SSAR Common Names Checklist ver. 2022-02-11

Gamble et al. (2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 48: 112–125) recognized Acris blanchardi as distinct from A. crepitans on the basis of molecular evidence (and included Acris crepitans paludicola as a synonym of A. blanchardi), although McCallum and Trauth (2006, Zootaxa 1104: 1–21) previously rejected the distinctiveness of A. c. blanchardi from A. c. crepitans on the basis of morphology. Reviewed by Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press. 205–219).

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-20

See comment under Acris blanchardi. Reviewed by Gray et al. (2005, in Lannoo, M. J. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ of California Press: 441–443), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press. 219–226).

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-20

The lineages delimited on the basis of the molecular evidence of Gamble et al. (2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 48: 112-125) do not correspond to the nominal subspecies occasionally employed by various previous authors. It seems on that basis that recognition of the subspecies. A. g. dorsalis and A. g. gryllus, is not warranted. Reviewed by Jensen (2005, in Lannoo, M. J. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ of California Press: 443–444).

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-20

Geographic variation has been insu ciently studied, although careful evaluation of call and/or molecular data might provide considerable evidence of divergent lineages. See comments under A. baxteri, A. fowleri, A. hemiophrys, A. terrestris, and A. woodhousii. Masta et al. (2002, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 24: 302–314) provided evidence that suggests that A. a. charlesmithi may be a distinct species. Reviewed by Green (2005, in Lannoo, M. J. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 692–704) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press. 219–226).

Note on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-20

Recognized as a species, rather than a subspecies of A. hemiophrys by Packard (1971, J. Herpetol. 5: 191–193), and more recently by Smith et al. (1998, Contemp. Herpetol. 1). Nevertheless, Cook (1983, Publ. Nat. Sci. Natl. Mus. Canada 3) considered A. baxteri to be undiagnosable against the background of geographic variation in A. hemiophrys (as Bufo americanus hemiophrys), and this has not been addressed by subsequent authors. Reviewed by Odum and Corn (2005, in Lannoo, M. J. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press:390–392), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press. 43–47).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-20

See Schuierer (1963, Herpetologica 18: 262–267). Two nominal subspecies are generally recognized, although Goebel (2005, In Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines, Univ. California Press, pp. 210–211) discussed geographic variation and phylogenetics of the A. boreas (as the Bufo boreas) group (i.e., A. boreas, A. canorus, A. exsul, and A. nelsoni), and noted other unnamed populations of nominal A. boreas that may be species. Populations in Alberta, Canada, assigned to A. boreas have a distinct breeding call and vocal sacs (Cook, 1983, Publ. Nat. Sci. Natl. Mus. Canada 3; Pauly 2008, PhD Dissertation, Univ. Texas at Austin); the taxonomic implications of this warrant investigation. Goebel et al. (2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 50: 209–225) suggested on the basis of molecular evidence that nominal Anaxyrus boreas is a complex of species (as suggested previously by Bogert, 1960, Animal Sounds Commun: 179) that do not conform to the traditional limits of taxonomic species and subspecies (and which we do not recognize here for this reason) and that some populations assigned to this taxon may actually be more closely related to Anaxyrus canorus and A. nelsoni—a problem that calls for additional elucidation. Reviewed by Muths and Nanjappa (2005, in Lannoo, M. J. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 392–396) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 47–65).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-20

See Gergus (1998, Herpetologica 54: 317–325) for justification for this to be considered a distinct species from Anaxyrus microscaphus. Reviewed by Price and Sullivan (1988, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 415, as Bufo microscaphus californicus), Sweet and Sullivan (2005, in Lannoo, M. J. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 396–400), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 65–70).

Note on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, David M. Green, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2014-12-22

Reviewed by Karlstrom (1973, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 132), Davidson and Fellers (2005, in Lannoo, M. J. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 400–401), and Dodd (2013, Frogs U.S. and Canada, 1: 70–77). See comment under A. boreas.

Note on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Reviewed by Krupa (1990, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 457), Graves and Krupa (2005, in Lannoo, M. J. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 440–404) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 78–87).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-28

See accounts in Sanders and Smith (1951, Field and Laboratory 19: 141–160) and by Bogert (1962, Am. Mus. Novit. 2100) as Bufo debilis. Reviewed by Painter (2005, in Lannoo, M. J. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 404–406, as Bufo debilis) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 88–91). The nominal subspecies are unlikely to be anything other than arbitrarily defined sections of clines although this remains to be investigated adequately. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation: 301) rejected subspecies but presented no evidence for this conclusion.

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-28

See accounts in Sanders and Smith (1951, Field and Laboratory 19: 141–160) and by Bogert (1962, Am. Mus. Novit. 2100) as Bufo debilis. Reviewed by Painter (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amph. Declines: 404–406, as Bufo debilis) and Dodd (2013, Frogs U.S. and Canada, 1: 88–91). The nominal subspecies are unlikely to be anything other than arbitrarily defined sections of clines although this remains to be investigated adequately. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 301) rejected subspecies but presented no evidence for this conclusion.

Darrel R. Frost, David M. Green, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2014-12-22

See accounts in Sanders and Smith (1951, Field and Laboratory 19: 141–160) and by Bogert (1962, Am. Mus. Novit. 2100) as Bufo debilis. Reviewed by Painter (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amph. Declines: 404–406, as Bufo debilis) and Dodd (2013, Frogs U.S. and Canada, 1: 88–91). The nominal subspecies are unlikely to be anything other than arbitrarily defined sections of clines although this remains to be investigated adequately. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 301) rejected subspecies but presented no evidence for this conclusion.

Darrel R. Frost, David M. Green, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2014-12-22

See comment under A. boreas. Reviewed by Fellers (2005, in Lannoo, M. J. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 406–408, as Bufo exsul) and Dodd (2013, Frogs U.S. and Canada, 1: 92–96).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-28

Green (1996, Israel J. Zool. 42: 95–109) discussed the problem of interspecific hybridization in the A. americanus complex and briefly addressed the publication by Sanders (1987, Evolutionary hybridization and speciation in North American indigenous bufonids. O. Sanders, Dallas, TX), in which Sanders recognized a number of dubiously delimited taxa within the A. americanus complex (his Bufo hobarti, which would be in the synonymy of A. fowleri; Bufo copei, which would be in A. americanus, and Bufo planiorum and Bufo antecessor, both of which would be in the synonymy of A. woodhousii woodhousii). None have been formally synonymized, nor have any attracted recognition by those working on the complex. See comment under A. woodhousii. Masta et al. (2002, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 24: 302–314) provided evidence for the distinctiveness of this species from A. woodhousii and noted (as did Smith and Green, 2004, Mol. Ecol. 13: 3723–3733) that at the molecular level there are multiple, distinct mitochondrially-recognizable populations in A. fowleri. Reviewed by Green (2005, in Lannoo, M. J. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press:, as Bufo fowleri) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 96–113).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-28

See comment under A. baxteri. Cook (1983, Publ. Nat. Sci. Natl. Mus. Canada 3) regarded A. hemiophrys and A. americanus as forming very distinctive subspecies of one species, although subsequent authors (e.g., Green and Pustowka, 1997, Herpetologica 53: 218–228) have regarded the contact zone between these taxa as a hybrid zone between two species. Reviewed by Ewert and Lannoo (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press:412–415, as Bufo hemiophrys) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 113–120).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-28

Reviewed by Brown (1973, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 133, as Bufo houstonensis), Shepard and Brown (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press:: 415–417, as Bufo houstonensis), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 120–126).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-28

Reviewed by Price and Sullivan (1988, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 415, as Bufo microscaphus), Schwaner and Sullivan (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 422–424, as Bufo microscaphus), and Dodd, 2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 127–13). See comment under A. californicus. Formerly included A. californicus and A. mexicanus (extralimital) as subspecies, both of which were recognized as species by Gergus (1998, Herpetologica 54: 317–325).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-29

Stebbins (1985, A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Houghton Mifflin, Boston) and Altig et al. (1998, Contemp. Herpetol. Inform. Serv. 2) regarded A. nelsoni as a species, rather than a subspecies of A. boreas. Reviewed by Goebel, Smith, Murphy, and Morafka (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 427–430, as Bufo nelsoni) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 132–136). See comment under A. boreas.

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-29

Reviewed by Korky (1999, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 1104, as Bufo punctatus), Sullivan (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 430–432, as Bufo punctatus), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 136–144).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, David M. Green, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2014-12-22

Reviewed by Ashton and Franz (1979, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 222, as Bufo quercicus), Punzo (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 432–433, as Bufo quercicus), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 144–149).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-29

Reviewed by Hulse (1978, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 207, as Bufo retiformis), Blomquist (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 433–435, as Bufo retiformis), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 149–152).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-29

Older literature confused this species with A. cognatus, A. mexicanus (extralimital), and A. compactilis (extralimital). Rogers (1972, Copeia 1972: 381–383) demonstrated its morphological distinctiveness. Reviewed by Dayton and Painter (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 435–436, as Bufo speciosus), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 152–155).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-29

No reports of geographic variation exist in the literature, although extensive geographic variation is evident on examination of specimens. Hybridization with A. americanus along the Fall Line may have strong effects on geographic variation, although data on this have not been published. Reviewed by Blem (1979, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 223, as Bufo terrestris), Jensen (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 436–438, as Bufo terrestris), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 155–166).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-29

See comments under A. fowleri. The incorrect spelling of the species name to woodhousei has been used widely. The status of taxa recognized by Sanders (1987, Evol. Hybrid. Spec. N. Am. Indig. Bufonids) has not been evaluated closely by any author, although neither have they enjoyed any recognition. Evidence provided by Masta et al. (2002, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 24: 302–314) suggests that A. w. australis may be a distinct species and that former A. w. velatus is a hybrid population of A. woodhousii × A. fowleri, and therefore should not be recognized. Reviewed by Sullivan (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 438–440, as Bufo woodhousii) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 166–176).

Notes on genus:
This taxon of strictly North American toads was removed from “Bufo” (as well as were a number of other taxa) by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) as a revision to render a monophyletic taxonomy and with genera delimited to be more compact than the unwieldy "Bufo". The phylogenetic study of bufonids by Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) also suggests that New World "Bufo" do not form a monophyletic group. Smith and Chiszar (2006, Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 1: 6-8) recommend retaining the North American taxa Anaxyrus, Incilius, and Rhinella (as well as such long-recognized extralimital taxa such as Ansonia, Capensibufo, Crepidophryne, Didynamipus, Mertensophryne, Nectophryne, Nectophrynoides, Pedostibes, Pelophryne, Schismaderma, Werneria, and Wolterstorffina) as subgenera of Bufo to obviate the need for generic changes in North American species. More recently, Fouquette and Dubois (2014, Checklist N. Am. Amph. Rept.) followed this approach in a modified form. This approach, though, would visit considerable nomenclatural instability on many countries outside of the USA and Canada. See Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128) and Frost et al. (Herpetologica 65: 136–153) for discussion.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-29

See Nelson et al. (2001, Evolution 55: 147–160) for evidence supporting the recognition of this species distinct from A. truei. Adams (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 382) provided a brief but detailed review as did Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 17).

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-29

See Metter (1968, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 69) for review (as including A. montanus). Reviewed by Adams and Pearl (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 382–385) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 7¬–16).

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-29

Reviewed by Zweifel (1967, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 41, as Eleutherodactylus augusti) and Schwalbe and Goldberg, (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 491–492). Goldberg et al. (2004, Herpetologica 60: 312–320) suggested that C. a. cactorum and C. a. latrans are different species but did not provide a formal new taxonomy.

Note on genus:
This taxon of predominantly Mexican and Central American frogs was removed from a paraphyletic “Eleutherodactylus” by Crawford and Smith (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 35: 536–555).

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Note on genus:
This taxon of predominantly Mexican and Central American frogs was removed from a paraphyletic “Eleutherodactylus” by Crawford and Smith (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 35: 536–555).

Reviewed by Zweifel (1967, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 41, as Eleutherodactylus augusti) and Schwalbe and Goldberg, I2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amph. Declines: 491–492). Goldberg et al. (2004, Herpetologica 60: 312–320) suggested that C. a. cactorum and C. a. latrans are different species but did not provide a formal new taxonomy.

Darrel R. Frost, David M. Green, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2014-12-22

Note on genus:
This taxon of predominantly Mexican and Central American frogs was removed from a paraphyletic “Eleutherodactylus” by Crawford and Smith (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 35: 536–555).

Reviewed by Zweifel (1967, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 41, as Eleutherodactylus augusti) and Schwalbe and Goldberg, I2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amph. Declines: 491–492). Goldberg et al. (2004, Herpetologica 60: 312–320) suggested that C. a. cactorum and C. a. latrans are different species but did not provide a formal new taxonomy.

Darrel R. Frost, David M. Green, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2014-12-22

Alien Species:

The most recent review of this genus and its relatives is Grant et al. (2006, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 299: 1–262).

The Green-and-black Poison Dart Frog is native to Central America and Colombia and is established in Hawaii.

Fred Kraus (Chair), Kenneth L. Krysko, 2018-02-12

Alien Species:

The Coquí is native to Puerto Rico, has been reported from five states, is established in Hawaii, and is established in a few greenhouses in California. It is widely established on Hawaii Island but is more restricted and the target of eradication efforts on the other Hawaiian Islands.

Fred Kraus (Chair), Kenneth L. Krysko, 2018-02-12

Note on genus:
See Craugastor. Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) recognized Syrrhophus for a monophyletic group containing E. cystignathoides, E. guttilatus, and E. marnocki and Euhyas for a group containing E. planirostris. Heinicke et al. (2007, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 10092–97) and Hedges et al. (2008, Zootaxa 1737: 1-182) redelimited Eleutherodactylus as monophyletic by exclusion of a number of South American taxa and treated (and redelimited) Euhyas and Syrrhophus as subgenera of Eleutherodactylus.

Two nominal subspecies named, of which only one of which enters the USA. The status of these taxa, whether they represent arbitrarily delimited parts of a single population or different lineages is unknown. Reviewed by Wallace, (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 494–495) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 197–199).

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Note on genus:
See Craugastor. Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) recognized Syrrhophus for a monophyletic group containing E. cystignathoides, E. guttilatus, and E. marnocki and Euhyas for a group containing E. planirostris. Heinicke et al. (2007, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 10092–97) and Hedges et al. (2008, Zootaxa 1737: 1-182) redelimited Eleutherodactylus as monophyletic by exclusion of a number of South American taxa and treated (and redelimited) Euhyas and Syrrhophus as subgenera of Eleutherodactylus.

Two nominal subspecies named, of which only one of which enters the USA. The status of these taxa, whether they represent arbitrarily delimited parts of a single population or different lineages is unknown. Reviewed by Wallace, (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amph. Declines: 494–495) and Dodd (2013, Frogs U.S. and Canada, 1: 197–199).

Darrel R. Frost, David M. Green, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2014-12-22

Geographic variation is poorly known. Some authors (e.g. Morafka, 1977, Biogeographica 9) considered E. guttilatus to be a synonym of E. c. campi (and by extension, of E. cystignathoides) but this remains to be sufficiently tested. Reviewed by Wallace (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 496–497) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 199–201).

Note on genus:
See Craugastor. Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) recognized Syrrhophus for a monophyletic group containing E. cystignathoides, E. guttilatus, and E. marnocki and Euhyas for a group containing E. planirostris. Heinicke et al. (2007, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 10092–97) and Hedges et al. (2008, Zootaxa 1737: 1-182) redelimited Eleutherodactylus as monophyletic by exclusion of a number of South American taxa and treated (and redelimited) Euhyas and Syrrhophus as subgenera of Eleutherodactylus.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

See account by Lynch (1970, Univ. Kansas Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. 20: 1–45) and reviews by Wallace, (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 201–204). Geographic variation is not well studied.

Note on genus:
See Craugastor. Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297) recognized Syrrhophus for a monophyletic group containing E. cystignathoides, E. guttilatus, and E. marnocki and Euhyas for a group containing E. planirostris. Heinicke et al. (2007, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 10092–97) and Hedges et al. (2008, Zootaxa 1737: 1-182) redelimited Eleutherodactylus as monophyletic by exclusion of a number of South American taxa and treated (and redelimited) Euhyas and Syrrhophus as subgenera of Eleutherodactylus.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Alien Species:

The Greenhouse Frog is native to Cuba, The Bahamas, and Cayman Islands and is established in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

Fred Kraus (Chair), Kenneth L. Krysko, 2018-02-12

Reviewed by Nelson (1972, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 120), Mitchell and Lannoo (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 501–503) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 439–448).

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Recognized as distinct from G. olivacea by Streicher et al. (2012, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 64: 645-653).

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Reviewed by Nelson (1972, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 122), Sredl and Field (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 503–506), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 448–455) in the sense of including G. mazatlanensis of southern Arizona.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Alien Species:

This genus of Asian frogs was recently removed from a polyphyletic “Rana” by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297).

The Japanese Wrinkled Frog is native to Japan and is established in Hawaii.

Fred Kraus (Chair), Kenneth L. Krysko, 2018-02-12

Reviewed by Gosner and Black (1967, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 54), Means (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 445–447), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 235–239). The widely disjunct populations have been examined with allozymes and only subtle (no fixed differences) geographic variation was documented (Karlin et al., 1982, Copeia 1982: 175–178).

Note on genus:
Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294) redelimited this monophyletic taxon to include only North American and Eurasian species. Hua et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 246–259) discussed relationships within the group. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation) recently recognized a suite of subgenera based on genetic and morphological evidence, but pending a more thorough evidentiary review, we hesitate to employ this taxonomy. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted Hyla to Eurasia and North Africa and referred the North American and east Asian sister taxon of this group to Dryophytes, although the acceptance of this taxonomy within the community is not clear at this point.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Barber (1999, Mol. Ecol. 8: 563–576) examined geographic variation and suggested that at least two other species should be recognized within the Mexican component of its range. Bryson et al. (2010, Evolution, 64: 2315-2340) also reported on molecular geographic variation and demonstrated introgression with Hyla wrightorum. Reviewed by Painter (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 447–448) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 239–245).

Note on genus:
Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294) redelimited this monophyletic taxon to include only North American and Eurasian species. Hua et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 246–259) discussed relationships within the group. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation) recently recognized a suite of subgenera based on genetic and morphological evidence, but pending a more thorough evidentiary review, we hesitate to employ this taxonomy. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted Hyla to Eurasia and North Africa and referred the North American and east Asian sister taxon of this group to Dryophytes, although the acceptance of this taxonomy within the community is not clear at this point.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Smith (1953, Herpetologica 9: 169–173) discussed geographic variation and recognized two nominal subspecies which are rarely employed. Reviewed by Smith (1966, Cat. Am. Rept. Amph. 28), Redmer (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 448–449) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 245–250).

Note on genus:
Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294) redelimited this monophyletic taxon to include only North American and Eurasian species. Hua et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 246–259) discussed relationships within the group. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation) recently recognized a suite of subgenera based on genetic and morphological evidence, but pending a more thorough evidentiary review, we hesitate to employ this taxonomy. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted Hyla to Eurasia and North Africa and referred the North American and east Asian sister taxon of this group to Dryophytes, although the acceptance of this taxonomy within the community is not clear at this point.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Smith (1953, Herpetologica 9: 169–173) discussed geographic variation and recognized two nominal subspecies which are rarely employed. Reviewed by Smith (1966, Cat. Am. Rept. Amph. 28), Redmer (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 448–449) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 245–250).

Note on genus:
Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294) redelimited this monophyletic taxon to include only North American and Eurasian species. Hua et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 246–259) discussed relationships within the group. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation) recently recognized a suite of subgenera based on genetic and morphological evidence, but pending a more thorough evidentiary review, we hesitate to employ this taxonomy. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted Hyla to Eurasia and North Africa and referred the North American and east Asian sister taxon of this group to Dryophytes, although the acceptance of this taxonomy within the community is not clear at this point.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Smith (1953, Herpetologica 9: 169–173) discussed geographic variation and recognized two nominal subspecies which are rarely employed. Reviewed by Smith (1966, Cat. Am. Rept. Amph. 28), Redmer (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 448–449) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 245–250).

Note on genus:
Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294) redelimited this monophyletic taxon to include only North American and Eurasian species. Hua et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 246–259) discussed relationships within the group. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation) recently recognized a suite of subgenera based on genetic and morphological evidence, but pending a more thorough evidentiary review, we hesitate to employ this taxonomy. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted Hyla to Eurasia and North Africa and referred the North American and east Asian sister taxon of this group to Dryophytes, although the acceptance of this taxonomy within the community is not clear at this point.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

See comment under H. versicolor. Reviewed by Hoffman (1988, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 436), Cline, (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 449–452), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 250–262).

Note on genus:
Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294) redelimited this monophyletic taxon to include only North American and Eurasian species. Hua et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 246–259) discussed relationships within the group. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation) recently recognized a suite of subgenera based on genetic and morphological evidence, but pending a more thorough evidentiary review, we hesitate to employ this taxonomy. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted Hyla to Eurasia and North Africa and referred the North American and east Asian sister taxon of this group to Dryophytes, although the acceptance of this taxonomy within the community is not clear at this point.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Subspecies occasionally are recognized (H. c. cinerea and H. c. evittata) without discussion, and on the basis of a single populationally variable character. See Duellman and Schwartz (1958, Bull. Florida State Mus., Biol. Sci. 3: 241) for discussion and rejection of subspecies. Reviewed by Redmer and Brandon (2003, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 766), Redmer and Brandon (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 452–454), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 262–273).

Note on genus:
Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294) redelimited this monophyletic taxon to include only North American and Eurasian species. Hua et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 246–259) discussed relationships within the group. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation) recently recognized a suite of subgenera based on genetic and morphological evidence, but pending a more thorough evidentiary review, we hesitate to employ this taxonomy. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted Hyla to Eurasia and North Africa and referred the North American and east Asian sister taxon of this group to Dryophytes, although the acceptance of this taxonomy within the community is not clear at this point.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Reviewed by Hoffman (1988, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 436), Mitchell (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 454–456), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 274–280).

Notes on genus: Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294) redelimited this monophyletic taxon to include only North American and Eurasian species. Hua et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 246–259) discussed relationships within the group. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation) recently recognized a suite of subgenera based on genetic and morphological evidence, but pending a more thorough evidentiary review, we hesitate to employ this taxonomy. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted Hyla to Eurasia and North Africa and referred the North American and east Asian sister taxon of this group to Dryophytes, although the acceptance of this taxonomy within the community is not clear at this point.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Reviewed by Caldwell (1982, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 298), Mitchell (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 455–456), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 280–288).

Notes on genus: Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294) redelimited this monophyletic taxon to include only North American and Eurasian species. Hua et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 246–259) discussed relationships within the group. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation) recently recognized a suite of subgenera based on genetic and morphological evidence, but pending a more thorough evidentiary review, we hesitate to employ this taxonomy. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted Hyla to Eurasia and North Africa and referred the North American and east Asian sister taxon of this group to Dryophytes, although the acceptance of this taxonomy within the community is not clear at this point.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Reviewed by Martof (1975, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 168), Mitchell and Lannoo (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 456–458), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 288–294).

Notes on genus: Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294) redelimited this monophyletic taxon to include only North American and Eurasian species. Hua et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 246–259) discussed relationships within the group. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation) recently recognized a suite of subgenera based on genetic and morphological evidence, but pending a more thorough evidentiary review, we hesitate to employ this taxonomy. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted Hyla to Eurasia and North Africa and referred the North American and east Asian sister taxon of this group to Dryophytes, although the acceptance of this taxonomy within the community is not clear at this point.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Holloway et al. (2006, Am. Nat. 167: E88–E101) discussed the role of diploid H. chrysoscelis in the formation of the tetraploid H. versicolor, reviewed previous literature, and provided a revised range. Reviewed by Cline, (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 458–461) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 294–309).

Notes on genus: Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294) redelimited this monophyletic taxon to include only North American and Eurasian species. Hua et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 246–259) discussed relationships within the group. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation) recently recognized a suite of subgenera based on genetic and morphological evidence, but pending a more thorough evidentiary review, we hesitate to employ this taxonomy. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted Hyla to Eurasia and North Africa and referred the North American and east Asian sister taxon of this group to Dryophytes, although the acceptance of this taxonomy within the community is not clear at this point.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Gergus et al. (2004, Copeia 2004: 758–769) reported on the distinctiveness of this species with respect to H. eximia (extralimital). See comment under H. arenicolor. Reviewed by Gergus, Wallace, and Sullivan (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 461–463) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 309–332).

Notes on genus: Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 294) redelimited this monophyletic taxon to include only North American and Eurasian species. Hua et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 246–259) discussed relationships within the group. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation) recently recognized a suite of subgenera based on genetic and morphological evidence, but pending a more thorough evidentiary review, we hesitate to employ this taxonomy. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted Hyla to Eurasia and North Africa and referred the North American and east Asian sister taxon of this group to Dryophytes, although the acceptance of this taxonomy within the community is not clear at this point.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

See Nelson (1973, Herpetologica 29: 6–17; 1974, Herpetologica 30: 250–274) for discussion of geographic variation and rejection of subspecies. USA population reviewed by Judd and Irwin (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 506–508) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 455–457). Although only two species are currently recognized within this genus, very strong geographic variation in coloration, call, and toe structure suggests that several species are masquerading under this particular name. Given that the type locality of H. variolosus is in Costa Rica, the scientific name applied to the U.S. form is likely to change.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Reviewed by Fouquette (1970, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 93, as Bufo alvarius), Fouquette et al. (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 384–386, as Bufo alvarius), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 177–180).

Note on genus:
This taxon of predominantly Central American toads was removed from a paraphyletic “Bufo” by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297; as Cranopsis). However, the oldest name for this taxon is Incilius Cope, 1863 (see Frost et al., 2009, Copeia 2009: 418–419) which therefore takes precedence. See comment under Anaxyrus. Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science, 327: 679–682) presented evidence that Incilius may be paraphyletic with respect to Anaxyrus due to the placement of one extralimital species, although this was based on a small dataset (Mendelson et al., 2011, Zootaxa, 3138: 1-34). See comment under Anaxyrus, regarding the treatment of this genus as a subgenus of Bufo by some although the effect extralimitally of subgeneric status would be to require a number well-marked genera (e.g., Ansonia) to be treated as subgenera as well.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Mulcahy and Mendelson (2000, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 17: 173) recognized this species, as Bufo nebulifer, and as distinct from I. valliceps, an extralimital species. Reviewed by Mendelson (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 424–427, as Bufo nebulifer), Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 180–186), and Mendelson et al. (2015, Zootaxa 3974: 517–537).

Note on genus:
This taxon of predominantly Central American toads was removed from a paraphyletic “Bufo” by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297; as Cranopsis). However, the oldest name for this taxon is Incilius Cope, 1863 (see Frost et al., 2009, Copeia 2009: 418–419) which therefore takes precedence. See comment under Anaxyrus. Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science, 327: 679–682) presented evidence that Incilius may be paraphyletic with respect to Anaxyrus due to the placement of one extralimital species, although this was based on a small dataset (Mendelson et al., 2011, Zootaxa, 3138: 1-34). See comment under Anaxyrus, regarding the treatment of this genus as a subgenus of Bufo by some although the effect extralimitally of subgeneric status would be to require a number well-marked genera (e.g., Ansonia) to be treated as subgenera as well.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Reviewed by Heyer et al. (2006, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 830), Heyer (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 500–501), Dodd, 2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 436–438. Much of the older literature about this species refers to it incorrectly as Leptodactylus labialis.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

See comment under L. capito. Reviewed by Altig and Lohoefener (1983, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 324, as Rana areolata), Parris and Redmer (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 526–528), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 461–466). Geographic variation deserves further study to determine status of the nominal subspecies.

Notes on genus: This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Notes on genus: This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Notes on genus: This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Geographic variation is not well documented and relationships with extralimital Mexican forms (e.g., L. forreri, L. brownorum) are not well understood. Reviewed with special reference to the USA populations by Rorabaugh (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 530–532) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 466–471).

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Reviewed by Brown (1992, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 536, as Rana blairi) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 472–479). Isolated western populations have not been well studied.

Notes on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Lithobates capito is considered by some to be part of L. areolatus (but see Case, 1978, Syst. Zool. 27: 299–311, who considered them distinct). Reviewed by Altig and Lohoefener (1983, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 324, as Rana areolata capito), Jensen and Richter (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 536–538), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 479–485). Recognized as distinct from L. areolatus by Young and Crother (2001, Copeia, 2001: 382–388), who also rejected subspecies. Richter et al. (2014, Copeia: 231–237) presented mitochondrial evidence on interpopulational variation at the molecular level and suggested an historical structure among these.

Notes on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Geographic variation within the natural range L. catesbeianus is not well understood although Austin et al. (2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 32: 799–816) presented mitochondrial DNA evidence of distinct eastern and western lineages. Reviewed by Casper and Hendricks (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 540–546) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 486–515).

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

The status of southern Arizona and Mexican populations needs study. Rana subaquavocalis Platz, 1993, is a synonym according to Goldberg et al. (2004, J. Herpetol. 38: 313–319), although some authors (e.g., Hillis and Wilcox, 2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314; Dubois, 2006, C. R. Biol., Paris 329: 823–840) have continued to recognize the two taxa as distinct species, without comment. Reviewed by Sredl and Jennings (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 546–549, in the sense of including the central Arizona populations now transferred to Lithobates fisheri), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 515–522). See comment under L. fisheri.

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Austin and Zamudio (2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 48: 1041-1053) reported on interpopulational variation at the molecular level and suggested an historical structure inconsistent with the recognized subspecies, which are here rejected on that basis. Reviewed by Stewart (1968, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 337), Pauley and Lannoo (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 549–552), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 522–547) as Rana clamitans.

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Until recently, this species has been considered to be highly restricted in range and extinct. However, Hekkala et al. (2011. Conserv. Genet. 12: 1379–1385) used DNA sequence data from museum specimens to show that L. fisheri and frogs ascribed to R. chiricahuensis from near the Mogollon Rim in central Arizona comprise a lineage that is distinct from R. chiricahuensis populations to the south and east. Platz (1993, J. Herpetol. 27: 154–162) previously noted the various lines of evidence suggesting that L. chiricahuensis was composed of more than one species, with the central Arizona population notably distinctive, but it was not possible, at that time, to compare those frogs genetically with L. fisheri. Reviewed by Jennings (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 554–555, in the sense of only referring to the Vegas Valley population, which is now was then considered to be? extinct) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 547–551).

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Reviewed by Altig and Lohoefener (1982, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 286, as Rana grylio), Richter (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 555–557, as Rana grylio) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 551–556).

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Reviewed by Sanders (1984, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 348) as Rana heckscheri), Butterfield and Lannoo, (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 557–558, as Rana heckscheri), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 556–560).

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

The recognition of this species may require revision of the range of L. pipiens and L. palustris to exclude areas of southern New York, southern Connecticut, Rhode Island, and parts of Massachusetts. The original publication’s association of this species on the basis of molecular data allied this species with Lithobates palustris rather than L. sphenocephalus, suggesting that issues of identification may run deeper than originally suggested.

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-17

Reviewed by Moler (1993, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 561, as Rana okaloosae) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 561–564). Austin et al. (2003, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 80: 601–624) discussed the genetic relationship of L. okaloosae and L. clamitans.

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

The status of this taxon is controversial. Jaeger et al. (2001, Copeia 2001: 339–351) noted a close relationship with L. yavapaiensis, and Pfeiler and Markow (2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 49: 343-348) reported evidence consistent with a close or identical relationship with L. yavapaiensis. Reviewed by Jennings (1988, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 417, as Rana onca) and Bradford, Jennings, and Jaeger (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 567–568) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 565–568).

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Geographic variation studied by Pace (1974, Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 148). Reviewed by Schaaf and Smith (1971, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 117, as Rana palustris) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 568–578).

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Synonymy and discussion in Pace (1974, Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 148) as Rana pipiens. Reviewed by Rorabaugh (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 570–576) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 578–608).

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Reviewed by Hedeen (1977, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 202, as Rana septentrionalis) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 608–617).

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Reviewed by Altig and Lohoefener (1983, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 324, as Rana areolata sevosa), Richter and Jensen (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 584–586), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 617–621). Recognized as distinct from L. capito and L. areolatus by Young and Crother (2001, Copeia, 2001: 382–388).

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Pace (1974, Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 148) revived the older name Rana utricularius Harlan, 1825, for this species, which Pace emended to R. utricularia. Subsequently, the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature moved (Opinion, 1685, 1992, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 49: 171–173) to suppress R. utricularia for purposes of priority in favor of R. sphenocephala, leaving the unusual situation of the subspecies name sphenocephalus having priority over the older species name, utricularius. The status of the nominal subspecies requires detailed examination (see Brown et al., 1977, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 33: 199–200; Zug, 1982, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 39: 80–81; and Uzzell, 1982, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 39: 83). Reviewed by Butterfield, Lannoo, and Nanjappa (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 586–590) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 621–637). See comment under L. kauffeldi.

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Notes on genus: This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Notes on genus: This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

The extensive morphological variation in this species was examined by Martof and Humphries (1959, Amer. Midl. Nat. 61: 350–389), who rejected previously recognized taxonomic divisions; however a study of DNA sequence variation by Lee-Yaw et al. (2008, Mol. Ecol. 17: 867–884) revealed two distinct clades corresponding to eastern and western populations. Reviewed by Martof (1970, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 86, as Rana sylvatica.), Redmer and Trauth (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 590–593, as Rana sylvatica), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 637–669).

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Extinct in the USA although persisting in Mexico. Attempts are being made to reintroduce the species into former Arizona localities. Reviewed by Zweifel (1968, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 66, as Rana tarahumarae.), Rorabaugh and Hale (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 593–595, as Rana tarahumarae), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 669–637).

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Reviewed by Gosner and Black (1968, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 67, as Rana virgatipes), Mitchell (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 595–596, as Rana virgatipes), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 674–681). Data provided by Pytel (1986, Herpetologica 42: 273–282) suggest that careful evaluation for cryptic species is warranted.

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

See comment under L. onca. Reviewed by Sredl (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 596–599, as Rana yavapaiensis) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 681–636).

Note on genus:
This taxon of North, Central, and South American frogs was removed from the large and predominantly Eurasian genus Rana by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297). Hillis and Wilcox (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 34: 299–314) provided a phylogenetic taxonomy that retained the species now under Lithobates within Rana and restricted the use of that name to a small part of what was subsequently assigned to Lithobates by Frost et al. (2006, op. cit.). Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330) criticized the nomenclatural proposals of Hillis and Wilcox and regarded their names as nomina nuda and their approach outside of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). This criticism was responded to by Hillis (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338), who argued that most of the new names proposed by Hillis and Wilcox do have nomenclatural status under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1999). The revision by Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) which recognized Lithobates as a genus, we think best reflects the majority opinion of members of the international community who are actively working on large-scale ranid relationships, although Hillis, 2007 (Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 331–338) and Wiens et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1217–1231) expressed reluctance to accept this taxonomy. Dubois (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 317–330; 2007, Cladistics 23: 390–402), Hillis (2007, op. cit.), Pauly et al. (2009, Herpetologica 65: 115–128), Frost et al. (2009, Herpetologica, 65: 136–153) discussed the issues surrounding the nomenclature of North American ranids and most recently Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.: 390–391), suggested that Lithobates be considered a subgenus of Rana. A different approach was suggested by Yuan et al. (Syst. Biol., 65: 824–842) who suggested returning Lithobates to Rana, with Lithobates found to be monophyletic by them, being arrayed as Rana sylvaticus + 4 subgenera within Rana, without applying a name to the overarching Lithobates group. Given that arguments about name stability are largely 10 years and thousands of citations late and also turn on what earlier authors may have meant by “Rana pipiens” when likely few experimental animals with this name attached to them were correctly identified, it seems that the best course of action at this point is to hold this taxonomic change in abeyance.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-01-30

Alien Species:

The Cuban Treefrog is native to Cuba, the Bahamas, and Cayman Islands, has been introduced into eight states, and is established in Florida. It has been claimed to be established in Hawaii (McKeown, 1996, A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians in the Hawaiian Islands, Diamond Head Publishing, Inc., Los Osos, California) but there is no supporting evidence.

Fred Kraus (Chair), Kenneth L. Krysko, 2018-02-12

Reviewed by Hoffmann (1980, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 234), Mitchell and Pauley (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 465–466) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 313–318).

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Hoffmann (1983, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 311), Mitchell (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 466 - 467) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 319–322).

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Gaudin (1979, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 225, as Hyla cadaverina), Ervin (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 467–470) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 322–328). Phillipsen and Metcalf (2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 53: 152–170) reported on considerable geographic structure at the molecular level among populations.

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Pierce and Whitehurst (1990, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 458), Sredl (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 470–472), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 328–331).

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Moriarty and Cannatella (2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 30: 409–420) rejected subspecies. Reviewed by Butterfield, Lannoo, and Nanjappa (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 472–474), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 331–348).

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

See comment under P. kalmi.

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 357–363).

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Recuero et al. (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 39: 293–304) recognized this species as distinct from P. regilla and composed of two subspecies, one of which is extralimital, and whose mutual status is unclear. Barrow et al. (2014, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 75: 78-900) suggested that the distinction of P. hypochondriaca and P. sierra, drawn on the basis of mtDNA, was not supported by nuDNA analysis. This suggests that this taxon will ultimately be included in the synonymy of Pseudacris regilla.

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Recuero et al. (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 39: 293–304) recognized this species as distinct from P. regilla and composed of two subspecies, one of which is extralimital, and whose mutual status is unclear. Barrow et al. (2014, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 75: 78-900) suggested that the distinction of P. hypochondriaca and P. sierra, drawn on the basis of mtDNA, was not supported by nuDNA analysis. This suggests that this taxon will ultimately be included in the synonymy of Pseudacris regilla.

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Moriarty and Cannatella (2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 30: 409–420) discussed the arguable distinctiveness of this taxon with respect to Pseudacris streckeri. Reviewed by Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 363–367).

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Platz (1989, Copeia 1989: 704–712) retained P. feriarum and P. kalmi as subspecies of one species but suggested that they might also be distinct species on the basis of data presented by Hedges (1986, Syst. Zool. 35: 1–21). Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) confirmed that P. kalmi and P. feriarum are distinct species although the contact zone between these taxa is poorly understood.

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Considered a species distinct from P. triseriata by Platz (1989, Copeia 1989: 704–712). Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the geographic limits of this species although the evidence based only on mitochondrial DNA variation was not accepted by Green et al. (2014, North American amphibians: distribution and diversity. Univ. of California Press.). Reviewed by Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 371–384).

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Gates (1988, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 416), Leja (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 474–475), and Dodd ( 2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 385–390). Subspecies rejected by Moriarty and Cannatella (2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 30: 409–420).

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Franz and Chantell (1978, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 209, as Limnaoedus ocularis), Jensen, (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 475–477), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 391–395).

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

For discussion see Harper (1937, Am. Midl. Nat. 18: 260–272). Reviewed by Jensen (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 477–478), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 395–400).

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Recuero et al. (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 39: 293–304) redelimited this species and revised its range. Rorabaugh and Lannoo (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 478–484) provided a detailed account that summarized the literature (in the sense of including Pseudacris sierra and Pseudacris hypochondriaca. Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 400–416) also provided a review.

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Recognized as distinct from P. regilla by Recuero et al. (2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 39: 293–304; 2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 41: 511). See comment under P. hypochondriaca.

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Smith (1966, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 27), and Shepard et al. (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 484–485) provided reviews in the sense of including Pseudacris illinoensis. Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 416–421) also provided a review. See comment under Pseudacris illinoensis.

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

See comment under P. maculata. Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the geographic limits of this species based on mitochondrial DNA evidence. Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 421–428) reviewed the species.

Note on genus:
Lemmon et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 44: 1068–1082) revised the P. nigrita group (P. brimleyi, P. brachyphona, P. clarkii, P. feriarum, P. kalmi, P. maculata, and P. triseriata and an unnamed species, which was subsequently named as Pseudacris fouquettei). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) deployed a system of subgenera based on the work of Lemmon et al., placing the eastern species in the subgenus Pseudacris and the western members (P. cadaverina, P. hypchondriaca, P. regilla, and P. sierra) in the subgenus Hyliola, and the species P. ocularis and P. crucifer in the subgenus Limnaoedus but we have not adopted subgenera in this list. Duellman et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4104: 1–109) restricted the name Pseudacris to the eastern and Rocky Mountain species related to Pseudacris nigrita and allocated the western species, Pseudacris cadaverina, P. hypochondriaca, P. regilla, and H. sierra to Hyliola Mocquard, 1899. We hold this change in abeyance pending some sense of acceptance within the professional community.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Altig and Dumas (1972, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 160, in the sense of including R. draytonii), Pearl (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 528–530), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 687–697). Evidence of the distinctiveness of this species from R. draytonii was provided by Hayes and Miyamoto (1984, Copeia 1984: 1018–1022), Shaffer et al. (2004, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 13: 2667–2677), Conlon et al. (2006, Peptides 27: 1305–1312), and Pauly et al. (2008, J. Herpetol. 42: 668–679).

Note on genus:
This large taxon of predominantly Eurasian frogs was redelimited by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297, and Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) to exclude a number of taxa (e.g., Lithobates, Glandirana, Odorrana, Pelophylax). See Lithobates for most North American species formerly associated with Rana and comments regarding taxonomy.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Zweifel (1968, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 71), Fellers (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 534–536), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 697–707). Molecular study of geographic variation of this rapidly disappearing species should prove illuminating.

Note on genus:
This large taxon of predominantly Eurasian frogs was redelimited by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297, and Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) to exclude a number of taxa (e.g., Lithobates, Glandirana, Odorrana, Pelophylax). See Lithobates for most North American species formerly associated with Rana and comments regarding taxonomy.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Altig and Dumas (1971, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 105), Pearl and Adams (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 538–540), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 707–715). The disjunct populations should be investigated with respect to call and molecular parameters.

Note on genus:
This large taxon of predominantly Eurasian frogs was redelimited by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297, and Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) to exclude a number of taxa (e.g., Lithobates, Glandirana, Odorrana, Pelophylax). See Lithobates for most North American species formerly associated with Rana and comments regarding taxonomy.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

See comment under R. aurora. Reviewed by Fellers (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 552–554) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 715–722).

Note on genus:
This large taxon of predominantly Eurasian frogs was redelimited by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297, and Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) to exclude a number of taxa (e.g., Lithobates, Glandirana, Odorrana, Pelophylax). See Lithobates for most North American species formerly associated with Rana and comments regarding taxonomy.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Green et al. (1996, Evolution 50: 374–390) and Cuellar (1996, Biogeographica 72: 145–150) suggested that R. pretiosa was composed of two sibling species. Subsequently Green et al. (1997, Copeia 1997: 1–8) recognized the eastern and northern form, R. luteiventris, as a species distinct from R. pretiosa. Reviewed by Reaser and Pilliod (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 559–563) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 723–732).

Note on genus:
This large taxon of predominantly Eurasian frogs was redelimited by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297, and Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) to exclude a number of taxa (e.g., Lithobates, Glandirana, Odorrana, Pelophylax). See Lithobates for most North American species formerly associated with Rana and comments regarding taxonomy.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Zweifel (1968, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 65), Vredenburg, Fellers, and Davidson (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 563–566), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 733–739). Vredenburg et al. (2007, J. Zool. 271: 361–374) discussed the systematics of this species and its disappearance from large parts of its former range.

Note on genus:
This large taxon of predominantly Eurasian frogs was redelimited by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297, and Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) to exclude a number of taxa (e.g., Lithobates, Glandirana, Odorrana, Pelophylax). See Lithobates for most North American species formerly associated with Rana and comments regarding taxonomy.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

See comment under R. luteiventris. Reviewed by Pearl and Hayes (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 577–580) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 739–747).

Note on genus:
This large taxon of predominantly Eurasian frogs was redelimited by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297, and Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) to exclude a number of taxa (e.g., Lithobates, Glandirana, Odorrana, Pelophylax). See Lithobates for most North American species formerly associated with Rana and comments regarding taxonomy.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Vredenburg et al. (2007, J. Zool. 271: 361–374) recognized this species as distinct from R. muscosa. Reviewed by Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 747–752).

Note on genus:
This large taxon of predominantly Eurasian frogs was redelimited by Frost et al. (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 297, and Che et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42: 1–13) to exclude a number of taxa (e.g., Lithobates, Glandirana, Odorrana, Pelophylax). See Lithobates for most North American species formerly associated with Rana and comments regarding taxonomy.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Recently shown to be a distinct species from R. marina by Acevedo et al. (2016, Zootaxa, 4103: 574–586). Found in South Texas south through Middle America to northwestern Peru. Hero and Stoneham (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 417–422) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 186– 191), provided detailed accounts for the USA under Bufo marinus or Rhinella marina, prior to the partition of the overarching species complex.

Note on genus:
This genus of predominantly South American toads was redelimited by Chaparro et al. (2007, Herpetologica 63: 203–212) to reflect the phylogenetic results of Pramuk (2006, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 146: 407–452). Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) suggested that Rhinella is only distantly related to North American toads of the genera Incilius and Anaxyrus. See comment under Anaxyrus, regarding the treatment of this genus as a subgenus by some.

Darrel R. Frost, David M. Green, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2014-12-22

Reviewed (in the sense of including R. horribilis within R. marina) by Easteal (1986, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 395, as Bufo marinus). Vallinoto et al. (2010, Zool. Scripta 39: 128–140) suggested on the basis of molecular evidence that the North and Central American population may be a distinct species from the South American populations and subsequently Acevedo et al. (2016, Zootaxa, 4103: 574–586) provided additional morphological and molecular evidence for their distinctiveness, with the largely trans-Andean South American species being the one introduced worldwide, including Hawaii, and the Mesoamerican species extending north into South Texas. The status of introduced Florida populations remains unclear, having been introduced from Colombia where both R. marina and R. horribilis are known.

Note on genus:
This genus of predominantly South American toads was redelimited by Chaparro et al. (2007, Herpetologica 63: 203–212) to reflect the phylogenetic results of Pramuk (2006, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 146: 407–452). Van Bocxlaer et al. (2010, Science 327: 679–682) suggested that Rhinella is only distantly related to North American toads of the genera Incilius and Anaxyrus. See comment under Anaxyrus, regarding the treatment of this genus as a subgenus by some.

Darrel R. Frost, David M. Green, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, Joseph R. Mendelson III, Fred Kraus, and Kenneth L. Krysko, 2018-02-12

Geographic variation has not been studied in any detail and cryptic lineages are a possibility. Reviewed by Fouquette (1969, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 78) and Fouquette (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 599–600).

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Wasserman (1970, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 85), Morey (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 508–511), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 753–760). Geographic variation is poorly documented.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Wasserman (1968, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 70, as Scaphiopus h. holbrookii), Palis (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 511–512), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 772–776).

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Wasserman (1968, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 70, as Scaphiopus holbrookii hurterii), briefly by Lannoo (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 512–513), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 772–776).

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Duellman (1968, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 59), Malone (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 489–491), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 431–435).

Note on genus:
The content of this taxon was redelimited by Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 294) to include former Pternohyla.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Reviewed by Trueb (1969, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 77, as Pternohyla fodiens), Sredl (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 488–489), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 428–431).

Note on genus:
The content of this taxon was redelimited by Faivovich et al. (2005, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 294) to include former Pternohyla.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Known to hybridize with S. multiplicata in parts of their ranges (Brown, 1976, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co. 286). Geographic variation is poorly documented. Reviewed by Farrar and Hey (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 513–514) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 777–785).

Note on genus:
Tanner (1989, Great Basin Nat. 49: 38–70) and Wiens and Titus (1991, Herpetologica 47: 21–28) recognized Spea as distinct from Scaphiopus, within which it was previously regarded as a subgenus.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

This name formerly covered populations now referred to S. multiplicata and S. intermontana until separated by Brown (1976, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co. 286). See Tanner (1989, Great Basin Nat. 49: 503–510) for discussion, although he continued to retain these species as subspecies of S. hammondi, a position rejected by Wiens and Titus (1991, Herpetologica 47: 21–38). Reviewed by Morey (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 514–517) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 786–790).

Note on genus:
Tanner (1989, Great Basin Nat. 49: 38–70) and Wiens and Titus (1991, Herpetologica 47: 21–28) recognized Spea as distinct from Scaphiopus, within which it was previously regarded as a subgenus.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Geographic variation very poorly documented, and, according to evidence provided by Titus and Wiens (1991, Herpetologica 47: 21–29), this nominal species may be a paraphyletic composite of at least two species. Reviewed by Hall (1999, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 650), Morey (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 517–519), and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 791–797).

Note on genus:
Tanner (1989, Great Basin Nat. 49: 38–70) and Wiens and Titus (1991, Herpetologica 47: 21–28) recognized Spea as distinct from Scaphiopus, within which it was previously regarded as a subgenus.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Considered a species distinct from S. hammondii by Brown (1976, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co. 286) and by Titus and Wiens (1991, Herpetologica 47: 21–28). Regarded, on the basis of overall similarity and paleoclimatic inference to be conspecific with S. hammondii by Van Devender, Mead, and Rea (1991, Southwest. Nat. 36: 302–314) and by Tanner (1989, Great Bas. Nat. 49: 503–510). Tanner recognized S. h. stagnalis Cope as the northern (Arizona to central Chihuahua) subspecies of his Spea hammondii, though the phylogenetic evidence presented by Titus and Wiens indicated it to be part of S. multiplicata. Geographic variation has not been carefully studied and cryptic species are possible. Reviewed by Morey (2005, in Lannoo, M. [ed.], Amphibian Declines: the Conservation Status of United States Species. Univ. of California Press: 519–522) and Dodd (2013, Frogs of the United States and Canada, John Hopkins Univ. Press: 798–806).

Note on genus:
Tanner (1989, Great Basin Nat. 49: 38–70) and Wiens and Titus (1991, Herpetologica 47: 21–28) recognized Spea as distinct from Scaphiopus, within which it was previously regarded as a subgenus.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

See comment in S. multiplicata.

Note on genus:
Tanner (1989, Great Basin Nat. 49: 38–70) and Wiens and Titus (1991, Herpetologica 47: 21–28) recognized Spea as distinct from Scaphiopus, within which it was previously regarded as a subgenus.

Darrel R. Frost, Emily Moriarty Lemmon, Roy W. McDiarmid, and Joseph R. Mendelson III, 2018-02-06

Alien Species:

The African Clawed Frog is native to southern Africa, has been reported from nine states, and is established in Arizona, California, and Florida.

Fred Kraus (Chair), Kenneth L. Krysko, 2018-02-12

Pauly et al. (2006, Mol. Ecol. 16: 415 - 429) recognized western populations of A. cingulatum as a distinct species. They inadvertently reversed the proposed vernacular name with that for A. cingulatum.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Pauly et al. (2006, Mol. Ecol. 16: 415 - 429) recognized western populations of A. cingulatum as a distinct species (A. bishopi) and proposed a new vernacular name for this species. They inadvertently reversed the proposed vernacular name with that for A. bishopi.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Taxonomic recognition of asexual forms that combine genomes of this species, A. laterale, A. texanum, and A. tigrinum raises complex issues. These include discordance between cytoplasmic and nuclear genes, reticulate evolution, and genome-swapping (Bogart, 2003, in Sever, D.M. [ed.], Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Urodela, Science Publishers, Inc., Pp. 109-134). Bi and Bogart (2010, BMC Evol. Biol. 10: 238) confirm an ancient origin for the mitochondrial genome shared by asexual forms of this complex. Dubois and Rafaëlli (2012, Alytes 28: 77–161) resurrected the name platineum for the asexual forms.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

See comment under A. jeffersonianum

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Lee-Yaw and Irwin (2012, J. Evol. Biol. 25: 2276–2287) and Lee-Yaw et al. (2014, Mol. Ecol. 23: 4590–4602) evaluated geographic variation of mtDNA and nuclear genes throughout the range of the species and found the distributions of five lineages did not completely agree with those of the five presently recognized subspecies, but suggested no changes in the taxonomy of the species.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Shaffer and McKnight (1996, Evolution 50: 417–433) provided molecular data indicating that the eastern and western tiger salamanders should be regarded as distinct species, and treated the western forms as subspecies of Ambystoma mavortium. Lannoo (2005, in Lannoo M., [ed.], Amphibian Declines, Status of United States Species, Univ. California Press, Pp. 636–639) includes A. mavortium in A. tigrinum.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

See comment under A. mavortium.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Rissler and Apodaca (2007, Syst. Biol. 56: 924–942) conclude, on the basis of mitochondrial DNA phylogeography and ecological niche modeling, that this taxon should be subdivided into two or more species. Dubois and Raffaëlli (2012, Alytes 28: 77–161) formally recognize A. iecanus Cope, 1883, niger Myers and Maslin, 1948, and a nomen nudum, “sequoiensis” Lowe, 1950, the latter based on an unpublished thesis. Reilly et al. (2013, Diversity 5: 657–679) used nuclear and mitochondrial DNA to show that northern populations in the Klamath, Smith, and Rogue River drainages are genetically distinct from other populations but made no taxonomic changes. Raffaëlli (2013, Les Urodèles du Monde, 2e edition, Penclen Édition, France) recognizes A. niger and A. iëcanus (although diacritical marks are not to be used in scientific names), and also refers to an unnamed subspecies of A. flavipunctatus that he formerly treated as “sequoiensis” by the French vernacular name “Anéides noir de l’Est”. Furthermore, he refers to the populations identified by Reilly et al. (2012, Mol. Ecol. 21: 5745–5761) as an unnamed species, to which he applies the French vernacular name “Anéides noir du Nord”. Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles: The United States and Canada. Xlibris Corporation.) do not recognize the subspecies listed below. Reilly and Wake (2012 Molec. Ecol. 21: 5745–5761), Reilly et al. (2013: Diversity 5: 657–679), and Reilly and Wake (2014, J. Biogeog. 41: 280–2910) suggested that there are undescribed species within A. flavipunctatus on the basis of molecular data, but did not revise the present taxonomy.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

This species is highly differentiated with respect to mitochondrial DNA and Martinéz-Solano et al. (2007, Molec. Ecol., 16: 4335 - 4355) recognized five major clades. Highton (2014, Molec. Phylo. and Evol., 71: 127 - 141), using only the mtDNA data, suggested that as many as 39 species should be recognized.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, The United States and Canada, Seventh Edition, Vol. 1 – Amphibians, Xlibris, San Bernardino, CA, 613 p.) follow Hansen and Wake (2005, in Lannoo M., [ed.], Amphibian Declines, Status of United States Species, Univ. California Press, Pp. 666–667) in treating this form as a full species. The status of this taxon is considered in Martínez-Solano et al. (2012, Mol. Phylog. Evol. 63: 131–149), who document discordance between nuclear and mitochondrial sequence data in B. major. B. m. aridus is one of six clades of “southern” major with mtDNA data, but “northern” and “southern” components of major are not supported by data from nuclear genes.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, The United States and Canada, Seventh Edition, Vol. 1 – Amphibians, Xlibris, San Bernardino, CA, 613 p.) follow Hansen and Wake (2005, in Lannoo M., [ed.], Amphibian Declines, Status of United States Species, Univ. California Press, Pp. 666–667) in treating this form as a full species. The status of this taxon is considered in Martínez-Solano et al. (2012, Mol. Phylog. Evol. 63: 131–149), who document discordance between nuclear and mitochondrial sequence data in B. major. B. m. aridus is one of six clades of “southern” major with mtDNA data, but “northern” and “southern” components of major are not supported by data from nuclear genes.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, The United States and Canada, Seventh Edition, Vol. 1 – Amphibians, Xlibris, San Bernardino, CA, 613 p.) follow Hansen and Wake (2005, in Lannoo M., [ed.], Amphibian Declines, Status of United States Species, Univ. California Press, Pp. 666–667) in treating this form as a full species. The status of this taxon is considered in Martínez-Solano et al. (2012, Mol. Phylog. Evol. 63: 131–149), who document discordance between nuclear and mitochondrial sequence data in B. major. B. m. aridus is one of six clades of “southern” major with mtDNA data, but “northern” and “southern” components of major are not supported by data from nuclear genes

Stephen G. Tilley (Chair), Richard Highton, David B. Wake, 2014-07-10

Collins (1991, Herpet. Rev. 22: 42–43) elevated this form to species status. Molecular data presented by Crowhurst et al. (2011, Cons. Genet. 12: 637–646) do not support the monophyly of the subspecies, but no formal change in the taxonomy was suggested.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Divergent mitochondrial DNA lineages occur among Atlantic Coastal Plain populations that are morphologically assignable to this species. These lineages do not comprise a monophyletic unit (Beamer and Lamb, 2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 47: 143–153).

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Tilley et al. (2013, Ecol. and Evol., 3: 2547–2567) reported on a molecularly distinctive form in the southern Bald Mountains and northern foothills of the Great Smoky Mountains that is phenotypically indistinguishable from this species. This form appears to hybridize with both D. carolinensis and D. santeetlah in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province, and with an innominate lowland form further west in the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Populations in the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province of eastern Tennessee appear to hybridize with this form but Tilley et al. (2013, Ecol. and Evol., 3: 2547–2567) declined to assign them to D. conanti due to their unique mitochondrial haplotypes.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Molecular data suggest deep differentiation among populations that morphologically resemble D. fuscus (Bonett, 2002, Copeia 2002: 344–355; Kozak, et al., 2005, Evolution 59: 2000–2016), and additional species almost certainly await resolution.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Molecular data indicate that this taxon and D. quadramaculatus may not be reciprocally monophyletic (Rissler and Taylor, 2003, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 27: 197–211; Kozak, et al., 2005, Evolution 59: 2000–2016; Jones et al. 2006, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 38: 280–287; Wooten and Rissler, 2011, Acta Herpetol. 6: 175–208). None of these studies propose taxonomic revisions but Dubois and Rafaëlli (2012, Alytes 28: 77–161) and Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, The United States and Canada, Seventh Edition, Vol. 1 – Amphibians, Xlibris, San Bernardino, CA, 613 p.) resurrect two taxa, D.aureatus and D. melanius, from synonymy under this species (Martof , 1962, Am. Midl. Nat., 67: 30).

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

This form consists of numerous parapatric units that occupy different mountain ranges in the southern Blue Ridge and Cumberland Plateau physiographic provinces and probably represent distinct species (Tilley and Mahoney, 1996, Herpetol. Monogr. 10: 1–42; Tilley, 1997, J. Heredity 88: 305–315; Highton, 2000, in R. C. Bruce, B. G. Jaeger and L. D, Houck [eds.], The Biology of Plethodontid Salamanders. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, Pp. 215–241).

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

This taxon consists of two genetically differentiated units that may represent cryptic species (Tilley and Mahoney, 1996, Herpetol. Monogr. 10: 1–42; Tilley, 1997, J. Heredity 88: 305–315; Highton, 2000, in R. C. Bruce, B. G. Jaeger and L. D, Houck [eds.], The Biology of Plethodontid Salamanders. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 215–241).

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Removed from synonymy under D. fuscus (Martof and Rose, 1962, Copeia, 1962: 215–216) by Tilley, Eriksen, and Katz (2008, Zool. J. Linnean Soc. 152: 115–130).

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

This species was described by Means et al. (2017, Zootaxa 4263: 467-506), on the basis of mtDNA and morphological differences distinguishing it from D. auriculatus.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonett, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-01-13

The taxonomy of this complex is controversial. Some authors would recognize from two (e.g., Frost and Hillis, 1990, Herpetologica 46: 87–104) to as many as 11 or more species (e.g., Highton, 1998, Herpetologica 54: 254–278), whereas others (e.g., Wake, 1997, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 94: 7761–7767; Wake and Schneider, 1998, Herpetologica 54: 279–298; Pereira and Wake, 2009, Evolution 68: 2288–2301) consider evidence for evolutionary independence of segments of the complex to be inadequate or equivocal. Narrow hybrid zones have been demonstrated to exist between populations assigned to the subspecies xanthoptica and platensis, and between klauberi and eschscholtzii, and one site of sympatry with no hybridization between the latter pair has been reported (Wake et al., 1989, in D. Otte and J. A. Endler, [eds.], Speciation and its Consequences, Sinauer, Pp. 134–157). Broader zones of genetic admixture and reticulation between units of the complex in many areas raise questions about evolutionary independence, and borders of taxa are elusive.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

This species was described by Wray et al. (2017, Herpetol. Monogr. 31:18-46) based on morphological and mtDNA sequence differences distinguishing it from other Dwarf Salamanders.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonett, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-01-13

Formerly subdivided into the subspecies E. m. griseogaster and E. m. multiplicata. Biochemical data indicate that populations assigned to E. m. griseogaster are conspecific with E. tynerensis, while those of the nominate subspecies fall into two or three divergent clades that may represent distinct species (Bonett and Chippindale, 2004, Mol. Ecol. 13: 1189–1203).

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

This species was originally described as a subspecies of E. quadridigitata by Mittleman, but he later (1967, Cat. Am. Amphib. Rept 44:1–2) synonymized it with E. quadridigitata. Wray et al. (2017, Herpetol. Monogr.31: 18–46) recognized it as a species on the basis of morphological and mtDNA sequence differences distinguishing it from other Dwarf Salamanders.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonett, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-01-13

This species was described by Wray et al. (2017, Herpetol. Monogr. 31:18-46) on the basis of morphological and mtDNA sequence differences distinguishing it from other Dwarf Salamanders.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonett, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-01-13

This taxon was originally placed in the monotypic genus Haideotriton. It was considered a junior synonym of Eurycea by Dubois (2005, Alytes 23: 20) and shown to nest phylogenetically within Eurycea by Pyron and Wiens (2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 61: 543–583), and Bonett, et al. (2013 [2014], Evolution 68: 466–482).

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Niemiller, et al. (2008, Molec. Ecol. 17: 2258–2275) provide molecular evidence indicating that this form has diverged very recently from G. porphyriticus and is phylogenetically nested within populations referred to that species. Niemiller and Miller (2010, Cat. of American Amph. and Rept. 862: 1–4), Miller and Niemiller (2012, Cat. of American Amph. And Rept. 884: 1–7), and Raffaëlli (2013, Les Urodèles du Monde, 2e edition, Penclen Édition, France – no city given) treat the taxon as a full species, while Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, The United States and Canada, Seventh Edition, Vol. 1 – Amphibians, Xlibris, San Bernardino, CA, 613 p.) treat it as a subspecies of G. “porphoriticus”. Bonnet, et al. (2013 [2014], Evolution 68: 466-482) treat it as a subspecies of G. palleucus in their trees but refer to it as a full species in their text. While closely related to G. palleucus, the taxon is distinguished from it in body proportions, osteology, colorations and some genetical aspects (Niemiller and Miller, 2010).

Note on genus: See comment under Pseudotriton montanus. Kuchta et al. (2016, J. Biogeog. 43: 639– 652), in a molecular study of both mitochrondrial and nuclear DNA sequences of the genus, found considerable discordance between their results and the present taxonomy, but did not suggest any taxonomic changes.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, The United States and Canada, Seventh Edition, Vol. 1 – Amphibians, Xlibris, San Bernardino, CA, 613 p.) treat this taxon and its subspecies as subspecies of G. porphyriticus, citing a close relationship to a population of that species suggested in trees in Bonnet, et al. (2013 [2014], Evolution 68: 466-482). That relationship lacks strong statistical support and the latter authors drew no taxonomic conclusions.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Note on genus: Herman and Bouzat (2016, J. Biogeog. 43: 666–678) analyzed geographic variation in a mitochondrial gene throughout the range of the genus and found six highly divergent lineages, but suggested no change in the current taxonomy.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Rovito (2010, Mol. Ecol. 19: 4554–4571) evaluated genetic variation in both mitochondrial and nuclear genes in H. brunus and H. platycephalus and those data supported the hypothesis that H. brunus was derived from H. platycephalus by peripatric speciation. Thus H. platycephalus is paraphyletic, but no changes in its taxonomy were suggested.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Rovito (2010, Mol. Ecol. 19: 4554–4571) evaluated genetic variation in both mitochondrial and nuclear genes in H. brunus and H. platycephalus and those data supported the hypothesis that H. brunus was derived from H. platycephalus by peripatric speciation. Thus H. platycephalus is paraphyletic, but no changes in its taxonomy were suggested.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Raffaëlli (2013, Les Urodèles du Monde, 2e edition, Penclen Édition, France) and Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, The United States and Canada, Seventh Edition, Vol. 1 – Amphibians, Xlibris Corporation) recognize N. lodingi, which we treat as a synonym of this form.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

According to Bart et al. (1997, J. Herpetol. 31: 192–201) this taxon may consist of more than one species.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Collins (1991, Herpet. Rev. 22: 42–43) elevated this form to species rank. Its taxonomic status requires further research.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

This taxon is based on two poorly preserved specimens, one subsequently destroyed, from a single locality in south-central Mississippi. Himes and Beckett (2014, Southeastern Naturalist 12: 851–856) suggest that the taxon be treated as a synonym of Plethodon mississippi, based on their study of the holotype and their inability to find any Plethodon other than P. mississippi at the type locality.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

There is molecular and morphological evidence for distinct evolutionary lineages within this taxon (Baird et al., 2006, Copeia 2006: 760–768; Davis and Pauly, 2011, Copeia 2011: 103–112).

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Shephard and Burbrink (2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 59: 399–411) sequenced two mitochondrial genes in a detailed study of geographic variation in this species and found four highly divergent groups, but made no taxonomic changes.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Shephard and Burbrink (2009, Mol. Ecol. 18: 2243–2262) sequenced two mitochondrial genes in a study of geographic variation in the species and found four subgroups but did not suggest changes in the taxonomy.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Pelletier et al. (2015, Syst. Biol. 64: 909–925) found support for two independently evolving lineages within this species based on 8 nuclear genes along with mitochondrial data.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

There is molecular evidence for distinct evolutionary lineages within this taxon (Kuchta et al. 2016, PLoS ONE 11(3): 1–25.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Shephard and Burbrink (2008, Mol. Ecol. 17: 5315–5335) sequenced two mitochondrial genes in a study of geographic variation in the species and found seven subgroups but did not suggest changes in the taxonomy.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Newman and Austin (2015, PLoS ONE: 0130131), and Thesing et al. (2016, Evol. Ecol. 30: 89–104) sequenced mitochondrial DNA from the same or nearby localities in most isolates of this species. They both found five divergent groups, but neither suggested changes in the taxonomy of the group.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, The United States and Canada, Seventh Edition, Vol. 1 – Amphibians, Xlibris, San Bernardino, CA, 613 p.) transfer this species to the genus Gyrinophilus, citing the cladogram published by Bonnet, et al. (Bonett, et al. (2013 [2014], Evolution 68: 466–482). Those authors, however, refrained from recommending this treatment on the basis of their phylogeny and relationships among forms of Pseudotriton and Gyrinophilus lack strong statistical support in their analysis.

Note on genus: Kozak et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1769–1784) presented support for the monophyly of Pseudotriton. Bonett et al. (2013 [2014], Evolution 68: 466–482) presented molecular evidence that this genus may not be monophyletic but made no taxonomic recommendations, stating that while Gyrinophilus, Pseudotriton, and Stereochilus form a clade, relationships among these lineages are not well supported in current analyses.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

This taxon was elevated to a full species by Collins (1991, Herpet. Rev. 22: 42–43). This treatment has been followed by Dubois and Raffaëlli (2012, Alytes 28: 77–161) and Raffaëlli (2013, Les Urodèles du Monde, 2e edition, Penclen Édition, France – no city given). Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, The United States and Canada, Seventh Edition, Vol. 1 – Amphibians, Xlibris, San Bernardino, CA, 613 p.) also treat it as a subspecies of P. montanus, which they transfer to Gyrinophilus. The phylogeny presented by Bonett, et al. (2013 [2014], Evolution 68: 466–482) indicates a sister relationship between this taxon and P. montanus. In the absence of data on levels of genetic differentiation, we retain the original taxonomic status of this form (Bishop, 1941, Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Mich., 451: 1–27).

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Dubois and Raffaëlli (2012, Alytes 28:77–161) consider this taxon a full species, and Raffaëlli (2013, Les Urodèles du Monde, 2e edition, Penclen Édition, France) treats it as a full species, including two subspecies, flavissimus and floridanus.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Folt et al. (2016, Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 98: 97–110) published an analysis of molecular variation in one nuclear and two mtDNA genes in the southern and western portions of the range of this species. They found several lineages whose geographic ranges do not agree with those of the four presently recognized subspecies. However, they continued to recognize all four subspecies for other reasons.

Note on genus: Kozak et al. (2009, Evolution 63: 1769–1784) presented support for the monophyly of Pseudotriton. Bonett et al. (2013 [2014], Evolution 68: 466–482) presented molecular evidence that this genus may not be monophyletic but made no taxonomic recommendations, stating that while Gyrinophilus, Pseudotriton, and Stereochilus form a clade, relationships among these lineages are not well supported in current analyses.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

S. i. texana was synonymized with S. intermedia nettingi by Flores-Villela and Brandon (1992, Ann. Carnegie Mus. 61: 289–291) but Dubois and Raffaëlli (2012, Alytes 28: 77–161) and Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, The United States and Canada, Seventh Edition, Vol. 1 – Amphibians, Xlibris, San Bernardino, CA, 613 p.) considered that subspecies to be valid. The taxonomic statuses of this and the remaining subspecies remain unclear and deserve careful evaluation.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

S. i. texana was synonymized with S. intermedia nettingi by Flores-Villela and Brandon (1992, Ann. Carnegie Mus. 61: 289–291) but Dubois and Raffaëlli (2012, Alytes 28: 77–161) and Fouquette and Dubois (2014, A Checklist of North American Amphibians and Reptiles, The United States and Canada, Seventh Edition, Vol. 1 – Amphibians, Xlibris, San Bernardino, CA, 613 p.) considered that subspecies to be valid. The taxonomic statuses of this and the remaining subspecies remain unclear and deserve careful evaluation.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

The status of the two distantly allopatric populations (see Flores-Villela and Brandon, 1992, Ann. Carnegie Mus. 61: 289–291) in (1) south Texas and adjacent Mexico and (2) peninsular Florida is unclear and deserves evaluation.

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Formerly considered a subspecies of T. torosa; elevated to species status by Kuchta (2007, Herpetologica 63: 332–350).

Richard Highton (Chair), Ronald M. Bonnet, Elizabeth L. Jockusch, 2018-02-02

Recent questions concerning the spelling of mississippiensis with “p” or “pp” have led to the inclusion of this annotation with the hope of clearing up the confusion, partly caused by earlier versions of this list. Daudin (1802) spelled it with p and from looking at that volume he probably did it because in French he spelled the river, area, etc., with one p. In 1842 Holbrook (1842, North American Herpetology, or, a Description of the Reptiles inhabiting the United States, 2nd Ed, J. Dobson, Philadelphia) emended the spelling to pp and in 1958 (Hemming 1958, ICZN 1F(F.8):87-126)the ICZN declared the emendation valid. In the meantime, Yarrow (1882, Checklist of North American Batrachia and Reptilia. Bull. U. S. Natl. Mus.) and Cope (1875, Checklist of North American Batrachia and Reptilia. Bull. U. S. Natl. Mus) spelled it pp but Stejneger and Barbour (1917, 1923, 1933, Editions 1-3, A check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts), Schmidt (1953, A check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. Sixth Edition. ASIH, Chicago) and Conant et al. (1956, Copeia 1956: 172-185) spelled it with one p. The Collins' lists (1978, 1982, 1990, 1997, Editions 1-4, Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. SSAR Herpetological Circular) spelled it with pp but the 5th and 6th editions (Crother et al., 2000, 2008, Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. SSAR Herpetological Circular 29, 37) went back to p (in error). The spelling was corrected to pp in the most recent (7th) edition (Crother et al., 2012, Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. SSAR Herpetological Circular 39).

Brian I. Crother, 12-12-14

Alien Species:

The Spectacled Caiman is native to South America, has been reported from seven states, and is established in Florida.

Fred Kraus, 2015-01-19

Alien Species:

The Javanese File Snake is native to Southeast Asia and is established in Florida.

Fred Kraus, 2015-01-19

Using multi-locus nuclear data, Burbrink and Guiher (2015, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 173:505– 526) partially confirmed previous mitochondrial hypotheses (Guiher and Burbrink 2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 48: 112–125) that the two North American species (A. contortrix and A. piscivorus) each consist of multiple species-level taxa. Subspecies are not recognized.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

Using multi-locus nuclear data, Burbrink and Guiher (2015, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 173:505– 526) partially confirmed previous mitochondrial hypotheses (Guiher and Burbrink 2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 48: 112–125) that the two North American species (A. contortrix and A. piscivorus) each consist of multiple species-level taxa. Subspecies are not recognized.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

Using multi-locus nuclear data, Burbrink and Guiher (2015, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 173:505– 526) partially confirmed previous mitochondrial hypotheses (Guiher and Burbrink 2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 48: 112–125) that the two North American species (A. contortrix and A. piscivorus) each consist of multiple species-level taxa. Subspecies are not recognized.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

Using multi-locus nuclear data, Burbrink and Guiher (2015, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 173:505– 526) partially confirmed previous mitochondrial hypotheses (Guiher and Burbrink 2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 48: 112–125) that the two North American species (A. contortrix and A. piscivorus) each consist of multiple species-level taxa. Subspecies are not recognized.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

Collins (1991, Herpetol. Rev. 22: 42–43) elevated A. e. occidentalis to specific statusto include all populations in the Sonoran and Mohave Desert regions, the first use of this binomial. Liner (1994, SSAR Herpetol. Circ. 23: 1–113) and Collins (1997, SSAR Herpetol. Circ. 25: 1–40) followed this arrangement. Because no discussion of the taxonomic diagnosis was presented (although Dixon [1959, Southwest. Nat. 4: 20–29] found tail length differences between eastern and western groups), we retain occidentalis as a nominal subspecies.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Collins (1991, Herpetol. Rev. 22: 42–43) elevated A. e. occidentalis to specific status to include all populations in the Sonoran and Mohave Desert regions, the first use of this binomial. Liner (1994, SSAR Herpetol. Circ. 23: 1–113) and Collins (1997, SSAR Herpetol. Circ. 25: 1–40) followed this arrangement. Because no discussion of the taxonomic diagnosis was presented (although Dixon [1959, Southwest. Nat. 4: 20–29] found tail length differences between eastern and western groups), we retain occidentalis as a nominal subspecies.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Alien Species:

The Boa Constrictor is native to Central and South America, has been reported from 12 states, and is established in Florida.

Fred Kraus (Chair), Kenneth L. Krysko, 2018-02-14

Recognition of Bogertophis as distinct from Elaphe has been corroborated by multiple studies using nuclear and mitochondrial data (Utiger et al., 2002, Russian J. Herpetol. 9: 105–124; Burbrink and Lawson, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evolution 43: 173–189; Pyron and Burbrink, 2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 52: 524–529).

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Recognition of Bogertophis as distinct from Elaphe has been corroborated by multiple studies using nuclear and mitochondrial data (Utiger et al., 2002, Russian J. Herpetol. 9: 105–124; Burbrink and Lawson, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evolution 43: 173–189; Pyron and Burbrink, 2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 52: 524–529).

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Recognition of Bogertophis as distinct from Elaphe has been corroborated by multiple studies using nuclear and mitochondrial data (Utiger et al., 2002, Russian J. Herpetol. 9: 105–124; Burbrink and Lawson, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evolution 43: 173–189; Pyron and Burbrink, 2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 52: 524–529).

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Clark (1968, Herpetologica 24: 104–112) recommended elevating C. (a.) vermis to species status on the basis of allopatry and morphological differences, but Rossman (1973, J. Herpetol. 7: 140–141) presented evidence for the conspecificity of amoenus and vermis in the form of intergrade populations. Collins (1991, Herpetol. Rev. 22: 42–43) considered C. vermis to be distinct from C. amoenus, implying that the populations discussed by Rossman were either/part of C. vermis, or an unnamed taxon. We follow Clark (1968) but anticipate results from molecular studies to better understand population structure and gene flow among allopatric lineages.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Last reviewed by Williams and Wilson (1967, Tulane Studies in Zoology 13: 103–124).

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Last reviewed by Williams and Wilson (1967, Tulane Studies in Zoology 13: 103–124).

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Last reviewed by Williams and Wilson (1967, Tulane Studies in Zoology 13: 103–124).

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Weinell and Austin (2017. J. Herpetol. 51: 161–171.) elevated lineri based on DNA, color pattern, and lepidosis.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-17

Kluge (1993, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 107: 293–351) placed Lichanura in the synonymy of Charina because they formed sister taxa. Burbrink (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evo. 34: 167–180) corroborated the relationship found by Kluge. Rodríguez-Robles et al. (2001, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 18: 227–237) found C. b. umbratica to be morphologically and geographically distinct and were elevated to species status based in part on lineages using mtDNA evidence along with with allozyme data from a previous study (Weisman, 1988, MS Thesis, CSU Polytechnic Pomona). With the recognition of C. umbratica and fossil species referred to both Charina and Lichanura (Holman, 2000, Fossil Snakes of North America, Indiana Univ. Press), neither genus is monotypic, and they are treated here as separate genera.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Kluge (1993, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 107: 293–351) placed Lichanura in the synonymy of Charina because they formed sister taxa. Burbrink (2005, Mol. Phylogenet. Evo. 34: 167–180) corroborated the relationship found by Kluge. Rodríguez-Robles et al. (2001, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 18: 227–237) found C. b. umbratica to be morphologically and geographically distinct and were elevated to species status based in part on lineages using mtDNA evidence along with with allozyme data from a previous study (Weisman, 1988, MS Thesis, CSU Polytechnic Pomona). With the recognition of C. umbratica and fossil species referred to both Charina and Lichanura (Holman, 2000, Fossil Snakes of North America, Indiana Univ. Press), neither genus is monotypic, and they are treated here as separate genera.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Grismer et al. (2002, Herpetologica 58: 18–31) found the previously recognized species C. cinctus, C. punctatissimus, and C. stramineus to represent morphotypes of a single species.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

There is some question as to the validity of the name C. saxatilis (Funk, 1967, Southwest Nat. 12: 180), the Gila Mountains Shovel-nosed Snake, which is generally considered to be a synonym of C. o. annulata (see Cross, 1978, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Arizona). Mahrdt et al. (2001, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 730) considered C. saxatilis a synonym of C. o. annulata. Wood et al. (2008, Conserv. Gen. 9: 1489–1507) demonstrated, using mtDNA and morphological data, that population structure was not concordant with the traditional subspecific taxonomy. They also revealed two potentially independent evolutionary lineages. A phylogeographic study from Wood et al. (2014; PLoS ONE e97494) using mtDNA and microsatellites indicates that C. o. annulata should be elevated to species status, while retaining two subspecies C. a. annulata and C. a. klauberi, that conform to patterns of genetic structure. The authors find no support for C. o. talpina and place it in synonomy with C. occipitalis.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

There is some question as to the validity of the name C. saxatilis (Funk, 1967, Southwest Nat. 12: 180), the Gila Mountains Shovel-nosed Snake, which is generally considered to be a synonym of C. o. annulata (see Cross, 1978, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Arizona). Mahrdt et al. (2001, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 730) considered C. saxatilis a synonym of C. o. annulata. Wood et al. (2008, Conserv. Gen. 9: 1489–1507) demonstrated, using mtDNA and morphological data, that population structure was not concordant with the traditional subspecific taxonomy. They also revealed two potentially independent evolutionary lineages. A phylogeographic study from Wood et al. (2014; PLoS ONE e97494) using mtDNA and microsatellites indicates that C. o. annulata should be elevated to species status, while retaining two subspecies C. a. annulata and C. a. klauberi, that conform to patterns of genetic structure. The authors find no support for C. o. talpina and place it in synonomy with C. occipitalis.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

There is some question as to the validity of the name C. saxatilis (Funk, 1967, Southwest Nat. 12: 180), the Gila Mountains Shovel-nosed Snake, which is generally considered to be a synonym of C. o. annulata (see Cross, 1978, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Arizona). Mahrdt et al. (2001, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 730) considered C. saxatilis a synonym of C. o. annulata. Wood et al. (2008, Conserv. Gen. 9: 1489–1507) demonstrated, using mtDNA and morphological data, that population structure was not concordant with the traditional subspecific taxonomy. They also revealed two potentially independent evolutionary lineages. A phylogeographic study from Wood et al. (2014; PLoS ONE e97494) using mtDNA and microsatellites indicates that C. o. annulata should be elevated to species status, while retaining two subspecies C. a. annulata and C. a. klauberi, that conform to patterns of genetic structure. The authors find no support for C. o. talpina and place it in synonomy with C. occipitalis.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Contrary to Collins (1997, SSAR Herpetol. Circ. 25: 1–40), Camper and Dixon (1994, Ann. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. 63: 1–48) did not recognize any subspecies for bilineatus.

Note on genus: Nagy et al. (2004, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 42: 223–233) restricted the genus Coluber to the New World and suggested that Masticophis might be paraphyletic with respect Coluber. Utiger et al. (2005, Russian J. Herpetol. 12: 39–60) corroborated Nagy et al., finding Masticophis to be paraphyletic with respect to Coluber and synonymizing Masticophis with Coluber (the oldest available name). This arrangement was also recovered in a recent phylogeny of Squamata (Pyron et al., 2013 BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93), though based on much of the same data.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Fitch et al. (1981, Trans, Kansas Acad. Sci. 84: 196–203) argued for the elevation of C. c. mormon. This recommendation was rejected by Greene (1983, J. Herpetol. 18: 210–211), and was supported by Corn and Bury (1986, Herpetologica 42: 258–264), who showed a broad zone of intergradation across Colorado and Utah. Collins (1991, Herpetol. Rev. 22: 42–43) re-elevated mormon to specific status, although allopatry was not suitably demonstrated. Anderson (1996, MS thesis, Southeastern Louisiana Univ.) argued that based on allozyme data C. c. mormon cannot be differentiated but that C. c. paludicola and C. c. oaxaca were diagnosable and should be elevated to species status. We retain C. c. mormon and await action on oaxaca and paludicola until the data are published. Burbrink et al. (2008, Mol. Phylogen. Evol 47: 274–288) have demonstrated using mtDNA that C. constrictor may be composed of six independently evolving lineages not concordant with most recognized subspecies. In particular, neither C. c. mormon or C. paludicola represents an evolutionarily distinct lineage. No samples of C. c. oaxaca were included.

Note on genus: Nagy et al. (2004, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 42: 223–233) restricted the genus Coluber to the New World and suggested that Masticophis might be paraphyletic with respect Coluber. Utiger et al. (2005, Russian J. Herpetol. 12: 39–60) corroborated Nagy et al., finding Masticophis to be paraphyletic with respect to Coluber and synonymizing Masticophis with Coluber (the oldest available name). This arrangement was also recovered in a recent phylogeny of Squamata (Pyron et al., 2013 BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93), though based on much of the same data.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Fitch et al. (1981, Trans, Kansas Acad. Sci. 84: 196–203) argued for the elevation of C. c. mormon. This recommendation was rejected by Greene (1983, J. Herpetol. 18: 210–211), and was supported by Corn and Bury (1986, Herpetologica 42: 258–264), who showed a broad zone of intergradation across Colorado and Utah. Collins (1991, Herpetol. Rev. 22: 42–43) re-elevated mormon to specific status, although allopatry was not suitably demonstrated. Anderson (1996, MS thesis, Southeastern Louisiana Univ.) argued that based on allozyme data C. c. mormon cannot be differentiated but that C. c. paludicola and C. c. oaxaca were diagnosable and should be elevated to species status. We retain C. c. mormon and await action on oaxaca and paludicola until the data are published. Burbrink et al. (2008, Mol. Phylogen. Evol 47: 274–288) have demonstrated using mtDNA that C. constrictor may be composed of six independently evolving lineages not concordant with most recognized subspecies. In particular, neither C. c. mormon or C. paludicola represents an evolutionarily distinct lineage. No samples of C. c. oaxaca were included.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Jonathan A. Campbell, R. Alexander Pyron, 2014-12-12

Fitch et al. (1981, Trans, Kansas Acad. Sci. 84: 196–203) argued for the elevation of C. c. mormon. This recommendation was rejected by Greene (1983, J. Herpetol. 18: 210–211), and was supported by Corn and Bury (1986, Herpetologica 42: 258–264), who showed a broad zone of intergradation across Colorado and Utah. Collins (1991, Herpetol. Rev. 22: 42–43) re-elevated mormon to specific status, although allopatry was not suitably demonstrated. Anderson (1996, MS thesis, Southeastern Louisiana Univ.) argued that based on allozyme data C. c. mormon cannot be differentiated but that C. c. paludicola and C. c. oaxaca were diagnosable and should be elevated to species status. We retain C. c. mormon and await action on oaxaca and paludicola until the data are published. Burbrink et al. (2008, Mol. Phylogen. Evol 47: 274–288) have demonstrated using mtDNA that C. constrictor may be composed of six independently evolving lineages not concordant with most recognized subspecies. In particular, neither C. c. mormon or C. paludicola represents an evolutionarily distinct lineage. No samples of C. c. oaxaca were included.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Jonathan A. Campbell, R. Alexander Pyron, 2014-12-12

Fitch et al. (1981, Trans, Kansas Acad. Sci. 84: 196–203) argued for the elevation of C. c. mormon. This recommendation was rejected by Greene (1983, J. Herpetol. 18: 210–211), and was supported by Corn and Bury (1986, Herpetologica 42: 258–264), who showed a broad zone of intergradation across Colorado and Utah. Collins (1991, Herpetol. Rev. 22: 42–43) re-elevated mormon to specific status, although allopatry was not suitably demonstrated. Anderson (1996, MS thesis, Southeastern Louisiana Univ.) argued that based on allozyme data C. c. mormon cannot be differentiated but that C. c. paludicola and C. c. oaxaca were diagnosable and should be elevated to species status. We retain C. c. mormon and await action on oaxaca and paludicola until the data are published. Burbrink et al. (2008, Mol. Phylogen. Evol 47: 274–288) have demonstrated using mtDNA that C. constrictor may be composed of six independently evolving lineages not concordant with most recognized subspecies. In particular, neither C. c. mormon or C. paludicola represents an evolutionarily distinct lineage. No samples of C. c. oaxaca were included.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Jonathan A. Campbell, R. Alexander Pyron, 2014-12-12

Nagy et al. (2004, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 42: 223–233) restricted the genus Coluber to the new World and suggested that Masticophis might be paraphyletic with respect Coluber. Utiger et al. (2005, Russian J. Herpetol. 12: 39–60) corroborated Nagy et al., finding Masticophis to be paraphyletic with respect to Coluber and synonymizing Masticophis with Coluber (the oldest available name). This arrangement was also recovered in a recent phylogeny of Squamata (Pyron et al., 2013 BMC Evol. Biol. 13:93), albeit based on much of the same data.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Jonathan A. Campbell, R. Alexander Pyron, 2014-12-12

On the basis of a sympatric occurrence with C. flagellum, Grismer (1994, Herpetol. Nat. Hist. 2: 51; 2002, Amphibians and Reptiles of Baja California, Including Its Pacific Islands and the Islands in the Sea of Cortés, Univ. California Press) elevated C. f. fuliginosus to species status.

Note on genus: Nagy et al. (2004, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 42: 223–233) restricted the genus Coluber to the new World and suggested that Masticophis might be paraphyletic with respect Coluber. Utiger et al. (2005, Russian J. Herpetol. 12: 39–60) corroborated Nagy et al., finding Masticophis to be paraphyletic with respect to Coluber and synonymizing Masticophis with Coluber (the oldest available name). This arrangement was also recovered in a recent phylogeny of Squamata (Pyron et al., 2013 BMC Evol. Biol. 13:93), albeit based on much of the same data.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Nagy et al. (2004, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 42: 223–233) restricted the genus Coluber to the new World and suggested that Masticophis might be paraphyletic with respect Coluber. Utiger et al. (2005, Russian J. Herpetol. 12: 39–60) corroborated Nagy et al., finding Masticophis to be paraphyletic with respect to Coluber and synonymizing Masticophis with Coluber (the oldest available name). This arrangement was also recovered in a recent phylogeny of Squamata (Pyron et al., 2013 BMC Evol. Biol. 13:93), albeit based on much of the same data.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Camper and Dixon (1994, Ann. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. 63: 1–48) elevated C.schotti from C. taeniatus with ruthveni retained as a subspecies.

Note on genus: Nagy et al. (2004, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 42: 223–233) restricted the genus Coluber to the new World and suggested that Masticophis might be paraphyletic with respect Coluber. Utiger et al. (2005, Russian J. Herpetol. 12: 39–60) corroborated Nagy et al., finding Masticophis to be paraphyletic with respect to Coluber and synonymizing Masticophis with Coluber (the oldest available name). This arrangement was also recovered in a recent phylogeny of Squamata (Pyron et al., 2013 BMC Evol. Biol. 13:93), albeit based on much of the same data.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Camper and Dixon (1994, Ann. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. 63: 1–48) elevated C.schotti from C. taeniatus with ruthveni retained as a subspecies.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Jonathan A. Campbell, R. Alexander Pyron, 2014-12-12

Camper and Dixon (1994, Ann. Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist. 63: 1–48) elevated C.schotti from C. taeniatus with ruthveni retained as a subspecies.

Note on genus: Nagy et al. (2004, J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 42: 223–233) restricted the genus Coluber to the new World and suggested that Masticophis might be paraphyletic with respect Coluber. Utiger et al. (2005, Russian J. Herpetol. 12: 39–60) corroborated Nagy et al., finding Masticophis to be paraphyletic with respect to Coluber and synonymizing Masticophis with Coluber (the oldest available name). This arrangement was also recovered in a recent phylogeny of Squamata (Pyron et al., 2013 BMC Evol. Biol. 13:93), albeit based on much of the same data.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

This species was originally named Contia longicaudae by Feldman and Hoyer (2010, Copeia, 2010: 254–267); however, because they explicitly treated the second part of the binomen as an adjective, it must agree with the name Contia in gender and number so that the correct spelling is Contia longicauda.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Notes on the Genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Jonathan A. Campbell, R. Alexander Pyron, 2014-12-12

Douglas et al. (2006, Mol. Ecol. 15: 3353–3374), using mtDNA, found several geographically distinct lineages within C. cerastes. Only one of these lineages corresponded to a recognized subspecies. (C. c. laterorepens).

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Douglas et al. (2006, Mol. Ecol. 15: 3353–3374), using mtDNA, found several geographically distinct lineages within C. cerastes. Only one of these lineages corresponded to a recognized subspecies. (C. c. laterorepens).

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Jonathan A. Campbell, R. Alexander Pyron, 2014-12-12

See annotation under C. oreganus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Pisani et al. (1972, Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 75: 255–263) conducted a multivariate analysis of variation in C. horridus and concluded that characters tended to be clinal and recommended against recognition of the two subspecies. Brown and Ernst (1986, Brimleyana 12: 57–74) countered that morphology in the eastern part of the range supported recognition of coastal plain and montane subspecies. Clark et al. (2003, J. Herpetol. 37: 145–154) identified three mitochondrial DNA lineages separated by the Appalachian and Allegheny Mountain ranges that did not correspond with the classic arrangement of subspecies within C. horridus.

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

The northern populations of this species were examined in detail using a multi-locus nuclear dataset (Anderson and Greenbaum, 2013; Herp. Monogr. 26: 19–57), supporting recognition of C. molossus for populations west of the Cochise Filter Barrier (from the Sonoran Desert west), and C. ornatus for eastern populations (from Chihuahuan Desert east), with a narrow contact zone.

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Pook et al. (2000, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 15: 269–282), Ashton and de Queiroz (2001, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 21: 176–189), and Douglas et al. (2002, Biology of the Vipers, Schuett, Hoggren, Douglas, Greene [eds.] Eagle Mountain Press) analyzed mtDNA sequence data and concluded that Crotalus viridis comprised at least two clades, C. viridis and C. oreganus, with C. cerberus being the sister taxon to populations of C. oreganus. The former two studies did not formally recognize C. cerberus as a species, although both suggested that it was distinct based on sequence differences and allopatry. The latter study did recognize C. cerberus as well as four other taxa. Although the studies relied on the same locus, we conservatively conclude that the congruence among all three studies might suggest the recognition of C. viridis, C. oreganus and C. cerberus. A recent unpublished study (Goldenberg, 2013; MS Dissertation, SDSU, 90 pp.) suggests a unique lineage, that has not yet been named, occurs in the southern part of the nominate species' range, and that the subspecies as currently recognized do not correspond with the actual species-level divergences in the group.

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

The northern populations of this species were examined in detail using a multi-locus nuclear dataset (Anderson and Greenbaum, 2013; Herp. Monogr. 26: 19–57), supporting recognition of C. molossus for populations west of the Cochise Filter Barrier (from the Sonoran Desert west), and C. ornatus for eastern populations (from Chihuahuan Desert east), with a narrow contact zone.

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Meik et al. (2015. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0131435. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131435), using multilocus sequence and phenotypic data, demonstrated that C. pyrrhus is a species distinct from C. mitchellii of Baja California.

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2000, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 57: 189–190. Opinion 1960) has ruled that the name Crotalus ruber Cope 1892 take precedence over C. exsul Garman 1884 when used as a specific epithet.

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

The spelling of the word “Mojave” or “Mohave” has been a subject of debate. Lowe in the preface to his “Venomous Reptiles of Arizona” (1986) argued for “Mohave” as did Campbell and Lamar (2004, The Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere, Comstock Publishing). According to linguistic experts on Native American languages, either spelling is correct, but using either the “j” or “h” is based on whether the word is used in a Spanish or English context. Given that this is an English names list, we use the “h” spelling (P. Munro, Linguistics, UCLA, pers. comm.). Jones (2016, Sonoran Herpetol. 29: 64–71) argued that the spelling should be with “j” but the committee was not convinced and voted to continue to spell it as Mohave.

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

The English name of the nominal subspecies has been changed to reflect the distribution rather than describe rattlesnakes from a small portion of its distribution (D. Hardy and H. Greene, pers. comm.)

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Jonathan A. Campbell, R. Alexander Pyron, 2014-12-12

Elevated to species by Douglas et al. (2007, Copeia 2007 (4): 920–932).

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

See comments under C. oreganus. Douglas et al. (2002, Biology of the Vipers, Schuett, Hoggren, Douglas, Greene [eds.] Eagle Mountain Press) synonymized C. v. nuntius with C. v. viridis.

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Barker (2016, in Schuett et al. [eds] Rattlesnakes of Arizona. ECO Publishing) recommended elevating the five subspecies of C. willardi to species, which we do not follow until data are available for evaluation.

Notes on genus: The traditional view of rattlesnake taxonomy that recognizes the two monophyletic sister genera Crotalus and Sistrurus (e.g. Brattstrom, 1964, San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 13: 185–268) has recently been challenged. Stille (1987, Herpetologica 43: 98–104) and McCranie (1989, Herpetologica 44: 123–126) presented data that suggested Sistrurus is not monophyletic and rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Parkinson (1999, Copeia 1999: 576–586) found Sistrurus monophyletic but its position rendered Crotalus paraphyletic. Knight et al. (1993, Syst. Biol. 42: 356–367) used mtDNA to defend the traditional generic taxonomy, but in order to do so ignored the most parsimonious tree. The genus Crotalus is monophyletic when including the Mexican C. ravus (Murphy et al. 2002, in Schuett et al. [eds.] Biology of the Vipers, Eagle Mountain Publishing, Pp. 69–92), and is supported as such in most recent phylogenies, as well as being the sister taxon to a monophyletic Sistrurus (e.g., Pyron et al., 2013; BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93). Davis et al. (2016. PLoS ONE 11(1): e0146166.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146166) used mtDNA and morphometric analyses that resolved six species within the C. viridis complex, which we don’t follow pending further analyses with nDNA.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Numerous data suggest that more than one lineage exists (Blanchard, 1942, Bull. Chicago Acad. Sci. 7: 1–144; Gelbach, 1974, Herpetologica 30: 140–148; Pinou et al., 1995, J. Herpetol. 29: 105–110; Feldman and Spicer, 2006, Mol. Ecol. 15: 2201–2222). Using mitochondrial data sampled from specimens across their range, Fontanella et al. (2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 46: 1049–1070) found at least 14 lineages that do not follow the geographic range of the subspecies, and may be independently evolving taxa. While D. punctatus may be divided into several species in the near future, we refrain from making any changes at present. Evidence to synonymize the various races into a single species has been poorly presented, and our arrangement follows the traditional subspecies groupings.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Wüster et al. (2001, Herpetol. J. 11: 157–165) demonstrated that couperi is a distinct species using morphological evidence.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Wüster et al. (2001, Herpetol. J. 11: 157–165) showed that the South American D. corais is distinct from the Central/North American (D. melanurus) taxon.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Cundall and Rossman (1984, Herpetologica 40: 388–405) analyzed skull morphology and showed substantial divergence between F. a. abacura and F. a. reinwardtii.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Cundall and Rossman (1984, Herpetologica 40: 388–405) analyzed skull morphology and showed substantial divergence between F. a. abacura and F. a. reinwardtii.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Cundall and Rossman (1984, Herpetologica 40: 388–405) analyzed skull morphology and showed substantial divergence between F. a. abacura and F. a. reinwardtii.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

The previous Standard English names of Ficimia and Gyalopion were misleading relative to their geographic ranges. All are distributed in Mexico, but Ficimia had the moniker “Mexican,” whereas Gyalopion had the name “Plateau,” yet is clearly not confined to any plateau. Given that Ficimia has the easternmost distribution, we call it “Eastern” and call Gyalopion “Western.”

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

The previous Standard English names of Ficimia and Gyalopion were misleading relative to their geographic ranges. All are distributed in Mexico, but Ficimia had the moniker “Mexican,” whereas Gyalopion had the name “Plateau,” yet is clearly not confined to any plateau. Given that Ficimia has the easternmost distribution, we call it “Eastern” and call Gyalopion “Western.”

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

The previous Standard English names of Ficimia and Gyalopion were misleading relative to their geographic ranges. All are distributed in Mexico, but Ficimia had the moniker “Mexican,” whereas Gyalopion had the name “Plateau,” yet is clearly not confined to any plateau. Given that Ficimia has the easternmost distribution, we call it “Eastern” and call Gyalopion “Western.”

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

McVay and Carstens (2013, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 68: 425–431) found that Virginia is polyphyletic based on a multi-locus nuclear dataset, and resurrected Haldea for V. striatula.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Werler and Dixon (2000, Texas Snakes, University of Texas Press, Austin) regarded H. n. gloydi to be an allopatric, diagnosable taxon restricted to the low plains - eastern forest ecotone of eastern Texas. Smith et al. (2003, J. Kansas Herpetol. 5: 17–20) followed the taxonomy of Walley and Eckerman (1999, Cat Am. Amph. Rept. 698.1) and did not recognize gloydi.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Smith et al. (2003, J. Kansas Herpetol. 5: 17–20), based on two scale characters, separated H. n. kennerlyi from H. n. nasicus and elevated the former to species.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Because the three subspecies of H. nasicus have been elevated to species, their respective standard English names remain associated with each. Hence, there is no longer a “Western Hog-nosed Snake.”

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

A recent study (Sanders et al., 2013, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 66: 575–591) corrected the long-noted non-monophyly of most sea snake genera (including Pelamis) by recognizing a single large genus Hydrophis, including H. platurus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Taxonomy of Hypsiglena has received some critical review since Tanner's revision of the genus (1944, Great Basin Nat. 5: 25–92). Dixon (1965, Southwest. Nat. 10: 125–131) and Dixon and Dean (1986, Southwest. Nat. 31: 307–318) studied a morphological contact zone between northern and southern taxa at the Sonora¬–Sinaloa border in Mexico, finding that it comprised a narrow zone of hybridization with some taxa existing in sympatry. Hardy and McDiarmid (1969, Univ. Kansas Pub. Mus. Nat. Hist. 18: 39–252) examined specimens across the range of this presumptive contact and elsewhere in western Mexico and concluded that no morphological characters existed to separate torquata and ochrorhyncha, except maybe nuchal patterns, which they decided (p. 170) was "a case of pattern dimorphism in a single, otherwise uniform, species." Grismer et al. (1994, Bull. So. California Acad. Sci. 93: 45–80) dismissed the recognition of subspecies in Baja California, stating, without evidence, that the subspecies intergrade widely. Mulcahy (2008,Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 46: 1095–1115) conducted a comprehensive phylogeographic study of Hypsiglena based on an mtDNA analysis of >150 individuals. Mulcahy (2008) recognized six species in what was considered H. torquata, five of which are consistent with previously described lineages (e.g., subspecies), while one represents a unique lineage that remains to be described. Mulcahy (2008) also recommended maintaining the subspecies designations for several of the widespread, polymorphic species, which may represent incipient species. The nominal species H. torquata is now restricted to Mexico, three described forms occur in the USA, and the undescribed form is endemic to the Cochise Filter Barrier area of southeastern Arizona and associated New Mexico.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Taxonomy of Hypsiglena has received some critical review since Tanner's revision of the genus (1944, Great Basin Nat. 5: 25–92). Dixon (1965, Southwest. Nat. 10: 125–131) and Dixon and Dean (1986, Southwest. Nat. 31: 307–318) studied a morphological contact zone between northern and southern taxa at the Sonora¬–Sinaloa border in Mexico, finding that it comprised a narrow zone of hybridization with some taxa existing in sympatry. Hardy and McDiarmid (1969, Univ. Kansas Pub. Mus. Nat. Hist. 18: 39–252) examined specimens across the range of this presumptive contact and elsewhere in western Mexico and concluded that no morphological characters existed to separate torquata and ochrorhyncha, except maybe nuchal patterns, which they decided (p. 170) was "a case of pattern dimorphism in a single, otherwise uniform, species." Grismer et al. (1994, Bull. So. California Acad. Sci. 93: 45–80) dismissed the recognition of subspecies in Baja California, stating, without evidence, that the subspecies intergrade widely. Mulcahy (2008,Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 46: 1095–1115) conducted a comprehensive phylogeographic study of Hypsiglena based on an mtDNA analysis of >150 individuals. Mulcahy (2008) recognized six species in what was considered H. torquata, five of which are consistent with previously described lineages (e.g., subspecies), while one represents a unique lineage that remains to be described. Mulcahy (2008) also recommended maintaining the subspecies designations for several of the widespread, polymorphic species, which may represent incipient species. The nominal species H. torquata is now restricted to Mexico, three described forms occur in the USA, and the undescribed form is endemic to the Cochise Filter Barrier area of southeastern Arizona and associated New Mexico.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Taxonomy of Hypsiglena has received some critical review since Tanner's revision of the genus (1944, Great Basin Nat. 5: 25–92). Dixon (1965, Southwest. Nat. 10: 125–131) and Dixon and Dean (1986, Southwest. Nat. 31: 307–318) studied a morphological contact zone between northern and southern taxa at the Sonora¬–Sinaloa border in Mexico, finding that it comprised a narrow zone of hybridization with some taxa existing in sympatry. Hardy and McDiarmid (1969, Univ. Kansas Pub. Mus. Nat. Hist. 18: 39–252) examined specimens across the range of this presumptive contact and elsewhere in western Mexico and concluded that no morphological characters existed to separate torquata and ochrorhyncha, except maybe nuchal patterns, which they decided (p. 170) was "a case of pattern dimorphism in a single, otherwise uniform, species." Grismer et al. (1994, Bull. So. California Acad. Sci. 93: 45–80) dismissed the recognition of subspecies in Baja California, stating, without evidence, that the subspecies intergrade widely. Mulcahy (2008,Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 46: 1095–1115) conducted a comprehensive phylogeographic study of Hypsiglena based on an mtDNA analysis of >150 individuals. Mulcahy (2008) recognized six species in what was considered H. torquata, five of which are consistent with previously described lineages (e.g., subspecies), while one represents a unique lineage that remains to be described. Mulcahy (2008) also recommended maintaining the subspecies designations for several of the widespread, polymorphic species, which may represent incipient species. The nominal species H. torquata is now restricted to Mexico, three described forms occur in the USA, and the undescribed form is endemic to the Cochise Filter Barrier area of southeastern Arizona and associated New Mexico.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

The Brahminy Blindsnake is likely native to South Asia, has been reported from 13 states, and is established in Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, and Virginia.

Fred Kraus (Chair), Kenneth L. Krysko, 2018-01-13

Garstka (1982, Breviora 466: 1–35) and more recently Bryson et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 43: 674–684) reviewed the mexicana species group of Lampropeltis. Based on the more recent molecular work, it appears that the recognition of the traditional species of alterna, mexicana and triangulum may be incorrect. Until more data are available to resolve the taxonomy of these groups, we withhold making any changes. Given the apparent complexity of the situation and the widespread morphological variation of L. alterna, we do not recognize any subspecies, though Hilken and Schlepper (1998, Salamandra 34: 97–124) argued for recognition of L. alterna alterna and L. a. blairi. Recent work by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) showed that this is an evolutionarily distinct lineage, and clearly represents a separate species. Previous work showing affinity with L. triangulum based on mitochondrial data was misled by an apparent genome capture.

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

This species comprises a primarily Mexican lineage of the former L. triangulum, and is of uncertain occurrence in the United States, possibly along the Rio Grande in southern Texas (Ruane et al. 2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250).

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Previously considered a subspecies of L. getula, Pyron and Burbrink (2009, Mol. Ecol. 18: 2443–3457 and 2009, Zootaxa 2241: 22–32), demonstrated that this is a distinct species.

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

McKelvy and Burbrink (2016. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 106: 61–72), using multilocus sequence data, found L. rhombomaculata and L. occipitolineata distinct from L. calligaster.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

Using multiple nuclear and mitochondrial genes, Pyron and Burbrink (2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 52: 524–529) found that L. elapsoides is distinct from L. triangulum. This was confirmed in larger multilocus study with many individuals sampled (Ruane et al. 2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250).

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Dowling and Maxson (1990, J. Zool. London 221: 77–85), using immunological distance data, found Stilosoma to fall within Lampropeltis. Keogh (1996, Herpetologica 52: 406–416), however, found Stilosoma to be part of the probable sister group to Lampropeltis. Rodriguez-Robles and de Jesus Escobar (1999, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 68: 355–385) and Bryson et al. (2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 43: 674–684) corroborated Dowling and Maxson using mtDNA evidence, and demonstrated that recognition of Stilosoma as a genus renders Lampropeltis paraphyletic. This was confirmed and ameliorated in Pyron and Burbrink (2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 52: 524–529) and confirmed in Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250).

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Krysko et al. (2017, J. Hered. doi:10.1093/jhered/esw086) used mtDNA and nDNA and inferred three monophyletic groups that generally corresponded to the geographic regions Florida Peninsula, Atlantic Coast, and Eastern Apalachicola Lowlands which contained previously recognized subspecies L. g. floridana, L. g. getula, and L. g. meansi. The authors considered the members of the clades as morphologically diagnosable and elevated them to species. Krysko et al. (op. cit.) also recognized L. nigrita from Mexico and southeastern Arizona.

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

This species comprises the formerly recognized subspecies L. t. celaenops, L. t. multistriata, L. t. taylori, L. t. amaura (part), L. t. syspila (part), and L. t. annulata (part) (Ruane et al. 2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250).

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Krysko et al. (2017, J. Hered. doi:10.1093/jhered/esw086) used mtDNA and nDNA and inferred three monophyletic groups that generally corresponded to the geographic regions Florida Peninsula, Atlantic Coast, and Eastern Apalachicola Lowlands which contained previously recognized subspecies L. g. floridana, L. g. getula, and L. g. meansi. The authors considered the members of the clades as morphologically diagnosable and elevated them to species. Krysko et al. also recognized L. nigrita from Mexico and southeastern Arizona.

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Formerly considered a subspecies of L. getula, Pyron and Burbrink (2009, Mol. Ecol. 18: 2443–3457 and 2009, Zootaxa 2241: 22–32), demonstrated that this is a distinct species. However, compared to the range of the former subspecies, this taxon occurs only west of the Mississippi River.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Formerly considered a subspecies of L. pyromelana, Burbrink et al. (2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 60: 445–454) demonstrated the existence of two species using coalescent species delimitation methods and ecological niche modeling. The complex comprises a northern species on the Colorado Plateau (L. pyromelana) and a southern species (L. knoblochi) found primarily on the Sierra Madre Occidental and associated Madrean Sky Islands.

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Krysko et al. (2017, J. Hered. doi:10.1093/jhered/esw086) used mtDNA and nDNA and inferred three monophyletic groups that generally corresponded to the geographic regions Florida Peninsula, Atlantic Coast, and Eastern Apalachicola Lowlands which contained previously recognized subspecies L. g. floridana, L. g. getula, and L. g. meansi. The authors considered the members of the clades as morphologically diagnosable and elevated them to species. Krysko et al. also recognized L. nigrita from Mexico and southeastern Arizona.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

See entry under L. zonata. This species comprises the formerly recognized subspecies L. z. multifasciata, and includes populations from the Transverse and Coastal ranges south.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Formerly considered a subspecies of L. getula, Pyron and Burbrink (2009, Mol. Ecol. 18: 2443–3457 and 2009, Zootaxa 2241:22–32), demonstrated that this is a distinct species.

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Krysko et al. (2017, J. Hered. doi:10.1093/jhered/esw086) used mtDNA and nDNA and inferred three monophyletic groups that generally corresponded to the geographic regions Florida Peninsula, Atlantic Coast, and Eastern Apalachicola Lowlands which contained previously recognized subspecies L. g. floridana, L. g. getula, and L. g. meansi. The authors considered the members of the clades as morphologically diagnosable and elevated them to species. Krysko et al. also recognized L. nigrita from Mexico and southeastern Arizona.

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

McKelvy and Burbrink (2016. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 106: 61–72), using multilocus sequence data, found L. rhombomaculata and L. occipitolineata distinct from L. calligaster.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

Burbrink et al. (2011, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 60: 445–454) demonstrated that this species is distinct from L. knoblochi.

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

McKelvy and Burbrink (2016. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 106: 61–72), using multilocus sequence data, found L. rhombomaculata and L. occipitolineata distinct from L. calligaster.

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

Formerly considered a subspecies of L. getula, Pyron and Burbrink (2009, Mol. Ecol. 18: 2443–3457 and 2009, Zootaxa 2241: 22–32), demonstrated that this is a distinct species.

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) used a multi-locus nuclear dataset to show that L. triangulum was polyphyletic as previously recognized, consisting of at least three unrelated species groups. As currently defined, L. triangulum primarily comprises populations of the former subspecies L. t. triangulum, L. t. syspila (part), and L. t. amaura (part).

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

This species was investigated using a multi-locus nuclear dataset (Myers et al., 2013, Mol. Ecol. 21: 5418–5429), finding multiple species-level taxa. This species comprises the formerly recognized subspecies L. z. zonata, L. z. multicincta, and L. z. multifasciata (part), including populations from the Sierra Nevada north.

Note on genus: The composition of this group was recently investigated by Ruane et al. (2014, Syst. Biol. 63: 231–250) and, the traditionally recognized species within this genus were found to represent a monophyletic group. However, the composition of various species has changed substantially.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

The genus Leptodeira and the L. septentrionalis/annulata complex in particular, were investigated using a mitochondrial dataset with rangewide sampling (Daza et al. 2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 53: 653–657). Those authors found that the latter two species are polyphyletic, and that complex geographic structure exists which does not correspond with the current taxonomy.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

See annotation under Charina. Wood et al. (2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 46: 484–582), used mtDNA and found three main clades within trivirgata that do not correspond to currently recognized subspecies. They concluded that these clades corresponded to two species, L. trivirgata and L. orcutti.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

See annotation under Charina. Wood et al. (2008, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 46: 484–582), used mtDNA and found three main clades within trivirgata that do not correspond to currently recognized subspecies. They concluded that these clades corresponded to two species, L. trivirgata and L. orcutti.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Note on genus: Using a multi-locus nuclear dataset, McVay and Carstens (2013, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 68: 425–431) found that Regina rigida and R. alleni formed a separate species group containing Seminatrix (which has been found previously), and resurrected Liodytes for these species.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Using a multi-locus nuclear dataset, McVay and Carstens (2013, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 68: 425–431) found that Regina rigida and R. alleni formed a separate species group containing Seminatrix (which has been found previously), and resurrected Liodytes for these species.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Using a multi-locus nuclear dataset, McVay and Carstens (2013, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 68: 425–431) found that Regina rigida and R. alleni formed a separate species group containing Seminatrix (which has been found previously), and resurrected Liodytes for these species.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Slowinski (1995, J. Herpetol. 29: 325–338) presented morphological and biochemical data supporting separation of the genera Micrurus and Micruroides. Castoe et al. (2007, Zoo. J. Linn. Soc. 151:809–831) found that Micruroides was the sister taxon to the remainder of the sampled New World Micrurus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Although Castoe et al. and J. Boundy (2006, Joint Meeting Ichthyologists Herpetologists abstracts) presented molecular and morphological evidence, respectively, that M. fulvius and M. tener are distinct species, these data have not been published. However, M. tener has been diagnosed by Campbell and Lamar (2004, in J. A. Campbell and W. W. Lamar [eds.], Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere, Comstock, Publ. Assoc., Ithaca, Pp. 195–197). Using over 1,097 microsatellites, Castoe et al. (2012, Molec. Ecol. Resources 12: 1105–1113) demonstrated that M. fulvius (east of the Mississippi River) is distinct (not sharing genes) with M. tener, which cannot be differentiated from Mexican populations of M. bernardi and M. tamaulipensis.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Although Castoe et al. and J. Boundy (2006, Joint Meeting Ichthyologists Herpetologists abstracts) presented molecular and morphological evidence, respectively, that M. fulvius and M. tener are distinct species, these data have not been published. However, this species has been diagnosed by Campbell and Lamar (2004, in J. A. Campbell and W. W. Lamar [eds.], Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere, Comstock, Publ. Assoc., Ithaca, Pp. 195–197). Using over 1,097 microsatellites, Castoe et al. (2012, Molec. Ecol. Resources 12: 1105–1113) demonstrated that M. fulvius (east of the Mississippi River) is distinct (not sharing genes) with M. tener, which cannot be differentiated from Mexican populations of M. bernardi and M. tamaulipensis.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Jonathan A. Campbell, R. Alexander Pyron, 2014-12-12

Lawson et al. (1991, Copeia 1991: 638–659) presented allozyme data that supported the separation of clarkii and fasciata.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Dunson (1979, Florida Scientist 42: 102–112) synonymized N. c. taeniata with N. c. compressicauda, concluding that it was pattern variant of the latter. Lawson et al. (1991, Copeia 1991: 638–659) resurrected N. c. taeniata on the basis of allozyme data, although the genetic distances were minute.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Makowsky et al. (2010, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.55: 985–995) demonstrated using mitochondrial data that this taxon represents a single widespread species with no concordance to any of the described subspecies. As such we do not recognize subspecies.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Allozyme data indicate that N. fasciata forms two clades, differentiated on the mid-Florida Panhandle (Lawson et al., 1991, Copeia 1991: 638–659). Also see note under N. sipedon.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Elevation of N. floridana from a race of N. cyclopion is supported by data from Pearson (1966, Bull. Serol. Mus. 36: 8), Lawson (1987, J. Herpetol. 21: 140–157), and Sanderson (1993, Brimleyana 19: 83–94). The disjunct populations of floridana were examined by Thompson and Crother (1998, Copeia 1998: 715–719) with allozyme data that revealed no evidence of differentiation.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Suggested to be separated from harteri by Rose and Selcer (1989, J. Herpetol. 23: 261–266) and supported by molecular data in Densmore et al. (1992, Herpetologica 48: 60–68).

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Brandley et al. (2010, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 57: 552–560) found evidence for multiple lineages of N. rhombifer. Two lineages were found roughly east and west of the Mississippi River, with a third in Mexico, corresponding to N. r. werleri. However, Brandley et al. sampled only one specimen of the two Mexican subspecies, and it revealed as sister taxon to the U.S. specimens. It cannot be concluded that the Mexican forms are not distinct evolutionary units, and the authors do not conclude otherwise.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

Brandley et al. (2010, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 57: 552–560) found evidence for multiple lineages of N. rhombifer. Two lineages were found roughly east and west of the Mississippi River, with a third in Mexico, corresponding to N. r. werleri. However, Brandley et al. sampled only one specimen of the two Mexican subspecies, and it revealed as sister taxon to the U.S. specimens. It cannot be concluded that the Mexican forms are not distinct evolutionary units, and the authors do not conclude otherwise.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

Numerous examples exist of hybridization between sipedon and fasciata (Conant, 1963, Am. Mus. Novit. 2122: 1–38; Blaney and Blaney, 1979, Herpetologica 35: 350–359; Schwaner et al., 1980, Isozyme Bull. 12: 102; Schwaner and Mount, 1976, Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas 45: 1–44), and sipedon and fasciata are apparently sister taxa (Pyron et al. 2013, BMC Evol. Biol. 13: 93, doi:10.1186/1471-2148-13-93).

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Recognition of the Florida peninsular form described by Grobman (1984, Bull. Florida St. Mus. Biol. Sci. 29: 153–170) is supported by Plummer (1987, Copeia 1987: 483–485). Reviewed by Walley and Plummer (2000, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept. 718).

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Given that Liochlorophis (Oldham and Smith, 1991, Bull. Maryland Herpetol. Soc. 27: 201–215) is the monotypic sister genus to the monotypic genus Opheodrys, recognition of the former taxon is unnecessary, and reduces the amount of information conveyed by the names. As such, we retain vernalis in Opheodrys. The several subspecies described by Grobman (1941, Misc. Pub. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 50: 1–38; 1992, J. Herpetol. 26: 176–186) are based on character clines and not widely recognized.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Based on the congruence of morphological (Burbrink, 2001, Herpetol. Monogr. 15: 1–53) and mitochondrial data (Burbrink et al., 2000, Evolution 54: 2107–2118), Burbrink divided P. obsoletus into three species (P. alleghaniensis, P. obsoletus and P. spiloides) with no subspecies.

Notes on the genus: Utiger et al. (2002, Russian J. Herpetol. 9: 105–124), using molecular data, divided Elaphe into eight genera. New World Elaphe are part of a clade distinct from Old World species, for which Pantherophis Fitzinger, 1843, was resurrected as the oldest available name. While further splitting of Pantherophis has been proposed (Collins and Taggart, 2008; J. Kansas Herp. 26: 16–18), the use of Pantherophis has helped stabilize the classification of New World ratsnakes. Thus, we refrain from further division of the genus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Notes on the genus: Utiger et al. (2002, Russian J. Herpetol. 9: 105–124), using molecular data, divided Elaphe into eight genera. New World Elaphe are part of a clade distinct from Old World species, for which Pantherophis Fitzinger, 1843, was resurrected as the oldest available name. While further splitting of Pantherophis has been proposed (Collins and Taggart, 2008; J. Kansas Herp. 26: 16–18), the use of Pantherophis has helped stabilize the classification of New World ratsnakes for nearly a decade. Thus, we refrain from further division of the genus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Using mitochondrial data, Burbrink (2002, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 25: 465–476) found P. guttatus to comprise three distinct lineages, which were elevated to species level. The name P. guttatus was restricted to populations east of the Mississippi River. The populations in western Louisiana and eastern Texas were named P. slowinskii. The subspecies P. g. meahllmorum was not found to be a distinct lineage, and was synonymized with P. emoryi.

Notes on the genus: Utiger et al. (2002, Russian J. Herpetol. 9: 105–124), using molecular data, divided Elaphe into eight genera. New World Elaphe are part of a clade distinct from Old World species, for which Pantherophis Fitzinger, 1843, was resurrected as the oldest available name. While further splitting of Pantherophis has been proposed (Collins and Taggart, 2008; J. Kansas Herp. 26: 16–18), the use of Pantherophis has helped stabilize the classification of New World ratsnakes for nearly a decade. Thus, we refrain from further division of the genus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Using mitochondrial data, Burbrink (2002, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 25: 465–476) found P. guttatus to comprise three distinct lineages, which were elevated to species level. The name P. guttatus was restricted to populations east of the Mississippi River. The populations in western Louisiana and eastern Texas were named P. slowinskii. The subspecies P. g. meahllmorum was not found to be a distinct lineage, and was synonymized with P. emoryi.

Notes on the genus: Utiger et al. (2002, Russian J. Herpetol. 9: 105–124), using molecular data, divided Elaphe into eight genera. New World Elaphe are part of a clade distinct from Old World species, for which Pantherophis Fitzinger, 1843, was resurrected as the oldest available name. While further splitting of Pantherophis has been proposed (Collins and Taggart, 2008; J. Kansas Herp. 26: 16–18), the use of Pantherophis has helped stabilize the classification of New World ratsnakes for nearly a decade. Thus, we refrain from further division of the genus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Based on the congruence of morphological (Burbrink, 2001, Herpetol. Monogr. 15: 1–53) and mitochondrial data (Burbrink et al., 2000, Evolution 54: 2107–2118), Burbrink divided P. obsoletus into three species (P. alleghaniensis, P. obsoletus and P. spiloides) with no subspecies.

Notes on the genus: Utiger et al. (2002, Russian J. Herpetol. 9: 105–124), using molecular data, divided Elaphe into eight genera. New World Elaphe are part of a clade distinct from Old World species, for which Pantherophis Fitzinger, 1843, was resurrected as the oldest available name. While further splitting of Pantherophis has been proposed (Collins and Taggart, 2008; J. Kansas Herp. 26: 16–18), the use of Pantherophis has helped stabilize the classification of New World ratsnakes for nearly a decade. Thus, we refrain from further division of the genus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Conant (1940, Herpetologica 2: 2) recognized two forms of foxsnakes, one on each side of a geographic disjunction (basically all of Michigan and parts of Indiana and Ohio) with the western form as Pantherophis vulpinus vulpinus and the eastern form as P. v. gloydi. Collins (1991, Herpetol. Rev. 22: 42–43) elevated gloydi to specific status because of its geographic disjunction from vulpinus and the characters noted by Conant (1940, Herpetologica 2: 2). Crother et al. (2011, ISRN Zoology, doi:10.5402/2011/436049) supported the concept of two species, but discovered that the species boundary was the Mississippi River and not the disjunction. The type locality of P. vulpinus is east of the Mississippi River and thus the appropriate available name for the eastern form, leaving the western form unnamed. An interesting side note is that faster evolving microsatellite data reveal a population level separation associated with the geographic hiatus (Row et al., 2011, J Evol. Biol. 24: 2364–2377).

Notes on the genus: Utiger et al. (2002, Russian J. Herpetol. 9: 105–124), using molecular data, divided Elaphe into eight genera. New World Elaphe are part of a clade distinct from Old World species, for which Pantherophis Fitzinger, 1843, was resurrected as the oldest available name. While further splitting of Pantherophis has been proposed (Collins and Taggart, 2008; J. Kansas Herp. 26: 16–18), the use of Pantherophis has helped stabilize the classification of New World ratsnakes for nearly a decade. Thus, we refrain from further division of the genus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-10

Using mitochondrial data, Burbrink (2002, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 25: 465–476) found P. guttatus to comprise three distinct lineages, which were elevated to species level. The name P. guttatus was restricted to populations east of the Mississippi River. The populations in western Louisiana and eastern Texas were named P. slowinskii.

Notes on the genus: Utiger et al. (2002, Russian J. Herpetol. 9: 105–124), using molecular data, divided Elaphe into eight genera. New World Elaphe are part of a clade distinct from Old World species, for which Pantherophis Fitzinger, 1843, was resurrected as the oldest available name. While further splitting of Pantherophis has been proposed (Collins and Taggart, 2008; J. Kansas Herp. 26: 16–18), the use of Pantherophis has helped stabilize the classification of New World ratsnakes for nearly a decade. Thus, we refrain from further division of the genus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Based on the congruence of morphological (Burbrink, 2001, Herpetol. Monogr. 15: 1–53) and mitochondrial data (Burbrink et al., 2000, Evolution 54: 2107–2118), Burbrink divided P. obsoletus into three species (P. alleghaniensis, P. obsoletus and P. spiloides) with no subspecies.

Notes on the genus: Utiger et al. (2002, Russian J. Herpetol. 9: 105–124), using molecular data, divided Elaphe into eight genera. New World Elaphe are part of a clade distinct from Old World species, for which Pantherophis Fitzinger, 1843, was resurrected as the oldest available name. While further splitting of Pantherophis has been proposed (Collins and Taggart, 2008; J. Kansas Herp. 26: 16–18), the use of Pantherophis has helped stabilize the classification of New World ratsnakes for nearly a decade. Thus, we refrain from further division of the genus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Conant (1940, Herpetologica 2: 2) recognized two forms of foxsnakes, one on each side of a geographic disjunction (basically all of Michigan and parts of Indiana and Ohio) with the western form as Pantherophis vulpinus vulpinus and the eastern form as P. v. gloydi. Collins (1991, Herpetol. Rev. 22: 42–43) elevated gloydi to specific status because of its geographic disjunction from vulpinus and the characters noted by Conant (1940, Herpetologica 2: 2). Crother et al. (2011, ISRN Zoology, doi:10.5402/2011/436049) supported the concept of two species, but discovered that the species boundary was the Mississippi River and not the disjunction. The type locality of P. vulpinus is east of the Mississippi River and thus the appropriate available name for the eastern form, leaving the western form unnamed. An interesting side note is that faster evolving microsatellite data reveal a population level separation associated with the geographic hiatus (Row et al., 2011, J Evol. Biol. 24: 2364–2377).

Notes on the genus: Utiger et al. (2002, Russian J. Herpetol. 9: 105–124), using molecular data, divided Elaphe into eight genera. New World Elaphe are part of a clade distinct from Old World species, for which Pantherophis Fitzinger, 1843, was resurrected as the oldest available name. While further splitting of Pantherophis has been proposed (Collins and Taggart, 2008; J. Kansas Herp. 26: 16–18), the use of Pantherophis has helped stabilize the classification of New World ratsnakes for nearly a decade. Thus, we refrain from further division of the genus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

McDiarmid and McCleary (1993, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept.: 579.1–5), argued that the four subspecies of P. browni and five subspecies of P. decurtatus not be recognized. Gardner and Mendelson (2004, J. Herpetol. 38: 187–196), based on morphological data, also concluded that subspecies of P. decurtatus should not be recognized.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Rodriguez-Robles et al. (2000, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 14: 35–50) discovered significant internal structuring among P. catenifer populations using mitochondrial data, which may signify the existence of additional species, though they did not attempt reclassification. Pending further study, we retain the present subspecific designations for the group.

Notes on the genus: Using mitochondrial data, Rodríguez-Robles and Jesus-Escobar (2000, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 14: 35–50) corroborated the current classification of United States Pituophis into three species: melanoleucus, catenifer, and ruthveni. However, the recognition of ruthveni rendered catenifer paraphyletic, and P. catenifer and P. melanoleucus have geographic structure that does not correspond with currently recognized subspecies. Thus, given further study of this group, some species of Pituophis may undergo taxonomic revision in the near future.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Notes on the genus: Using mitochondrial data, Rodríguez-Robles and Jesus-Escobar (2000, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 14: 35–50) corroborated the current classification of United States Pituophis into three species: melanoleucus, catenifer, and ruthveni. However, the recognition of ruthveni rendered catenifer paraphyletic, and P. catenifer and P. melanoleucus have geographic structure that does not correspond with currently recognized subspecies. Thus, given further study of this group, some species of Pituophis may undergo taxonomic revision in the near future.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Jonathan A. Campbell, R. Alexander Pyron, 2014-12-12

Reichling (1995, J. Herpetol. 29: 186–198) concluded that ruthveni is a distinct species. Rodriguez-Robles and de Jesús-Escobar (2000, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 14: 35–50) argued for the recognition of P. ruthveni, despite lack of significant or independent differentiation from some populations of P. c. sayi using mitochondrial data.

Notes on the genus: Using mitochondrial data, Rodríguez-Robles and Jesus-Escobar (2000, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 14: 35–50) corroborated the current classification of United States Pituophis into three species: melanoleucus, catenifer, and ruthveni. However, the recognition of ruthveni rendered catenifer paraphyletic, and P. catenifer and P. melanoleucus have geographic structure that does not correspond with currently recognized subspecies. Thus, given further study of this group, some species of Pituophis may undergo taxonomic revision in the near future.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-11

Alien Species:

The Burmese Python is native to South and Southeast Asia, has been reported from seven states, and is established in Florida.

Fred Kraus, 2015-01-19

Alien Species:

The Northern African Rock Python is native to sub-Saharan Africa, has been reported from two states, and is established in Florida.

Fred Kraus, 2015-01-19

Using a multi-locus nuclear dataset, McVay and Carstens (2013, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 68: 425–431) corroborated Alfaro and Arnold (2001, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 21: 408–423) and Lawson (1985, Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University) in finding that Regina is polyphyletic, removing R. rigida and R. alleni to Liodytes. Furthermore, R. grahamii and R. septemvittata do not form a strongly supported monophyletic group. Pyron et al. (2013, BMC Evol. Biol. 2013, 13:93,doi:10.1186/1471-2148-13-93) found R. grahamii and R. septemvittata related to Tropidoclonion. Figueroa et al. (2016, PLoS ONE 11(9): e0161070. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161070) found grahamii as sister to Tropidoclonion and septemvittata nested within Nerodia. We await further study before making any additional changes.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

Using a multi-locus nuclear dataset, McVay and Carstens (2013, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 68: 425–431) corroborated Alfaro and Arnold (2001, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 21: 408–423) and Lawson (1985, Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University) in finding that Regina is polyphyletic, removing R. rigida and R. alleni to Liodytes. Furthermore, R. grahamii and R. septemvittata do not form a strongly supported monophyletic group. Pyron et al. (2013, BMC Evol. Biol. 2013, 13:93,doi:10.1186/1471-2148-13-93) found R. grahamii and R. septemvittata related to Tropidoclonion. Figueroa et al. (2016, PLoS ONE 11(9): e0161070. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161070) found grahamii as sister to Tropidoclonion and septemvittata nested within Nerodia. We await further study before making any additional changes.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

Dixon and Vaughan (2003, Texas J. Sci. 55: 3–24), using morphological data, elevated R. dulcis dissectus to species status, and diagnosed three subspecies within the nominate race, one of which remains unnamed.

Note on genus: Adalsteinsson et al. (2009, Zootaxa 2224: 1–50) demonstrated that the former genus Leptotyphlops was composed of two large clades each composed Old World or New World taxa. The type for the genus Leptotyphlops is associated with Old World taxa, leaving the clade of North and Central American threadsnakes unnamed. The genus Rena has been restored to this group.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

Dixon and Vaughan (2003, Texas J. Sci. 55: 3–24), using morphological data, elevated R. d. dissectus to species status, and diagnosed three subspecies within the nominate race, one of which remains unnamed.

Note on genus: Adalsteinsson et al. (2009, Zootaxa 2224: 1–50) demonstrated that the former genus Leptotyphlops was composed of two large clades each composed Old World or New World taxa. The type for the genus Leptotyphlops is associated with Old World taxa, leaving the clade of North and Central American threadsnakes unnamed. The genus Rena has been restored to this group.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

Adalsteinsson et al. (2009, Zootaxa 2224: 1–50) demonstrated that the former genus Leptotyphlops was composed of two large clades each composed Old World or New World taxa. The type for the genus Leptotyphlops is associated with Old World taxa, leaving the clade of North and Central American threadsnakes unnamed. The genus Rena has been restored to this group.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

Wallach et al. (2014. Snakes of the World-A Catalogue of Living and Extinct Species, CRC Press) followed Pinto (2010: unpublished PhD Diss, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro.) in recognizing R. segrega as a species. We await publication of the data before we follow Pinto.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

Manier (2004, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 83: 65–85), in a detailed morphological analysis, concluded that no subspecies should be recognized.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

Recognition of the species S. deserticola was made without justification by Bogert and Degenhardt (1961, Am. Mus. Novit. 2064: 13). Bogert (1985, Snake Syst. Newsl. Nov. no. 3) explained that the usage was based on characters discovered previously (Bogert, 1945, Am. Mus. Novit. 1285: 1–14) and on the absence of any intergrades. Although Bogert may be correct, we await a study to demonstrate it and retain S. h. deserticola as a subspecies of S. hexalepis.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Jonathan A. Campbell, R. Alexander Pyron, 2014-12-12

Recognition of the species S. deserticola was made without justification by Bogert and Degenhardt (1961, Am. Mus. Novit. 2064: 13). Bogert (1985, Snake Syst. Newsl. Nov. no. 3) explained that the usage was based on characters discovered previously (Bogert, 1945, Am. Mus. Novit. 1285: 1–14) and on the absence of any intergrades. Although Bogert may be correct, we await a study to demonstrate it and retain S. h. deserticola as a subspecies of S. hexalepis.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

The spelling of the standard English name has been changed from “Mojave” to “Mohave” for consistency with other names in the list (see note for Crotalus scutulatus).

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

Senticolis is more closely related to the New World tribe Lampropeltini than it is to the Old World genus Elaphe (Keogh 1996, Herpetologica 52: 406–416; Utiger et al., 2002, Russian J. Herpetol. 9: 105–124; Burbrink and Lawson, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 43: 173–189 and Pyron and Burbrink, 2009, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 52: 524–529).

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

Kubatko et al. (2011, Syst. Biol. 60: 393–409) used a multigene data set to infer two clades among the three previously recognized subspecies. One clade contained the eastern subspecies (S. c. catenatus) and the other clade contained the two western subspecies (S. c. tergeminus and S. c. edwardsii). Kubatko et al. (op. cit.) recommended elevating S. c. catenatus. However, if the recommendation was followed at that time, it would also require elevating S. c. tergeminus and the formation of three new combinations. In addition, Holycross et al. (2008, Copeia, 2008: 421–424) discovered that S. c. tergeminus is actually subsumed by S. c. catenatus because the type locality of catenatus is within the range of tergeminus, and that the name Crotalus massassaugusz Kirtland, 1838 would be the available and valid name for the eastern subspecies. As such, tergeminus was not currently a valid name and if the Kubatko et al. recommendation was followed, the specific epithet for the eastern form would be massassaugus. Crother et al. (2011 Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 68: 271–274) submitted a petition to the ICZN for conservation of the names catenatus and tergeminus. The subsequent opinion by the ICZN (2013 Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 70: 282–283) retained the names S. catenatus and S. tergeminus by designation of neotypes for both species. We follow the recommendation of Kubatko et al. (2011, op. cit.) and elevate tergeminus, leaving no recognized subspecies of catenatus. Also see notes under Crotalus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

See notes under Crotalus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Jonathan A. Campbell, R. Alexander Pyron, 2014-12-12

Gloyd (1935, Occ. Papers Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 322: 1–7) found S. m. barbouri distinct from the other two races by having the lateral spots in 3 series vs. 1–2 series for the other two.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

Kubatko et al. (2011, Syst. Biol. 60: 393–409) found mixed signals and limited support for the separation of the subspecies. Also see notes under Crotalus.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

Pyron et al. (2016, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 177: 937–949) used high throughput molecular data to detect eight species-level clades within Storeria, but elected to recognize only four clades (three in the United States) that were corroborated by morphology. They concluded against the recognition of subspecies.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

No evidence of separate lineages has been found between the sympatric brown and grey color morphs (Grudzien and Owens, 1991, J. Herpetol. 25: 90–92). Pyron et al. (2016, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 177: 937–949) used high throughput molecular data to detect eight species-level clades within Storeria, but elected to recognize only four clades (three in the United States) that were corroborated by morphology. They concluded against the recognition of subspecies.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

Christman (1980, Bull. Florida St. Mus. 25: 157–256) presented evidence, allopatry with no morphological convergence in proximal populations, to suggest species status for victa. This is supported by genomic sequence data (Pyron et al., 2016, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 177: 937–949).

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-01-13

The taxonomic status of T. cucullata and T.diabola has been problematic. They have been alternately synonymized (Degenhardt et al., 1976, Texas J. Sci. 17: 225–234; Hillis and Campbell, 1982, Southwest. Nat. 27: 220–221; Irwin and Collins, 1995, Herpetol. Rev. 26: 47) or elevated to species (Collins, 1991, Herpetol. Rev. 22: 42–43). We follow the most recent proposals from Wilson (1999, Smithsonian Inform. Serv. 122: 1–34) and Dixon et al. (2000, Southwest Nat. 45) who both recognized T. cucullata as a species distinct from T. rubra (extralimital) and synonymized T. diabola with the former.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12

Cole and Hardy (1981, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 17: 201–284) noted local geographic variation but did not recognize any available subspecies of the many disjunct populations.

Brian I. Crother (Chair), Jeff Boundy, Frank T. Burbrink, Sara Ruane, 2018-02-12