Discoglossinae Günther, 1859

Venczel, Márton & Csiki, andZOLTÁN, 2003, New frogs from the latest Cretaceous of Hateg Basin, Romania., Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 48 (4), pp. 609-616 : 611

Subfamily Discoglossinae Günther, 1859

In recent classifications of frogs the discoglossids are placed either in a single family (Duellman andTrueb 1986; Clarke 1988; Roček 1994), or as distinct subfamilies (Gobiatinae, Alytinae, Bombinatorinae, andDiscoglossinae) within Discoglossidae ( Sanchíz 1998) . According to Gao and Wang (2001), the monophyly of Discoglossidae is supported by four synapomorphies: postchoanal process of vomer forms an acute angle with the anterior portion of the bone, clavicle overlapping scapula anteriorly, coracoidelongate with little expansion of its medial end, trigeminal and facial foramina separated by prefacial commissure. However, the latter authors excluded a number of fossil discoglossid taxa ( Gobiates , Wealdenbatrachus , and Latonia ) from their phylogenetic analysis, on the basis of their “doubtful taxonomic status or morphological ambiguity”. Part of the material from Haţeg Basin, closely resembling discoglossine frogs (see below), was assignedto this subfamily. Unfortunately, up to now, no skeletal material bearing any synapomorphy of the group, sensu Gao andWang (2001), has been recoveredfrom the studiedlocalities.