Comprehensive DescriptionRead full entry
Vomerine teeth present. Posterior part of the tongue free and forked. Toes webbed. Omosternum and sternum ossified. Pupil of the eye horizontal. Snout rounded or slightly sharp. Male with internal vocal sacs. Legs long; shin shorter than body by 1.5-2.1 times. When the shins are positioned perpendicularly to the body axis, the heels overlap. When the hind leg is stretched along the body, the tibio-tarsal articulation (ankle) exceeds or does not exceed the tip of the snout. Inner metatarsal tubercle high and oval, shorter than the first toe by 1.4-3.6 times. Flank and thigh skin smooth. Dorsal coloration olive, greyish, dark-violet, orange-pinkish, reddish or brown. Dark spots on dorsal surface vary in number, size and arrangement. Temporal spot large. Light, distinct, middorsal line present or absent. Belly almost always without pattern, pinkish or orange-red, sometimes whitish or yellowish in color. Throat white or greyish, sometimes spotted. These spots sometimes extend to chest. The male differs from the female by having nuptial pads on the first finger, paired vocal sacs and, sometimes, by certain features of coloration.
The taxonomic situation with brown frogs of the Caucasus, Asia Minor and adjacent areas remains a matter for discussion. There are two forms of brown frogs differing in relative length of legs, body shape and some other morphological characters. They are often considered as separate species, R. macrocnemis and R. camerani, or subspecies R. macrocnemis macrocnemis and R. macrocnemis camerani, or a complex of forms of unknown composition. However, there are data against the specific and even subspecific status of R. camerani: both forms are isolated neither morphologically, nor geographically, nor reproductively. Their differences seem to reflect a highly developed polymorphism caused by genetic and ecological factors.