AMPHIBIAWEB
Hyperolius rhodesianus
family: Hyperoliidae
Conservation Status (definitions)
IUCN (Red List) Status Least Concern (LC)
CITES
Other International Status None
National Status None
Regional Status None

Country distribution from AmphibiaWeb's database:

 

View distribution map using BerkeleyMapper.

   

From the IUCN Red List Species Account:

 

Range Description

This species is known only from extreme northwestern Zimbabwe. The species' distribution on the map overlaps slightly into extreme southern Zambia, where its presence is uncertain. Its Area of Occupancy is not much greater than 20 km2.

Habitat and Ecology

It is associated with emergent vegetation at the margins of swamps, rivers and lakes in all types of savannah, grassland and bush land, as well as many human-modified habitats, including cultivated land and gardens. It spreads rapidly into recently created waterbodies. It breeds in a wide variety of aquatic habitats, ranging from very small to very large ponds, usually using temporary, but often also in permanent, waterbodies. The eggs are deposited directly into the water.

Population

It is an extremely abundant species.

Population Trend

unknown

Major Threats

It is an extremely adaptable species that is not facing any significant threats.

Conservation Actions

It occurs in Hwange National Park and Matetsi Safari Area.

Red List Status

Least Concern (LC)

Rationale

Listed as Least Concern because, although its Area of Occupancy is not much greater than 20 km2, it is common, adaptable, and does not appear to be in decline.

Taxonomic Notes

This species is part of the Hyperolius viridiflavus superspecies (Laurent 1983, Schiøtz 1971, 1999). It is considered here as a separate species following Wieczorek et al. (2000, 2001). It should be noted that the taxonomic relationships within this superspecies are still far from settled. Members of this superspecies, which consists of a large number of forms that are distributed, generally allopatrically, throughout the tropical African savanna, have a common morphology, voice and ecology, but with widely differing dorsal patterns. Laurent (1983) concluded that the concept of one species best expressed present knowledge, and A. Schiøtz (pers. comm.) agrees with this. Wieczorek et al. (2001) carried out an analysis based on mtDNA, and separated the forms that they examined into 10 species. However, they examined only 22 out of 45 recognized "subspecies". The following distinct forms were not treated in the analysis by Wieczorek et al. (2001) and therefore cannot be allocated to any their ten species: spatzi, pallidus, pachydermus, destefanii, variabilis, coerulescens, karissimbiensis, francoisi, sheldricki, rubripes, mwanzae, reesi, bitaeniatus, rhodoscelis, nyassae, taeniatus, insignis, alborufus, epheboides, aposematicus and broadleyi. An un-named form from Marsabit in northern Kenya also cannot be allocated within the Wieczorek et al. (2001) arrangement of species. The arrangement currently followed by the Global Amphibian Assessment is provisional, pending a more complete analysis of the relationships within the Hyperolius viridiflavus superspecies. A. Schiøtz (pers. comm.) considers that it would have been prefereable for the Global Amphibian Assessment to treat the Hyperolius viridiflavus superspecies as a single species, because under this arrangement, all the described forms are covered unambiguously.

Citation

IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2013. Hyperolius rhodesianus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T56197A18382905. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T56197A18382905.en .Downloaded on 13 December 2018

 

IUCN Terms of Use