Rhacophoridae, Hoffman, 1932
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.5338697 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5415537 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/039E5D54-FF95-C52E-6404-FD72A10EFF01 |
treatment provided by |
Diego |
scientific name |
Rhacophoridae |
status |
|
Remarks. – Delorme et al. (2005), Frost et al. (2006), and Wilkinson et al. (2002) convincingly demonstrated that Chirixalus Boulenger, 1893 , is paraphyletic with respect to other rhacophorid genera. To avoid this paraphyly, Frost et al. (2006) placed C. palpebralis into their newly formed genus Feihyla , and Delorme et al. (2005) placed C. gracilipes into their new genus Aquixalus . Chirixalus romeri , C. ocellatus , and C. vittatus were left incerta sedis by Frost et al. (2006) although Wilkinson et al. (2002) indicates that C. vittatus may be most closely related to Polypedates Tschudi, 1838 , and Frost et al. (2006) suspect that C. romeri and C. ocellatus may eventually be transferred into Feihyla . Frost et al. (2006) placed the remainder of Chirixalus in the synonymy of Chiromantis Peters 1854 . However, it should be cautioned that this latter arrangement is based only on the phylogenetic placement of C. doriae (see Wilkinson et al., 2002) and should be regarded as tentative. Nonetheless, we believe that the classification of Frost et al. (2006: Appendix 7) provides a taxonomy, which, at this point, is most consistent with what is currently believed to be the best estimate of this groups evolutionary relationships.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.