Spea multiplicata (Cope, 1863)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Scaphiopodidae > Genus: Spea > Species: Spea multiplicata

Scaphiopus multiplicatus Cope, 1863, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 15: 52. Holotype: USNM 3694 according to Kellogg, 1932, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 160: 22. Type locality: "Valley of Mexico". Restricted to "Coyoacán", Distrito Federal, Mexico, by Smith and Taylor, 1950, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 33: 329; this restriction considered invalid by reason of not being based on evidence by Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 266.

Spea multiplicata — Cope, 1866, J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 6: 81.

Spea stagnalis Cope In Yarrow, 1875, in Wheeler (ed.), Rep. Geograph. Geol. Explor. Surv. W. 100th Merid., 5(4): 525. Type(s): Not stated; syntypes are USNM 8558 (3 specimens) according to Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 177; Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 78, considered USNM 8188 (2 specimens), 8563, and 25335 to be syntypes. Type locality: Northwestern New Mexico [USA]; type locality given as "Alto dos Utas, N. Mex.", USA by Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 177. Synonymy (with Spea hammondii sensu lato) by Cope, 1887, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 32: 12.

Scaphiopus dugesi Brocchi, 1879, Bull. Soc. Philomath., Paris, Ser. 7, 3: 23. Syntypes: MNHNP 1886.287–288, according to Kellogg, 1932, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 160: 22, and Guibé, 1950 "1948", Cat. Types Amph. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat.: 11 (but not listed on the MNHNP online catalogue as of 22 Aug. 2009); USNM 16205–07 also considered syntypes by Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 78. Type locality:"Mexique"; corrected to "Guanajuato (Mexique)" by Brocchi, 1881, Miss. Scient. Mex. Amer. Centr., Rech. Zool., 3(2, livr. 1): 25; given as "Silao de la Victoria, Guanajuato, Mexico" by Cochran, 1961, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 220: 77. Restricted, apparently in error, to "Coyoacán", Distrito Federal, Mexico, by Smith and Taylor, 1950, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 33: 329. Synonymy (with Spea hammondi sensu lato) by Cope, 1887, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 32: 12.

Scaphiopus multiplicatus — Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 436.

Scaphiopus stagnalis — Boulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 436.

Scaphopus hammondii multiplicatus — Kellogg, 1932, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 160: 19.

Spea hammondii multiplicata — Firschein, 1950, Herpetologica, 6: 76; Tanner, 1989, Great Basin Nat., 49: 59.

Spea multiplicata — Taylor, 1952, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., 34: 794; Davis and Smith, 1953, Herpetologica, 8: 145.

Scaphiopus (Spea) multiplicatus — Brown, 1976, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 286: 14; Dubois, 1987 "1986", Alytes, 5: 130.

Spea hammondi stagnalis — Tanner, 1989, Great Basin Nat., 49: 58; Tanner, 1989, Great Basin Nat., 49: 507.

Spea hammondi multiplicata — Tanner, 1989, Great Basin Nat., 49: 507.

Spea hammondii stagnalis — Tanner, 1989, Great Basin Nat., 49: 56.

Spea multiplicata — Wiens and Titus, 1991, Herpetologica, 47: 21–28.

Spea multiplicata stagnalis —  Liner, 1994, Herpetol. Circ., 23: 29; Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37: 122.

English Names

Many-ribbed Spea (Spea multiplicata: Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 24).

Mexican Spadefoot (Spea multiplicata: Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 17; Stebbins, 2003, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 3: 206; Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37: 12; Liner and Casas-Andreu, 2008, Herpetol. Circ., 38: 23; Frost, McDiarmid, Mendelson, and Green, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 22; Frost, Lemmon, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2017, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 43: 21).

Mexican Spade-foot Toad (Spea multiplicata: Kellogg, 1932, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 160: 22).

Southern Spadefoot (Spea multiplicata: Stebbins, 1985, Field Guide W. Rept. Amph., Ed. 2: 67).

New Mexico Spadefoot (Spea multiplicata: Collins, Huheey, Knight, and Smith, 1978, Herpetol. Circ., 7: 13; Liner, 1994, Herpetol. Circ., 23: 28; Collins, 1997, Herpetol. Circ., 25: 14; Collins and Taggart, 2009, Standard Common Curr. Sci. Names N. Am. Amph. Turtles Rept. Crocodil., ed. 6: 9).

New Mexico Spadefoot Toad (Spea multiplicata: Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 96).

New Mexican Spea (Spea stagnalis: Yarrow, 1882, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 24: 24).

New Mexico Spadefoot (Spea multiplicata multiplicata: Liner, 1994, Herpetol. Circ., 23: 29).

Montane Spadefoot (Spea multiplicata multiplicata: Liner and Casas-Andreu, 2008, Herpetol. Circ., 38: 23).

Montane Spadefoot (Spea multiplicata stagnalis: Liner and Casas-Andreu, 2008, Herpetol. Circ., 38: 23).

Desert Spadefoot (Spea multiplicata stagnalis: Liner, 1994, Herpetol. Circ., 23: 29; Crother, Boundy, Campbell, de Queiroz, Frost, Highton, Iverson, Meylan, Reeder, Seidel, Sites, Taggart, Tilley, and Wake, 2001 "2000", Herpetol. Circ., 29: 16). 

Chihuahuan Desert Spadefoot (Spea multiplicata stagnalis: Frost, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2008, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 37: 12; Frost, McDiarmid, Mendelson, and Green, 2012, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 39: 22; Frost, Lemmon, McDiarmid, and Mendelson, 2017, in Crother (ed.), Herpetol. Circ., 43: 21).

Distribution

Southeastern Utah and southern Colorado through western Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, and West Texas south to the southern edge of the Mexican Plateau as far Nayarit, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Hidalgo, and Tlaxcala, USA, sea level to 2743 m elevation.

Geographic Occurrence

Natural Resident: Mexico, United States of America, United States of America - Arizona, United States of America - Colorado, United States of America - New Mexico, United States of America - Oklahoma, United States of America - Texas, United States of America - Utah

Comment

Considered a species distinct from Spea hammondii by Brown, 1976, Contrib. Sci. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., 286: 1–15, Sattler, 1980, Copeia, 1980: 605–610, and Wiens and Titus, 1991, Herpetologica, 47: 21–28. Regarded, on the basis of over-all similarity to be conspecific with Spea hammondii by Van Devender, Mead, and Rea, 1991, Southwest. Nat., 36: 302–314, and by Tanner, 1989, Great Basin Nat., 49: 503–10. Tanner recognized Spea stagnalis Cope as the northern (Arizona to central Chihuahua) subspecies of his Spea hammondii, which is here, on the basis of phylogenetic evidence presented by Wiens and Titus, considered to be part of Spea multiplicatus. Chávez-Juárez, Alcaraz-Cruz, and Valenzuela Galván, 2004, Herpetol. Rev., 35: 185, provided a record for southern Morelos, Mexico. Liner, Johnson, and Chaney, 1976, Herpetol. Rev., 7: 177, provided a record for Tlaxcala. Lemos-Espinal, 2007, Anf. Rept. Chihuahua Mexico: 64–65, provided an account for Chihuahua, Mexico. Lemos-Espinal and Smith, 2007, Anf. Rept. Coahuila México: 56–57, provided an account for Coahuila, Mexico. Lemos-Espinal and Dixon, 2013, Amphibians and Reptiles of San Luis Potosí: 76–77, provided an account for San Luis Potosí, Mexico. Valdes-Lares, Martín-Muñoz de Cote, and Muñiz-Martínez, 2013, Herpetol. Rev., 44: 649, provided new records for Durango, Mexico. M. J. Fouquette in Fouquette and Dubois, 2014, Checklist N.A. Amph. Rept.: 265, cited unpublished data on geographic call differences that might suggest multiple species within this binominal and recognized two subspecies although it is not clear what the relation of the call types with the subspecies is, if any. Morey, 2005, in Lannoo (ed.), Amph. Declines: 519–522, provided a detailed account that summarized the relevant literature. Elliot, Gerhardt, and Davidson, 2009, Frogs and Toads of N. Am.: 270–271, provided an account, photos, and advertisement call. Luja-Molina, Ahumada-Carrillo, Ponce-Campos, and Figueroa-Esquivel, 2014, Check List, 10: 1337, provided a record for Municipality of Jala, Nayarit, Mexico. Altig and McDiarmid, 2015, Handb. Larval Amph. US and Canada: 254, provided an account of larval morphology and biology. Lemos-Espinal and Smith, 2015, Check List, 11(1642): 1–11, noted the occurrence of the species in Hidalgo, Mexico, without providing a specific locality. Lemos-Espinal, Smith, and Valdes-Lares, 2019, Amph. Rept. Durango: 82–83, provided a brief account for Durango, Mexico. Rorabaugh and Lemos-Espinal, 2016, Field Guide Amph. Rept. Sonora: 201–193, provided a detailed account of natural history, morphology, distribution, and conservation status in Sonora, Mexico. Lemos-Espinal and Dixon, 2016, Amph. Rept. Hidalgo: 400–401, provided a brief account and map for Hidalgo, Mexico. Hernandez, Herr, Stevens, Cork, Medina-Nava, Vialpando, Warfel, Fields, Brodie, and Graham, 2019, Check List, 15: 83, provided a record for Manuel Benavides municipality, north-eastern Chihuahua, Mexico. Quezada-Hipólito, Smith, Suazo-Ortuño, Alvarado-Díaz, González, Thammachoti, and Smart, 2019, Rev. Mexicana Biodiversidad, 90(e902448): 1–15, commented on the impact of vulcanism in the Trans-Volcanic belt of Mexico on biogeography. Tepos-Ramírez, Garduño-Fonseca, Peralta-Robles, García-Rubio, and Cervantes Jiménez, 2023, Check List, 19: 269–292, discussed the distribution and conservation status of the species in Queretaro, Mexico. Bassett, 2023, Reptiles & Amphibians, 30(e18486): 1–18, provided an updated county distribution map for Texas, USA. Loc-Barragán, Smith, Woolrich-Piña, and Lemos-Espinal, 2024, Herpetozoa, Wien, 37: 30, reported on the distributional and conservation status in the state of Nayarit, Mexico.     

   

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.