_. Linnaeus (1758:213)
considered Seba's frog to be a variety of _Hyla arborea_. Laurenti
(1768:35) apparently examined the same individual that Seba called
_Ranula, Americana, Rubra_. For this specimen, Laurenti used the
binominal _Hyla rubra_ and provided a brief diagnosis. The type
locality was given as America.

Daudin (1802:26) redescribed the same specimen(s?) treated by Seba and
Laurenti and provided a fairly good description and figures. Daudin
restricted the type locality to Surinam and indicated that Marin de
Baize was the probable collector. Daudin (1802:26 and 1803:53)
neglected to consider Laurenti's work, but he applied the same name
used by Laurenti. Most authors have credited _Hyla rubra_ to Daudin,
but Rivero (1961:120) noted that _Hyla rubra_ Laurenti, 1768, has
priority over _Hyla rubra_ Daudin, 1802. Since both Laurenti and
Daudin worked on Seba's material, it is reasonable to assume that
Daudin redescribed the same frog that was named by Laurenti; this was
not an uncommon practice in the early nineteenth century. Thus I
conclude that _Hyla rubra_ Daudin, 1802, is a junior synonym of _Hyla
rubra_ Laurenti, 1768.

Dunn (1931a:413) first reported _Hyla rubra_ from Central America; he
recorded the species from the Canal Zone and San Pablo, Panama. I have
examined the material of _Hyla rubra_ from Panama deposited in various
museums. Most of the specimens are faded, discolored, and do not have
distinct brown vermiculations on the thighs. The specimens seem to be
more like _Hyla rubra_ than any of the other species in the _rubra_
group. The presence of oval choanae and a tympanum larger than the
largest finger disc separate these specimens from _Hyla elaeochroa_, a
species with which _rubra_ has been confused. _Hyla elaeochroa_ does
not occur in the Canal Zone or eastern Panama. All museum specimens
from Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and western Panama that have been called
_Hyla rubra_, plus those mentioned by Dunn and Emlen (1932:25) and
Dunn (1933:61) are _Hyla elaeochroa_.

The taxonomic status of the many South American populations referred
to _Hyla rubra_ and of other populations now recognized as different
species is not clear at the present time. Considerable variation in
external characters and in cranial features has been observed in South
American _rubra_. A review of the taxonomy of these populations is
beyond the scope of this paper. Possibly the Central American
specimens herein referred to _ru