







| Kingdom | Phylum | Class | Order | Family |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANIMALIA | CHORDATA | AMPHIBIA | ANURA | PIPIDAE |
| Scientific Name: | Xenopus laevis | |||
| Species Authority: | (Daudin, 1802) | |||
Common Name/s:
|
||||
| Synonym/s: |
Bufo laevis Daudin, 1802
Bufo laevis Daudin, 1802
|
|||
| Taxonomic Notes: | Channing and Howell (2006) and Pickersgill (2007) treated the East African X. l. victorianus as a species in its own right, and we follow that arrangement. However, this leaves the odd situation of X. laevis being a southern African species, but with an isolated subspecies, X. l. sudanensis, in north-central Africa (which probably also needs to be recognized as a full species). | |||
| Red List Category & Criteria: | Least Concern ver 3.1 | ||||||
| Year Published: | 2009 | ||||||
| Assessor/s: | Tinsley, R., Minter, L., Measey, J., Howell, K., Veloso, A., Núñez, H. & Romano, A. | ||||||
| Reviewer/s: | Cox, N. & Temple, H.J. (Global Amphibian Assessment) | ||||||
| Contributor/s: | |||||||
|
Justification: Listed as Least Concern in view of its very wide distribution, its tolerance of a broad range of habitats, its presumed large population, and because it is unlikely to be declining to qualify for listing in a more threatened category. |
|||||||
| History: |
|
||||||
| Range Description: | The range of this species is unclear following the removal from Xenopus victorianus from X. laevis. For the purposes of this assessment we have assumed that all animals from southern Angola, Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique southwards (including in almost all of Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland) belong to X. laevis. In addition we treat all animals in Nigeria, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo west of 28ºE as belonging to X. l. sudanensis. Records from Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo east of 28ºE refer to this X. victorianus. There is an isolated record from Gabon (M. Beier pers. comm. January 2006). It is introduced in several places outside its native range, including the USA where it was first introduced in the 1930s and 1940s for laboratory use and later as an aquarium pet. It was introduced and established locally in California (San Diego, Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles, Ventura, and Imperial counties) and Arizona (Tucson area) (Stebbins 1985, Lafferty ad Page 1997). It has been recorded from, but it is not established in Colorado. It has also been introduced to Chile (introduced in the 1970s to central Chile, Valparaiso to Concepción Provinces), parts of the United Kingdom (extant in south Wales and presumed extirpated from the Isle of Wight [not mapped here], and a number of occasional records from other locations [not mapped], the Departments of Deux-Sèvres and Maine et Loire in France and Java (Indonesia) [not mapped here]. It is introduced also in the Lage stream, about 20 km W of Lisbon, Portugal (Rebelo et al. 2007) and there is a large invasive population in Sicily (Lillo et al. 2005, Faraone et al. 2008) [not mapped here]. It is presumed to occur in southwestern Sudan, but there do not appear to be confirmed records from this country (there is an uncertain record assigned to X. l. sudanensis from Jebel Marrah, Sudan (M. Beier pers. comm. January 2006) [not mapped here]). Records from Congo refer to X. petersii. Its range is also extending in parts of Africa, often by introduction because it is used for live bait, and it has spread extensively in South Africa. This species ranges from sea-level up to 3,000 m asl. |
| Countries: |
Native: Angola (Angola); Botswana; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Congo, The Democratic Republic of the; Gabon; Lesotho; Malawi; Mozambique; Namibia; Nigeria; South Africa; Swaziland; Zambia; ZimbabweIntroduced: Chile; France; Indonesia; Italy (Sicilia); Mexico; Portugal; United Kingdom; United States |
| Range Map: | Click here to open the map viewer and explore range. |
| Population: | It is an extremely abundant, and often increasing, species. |
| Population Trend: |
Increasing
|
| Habitat and Ecology: | It is a water-dependent species occurring in a very wide range of habitats, including heavily modified anthropogenic habitats. It lives in all sorts of waterbodies, including streams, but tends to avoid large rivers, and waterbodies with predatory fish. It reaches its highest densities in eutrophic water. It breeds in water; there are no records of it breeding in flowing water. It has very high reproductive potential. It is a highly opportunistic species, and colonizes newly recreated, apparently isolated, waterbodies with ease. It can migrate in large numbers when breeding ponds start to dry up, and the weather is wet. |
| Systems: | Terrestrial; Freshwater |
| Major Threat(s): | It is very successful and adaptable, and is an invasive species in many areas. Recent studies show that it is not impacted by the herbicide atrazine. Chytridiomycosis was detected in museum specimens of this species dating back to 1938, and it is hypothesized that the international trade in this species might have introduced this fungal disease to other regions of the world. The disease does not appear to have any detrimental affect on populations of this species. |
| Conservation Actions: | It occurs in many protected areas. |
| Citation: | Tinsley, R., Minter, L., Measey, J., Howell, K., Veloso, A., Núñez, H. & Romano, A. 2009. Xenopus laevis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 24 May 2013. |
| Disclaimer: | To make use of this information, please check the <Terms of Use>. |
| Feedback: | If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please fill in the feedback form so that we can correct or extend the information provided |