About the SA Blog Network

Tetrapod Zoology

Tetrapod Zoology

Amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals - living and extinct
Tetrapod Zoology Home

In pursuit of Romanian frogs (part II: WESTERN PALAEARCTIC WATER FROGS!!)

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

As you’ll recall if you read my recent article on Yellow-bellied toads Bombina variegata you’ll know that I recently wandered about the Romanian countryside, hunting for frogs. You can never have too many frogs and, these days – what with the global amphibian crisis and all – you typically don’t. The good news is that Bombina was far from the only anuran* I got to observe and photograph in Transylvania. While exploring tributaries of the Valea Cheii River and camping by the water in the Sibisel Valley (this was a palaeontological expedition, so we were actually looking for other stuff), surely I encountered numerous Western Palaearctic water frogs, right? Yes, surely indeed.

* Anura = frogs and toads.

Water frogs (aka ‘green frogs’ or Western Palaearctic water frogs: the species of Pelophylax) were heard calling at just about all of the rivers and river-side sites we visited. Initially I only got a few brief glimpses. These frogs were so good at hiding that I never got a prolonged close look, nor was I ever able to catch or photograph one. The qualities of their often noisy calls make them annoyingly difficult to pinpoint. One of them was muddy brown, fairly plain (without obvious marbling or striping on its legs) and with a light brown vertebral stripe. That’s kinda weird, since it doesn’t really match any of the water frog species of the region: the vertebral stripe suggests that it was a Pool frog P. lessonae.

Leg length compared in (left to right) Marsh frog, Edible frog and Pool frog. Illustration by Bas Teunis, from Beebee & Griffiths (2000).

Water frogs/green frogs are ranids – that is, ‘true frogs’ of the sort familiar to many people (especially those of the Northern Hemisphere). Like so many other ranid clades, they’ve long been included within an enormous, super-inclusive version of Rana. It’s increasingly thought that Rana of tradition is (like Bufo) such an unwieldy, paraphyletic monster that it should be split up into numerous separate ‘genera’, though of course not everyone agrees with this approach. The task of splitting Rana sensu lato into bits was adopted enthusiastically by Frost et al. (2006), a study that has upset and angered at least a few people who work on amphibian systematics and phylogeny: for responses see Hillis (2007) and Wiens (2007).

I don’t have time right now to discuss this topic (I will do so at some stage), but the water frog clade that includes the European species I’m discussing here groups well away from Rana and its close kin (Lithobates, Babina, Odorrana) in most recent phylogenies (e.g., Chen et al. 2005, Frost et al. 2006, Stuart 2008, Kurabayashi et al. 2010). The name Pelophylax Fitzinger, 1843 – long recognised as a ‘subgenus’ within the super-inclusive version of Rana – applies to the water frogs and is the name I’ll use for them here.

Left lateral view of a Romanian water frog that I'm cautiously identifying as a Marsh frog. Note the attractive 'marbling' on the thigh.

Anyway, I did eventually succeed in capturing and photographing several water frogs. Water frogs are often highly individualistic – that is, individuals frequently differ very obviously from one another in colour and markings. Lacking vertebral stripes, with whitish (rather than yellowish) thighs, and proportionally long legs, I reckon that the individuals shown here were Marsh frogs P. ridibundus but I’m not entirely sure. It is possible to differentiate Marsh frogs from Pool frogs by way of the proportionally smaller metatarsal tubercles in the former, but I didn’t know this at the time.

This frog lacks a pale vertebral stripe: this and several other features led to provisional identification as Marsh frog. However, the yellow on the posterior part of the thigh suggests Pool frog!

The Pool frog and Marsh frog (despite their names they’re not restricted to pools or marshes) occur sympatrically across much of Europe. The Marsh frog – so named as it was first associated with Romney Marsh in south-east England – is the larger one, and in fact with an SVL of 15 and even 17 cm it’s Europe’s largest (native*) frog. It’s not only long-legged and large, but also robust. Warm lowlands with large, slow-flowing rivers are typical habitats. The Pool frog is not only (usually) smaller than the Marsh frog, it’s also (usually) greener, and it also (usually) has a pale vertebral stripe and (usually) has paler dorsolateral folds. But populations are highly variable, and some Pool frogs (especially so-called ‘northern clade’ populations) are often very brown. Both Marsh and Pool frogs seem to have increased in average size across at least part of their range, apparently as a direct response to climatic warming (Tryjanowski et al. 2006).

* The American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus occurs as an alien in parts of Italy (Lombardy, Mantua and Pavia).

Confusing things further is that Marsh and Pool frogs hybridise, producing an animal termed the Edible frog. Long regarded as a distinct species and known as P. esculentus, it’s a hybridogenetic hybrid: that is, if Edible frogs backcross with either of their parent species, they make more Edible frogs. And when Edible frogs mate with other Edible frogs, they also (usually) produce more Edible frogs. Edible frogs exist across much of continental Europe (sometimes accounting for a huge proportion of the local water frog population), especially in disturbed areas like gravel pits.

A phylogeny for the Pelophylax frogs, from Lymberakis et al. (2007). Note the distance between the Marsh frog (P. ridibundus) and Pool frog (P. lessonae).

Genetic studies have recently shown that numerous water frogs found throughout Europe, northern Africa and the Middle East – often assumed to be Edible frogs – are actually highly distinct relative to Pool, Marsh and Edible frogs, and about 12 species are now recognised for this region. Some of these have only been recently named (e.g., Epirus water frog P. epeirotica Schneider et al., 1984, Albanian water frog P. shqiperica Hotz et al., 1987, Cretan frog P. cretensis Beerli et al., 1994, Karpathos frog P. cerigensis Beerli et al., 1994) while others have been resurrected from synonymy (e.g., Perez’s frog P. perezi Seoane, 1885). Phylogenies indicate that Marsh and Pool frogs aren’t especially close relatives within the clade: an assemblage of Aegean and Middle Eastern species are apparently closer to the Marsh frog than it is to the Pool frog (Lymberakiset al. 2007).

Extinction and reintroduction

Partial right ilium of Pelophylax cf. lessonae from Middle Saxon site at Gosberton, Lincolnshire, UK. From Gleed-Owen (2000).

The identification and history of English water frog populations has always been an area of particular interest. The Marsh frogs long established in south-east England are fairly securely identified as introductions (they have what’s known as a trail of introduction), but the same isn’t true of all English Pool frog populations. It turned out that a population from Norfolk were very similar genetically, morphologically, acoustically and in habitat choice to the Pool frogs of Norway and Sweden. They weren’t aliens introduced from southern Europe, as long assumed, but – most likely – ‘neglected natives’ belonging to a cold-adapted, so-called ‘northern clade’ of the species (Zeisset & Beebee 2001, Snell et al. 2005). What appears to be a Pool frog ilium, discovered in Middle Saxon deposits (c. 600-950 AD) in Lincolnshire, also seems to confirm native status for the species (Gleed-Owen 2000).

Unfortunately, this was all realised far too late. Without protection, the population dwindled into extinction, with the last known individual dying in captivity in 1999. A reintroduction programme – involving ‘northern clade’ animals from Sweden – has been underway since 2005, however, and the animals involved have now bred.

Hmm, I seem to have written rather more than originally intended. Oh well. More soon. For previous Tet Zoo articles on European anurans, see…

Refs – -

Beebee, T. & Griffiths, R. 2000. Amphibians and Reptiles. HarperCollins, London.

Chen, L., Murphy, R. W., Lathrop, A., Ngo, A., Orlov, N. L., Ho, C. T. & Somorhai, L. L. M. 2005. Taxonomic chaos in Asian ranid frogs: an initial phylogenetic resolution. Herpetological Journal 15, 231-243.

Frost, D. R., Grant, T., Faivovich, J., Bain, R. H., Haas, A., Haddad, C. F. B., De Sá, R. O., Channing, A., Wilkinson, M., Donnellan, S. C., Raxworthy, C. J., Campbell, J. A., Blotto, B. L., Moler, P., Drewes, R. C., Nussbaum, R. A., Lynch, J. D., Green, D. M. & Wheeler, W. C. 2006. The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297, 1-370.

Gleed-Owen, C. P. 2000. Subfossil records of Rana cf. lessonae, Rana arvalis and Rana cf. dalmatina from Middle Saxon (c. 600-950 AD) deposits in eastern England: evidence for native status. Amphibia-Reptilia 21, 57-65.

Hillis, D. M. 2007. Constraints in naming parts of the Tree of Life. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42, 331-338.

Lymberakis, P., Poulakakis, N., Manthalou, G., Tsigenopoulos, C. S., Magoulas, A. & Mylonas, M. 2007. Mitochondrial phylogeography of Rana (Pelophylax) populations in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44, 115-125.

Kurabayashi, A., Yoshikawa, N., Sato, N., Hayashi, Y., Oumi, S., Fujii, T. & Sumida, M. 2010. Complete mitochondrial DNA sequence of the endangered frog Odorrana ishikawae (family Ranidae) and unexpected diversity of mt gene arrangements in ranids. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 56, 543-553.

Snell, C., Tetteh, J. & Evans, I. H. 2005. Phylogeography of the Pool frog (Rana lessonae Camerano) in Europe: evidence for native status in Great Britain and for an unusual postglacial colonization route. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 85, 41-51.

Stuart, B. L. 2008. The phylogenetic problem of Huia (Amphibia: Ranidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 46, 49-60.

Tryjanowski, P., Sparks, T., Rybacki, M. & Berger, L. 2006. Is body size of the water frog Rana esculenta complex responding to climate change? Naturwissenschaften 93, 110-113.

Wiens, J. J. 2007. Book review: the amphibian tree of life. Quarterly Review of Biology 82, 55-56.

Zeisset, I. & Beebee, T. J. C. 2001. Determination of biogeographical range: an application of molecular phylogeography to the European pool frog Rana lessonae. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268, 933-938.

Darren Naish About the Author: Darren Naish is a science writer, technical editor and palaeozoologist (affiliated with the University of Southampton, UK). He mostly works on Cretaceous dinosaurs and pterosaurs but has an avid interest in all things tetrapod. His publications can be downloaded at He has been blogging at Tetrapod Zoology since 2006. Check out the Tet Zoo podcast at! Follow on Twitter @TetZoo.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions

Comments 7 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. DMA12 8:23 am 07/23/2011

    Kind of off topic, but right now I’m watching mammals vs dinos. Another disappointing dinosaur documentary. Not as bad as clash of the dinosaurs though still grossly inaccurate.

    Link to this
  2. 2. BilBy 10:02 am 07/23/2011

    That third frog photo of yours looks very reminiscent of Marsh frogs I caught along the Military Canal in West Hythe when I was living in Britain. Good on you for capturing them – they are fast and alert and I became quite obsessed with the hunt!

    Link to this
  3. 3. kattatogaru 4:58 am 07/27/2011

    Hi Darren, wish I had been able to make it to the crypto symposium earlier this month… I’ve just caught up with your posts here, for reasons unknown the blogrolls I follow don’t show your posts – or rather, the updates are linked to random other blogs on the sci-am blog list. two other peeves: 1) finding tet zoo on here is stupidly difficult (or maybe I am stupid…): in the red banner at the top there’s a tab for blogs, but your blog ain’t in the list; and 2) even when you find it (I had to go back to your last scienceblogs post and follow the link over!!!) there’s no list of latest posts on your actual page, so I’ve had to scroll down to the end of each post from the first to get here. It seems like hard work. Is there an easier way, please?
    PS the weird molar thing on the left is freaking me out. What the heck is it? Was there an even more parodic prize for “outstanding achievement in the field of general excellence”?

    Link to this
  4. 4. naishd 6:10 am 07/27/2011

    Thanks for comments; bit of a shame that people don’t comment as readily about frogs as they do about cryptozoology and dinosaurs, but, still…

    Kattatogaru: I can’t say that I’m a fan of the way SciAm has the blogs organised, and I really wish there were links to previous posts, etc. Hopefully this’ll get ironed out in time – I’m not in charge. I can’t do anything about it, sorry.

    As for “weird molar thing” – what are you referring to? An image in the banner pic? (incidentally, that banner pic is provisional – I really must get a better one). And if you’re saying that I deserve credit as goes “outstanding achievement in the field of general excellence”, I’ll take that credit, thanks :)

    Link to this
  5. 5. BilBy 8:45 am 07/27/2011

    Darren – you need more Montauk monsters and the like. You’ll get a lot more comments then even if they are along the lines of “OMFG!!!Is that thing 4 real! Dinasuar defenetly…”

    Link to this
  6. 6. scientificstyle 3:29 am 08/3/2011

    I liked the frog photography! Anyways, I hope to see more frog photos and frog articles in the future. Best regards to all frog fans! Please watch the film I made:

    By the way, my film only used plastic frogs, none of the frogs in my film were real…

    Link to this
  7. 7. David Marjanović 9:55 am 10/2/2013

    Confusing things further is that Marsh and Pool frogs hybridise, producing an animal termed the Edible frog. Long regarded as a distinct species and known as P. esculenta

    That used to be Rana esculenta and would now be Pelophylax esculentus.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article