CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Common tree frog

species of amphibian

Specimen drawers, botanical folios and brass scientific instruments under study light
Science and natureInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionMay 19, 2026
Entity authorityQ2277171
Source-derived summary

Polypedates leucomystax is a species in the shrub frog family Rhacophoridae. It is known under numerous common names, including common tree frog, four-lined tree frog, golden tree frog or striped tree frog. Many past authors have united it with the common Indian tree frog in P. maculatus (or Rhacophorus maculatus, as was common in older times), but today they are generally considered distinct species. In its native range, it is also called "white-lipped tree frog", but this name is otherwise applied to a species of true tree frogs (family Hylidae).

Polypedates leucomystax is not considered a threatened species by the IUCN. It is, in fact a species complex containing various cryptic species within it.

Range

Previously, P. leucomystex was thought to distribute below the Red River of Vietnam and in western Yunnan, while P. megacephalus can be found above the Red River and in Northeast India. However, recent genetic studies revealed that the natural barriers between these species are the Isthmus of Kra and the Tenasserim Range, where P. leucomystax can be found below the isthmus and west of the range.

The Polypedates leucomystax complex began diverging during the Pliocene, and spread quickly after the Pleistocene due to human activity. The range of P. leucomystax has recently expanded in the Philippines and Indonesia due to the widespread conversion of forests into agricultural-use land. It is also frequently found in trans-island agricultural shipments.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Common tree frog” as species of amphibian. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA sound reference starting point where classification, measurement and the date of the underlying evidence remain visible. The current 232-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Common, tree and frog can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the science & nature register because the source frames it as species of amphibian. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 19, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q2277171. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

Scientific names, classifications and consensus can change while older terminology persists in catalogues and historical literature. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.

Best used for
  • Current terminology
  • Classification context
  • Finding cited technical literature
Verify next

Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Common tree frog”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Common tree frog primary sources, Common tree frog archive and Common research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Common tree frog”?
  2. Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
  3. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Common tree frog” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.