Amphibian Species of the World 5.6, an Online Reference

Cystignathus podicipinus Cope, 1862, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 14: 156. Syntypes: "Mus. Smithsonian, (No. 5831) Philada. Acad.", including ANSP 14539, according to Malnate, 1971, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 123: 352. USNM specimen(s) presumably lost; see comment. Type locality: "Paraguay".

Leptodactylus podicipinus — Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 248.

Leptodactylus nattereri Lutz, 1926, C. R. Mém. Hebd. Séances Soc. Biol. Filial., Paris, 95 (1926, vol. 2): 1011. Syntypes: Not stated, AL-MNRJ 1314-15, according to Heyer, 1970, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 191: 14; stated to be AL-MNRJ 1015-1016 plus unnumbered specimens in the same jar by Heyer, 1994, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 546: 97. Type locality: "la station de Ilha Sêca (Chemin de fer Noroeste do Brazil. Etat de S[ão]. Paulo" and "Cachoeira do Maribondo, . . . Etat de S[ão]. Paulo", Brazil. Synonymy by Cochran, 1955 "1954", Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 206" 326.

Leptodactylus podicipinus podicipinus — Gans, 1960, Ann. Carnegie Mus., 35: 305.

English Names

Pointedbelly Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 82).

Distribution

Open formations of Paraguay south to Uruguay, adjacent Argentina, Bolivia, central Brazil, and extending along the Rio Madeira and Rio Amazonas with the Amazon basin, with a problematical outlier from Igarapé Belém, Amazonas, Brazil, up to 550 m elevation.

Comment

In the Leptodactylus melanonotus group; Leptodactylus wagneri-Leptodactylus podicipinus complex. See accounts by Heyer, 1970, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 191: 14-16; and Cei, 1980, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Monogr., 2: 340-344, but note that Leptodactylus podicipinus petersii is now Leptodactylus petersii. The status of the type(s) is unclear. Klappenbach and Langone, 1992, An. Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Montevideo, Ser. 2, 8: 191, noted that Cope mentioned "Mus. Smithsonian, (No. 5831) Philad. Acad. "in the description, implying syntypes in both USNM and ANSP. However, Heyer, 1970, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 191: 14, suggested that the description was based solely on one specimen, and considered the holotype to be in the ANSP. See account by Heyer, 1994, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 546: 97-99. Vaz-Ferreira, de Sá, Achaval, and Gehrau, 1984, Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay, Ser. 2, 2: 72-77, reported the species from Uruguay. Achaval and Olmos, 2003, Anf. Rept. Uruguay, ed. 2: 26, provided a brief account and photograph for the Uruguayan population. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 14, briefly discussed the range in Paraguay. Ponssa, Brusquetti, and Souza, 2011, J. Herpetol., 45: 79-93, reported on osteological variation in the species. Jansen, Bloch, Schulze, and Pfenninger, 2011, Zool. Scripta, 40: 567-583, implied the possibility of an unnamed species 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