138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1 988 
Case 2366 
Hyla chrysoscelis Johnson, 1961 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed 
conservation and designation of a neotype 
Hobart M. Smith 
Department ofEPO Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, 
Colorado 80309-0334. U.S.A. 
Kevin T. Fitzgerald 
Alameda East Veterinary Hospital, 9870 East Alameda, Denver, 
Colorado 80231, U.S.A. 
Louis J. Guillette, Jr. 
Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, 
U.S.A. 
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to stabilise the modern usage of the names 
Hyla versicolor and H. chrysoscelis for two cryptic species (the former tetraploid, the 
latter diploid) of tree frogs occurring in the south-eastern United States. 
1. An application by us to deal with the nomenclatural problems posed by the 
recognition (Johnson, 1961) of two very similar but distinct species of treefrog in the 
eastern United States was published in 1983 (BZN 40: 165-166). This was voted upon 
by the Commission in September 1985. 
2. That application sought, inter alia, to place the specific name chrysoscelis Cope, 
1 880 (published with the generic name Hyla) on the Official List and to designate a 
neotype for that species. 
3. Johnson (1959; 1961; 1963; 1966) reported that one of the frog species concerned 
had a faster call rate than the other. The former species is diploid (Bogart & 
Wasserman, 1972) while the slower-calHng species is tetraploid (Wasserman, 1970). 
Johnson found minor morphological differences, and by means of cross-breeding 
experiments demonstrated genetic incompatibiUty and differentiation at the specific 
level. On geographical grounds Johnson (1961) used the name Hyla versicolor Le 
Conte, 1825 for the tetraploid slow-calling species and adopted H. chrysoscelis Cope, 
1880 (originally published as H.femoralis chrysoscelis) for the diploid fast-caller. 
4. The name chrysoscelis had remained unused from 1880 until 1947, when it was 
revived by Smith & Brown (p. 49) for a subspecies of//, versicolor, which had been an 
established name for many years. Examination by Fitzgerald, Smith & Guillette (1981) 
of the holotype o^ H . femoralis chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 (preserved in the Academy of 
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia as specimen ANSP 13672) showed that it is in fact 
tetraploid, contrary to the usage of chrysoscelis by Johnson mentioned above. No 
original type of//, versicolor Le Conte (1825, p. 281) exists. 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1988 139 
5. Only one synonym is known for H. chrysoscelis sensu Johnson ( 1 96 1 ), namely H. 
versicolor sandersi Smith & Brown, 1947 (p. 48). Since Johnson's work H. chrysoscelis 
has been used for the diploid species in a very large number of publications (a represent- 
ative list is held by the Commission Secretariat), while sandersi has been used only by 
Schmidt (1953, p. 73) and Conant (1 958, p. 282); further details were published in our 
earlier application (BZN 40: 165-166). It is therefore highly desirable to conserve 
chrysoscelis sensu Johnson rather than to revive the name sandersi. 
6. In our earlier application we proposed that the Commission set aside the type 
status of the holotype of//, chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 (specimen ANSP 1 3672 mentioned 
in para. 4) and substitute as neotype the holotype of//, versicolor sandersi, which is in 
the United States National Museum (specimen USNM 1 23978). This would have made 
H. sandersi Smith «& Brown, 1947 a junior objective synonym of chrysoscelis Cope, 
1880, and would attach the latter name to the diploid species. 
7. During the voting on our earlier application it was pointed out that it was 
inappropriate to quote 'Cope, 1 880' as the author of chrysoscelis in the modern sense, 
when Cope had no knowledge of that taxon and especially as his holotype (ANSP 
1 3672) had now been shown to belong to the species known in recent years as versicolor. 
For this reason no ruling was published. 
8. Accordingly, we now ask the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature: 
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of both the Principle of 
Priority and the Principle of Homonymy all uses of the name chrysoscelis pub- 
lished in combination with the generic name Hyla Laurenti, 1768 (p. 32) prior to 
that by Johnson (1961); 
(2) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name sandersi Smith & Brown, 1947, 
as published in the trinomen Hyla versicolor sandersi, for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 
(3) to designate as neotype of Hyla chrysoscelis Johnson, 1961 the specimen USNM 
123978 mentioned in para. 6 above; 
(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names: 
(a) versicolor Le Conte, 1825, as published in the binomen Hyla versicolor, and 
(b) chrysoscelis Johnson, 1961, as published in the binomen Hyla chrysoscelis 
and as interpreted by the neotype USNM 123978 designated in (3) above; 
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 
the names: 
(a) chrysoscelis: all uses published in combination with the generic name Hyla 
Laurenti, 1768 prior to that by Johnson (1961), as suppressed in (1) above, 
and 
(b) sandersi Smith & Brown, 1947, as published in the trinomen Hyla versicolor 
sandersi and as suppressed in (2) above. 
References 
Bogart, J. P. & Wasserman, A. O. 1972. Diploid-polyploid cryptic species pairs: a possible clue 
to evolution by polyploidization in anuran amphibians. Cytogenetics, 11: 7-24. 
Conant, R. 1958. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians of the United States and Canada east of 
the 100th meridian. 366 pp. and 40 pis. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 
140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45(2) June 1 988 
Cope, E. D. 1880. On the zoological position of Texas. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 17: 
1-51. 
Fitzgerald, K. T., Smith, H. M. & Guillette, Jr, L. J. 198 1 . Nomenclature of the diploid species of 
the diploid-tetraploid Hyla versicolor complex. Journal of Herpetology , 15: 356-360. 
Johnson, F. C. 1959. Generic incompatibility of the call races of Hyla versicolor Le Conte in 
Texas. Copeia, 1959: 327-335. 
Johnson, F. C. 1961. Cryptic speciation in the Hyla versicolor complex. Dissertation Abstracts, 
21: 3896. 
Johnson, F. C. 1963. Additional evidence of sterility between call-types in the Hyla versicolor 
complex. Copeia, 1963: 139-143. 
Johnson, F. C. 1966. Species recognition in the Hyla versicolor com.p\e\. Texas Journal of Science , 
18: 361-364. 
Laurenti, J. N. 1768. Specimen medicum, exhibens synopsin Reptilium . . . 214 pp. Viennae. 
Le Conte, J. 1825. Remarks on the American species of the genera Hyla and Rana. Annals of the 
Lyceum of Natural History of New York, 1: 278-282. 
Schmidt, K. P. 1 953. A check list of North American amphibians and reptiles. 280 pp. University of 
Chicago Press. 
Smith, H. M. & Brown, B. C. 1947. The Texas subspecies of the treefrog, Hyla versicolor. 
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 60: 47-50. 
Wasserman, A. 0. 1970. Polyploidy in the common tree toad, Hyla versicolor Le Conte. Science, 
167: 385-386.