Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.101451
Element CodeAAABH01180
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNVulnerable
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassAmphibia
OrderAnura
FamilyRanidae
GenusRana
Other Common NamesGrenouille maculée de l'Oregon (FR) Grenouille maculée d'Oregon (FR) Oregon spotted frog (EN)
Concept ReferenceFrost, D. R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. Allen Press, Inc., and The Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. v + 732 pp.
Taxonomic CommentsThe taxon Amerana was applied to this group of species from western North America as a subgenus based on phenetic criteria. It was recognized as a genus by Fei et al. (2010) and by Dubois et al. (2021). Nicholson (2025) has chosen not to recognize Amerana at this time, pending a more stable phylogeny for the North American ranids (more details below). Rana luteiventris and R. pretiosa formerly were regarded as conspecific. See also Funk et al. (2008). Rana luteiventris was regarded as possibly comprising multiple weakly differentiated species.
There are three nomenclatural arrangements: The single-genus arrangement of Yuan et al. (2016) which placed all Eurasian Rana and Pseudorana as well as all American ranids into Rana; the three-genus model of Che et al. (2007), largely in agreement with the earlier arrangement by Frost et al. (2006), which recognizes Pseudorana in Asia, Rana in Eurasia and western North America, and Lithobates in the Americas; and a seven-genus model of Dubois et al. (2021) which recognizes Pseudorana, Rana, and Liuhurana in Eurasia and Amerana (the Pacific Coast ranids of North America), Aquarana (for the bullfrogs and allies), Boreorana (a monotypic genus for Wood Frog, L. sylvaticus), and Lithobates (for the leopard frogs and allies). Nicholson (2025) defer from recognizing Amerana, Aquarana, or Boreorana.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2026-01-21
Change Date2001-11-26
Edition Date2026-01-21
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G., E. West, and E. Gaines (2013); rev. R. L. Gundy (2026)
Threat ImpactHigh
Range Extent20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences21 - 80
Rank ReasonsThis species is found in a relatively broad range from southwestern British Columbia to southern Oregon. The species has suffered steep declines in area of occupancy and abundance due to habitat loss, habitat degradation, and predation by invasive predators. Habitat degradation continues to threaten this species due to invasive reed canary grass, disturbance to the habitat by livestock, water management issues, and agricultural runoff. In addition, predation by invasive American bullfrogs and some predatory fishes are reducing survival. Chytrid fungus may also be causing declines.
Range Extent CommentsThis species is found in the Pacific Northwest. The range extends from southwestern British Columbia, Canada south through the eastern side of the Puget/Willamette Valley trough and the Columbia River gorge in south-central Washington to the Cascades Range at least to the Klamath Valley in Oregon (Dodd Jr. 2023). The species is considered extirpated from the Willamette Valley, northeastern California, and much of its range in western Washington (Hayes 1997, Pearl and Hayes 2005, Dodd Jr. 2023). More than two-thirds of known extant populations are along the crest and eastern slope of the Cascade Range in central Oregon (Hayes 1997, Cushman and Pearl 2007, Pearl et al. 2009). Elevational range extends from near sea level in the Puget Trough lowlands in Washington to around 1,500 meters in the Oregon Cascades and locations in western Oregon (Dunlap 1955, Hayes 1997, McAllister and Leonard 1997). At the northern range limits, occurrences are unlikely to occur at elevations above 200 meters (Pearl and Hayes 2004). Using Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (2026) records from 2000-2025, range extent is estimated to be 103,761 km² (RARECAT 2025).
Occurrences CommentsAs of around 2009, 38 occupied locations (sites) were known in the United States, including 8 in Washington (1 historical, 7 new) and 30 in Oregon (13 historical, 17 new) (USFWS 2009). No extant populations were known in California, but not all potential habitat there had been adequately surveyed (USFWS 2009). In British Columbia, seven populations have been documented, but the three historical sites no longer support the species, and the four recently discovered populations appear to be isolated from one another (Haycock 2000; K. Welstead, pers. comm. 2009, cited by USFWS 2009).
As of around 2013, this species occurred in 18 sub-basins and was represented by 4 extant occurrences in British Columbia, 19 in Washington, and about a dozen in Oregon (USFWS 2013, Bohannon et al. 2016, USFWS 2024a).
Threat Impact CommentsThis species faces multiple threats including habitat loss, habitat degradation, invasive predators, and disease. Habitat loss has occurred in the form of conversion of land to pasture and agriculture. Habitat degradation has occurred from hydrologic changes resulting from operation of existing water diversions/manipulation structures, new and existing residential and road developments, drought, and removal of beavers from the landscape (Watson et al. 2003, USFWS 2013, USFWS 2024a). In addition, the invasive plant reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) has reduced habitat quality by growing so densely that the shallow edges of wetlands are no longer deemed suitable as egg-laying sites (Kapust et al. 2012, USFWS 2013, USFWS 2024a). Livestock grazing also degrades habitat by increasing sedimentation, increasing water temperatures, reducing water quality, and changing shoreline plant communities (USFWS 2013, USFWS 2024a). Invasive bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus) consume small frogs and often cause local extirpations (USFWS 2013, Dodd Jr. 2023, USFWS 2024a). Predation by exotic fishes (e.g., brook trout, centrarchids) may be a threat in some areas (Pearl et al. 2004, Pearl et al. 2009). Physiological effects from contaminants and other changes in water chemistry may negatively impact survival (Hayes et al. 1997, Blaustein et al. 1999, Watson et al. 2003). Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) is infecting this species, although the degree of impact is still uncertain (Berger et al. 1998, Pounds et al. 2006, Conlon et al. 2011, Padgett-Flohr and Hayes 2011, USFWS 2024a).