> It is probably worth mentioning, however, that Pacific Treefrog is,
> taxonomically speaking, now considered to be a Chorusfrog not a Treefrog.

Unfortunately, herpetologists don't seem to know for sure what our little,
loud-mouthed frog is. Yes, the 1990 edition of "Standard Common and
Current Scientific Name for North American Amphibians and Reptiles" gave
us a new name, Pacific Chorusfrog, Pseudacris regilla which was based on
electrophoresis, a genetic analysis. However, after that (and other
publications) came out, Cocroft published a cladistic analysis of chorus
frog phylogeny and concluded that the Pacific treefrog appears to be
no more a Pseudacris than a Hyla. It may belong in its own genus.
Cocroft recommended that Pacific Treefrog, Hyla regilla, be the preferred
usage (largely due to its long-term standing and recognizability) until
phylogenetic relationships could be further worked out.

Kelly McAllister