Raoul H.
name: Haas, Alexander
name: De Sá, Célio F. B. Haddad Rafael O.
name: Channing, Alan
name: Wilkinson, Mark
name: Donnellan, Stephen C.
name: Raxworthy, Christopher J.
name: Campbell, Jonathan A.
name: Blotto, Boris L.
name: Moler, Paul
name: Drewes, Robert C.
name: Nussbaum, Ronald A.
name: Lynch, John D.
name: Green, David M.
name: Wheeler, And Ward C.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2006
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Amphibia
Anura
Bufonidae
Poyntonophrynus

description: Poyntonophrynus for the Bufo vertebralis ly of this taxon is a testable proposition.   
 group of Tandy and Keith (1972; cf. Poyn­ Other than the Bufo pardalis group (see ton, 1964) and Cunningham and Cherry above), we have no unambiguous evidence   
222 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 tying the African 22­chromosome toad taxon was considered to comprise a number groups (B. gracilipes and B. mauritanicus of casually­defined species groups, most of groups) or such African species of unknown which require reevaluation. Although Tschukaryotype such as the B. pentoni group and di (1845) provided an erroneous South B. arabicus group to any of the African (or American type locality for the type species, other) bufonid groups. Additional evidence it was recognized as early as 1882 (Boulen­ and study will be needed to resolve their ger, 1882) that Anaxyrus melancholicus placement, which very clearly is not within Tschudi, 1845, is a junior synonym of the Bufo (sensu stricto). For the moment, we Mexican Bufo compactilis Wiegmann, 1834. merely place the generic name ‘‘ Bufo ’’ in This was most recently detailed by Pramuk quotation marks in combination with these and Mendelson (2003). (See appendix 7 for species to denote their formal exclusion from content and new and revived combinations.) Bufo (sensu stricto). A partial junior synonym of Anaxyrus is   
 (14) Nannophryne Günther, 1870 (type Incilius Cope (1863: 50). Under the provispecies: Nannophryne variegata Günther, sions of the ‘‘Principle of First Revisor’’ 1870, by monotypy). We resurrect the name (Art. 24; ICZN, 1999) we designate Bufo Nannophryne for Bufo variegatus (Günther, cognatus Say, 1823, as the type species of 1870). Although we did not include this tax­ Incilius to solidify this synonymy, which othon in our analysis, the molecular evidence erwise could have been assigned through one provided by Pauly et al. (2004) suggests of the originally included species to threaten strongly that this taxon, like Rhinella (the the priority of Cranopsis. Bufo margaritifer group), is only distantly re­ (16) [519] Cranopsis Cope, 1875 ‘‘1876’’ lated to other New World ‘‘ Bufo ’’. Martin (type species: Bufo fastiodosus Cope, 1875 (1972) provided osteological differentia that ‘‘1876’’). We apply the name Cranopsis to serve to diagnose the taxon among ‘‘ Bufo ’’, the predominantly Middle American taxon but its exact phylogenetic position among subtended by branch 519. Although we know bufonids remains to be determined. Prior to of no morphological synapomorphy for this Pauly et al. (2004), some authors placed B. taxon, species within it generally exhibit a variegatus near the B. spinulosus group (e.g., distinctive appearance. Nevertheless, see ap­ Blair, 1972c), whereas others (e.g., Cei, pendix 5 for molecular synapomorphies. This 1980) have declined to place it in any species group is composed of the former Bufo valgroup. Pauly et al. (2004) placed it far from liceps group and allies. See appendix 7 for the B. spinulosus group, and attaching near content and new and revived combinations. the base of the bufonid exemplars that they (17) [522] Chaunus Wagler, 1828 (type studied. It remains possible that Nannophry­ species: Chaunus marmoratus Wagler, 1828 ne will be found to be most closely related [5 Bufo granulosus Spix, 1824]). We recto Rhaebo, in which case Rhaebo will take ognize the predominantly South American nomenclatural precedence for the larger taxon subtended by branch 522 as Chaunus. group. No morphological characters are known to   
 (15) [513] Anaxyrus Tschudi, 1845 (type diagnose this group, which is diagnosed species: Anaxyrus melancholicus Tschudi, completely on the basis of molecular data 1845 [5 Bufo compactilis Wiegmann, (see appendix 5, branch 522). Rhamphophry­ 1833]). We recognize the North American ne and Rhinella may well be found to be clade of ‘‘ Bufo ’’ subtended by branch 513 nested within Chaunus (see Graybeal, 1997: (see appendix 5) as the genus Anaxyrus her fig. 13; Pauly et al., 2004), in which case, Tschudi, 1845. We are unaware of any mor­ Rhinella Fitzinger, 1826, will take precephological synapomorphy for this group, al­ dence, but evidence has yet to be produced though, with exceptions, they do have a dif­ to support this synonymy without recourse to ferent look and feel than the predominantly accepting a specific model of molecular evo­ Middle­American (Cranopsis) and South­ lution (Pauly et al., 2004).   
 American (Chaunus) taxa. Recognition of Pauly et al. (2004) suggested on the basis this taxon is consistent with our results and of fewer data, more analytical assumptions, those of Pauly et al. (2004). Formerly, this but denser sampling that the Bufo margari­   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 223  
 tifer group (see below) is imbedded within tus. But, because we did not study that spethis group. This remains an open question, cies, and because its sole reason for being but we suggest that decisive resolution will placed outside of Nectophrynoides is its loss require denser taxon sampling and more data, of columella, a character strongly contingent not additional analytical assumptions. on immediate outgroups, we refrain from this   
 There are several other groups of ‘‘ Bufo ’’ action until the appropriate phylogenetic and various individual species we have not comparisons can be made. addressed because we did not include any of In addition, the following monotypic genthem in our analysis and because there is no era have been named since the publication of substantial published evidence on their phy­ Graybeal and Cannatella (1995) and Graylogenetic placement. All of these we simply beal (1997): Churamiti Channing and Stantreat as incertae sedis within Bufonidae, ley, 2002, and Parapelophryne Fei, Ye, and tacked to the generic label ‘‘ Bufo ’’ (see ap­ Jiang, 2003. Neither obviously renders any pendix 7 for a list). The reader will note that other taxon paraphyletic. Clearly, a detailed the bulk are Asian taxa, residing in geo­ revision of Bufonidae without reference to graphic areas suggesting that they will be geographic boundaries is badly needed. found to be related to a number of non­ Bufo genera. Only additional work will elucidate  [108] RANOIDES NEW TAXON  this.   
 We think that our proposed breakup of ETYMOLOGY: Rana (Latin: frog) 1 oides ‘‘ Bufo ’’ will promote more rapid progress in (Greek: having the form of). The taxon is the field, because the sociological principle identical in content to the regulated superthat drives much of systematics is to show family name Ranoidea, but with an ending that other workers are wrong (Hull, 1988), change made to remove the implication that and many graduate students will certainly it is regulated by the International Code of take aim at our hypotheses. Most systema­ Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999). tists recognize that, traditionally, the first (See nomenclatural comment under Ranoides species to receive novel generic names have in appendix 6.) been those that are highly autapomorphic, IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: and subsequent authors are usually hesitant [107] Phthanobatrachia new taxon. to apply these names to more generalized SISTER TAXON: [314] Hyloides new taxon. forms. Having taken the controversial first RANGE: Worldwide temperate and tropical step, we hope that other workers will step in regions, except New Zealand, most of Aus­ and address the rather large number of prob­ tralia, and southern South America. lems that we have identified. There is much CONCEPT AND CONTENT: Ranoides new taxwork to be done in bufonids, and we intend on is a monophyletic group composed of our taxonomic proposal to serve as a frame­ [109] Allodapanura new taxon and [180] work that will guide additional studies. Natatanura new taxon.   
 We do not find any compelling reason to CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Haas maintain the sister monotypic genera Alti­ (2003) suggested the following characters phrynoides Dubois, 1987 ‘‘1986’’ and Spi­ that we regard as synapomorphies of our nophrynoides Dubois, 1987 ‘‘1986’’. Gran­ Ranoides: (1) insertion of m. rectus cervicis dison (1981) and Graybeal and Cannatella on proximal ceratobranchialia III and IV (1995) showed these African toads to be each (Haas 39.2); (2) ramus mandibularis (cranial other’s closest relatives. Acting as First Re­ nerve V 3) is either posterior (ventral) to m. visor, we consider Altiphrynoides Dubois, levator mandibulae externus group or runs 1987 ‘‘1986’’, to be a senior synonym of Spi­ through it—a change from being anterior nophrynoides Dubois, 1987 ‘‘1986’’. (See (dorsal) to the externus group (Haas 65.0/1); appendix 7 for the single new combination.) and (3) firmisternal shoulder girdle (epicor­ ‘‘ Nectophrynoides ’’ cryptus in their tree (fig. acoids are fully fused along their length;). osof   
 26) is not part of a monophyletic group with Haas 144.2; convergent in Dendrobatidae other Nectophrynoides. We were tempted to J.D. Lynch (1973: 146) suggested that an name a new genus for Nectophrynoides cryp­ sified omosternum is a synapomorphy 224 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297   
 ‘‘Ranoidea’’ (our Ranoides, excluding Mi­ Liem, 1970). In addition, Tyler (1971a) sugcrohylidae and Brevicipitidae). This may be, gested that the presence of the m. cutaneous but there are alternative optimizations. pectoris could be a synapomorphy of Rano­ Among others, the ossified omosternum may ides, although with several reversals. have been gained at the level of Ranoides and lost independently in Microhylidae and [109] ALLODAPANURA NEW TAXON Brevicipitidae; gained at the level of Rano­ ETYMOLOGY: Allodapos­ (Greek: strange, ides, lost at Allodapanura, and regained at foreign, or belonging to another kind) 1 an­ Laurentobatrachia; or gained independently oura (Greek: without a tail, i.e., frog), referin Laurentobatrachia, Natatanura, and Hem­ encing the exotic diversity of morphotypes isotidae. (See also appendix 5, branch 108, in this taxon. for molecular synapomorphies.) IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: Ranoides in our [108] Ranoides new taxon. sense is coextensive with the Recent content SISTER TAXON: [180] Natatanura new taxof the superfamily Ranoidea Rafinesque, on. 1814, of Dubois (2005). RANGE: North and South America; sub­Sa­ A preliminary survey of literature (Liem, haran Africa; India and Korea to northern 1970; Tyler, 1972, 1982; Burton, 1986, Australia. 1998b) as well as examination of a few ex­ CONCEPT AND CONTENT: Allodapanura new emplars of selected genera of several families taxon is a monophyletic group composed of suggests another likely synapomorphy of [110] Microhylidae Günther, 1858 (1843), Ranoides, worthy of additional investigation. and [143] Afrobatrachia new taxon. Anteromedially differentiated elements of CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Morthe m. intermandibularis are present in Ar­ phological characters in our analysis (from throleptidae, Brevicipitidae, Cacosterninae Haas, 2003) that are synapomorphies are (1) (Pyxicephalidae), Ceratobatrachidae, Hemi­ m. tympanopharyngeus present (Haas 20.1); sotidae, Hyperoliidae, Microhylidae, Pty­ and (2) arcus subocularis round in cross secchadenidae (however, absent in Hildebrand­ tion (Haas 82.2). In addition, absence of the tia), Petropedetidae, Phrynobatrachidae, and palatine bone in adults (Haas 146.0; a reverare absent in Alytidae, Batrachophrynidae sal from the acosmanuran condition), may (although present in Batrachophrynus brach­ optimize on this branch (to reappear on the ydactylus), Bombinatoridae, Heleophrynidae, branch subtending Afrobatrachia), or, alter­ Limnodynastidae, Myobatrachidae, Peloba­ natively, the palatine may be lost in Microtidae, Sooglossidae, and Hemiphractidae hylidae and independently in Xenosyneuni­ (Beddard, 1908 ‘‘1907’’, 1911; Tyler, 1972; tanura. Similarly, the presence of palatal Tyler and Duellman, 1995; Burton, 1998b). folds may optimize on this branch and be This taxonomic distribution suggest that the reversed in Laurentobatrachia, or may appear presence of differentiated elements of the m. twice, once on the branch subtending Microintermandibularis is a synapomorphy of Ran­ hylidae as well as on the branch subtending oides. Many details about the morphological Xenosyneunitanura. Regardless, the primary diversity and taxonomic distribution of this evidence for the recognition of this taxon is character remain unknown and several in­ molecular (see appendix 5). stances of homoplasy are known within Hyloides (see Tyler, 1971b, 1971c, 1972; [110] FAMILY: MICROHYLIDAE GÜNTHER, 1858 Burton, 1998b, and Tyler and Duellman, (1843) 1995, for examples within Noblebatrachia), and there are possibly multiple subsequent  Hylaedactyli Fitzinger, 1843: 33. Type genus: Hy­    
 laedactylus Duméril anbd Bibron, 1841. transformations within Natatanura. (This Gastrophrynae Fitzinger, 1843: 33. Type genus: character does not seem to occur in at least Gastrophryne Fitzinger, 1843. some Dicroglossidae [exemplars of Occidoz­ Micrhylidae Günther, 1858b: 346. Type genus: yga, Euphlyctis, Nannophrys] or Nyctiba­ Micrhyla Duméril and Bibron, 1841 (an incortrachidae [Lankanectes, Nyctibatrachus], but rect subsequent spelling of Microhyla Tschudi, is present in Mantellidae and Rhacophoridae; 1838).   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 225  
 Asterophrydidae Günther, 1858b: 346. Type ge­ 1986; Altigius Wild, 1995; Arcovomer Car­   
 nus: Asterophrys Tschudi, 1838. valho, 1954; Chiasmocleis Méhely, 1904;   
 Kalophrynina Mivart, 1869: 289. Type genus: Gastrophrynoides Noble, 1926; Glyphoglos­   
 Kalophrynus Tschudi, 1838. sus Günther, 1869 ‘‘1868’’; Hyophryne Car­   
 Xenorhinidae Mivart, 1869: 286. Type genus: Xe­ valho, 1954; Keferstein, 1867; Hypopachus   
 norhina Peters, 1863.   
 Kalophrynus Tschudi, 1838; Metaphrynella   
Dyscophidae Boulenger, 1882: 179. Type genus:  
 Dyscophus Grandidier, 1872. Parker, 1934; Micryletta Dubois, 1987;   
 Cophylidae Cope, 1889: 248. Type genus: Cophy­ Myersiella Carvalho, 1954; Otophryne Bou­   
 la Boettger, 1880. lenger, 1900; Paradoxophyla Blommers­   
 Genyophrynidae Boulenger, 1890: 326. Type ge­ Schlösser and Blanc, 1991; Phrynella Bou­   
 nus: Genyophryne Boulenger, 1890. lenger, 1887; Phrynomantis Peters, 186731;   
 Rhombophryninae Noble, 1931: 529. Type genus: Ramanella Rao and Ramanna, 1925; Relic­   
 Rhombophryne Boettger, 1880. tivomer Carvalho, 1954; Stereocyclops Cope,   
 Sphenophryninae Noble, 1931: 531. Type genus: 1870 ‘‘1869’’; Synapturanus Carvalho,   
 Sphenophryne Peters and Doria, 1878, by mon­ 1954; Syncope Walker, 1973; Uperodon Du­   
otypy. méril and Bibron, 1841. (See Systematic  
Melanobatrachinae Noble, 1931: 538. Type ge­  
Comments.)  
 nus: Melanobatrachus Beddome, 1878.   
 Kaloulinae Noble, 1931: 538. Type genus: Kal­ CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: A large   
 oula Gray, 1831. number of morphological characters in our   
Hoplophryninae Noble, 1931: 538–539. Type ge­ analysis (from Haas, 2003) are synapomor­  
 nus: Hoplophryne Barbour and Loveridge, phies of Microhylidae: (1) keratodonts absent   
1928. in larvae (Haas 3.0); (2) keratinized jaw  
Scaphiophryninae Laurent, 1946: 337. Type ge­ sheaths absent in larvae (Haas 6.0); (3) vena  
 nus: Scaphiophryne Boulenger, 1882. caudalis dorsalis present in larvae (Haas   
Pseudohemisiinae Tamarunov, 1964a: 132. Type 14.1); (4) spiracle position median posterior  
 genus: Pseudohemisus Mocquard, 1895. (Haas 18.2); (5) m. geniohyoideus origin in   
Otophryninae Wassersug and Pyburn, 1987: 166. larvae from connective tissue lateral to glan­  
 Type genus: Otophryne Boulenger, 1900.   
dula thyroidea (Haas 19.4); (6) m. interhyoi­  
Phrynomantini Burton, 1986: 405–450. Type ge­  
 nus: ‘‘ Phrynomantis Peters, 1867 ’’.   
deus posterior in larvae extensive and strong­  
Barygenini Burton, 1986: 405–450. Type genus: ly developed (Haas 24.2); (7) m. diaphrag­  
 Barygenys Parker, 1936. matopraecordialis absent in larvae (Haas   
 Callulopini Dubois, 1988a: 3. Type genus: Cal­ 25.0); (8) lateral fibers of m. subarcualis rec­   
 lulops Boulenger, 1888. tus II–IV invade interbranchial septum IV musculature in larvae (Haas 29.1); (9) m. su­   
IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: barcualis rectus II–IV split into medial and  
 [109] Allodapanura new taxon. lateral separate muscles (Haas 30.1); (10) m.   
 SISTER TAXON: [143] Afrobatrachia new subarcualis rectus I portion with origin from   
 taxon. ceratobranchial III absent (Haas 35.0); (11)   
RANGE: North and South America; East ventral portion of the m. subarcualis rectus I  
and South Africa; India and Korea to north­ inserts laterally on ceratohyal (Haas 36.1);  
ern Australia. (12) origin of m. suspensoriohyoideus from  
CONTENT: [135] Asterophryninae Günther, posterior palatoquadrate (Haas 46.1); (13) m.  
1858 (including Genyophryninae Boulenger, interhyoideus and m. intermandibularis in  
1890), [118] Cophylinae Cope, 1889, Dys­ close proximity (Haas 47.0); (14) m. man­  
cophinae Boulenger, 1882, [121] Gastro­ dibulolabialis inserting exclusively on carti­  
phryninae Fitzinger, 1843, [130] Microhyli­ lago labialis inferior (Haas 49.1); (15) m. le­  
nae Günther, 1858 (1843), Scaphiophryninae vator mandibulae internus anterior (Haas  
Laurent, 1946, as well as several nominal  
 genera unassigned to subfamily either be­ 31 We realize, of course, that Phrynomantis Peters,   
 cause we did not study them and assignment 1867, is the sole member of Phrynomerinae Noble, 1931. But, beyond the autapomorphic intercalary phaits to subfamily based on published evidence is langeal elements, we have only weak evidence for not possible, or because they fall outside of placement. In this case, recognition of a monotypic subexisting subfamilies: Adelastes Zweifel, family serves no purpose.   
226 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 58.2); (16) m. levator mandibulae longus monophyletic taxonomy we propose the foloriginates exclusively from arcus subocularis lowing taxonomic changes: (1) place Aster­ (Haas 60.2); (17) profundus and superficialis ophryinae and Genyophryninae in one subportions of m. levator mandibulae longus not family, Asterophryinae (following Savage, overlapping and parallel (Haas 62.1); (18) ra­ 1973); (2) restrict Dyscophinae to Dyscophus mus mandibularis (cranial nerve V 3) between (also following Savage, 1973) and transfer portions of m. levator mandibulae longus Calluella from Dyscophinae to Microhylimuscle (Haas 64.1); (19) processus suboticus nae; (3) retain Cophylinae, but note that it quadrati present (Haas 76.1); (20) partes cor­ appears to be imbedded within a cluster of pores forming medial body (Haas 87.2); (21) ‘‘microhyline’’ genera that, once their phydistal end of cartilago meckeli expanded and logeny is better resolved, may require some flattened with no fossa (Haas 94.2); (22) hy­ reconstitution of Cophylinae; and (4) partipobranchial plates fused (Haas 107.1); (23) tion Microhylinae into a New World group, commissura proximalis I present (Haas Gastrophryninae, and an Old World group, 109.1); (24) processus branchialis closed Microhylinae, with several genera left incer­ (Haas 114.1); (25) accessory longitudinal tae sedis until they can be adequately studied bars of cartilage dorsal to ceratobranchialia or placed in a more densely sampled frame­ II and III present (Haas 120.1); (26) posterior work. Another group of genera (i.e., Kalomargin of ventral velum discontinuous (Haas phrynus, Synapturanus, Phrynomantis, Mi­ 129.1); (27) glottis position posterior (Haas cryletta) is left incertae sedis, as well, al­ 130.1); (28) nostrils closed in larval stages though the phylogenetic structure we ob­ (Haas 131.1); (29) branchial food traps di­ tained among these taxa is instructive and vided and crescentic (Haas 135.1); and (30) points to new questions for systematists to eggs floating (Haas 141.2). Although most of address. Nevertheless, our obtained structure these characters will survive denser taxon suggests that the biogeography of Microhysampling, the placement of some of them is lidae is complex and old. currently ambiguous inasmuch as some of Our data show that the former ‘‘Microthe characters listed could actually be sitting hylinae’’ (sensu lato) is heterogenous mixon branches from which Synapturanus and ture of basal taxa (e.g., Synapturanus, Mi­ Kalophrynus are derived. cryletta) and two distantly related clades with   
Presence of palatal folds is optimization­ which we have associated the names Microdependent. Presence of palatal folds may be hylinae (Asia) and Gastrophryninae (Americonvergent in Microhylidae and Xenosyneu­ cas). There is no published evidence that nitanura, or a synapomorphy of Allodapan­ would allow us to allocate any of the unura and lost in Laurentobatrachia. studied Asian taxa to Microhylinae or to any  
 SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: The obtained phy­ other position in our cladogram beyond their logenetic structure of Microhylidae surprised being microhylids. Similarly, although we us as we expected Scaphiophryninae to form assume that such taxa as Hypopachus are in the sister taxon of the remaining microhylids, Gastrophryninae, our molecular results are so because the scaphiophrynine tadpole mor­ incongruent with results from morphology phology (Blommers­Schlösser, 1975; Haas, (e.g., Zweifel, 1986; Donnelly et al., 1990; 2003), is annectant in many ways between Wild, 1995) that we hesitate to conjecture. the ranid and more typical microhylid con­ Morphological characters that are candidition. As in several other parts of the tree, dates as synapomorphies of [134] Dyscophithe density of our taxon sampling was inad­ nae 1 Asterophryninae 1 Scaphiophryninae equate to address all problems in microhylid 1 Microhylinae clade are (1) double­layered systematics, and we intend our results to dermis (Haas 13.1, also in Hemisus and Kasguide more thorough studies. Rafael de Sá sina); (2) anterior insertion of m. subarcualis and collaborators have begun such a study, rectus II–IV on ceratobranchial I (Haas and we anticipate further revision of micro­ 37.0); and (3) partes corpores forming medial   
hylid systematics as a result. For this reason body (Haas 87.2). we leave several taxa unnamed and unad­ Because the nominal subfamilies of Midressed. As an initial step toward an entirely crohylidae are large and morphologically dis­  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 227  
parate, we include separate accounts for the place completely within the egg capsule, alnominal subfamilies. though others (e.g., Cophylinae, some Gas­  
trophryninae) are endotrophic and nidicolous  
[135] SUBFAMILY: ASTEROPHRYINAE (Blommers­Schlösser, 1975). (See appendix  
GÜNTHER, 1858 5 for molecular synapomorphies.) Asterophrydidae Günther, 1858b: 346. Type ge­  
 SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: Former Genynus: Asterophrys Tschudi, 1838. ophryninae is paraphyletic with respect to Xenorhinidae Mivart, 1869: 286. Type genus: Xe­ the old Asterophryinae, and for this reason norhina Peters, 1863. the two nominal taxa were synonymized in Genyophrynidae Boulenger, 1890: 326. Type ge­ ‘‘Results’’. Parker (1934) noted Genyophrynus: Genyophryne Boulenger, 1890. New syn­ ninae (as Sphenophryninae) to be procoelous onym. and Asterophryinae as diplasiocoelous, and Sphenophryninae Noble, 1931: 531. Type genus: this clearly influenced later authors (e.g., Sphenophryne Peters and Doria, 1878, by mon­ Zweifel, 1972) in retaining a distinction beotypy. New synonym.   
 tween the nominal subfamilies. The place­ Phrynomantini Burton, 1986: 405–450. Type genus: ‘‘ Phrynomantis Peters, 1867 ’’.   
 ment in our tree of Australo­Papuan AsterBarygenini Burton, 1986: 405–450. Type genus: ophryinae (sensu lato) as the sister taxon of Barygenys Parker, 1936. the Madagascan Dyscophinae is a remark­ Callulopini Dubois, 1988a: 3. Type genus: Cal­ able biogeographic signature. lulops Boulenger, 1888. Burton (1986: 443) provided evidence that   
 Xenorhina is paraphyletic with respect to Xe­ IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: nobatrachus, the latter differing only in lack­ [134] unnamed taxon. ing large odontoids on the vomeropalatine. SISTER TAXON: Dyscophinae Boulenger, Zweifel (1972) provided no evidence for the 1882. monophyly of Xenorhina. On the basis of RANGE: Southern Philippines, Sulawesi, these works we consider them to be syno­ and Lesser Sunda Islands and Moluccas east­ nyms, with Xenorhina being the older name wards through New Guinea and satellite is­ (see appendix 7 for new combinations). lands to Australia. Burton (1986: 443) also noted that ‘‘ Manto­ CONTENT: Albericus Burton and Zweifel, phryne ’’ and ‘‘ Hylophorbus ’’ are dubiously 1995; Aphantophryne Fry, 1917 ‘‘1916’’; monophyletic, so we place these names in Asterophrys Tschudi, 1838; Austrochaperina quotation marks until their monophyly can Fry, 1912; Barygenys Parker, 1936; Callu­ be substantiated. Although Burton (1986) lops Boulenger, 1888; Choerophryne Kam­ provided a number of morphological charpen, 1914; Cophixalus Boettger, 1892; Cop­ acters and a character matrix, no one so far iula Méhely, 1901; Genyophryne Boulenger, has analyzed these data phylogenetically. 1890; Hylophorbus Macleay, 1878; Liophryne Boulenger, 1897; Mantophryne Boulen­ [118] SUBFAMILY: COPHYLINAE COPE, 1889 ger, 1897; Oreophryne Boettger, 1895; Oxydactyla Kampen, 1913; Pherohapsis Zwei­  Cophylidae Cope, 1889: 248. Type genus: Cophy­    
 la Boettger, 1880. fel, 1972; Sphenophryne Peters and Doria,   
 Rhombophryninae Noble, 1931: 529. Type genus: 1878; Xenorhina Peters, 1863 (including Xe­ Rhombophryne Boettger, 1880. nobatrachus Peters and Doria, 1878; see appendix 7 for new combinations). IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: None [116] unnamed taxon. of the morphological characters in our anal­ SISTER TAXON: [117] An unnamed taxon in ysis apply to this taxon because as direct de­ our analysis composed of our exemplars Hovelopers they were not part of the tadpole plophryne Barbour and Loveridge, 1928 study by Haas (2003). Among microhylids, (Melanobatrachinae Noble, 1931) and Raonly Asterophryinae and Myersiella (Micro­ manella Rao and Ramanna, 1925 (formerly the hylinae; Izecksohn et al., 1971; Zweifel, of ‘‘Microhylinae’’). Together these are 1972; Thibaudeau and Altig, 1999) exhibit sister taxon of [121] Gastrophryninae Fitzindirect development, the development taking ger, 1843.   
228 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 RANGE: Madagascar. phryne (see appendix 7 for the species name   
 CONTENT: Anodonthyla Müller, 1892; Co­ changes that this causes). Andreone et al. phyla Boettger, 1880; Madecassophryne Gui­ (2004 ‘‘2005’’) hesitated to take this step bebe´, 1974; Platypelis Boulenger, 1882; Pleth­ cause they did not feel there was sufficient odontohyla Boulenger, 1882 (see Systematic statistical support for their maximum­likeli­ Comments); Rhombophryne Boettger, 1880 hood conclusion. They did, however, note (see Systematic Comments and appendix 7); that their parsimony tree arrived at the same Stumpffia Boettger, 1881. conclusion. We therefore think that it is bet­   
 CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: None ter to recognize two clades that might be of the morphological characters in our anal­ found to be each other’s closest relatives ysis optimizes on this branch; because our when more data are added to the analysis, morphological characters were largely de­ than to retain a taxon, ‘‘ Plethodontohyla ’’ rived from larvae, and cophylines (as tradi­ (sensu lato) for which the preponderance of tionally defined) are endotrophic and nidic­ data does not support its monophyly. There olous. Nevertheless, endotrophy is a syna­ are a number of species, nominally in Plethpomorphy at this level. Also, cophylines odontohyla, but not treated by Andreone et have unfused sphenethmoids, which appear al. (2004 ‘‘2005’’). We retain those in Plethas paired elements (Parker, 1934), otherwise odontohyla, although some of may be found found convergently in Dyscophus (Dysco­ to be members of Rhombophryne. phinae) and Calluella (Microhylinae). (See appendix 5 for molecular synapomorphies on SUBFAMILY: DYSCOPHINAE BOULENGER, 1882 this branch [118].) Dyscophidae Boulenger, 1882: 179. Type genus:   
 SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: The association by Dyscophus Grandidier, 1872. our molecular data of Cophylinae (Madagas­ IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: car) with our exemplars Hoplophryne (East [134] unnamed taxon. Africa) and Ramanella (India) is suggestive. SISTER TAXON: [135] Asterophryinae Gün­ Madagascar – India is a repeated pattern in ther, 1858. biogeography, as is an apparently later con­ RANGE: Madagascar. nection of India –Africa (e.g., Chiromantis in CONTENT: Dyscophus Grandidier, 1872. Africa 1 Chirixalus in Asia [Rhacophori­ CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Haas dae]; Petropedetes 1 Arthroleptides in Af­ (2003) suggested the following larval charrica and Indirana in India [Petropedetidae]). acters that are presumed synapomorphies of The association of Gastrophryninae with this the taxon: (1) ramus mandibularis (cranial overall clade also speaks to a standard bio­ nerve V  3 ) runs through the m. levator mangeographic pattern, that of South America– dibulae externus group (Haas 65.1); and (2) Madagascar. free basihyal absent (Haas 105.0).   
 Andreone et al. (2004 ‘‘2005’’) provided SYSTEMATIC COMMENT: Our data reject the considerable DNA sequence evidence that association of Calluella with Dyscophinae Plethodontohyla is polyphyletic (not para­ (Blommers­Schlösser, 1976), which instead phyletic as suggested in the original publi­ place Calluella deeply within Microhylinae. cation; see fig. 33). As noted by Andreone et This is not surprising, inasmuch as the only al. (2004 ‘‘2005’’) the name Plethodontohyla characteristics suggested to ally Calluella Boulenger, 1882 (type species: Callula no­ with Dyscophinae are apparent plesiomortosticta Gunther, 1877) adheres to his Pleth­ phies (e.g., presence of teeth, diplasiocoelous odontohyla Group 1. Their second group of vertebral column, large vomer). The molec­ ‘‘ Plethodontohyla ’’ falls into a monophyletic ular synapomorphies supporting a relationgroup with Rhombophryne testudo. Rhom­ ship of this taxon to Asterophryinae (branch bophryne Boettger, 1880, is substantially old­ 134, appendix 5) is novel. er than the next older name for this taxon, Mantiphrys Mocquard, 1901 (type species: [121] SUBFAMILY: GASTROPHRYNINAE Mantiphrys laevipes Mocquard, 1895), and FITZINGER, 1843 to provide a monophyletic taxonomy, this in­ Gastrophrynae Fitzinger, 1843: 33. Type genus: clusive taxon should be known as Rhombo­ Gastrophryne Fitzinger, 1843.   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 229  
 IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: SUBFAMILY: MELANOBATRACHINAE NOBLE, [115] unnamed taxon. 1931 SISTER TAXON: [116] unnamed taxon. Melanobatrachinae Noble, 1931: 538. Type ge­ RANGE: Southern United States south to nus: Melanobatrachus Beddome, 1878. Argentina. Hoplophryninae Noble, 1931: 538–539. Type ge­ CONTENT: Ctenophryne Mocquard, 1904; nus: Hoplophryne Barbour and Loveridge, Dasypops Miranda­Ribeiro, 1924; Derma­ 1928. tonotus Méhely, 1904; Elachistocleis Parker, IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: 1927; Gastrophryne Fitzinger, 1843; Hamp­ [117] unnamed taxon. tophryne Carvalho, 1954; Nelsonophryne SISTER TAXON: Ramanella Rao and Ra­ Frost, 1987. manna, 1925. CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Opti­ RANGE: Montane Tanzania and southern mization is problematic because none of the India. direct­developing microhylids were sampled CONTENT: Hoplophryne Barbour and Lovin our morphological data set. Nevertheless eridge, 1928; Melanobatrachus Beddome, the following are candidates for being syna­ 1878; Parhoplophryne Barbour and Loverpomorphies of Gastrophryninae, although idge, 1928. they could be synapomorphies of Gastro­ CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Melanphryninae 1 Cophylinae or some subset of obatrachinae shares two synapomorphies Gastrophryninae inasmuch as the exemplars (Parker, 1934): (1) middle and outer ear abon which this supposition is built are Gas­ sent; (2) parasphenoid and sphenethmoid trophryne carolinensis, Hamptophryne boli­ fused. viana, and Elachistocleis ovalis): (1) m. le­ SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: Although we provator arcuum branchialium III split into two visionally retain Melanobatrachinae as an uncrossing bundles (Haas 41.1); (2) origin of tested taxon, the placement of Hoplophryne m. suspensoriohyoideus from otic capsule (our exemplar) in the general tree (see figs. (Haas 46.2); (3) posterolateral projections of 50 and 61) suggests that a more densely samthe crista parotica processus otobranchialis pled analysis will provide results that render   
 a Melanobatrachinae containing several more (Haas 67.2); (4) processus muscularis absent genera (such as Ramanella) than as currently (Haas 79.0); (5) anterolateral base of proces­ composed. Hoplophryne and Parhoplophry­ sus muscularis bearing ventrolateral process ne were placed in Hoplophrynine by Noble (Haas 80.1); and (6) ligamentum mandibu­ (1931) on the basis of sharing the apomorphy losuprarostrale absent (Haas 127.0). of a greatly reduced first finger. (Noble also Molecular evidence (branch 121, appendix allied these genera with Brevicipitidae on the 5) is strong that the New World microhylids basis of retaining a complete clavicle, but (with the exception of Synapturanus, and this alliance is not supported by our data.) possibly several others for which we had no Parker (1934) placed Hoplophryninae in the tissues) form a clade that is most closely re­ synonymy of Melanobatrachinae (India) be­ lated to the Madagascan Cophylinae. cause they share the absence of the auditory SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: The exclusion of apparatus and fusion of the parasphenoid to Synapturanus from this taxon comes as the sphenenthmoid. We could not sample something of a surprise, inasmuch as both Melanobatrachus, but it remains possible Zweifel (1986) and Wild (1995) provided ev­ that it is the sister taxon of Hoplophryninae idence for its placement within a New World and that Hoplophryne and Parhoplophryne clade. Nevertheless, neither Zweifel (1986) are African outliers of a predominantly Innor Wild (1995) presented morphological ev­ dian group. This is conjecture, however, and idence for the monophyly of the New World only more data and denser sampling will remicrohylids (of which our Gastrophryninae solve the issue. is a part). We expect that further research will show the New World microhylids to be a [130] SUBFAMILY: MICROHYLINAE GÜNTHER, composite of gastrophrynines, some basal 1858 (1843) taxa (e.g., Synapturanus), and possibly some Hylaedactyli Fitzinger, 1843: 33. Type genus: Hywith relations in Asia. laedactylus Duméril anbd Bibron, 1841.   
230 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 Micrhylidae Günther, 1858b: 346. Type genus: these are highly contingent on topological Micrhyla Duméril and Bibron, 1841 (an incor­ position of Scaphiophryne: (1) keratinized  rect subsequent spelling of Microhyla Tschudi,  jaw sheaths present (Haas 6.1; reversal from 1838). the microhylid condition); (2) eye position  Kaloulinae Noble, 1931: 538. Type genus: Kal­  dorsolateral (Haas 11.0; reversal from the  oula Gray, 1831.  microhylid condition); (3) spiracle position IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: sinistral (Haas 18.1; reversal from the micro­ [129] unnamed taxon. hylid condition); (4) m. interhyoideus pos­ SISTER TAXON: Scaphiophryninae Laurent, terior absent (Haas 23.0; reversal from the 1946. phthanobatrachian condition); (5) m. subar­ RANGE: India, China, Japan, and Korea to cualis rectus II–IV represented by a single the Philippines and Greater Sunda Islands. flat tract of fibers (Haas 30.0; reversal from CONTENT: Calluella Stoliczka, 1872; the microhylid condition); (6) insertion of m. Chaperina Mocquard, 1892; Kaloula Gray, rectus cervicis on proximal ceratobranchialia 1831; Microhyla Tschudi, 1838. III and IV (Haas 39.2; reversal from micro­ CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Haas hylid condition); (7) m. interhyoideus and m. (2003) examined only Kaloula within this intermandibularis well separated by a gap clade, so this is our only morphological ex­ (Haas 47.1; reversal from the microhylid emplar for this subfamily, but the following condition); (8) m. mandibulolabialis inserting are candidates for being synapomorphies of in soft tissue of lip (Haas 49.0; reversal from the Microhylinae: (1) vena caudalis dorsalis microhylid condition); (9) m. levator manabsent (Haas 14.0); (2) origin of m. suspen­ dibulae internus low (Haas 58.1; reversal soriohyoideus from otic capsule (Haas 46.2); from microhylid condition); (10) m. levator and (3) posterolateral projections of the crista mandibulae longus originates from posterior parotica expansive flat chondrifications palatoquadrate (Haas 60.1; reversal from mi­ (Haas 67.2). Nevertheless, the molecular ev­ crohylid condition); (11) ramus mandibularis idence is decisive for the recognition of this (cranial nerve V 3) anterior (dorsal) to the m. taxon (see appendix 5). levator mandibulae longus (Haas 64.2); (12) COMMENT: See Microhylidae account for processus suboticus quadrati absent (Haas comment on East Asian ‘‘microhylines’’ ex­ 76.0; reversal from microhylid condition); cluded from this taxon because of lack of (13) arcus subocularis with irregular margin evidence to place them. (Haas 81.1; reversal of microhylid condi­   
tion); (14) cartilaginous roofing of the cavum SUBFAMILY: SCAPHIOPHRYNINAE LAURENT, cranii absent (Haas 96.0; reversal of predom­  
 1946 inant microhylid condition); and (15) glottis   
 position posterior (Haas 130.0; reversal of Scaphiophryninae Laurent, 1946: 337. Type ge­ microhylid condition). nus: Scaphiophryne Boulenger, 1882. Pseudohemisiinae Tamarunov, 1964a: 132. Type SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: Ford and Cannagenus: Pseudohemisus Mocquard, 1895. tella (1993: 94–117), found no evidence for   
 the monophyly of this taxon. Haas (2003: 50) IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: suggested on the basis of tadpole morphol­ [129] unnamed taxon. ogy that Paradoxophyla is more closely re­ SISTER TAXON: [130] Microhylinae Gün­ lated to Phrynomantis than to the remaining ther, 1858 (1843). Scaphiophryninae, rendering the latter non­ RANGE: Madagascar. monophyletic. On that basis alone, because CONTENT: Scaphiophryne Boulenger, we did not have tissues of Paradoxophyla, 1882. we transfer Paradoxophyla from Scaphio­ CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: In our phryninae to incertae sedis under Microhytopology Scaphiophryne is deeply imbedded lidae. The association (branch 129, appendix within Microhylidae, requiring a remarkable 5) of Madagascan Scaphiophryninae with   
number of reversals. Nevertheless, we sug­ Microhylinae may suggest an Indian origin gest these reversals are likely synapomor­ of Microhylinae. (See Systematic Comment phies of the taxon, while noting that most of under Cophylinae.)  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 231  
 [143] AFROBATRACHIA NEW TAXON which at this position in the general clado­   
 gram is a synapomorphy. Breviceps and ETYMOLOGY: Afro­ (Latin: of Africa) 1 Hemisus also share a single median thyroid batrachos (Greek: frog), in reference to the gland (Blommers­Schlösser, 1993), so we predominantly African range of this taxon. presume that this, too, is a synapomorphy IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: joining the two taxa. Breviceps and Hemisus [109] Allodapanura new taxon. also exhibit nasal plugs (De Villiers, 1931) SISTER TAXON: [110] Microhylidae Gün­ which may be homologous. (See also ‘‘Char­ ther, 1858 (1843). acterization and Diagnosis’’ under Hemiso­ RANGE: Sub­Saharan Africa, Madagascar, tidae for other characters that may optimize and the Seychelles. on this taxon.) Molecular synapomorphies CONCEPT AND CONTENT: Afrobatrachia is a are provided in appendix 5. monophyletic taxon composed of [144] Xenosyneunitanura new taxon and [148] Laurentobatrachia new taxon. [145] FAMILY: BREVICIPITIDAE BONAPARTE,   
 1850 CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Likely candidates for being synapomorphies are the Brevicipitina Bonaparte, 1850: 1 p. Type genus: larval characters: (1) m. transversus ventralis Breviceps Merrem, 1820. IV present (Haas 22.1); (2) posterolateral Engystomidae Bonaparte, 1850: 1 p. Type genus: projections of the crista parotica forming Engystoma Fitzinger, 1826. processus otobranchialis (Haas 67.3); (3) I:   
 MMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON processus ascendens thin (Haas 72.1); (4) [144] Xenosyneunitanura new taxon. dorsal connection from processus muscularis S: Hemisotidae Cope, 1867.   
 ISTER TAXON to ‘‘high’’ commissura quadrato­orbitalis R: Sub­Saharan East Africa and   
 ANGE (Haas 78.3); and (5) anterolateral base of southern Africa, from Ethiopia south to An­ processus muscularis bearing ventrolateral gola and South Africa. process (Haas 80.1). See characterisation of C: Balebreviceps Largen and   
 ONTENT Allodapanura for additional discussion of Drewes, 1989; Breviceps Merrem, 1820; possible synapomorphies. Callulina Nieden, 1911 ‘‘1910’’; Probrevi­ COMMENT: Our Afrobatrachia is identical ceps Parker, 1931; Spelaeophryne Ahl, 1924. in content to the enlarged Brevicipitidae of C: Parker   
HARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS Dubois (2005). (1934) noted that brevicipitids lack ossified  
 sphenethmoids, which is clearly a synapo­  [144] XENOSYNEUNITANURA NEW TAXON  morphy at this level. In addition, the loss of ETYMOLOGY: Xeno­ (Greek: strange) 1 the pterygoid, palatoquadrate, and m. opersyneunitos (Greek: bed sharer) 1 anoura cularis (De Villiers, 1931) are likely syna­ (Greek: frog). In other words, the name pomorphies for this group. The extremely means ‘‘strange bedfellows’’ inasmuch as short head and direct development exhibited Hemisotidae and Brevicipitidae, although by this taxon (Parker, 1934) are also synacladistic nearest relatives, are dissimilar ani­ pomorphies. mals. SYSTEMATIC COMMENT: Loader et al. (2004) IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: suggested a phylogeny of Breviceps (Spe­ [143] Afrobatrachia new taxon. laeophryne 1 (Callulina 1 Probreviceps)); SISTER TAXON: [148] Laurentobatrachia they, like us, did not include Balebreviceps new taxon. in their analysis. On the basis of our larger RANGE: Sub­Ssaharan Africa. amount of evidence but less dense sampling, CONCEPT AND CONTENT: Xenosyneunitanu­ we placed Probreviceps nearer to Breviceps ra new taxon is a monophyletic taxon con­ in our tree. Nevertheless, both arrangements taining Hemisotidae Cope, 1867, and [145] conflict with the character of fusion of the Brevicipitidae Bonaparte, 1850. urostyle and sacrum found in Probreviceps   
ad­  
 CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Hemi­ and Breviceps but not in Spelaeophryne and sotidae and Brevicipitidae share the absence Callulina (Parker, 1934), suggesting that of the palatine bones (De Villiers, 1931), ditional testing is warranted.   
232 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 FAMILY: HEMISOTIDAE COPE, 1867 Hyperoliidae Laurent, 1943, and [164] Ar­ Hemisidae Cope, 1867: 198. Type genus: Hemisus throleptidae Mivart, 1869.   
 Günther, 1859 ‘‘1858’’. Emended to Hemisotina CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: The by Günther, 1870: 119. characters (from Haas, 2003) 54.1 (larval m. levator manidbulae externus in two portion), IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: 111.0 (commissura proximalis III absent), [144] Xenosyneunitanura new taxon. and 151.0 (intercalary elements absent) are SISTER TAXON: [145] Brevicipitidae Bona­ likely synapomorphies of this group, alparte, 1850. though because of the low density of taxon RANGE: Sub­Saharan Africa. sampling this requires additional specimen CONTENT: Hemisus Günther, 1859 examination. In addition, claw­shaped ter­ ‘‘1858’’. minal phalanges appear to optimize on this CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: All of branch, appearing convergently in Ptychadthe characters in our analysis (from Haas, ena and several of the hyloids (Liem, 1970), 2003) that optimize on Hemisus (our only although the distribution of this character is morphological exemplar in this clade) may complicated, and further work may show that be synapomorphies of this clade, the Hemi­ this optimization is mistaken. Drewes (1984) sotidae, or some subset of Hemisus: (1) dou­ suggested that thyrohyals borne on cartilagble­layered dermis in larvae (Haas 13.1); (2) inous stalks (his character 10.1) might be a posterior dorsal process of pars alaris ex­ synapomorphy, although this is optimizationpanded terminally, almost rectangular in lat­ dependent inasmuch as this character is not eral view (Haas 89.1); (3) larvae are guided in Leptopelis (Laurent, 1978). The external by the female from the nest to pond (Haas metatarsal tubercle is absent or poorly de­ 137.1); and (4) amplexus absent (Haas veloped throughout Laurentobatrachia (Lau­ 139.0). Some of these may be synapomor­ rent, 1986), but the exact distribution of this phies at the level of Xenosyneunitanura in­ requires verification. Molecular synapomorasmuch as Brevicipitidae was not studied by phies for this taxon are summarized in ap­ Haas (2003) because they lack exotrophic pendix 5.   
 larvae, which were the focus of Haas’ study. SYSTEMATIC COMMENT: Vences and Glaw Hemisus lacks vomers, middle ear, and (2001) and Van der Meijden et al. (2005) recductus lacrimosus, and exhibits fusion of ver­ ognized this taxon as the epifamily Arthrotebrae 8 and 9 (De Villiers, 1931). Further, leptoidae, and originally Laurent (1951) con­ Hemisus burrows head­first (Channing, sidered this clade (with the possible inclusion 1995). All of these characters can safely be of Scaphiophryninae) to be a single family, considered synapomorphies of Hemisotidae. and Dubois (2005) considered our Laurentobatrachia to be 4 of the 6 subfamilies of  [148] LAURENTOBATRACHIA NEW TAXON  his Brevicipitidae. We attempted to retain fa­ ETYMOLOGY: R.L. Laurent 1 batrachia miliar usage, with the exception of moving (Greek: batrachos, frog). This name cele­ Leptopelinae from Hyperoliidae to Arthrobrates the enormous contributions to amphib­ leptidae. Because we think that the diversity ian systematics by the father of central Af­ of this taxon has been greatly underestimatrican herpetology and a prominent figure in ed, our approach leaves considerable room Argentinian herpetology, Raymond L. Lau­ for more informative taxonomies as evidence rent. becomes available.   
IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON:  
 [143] Afrobatrachia new taxon. [149] FAMILY: HYPEROLIIDAE LAURENT, 1943 SISTER TAXON: [144] Xenosyneunitanura Hyperoliinae Laurent, 1943: 16. Type genus:  Hynew taxon.  perolius Rapp, 1842.   
 RANGE: Sub­Saharan Africa, Madagascar, Kassinini Laurent, 1972: 201. Type genus: Kas­ and the Seychelles. sina Girard, 1853.   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 233  
 IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: taxa. We did not sample Chrysobatrachus or [143] Afrobatrachia new taxon. Callixalus and cannot guess into which   
 SISTER TAXON: [164] Arthroleptidae Mi­ group they would fall. Their association with vart, 1869. Acanthixalus in the tree of Drewes (1984)   
 RANGE: Sub­Saharan Africa and Madagas­ suggests that they might follow Acanthixalus car; Seychelles. into Kassininae, but this is merely conjecture   
 CONTENT: Acanthixalus Laurent, 1944; and a combined study of morphology and Afrixalus Laurent, 1944; Alexteroon Perret, molecules is ongoing by Drewes and collab­ 1988; Arlequinus Perret, 1988; Callixalus orators. Our results differ substantially from Laurent, 1950; Chlorolius Perret, 1988; the results of Vences et al. (2003d; figs. 28, Chrysobatrachus Laurent, 1951; Cryptothy­ 29) with respect to the relative placement of lax Laurent and Combaz, 1950; Heterixalus several genera. This is presumably due to our Laurent, 1944; Hyperolius Rapp, 1842 (in­ application of much denser sampling and cluding Nesionixalus Perret, 1976); Kassina more evidence. Girard, 1853; Kassinula Laurent, 1940; Op­ The association by the molecular data of isthothylax Perret, 1966; Paracassina Per­ Tachycnemis (Seychelles) and Heterixalus acca, 1907; Phlyctimantis Laurent and Com­ (Madagascar) is of some biogeographic inbaz, 1950; Semnodactylus Hoffman, 1939; terest. We expected Alexteroon to be imbed­ Tachycnemis Fitzinger, 1843. ded within Hyperolius, but our sampling of   
 CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: One Hyperolius was insufficient to test this proplarval character in our analysis that may be osition adequately. On the basis of our limsynapomorphy of this group is (from Haas, ited exemplar selection, Alexteroon may be 2003): commissura proximalis II absent. Be­ the sister taxon of Hyperolius (sensu lato). yond that, hyperoliids are unique among However, we found, as did Drewes and Wilfrogs in having a distinctive gular gland kinson (2004), that Nesionixalus is clearly (Drewes, 1984). Drewes (1984) summarized deeply imbedded in Hyperolius, but also rep­ a character distribution suggesting that lack­ resents a monophyletic group. We suggest ing sphincter control of the vocal slits may that Nesionixalus be treated as a subgenus of also be a synapomorphy of Hyperoliidae. Hyperolius with no coordinate taxon to im­   
 The presence of intercalary phalangeal el­ ply that the remaining species of Hyperolius ements per se is not a synapomorphy of this are a monophyletic group (see appendix 7 for group (or at least not without making as­ new combinations). We expect that Chlorosumptions of character optimization), being lius and Arlequinus will also be found to be found also in the Leptopelinae of Arthrolep­ imbedded within Hyperolius, although at this tidae. Nevertheless, Drewes (1984) noted time no data can be brought to bear to test that hyperoliid and leptopeline intercalary el­ this proposition. ements are histologically quite different from each other. The latter does not accept either [164] FAMILY: ARTHROLEPTIDAE MIVART, 1869 Alizarin or Alcian Blue stain, suggesting that these elements may not be homologous.  Arthroleptina Mivart, 1869: 294. Type genus: Ar­    
 throleptis Smith, 1849.   
SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: The position in  
 Astylosterninae Noble, 1927: 110. Type genus: our tree of Acanthixalus is heterodox com­ Astylosternus Werner, 1898. pared with previous studies (e.g., Drewes, Leptopelini Laurent, 1972: 201. Type genus: Lep­ 1984) and implies a number of reversals and topelis Günther, 1859. New synonym. convergences in the morphology of hyperoliid frogs. We considered recognizing sub­ IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: families within Hyperoliidae, corresponding [147] Laurentobatrachia new taxon. to the two major clades of exemplars, for SISTER TAXON: [149] Hyperoliidae Laurent, which the name Kassininae Laurent, 1972, is 1943. insee   
 available for the Kassina – Phlyctimantis – RANGE: Sub­Saharan Africa.   
234 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 Systematic Comments); Astylosternus Wer­ apomorphic should one be willing to make ner, 1898; Cardioglossa Boulenger, 1900; assumptions about character optimization Leptodactylodon Andersson, 1903; Lepto­ and that the phalangeal elements of leptopelis Günther, 1859; Nyctibates Boulenger, pelines and hyperoliids are homologous.   
 1904; Scotobleps Boulenger, 1900;  Trichob­ Arthroleptis  renders Schoutedenella paraatrachus Boulenger, 1900. phyletic, and we therefore consider them to CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Arthro­ be synonyms. Laurent and Fabrezi’s (1986 leptids are small frogs exhibiting forked ‘‘1985’’) contention that Schoutedenella and omosterna that, with the exception of Arthro­ Arthroleptis are not each other’s closest relleptis, have a typically biphasic life history. atives is rejected, although the position of Like many of the taxa within Afrobatrachia, Poynton (1964a) and Poynton and Broadley many of the arthroleptids have vertical pu­ (1967), that Schoutedenella are merely small pils, with the exceptions of Leptodactylodon Arthroleptis is also rejected. (Our tree sug­ (quadrangular) and Arthroleptini (horizontal, gests that if size were characteristic, we except for Scotobleps). None of the morpho­ would have to say that Arthroleptis are big logical characters in our analysis optimize Schoutedenella.) Our molecular data support unambiguously to this branch [164]. Regard­ the notion that nominal Arthroleptis is imless, the molecular data are decisive in sup­ bedded within Schoutedenella and we place port of recognition of this group (see appen­ them in synonymy. (See appendix 7 for new dix 5). and revived combinations.)   
 Larval characters of Haas’ (2003) exem­ Perret (1966) suggested that Nyctibates is plar Leptopelis —a distinct medial ossifica­ a synonym of Astylosternus, but Amiet (1971 tion center of vertebral centra ventral to no­ ‘‘1970’’, 1973 ‘‘1972’’) resurrected Nyctitochord present (Haas 100.1)—may be syn­ bates on the basis of tadpole morphology beapomorphies of Arthroleptidae, of Leptope­ ing more similar to Leptodactylodon and Trilinae, or of some subset of Leptopelis. The chobatrachus. Our molecular data support direct development of Arthroleptis is subse­ recognition of Nyctibates.   
quently derived.  
 SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: We recognize two [180] NATATANURA NEW TAXON subfamilies within Arthroleptidae, [165]   
 Leptopelinae Laurent, 1972, for Leptopelis, ETYMOLOGY: Natata­ (Greek: swim) 1 anformerly associated with Hyperoliidae (al­ oura (Greek: tailless, i.e., frog), referencing though shown to be phylogenetically distant that many of the frogs in this clade are semifrom them by Vences et al., 2003c), and aquatic.   
 [168] Arthroleptinae Mivart, 1869, contain­ IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: ing two tribes, [169] Astylosternini Noble, [108] Ranoides new taxon.   
 1931 (Leptodactylodon, Nyctibates, Trichob­ SISTER TAXON: [109] Allodapanura new atrachus, and Leptodactylodon) and [172] taxon.   
 Arthroleptini Mivart, 1869 (Arthroleptis [in­ RANGE: Worldwide temperate and tropical cluding Schoutedenella], Cardioglossa, and habitats on all continents and major islands, Scotobleps). Scotobleps formerly was asso­ except most of Australia and New Zealand.   
 ciated with Astylosterninae, so its transfer to CONCEPT AND CONTENT: Natatanura is a Arthroleptini is something of a surprise (on monophyletic group composed of [181] Ptythe basis of evidence shown in appendix 5). chadenidae Dubois, 1987 ‘‘1986’’, and [183] [165] Leptopelinae Laurent, 1972, is dis­ Victoranura new taxon.   
tinguished morphologically from its near CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Nataneighbors by the possession of an entire, tanura is identical to the epifamily Ranoidae rather than forked, omosternum and by his­ of Dubois (1992) and Ranidae (sensu lato) of tologically distinct intercalary phalangeal el­ Laurent (1986). Characters in our analysis ements (Drewes, 1984). (from Haas, 2003) that are likely synapo­  
[168] Arthroleptinae Mivart, 1869, is not morphies of this taxon are (1) anterior inserdiagnosable via morphology, although the tion of m. subarcualis rectus II–IV on ceraabsence of intercalary elements may be syn­ tobranchial III (Haas 37.2); (2) commissura  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 235  
 proximalis II absent (Haas 110.0); and (3) Lanzarana Clarke, 1982; Ptychadena Boucommissura proximalis III absent (Haas lenger, 1917.   
 111.0). CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: In our J.D. Lynch (1973) and Laurent (1986) analysis, the morphological (larval) characsuggested that an ossified metasternal style is ters that attach to the only exemplar of this a synapomorphy at this level of universality, taxon, Ptychadena, are (1) m. subarcualis but this requires corroboration inasmuch as rectus I portion with origin from ceratobranseveral groups within Natatanura have carti­ chial III absent (Haas 35.0); (2) partes corlaginous metasterna (Laurent, 1986). pores medially separate (Haas 87.0); and (3) SYSTEMATIC COMMENT: Burton (1998a) eggs float as a surface film (Haas 141.2). Benoted that several genera of Natatanura share cause of our limited sampling for morpholthe presence of an extra slip of the m. flexor ogy, it is possible that these characters do not teres digiti IV, which is ventral to the m. apply to Hildebrandtia or Lanazarana; it is transversus metacarpus II: Altirana, Aubria, also possible that they apply only to a subset Ceratobatrachus, Conraua, Hildebrandtia, of Ptychadena. Only denser sampling will Mantella, Mantidactylus, Petropedetes, Pty­ tell.   
 chadena, Pyxicephalus, and Rana, but not in Other features that are likely synapomor­ Batrachylodes, Cacosternum, Discodeles, phies, although originally suggested in a Laliostoma, Meristogenys, Micrixalus, Nan­ somewhat different outgroup structure nophrys, Nanorana, Natalobatrachus, Nyc­ (Clarke, 1981), are (1) otic plate absent or tibatrachus, Occidozyga, Palmatorappia, rudimentary; (2) (neo)palatines absent; (3) Platymantis, or Strongylopus (with many point overlap of the medial ramus of the ptertaxa not examined). If this character is opti­ ygyoid and the anterior lateral border of the mized on our most parsimonious tree, the im­ parasphenoid ala in an anterior–posterior plication is that this character arose at least plane; (4) clavicles reduced and well­sepasix times, of which the following is one of rated at midline; (5) sternal style a short several equally parsimonious arrangements: compact bony element; (6) eight presacral (1) Ceratobatrachus; (2) in the branch sub­ and sacral vertebrae fused (also in some Lithtending Conraua 1 Petropedetes, and there­ obates); and (7) dorsal protuberance on ilium fore likely to be in Indirana and Arthrolep­ not or only slightly differentiated from dorsal tides); (3) Ptychadenidae (Hildebrantia, Pty­ prominence, which is smooth surfaced and chadena, and presumably in Lanzarana); (4) confluent with a well­developed ilial crest.   
 Pyxicephalini (Pyxicephalus and Aubria); (5) SYSTEMATIC COMMENT: See Systematic Altirana (5 part of Nanorana); (6) Aglaioan­ Comments under Natatanura. Our association ura (Rhacophoroidea 1 Ranidae). Neverthe­ of Hildebrandtia and Lanzarana with this less, considerably more specimens of more taxon rests on the morphological data analtaxa need to be examined before the opti­ ysis of Clarke (1981), who suggested a nummization of this feature can confidently be ber of synapomorphies for the group (see considered settled. above).   
 [181] FAMILY: PTYCHADENIDAE DUBOIS, 1987 [183] VICTORANURA NEW TAXON   
 ‘‘1986’’ Ptychadenini Dubois, 1987 ‘‘1985’’: 55. Type ge­ ETYMOLOGY: Victor (Latin: conqueror) 1 nus: Ptychadena Boulenger, 1917. anoura (Greek: tailless; i.e., frog), alluding to   
 the remarkable success of this taxon world­ IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: wide. [180] Natatanura new taxon. IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: SISTER TAXON: [183] Victoranura new tax­ [180] Natatanura new taxon. on. SISTER TAXON: [181] Ptychadenidae Du­ ex­   
 RANGE: Sub­Saharan tropical and subtrop­ bois, 1987 ‘‘1986’’. ical Africa; Seychelles and Madagascar. RANGE: Worldwide continents and major CONTENT: Hildebrandtia Nieden, 1907; islands in temperate and tropical regions, 236 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297   
 cept southern Australia, the Seychelles, and lossini Anderson, 1871) is rejected by our New Zealand. evidence. CONCEPT AND CONTENT: Victoranura is a Dubois (1992) placed Batrachylodes outmonophyletic group composed of [184] Cer­ side of his Ceratobatrachini, because, unlike atobatrachidae Boulenger, 1884, and [189] the more typical members of Ceratobatrachi­ Telmatobatrachia new taxon. nae, it lacks a forked omosternum. Neverthe­ CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: None less, Batrachylodes does have endotrophic of the morphological characters in our anal­ larvae (Thibaudeau and Altig, 1999), and our ysis diagnose on this taxon, although the mo­ molecular evidence places Batrachylodes lecular data are decisive (see appendix 5 for firmly within the ceratobatrachine clade. summary of molecular synapomorphies). Roelants et al. (2004) provided molecular   
 evidence suggesting that Ingerana is in Oc­   
[184] FAMILY: CERATOBATRACHIDAE cidozyginae rather than Ceratobatrachinae,  
BOULENGER, 1884 but this is not corroborated by our denser  
 taxonomic sampling and larger amount of Ceratobatrachidae Boulenger, 1884: 212. Type genus: Ceratobatrachus Boulenger, 1884. data, which place Ingerana in the more con­ Platymantinae Savage, 1973: 354. Type genus: ventional location in Ceratobatrachidae and Platymantis Günther, 1859. as the sister taxon of the remaining genera   
 within Ceratobatrachinae. Like Roelants et IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: al. (2004), we did not evaluate species of the [183] Victoranura new taxon. nominal subgenus Liurana, a taxon that Du­ SISTER TAXON: [189] Telmatobatrachia new bois (1987 ‘‘1985’’) erected as a subgenus of taxon. Ingerana, but subsequently was recognized RANGE: Western China (Xizang and Yun­ by some workers as a genus (Fei et al., 1997) nan); Myanmar, adjacent Thailand and pen­ and later (Dubois, 2005, without discussion) insular Malaysia; Philippines, Borneo; New as a synonym of Taylorana (5 Limnonectes). Guinea; Admiralty, Bismarck, and Solomon Liurana is reported to be differentiated from Islands; Fiji; Palau. Ingerana by condition of the finger disc (ab­ CONTENT: Batrachylodes Boulenger, 1887; sent in Liurana, present in Ingerana) and Ceratobatrachus Boulenger, 1884; Discode­ median lingual papilla (present in Liurana, les Boulenger, 1918; Ingerana Dubois, 1987 absent in Ingerana; Dubois, 1987 ‘‘1985’’), ‘‘1986’’; Palmatorappia Ahl, 1927 ‘‘1926’’; but some species of Liurana possess small Platymantis Günther, 1858. finger discs (Zhao and Li, 1984; Fei et al., CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: None 2005), and the condition of the tongue is of the morphological characters in our anal­ known for only two of the five species of ysis optimize as synapomorphies of this tax­ Ingerana (Smith, 1930; Inger, 1954, 1966). on, although all ceratobatrachids are charac­ We treat Liurana as a synonym of Ingerana, terized by large eggs and direct development pending evidence being published to sub­ (Noble, 1931). Many of the species have ex­ stantiate Dubois’ (2005) assertion of its panded toe tips, but this is likely plesiom­ placement in Limnonectini (Dicroglossidae). orphic at this level of universality. Molecular synapomorphies for the clade are summa­  [189] TELMATOBATRACHIA NEW TAXON  rized in appendix 5. SYSTEMATIC COMMENT: Dubois (1987 ETYMOLOGY: Telmato­ (Greek: of a marsh) ‘‘1985’’, 1992) placed his Ceratobatrachiini 1 batrachos (Greek: frog), referencing the Boulenger, 1884, within a larger Dicroglos­ preference of these frogs for wet microhabsinae Anderson, 1871. The subsequent im­ itats. plication of Dubois et al. (2001) that Cera­ IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: tobatrachidae (his Ceratobatrachinae) is of [183] Victoranura new taxon. uncertain relationship to Dicroglossinae was SISTER TAXON: [184] Ceratobatrachidae   
justified inasmuch as an inclusive Dicroglos­ Boulenger, 1884. sinae (including Ceratobatrachiini Boulenger, RANGE: Worldwide continents and major 1884, Conrauini Dubois, 1992, and Dicrog­ islands in temperate and tropical environ­  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 237  
ments, except for southern South America, cluding Madagascar, New Zealand, Sey­ Madagascar, New Zealand, and most of Aus­ chelles, and Australia except for the far tralia. north.  
 CONCEPT AND CONTENT: Telmatobatrachia CONCEPT AND CONTENT: Ametrobatrachia is is a monophyletic taxon composed of [190] a monophyletic taxon composed of [192] Af­ Micrixalidae Dubois, Ohler, and Biju, 2001, ricanura new taxon and [220] Saukrobatra­ and [191] Ametrobatrachia new taxon. chia new taxon.   
CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: None CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: None of the morphological characters in our anal­ of the morphological characters in our analysis optimize on the branch subtending this ysis optimize as synapmorphies of this taxon. taxon although our molecular data decisively Nevertheless, the molecular data are decisupport its recognition. (See appendix 5 for sive. (See appendix 5 for summary of molisting of molecular synapomorphies.) lecular synapomorphies for this taxon.)  
 [190] FAMILY: MICRIXALIDAE DUBOIS, OHLER, [192] AFRICANURA NEW TAXON   
AND BIJU, 2001  
 Micrixalinae Dubois et al., 2001: 54. Type genus: ETYMOLOGY: Afric­ (Latin: of Africa) 1 Micrixalus Boulenger, 1888. anoura (Greek: tailless, i.e., frog).   
 IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: [191] Ametrobatrachia new taxon.   
 [189] Telmatobatrachia new taxon. SISTER TAXON: [220] Saukrobatrachia new SISTER TAXON: [191] Ametrobatrachia new taxon.   
 taxon. RANGE: Sub­Saharan Africa.   
 RANGE: India. CONTENT: [193] Phrynobatrachidae Lau­ CONTENT: Micrixalus Boulenger, 1888. rent, 1941 ‘‘1940’’, and [200] Pyxicephalo­ CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: None idea Bonaparte, 1850.   
of the morphological characters in our anal­ CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: None ysis optimize on this taxon and the decisive of the morphological characters in our analevidence for its recognition is entirely mo­ ysis optimize on this taxon. Nevertheless, lecular (see appendix 5 for summary). Unlike molecular data are decisive. (See appendix 5 Ptychadenidae, Ceratobatrachidae, and basal­ for summary of molecular transformation asly in Ametrobatrachia, the omosternum is un­ sociated with this taxon.)  
forked in Micrixalidae (Dubois et al., 2001), SYSTEMATIC COMMENT: The existence of which at this level of universality is a syna­ this taxon had not been suspected prior to the pomorphy of the group as is the low kera­ publication of Van der Meijden et al. (2005), todont formula 1/0 (Dubois et al., 2001). The although it certainly meets biogeographic expresence of digital discs in Micrixalinae is pectations.  
likely a plesiomorphy at this level of univer­  
sality. [193] FAMILY: PHRYNOBATRACHIDAE  
LAURENT, 1941 ‘‘1940’’  
 [191] AMETROBATRACHIA NEW TAXON   
 Hemimantidae Hoffmann, 1878: 613. Type genus: ETYMOLOGY: Ametros (Greek: beyond Hemimantis Peters, 1863.   
 measure) 1 batrachos (Greek: frog), denot­ Phrynobatrachinae Laurent, 1941 ‘‘1940’’: 79. ing the enormity of this taxon in terms of Type species: Phrynobatrachus Günther, 1862. species and with respect to the enormous   
 numbers of questions that remain about its IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: internal phylogenetic structure. [192] Africanura new taxon.   
 IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: SISTER TAXON: [200] Pyxicephaloidea Bon­ [189] Telmatobatrachia new taxon. aparte, 1850.   
SISTER TAXON: [190] Micrixalidae Dubois, RANGE: Sub­Saharan Africa.  
 Ohler, and Biju, 2001. CONTENT: Ericabatrachus Largen, 1991 RANGE: Worldwide in temperate and trop­ (see Systematic Comments); Phrynobatraical continental areas and major islands, ex­ chus Günther, 1862 (including Dimorphog­   
238 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 nathus Boulenger, 1906, and  Phrynodon chus  as currently arrayed, but at present we Parker, 1935; see Systematic Comments). cannot reject the possibility that it is the sis­   
 CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Phry­ ter taxon of Phrynobatrachus. We presume nobatrachids are small terrestrial and semi­ that Dubois’ (2005) association of Ericabaaquatic frogs with poorly understood species trachus with his Phrynobatrachinae is based boundaries and with a typically biphasic life on similar reasoning although he provided no history, with eggs laid in water. Like many justification for this inclusion. members of Ranoides, phrynobatrachids frequently have T­shaped terminal phalanges, [200] SUPERFAMILY: PYXICEPHALOIDEA although they lack digital discs. They usually BONAPARTE, 1850 retain an outer metatarsal tubercle (Laurent, IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: 1986) and are characterized by a tarsal tu­ [192] Africanura new taxon. bercle (Channing, 2001) that is distinctive SISTER TAXON: [193] Phrynobatrachidae and may be synapomorphic. Phrynobatra­ Laurent, 1941 ‘‘1940’’. chus species exhibit a median lingual tuber­ RANGE: Sub­Saharan Africa. cle (Grant et al., 1997), which may be syn­ CONTENT: [201] Petropedetidae Noble, apomorphic, although this needs to be care­ 1931, and [209] Pyxicephalidae Bonaparte, fully surveyed. Its presence also in Indirana, 1850. Arthroleptides, and Petropedetes suggests CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Althat it may be synapomorphic at a more gen­ though no morphological characters in our eral level. study optimize to this branch, our molecular   
Nevertheless, none of the morphological data are decisive. See appendix 5 for sumcharacters in our analysis optimize on this mary of molecular synapomorphies. taxon, although the molecular data are deci­ COMMENT: This taxon is highy heterogesive in recognition of this taxon. (See appen­ nous morphologically, at least with respect to dix 5 for listing of molecular synapomor­ overall appearance. Nevertheless, the molecphies for this taxon.) ular evidence is strong, and the taxon should  
 SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: Our data show survive additional testing. that Phrynobatrachus is paraphyletic with respect to Phrynodon and Dimorphognathus. [201] LFAMILY: PETROPEDETIDAE NOBLE, 1931 Surprisingly, Amiet (1981) suggested a close Petropedetinae Noble, 1931: 520. Type genus: Perelationship of Phrynodon with Petropedetes tropedetes Reichenow, 1874. (Petropedetidae) to the exclusion of Phry­ Ranixalini Dubois, 1987 ‘‘1985’’: 66. Type genus: nobatrachus. Our data do not support this re­ Ranixalus Dubois, 1986. New synonym. lationship and because this nominal genus Conrauini Dubois, 1992: 314. Type genus: Con­ and Dimorphognathus are both monotypic raua Nieden, 1908. New synonym. and imbedded within Phrynobatrachus, we Indiraninae Blommers­Schlösser, 1993: 211. Type place Phrynodon and Dimorphognathus into genus: Indirana Laurent, 1986. New synonym. the synonymy of Phrynobatrachus, which af­ IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: ter this action is monophyletic. Nevertheless, [200] Pyxicephaloidea Bonaparte, 1850. Phrynobatrachus remains one of the larger SISTER TAXON: [209] Pyxicephalidae Bontaxonomic problems in Africa in terms of aparte, 1850. species boundaries and infrageneric clades. It RANGE: South India; tropical West and will yield its secrets only with a considerable East Africa. amount of morphological, behavioral, and CONTENT: Arthroleptides Nieden, 1911 molecular work. (See appendix 7 for new ‘‘1910’’; Conraua Nieden, 1908; Indirana and revivied combinations caused by these Laurent, 1986; Petropedetes Reichenow, synonymies.) Our inclusion in Phrynoba­ 1874. trachidae of Ericabatrachus Largen, 1991 CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Petro­ (not studied by us) rests on the original pub­ pedetidae is heterogeneous morphologically,   
 lication, which suggests that Ericabatrachus with forked omosterna. No morphological is ‘‘ Phrynobatrachus ­like’’. Likely, it will be synapomorphies are evident to us, although found to be imbedded within Phrynobatra­ the molecular data are decisive. (See appen­   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 239  
dix 5 for molecular synapomorphies for this Amiet and Perret, 1969; Inger et al., 1984; taxon.) Drewes et al., 1989).  
 SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: The association of Adults of Arthroleptides, Indirana, and Indirana (India), Conraua (tropical West Af­ Petropedetes also share characters whose porica; Ethiopia and Eritrea), and Arthrolep­ larity is less clear. Males of most Petropetides 1 Petropedetes (tropical West Africa; detes and Arthroleptides, and males of Indi­ Tanzania and Kenya) at first surprised us, rana (where they are known) share the preseven though we had expected the undiagnos­ ence of femoral glands of variable size and able Petropedetidae (sensu lato, now distrib­ the presence of spicules around the margins uted among Petropedetidae, Phrynobatrachi­ of jaw and/or chin in the pectoral area dae, and Dicroglossidae) to be obliterated. (Amiet, 1973; Inger et al., 1984; Perret,   
 The stream­dwelling larvae of Arthrolep­ 1984; Dubois, 1986 ‘‘1985’’; Klemens, 1998; tides and stream­dwelling and arboreal tad­ however spicules are absent in Petropedetes poles of Indirana are amazingly similar parkeri [Amiet, 1983], and femoral glands (compare Altig and Johnston, 1989, and are absent in A. yakusini [Channing et al., Channing et al., 2002b, with Annandale and 2002b]). Note that spicules around the mar­ Rao, 1918) in having elongate tails with very gins of jaw and/or chin and pectoral area, low caudal fins, large bulging eyes, a dor­ occur also in Conraua and in at least several soventrally flattened body, and a laterally phrynobatrachids as redefined here (Perret, compressed jaw sheath with prominent lat­ 1966). Until this character can be widely aseral processes (Annandale, 1918; Rao, 1920; sessed its level of generality remains un­ Amiet and Perret, 1969; Inger et al., 1984; known.   
 Dubois, 1986 ‘‘1985’’; Drewes et al., 1989; Dubois (1987 ‘‘1985’’) proposed the rec­ Channing et al., 2002b). Only larvae of Pe­ ognition of the tribe Ranixalini (later treated tropedetes natator and P. palmipes have as a subfamily by Dubois, 1992), for the genbeen fully described (Lamotte and Zuber­Vo­ era Nannophrys, Nyctibatrachus, and Indigeli, 1954; Lamotte et al., 1959; Lamotte and rana on the basis of the presence of femoral Lescure, 1989), but some superficial refer­ glands in males of Nyctibatrachus and Indiences to morphology or behavior are avail­ rana (unknown in Nannophrys), and the able for the larvae of P. cameronensis (Bou­ morphological proximity of Nannophrys and lenger, 1906 ‘‘1905’’; Lawson, 1993), P. Nyctibatrachus was noted by Clarke (1981). newtoni (Perret, 1966; Amiet and Perret, Nannophrys and Indirana further share the 1969; Lawson, 1993), and P. parkeri and P. modifications of larval morphology associjohnstoni (Amiet and Perret, 1969; Amiet, ated with semiterrestrial life that were men­ 1983; Lawson, 1993). Drewes et al. (1989) tioned earlier (Kirtisinghe, 1958). From a noted inconsistencies in the description of morphological perspective, the evidence supthe larva of P. palmipes. Regardless, from porting the monophyly of Nannophrys 1 Inthe comments or illustrations presented by dirana is the same as that favoring a relathe authors mentioned above, larvae of Pe­ tionship among Indirana, Arthroleptides, and tropedetes seem to have the same morpho­ Petropedetes. As discussed earlier, other logical peculiarities as do those of Arthrolep­ characters of still unclear polarity that could tides and Indirana. The only exception is the further support this hypothesis are the preslarva of P. natator, which has an abdominal ence of femoral glands and spicules around disc and an oral disc that is proportionally the margins of jaw and/or chin and pectoral larger, with conspicuous lateral folds, and area.   
 jaw sheaths that are not compressed laterally Petropedetes and Arthroleptides have (Lamotte and Zuber­Vogeli, 1954; Lamotte large digital discs, a long metasternal style, and Lescure, 1989). and T­shaped terminal phalanges. Indirana   
 In transforming larvae of Arthroleptides, has Y­shaped terminal phalanges (Laurent, Indirana, and Petropedetes, the hind legs are 1986), which may be synapomorphic with to­   
of  
 large and seem to develop precociously, on the T­shaped terminal phalanges of Petro­ a different growth trajectory from the front pedetes 1 Arthroleptides although in our legs (Annandale, 1918; Lamotte et al., 1959; pology the simple terminal phalanges 240 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297   
 Conraua presumably represent the apomor­ SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: This morphologiphy. Roelants et al. (2004) suggested that In­ cally heterogeneous taxon is coherent geodirana would find its closest relatives in In­ graphically. Although the association of dia. However, inasmuch as these authors did these genera was only noted recently (Van not include any African taxa in their analysis, der Meijden et al., 2005), much of the earlier it was impossible for them to detect a rela­ taxonomy was based on very general notions tionship with African taxa. Van der Meijden of overall similarity, which are significantly et al. (2005) placed Indirana as the sister tax­ influenced by perceptions of body size. The on of our Dicroglossinae. They also placed association of Afrana and Strongylopus (for­ Conraua outside of a clade composed of Pe­ merly in Ranini of Dubois, 1992) with Antropedetes 1 Pyxicephalinae, in both cases hydrophryne, Arthroleptella, Cacosternum, on the basis of fewer data and more analyt­ and Natalobatrachus (formerly of Phrynoical assumptions. Additional data or denser batrachidae [Petropedetidae] of Dubois, taxon sampling may rearrange these taxa, but 1992), and with Pyxicephalus and Aubria (in at present our molecular data are decisive Pyxicephalinae of Dubois, 1992), was some­ and, as discussed earlier, they are consistent thing of a surprise (at least for us, as this was with the distribution of various larval and before Van der Meijden et al., 2005, apadult characteristics. peared), although no evidence beyond overall similarity ever supported the older tax­ [209] FAMILY: PYXICEPHALIDAE BONAPARTE, onomy. We still have three ‘‘flavors’’ of frogs 1850 in this group: those that look like Rana (Af­ Pyxicephalina Bonaparte, 1850: 1. Type genus: rana and Strongylopus); those that are stocky  Pyxicephalus Tschudi, 1838.  and big (Pyxicephalus and Aubria); and Phrynopsinae Noble, 1931: 518. Type genus: those that are generally small and have not Phrynopsis Pfeffer, 1893. attracted from systematists the attention they Cacosterninae Noble, 1931: 540. Type genus: Ca­ deserve (the remainder). The absence of a  costernum Boulenger, 1887.  median lingual process may be synapo­ Tomopternini Dubois, 1987 ‘‘1985’’: 56. Type ge­ morphic, as this feature is present in  Petronus: Tomopterna Duméril and Bibron, 1841.  pedetidae and Phrynobatrachidae (Grant et  New synonym.  al., 1997). Dubois (2005), anticipating the IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: publication of Van der Meijden et al. (2005), [200] Pyxicephaloidea Bonaparte, 1850. recognized this taxon as a subfamily of Ran­ SISTER TAXON: [201] Petropedetidae Noble, idae, Pyxicephalinae, which we recognize as 1931. a family.   
 RANGE: Sub­Saharan Africa. Within Pyxicephalidae, we recognize two CONTENT: Amietia Dubois, 1987 ‘‘1986’’ subfamilies: [210] Pyxicephalinae Bonapar­ (including Afrana Dubois, 1992, see Sys­ te, 1850 (Pyxicephalus and Aubria) and tematic Comments); Anhydrophryne Hewitt, [212] Cacosterninae Noble, 1931 (for the re­ 1919; Arthroleptella Hewitt, 1926; Aubria maining genera). Pyxicephalinae is united by Boulenger, 1917; Cacosternum Boulenger, the following synapomorphies: (1) skull ex­ 1887; Microbatrachella Hewitt, 1926; Na­ ostosis; (2) occipital canal present; (3) zytalobatrachus Hewitt and Methuen, 1912; gomatic ramus much longer than otic ramus, Nothophryne Poynton, 1963; Poyntonia articulating with the postorbital process of Channing and Boycott, 1989; Pyxicephalus the pars facialis of the maxilla; and (4) strong Tschudi, 1838; Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838; overlap of the medial ramus of the pterygoid Tomopterna Duméril and Bibron, 1841. and the parasphenoid ala (Clarke, 1981). Ca­ CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Al­ costerninae in our sense is not united by any though we know of no morphological syna­ morphological feature that we can identify pomorphies for this group, the molecular ev­ with any certainty, although the molecular idence is decisive in support of this branch. data are decisive (see appendix 5).   
 (See appendix 5 for molecular synapomor­ We place Afrana Dubois, 1992, into the phies of this taxon; also see Systematic Com­ synonymy of [218] Amietia Dubois, 1987 ments.) ‘‘1986’’, to resolve the paraphyly of Afrana.   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 241  
 No characteristics of ‘‘ Afrana ’’ or Amietia of the morphological characters in our analreject this placement. ysis optimize on this taxon although the mo­ Clearly, our data do not support the notion lecular data decisively support recognition of (Poynton, 1964a) that Cacosternum is close­ this taxon. (See appendix 5 for molecular ly related to Phrynobatrachus. Our associa­ transformations.) We recognized two subtion of Microbatrachella, Nothophryne, and families within Dicroglossidae, which are Poyntonia with this clade is provisional, discussed in separate accounts because of the based on the assertion by Blommers­Schlös­ size and complexity of discussion. ser (1993) that these genera are allied by reduced ossification of the omosternal style [225] SUBFAMILY: DICROGLOSSINAE and procoracoid clavicular bar. ANDERSON, 1871   
 Dicroglossidae J. Anderson, 1871: 38. Type ge­ [220] SAUKROBATRACHIA NEW TAXON nus: Dicroglossus Günther, 1860.   
 Limnonectini Dubois, 1992: 315. Type genus: ETYMOLOGY: Saukro­ (Latin: graceful,  Limnonectes Fitzinger, 1843.  pretty) 1 batrachos (Greek: frog), referenc­ Paini Dubois, 1992: 317. Type genus:  Paa  Duing the beauty of many of the species in­ bois, 1975. cluded in this clade. IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: [221] Dicroglossidae Anderson, 1871. [191] Ametrobatrachia new taxon. SISTER TAXON: [222] Occidozyginae Fei, SISTER TAXON: [192] Africanura new tax­ Ye, and Huang, 1991 ‘‘1990’’. on. RANGE: Northwestern and sub­Saharan Af­ RANGE: Eurasia, Africa, and Madagascar, rica; southern Arabian Peninsula; Pakistan, to northern Australia; North and Central­ Afghanistan, India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal, America to central South America. through southern China (including part of CONCEPT AND CONTENT: Saukrobatrachia Xizang) and Indochina to the islands of the new taxon is a monophyletic taxon com­ Sunda Shelf; Japan. posed of [221] Dicroglossidae Anderson, CONTENT: Annandia Dubois, 1992 (see 1871, and [244] Aglaioanura new taxon. Systematic Comments); Eripaa Dubois, CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Al­ 1992 (see Systematic Comments); Euphlycthough no morphological characters that we tis Fitzinger, 1843; ‘‘ Fejervarya ’’ Bolkay, are aware of optimize on this branch, the mo­ 1915 (see Systematic Comments); Hoplobalecular data are decisive in support of this trachus Peters, 1863; Limnonectes Fitzinger, taxon. (See appendix 5 for listing of molec­ 1843 (including Taylorana Dubois, 1987 ular synapomorphies.) ‘‘1986’’); Minervarya Dubois, Ohler, and   
 Biju, 2001; Nannophrys Günther, 1869 [221] FAMILY: DICROGLOSSIDAE ANDERSON,   
 1871 ‘‘1868’’; Nanorana Günther, 1896 (includ­   
 ing Altirana Stejneger, 1927; Chaparana IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: Bourret, 1939; and Paa Dubois, 1975; see [220] Saukrobatrachia new taxon. Systematic Comments); Ombrana Dubois, SISTER TAXON: [244] Aglaioanura new tax­ 1992 (see Systematic Comments);  Quasipaa on.  Dubois, 1992; Sphaerotheca Günther, 1859 RANGE: Northwestern and sub­Saharan Af­ ‘‘1858’’. rica; southern Arabian Peninsula; Pakistan, CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Al­ Afghanistan, India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal, though the molecular evidence is decisive for through southern China (including part of the existence of Dicroglossinae, we are Xizang) and Indochina to Japan and the Phil­ aware of no morphological synapomorphies ippines; islands of the Sunda Shelf as far as that optimize to this branch. (See Systematic Flores. Comments.) Appendix 5 shows the molecu­ CONTENT: [225] Dicroglossinae Anderson, lar transformations associated with this tax­   
1871, and [222] Occidozyginae Fei, Ye, and on.  
Huang, 1991 ‘‘1990’’. SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: Within Dicroglos­ CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: None sinae Anderson, 1871, we recognize two  
242 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 monophyletic tribes, [226] Limnonectini Du­ pending the publication of evidence, we rebois, 1992, for Limnonectes (including as gard these as monotypic genera of uncertain synonyms Elachyglossa Anderson, 1916; placement within Dicroglossidae (see appen­ Taylorana Dubois, 1987), and [232] Dicrog­ dix 7 for combinations).   
 lossini Anderson, 1871, for the remaining Previous authors (Dubois and Ohler, 2000; genera, Annandia, ‘‘ Fejervarya ’’ (see be­ Dubois et al., 2001; Grosjean et al., 2004) low), Nanorana (including Chaparana and demonstrated that Sphaerotheca and Fejer­ Paa), Quasipaa, Sphaerotheca, Nannophrys, varya are closely related. Our data permit us Euphlyctis, and Hoplobatrachus. (Evidence to go further and suggest strongly that recfor both is listed in appendix 5.) This agrees ognition of Sphaerotheca (as well as Euwith several other phylogenetic analyses that phlyctis, Hoplobatrachus, and Nannophrys) used DNA evidence (e.g., Bossuyt and Mil­ renders Fejervarya sensu Dubois and Ohler inkovitch, 2000; Emerson et al., 2000b; Mar­ (2000) paraphyletic, as does a group commayou et al., 2000; Vences et al., 2000c; Ko­ posed of Nannophrys, Euphlyctis, and Hosuch et al., 2001; Grosjean et al., 2004; Roe­ plobatrachus. J. M. Hoyos (in Dubois and lants et al., 2004; Jiang et al., 2005; Jiang Ohler, 2000) suggested that Fejervarya does and Zhou, 2005), although our expanded tax­ have a morphological synapomorphy: venon sampling and data altered some relation­ trolateral edge of the m. pectoralis pars abships within Dicroglossini. dominalis slightly attached to muscles that As noted in ‘‘Results’’, our results are are dorsal relative to it, which results in a strongly congruent with those of Jiang et al. dark ventrolateral line from axilla to groin, (2005), especially when the rooting point is especially visible in live specimens. This corrected by our larger outgroup sampling needs to be verified with reference to the (see fig. 64). Because their analysis provided condition in Sphaerotheca and the other sat­ DNA sequence evidence unrejected by mor­ ellite genera as well as to assure that this is phological synapomorphies, we take their re­ universal in Fejervarya and not just in some sults at face value: Nanorana as they viewed subset of the nominal genus. Serious systemit is imbedded within a paraphyletic ‘‘ Paa ’’, atic and nomenclatural issues impede reso­ and ‘‘ Chaparana ’’ is polyphyletic with the lution of this paraphyly. The most important two components both imbedded within is that there are many species of nominal Fe­ ‘‘ Paa ’’. Nevertheless, they provided evi­ jervarya that we did not study, and there may dence that their Group 1 (composed of nom­ be several species of frogs masquerading uninal Paa, Nanorana, and Chaparana, and ex­ der the name Fejervarya limnocharis (Ducluding Quasipaa), is monophyletic. Group bois and Ohler, 2000). Because our exemplar 1 is characterized by paired patches of spines of Fejervarya limnocharis is from Vietnam on the chest (Jiang et al., 2005), which may and the type locality of this same nominal not be synapomorphic but distinguishes this taxon is Java, we are reluctant to assume too taxon morphologically from Quasipaa. The much about the phylogenetic placement of F. oldest name for Group 1 is Nanorana Gün­ limnocharis sensu stricto. Ongoing research ther, 1896. (See appendix 7 for the name by Dubois and Ohler (cited in Dubois and changes that extend from the synonymy of Ohler, 2000) should provide some resolution Chaparana Bourret, 1939, and Paa Dubois, in the near future to this problem. In the in­ 1975, with Nanorana Günther, 1896.) An­ terim we recommend using quotation marks nandia Dubois, 1992, and Ombrana Dubois, around the name ‘‘ Fejervarya ’’ to denote the 1992, were originally named as subgenera of paraphyly of this taxon.   
 Chaparana, and Eripaa Dubois, 1992, was We reaffirm that placement of Limnonecoriginally named as a subgenus of Paa. None tes limborgi in the monotypic genus Taylorof these three taxa were included, discussed, ana renders Limnonectes paraphyletic and or even mentioned in the study of Jiang et therefore continue the synonymy of Tayloral. (2005). Without discussion, Dubois ana with Limnonectes, following Inger   
 (2005) transferred Annandia into Limnonec­ (1996) and Emerson et al. (2000a). Emerson tini. The placement of these taxa in Dicrog­ et al. (2000a) and Evans et al. (2004) prolossinae is presumably not controversial, so vided considerable evidence that Elachyglos­   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 243  
 sa (formerly Bourretia) renders Limnonectes  [244] AGLAIOANURA NEW TAXON  paraphyletic as well. We therefore reject the ETYMOLOGY: Aglaio­ [Greek: splendid or use of subgenera—at least as currently for­ noble] anoura [Greek: tailless, i.e., frog]. 1   
 mulated—within Limnonectes, even though I: MMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON some authors (e.g., Delorme et al., 2004) [220] Saukrobatrachia new taxon.   
have retained their use even though they mis­ SISTER TAXON: [221] Dicroglossidae An­ lead about evolutionary relationship. derson, 1871.  
 Although Minervarya exhibits the ‘‘Fejer­ RANGE: Eurasia, Africa, and Madagascar, varyan line’’ (of Dubois and Ohler, 2000; see to northern Australia; the Americas exclud­ Dubois et al., 2001), it was not included in ing southern South America.   
 our study, so we are unable to make any CONCEPT AND CONTENT: Aglaioanura is a comments about its position in the tree. Our monophyletic group composed of [245] Rhainclusion of Minervarya in Dicroglossinae is cophoroidea Hoffman, 1932 (1858), and obviously provisional; additional study is [269] Ranoidea Rafinesque, 1814.   
 needed. CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: On the basis of our few exemplars for morphology [222] SUBFAMILY: OCCIDOZYGINAE FEI, YE, (Chiromantis xerampelina, Rhacophorus AND HUANG, 1991 ‘‘1990’’ pardalis, Rana nigrovittata, and Rana temporaria) the following characters are sug­ Occydozyginae Fei et al., 1991 ‘‘1990’’: 123. gested as possibly synapomorphies of this Type genus: Occidozyga Kuhl and Van Hasselt, group: (1) functional larval m. levator man­ 1822. dibulae lateralis absent (Haas 56.0); and (2) terminal phalanges bifurcated T­shape or Y­ IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: shaped (Haas 156.2; reversed in several lin­ [221] Dicroglossidae Anderson, 1871. eages of Ranidae). (Molecular synapomor­ SISTER TAXON: [225] Dicroglossinae An­ phies are provided in appendix 5.)   
derson, 1871.  
RANGE: Southern China (Guangxi, Yun­ [245] SUPERFAMILY: RHACOPHOROIDEA nan, and Hainan), Thailand, Indochina, Ma­ HOFFMAN, 1932 (1858)  
laya, Greater and Lesser Sunda Islands as far  
 as Flores, and Philippines. IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: CONTENT: Occidozyga Kuhl and Hasselt, [244] Aglaioanura new taxon.   
 1822 (including Phrynoglossus Peters, 1867; SISTER TAXON: [269] Ranoidea Rafinesque, see Systematic Comments). 1814.   
C: Al­ RANGE: Tropical sub­Saharan Africa; MadHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS  
though the molecular data are decisive (see agascar; South India and Sri Lanka; Japan; northeastern India to eastern China south appendix 5), Occidozyginae has other syna­ through the Philippines and Greater Sundas; pomorphies: (1) aquatic larvae with a kera­ Sulawesi.  
 todont formula of 0/0; and (2) a lateral line CONTENT: [246] Mantellidae Laurent, system that persists into adulthood (absent in 1946, and [253] Rhacophoridae Hoffman, Occidozyga lima; Dubois et al., 2001; con­ 1932 (1858).   
 vergent in Euphlyctis: Dicroglossinae). C: See HARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: Our data demon­ Rhacophoridae. One character in our analysis strate that Phrynoglossus (which retains the definitely optimizes on this taxon: intercalary lateral line system into adulthood) is para­ element present (Haas 151.1). Channing phyletic with respect to Occidozyga (which (1989) also suggested the following as syndoes not). We therefore agree with Inger apomorphies: (1) only one slip of the m. ex­ (1996) that Phrynoglossus is a synonym of tensor digitorum communis longus, inserting Occidozyga (the senior name), providing a on distal portion of fourth metatarsal; and (2)   
in­  
 monophyletic Occidozyga. (See appendix 7 outermost slip of the m. palmaris longus for new and revived combinations resulting serting on the proximolateral rim of the apofrom this synonymy.) neurosis palmaris. Ford and Cannatella   
244 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
(1993) also suggested that bifurcate terminal and Vences, 1994). They share with their sisphalanges are a synapomorphy of this taxon, ter taxon, Rhacophoridae, intercalary phalanalthough this character may optimize at a geal elements.  
more general level inasmuch as expanded toe Laurent (1986: 764) distinguished manteltips seem to optimize on or near Aglaioan­ lids from rhacophorids solely on basis of the ura. third carpal being fused with the fourth and SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: Our study puts to fifth in rhacophorids, but being free in manrest whether mantellids and rhacophorids are tellids (this feature is likely synapomorphic sister taxa (e.g., Emerson et al., 2000b) or at this level of universality). Nevertheless, mantellids are imbedded in some way within this feature has not been adequately assayed, the rhacophorids (Liem, 1970). Whether they so at present the molecular evidence is parshould be considered mutual subfamilies of ticularly decisive in distinguishing this as a a larger Rhacophoridae (5 Rhacophoroidea monophyletic group that forms the sister taxin our use) is not a scientific proposition. We on of Rhacophoridae. None of the morphofollow the usage of Glaw and Vences (e.g., logical characters in our analysis optimize on Vences et al., 2002; Vallan et al., 2003; this taxon. (Molecular transformations are Vences et al., 2003a; Vences and Glaw, listed in appendix 5.)  
 2004). SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: Vences and Glaw (2001) recognized three subfamilies on the [246] FAMILY: MANTELLIDAE LAURENT, 1946 basis of molecular data arranged phylogenetically: Laliostominae (Boophinae 1 Mantel­ Mantellinae Laurent, 1946: 336. Type genus: linae). We consider Mantellinae and Lalios­ Mantella Boulenger, 1882. tominae of Vences and Glaw (2001) to be Boophinae Vences and Glaw, 2001: 88. Type ge­   
  nus: Boophis Tschudi, 1838.  tribes within a larger subfamily [248] Man­ Laliostominae Vences and Glaw, 2001: 88. Type tellinae, this subfamily forming the sister  taxgenus: Laliostoma Glaw, Vences, and Böhme,  on of [247] Boophinae. Aglyptodactylus and 1998. Laliostoma are in [249] Laliostomini, and within Boophini, only Boophis, and [252] IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: Mantella and [251] ‘‘ Mantidactylus ’’ are in [245] Rhacophoroidea Hoffman, 1932 [250] Mantellini. Although ‘‘ Mantidactylus ’’ (1858). is clearly paraphyletic with respect to Man­ SISTER TAXON: [253] Rhacophoridae Hoff­ tella (e.g., Vences and Glaw, 2001), our limman, 1932 (1858). ited taxon sampling did not reveal this. It RANGE: Madagascar. should be noted that there are many nominal CONTENT: Aglyptodactylus Boulenger, subgenera that require reformulation as well 1919 ‘‘1918’’; Boophis Tschudi, 1838; Lal­ (Raxworthy, Grant, and Faivovich, in prepiostoma Glaw, Vences, and Böhme, 1998; aration). For instance, Vences et al. (2002) Mantella Boulenger, 1882; ‘‘ Mantidactylus ’’ revised the species of the ‘‘ Mantidactylus ’’ Boulenger, 1895. subgenus Laurentomantis and presented ev­ CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Man­ idence in their resulting tree of the paraphyly tellids are small to medium­size terrestrial or of ‘‘ Mantidactylus ’’ with respect to Mantella, arboreal frogs, predominantly found in semi­ the paraphyly of the subgenus Brygoomantis, arid to wet forested habitats. Although most and the polyphyly of Guibemantis and Geare drab or cryptically colored, species of phyromantis, as well as a lack of evidence Mantellini in particular are brightly colored. for either paraphyly or monophyly of Pan­ Life history is varied, from the usual biphasic danusicola. Much remains to be done, and life history with aquatic eggs and feeding we cannot recommend the use of subgenera tadpoles (Boophis) to nidicolous larvae (e.g., within ‘‘ Mantidactylus ’’ until the inconsismany Mantidactylus). At least some (e.g., tency of taxonomy with phylogeny is ad­ Mantidactylus eiselti) have direct develop­ dressed within that group.   
 ment. Most species lay eggs away from wa­ Pseudophilautus Laurent, 1943, was ter, in some cases in a suspended nest from placed in the synonymy of Philautus by R.F. which the tadpoles drop into water (Glaw Inger (In Frost, 1985). This was accepted by   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 245  
Dubois (1999b: 5) although the assignment dialis only (Haas 96.5); (5) free basihyal abto Mantellidae by Laurent (1986) has not sent (Haas 105.0); (6) commissura proximalbeen directly challenged through discussion is II present (Haas 110.1); and (7) commisof evidence. A second look is warranted. sura proximalis III present (Haas 111.1).  
SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: Taxonomic deci­ [253] FAMILY: RHACOPHORIDAE HOFFMAN, sions taken here are guided by our results  
 1932 (1858) (figs. 50, 65), the DNA sequence study of Polypedatidae Günther, 1858b: 346. Type genus: J.A. Wilkinson et al. (2002; fig. 48) and the Polypedates Tschudi, 1838. essentially data­free tree of Delorme et al. Rhacophoridae Hoffman, 1932: 581. Type genus: (2005; fig. 49), which was presented along Rhacophorus Kuhl and Van Hasselt, 1822. with a system of morphological differentia Philautinae Dubois, 1981: 258. Type genus: Phi­ that delimited a number of monophyletic and lautus Gistel, 1848. paraphyletic groups, seemingly without ref­ Buergeriinae Channing, 1989. Type genus: Buer­ erence to the tree itself. Results of the three geria Tschudi, 1838.   
have basic agreements.  
 IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: Buergeriinae Channing, 1989, may be rec­ [244] Rhacophoroidea. ognized for Buergeria and Rhacophorinae SISTER TAXON: [246] Mantellidae. Hoffman, 1932 (1858), for the remaining RANGE: Tropical sub­Saharan Africa; rhacophorines, as was suggested by Chan­ South India and Sri Lanka; Japan; northeast­ ning (1989) and as diagnosed by J.A. Wilern India to eastern China south through the kinson et al. (2002). We cannot subscribe to Philippines and Greater Sundas; Sulawesi. the tribal taxonomy of Delorme et al. (2005) CONTENT: Aquixalus Delorme, Dubois, because their Philautini is not monophyletic Grosjean, and Ohler, 2005 (see Systematic on their own figure (fig. 49), and because the Comments); Buergeria Tschudi, 1838; Chi­ evidence in support of their tree was largely romantis Peters, 1854 (including Chirixalus undisclosed.   
 Boulenger, 1893; see Systematic Comments); On the basis of our results, and the studies Feihyla new genus (see Systematic Com­ of J.A. Wilkinson et al. (2002) and Delorme ments); Kurixalus Ye, Fei, and Dubois, 1999 et al. (2005), two problems of generic delim­ (see Systematic Comments); Nyctixalus itation appear to persist in the taxonomy. The Boulenger, 1882; Philautus Gistel, 1848; Po­ first of these, the paraphyly/polyphyly of lypedates Tschudi, 1838; Rhacophorus Kuhl ‘‘ Rhacophorus ’’ is beyond the scope of this and Hasselt, 1822; Theloderma Tschudi, paper; more taxa need to be analyzed before 1838. this problem can be addressed. The second CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Al­ problem is that nominal ‘‘ Chirixalus ’’ seemthough a few groups are primarily terrestrial, ingly falls into four generic units. We can rhacophorids are predominantly treefrogs, help correct the problems surrounding the sharing with basal ranids expanded digital polyphyly/paraphyly ‘‘ Chirixalus ’’, although pads and with mantellids the characteristic of the phylogenetic position of many species of intercalary phalangeal elements. Most spe­ both ‘‘ Chirixalus ’’ and nominal Philautus cies have T­shaped terminal phalanges. Sev­ needs to be evaluated.   
 eral larval characters that optimized on this (1) Kurixalus Fei, Ye, and Dubois (in Fei, branch may actually be synapomorphies of 1999). As noted in ‘‘Results’’, we apply this Rhacophoroidea, or some part of Rhaco­ name to a taxon that includes K. eiffingeri phoridae: (1) anterior insertion of m. subar­ and K. idiootocus, which is diagnosed by our cualis rectus II–IV on ceratobranchial II molecular evidence (see appendix 5, branch (Haas 37.1); (2) larval m. levator mandibulae 256). We provisionally include K. verrucoexternus present as two portions (profundus sus, which Delorme et al. (2005), without ev­ and superficialis; Haas 54.1); (3) posterior idence or discussion, figured as the sister taxdorsal process of pars alaris expanded ter­ on of Kurixalus eiffingeri 1 K. idiootocus. as   
 minally, almost rectangular in lateral view (These authors included idiootocus and ver­ (Haas 89.1); (4) cartilaginous roofing of the rucosus without discussion in their new polycavum cranii composed of taeniae tecti me­ phyletic/paraphyletic ‘‘ Aquixalus ’’, even 246 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297   
 they illustrated these species as being in an other species with this taxon will require exclusive monophyletic group with Kurixal­ considerable additional work.   
 us eiffingeri). Under this concept, there are Although ‘‘ Chirixalus ’’ palpebralis has currently no identified morphological syna­ been demonstrated to be phylogenetically pomorphies of Kurixalus, because the pur­ distinct (J.A. Wilkinson et al., 2002; Delorme ported synapomorphies associated with Ku­ et al., 2005) and deserving a new generic rixalus eiffingeri (well­developed prepollex name, the status of presumably closely relat­ and oophagus tadpoles) are not exhibited in ed species ‘‘ Chirixalus ’’ romeri and ‘‘ C. ’’ K. idiootocus or K. verrucosus (Kuramoto ocellatus of the ‘‘ Philautus ’’ palpebralis and Wang, 1987; Ziegler and Vences, 2002; group of Fei, 1999) remains an open ques­ Matsui and Orlov, 2004). Excluding ‘‘ Aquix­ tion, although no evidence so far has sugalus ’’ idiootocus and ‘‘ A. ’’ verrucosus from gested that these species form a monophy­ ‘‘ Aquixalus ’’, we suggest, renders Aquixalus letic group. Morphological evidence provid­ (sensu stricto) monophyletic (see below), if ed by Delorme et al. (2005) differentiating we assume that the tree of Delorme et al. their Rhacophorini (including ‘‘ Chirixalus ’’ (2005) survives testing by evidence. palpebralis on their tree) and Philautini (a (2) Feihyla new genus (type species: Phi­ paraphyletic group that on their tree includes lautus palpebralis Smith, 1924. Etymology: ‘‘ Philautus ’’ gracilipes [5 Aquixalus graci­ Fei Liang 1 hyla [Greek: vocative form of lipes]), suggests that Aquixalus (including Hylas, a traditional generic root for treefrogs] ‘‘ Chirixalus ’’ gracilipes) is not close to Feihto commemorate the extensive contributions yla (see discussion below under Aquixalus). to Chinese herpetology by Fei Liang). J.A. (3) Chiromantis Peters, 1854, and Chirix­ Wilkinson et al. (2002) found his exemplar alus Boulenger, 1893. A third unit is the cluster of species paraphyletic with respect of the ‘‘ Philautus ’’ palpebralis group of Fei to Chiromantis. The paraphyly of Chirixalus (1999), ‘‘ Chirixalus ’’ palpebralis, to be the (sensu stricto) with respect to Chiromantis sister taxon of a group composed of all rha­ was not a surprise to us. J.A. Wilkinson et cophorids except Buergeria. Delorme et al. al. (2002) had suggested that Chirixalus do­ (2005) placed ‘‘ Chirixalus ’’ palpebralis in riae is the sister taxon of Chiromantis, and their Rhacophorini, which otherwise corre­ that Chirixalus vittatus is close to Polypesponds to a monophyletic group recovered dates (compare their results with ours, which by us and by J.A. Wilkinson et al. (2002). In are based on substantially more data). We fact, this is the major point of disagreement place Chirixalus Boulenger, 1893, into the between J.A. Wilkinson et al. (2002) and De­ synonymy of Chiromantis Peters, 1854, to lorme et al. (2005). What is clear is that correct this paraphyly. (See appendix 7 for ‘‘ Chirixalus ’’ palpebralis is not in a mono­ new combinations that extend from this phyletic group with Chirixalus (sensu stric­ change and appendix 5 for molecular synato), nor obviously associated closely with pomorphies.)   
 any other generic grouping. For this reason (4) Aquixalus Delorme, Dubois, Grosjean, we have named Feihyla to recognize its dis­ and Ohler, 2005. We recognize a monophytinctiveness. We cannot construe Feihyla to letic Aquixalus (i.e., Aquixalus sensu Delorthe ‘‘ Philautus ’’ palpebralis group of Fei me et al., 2005, but excluding ‘‘ Aquixalus ’’ (1999) because the diagnosis of this group is idiootocus and ‘‘ Aquixalus ’’ verrucosus; that insufficient to distinguish it from many other is, without the molecular synapomorphies of species outside of China (i.e., Fei, 1999, branch 256—see above). Delorme et al diagnosed his ‘‘ Philautus ’’ palpebralis group (2005) diagnosed this taxon (although we do as ‘‘ Philautus ’’ from China, with an X not know which of the listed species they or)(shape on the dorsum and lacking vo­ actually evaluated for these characters), but merine teeth), such as Aquixalus gracilipes our exclusion of Kurixalus idiootocus (and and A. supercornutus; see discussion below). provisionally K. verrucosus) from Aquixalus   
 We therefore diagnose Feihyla by the char­ on the basis of the molecular synapomoracters for the species ‘‘ Philautus ’’ palpe­ phies that place Kurixalus distant from bralis provided by Fei (1999). Association of Aquixalus should render Aquixalus mono­   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 247  
 phyletic if the tree provided by Delorme et rixalus verrucosus, so this diagnosis must be al. (2005) is correct. We suggest, on the basis largely or entirely based on plesiomorphies, of the tree provided by Delorme et al (2005), with the nominal subgenus Aquixalus being that the morphological similarities shared by those members of Aquixalus that do not share Kurixalus and Aquixalus are plesiomorphic. the apomorphies of Gracixalus. Detailed We follow the recognition by Delorme et analysis of disclosed evidence is necessary.   
al. (2005) of a putatively monophyletic sub­  
 genus Gracixalus for ‘‘ Philautus ’’ gracilipes [269] SUPERFAMILY: RANOIDEA RAFINESQUE, Bourret, 1937, and ‘‘ Philautus ’’ supercor­ 1814   
 nutus Orlov, Ho, and Nguyen, 2004 (not   
IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: studied by us). The morphological diagnosis  
 [244] Aglaioanura new taxon.   
 of Gracixalus (spines on the upper eyelid,   
S: [245] Rhacophoroidea ISTER TAXON  
rictal gland connected to the mouth, foot  
Hoffman, 1932 (1858).  
very thin, two outer palmar tubercles, white  
RANGE: Worldwide temperate and tropical spot on snout tip of tadpole, five pairs of pre­  
environments, except for southern Australia, lingual papillae on the tadpole, crescent­  
New Zealand, Seychelles, and southern shaped crest on the tadpole) purportedly sep­  
South America.  
 arates it from the nominate subgenus Aquix­   
 C: [270] Nyctibatrachidae BlomONTENT   
 alus, but the absence of adequate published   
mers­Schlösser, 1993, and [272] Ranidae Raftadpole descriptions suggest that this diag­  
inesque, 1814.  
nosis should be treated as provisional (Bain  
C: Mor­ HARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS  
and Nguyen, 2004; Matsui and Orlov, 2004;  
 phological synapomorphies for Ranidae (see Delorme et al., 2005). Although Gracixalus   
 below) may actually optimize at this level. can be separated from Feihyla palpebralis   
Regardless, the molecular data are decisive (the latter in parentheses): snout triangularly  
in support of this taxon (appendix 5).  
pointed (obtusely pointed); skin translucent  
(not translucent); small white tubercles along  
[270] FAMILY: NYCTIBATRACHIDAE  
the head, anal region, and large conical tu­ BLOMMERS­SCHLÖSSER, 1993  
bercles on upper eyelid (all absent), these  
 characters do not unambiguously separate Nyctibatrachinae Blommers­Schlösser, 1993: 211. Gracixalus from ‘‘ P. ’’ romeri, ‘‘ P. ’’ ocella­ Type genus: Nyctibatrachus Boulenger, 1882.   
 Lankanectinae Dubois and Ohler, 2001: 82. Type tus, the other members of the ‘‘ P. ’’ palpe­   
 genus: Lankanectes Dubois and Ohler, 2001. bralis group of Fei (1999). The placement of New synonym.   
these two species, as well as higher level re­  
lationships will be dependent upon a rigorous IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: phylogenetic analysis. [269] Ranoidea Rafinesque, 1814.  
 Although we cannot reject the putative SISTER TAXON: [272] Ranidae Rafinesque, monophyly of the subgenus Aquixalus (in­ 1814.   
 cluding the type species A. odontotarsus, as RANGE: Sri Lanka and India.   
 well as A. ananjevae, A. baliogaster, A. bis­ CONTENT: Nyctibatrachus Boulenger, acculus, A. carinensis, and A. naso; modified 1882; Lankanectes Dubois and Ohler, 2001. from Delorme et al., 2005), we do not see CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: None any reason to recognize it, either, until the of our analyzed morphology optimizes on relevant phylogenetic data are published by this branch, although the molecular data are the original authors. According to Delorme decisive. See appendix 5 for list of unambig­ et al. (2005), the morphological diagnosis of uous molecular synapomorphies.   
 Aquixalus (webbing on feet not extending to SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: Nyctibatrachidae toes, rictal gland not connected to mouth, in our sense brings two genera together, Nycfoot very thick, one outer palmar tubercle, tibatrachus, with a median lingual process concavity on tadpole snout in lateral view, (unknown polarity), digital discs present not   
),  
 four pairs of prelingual papillae in tadpole, (plesiomorphic), femoral glands present (unmedian crest in tadpole triangular shaped, known polarity), and lateral line system 180– 240 eggs per clutch) also applies to Ku­ persisting into adulthood (plesiomorphic 248 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297   
 and Lankanectes, with no median lingual Amerana Dubois, 1992; Aurorana Dubois, process, digital discs absent, femoral glands 1992; Pseudoamolops Jiang, Fei, Ye, Zeng, absent, and lateral line system persisting into Zhen, Xie, and Chen, 1997; and Pseudorana adulthood (Dubois et al., 2001). They are ar­ Dubois, 1992); Sanguirana Dubois, 1992; ranged in a single family to avoid the taxo­ Staurois Cope, 1865; Sylvirana Dubois, nomic redundancy of having monotypic (and 1992 (including Papurana Dubois, 1992, therefore uninformative) family­group and Tylerana Dubois, 199232). (See Systemnames. atic Comments.)   
CHARACTERIZATION AND DIAGNOSIS: Al­ [272] FAMILY: RANIDAE RAFINESQUE, 1814 though Haas (2003) included only two ranids  
 in his study, Sylvirana nigrovittata and Rana Ranaridia Rafinesque, 1814: 102. Type genus: temporaria, characters that optimize on their Ranaridia Rafinesque, 1814   
 Limnodytae Fitzinger, 1843: 31. Type genus: Lim­ subtending branch are candidates as synanodytes Duméril and Bibron, 1841. pomorphies for Ranidae: (1) posterolateral Amolopsinae Yang, 1991a: 172. Type genus: projections of the crista parotica absent (Haas Amolops Cope, 1865. 67.0); and (2) processus branchialis closed   
 (Haas 114.1). Denser sampling should test IMMEDIATELY MORE INCLUSIVE TAXON: this proposition. These characters may actu­ [269] Ranoidea Rafinesque, 1814. ally optimize on Ranoides. Regardless, the SISTER TAXON: [270] Nyctibatrachidae molecular data are decisive (see appendix 5). Blommers­Schlösser, 1993. SYSTEMATIC COMMENTS: As noted in ‘‘Re­ RANGE: Temperate and tropical Africa and sults’’, Batrachylodes is transferred defini­ Eurasia through Indonesia to northern Aus­ tively to Ceratobatrachidae and Amietia (intralia, North America, Central America, and cluding Afrana) and Strongylopus are transnorthern South America. ferred to Pyxicephalidae. For discussion of CONTENT: Amolops Cope, 1865 (including these taxa see those familial accounts.   
 Amo Dubois, 1992); Babina Thompson, As noted in the ‘‘Review of Current Tax­ 1912 (including Nidirana Dubois, 1992); onomy’’, the sections and subsections of Clinotarsus Mivart, 1869; Glandirana Fei, ‘‘ Rana ’’ (sensu lato) provided by Dubois Ye, and Huang, 1991 ‘‘1990’’ 32 (including (1992) do not inform about evolutionary re­ Rugosa Fei, Ye, and Huang, 1991 ‘‘1990’’); lationships, so for this discussion and the tax­ Hydrophylax Fitzinger, 1843 (including Am­ onomic remedies we suggest, we will focus nirana Dubois, 1992, and Chalcorana Du­ on genera and subgenera. The discussion that bois, 1992); Hylarana Tschudi, 1838; Huia follows addresses the generic taxonomy that Yang, 1991 (including Eburana Dubois, we recommend (moving from top to bottom 1992; Bamburana Fei, Ye, Jiang, Xie, and of Ranidae [new taxonomy] in figure 71, al­ Huang, 2005; Odorrana Fei, Ye, and Huang, though addressing other genera and problems 1991 ‘‘1990’’); Humerana Dubois, 1992; in passing).   
 Lithobates Fitzinger, 1843 (including Aquar­ Staurois Cope, 1865: We accept Staurois ana Dubois, 1992; Pantherana Dubois, as a genus, although we note that evidence 1992; Sierrana Dubois, 1992; Trypheropsis for this taxon’s monophyly is equivocal and Cope, 1868; Zweifelia Dubois, 1992); Mer­ requires testing. The traditional diagnosis of istogenys Yang, 1991; Nasirana Dubois, Staurois —digital discs broader than long; T­ 1992; Pelophylax Fitzinger, 1843; Pterorana shaped terminal phalanges with horizontal Kiyasetuo and Khare, 1986; Pulchrana Du­ arm longer than longitudinal arm; outer bois, 1992; Rana Linnaeus, 1758 (including metatarsals separated to base but webbed;   
 nasals small separated from each other and 32 Dubois (1999a: 91) considered Glandirana Fei, Ye, frontoparietal; omosternal style not forked and Huang, 1991, to have priority over Rugosa Fei, Ye, (Boulenger, 1918); and lacking a raised ab­ and Huang, 1991, and Sylvirana Dubois, 1992, to have dominal sucker disc on larva (Inger, 1966)—   
 priority over Papurana Dubois, 1992, and Tylerana Du­   
are plesiomorphic for Ranidae. Although 2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 249  
with deep, cup­like labial parts; upper lip of the large number of ranid species whose oral disc with two continuous rows of papil­ adults are morphologically similar to those of  
 lae; lower lip with one broad continuous Staurois, but whose larvae remain undeband of papillae; Inger, 1966), the diagnostic scribed.   
 value of these characters is unknown due to [274] Hylarana Tschudi, 1838: We asso­   
250 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 ciate our exemplars of Hylarana Tschudi, which are reported to not bear humeral 1838 (H. erythraea, the type species, and H. glands 33) is done on the assumption that taipehensis), as well as of ‘‘ Sylvirana ’’ some of the molecular apomorphies of this guentheri, with the generic name Hylarana. taxon are synapomorphies of Hydrophylax in Although these two units were assigned, re­ the sense of including the species that we did spectively, to the no­humeral­gland (Hylar­ not study. On the basis of evidence presented ana) and humeral­gland subsections (Hydro­ by Matsui et al. (2005), we place Chalcorana phylax) of Dubois (1992), our data suggest hosii in our Huia. Chalcorana is likely strongly that the humeral gland is convergent broadly polyphyletic, but without evidence in ‘‘ S. ’’ guentheri and Sylvirana (sensu stri­ of the remainder’s placement we provisionco) or that the presence of the structure has ally regard them as close to Chalcorana been missed in a widespread way because of chalconota, the type­species of Chalcorana. the lack of detailed morphological study (in­ We could have retained Chalcorana as a gecluding dissections). Hylarana (including nus, but it is clear that, as data emerge, the ‘‘ Sylvirana ’’ guentheri and H. macrodactyla, species in this nominal taxon will be asthe third species of Hylarana sensu Dubois, signed to Hydrophylax, Sylvirana, and likely 1992) lacks dermal glands in the larvae, a others as well. This is not a satisfactory socharacter that appears to optimize on the sis­ lution to the problem of trying to sort ter branch of Hylarana. The vocal sac con­ through this morass, but it is the only pracdition is variable among species of Hylarana, tical solution available to us at present. with ‘‘ S. ’’ guentheri possessing gular pouch­ We retain Humerana Dubois, 1992, and es and H. taipehensis and H. erythraea lack­ Pulchrana Dubois, 1992, as nominal genera ing gular pouches. This character is highly only because we did not study these humeralhomoplastic throughout the ranid portion of gland­bearing genera. Future work should our tree. We take the molecular apomorphies test the hypothesis that the remaining species for branch 274 (appendix 5) to be synapo­ of the ‘‘humeral­gland group’’ constitute a morphies of Hylarana. monophyletic unit. The results of Matsui et   
 We are unable to diagnose Hylarana on al. (2005; fig. 46) suggest that Humerana ulthe basis of morphology. We did not study, timately will be assigned to Hylarana. and so cannot document, the phylogenetic [280] Sylvirana Dubois, 1992: Our results position of H. macrodactyla. Thus, our as­ demonstrate the polyphyly of nominal Sylsociation of this species with Hylarana re­ virana (see discussion of ‘‘ S. ’’ guentheri unquires testing. Similarly, we do not know der discussion of Hylarana) and the parawhich other species may be included in this phyly of the major group of nominal Sylvirhistorically ambiguously diagnosed genus. ana (including its type species, S. nigrovit­   
 [278] Hydrophylax Fitzinger, 1843 (in­ tata). To remedy the demonstrated polyphyly cluding Amnirana Dubois, 1992, and Chal­ of Sylvirana, we transfer ‘‘ S. ’’ guentheri into corana Dubois, 1992): We associate our ex­ Hylarana Tschudi, 1838 (see above). To reemplars of humeral­gland­bearing genera lieve the paraphyly of remaining Sylvirana, (Hydrophylax and Amnirana), as well as the we place Papurana Dubois, 1992, and Tyimbedded Chalcorana, with the generic lerana Dubois, 1992, into the synonymy of name Hydrophylax Fitzinger, 1843. Chan­ Sylvirana Dubois, 1992. Although it is clear ning (2001) had already considered the Af­ on the basis of molecular data that ‘‘ S. ’’ rican member of Hydrophylax (H. galamen­ guentheri is not in the clade containing S. sis) to be in Amnirana, along with other Af­ nigrovittata (the type species of Sylvirana), rican Hylarana ­like frogs. Our association of it is also not clear how many species of nomthe type species of Hydrophylax, H. malabarica (unstudied by us), with the clade of 33 Possession of humeral glands can be a difficult studied terminals requires testing, of course, characteristic to assess due to level of development, and as does the association of the unstudied their presence may be apparent only on dissection.   
 Therefore, any statement that humeral glands are absent members of these nominal taxa. The associ­ really requires that a dissection has been made. Dubois ation of unstudied members of Amnirana, (1992) did not mention whether he had made such dis­ Hydrophylax, and Chalcorana (some of sections.   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 251  
 inal Sylvirana are associated with ‘‘ S. ’’ Kiyasetuo and Khare, 1986: We provisionguentheri. We take the most falsifiable po­ ally retain Sanguirana Dubois, 1992, and sition—that only ‘‘ S. ’’ guentheri is far from Pterorana Kiyasetuo and Khare, 1986 (both Sylvirana nigrovittata —and suggest that unstudied by us) as genera, owing to the amcareful study is needed. biguous nature of their putative synapomor­   
 Meristogenys Yang, 1991, Clinotarsus Mi­ phies (both genera are Hylarana ­like forms). vart, 1869, and Nasirana Dubois, 1992: Our Sanguirana sanguinea (type species of Sanresults place Meristogenys as the sister taxon guirana) has a tadpole with characters shared of Clinotarsus (as found by Roelants et al., with Meristogenys, Clinotarsus, and Altir­ 2004; fig. 35), and far from both Amolops ana: a moderate to high number of labial ker­ and Huia, to which it was considered to be atodont rows (4–6/4–5); upper lip with diclosely related by Yang (1991b) and Dubois vided keratodont rows; and dermal glands on (1992). Besides the molecular evidence, Cli­ the head and body; and ventral portions of notarsus shares several larval characters with the body and tail fins (Alcala and Brown, Meristogenys: (1) dermal glands on the flank; 1982). Pterorana khare (tadpole unknown) is (2) increased numbers of rows of labial ker­ distinguished from other ranid frogs by the atodonts (5–9/ 5–10 in Meristogenys and 6– large, fleshy folds on the flanks and thighs 8/ 6–8 in Clinotarsus; over 1–5/ 2–8 in Amo­ and over the vent that extend away from the lops and Huia; Boulenger, 1920: 132–133; body when the frog is under water (Kiyase­ Chari, 1962; Yang, 1991b; Hiragond et al., tuo and Khare, 1986). 2001); and (3) upper labial keratodont rows Amolops Cope, 1865, and Amo Dubois, with a medial gap. Unlike Clinotarsus, but 1992: The phylogenetic association of Amolike Amolops, Huia, and (superficially) Pseu­ lops, Meristogenys, and Huia (Yang, 1991b; doamolops, Meristogenys have a raised ab­ Dubois, 1992), as noted in ‘‘Results’’ and in dominal sucker in the larvae (Kuramoto et the discussion above of Meristogenys, was al., 1984; Yang, 1991b; Jiang et al., 1997). rejected. Further, the association of Pseu­   
 Clinotarsus lacks the obvious synapomor­ doamolops Jiang et al., 1997, suggested by phies associated with Meristogenys (a raised, Kuramoto et al. (1984) and Fei et al. (2000) sharply defined abdominal sucker in the lar­ is also rejected, suggesting that in each case vae, ribbed jaw sheaths, and upper or both the ventral sucker on the larvae is nonhojaw sheaths divided (Yang, 1991b). Because mologous and should be considered indepenmost of the species of Meristogenys, like dently apomorphic in each lineage. Kuramost Hylarana ­like species (sensu lato), moto et al. (1984) provided morphological have not been sampled and may be involved evidence that the ventral sucker disc on the with this group, we retain both Clinotarsus larvae of Amolops is not homologous with and Meristogenys as genera. that of ‘‘ Pseudorana ’’ sauteri: the edge of   
 Nasirana alticola (not studied by us) may the disc is sharply defined in Amolops (not be allied with Clinotarsus, as their larvae so in sauteri); the m. diaphragmatobranchialshare two possible synapomorphies: (1) large is medialis engages the floor of the sucker to size; and (2) supracaudal glands (Grosjean et generate negative pressure in Amolops (musal., 2003). Furthermore, Nasirana shares cle does not communicate with sucker in with Meristogenys and Clinotarsus other lar­ sauteri); and inframarginal U­shaped band of val characters of uncertain polarity: multiple keratinized material on the sucker in Amo­ (3–7) medially divided upper labial kerato­ lops (absent in sauteri). Regardless, Kuradont rows; high numbers of labial keratodont moto et al. (1984) suggested a close relationrows (7–8: 7–8); and presence of dermal ship of sauteri to Amolops. glands on the flanks of the body (Yang, The status of Amo Dubois, 1992 (not stud­ 1991b; Hiragond et al., 2001; Grosjean et al., ied by us), is arguable. Dubois (1992) sug­ 2003). Nasirana can be distinguished from gested that Amo is unique among Amolops in all other frogs by a fleshy prominence on the having axillary glands in both sexes and an the   
 snout of the male. As with Clinotarsus, we outer metatarsal tubercle (a character pleprovisionally retain Nasirana as a genus. siomorphic at the base of the ranids), but Sanguirana Dubois, 1992, and Pterorana outer metatarsal tubercle is nevertheless pre­   
252 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 sent in Amolops nepalicus 34 and A. torrentis low glands; axillary glands and distal femo­ (after Yang, 1991b). Amo lacks the charac­ ral glands densely packed, forming a roll; teristics of both Huia and Meristogenys (tibia and intermittent longitudinal ridges, densely elongate; having lateral dermal glands on the covered with small tubercles on the dorsum larvae; high number of larval keratodont (Fei et al., 1991 ‘‘1990’’). It shares with Perows on the lower lip) but otherwise shares lophylax a very low number of labial keraone apomorphy with Amolops (sensu stricto) todont rows in larvae (likely plesiomorphic in our topology: first metacarpal greater than on our topology). Jiang and Zhou (2005; half the length of the second. So, rather than their fig. 1), with different taxon sampling, suggest that a sucker developed on the venter found Glandirana to be the sister taxon of of the larvae five times in ranids (rather than Rugosa (not studied by us, but placed by Duthe four events currently required by our to­ bois, 1992, in his section Pelophylax), and pology) we regard Amo as a synonym of phylogenetically distant from their samples Amolops. of Pelophylax (P. hubeiensis and P. nigro­ We found nominal Amolops to be poly­ maculata). phyletic (figs. 50, 65). In this case, the larva Glandirana and Rugosa share the followof Amolops chapaensis is unknown (Yang, ing characteristics that appear to be synapo­ 1991b), and that species had been assigned morphic (on our tree and on that of Jiang and to Amolops on the basis of having an adult Zhou, 2005): entire body of tadpole covered morphology more similar to Amolops than to in glands; digital discs absent in adults; and Hylarana (i.e., no humeral glands and pres­ dorsum densely covered with longitudinal, ence of gular pouches in males; after Inger, tubercular skin ridges in adults (Stejneger, 1966: 257), rather than its having the larval 1907: 123–126; Okada, 1966; Ting and T’sai, synapomorphies of Amolops. We transfer this 1979; Fei et al., 1991 ‘‘1990’’; Fei et al., species out of Amolops and into another ge­ 2005: 132–138). There are morphological nus below. (See discussion of Huia, Odor­ differences between the two genera (Okada, rana, and Eburana). Although we obtain 1966; Fei et al., 1991 ‘‘1990’’; Fei et al., Amolops as the sister taxon of Pelophylax, 2005: 132–138; Stejneger, 1907: 123–126; we are unaware of any morphological syna­ Ting and T’sai, 1979): sternal cartilage pomorphy uniting these groups (see appen­ forked posteriorly in Glandirana [deeply dix 5, branch 287). notched in Rugosa]; toes half­webbed, reach­ [288] Pelophylax Fitzinger, 1843: We re­ ing the second subarticular tubercle on toe strict the generic name Pelophylax to the IV in Glandirana [fully webbed to beyond subgenus Pelophylax of Dubois (1992). We second subarticular tubercle on toe IV in Ruare unaware of any morphological synapo­ gosa]; skin densely covered in granular yelmorphy for this group, although the molec­ low glands, as well as axillary and distal ular data are seemingly decisive (see appen­ femoral glands densely packed, forming a dix 5, branch 288). roll in Glandirana [prominent glands only Glandirana Fei, Ye, and Huang, 1991 behind tympanum in Rugosa]). However, ‘‘1990’’, and Rugosa Fei, Ye, and Huang, none of these characters is obviously in con­ 1991 ‘‘1990’’: Glandirana minima is the sole flict with Glandirana 1 Rugosa forming a species in its nominal genus (formerly a sub­ monophyletic group. In light of this evigenus of the section Hylarana, subsection dence, we recognize this clade as one genus, Hylarana: Dubois, 1992). It is diagnosed by Glandirana, placing Rugosa into synonomy. having skin densely covered in granular yel­ Rugosa rugosa, the type species of Rugosa,   
 should be included in subsequent phyloge­ 34 Dubois (2000: 331; 2004a: 176) suggested, on the netic analysis to test this hypothesis. basis of examination of the holotype, this taxon is syn­ [291] Babina Thompson, 1912, and Nidionymous with Amolops formosus but did not provide rana Dubois, 1992: Nidirana Dubois, 1992, any discussion regarding the differences itemized in the has been associated with Babina Thompson,   
original description or the diagnostic differences noted  
1912 (unstudied by us) on the basis of two 2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 253  
 deposition in water­filled nests of terrestrial raised, sharply defined abdominal sucker in burrows or open puddles (Pope, 1931: 536– the tadpole (Yang, 1991b; see discussion of 538; C.­C. Liu, 1950: 258–260; Kuramoto, Meristogenys and Amolops above). Beyond 1985; Dubois, 1992: 154–156; Chou, 1999: this structure, the only characters uniting 398–399). Babina is further diagnosable Huia with Amolops and Meristogenys are from Nidirana on the basis of the male hav­ ventral and postorbital glands of the larvae. ing a spine on the prepollex (absent in Ni­ None of these characters is present in Odordirana; Okada, 1966; Kuramoto, 1985; rana grahami, the only other member of this Chou, 1999). Nidirana, however, has no clade whose tadpole is known.   
 characters that suggest that it is monophylet­ We know of no morphological synapoic with respect to Babina (Dubois, 1992; morphy that unites this clade (branch 292), Chou, 1999). For this reason, although a sub­ but our molecular data are decisive for its genus Babina (the group with the large pre­ being a monophyletic group (see appendix pollical spine) could be employed, the name 5). We therefore apply a single generic name. Nidirana applies to no monophyletic group The oldest available name from this group of that can be identified at this time. We there­ species is Huia Yang, 1991b (published 18 fore transfer all members of Dubois’ subge­ February, 1991; the publication containing nus Nidirana to the genus Babina. Odorrana did not appear until at least March [292] Huia Yang, 1992, Odorrana Fei, Ye, of 1991; Fei et al., 1991 ‘‘1990’’). We there­ and Huang, 1991 ‘‘1990’’, Bamburana Fei et fore place ‘‘ Amolops ’’ chapaensis; Eburana al., 2005, ‘‘ Amolops ’’ chapaensis, and Ebur­ Dubois, 1992; and Odorrana Fei, Ye, and ana Dubois, 1992: Although our molecular Huang, 1991 ‘‘1990’’, into the synonymy of evidence capturing this clade of Himalayan Huia Yang, 1991.   
 and Southeast Asian cascade­dwelling spe­ We recognize that this taxonomy is probcies is unambiguous (see appendix 5, branch lematic for two reasons. First, we did not in­ 292), insufficient sampling, the lack of mor­ clude any of the types of the nominal genera phological data, and the concomitant taxo­ in this study. Thus, the assigned name may nomic confusion surrounding these taxa pre­ be inappropriate. Indeed, Huia nasica may sented us with a significant taxonomic chal­ not be closely related to Huia cavitympanum lenge. ‘‘ Amolops ’’ chapaensis is embedded Boulenger, 1893 (the type species of Huia in our Huia – Eburana – Odorrana clade, but and not studied by us). The association with its assignment to Amolops was done on the Huia nasica of a tadpole with a raised, sharpbasis of overall similarity (see discussion in ly defined abdominal sucker and ventral and Amolops section), and it is clearly not part of postorbital glands of the larvae was based on that genus. There is no known morphological one specimen (C.­C. Liu and Hu, 1961). synapomorphy linking species of Odorrana, Yang (1991b) cast doubt on this assignment as its purported synapomorphy, colorless when he reported that a ‘‘tadpole from Menspines on chest of the male, is also known in yang assigned to H. nasica by Liu and Hu Huia nasica (B.L. Stuart and Chan­ard, (1961), is certainly Huia even if not larval 2005) and species of at least two other gen­ H. nasica ’’. Our grouping of H. nasica withera (i.e., some Chalcorana and at least Ba­ in a clade of Odorrana and Eburana might bina caldwelli [R. Bain, personal obs.]), and be evidence that nasica is not a member of is absent in many species of Odorrana sensu Huia. And second, our small sample size (4 Fei et al. (1991 ‘‘1990’’; see discussion in species, only 2 of which have known tad­ ‘‘Review of Current Taxonomy’’). Similarly, poles) from this large, undiagnosed group of there is no evidence suggesting that Eburana species (minimum 36 species; Frost, 2004) is monophyletic, because its putative syna­ may speak to an oversimplification of the repomorphy, unpigmented eggs, is shared by lationships among these taxa.   
 at least some species of three other genera Whereas both of these problems are real (e.g., Chalcorana, Odorrana, Amolops; see concerns, this decision, as with all of our taxon   
, discussion in ‘‘Review of Current Taxono­ onomic decisions, is a hypothesis based my’’). Huia (sensu stricto) represents a third the preponderance of the available evidence example in our tree of convergence of a which we prefer to taxonomic decisions   
254 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 based on similarity groupings. As this entire the abdominal suction cup on the larvae. section of former Rana seems to have avoid­ This structure is found in sauteri alone, al­ ed detailed study, we suggest that a concerted though in a less­developed form than in effort to amass the necessary comparative Amolops, Meristogenys, and Huia (sensu morphological and molecular data is needed, stricto; Jiang et al., 1997). Tanaka­Ueno et and we interpret our results as identifying al. (1998a) suggested on the basis of 587 bp key areas for further study and not as a de­ of mtDNA that sauteri is imbedded within cisive resolution of these problems. the brown frog clade (Dubois’ subgenus   
 [296] Rana Linnaeus, 1758 (including Au­ Rana). Our results corroborate this. Unlike rorana Dubois, 1992, Amerana Dubois, Amolops, Meristogenys, and Huia, both 1992, Pseudoamolops Jiang, Fei, Ye, Zeng, Pseudorana and Pseudoamolops lack dermal Zhen, Xie, and Chen, 1997, and Pseudorana glands on the larvae, which might be a syn­ Fei, Ye, and Huang, 1991 ‘‘1990’’): To ren­ apomorphy, although we do not know the der a monophyletic grouping, we place Pseu­ condition of this feature in the Rana tempordorana and Pseudoamolops as junior syno­ aria group. For our taxonomy, we relegate nyms of Rana, because they are both embed­ Pseudoamolops and Pseudorana to the synded within the same clade as Rana tempor­ onymy of Rana, which is decisively diagaria (the type species of Rana). The nosable on the basis of molecular data (apabdominal sucker disc of the tadpole of pendix 5, branch 296). Pseudoamolops is not homologous with [301] Lithobates Fitzinger, 1843 (includthose of Amolops, Huia, and Meristogenys, ing Aquarana Dubois, 1992, Pantherana Duall of which are distant from each other in bois, 1992, Sierrana Dubois, 1992, Trypherour tree. opsis Cope, 1868, and ‘‘ Rana ’’ sylvatica):   
 Because Amerana 1 Aurorana form the Because of the phylogenetic propinquity of sister taxon of our exemplars of a clade with Aquarana Dubois, 1992, Lithobates Fitzin­ Rana temporaria, we also place both of these ger, 1843, Pantherana Dubois, 1992, Siergenera as junior synonyms of Rana (sensu rana Dubois, 1992, Trypheropsis Cope, stricto) to render a monophyletic group. 1868, ‘‘ Rana ’’ sylvatica, and Zweifelia Du­ These frogs are unusual among American bois, 1992 (the latter not studied by us, but ‘‘ Rana ’’, but otherwise similar to members placed phylogenetically in this group by Hilof Rana (sensu stricto) in retaining an outer lis and Wilcox, 2005; fig. 44), we place these metatarsal tubercle. taxa into their own genus, for which the old­   
 Dubois (1992) recognized Pseudorana as est available name is Lithobates Fitzinger, including Rana sangzhiensis, Rana sauteri, 1843. Therefore, we consider Lithobates to and R. weiningensis, characterized as lacking be a genus, within which we place Aquardermal glands in the larvae (likely a syna­ ana, Trypheropsis, Sierrana, Zweifelia, and pomorphy at this level of universality) and Pantherana as junior synonyms. Absence of having a labial keratodont row formula of 4– an outer metatarsal tubercle is a morpholog­ 7/5–8, an abdominal sucker in the larvae (al­ ical synapomorphy. (For species affected by though not as well­developed as in Amo­ this nomenclatural change see Frost, 2004, lops), digit I longer than digit II (likely ple­ and appendix 7). siomorphy), toe pads present on digit I and We considered recognizing Aquarana for toe IV; metatarsal tubercle present (plesiom­ the former R. clamitans / R. catesbeiana orphy), dorsolateral folds present; no gular group; Lithobates for the former R. palmipes pouches in males; and a chevron­shaped group; Pantherana for the R. pipiens group; mark on the anterior dorsum. Subsequently, and Zweifelia for the former R. pustulosa /R. Jiang et al. (1997) partitioned Pseudorana, tarahumarae group. However, this would with P. weiningensis staying in Pseudorana have necessitated naming a new monotypic along with johnsi and sangzhiensis, but sau­ genus for Rana sylvatica. Hillis and Wilcox teri being transferred to Pseudoamolops on (2005) also suggested, on the basis of a gen­   
 the basis of several features. The most dis­ erally more limited study, but much more tinctive feature is that Pseudorana (contra densely sampled within ‘‘ Rana ’’ than ours, the diagnosis of Dubois, 1992) actually lacks that ‘‘ Rana ’’ sylvatica is the sister taxon of   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 255  
 Aquarana. We found it to be the sister taxon thanks: Lisa Gugenheim and Merrily Sterns of the (old) Pantherana – Sierrana –Lithoba­ (Office of Government Relations) and Diane tes–Typheropsis clade. However, this result Bynum and Barbara Green (Office of Grants is weakly corroborated (due to the variable and Fellowships) were unstinting in their placement of ‘‘ R. ’’ sylvatica; this branch has support. Eleanor Sterling (Center for Biodi­ a Bremer value of 1 and jackknife frequency versity and Conservation), initiated and proof 52%), and the results of Hillis and Wilcox moted fieldwork in Vietnam and Bolivia that (2005) therefore deserve further careful con­ resulted in the acquisition of many of the sideration. What does seem to be highly cor­ valuable tissue samples used in this study. roborated by both our data and those of Hillis Angelique Corthals and Julie Feinstein and Wilcox (2005) is that, excluding the spe­ (AMNH Monell Cryo­Collection) cooperatcies formerly assigned to Amerana and Au­ ed in last­minute tissue requests and accesrorana, all North American species currently sions. Leo Smith provided advice and supassigned to Rana form a clade. To recognize port regarding the vagaries of POY. Ho Ling this and to underscore the fact that the spe­ Poon (Center for Biodiversity and Consercies on the West Coast are more closely re­ vation) provided timely assistance with translated to Eurasian species than to other North lations of Chinese literature. Mary DeJong American species, we recognize the com­ was invaluable in providing library assispletely American group as Lithobates. (See tance. In the AMNH Herpetology Departappendix 7 for new combinations and con­ ment, Iris Calderon and Dawn Skala dealt tent.) Hillis and Wilcox (2005) provided sev­ skillfully with the large demands placed on eral new names for various clades within them by this and related projects. Denny Di­ Lithobates, but inasmuch as these were not veley provided extensive editorial and library associated with organismal characteristics support. that purport to delimit them, they are nomina Enormous assistance and encouragement nuda. was also provided from formal and informal reviewers. Maureen Donnelly, David Gower, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Robert F. Inger, Roy W. McDiarmid, Joseph Mendelson III, Jay M. Savage, and Tom A. We thank the National Aeronautic and Titus read the entire manuscript, caught Space Administration (NASA) for significant many errors, and provided invaluable insight support of computational and molecular bi­ and suggestions; their efforts are deeply apology at the American Museum of Natural preciated. Paul Chippindale read the sala­ History. This support (NASA grants NAG5­ mander sections, caught errors, and provided 12333 and NAG5­8443 to Frost and NAG5­ timely advice. Jeffery A. Wilkinson, provid­ 13028 to Wheeler) allowed the continued de­ ed welcome advice and comments on the velopment of necessary algorithms, the soft­ various sections relevant to rhacophorid sys­ and hardware for massively parallel compu­ tematics. Richard Mayden was a great source tation of large phylogenetic trees, the of counsel and encouragement during the delarge­scale acquisition of molecular data that velopment of this study. elucidate our understanding of the evolution Grant and Frost acknowledge NSF grant and distribution of life on planet Earth, as DEB­0309226, which allowed development well as the student involvement so necessary of many of the primers used in this study and to the success of this venture. This support many of the sequences used both in the supwent far to assuring the success of this in­ ported dendrobatid research as well as in this ternational community project and we are study. During the course of this study Grant deeply grateful. Regardless, any opinions, was supported by an AMNH Graduate Stufindings, and conclusions or recommenda­ dent Fellowship, a Columbia University Centions expressed in this material are those of ter for Environmental Research and Conserthe authors and do not necessarily reflect the vation Faculty Fellowship, and NASA grant   
views of the National Aeronautics and Space NAG5­13028.  
Administration. Faivovich and Frost acknowledge NSF Many people in the AMNH deserve grant DEB­0407632 which supported devel­  
256 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 opment of primers and sequences used in this Haas acknowledges support by the Deutstudy as well as the supported hylid research. sche Forschungsgemeinschaft Grant Ha Faivovich acknowledges the timely support 2323/2­1. of a Theodore Roosevelt Memorial grant. De Sá acknowledges NSF grants DEB­ During the course of this study Faivovich 0342918 and 9815787 which provided supwas supported by an AMNH Graduate Stu­ port for field work and Leptodactylus redent Fellowship and NASA grant NAG5­ search that concomitantly furthered the de­ 13028. Faivovich and Blotto thank Santiago velopment of this study. Nenda, Guido Corallo, Andres Sehinkman, Campbell gratefully acknowledges the and Diego Baldo for field assistance. support of NSF grants DEB­0102383 and Bain acknowledges NSF grant DEB­ 9705277, which allowed the acquisition of 9870232 to the Center for Biodiversity and many of the Middle American and tissue Conservation (CBC/AMNH) for financial samples used in this paper, as well as field support as well as the generous support of and collection assistance by Dwight Law­ The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur son, Brice Noonan, Eric Smith, and Paul Us­ Foundation. Collecting and export permits tach. for Vietnam amphibians were granted by the Channing acknowledges the Tanzania Forestry Protection Department, Ministry of Commission for Science and Technology Re­ Agriculture and Rural Development, Viet­ search Permit 2002­319­ER­99­40, which nam (export permit numbers 31–98, 102–98, provided field support for the collection of 340–99, 341–99, and 174–00). Thanks are genetic samples in Tanzania. also due to Le Xuan Canh, Nguyen Quang Donnellan thanks Michael Mahony (Uni­ Truong, Ho Thu Cuc, and Khuat Dang Long versity of Newcastle), Steve Richards (South of the Institute of Ecology and Biological Australian Museum), Allen Allison (Bernice Resources, Hanoi, and Melina Laverty, CBC / P. Bishop Museum), Dale Roberts (Univer­ AMNH, for cooperation and assistance in all sity of Western Australia), Michael Tyler aspects of Vietnam fieldwork. Tissues of Bo­ (University of Adelaide), and Ken Aplin livian amphibians were collected on expedi­ (Western Australian Museum) for access to tions supported by the CBC/AMNH and the critical tissues, field support, and courtesies Center for Environmental Research and Con­ extended to him that furthered this study. servation at Columbia University, New York, Raxworthy acknowledges NSF grant in collaboration with the Museo de Historia DEB­9984496, National Geographic Society Natural Noel­Kempff Mercado, Santa Cruz, grant 5396­94, and grants from Earthwatch Bolivia, and Colección Boliviana de la Fauna, La Paz. Collection permits for Bolivian which provided field support for acquisition   
of important genetic samples from Madagasmaterial were granted by el Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Planificacion de Bo­ car. livia. Nussbaum and Raxworthy gratefully ac­ Haddad gratefully acknowledges Biota­ knowledge support from NSF grants DEB­ FAPESP (01/13341­3) and CNPq for finan­ 9024505, 9322600, and 9625873, which procial support. Exportation permits of Brazilian vided funds for field research and acquisition samples were issued by CITES Lic. 081968 of tissues. BR; Autorizações de Acesso e de Remessa Nussbaum acknowledges NSF grants de Amostras de Componentes do Patrimônio DEB­0070485, 9625873, and 9917453, Genético numbers 02001002851/2004; which provided funds for the acquisition of 02001.002669/2004; permits for collection genetic samples from Madagascar and the were issued by IBAMA/RAN, licenças 057/ Seychelles. Nussbaum also thanks Greg 03 and 054/05. Haddad thanks the following Schneider for efforts in developing and for field support in the acquisition of relevant maintaining the tissue collections at UMMZ; tissues: Antonio P. Almeida, João L. Gapar­ and Ronn Altig, Michael J. Pfrender, and Ed­  
ini, José P. Pombal, Jr., Luis O.M. Giasson, mund D. Brodie II, Jr. for help with field Marília T.A. Hartmann, and Paulo C.A. work in China, Madagascar, São Tome´, and Garcia. Seychelles.  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 257  
 Moler thanks Barry Mansell for field as­ São Paulo, Brazil), José Núñez N. (Instituto sistance. de Zoología, Universidad Austral de Chile, Drewes thanks the NSF for grant DBI­ Valdivia, Chile), Wade Ryberg (Washington 9876766, that helped support the CAS frozen University, St. Louis), Elizabeth Scott tissue collection, which proved to be an in­ (Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, South Africa), valuable resource for this study. Tom A. Titus (University of Oregon, Eu­ Green thanks for funding the National Sci­ gene), Jens V. Vindum (California Academy ences and Engineering Research Council of Sciences, San Francisco), David B. Wake (NSERC) of Canada. (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University For access to critical tissues and other of California, Berkeley), and Jorge Williams courtesies with respect to this study and (Museo de la Plata, Buenos Aires, Argenticlosely related ones we thank Stevan J. Ar­ na). nold (Oregon State University, Corvallis), J.W. Arntzen (National Museum of Natural REFERENCES History, Leiden), Christopher Austin, Robb Abel, O. 1919. Die Stämme der Wirbeltiere. Klas­ T. Brumfield, Donna Dittman, and Frederick se Amphibia. Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Sheldon (Louisiana State University Muse­ Gruyter. um of Zoology, Baton Rouge), Boris Blotto Abourachid, A., and D.M. Green. 1999. Origins (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales of the frog kick? Alternate­leg swimming in ‘‘Bernardino Rivadavia’’, Buenos Aires, Ar­ primitive frogs, families Leiopelmatidae and gentina), Rafe Brown, William E. Duellman, Ascaphidae. Journal of Herpetology 33: 657– and John Simmons (University of Kansas 663. Museum of Natural History and Biodiversity Adler, K.A. 1989. Herpetologists of the past. In K.A. Adler (editor), Contributions to the his­   
 Center, Lawrence), Marius Burger (Univer­ tory of herpetology. Contributions to Herpetol­ sity of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Af­ ogy, no. 5. Ithaca, NY: Society for the Study of rica), Janalee Caldwell (Sam Noble Amphibians and Reptiles: 5–143. Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Nor­ Ahl, E. 1930. Neuere Erkenntnisse über die sysman), Paul Chippindale, Paul Franklin, Eric tematische Einteilung der Amphibian. Sitzungs­ Smith, and Paul Ustach (University of Texas berichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender at Arlington), Bruce L. Chrisman (Albuquer­ Freunde zu Berlin 1930: 78–85. que), Maureen Donnelly (Florida Interna­ Alcala, A.C., and W.C. Brown. 1982. Reproductive biology of some species of Philautus (Rha­   
tional University, Miami), Robert N. Fisher cophoridae) and other Philippine anurans. Phil­ and Brian Yang (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Ser­ ippine Journal of Biology 11: 203–226. vice, San Diego), Ron Gagliardo (Atlanta Alford, R.A., and S.J. Richards. 1999. Global am­ Botanical Garden), Frank Glaw (Zoologische phibian declines: a problem in applied ecology. Stäatssammlung München), Martin Henzl Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: (Wien, Austria), Caren Goldberg (University 133–165. of Idaho, Moscow), Andrew Holycross (Ar­ Allard, M.W., M.M. Miyamoto, L. Jarecki, F. izona State University, Tempe), Robert Inger, Kraus, and M.R. Tennant. 1992. DNA systematics and evolution of the artiodactyl family  
 Alan Resetar, and Harold Voris (Field Mu­ Bovidae. Proceedings of the National Academy seum, Chicago), Cornelya Klütsch (Zoolo­ of Sciences of the United States of America 89: gisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Al­ 3972–3976. exander Koenig, Bonn, Germany), Dwight Altig, R.I., and G.F. Johnston. 1989. Guilds of an­ Lawson (Zoo Atlanta), Karen Lips (Southern uran larvae: relationships among developmen­ Illinois University, Carbondale), Steve Gotte, tal modes, morphologies, and habitats. Herpe­ W. Ronald Heyer, Roy W. McDiarmid, Rob­ tological Monographs 3: 81–109. ert Reynolds, and Addison Wynn (National Altig, R.I., and R.W. McDiarmid. 1999. Diversity: familial and generic characterizations. In R.W.   
 Museum of Natural History, Washington, McDiarmid and R. Altig (editors), Tadpoles: D.C.), Robert W. Murphy (Royal Ontario the biology of anuran larvae: 295–337. Chica­ Museum, Toronto, Canada), Brice Noonan go: University of Chicago Press. (Brigham Young University, Provo), Paulo Amiet, J.­L. 1970. Morphologie et développement Nuín (Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de de la larve de Leptodactylodon ventrimarmor­   
258 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 atus (Boulenger) (amphibien, anoure). Annales found in the plains of India. Records of the In­ de la Faculte des Sciences du Cameroun. Ya­ dian Museum 15: 24–40. oundé 4: 53–71. Anonymous. 1956. Opinion 417. Rejection for   
Amiet, J.­L. 1971 ‘‘1970’’. Les batraciens oro­ nomenclatorial purposes of volume 3 (Zoolophiles du Cameroun. Annales de la Faculte des gie) of the work by Lorenz Oken entitled Sciences du Cameroun. Yaoundé 5: 83–102. ‘‘Okens Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte’’ pub­  
Amiet, J.­L. 1973 ‘‘1972’’. Compte rendu d’une lished in 1815–1816. Opinions and Declaramission batachologique dans le Nord­Came­ tions Rendered by the International Commisroun. Annales de la Faculte des Sciences du sion on Zoological Nomenclature 14: 1–42. Cameroun. Yaoundé 12: 63–78. Anonymous. 1977. Opinion 1071. Emendation  
 Amiet, J.­L. 1973. Caracteres diagnostiques de under the plenary powers of Liopelmatina to Petropedetes perreti, nov. sp. et notes sur les Leiopelmatidae (Amphibia, Salientia). Bulletin autres espèces camerounaises du genre (amphi­ of Zoological Nomenclature 33: 167–169. biens anoures). Bulletin de l’Institut Fondamen­ Anonymous. 1990. Opinion 1604. Ichthyophiidae tal d’Afrique Noire, Série A, Sciences Naturel­ Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): conles 35: 462–474. served. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature   
 Amiet, J.­L. 1981. Ecologie, ethologie et devel­ 47: 166–167. oppement de Phrynodon sandersoni Parker, Anonymous. 1996. Opinion 1830. Caeciliidae 1939 (Amphibia, Anura, Ranidae). Amphibia­ Kolbe, 1880 (Insecta, Psocoptera): spelling Reptilia 2: 1–13. emended to Caeciliusidae, so removing the   
 Amiet, J.­L. 1983. Une espèce meconnue de Pe­ homonymy with Caeciliidae Rafinesque, 1814 tropedetes du Cameroun: Petropedetes parkeri (Amphibia, Gymnophiona). Bulletin of Zoolog­ n. sp. (Amphibia, Anura, Ranidae, Phrynoba­ ical Nomenclature 53: 68–69. trachinae). Revue Suisse de Zoologie 90: 457– Aplin, K.P., and M. Archer. 1987. Recent advanc­ 468. es in marsupial systematics with a new syn­   
 Amiet, J.­L. 1989. Quelques aspects de la biologie cretic classification. In M. Archer (editor), vol. des amphibiens anoures du Cameroun. Année 1. Possums and opossums: studies in evolution: Biologique. Paris 28: 73–116. xv–lxxii. Chipping Norton, Australia: Surrey   
 Amiet, J.­L., and J.­L. Perret. 1969. Contributions Beatty. à la faune de la région de Yaoundé (Cameroun Archey, G. 1922. The habitat and life history of II. Amphibiens anoures. Annales de la Faculte Liopelma hochstetteri. Records of the Canterdes Sciences du Cameroun. Yaoundé 1969: bury Museum 2: 59–71. 117–137. Archibald, J.D. 1994. Metataxon concepts and as­   
 Anders, C.C. 2002. Class Amphibia (amphibians). sessing possible ancestry using phylogenetic In H.H. Schleich and W. Kästle (editors), Am­ systematics. Systematic Biology 43: 27–40. phibians and reptiles of Nepal: biology, system­ Ardila­Robayo, M.C. 1979. Status sistematico del atics, field guide: 133–340. Ruggell: A.R.G. genero Geobatrachus Ruthven, 1915 (Amphib­ Gantner. ia: Anura). Caldasia 12: 383–495.   
 Anderson, J. 1871. A list of the reptilian accession Austin, J.D., S.C. Lougheed, K. Tanner, A.A. to the Indian Museum, Calcutta from 1865 to Chek, J.P. Bogart, and P.T. Boag. 2002. A mo­ 1870, with a description of some new species. lecular perspective on the evolutionary affini­ Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 40: ties of an enigmatic Neotropical frog, Allophry­ 12–39. ne ruthveni. Zoological Journal of the Linnean   
Anderson, J.S. 2001. The phylogenetic trunk: Society. London 134: 335–346. maximal inclusion of taxa with missing data in Báez, A.M., and N.G. Basso. 1996. The earliest an analysis of the Lepospondyli (Vertebrata, known frogs of the Jurassic of South America: Tetrapoda). Systematic Biology 50: 170–193. review and cladistic appraisal of their relation­  
Andreone, F., M. Vences, D.R. Vieites, F. Glaw, ships. Münchner Geowissenschaftliche Abhan­ and A. Meyer. 2004 ‘‘2005’’. Recurrent ecolog­ dlungen. Reihe A. Geologie und Paläontologie ical adaptations revealed through a molecular 30: 131–158. analysis of the secretive cophyline frogs of Báez, A.M., and L.A. Pugener. 2003. Ontogeny Madagascar. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evo­ of a new Paleogene pipid frog from southern lution 34: 315–322. South America and xenopodinomorph evolu­  
Annandale, N. 1918. Some undescribed tadpoles tion. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. from the hills of southern India. Records of the London 139: 439–476.  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 259  
and Recent pipoid frogs. Scientific Papers. Nat­ family Pelobatidae. Proceedings of the Zoologural History Museum, University of Kansas 4: ical Society of London 1907: 871–911.  
1–41. Beddard, F.E. 1911. Contributions to the anatomy Bain, R.H., A. Lathrop, R.W. Murphy, N.L. Orlov, of the Anura. Proceedings of the Zoological So­ and T.C. Ho. 2003. Cryptic species of a cascade ciety of London 1911: 393–412.  
 frog from Southeast Asia: taxonomic revisions Bell, B.D., and R.J. Wassersug. 2003. Anatomical and descriptions of six new species. American features of Leiopelma embryos and larvae: im­ Museum Novitates 3417: 1–60. plication for anuran evolution. Journal of Mor­ Bain, R.H., and Q.T. Nguyen. 2004. Herpetofauna phology 256: 160–170.   
diversity of Ha Giang Province in northeastern Benton, M.J. 2000. Stems, nodes, crown clades, Vietnam, with descriptions of two new species. and rank­free lists: is Linnaeus dead? Biologi­ American Museum Novitates 3453: 1–42. cal Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Baldauf, R.J. 1959. Morphological criteria and Society 75: 633–648.  
their use in showing bufonid phylogeny. Jour­ Berthold, A.A. 1827. Latreille’s natürliche Faminal of Morphology 104: 527–560. lien der Thierreichs aus dem Französischen mit Baldissera, F.A., Jr., R.F. Batistic, and C.F.B. Had­ Anmerkungen und Zusätzen von Dr. Arnold dad. 1999. Cytotaxonomic considerations with Adoph Berthold. Weimar: Landes­Industrie the description of two new NOR locations for Comptoir.  
 South American toads, genus Bufo (Anura: Bu­ Biju, S.D., and F. Bossuyt. 2003. New frog family fonidae). Amphibia­Reptilia 20: 413–420. from India reveals an ancient biogeographical Barbour, T., and A. Loveridge. 1928. A compar­   
link with the Seychelles. Nature. London 425: ative study of the herpetological faunae of the  
711–714.  
Uluguru and Usambara Mountains, Tanganyika  
Bishop, S.C. 1943. Handbook of salamanders. Ithaca: Comstock Publishing Company.  
Territory, with descriptions of new species. Me­  
Blair, W.F. (editor), 1972a. Evolution in the genus moires of the Museum of Comparative Zoology  
 Bufo. Austin: University of Texas Press.   
50: 85–265.  
 Blair, W.F. 1972 b. Bufo of North and Central Barrio, A. 1954. Sistemática, morfología y re­   
 America. In W.F. Blair (editor), Evolution in the produccion de Physalaemus henselii (Peters) y   
 genus Bufo: 93–101. Austin: University of Tex­ Pseudopaludicola falcipes (Hensel). Physis.   
as Press.  
Buenos Aires 20: 379–389.  
 Blair, W.F. 1972c. Evidence from hybridization. In Barrio, A. 1963. Consideraciones sobre compor­   
 W.F. Blair (editor), Evolution in the genus Bufo: tamiento y ‘‘grito agresivo’’ propio de algunas   
196–243. Austin: University of Texas Press.  
especies de Ceratophrynidae (Anura). Physis.  
 Blair, W.F. 1972d. Characteristics of the testes. In Buenos Aires 24: 143–148.   
 W.F. Blair (editor), Evolution in the genus Bufo: Barrio, A. 1968. Revision del genero Lepidoba­   
324–328. Austin: University of Texas Press.  
 trachus Budgett (Anura, Ceratophrynidae). Blaustein, A.R., and J.M. Kiesecker. 2002. Com­ Physis. Buenos Aires 27: 445–454. plexity in conservation: lessons from the global Barrio, A. 1977. Aportes para la elucidacion del decline of amphibian populatons. Ecology Let­ ‘‘status’’ taxonomico de Pleurodema bibroni ters 5: 597–608.   
 Tschudi y Pleurodema kriegi (Muller) (Am­ Blommers­Schlösser, R.M.A. 1975. Observations phibia, Anura, Leptodactylidae). Physis. Buen­ on the larval development of some Malagasy os Aires 37: 311–331. frogs, with notes on their ecology and biology Barrio, A., and P. Rinaldi de Chieri. 1971. Con­ (Anura: Dyscophinae, Scaphiophryninae and tribución al esclarecimiento de la posición tax­ Cophylinae). Beaufortia 24: 7–26.   
ofilética de algunos batracios argentinos me­ Blommers­Schlösser, R.M.A. 1976. Chromosomal diante el análisis cariotípico. Physis. Buenos analysis of twelve species of Microhylidae (An­ Aires 30: 673–685. ura) from Madagascar. Genetica 46: 199–210. Barrio­Amorós, C.L. 2004. Amphibians of Vene­ Blommers­Schlösser, R.M.A. 1993. Systematic zuela. Systematic list, distribution and referenc­ relationships of the Mantellinae Laurent 1946 es. Revista de Ecología Latino­Americana 9: 1– (Anura Ranoidea). Ethology Ecology & Evo­ 48. lution 5: 199–218.  
Bauer, L. 1986. A new genus and a new specific Blommers­Schlösser, R.M.A., and C.P. Blanc. name in the dart poison frog family (Dendro­ 1991. Amphibiens (premiere partie). Faune de batidae, Anura, Amphibia). Ripa. Netherlands Madagascar 75: 1–379.  
.  
de 1986(November): 1–12. Blommers­Schlösser, R.M.A., and C.P. Blanc  
260 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 Bogart, J.P. 1968. Chromosome number differ­ phibians as indicators of early Tertiary ‘‘out­ofence in the amphibian genus Bufo: the Bufo re­ India’’ dispersal of vertebrates. Science 292: gularis group. Evolution 22: 42–45. 93–95.   
 Bogart, J.P. 2003. Genetics and systematics of hy­ Boulenger, G.A. 1882. Catalogue of the Batrachia brid species. In D.M. Sever (editor), Reproduc­ Salientia s. Ecaudata in the collection of the tive biology and phylogeny of Urodela (Am­ British Museum, 2nd ed. London: Taylor and phibia): 109–134. Enfield, New Hampshire: Francis. Science Publishers, Inc. Boulenger, G.A. 1884. Diagnoses of new reptiles   
Bogart, J.P., and M. Tandy. 1981. Chromosome and batrachians from the Solomon Islands, collineages in African ranoid frogs. Monitore lected and presented to the British Museum by Zoologico Italiano. Nuova Serie, Supplemento H.B. Guppy, Esq., M.B., H.M.S. ‘‘Lark’’. Pro­ 15: 55–91. ceedings of the Zoological Society of London  
Boie, H. 1828. Bemerfungen über die Ubtheilun­ 1884: 210–213. gen im natürlichen Systeme und deren Char­ Boulenger, G.A. 1890. Second report on additions acteristit. Isis von Oken 21: 351–363. to the batrachian collection in the Natural­His­  
 Bokermann, W.C.A. 1965. Notas sôbre as espé­ tory Museum. Proceedings of the Zoological cies de Thoropa Fitzinger (Amphibia, Lepto­ Society of London 1890: 323–328. dactylidae). Anais da Academia Brasileira de Boulenger, G.A. 1892 ‘‘1891’’. A synopsis of the Ciências. Rio de Janeiro 37: 525–537. tadpoles of the European batrachians. Proceed­   
 Bolívar­G., W., T. Grant, and L.A. Osorio. 1999. ings of the Zoological Society of London 1891: Combat behavior in Centrolene buckleyi and 593–627. other centrolenid frogs. Alytes 16: 77–83. Boulenger, G.A. 1906 ‘‘1905’’. Report on the ba­   
 Bolkay, S.J. 1919. Osnove uporedne osteologije trachians collected by the late L. Fea in West anurskih batrahija [Elements of the comparative Africa. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naosteology of the tailless batrachians]. Glasnika turale di Genova. Serie 3, 2: 157–172. Zemaljskog Muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sa­ Boulenger, G.A. 1918. Remarks on the batrachian rejevo 31: 275–357. genera Cornufer, Tschudi, Platymantis, Gthr.,   
 Bonacum, J., J. Stark, and E. Bonwich. 2001. Simomantis, g.n., and Staurois, Cope. Annals PCR methods and approaches. In R. DeSalle, and Magazine of Natural History, Series 9, 1: G. Giribet, and W.C. Wheeler (editors), Tech­ 372–375. niques in molecular systematics and evolution: Boulenger, G.A. 1920. A monograph of the South 302–328. Boston: Birkhäuser. Asian, Papuan, Melanesian and Australian   
 Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. 1839. Iconographia della fau­ frogs of the genus Rana. Records of the Indian na italica per le quattro classi degli animali ver­ Museum 20: 1–226. tebrati. Tomo II. Amphibi. Fascicolo 26. Roma: Boycott, R.C. 1982. On the taxonomic status of Salviucci. Heleophryne regis Hewitt, 1909 (Anura: Lep­   
Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. 1840. Prodromus systematis todactylidae). Annals of the Cape Provincial herpetologiae. Nuovi Annali delle Scienze Na­ Museums. Natural History 14: 89–108. turali. Bologna 4: 90–101. Bremer, K. 1994. Branch support and tree stabil­  
Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. 1845. Specchio generale dei ity. Cladistics 10: 295–304. sistemi erpetologico, anfibiologico ed ittiologi­ Brongniart, A.T. 1800a. Essai d’une classification co. Milano: Coi Tipi di Luigi di Giacomo Pi­ naturelle des reptiles. Iere Partie. Bulletin des rola. Sciences, par La Société Philomathique 2: 81–  
Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. 1850. Conspectus systema­ 82. tum. Herpetologiae et amphibiologiae. Editio Brongniart, A.T. 1800b. Essai d’une classification altera reformata. Leiden: Brill. naturelle des reptiles. II Partie. Bulletin des Sci­  
 Bonett, R.M., and P.T. Chippindale. 2004. Speci­ ences, par La Société Philomathique 2: 89–91. ation, phylogeography and evolution of life his­ Brown, W.C. 1952. The amphibians of the Solotory and morphology in plethodontid salaman­ mon Islands. Bulletin of the Museum of Comders of the Eurycea multiplicata complex. Mo­ parative Zoology 107: 3–64. lecular Ecology 13: 1189–1203. Brummitt, R.K. 2002. How to chop up a tree. Tax­   
Bossuyt, F., and M.C. Milinkovitch. 2000. Con­ on 51: 31–41. vergent adaptive radiations in Madagascan and Burton, T.C. 1986. A reassessment of the Papuan Asian ranid frogs reveal covariation between subfamily Asterophryninae (Anura: Microhylilarval and adult traits. Proceedings of the Na­ dae). Records of the South Australian Museum  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 261  
finger muscles of frogs. American Museum Carpenter, J.M. 2003. Critique of pure folly. Bo­ Novitates 3229: 1–13. tanical Review 69: 79–92.  
 Burton, T.C. 1998b. Variation in the hand and su­ Carroll, R.L. 2000a. The lissamphibian enigma. In perficial throat musculature of Neotropical lep­ H. Heatwole and R.L. Carroll (editors), Amtodactylid frogs. Herpetologica 54: 53–72. phibian biology, vol. 4. Paleontology, the evo­ Burton, T.C. 2004. Muscles and pes of hylid frogs. lutionary history of amphibians: 1270–1273. Journal of Morphology 260: 209–233. Chipping Norton, Australia: Surrey Beatty.   
 Caccone, A., M.C. Milinkovitch, V. Sbordoni, and Carroll, R.L. 2000b. Eocaecilia and the origin of J.R. Powell. 1994. Molecular biogeography: us­ caecilians. In H. Heatwole and R.L. Carroll (eding the Corsica­Sardinia microplate disjunction itors), Amphibian biology, vol. 4. Paleontology, to calibrate mitochondrial rDNA evolutionary the evolutionary history of amphibians: 1402– rates in mountain newts (Euproctus). Journal of 1411. Chipping Norton, Australia: Surrey Beat­ Evolutionary Biology 7: 227–245. ty & Sons.   
 Caldwell, J.P., and C.W. Myers. 1990. A new poi­ Carroll, R.L., and P.J. Currie. 1975. Microsaurs as son frog from Amazonian Brazil, with further possible apodan ancestors. Zoological Journal revision of the quinquevittatus group of Den­ of the Linnean Society. London 57: 229–247.   
 drobates. American Museum Novitates 2988: Carroll, R.L., A. Kunst, and K. Albright. 1999. 1–21. Vertebral development and amphibian evolu­ Cannatella, D.C. 1985. A phylogeny of primitive tion. Evolution and Development 1: 36–48.   
 frogs (Archeobatrachia). Ph.D. dissertation. De­ Case, S.M. 1978. Biochemical systematics of partment of Systematics and Ecology, Univer­ members of the genus Rana native to western sity of Kansas, Lawrence.   
North America. Systematic Zoology 27: 299– Cannatella, D.C. 1989. On the monophyly of dis­  
311.  
Cei, J.M. 1970. La posición filetica de Telmatocoglossoid frogs. Fortschritte der Zoologie/Pro­  
biinae, su discusión reciente y significado crigress in Zoology 35: 230–231.  
tico de algunos imunotests. Acta Zoologica Lil­ Cannatella, D.C., and D.M. Hillis. 1993. Amphib­  
loana 27: 181–192.  
ian relationships: phylogenetic analysis of mor­  
 Cei, J.M. 1972. Bufo of South America. In W.F. phology and molecules. Herpetological Mono­   
 Blair (editor), Evolution in the genus Bufo: 82– graphs 7: 1–7.   
92. Austin: University of Texas Press.  
Cannatella, D.C., and D.M. Hillis. 2004. Amphib­  
 Cei, J.M. 1980. Amphibians of Argentina. Moniians: leading a life of slime. In J. Cracraft and   
tore Zoologico Italiano. Nuova Serie, Monogra­ M.J. Donoghue (editors), Assembling the tree  
phia 2: 1–609.  
of life: 430–450. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Uni­  
Channing, A. 1989. A re­evaluation of the phyversity Press.  
logeny of Old World treefrogs. South African Cannatella, D.C., D.M. Hillis, P.T. Chippindale,  
Journal of Zoology 24: 116–131.  
 L.A. Weigt, A.S. Rand, and M.J. Ryan. 1998. Channing, A. 1995. The relationship between Phylogeny of frogs of the Physalaemus pustu­ Breviceps (Anura: Microhylidae) and Hemisus losus species group, with an examination of (Hemisotidae) remains equivocal. Journal of data incongruence. Systematic Biology 47: the Herpetological Association of Africa 44: 311–335. 55–57.   
Cannatella, D.C., and L. Trueb. 1988. Evolution Channing, A. 2001. Amphibians of central and of pipoid frogs: intergeneric relationships of the southern Africa. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University aquatic frog family Pipidae (Anura). Zoological Press.  
 Journal of the Linnean Society. London 94: 1– Channing, A. 2003. Ghost frogs (Heleophryni­ 38. dae). In W.E. Duellman (editor), Grzimek’s an­ Cantino, P.D., H.N. Bryant, K. de Queiroz, M.J. imal life encyclopedia, 2nd ed. Vol. 6. Am­ Donoghue, T. Eriksson, D.M. Hillis, and M.S.Y. phibians: 131–134. Detroit: Gale Group.   
 Lee. 1999. Species names in phylogenetic no­ Channing, A., D. Moyer, and M. Burger. 2002. menclature. Systematic Biology 48: 790–807. Cryptic species of sharp­nosed reed frogs in the Cantino, P.D., R.G. Olmstead, and S.J. Wagstaff. Hyperolius nasutus complex: advertisement 1997. A comparison of phylogenetic nomencla­ call differences. African Zoology 36: 91–99.   
 ture with the current system: a botanical case Channing, A., D.C. Moyer, and K.M. Howell. study. Systematic Biology 46: 313–331. 2002. Description of a new torrent frog in the Caramaschi, U., and J.P. Pombal, Jr. 2001. Bary­ genus Arthroleptides from Tanzania (Amphibia, on   
 ternetzi, with notes on development. Journal of Chari, V.K. 1962. A description of the hitherto Herpetology 35: 357–360. undescribed tadpole of, and some field notes 262 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297   
 the fungoid frog Rana malabarica (Bibr.). Jour­ Paraguay, Vermejo and Uraguay [sic] Rivers, nal of the Bombay Natural History Society 59: by Capt. Thos. J. Page, U.S. N.; and of those 71–76. procured by Lieut. N. Michler, U.S. Top. Eng., Chen, L.Q., R.W. Murphy, A. Lathrop, A. Ngo, Commander of the expedition conducting the N.L. Orlov, T.C. Ho, and I.L.M. Somorjai. survey of the Atrato River. Proceedings of the 2005. Taxonomic chaos in Asian ranid frogs: Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia an initial phylogenetic resolution. Herpetologi­ 14: 346–359.   
 cal Journal 15: 231–243. [Not seen prior to De­ Cope, E.D. 1863. On Trachycephalus, Scaphiopus cember, 2005.] and other Batrachia. Proceedings of the Acad­ Chen, N., J.X. Ma, D.W. Corson, E.S. Hazard, and emy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 15: R.K. Crouch. 1996. Molecular cloning of a rho­ 43–54.   
dopsin gene from salamander rods. Investiga­ Cope, E.D. 1865. Sketch of primary groups of tions in Ophthalmology and Vision Science 37: Batrachia s. Salientia. Natural History Review. 1907–1913. New Series 5: 97–120.  
Chippindale, P.T., R.M. Bonett, A.S. Baldwin, and Cope, E.D. 1866. On the structure and distribution J.J. Wiens. 2004. Phylogenetic evidence for a of the genera of the arciferous Anura. Journal major reversal of life­history evolution in pleth­ of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philaodontid salamanders. Evolution 58: 2809– delphia. Series 2, 6: 67–112.  
 2822. Cope, E.D. 1867. On the families of the raniform Chou, W.­H. 1999. A new frog of the genus Rana Anura. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sci­ (Anura: Ranidae) from China. Herpetologica ences of Philadelphia. Series 3, 6: 189–206.   
55: 389–400. Cope, E.D. 1869. A review of the species of Clarke, B.T. 1981. Comparative osteology and Plethodontidae and Desmognathidae. Proceedevolutionary relationships in the African Rani­ ings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of nae (Anura: Ranidae). Monitore Zoologico It­ Philadelphia 21: 93–118.  
aliano. Nuova Serie, Supplemento 15: 285–331. Cope, E.D. 1875. Check­list of North American Clough, M.E., and K. Summers. 2000. Phyloge­ Batrachia and Reptilia; with a systematic list of netic systematics and biogeography of the poi­ the higher groups, and an essay on geographical son frogs: evidence from mitochondrial DNA distribution based on specimens contained in sequences. Biological Journal of the Linnean the U.S. National Museum. Bulletin of the Society 70: 515–540. United States National Museum 1: 1–104.  
Cogger, H.G., E.E. Cameron, and H.M. Cogger. Cope, E.D. 1880. Geology and paleontology. 1983. Zoological catalogue of Australia, vol. 1. American Naturalist 14: 609–610.  
Amphibia and Reptilia. Canberra: Australian Cope, E.D. 1887. The hyoid structure in the am­ Government Publishing Service. blystomid salamanders. American Naturalist Colgan, D.J., A. McLauchlan, G.D.F. Wilson, S.P. 21: 88.  
Livingston, G.D. Edgecombe, J. Macaranas, Cope, E.D. 1889. Batrachia of North America. and G. Cassis. 1999. Histone H3 and U2 sn­ Bulletin of the United States National Museum RNA DNA sequences and arthropod molecular 34: 5–525.  
evolution. Australian Journal of Zoology 46: Couper, P. 1992. Hope for our missing frogs. 419–437. Wildlife Australia. Brisbane 1992: 10–11.  
 Collins, J.P., and A. Storfer. 2003. Global am­ Crawford, A.J. 2003. Huge populations and old phibian declines: sorting the hypotheses. Di­ species of Costa Rican and Panamanian dirt versity and Distributions 9: 89–98. frogs inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear Coloma, L.A. 1995. Ecuadorian frogs of the ge­ gene sequences. Molecular Ecology 12: 2525– nus Colostethus (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Uni­ 2540.   
 versity of Kansas Museum of Natural History, Crawford, A.J., and E.N. Smith. 2005. Cenozoic Miscellaneous Publications 87: 1–72. biogeography and evolution in direct­develop­ Cope, E.D. 1859. On the primary divisions of the ing frogs of Central America (Leptodactylidae: Salamandridae, with descriptions of two new Eleutherodactylus) as inferred from a phylospecies. Proceedings of the Academy of Natu­ genetic analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial ral Sciences of Philadelphia 11: 122–128. genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution Cope, E.D. 1861 ‘‘1860’’. Descriptions of reptiles 35: 536–555.   
from tropical America and Asia. Proceedings of Cunningham, M., and M.I. Cherry. 2000. Mitothe Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadel­ chondrial DNA divergence in southern African  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 263  
ular systematics of African 20­chromosome Annales du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle. Paris toads (Anura: Bufonidae). Molecular Phyloge­ 4: 233–296, 4 pl.  
netics and Evolution 32: 671–685. de Carvalho, M.R., F.A. Bockman, D.S. Amorim, Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1829. Le règne animal distri­ M. de Vivo, M. de Toledo­Piza, N.A. Menezes, bué d’après son organisation, pour servir de J.L. De Figueiredo, R.M.C. Castro, A.C. Gill, base à l’histoire naturelle des animaux et J.D. McEachran, L.J.V. Compagno, R.C. Scheld’introduction à l’anatomie comparée. Nou­ ly, R. Britz, J.C. Lundberg, R.P. Vari, and G. velle ed., revue et augmentée par P.A. Latreille, Nelson. 2005. Revisiting the taxonomic impedvol. 2. Paris: Deterville. iment. Science 307: 353.  
 Daltry, J.C., and G.N. Martin. 1997. Rediscovery De la Riva, I., and J.D. Lynch. 1997. New species of the black narrow mouthed frog, Melanoba­ of Eleutherodactylus from Bolivia (Amphibia: trachus indicus Beddome, 1878. Hamadryad Leptodactylidae). Copeia 1997: 151–157.   
 22: 57–58. Delorme, M., and A. Dubois. 2001. Une nouvelle Darst, C.R., and D.C. Cannatella. 2004. Novel re­ espèce de Scutiger du Bhutan, et quelques relationships among hyloid frogs inferred from marques sur la classification subgénérique du 12S and 16S mitochondrial DNA sequences. genre Scutiger (Megophryidae, Leptobrachi­ Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: inae). Alytes 19: 141–153.   
462–475. Delorme, M., A. Dubois, S. Grosjean, and A. Ohlda Silva, H.R. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of er. 2005. Une nouvelle classification generique the family Hylidae with emphasis on the rela­ et subgenerique de la tribu des Philautini (Amtionships within the subfamily Hylinae (Am­  
phibia, Anura, Ranidae, Rhacophorinae). Bulphibia: Anura). Ph.D. dissertation. Department  
letin Mensuel de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon of Sytematics and Ecology, University of Kan­  
74: 165–171.  
Delorme, M., A. Dubois, J. Kosuch, and M. sas, Lawrence.  
Vences. 2004. Molecular phylogenetic relationda Silva, H.R., and J.R. Mendelson, III. 1999. A  
 ships of Lankanectes corrugatus from Sri Lannew organ and sternal morphology in toads   
ka: endemism of South Asian frogs and the (Anura: Bufonidae): descriptions, taxonomic  
concept of monophyly in phylogenetic studies. distribution, and evolution. Herpetologica 55:  
Alytes 22: 53–64.  
114–126.  
del Pino, E.M., and B. Escobar. 1981. Embryonic Davies, M.M. 2003a. Australian ground frogs  
 stages of Gastrotheca riobambae (Fowler) dur­ (Limnodynastidae). In W.E. Duellman (editor),   
ing maternal incubation and comparison with Grzimek’s animal life encyclopedia, 2nd ed.  
development with other marsupial frogs. Jour­ Vol. 6. Amphibians: 139–146. Detroit: Gale  
nal of Morphology 167: 277–295.  
Group.  
de Queiroz, K. 1988. Systematics and the Dar­ Davies, M.M. 2003b. Australian toadlets and wa­  
 winian Revolution. Philosophy of Science 55: ter frogs (Myobatrachidae). In W.E. Duellman 238–259.   
(editor), Grzimek’s animal life encyclopedia, de Queiroz, K., and J.A. Gauthier. 1992. Phylo­ 2nd ed. Vol. 6. Amphibians: 147–154. Detroit: genetic taxonomy. Annual Review of Ecology Gale Group. and Systematics 23: 449–480.  
 Dawood, A., A. Channing, and J.P. Bogart. 2002. de Queiroz, K., and J.A. Gauthier. 1994. Toward A molecular phylogeny of the frog genus To­ a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclamopterna in southern Africa: examining spe­ ture. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 27– cies boundaries with mitochondrial 12S rRNA 31.   
 sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and de Sa´, R.O., W.R. Heyer, and A. Camargo. 2005. Evolution 22: 407–413. A phylogenetic analysis of Vanzolinius (Am­ De Bavay, J.M. 1993. The developmental stages phibia, Anura, Leptodactylidae): taxonomic and of the sphagnum frog, Kyarranus sphagnicol­ life history implications. Arquivos do Museu ous Moore (Anura, Myobatrachidae). Austra­ Nacional do Rio de Janeiro, In press.   
 lian Journal of Zoology 41: 151–201. de Sa´, R.O., and D.M. Hillis. 1990. Phylogenetic de Blainville, H.M.D. 1816. Prodrome d’une nou­ relationships of the pipid frogs Xenopus and velle distribution systematique du regne animal. Silurana: an integration of ribosomal DNA and Bulletin de la Société Philomathique de Paris. morphology. Molecular Biology and Evolution Series 3, 3: 113–124. 7: 365–376.   
de Blainville, H.M.D. 1835. Description de quel­ de Sa´, R.O., and C.C. Swart. 1999. Development a  
ques espèces de reptiles de la Californie, pré­ of the suprarostral plate of pipoid frogs. Journal cédée de l’analyse d’un système général of Morphology 240: 143–153.  
264 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 species of Arthroleptella from Jonkershoek, Dubois, A. 1981. Liste des genres et sous­genres Stellenbosch. South African Journal of Science nominaux de Ranoidea (amphibiens anoures) 26: 481–510. du monde, avec identification de leurs espèces   
 De Villiers, C.G.S. 1931. Über den Schädelbau types; consequences nomenclaturales. Monitore des Breviceps fuscus. Anatomischer Anzeiger Zoologico Italiano. Nuova Serie, Supplemento 72: 164–178. 15: 225–284.   
D’Haese, C.A. 2003. Morphological appraisal of Dubois, A. 1982. Les notions de genre, sous­ Collembola phylogeny with special emphasis genre et groupe d’espèces en zoologie à la luon Poduromorpha and a test of the aquatic or­ mière de la systématique évolutive. Monitore igin hypothesis. Zoologica Scripta 32: 563– Zoologico Italiano. Nuova Serie, Supplemento 586. 16: 9–65.  
 Diaz, N.F., J. Valencia, and M. Sallaberry. 1983. Dubois, A. 1983. Classification et nomenclature Life history and phylogenetic relationships of supragenerique des amphibiens anoures. Bul­ Insuetophrynus acarpicus (Anura: Leptodactyl­ letin Mensuel de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon idae). Copeia 1983: 30–37. 52: 270–276.   
Donnelly, M.A., and M.L. Crump. 1998. Potential Dubois, A. 1984a. Miscellanea nomenclatorica effects of climate change on two Neotropical batrachologica (V). Alytes 3: 111–116. amphibian assemblages. Climatic Change 39: Dubois, A. 1984b. La nomenclature supragéné­ 541–561. rique des amphibiens anoures. Mémoires du  
 Donnelly, M.A., R.O. de Sa´, and C. Guyer. 1990. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Paris. Description of the tadpoles of Gastrophryne Série A, Zoologie 131: 1–64. pictiventris and Nelsonophryne aterrima (An­ Dubois, A. 1985. Miscellanea nomenclatorica baura: Microhylidae), with a review of morpho­ trachologica (VII). Alytes 4: 61–78. logical variation in free­swimming microhylid Dubois, A. 1986 ‘‘1985’’. Diagnose préliminaire larvae. American Museum Novitates 2796: 1– d’un nouveau genre de Ranoidea (amphibiens, 19. anoures) du sud de l’Inde. Alytes 4: 113–118.   
Donoghue, M.J. 1985. A critique of the biological Dubois, A. 1987 ‘‘1985’’. Miscellanea taxinomica species concept and recommendations for a batrachologica (I). Alytes 5: 7–95. phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88: 172– Dubois, A. 1987 ‘‘1986’’. Living amphibians of 181. the world: a first step towards a comprehensive  
 Drewery, G.E., and K.L. Jones. 1976. A new ovo­ checklist. Alytes 5: 99–149. viviparous frog, Eleutherodactylus jasperi Dubois, A. 1987. Discoglossidae Günther, 1858 (Amphibia, Anura, Leptodactylidae) from (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation. Al­ Puerto Rico. Journal of Herpetology 10: 161– ytes 6: 56–68. 165. Dubois, A. 1988a. Miscellanea nomenclatorica   
Drewes, R.C. 1984. A phylogenetic analysis of batrachologica (XVII). Alytes 7: 1–5. the Hyperoliidae (Anura): treefrogs of Africa, Dubois, A. 1988b. The genus in zoology: a con­ Madagascar, and the Seychelles Islands. Occa­ tribution to the theory of evolutionary systemsional Papers of the California Academy of Sci­ atics. Mémoires du Muséum National ences 139: 1–70. d’Histoire Naturelle. Paris. Série A, Zoologie  
Drewes, R.C., R.I. Altig, and K.M. Howell. 1989. 140: 1–122. Tadpoles of three frog species endemic to the Dubois, A. 1992. Notes sur la classification des forest of the Eastern Arc Mountains, Tanzania. Ranidae (amphibiens anoures). Bulletin Men­ Amphibia­Reptilia 10: 435–443. suel de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon 61: 305–  
 Drewes, R.C., and J.A. Wilkinson. 2004. The Cal­ 352. ifornia Academy of Sciences Gulf of Guinea Dubois, A. 1995. Keratodont formulae in anuran Expedition (2001) I. The taxonomic status of tadpoles: proposals for a standardization. Jourthe genus Nesionixalus Perret, 1976 (Anura: nal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Hyperoliidae), treefrogs of São Tomé and Prín­ Research 33: 1–15. cipe, with comments on the genus Hyperolius. Dubois, A. 1999a. Miscellanea nomenclatorica Proceedings of the California Academy of Sci­ batrachologica. 19. Notes on the nomenclature ences 55: 395–407. of Ranidae and related groups. Alytes 17: 81–   
Dubois, A. 1980. Notes sur la systematique et la 100. repartition des amphibiens anoures de Chine et Dubois, A. 1999b. South Asian Amphibia: a new des regions avoisinantes IV. Classification ge­ frontier for taxonomists. Journal of South Asian  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 265  
 Nepal: an example of critical evaluation of bio­ todactylidae). In W.E. Duellman (editor), Grzigeographical data. In G. Miehe and Y. Zhang mek’s animal life encyclopedia, 2nd ed. Vol. 6. (editors), Environmental changes in High Asia. Amphibians: 155–171. Detroit: Gale Group.   
 Proceedings of an international symposium at Duellman, W.E., and P. Gray. 1983. Developmenthe University of Marburg, Faculty of Geogra­ tal biology and systematics of the egg­brooding phy, 29 May to 1 June 1997, under the auspices hylid frogs, genera Flectonotus and Fritziana. of the Unesco. Marburger Geographische Herpetologica 39: 333–359.   
Schriften 135: 326–345. Duellman, W.E., and M.S. Hoogmoed. 1984. The  
 Dubois, A. 2003. True frogs (Ranidae). In W.E. taxonomy and phylogenetic relationships of the Duellman (editor), Grzimek’s animal life en­ hylid frog genus Stefania. University of Kansas cyclopedia, 2nd ed. Vol. 6. Amphibians: 245– Museum of Natural History, Miscellaneous 264. Detroit: Gale Group. Publications 75: 1–39.   
 Dubois, A. 2004a. Amphibians of Nepal: a few Duellman, W.E., and R. Schulte. 1992. Descripwords of caution. Alytes 21: 174–180. tion of a new species of Bufo from northern   
Dubois, A. 2004b. The higher nomenclature of Peru with comments on phenetic groups of recent amphibians. Alytes 22: 1–14. South American toads (Anura: Bufonidae).  
Dubois, A. 2005. Amphibia Mundi. 1.1. An er­ Copeia 1992: 162–172.  
gotaxonomy of Recent amphibians. Alytes 23: Duellman, W.E., and L. Trueb. 1986. Biology of 1–24. amphibians. New York: McGraw­Hill.  
 Dubois, A., and R. Günther. 1982. Klepton and Duellman, W.E., and A. Veloso M. 1977. Phylogsynklepton: two new evolutionary systematics eny of Pleurodema (Anura: Leptodactylidae): a categories in zoology. Zoologische Jahrbücher. biogeographic model. Occasional Papers of the Abteilung für Systematik, Ökologie und Geo­ Museum of Natural History, University of Kangraphie. Jena 109: 290–305. sas 64: 1–46.   
 Dubois, A., and A. Ohler. 1998. A new species of Duméril, A.H.A. 1863. Catalogue méthodique de Leptobrachium (Vibrissaphora) from northern la collection des batraciens du Muséum Vietnam, with a review of the taxonomy of the d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris. Mémoires de la genus Leptobrachium (Pelobatidae, Megophyi­ Société Impériale des Sciences Naturelles de nae). Dumerilia 4: 1–32. Cherbourg 9: 295–321.   
 Dubois, A., and A. Ohler. 1999. Asian and Ori­ Duméril, A.M.C. 1806. Zoologie analytique, ou ental toads of the Bufo melanostictus, Bufo sca­ méthode naturelle de classification des aniber and Bufo stejnegeri groups (Amphibia, An­ maux, rendue plus facile à l’dide de tableaux ura): a list of available and valid names and synoptiques. Paris: Allais.   
redescription of some name­bearing types. Dunn, E.R. 1920. Notes on two Pacific coast Am­ Journal of South Asian Natural History 4: 133– bystomidae. Proceedings of the New England 180. Zoological Club 7: 55–59.  
 Dubois, A., and A. Ohler. 2000. Systematics of Dunn, E.R. 1922. The sound­transmitting appa­ Fejervarya limnocharis (Gravenhorst, 1829) ratus of salamanders and the phylogeny of the (Amphibia, Anura, Ranidae) and related spe­ Caudata. American Naturalist 56: 418–487.   
 cies. 1. Nomenclatural status and type­speci­ Dunn, E.R. 1939. Bathysiredon, a new genus of mens of the nominal species Rana limnocharis salamanders, from Mexico. Notulae Naturae of Gravenhorst, 1829. Alytes 18: 15–50. the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadel­   
Dubois, A., and A. Ohler. 2001. A new genus for phia 36: 1.  
an aquatic ranid (Amphibia, Anura) from Sri Dutta, S.K., K. Vasudevan, M.S. Chaitra, K. Lanka. Alytes 19: 81–106. Shanker, and R.­K. Aggarwal. 2004. Jurassic  
Dubois, A., A. Ohler, and S.D. Biju. 2001. A new frogs and the evolution of amphibian endemism genus and species of Ranidae (Amphibia, An­ in the western Ghats. Current Science. Bangaura) from south­western India. Alytes 19: 53– lore 86: 211–216.  
79. Echeverria, D.D. 1998. Aspectos de la reproduc­  
 Duellman, W.E. 1975. On the classification of cion in­vitro del desarrollo larval de Melanofrogs. Occasional Papers of the Museum of phryniscus stelzneri (Weyenbergh, 1875) (An­ Natural History, University of Kansas 42: 1– ura, Bufonidae), con comentarios acerca del or­ 14. gano de Bidder. Alytes 15: 158–170.   
 Duellman, W.E. 2001. Hylid frogs of Middle Edwards, J.L. 1976. Spinal nerves and their bear­ America, 2nd ed. 2 vol. Contributions to Her­ ing on salamander phylogeny. Journal of Mor­, petology, no. 18. Ithaca, NY: Society for the phology 148: 305–328. Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Elias, P., and D.B. Wake. 1983. Nyctanolis pernix Duellman, W.E. 2003. Leptodactylid frogs (Lep­ a new genus and species of plethodontid sala­   
266 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 mander from northwestern Guatemala and chia arborícola Allophryne ruthveni Gaige, Chiapas, Mexico. In A. Rhodin and K. Miyata 1926. Cuadernos de Herpetología 14: 47–59.   
 (editors), Advances in herpetology and evolu­ Faivovich, J. 2002. A cladistic analysis of Scinax tionary biology. Essays in honor of Ernest E. (Anura: Hylidae). Cladistics 18: 367–393.   
 Williams: 1–12. Cambridge, MA: Museum of Faivovich, J., C.F.B. Haddad, P.C.A. Garcia, D.R. Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. Frost, J.A. Campbell, and W.C. Wheeler. 2005. Emerson, S.B., and D. Berrigan. 1993. System­ Systematic review of the frog family Hylidae, atics of Southeast Asian ranids: multiple origins with special reference to Hylinae: a phylogeof voicelessness in the subgenus Limnonectes netic analysis and taxonomic revision. Bulletin (Fitzinger). Herpetologica 49: 22–31. of the American Museum of Natural History Emerson, S.B., R.F. Inger, and D.T. Iskandar. 294: 1–240.   
2000a. Molecular systematics and biogeogra­ Farris, J.S. 1973. On comparing the shapes of taxphy of the fanged frogs of Southeast Asia. Mo­ onomic trees. Systematic Zoology 22: 50–54.  
 lecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 16: 131– Farris, J.S., A.G. Kluge, and M.F. Mickevich. 142. 1979. Paraphyly of the Rana boylii species Emerson, S.B., C.M. Richards, R.C. Drewes, and group. Systematic Zoology 28: 627–634.   
K.M. Kjer. 2000b. On the relationships among Farris, J.S., A.G. Kluge, and M.F. Mickevich. ranoid frogs: a review of the evidence. Herpe­ 1982a. Phylogenetic analysis, the monothetic tologica 56: 209–230. group method, and myobatrachid frogs. Sys­ Estes, R. 1965. Fossil salamanders and salaman­ tematic Zoology 31: 317–327.  
 der origins. American Zoologist 5: 319–334. Farris, J.S., A.G. Kluge, and M.F. Mickevich. Estes, R. 1970. New fossil pelobatid frogs and a 1982b. Immunological distance and the phylo­ review of the genus Eopelobates. Bulletin of genetic relationships of the Rana boylii species the Museum of Comparative Zoology 139: group. Systematic Zoology 31: 479–491.   
239–340. Fatio, V. 1872. Faune des vertébrés de la Suisse, Estes, R. 1981. Handbuch der Paläoherpetologie/ vol. III. Histoire naturelle des reptiles et des Encyclopedia of paleoherpetology. Part 2. batraciens. Paris: J.­P. Bailliere.  
Gymnophiona, Caudata. Stuttgart: Gustav Fi­ Fei, L. 1999. [Atlas of amphibians of China.] scher. Zhengzhou: Henan Press of Science and Tech­ Estes, R., K. de Queiroz, and J.A. Gauthier. 1988. nology. [In Chinese.]  
 Phylogenetic relationships within Squamata. In Fei, L., and C. Ye. 2000. A new hynobiid subfam­ R. Estes and G.K. Pregill (editors), Phyloge­ ily with a new genus and new species of Hy­ netic relationships of the lizard families, essays nobiidae from West China. Cultum Herpetolo­ commemorating Charles L. Camp: 119–281. gica Sinica 8: 64–70. [In Chinese with English Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. abstract.]   
Estes, R., and O.A. Reig. 1973. The early fossil  
 record of frogs: a review of the evidence. In J. Fei, L., and C. Ye. 2001. [The color handbook of Vial (editor), Evolutionary biology of the an­ the amphibians of Sichuan.] Chengdu, China: urans: contemporary research on major prob­ Sichuan Forestry Department, Sichuan Associlems: 11–63. Columbia: University of Missouri ation of Wildlife Conservation, and Chengdu Press. Institute of Biology. [In Chinese.]   
Evans, B.J., R.M. Brown, J.A. McGuire, J. Su­ Fei, L., C. Ye, and Y. Huang. 1991 ‘‘1990’’. [Key priatna, N. Andayani, A.C. Diesmos, D.T. Is­ to Chinese amphibians.] Chongqing, China: kandar, D.J. Melnick, and D.C. Cannatella. Publishing House for Scientific and Technolog­ 2004. Phylogenetics of fanged frogs: testing ical Literature. [In Chinese.]  
 biogeographical hypotheses at the interface of Fei, L., C. Ye, and Y. Huang. 1997. Taxonomic the Asian and Australian fauna zones. System­ studies of the genus Liurana of China including atic Biology 52: 794–819. descriptions of a new species (Amphibia: Ran­ Evans, B.J., D.J. Melnick, D.C. Cannatella, J. Su­ idae). Cultum Herpetologica Sinica 6–7: 75–80. priatna, N. Andayani, and M.I. Setiadi. 2003. Fei, L., C. Ye, and J. Jiang. 2000. A new genus Monkeys and toads define areas of endemism of the subfamily Amolopinae — Pseudoamoon Sulawesi. Evolution 57: 1436–1443. lops, and its relationship to related genera. Acta Evans, S.E., and D. Sigogneau­Russell. 2001. A Zoologica Sinica 46: 19–26.   
stem­group caecilian (Lissamphibia: Gymno­ Fei, L., C. Ye, J. Jiang, X. Feng, and Y. Huang. phiona) from the Lower Cretaceous of North 2005. [An illustrated key to Chinese amphibi­  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 267  
 two new species of the genus Odorrana in Chi­ clades of frogs. Herpetological Monographs 7: na. Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica 26: 108–114. 94–117.   
 Fejérváry, G.J. 1917. Anoures fossiles des couch­ Formas, J.R., and N.D. Espinoza. 1975. Karyoes préglaciares de Püspökfürdö en Hongrie. logical relatonships of frogs of the genus Tel­ Földtani Közlöny 47: 141–172. matobufo (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Herpeto­   
 Fejérváry, G.J. 1920. Remarques sur la position logica 31: 429–432. systematique des genres Bufavus et Ranavus. Formas, J.R., E. Pugin, and B. Jorquera. 1975. La Annales Historico­Naturales Musei Nationalis identidad del batracio chileno Heminectes rufus Hungarici 18: 28–30. Philippi, 1902. Physis. Buenos Aires 34: 147–   
Fejérváry, G.J. 1921. Kritische Bemerkungen zur 157. Osteologie, Phylogenie und Systematik der An­ Frost, D.R. (editor), 1985. Amphibian species of uren. Archiv für Naturgeschichte. Abteilung A the world. A taxonomic and geographical ref­ 87: 1–30. erence. Lawrence, KS: Association of System­  
Fejérváry, G.J. 1923. Ascaphidae, a new family atics Collections and Allen Press. of the tailless batrachians. Annales Historico­ Frost, D.R. 2004. Amphibian species of the world: Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici 20: 178– an online reference. Version 3.0. New York: 181. American Museum of Natural History. [Elec­  
Feller, A.E., and S.B. Hedges. 1998. Molecular tronic database available at http://reevidence for the early history of living amphib­ search.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/inians. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 9: dex.html.] Frost, D.R., and A.G. Kluge. 1994. A consider­ 509–516. ation of epistemology in systematic biology,  
 Fink, W.L. 1990. Review of: The genus in zool­ with special reference to species. Cladistics 10: ogy: a contribution to the theory of evolution­ 259–294. ary systematics, by Alain Dubois. Mem. du Frost, D.R., M.T. Rodrigues, T. Grant, and T.A. Museum national d’Histoire Naturelle, Serie A, Titus. 2001. Phylogenetics of the lizard genus Zoology, Tome 140. 1988. Quarterly Review of Tropidurus (Squamata: Tropiduridae: Tropidur­ Biology 65: 79–80. inae): direct optimization, descriptive efficien­   
Fischer von Waldheim, G. 1813. Zoognosia tabulis cy, and sensitivity analysis of congruence besynopticis illustrata, in usum praelectionum Aca­ tween molecular data and morphology. Molecdemiae Imperialis Medico­Chirurgicae Mosquen­ ular Phylogenetics and Evolution 21: 352–371. sis edita. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Moscow: Nicolai Ser­ Gadow, H. 1901. The Cambridge natural history, geidis Vsevolozsky. vol. 8. Amphibia and reptiles. London: Mac­  
Fitzinger, L.J.F.J. 1826. Neue Classification der millan and Co. Reptilien nach ihren natürlichen Verwandt­ Gallardo, J.M. 1965. A proposito de los Leptoschaften nebst einer Verwandtschafts­Tafel und dactylidae (Amphibia, Anura). Papéis Avulsos einem Verzeichnisse der Reptilien­Sammlung de Zoologia. São Paulo 17: 77–87. des k.k. zoologisch Museum’s zu Wien. Wien: Gao, K., and N.H. Shubin. 2001. Late Jurassic J.G. Heubner. salamanders from northern China. Nature. Lon­  
Fitzinger, L.J.F.J. 1835. Entwurf einer systema­ don 410: 574–577. tischen Anordnung der Schildkröten nach den Gao, K., and N.H. Shubin. 2003. Earliest known Grandsätzen der natürlichen Methode. Annalen crown group salamanders. Nature. London 422: des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 1: 424–429. 105–128. Gao, K., and Y. Wang. 2001. Mesozoic anurans  
Fitzinger, L.J.F.J. 1843. Systema reptilium. Fas­ from Liaoning Province, China, and phylogeciculus primus. Wien: Braumüller et Seidel. netic relationships of archaeobatrachian anuran  
Ford, L.S. 1990. The phylogenetic position of poi­ clades. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 21: son­dart frogs (Dendrobatidae): reassessment of 460–476. the neobatrachian phylogeny with commentary García­París, M., D.R. Buchholz, and G. Parraon complex character systems. Ph.D. disserta­ Olea. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships of Petion. Department of Systematics and Ecology, lobatoidea re­examined using mtDNA. Molec­ University of Kansas, Lawrence. ular Phylogenetics and Evolution 28: 12–23.  
 Ford, L.S. 1993. The phylogenetic position of the García­París, M., A. Monton, and M.A. Alonsodart­poison frogs (Dendrobatidae) among an­ Zarazaga. 2004a. Apéndice 1. Nomenclatura: urans: an examination of the competing hy­ lista de sinónimos y combinaciones. In M.   
potheses and their characters. Ethology Ecolo­ García­París, A. Montori, and P. Herrero (edigy & Evolution 5: 219–231. tors), Fauna Iberica, vol. 24. Amphibia. Lis­ Ford, L.S., and D.C. Cannatella. 1993. The major samphibia: 589–602. Madrid: Museo Nacional  
268 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
de Ciencias Naturales and Consejo Superior de primers which have amplified DNA in amphib­ Investigaciones Científica. ians successfully. Molecular Phylogenetics and  
García­París, M., A. Montori, and P. Herrero. Evolution 11: 163–199.  
2004b. Fauna Iberica, vol. 24. Amphibia. Lis­ Goin, C.J., O.B. Goin, and G.R. Zug. 1978. Introsamphibia. Madrid: Museo Nacional de Cien­ duction to herpetology, 3rd ed. San Francisco: cias Naturales and Consejo Superior de Inves­ W.H. Freeman and Co.  
tigaciones Científica. Goldfuss, G.A. 1820. Handbuch der Zoologie.  
García­París, M., and D.B. Wake. 2000. Molecu­ Zweite Abtheilung. Nürnburg: Johann Leonlar phylogenetic analysis of relationships of the hard Schrag.  
 tropical salamander genera Oedipina and No­ Goloboff, P.A. 1993–1999. NONA. Version 2.9. totriton, with descriptions of a new genus and Tucumán, Argentina: Computer software disthree new species. Copeia 2000: 42–70. tributed by the author.   
Gardiner, B.G. 1982. Tetrapod classification. Zoo­ Goloboff, P.A. 1999. Analyzing large data sets in logical Journal of the Linnean Society. London reasonable times: solutions for composite opti­ 74: 207–232. ma. Cladistics 15: 415–428.  
Gardner, J.D. 2001. Monophyly and affinities of Goloboff, P.A., and J.S. Farris. 2001. Methods of albanerpetontid amphibians (Temnospondyli; quick consensus estimation. Cladistics 17: S26– Lissamphibia). Zoological Journal of the Lin­ S34.  
nean Society. London 131: 309–352. Goloboff, P.A., J.S. Farris, and K.C. Nixon. 2003.  
 Gardner, J.D. 2002. Monophyly and intra­generic T.N.T.: Tree analysis using new technology, relationships of Albanerpeton (Lissamphibia; version 1.0. Program and documentation avail­ Albanerpetontidae). Journal of Vertebrate Pa­ able from the authors and at www.zmuc.dk/ leontology 22: 12–22. public/phylogeny.   
 Gauthier, J.A., D.C. Cannatella, K. de Queiroz, Good, D.A., and D.B. Wake. 1992. Geographic A.G. Kluge, and T. Rowe. 1989. Tetrapod phy­ variation and speciation in the torrent salaman­ logeny. In B. Fernholm, K. Bremer, and H. ders of the genus Rhyacotriton (Caudata: Rhy­ Jornvall (editors), The hierarchy of life: 337– acotritonidae). University of California Publi­ 353. New York: Elsevier. cations in Zoology 126: 1–91.   
Gauthier, J.A., A.G. Kluge, and T. Rowe. 1988a. Gower, D.J., A. Kupfer, O.V. Oommen, W. Him­ Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fos­ stedt, R.A. Nussbaum, S.P. Loader, B. Pres­ sils. Cladistics 4: 105–209. swell, H. Müller, S.B. Krishna, R. Boistel, and  
 Gauthier, J.A., A.G. Kluge, and T. Rowe. 1988b. M. Wilkinson. 2002. A molecular phylogeny of The early evolution of the Amniota. In M.J. ichthyophiid caecilians (Amphibia: Gymno­ Benton (editor), The phylogeny and classifica­ phiona: Ichthyophiidae): out of India or out of tion of the tetrapods, vol. 1. Amphibians, rep­ South East Asia? Proceedings of the Royal So­ tiles, birds: 103–155. Systematics Association ciety of London. Series B, Biological Sciences Special vol. 23. New York: Academic Press.   
Ghiselin, M.T. 1966. On psychologism in the log­ 269: 1563–1569.  
ic of taxonomic controversies. Systematic Zo­ Gower, D.J., and M. Wilkinson. 2002. Phallus ology 15: 207–215. morphology in caecilians (Amphibia, Gymno­  
 Giaretta, A.A., and R.J. Sawaya. 1998. Second phiona) and its systematic utility. Bulletin of species of Psyllophryne (Anura: Brachycephal­ the Natural History Museum. London. Zoology idae). Copeia 1998: 985–987. Series 68: 143–154.   
 Glaw, F., and M. Vences. 1994. A fieldguide to Grandison, A.G.C. 1981. Morphology and phythe amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar, 2nd logenetic position of the West African Didyn­ ed., including mammals and freshwater fish. amipus sjoestedti Andersson, 1903 (Anura, Bu­ Köln: Moos Druck. fonidae). Monitore Zoologico Italiano. Nuova   
Glaw, F., and M. Vences. 2002. A new sibling Serie, Supplemento 15: 187–215.  
 species of the anuran subgenus Blommersia Grant, T. 1998. Una nueva especie de Colostethus from Madagascar (Amphibia: Mantellidae: del grupo edwardsi de Colombia. Revista de la Mantidactylus) and its molecular phylogenetic Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, relationships. Herpetological Journal. London Fisicas y Naturales 22: 423–428.   
12: 11–20. Grant, T. 2002. Testing methods: the evaluation of  
Goebel, A.M., J.M. Donnelly, and M.E. Atz. discovery operations in evolutionary biology. 1999. PCR primers and amplification methods Cladistics 18: 94–111.  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 269  
(Cope, 1863) (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Ameri­ frogs of the family Sooglossidae. Herpetologica  
can Museum Novitates 3444: 1–24. 44: 113–119.  
Grant, T., and F. Castro­Herrera. 1998. The cloud Green, D.M., T.F. Sharbel, R.A. Hitchmough, and  
 forest Colostethus (Anura, Dendrobatidae) of a C.H. Daugherty. 1989. Genetic variation in the   
 region of the Cordillera Occidental of Colom­ genus Leiopelma and relationships to other   
bia. Journal of Herpetology 32: 378–392. primitive frogs. Zeitschrift für Zoologische  
Grant, T., E.C. Humphrey, and C.W. Myers. 1997. Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 27: 65–  
The median lingual process of frogs: a bizarre 79.  
character of Old World ranoids discovered in Griffiths, I. 1954. On the ‘‘otic element’’ in Am­  
South American dendrobatids. American Mu­ phibia Salientia. Proceedings of the Zoological  
seum Novitates 3212: 1–40. Society of London 124: 3–50.  
Grant, T., and A.G. Kluge. 2004. Transformation Griffiths, I. 1959 a. The phylogenetic status of the  
series as an ideographic character concept. Cla­ Sooglossinae. Annals and Magazine of Natural  
distics 20: 23–31. History, Series 13, 2: 626–640.  
 Grant, T., and L.O. Rodriguez. 2001. Two new Griffiths, I. 1959 b. The phylogeny of Sminthillus   
 species of frogs of the genus Colostethus (Den­ limbatus and the status of the Brachycephalidae   
 drobatidae) from Peru and a redescription of C. (Amphibia Salientia). Proceedings of the Zoo­   
 trilineatus (Boulenger, 1883). American Mu­ logical Society of London 132: 457–487.   
seum Novitates 3355: 1–24. Griffiths, I. 1963. The phylogeny of the Salientia.  
Gray, J.E. 1825. A synopsis of the genera of rep­ Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philo­  
tiles and Amphibia, with a description of some  
sophical Society 38: 241–292.  
new species. Annals of Philosophy. Series 2, 10  
Grosjean, S., M. Perez, and A. Ohler. 2003. Mor­  
193–217.  
 phology and buccopharyngeal anatomy of the tadpole of Rana (Nasirana) alticola (Anura:   
Gray, J.E. 1850a. Catalogue of the specimens of  
Ranidae). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 51: 101–  
Amphibia in the collection of the British Mu­  
107.  
seum. Part. II. Batrachia Gradientia, etc. Lon­  
Grosjean, S., M. Vences, and A. Dubois. 2004.  
don: Spottiswoodes and Shaw.  
Evolutionary significance of oral morphology  
Gray, J.E. 1850b. Description of a new genus of  
in the carnivorous tadpoles of tiger frogs, genus  
batrachians from Swan River. By Dr. H. Schle­  
 Hoplobatrachus (Ranidae). Biological Journal   
gel, Curator of the Royal Zoological Museum,  
of the Linnean Society 81: 171–181.  
Leyden. (Extracted from a letter to J.E. Gray,  
Günther, A. 1858a. Neue Batrachier in der Samm­  
Esq.). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of  
lung des britischen Museums. Archiv für Na­  
London 1850: 9–10.  
turgeschichte 24: 319–328.  
Graybeal, A. 1995. Phylogenetic relationships and  
Günther, A. 1858b. On the systematic arrange­  
evolution of bufonid frogs based on molecular  
ment of the tailless batrachians and the struc­  
 and morphological characters. Ph.D. disserta­ ture of Rhinophrynus dorsalis. Proceedings of   
tion. Department of Integrative Biology, Uni­ the Zoological Society of London 1858: 339–  
versity of California, Berkeley. 352.  
Graybeal, A. 1997. Phylogenetic relationships of Günther, A. 1859 ‘‘1858’’. Catalogue of the Ba­  
bufonid frogs and tests of alternate macroevo­ trachia Salientia in the collection of the British  
lutionary hypotheses characterizing their radi­ Museum. London: Taylor and Francis.  
ation. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Soci­ Günther, A. 1870. Reptilia (1869). Zoological Re­  
ety. London 119: 297–338. cord 6: 105–122.  
Graybeal, A., and D.C. Cannatella. 1995. A new Haas, A. 1995. Cranial features of dendrobatid  
taxon of Bufonidae from Peru, with descrip­ larvae (Amphibia: Anura: Dendrobatidae).  
tions of two new species and a review of the Journal of Morphology 224: 241–264.  
phylogenetic status of supraspecific bufonid Haas, A. 2003. Phylogeny of frogs as inferred  
taxa. Herpetologica 51: 105–131. from primarily larval characters (Amphibia:  
Green, D.M. 2005. The ecology of extinction: Anura). Cladistics 19: 23–90.  
population fluctuation and decline in amphibi­ Haas, A., and S.J. Richards. 1998. Correlations of  
ans. Biological Conservation 111: 331–343. cranial morphology, ecology, and evolution in  
 Green, D.M., and D.C. Cannatella. 1993. Phylo­ Australian suctorial tadpoles of the genera Li­   
 genetic significance of the amphicoelous frogs, toria and Nyctimystes (Amphibia: Anura: Hy­   
Ascaphidae and Leiopelmatidae. Ethology lidae: Pelodryadinae. Journal of Morphology di­  
Ecology & Evolution 5: 233–245. 238: 109–141. Green, D.M., R.A. Nussbaum, and D. Yang. 1988. Haddad, C.F.B., and C.P.A. Prado. 2005. Repro­  
270 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
versity in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Bio­ Hedges, S.B., R.A. Nussbaum, and L.R. Maxson. Science 55: 207–217. 1993. Caecilian phylogeny and biogeography  
Haeckel, E.H.P.A. 1866. Generelle Morphologie inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences of der Organismen, vol. 2. Berlin: Georg Reimer. the 12S rRNA and 16S rRNA genes (Amphib­  
 Hall, J.A., and J.H. Larsen, Jr. 1998. Postembry­ ia: Gymnophiona). Herpetological Monographs onic ontogeny of the spadefoot toad, Scaphio­ 7: 64–76. pus intermontanus (Anura: Pelobatidae): skel­ Hedges, S.B., and L.L. Poling. 1999. A molecular etal morphology. Journal of Morphology 238: phylogeny of reptiles. Science 283: 998–1001. 179–244. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. Chi­   
 Halliday, T. 2005. Diverse factors influencing am­ cago: University of Illinois Press. phibian population declines. In M.J. Lannoo Henrici, A.C. 1991. Chelomophrynus bayi (Am­ (editor), Amphibian declines: the conservation phibia, Anura, Rhinophrynidae), a new genus status of United States species: 3–9. Berkeley: and species from the Middle Eocene of Wyo­ University of California Press. ming: ontogeny and relationships. Annals of   
Hallowell, E. 1856. Description of several species the Carnegie Museum 60: 97–144. of Urodela, with remarks on the geographical Hertwig, S., R.O. de Sa´, and A. Haas. 2004. Phydistribution of the Caducibranchiata division of logenetic signal and the utility of 12S and 16S these animals and their classification. Proceed­ mtDNA in frog phylogeny. Journal of Zoologings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of ical Systematics and Evolutionary Research 42: Philadelphia 8: 6–11. 2–18.  
 Hanken, J., and D.B. Wake. 1982. Genetic differ­ Hewitt, J. 1919. Anhydrophryne rattrayi, a reentiation among plethodontid salamanders (ge­ markable new frog from Cape Colony. Record nus Bolitoglossa) in Central and South Ameri­ of the Albany Museum. Grahamstown 3: 182– ca: implications for the South American inva­ 189. sion. Herpetologica 38: 272–287. Heyer, W.R. 1970. Studies on the frogs of the ge­   
 Harris, D.J. 2001. Reevaluation of 16S ribosomal nus Leptodactylus (Amphibia: Leptodactyli­ RNA variation in Bufo (Anura: Amphibia). Mo­ dae). VI. Biosystematics of the melanonotus lecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 19: 326– group. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles 329. County Contributions in Science 191: 1–48.   
 Hass, C.A., J.F. Dunski, L.R. Maxson, and M.S. Heyer, W.R. 1975. A preliminary analysis of the Hoogmoed. 1995. Divergent lineages within intergeneric relationships of the frog family the Bufo margaritifera complex (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae. Smithsonian Contributions in Anura; Bufonidae) revealed by albumin im­ Zoology 199: 1–55. munology. Biotropica 27: 238–249. Heyer, W.R. 1998. The relationships of Leptodac­   
 Hay, J.M., I. Ruvinsky, S.B. Hedges, and L.R. tylus diedrus (Anura, Leptodactylidae). Alytes Maxson. 1995. Phylogenetic relationships of 16: 1–24. amphibian families inferred from DNA se­ Heyer, W.R. 1999. A new genus and species of quences of mitochondrial 12S and 16S ribo­ frog from Bahia, Brazil (Amphibia: Anura: somal RNA genes. Molecular Biology and Leptodactylidae) with comments on the zoo­ Evolution 12: 928–937. geography of the Brazilian campos rupestres.   
Hayes, M.P., and P.H. Starrett. 1981 ‘‘1980’’. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Wash­ Notes on a collection of centrolenid frogs from ington 112: 19–30. the Colombia Choco. Bulletin of the Southern Heyer, W.R. 2003. Viewpoint: ultraviolet­B and California Academy of Science 79: 89–96. Amphibia. BioScience 53: 540–541.  
 Hedges, S.B. 1989. Evolution and biogeography Heyer, W.R., and R.I. Crombie. 1979. Natural hisof West Indian frogs of the genus Eleuthero­ tory notes on Craspedoglossa stejnegeri and dactylus: slow­evolving loci and the major Thoropa petropolitana (Amphibia: Salientia, groups. In C.A. Woods (editor), Biogeography Leptdactylidae). Journal of the Washington of the West Indies: past, present, and future: Academy of Sciences 69: 17–20. 305–370. Gainesville, FL: Sandhill Crane Heyer, W.R., and D.S.S. Liem. 1976. Analysis of Press. the intergeneric relationships of the Australian   
 Hedges, S.B. 1994. Molecular evidence for the frog family Myobatrachidae. Smithsonian Conorigin of birds. Proceedings of the National tributions in Zoology 233: 1–29. Academy of Science of the United States of Highton, R. 1997. Geographic protein variation America 91: 2621–2624. and speciation in the Plethodon dorsalis com­   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 271  
 Highton, R. 1999. Geographic protein variation dae). Zoologische Verhandelingen. Leiden 250: and speciation in the salamanders of the Pleth­ 1–32.   
 odon cinereus group with the description of Hoogmoed, M.S., and J. Lescure. 1984. A new two new species. Herpetologica 55: 43–90. genus and two new species of minute leptodac­ Highton, R., and R.B. Peabody. 2000. Geographic tylid frogs from northern South America, with protein variation and speciation in salamanders comments upon Phyzelaphryne (Amphibia: Anof the Plethodon jordani and Plethodon gluti­ ura: Leptodactylidae). Zoologische Mededelinnosus complexes in the southern Appalachian gen. Leiden 58: 85–115.   
 Mountains with the description of four new Houlahan, J.E., C.S. Findlay, B.R. Schmidt, A.H. species. In R.C. Bruce, R.G. Jaeger, and L.D. Meyer, and S.L. Kuzmin. 2000. Quantitative Houck (editors), The biology of plethodontid evidence for global amphibian population desalamanders: 31–93. New York: Kluwer Aca­ clines. Nature. London 404: 752–755.   
 demic/Plenum Publishers. Hu, S., E. Zhao, and C.­C. Liu. 1966. A herpe­ Hillis, D.M., and S.K. Davis. 1986. Evolution of tological survey of the Tsinling and Ta­Pa Shan ribosomal DNA: fifty million years of recorded region. Acta Zoologica Sinica 18: 57–89. [In history in the frog genus Rana. Evolution 40: Chinese with English abstract.]   
1275–1288. Hu, S., E. Zhao, and C.­C. Liu. 1973. A survey Hillis, D.M., and M.T. Dixon. 1991. Ribosomal of amphibians and reptiles in Kweichow prov­ DNA: molecular evolution and phylogenetic in­ ince, including a herpetofaunal analysis. Acta ference. Quarterly Review of Biology 66: 411– Zoologica Sinica 19: 149–181.  
 453. Hull, D.L. 1988. Science as a process: an evolu­ Hillis, D.M., and T.P. Wilcox. 2005. Phylogeny of tionary account of the social and conceptual dethe New World true frogs (Rana). Molecular velopment of science. Chicago: University of Phylogenetics and Evolution 34: 299–314. Chicago Press.   
 Hiragond, N.C., B.A. Shanbhag, and S.K. Saida­ Hutchinson, M.N., and L.R. Maxson. 1987. Phypur. 2001. Description of the tadpole of a logenetic relationships among Australian tree stream breeding frog, Rana curtipes. Journal of frogs (Anura: Hylidae: Pelodryadinae): an im­ Herpetology 35 166–168. munological approach. Australian Journal of Hoffman, A.C. 1932. Researches relating to the Zoology 35: 61–74.   
 validity of the South African Polypedatidae Huxley, T.H. 1863. Description of Anthracosau­ (Rhacophoridae) as an autonomous family of rus russelli, a new labyrinthodont from the the Anura. South African Journal of Science Lanarkshire coal field. Quarterly Journal of the 29: 562–583. Geological Society of London 19: 56–68.   
 Hoffman, A.C. 1935. Die sistematiese posiesie Inger, R.F. 1954. Systematics and zoogeography van Heleophryne. Soölogiese Navorsing van of Philippine Amphibia. Fieldiana. Zoology 33: die Nasionale Museum. Bloemfontein 1: 1–2. 183–531.   
Hoffmann, C.K. 1878. Die Klassen und Ordnun­ Inger, R.F. 1966. The systematics and zoogeoggen des Thier­Reichs wissenschaftlich darges­ raphy of the Amphibia of Borneo. Fieldiana. telldt in Wort und Bild, vol. 6 (part 2). Klassen Zoology 52: 1–402.  
und Ordnungen der Amphibien wissenschaf­ Inger, R.F. 1967. The development of a phylogeny tlich dargestelldt in Wort un Bild. Leipzig and of frogs. Evolution 21: 369–384.  
 Heidelberg: C.F. Winter. Inger, R.F. 1972. Bufo of Eurasia. In W.F. Blair Hogg, J. 1838. On the classification of the Am­ (editor), Evolution in the genus Bufo: 102–118. phibia. Annals of Natural History 1: 152. Austin: University of Texas Press.   
Hogg, J. 1839a. On the classification of the Am­ Inger, R.F. 1996. Commentary on a proposed clasphibia. Magazine of Natural History, New Se­ sification of the family Ranidae. Herpetologica ries 3: 265–274. 52: 241–246.  
Hogg, J. 1839b. On the classification of the Am­ Inger, R.F., H.B. Shaffer, M. Koshy, and R. Bakde. phibia (continued from page 274). Magazine of 1984. A report on a collection of amphibians Natural History, New Series 3: 367–378. and reptiles from the Ponmudi, Kerala, South Hoogmoed, M.S. 1989a. South American bufon­ India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History ids (Amphibia: Anura: Bufonidae), an enigma Society 81: 406–427.  
for taxonomists. Treballs d’Ictiologia i Herpe­ International Commission of Zoological Nomentologia 2: 167–180. clature. 1999. International code of zoological Hoogmoed, M.S. 1989b. On the identity of some nomenclature, 4th ed. London: International  
 ditional remarks on Andinophryne colomai Iordansky, N.N. 1996. Evolution of the muscula­ Hoogmoed, 1985 (Amphibia: Anura: Bufoni­ ture of the jaw apparatus in the Amphibia. Ad­   
272 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
vances in Amphibian Research in the Former tionships among Chinese ranids inferred from Soviet Union 1: 3–26. sequence data set of 12S and 16S rDNA. Her­ Iwabe, N., Y. Hara, Y. Kumazawa, K. Shibamoto, petological Journal. London 15: 1–8.  
Y. Saito, T. Miyata, and K. Kazutaka. 2005. Sis­ Jiménez de la Espada, M. 1871 ‘‘1870’’. Fauna ter­group relationship of turtles to the bird­croc­ neotropicalis species quaedam nondum cogniodilian clade revealed by nuclear DNA­coded tae. Jornal de Sciências, Mathemáticas, Physiproteins. Molecular Biology and Evolution 22: cas e Naturaes. Lisbõa 3: 57–65.  
 810–813. Jockusch, E.L., and D.B. Wake. 2002. Falling Izecksohn, E. 1971. Nôvo gênero e nova espécie apart and merging: diversification of slender de Brachycephalidae do Estado do Rio de Ja­ salamanders (Plethodontidae: Batrachoseps) in neiro, Brasil (Amphibia, Anura). Boletim do the American West. Biological Journal of the Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. Nova Série, Linnean Society 76: 361–391.   
 Zoologia 280: 1–12. Jockusch, E.L., K.P. Yanev, and D.B. Wake. 2001. Izecksohn, E. 1988. Algumas considerações sôbre Molecular phylogenetic analysis of slender sal­ o gênero Euparkerella, coma descrição de três amanders, genus Batrachoseps (Amphibia: novas espécies (Amphibia, Anura, Leptodactyl­ Plethodontidae), from central coastal California idae). Revista Brasileira de Biologia 48: 59–74. with descriptions of four new species. Herpe­ Izecksohn, E., J.J. Jim, S.T. de Albuquerque, and tological Monographs 15: 54–99.   
 W.F. de Mendonça. 1971. Observações sôbre o Jungfer, K.­H., H. Birkhahn, V. Külpmann, and K. desenvolvimento e os hábitos de Myersiella Wassmann. 1996. Haltung und Fortpflanzung subnigra (Miranda­Ribeiro). Arquivos do Mu­ von Dendrobates fulguritus Silverstone, 1975, seu Nacional. Rio de Janeiro 43: 69–73. mit Anmerkungen zur Gattung Minyobates My­ Jackman, T.R., G. Applebaum, and D.B. Wake. ers, 1987. Herpetofauna. Weinstadt 15: 19–27. 1997. Phylogenetic relationships of bolitoglos­ Jungfer, K.­H., S. Lötters, and D. Jörgens. 2000. sine salamanders: a demonstration of the effects Der kleinste Pfeilgiftfrosche—eine neue Denof combining morphological and molecular drobates ­Art aus West­Panama. Herpetofauna. data sets. Molecular Biology and Evolution 14: Weinstadt 22: 11–18.   
883–891. Jurgens, J.D. 1971. The morphology of the nasal Janies, D., and W.C. Wheeler. 2001. Efficiency of region of the Amphibia and its bearing on the parallel direct optimization. Cladistics 17: S71– phylogeny of the group. Annals of the Univer­ S82. sity of Stellenbosch 46: 1–146.  
 Janke, A., D. Erpenbeck, M. Nilsson, and U. Ar­ Kaiser, H., L.A. Coloma, and H.M. Gray. 1994. nason. 2001. The mitochondrial genomes of the A new species of Colostethus (Anura: Dendroiguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Cai­ batidae) from Martinique, French Antilles. Herman crocodylus): implications for amniote phy­ petologica 50: 23–32.   
 logeny. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Kaplan, M. 1994. Analysis of some long­standing London. Series B, Biological Sciences 268: controversies concerning the pectoral girdle of 623–631. Atelopus (Bufonidae) using ontogenetic studies. Jenkins, F.A., and D.M. Walsh. 1993. An early Journal of Herpetology 28: 128–131.   
 Jurassic caecilian with limbs. Nature. London Kaplan, M. 1995. On the presence of overlap dur­ 365: 246–250. ing the development of the pectoral girdle of Jiang, J., A. Dubois, A. Ohler, A. Tillier, X. Chen, Colostethus subpunctatus (Amphibia: Anura) F. Xie, and M. Stöck. 2005. Phylogenetic rela­ and its relevance in the classification of Dentionships of the tribe Paini (Amphibia, Anura, drobatidae. Journal of Herpetology 29: 300– Ranidae) based on partial sequences of mito­ 304.   
 chondrial 12S and 16S rRNA genes. Zoological Kaplan, M. 1997. A new species of Colostethus Science. Tokyo 22: 353–362. from the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (Co­ Jiang, J., L. Fei, C. Ye, X. Zeng, M. Zhen, F. Xie, lombia) with comments on intergeneric rela­ and Y. Chen. 1997. Studies on the taxonomics tionships within the Dendrobatidae. Journal of of species of Pseudorana and discussions of the Herpetology 31: 369–375.   
 phylogenetical relationships with its relative Kaplan, M. 2000. The pectoral girdles of Rana genera. Cultum Herpetologica Sinica 6–7: 67– rugulosa (Ranidae) and Nesomantis thomasseti 74. (Sooglossidae). Herpetologica 56: 188–195.   
Jiang, J., and K. Zhou. 2001. Evolutionary rela­ Kaplan, M. 2001. On the relevance of the chartionships among Chinese ranid frogs inferred acter ‘‘absence of epicoracoid horns’’ in the  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 273  
 chycephalus ephippium (Brachycephalidae) Knauer, F.K. 1883. Naturgeschichte der Lurche. with comments on the validity of the genus (Amphibiologie.) Eine umfassendere Darle­ Psyllophryne (Brachycephalidae). Amphibia­ gung unserer Kenntnisse von dem anatomisch­ Reptilia 23: 225–227. en Bau, der Entwicklung und systematischen   
Kaplan, M. 2004. Evaluation and redefinition of Eintheilung der Amphibien, & c. Zweite Austhe states of anuran pectoral girdle architecture. gabe. Wien and Leipzig: A. Pilchler’s Witwe & Herpetologica 60: 84–97. Sohn.  
 Keller, R.A., R.N. Boyd, and Q.D. Wheeler. 2003. Köhler, J. 2000. New species of Eleutherodactylus The illogical basis of Phylogenetic Nomencla­ (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from cloud forest of ture. Botanical Review 69: 93–110. Bolivia. Copeia 2000: 516–520.   
 King, M., M.J. Tyler, M.M. Davies, and D. King. Kojima, J.­ I. 2003. Apomorphy­based definition 1979. Karyotypic studies on Cyclorana and as­ also pinpoints a node, and PhyloCode names sociated genera of Australian frogs. Australian prevent effective communication. Botanical Journal of Zoology 27: 699–708. Review 69: 44–58.   
 Kirsch, J.A., A.W. Dickerman, O.A. Reig, and Kokubum, M.N., de Carvalho, and A.A. Giaretta. M.S. Springer. 1991. DNA hybridization evi­ 2005. Reproductive ecology and behaviour of dence for the Australasian affinity of the Amer­ a species of Adenomera (Anura, Leptodactyliican marsupial Dromiciops australis. Proceed­ nae) with endotrophic tadpoles: systematic imings of the National Academy of Sciences of plications. Journal of Natural History. London the United States of America 88: 10465–10469. 39: 1745–1758.   
Kirtisinghe, P. 1958. Some hitherto undescribed Kosuch, J., M. Vences, A. Dubois, A. Ohler, and anuran tadpoles. Ceylon Journal of Science 1: W. Böhme. 2001. Out of Asia: mitochondrial 171–176. DNA evidence for an oriental origin of tiger  
 Kiyasetuo and M. K. Khare. 1986. A new genus frogs, genus Hoplobatrachus. Molecular Phyof frog (Anura: Ranidae) from Nagaland at the logenetics and Evolution 21: 398–407.   
northeastern hills of India. Asian Journal of Ex­ Kress, W.J., and P. DePriest. 2001. What’s in a ploration and Science 1: 12. Phylocode name? Science 292: 6.  
 Kjer, K.M. 1995. Use of rRNA secondary struc­ Kuramoto, M. 1985. A new frog (genus Rana) ture in phylogenetic studies to identify homol­ from the Yaeyama Group of the Ryukyu Isogous positions: an example of alignment and lands. Herpetologica 41: 150–158.   
data presentation from frogs. Molecular Phy­ Kuramoto, M. 1990. A list of chromosome numlogenetics and Evolution 4: 314–330. bers of anuran amphibians. Bulletin of Fukuoka  
Klein, S.L., R.L. Strausberg, L. Wagner, J. Pon­ University of Education 39: 83–127.  
 tius, S.W. Clifton, and P. Richardson. 2002. Ge­ Kuramoto, M., and C.­S. Wang. 1987. A new rhanetic and genomic tools for Xenopus research: cophorid treefrog from Taiwan, with comparithe NIH Xenopus initiative. Developmental Dy­ sons to Chirixalus eiffingeri (Anura, Rhaconamics 225: 384–391. phoridae). Copeia 1987: 931–942.   
 Klemens, M.W. 1998. The male nuptial charac­ Kuramoto, M., C.­S. Wang, and H.­T. Yu. 1984. teristics of Arthroleptides martiensseni Nieden, Breeding, larval morphology and experimental an endemic torrent frog from Tanzania’s East­ hybridization of Taiwanese brown frogs, Rana ern Arc Mountains. Herpetological Journal. longicrus and R. sauteri. Journal of Herpetol­ London 8: 35–40. ogy 18: 387–395.   
 Kluge, A.G. 1966. A new pelobatine frog from Kwon, A.S., and Y.H. Lee. 1995. Comparative the lower Miocene of South Dakota with a dis­ spermatology of anurans with special referenccussion of the evolution of the Scaphiopus ­ es to phylogeny. In B.G.M. Jamieson, J. Ausio, Spea complex. Natural History Museum of Los and J.­L. Justine (editors), Advances in sper­ Angeles County Contributions in Science 113: matozoal phylogeny and taxonomy. Mémoires 1–26. du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Par­   
Kluge, A.G. 2005. Taxonomy in theory and prac­ is. Série A, Zoologie 166: 321–332.  
 tice, with arguments for a new phylogenetic La Marca, E., M. Vences, and S. Lötters. 2002. system of taxonomy. In M.A. Donnelly, B.I. Rediscovery and mitochondrial relationships of Crother, C. Guyer, M.H. Wake, and M.E. White the dendrobatid frog Colostethus humilis sug­ (editors), Ecology and evolution in the tropics: gest parallel colonization of the Venezuelan a herpetological perspective: 7–47. Chicago: Andes by poison frogs. Studies on Neotropical University of Chicago Press. Fauna and Environment 37: 233–240.   
 balarphyletics and the evolution of anurans. System­ traciens de l’ouest africain XII. Les formes atic Zoology 18: 1–32. vaires de Cardioglossa leucomystax Blgr. Bul­   
274 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
letin de l’Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire of Urodela (Amphibia): 31–108. Enfield, NH: 23: 211–216. Science Publishers.  
 Lamotte, M., and J. Lescure. 1989. Les têtards Lataste, F. 1879. Étude sur le Discoglossus pictus rhéophiles et hygropétriques de l’Ancien et du Otth. Actes de la Société Linnéenne de Bor­ Noveau Monde. Annales des Sciences Naturel­ deaux, Série 4, 3: 275–342.   
les. Zoologie. Paris. Serie 13, 10: 111–122. Lathrop, A. 1997. Taxonomic review of the me­  
Lamotte, M., J.­L. Perret, and S. Dzieduszycka. gophryid frogs (Anura: Pelobatoidea). Asiatic 1959. Contribution à l’étude des batraciens de Herpetological Research 7: 68–79.  
 l’ouest africain. IX. Les formes larvaires de Pe­ Lathrop, A. 2003. Asian toadfrogs (Megophryitropedetes palmipes, Conraua goliath et Acan­ dae). In W.E. Duellman (editor), Grzimek’s anthixalus spinosus. Bulletin de l’Institut Fran­ imal life encyclopedia, 2nd ed. Vol. 6. Amçaise d’Afrique Noire. Série A, Sciences Na­ phibians: 109–117. Detroit: Gale Group.   
turelles 21: 762–776. Latreille, P.A. 1800. Histoire naturelle des sala­  
 Lamotte, M., and F. Xavier. 1972. Les amphibiens mandres de France, précédée d’un tableau anoures a developpement direct d’Afrique. Ob­ méthodique des autres reptiles indigènes. Paris: servations sur la biologie de Nectophrynoides Imprimerie de Crapelet.   
 tornieri (Roux). Bulletin de la Société Zoolo­ Latreille, P.A. 1825. Familles naturelles du règne gique de France 97: 413–428. animal, exposées succinctement et dans un or­   
Lamotte, M., and M. Zuber­Vogeli. 1954. Contri­ dre analytique, avec l’indication de leurs bution à l’étude des batraciens de l’ouest afri­ genres. Paris: J.B. Baillière.  
 cain. III. Les formes larvaires de Astylosternus Laurent, R.F. 1941 ‘‘1940’’. Contribution à diadematus et Petropedetes natator. Bulletin de l’ostéologie et à la systématique des ranides afl’Institut Française d’Afrique Noire. Série A, ricains. Première note. Revue de Zoologie et de Sciences Naturelles 16: 1222–1233. Botanique Africaines 34: 74–96.   
Langone, J.A. 1994. Ranas y sapos del Uruguay Laurent, R.F. 1941. Contribution à l’ostéologie et (reconocimientos y aspectos biológicos). Mu­ à la systematique des ranides africains. Deuxseo Damaso Antonio Larrañaga, Serie de Di­ ième note. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique vulgación 5: 1–123. Africaines 34: 192–234.  
Largen, M.J. 1991. A new genus and species of Laurent, R.F. 1942. Note sur les procoeliens firpetropedetine frog (Amphibia, Anura, Ranidae) misternes (Batrachia Anura). Bulletin du Musée from high altitude in the mountains of Ethiopia. Royal d’Histoire Naturelle de Belgique 18: 1– Tropical Zoology. Firenze 4: 139–152. 20.  
Largen, M.J., and R.C. Drewes. 1989. A new ge­ Laurent, R.F. 1943. Contribution a l’osteologie et nus and species of brevicipitine frog (Amphib­ a la systematique des rhacophorides non afriia, Anura, Microhylidae) from high altitude in caines. Bulletin du Musée Royal d’Histoire Nathe mountains of Ethiopia. Tropical Zoology. turelle de Belgique 19: 1–16.  
Firenze 2: 13–30. Laurent, R.F. 1946. Mises au point dans la tax­  
Larson, A. 1991. A molecular perspective on the onomie des ranides. Revue de Zoologie et de evolutionary relationship of the salamander Botanique Africaines 39: 336–338.  
 families. In M.K. Hecht, B. Wallace, and R.J. Laurent, R.F. 1951. Sur la necessité de supprimer MacIntyre (editors), Evolutionary biology, vol. la famille des Rhacophoridae mais de créer cel­ 25: 211–277. New York: Plenum Publishing le des Hyperoliidae. Revue de Zoologie et de Corporation. Botanique Africaines 45: 116–122.   
 Larson, A., and W. Dimmick. 1993. Phylogenetic Laurent, R.F. 1954. Remarques sur le genre relationships of the salamander families: an Schoutedenella. Annales du Musée Royal du analysis of congruence among morphological Congo Belge. Nouvelle Série in Quarto. Sci­ and molecular characters. Herpetological ences Zoologiques. Tervuren 1: 34–40.   
Monographs 7: 77–93. Laurent, R.F. 1961. Notes on some South African  
Larson, A., D.B. Wake, L.R. Maxson, and R. amphibians. Publications de l’Université de Highton. 1981. A molecular phylogenetic per­ l’État à Elisabethville. Lubumbashi 1: 197–209. spective on the origins of morphological nov­ Laurent, R.F. 1972. The morphology, systematics, elties in the salamanders of the tribe Pletho­ and evolution of the Old World treefrogs (Rhadontini (Amphibia, Plethodontidae). Evolution cophoridae and Hyperoliidae) [Review]. Cop­ 35: 405–422. eia 1972: 198–201.  
Larson, A., D.W. Weisrock, and K.H. Kozak. Laurent, R.F. 1973. The natural classification of  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 275  
Laurent, R.F. 1975. Biogéographie et liaisons in­ Lavilla, E.O., and J.M. Cei. 2001. Amphibians of tercontinentales au course du Mésozoïque. Mé­ Argentina. A second update, 1987–2000. Mumoires du Muséum National d’Histoire Natu­ seo Regionale di Scienze Naturali Monografie. relle. Paris. Série A, Zoologie 88: 176–191. Torino 28: 1–177.  
Laurent, R.F. 1978. L’appareil hyoidien des As­ Lawson, D.P. 1993. The reptiles and amphibians tylosterninae et des Arthroleptinae (Amphibia). of Korup National Park Project, Cameroon. Revue Zoologique Africaine 92: 233–240. Herpetological Natural History 1: 27–90.  
Laurent, R.F. 1980 ‘‘1979’’. Esquisse d’une phy­ Lebedkina, N.S. 2004. Evolution of the amphibian logenèse des anoures. Bulletin de la Société skull. Advances in Amphibian Research in the Zoologique de France 104: 397–422. Former Soviet Union 9: 1–265.  
 Laurent, R.F. 1983. Heterogeneidad del genero Lescure, J., V. Marty, C. Marty, F. Starace, M.A. Batrachophrynus Peters (Leptodactylidae). Thomay, and F. Letellier. 1995. Contribution à Acta Zoologica Lilloana 37: 107–113. l’étude des amphibiens de Guyane française. X. Laurent, R.F. 1984a. Heterogeneidad de la familia Les Phyllomedusa (Anura, Hylidae). Revue Caeciliidae (Amphibia­Apoda). Acta Zoologica Française d’Aquariologie, Herpétologie 22 35– Lilloana 37: 199–200. 50.   
 Laurent, R.F. 1984b. La phylogenese des Rano­ Lescure, J., S. Renous, and J.­P. Gasc. 1986. Propidea et le cladisme. Alytes 3: 97–111. osition d’une nouvelle classification des am­ Laurent, R.F. 1986. Sous classe des lissamphi­ phibiens gymnophiones. Mémoires de la Sociébiens (Lissamphibia). In P. Grassé and M. Del­ té Zoologique de France 43: 145–177.   
sol (editors), Traité de zoologie. Anatomie, sys­  
Leuckart, F.S. 1821. Einiges über die fischartigen tematique, biologie, vol. 14. Batraciens, fasc. 1­  
Amphibien. Isis von Oken 9: 257–265.  
B: 594–797. Paris: Masson.  
Li, W.­H., and Z.­Y. Wang. 1985. Karyotype of Laurent, R.F. 1986 ‘‘1985’’. Sur la classification  
 Rana livida. Acta Herpetologica Sinica 4: 56. et la nomenclature des amphibiens. Alytes 4:   
[In Chinese with English abstract.]  
119–120.  
Licht, L.E. 2003. Shedding light on ultraviolet ra­ Laurent, R.F., and M. Fabrezi. 1986 ‘‘1985’’. Le  
diation and amphibian embryos. BioScience carpe des Arthroleptinae. Alytes 4: 85–93.  
53: 551–561.  
Laurenti, J.N. 1768. Specimen medicum, exhibens  
Liem, D.S.S. 1970. The morphology, systematics, synopsin reptilium emendatum cum experimen­  
and evolution of the Old World treefrogs (Rhatis circa venena et antidota Reptilium Austria­  
cophoridae and Hyperoliidae). Fieldiana. Zocorum. Wien.  
ology 57: i–vii, 1–145.  
Laurin, M. 1998a. The importance of global par­  
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria simony and historical bias in understanding tet­  
rapod evolution. Part I. Systematics, middle ear  
naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, evolution and jaw suspension. Annales des Sci­  
species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonences Naturelles. Zoologie et Biologie Anima­  
ymis, locis, 10th ed. Stockholm.  
le. Paris. Serie 13, 1998: 1–42. Lips, K.R., P.A. Burrowes, J.R. Mendelson III, Laurin, M. 1998b. The importance of global par­ and G. Parra­Olea. 2005. Amphibian declines simony and historical bias in understanding tet­ in Latin America: a synthesis. Biotropica 37: rapod evolution. Part II. Vertebral centrum, cos­ 222–228.  
 tal ventilation, and paedomorphosis. Annales Littlejohn, M.J. 1963. The breeding biology of the des Sciences Naturelles. Zoologie et Biologie Baw Baw frog Philoria frosti Spencer. Pro­ Animale. Paris. Serie 13, 1998: 99–114. ceedings of the Linnaean Society of New South Laurin, M. 1998c. A reevaluation of the origin of Wales 88: 273–276.   
pentadactyly. Evolution 52: 1476–1482. Liu, C.­C. 1950. Amphibians of western China. Laurin, M. 2002. Tetrapod phylogeny, amphibian Fieldiana. Zoology Memoires 2: 1–397 1 10 origins, and the definition of the name Tetra­ pl.  
 poda. Systematic Biology 51: 364–369. Liu, C.­C., and S. Hu. 1961. [Tailless amphibians Laurin, M., and R.R. Reisz. 1997. A new per­ of China.] Shanghai: Science Press. [In Chispective on tetrapod phylogeny. In S.S. Sumida nese.]   
and K.L.M. Martin (editors), Amniote origins: Liu, C.­C., and S. Hu. 1962. A herpetological recompleting the transition to land: 9–59. San Di­ port of Kwangsi. Acta Zoologica Sinica 14: 73– ego: Academic Press. 104. [In Chinese with English abstract and Laurin, M., R.R. Reisz, and M. Girondot. 2000. translations of descriptions.]  
W. ply to Wilkinson and Nussbaum. Journal of Murphy. 2000. Phylogeny of East Asian bufon­ Natural History. London 34: 311–315. ids inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequenc­  
276 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
es (Anura: Amphibia). Molecular Phylogenetics search on major problems: 133–182. Columbia: and Evolution 14: 423–435. University of Missouri Press.  
 Loader, S.P., D.J. Gower, K.M. Howell, N. Dog­ Lynch, J.D. 1975. A review of the Andean lepgart, M.­O. Rödel, R.O. de Sa´, B.L. Cohen, and todactylid frog genus Phrynopus. Occasional M. Wilkinson. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships Papers of the Museum of Natural History, Uniof African microhylid frogs inferred from DNA versity of Kansas 35: 1–51.   
 sequences of mitochondrial 12S and 16S rRNA Lynch, J.D. 1976. The species groups of the South genes. Organisms, Diversity & Evolution 4: American frogs of the genus Eleutherodactylus 227–235. (Leptodactylidae). Occasional Papers of the Lombard, R.E., and S.S. Sumida. 1992. Recent Museum of Natural History, University of Kanprogress in understanding early tetrapods. sas 61: 1–24.   
American Zoologist 32: 609–622. Lynch, J.D. 1978a. A new eleutherodactyline frog Lombard, R.E., and D.B. Wake. 1986. Tongue from the Andes of northern Colombia. Copeia evolution in the lungless salamanders, family 1978: 17–21.  
Plethodontidae IV. Phylogeny of plethodontid Lynch, J.D. 1978b. A re­assessment of the telsalamanders and the evolution of feeding dy­ matobiine leptodactylid frogs of Patagónia. Ocnamics. Systematic Biology 35: 532–551. casional Papers of the Museum of Natural His­ Loveridge, A. 1957. Check list of the reptiles and tory, University of Kansas 72: 1–57.  
 amphibians of East Africa (Uganda; Kenya; Lynch, J.D. 1980. A new species of Barycholos Tanganyika; Zanzibar). Bulletin of the Museum from Estado Goiás, Brasil (Amphibia, Anura, of Comparative Zoology 117: 153–362. Leptodactylidae) with remarks on related gen­ Löytynoja, A., and M.C. Milinkovitch. 2000. era. Bulletin du Museum National d’Histoire SOAP, cleaning multiple alignments from un­ Naturelle. Paris. Section A, Zoologie, Biologie stable blocks, version 1.0. Bioinformatics 17: et Ecologie Animales 2: 289–302.   
 573–574. Lynch, J.D. 1982a. Two new species of poison­ Löytynoja, A., and M.C. Milinkovitch. 2003. A dart frogs (Colostethus) from Colombia. Herhidden Markov model for progressive multiple petologica 38: 366–374.   
 alignments. Bioinformatics 19: 1505–1513. Lynch, J.D. 1982b. Relationships of the frogs of Lutz, B. 1954. Anfíbios anuros do Distrito Fed­ the genus Ceratophrys (Leptodactylidae) and eral/The frogs of the Federal District of Brazil. their bearing on hypotheses of Pleistocene for­ Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Rio de est refugia in South America and punctuated Janeiro 52: 155–197 (Portuguese), 219–238 equilibrium. Systematic Zoology 31: 166–179. (English). Lynch, J.D. 1986. The definition of the Middle Lutz, B. 1968. Taxonomy of the Neotropical Hy­ American clade of Eleutherodactylus based on lidae. Pearce­Sellards Series. Texas Memorial jaw musculature (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae). Museum 11: 3–26. Herpetologica 42: 248–258.   
 Lutz, B. 1969. Adaptações, especializações e lin­ Lynch, J.D. 1989. Intrageneric relationships of hagens nos anuros neotropicais. Acta Zoologica mainland Eleutherodactylus (Leptodactylidae). Lilloana 24: 267–292. I. A review of the frogs assigned to the Eleuth­ Lynch, J.D. 1969. Program. Final Ph.D. exami­ erodactylus discoidalis species group. Milwaunation. Department of Zoology, University of kee Public Museum Contributions in Biology Kansas, Lawrence. and Geology 79: 1–25.   
 Lynch, J.D. 1971. Evolutionary relationships, os­ Lynch, J.D. 1994. A new species of high­altitude teology, and zoogeography of leptodactyloid frog (Eleutherodactylus: Leptodactylidae) from frogs. University of Kansas Museum of Natural the Cordillera Oriental of Colombia. Revista de History, Miscellaneous Publications 53: 1–238. la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias Exactas, Lynch, J.D. 1972a. Generic partitioning of the Físicas y Naturales 19: 195–203.   
 South American leptodactyloid frog genus Eup­ Lynch, J.D. 1996. The relationships of the Hissophus Fitzinger, 1843 (sensu lato). Bulletin of paniolan frogs of the subgenus Pelorius the Southern California Academy of Science (Eleutherodactylus: Leptodactylidae). In R. 71: 2–11. Powell and R.W. Henderson (editors), Contri­ Lynch, J.D. 1972b. Two new species of frogs butions to West Indian herpetology: a tribute to (Eleutherodactylus: Leptodactylidae) from the Albert Schwartz: 141–155. Contribution to páramos of northern Ecuador. Herpetologica Herpetology, no. 12. Ithaca, NY: Society for the 28: 141–147. Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 277  
vista de la Academia Colombiana de Ciencias dae: Plethodontini): phylogenetic analysis of an Exactas, Físicas y Naturales 24: 129–156. old and rapid radiation. Molecular Phylogenet­ Lynch, J.D., and W.E. Duellman. 1997. Frogs of ics and Evolution 18: 174–188.  
 the genus Eleutherodactylus in western Ecua­ Maienschein, J. 1994. Cutting edges cut both dor. Systematics, ecology, and biogeography. ways. Biology and Philosophy 9: 1–24.   
University of Kansas Natural History Museum, Mannen, H., and S.S.­L. Li. 1999. Molecular ev­ Special Publication 23: 1–236. idence for a clade of turtles. Molecular Phylo­ Lynch, J.D., and H.L. Freeman. 1966. Systematic genetics and Evolution 13: 144–148.  
 status of a South American frog, Allophryne Manzano, A.S., and E.O. Lavilla. 1995. Myologruthveni Gaige. University of Kansas Publica­ ical peculiarities in Rhinoderma darwini (Antions, Museum of Natural History 17: 493–502. ura: Rhinodermatidae). Journal of Morphology Lynch, J.D., and R.W. McDiarmid. 1987. Two 224: 125–129.   
 new species of Eleutherodactylus (Amphibia: Manzano, A.S., S. A. Moro, and V. Abdala. 2003. Anura: Leptodactylidae) from Bolivia. Proceed­ The depressor mandibulae muscle in Anura. ings of the Biological Society of Washington Alytes 20: 93–131.   
 100: 337–346. Marmayou, J., A. Dubois, A. Ohler, E. Pasquet, Lynch, J.D., and P.M. Ruiz­Carranza. 1982. A and A. Tillier. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships new genus and species of poison­dart frog in the Ranidae (Amphibia, Anura). Independent (Amphibia: Dendrobatidae) from the Andes of origin of direct development in the genera Phinorthern Colombia. Proceedings of the Biolog­ lautus and Taylorana. Comptes Rendus de ical Society of Washington 95: 557–562. l’Academie des Sciences. Series 3, Life Scienc­ Lynch, J.D., and P.M. Ruiz­Carranza. 1997 es Paris 323: 287–297.   
 ‘‘1996’’. A remarkable new centrolenid frog Martin, A.A. 1967. Australian anuran life histofrom Colombia with a review of nuptial ex­ ries: some evolutionary and ecological aspects. crescences in the family. Herpetologica 52: In A.H. Weatherly (editor), Australian inland 525–535. waters and their fauna: eleven studies: 175– Lynch, J.F., and D.B. Wake. 1978. A new species 191. Canberra: Australian National University of Chiropterotriton (Amphibia: Caudata) from Press.   
 Baja Verapaz, Guatemala, with comments on Martin, R.F. 1972. Evidence from osteology. In relationships among Central American mem­ W.F. Blair (editor), Evolution in the genus Bufo: bers of the genus. Natural History Museum of 37–70. Austin: University of Texas Press.   
 Los Angeles County Contributions in Science Martin, W.F. 1972. Evolution of vocalization in 294: 1–22. the genus Bufo. In W.F. Blair (editor), Evolution Lynch, J.F., D.B. Wake, and S.­Y. Yang. 1983. in the genus Bufo: 279–309. Austin: University Genic and morphological differentiation in of Texas Press.   
 Mexican Pseudoeurycea (Caudata: Plethodon­ Matsui, M. 1994. A taxonomic study of the Rana tidae). Copeia 1983: 884–894. narina complex, with description of three new Macey, J.R., J.L. Strasburg, J.A. Brisson, V.T. species (Amphibia: Ranidae). Zoological Jour­ Vredenburg, M. Jennings, and A. Larson. 2001. nal of the Linnean Society. London 111: 385– Molecular phylogenetics of western North 415.   
 American frogs of the Rana boylii species Matsui, M., and N.L. Orlov. 2004. A new species group. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution of Chirixalus from Vietnam (Anura: Rhaco­ 19: 131–143. phoridae). Zoological Science. Tokyo 21: 671– Macey, J.R. 2005. Plethodontid salamander mi­ 676.   
tochondrial genomics: a parsimony evaluation Matsui, M., H. Ota, M.W.­N. Lau, and A. Bogaof character conflict and implications for his­ dek. 1995. Cytotaxonomic studies of three ratorical biogeography. Cladistics 21: 194–202. nid species (Amphibia: Anura) from Hong Maglia, A.M. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of Kong. Japanese Journal of Herpetology/ Haextant pelobatoid frogs (Anura: Pelobatoidea): chu­Ryoseiruigaku Zasshi 16: 12–17.  
 evidence from adult morphology. Scientific Pa­ Matsui, M., T. Shimada, H. Ota, and T. Tanakapers. Natural History Museum, University of Ueno. 2005. Multiple invasions of the Ryukyu Kansas 10: 1–19. Archipelago by Oriental frogs of the subgenus Maglia, A.M., L.A. Pugener, and L. Trueb. 2001. Odorrana with phylogenetic reassessment of Comparative development of anurans: using the related subgenera of the genus Rana. Mophylogeny to understand ontogeny. American lecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37: 733–.   
Zoologist 41: 538–551. 742. [Seen as an electronic/pdf preprint avail­ Mahoney, M.J. 2001. Molecular systematics of able from the publisher.]  
 Plethodon and Aneides (Caudata: Plethodonti­ Maxson, L.R., R. Highton, and D.B. Wake. 1979 278 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297   
 Albumin evolution and its phylogenetic impli­ Fraser and H.­D. Sues (editors), In the shadow cations in the plethodontid salamander genera of the dinosaurs: 5–23. New York: Cambridge Plethodon and Ensatina. Copeia 1979: 502– University Press. 508. Milner, A.R. 2000. Mesozoic and Tertiary Cau­   
 Maxson, L.R., D.P. Ondrula, and M.J. Tyler. 1985. data and Albanerpetontidae. In H. Heatwole An immunological perspective on evolutionary and R.L. Carroll (editors), Amphibian biology, relationships in Australian frogs of the hylid vol. 4. Paleontology, the evolutionary history genus Cyclorana. Australian Journal of Zoolo­ of amphibians: 1412–1444. Chipping Norton, gy 33: 17–22. Australia: Surrey Beatty.   
 Maxson, L.R., and D.B. Wake. 1981. Albumin Min, M.­S., S.­Y. Yang, R.M. Bonett, D.R. Vieievolution and its phylogenetic implications in tes, R.A. Brandon, and D.B. Wake. 2005. Disthe plethodontid salamander genera Pseudoeu­ covery of the first Asian plethodontid salamanrycea and Chiropterotriton. Herpetologica 37: der. Nature. London 435: 87–90. 109–117. Miranda­Ribeiro, A., de. 1923. Os hylodideos do   
Mayer, A.F.J.K. 1849. System des Thier­Reiches Museu Paulista. Revista do Museu Paulista. oder Eintheilung der Thiere nach einem Prin­ São Paulo 13: 825–846 (reprint pages 3–24). cip, entworfen. Verhandlungen des Naturhisto­ Miranda­Ribeiro, A., de. 1926. Notas para servirischen Vereines der Preussischen Rheinlande rem ao estudo dos Gymnobatrachios (Anura) 6: 177–210. brasileiros. Arquivos do Museu Nacional do  
 McDiarmid, R.W., and R.I. Altig. 1999. Research Rio de Janeiro 27: 1–227. materials and techniques. In R.W. McDiarmid Mivart, S.G. 1869. On the classification of the and R. Altig (editors), Tadpoles: the biology of anurous batrachians. Proceedings of the Zooanuran larvae: 7–23. Chicago: University of logical Society of London 1869: 280–295. Chicago Press. Mookerjee, H.K. 1931. On the development of the   
 McDiarmid, R.W., and S.J. Gorzula. 1989. As­ vertebral column of Anura. Philosophical pects of the reproductive ecology and behavior Transactions of the Royal Society of London of the tepui toads, genus Oreophrynella (Anura, 219: 165–196. Bufonidae). Copeia 1989: 445–451. Morrison, D.A., and J.T. Ellis. 1997. Effects of   
McGowan, G.J., and S.E. Evans. 1995. Albaner­ nucleotide sequence alignment on phylogeny petontid amphibians from the Cretaceous of estimation: a case study of 18S rDNAs of Ap­ Spain. Nature. London 373: 143–145. icomplexa. Molecular Biology and Evolution  
Meegaskumbura, M., F. Bossuyt, R. Pethiyagoda, 14: 428–441. K. Manamendra­Arachchi, M. Bahir, M.C. Mil­ Mueller, R.L., J.R. Macey, M. Jaekel, D.B. Wake, inkovitch, and C.J. Schneider. 2002. Sri Lanka: and J.L. Boore. 2004. Morphological homopla­ an amphibian hot spot. Science 298: 379. sy, life history evolution, and historical bioge­  
 Meinhardt, D.J., and J.R. Parmalee. 1996. A new ography of plethodontid salamanders inferred species of Colostethus (Anura: Dendrobatidae) from complete mitochondrial genomes. Profrom Venezuela. Herpetologica 52: 70–77. ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences   
 Mendelson, J.R., III, H.R. da Silva, and A.M. of the United States of America 101: 13820– Maglia. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships 13825. among marsupial frog genera (Anura: Hylidae: Müller, H., G.J. Measey, and P.K. Malonza. 2005. Hemiphractinae) based on evidence from mor­ Tadpole of Bufo taitanus (Anura: Bufonidae) phology and natural history. Zoological Journal with notes on its systematic significance and of the Linnean Society. London 128: 125–148. life history. Journal of Herpetology 39: 138–   
 Merrem, B. 1820. Versuch eines Systems der Am­ 141. phibien/ Tentamen systematis amphibiorum. Müller, J. 1831. An einer jungen Coecilia hypo­ Marburg: Johann Christian Krieger. cyanea im Museum der Naturgeschichte. Isis   
 Milner, A.R. 1988. The relationships and origin von Oken 1831: 710–711. of the living amphibians. In M.J. Benton (edi­ Müller, J. 1832. Beiträge zur Anatomie und Nator), The phylogeny and classification of the turgeschichte der Amphibien. I. Ueber die natetrapods, vol. 1. Amphibians, reptiles, birds: türliche Eintheilung der Amphibien. Zeitschrift 59–102. Systematics Association Special Vol­ für Physiologie 4: 190–275, pl. 18–22. ume 23. New York: Academic Press. Müller, K. 2004. PRAP—computation of Bremer   
Milner, A.R. 1993. The Paleozoic relatives of lis­ support for large data sets. Molecular Phylosamphibians. Herpetological Monographs 7: 8– genetics and Evolution 31: 780–782.  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 279  
from ‘‘Chiriqui’’. American Museum Novitates Noble, G.K. 1926. The pectoral girdle of the bra­ 2721: 1–23. chycephalid frogs. American Museum Novita­  
Myers, C.W. 1987. New generic names for some tes 230: 1–14. Neotropical poison frogs (Dendrobatidae). Pa­ Noble, G.K. 1927. The value of life history data péis Avulsos de Zoologia. São Paulo 36: 301– in the study of the evolution of the Amphibia. 306. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences  
 Myers, C.W., and P.A. Burrowes. 1987. A new 30: 31–128. poison frog (Dendrobates) from Andean Co­ Noble, G.K. 1929. The adaptive modifications of lombia, with notes on a lowland relative. Amer­ the arboreal tadpoles of Hoplophryne and the ican Museum Novitates 2899: 1–17. torrent tadpoles of Staurois. Bulletin of the   
 Myers, C.W., J.W. Daly, and B. Malkin. 1978. A American Museum of Natural History 58: 291– dangerously toxic new frog (Phyllobates) used 334. by Emberá indians of western Colombia, with Noble, G.K. 1931. The biology of the Amphibia. discussion of blowgun fabrication and dart poi­ New York: McGraw­Hill. soning. Bulletin of the American Museum of Noble, G.K., and P.G. Putnam. 1931. Observa­ Natural History 161: 307–366. tions on the life history of Ascaphus truei Ste­   
 Myers, C.W., and L.S. Ford. 1986. On Atopo­ jneger. Copeia 1931: 97–101. phrynus, a recently described frog wrongly as­ Nussbaum, R.A. 1976. Geographic variation and signed to the Dendrobatidae. American Muse­ systematics of salamanders of the genus Dium Novitates 2843: 1–15. camptodon Strauch (Ambystomatidae). Miscel­   
Myers, C.W., A. Paolillo O., and J.W. Daly. 1991. laneous Publications. Museum of Zoology, Discovery of a defensively malodorous and University of Michigan 149: 1–94. nocturnal frog in the family Dendrobatidae: Nussbaum, R.A. 1977. Rhinatrematidae: a new phylogenetic significance of a new genus and family of caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnospecies from the Venezuelan Andes. American phiona). Occasional Papers of the Museum of Museum Novitates 3002: 1–33. Zoology, University of Michigan 682: 1–30.  
 Nascimento, L.B., U. Caramaschi, and C.A.G. Nussbaum, R.A. 1979. The taxonomic status of Cruz. 2005. Taxonomic review of the species the caecilian genus Uraeotyphlus Peters. Ocgroup of the genus Physalameus Fitzinger, casional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, 1826 with revalidation of the genera Engysto­ University of Michigan 687: 1–20. mops Jimenez de la Espada, 1872 and Eupem­ Nussbaum, R.A. 1980. Phylogenetic implications phix Steindachner, 1836 (Amphibia, Anura, of amplectic behavior in sooglossid frogs. Her­ Leptodactylidae). Arquivos do Museu Nacional petologica 36: 1–5. do Rio de Janeiro 63: 297–320. Nussbaum, R.A. 1982. Heterotopic bones in the   
Nicholls, G.E. 1916. The structure of the vertebral hindlimbs of frogs of the families Pipidae, Rancolumn in the Anura Phaneroglossa and its im­ idae and Sooglossidae. Herpetologica 38: 312– portance as a basis of classification. Proceed­ 320. ings of the Linnaean Society of London 128: Nussbaum, R.A., A.P. Jaslow, and J. Watson. 80–92. 1982. Vocalization in frogs of the family Soog­  
Niklas, K.J. 2001. Taxing debate for taxonomists. lossidae. Journal of Herpetology 16: 198–203. Science 292: 2249–2250. Nussbaum, R.A., and M. Wilkinson. 1989. On the  
Nixon, K.C. 1999. The parsimony ratchet, a new classification and phylogeny of caecilians (Ammethod for rapid parsimony analysis. Cladistics phibia: Gymnophiona), a critical review. Her­ 15: 407–414. petological Monographs 3: 1–42.  
Nixon, K.C. 1999–2002. WinClada. Version 1.0. Nussbaum, R.A., and M. Wilkinson. 1995. A new Ithaca, New York: Computer software distrib­ genus of lungless tetrapod: a radically divergent uted by the author. caecilian (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). Proceed­  
Nixon, K.C., and J.M. Carpenter. 2000. On the ings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, other ‘‘phylogenetic systematics’’. Cladistics Biological Sciences 261: 331–335. 16: 298–318. Ohler, A., S.R. Swan, and J.C. Daltry. 2002. A  
Nixon, K.C., J.M. Carpenter, and D.W. Stevenson. recent survey of the amphibian fauna of the 2003. The PhyloCode is fatally flawed and the Cardamom Mountains, Southwest Cambodia ‘‘Linnaean’’ system can be easily fixed. Botan­ with descriptions of three new species. Raffles ical Review 69: 111–120. Bulletin of Zoology. Singapore 50: 465–481.  
Noble, G.K. 1924. A new spadefoot toad from the Okada, Y. 1966. Fauna Japonica. Anura (Amphib­.  
the  
Oligocene of Mongolia with a summary of the ia). Tokyo: Biogeographical Society of Japan evolution of the Pelobatidae. American Muse­ Olsson, L., and J. Hanken. 1996. Cranial neuralum Novitates 132: 1–15. crest migration and chondrogenic fate in 280 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 oriental fire­bellied toad Bombina orientalis: Parra­Olea, G., M. García­París, and D.B. Wake. defining the ancestral pattern of head develop­ 2004. Molecular diversification of salamanders ment in anuran amphibians. Journal of Mor­ of the tropical American genus Bolitoglossa phology 299: 105–120. (Caudata: Plethodontidae) and its evolutionary Oppel, M. 1810. Second memoire sur las classi­ and biogeographical implications. Biological fication des reptiles. Annales du Muséum Journal of the Linnean Society 81: 325–346.   
d’Histoire Naturelle 16: 394–418. Parra­Olea, G., and D.B. Wake. 2001. Extreme Orlov, N.L., L.N. Ngat, and T.C. Ho. 2003. A new morphological and ecological homoplasy in species of cascade frog from North Vietnam tropical salamanders. Proceedings of the Na­ (Ranidae, Anura). Russian Journal of Herpetol­ tional Academy of Sciences of the United ogy 10: 123–134. States of America 98: 7888–7891.  
 Orton, G.L. 1949. Larval development of Necto­ Parsons, T.S., and E.E. Williams. 1963. The relaphrynoides tornieri (Roux), with comments on tionships of the modern Amphibia: a re–exdirect development in frogs. Annals of the Car­ amination. Quarterly Review of Biology 38: negie Museum 31: 257–274. 26–53.   
Orton, G.L. 1953. The systematics of vertebrate Passmore, N.I., and V.C. Carruthers. 1979. South larvae. Systematic Zoology 2: 63–75. African frogs. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand Orton, G.L. 1957. The bearing of larval evolution University Press.  
on some problems in frog classification. Sys­ Patterson, C., and D.E. Rosen. 1977. Review of tematic Zoology 6: 79–86. the ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic tele­ Page, L.M, H.L. Bart, Jr., R. Beaman, L. Bohs, ost fishes and the theory and practice of clas­ L.T. Deck, V.A. Funk, D. Lipscomb, M.A. Ma­ sifying fossils. Bulletin of the American Mures, L.A. Prather, J. Stevenson, Q.D. Wheeler, seum of Natural History 158: 85–172.  
 J.B. Wooley, and D.W. Stevenson. 2005. LIN­ Pauly, G.B., D.M. Hillis, and D.C. Cannatella. NE: legacy infrastructure network for natural 2004. The history of Nearctic colonization: moenvironments. Champaign, IL: Illinois Natural lecular phylogenetics and biogeography of the History Survey. Nearctic toads (Bufo). Evolution 58: 2517– Palma, R.E., and A.E. Spotorno. 1999. Molecular 2535.   
 systematics of marsupials based on the rRNA Peixoto, O.L. 1995. Associação de anuros a bro­ 12S mitochondrial gene: the phylogeny of di­ meliáceas na mata Atlântica. Revista de Univdelphimorphia and the living fossil microbioth­ ersidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro. Série eriid Dromiciops gliroides Thomas. Molecular Ciências da Vida 17: 75–83.   
Phylogenetics and Evolution 13: 525–535. Pennisi, E. 2001. Linnaeus’s last stand? Science Palumbi, S.R., A. Martin, S. Romano, W.O. Mc­ 291: 2304–2307.  
Millan, L. Stice, and G. Grabawski. 1991. The Perret, J.­L. 1966. Les amphibiens du Cameroun. simple fool’s guide to PCR, version 2.0. Uni­ Zoologische Jahrbücher. Abteilung für Systeversity of Hawaii, Honolulu: Privately pub­ matik, Ökologie und Geographie. Jena 93: lished, compiled by S. Palumbi. 289–464.  
 Papavero, N., J. Llorente­Bousquets, and J.M. Perret, J.­L. 1977. Les Hylarana (amphibiens, Abe. 2001. Proposal of a new system of no­ ranidés) du Cameroun. Revue Suisse de Zoolmenclature for phylogenetic systematics. Ar­ ogie 84: 841–868.   
 quivos de Zoologia. São Paulo 36: 1–145. Perret, J.­L. 1984. Identification des syntypes de Parker, H.W. 1934. A monograph of the frogs of Petropedetes obscurus Ahl, 1924 (Amphibia, the family Microhylidae. London: Trustees of Phrynobatrachinae), conservés au muséum de the British Museum. Berlin. Bulletin de la Société Neuchâteloise des Parker, H.W. 1940. The Australasian frogs of the Sciences Naturelles 107: 167–170.   
 family Leptodactylidae. Novitates Zoologicae. Peters, W.C.H. 1862. Über die Batrachier­Gattung Tring 42: 1–106. Hemiphractus. Monatsberichte der Königlichen Parra­Olea, G. 2002. Molecular phylogenetic re­ Preussische Akademie des Wissenschaften zu lationships of Neotropical salamanders of the Berlin 1862: 144–152.   
 genus Pseudoeurycea. Molecular Phylogenetics Philippe, H. 1993. MUST: management utilities and Evolution 22: 234–246. for sequences and trees. Nucleic Acids Re­ Parra­Olea, G., M. García­París, and D.B. Wake. search 21: 5264–5272.   
 2002. Phylogenetic relationships among the sal­ Phillips, A., D. Janies, and W.C. Wheeler. 2000. amanders of the Bolitoglossa macrinii species Multiple sequence alignment in phylogenetic   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 281  
 PhyloCode, now with types, ranks, and even West Indian toads (Anura: Bufonidae). Molecpolyphyly: a conference report from the First ular Phylogenetics and Evolution 20: 294–301. International Phylogenetic Nomenclature Meet­ Pramuk, J.B., and J.R. Mendelson, III. 2003. Aning. Cladistics 21: 79–82. axyrus melanocholicus Tschudi: synonym of Platnick, N. I. 1977. Cladograms, phylogenetic the Mexican taxon Bufo compactilis Wiegmann trees, and hypothesis testing. Systematic Zool­ (Anura: Bufonidae). Southwestern Naturalist ogy 26: 438–443. 48: 676–680.   
 Pombal, J.P., Jr. 1999. Oviposição e desenvolvi­ Pregill, G.K. 1981. Cranial morphology and the mento de Brachycephalus ephippium (Spix) evolution of West Indian toads: resurrection of (Anura, Brachycephalidae). Revista Brasileira the genus Peltophryne (Fitzinger). Copeia de Zoologia 16: 967–976. 1981: 273–285.   
 Pombal, J.P., Jr., and C.F.B. Haddad. 1999. Frogs Procter, J.B. 1925. Notes on the nests of some of the genus Paratelmatobius (Anura: Lepto­ African frogs. Proceedings of the Zoological dactylidae) with descriptions of two new spe­ Society of London 1925: 909–910.   
cies. Copeia 1999: 1014–1026. Pugener, L.A., A.M. Maglia, and L. Trueb. 2003. Pope, C.H. 1931. Notes on amphibians from Fu­ Revisiting the contribution of larval characters kien, Hainan and other parts of China. Bulletin to an analysis of phylogenetic relationships of of the American Museum of Natural History basal anurans. Zoological Journal of the Lin­ 61: 397–611. nean Society. London 139: 129–155.  
 Posada, D., and K.A. Crandall. 1998. Modeltest: Pusey, H.K. 1943. On the head of the liopelmid testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioin­ frog, Ascaphus truei I. The chondrocranium, formatics 14: 817–818. jaws, arches, and muscles of a partly grown lar­ Post, T.J., and T. Uzzell. 1981. The relationships va. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science of Rana sylvatica and the monophyly of the 84: 106–185.   
 Rana boylii group. Systematic Zoology 30: Pyburn, W.F. 1970. Breeding behavior of the leaf­ 170–180. frogs Phyllomedusa callidryas and Phyllome­ Poynton, J.C. 1964a. Amphibia of southern Afri­ dusa dacnicolor in Mexico. Copeia 1970: 209– ca: a faunal study. Annals of the Natal Museum 218.   
 17: 1–334. Pytel, B.A. 1986. Biochemical systematics of the Poynton, J.C. 1964b. Amphibia of the Nyasa­Lu­ eastern North American frogs of the genus angwa region of Africa. Senckenbergiana Biol­ Rana. Herpetologica 42: 273–282.   
 ogica 45: 193–225. Rabb, G.B. 1960. On the unique sound production Poynton, J.C. 1976. Classification and the Arthro­ of the Surinam toad, Pipa pipa. Copeia 1960: leptinae. Revue Zoologique Africaine 90: 215– 368–369.   
 220. Rafinesque, C.S. 1814. Fine del prodromo Poynton, J.C. 2003. Arthroleptis troglodytes and   
 the content of Schoutedenella (Amphibia: An­ d’erpetologia siciliana. Specchio delle Scienze, ura: Arthroleptidae). African Journal of Her­ o, Giornale Enciclopedico di Sicilia 2: 102– petology 52: 49–51. 104.   
 Poynton, J.C., and D.G. Broadley. 1967. A new Rafinesque, C.S. 1815. Analyse de nature, ou tabspecies of Probreviceps (Amphibia) from Rho­ leau de l’universe et des corps organisés. Padesia. Arnoldia. Zimbabwe 3: 1–3. lermo: Jean Barravecchia.   
Poynton, J.C., and D.G. Broadley. 1985. Amphib­ Rambaut, A. 1995. Se­Al. Sequence alignment ia Zambesiaca 2. Ranidae. Annals of the Natal editor, version 1.d1. University of Oxford, Museum 27: 115–181. U.K.: Computer software distributed by the au­ Poynton, J.C., and D.G. Broadley. 1988. Amphib­ thor.  
ia Zambesiaca, 4. Bufonidae. Annals of the Na­ Rao, C.R.N. 1920. Some South Indian batrachital Museum 29: 447–490. ans. Journal of the Bombay Natural History So­ Pramuk, J.B. 2000. Prenasal bones and snout mor­ ciety 27: 119–127.  
 phology in West Indian bufonids and the Bufo Read, K., J.S. Keogh, I.A. Scott, J.D. Roberts, and granulosus species group. Journal of Herpetol­ P. Doughty. 2001. Molecular phylogeny of the ogy 34: 334–340. Australian frog genera Crinia, Geocrinia, and Pramuk, J.B. 2002. Combined evidence and cla­ allied taxa (Anura: Myobatrachidae). Molecular distic relationships of West Indian toads (Anu­ Phylogenetics and Evolution 21: 294–308.   
ra: Bufonidae). Herpetological Monographs 16: Regal, P.J. 1966. Feeding specializations and the  
121–151. classification of terrestrial salamanders. Evolu­ Pramuk, J.B., C.A. Hass, and S.B. Hedges. 2001. tion 20: 392–407.  
Molecular phylogeny and biogeography of Reig, O.A. 1958. Proposiciones para una nueva  
282 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
 macrosistematica de los anuros (nota prelimi­ the anuran Pipa pipa. Journal of Morphology   
nar). Physis. Buenos Aires 21: 109–118. 200: 300–319.  
Reig, O.A. 1960. Las relaciones genéricas del an­ Rödel, M.­O., J. Kosuch, M. Veith, and R. Ernst.  
 uro chileno Calyptocephalella gayi (Dum. & 2003. First record of the genus Acanthixalus   
 Bibr.). In Actas y trabajos del Primer Congreso Laurent, 1944 from the upper Guinean rain for­   
Sudamericano de Zoología (La Plata, 12–24 est, West Africa, with the description of a new  
Octubre 1959), vol. 4: 113–147. La Plata: Com­ species. Journal of Herpetology 37: 43–52.  
isión de Investigación Científica de la Provincia Rodman, J.E., and J.H. Cody. 2003. The taxonom­  
de Buenos Aires y Consejo Nacional de Inves­ ic impediment overcome: NSF’s Partnerships  
tigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. for Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy (PEET)  
 Reig, O.A. 1972. Macrogenioglottus and the as a model. Systematic Biology 52: 428–435.   
 South American bufonid toads. In W.F. Blair Roelants, K., and F. Bossuyt. 2005. Archaeobatra­   
 (editor), Evolution in the genus Bufo: 14–36. chian paraphyly and Pangaean diversification   
Austin: University of Texas Press. of crown­group frogs. Systematic Biology 54:  
Richards, C.M., and W.S. Moore. 1996. A phy­ 111–126.  
logeny for the African treefrog family Hyper­ Roelants, K., J. Jiang, and F. Bossuyt. 2004. En­  
oliidae based on mitochondrial rDNA. Molec­ demic ranid (Amphibia: Anura) genera in  
ular Phylogenetics and Evolution 5: 522–532. southern mountain ranges of the Indian subcon­  
Richards, C.M., and W.S. Moore. 1998. A molec­ tinent represent ancient frog lineages: evidence  
ular phylogenetic study of the Old World tree­ from the molecular data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: 730–740.  
frog family Rhacophoridae. Herpetological Romer, A.S. 1933. Vertebrate paleontology. Chi­  
Journal. London 8: 41–46. cago: University of Chicago Press.  
Richards, C.M., R.A. Nussbaum, and C.J. Rax­ Romer, A.S. 1945. Vertebrate paleontology, 2nd  
worthy. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships within ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  
the Madagascan boophids and mantellids as Ruiz­Carranza, P.M., and J.D. Lynch. 1991a. Ran­  
elucidated by mitochondrial ribosomal genes. as Centrolenidae de Colombia I. Propuesta de  
African Journal of Herpetology 49: 23–32. una nueva clasificacion generica. Lozania 57:  
Rieppel, O., and M. de Braga. 1996. Turtles as 1–30.  
diapsid reptiles. Nature. London 384: 453–455. Ruiz­Carranza, P.M., and J.D. Lynch. 1991b. Ran­  
Risch, J.­P. 1985. The Himalayan salamander and as Centrolenidae de Colombia II. Nuevas es­  
 its relatives: a short review of the Pleurodelinae pecies de Centrolene de la Cordillera Oriental   
(Amphibia, Caudata, Salamandridae). Journal y Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Lozania 58:  
of the Bengal Natural History Society. New Se­ 1–26.  
ries 4: 139–143. Ruiz­Carranza, P.M., and J.D. Lynch. 1998. Ranas  
Ritgen, F.A. 1828. Versuch einer naturlichen Centrolenidae de Colombia XI. Nuevas espe­  
 Eintheilung der Amphibien. Nova Acta Physi­ cies de ranas cristal del genero Hyalinobatrach­   
 co­medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino­ ium. Revista de la Academia Colombiana de   
Carolinae Naturae Curiosorum. Halle 14: 277, Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales 22: 571–  
278. 586.  
Ritland, R.M. 1955. Studies on the post­cranial Ruta, M., M.I. Coates, and D.L.J. Quicke. 2003.  
 morphology of Ascaphus truei. II. Journal of Early tetrapod relationships revisited. Biologi­   
Morphology 97: 215–282. cal Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical  
Roček, Z. 1981 ‘‘1980’’. Cranial anatomy of frogs Society 78: 251–345.  
of the family Pelobatidae Stannius, 1856, with Ruvinsky, I., and L.R. Maxson. 1996. Phyloge­  
outlines of their phylogeny and systematics. netic relationships among bufonoid frogs (An­  
Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Biologica. Prague ura: Neobatrachia) inferred from mitochondrial  
1980: 1–160. DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and  
Roček, Z. 1989. Developmental pattern of the eth­ Evolution 5: 533–547.  
 moidal region of the anuran skull. In H. Saint­Aubain, M.L., de. 1981. Amphibian limb   
Splechtna (editor), Trends in vertebrate mor­ ontogeny and its bearing on the phylogeny of  
phology: 412–515. Stuttgart: G. Fischer. the group. Zeitschrift für Zoologische Syste­  
Roček, Z. 1990. Ethmoidal endocranial structures matik und Evolutionsforschung 19: 175–194.  
in primitive tetrapods: their bearing on the Salthe, S.N. 1967. The courtship patterns and the  
search for anuran ancestry. Zoological Journal phylogeny of the urodeles. Copeia 1967: 100–  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 283  
 estudio de su morfoestructura ósea. In H. Hem­ and new taxa. American Museum Novitates   
mer and J.A. Alcover (editors), Història bioòg­ 3357: 1–48.  
ica del ferreret (Life history of the Mallorcan Schäuble, C.S., C. Moritz, and R.W. Slade. 2000.  
 midwife toad): 61–108. Mallorca, Spain: Edi­ A molecular phylogeny for the frog genus Lim­   
 torial Moll. nodynastes (Anura: Myobatrachidae). Molecu­   
Sanchíz, F.B. 1998. Encyclopedia of paleoherpe­ lar Phylogenetics and Evolution 16: 379–391.  
tology, vol. 4. Salientia. München: Dr. Fried­ Scheel, J.J. 1970. Notes on the biology of the Af­  
 rich Pfeil. rican tree­toad, Nectophryne afra Buchholz &   
Sanchíz, F.B., and I. de la Riva. 1993. Remarks Peters, 1875 (Bufonidae, Anura) from Fernan­  
on the tarsus of centrolenid frogs (Amphibia, do Poo. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Af­  
Anura). Graellsia 49: 115–117. ricaines 81: 225–236.  
Sankoff, D. 1975. Minimal mutation trees of se­ Scheltinga, D.M., B.G.M. Jamieson, D.P. Bick­  
quences. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathemat­ ford, A.A. Garda, S.N. Bao, and K.R. Mc­  
ics 28: 35–42. Donald. 2002. Morphology of the spermatozoa  
Sankoff, D., R.J. Cedergren, and G. Lapalme. of the Microhylidae (Anura, Amphibia). Acta  
1976. Frequency of insertion­deletion, transver­ Zoologica. Stockholm 83: 263–275.  
sion, and transition in evolution of 5S ribosom­ Schmidt, K.P., and R.F. Inger. 1959. Amphibians  
 al RNA. Journal of Molecular Evolution 7: exclusive of the genera Afrixalus and Hypero­   
 133–149. lius. Exploration du Parc National de   
San Mauro, D., D.J. Gower, O.V. Oommen, M. l’Upemba. Mission G.F. de Witte, en Collabo­  
Wilkinson, and R. Zardoya. 2004. Phylogeny of  
ration avec W. Adam, A. Janssens, L. van Meel  
caecilian amphibians (Gymnophiona) based on  
et R. Verheyen (1946–1949) 56: 1–264.  
complete mitochondrial genomes and nuclear  
Schoch, R.R., and A.R. Milner. 2004. Structure and implications of theories on the origins of  
RAG1. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution  
 lissamphibians. In G. Arratia, M.V. Wilson, and   
33: 413–427.  
R. Cloutier (editors), Recent advances in the  
San Mauro, D., M. Vences, M. Alcobendas, R.  
origin and early radiation of vertebrates: 345–  
Zardoya, and A. Meyer. 2005. Initial diversifi­  
377. München: Pfeil.  
cation of living amphibians predated the break­  
Scholz, K.P. 1995. Zur Stammesgeschichte der  
up of Pangaea. American Naturalist 165: 590–  
Salamandridae Gray, 1825. eine kladistische  
599.  
Analyse anhand von Merkmalen aus Morphol­  
Santos, J.C., L.A. Coloma, and D.C. Cannatella.  
ogie und Balzverhalten. Acta Biologica Ben­  
2003. Multiple, recurring origins of aposema­  
rodis 7: 25–75.  
tism and diet specialization in poison frogs.  
Schuh, R.T. 2003. The Linnaean system and its  
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci­  
250­year persistence. Botanical Review 69: 59–  
ences of the United States of America 100:  
79.  
12792–12797. Schulte, R. 1989. Nueva especie de rana venenosa  
 Sarasin, P., and F. Sarasin. 1890. Zur Entiwick­ del genero Epipedobates registrada en la Cor­   
lungsgeschichte und Anatomie der ceylonisch­ dillera Oriental, Departamento de San Martin.  
 en Blindwuehle, Ichthyophis glutinosus (Epi­ Boletín de Lima 11: 41–46.   
 crium glutinosum Aut.). Ergebnisse naturwis­ Schwenk, K., and D.B. Wake. 1993. Prey pro­   
 senschaftlicher Forschungen auf Ceylon in den cessing in Leurognathus marmoratus and the   
Jahren 1884–86. Vol. II. Heft 4. Wiesbaden: evolution of form and function in desmogna­  
C.W. Kreidel. thine salamanders (Plethodontidae). Biological  
Savage, J.M. 1973. The geographic distribution of Journal of the Linnean Society 49: 141–162.  
 frogs: patterns and predictions. In J.L. Vial (ed­ Scopoli, G.A. 1777. Introductio ad historiam na­   
itor), Evolutionary biology of the anurans: con­ turalem, sistens genera lapidium, planatarum, et  
temporary research on major problems: 351– animalium hactenus detecta, caracteribus essen­  
445. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. tialibus donata, in tribus divisa, subinde ad le­  
Savage, J.M. 1987. Systematics and distribution ges naturae. Prague: Gerle.  
of the Mexican and Central American rainfrogs Scott, E. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of the  
 of the Eleutherodactylus gollmeri group (Am­ subfamily Petropedetinae Noble, 1931 (Anura:   
phibia: Leptodactylidae). Fieldiana. Zoology. Ranidae): a simultaneous analysis of morpho­  
New Series 33: 1–57. logical and molecular data. Ph.D. dissertation.  
Savage, J.M., and C.W. Myers. 2002. Frogs of the Department of Zoology, University of the sal­ America, including rediscovered, resurrected, amanders of the plethodontid subfamily Des­  
284 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
mognathinae (Amphibia: Urodela). Transac­ Simmons, M.P., and H. Ochoterena. 2000. Gaps tions of the American Microscopical Society as characters in sequence­based phylogenetic 109: 193–204. analyses. Systematic Biology 49: 369–381.  
 Sever, D.M. 1991a. Comparative anatomy and Sinsch, U., and N. Juraske. 1995. Reassessment phylogeny of the cloacae of salamanders (Am­ of central Peruvian Telmatobiinae (genera Baphibia: Caudata). 1. Evolution at the family lev­ trachophrynus and Telmatobius) II. Allozymes el. Herpetologica 47: 165–193. and phylogenetic relationships. Alytes 13: 52–   
 Sever, D.M. 1991b. Comparative anatomy and 66. phylogeny of the cloacae of salamanders (Am­ Sinsch, U., A.W. Salas, and V. Canales. 1995. Rephibia: Caudata). 2. Cryptobranchidae, Hyno­ assessment of central Peruvian Telmatobiinae biidae, and Sirenidae. Journal of Morphology (genera Batrachophrynus and Telmatobius) I. 207: 283–301. Morphometry and classification. Alytes 13: 14–   
 Sever, D.M. 1992. Comparative anatomy and phy­ 44. logeny of the cloacae of salamanders (Amphib­ Sites, J.W., Jr., M. Morando, R. Highton, F. Huber, ia: Caudata). VI. Ambystomatidae and Dicamp­ and R.E. Jung. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships todontidae. Journal of Morphology 212: 305– of the endangered Shenandoah Salamander 322. (Plethodon shenandoah) and other salamanders   
 Sever, D.M. 1994. Comparative anatomy and phy­ of the Plethodon cinereus group (Caudata: logeny of the cloacae of salamanders (Amphib­ Plethodontidae). Journal of Herpetology 38: ia: Caudata). VII. Plethodontidae. Herpetologi­ 96–105. cal Monographs 7: 276–337. Slabbert, G.K., and W.A. Maree. 1945. The cra­   
Sever, D.M., E.A. Heinz, P.A. Lempart, and M.S. nial morphology of the Discoglossidae and its Taghon. 1990. Phylogenetic significance of the bearing upon the phylogeny of the primitive cloacal anatomy of female bolitoglossine sala­ Anura. Annals of the University of Stellen­ manders (Plethodontidae: tribe Bolitoglossini). bosch 23A: 91–97. Herpetologica 46: 431–446. Slowinski, J.B. 1998. The number of multiple  
Shaffer, H.B., J.M. Clark, and F. Kraus. 1991. alignments. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evo­ When molecules and morphology clash: a phy­ lution 10: 264–266. logenetic analysis of the North American am­ Smith, M.A. 1930. The Reptilia and Amphibia of bystomatid salamanders (Caudata: Ambysto­ the Malay Peninsula. A supplement to G.A. matidae). Systematic Zoology 40: 284–303. Boulenger’s Reptilia and Batrachia, 1912. Bul­  
Sharrock, G., and J. Felsenstein. 1975. Finding all monothetic subsets of a taxonomic group. Sys­ letin of the Raffles Museum 3: i–xviii, 1–149. tematic Zoology 24: 373–377. [Cited as ‘‘1969. Sokol, O. 1975. The phylogeny of anuran larvae: manuscript in preparation’’ by Liem, 1970.] a new look. Copeia 1975: 1–23.  
 Sheil, C.A., J.R. Mendelson, III, and H.R. da Sil­ Sokol, O. 1977. A subordinal classification of va. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of the spe­ frogs (Amphibia: Anura). Journal of Zoology. cies of Neotropical horned frogs, genus Hemi­ London 182: 505–508. phractus (Anura: Hylidae: Hemiphractinae), Sokol, O. 1981. The larval chondrocranium of Pebased on evidence from morphology. Herpeto­ lodytes punctatus, with a review of tadpole logica 57: 203–214. chondrocrania. Journal of Morphology 169:   
 Shubin, N.H., and F.A. Jenkins. 1995. An early 161–183. Jurassic jumping frog. Nature. London 377: Starrett, P.H. 1973. Evolutionary patterns in larval 49–52. morphology. In J.L. Vial (editor), Evolutionary   
 Silva, A.P.Z., C.F.B. Haddad, and S. Kasahara. biology of the anurans: contemporary research 2003. Chromosome banding in Macrogenioglot­ on major problems: 251–271. Columbia: Unitus alipioi Carvalho, 1946 (Amphibia, Anura, versity of Missouri Press. Leptodactylidae), with comments on its taxo­ Steindachner, F. 1867. Amphibien. In Reise der nomic position. Boletim do Museu Nacional, österreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde Rio de Janeiro. Nova Série, Zoologia. 499: 1–9. in den Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859 unter den Ba­   
 Silverstone, P.A. 1975. A revision of the poison­ fehlen des Commodore B. von Wüllerstorf­Urarrow frogs of the genus Dendrobates Wagler. bair, Zoologischer Theil. 1: 1–98. Wien: Kais­ Natural History Museum of Los Angeles Coun­ erlich­Königliche Hof­ und Staatsdruckerei; in ty Science Bulletin 21: 1–55. Commission bei K. Gerold’s Sohn.   
Simmons, M.P. 2004. Independence of alignment Steinfartz, S., U.W. Hwang, D. Tautz, M. Öz, and  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 285  
intrageneric switch of reproductive biology. D.M. Hillis, C. Moritz, and B.K. Mable (edi­ Amphibia­Reptilia 23: 419–431. tors), Molecular systematics: 407–514. Sunder­  
 Stejneger, L. 1907. Herpetology of Japan and ad­ land, MA: Sinauer Associates. jacent territory. Bulletin of the United States Tamarunov, L.P. 1964a. Salientia. In Y.A. Orlov National Museum 58: i–xx, 1–577. (editor), Osnovy paleontologii: spravochnik   
 Stejneger, L., and T. Barbour. 1917. A check list dlia paleontologov i geologov SSSR, vol. 12. of North American amphibians and reptiles. Amphibia – Aves: 125–133. Moscow: Nauka. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tamarunov, L.P. 1964b. Lepospondyli. In Y.A.   
 Stephenson, E.M., E.S. Robinson, and N.G. Ste­ Orlov (editor), Osnovy paleontologii: spravophenson. 1974. Inter­specific relationships of chnik dlia paleontologov i geologov SSSR, vol. Leiopelma (Amphibia: Anura): further karyo­ 12. Amphibia – Aves: 144–164. Moscow: Naulogical evidence. Experientia 30: 1248–1250. ka.   
 Stephenson, N.G. 1951. Observations on the de­ Tanaka­Ueno, T., M. Matsui, S.­L. Chen, O. Takvelopment of the amphicoelous frogs, Leiopel­ enaka, and H. Ota. 1998a. Phylogenetic rela­ ma and Ascaphus. Journal of the Linnean So­ tionships of brown frogs from Taiwan and Ja­ ciety of London. Zoology 42: 18–28. pan assessed by mitochondrial cytochrome b   
 Stoll, N. 1961. Introduction. In International gene sequences (Rana: Ranidae). Zoological Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (edi­ Science. Tokyo 15: 283–288. tors), International code of zoological nomen­ Tanaka­Ueno, T., M. Matsui, T. Sato, S. Takenaka, clature adopted by the XV International Con­ and O. Takenaka. 1998b. Phylogenetic relation­ gress of Zoology: vii–xvii. London: Interna­ ships of brown frogs with 24 chromosomes tional Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. from Far East Russia and Hokkaido assessed   
 Stuart, B.L., and T. Chan­ard. 2005. Two new by mitochondrial cytochrome b gene sequences Huia (Amphibia: Ranidae) from Laos and Thai­ (Rana: Ranidae). Zoological Science. Tokyo land. Copeia 2005: 279–289. 15: 289–294.   
 Stuart, S.N., J.S. Chanson, N.A. Cox, B.E. Young, Tandy, M., and R. Keith. 1972. Bufo of Africa. In A.S.L. Rodrigues, D.L. Fischman, and R.W. W.F. Blair (editor), Evolution in the genus Bufo: Waller. 2004. Status and trends of amphibian 119–170. Austin: University of Texas Press. declines and extinctions worldwide. Science Taylor, E.H. 1951. Two new genera and a new 306: 1783–1786. family of tropical American frogs. Proceedings   
Sumida, M., A. Allison, and M. Nishioka. 2000a. of the Biological Society of Washington 64: Evolutionary relationships among 12 species belonging to three genera of the family Micro­ 33–40. hylidae in Papua New Guinea revealed by al­ Taylor, E.H. 1968. The caecilians of the world: a lozyme analysis. Biochemical Systematics and taxonomic review. Lawrence: University of Ecology 28: 721–736. Kansas Press.  
 Sumida, M., Y. Kondo, Y. Kanamori, and M. Ni­ Taylor, E.H. 1969a. A new family of African shioka. 2002. Inter­ and intraspecific evolution­ Gymnophiona. University of Kansas Science ary relationships of the rice frog Rana limno­ Bulletin 48: 297–305. charis and the allied species R. cancrivora in­ Taylor, E.H. 1969b. Skulls of Gymnophiona and ferred from crossing experiements and mito­ their significance in the taxonomy of the group. chondrial DNA sequences of the 12S and 16S University of Kansas Science Bulletin 48: 585– rRNA genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and 687. Evolution 25: 293–305. Thibaudeau, G., and R.I. Altig. 1999. Endotrophic   
 Sumida, M., M. Ogata, and M. Nishioka. 2000b. anurans. Development and evolution. In R.W. Molecular phylogenetic relationships of pond McDiarmid and R. Altig (editors), Tadpoles: frogs distributed in the Palearctic Region in­ the biology of anuran larvae: 170–188. Chicaferred from DNA sequences of mitochondrial go: University of Chicago Press. 12S ribosomal RNA and cytochrome b genes. Thompson, J.D., T.J. Gibson, F.J. Plewniak, F., and Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 16: D.G. Higgins. 1997. The ClustalX windows in­ 278–285. terface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence   
Swofford, D.L. 2002. PAUP*. Phylogenetic anal­ alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nuysis using parsimony (*and other methods), cleic Acids Research 24 4876–4882. version 4.0 beta. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer As­ Thompson, J.D., D.G. Higgins, and T.J. Gibson.  
sociates. 1994. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity  
Swofford, D.L., G.J. Olsen, P.J. Waddell, and of progressive multiple sequence alignments  
 D.M. Hillis. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. In through sequence weighting, position specific   
286 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nu­ Tschudi, J.J., von. 1838. Classification der Batracleic Acids Research 22: 4673–4680. chier mit Berücksichtigung der fossilen Thiere  
 Tian, W., and Q. Hu. 1985. Taxonomical studies dieser Abtheilung der Reptilien. Neuchâtel: Peon the primitive anurans of the Hengduan titpierre. Mountains, with descriptions of a new subfam­ Tschudi, J.J., von. 1845. Reptilium conspectus ily and subdivision of Bombina. Acta Herpe­ quae in Republica Peruana reperiuntur et pletologica Sinica, New Series 4: 219–224. raquae observata vel collecta sunt in itinere a   
Tihen, J.A. 1958. Comments on the osteology and Dr. J.J. de Tschudi. Archiv für Naturgeschichte phylogeny of ambystomatid salamanders. Bul­ 11: 150–170. letin of the Florida Museum of Natural History. Tyler, M.J. 1971a. The occurrence of the muscu­ Biological Sciences 3: 1–50. lus cutaneous pectoris in the Anura. Herpeto­  
Tihen, J.A. 1960. Two new genera of African bu­ logica 27: 150–152. fonids, with remarks on the phylogeny of re­ Tyler, M.J. 1971b. Observations on anuran myolated genera. Copeia 1960: 225–233. integumental attachments associated with the  
Tihen, J.A. 1965. Evolutionary trends in frogs. vocal sac apparatus. Journal of Natural History American Zoologist 5: 309–318. 5: 225–231.  
Tilley, S.G., and J. Bernardo. 1993. Life history Tyler, M.J. 1971c. The phylogenetic significance evolution in plethodontid salamanders. Herpe­ of vocal sac structure in hylid frogs. University tologica 49: 154–163. of Kansas Publications. Museum of Natural  
 Ting, H.­P., and M.­C. T’sai. 1979. A new species History 19: 319–360. of frog (Rana minimus) from Fujian Province. Tyler, M.J. 1972. Superficial mandibular muscu­ Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica 4: 297–300. [In lature, vocal sacs and the phylogeny of Austra­ Chinese with English abstract.] lo­Papuan leptodactylid frogs. Records of the   
 Titus, T.A., and A. Larson. 1995. A molecular South Australian Museum 16: 1–20. phylogenetic perspective on the evolutionary Tyler, M.J. 1979. Herpetofauna relationships of radiation of the salamander family Salamandri­ South America with Australia. In W.E. Duelldae. Systematic Biology 44: 125–151. man (editor), The South American herpetofau­   
Titus, T.A., and A. Larson. 1996. Molecular phy­ na: its origin, evolution, and dispersal. Univerlogenetics of desmognathine salamanders (Cau­ sity of Kansas Museum of Natural History, data: Plethodontidae): a reevaluation of evolu­ Monograph 7: 73–106. tion in ecology, life history, and morphology. Tyler, M.J. 1982. Frogs, 2nd ed. Sydney: Collins. Systematic Biology 45: 451–472. Tyler, M.J. 1985. Reproductive modes in Austra­  
 Trewevas, E. 1933. The hyoid and larynx of the lian Amphibia. In G. Grigg, R. Shine, and H. Anura. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Ehman (editors), Biology of Australasian frogs Society of London, B, Biological Sciences 222: and reptiles: 265–267. Sydney: Royal Zoolog­ 401–527. ical Society of New South Wales.   
 Trontelj, P., and S. Goricki. 2003. Monophyly of Tyler, M.J. 1989. Australian frogs. Ringwood, the family Proteidae (Amphibia: Caudata) test­ Victoria, Australia: Viking O’Neil. ed by phylogenetic analysis of mitochondrial Tyler, M.J., and M.M. Davies. 1978. Species­ 12S rDNA sequences. Natura Croatica. Zagreb groups within the Australopapuan hylid frog 12: 113–120. genus Litoria Tschudi. Australian Journal of   
 Trueb, L. 1993. Patterns of cranial diversity Zoology, Supplementary Series 63: 1–47. among the Lissamphibia (Amphibia, Temnos­ Tyler, M.J., and W.E. Duellman. 1995. Superficial pondyli). In J. Hanken and B.K. Hall (editors), mandibular musculature and vocal sac structure The skull: 255–343. Chicago: University of in hemiphractine hylid frogs. Journal of Mor­ Chicago Press. phology 224: 65–71.   
 Trueb, L., and D.C. Cannatella. 1986. Systemat­ Uzzell, T., and T.J. Post. 1986. Rana temporaria ics, morphology, and phylogeny of genus Pipa is not a member of the Rana boylii group. Sys­ (Anura: Pipidae). Herpetologica 42: 412–449. tematic Zoology 35: 414–421.   
 Trueb, L., and R. Cloutier. 1991. A phylogenetic Vallan, D., M. Vences, and F. Glaw. 2003. Two investigation of the inter­ and intrarelationships new species of the Boophis mandraka complex of the Lissamphibia (Amphibia: Temnospon­ (Anura, Mantellidae) from the Andasibe region dyli). In H.P. Schultze and L. Trueb (editors), in eastern Madagascar. Amphibia­Reptilia 24:   
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 287  
van het dierenrijk, tweeden deels, tweede stuk. Madagascar /Diversity and endemism in Mada­ Amsterdam: C.G. Sulpke. gascar: 229–242. Mémoires de la Société de  
Van der Meijden, A., M. Vences, S. Hoegg, and Biogéographie. Paris. A. Meyer. 2005. A previously unrecognized ra­ Vences, M., J. Kosuch, R. Boistel, C.F.B. Haddad, diation of ranid frogs in southern Africa re­ E. La Marca, and S. Lötters. 2003b. Convergent vealed by nuclear and mitochondrial DNA se­ evolution of aposematic coloration in Neotropquences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolu­ ical poison frogs: a molecular phylogenetic pertion 37: 674–685. [Seen as an electronic/pdf spective. Organisms, Diversity & Evolution 3: preprint available from the publisher.] 215–226.  
 Van der Meijden, A., M. Vences, and A. Meyer. Vences, M., J. Kosuch, F. Glaw, W. Böhme, and 2004. Novel phylogenetic relationships of the M. Veith. 2003c. Molecular phylogeny of hyenigmatic brevicipitine and scaphiophrynine peroliid treefrogs: biogeographic origin of Maltoads as revealed by sequences from the nucle­ agasy and Seychellean taxa and re­analysis of ar Rag­1 gene. Proceedings of the Royal Soci­ familial paraphyly. Journal of Zoological Sysety of London. B (Supplement—Biology Let­ tematics and Evolutionary Research 41: 205– ters) 271: S378–S381. 213.   
 Van Dijk, D.E. 2001. Osteology of the ranoid bur­ Vences, M., J. Kosuch, S. Lötters, A. Widmer, rowing African anurans Breviceps and Hemi­ K.H. Jungfer, J. Köhler, and M. Veith. 2000b. sus. African Zoology. Pretoria 36: 137–141. Phylogeny and classification of poison frogs   
Van Gelder, R.G. 1977. Mammalian hybrids and (Amphibia: Dendrobatidae), based on mitogeneric limits. American Museum Novitates chondrial 16S and 12S ribosomal RNA gene 2635: 1–25. sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evo­  
 Veith, M., and S. Steinfartz. 2004. When non­ lution 15: 34–40. monophyly results in taxonomic consequenc­ Vences, M., D.R. Vieites, F. Glaw, H. Brinkmann, es—the case of Mertensiella within the Sala­ J. Kosuch, M. Veith, and A. Meyer. 2003d. mandridae (Amphibia: Urodela). Salamandra Multiple overseas dispersal in amphibians. Pro­ 40: 67–80. ceedings of the Royal Society of London. Se­   
 Vences, M., F. Andreone, F. Glaw, and J.E. Ran­ ries B, Biological Sciences 270: 2435–2442. drianirina. 2003a. Molecular and bioacoustic Vences, M., S. Wanke, G. Odierna, J. Kosuch, and divergence in Mantidactylus granulatus and M. M. Veith. 2000c. Molecular and karyological zavona n. sp. (Anura: Mantellidae): bearings data on the south Asian ranid genera Indirana, for the biogeography of northern Madagascar. African Zoology. Pretoria 38: 67–78. Nyctibatrachus and Nannophrys (Anura: Rani­   
Vences, M., and F. Glaw. 2001. When molecules dae). Hamadryad 25: 75–82. claim for taxonomic changes: new proposals on Wagler, J.G. 1828. Vorläufige Uebersicht des Gerthe classification of Old World treefrogs (Am­ uftes, sowie Untungigung feines Systema amphibia, Anura, Ranoidea). Spixiana. München phibiorum. Isis von Oken 21: 859–861. 24: 85–92. Wagler, J.G. 1830. Natürliches System der Am­  
 Vences, M., and F. Glaw. 2004. Revision of the phibien, mit vorangehender Classification der subgenus Chonomantis (Anura: Mantellidae: Säugthiere und Vogel. Ein Beitrag zur verglei­ Mantidactylus) from Madagascar, with descrip­ chenden Zoologie. München, Stuttgart and Tütion of two new species. Journal of Natural His­ bingen: J.G. Cotta. tory. London 38: 77–118. Wake, D.B. 1966. Comparative osteology and   
 Vences, M., F. Glaw, F. Andreone, R. Jesu, and G. evolution of the lungless salamanders, family Schimmenti. 2002. Systematic revision of the Plethodontidae. Memoires of the Southern Calenigmatic Malagasy broad­headed frogs (Lau­ ifornia Academy of Sciences 4: 1–111. rentomantis Dubois, 1980) and their phyloge­ Wake, D.B. 1993. Phylogenetic and taxonomic isnetic position within the endemic mantellid ra­ sues relating to salamanders of the family diation of Madagascar. Bijdragen tot de Dier­ Plethodontidae. Herpetologica 49: 229–237. kunde 70: 191–212. Wake, D.B., and P. Elias. 1983. New genera and   
 Vences, M., F. Glaw, J. Kosuch, I. Das, and M. new species of Central American salamanders, Veith. 2000a. Polyphyly of Tomopterna (Am­ with a review of the tropical genera (Amphibia, phibia: Ranidae) based on sequences of the mi­ Caudata, Plethodontidae). Natural History Mutochondrial 16S and 12S rRNA genes, and eco­ seum of Los Angeles County Contributions in   
logical biogeography of Malagasy relict am­ Science. 345: 1–19.  
 phibian groups. In W.R. Lourenço and S.M. Wake, D.B., and J.F. Lynch. 1976. The distribu­ Goodman (editors), Diversité et endéémisme à tion, ecology and evolutionary history of pleth­   
288 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
odontid salamanders in tropical America. Nat­ Wheeler, Q.D., P.H. Raven, and E.O. Wilson. ural History Museum of Los Angeles County 2004. Taxonomy: impediment or expedient? Science Bulletin 175: 1–65. Science 303: 285.  
 Wake, D.B., L.R. Maxson, and G.Z. Wurst. 1978. Wheeler, W.C. 1992. Extinction, sampling, and Genetic differentiation, albumin evolution, and molecular phylogenetics. In M.J. Novacek and their biogeographic implications in plethodon­ Q.D. Wheeler (editors), Extinction and phylogtid salamanders of California and southern Eu­ eny: 205–215. New York: Columbia University rope. Evolution 32: 529–539. Press.   
 Wake, M.H. 1977. Fetal maintenance and its evo­ Wheeler, W.C. 1994. Sources of ambiguity in nulutionary significance in the Amphibia: Gym­ cleic acid sequence alignment. In B. Schiernophiona. Journal of Herpetology 11: 379–386. water, B. Streit, G.P. Wagner, and R. DeSalle Wake, M.H. 1980. The reproductive biology of (editors), Molecular ecology and evolution: ap­ Nectophrynoides malcolmi (Amphibia: Bufon­ proaches and applications: 323–352. Basel, idae), with comments on the evolution of re­ Switzerland: Birkhäuser.   
 productive modes in the genus Nectophryno­ Wheeler, W.C. 1995. Sequence alignment, paramides. Copeia 1980: 193–209. eter sensitivity, and the phylogenetic analysis of Wake, M.H. 1993. Non­traditional characters in molecular data. Systematic Biology 44: 321– the assessment of caecilian phylogenetic rela­ 331.   
tionships. Herpetological Monographs 7: 42– Wheeler, W.C. 1996. Optimization alignment: the 55. end of multiple sequence alignment in phylogenetics? Cladistics 12: 1–9.  
 Wake, M.H., G. Parra­Olea, and J.P.­Y. Shee. Wheeler, W.C. 1998. Alignment characters, dy­ 2005. Biogeography and molecular phylogeny namic programing and heuristic solutions. In R. of certain New World caecilians. In M.A. Don­ DeSalle and B. Schierwater (editors), Molecunelly, B.I. Crother, C. Guyer, M.H. Wake, and lar approaches to ecology and evolution, 2nd M.E. White (editors), Ecology and evolution in ed.: 243–251. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.   
the tropics: a herpetological perspective: 48– Wheeler, W.C. 1999. Fixed character states and 64. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. the optimization of molecular sequence data. Walls, J.G. 1994. Jewels of the rainforest—poison Cladistics 15: 379–385.  
 frogs of the family Dendrobatidae. Neptune Wheeler, W.C. 2000. Heuristic reconstruction of City, New Jersey: T.F.H. Publications. hypothetical­ancestral DNA sequences: se­ Wang, L., and T. Jiang. 1994. On the complexity quence alignment vs optimization. In R.W. of multiple sequence alignment. Journal of Scotland and R.T. Pennington (editors), Ho­ Computational Biology 1: 337–348. mology and systematics: 106–113. New York: Wassersug, R.J. 1984. The Pseudohemisus tad­ Taylor and Francis.   
pole: a morphological link between microhylid Wheeler, W.C. 2001. Homology and the optimi­ (Orton Type 2) and ranoid (Orton Type 4) lar­ zation of DNA sequence data. Cladistics 17: vae. Herpetologica 40: 138–148. S3–S11.  
 Wassersug, R.J., and W.R. Heyer. 1983. Morpho­ Wheeler, W.C. 2002. Optimization alignment: logical correlates of subaerial existence in lep­ down, up, error, and improvements. In R. todactylid tadpoles associated with flowing wa­ DeSalle, G. Giribet, and W.C. Wheeler (editer. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61: 761–769. tors), Techniques in molecular systematics and Wassersug, R.J., and W.F. Pyburn. 1987. The bi­ evolution: 55–69. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuology of the Pe­ret toad, Otophryne robusta ser.   
(Microhylidae), with special consideration of Wheeler, W.C. 2003a. Iterative pass optimization its fossorial larva and systematic relationships. of sequence data. Cladistics 19: 254–260.  
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society. Wheeler, W.C. 2003b. Implied alignment: a syn­ London 91: 137–169. apomorphy­based multiple sequence alignment Wei, G., N. Xu, D. Li, G. Wu, and X. Song. 1993. method. Cladistics 19: 261–268.  
Karyotype C­band and Ag­NORs study of three Wheeler, W.C. 2003c. Search­based optimization. stink frogs. Asiatic Herpetological Research 5: Cladistics 19: 348–355.  
45–50. Wheeler, W.C., and D.S. Gladstein. 1992. Malign, Werner, F. 1896. Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Rep­ version 1.2. New York: Computer software distilien und Batrachier von Centralamerika und tributed by the authors.  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 289  
puter software distributed by the authors and porary Herpetology 2000: 1–14. [Electronic from the American Museum of Natural Histo­ journal available at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/ ry: ftp://ftp.amnh.org/pub/molecular/poy. hostedpsites/ch/ch/index.htm.]  
 Widmer, A., S. Lötters, and K.­H. Jungfer. 2000. Wilkinson, J.A., R.C. Drewes, and O.L. Tatum. A molecular phylogenetic analysis of the Neo­ 2002. A molecular phylogenetic analysis of the tropical dart­poison frog genus Phyllobates family Rhacophoridae with an emphasis on the (Amphibia: Dendrobatidae). Naturwissenschaf­ Asian and African genera. Molecular Phylogeten. Berlin 87: 559–562. netics and Evolution 24: 265–273.   
 Wieczorek, A.M., A. Channing, and R.C. Drewes. Wilkinson, J.A., M. Matsui, and T. Terachi. 1996. 1998. A review of the taxonomy of the Hyper­ Geographic variation in a Japanese tree frog olius viridiflavus complex. Herpetological Jour­ (Rhacophorus arboreus) revealed by PCR­aidnal. London 8: 29–34. ed restriction site analysis of mtDNA. Journal Wieczorek, A.M., R.C. Drewes, and A. Channing. of Herpetology 30: 418–423.   
 2000. Biogeography and evolutionary history Wilkinson, M. 1991. Adult tooth crown morpholof Hyperolius species: application of molecular ogy in the Typhlonectidae (Amphibia: Gymphylogeny. Journal of Biogeography. Oxford nophiona): a reinterpretation of variation and its 27: 1231–1243. significance. Zeitschrift für Zoologische Syste­ Wieczorek, A.M., R.C. Drewes, and A. Channing. matik und Evolutionsforschung 29: 304–311.   
 2001. Phylogenetic relationships within the Hy­ Wilkinson, M. 1997. Characters, congruence and perolius viridiflavus complex (Anura: Hypero­ quality: a study of neuroanatomical and tradiliidae), and comments on taxonomic status.   
tional data in caecilian phylogeny. Biological Amphibia­Reptilia 22: 155–166.  
Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Soci­ Wied­Neuwied, M.A.P., Prinz zu. 1825. Beiträge  
ety 72: 423–470.  
zur Naturgeschichte von Brasilien, vol. 1 (Ver­  
Wilkinson, M., S.P. Loader, D.J. Gower, J.A. zeichniss der Amphibien). Weimar, Germany:  
Sheps, and B.L. Cohen. 2003. Phylogenetic re­ Gr. H.S. priv. Landes­Industrie­Comptoir.  
lationships of African caecilians (Amphibia: Wiedersheim, R. 1877. Das Kopfskelet der Uro­  
Gymnophiona): insights from mitochondrial delen (Fortsetzung). Morphologisches Jahr­  
rRNA gene sequences. African Journal of Herbuch. Leipzig 3: 459–548.  
petology 52: 83–92.  
Wiens, J.J. 1989. Ontogeny of the skeleton of  
 Wilkinson, M., and R.A. Nussbaum. 1996. On the Spea bombifrons (Anura: Pelobatidae). Journal   
of Morphology 202: 29–51.  
phylogenetic position of the Uraeotyphlidae Wiens, J.J., R.M. Bonett, and P.T. Chippindale. (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). Copeia 1996: 550– 2005. Ontogeny discombobulates phylogeny: 562.  
 paedomorphosis and higher­level salamander Wilkinson, M., and R.A. Nussbaum. 1999. Evorelationships. Systematic Biology 54: 91–110. lutionary relationships of the lungless caecilian Wild, E.R. 1995. New genus and species of Am­ Atretochoana eiselti (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: azonian microhylid frog with a phylogenetic Typhlonectidae). Zoological Journal of the Linanalysis of New World genera. Copeia 1995: nean Society. London 126: 191–223.   
 837–849. Wilkinson, M., J.A. Sheps, O.V. Oommen, and Wild, E.R. 1997. Description of the adult skeleton B.L. Cohen. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships and developmental osteology of the hyperossi­ of Indian caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona) fied horned frog, Ceratophrys cornuta (Anura: inferred from mitochondrial rRNA gene se­ Leptodactylidae). Journal of Morphology 232: quences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolu­ 169–206. tion 23: 401–407.   
 Wild, E.R. 1999. Description of the chondrocra­ Wilkinson, M., J. Thorley, and M.J. Benton. 1997. nium and osteogenesis of the chacoan burrow­ Uncertain turtle relationships. Nature. London ing frog, Chacophrys pierotti (Anura: Lepto­ 387: 466.   
dactylidae). Journal of Morphology 242: 229– Withgott, J. 2000. Is it ‘‘So long, Linnaeus’’? 249. BioScience 50: 646–651.  
 Wiley, E.O. 1981. Phylogenetics. The theory and Wogel, H., P.A. Abrunhosa, and J.P. Pombal, Jr. practice of phylogenetic systematics. New 2004. Vocalizations and aggressive behavior of York: Wiley Interscience. Phyllomedusa rohdei (Anura: Hylidae). Her­ Wilkinson, J.A., and R.C. Drewes. 2000. Char­ petological Review 35: 239–243.   
. acter assessment, genus level boundaries, and Wu, L., R. Xu, Q. Dong, D. Li, and J. Liu. 1983 phylogenetic analysis of the family Rhacophor­ A new species of Rana and records of amphibidae: a review and present day status. Contem­ ians from Guizhou Province. Acta Zoologica   
290 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297  
Sinica 29: 66–70. [In Chinese, with English caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona). Genetics summary.] 155: 765–775.  
Wu, S.­H. 1994. Phylogenetic relationships, high­ Zardoya, R., and A. Meyer. 2001. On the origin er classification and historical biogeography of of and phylogenetic relationships among living the microhyloid frogs (Lissampibia: Anura: amphibians. Proceedings of the National Acad­ Brevicipitidae and Microhylidae). Ph.D. disser­ emy of Sciences of the United States of Amertation. Department of Zoology, University of ica 98: 7380–7383.  
 Michigan, Ann Arbor. Zhang, P., Y.Q. Chen, Y.F. Liu, H.­Y. Zhou, and Xie, F., and Z. Wang. 2000. [Review of the sys­ L.H. Qu. 2003a. The complete mitochondrial tematics of pelobatids.] Cultum Herpetologica genome of the Chinese giant salamander, An­ Sinica 8: 356–370. [In Chinese.] drias davidianus (Amphibia: Caudata). Gene Yang, D. (editor), 1991a. [The Amphibia­fauna of 311: 93–98.   
 Yunnan.] Beijing, China: China Forestry Pub­ Zhang, P., Y.Q. Chen, H.­Y. Zhou, X.L. Wang, and lishing House. [In Chinese.] L.H. Qu. 2003b. The complete mitochondrial Yang, D. 1991b. Phylogenetic systematics of the genome of a relic salamander, Ranodon sibiri­ Amolops group of ranid frogs of southeastern cus (Amphibia: Caudata) and implications for Asia and the Greater Sunda Islands. Fieldiana. amphibian phylogeny. Molecular Phylogenetics Zoology. New Series 63: 1–42. and Evolution 28: 620–626.   
 Yang, D., and S. Li. 1980. A new species of the Zhao, E. 1994. A study on vomerine teeth pattern genus Rana from Yunnan. Zoological Research. of the genus Liua, with revised diagnoses of Kunming 1: 261–264. Liua and Ranodon (Caudata: Hynobiidae). Yokoyama, S., H. Zhang, F.B. Radlwimmer, and Sichuan Journal of Zoology 13: 162–166.   
 N.S. Blow. 1999. Adaptive evolution of color Zhao, E., and S.­Q. Li. 1984. A new species of vision of the Comoran coelacanth (Latimeria the genus Platymantis (Amphibia: Ranidae) chalumnae). Proceedings of the National Acad­ from Xizang. Acta Herpetologica Sinica, New emy of Sciences of the United States of Amer­ Series 3: 55–57. [In Chinese with English sumica 96: 6279–6284. mary.]   
 Young, B.E., K.R. Lips, J.K. Reaser, R. Ibáñez D., Ziegler, M., and M. Vences. 2002. The tadpole of A.W. Salas, J.R. Cedeño, L.A. Coloma, S.R. Rhacophorus verrucosus Boulenger, 1893, Ron, E. La Marca, J.R. Meyer, A. Muñoz, F. from Vietnam (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophori­ Bolaños, G. Chaves, and D. Romo. 2001. Pop­ dae). Faunistische Abhandlungen. Staatliches ulation declines and priorities for amphibian Museum für Tierkunde in Dresden 22: 319– conservation in Latin America. Conservation 327.   
 Biology 15: 1213–1223. Zug, G.R., L.J. Vitt, and J.P. Caldwell. 2001. Her­ Zacj, I., and J.W. Arntzen. 1999. Phylogenetic re­ petology: an introductory biology of amphibilationships of the European newts (genus Tri­   
 turus) tested with mitochondrial DNA sequence ans and reptiles. New York: Academic Press.   
 data. Contributions to Zoology. Amsterdam 68: Zweifel, R.G. 1955. Ecology, distribution, and 78–81. systematics of frogs of the Rana boylei group. Zaldívar­Riverón, A., V. León­Regagnon, and A. University of California Publications in Zool­ Nieto­Montes de Oca. 2004. Phylogeny of the ogy 54: 207–292.   
 Mexican coastal leopard frogs of the Rana ber­ Zweifel, R.G. 1956. Two pelobatid frogs from the landieri group based on mtDNA sequences. Tertiary of North America and their relation­ Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 30: 38– ships to fossil and recent forms. American Mu­ 49. seum Novitates 1762: 1–45.   
 Zardoya, R., and A. Meyer. 1996. Evolutionary Zweifel, R.G. 1971. Results of the Archbold Exrelationships of the coelacanth, lungfishes, and peditions. No. 96. Relationships and distributetrapods based on the 28S ribosomal RNA tion of Genyophryne thomsoni, a microhylid gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of frog of New Guinea. American Museum Nov­ Sciences United States of America 93: 5449– itates 2469: 1–13.   
5454. Zweifel, R.G. 1972. Results of the Archbold Ex­ Zardoya, R., and A. Meyer. 1998. Complete mi­ peditions. No. 97. A revision of the frogs of the tochondrial genome suggests diapsid affinities subfamily Asterophryinae, family Microhyliof turtles. Proceedings of the National Acade­ dae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natmy of Sciences of the United States of America ural History 148: 411–546.  
2006 FROST ET AL.: AMPHIBIAN TREE OF LIFE 291  
tionships among New World microhylid gen­ American Museum of Natural History 253: 1– era. American Museum Novitates 2863: 1–24. 130.  
 Zweifel, R.G. 2000. Partition of the Australopa­ Zwickl, D.J., and D.M. Hillis. 2002. Increased puan microhylid frog genus Sphenophryne with taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic descriptions of new species. Bulletin of the error. Systematic Biology 51: 588–598.   
292 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 297
description: Published as part of Frost, Darrel R., Grant, Taran, Faivovich, Julián, Bain, Raoul H., Haas, Alexander, De Sá, Célio F. B. Haddad Rafael O., Channing, Alan, Wilkinson, Mark, Donnellan, Stephen C., Raxworthy, Christopher J., Campbell, Jonathan A., Blotto, Boris L., Moler, Paul, Drewes, Robert C., Nussbaum, Ronald A., Lynch, John D., Green, David M. & Wheeler, And Ward C., 2006, The Amphibian Tree Of Life, pp. 1-291 in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2006 (297) on pages 1-291, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.12776514