Notes sur la classification des Ranidae (Amphibiens, Anoures)

Abstract

Une nouvelle classification provisoire de la superfamille des Ranoidea, et plus particulièrement de la famille des Ranidae et du genre Rana, est proposée. Le genre Rana est ici subdivisé, principalement sur la base de critères phénétiques, en trente-trois groupes, auxquels est ici provisoirement attribué le rang de sous-genres. Le but principal de cette classification provisoire, qui doit être comprise comme un outil de travail et non pas comme une proposition définitive, est de servir de guid e pour de futures études sur la phylogénie de cette famille très vaste et à répartition quasi cosmopolite : cette classification aidera à sélectionner des espèces représentatives de chaque groupe phénétique pou r l'étude des états de caractères, et à choisir les hors-groupes appropriés pour l'établissement de la polarité des morphoclines de caractères. Ce n'est que lorsque la phylogénie de la famille dans son ensembl e sera résolue qu'il sera possible d'élaborer une classification plus stable, qui s'avérera peut-être très différente de celle qui est présentée ci-dessous. Notes on the classification of Ranidae (Amphibia, Anura) Summary-A new provisional classification of the superfamily Ranoidea is proposed, with particular emphasis on the family Ranidae and on the genus Rana. The latter is here subdivided, mostly o n the basis of phenetic criteria, into thirty-three groups, which are here tentatively given the rank of subgenera. The major purpose of this tentative classification, which is to be understood as a working tool , not as a final proposai, is to serve as a guide for future studies on the phylogeny of this widely an d almost cosmopolitan family : it will help selecting representative species of each phenetic group for the study of characters' states and choosing appropriate outgroups for the establishment of the polarity o f characters' morphoclines. Only when the phylogeny of the whole family is resolved it will be possibl e to develop a more robust classification, which may prove very different from the one presented below .

The phylogenetic position and diversity of the enigmatic mongrel frog Nothophryne Poynton, 1963 (Amphibia, Anura)

“…Since then, our understanding of the phylogenetic placement of Nothophryne has become further confused by the unstable phylogenetic relationships of higher taxa within ranids (e.g., Frost et al, 2006;Pyron and Wiens, 2011;van der Meijden et al, 2005). An example of this is its inclusion in Phrynobatrachidae sensu Dubois (1992), based exclusively on phenetic comparisons. In summary, the taxonomic placement of this enigmatic frog still remains unknown, due to the shifting taxonomy of ranids and lack of genetic data for Nothophryne.…”

Nuclear gene phylogeny of narrow-mouthed toads (Family: Microhylidae) and a discussion of competing hypotheses concerning their biogeographical origins

“…Van der Meijden et al (2005) distinguished three monophyletic lineages within a superfamily Ranoidea: Arthroleptoidae, Microhyloidae and Ranoidae. These lineages were named "epifamilies" following Dubois (1992) but in a subsequent paper, Dubois (2005) suggested a diVerent epifamily deWnition in which this rank applies to units above the superfamilial level. We disagree with the classiWcation proposed by Dubois (2005) which sank a number of well-established and largely well-deWned families such as Arthroleptidae, Astylosternidae, Hemisotidae, Hyperoliidae as subfamilies into a new family Brevicipitidae, but rather agree with Frost et al (2006) to maintain these families.…”

Molecular phylogeny and diversification of the genus Odorrana (Amphibia, Anura, Ranidae) inferred from two mitochondrial genes

“…The taxonomy and phylogeny of Odorrana have long attracted the interest of evolutionary biologists and have been investigated using both morphological and molecular data (Dubois, 1992;Fei et al, 1990Fei et al, , 2009Fei et al, , 2010Ye and Fei, 2001;Bain et al, 2003;Chen et al, 2005;Jiang and Zhou, 2005;Frost et al, 2006;Matsui et al, 2005;Cai et al, 2007;Che et al, 2007;Stuart, 2008;Wiens et al, 2009;Kurabayashi et al, 2010;Pyron and Wiens, 2011). Although considerable progress has been made in the past two decades toward advancing our understanding of Odorrana phylogenetics and taxonomy, these studies have left unresolved issues and also created some new controversies.…”

“…One controversy, for example, was the status of Odorrana. This genus was first recognized by Fei et al (1990) with the type species Odorrana margaretae, while Dubois (1992) treated Odorrana as a subgenus of the genus Rana and erected a new subgenus R. (Eburana) that included R. (E.) ishikawae, R. (E.) ijimae, R. (E.) narina, R. (E.) swinhoana and R. (E.) livida with the type species R. (E.) narina. Later, Frost et al (2006) greatly expanded the genus Huia to include both Odorrana and R. (Eburana) based only on the analysis of 4 species: H. nasica, Amolops chapaensis, R. (E.) chloronota and O. grahami.…”