Leptodactylus pentadactylus (Laurenti, 1768)

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

Rana pentadactyla Laurenti, 1768, Spec. Med. Exhib. Synops. Rept.: 32. Type(s): By indication including frog illustrated by Seba, 1734, Locuplet. Rer. Nat. Thesaur. Descript. Icon. Exp. Univ. Phys. Hist., 1: pl. 75, fig. 1, and (Laurenti's "Var. b) specimen(s) in "Museo Illustrissini Comitis Turriani" (current location unknown and presumed lost). Neotype designated as RMNH 29559, by Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 310. Type locality: "Indiis"; corrected to Surinam by Müller, 1927, Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 40: 276. Neotype from "Suriname, Marowijne, Lelygebergte, Suralcokamp V".

Rana gigas Spix, 1824, Animal. Nova Spec. Nov. Test. Ran. Brasil.: 25. Types: Not specifically stated but including animal figured on pl. 1 of the original publication; ZSM 89/1921 (now lost) according to Hoogmoed and Gruber, 1983, Spixiana, München, Suppl., 9: 355, and Glaw and Franzen, 2006, Spixiana, München, 29: 175. Type locality: "in locis paludosis fluminis Amazonum", Brazil. Synonymy by Peters, 1872, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1872: 198, 225; Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 241; Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 26. Preoccupied by Rana gigas Wallbaum, 1784 (= Bufo marinus).

Rana coriacea Spix, 1824, Animal. Nova Spec. Nov. Test. Ran. Brasil.: 29. Holotype: Not specifically designated, but including animal figured on pl. 5, fig. 2 of the original publication; ZSM 2502/0, now lost, according to Hoogmoed and Gruber, 1983, Spixiana, München, Suppl., 9: 355, and Glaw and Franzen, 2006, Spixiana, München, 29: 175. Type locality: "aquis lacustribus fluvii Amazonum" = Amazon River, Brazil. Synonymy by Peters, 1872, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1872: 205, 225; Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 26.

Rana pachypus bilineata Mayer, 1835, Analect. Vergl. Anat.: 24. Type(s): Deposition not stated, now presumed lost. Type locality: Not stated. Named as a synonym of Rana gigas Spix, 1824. Not addressed by Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 320: 322.

Doryphoros gigasMayer, 1835, Analect. Vergl. Anat.: 28, plate III, fig. 8.

Gnathophysa gigasCope, 1866, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 73.

Cystignathus pentadactylusPeters, 1872, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1872: 198.

Leptodactylus goliath Jiménez de la Espada, 1875, Vert. Viaje Pacif. Verif. 1862–1865: 57. Syntypes: MNCN (3 specimens), the being MNCN 1690–91 and 1697, according to González-Fernández, 2006, Graellsia, 62: 139; MNCN 328 designated lectotype by Heyer and Peters, 1971, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 84: 167, now renumbered MNCN 1691 according to González-Fernández, 2006, Graellsia, 62: 139. Type localities: "Archidona (Oriente del Ecuador) . . . [and] Chinitambo, Sierra de Guacamayos (Or. Del Ecaudor)"; locality of lectotype given in error as "Quijos, Ecuador" by Heyer and Peters, 1971, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 84: 167, in error according to González-Fernández, García-Díez, and San Segundo, 2009, Spixiana, München, 32: 273, who noted that the lectotype is from "Archidona (Oriente de Ecuador)" . Synonymy by Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 242; Heyer and Peters, 1971, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 84: 167; Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 26.

Leptodactylus pentadactylusBoulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 241.

Leptodactylus pentadactylusNieden, 1923, Das Tierreich, 46: 472.

Leptodactylus macroblepharus Miranda-Ribeiro, 1926, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 27: 144. Syntypes: MZUSP 377 (3 specimens), according to XXX. Type locality: "Manáos—Amazonas", Brazil. Synonymy by Heyer, 1974, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 253: 43.

Leptodactylus pentadactylus pentadactylusMüller, 1927, Abh. Senckenb. Naturforsch. Ges., 40: 276.

Leptodactylus (Pachypus) pentadactylusLutz, 1930, Mem. Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, 23: 1, 21.

Leptodactylus pentadactylus dengleri Melin, 1941, Göteborgs K. Vetensk. Vitterh. Samh. Handl., Ser. B, 1: 51. Holotype: NHMG 497 designated lectotype by Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 322. Type locality: "Roque, [San Martín,] Peru", noted by Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 322, to be at 06° 24′ S, 76° 48′ W. Synonymy by Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 26. See also comment by Taylor, 1952, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 35: 649.

Leptodactylus pentadactylus rubidoides Andersson, 1945, Ark. Zool., 37A(2): 51. Syntypes: NHRM (2 specimens) by original indication; Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 322, considered NHRM 1928 to be holotype. Type locality: "Rio Pastaza", eastern Ecuador. Synonymy by Heyer and Peters, 1971, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 84: 168; Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 26.

English Names

South American Bullfrog (Cochran, 1961, Living Amph. World: 77; Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 89; Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 82).

Smoky Jungle Frog (Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 89).

Slender-fingered Bladder Frog (Ananjeva, Borkin, Darevsky, and Orlov, 1988, Dict. Amph. Rept. Five Languages: 89).

Smoky Jungle Frog (Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 322).

Distribution

Amazon Basin from southern Colombia and southeastern Venezuela (southern Amazonas and eastern Bolívar) south to Peru, northern Bolivia, Acre, Brazil, and northern Brazil to Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana and east to Boca do Acre, Amazonas, Brazil. 

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela

Comment

In the Leptodactylus pentadactylus group of Heyer, 1972, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 231: 1–8, and Heyer, 1979, Smithson. Contrib. Zool., 301: 1–43. Duellman, 1978, Misc. Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, 65: 108–111, provided a brief account and characterization of the call and tadpole. Zimmerman, 1983, Herpetologica, 39: 235–246, and Zimmerman and Bogart, 1984, Acta Amazonica, 14: 473–520, reported on vocalization. Rodríguez and Duellman, 1994, Univ. Kansas Mus. Nat. Hist. Spec. Publ., 22: 68, provided a brief account for the Iquitos region of northeastern Peru. Lescure and Marty, 2000, Collect. Patrimoines Nat., Paris, 45: 248–249, provided a photo and brief account for French Guiana. Gorzula and Señaris, 1999 "1998", Scient. Guaianae, 8: 64, commented on range in Venezuela. Barrio-Amorós, 1999 "1998", Acta Biol. Venezuelica, 18: 46, commented on the range in Venezuela and previous misidentifications. França and Venâncio, 2010, Biotemas, 23: 71–84, provided a record for the municipality of Boca do Acre, Amazonas, with a brief discussion of the range. Heyer, de Sá, and Rettig, 2005, in Ananjeva and Tsinenko (eds.), Herpetol. Petropolitana: 35–39, reported on the advertisement call. Duellman, 2005, Cusco Amazonico: 286–287, provided an account (adult and larval morphology, description of the call, life history). Heyer, 2005, Arq. Zool., São Paulo, 37: 269–348, provided an extensive discussion and account. Bernarde, Machado, and Turci, 2011, Biota Neotrop., 11: 117–144, reported specimens from Reserva Extrativista Riozinho da Liberdade, Acre, Brazil. See account for Suriname population by Ouboter and Jairam, 2012, Amph. Suriname: 254–257. Heyer, Heyer, and de Sá, 2011, Cat. Am. Amph. Rept., 887: 1–48, provided a detailed account. See Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 425–426, for brief account and records for Guyana. In the Leptodactylus pentadactylus 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 (adult and larval morphology, identification, advertisement call, and range) on pp. 56–57. Central American records are now assigned to Leptodactylus savagei. See Barrio-Amorós, Rojas-Runjaic, and Señaris, 2019, Amph. Rept. Conserv., 13 (1: e180): 95, for comments on range and literature. For identification of larvae in central Amazonia, Brazil, see Hero, 1990, Amazoniana, 11: 201–262. See brief account for the Manu region, Peru, by Villacampa-Ortega, Serrano-Rojas, and Whitworth, 2017, Amph. Manu Learning Cent.: 230–231. Metcalf, Marsh, Torres Pacaya, Graham, and Gunnels, 2020, Herpetol. Notes, 13: 753–767, reported the species from the Santa Cruz Forest Reserve, Loreto, northeastern Peru. Taucce, Costa-Campos, Carvalho, and Michalski, 2022, Eur. J. Taxon., 836: 96–130, reported on distribution, literature, and conservation status for Amapá, Brazil. Schiesari, Rossa-Feres, Menin, and Hödl, 2022, Zootaxa, 5223: 91–92, detailed larval and metamorph morphology and natural history. Gagliardi-Urrutia, García Dávila, Jaramillo-Martinez, Rojas-Padilla, Rios-Alva, Aguilar-Manihuari, Pérez-Peña, Castroviejo-Fisher, Simões, Estivals, Guillen Huaman, Castro Ruiz, Angulo Chávez, Mariac, Duponchelle, and Renno, 2022, Anf. Loreto: 148–149, provided a brief account, photograph, dot map, and genetic barcode for Loreto, Peru. Crnobrna, Santa-Cruz Farfan, Gallegos, López-Rojas, Llanqui, Panduro Pisco, and Kelsen Arbaiza, 2023, Check List, 19: 446, provided a record from Ucayali Department, central-eastern Peru. 

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.