CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · Science & Nature

Amolops

genus of amphibians

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 revisionJun 1, 2026
Entity authorityQ1735006
Source-derived summary

Amolops (commonly known as cascade frogs or sucker frogs) is a genus of true frogs (family Ranidae) native mainly to eastern and south-eastern Asia. These frogs are closely related to such genera as Huia, Meristogenys, Odorrana, Pelophylax and Rana, but still form a distinct lineage among the core radiation of true frogs. They are commonly known as "torrent frogs" after their favorite habitat - small rapid-flowing mountain and hill streams - but this name is used for many similar-looking frogs regardless of whether they are loosely related.

Several species are highly convergent with other Ranidae "torrent frogs". A. archotaphus and its relatives for example very much resemble Odorrana livida. In another incidence of convergent evolution yielding adaptation to habitat, the tadpoles of Amolops, Huia, Meristogenys as well as Rana sauteri have a raised and usually well-developed sucker on their belly. This is useful in keeping in place in rocky torrents, where these frogs grow up. But as Odorrana and Staurois from comparable habitat prove, this sucker is by no means a necessity and other means of adaptation to torrent habitat exist.

Species

The delimitation of this genus has proven complicated, with many species believed to belong elsewhere. Due to the degree of convergent evolution, DNA sequence studies are very helpful in assigning species to the genera, though the possibility of past hybridization cannot be discounted in Ranidae.

Editorial summary

“Amolops” enters the record as genus of amphibians. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Amolops, genus and amphibians can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewUseful for establishing the present vocabulary of the subject while preserving a route back to the evidence on which that vocabulary rests. The current 227-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Amolops, genus and amphibians.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Amolops” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Amolops, genus and amphibians provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Datasets, specimens, observations and peer-reviewed methods provide the appropriate test for the technical claims summarized here. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1735006. 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 lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. 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 “Amolops”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Amolops primary sources, Amolops archive and Amolops 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 “Amolops”?
  2. Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
  3. Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Amolops” 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.