Leptodactylus chaquensis Cei, 1950

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Leptodactylidae > Subfamily: Leptodactylinae > Genus: Leptodactylus > Species: Leptodactylus chaquensis

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 (Acre, Rondônia, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Sao Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul, and Paraná; isolated record in Piauí).

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. 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.Oda, Santos, Gambale, Campos, Batista, and Affonso, 2014, Herpetozoa, Wien, 26: 195-200, discussed the range and reported records from Paraná.  In the Leptodactylus latrans species group of de Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa, and Stanley, 2014, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 9(Spec. Issue 1): 1–123, and who provided a summary of relevant literature on pp. 65–67. Faggioni, Zamudio, Souza, and Prado, 2014, Amphibia-Reptilia, 35: 405–412, characterized microsatellite markers. Santos, Lima, Souza, Silva, and Pederassi, 2014, Herpetol. Rev., 45: 654, provided a record for the state of Piauí, northeastern Brazil, and discussed the range. Schulze, Jansen, and Köhler, 2015, Zootaxa, 4016: 69–70, described, diagnosed, and pictured the larva. 

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.