Engystomops pustulosus (Cope, 1864)

Class: Amphibia > Order: Anura > Family: Leptodactylidae > Subfamily: Leiuperinae > Genus: Engystomops > Species: Engystomops pustulosus

Paludicola pustulosa Cope, 1864, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 16: 180. Holotype: "No. 4339"; USNM 4339 according to Kellogg, 1932, Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus., 160: 78, who noted that the specimen was lost. Type locality: "New Grenada, on the River Truando", Colombia.

Bufo stentor Jiménez de la Espada, 1872, An. Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat., 1: 85. Syntypes: 2 specimens, presumably in MNCN. Type locality: "en la isla de Taboga (golfo de Panamá)", Panama. Synonymy by Lynch, 1970, Copeia, 1970: 488–496; and Cannatella and Duellman, 1984, Copeia, 1984: 902-921.

Bufo (Microphryne) pustulosus — Peters, 1873, Monatsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1873: 616.

Microphryne pustulosaCope, 1875 "1876", J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Ser. 2, 8: 155.

Peralaimos stentorJiménez de la Espada, 1875, Vert. Viaje Pacif. Verif. 1862–1865: 163.

Microphryne (Paludicola) pustulosaSumichrast, 1880, Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 5: 189.

Engystomops pustulosusBoulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 276; Ruthven, 1912, Zool. Jahrb., Jena, Abt. Syst., 32: 308; Gorzula, 1977, Brit. J. Herpetol., 5: 657; Nascimento, Caramaschi, and Cruz, 2005, Arq. Mus. Nac., Rio de Janeiro, 63: 312..

Engystomops stentorBoulenger, 1882, Cat. Batr. Sal. Coll. Brit. Mus., Ed. 2: 276.

Eupemphix stentorBoulenger, 1888, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 6, 1: 188.

Eupemphix pustulosaBoulenger, 1888, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 6, 1: 188.

Eupemphix trinitatis Boulenger, 1889, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 6, 3: 307. Syntypes: BMNH (4 specimens), by original designation. Type locality: "Trinidad . . . in the Gardens". Synonymy by Parker, 1933, Trop. Agric., Trinidad, 10: 8-12.

Bufo atrigularis Werner, 1899, Verh. Zool. Bot. Ges. Wien, 49: 482. Types: ZIUG, now lost, according to Böhme and Bischoff, 1984, Bonn. Zool. Monogr., 19: 167. Type locality: "Arima auf Trinidad". Synonymy with Eupemphix trinitatus by Boulenger, 1900, Zool. Rec., 36: 28. Synonymy by Nieden, 1923, Das Tierreich, 46: 166.

Eupemphix ruthveni Netting, 1930, Ann. Carnegie Mus., 19: 167. Holotype: UMMZ 45582, by original designation. Type locality: "Fundación, Colombia". Synonymy by Rivero, 1961, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 126: 90.

Eupemphix pustulosa trinitatisParker, 1933, Trop. Agric., Trinidad, 10: 8-12.

Eupemphix pustulosus trinitatisLynn, 1959, Herpetologica, 15: 113.

Eupemphix pustulosus ruthveniRivero, 1961, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 126: 90.

Physalaemus pustulosusLynch, 1970, Copeia, 1970: 488-496.

Bufo strigularisGorham, 1974, Checklist World Amph.: 68. Incorrect subsequent spelling of Bufo atrigularis Werner, 1899.

Physalaemus pustulosus ruthveniHoogmoed and Gorzula, 1979, Zool. Meded., Leiden, 54: 202.

English Names

Tungara Frog (Frank and Ramus, 1995, Compl. Guide Scient. Common Names Amph. Rept. World: 83; Lee, 1996, Amph. Rept. Yucatan Peninsula: 73),

Túngara Frog (Campbell, 1998, Amph. Rept. N. Guatemala Yucatan Belize: 63; Lee, 2000, Field Guide Amph. Rept. Maya World: 81; (Liner and Casas-Andreu, 2008, Herpetol. Circ., 38: 12).

Distribution

Eastern and southern Mexico (Veracruz and Oaxaca) south and east through Central America to Colombia, Venezuela, and Guyana (see comment).

Comment

See Cannatella and Duellman, 1984, Copeia, 1984: 902–921. See accounts by Rivero, 1961, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 126: 90; Lee, 1996, Amph. Rept. Yucatan Peninsula: 75; Campbell, 1998, Amph. Rept. N. Guatemala Yucatan Belize: 63–64; Lee, 2000, Field Guide Amph. Rept. Maya World: 81-83; Savage, 2002, Amph. Rept. Costa Rica: 224–226; and McCranie and Wilson, 2002, Amph. Honduras: 458–462. Wynn and Heyer, 2002 "2001", Tropical Zool., 14: 279, noted that published Nei distances (Ryan, Rand, and Weight, 1996, Evolution, 50: 2435–2453) among population suggested that the North American and South American populations contacting in Panama are different species. Gorzula and Señaris, 1999 "1998", Scient. Guaianae, 8: 75-77, reported on variation and distribution in Venezuela. Kenny, 1969, Stud. Fauna Curaçao and other Caribb. Is., 29: 54-56 (as Eupemphix pustulosus trinitatis), and Murphy, 1997, Amph. Rept. Trinidad Tobago: 90-92, provided accounts for Trinidad and Tobago. Weigt, Crawford, Rand, and Ryan, 2005, Mol. Ecol., 14: 3857–2876, reported on molecular phylogeography, and noted a secondary contact zone between the Mexico-Central America population and the Panama-South America population. Subsequently, Pröhl, Koshy, Mueller, Rand, and Ryan, 2006, Evolution, 60: 1669–1679, produced additional evidence of a species boundary in central Costa Rica, corresponding with a ca. 200 km gap in distribution between the populations. Köhler, Vesely, and Greenbaum, 2005 "2006", Amph. Rept. El Salvador: 60–62, provided an account (for El Salvador) and a color photograph. McCranie, 2007, Herpetol. Rev., 38: 38, summarized the departmental distribution in Honduras. Lampert, Bernal, Rand, Mueller, and Ryan, 2007, Herpetologica, 63: 740–747, reported on evolution in islands populations in Panama. See Cole, Townsend, Reynolds, MacCulloch, and Lathrop, 2013, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 125: 421–578, for brief account and record for a the Guyanan specimen, noting it as Engystomops cf. pustulosusKöhler, 2011, Amph. Cent. Am.: 273–274, provided a brief summary of natural history, photograph, and range map for Central America. Sunyer, Martínez-Fonseca, Salazar-Saavedra, Galindo-Uribe, and Obando, 2014, Mesoam. Herpetol., 1: 172, provided a record for the department of Granada, Nicaragua. Estupiñán, Ferrari, Gonçalves, Barbosa, Vallinoto, and Schneider, 2016, ZooKeys, 637: 89–106, suggested on the basis of COI barcodes that cryptic species are likely. Guarnizo, Paz, Muñoz-Ortiz, Flechas, Méndez-Narváez, and Crawford, 2016, PLoS One, 10(5: e0127312): 1–20, suggested on the basis of molecular evidence that two species likely exist in Colombia under this binomial. 

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.