|Scientific Name:||Xenopus laevis|
|Species Authority:||(Daudin, 1802)|
Bufo laevis Daudin, 1802
Dactylethera boiei (Wagler, 1827)
Dactylethra bufonia (Merrem, 1820)
Dactylethra capensis Cuvier, 1830
Dactylethra delalandii Cuvier, 1849
Dactylethra laevis (Daudin, 1802)
Engystoma laevis (Daudin, 1802)
Leptopus boiei (Wagler, 1827)
Leptopus oxydactylus Mayer, 1835
Pipa africana Mayer, 1835
Pipa bufonia Merrem, 1820
Pipa laevis (Daudin, 1802)
Tremeropugus typicus Smith, 1831
Xenopus boiei Wagler, 1827
Xenopus laevis ssp. bunyoniensis Loveridge, 1932
Xenopus laevis ssp. sudanensis Perret, 1966
|Taxonomic Source(s):||Frost, D.R. 2016. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.0 (31 March 2016). New York, USA. Available at: http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html.|
|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|
|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)|
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.
|Previously published Red List assessments:|
|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.
Native:Angola (Angola); Botswana; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Congo, The Democratic Republic of the; Gabon; Lesotho; Malawi; Mozambique; Namibia; Nigeria; South Africa; South Sudan; Swaziland; Zambia; Zimbabwe
Introduced: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.|
|Current 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.|
|Use and Trade:||The species is harvested and traded both for human consumption and research.|
|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.|
Baker, C. and White, J. 1987. Spawning of African clawed frogs. Freshwater Mar. Aquarium: 84-87.
Bates, M.F. and Haacke, W.D. 2003. The frogs of Lesotho: diversity and distribution. Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein 19: 101-158.
Broadley, D.G. 1971. The reptiles and amphibians of Zambia. Puku 6: 1-143.
Channing, A. 2001. Amphibians of Central and Southern Africa. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.
Channing, A. and Griffin, M. 1993. An annotated checklist of the frogs of Namibia. Madoqua 18: 101-116.
Du Preez, L.H., Solomon, K.R., Carr, J.A., Giesy, J.P., Gross, T.S., Kendall, R.J., Smith, E.E., Van der Kraak, G. and Weldon, C. 2005. Population structure of the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis) in maize-growing areas with atrazone application versus non-maize growing areas in South Africa. African Journal of Herpetology: 61-68.
Faraone, F.P., Lillo, F., Giacalone, G. and Lo Valvo, M. 2008. The large invasive population of Xenopus laevis in Sicily, Italy. Amphibia-Reptilia 29: 405-412.
Hopkins, S. and Channing, A. 2003. Chytrid fungus in Northern and Western Cape frog populations, South Africa. Herpetological Review: 334-336.
IUCN. 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2009.1). Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 22 June 2009).
IUCN. 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2009.2). Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 3 November 2009).
Joger, U. 1990. The herpetofauna of the Central African Republic, with description of a new species of Rhinotyphlops (Serpentes: Typhlopidae). In: G. Peters and R. Hutterer (eds), Vertebrates in the Tropics, pp. 85-102. Museum Alexandrer Koenig, Bonn.
Kobel, H.R., Barundun, B. and Thiebaud, C.H. 1998. Mitochondrial rDNA phylogeny in Xenopus. Herpetological Journal 8: 13-17.
Kobel, H.R., du Pasquier, L., Fischberg, M., and Gloor, H. 1980. Xenopus amieti sp. nov. (Anura: Pipidae) from the Cameroons, another case of tetraploidy. Revue Suisse de Zoologie: 919-926.
Lambiris, A.J.L. 1989. A review of the amphibians of Natal. Lammergeyer 39: 1-210.
Lambiris, A.J.L. 1989. The frogs of Zimbabwe. Mus. Reg. Sci. Nat. Torino, Monografia 10: 1-247.
Lillo, F., Marrone, F., Sicilia, A., Castelli, G. and Zava, B. 2005. An invasive population of Xenopus laevis (Daudin, 1802) in Italy. Herpetozoa 18: 63-64.
Loumont, C. and Kobel, H.R. 1991. Xenopus longipes sp. nov., a new polyploid pipid from western Cameroon. Revue Suisse de Zoologie: 731-738.
Measey, G.J. 1998. Diet of feral Xenopus laevis (Daudin) in South Wales, U.K. Journal of Zoology: 287-298.
Measey, G.J. 2001. Growth and ageing of feral Xenopus laevis (Daudin) in South Wales, U.K. Journal of Zoology: 547-555.
Measey, G.J. and Channing, A. 2003. Phylogeography of the genus Xenopus in southern Africa. Amphibia-Reptilia: 321-330.
Measey, G.J. and Tinsley, R.C. 1998. Feral Xenopus laevis in South Wales. Herpetological Journal: 23-27.
Minter, L.R., Burger, M., Harrison, J.A., Braack, H.H., Bishop, P.J. and Knoepfer, D. 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series No. 9, Washington, D.C.
Passmore, N.I. and Carruthers, V.C. 1995. South African Frogs, 2nd Edition. Southern Book Publishers and Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg.
Perret, J.-L. 1966. Les Amphibiens du Cameroun. Zoologische Jahrbuecher fuer Systematik 8: 289-464.
Picker, M. 1980. Xenopus laevis (Anura: Pipidae) mating systems. A preliminary synthesis with some data on the female phonoresponse. S. Afr. J. Zool.: 150-158.
Poynton, J.C. and Broadley, D.G. 1985. Amphibia Zambesiaca. 1. Scolecomorphidae, Pipidae, Microhylidae, Hemisidae, Arthroleptidae. Annals of the Natal Museum 26: 503-553.
Rebelo, R., Gil, F., Santos, C., Faria, C., Almada, V., Amaral, P., Bernardes, M. and Leitão, D. 2007. Xenopus laevis, a new exotic amphibian in Portugal. 14th European Congress of Herpetology.. Oporto, Portugal..
Schiøtz, A. 1963. The amphibians of Nigeria. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening 125: 1-92.
Smith, E.E., Du Preez, L.H., Gentles, A., Solomon, K.R., Tandler, B., Carr, J.A., Van der Kraak, G., Kendall, R.J., Giesy, J.P. and Gross, T. 2005. Assessment of laryngeal muscle and testicular cell types in Xenopus laevis (Anura Pipidae) inhaboting maize and non-maize growing areas of South Africa. African Journal of Herpetology: 69-76.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
Stewart, M.M. 1967. Amphibians of Malawi. State University of New York Press, Albany.
Tinsley, R.C. 1981. Interaction between Xenopus species (Anura: Pipidae). Monitore Zoologico Italiano N.S. Supplemento: 133-150.
Tinsley, R.C. and Kobel, H.R. 1996. The Biology of Xenopus. Zoological Society of London, Clarendon Press, London.
Veloso, A. and Navarro, J. 1988. Lista Sistemática y distribución geográfica de anfibios y reptiles de Chile. Bollettino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali - Torino 6(2): 481-539.
Vigny, C. 1979. The mating calls of 12 species and sub-species on the genus Xenopus (Amphibia: Anura). Journal of Zoology: 103-122.
Wager, V.A. 1986. Frogs of South Africa, 2nd edition. Delta Books, Craighall.
Weldon, C. 2002. Chytridiomycosis survey in South Africa. FrogLog: 1-2.
Weldon, C., du Preez, L.H., Hyatt, A.D., Muller, R. and Speare, R. 2004. Origin of the Amphibian chytrid fungus. Emerging Infectious Diseases: 2100-2105.
|Citation:||Tinsley, R., Minter, L., Measey, J., Howell, K., Veloso, A., Núñez, H. & Romano, A. 2009. Xenopus laevis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T58174A11730010.Downloaded on 20 February 2017.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided|