Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Here are some pictures of my pacific tree frogs in their terrarium. Hopefully they post because i haven't made a post with pictures in quite some time. Enjoy

-----
0.0.3 Desert Iguanas(Dipsosaurus dorsalis)
1.2.0 Tucson Banded Geckos(Coleonyx variegatus bogerti)
1.0.0 California Alligator Lizards(Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata)
0.0.1 San Diego Gopher Snake(Pituophis catenifer annectens)
0.0.3 Pacific Tree Frog(Pseudacris regilla)

Nice pics, I thought they were taken outside. Any whole viv shots?
-----
A room of herps.
www.freewebs.com/kapoktree

Those are all inside my viv. It is just a tiny 10 gallon. I will make sure to post some full on vivarium shots in the future.
-----
0.0.3 Desert Iguanas(Dipsosaurus dorsalis)
1.2.0 Tucson Banded Geckos(Coleonyx variegatus bogerti)
1.0.0 California Alligator Lizards(Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata)
0.0.1 San Diego Gopher Snake(Pituophis catenifer annectens)
0.0.3 Pacific Tree Frog(Pseudacris regilla)

The Pacific Treefrog should be Hyla regilla, not "Pseudacris regilla." Pseudacris is a group of hylid frogs with small toe disks and little webbing between the toes. Hyla regilla does not fit that definition. The toe disks of Hyla regilla is much larger than in Pseudacris. By lumping Hyla regilla with Pseudacris, there is now no way to define Pseudacris.

Hyla regilla is one of the closest relatives of Pseudacris, but it should not be made a member of this genus. Just a minor disagreement I have with the cladists.

Yeah, I had some confusion over that a while back and never found a clear answer. Thank you for pointing it out. Hopefully the pictures were at least enjoyable even though the name was a bit off

Enjoy,

-----
0.0.3 Desert Iguanas(Dipsosaurus dorsalis)
1.2.0 Tucson Banded Geckos(Coleonyx variegatus bogerti)
1.0.0 California Alligator Lizards(Elgaria multicarinata multicarinata)
0.0.1 San Diego Gopher Snake(Pituophis catenifer annectens)
0.0.3 Pacific Tree Frog(Hyla regilla)

>>Yeah, I had some confusion over that a while back and never found a clear answer. Thank you for pointing it out. Hopefully the pictures were at least enjoyable even though the name was a bit off
>>

Oh no, I am not telling you that the name you use is "off". Scientific names are not etched in stone nor is there a list of correct or current ones. You can continue to use Psuedacris regilla if you like. I just point out that some of the scientists who favor the name Pseudacris are mistaken. That is my disagreement with them.

I think it just makes a lot more sense to retain the Pacific treefrog in the genus Hyla, because Pseudacris would have lost all of its uniqueness and meaning if Hyla regilla, Hyla cadaverina and Hyla crucifer were included in Pseudacris. These 3 species of Hyla were classified as Hyla decades ago because they have large toe discs, whereas Pseudacris have small toe discs. The latest arrangement of Psuedacris plus 3 species of Hyla would destroy that definition of Pseudacris. If some people insist on lumping Pseudacris and Hyla, we may as well do away with the genus Pseudacris altogether and transfer all of the species of Pseudacris back to Hyla.

Yes, your images of this treefrog are enjoyable. Where I live, this is the only treefrog found in the wild. Even though I don't ever want to live next to a creek with these guys singing at night, I do enjoy them tremendously.

As I said, Hyla regilla is one of the closest relatives of the frogs in the genus Pseudacris. The hippopotamus is the closest living relative of the whales. There are some biologists who believe that Hyla regilla should be made a member of Pseudacris, and there are also biologists who believe that the hippo should be included in the same taxon as the whales.

The hippo is not a whale, and the Pacific treefrog is not a Pseudacris. Morphological features that define whales as a natural group evolved after the hippo and the whales last shared a common ancestor. Morphological features that define Pseudacris also evolved after Hyla regilla and Pseudacris last shared a common ancestor. Therefore the taxon that comprises whales should exclude the hippo, and Pseudacris should exclude Hyla regilla. In sum, the proposal to include Hyla regilla in Pseudacris is just as ridiculous as the proposal to classify the hippo as a whale. Even though the hippo spends a lot of time in the water and Hyla regilla spends a lot of time on the ground, these are not good reasons to classify Hyla regilla as a Pseudacris or the hippo as a whale.

Nice pics!

Tim

Here's one that I found in Nevada:

Third Eye