@article {439,
	title = {Review of African genera Arthroleptis Smith, 1849 and Phrynobatrachus Gunther, 1862 (Amphibia, Anura)},
	journal = {Alytes (Paris)},
	volume = {25},
	number = {3-4},
	year = {2008},
	note = {ArticleFrench},
	month = {Jul 2008},
	pages = {99-172},
	abstract = {<p>For a long time, and although the two genera are not closely allied, generic allocation of the species of the genera Arthroleptis (Anura, Brevicipitidae, Arthroleptinae) and Phrynobatrachus (Anura, Ranidae, Phrynobatrachinae) was found difficult by zoologists. However, LAURENT (1941) had pointed to criteria allowing this allocation, bearing on the webbing of toes, the metatarsal and tarsal tubercles. The genus Arthroleptis is characterized by the absence of web between toes, of outer metatarsal tubercle and tarsal tubercle, but presence of an inner metatarsal tubercle. The genus Phrynobatrachus is characterized by the presence of web between toes, of an inner metatarsal and an outer metatarsal tubercles, and a tarsal tubercle. A review of all species of these two genera allows to confirm the validity of these criteria. This gives an opportunity to provide, for each species of both genera, a chronological list of synonyms and variant spellings. The status of a few species is discussed: (1) Phrynobatrachus ogoensis and Phrynobatrachus brongersmai are considered two different species; (2) Phrynobatrachus latifrons and Phrynobatrachus accraensis are synonyms, and the former name has priority; (3) the taxon sternfeldi must be placed in the genus Phrynobatrachus as Phrynobatrachus sternfeldi (Ahl, 1924); (4) the taxon nlonakoensis must be placed in the genus Arthroleptis as Arthroleptis nlonakoensis (Plath, Herrmann \&amp; Bohme, 2006). This paper provides a checklist of all described species of the two genera, a table recapitulating all valid and invalid specific names, and a checklist of occurrence of species by countries.</p>
},
	url = {<Go to ISI>://PREV200800631513},
	author = {Fretey, Thierry}
}
