Basic Search [?]
Guided Search [?]
Engystomops petersi Jiménez de la Espada, 1872
Engystomops Petersi Jiménez de la Espada, 1872, An. Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat., 1: 86. Type(s): Not traced, presumably originally in MNCN. Type locality: "Oriente en el Ecuador"; probably Napo-Pastaza [Ecuador], according to Peters, 1955, Rev. Ecuat. Entomol. Parsitol., 2: 349.
Engystomops petersii — Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 276.
Eupemphix paraensis Müller, 1923, Zool. Anz., 57: 39. Holotype: ZSM 139/1911, lost, according to Glaw and Franzen, 2006, Spixiana, München, 29: 172. Type locality: "Peixeboi (an der Bragançabahn), Staat Parà, Nord-Brasilien". Synonymy by Lynch, 1970, Copeia, 1970: 488-496.
Eupemphix schereri Myers, 1942, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 55: 151. Holotype: CAS-SU 6317, by original designation. Type locality: "Pevas, at mouth of the Ampiyaco River, [Departamento Loreto,] Amazonian Peru". Synonymy by Lynch, 1970, Copeia, 1970: 488-496; and Cannatella and Duellman, 1984, Copeia, 1984: 911.
Physalaemus petersi — Lynch, 1970, Copeia, 1970: 488-496.
Engystomops petersi — Nascimento, Caramaschi, and Cruz, 2005, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 63: 312.
Peters’ Dwarf Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 83).
north of the Río Marañon and Río Amazonas in eastern Ecuador, northeastern Peru, and southeastern Colombia; localities from the mouth of the Amazon, Surinam, and French Guiana are problematically assigned to this species.
Lescure and Marty, 2000, Collect. Patrimoines Nat., Paris, 45: 260-261, provided a photo and brief account for French Guiana. See comment under Physalaemus freibergi. Funk, Caldwell, Peden, and Padial, 2007, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 44: 825-837, provided mtDNA sequence evidence of three well-delimited populations that might be species, one in the upper Napo drainage of Ecuador and adjacent Peru, another from the Juruá and Madre de Díos drainages of Peru and adjacent Brazil, and a third from Pará, Brazil. Funk, Angulo, Caldwell, Ryan, and Cannatella, 2008, Herpetologica, 64: 290-304, discussed the distinction between Engystomops petersi and Engystomops freibergi (both as Physalaemus), detailed their ranges and noted that populations from the Guianas had not yet been assigned to either species. Ernst, Rödel, and Arjoon, 2005, Salamandra, 41: 179-194, suggested that "Physalaemus" (in the sense of including Engystomops) had not been recorded for Guyana prior to their record of Physalaemus sp., so inclusion of that country in the range of this species may be in error.
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.