Main Banner
Browse Species

Craugastor raniformis Boulenger 1896

Least Concern (IUCN 3.1)

Common name

Robber Frog



Species description based on Lynch and Myers (1983). A larger frog with a rather pointed snout. Females are much larger than males (43.2 versus 74 mm). Lynch and Myers (1983) provide a series of photographs of male and females, as well as of variation among individuals collected from different localities.


Dorsal coloration is brown or orangey-brown, with some small darker spots or markings in the shape of a W on the upper portion of the back. Some individuals have a light middorsal stripe. The dorsal surface is mostly smooth, with very few warts.


Ventral surface is usually solid white or a very light grey or sometimes mottled in the throat region and solid pale yellow on the belly.

Concealed surfaces

Rear surfaces of thighs have a very small, dense dark brown and tan mottled pattern.


Iris is gold. The lower portion of the iris is darker than the upper portion, and the two halves are separated by a brown or reddish line.


Feet are moderately webbed.

Life history

Metamorph juvenile

The eyes of juveniles are much lighter and more similar in coloration throughout than the eyes of adults (Lynch and Myers 1983). As specimens age, the lower half of the iris gradually darkens (Lynch and Myers 1983).

Ecology behavior and evolution


Craugastor raniformis is a leaf litter frog, but may move onto vegetation at night (Lynch and Myers 1983).


A ha, ha, ha, ha (Lynch and Myers 1983).

Taxonomy and systematics



Boulenger 1896


Hylodes raniformis, Eleutherodactylus raniformis

Habitat and distribution


Lowland and premontane forest to 1500 m.


Colombia, Panama


Craugastor raniformis distribution
Distrubution map (IUCN)


Boulenger, GA. 1896. Descriptions of new batrachians collected by Mr. C. G. Underwood in Costa Rica. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 6 18: 340-342.

Crawford, AJ and EN Smith. 2005. Cenozoic biogeography and evolution in direct-developing frogs of Central America (Leptodactylidae: Eleutherodactylus) as inferred from a phylogenetic analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 35: 536-555.

Hedges, SB, WE Duellman and MP Heinicke. 2008. New World direct-developing frogs (Anura: Terrarana): molecular phylogeny, classification, biogeography, and conservation. Zootaxa 1737: 1-182.

Ibáñez, R, F Solís, C Jaramillo, and AS Rand. 2000. An overwiew of the herpetology of Panama. In: Johnson, JD, RG Webb, and OA Flores-Villela. Eds. Mesoamerican Herpetology: Systematics, Zoogeography and Conservation, pp. 159-170. The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas.

Lynch, JD and CW Myers. 1983. Frogs of the Fitzingeri group of Eleutherodactylus in eastern Panama and Chocoan South America (Leptodactylidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 175: 481-572.

Lynch, JD and SB Arroyo. 2009. Risks to Colombian amphibian fauna from cultivation of coca (Erythroxylum coca): a geographical analysis. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A 72(15-16): 974-985.

Lynch, JD and WE Duellman. 1997. Frogs of the genus Eleutherodactylus in western Ecuador: Systematics, ecology, and biogeography. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Special Publication 23: 1-236.

Lynch, JD. 1993. The value of the M. depressor mandibulae in phylogenetic hypotheses for Eleutherodactylus and its allies (Amphibia: Leptodactylidae). Herpetologica 49(1): 32-41.