SCHMIDTLER, J. F. (2004)
Der Teichmolch (Triturus vulgaris (L.)), ein Musterbeispiel für systematische Verwechslungen und eine Flut von Namen in der frühen Erforschungsgeschichte.
Sekretär. Beiträge zur Literatur und Geschichte der Herpetologie und Terrarienkunde 4: 10–28.
Der Teichmolch, heute Triturus vulgaris (LINNÉ, 1758), ist nach den Zitaten bei LINNÉ (1758, 1766) bereits seit prälinneischen Zeiten bekannt. Seine frühe Erforschungsgeschichte war durch eine Fülle systematischer Verwechslungen und eine Flut von synonymen Artnamen (zum Teil gesondert für Männchen, Weibchen, Alters- und saisonale Stadien) gekennzeichnet. Insoweit sind die Verhältnisse beim Teichmolch für manche anderen Amphibienarten exemplarisch. Begründet waren diese Verhältnisse vor allem durch das rasche Anwachsen des Wissens um 1800, durch das Fehlen verbindlicher Nomenklalurregeln, sowie die erschwerte Zugänglichkeit mancher Werke in jener Zeit. Die Wissensfortschritte (inklusive der Rückschritte) bei T. vulgaris werden hier insbesondere anhand sechs früher Traditionslinien dargestellt, die durch bestimmte Autoren sowie nationale Besonderheiten definierbar sind: LINNÉ, GMELIN, RETZIUS - LAURENTI - LATREILLE, SONNINI, DAUDIN - BECHSTEIN, STURM - RUSCONI, BONAPARTE - BELL, GRAY, COOKE. Allein im Jahre 1800 gebrauchten Autoren aus drei verschiedenen Traditionslinien (RETZIUS - LATREILLE - BECHSTEIN) nicht weniger als sechs verschiedene Artnamen für die eine Art Triturus vulgaris. BECHSTEIN (1800) erkannte damals als erster die Artidentität der verschiedenen Stadien des Teichmolchs. Nachdem die Gattung Triturus seit mehr als 50 Jahren systematisch stabil zu sein schien, wird auch bei ihr durch die Anwendung genetischer Methoden mehr und mehr erkennbar, dass sie kein Monophylum darstellt. Dies wird taxonomische Konsequenzen nach sich ziehen, und so mündet ein nomenklatorisches Ergebnis meiner Untersuchungen in die prophylaktische Diskussion von Synonymen und Homonymen der Gattungskategorie im Umfeld von T. vulgaris: Ichthyosaura LATREILLE, 1802, Triturus RAFINESQUE, 1820 (non 1815), Molge MERREM, 1820, Geotriton BONAPARTE, 1832 (non 1837), Lissotriton BELL, 1839, Lophinus GRAY, 1850 ( non RAFINESQUE, 1815) und Palaeotriton FITZINGER, 1843 (non BOLKAY, 1928).
FISCHER, J. G. (1880)
Neue Reptilien und Amphibien.
Archiv für Naturgeschichte, vol. 46, no 1, p. 215-227.
Enthält u.a. Erstbeschreibung von Caecilia (=Typhlonectes) natans.
HENKEL, F.-W. & SCHMIDT, W. (1995)
Amphibien und Reptilien Madagaskars, der Maskarenen, Seychellen und Komoren
311 Seiten, 275 Farbfotos, 1 Landkarte.
Ulmer Verlag, Stuttgart. ISBN-13 978-3-8001-7323-5.
Madagaskar und die umliegende Inselwelt des Indischen Ozeans zählen zu den begehrtesten Reisezielen von Naturfreunden, Herpetologen und Terrarianern. Mit diesem Farbatlas liegt erstmals in deutscher Sprache ein Bestimmungsführer und eine Beschreibung der Herpetofauna dieses Raumes vor, zugleich ein Nachschlagewerk mit allen notwendigen Informationen zur Haltung und Zucht von Amphibien und Reptilien.
OHLER, A. & DELORME, M. (2006)
Well known does not mean well studied: Morphological and molecular support for existence of sibling species in the Javanese gliding frog Rhacophorus reinwardtii (Amphibia, Anura)
Comptes Rendus. Biologies. Paris 329: 86–97.. DOI: 10.1016/j.crvi.2005.11.001
Morphological, morphometrical and molecular data support the existence of two sibling species in the taxon previously known as Rhacophorus reinwardtii. The two species can be distinguished by the coloration pattern of webbing, the size of adult specimens and the relative size of various morphometric characters. This long and commonly known taxon should be separated into two species. As a consequence, the conservation status of the new species Rhacophorus kio n. sp. as well as of the redefined species Rhacophorus reinwardtii must be re-evaluated and, considering the new distribution data and the particular ecological demands, both species should be considered as 'endangered'.
Well known does not mean well studied: Morphological and molecular support for existence of sibling species in the Javanese gliding frog Rhacophorus reinwardtii (Amphibia, Anura).
Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7334983_Well_known_does_not_mean_well_studied_Morphological_and_molecular_support_for_existence_of_sibling_species_in_the_Javanese_gliding_frog_Rhacophorus_reinwardtii_Amphibia_Anura [accessed Nov 28 2017].
DUBEY, S., LEUENBERGER, J. PERRIN, N. (2014)
Multiple origins of invasive and ‘native’ water frogs (Pelophylax spp.) in Switzerland.
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 112. DOI: 10.1111/bij.12283
The marsh frog (Pelophylax ridibundus) has been introduced in many areas in Central and Western Europe as a result of commercial trade with Eastern Europe, and is rapidly replacing the native pool frog (P. lessonae). A large number of Pelophylax species are distributed in Eastern Europe and the strong phenotypic similarity between these species is rendering their identification hazardous. Consequently, alien populations of Pelophylax might not strictly be composed of P. ridibundus as previously suspected. In the present study, we analysed the cytochrome-b and NADH dehydrogenase subunit 3 genes of introduced and native Pelophylax species from Switzerland (299 individuals) in order to properly identify the source populations of the invaders and the genetic status of the native species. Our study highlighted the occurrence of several genetic lineages of invasive frogs in western Switzerland. Unexpectedly, we also showed that several populations of the native pool frog (P. lessonae) cluster with the Italian pool frog P. bergeri from central Italy (considered by some authors as a subspecies of P. lessonae). Hence, these populations are probably also the result of introductions, meaning that the number of native P. lessonae populations is fewer than expected in Switzerland. These findings have important implications concerning the conservation of the endemic pool frog populations, as the presence of multiple alien species could strongly affect their long-term subsistence.
Multiple origins of invasive and ‘native’ water frogs (Pelophylax spp.) in Switzerland.
Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261675084_Multiple_origins_of_invasive_and_%27native%27_water_frogs_Pelophylax_spp_in_Switzerland [accessed Nov 27 2017].
DUBOIS, A. (1992)
Notes sur la classification des Ranidae (Amphibiens anoures).
Bulletin Mensuel de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon 61: 305–352.
RAUHAUS, A., GAWOR, A., PERL, R. G. B., SCHELD, S., VAN DER STRAETEN, K., KARBE, D., PHAM, C. T., NGUYEN, T. Q. & ZIEGLER, T. (2012)
Larval development, stages and an international comparison of husbandry parameters of the Vietnamese Mossy Frog
Theloderma corticale (Boulenger, 1903) (Anura: Rhacophoridae).
Asian Journal of Conservation Biology, December 2012. Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 51-66. ISSN 2278-7666.
We describe the larval development and stages of the locally threatened Vietnamese Mossy Frog Theloderma corticale, which is endemic to northern Vietnam. Diagnostic morphological characters are provided for Gosner (1960) larval stages 1-46. This is to our knowledge the first larval staging for the rhacophorid anuran genus Theloderma in general. As guideline for further breeding engagement with Theloderma representatives in an international scale, based on the species T. corticale as husbandry analogue, we further oppose larval development, captive reproduction and husbandry management both achieved under tropical conditions at the Amphibian breeding station of the Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources in Hanoi (Vietnam), and in Europe, at the amphibian breeding unit at Cologne Zoo (Germany). Observed ovipositions at Cologne Zoo took place from March to September and were initiated after increase of temperatures and humidity (increased spraying) subsequent to a hibernation phase in combination with raised water levels. The developmental time observed for T. corticale at 20°C was about 4.5 months. For providing a recent captive management overview, we furthermore compare our husbandry experiences and data on the reproductive biology of T. corticale with data from the literature.
DUELLMAN, W. E., MARION, A. B. & BLAIR HEDGES, S. (2016)
Phylogenetics, classification, and biogeography of the treefrogs.
Zootaxa 4104(1):. 1–109.
ISSN: 1175-5326 (print edition; ISSN: 1175-5334 (online edition). http://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4104.1.1.
A phylogenetic analysis of sequences from 503 species of hylid frogs and four outgroup taxa resulted in 16,128 aligned sites of 19 genes. The molecular data were subjected to a maximum likelihood analysis that resulted in a new phylogenetic tree of treefrogs. A conservative new classification based on the tree has (1) three families composing an unranked taxon, Arboranae, (2) nine subfamilies (five resurrected, one new), and (3) six resurrected generic names and five new generic names. Using the results of a maximum likelihood timetree, times of divergence were determined. For the most part these times of divergence correlated well with historical geologic events. The arboranan frogs originated in South America in the Late Mesozoic or Early Cenozoic. The family Pelodryadidae diverged from its South American relative, Phyllomedusidae, in the Eocene and invaded Australia via Antarctica. There were two dispersals from South America to North America in the Paleogene. One lineage was the ancestral stock of Acris and its relatives, whereas the other lineage, subfamily Hylinae, differentiated into a myriad of genera in Middle America.
“Hyla infrafrenata” Günther is a highly enigmatic species. Molecular data (99% bootstrap support) clearly place it in Nyctimystes, whereas morphologically it is like Litoria in having a orizontal pupil and no reticulations on the palpebral membrane (Tyler 1968). Furthermore, unlike species of Nyctimystes, it breeds in ponds and has pigmented eggs that hatch into tadpoles with small anteroventral mouths (Anstis 2013).Last, it is the only pelodryadid known to have a chromosome complement of 2n = 24 (Menzies & Tippet 1976). The taxonomic position of this species awaits more data and further interpretation to determine if it belongs in Litoria, Nyctimystes, or in its own genus; if the latter, the generic name Sandyrana Wells and Wellington is available
OHLER, A. & DUBOIS, A. (2016)
The identity of the South African toad Sclerophrys capensis Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Anura).
PeerJ 4(e1553): 1–13.
The toad species Sclerophrys capensis Tschudi, 1838 was erected for a single specimen from South Africa which has never been properly studied and allocated to a known species. A morphometrical and morphological analysis of this specimen and its comparison with 75 toad specimens referred to five South African toad species allowed to allocate this specimen to the species currently known as Amietophrynus rangeri. In consequence, the nomen Sclerophrys must replace Amietophrynus as the valid nomen of the genus, and capensis as the valid nomen of the species. This work stresses the usefulness of natural history collections for solving taxonomic and nomenclatural problems.
FROST, D. R., GRANT, T. et al. (2006)
The amphibian tree of life.
Frost, Darrel R.; Grant, Taran.; Faivovich, Julián.; Bain, Raoul H.; Haas, Alexander.; Haddad, Celio F. B.; De Sa, Rafael O.; Channing, A.; Wilkinson, Mark.; Donnellan, Stephen C.; Raxworthy, Christopher J.; Campbell, Jonathan A.; Blotto, Boris L.; Moler, Paul.; Drewes, Robert C.; Nussbaum, Ronald A.; Lynch, John D.; Green, David M.; Wheeler, Ward C.
Bulletin of the AMNH ; no. 297
Supplemental Material: http://dx.doi.org/10.5531/sd.sp.13
"The evidentiary basis of the currently accepted classification of living amphibians is discussed and shown not to warrant the degree of authority conferred on it by use and tradition. A new taxonomy of living amphibians is proposed to correct the deficiencies of the old one. This new taxonomy is based on the largest phylogenetic analysis of living Amphibia so far accomplished. We combined the comparative anatomical character evidence of Haas (2003) with DNA sequences from the mitochondrial transcription unit H1 (12S and 16S ribosomal RNA and tRNA[superscript Valine] genes, [approximately equal to] 2,400 bp of mitochondrial sequences) and the nuclear genes histone H3, rhodopsin, tyrosinase, and seven in absentia, and the large ribosomal subunit 28S ([approximately equal to] 2,300 bp of nuclear sequences; ca. 1.8 million base pairs; x [arithmetic mean] = 3.7 kb/terminal). The dataset includes 532 terminals sampled from 522 species representative of the global diversity of amphibians as well as seven of the closest living relatives of amphibians for outgroup comparisons. The primary purpose of our taxon sampling strategy was to provide strong tests of the monophyly of all 'family-group' taxa. All currently recognized nominal families and subfamilies were sampled, with the exception of Protohynobiinae (Hynobiidae). Many of the currently recognized genera were also sampled. Although we discuss the monophyly of genera, and provide remedies for nonmonophyly where possible, we also make recommendations for future research. A parsimony analysis was performed under Direct Optimization, which simultaneously optimizes nucleotide homology (alignment) and tree costs, using the same set of assumptions throughout the analysis. Multiple search algorithms were run in the program POY over a period of seven months of computing time on the AMNH Parallel Computing Cluster. Results demonstrate that the following major taxonomic groups, as currently recognized, are nonmonophyletic: Ichthyophiidae (paraphyletic with respect to Uraeotyphlidae), Caeciliidae (paraphyletic with respect to Typhlonectidae and Scolecomorphidae), Salamandroidea (paraphyletic with respect to Sirenidae), Leiopelmatanura (paraphyletic with respect to Ascaphidae), Discoglossanura (paraphyletic with respect to Bombinatoridae), Mesobatrachia (paraphyletic with respect to Neobatrachia), Pipanura (paraphyletic with respect to Bombinatoridae and Discoglossidae/Alytidae), Hyloidea (in the sense of containing Heleophrynidae; paraphyletic with respect to Ranoidea), Leptodactylidae (polyphyletic, with Batrachophrynidae forming the sister taxon of Myobatrachidae + Limnodynastidae, and broadly paraphyletic with respect to Hemiphractinae, Rhinodermatidae, Hylidae, Allophrynidae, Centrolenidae, Brachycephalidae, Dendrobatidae, and Bufonidae), Microhylidae (polyphyletic, with Brevicipitinae being the sister taxon of Hemisotidae), Microhylinae (poly/paraphyletic with respect to the remaining non-brevicipitine microhylids), Hyperoliidae (para/polyphyletic, with Leptopelinae forming the sister taxon of Arthroleptidae + Astylosternidae), Astylosternidae (paraphyletic with respect to Arthroleptinae), Ranidae (paraphyletic with respect to Rhacophoridae and Mantellidae). In addition, many subsidiary taxa are demonstrated to be nonmonophyletic, such as (1) Eleutherodactylus with respect to Brachycephalus; (2) Rana (sensu Dubois, 1992), which is polyphyletic, with various elements falling far from each other on the tree; and (3) Bufo, with respect to several nominal bufonid genera. A new taxonomy of living amphibians is proposed, and the evidence for this is presented to promote further investigation and data acquisition bearing on the evolutionary history of amphibians. The taxonomy provided is consistent with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999). Salient features of the new taxonomy are (1) the three major groups of living amphibians, caecilians/Gymnophiona, salamanders/Caudata, and frogs/Anura, form a monophyletic group, to which we restrict the name Amphibia; (2) Gymnophiona forms the sister taxon of Batrachia (salamanders + frogs) and is composed of two groups, Rhinatrematidae and Stegokrotaphia; (3) Stegokrotaphia is composed of two families, Ichthyophiidae (including Uraeotyphlidae) and Caeciliidae (including Scolecomorphidae and Typhlonectidae, which are regarded as subfamilies); (4) Batrachia is a highly corroborated monophyletic group, composed of two taxa, Caudata (salamanders) and Anura (frogs); (5) Caudata is composed of two taxa, Cryptobranchoidei (Cryptobranchidae and Hynobiidae) and Diadectosalamandroidei new taxon (all other salamanders); (6) Diadectosalamandroidei is composed of two taxa, Hydatinosalamandroidei new taxon (composed of Perennibranchia and Treptobranchia new taxon) and Plethosalamandroidei new taxon; (7) Perennibranchia is composed of Proteidae and Sirenidae; (8) Treptobranchia new taxon is composed of two taxa, Ambystomatidae (including Dicamptodontidae) and Salamandridae; (9) Plethosalamandroidei new taxon is composed of Rhyacotritonidae and Xenosalamandroidei new taxon; (10) Xenosalamandroidei is composed of Plethodontidae and Amphiumidae; (11) Anura is monophyletic and composed of two clades, Leiopelmatidae (including Ascaphidae) and Lalagobatrachia new taxon (all other frogs); (12) Lalagobatrachia is composed of two clades, Xenoanura (Pipidae and Rhinophrynidae) and Sokolanura new taxon (all other lalagobatrachians); (13) Bombinatoridae and Alytidae (former Discoglossidae) are each others' closest relatives and in a clade called Costata, which, excluding Leiopelmatidae and Xenoanura, forms the sister taxon of all other frogs, Acosmanura; (14) Acosmanura is composed of two clades, Anomocoela (5 Pelobatoidea of other authors) and Neobatrachia; (15) Anomocoela contains Pelobatoidea (Pelobatidae and Megophryidae) and Pelodytoidea (Pelodytidae and Scaphiopodidae), and forms the sister taxon of Neobatrachia, together forming Acosmanura; (16) Neobatrachia is composed of two clades, Heleophrynidae, and all other neobatrachians, Phthanobatrachia new taxon; (17) Phthanobatrachia is composed of two major units, Hyloides and Ranoides; (18) Hyloides comprises Sooglossidae (including Nasikabatrachidae) and Notogaeanura new taxon (the remaining hyloids); (19) Notogaeanura contains two taxa, Australobatrachia new taxon and Nobleobatrachia new taxon; (20) Australobatrachia is a clade composed of Batrachophrynidae and its sister taxon, Myobatrachoidea (Myobatrachidae and Limnodynastidae), which forms the sister taxon of all other hyloids, excluding sooglossids; (21) Nobleobatrachia new taxon, is dominated at its base by frogs of a treefrog morphotype, several with intercalary phalangeal cartilages--Hemiphractus (Hemiphractidae) forms the sister taxon of the remaining members of this group, here termed Meridianura new taxon; (22) Meridianura comprises Brachycephalidae (former Eleutherodactylinae + Brachycephalus) and Cladophrynia new taxon; (23) Cladophrynia is composed of two groups, Cryptobatrachidae (composed of Cryptobatrachus and Stefania, previously a fragment of the polyphyletic Hemiphractinae) and Tinctanura new taxon; (24) Tinctanura is composed of Amphignathodontidae (Gastrotheca and Flectonotus, another fragment of the polyphyletic Hemiphractinae) and Athesphatanura new taxon; (25) Athesphatanura is composed of Hylidae (Hylinae, Pelodryadinae, and Phyllomedusinae, and excluding former Hemiphractinae, whose inclusion would have rendered this taxon polyphyletic) and Leptodactyliformes new taxon; (26) Leptodactyliformes is composed of Diphyabatrachia new taxon (composed of Centrolenidae (including Allophryne) and Leptodactylidae, sensu stricto, including Leptodactylus and relatives) and Chthonobatrachia new taxon; (27) Chthonobatrachia is composed of a reformulated Ceratophryidae (which excludes such genera as Odontophrynus and Proceratophrys and includes other taxa, such as Telmatobius) and Hesticobatrachia new taxon; (28) Hesticobatrachia is composed of a reformulated Cycloramphidae (which includes Rhinoderma) and Agastorophrynia new taxon; (29) Agastorophrynia is composed of Bufonidae (which is partially revised) and Dendrobatoidea (Dendrobatidae and Thoropidae); (30) Ranoides new taxon forms the sister taxon of Hyloides and is composed of two major monophyletic components, Allodapanura new taxon (microhylids, hyperoliids, and allies) and Natatanura new taxon (ranids and allies); (31) Allodapanura is composed of Microhylidae (which is partially revised) and Afrobatrachia new taxon; (32) Afrobatrachia is composed of Xenosyneunitanura new taxon (the 'strange-bedfellows' Brevicipitidae (formerly in Microhylidae) and Hemisotidae) and a more normal-looking group of frogs, Laurentobatrachia new taxon (Hyperoliidae and Arthroleptidae, which includes Leptopelinae and former Astylosternidae); (33) Natatanura new taxon is composed of two taxa, the African Ptychadenidae and the worldwide Victoranura new taxon; (34) Victoranura is composed of Ceratobatrachidae and Telmatobatrachia new taxon; (35) Telmatobatrachia is composed of Micrixalidae and a worldwide group of ranoids, Ametrobatrachia new taxon; (36) Ametrobatrachia is composed of Africanura new taxon and Saukrobatrachia new taxon; (37) Africanura is composed of two taxa: Phrynobatrachidae (Phrynobatrachus, including Dimorphognathus and Phrynodon as synonyms) and Pyxicephaloidea; (38) Pyxicephaloidea is composed of Petropedetidae (Conraua, Indirana, Arthroleptides, and Petropedetes), and Pyxicephalidae (including a number of African genera, e.g. Amietia (including Afrana), Arthroleptella, Pyxicephalus, Strongylopus, and Tomopterna); and (39) Saukrobatrachia new taxon is the sister taxon of Africanura and is composed of Dicroglossidae and Aglaioanura new taxon, which is, in turn, composed of Rhacophoroidea (Mantellidae and Rhacophoridae) and Ranoidea (Nyctibatrachidae and Ranidae, sensu stricto). Many generic revisions are made either to render a monophyletic taxonomy or to render a taxonomy that illuminates the problems in our understanding of phylogeny, so that future work will be made easier. These revisions are: (1) placement of Ixalotriton and Lineatriton (Caudata: Plethodontidae: Bolitoglossinae) into the synonymy of Pseudoeurycea, to render a monophyletic Pseudoeurycea; (2) placement of Haideotriton (Caudata: Plethodontidae: Spelerpinae) into the synonymy of Eurycea, to render a monophyletic Eurycea; (3) placement of Nesomantis (Anura: Sooglossidae) into the synonymy of Sooglossus, to assure a monophyletic Sooglossus; (4) placement of Cyclorana and Nyctimystes (Anura: Hylidae: Pelodryadinae) into Litoria, but retaining Cyclorana as a subgenus, to provide a monophyletic Litoria; (5) partition of 'Limnodynastes' (Anura: Limnodynastidae) into Limnodynastes and Opisthodon to render monophyletic genera; (6) placement of Adenomera, Lithodytes, and Vanzolinius (Anura: Leptodactylidae) into Leptodactylus, to render a monophyletic Leptodactylus; (7) partition of 'Eleutherodactylus' (Anura: Brachycephalidae) into Craugastor, 'Eleutherodactylus', 'Euhyas', 'Pelorius', and Syrrhophus to outline the taxonomic issues relevant to the paraphyly of this nominal taxon to other nominal genera; (8) partition of 'Bufo' (Anura: Bufonidae) into a number of new or revived genera (i.e., Amietophrynus new genus, Anaxyrus, Chaunus, Cranopsis, Duttaphrynus new genus, Epidalea, Ingerophrynus new genus, Nannophryne, Peltophryne, Phrynoidis, Poyntonophrynus new genus; Pseudepidalea new genus, Rhaebo, Rhinella, Vandijkophrynus new genus); (9) placement of the monotypic Spinophrynoides (Anura: Bufonidae) into the synonymy of (formerly monotypic) Altiphrynoides to make for a more informative taxonomy; (10) placement of the Bufo taitanus group and Stephopaedes (as a subgenus) into the synonymy of Mertensophryne (Anura: Bufonidae); (11) placement of Xenobatrachus (Anura: Microhylidae: Asterophryinae) into the synonymy of Xenorhina to render a monophyletic Xenorhina; (12) transfer of a number of species from Plethodontohyla to Rhombophryne (Microhylidae: Cophylinae) to render a monophyletic Plethodontohyla; (13) placement of Schoutedenella (Anura: Arthroleptidae) into the synonymy of Arthroleptis; (14) transfer of Dimorphognathus and Phrynodon (Anura: Phrynobatrachidae) into the synonymy of Phrynobatrachus to render a monophyletic Phrynobatrachus; (15) placement of Afrana into the synonymy of Amietia (Anura: Pyxicephalidae) to render a monophyletic taxon; (16) placement of Chaparana and Paa into the synonymy of Nanorana (Anura: Dicroglossidae) to render a monophyletic genus; (17) recognition as genera of Ombrana and Annandia (Anura: Dicroglossidae: Dicroglossinae) pending placement of them phylogenetically; (18) return of Phrynoglossus into the synonymy of Occidozyga to resolve the paraphyly of Phrynoglossus (Anura: Dicroglossidae: Occidozyginae); (19) recognition of Feihyla new genus for Philautus palpebralis to resolve the polyphyly of ''Chirixalus''; (20) synonymy of 'Chirixalus' with Chiromantis to resolve the paraphyly of 'Chirixalus'; (21) recognition of the genus Babina, composed of the former subgenera of Rana, Babina and Nidirana (Anura: Ranidae); (22) recognition of the genera Clinotarsus, Humerana, Nasirana, Pelophylax, Pterorana, Pulchrana, and Sanguirana, formerly considered subgenera of Rana (Anura: Ranidae), with no special relationship to Rana (sensu stricto); (23) consideration of Glandirana (Anura: Ranidae), formerly a subgenus of Rana, as a genus, with Rugosa as a synonym; (24) recognition of Hydrophylax (Anura: Ranidae) as a genus, with Amnirana and most species of former Chalcorana included in this taxon as synonyms; (25) recognition of Hylarana (Anura: Ranidae) as a genus and its content redefined; (26) redelimitation of Huia to include as synonyms Eburana and Odorrana (both former subgenera of Rana); (27) recognition of Lithobates (Anura: Ranidae) for all species of North American 'Rana' not placed in Rana sensu stricto (Aquarana, Pantherana, Sierrana, Trypheropsis, and Zweifelia considered synonyms of Lithobates); (28) redelimitation of the genus Rana as monophyletic by inclusion as synonyms Amerana, Aurorana, Pseudoamolops, and Pseudorana, and exclusion of all other former subgenera; (29) redelimitation of the genus Sylvirana (Anura: Ranidae), formerly a subgenus of Rana, with Papurana and Tylerana included as synonyms"--P. 8-10.