Leptodactylus gracilis (Duméril and Bibron, 1840)

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

Cystignathus gracilis Duméril and Bibron, 1840, Preprint Pl. 13, Voy. Am. Merid. 1826–1833: Pl. 13, fig. 5-7; Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 406. Holotype: MNHNP 4490, according to Guibé, 1950 "1948", Cat. Types Amph. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.: 30; this status rejected by de Sá, Dubois, and Ohler, 2007, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 2: 175-178, who discussed the problem of identifying the holotype and who therefore designated as neotype  Guibe's putative holotype, MNHNP 4490. Type locality: Not stated; given as "Montévidéo", Uruguay, by Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Erp. Gen., 8: 406. Original publication discussed by Lescure, Bour, Ineich, Ohler, and Ortiz, 2002, C. R. Palevol, Paris, 1: 527–532. 

Leptodactylus gracilisJiménez de la Espada, 1875, Vert. Viaje Pacif. Verif. 1862–1865: 44.

Leptodactylus gracilis delattini Müller, 1968, Salamandra, 4: 48. Holotype: Originally SMF 4080; now in MZUSP 56589, by museum records and de Sá, Grant, Camargo, Heyer, Ponssa, and Stanley, 2014, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 9(Spec. Issue 1): 34. Type locality: "Ilha Campeche (östlich der Insel von Santa Catarina, Brasilien" (27° 42′ S, 48° 28′ W). Status rejected by Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 1-85, and García-Pérez and Heyer, 1993, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 106: 51-56.

English Names

Dumeril's Striped Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 81).

Distribution

Subtropical southern Brazil through Uruguay to Paraguay, Bolivia, and northern Argentina, 200–2000 m elevation.

Comment

In the Leptodactylus fuscus group of Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 1–85. See comments under Leptodactylus geminus and Leptodactylus plaumanni. Heyer, 1978, Sci. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 29: 36, noted that the island form, Leptodactylus gracilis delattini, is diagnostically distinct. See Cei, 1980, Monit. Zool. Ital., N.S., Monogr., 2: 329-333, for account. See comment under Leptodactylus geminus. Köhler, 2000, Bonn. Zool. Monogr., 48: 131-132, provided a brief account. Achaval and Olmos, 2003, Anf. Rept. Uruguay, ed. 2: 22, provided for the Uruguayan population a brief account and photograph. Silva, Garcia, Martins, Bacci, and Kasahara, 2004, Amphibia-Reptilia, 25: 186–195, provided karyological evidence of the distinctiveness of Leptodactylus gracilis from Leptodactylus plaumanni. Giaretta and Costa, 2007, Zootaxa, 1608: 1–10, discussed this species with reference to its close relatives. Brusquetti and Lavilla, 2006, Cuad. Herpetol., 20: 14, briefly discussed the range in Paraguay. The status of the types was discussed in detail by de Sá, Dubois, and Ohler, 2007, S. Am. J. Herpetol., 2: 175–178. In the Leptodactylus fuscus 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. 34–35. 

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.