| Hyla | |
|---|---|
 | |
| European tree frog,Hyla arborea | |
Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Chordata |
| Class: | Amphibia |
| Order: | Anura |
| Family: | Hylidae |
| Subfamily: | Hylinae |
| Genus: | Hyla Laurenti, 1768 |
| Species | |
See text | |
| Synonyms[1] | |
| |
Hyla is agenus offrogs in the tree frog familyHylidae. As traditionally defined, it was awastebasket genus with more than 300 species found in Europe, Asia, Africa, and across the Americas. After a major revision of the family, most of these have been moved to other genera so thatHyla now only contains 17 extant (living) species from Europe, northern Africa and Asia.[2] The earliest known fossil member of this genus is †Hyla swanstoni from theEocene ofSaskatchewan, Canada,[3] but its designation toHyla happened before the major revision, meaning that its position needs confirmation.
The genus was established byJosephus Nicolaus Laurenti in 1768. It was named afterHylas inGreek mythology, the companion ofHercules. The name is unusual in that – though Laurenti knew that Hylas was male – the name is unambiguously treated in thefeminine grammatical gender for reasons unknown. Theetymology of the name is also often incorrectly given as being derived from the Greek wordὕλη (hūlē, "forest" or "wood").[4][5]
.jpg)
| Image | Binomial name | Common name | Distribution |
|---|---|---|---|
.jpg) | H. annectans(Jerdon, 1870) | Jerdon's tree frog | northeast India (Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, and Meghalaya), northern Myanmar, and northern montane Vietnam and southwestern and central China (Yunnan, Guizhou, Sichuan, Hunan) |
_Extremadura.jpg) | H. arborea(Linnaeus,1758) | European tree frog | Albania; Armenia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; the Czech Republic; Denmark; France; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Israel (found in the Ayalon Valley); Italy; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macedonia, the Republic of; Moldova; Montenegro; the Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Romania; the Russian Federation; Serbia; Slovakia; Slovenia; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine. |
 | H. carthaginiensisDufresnes, Beddek, Skorinov, Fumagalli, Perrin, Crochet, and Litvinchuk, 2019 | Carthaginian tree frog | northeastern Algeria and northwestern Tunisia. |
 | H. chinensisGünther, 1858 | Common Chinese tree frog | southeastern and eastern China and in Taiwan |
 | H. felixarabicaGvoždík, Moravec, Klütsch & Kotlík, 2010 | Arabian tree frog | Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. |
.jpg) | H. hallowelliiThompson, 1912 | Hallowell's tree frog | Japan |
 | H. intermediaBoulenger, 1882 | Italian tree frog | Italy, Slovenia, Switzerland, and possibly San Marino. |
 | H. japonicaGünther, 1859 | Japanese tree frog | Japan, China and Korea |
_(8329020131).jpg) | H. meridionalisBoettger, 1874 | Mediterranean tree frog | south-west Europe and north-west Africa |
 | H. molleriBedriaga, 1889 | Moller's tree frog | Iberian Peninsula and southwesternmost France. |
 | H. orientalis Bedriaga, 1890 | Oriental tree frog | Asia Minor and southeastern Europe |
 | H. perriniDufresnes, Mazepa, Rodrigues, Brelsford, Litvinchuk, Sermier, Lavanchy, Betto-Colliard, Blaser, Borzée, Cavoto, Fabre, Ghali, Grossen, Horn, Leuenberger, Phillips, Saunders, Savary, Maddalena, Stöck, Dubey, Canestrelli, and Jeffries, 2018 | Perrin's tree frog | northern Italy, Switzerland (Ticino) and Slovenia |
| H. sanchiangensisPope, 1929 | San Chiang tree frog | China(Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Anhui, Zhejiang, Hunan, Hubei, and Jiangxi) | |
 | H. sarda(De Betta, 1853) | Sardinian tree frog | Corsica, Sardinia, and the Tuscan Archipelago. |
 | H. savignyiAudouin, 1827 | Middle East tree frog | Bulgaria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Egypt, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen. |
 | H. simplexBoettger, 1901 | Annam tree frog | southern China, Vietnam, and Laos |
.jpg) | H. tsinlingensisLiu and Hu in Hu, Zhao, and Liu, 1966 | Shensi tree frog | China. |
| H. zhaopingensisTang and Zhang, 1984 | Zhaoping tree frog | China. |
The mating systems across most species ofHyla largely feature female choice based on male calling effort.[6][7][8] The specific parameter of calling effort that is selected for can vary from species to species, however. InH. versicolor, for example, females show preference for calls of longer duration.[9] The selection of males which have calls of longer duration has shown to only be advantageous at low densities. This suggests that preference plasticity, based on environmental context, is beneficial.[9] Comparatively, males ofH. arborea achieve a higher rate of mating success with increased chorus attendance, that is the number of nights spent calling at a given breeding site.[10] Moreover, increased chorus attendance carries with it a higher energy expenditure and risk of predation. Therefore, it may seem intuitive that males with higher chorus attendance are less likely to survive to the next breeding season. Conversely, these males are more likely to survive. This suggests that the fitness of these males is high enough to overcome the costs associated with chorus attendance.[10] This provides evidence for chorus attendance as an indicator of mate quality inH. arborea.
Although it is studied less frequently than female choice, sexual selection influenced by male-maleintrasexual competition does exist in certain species ofHyla. Males ofH. versicolor produce conspicuous advertisement calls in large groups at territories known to females.[11] This behavior, known aslekking, is common in many species ofHyla. In order to broadcast a clear acoustic communication to a female, males require distinct calling spaces within their respective leks.[11] When males infringe upon the calling space of one another, aggressive interactions may occur. Males ofH. versicolor may choose to lower costs of aggressive encounters by first assessing one another'sresource holding potential.[12] In simple terms, the resource holding potential (RHP) of an individual is its ability to win a fight. RHP can be based on a number of factors, including mass, size, weaponry, etc. InH. versicolor, the question of what determines an individual's RHP still stands. Aggressive interactions of this species are hard to observe within natural environments, because they occur briefly and infrequently.[11] Research has suggested that RHP in this species is not based on body size, however these findings were not based on in situ observations, but instead on the findings of a manipulated experiment.[12]
In terms of sexual selection, indirect selection refers to the selection of a specific trait based on its genetic correlation to overallfitness.H. arborea is anocturnal species which depends on calling by males for femalemate choice.[7][9] In addition to its ability to detect acoustic communications,H. arborea, as well as most otherAnuran species, possess specialized visual systems that function particularly well in low light.[13] This visual system allows for detection of observable male traits that could factor into female mate choice. Research has shown thatH. arborea females have a preference for males with more conspicuous vocal sac coloration.[13] It is postulated that this preference may assist in localization and detection of males by searching females. However, vocal sac pigmentation is dictated bycarotenoid levels, which must be ingested through food intake.[13] Thus, the presence of conspicuous vocal sac coloration could in turn signal higher male foraging ability and fitness.[13]
Data related toHyla at Wikispecies
Media related toHyla at Wikimedia Commons