# Frog folks - genus Rana vs. Lithobates **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Tags:** science-math\ **Created:** [September 27, 2024, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/frog-folks-genus-rana-vs-lithobates/1007795 "2024-09-27T12:34:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2024, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/frog-folks-genus-rana-vs-lithobates/1007795/1 "2024-09-27T12:34:10Z")
This is a possibly obscure question for the herpetologists and frog people out there. I’ve been looking into the [North American Wood Frog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_frog) lately (_Lithobates sylvaticus_)—largely because they’re all over my property at the moment and they seem pretty dope. But trying to get a better idea as to where the genus name _Lithobates_ (“stone walker”) came from, I learned that it’s … [less than 20 years old?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithobates) I thought, “surely the **frog** is one of those animals that Linnaeus came up with the classifications for!” So, pre-2005, were the Wood Frog and all other frogs just _Rana etc._, and _Lithobates_ not yet dreamt of? ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2024, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/frog-folks-genus-rana-vs-lithobates/1007795/2 "2024-09-27T13:16:35Z")
Per Wikipedia, it may still be under debate: > [@](#): > > The name was defined by Hillis and Wilcox (2005) for a subgenus of four Central and South American frogs within the genus Rana.[4][5] The subgenus was subsequently expanded to seven species in Central and South America in a systematic revision of the genus Rana.[6] The name was previously used by Frost et al. as a separate genus of ranid frogs that included most of the North American frogs traditionally included in the genus Rana,[7] including the American bullfrog and northern leopard frog. Frost used the name in this sense in the frog section of a North American common names list edited by Crother (2008).[8] This proposed change has since been rejected by others, such as Stuart (2008),[9] Pauly et al. (2009),[10] AmphibiaWeb,[11] and Yuan et al. (2016).[6] AmphibiaWeb, available at [http://amphibiaweb.org/](http://amphibiaweb.org/), an online compendium of amphibian names, follows Yuan et al. (2016) in recognizing Lithobates as a subgenus.[6] On the other hand, Amphibian Species of the World 6.0, an online reference, uses Lithobates as a genus.[1] This definition is also followed by, e.g., the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)[12] and the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.[13] ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2024, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/frog-folks-genus-rana-vs-lithobates/1007795/3 "2024-09-27T13:18:41Z")
Wikipedia says Lithonates was named in 1843 by Fitzinger, but that the type species is now under Rana. I could be wrong, but it sounds like originally there was Rana and Lithonates, then Lithonates was mostly merged into Rana and perhaps left as a subgenus, and recently there are some saying it should be a full genus again, but this is not yet accepted. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2024, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/frog-folks-genus-rana-vs-lithobates/1007795/4 "2024-09-27T13:20:05Z")
Great username-topic synergy! ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2024, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/frog-folks-genus-rana-vs-lithobates/1007795/5 "2024-09-27T13:20:49Z")
No no no, toads are Bufo! ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2024, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/frog-folks-genus-rana-vs-lithobates/1007795/6 "2024-09-27T13:23:00Z")
Another forum discussion on the topic. Looks like Lithobates originated as a subgenus only in 2005, so I guess before that, it was all Rana. [![](https://i.imgflip.com/94vliy.jpg) ](https://i.imgflip.com/94vliy.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2024, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/frog-folks-genus-rana-vs-lithobates/1007795/7 "2024-09-27T15:08:15Z")
Oh, is there another thread on this? I’ll have to see if it comes up in search… ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2024, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/frog-folks-genus-rana-vs-lithobates/1007795/8 "2024-09-27T15:08:34Z")
😄 Ha! ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2024, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/frog-folks-genus-rana-vs-lithobates/1007795/9 "2024-09-27T15:09:37Z")
> [@toadspittle](#): > > Oh, is there another thread on this? Sorry, on another forum! I thought I posted a link but I guess I didn’t. > **[The use of Rana instead of Lithobates](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/the-use-of-rana-instead-of-lithobates/25866)** > > This is a repost under the “Taxonomy” tag. I realize not many many agree with me on this, but in regards to northern leopard frogs, bullfrogs, wood frogs, etc here in North America, I see many people using Lithobates. Lithobates was proposed by... ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2024, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/frog-folks-genus-rana-vs-lithobates/1007795/10 "2024-09-27T16:03:39Z")
When I was an undergraduate at Pitt, there was a biology professor whose research involved frogs. He was a pretty cool guy. Once I stopped at his office to pick up a handout, and he showed me two porcelain frogs on his desk. They looked very realistic. He asked me if I could tell the male from the female. I was reluctant to handle them, they looked valuable and delicate, but I compared their size, etc, and told him what I thought. He picked them up and turned them over. They had really vulgar human genitalia. I laughed like a maniac.