This species occurs in two separate areas: on the Kenyan and Tanzanian coasts from Witu south to the Dar es Salaam area (and including Pemba, Zanzibar and Mafia islands), and inland as far as Mikumi National Park; and around Lake Mweru in northeastern Zambia and southeastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The distributional limits between this species, and other members of the Hyperolius viridiflavus complex, in particular H. glandicolor and H. marginatus, are extremely unclear. The distribution map should therefore be regarded as provisional.
Habitat and Ecology
It is associated in 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, towns 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.
It is an extremely abundant species.
It is a very adaptable species that is not facing any significant threats.
It probably occurs in several protected areas, including Mikumi National Park in Tanzania.
Red List Status
Least Concern (LC)
Listed as Least Concern in view of its relatively wide distribution, tolerance of a broad range of habitats and its presumed large population.
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 of 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. Pickersgill (2007) treated renschi as separate species, but we follow Frost (2007) in including it under H. mariae.
IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2013. Hyperolius mariae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T56162A18379099. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T56162A18379099.en .Downloaded on 17 January 2019