Leptodactylus chaquensis Cei, 1950
Leptodactylus ocellatus var. typica Cei, 1948, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 6: 308. Syntypes: Not designated, presumably FML. Type locality: Not explicitly stated, but Tucumán, Argentina; by implication. Presumably a senior synonym of Leptodactylus chaquensis by implication in the original and subsequent literature. Opinion 2044, Anonymous, 2003, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 60: 173, suppressed this name for purposes of synonymy.
Leptodactylus chaquensis Cei, 1950, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 9: 417. Syntypes: FML 979 (containing 2 specimens, of which the adult male was described); lost according to Lavilla, 1994 "1992", Acta Zool. Lilloana, 42: 85. Hayward, 1963, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 19: 507, reported a single holotype. The designation of this specimen is not formal, being merely the one used for the description out of what might be described as a syntypic series of about 2124 specimens. Type locality: "Simoca y Río Colorado (Tucumán) y . . . Manantiales (Corrientes)", Argentina; described specimen (holotype?) is from "Simoca (Tucumán)", Argentina.
English Names
Cei's White-lipped Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 81).
Distribution
Northern Argentina, eastern Bolivia, Paraguay, northern Uruguay, and Brazil (Rondonia, Mato Grosso do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul).
Comment
In the Leptodactylus ocellatus group. A sibling species of Leptodactylus ocellatus, according to Cei, 1950, Acta Zool. Lilloana, 9: 395-423. See account by Cei, 1980, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Monogr., 2: 348-352. De la Riva, Köhler, Lötters, and Reichle, 2000, Rev. Esp. Herpetol., 14: 40, discussed the difficulty in determining the range of this species with respect to that of Leptodactylus macrosternum. Vaz-Ferreira, de Sá, Achaval, and Gehrau, 1984, Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay, Ser. 2, 2: 72, provided the Uruguay record. Köhler, 2000, Bonn. Zool. Monogr., 48: 131, provided a brief account and discussed the distinctiveness of this taxon from Leptodactylus macrosternum. De la Riva and Maldonado-M., 1999, Graellsia, 55: 193-197, suggested that this species is morphologically indistinguishable from Leptodactylus macrosternum. Achaval and Olmos, 2003, Anf. Rept. Uruguay, ed. 2: 20, provided for the Uruguayan population a brief account and photograph. De la Riva and Maldonado-M., 1999, Graellsia, 55: 193-197, discussed the morphological indistinguishability of this species from Leptodactylus macrosternum. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 13, briefly discussed range in Paraguay. Santos and Cechin, 2008, Check List, 4: 142-144, provided a record for Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Calderon, Delaix-Zaqueo, Zaqueo, Serrano, Messias, Cardozo, Diniz-Sousa, Holanda, Rego, and Stabeli, 2009, Check List, 5: 425-427, provided a record for Porto Velho, Rondonia, Brazil. Jansen, Bloch, Schulze, and Pfenninger, 2011, Zool. Scripta, 40: 567-583. reported on genetic variation in Bolivia.
External Links
Please note: these links will take you to external websites not affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History. We are not responsible for their content.
- For additional sources of information from other sites search Google
- For images search Arkive, CalPhoto Images and Google Images
- To search the NIH genetic sequence database, see GenBank
- For information aggregation from other sites and some original accounts see AmphibiaWeb report
- For further information on conservation status and distribution see the IUCN Redlist
- For related information on conservation and images as well as observation see iNaturalist;
- for a quick link to their maps see iNaturalist KML
